Can these marvelous sources of "renewable" energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower really do much to replace the energy we currently get from oil, gas, and coal? To answer that question we need to look at the numbers, do the math, and try to comprehend the magnitude of the challenge. I think the following article explains the situation very well. Unfortunately too many people in government who are making our laws and spending Billions and Trillions of our dollars do not understand these fundamental realities.
Or worse, maybe they do understand and they are purposely ignoring the facts in order to pursue their own agenda of expanded power and control. Either way, all of us need to educate ourselves about these energy realities if we hope to stop the nonsense coming from our government.
Peter
MARCH 4, 2009, 11:18 P.M. ET
Let's Get Real About Renewable Energy
We can double the output of solar and wind, and double it again. We'll still depend on hydrocarbons.
By ROBERT BRYCE (source)
During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, "We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."
While that statement -- along with his pledge to impose a "cap on carbon pollution" -- drew applause, let's slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country's energy future. Consider two factors that are too-often overlooked: George W. Bush's record on renewables, and the problem of scale.
By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that's right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.
Mr. Bush's record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world's energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is the same issue that dogs every alternative energy idea: scale.
Let's start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of "renewable" energy. If he's including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America's total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.
If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush's effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America's overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.
Here's why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That's the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption.
Of course, you might respond that renewables need to start somewhere. True enough -- and to be clear, I'm not opposed to renewables. I have solar panels on the roof of my house here in Texas that generate 3,200 watts. And those panels (which were heavily subsidized by Austin Energy, the city-owned utility) provide about one-third of the electricity my family of five consumes. Better still, solar panel producers like First Solar Inc. are lowering the cost of solar cells. On the day of Mr. Obama's speech, the company announced that it is now producing solar cells for $0.98 per watt, thereby breaking the important $1-per-watt price barrier.
And yet, while price reductions are important, the wind is intermittent, and so are sunny days. That means they cannot provide the baseload power, i.e., the amount of electricity required to meet minimum demand, that Americans want.
That issue aside, the scale problem persists. For the sake of convenience, let's convert the energy produced by U.S. wind and solar installations into oil equivalents.
The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.
Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America's total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.
Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share -- we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.
Here's another way to consider the 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day that come from solar and wind: It's approximately equal to the raw energy output of one average-sized coal mine.
During his address to Congress, Mr. Obama did not mention coal -- the fuel that provides nearly a quarter of total primary energy and about half of America's electricity -- except to say that the U.S. should develop "clean coal."
He didn't mention nuclear power, only "nuclear proliferation," even though nuclear power is likely the best long-term solution to policy makers' desire to cut U.S. carbon emissions. He didn't mention natural gas, even though it provides about 25% of America's total primary energy needs. Furthermore, the U.S. has huge quantities of gas, and it's the only fuel source that can provide the stand-by generation capacity needed for wind and solar installations. Finally, he didn't mention oil, the backbone fuel of the world transportation sector, except to say that the U.S. imports too much of it.
Perhaps the president's omissions are understandable. America has an intense love-hate relationship with hydrocarbons in general, and with coal and oil in particular. And with increasing political pressure to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, that love-hate relationship has only gotten more complicated.
But the problem of scale means that these hydrocarbons just won't go away. Sure, Mr. Obama can double the output from solar and wind. And then double it again. And again. And again. But getting from 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to something close to the 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day needed to keep the U.S. economy running is going to take a long, long time. It would be refreshing if the president or perhaps a few of the Democrats on Capitol Hill would admit that fact.
Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'"(Public Affairs, 2008).
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Barrow, Alaska Depends On Its Own Natural Gas
The following is a fascinating story about natural gas (methane) produced and used by the community of Barrow, Alaska. The creator of this article, National Public Radio (NPR) has a related slide show and description of a scientist studying the natural production and escape of methane from beneath lakes in Alaska and Siberia.
It makes one wonder how much methane gas is generated naturally and escapes into the atmosphere on a global basis. My guess is it is huge.
Peter
Natural Resources Key to Alaska Town's Future
by Melissa Block
Melissa Block, NPR (source)
Richard Glenn, who is half Inupiat Eskimo, is a scientist and a whaling co-captain. He works on developing natural resources to benefit the Inupiat people in Barrow, Alaska.
Previous Story from Barrow
Sep. 10, 2007Scientist Measures an Overlooked Greenhouse Gas
Photo Gallery: Measuring Methane in Alaska and Siberia
Sep. 6, 2007Exploring for Oil in the Arctic's 'Great Frontier'
All Things Considered, September 11, 2007 ·
Barrow, Alaska, is the northernmost community in the United States. Located on the Arctic Ocean, it is home to about 4,500 people.
The surrounding area is also home to huge natural gas deposits. While nearly all other Alaskan villages have to import diesel fuel, Barrow runs on locally produced natural gas. And the future of the community will depend largely on development of this and other natural resources.
Richard Glenn lives in Barrow and is a geologist by training. He helped develop a gas field in the tundra that brings gas into Barrow via a 12-mile pipeline.
"It's a very reassuring feeling to turn on the stove, see that blue flame and know you had a part in bringing a stable energy source to your community," Glenn says.
Glenn works with the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, which represents the business interests of Barrow's Inupiat Eskimos.
The Inupiat are shareholders. They own the land, and they are paid dividends from the vast mineral resources in this part of the state.
The oil fields keep Barrow running, says Glenn, who is half Inupiat.
"We have no significant tourism, no agriculture, no commercial fishing, no other local industry. Our future is tied with resource development," Glenn says.
The residents of Barrow are also feeling the effects of an eroding coastline, but Glenn isn't sure whether climate change has accelerated that process. He says the people of Barrow are just "rolling with the punches": reinforcing seawalls, relocating old communities, and moving new communities away from the coast.
But scientists who study whales are seeing migration patterns shifting as the result of climate change, as the ocean warms and food supplies change.
Jackie Grebmeier, a biological oceanographer, has studied animal populations in these Arctic waters for 25 years.
She says she's seeing more gray whales around Barrow in the summer — as the Arctic ice pulls back. But that influx is not sustainable.
"The animals are moving to where their food is … [but] there's only so much open space. The water [here] … is narrow relative to the rich shelf that they normally feed in. So these gray whales eventually will be limited by the space and the prey that they can find," Grebmeier says.
NPR's Art Silverman produced this story.
It makes one wonder how much methane gas is generated naturally and escapes into the atmosphere on a global basis. My guess is it is huge.
Peter
Natural Resources Key to Alaska Town's Future
by Melissa Block
Melissa Block, NPR (source)
Richard Glenn, who is half Inupiat Eskimo, is a scientist and a whaling co-captain. He works on developing natural resources to benefit the Inupiat people in Barrow, Alaska.
Previous Story from Barrow
Sep. 10, 2007Scientist Measures an Overlooked Greenhouse Gas
Photo Gallery: Measuring Methane in Alaska and Siberia
Sep. 6, 2007Exploring for Oil in the Arctic's 'Great Frontier'
All Things Considered, September 11, 2007 ·
Barrow, Alaska, is the northernmost community in the United States. Located on the Arctic Ocean, it is home to about 4,500 people.
The surrounding area is also home to huge natural gas deposits. While nearly all other Alaskan villages have to import diesel fuel, Barrow runs on locally produced natural gas. And the future of the community will depend largely on development of this and other natural resources.
Richard Glenn lives in Barrow and is a geologist by training. He helped develop a gas field in the tundra that brings gas into Barrow via a 12-mile pipeline.
"It's a very reassuring feeling to turn on the stove, see that blue flame and know you had a part in bringing a stable energy source to your community," Glenn says.
Glenn works with the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, which represents the business interests of Barrow's Inupiat Eskimos.
The Inupiat are shareholders. They own the land, and they are paid dividends from the vast mineral resources in this part of the state.
The oil fields keep Barrow running, says Glenn, who is half Inupiat.
"We have no significant tourism, no agriculture, no commercial fishing, no other local industry. Our future is tied with resource development," Glenn says.
The residents of Barrow are also feeling the effects of an eroding coastline, but Glenn isn't sure whether climate change has accelerated that process. He says the people of Barrow are just "rolling with the punches": reinforcing seawalls, relocating old communities, and moving new communities away from the coast.
But scientists who study whales are seeing migration patterns shifting as the result of climate change, as the ocean warms and food supplies change.
Jackie Grebmeier, a biological oceanographer, has studied animal populations in these Arctic waters for 25 years.
She says she's seeing more gray whales around Barrow in the summer — as the Arctic ice pulls back. But that influx is not sustainable.
"The animals are moving to where their food is … [but] there's only so much open space. The water [here] … is narrow relative to the rich shelf that they normally feed in. So these gray whales eventually will be limited by the space and the prey that they can find," Grebmeier says.
NPR's Art Silverman produced this story.
Chevron And Australia Investing In Gas
It seems the powers-that-be in Australia recognize the importance and value of offshore drilling and energy independence. Compare the following kind of investment and activity in Australia to the current attitude of the United States' Government.
I wonder how many wind turbines or square miles of solar panels it would take to equal the energy equivalent to Chevron's claimed 40 Trillion cubic feet of natural gas "resources" in Australia. These are American dollars (lots of them) being invested in Australia and not America. How intelligent is that? Ask your Congress-person. The following article is interesting.
Peter
Chevron begins massive Australian offshore project
Bloomberg News
March 25, 2009, 5:59AM (source)
Chevron Corp started its biggest-ever exploration campaign off Australia’s northwest coast, targeting finds that will underpin planned liquefied natural gas-export projects.
The drilling, costing “hundreds of millions of dollars,” will include as many as 10 exploration and appraisal wells this year, Roy Krzywosinski, managing director of Chevron’s Australian unit, said today in an interview. It aims to find more gas to supply the planned Gorgon and Wheatstone LNG projects, he said.
Australia’s northwest ranks among Chevron’s four highest- priority exploration regions worldwide, alongside the Gulf of Mexico, West Africa and the Gulf of Thailand. The Gorgon venture may cost A$50 billion ($35 billion), Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett said this month, making it the nation’s biggest resources project.
“Long-term resource security is vital to underpin these massive investments such as Gorgon and Wheatstone,” Krzywosinski said by telephone from Perth. The projects are “the top priorities” for San Ramon, California-based Chevron to drive the company’s growth in gas, he said.
Chevron said Jan. 29 it is maintaining worldwide capital spending at about $22.8 billion this year, bucking a budget- cutting trend among petroleum producers, as it seeks to halt two years of drops in output. About $2 billion will go on exploration, mostly in the four priority areas, Krzywosinski said.
Chevron Chief Executive Officer David O’Reilly said March 10 that the company and its partners in Gorgon, Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, expect to give the go-ahead in the second half to build the delayed project. It will have an initial production capacity of 15 million metric tons a year, about 76 percent of Australia’s existing LNG capacity.
The 100 percent-owned Wheatstone LNG project is running about 18 months behind Gorgon in the development line-up, and Chevron expects to start initial engineering and design work on that venture in the second half of this year. The work may last until late 2010 or early 2011, Krzywosinski said.
“We’re making a lot of progress on both of these projects,” he said. “I hope to have some good news in the second half of 2009 both on the front of Gorgon as well as Wheatstone.”
The first well in the Australian program, in the Exmouth Plateau area, is under way using the Atwood Eagle rig, he said. A second rig, the Ensco 7500, arrived in Australia this week from the Gulf of Mexico and is due to start drilling at the Exxon-operated Jansz field in early April as part of the Gorgon venture.
Any success in the drilling would add to the discoveries made at Wheatstone in 2004, Chandon and Clio in 2006 and additional gas found at the Iago field in July. Six appraisal wells drilled last year in the Wheatstone-Iago area last year doubled the resources there, Krzywosinski said.
Chevron will pay $550,000 a day for the “ultra-deepwater” Ensco 7500 rig while it is being used in Australia, up from the $365,000 daily rate payable while the rig is in transit from the U.S., Dallas-based Ensco International Inc. said in August.
LNG is natural gas chilled to liquid form, reducing it to one-six-hundredth of its original volume, for transportation by tanker to destinations not connected by pipeline. Chevron has gas resources in Australia of about 40 trillion cubic feet, Wood Mackenzie Consultants Ltd. estimated in February last year, making it the largest holder in the country.
www.bloomberg.com
I wonder how many wind turbines or square miles of solar panels it would take to equal the energy equivalent to Chevron's claimed 40 Trillion cubic feet of natural gas "resources" in Australia. These are American dollars (lots of them) being invested in Australia and not America. How intelligent is that? Ask your Congress-person. The following article is interesting.
Peter
Chevron begins massive Australian offshore project
Bloomberg News
March 25, 2009, 5:59AM (source)
Chevron Corp started its biggest-ever exploration campaign off Australia’s northwest coast, targeting finds that will underpin planned liquefied natural gas-export projects.
The drilling, costing “hundreds of millions of dollars,” will include as many as 10 exploration and appraisal wells this year, Roy Krzywosinski, managing director of Chevron’s Australian unit, said today in an interview. It aims to find more gas to supply the planned Gorgon and Wheatstone LNG projects, he said.
Australia’s northwest ranks among Chevron’s four highest- priority exploration regions worldwide, alongside the Gulf of Mexico, West Africa and the Gulf of Thailand. The Gorgon venture may cost A$50 billion ($35 billion), Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett said this month, making it the nation’s biggest resources project.
“Long-term resource security is vital to underpin these massive investments such as Gorgon and Wheatstone,” Krzywosinski said by telephone from Perth. The projects are “the top priorities” for San Ramon, California-based Chevron to drive the company’s growth in gas, he said.
Chevron said Jan. 29 it is maintaining worldwide capital spending at about $22.8 billion this year, bucking a budget- cutting trend among petroleum producers, as it seeks to halt two years of drops in output. About $2 billion will go on exploration, mostly in the four priority areas, Krzywosinski said.
Chevron Chief Executive Officer David O’Reilly said March 10 that the company and its partners in Gorgon, Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, expect to give the go-ahead in the second half to build the delayed project. It will have an initial production capacity of 15 million metric tons a year, about 76 percent of Australia’s existing LNG capacity.
The 100 percent-owned Wheatstone LNG project is running about 18 months behind Gorgon in the development line-up, and Chevron expects to start initial engineering and design work on that venture in the second half of this year. The work may last until late 2010 or early 2011, Krzywosinski said.
“We’re making a lot of progress on both of these projects,” he said. “I hope to have some good news in the second half of 2009 both on the front of Gorgon as well as Wheatstone.”
The first well in the Australian program, in the Exmouth Plateau area, is under way using the Atwood Eagle rig, he said. A second rig, the Ensco 7500, arrived in Australia this week from the Gulf of Mexico and is due to start drilling at the Exxon-operated Jansz field in early April as part of the Gorgon venture.
Any success in the drilling would add to the discoveries made at Wheatstone in 2004, Chandon and Clio in 2006 and additional gas found at the Iago field in July. Six appraisal wells drilled last year in the Wheatstone-Iago area last year doubled the resources there, Krzywosinski said.
Chevron will pay $550,000 a day for the “ultra-deepwater” Ensco 7500 rig while it is being used in Australia, up from the $365,000 daily rate payable while the rig is in transit from the U.S., Dallas-based Ensco International Inc. said in August.
LNG is natural gas chilled to liquid form, reducing it to one-six-hundredth of its original volume, for transportation by tanker to destinations not connected by pipeline. Chevron has gas resources in Australia of about 40 trillion cubic feet, Wood Mackenzie Consultants Ltd. estimated in February last year, making it the largest holder in the country.
www.bloomberg.com
Friday, March 27, 2009
The Marcellus Shale Gas Play: All Things Considered
The following link leads to a long, but excellent article about many aspects of gas exploration, production and development in the Marcellus Shale of the eastern United States. The challenge to develop this vast gas resource extends far beyond geology and engineering. This article is comprehensive and well worth reading and saving. Here is the link: http://www.lhup.edu/rmyers3/Hemlock/Hemlock2.6.htm
Peter
This issue of Lock Haven University’s The Hemlock has a lengthy article about the Marcellus Shale, introducing a bit of geology, tracing a bit of history and presenting a large number of environmental concerns.
In This Issue...
"Prospects and Challenges of the Marcellus Shale" by Loretta Dickson and Md. Khalequzzaman
"40 Years of Natural Gas Production & Storage on State Forest Land" by Butch Davey
"The Marcellus Shale in Central PA: A Chronology" by Bob Myers
"A Landowner's Perspective: Leasing for Natural Gas Production" by Ralph Harnishfeger
"Another Landowner's Perspective: Gas Well Exploration & Development" by Jamie Walker
"And Justice for All" by Mary Vuccola
"Tapping Our Super-Giant Gas Field" by John Way and Rebecca Dunlap
"Hike of the Month: Natural Gas Production in the Sproul State Forest" by Bob Myers
"What Can You Do?"
"More Information on the Marcellus Shale"
Peter
This issue of Lock Haven University’s The Hemlock has a lengthy article about the Marcellus Shale, introducing a bit of geology, tracing a bit of history and presenting a large number of environmental concerns.
In This Issue...
"Prospects and Challenges of the Marcellus Shale" by Loretta Dickson and Md. Khalequzzaman
"40 Years of Natural Gas Production & Storage on State Forest Land" by Butch Davey
"The Marcellus Shale in Central PA: A Chronology" by Bob Myers
"A Landowner's Perspective: Leasing for Natural Gas Production" by Ralph Harnishfeger
"Another Landowner's Perspective: Gas Well Exploration & Development" by Jamie Walker
"And Justice for All" by Mary Vuccola
"Tapping Our Super-Giant Gas Field" by John Way and Rebecca Dunlap
"Hike of the Month: Natural Gas Production in the Sproul State Forest" by Bob Myers
"What Can You Do?"
"More Information on the Marcellus Shale"
We Have All This Gas, Let's Use It!
Change I can believe in. In these difficult economic times it makes complete sense to use America's abundant supplies of gas and convert our vehicles to run on compressed natural gas. The gas is found nearly everywhere, we have pipelines, the conversion process is relatively simple and inexpensive, the gas is the cleanest-burning fuel available, the process would create untold thousands of jobs, and generate significant revenue for local, state and Federal treasuries. Why aren't we doing this?
See what they're doing in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Peter
March 25, 2009
Lawmakers pushing LNG use in vehicles
Legislation to offer tax credits for drivers who convert vehicles.
By Mike Hasten mhasten@gannett.com (source)
BATON ROUGE — Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Meaux, and Rep. Jane Smith, R-Bossier City, sometimes don't agree on politics but they do agree on promoting the use of something that's plentiful in their regions — natural gas.
The two lawmakers from opposite ends of the state are pushing legislation that they say will stimulate the economy while improving the environment by utilizing compressed natural gas to power automobiles.
The bills, expected to be pre-filed later this week for the legislative session that begins April 27, offer tax credits for drivers who convert their existing gasoline-powered vehicles to run on CNG or purchase new vehicles already equipped. Also, credits are offered to filling stations that install the necessary equipment to fuel the vehicles.
"We have the opportunity in the state of Louisiana to be a national leader in this," Smith said. "We have something that's abundant, it's clean and it's American."
Smith said the Haynesville Shale in northwest Louisiana contains enough natural gas to power vehicles for decades.
"I've been told that if a cubic foot of natural gas is the size of a basketball, in the Haynesville Shale there are 250 trillion basketballs," she said. "We're sitting here on the supply, but we lack the demand."
Smith and Gautreaux said their legislation making it more affordable to convert vehicles and install fueling stations can help create the demand.
"This would provide jobs and wean us off foreign oil so we can depend on ourselves, instead of depending on somebody else," said Gautreaux, whose district includes the Henry Hub, the nation's national gas pricing station. Also, since natural gas is clean-burning fuel, "a lot of environmental problems, especially in cities, go away."
The city of Baton Rouge, which has been cited by the Environmental Protection Agency for air quality violations, has initiated a plan to convert its fleet of vehicles to burn CNG.
The lawmakers' legislation would increase the current tax credit for purchasing "qualified clean burning motor vehicle fuel property," which includes the additional costs of purchasing an already-equipped LNG-burning vehicle, the equipment to convert a vehicle and the costs of developing property directly related to the delivery of an alternative fuel.
Smith said vehicle owners could receive a state credit of 50 percent of the cost of converting a vehicle. If it costs $5,000 to convert, $2,500 could be claimed as a tax credit, which directly lowers the amount of tax owed to the state.
Gautreaux said new vehicles built to burn natural gas are more expensive, so a credit of 10 percent or $3,000, whichever is less, could be claimed toward the difference in sales price. Current law allows a $1,500 credit.
Combined with federal government tax credits, "this could make the extra cost of buying a natural gas vehicle zero," he said.
Smith and Gautreaux say that once a vehicle is converted, drivers notice improved performance and a lower-priced fill-up.
Gautreaux said that instead of the 86 octane of regular gasoline, the octane rating of CNG is 130.
Smith said that when gasoline was selling at $4 a gallon, CNG was $1.50. It's currently selling at about $1, which Gautreaux said shows that the price is not nearly as volatile as gasoline.
And, "it's safer than gasoline," he said
.
Another part of the legislation grants a 50 percent tax credit on the cost of developing fuel stations, which Gautreaux and Smith said would make CNG more widely available. Some filling stations already have it available.
The legislation is supported by the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association and the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association.
Smith and Gautreaux say they have several lawmakers who want to be co-authors when the bill is filed.
Additional Facts
Comparison
According to state Rep. Jane Smith, R-Bossier City, when regular gasoline was selling for $4 a gallon, compressed natural gas only cost $1.50.
See what they're doing in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Peter
March 25, 2009
Lawmakers pushing LNG use in vehicles
Legislation to offer tax credits for drivers who convert vehicles.
By Mike Hasten mhasten@gannett.com (source)
BATON ROUGE — Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Meaux, and Rep. Jane Smith, R-Bossier City, sometimes don't agree on politics but they do agree on promoting the use of something that's plentiful in their regions — natural gas.
The two lawmakers from opposite ends of the state are pushing legislation that they say will stimulate the economy while improving the environment by utilizing compressed natural gas to power automobiles.
The bills, expected to be pre-filed later this week for the legislative session that begins April 27, offer tax credits for drivers who convert their existing gasoline-powered vehicles to run on CNG or purchase new vehicles already equipped. Also, credits are offered to filling stations that install the necessary equipment to fuel the vehicles.
"We have the opportunity in the state of Louisiana to be a national leader in this," Smith said. "We have something that's abundant, it's clean and it's American."
Smith said the Haynesville Shale in northwest Louisiana contains enough natural gas to power vehicles for decades.
"I've been told that if a cubic foot of natural gas is the size of a basketball, in the Haynesville Shale there are 250 trillion basketballs," she said. "We're sitting here on the supply, but we lack the demand."
Smith and Gautreaux said their legislation making it more affordable to convert vehicles and install fueling stations can help create the demand.
"This would provide jobs and wean us off foreign oil so we can depend on ourselves, instead of depending on somebody else," said Gautreaux, whose district includes the Henry Hub, the nation's national gas pricing station. Also, since natural gas is clean-burning fuel, "a lot of environmental problems, especially in cities, go away."
The city of Baton Rouge, which has been cited by the Environmental Protection Agency for air quality violations, has initiated a plan to convert its fleet of vehicles to burn CNG.
The lawmakers' legislation would increase the current tax credit for purchasing "qualified clean burning motor vehicle fuel property," which includes the additional costs of purchasing an already-equipped LNG-burning vehicle, the equipment to convert a vehicle and the costs of developing property directly related to the delivery of an alternative fuel.
Smith said vehicle owners could receive a state credit of 50 percent of the cost of converting a vehicle. If it costs $5,000 to convert, $2,500 could be claimed as a tax credit, which directly lowers the amount of tax owed to the state.
Gautreaux said new vehicles built to burn natural gas are more expensive, so a credit of 10 percent or $3,000, whichever is less, could be claimed toward the difference in sales price. Current law allows a $1,500 credit.
Combined with federal government tax credits, "this could make the extra cost of buying a natural gas vehicle zero," he said.
Smith and Gautreaux say that once a vehicle is converted, drivers notice improved performance and a lower-priced fill-up.
Gautreaux said that instead of the 86 octane of regular gasoline, the octane rating of CNG is 130.
Smith said that when gasoline was selling at $4 a gallon, CNG was $1.50. It's currently selling at about $1, which Gautreaux said shows that the price is not nearly as volatile as gasoline.
And, "it's safer than gasoline," he said
.
Another part of the legislation grants a 50 percent tax credit on the cost of developing fuel stations, which Gautreaux and Smith said would make CNG more widely available. Some filling stations already have it available.
The legislation is supported by the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association and the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association.
Smith and Gautreaux say they have several lawmakers who want to be co-authors when the bill is filed.
Additional Facts
Comparison
According to state Rep. Jane Smith, R-Bossier City, when regular gasoline was selling for $4 a gallon, compressed natural gas only cost $1.50.
What A Brilliant Idea!
Let's all use some of President Obama's "economic stimulus" money to buy some natural gas-powered buses and other vehicles used by our local public agencies. If buses, why not police cars, garbage trucks, and utility vehicles? Let's keep our energy dollars here in the U.S., create jobs, and wow, we can even claim to be "green" and doing our part to "save the environment".
Peter
March 25, 2009
City announces new natural gas-running buses
By Icess Fernandez
ifernandez@gannett.com (source)
In Shreveport, it's a little easier being green.
City officials announced Tuesday they will purchase five new compressed natural gas buses with $4.7 million in economic stimulus money.
"This is something that is significantly important," said Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover. "The city of Shreveport needs to take advantage of the opportunity with the Haynesville Shale. We've taken time to research this and have done the due diligence, not just followed a trend."
The vehicles would be cheaper to run compared to the regular diesel buses and the new hybrid ones purchased in 2006. But the startup costs will be higher, said Gene Eddy, SporTran director. The buses cost $30,000 to $50,000 more than a diesel bus.
"The hybrids that were bought in 2006 are running fine, but they cost $100,000 more," he said.
The new buses come with perks: they're quieter and will have bike racks on them.
The stimulus money also will be used to build a fueling station for the vehicles and will be the first natural gas fueling station in the state.
The move will bring Shreveport a step closer to being greener without raising bus fares.
"We've been trying to deal with issues of clean air," Eddy said. "We want to do something that's proactive."
The new buses will be running on Shreveport's streets in about 15 months.
In preparation, the city will have to make some adjustments. The maintenance facility will have to be converted, buses drivers and maintenance personnel will have to retrained.
Shreveport is the second city in the state to announce the new buses. Baton Rouge also will purchase these types of vehicles. Fort Worth, Texas, and Birmingham, Ala., also have a fleets of these buses.
"We're seeing this happen all over the country," Eddy said.
Peter
March 25, 2009
City announces new natural gas-running buses
By Icess Fernandez
ifernandez@gannett.com (source)
In Shreveport, it's a little easier being green.
City officials announced Tuesday they will purchase five new compressed natural gas buses with $4.7 million in economic stimulus money.
"This is something that is significantly important," said Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover. "The city of Shreveport needs to take advantage of the opportunity with the Haynesville Shale. We've taken time to research this and have done the due diligence, not just followed a trend."
The vehicles would be cheaper to run compared to the regular diesel buses and the new hybrid ones purchased in 2006. But the startup costs will be higher, said Gene Eddy, SporTran director. The buses cost $30,000 to $50,000 more than a diesel bus.
"The hybrids that were bought in 2006 are running fine, but they cost $100,000 more," he said.
The new buses come with perks: they're quieter and will have bike racks on them.
The stimulus money also will be used to build a fueling station for the vehicles and will be the first natural gas fueling station in the state.
The move will bring Shreveport a step closer to being greener without raising bus fares.
"We've been trying to deal with issues of clean air," Eddy said. "We want to do something that's proactive."
The new buses will be running on Shreveport's streets in about 15 months.
In preparation, the city will have to make some adjustments. The maintenance facility will have to be converted, buses drivers and maintenance personnel will have to retrained.
Shreveport is the second city in the state to announce the new buses. Baton Rouge also will purchase these types of vehicles. Fort Worth, Texas, and Birmingham, Ala., also have a fleets of these buses.
"We're seeing this happen all over the country," Eddy said.
A World-Wide Opportunity -- "Unconventional Gas"
Any geologist following the recent activity in so-called "unconventional gas" plays in the United States, particularly the "shale gas" plays using horizontal drilling technology and modern staged fracturing methods, knows there is potential for the same development in sedimentary basins all around the world. The following article indicates some people are beginning to realize the significance of these developments.
Peter
UGI: Unconventional gas wealth seen in world's basins
G. Alan Petzet Chief Editor-Exploration (Oil and Gas Journal) source
FORT WORTH, Sept. 30 -- Sedimentary basins in the US appear to contain a volume of technically recoverable unconventional gas that is 10 times the ultimately recoverable volume of conventional gas.
All resources are logarithmically distributed in nature, and the lower quality deposits need more expenditures and better technology to develop economically, Stephen A. Holditch of Texas A&M University told the opening session of Oil & Gas Journal's Unconventional Gas International Conference & Exhibition in Fort Worth Sept. 30.
Results of the studies of eight US basins are being configured into software that can be used as advisory points as operators begin to drill, complete, stimulate, and produce shale, tight sands, and coalbed gas reservoirs outside North America, where almost all of this type of drilling has occurred so far, Holditch said.
Based on the findings, which imply that vast quantities of gas can be produced in the world's basins, even Saudi Arabia's state oil company Saudi Aramco has started a tight gas sands research group, Holditch said. Holditch and a large group of his students plan to release more details of the still incomplete findings at a Society of Petroleum Engineers conference in Pittsburgh in mid-October.
C. Michael Ming, president, Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA), noted the importance of basic research into unconventional gas recovery technology. Partly due to such research, which is under constant threat of reduced federal and other funding, the US has more gas reserves today than when former US President Jimmy Carter made his "moral equivalent of war" (meow) speech in the midst of the late 1970s energy crisis, Ming told the conference.
World gas studyHolditch's students, who compared conventional and unconventional gas statistics from eight US basins, plan to expand the study to 25 basins.
The information covered petroleum systems descriptions and other public data on the San Juan, Green River, Powder River, Uinta-Piceance, Black Warrior, Wind River, and Illinois basins. Data came from the National Petroleum Council, US Geological Survey, Energy Information Administration, Gas Research-Gas Technology Institute, Potential Gas Committee, and other sources.
When looking at a given target basin or formation anywhere in the world, we can find the analogous basin or formation in the US and glean from published case histories that abound in the literature what amount to the best practices for recovery of unconventional gas, Holditch said.
The system, still a work in progress, is advisory in nature and not an expert system, he cautioned. Unconventional oil reservoirs have not yet been considered.
Part of the current study, for example, lists US basins and ranks world basins by most analogous, second most analogous, and so on. The software would eventually help operating companies, service companies, and others to select a tight gas sand fracturing fluid, for instance, using defaults and best practices from similar US reservoirs as a starting point, Holditch said.
Need for research
Carter delivered the "meow" speech about the same time that Houston wildcatter George Mitchell "decided to take a stab" at producing gas from the Barnett shale, Ming recalled.
Noting that the drilling, completion, and stimulation procedures for each shale must be uniquely decoded, Ming said that operators are still improving Barnett shale gas recovery factors. Some of the improvement can be laid to iterative actions, but with concentrated research, the process might become more predictive, he postulated.
The positive contributions from projects such as DeepStar, Norway's DEMO2000, and Brazil's deepwater program demonstrate that what begins as pure research can be driven toward field demonstrations and commercialization, Ming said.
RPSEA, he noted, is shepherding projects on emerging shales in Alabama, the Barnett shale, treatment and management of produced and all other waters, advanced hydraulic fracturing technology, how gas migrates to fill unconventional reservoirs, and how to increase the area of reservoir contact in horizontal wells, among other projects.
Peter
UGI: Unconventional gas wealth seen in world's basins
G. Alan Petzet Chief Editor-Exploration (Oil and Gas Journal) source
FORT WORTH, Sept. 30 -- Sedimentary basins in the US appear to contain a volume of technically recoverable unconventional gas that is 10 times the ultimately recoverable volume of conventional gas.
All resources are logarithmically distributed in nature, and the lower quality deposits need more expenditures and better technology to develop economically, Stephen A. Holditch of Texas A&M University told the opening session of Oil & Gas Journal's Unconventional Gas International Conference & Exhibition in Fort Worth Sept. 30.
Results of the studies of eight US basins are being configured into software that can be used as advisory points as operators begin to drill, complete, stimulate, and produce shale, tight sands, and coalbed gas reservoirs outside North America, where almost all of this type of drilling has occurred so far, Holditch said.
Based on the findings, which imply that vast quantities of gas can be produced in the world's basins, even Saudi Arabia's state oil company Saudi Aramco has started a tight gas sands research group, Holditch said. Holditch and a large group of his students plan to release more details of the still incomplete findings at a Society of Petroleum Engineers conference in Pittsburgh in mid-October.
C. Michael Ming, president, Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA), noted the importance of basic research into unconventional gas recovery technology. Partly due to such research, which is under constant threat of reduced federal and other funding, the US has more gas reserves today than when former US President Jimmy Carter made his "moral equivalent of war" (meow) speech in the midst of the late 1970s energy crisis, Ming told the conference.
World gas studyHolditch's students, who compared conventional and unconventional gas statistics from eight US basins, plan to expand the study to 25 basins.
The information covered petroleum systems descriptions and other public data on the San Juan, Green River, Powder River, Uinta-Piceance, Black Warrior, Wind River, and Illinois basins. Data came from the National Petroleum Council, US Geological Survey, Energy Information Administration, Gas Research-Gas Technology Institute, Potential Gas Committee, and other sources.
When looking at a given target basin or formation anywhere in the world, we can find the analogous basin or formation in the US and glean from published case histories that abound in the literature what amount to the best practices for recovery of unconventional gas, Holditch said.
The system, still a work in progress, is advisory in nature and not an expert system, he cautioned. Unconventional oil reservoirs have not yet been considered.
Part of the current study, for example, lists US basins and ranks world basins by most analogous, second most analogous, and so on. The software would eventually help operating companies, service companies, and others to select a tight gas sand fracturing fluid, for instance, using defaults and best practices from similar US reservoirs as a starting point, Holditch said.
Need for research
Carter delivered the "meow" speech about the same time that Houston wildcatter George Mitchell "decided to take a stab" at producing gas from the Barnett shale, Ming recalled.
Noting that the drilling, completion, and stimulation procedures for each shale must be uniquely decoded, Ming said that operators are still improving Barnett shale gas recovery factors. Some of the improvement can be laid to iterative actions, but with concentrated research, the process might become more predictive, he postulated.
The positive contributions from projects such as DeepStar, Norway's DEMO2000, and Brazil's deepwater program demonstrate that what begins as pure research can be driven toward field demonstrations and commercialization, Ming said.
RPSEA, he noted, is shepherding projects on emerging shales in Alabama, the Barnett shale, treatment and management of produced and all other waters, advanced hydraulic fracturing technology, how gas migrates to fill unconventional reservoirs, and how to increase the area of reservoir contact in horizontal wells, among other projects.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Marcellus Shale Gas Play Swamps State Agencies
Ah, if the exploration for and production of oil and gas was only as simple as the science and engineering. Of course now we have politics. I suppose there has always been politics, but have politics and environmental regulations ever been so restrictive? It is not my intent to discuss politics here, but the following article provides some insight into some of the issues that must be dealt with before exploration and production can even begin.
Peter
March 10, 2009
New York understaffed to handle gas rush
By Tom Wilber
twilber@gannett.com (source : The Ithaca Journal)
The debate over natural gas production in the Central New York region is often couched in terms of economy versus ecology. But many advocates and officials believe one doesn't have to be sacrificed for the other.
There is a catch, of course, and it has everything to do with money.
In order to capitalize on the gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation, while minimizing environmental risks, there must be sufficient manpower to draft and enforce regulations.
On that, there is little disagreement.
In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection is creating 37 new positions - despite a statewide hiring freeze - to oversee Marcellus production. The positions will be added to Pennsylvania's Office of Mineral Resources Management, which oversees nearly 600 employees who handle many issues in addition to natural gas production.
Officials in New York, however, have few answers as to how 19 employees in the Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation - part of the state's Department of Environmental Conservation - will be able to handle a rush of permits and intensive drilling activity on this side of the border.
"Clearly, we are not staffed to do the job," said Assemblywoman Donna A. Lupardo, D-Endwell.
As a member of the Assembly's Environmental Conservation Committee, Lupardo has been closely following the heated debate over gas drilling's ecological consequences and its economic opportunity.
While she champions environmental causes, she is quick to acknowledge the importance of the economic boost the gas rush promises for the Southern Tier.
"You can't have a conversation about this topic without talking about both of these things," she said.
As of now, there are no provisions in the proposed New York budget to add to the state's Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation. But adjusting for the gas rush has to be addressed, Lupardo said, and she and other lawmakers are "waiting to hear from the governor's office on what direction to take."
Lindsay Wickham, a spokesman of the New York State Farm Bureau, is scheduled to travel to Albany early this week to lobby lawmakers to address issues related to the gas rush.
"We know they (New York oil and gas regulators) need more staff," he said. "That's been an ongoing issue for years."
Jeffrey Gordon, a spokesman for New York State's Division of Budget, said Friday the state is determining the need for more staff and how to pay for it as it assesses the environmental impact from drilling.
For now, permit applications in New York are effectively on hold while companies wait for the state to update its drilling regulations, expected to be completed later this year.
"Both of those processes are ongoing and will be resolved as we get more information," he said.
Not everybody feels the urgency to staff up.
Dan Fitzsimmons, who heads a group of about 400 residents owning about 15,000 acres in the towns of Binghamton and Conklin, is afraid the regulatory overhaul delaying Marcellus production in New York will stifle interest over the long run.
"Pennsylvania is doing it right," he said. "They have the industry, and now they are hiring the people. Let's get the industry here first."
Pennsylvania's natural gas industry is, in fact, booming, with a record 7,924 permits issued and nearly 4,200 new wells drilled in the past year, according to information from the DEP. Agency officials expect to process and oversee 40,000 new drilling permits during the next three years.
By comparison, about 2,000 permits were issued in the year 2000.
Like New York, Pennsylvania faces a budget crisis and hiring freeze. But the DEP is creating 37 new positions and opening up a new office in Williamsport to oversee the gas rush in the northeast and north central regions.
The positions will include geologists, environmental engineers, oil and gas inspectors, and water quality experts, said Teresa Candori, press secretary for the DEP.
"This has the potential to be an enormous economic development," she said. "The comparison is to the gold rush. We want to make sure we can take advantage of the economic opportunity while protecting our water resources."
To pay for the staff increases, Pennsylvania has increased permit fees for drilling.
The New York State Farm Bureau - whose members have a large stake in the issues economically and environmentally - supports a similar approach for New York, Wickham said.
Lupardo said lawmakers and administrators are considering a fee increase as a way to pay for oversight, although no formal proposal has been publicly brought to the table.
Without more regulators, permit applications and review could become quickly backlogged, which would in turn discourage development, according to some industry watchers.
Could a logjam and pressure from industry make it too convenient for officials to rubber-stamp applications to keep up with an overwhelming workload?
Lupardo doubts it.
"I would be surprised if this is fast-tracked without environmental oversight," she said. "There are way too many people looking at this."
Wickham wasn't sure.
"There is no question the gas industry is a very powerful lobby," he said.
Addendum: An interesting comment from a reader....
urn4580 wrote:
This is but one of thousands of examples why government can offer nothing but excuses.Get ready for when 'the messiah' socializes healthcare in the US.Your heart attack will have to wait six months because "clearly we are understaffed to do the job..."3/10/2009 8:09:19 AM
Peter
March 10, 2009
New York understaffed to handle gas rush
By Tom Wilber
twilber@gannett.com (source : The Ithaca Journal)
The debate over natural gas production in the Central New York region is often couched in terms of economy versus ecology. But many advocates and officials believe one doesn't have to be sacrificed for the other.
There is a catch, of course, and it has everything to do with money.
In order to capitalize on the gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation, while minimizing environmental risks, there must be sufficient manpower to draft and enforce regulations.
On that, there is little disagreement.
In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection is creating 37 new positions - despite a statewide hiring freeze - to oversee Marcellus production. The positions will be added to Pennsylvania's Office of Mineral Resources Management, which oversees nearly 600 employees who handle many issues in addition to natural gas production.
Officials in New York, however, have few answers as to how 19 employees in the Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation - part of the state's Department of Environmental Conservation - will be able to handle a rush of permits and intensive drilling activity on this side of the border.
"Clearly, we are not staffed to do the job," said Assemblywoman Donna A. Lupardo, D-Endwell.
As a member of the Assembly's Environmental Conservation Committee, Lupardo has been closely following the heated debate over gas drilling's ecological consequences and its economic opportunity.
While she champions environmental causes, she is quick to acknowledge the importance of the economic boost the gas rush promises for the Southern Tier.
"You can't have a conversation about this topic without talking about both of these things," she said.
As of now, there are no provisions in the proposed New York budget to add to the state's Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation. But adjusting for the gas rush has to be addressed, Lupardo said, and she and other lawmakers are "waiting to hear from the governor's office on what direction to take."
Lindsay Wickham, a spokesman of the New York State Farm Bureau, is scheduled to travel to Albany early this week to lobby lawmakers to address issues related to the gas rush.
"We know they (New York oil and gas regulators) need more staff," he said. "That's been an ongoing issue for years."
Jeffrey Gordon, a spokesman for New York State's Division of Budget, said Friday the state is determining the need for more staff and how to pay for it as it assesses the environmental impact from drilling.
For now, permit applications in New York are effectively on hold while companies wait for the state to update its drilling regulations, expected to be completed later this year.
"Both of those processes are ongoing and will be resolved as we get more information," he said.
Not everybody feels the urgency to staff up.
Dan Fitzsimmons, who heads a group of about 400 residents owning about 15,000 acres in the towns of Binghamton and Conklin, is afraid the regulatory overhaul delaying Marcellus production in New York will stifle interest over the long run.
"Pennsylvania is doing it right," he said. "They have the industry, and now they are hiring the people. Let's get the industry here first."
Pennsylvania's natural gas industry is, in fact, booming, with a record 7,924 permits issued and nearly 4,200 new wells drilled in the past year, according to information from the DEP. Agency officials expect to process and oversee 40,000 new drilling permits during the next three years.
By comparison, about 2,000 permits were issued in the year 2000.
Like New York, Pennsylvania faces a budget crisis and hiring freeze. But the DEP is creating 37 new positions and opening up a new office in Williamsport to oversee the gas rush in the northeast and north central regions.
The positions will include geologists, environmental engineers, oil and gas inspectors, and water quality experts, said Teresa Candori, press secretary for the DEP.
"This has the potential to be an enormous economic development," she said. "The comparison is to the gold rush. We want to make sure we can take advantage of the economic opportunity while protecting our water resources."
To pay for the staff increases, Pennsylvania has increased permit fees for drilling.
The New York State Farm Bureau - whose members have a large stake in the issues economically and environmentally - supports a similar approach for New York, Wickham said.
Lupardo said lawmakers and administrators are considering a fee increase as a way to pay for oversight, although no formal proposal has been publicly brought to the table.
Without more regulators, permit applications and review could become quickly backlogged, which would in turn discourage development, according to some industry watchers.
Could a logjam and pressure from industry make it too convenient for officials to rubber-stamp applications to keep up with an overwhelming workload?
Lupardo doubts it.
"I would be surprised if this is fast-tracked without environmental oversight," she said. "There are way too many people looking at this."
Wickham wasn't sure.
"There is no question the gas industry is a very powerful lobby," he said.
Addendum: An interesting comment from a reader....
urn4580 wrote:
This is but one of thousands of examples why government can offer nothing but excuses.Get ready for when 'the messiah' socializes healthcare in the US.Your heart attack will have to wait six months because "clearly we are understaffed to do the job..."3/10/2009 8:09:19 AM
The Squeaky Wheel Gets The Grease
In America that means those with lobbyists in Washington, D.C. get the "grease" (investments). It seems that as much as things change, they stay much the same. Like it or not; new administration, or not. The following article from the "Wall Street Journal" describes efforts by gas producers to promote their product. It is a clean fuel, it is increasingly abundant, and the infrastructure, or ability to produce and distribute it already exists.
While we wait for "alternative" sources of energy to become reality, America and the world is going to need all the natural gas it can find and deliver.
Peter
FEBRUARY 25, 2009
Natural-Gas Producers Launch Lobbying Group
By BEN CASSELMAN
U.S. natural-gas companies, hurt by a combination of booming supplies and falling demand, are banding together to promote their product with lawmakers and the public.
Such industry heavyweights as Newfield Exploration Co., Devon Energy Corp. and Chesapeake Energy Corp. will announce Wednesday the formation of the American Natural Gas Alliance to push broadly for more use of gas in power generation, transportation and other fields. The group says its more than 20 members account for roughly 40% of all U.S. gas output.
Production has surged in the past year, as new technologies have unlocked vast quantities of gas trapped in tight rock known as shale. Newly discovered fields in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and elsewhere have flooded the market with new gas, helping fuel a collapse in natural-gas prices, which last week touched a six-year low. Prices have plummeted to just over $4 per million British thermal units from more than $13 per million BTUs in July.
New supplies aren't the only cause of the price drop -- weak industrial demand has also contributed. But producers and their investors are increasingly concerned that the market will remain oversupplied even when the economy recovers.
Leaders of the new group argue the boom in gas production presents an opportunity to rethink the nation's energy policy. They note that gas burns more cleanly than coal, is produced domestically and relies on existing technology and infrastructure. But policy makers have not embraced wide use of natural gas, in part because U.S. production was declining until the recent discoveries.
"In order to promote greater use of natural gas, you've got to convince people it's abundant," said Newfield Chairman and Chief Executive David Trice, who will serve as chairman of the new coalition.
Mr. Trice said he and other industry executives began talking last year about the need for a louder voice in Washington. In the past, gas producers spread their message to politicians and the public through groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and the Independent Petroleum Association of America. Most energy companies produce both oil and gas, and the interests of both fuels were considered to be similar.
In recent years, the two fuels have headed in opposite directions. U.S. oil production has continued to decline, and oil companies are concerned about finding new areas to drill, whereas gas producers are more worried about finding customers for their surging supplies.
"The natural-gas industry lacks a unified voice," energy analysts from Wachovia wrote in a recent report. The analysts noted that that the recently approved federal stimulus package included no significant support for the gas industry, and concluded that "the gas industry has utterly failed to address the demand side."
The new alliance is not the first effort to promote the wider use of natural gas. In 2007, Chesapeake Energy, the largest U.S. gas producer, helped create the American Clean Skies Foundation. The foundation has teamed up with the Sierra Club, among others, to promote gas as a cleaner alternative to coal. Mr. Trice said his group will not attack coal or other energy sources, and merely aims to promote gas.
The new group has hired trade-group veteran Rodney Lowman as its president. Mr. Lowman, 60 years old, previously ran the Abundant Forests Alliance, an advocacy group for the wood and paper-products industries, and the American Plastics Council.
Write to Ben Casselman at ben.casselman@wsj.com
While we wait for "alternative" sources of energy to become reality, America and the world is going to need all the natural gas it can find and deliver.
Peter
FEBRUARY 25, 2009
Natural-Gas Producers Launch Lobbying Group
By BEN CASSELMAN
U.S. natural-gas companies, hurt by a combination of booming supplies and falling demand, are banding together to promote their product with lawmakers and the public.
Such industry heavyweights as Newfield Exploration Co., Devon Energy Corp. and Chesapeake Energy Corp. will announce Wednesday the formation of the American Natural Gas Alliance to push broadly for more use of gas in power generation, transportation and other fields. The group says its more than 20 members account for roughly 40% of all U.S. gas output.
Production has surged in the past year, as new technologies have unlocked vast quantities of gas trapped in tight rock known as shale. Newly discovered fields in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and elsewhere have flooded the market with new gas, helping fuel a collapse in natural-gas prices, which last week touched a six-year low. Prices have plummeted to just over $4 per million British thermal units from more than $13 per million BTUs in July.
New supplies aren't the only cause of the price drop -- weak industrial demand has also contributed. But producers and their investors are increasingly concerned that the market will remain oversupplied even when the economy recovers.
Leaders of the new group argue the boom in gas production presents an opportunity to rethink the nation's energy policy. They note that gas burns more cleanly than coal, is produced domestically and relies on existing technology and infrastructure. But policy makers have not embraced wide use of natural gas, in part because U.S. production was declining until the recent discoveries.
"In order to promote greater use of natural gas, you've got to convince people it's abundant," said Newfield Chairman and Chief Executive David Trice, who will serve as chairman of the new coalition.
Mr. Trice said he and other industry executives began talking last year about the need for a louder voice in Washington. In the past, gas producers spread their message to politicians and the public through groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and the Independent Petroleum Association of America. Most energy companies produce both oil and gas, and the interests of both fuels were considered to be similar.
In recent years, the two fuels have headed in opposite directions. U.S. oil production has continued to decline, and oil companies are concerned about finding new areas to drill, whereas gas producers are more worried about finding customers for their surging supplies.
"The natural-gas industry lacks a unified voice," energy analysts from Wachovia wrote in a recent report. The analysts noted that that the recently approved federal stimulus package included no significant support for the gas industry, and concluded that "the gas industry has utterly failed to address the demand side."
The new alliance is not the first effort to promote the wider use of natural gas. In 2007, Chesapeake Energy, the largest U.S. gas producer, helped create the American Clean Skies Foundation. The foundation has teamed up with the Sierra Club, among others, to promote gas as a cleaner alternative to coal. Mr. Trice said his group will not attack coal or other energy sources, and merely aims to promote gas.
The new group has hired trade-group veteran Rodney Lowman as its president. Mr. Lowman, 60 years old, previously ran the Abundant Forests Alliance, an advocacy group for the wood and paper-products industries, and the American Plastics Council.
Write to Ben Casselman at ben.casselman@wsj.com
There Is Light At The End Of The Tunnel
Gas prices and drilling and production of natural gas will continue to increase. Now is the time to prepare. So says a VP for Devon Energy Corp. and reported in the following article from the Oil & Gas Journal. This is good news for the shale gas plays and horizontal drilling and interpretation.
Peter
GPA09: Gas recovery coming sooner, not later
Warren R. True
Chief Technology Editor-LNG/Gas Processing
SAN ANTONIO, Mar. 10 -- Rapidly declining US natural gas rig counts and prices are setting the stage for a recovery in both sooner rather than later. That was the message today of Gregory A. Dodd, vice-president for natural gas marketing and supply at Devon Energy Corp. in remarks to the 88th Annual Convention of the Gas Processors Association in San Antonio.
Dodd sees signs of this eventuality in the rapid pace that gas rigs are being laid down or otherwise pulled away from US gas plays, especially shale areas. He also said many wells are being completed but not yet tied into gathering and transmission infrastructure.
Today's fuel
The coming recovery is evident in the accelerating rate of production decline, the increased use of natural gas in electric power generation as falling prices make it more of the fuel of choice, and the inevitable US economic recovery. Devon, said Dodd, is "getting ready for a turnaround" by, in part, increasing its 2009 capital budget over 2008.
Natural gas, Dodd said, is "not the fuel of the future but the fuel of today." Companies need to be prepared for recovery by reducing debt and reorganizing management structures to speed decision making.
They also need to shorten response times for rig mobilization once recovery begins and be actively influencing policy making, especially at the federal level. Currently, said Dodd, the story of natural gas is not getting told in Washington, DC.
LNG will play a critical role, he said, in meeting demand in the recovery, as it will take US production companies 6 months from the time rigs are called back to work and increased production from that new work.
Contact Warren R. True at warrent@ogjonline.com.
Peter
GPA09: Gas recovery coming sooner, not later
Warren R. True
Chief Technology Editor-LNG/Gas Processing
SAN ANTONIO, Mar. 10 -- Rapidly declining US natural gas rig counts and prices are setting the stage for a recovery in both sooner rather than later. That was the message today of Gregory A. Dodd, vice-president for natural gas marketing and supply at Devon Energy Corp. in remarks to the 88th Annual Convention of the Gas Processors Association in San Antonio.
Dodd sees signs of this eventuality in the rapid pace that gas rigs are being laid down or otherwise pulled away from US gas plays, especially shale areas. He also said many wells are being completed but not yet tied into gathering and transmission infrastructure.
Today's fuel
The coming recovery is evident in the accelerating rate of production decline, the increased use of natural gas in electric power generation as falling prices make it more of the fuel of choice, and the inevitable US economic recovery. Devon, said Dodd, is "getting ready for a turnaround" by, in part, increasing its 2009 capital budget over 2008.
Natural gas, Dodd said, is "not the fuel of the future but the fuel of today." Companies need to be prepared for recovery by reducing debt and reorganizing management structures to speed decision making.
They also need to shorten response times for rig mobilization once recovery begins and be actively influencing policy making, especially at the federal level. Currently, said Dodd, the story of natural gas is not getting told in Washington, DC.
LNG will play a critical role, he said, in meeting demand in the recovery, as it will take US production companies 6 months from the time rigs are called back to work and increased production from that new work.
Contact Warren R. True at warrent@ogjonline.com.
Friday, March 6, 2009
The Truth About Renewable Energy
It Is Important To Know The Truth About Renewable Energy
People who have dealt with the realities of worldwide energy use for their entire working lives, (like geologists) understand the absurdity of thinking that the so-called renewable sources of energy can or are going to replace oil, gas, and coal in the near future. The following article published in "The Wall Street Journal" explains the reasons for this absurdity very clearly.
The Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress do not seem to understand this. The science, math, and economics are very clear and simple. It makes one wonder what their real objectives are. They are out to control energy, meaning the oil, coal, and gas industry with their proposed taxes and cap and trade scheme. However, think about it. If we shut down the oil, gas, and coal industry, where is the government going to get the money to finance all their other grand projects? To shut down fossil fuels in the name of stopping global warming is a particularly vile and cruel lie. This is becoming more clear on a daily basis.
Peter
MARCH 4, 2009, 11:18 P.M. ET
Let's Get Real About Renewable Energy
We can double the output of solar and wind, and double it again. We'll still depend on hydrocarbons.
By ROBERT BRYCE (source)
During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, "We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."
While that statement -- along with his pledge to impose a "cap on carbon pollution" -- drew applause, let's slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country's energy future. Consider two factors that are too-often overlooked: George W. Bush's record on renewables, and the problem of scale.
By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that's right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.
Mr. Bush's record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world's energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is the same issue that dogs every alternative energy idea: scale.
Let's start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of "renewable" energy. If he's including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America's total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.
If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush's effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America's overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.
Here's why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That's the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption.
Of course, you might respond that renewables need to start somewhere. True enough -- and to be clear, I'm not opposed to renewables. ( And neither am I, Peter) I have solar panels on the roof of my house here in Texas that generate 3,200 watts. And those panels (which were heavily subsidized by Austin Energy, the city-owned utility) provide about one-third of the electricity my family of five consumes. Better still, solar panel producers like First Solar Inc. are lowering the cost of solar cells. On the day of Mr. Obama's speech, the company announced that it is now producing solar cells for $0.98 per watt, thereby breaking the important $1-per-watt price barrier.
And yet, while price reductions are important, the wind is intermittent, and so are sunny days. That means they cannot provide the baseload power, i.e., the amount of electricity required to meet minimum demand, that Americans want.
That issue aside, the scale problem persists. For the sake of convenience, let's convert the energy produced by U.S. wind and solar installations into oil equivalents.
The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.
Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America's total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.
Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share -- we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.
Here's another way to consider the 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day that come from solar and wind: It's approximately equal to the raw energy output of one average-sized coal mine.
During his address to Congress, Mr. Obama did not mention coal -- the fuel that provides nearly a quarter of total primary energy and about half of America's electricity -- except to say that the U.S. should develop "clean coal."
He didn't mention nuclear power, only "nuclear proliferation," even though nuclear power is likely the best long-term solution to policy makers' desire to cut U.S. carbon emissions.
He didn't mention natural gas, even though it provides about 25% of America's total primary energy needs. Furthermore, the U.S. has huge quantities of gas, and it's the only fuel source that can provide the stand-by generation capacity needed for wind and solar installations. Finally, he didn't mention oil, the backbone fuel of the world transportation sector, except to say that the U.S. imports too much of it.
Perhaps the president's omissions are understandable. America has an intense love-hate relationship with hydrocarbons in general, and with coal and oil in particular. And with increasing political pressure to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, that love-hate relationship has only gotten more complicated. (Carbon dioxide emissions being related to the global warming scare. Peter)
But the problem of scale means that these hydrocarbons just won't go away. Sure, Mr. Obama can double the output from solar and wind. And then double it again. And again. And again. But getting from 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to something close to the 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day needed to keep the U.S. economy running is going to take a long, long time. It would be refreshing if the president or perhaps a few of the Democrats on Capitol Hill would admit that fact.
Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'"(Public Affairs, 2008).
People who have dealt with the realities of worldwide energy use for their entire working lives, (like geologists) understand the absurdity of thinking that the so-called renewable sources of energy can or are going to replace oil, gas, and coal in the near future. The following article published in "The Wall Street Journal" explains the reasons for this absurdity very clearly.
The Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress do not seem to understand this. The science, math, and economics are very clear and simple. It makes one wonder what their real objectives are. They are out to control energy, meaning the oil, coal, and gas industry with their proposed taxes and cap and trade scheme. However, think about it. If we shut down the oil, gas, and coal industry, where is the government going to get the money to finance all their other grand projects? To shut down fossil fuels in the name of stopping global warming is a particularly vile and cruel lie. This is becoming more clear on a daily basis.
Peter
MARCH 4, 2009, 11:18 P.M. ET
Let's Get Real About Renewable Energy
We can double the output of solar and wind, and double it again. We'll still depend on hydrocarbons.
By ROBERT BRYCE (source)
During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, "We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."
While that statement -- along with his pledge to impose a "cap on carbon pollution" -- drew applause, let's slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country's energy future. Consider two factors that are too-often overlooked: George W. Bush's record on renewables, and the problem of scale.
By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that's right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.
Mr. Bush's record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world's energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is the same issue that dogs every alternative energy idea: scale.
Let's start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of "renewable" energy. If he's including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America's total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.
If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush's effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America's overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.
Here's why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That's the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption.
Of course, you might respond that renewables need to start somewhere. True enough -- and to be clear, I'm not opposed to renewables. ( And neither am I, Peter) I have solar panels on the roof of my house here in Texas that generate 3,200 watts. And those panels (which were heavily subsidized by Austin Energy, the city-owned utility) provide about one-third of the electricity my family of five consumes. Better still, solar panel producers like First Solar Inc. are lowering the cost of solar cells. On the day of Mr. Obama's speech, the company announced that it is now producing solar cells for $0.98 per watt, thereby breaking the important $1-per-watt price barrier.
And yet, while price reductions are important, the wind is intermittent, and so are sunny days. That means they cannot provide the baseload power, i.e., the amount of electricity required to meet minimum demand, that Americans want.
That issue aside, the scale problem persists. For the sake of convenience, let's convert the energy produced by U.S. wind and solar installations into oil equivalents.
The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.
Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America's total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.
Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share -- we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.
Here's another way to consider the 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day that come from solar and wind: It's approximately equal to the raw energy output of one average-sized coal mine.
During his address to Congress, Mr. Obama did not mention coal -- the fuel that provides nearly a quarter of total primary energy and about half of America's electricity -- except to say that the U.S. should develop "clean coal."
He didn't mention nuclear power, only "nuclear proliferation," even though nuclear power is likely the best long-term solution to policy makers' desire to cut U.S. carbon emissions.
He didn't mention natural gas, even though it provides about 25% of America's total primary energy needs. Furthermore, the U.S. has huge quantities of gas, and it's the only fuel source that can provide the stand-by generation capacity needed for wind and solar installations. Finally, he didn't mention oil, the backbone fuel of the world transportation sector, except to say that the U.S. imports too much of it.
Perhaps the president's omissions are understandable. America has an intense love-hate relationship with hydrocarbons in general, and with coal and oil in particular. And with increasing political pressure to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, that love-hate relationship has only gotten more complicated. (Carbon dioxide emissions being related to the global warming scare. Peter)
But the problem of scale means that these hydrocarbons just won't go away. Sure, Mr. Obama can double the output from solar and wind. And then double it again. And again. And again. But getting from 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to something close to the 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day needed to keep the U.S. economy running is going to take a long, long time. It would be refreshing if the president or perhaps a few of the Democrats on Capitol Hill would admit that fact.
Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'"(Public Affairs, 2008).
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Hydraulic Fracturing Is Safe In Oil And Gas Fields
There have been questions raised about potential dangers to groundwater by the process of hydraulic fracturing (fracing) used to stimulate oil and gas production. The details of this process and its demonstrated safety are described in the article below. It seems those opposing oil and gas exploration and production are trying to come up with yet another way of imparting fear and demonizing the industry. We must address this issue honestly and openly, and the truth is, the hydraulic fracturing process is safe.
Peter
Story available at http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2009/03/02/opinion/guest/20-guest.txt
Published on Monday, March 02, 2009. Last modified on 3/2/2009 at 12:53 am
Guest Opinion: Hydraulic fracturing in oil fields works safely for Montana
By TOM RICHMOND
Hydraulic fracturing has been used by the oil and gas industry for 60 years to increase the productivity of wells and recover oil and gas. Many of Montana's gas wells and essentially all our Bakken oil wells would not be economically viable to drill without hydraulic fracturing, resulting in a loss of at least $4 billion worth of oil and $350 million of state revenues. Along with improved drilling technology, hydraulic fracturing has doubled Montana's oil and gas production.
Recently, the safety of hydraulic fracturing has been called into question by organizations trying to convince Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency to establish or broaden federal regulations. These organizations are using fear tactics - unsubstantiated claims of groundwater contamination by dangerous chemicals - to make their case. The truth is that hydraulic fracturing is already regulated appropriately by the states. Thousands of wells in Montana and about 1 million wells nationwide have been fractured with no groundwater contamination reported.
Protective barriers
Hydraulic fracturing is not a haphazard process. Engineers use computer models to custom-design each individual fracture treatment, taking into account the physical and chemical properties of the rock, the fluids contained within that rock, and the mechanical condition of the well. The computer models are used to design an effective treatment that stays within the targeted rock formation thousands of feet underground. Additionally, the wells are designed and constructed to provide at least three protective barriers that prevent water contamination.
The primary products used in Montana's hydraulic fractures are sand and a fluid to carry the sand. The most common carrier fluids are either nitrogen foam or gelled water. The products that cause the nitrogen to foam are the basic ingredients in household cleaning agents, such as borax or detergent; the gelling agents are similar to those used in making gelatin dessert or soft-serve ice cream. The EPA has identified diesel fuel as a potential health hazard, but it is seldom used in Montana.
The geology of Montana provides further protection from contamination. Groundwater that furnishes drinking water and conventional gas and oil reservoirs do not inhabit the same underground territory - they are typically many thousands of feet apart and separated by numerous impermeable layers.
Every oil- and gas-producing state has multiple agencies that regulate exploration and development. In addition to the Board of Oil and Gas Conservation, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation have roles in oil and gas operations, water quality and water quantity regulation, as well as land use and leasing roles. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and EPA oversee some aspect of the transportation, use and proper disposal of any substances used in oil and gas production; the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has similar responsibility on federally owned land. Requiring additional oversight by still more federal agencies would be costly and redundant and add little to the substantial regulatory network already in place.
No documented harm
Approximately 35,000 wells are hydraulically fractured annually in the United States; about 1 million wells have been hydraulically fractured in the U.S. since the technique was first developed, with no documented harm to groundwater. Hydraulic fracturing is essential for developing our abundant and environmentally desirable natural gas resources, and the safety and effectiveness of this process are proven every day.
Tom Richmond of Billings is division administrator of the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation in the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.
Peter
Story available at http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2009/03/02/opinion/guest/20-guest.txt
Published on Monday, March 02, 2009. Last modified on 3/2/2009 at 12:53 am
Guest Opinion: Hydraulic fracturing in oil fields works safely for Montana
By TOM RICHMOND
Hydraulic fracturing has been used by the oil and gas industry for 60 years to increase the productivity of wells and recover oil and gas. Many of Montana's gas wells and essentially all our Bakken oil wells would not be economically viable to drill without hydraulic fracturing, resulting in a loss of at least $4 billion worth of oil and $350 million of state revenues. Along with improved drilling technology, hydraulic fracturing has doubled Montana's oil and gas production.
Recently, the safety of hydraulic fracturing has been called into question by organizations trying to convince Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency to establish or broaden federal regulations. These organizations are using fear tactics - unsubstantiated claims of groundwater contamination by dangerous chemicals - to make their case. The truth is that hydraulic fracturing is already regulated appropriately by the states. Thousands of wells in Montana and about 1 million wells nationwide have been fractured with no groundwater contamination reported.
Protective barriers
Hydraulic fracturing is not a haphazard process. Engineers use computer models to custom-design each individual fracture treatment, taking into account the physical and chemical properties of the rock, the fluids contained within that rock, and the mechanical condition of the well. The computer models are used to design an effective treatment that stays within the targeted rock formation thousands of feet underground. Additionally, the wells are designed and constructed to provide at least three protective barriers that prevent water contamination.
The primary products used in Montana's hydraulic fractures are sand and a fluid to carry the sand. The most common carrier fluids are either nitrogen foam or gelled water. The products that cause the nitrogen to foam are the basic ingredients in household cleaning agents, such as borax or detergent; the gelling agents are similar to those used in making gelatin dessert or soft-serve ice cream. The EPA has identified diesel fuel as a potential health hazard, but it is seldom used in Montana.
The geology of Montana provides further protection from contamination. Groundwater that furnishes drinking water and conventional gas and oil reservoirs do not inhabit the same underground territory - they are typically many thousands of feet apart and separated by numerous impermeable layers.
Every oil- and gas-producing state has multiple agencies that regulate exploration and development. In addition to the Board of Oil and Gas Conservation, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation have roles in oil and gas operations, water quality and water quantity regulation, as well as land use and leasing roles. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and EPA oversee some aspect of the transportation, use and proper disposal of any substances used in oil and gas production; the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has similar responsibility on federally owned land. Requiring additional oversight by still more federal agencies would be costly and redundant and add little to the substantial regulatory network already in place.
No documented harm
Approximately 35,000 wells are hydraulically fractured annually in the United States; about 1 million wells have been hydraulically fractured in the U.S. since the technique was first developed, with no documented harm to groundwater. Hydraulic fracturing is essential for developing our abundant and environmentally desirable natural gas resources, and the safety and effectiveness of this process are proven every day.
Tom Richmond of Billings is division administrator of the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation in the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
