Presentation by Harold Hensel to the Iowa City Climate Advocates Group. This presentation is under construction and will be moved to Shutterfly.com soon.
You can view the presentation by clicking on the link below:
kodakgallery.com/gallery/creativeapps/slideShow/Main.jsp;jsessionid=92F5E56C055A37001FA4BBA859AF8EDE.ecom405_main?sourceId=533754321803&cm_mmc=Share-_-Personal-_-Email-_-Sharee-_-Images&token=655304763507%3A256173328&_requestid=199106
Monday, June 4, 2012
Blowing Hot Air: The Methane Hydrate Delusion
Earlier posted May 10, 2012, at Science 2.0 Seeing Green. Posted with the author's permission.
By Holly Moeller
Last week, word came from Prudhoe Bay that sent chills through me as surely as if I’d been standing in the Alaskan North Slope drilling outpost myself. The United States Department of Energy – in collaboration with energy giant ConocoPhillips and the Japanese nationalized minerals corporation – reported success from a month-long test extraction of methane gas tucked into an icy lattice below the permafrost.
These methane hydrates – also called methane clathrates, after the particular crystalline structure of the ice matrix – are found in cold regions (like the Arctic, where low temperatures keep the permafrost soil layer frozen year-round) and off continental shelves (where pressure from a thick blanket of water stabilizes the compressed gas).
Though testing to reveal the full extent and nature of these gas deposits has only just begun, methane hydrates are already making headlines as the next big energy source.
The US Geological Survey estimates that there’s twice as much burnable carbon hiding in hydrates as in all other known fossil fuel deposits worldwide. And since methane gas burns hot and clean – giving off 33% more energy per carbon dioxide molecule emitted as petroleum, without the nasty nitrogen and sulfur oxides that come from coal – ears around the world have perked up.
In 2006, China pledged $100 million to hydrate exploration. In 2008, Japan and Canada completed a six-day test drill in the Mackenzie Basin. And now that this year’s test results are looking good, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu says that domestic gas prices could drop 30% by 2025.
As an added bonus, methane extraction traps CO2. The latest technology pumps the most notorious greenhouse gas into the ground, where it replaces methane in the ice matrix. The displaced methane is then pumped to the surface and – in the DoE’s (and, undoubtedly, ConocoPhillips’) vision – down pipelines to heat homes in the Lower 48.
Plus, argue supporters, climate change projections indicate that rising temperatures may release much of that methane anyway. If the permafrost thaws or the ocean warms, vast tracts of icy clathrates could melt, outgassing methane – which has 20 times the warming potential of CO2 – into the atmosphere, further accelerating climate change. This is one of the most feared positive feedback loops known to climate scientists.
So wouldn’t it be nice if we could turn some of that methane into carbon dioxide ahead of time?
I don’t think so.
Burning fossil fuels – oil, coal, and natural gas – put us into our tenuous climatic position in the first place. Any CO2 we sequester during methane hydrate extraction will quickly be replaced through burning of the extracted methane. And the CO2 trap is only temporary: warmer polar temperatures will free it as surely as the presently trapped methane scientists are so concerned about.
Add to this the issue of scale. Given that commercialization of methane hydrate extraction is still a political pipe dream, we’re unlikely to process any significant portion of the 320 quadrillion cubic feet of methane scattered in hydrates around the country.
Now to don our economic hats. Increased supply and decreased costs only drive up demand. Say we can, as the DoE promises, double our natural gas supply and effect dramatic price cuts by using only 1% of domestically available methane hydrates. This quick fix of another carbon-based fuel will only delay our ultimate sustainability reckoning.
Methane hydrates, no matter how vast their supply seems, are just another nonrenewable resource. A boom in gas production will add years – maybe decades – to the difficult but necessary transition to renewable energy sources. And in the meantime, we’ll be doing plenty of damage to our environment both globally – through additional greenhouse gas emissions – and locally – by drilling in sensitive ecosystems.
In the last decade, we’ve fought plenty of environmental battles over how and where to drill for oil. We’ve seen the consequences – Deepwater Horizon and the Gulf of Mexico 2010 spill, for example – of pushing our technological limits towards harder and harder to reach deposits.
And now we want to grasp at something even more risky, at mineral formations that, when destabilized, cause explosions and landslides.
I’m afraid that the laws of economics – especially in a country that will invest $6.5 million this year alone (plus an additional $5 million, pending Congressional approval) on methane hydrate recover research – will once again favor Sarah Palin’s mantra, “Drill, baby, drill.” Because as surely as methane is trapped within its lattice of ice, we’ve trapped ourselves in a spiderweb of fossil fuel dependency. Unlike methane, however, it seems even climate change can’t force us out.
These methane hydrates – also called methane clathrates, after the particular crystalline structure of the ice matrix – are found in cold regions (like the Arctic, where low temperatures keep the permafrost soil layer frozen year-round) and off continental shelves (where pressure from a thick blanket of water stabilizes the compressed gas).
Though testing to reveal the full extent and nature of these gas deposits has only just begun, methane hydrates are already making headlines as the next big energy source.
The US Geological Survey estimates that there’s twice as much burnable carbon hiding in hydrates as in all other known fossil fuel deposits worldwide. And since methane gas burns hot and clean – giving off 33% more energy per carbon dioxide molecule emitted as petroleum, without the nasty nitrogen and sulfur oxides that come from coal – ears around the world have perked up.
In 2006, China pledged $100 million to hydrate exploration. In 2008, Japan and Canada completed a six-day test drill in the Mackenzie Basin. And now that this year’s test results are looking good, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu says that domestic gas prices could drop 30% by 2025.
As an added bonus, methane extraction traps CO2. The latest technology pumps the most notorious greenhouse gas into the ground, where it replaces methane in the ice matrix. The displaced methane is then pumped to the surface and – in the DoE’s (and, undoubtedly, ConocoPhillips’) vision – down pipelines to heat homes in the Lower 48.
Plus, argue supporters, climate change projections indicate that rising temperatures may release much of that methane anyway. If the permafrost thaws or the ocean warms, vast tracts of icy clathrates could melt, outgassing methane – which has 20 times the warming potential of CO2 – into the atmosphere, further accelerating climate change. This is one of the most feared positive feedback loops known to climate scientists.
So wouldn’t it be nice if we could turn some of that methane into carbon dioxide ahead of time?
I don’t think so.
Burning fossil fuels – oil, coal, and natural gas – put us into our tenuous climatic position in the first place. Any CO2 we sequester during methane hydrate extraction will quickly be replaced through burning of the extracted methane. And the CO2 trap is only temporary: warmer polar temperatures will free it as surely as the presently trapped methane scientists are so concerned about.
Add to this the issue of scale. Given that commercialization of methane hydrate extraction is still a political pipe dream, we’re unlikely to process any significant portion of the 320 quadrillion cubic feet of methane scattered in hydrates around the country.
Now to don our economic hats. Increased supply and decreased costs only drive up demand. Say we can, as the DoE promises, double our natural gas supply and effect dramatic price cuts by using only 1% of domestically available methane hydrates. This quick fix of another carbon-based fuel will only delay our ultimate sustainability reckoning.
Methane hydrates, no matter how vast their supply seems, are just another nonrenewable resource. A boom in gas production will add years – maybe decades – to the difficult but necessary transition to renewable energy sources. And in the meantime, we’ll be doing plenty of damage to our environment both globally – through additional greenhouse gas emissions – and locally – by drilling in sensitive ecosystems.
In the last decade, we’ve fought plenty of environmental battles over how and where to drill for oil. We’ve seen the consequences – Deepwater Horizon and the Gulf of Mexico 2010 spill, for example – of pushing our technological limits towards harder and harder to reach deposits.
And now we want to grasp at something even more risky, at mineral formations that, when destabilized, cause explosions and landslides.
I’m afraid that the laws of economics – especially in a country that will invest $6.5 million this year alone (plus an additional $5 million, pending Congressional approval) on methane hydrate recover research – will once again favor Sarah Palin’s mantra, “Drill, baby, drill.” Because as surely as methane is trapped within its lattice of ice, we’ve trapped ourselves in a spiderweb of fossil fuel dependency. Unlike methane, however, it seems even climate change can’t force us out.
Editor's notes:
- Methane's global warming potential (GWP) is more than 130 times that of carbon dioxide over a period of ten years, as described in the post Methane in the Arctic.
- The Energy Department's announcement can be viewed at: http://energy.gov/articles/us-and-japan-complete-successful-field-trial-methane-hydrate-production-technologies
- Methane's global warming potential (GWP) is more than 130 times that of carbon dioxide over a period of ten years, as described in the post Methane in the Arctic.
- The Energy Department's announcement can be viewed at: http://energy.gov/articles/us-and-japan-complete-successful-field-trial-methane-hydrate-production-technologies
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Proposal to extract, store and sell Arctic methane
A Proposal for the Prevention of
Arctic Methane Induced Catastrophic
Global Climate Change by Extraction
of Methane from beneath the Permafrost/
Arctic Methane Hydrates and its Storage and
Sale as a Subsidized "Green Gas"
Energy Source
By Malcolm P.R. Light
PhD. UCL
May 27th, 2012
May 27th, 2012
DEDICATION
This proposal is dedicated to my Father and Mother, Ivan and Avril Light,
both meteorologists and farmers who knew about the vagaries of the weather;
and to all our grandchildren whose entire future depends on its successful outcome.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Methane hydrates (clathrates) exist on the Arctic submarine shelf and slope where they are stabilized by the low temperatures and they have a continuous cap of frozen permafrost which normally prevents methane escape (Figure 1 below).
Mean methane concentrations in the Arctic atmosphere showed a striking anomalous buildup between November 1-10, 2008 and November 1-10, 2011 (Figure 2 above)(Yurganov 2012 in Carana, 2012a).
The surface temperature hotspots in the Arctic caused by global warming correlate well with the anomalous buildups of atmospheric methane in the Arctic (Figure 3 right, in Arctic feedbacks in Carana, 2012a).
This indicates that there is a strong correlation between the dissociation of Arctic subsea methane hydrates from the effects of globally warmed seawater and the increasing size and rate of eruptions of methane into the Arctic atmosphere.
This indicates that there is a strong correlation between the dissociation of Arctic subsea methane hydrates from the effects of globally warmed seawater and the increasing size and rate of eruptions of methane into the Arctic atmosphere.
- Methane eruption zones (torches) occur widely in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) (Shakova et al., 2008; 2010), but the largest and most extreme are confined to the region outside the ESAS where the Gakkel "mid ocean" ridge system intersects at right angles the methane hydrate rich shelf slope region (Figure 9 above and Figure 17 right).
The wedge-like opening and spreading of the Gakkel Ridge is putting the formations and overlying methane hydrate sediments under torsional stress and in the process activating the major strike slip faults that fan away and thrust faults that radiate from this region (Figure 16 below).
Light and Solana (2002) predicted that the north slope of the Barents - Laptev - East Siberian seas at the intersection of the slowly opening Gakkel Ridge. This region would be especially vulnerable to slope failures where unstable methane hydrate would be affected by seismicity from earthquakes with magnitudes greater then 3.5 Richter and at depths of less than 30 km. Many earthquakes occur along the Gakkel Ridge often with magnitudes greater than 4 to 6 and at depths shallower than 10 km (Avetisov, 2008) continuously destabilizing the already unstable methane hydrates there (Figure 16 below).
- Major and minor strike slip and normal faults form a continuous subterranean network around the Gakkel Ridge and are clearly charged with overpressured methane because methane gas is escaping from these fault lines many hundreds of km up dip and away from the subsea methane hydrate zones through which these fault zones pass (Figures 9 above and Figure 18 right).
- One small methane eruption zone occurs directly over the centre of the Gakkel Ridge and probably represents thermogenic deep seated methane being released by the magmatic heating of adjacent oil/gas fields by rising (pyroclastic) magma (Figure 9 above)(Edwards et al. 2001). This surface gas eruption appears to only represent a tiny percentage of the total gas released from other sources such as methane hydrates, as do methane eruptions around Cenozoic volcanics offshore Tiksi on the East Siberian shelf (Figure 11 right and Figure 16 above).
- An elongated set of methane eruption zones occur on the submarine slope north of Svalbard flanking the Gakkel Ridge and result from methane hydrate decomposition caused by sudden changes in pressure and temperature conditions due to submarine slides/slumps (Figure 9 above). These submarine slides/slumps were evidently set off by seismic activity along the Gakkel Ridge which lies a short distance to the north in an area where the ridge opening is the widest (Figure 16 above). This may be similar to the Storegga slide (Light and Solana, 2002; NGI, 2012). Light and Solana (2002) predicted that the western slopes of Norway and along the Barents Sea to Svalbard, would be especially vulnerable to slope failures in regions of unstable methane hydrate. Here the slowly spreading Gakkel Ridge runs as close as 30 km to the slope. Earthquake activity along the Gakkel Ridge often has magnitudes greater than 4 to 6 at depths shallower than 10 km (Avetisov, 2008) and will also be destabilizing the already unstable methane hydrates here leading to eruptions of methane into the atmosphere (Figure 9 above and Figure 16 above).
 |
| Figure 5. From: Carana 2012b, originally from: arctische pinguin - click to enlarge |
After 2015, when the Arctic Ocean becomes navigable (Figure 5 above, Carana 2012b) it will be possible to set up a whole series of drilling platforms adjacent to, but at least 1 km away from the high volume methane eruption zones and to directionally drill inclined wells down to intersect the free methane below the sealing methane hydrate permafrost cap within the underlying fault network (Figure 18 above).
High volume methane extraction from below the subsea methane hydrates using directional drilling from platforms situated in the stable areas between the talik/fault zones will reverse the methane and seawater flow in the taliks and shut down the uncontrolled methane sea water eruptions (Figure18 above). The controlled access of globally warmed sea water drawn down through the taliks to the base of the methane hydrate - permafrost cap will gradually destabilize the underlying methane hydrate and allows complete extraction of all the gas from the methane hydrate reserve (Figure18 above). The methane extraction boreholes can be progressively opened at shallower and shallower levels as the subterranean methane hydrate decomposes allowing the complete extraction of the sub permafrost reserve (Figure18 above).
The methane and seawater will be produced to the surface where the separated methane will be processed in Floating Liquefied Natural Gas (FLNG) facilities and stored in LNG tankers for sale to customers as a subsidised green alternative to coal and oil for power generation, air and ground transport, for home heating and cooking and the manufacture of hydrogen, fertilizers, fabrics, glass, steel, plastics, paint and other products.
Where the trapped methane is sufficiently geopressured within the fault system network underlying the Arctic subsea permafrost and is partially dissolved in the water (Light, 1985; Tyler, Light and Ewing, 1984; Ewing, Light and Tyler, 1984) it may be possible to coproduce it with the seawater which would then be disposed of after the methane had be separated from it for storage (Jackson, Light and Ayers, 1987; Anderson et al., 1984; Randolph and Rogers, 1984; Chesney et al., 1982).
Many methane eruption zones occur along the narrow fault bound channels separating the complex island archipelago of Arctic Canada (Figure 6 and 9). In these regions drilling rigs could be located on shore or offshore and drill inclined wells to intersect the free methane zones at depth beneath the methane hydrates, while the atmospheric methane clouds could be partly eliminated by using a beamed interfering radio transmission system (Lucy Project) (Light 2011a). A similar set of onshore drilling rigs could tap subpermafrost methane along the east coast of Novaya Zemlya (Figure 6 below and 9 above).
Methane is a high energy fuel, with more energy than other comparable fossil fuels (Wales 2012). As a liquid natural gas it can be used for aircraft and road transport and rocket fuel and produces little pollution compared to coal, gasoline and other hydrocarbon fuels.
Support should be sought from the United nations, World Bank, national governments and other interested parties for a subsidy (such as a tax rebate) of some 5% to 15% of the market price on Arctic permafrost methane and its derivatives to make it the most attractive LNG for sale compared to LNG from other sources. This will guarantee that all the Arctic gas recovered from the Arctic methane hydrate reservoirs and stockpiled, will immediately be sold to consumers and converted into safer byproducts. This will also act as an incentive to oil companies to produce methane in large quantities from the Arctic methane hydrate reserves. In this way the Arctic methane hydrate reservoirs will be continuously reduced in a safe controlled way over the next 200 to 300 years supplying an abundant "Green LNG" energy source to humanity.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Video and poster - methane in the Arctic
Methane in the Arctic threatens to escalate into runaway global warming.
Methane is often said to have a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 21 times as strong as carbon dioxide, a figure based on IPCC assessment reports that date back to the 1990s. However, the IPCC has updated methane's GWP several times since, as illustrated in Table 1. below.
In its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007), the IPCC gives methane a GWP of 25 as much as carbon dioxide over 100 years and 72 as much as carbon dioxide over 20 years.
Furthermore, a 2009 study, by Drew Shindell et al., points out that the IPCC figures do not include direct+indirect radiative effects of aerosol responses to methane releases that increase methane's GWP to 105 over 20 years when included
Moreover, in the context of tipping points, which seems appropriate regarding methane releases in the Arctic, it makes sense to focus on a short time horizon, possibly as short as a few years.
Accordingly, methane's GWP can best be visualized as in the image below, which is also displayed mid-right on the poster above.
The image on the left shows methane's global warming potential (GWP) for different time horizons, pointing out that methane's GWP is more than 130 times that of carbon dioxide over a period of ten years.
IPCC1 figures were used to create the blue line. The red line is based on figures in a study by Shindell et al.2, which are higher as they include more effects. This study concludes that methane's GWP would likely be further increased by including ecosystem responses.
The ecosystem response can be particularly strong in the Arctic, where the seabed contains huge amounts of methane. Continued warming in the Arctic can cause large abrupt methane releases which in turn can trigger further methane releases from sediments under the sea.
This is particularly worrying, not only because of the presence of huge amounts of methane, but also because the sea is quite shallow in areas such as the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS), which in the case of large abrupt releases can soon lead to oxygen depletion in the water and make that much of the methane will enter the atmosphere without being oxidized in the water.
Additionally, low water temperatures and long sea currents in the Arctic Ocean are not very friendly toward bacteria that might otherwise break down methane in the water.
For further background, also see the post The potential impact of large abrupt release of methane in the Arctic at the Arctic Methane blog3, and the FAQ page at that blog.
References:
1. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, Table 2.14 (2007)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html
2. D.T. Shindell et al., "Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions". Science vol 326: pp. 716-718 (2009)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.abstract
3. Sam Carana, The potential impact of large abrupt release of methane in the Arctic (2012)
http://arcticmethane.blogspot.com/2012/05/potential-impact-of-large-abrupt.html
The poster shown in the video is added below.
Click on the poster to view a higher-resolution version, for printing out and hanging it on the wall.
Methane in the Arctic
Methane is often said to have a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 21 times as strong as carbon dioxide, a figure based on IPCC assessment reports that date back to the 1990s. However, the IPCC has updated methane's GWP several times since, as illustrated in Table 1. below.
In its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007), the IPCC gives methane a GWP of 25 as much as carbon dioxide over 100 years and 72 as much as carbon dioxide over 20 years.
Furthermore, a 2009 study, by Drew Shindell et al., points out that the IPCC figures do not include direct+indirect radiative effects of aerosol responses to methane releases that increase methane's GWP to 105 over 20 years when included
Moreover, in the context of tipping points, which seems appropriate regarding methane releases in the Arctic, it makes sense to focus on a short time horizon, possibly as short as a few years.
Accordingly, methane's GWP can best be visualized as in the image below, which is also displayed mid-right on the poster above.
IPCC1 figures were used to create the blue line. The red line is based on figures in a study by Shindell et al.2, which are higher as they include more effects. This study concludes that methane's GWP would likely be further increased by including ecosystem responses.
The ecosystem response can be particularly strong in the Arctic, where the seabed contains huge amounts of methane. Continued warming in the Arctic can cause large abrupt methane releases which in turn can trigger further methane releases from sediments under the sea.
This is particularly worrying, not only because of the presence of huge amounts of methane, but also because the sea is quite shallow in areas such as the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS), which in the case of large abrupt releases can soon lead to oxygen depletion in the water and make that much of the methane will enter the atmosphere without being oxidized in the water.
Additionally, low water temperatures and long sea currents in the Arctic Ocean are not very friendly toward bacteria that might otherwise break down methane in the water.
For further background, also see the post The potential impact of large abrupt release of methane in the Arctic at the Arctic Methane blog3, and the FAQ page at that blog.
References:
1. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, Table 2.14 (2007)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html
2. D.T. Shindell et al., "Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions". Science vol 326: pp. 716-718 (2009)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.abstract
3. Sam Carana, The potential impact of large abrupt release of methane in the Arctic (2012)
http://arcticmethane.blogspot.com/2012/05/potential-impact-of-large-abrupt.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)