While slightly out of audio sync, this 8 min video covers the technologies of coal gas boom in SE Queensland, Australia.
- Start Here
- Peak Oil
- Debt Crisis
- My Work
- The Blog
John Curtis, Professor of Geochemistry and Director of the Potential Gas Agency at the Colorado School of Mines, looks at the US shale gas industry from a holistic level right down to the molecular level. He covers the different formations found throughout the States with the size of the potential resources in the ground. He then talks about the differences in make up of the shales which affect how easily this can be extracted with the relatively new hydraulic fracturing techniques. A key point of his talk is that the different shale formations cannot be treated the same and production is not uniform, even within the same formation. A lot of the molecular science is still unknown but early research has shown that studying the carbon isotopes (carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) can be an indicator of how productive a gas well might be. A good talk to watch this as there are many things he covers along the way which help fill in the gaps of how the shale gas industry works and what the potential of it is in the future.
I watched the documentary Gasland which was put together by Josh Fox a month or so ago and really enjoyed it. Well maybe enjoy isn’t the right word. Since then my information journey into oil has spilled into the very similar world of natural gas (the csis.org talks on the subject in particular) so I feel I can comment on the film.
In this last decade production from unconventional gas has grown from almost nothing in 2002 to around 25% of North American gas production in 2011 (with shale gas and coal bed methane accounting for around 10% each). It is a boom of epic proportions that has it’s roots in a 1980′s tax break for unconventional gas production. Since the ’80′s experimentation has taken place in the Barnett Shale region (Texas) of methods to unlock the “tight” gas through various techniques. Through a lot of trial and error a breakthrough was made in 1998 where the right mix of water, chemicals and sand was pumped down a well bore under extremely high pressure in a process called hydraulic fracturing, fracking (or fraccing) for short. It basically untightens the gas by generating lots of mini earthquakes that create cracks in the rock which are propped open by the sand allowing the gas to flow (increasing permeability).
The basic premise of Gasland is that this method of gas production is harmful to the environment and to human health. Josh’s main concern is that natural gas is now being found in water aquifers used for drinking water purposes and once they are contaminated there is no going back. Water from then on will have to be treated and being an ex water industry employee I can testify that that will be very expensive. This is demonstrated with alarming precision with the numerous kitchen taps that are lit on fire. He also raises questions about the chemicals used in the fracking fluids which the companies can keep secret as they are propriety knowledge needed for competitive advantage as well as the impacts on air quality to local residents health. All throughout the film Josh questions why there is not sufficient regulation in place to prevent this.
Unsurprisingly there has been some criticism directed towards this documentary for not being “accurate”. Most notably comments about how methane can be naturally occurring in groundwater, something which is not mentioned throughout the documentary despite Josh apparently knowing this. The extent of the importance on this point I cannot comment. But for me the main point of the film is how can a process so new, with so many questions surrounding it be allowed to carry on without the gas industry proving that it is indeed safe before they proceed with one of the greatest gas booms in history?
This is an extremely legitimate question and one in which the US Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu asked forming the SEAB subcommitee to look into it. These questions still stand, most notably:
- the degree at which best practice fracking operations are conducted.
- the amount of monitoring conducted establishing a baseline and showing the post-frac effects.
- the quality of well casings installed, assumed to be the main cause of leakage into aquifers.
- the ability of fracking to generate small surface earthquakes.
For me one of the main questions is the amount of fugitive gas (mainly methane) emissions that are released over the lifetime of the well. One of the main reasons there has been a rush to gas is that is seen as a cleaner, more climate change friendly fuel. The perfect fuel to help the transition to a zero carbon energy system. But it would only take a small percentage of leakage for the overall effect of shale gas to be just as bad as coal. And for those who know that the immediate warming effects of methane are much higher than CO2 (72 time over a 20 year period, 25 times over 100 years) we can legitimately ask what is the point, especially when it further deflects spending on renewable energy sources.
So I can only hope that the rest of the world is in not such a hurry as the US is rushing into shale gas without first answering the many questions that Gasland helps to raise. Europe, particularly France, does not seem keen on it. But without China and India proceeding with similar caution the climate change game could well be over.
Here is what I believe to be a shortened version (46 mins) of the full hour and a half Gasland film. Please see the full length film through legitimate means or at least donate via www.gaslandthemovie.com (which is a little hypocritical of me, but sorry Josh I’m keeping my limited funds for my own war chest). Should 46 mins be too long for you, you can get the cliff notes from the 7 min clip at the bottom.
Dylan Ratigan Show clip
Geophysics Professor Mark Zoback explores the potential of unconventional natural gas (shale gas, coal bed methane and tight gas) sources replacing coal as a step in transitioning the US economy towards zero carbon. He briefly describes the three different varieties and how they are produced. During his description of coal bed methane he talks about how the methane found in coal seams is actually adsorbed on to the surface of the coal and in order to extract it, the methane needs to be desorbed off the coal by reducing the pressure. But another way is to actually pump CO2 down into the coal seam and as the carbon dioxide likes to adsorb to the coal surface more than the methane it can actually replace it. So the concept is pump down CO2 into coal bed methane wells and boost methane production. Just like EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) in oil reservoirs it could be a huge win-win scenario. The concept may also apply to shales as well.
Unconventional gas production as well as this type of Carbon sequestration is still in the very early days of study, but the potential could be very promising.
Update (Oct 2012) – found the link was dead and here is what I hope is the same or a very similar talk.
I would of liked to be able to post the 2011 version of this up but every version of CSIS.org recording of the event (youtube, www.csis.org, itunes) seems to end after 7 mins. Still the 2010 version is quite similar and should give you a decent summary of the shorter term issues and what is in the pipeline for oil and gas at the moment.
Check out the csis.org page on the event for the slides that accompany the presentations.
February 14, 2011 – Bob Skinner, Advisor to Statoil in Canada, discusses the challenges facing the ever growing industry focused on extracting the vast oil sand resources of Canada touching on interwoven difficulties in economic, social and environmental terms. This talk made me appreciate the variability and reality of just how hard it is to develop these oil sands resources.