House Republicans call on Trump to promote fossil fuel exports to curb climate change

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

This article is a schizophrenic scattershot of some bizarre ideas. 

I agree it is probably a good idea for the U.S. to increase LNG exports. 

But where the heck are the Right Wingers in the House of Representatives getting off on claiming Russia and China's natural gas is dirtier than U.S. LNG and Natural Gas? 

Methane is Methane.  Natural Gas is CH4 - Methane.  LNG is purified, super-chilled, condensed CH4 - Methane.

And no, increasing coal exports is a bad idea.  I don't think coal is good to burn for generating electricity.  These geniuses are apparently claiming that U.S. coal is less polluting than Russian or Chinese coal.    < eye roll >

And all of this Republican mess of ideas is to reduce "Global Warming" buzzwords?     < < bigger eye roll > >

The claim that the U.S. produces natural gas and coal in a cleaner manner than Russia and China produce their natural gas and coal is misleading ... a drop in the bucket in the global hydrocarbon energy picture.

Most politicians really are pandering nuts.  Yes, both Democrats and Republicans.

 

House Republicans call on Trump to promote fossil fuel exports to curb climate change

House Republicans led by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy are pushing the White House to promote U.S. fossil fuel exports as a way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.

     [ This ^ makes my head hurt ... ]

McCarthy and the GOP leaders of energy and climate-related committees are preparing to send a letter to White House officials urging them to "ensure that U.S. low carbon technologies and natural resources play a significant role" in replacing dirtier alternatives "peddled by foreign adversaries such as China and Russia."

“Such a strategic approach would bolster our economy and strengthen global energy security, all while reducing global emissions," reads the letter, obtained exclusively by the Washington Examiner.

The Trump administration has long encouraged exports of U.S. coal and gas as a way to confront foreign adversaries such as Russia and China and lift the economic fortunes of domestic fossil fuel producers. But President Trump, a skeptic of climate change, does not speak about the opportunity of using U.S. energy resources to reduce emissions.  ...

 

House Republicans say the United States should look to take advantage of projections showing continued global demand for fossil fuels by exporting more American oil and gas, which is generally produced more cleanly in the U.S. than in competitor nations.

“If not for American natural gas and other efficient fuel sources, China or Russia would be setting the standard for the world,” Walden told the Washington Examiner.

Republicans argue that exporting U.S. liquefied natural gas via tanker vessels to Europe and China can provide a cleaner alternative to Russian gas supplied by pipeline, which has historically been a cheaper option. Moscow is poised to increase its export capability by completing the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline with Germany, a project the Trump administration, working with Congress, has sought unsuccessfully to stop.

“We already know that Germany is willing to damage Europe’s energy security with Nord Stream 2,” Graves told the Washington Examiner. “Most people don’t appreciate that their embrace of dirty Putin gas also undermines global efforts to reduce emissions.”

House Republicans also encourage more coal exports in their letter, claiming that coal is produced with fewer emissions in the U.S. than in China or Russia.  ...

 

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

House Republicans say the United States should look to take advantage of projections showing continued global demand for fossil fuels by exporting more American oil and gas, which is generally produced more cleanly in the U.S. than in competitor nations.
 

In fact it's rather the opposite. Shale gas is considered to be dirtier than conventional gas due to a higher rate of leakage.

 

Estimates on methane leakage from non-fracked, conventional gas wells and gas plants range from .4 per cent to two per cent.

But new studies on heavily fracked natural gas fields indicate leakage rates from wells can range anywhere from four to nine per cent of total methane or natural gas production. That’s nearly double or triple of previous estimates of leakage.

A 2013 study in Nature, one of the world’s leading scientific journals, found that well–fractured gas fields in Colorado and Utah were leaking nine per cent of their methane into the air.

According to many scientists any leakage above two per cent in upstream natural gas production makes the blue flame a dirty source of energy as problematic as coal or bitumen.

One 2011 Australian study found that any climate gains made in converting coal-fired power stations to natural gas were simply lost by conventional methane leakage rates of 10 percent from wells and pipelines.

It is now estimated that methane emissions from shale gas are nearly 30 times more than those of conventional gas over the lifetime of a well.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/10/How-Clean-Is-Shale-Gas/

 

And US oil is also dirtier than Russian or Middle eastern oil due to the current high level of venting in US fields,

 

In the Permian Basin underlying Texas and New Mexico, the largest U.S. shale basin, flaring and venting totaled about 293.2 billion cubic feet last year, according to state regulatory data compiled by independent energy researcher Rystad – up about 7% from 2018. In North Dakota’s huge Bakken oil field, meanwhile, the volume was just over 200 Bcf, up 36% from 2018, Rystad said.

Combined, that would put volumes of flared and vented gas from America's two biggest oil fields at 493.2 Bcf, more than 5% above the national 2018 total of 468.3 Bcf reported here by the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA).

That volume of gas, if released directly to the atmosphere, would have the climate impact of about seven coal-fired power plants, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-flaring/u-s-oil-fields-flared-and-vented-more-natural-gas-again-in-2019-data-idUSKBN1ZX1L5

 

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Guillaume Albasini

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

 

”Estimates on methane leakage from non-fracked, conventional gas wells and gas plants range from .4 per cent to two per cent.“

This makes absolutely no sense at all! Please explain how a non-fracked conventional gas well ‘leaks’ more or less than a fracked gas well! Please define the term ‘leakage’. If you are referring to flaring, state that! ‘Leakage’ is an odd term when used in relation to gas wells.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

13 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

 

”Estimates on methane leakage from non-fracked, conventional gas wells and gas plants range from .4 per cent to two per cent.“

This makes absolutely no sense at all! Please explain how a non-fracked conventional gas well ‘leaks’ more or less than a fracked gas well! Please define the term ‘leakage’. If you are referring to flaring, state that! ‘Leakage’ is an odd term when used in relation to gas wells.

 

Not so odd. it is widely used in scientific publications...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875510018301690

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264939190_Leakage_Detection_of_Marcellus_Shale_Natural_Gas_at_an_Upper_Devonian_Gas_Monitoring_Well_A_3-D_Numerical_Modeling_Approach

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-014-3787-3

 

Definition of leakage : methane escaping from oil and gas wells and heads straight to the atmosphere where it is a potent greenhouse gas.

Venting could be defined as a voluntary leakage.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

 

”Definition of leakage : methane escaping from oil and gas wells and heads straight to the atmosphere where it is a potent greenhouse gas.”

 

Fair enough...now explain to me or define the pathway whereby methane ‘escapes’ from an oil or gas well “straight into the atmosphere”. You can ignore venting as you defined that as voluntary. What I would like to know is how, in either a fracked or unfracked well, natural gas/methane ‘leaks’ from it’s origin in the reservoir to the atmosphere at surface?

 

All of the links you presented concern migration of gas from one formation into another...subsurface. They say nothing about gas migrating from the reservoir to the surface.

 

I am making the assumption that you are aware of Boyle’s Law and understand the mechanism of a blowout.

[surrept33 + 609]

I thought it was mainly a problem with leaks in at surface infrastructure, not gas escaping from deep subsurface:

e.g, "superemitter" sites: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/12/climate/texas-methane-super-emitters.html

Except for blowouts like: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/climate/methane-leak-satellite.html

also unlit flaring: https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Unlit-Gas-Flares-Cause-Worst-Methane-Leaks.html

 

the launch of methaneSAT should help detect these types of cases in the future (along with gas hydrate burps from the ocean):

https://www.ghgsat.com/methanesat/

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by surrept33

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Then why would you have more leakage from a fracked well, as opposed to an unfracked well, if the issue is surface facilities, which should be roughly identical (and easy to fix)?

The original presumption that ‘shale gas’ is somehow ‘dirtier’ than other forms of natural gas, if you discount flaring and only consider ‘leakage’ is preposterous. 

[surrept33 + 609]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Then why would you have more leakage from a fracked well, as opposed to an unfracked well, if the issue is surface facilities, which should be roughly identical (and easy to fix)?

The original presumption that ‘shale gas’ is somehow ‘dirtier’ than other forms of natural gas, if you discount flaring and only consider ‘leakage’ is preposterous. 

 

I agree, I can't think of anything physical that would make one or the other inherently "dirtier" in terms of methane emissions.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 minute ago, surrept33 said:

 

I agree, I can't think of anything physical that would make one or the other inherently "dirtier" in terms of methane emissions.

It is a case of someone reading a few articles, not understanding what they are reading, and then forcing the articles to fit their agenda.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Can you honestly think of anyone who would willingly work around a facility leaking methane and NOT fix any leaks?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Then why would you have more leakage from a fracked well, as opposed to an unfracked well, if the issue is surface facilities, which should be roughly identical (and easy to fix)?

The original presumption that ‘shale gas’ is somehow ‘dirtier’ than other forms of natural gas, if you discount flaring and only consider ‘leakage’ is preposterous. 

Apparently, Canadian gas wells are the problem (that's sarcasm, but apparently this scaremongering article isn't)

Climate Change Nightmare: Canada Has a Gas Leak Problem

... Shale gas, principally methane, is exploited through the combined techniques of horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Shale gas fracking has increased as conventional gas reserves have declined after decades of exploitation. Northeastern B.C.’s shale gas reserves are estimated to hold 10,000 billion cubic metres of methane, enough to supply worldwide consumption for almost three years.

All modern oil and gas wells are constructed in a wellbore, which typically traverses many geologic layers containing brines and hydrocarbons. Fracking involves the deep underground high-pressure injection of large volumes of water, sand and chemicals into the wellbore, to fracture the rock and release the natural gas, petroleum and brines. Pipes and sealants (usually cement) placed in the wellbore protect it against collapse and squeezing, and prevent fluids from moving between geologic layers.

 

Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure, fracturing the rock and allowing the gas to flow out of the well.

But these structures are not always fail-safe. Deficiencies in the design or construction of the wellbore, or weakening of the pipe or sealant over time, can connect layers that would naturally remain geologically isolated. In a deficient well, the buoyancy of the underground gas causes the fluids to be pushed towards the surface through these connections.

Wellbore leakage can occur along actively producing wells or wells that have been permanently abandoned after their productive life is over.

The possibility of leakage from these wells has raised environmental concerns, especially since leaky wells are likely under-reported. In addition to the release of greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming and climate change, these leaking wells could contaminate groundwater and surface water with hydrocarbons, chemicals contained in fracking fluids and brines.  ...

 

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

If you consider a single well the difference is probably minimal between shale and conventional gas. But for extracting the same amount of gas you have to drill many more wells in a shale field than in a conventional field and the more you drill, the more ways you create for underground gas to leak to the atmosphere.

The study quoted by Tom found that 10% of the active and abandoned wells in the four main shale gas formations of northeastern British Columbia: are leaking. Given the high number of abandoned wells in the shale basins it's not easy to monitor them all.

And the more you drill, the more you risk to have an accident.

In February 2018, an accident at a gas well in Ohio, near the West Virginia border, didn’t make as much national news as it should have. An explosion at the well caused a blowout, with billowing black smoke and gushing natural gas spewing into the air. It didn’t generate as much interest as the three-and-a-half-month-long leak from a California underground gas storage facility in 2015, but a new study published this week shows it was almost as bad. [...] The researchers point out that this Ohio well released more methane in 20 days than the oil and gas activities in most nations around Europe do in an entire year

The Ohio incident highlights an important fact about methane leakage from the oil and gas industry: it is dominated by a small number of malfunctioning sites often termed “superemitters.” That has made it challenging to accurately calculate the total leakage from the industry. (And to compare the climate impact of natural gas vs. coal power plants.)

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/12/ohio-gas-well-accident-last-year-released-surprising-amount-of-methane/

 

 

 

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Apparently, Canadian gas wells are the problem (that's sarcasm, but apparently this scaremongering article isn't)

Climate Change Nightmare: Canada Has a Gas Leak Problem

... Shale gas, principally methane, is exploited through the combined techniques of horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Shale gas fracking has increased as conventional gas reserves have declined after decades of exploitation. Northeastern B.C.’s shale gas reserves are estimated to hold 10,000 billion cubic metres of methane, enough to supply worldwide consumption for almost three years.

All modern oil and gas wells are constructed in a wellbore, which typically traverses many geologic layers containing brines and hydrocarbons. Fracking involves the deep underground high-pressure injection of large volumes of water, sand and chemicals into the wellbore, to fracture the rock and release the natural gas, petroleum and brines. Pipes and sealants (usually cement) placed in the wellbore protect it against collapse and squeezing, and prevent fluids from moving between geologic layers.

 

Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure, fracturing the rock and allowing the gas to flow out of the well.

But these structures are not always fail-safe. Deficiencies in the design or construction of the wellbore, or weakening of the pipe or sealant over time, can connect layers that would naturally remain geologically isolated. In a deficient well, the buoyancy of the underground gas causes the fluids to be pushed towards the surface through these connections.

Wellbore leakage can occur along actively producing wells or wells that have been permanently abandoned after their productive life is over.

The possibility of leakage from these wells has raised environmental concerns, especially since leaky wells are likely under-reported. In addition to the release of greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming and climate change, these leaking wells could contaminate groundwater and surface water with hydrocarbons, chemicals contained in fracking fluids and brines.  ...

 

There are so many factual error in this article that I refuse to waste my time correcting them....

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

14 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

 

Not so odd. it is widely used in scientific publications...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875510018301690

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264939190_Leakage_Detection_of_Marcellus_Shale_Natural_Gas_at_an_Upper_Devonian_Gas_Monitoring_Well_A_3-D_Numerical_Modeling_Approach

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-014-3787-3

 

Definition of leakage : methane escaping from oil and gas wells and heads straight to the atmosphere where it is a potent greenhouse gas.

Venting could be defined as a voluntary leakage.

All three of the articles linked referred to hypothetical leakage. 

The research gate article used a model, and even then it took over 9 years to detect a "leak". Furthermore leakage was not defined as methane escaping to the atmosphere but as @Douglas Buckland pointed out, methane leaving it's "natural" confines underground. All very theoretical. I'm guessing it's in response to the HORSESHT that fracking was causing water wells to produce natural gas. 

Meanwhile, it would be exceedingly dangerous to have mass quantities of natural gas just "venting" into the atmosphere. That's a bomb waiting to go off, and even the worst operators can afford to install detection devices that measure into the parts per billion. There is just no freaking way anyone in the business is letting raw methane just "leak". That's their product and letting it leak would be like a wheat farmer opening the gate of their trucks while they're driving to the grain silos. Utter nonsense

[surrept33 + 609]

The IEA's estimates of methane emissions in the fossil fuel industry by source and type:

https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker/country-and-regional-estimates#abstract

as a function of overall methane emissions:

https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker#methane-and-climate-change

 

There have been some recent studies that have tried to establish a casual link between increased exploitation of shale gas and increased methane emissions, but it still seems very murky to me at best (and contradicts studies done in the 2015-2016 timeframe):

https://www.resourcesmag.org/common-resources/measuring-methane-assessing-new-study-methane-emissions-shale-gas-development/

Edited March 5, 2020 by surrept33

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

18 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

The IEA's estimates of methane emissions in the fossil fuel industry by source and type:

https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker/country-and-regional-estimates#abstract

as a function of overall methane emissions:

https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker#methane-and-climate-change

 

There have been some recent studies that have tried to establish a casual link between increased exploitation of shale gas and increased methane emissions, but it still seems very murky to me at best (and contradicts studies done in the 2015-2016 timeframe):

https://www.resourcesmag.org/common-resources/measuring-methane-assessing-new-study-methane-emissions-shale-gas-development/

Gotta love scientific wild-assed guesses. 

At the end of the day, they're still nothing but wild-assed guesses

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 3/4/2020 at 3:08 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

This article is a schizophrenic scattershot of some bizarre ideas. 

I agree it is probably a good idea for the U.S. to increase LNG exports. 

But where the heck are the Right Wingers in the House of Representatives getting off on claiming Russia and China's natural gas is dirtier than U.S. LNG and Natural Gas? 

Methane is Methane.  Natural Gas is CH4 - Methane.  LNG is purified, super-chilled, condensed CH4 - Methane.

And no, increasing coal exports is a bad idea.  I don't think coal is good to burn for generating electricity.  These geniuses are apparently claiming that U.S. coal is less polluting than Russian or Chinese coal.    < eye roll >

And all of this Republican mess of ideas is to reduce "Global Warming" buzzwords?     < < bigger eye roll > >

The claim that the U.S. produces natural gas and coal in a cleaner manner than Russia and China produce their natural gas and coal is misleading ... a drop in the bucket in the global hydrocarbon energy picture.

Most politicians really are pandering nuts.  Yes, both Democrats and Republicans.

 

House Republicans call on Trump to promote fossil fuel exports to curb climate change

House Republicans led by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy are pushing the White House to promote U.S. fossil fuel exports as a way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.

     [ This ^ makes my head hurt ... ]

McCarthy and the GOP leaders of energy and climate-related committees are preparing to send a letter to White House officials urging them to "ensure that U.S. low carbon technologies and natural resources play a significant role" in replacing dirtier alternatives "peddled by foreign adversaries such as China and Russia."

“Such a strategic approach would bolster our economy and strengthen global energy security, all while reducing global emissions," reads the letter, obtained exclusively by the Washington Examiner.

The Trump administration has long encouraged exports of U.S. coal and gas as a way to confront foreign adversaries such as Russia and China and lift the economic fortunes of domestic fossil fuel producers. But President Trump, a skeptic of climate change, does not speak about the opportunity of using U.S. energy resources to reduce emissions.  ...

 

House Republicans say the United States should look to take advantage of projections showing continued global demand for fossil fuels by exporting more American oil and gas, which is generally produced more cleanly in the U.S. than in competitor nations.

“If not for American natural gas and other efficient fuel sources, China or Russia would be setting the standard for the world,” Walden told the Washington Examiner.

Republicans argue that exporting U.S. liquefied natural gas via tanker vessels to Europe and China can provide a cleaner alternative to Russian gas supplied by pipeline, which has historically been a cheaper option. Moscow is poised to increase its export capability by completing the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline with Germany, a project the Trump administration, working with Congress, has sought unsuccessfully to stop.

“We already know that Germany is willing to damage Europe’s energy security with Nord Stream 2,” Graves told the Washington Examiner. “Most people don’t appreciate that their embrace of dirty Putin gas also undermines global efforts to reduce emissions.”

House Republicans also encourage more coal exports in their letter, claiming that coal is produced with fewer emissions in the U.S. than in China or Russia.  ...

 

It sounds like they are getting all their information from their supporters in the Oil, gas, and coal industries. I am all with the LNG exporters, and my main problem is with coal. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

It sounds like they are getting all their information from their supporters in the Oil, gas, and coal industries. I am all with the LNG exporters, and my main problem is with coal. 

My problem is with politicians kowtowing to the environmental lobby while there is absolutely no DEFINITIVE proof that human activity is responsible for all of the PERCEIVED environmental ills.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

25 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

My problem is with politicians kowtowing to the environmental lobby while there is absolutely no DEFINITIVE proof that human activity is responsible for all of the PERCEIVED environmental ills.

 

Alarmism seems to be the stock in trade for all left wingers. 

[dgowin + 43]

Personally myself we should preserve our carbon and hydrocarbon resources. We have no good substitutes for plastics, petrochemicals and drugs that coal, coal byproducts, oil & gas allow us to make. Carbon and hydrocarbons should be treated as precious commodities like platinum, palladium, iridium and silver. A precious resource that should be conserved. Right now we have shale drillers spending the retirement savings of the U.S. in a vain attempt to stay in business.

[Tom S. + 3]

There are two technologies currently available to burn fossil fuel "clean".   Both are more than 2 times more energy efficient than current steam turbines and allow for cost efficient carbon sequestration. These are the Allam Power Cycle and carbon fuel cells.  The Allam Power cycle has been tested at a 30 MW facility in LaPorte, TX and a 300 MW unit is being built for completion in 2022.   There are commercial carbon fuel cells but these are for special application only.   

[dgowin + 43]

1 hour ago, Tom S. said:

There are two technologies currently available to burn fossil fuel "clean".   Both are more than 2 times more energy efficient than current steam turbines and allow for cost efficient carbon sequestration. These are the Allam Power Cycle and carbon fuel cells.  The Allam Power cycle has been tested at a 30 MW facility in LaPorte, TX and a 300 MW unit is being built for completion in 2022.   There are commercial carbon fuel cells but these are for special application only.   

Awesome technology. But I would rather convert the CO2 into syngas (CO +h2) and then use that as feed stock for other petrochemical processes. Or use the methane, ethane or other gasses for plastics feedstock. Converting CO2 into methanol or other feedstocks might be better than sequestration. Sequestered CO2 might become a valuable feedstock in the future. Save it for the future. Of course what would enhanced oil field recovery be without CO2.

[dgowin + 43]

On 2/21/2020 at 2:37 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

An upbeat success story about Natural Gas.

For some reason, the media complains lately that Natural Gas is a reliable, cheap and abundant competitor to wind and solar - which are unreliable, expensive, and require backup systems for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

Seems to me that Natural Gas being reliable, cheap and abundant is a GOOD thing, not something to complain about.

Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power

... Meanwhile, the United States continues to reduce its carbon emissions into the atmosphere at a faster pace than virtually every other country in the world. This is because natural gas is not just cheap. It is one of the cleanest ways to produce scalable and dependable electric power for a nation of 320 million people. We don't need brownouts in America as we saw in California, and natural gas is an excellent way to make sure the lights don't go out.

It would be hard to find anything NOT to like about this great American success story: energy independence, reliable and inexhaustible supply, low prices, reduced power of the Middle East, Russia, and other OPEC nations, and cleaner air than at any time in at least a century.

Yet liberal environmentalists are grousing about this good news. A recent Bloomberg news story exclaims in its headline: "Cheap Gas Imperils Climate Fight by Undercutting Wind and Solar Power."

"Gas is such a bargain that it's being viewed less as a bridge fossil fuel driving the world away from dirtier coal toward a clean-energy future," the story tells us, "and more as a hurdle that could slow the trip down. Some forecasters are predicting prices will stay low for years, making it tough for states, cities, and utilities to achieve their goals of being zero-carbon in power production by 2050 or earlier." Ravina Advani, head of renewable energy at BNP Paribus, complained: "The fact that there's an abundance of it makes the move to complete decarbonization much harder … Gas is a tough competitor. It's reliable, and it's cheap."

And that is bad news, why, exactly? It's like saying a cure for the coronavirus is bad for hospitals and doctors.

Maybe it is high time we admit we have found for now the great energy source of the next few decades and celebrate that America is endowed with a vital resource that is abundant and affordable — just like our best-in-the-world farmland. The Left talks about eradicating "poverty," but "energy poverty" is a primary source of deprivation around the world. Now, there is an obvious solution: Natural gas could easily be the primary source of power production for the world as a whole, slashing costs for the poor everywhere on the planet from sub-Saharan Africa to Bangladesh. Instead, politicians and government bureaucrats around the world are trying to force-feed the world expensive, unreliable, and unscalable wind and solar power. The African Development Bank, for example, is only financing "green energy" projects, not coal or natural gas. It is substituting a cheap form of clean energy for a costly "green" alternative. Why?  ...

 

... It's time to get smart about energy and climate change and throw asunder taxpayer subsidies doled out to all forms of energy production. Let the market, not politicians and environmental groups, choose the safest and most reliable and affordable energy source. Everyone is making a big bet on battery-operated cars and trucks. But who is to say that trucks and buses fueled with natural gas won't be the wave of the future? No one knows what makes the most sense and where the future will lead us. Nuclear power has great promise. But for now, the markets are shouting out for natural gas on a grander scale.

Fifteen years ago, no one would have thought we would have a superabundance of this wonder-fuel today. But we do. No one is more surprised than politicians. Why do we let them keep betting the farm on the wrong horse?

 

On 2/25/2020 at 5:11 PM, WHY said:

Hahahaha right back at you. Black and white thinking as always from the extremists. What you are seeing is a re-balancing to a new equilibrium. That is at least clear from all the endless discussion on this website. I admire beyond measure most of what is written here since you'all really take the time to research your facts (and correct me when I am wrong).

What the new re-balanced world we are moving into looks like is anyone's guesstimate but I assure you it is not the "end" of anything. It is good to see innovation happening. It is equally good to see that we care about the billions who live without our developed world and want them to have their energy needs met to improve their quality of life. We take so much for granted. Even our ability to comment on this changing world is made possible by the fact that industrial development has showered this largesse upon us and we are so ungrateful to the engineers, scientists, operators, entrepreneurs, healthcare workers, financial systems & banks etc etc etc for bringing about the miracle of our complex society. Personally, I try to remember to thank them every time I boil the kettle, take a shower or get in my car.

So have a care when you laugh at those who have allowed you the existence you feel so entitled to denigrate.

 

 

On 2/26/2020 at 11:06 AM, surrept33 said:

 

Keep in mind that hydrogen itself has very hard materials science issues to be overcome, especially hydrogen embrittlement.

Not that that issue won't eventually be overcome, but it's been the subject of gobs of research, but is still a limiting factor in it's (current) commercialization potential.

There are three metallic alloy families and two plastics families that are impervious to hydrogen embrittlement. Sorry you can't use those old GE or Howden Reciprocating compressors. The hydrogen molecule is so small you can't use those compressors designs from the 18th Century. Gotta try something new.

[dgowin + 43]

I know 150 years of tradition unimpeded by progress. Hydrogen will destroy these at the atomic level. Valves, pistons, etc. And even if you built it out of materials that are impervious to the embrittlement you will still have leaking valves and sub par compression ratios. You need a new design.

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by dgowin

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 3/4/2020 at 7:51 PM, Guillaume Albasini said:

In fact it's rather the opposite. Shale gas is considered to be dirtier than conventional gas due to a higher rate of leakage.

 

Estimates on methane leakage from non-fracked, conventional gas wells and gas plants range from .4 per cent to two per cent.

But new studies on heavily fracked natural gas fields indicate leakage rates from wells can range anywhere from four to nine per cent of total methane or natural gas production. That’s nearly double or triple of previous estimates of leakage.

A 2013 study in Nature, one of the world’s leading scientific journals, found that well–fractured gas fields in Colorado and Utah were leaking nine per cent of their methane into the air.

According to many scientists any leakage above two per cent in upstream natural gas production makes the blue flame a dirty source of energy as problematic as coal or bitumen.

One 2011 Australian study found that any climate gains made in converting coal-fired power stations to natural gas were simply lost by conventional methane leakage rates of 10 percent from wells and pipelines.

It is now estimated that methane emissions from shale gas are nearly 30 times more than those of conventional gas over the lifetime of a well.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/10/How-Clean-Is-Shale-Gas/

 

And US oil is also dirtier than Russian or Middle eastern oil due to the current high level of venting in US fields,

 

In the Permian Basin underlying Texas and New Mexico, the largest U.S. shale basin, flaring and venting totaled about 293.2 billion cubic feet last year, according to state regulatory data compiled by independent energy researcher Rystad – up about 7% from 2018. In North Dakota’s huge Bakken oil field, meanwhile, the volume was just over 200 Bcf, up 36% from 2018, Rystad said.

Combined, that would put volumes of flared and vented gas from America's two biggest oil fields at 493.2 Bcf, more than 5% above the national 2018 total of 468.3 Bcf reported here by the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA).

That volume of gas, if released directly to the atmosphere, would have the climate impact of about seven coal-fired power plants, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-flaring/u-s-oil-fields-flared-and-vented-more-natural-gas-again-in-2019-data-idUSKBN1ZX1L5

 

 

That is no longer the case, flaring though much too high, is down as a % of production. Leakage is now more easily identified and rectified due to lower cost and more effective optical detection methods that show you not only that there is a leak but also where it is. Thus the leakage problem is being reduced and regulations force it where simple economics of capturing the lost gas might not. 

The flaring is permitted beyond the regulatory limit due to the TRRC not wanting to put the Permian at a disadvantage to other shale areas it does not control. The problem is still a lack of collecting capacity of the pipelines. It dictates how long the flaring will last.