PowerSwitch

Reported on Energy Bulletin from the FT.

Global natural gas resources could be more than quadrupled, helping tackle climate change, if the world adopted US technology and expertise to tap unconventional sources, according to a report by PFC Energy, a consultancy.

For Europe, which geological surveys show has vast unconventional shale gas, coal bed methane and hard to access gas, this could ultimately lead to reduced dependence on Russia.

Globally, it could ease the transition from high carbon coal to cleaner burning natural gas in electricity production. "This is a game changer,'' said Robin West, PFC chairman.

PFC says that global unconventional natural gas resources, based on 1997 geological estimates that could rise with new technologies, total 3,250,000bn cubic feet. To contrast, the world's conventional natural gas reserves are 620,000bn cubic feet.

PFC does not put a timetable on how quickly these resources could be developed - indeed, some may be left in the ground forever. There are political, economic and bureaucratic obstacles to recovering this natural gas. But the technology is available and for the first time companies are considering the potential.

"You're talking about massive new resources,'' said Nikos Tsafos, PFC's upstream and gas group senior analyst. "Even if you only got 10 per cent of that, given the need for economic viability at each formation, you would increase the reserve base globally by 50 per cent.''

Article continues...

[quote="Adam1"]

How does burning more gas help climate change? (If you believe man made CO2 is actually causing climate change that is)

[quote="ziggy12345"]

ziggy12345 wrote:How does burning more gas help climate change? (If you believe man made CO2 is actually causing climate change that is)

Society wants energy, net energy with which to do stuff with. Obtaining that energy from gas releases considerably less CO2 than obtaining the same energy from oil or coal.

ziggy12345 wrote:How does burning more gas help climate change? (If you believe man made CO2 is actually causing climate change that is)

It does not, the burning of the extra gas will result in more not less carbon emisions, and therefore worse or faster climate change.

Natural gas is a less carbon intensive fuel than oil or coal, and there would therefore be a gain to the enviroment if the gas was burnt instead of oil or coal.
That however is most improbable, does anyone really believe that the extra gas will result in coal or oil being left in the ground? I dont!

If the gas was cheaper than oil or coal , or more convienient, then of course any given user would burn it in preference, but the coal or oil would still be extracted and still be burnt by someone.

I suspect this gas will allow something approaching BAU to continue in the US for 10 or at most 20 years longer as we go though oil depletion. There will be a crash program of retrofitting the existing road transport to CNG. Since transport is fully 50% of US oil consumption, a 100% conversion would dramatically cut US dependancy on foreign oil, and offset the worst of the global supply crunch for as much as five years.

The US supply of gas will peak and then crash even faster than the oil supply, shortly after the conversion is complete.

Because it will sustain BAU for a few more years, the gas won't offset any net CO2 emissions.

(just my little prophecy )

[quote="RalphW"]

Hi RGR,

I am sorry to provoke you again, I have just been reading Heinberg on exponential growth so I was in combative mood.

I do not have extensive analysis reports of known reserves to back up my prophesies, but I am working on my previous experience of hubris in other other industries. For example, the known economic reserves of coal have been dramatically reduced in every country that has done a recent comprehensive survey. Of course, the key word there is economic. Increase the economic price by about 5 times and the reserves shoot up again. But the fact remains that early estimates of coal reserves where hopelessly optimistic. I have similar opinions of USGS estimates of yet to find oil reserves in places like the Arctic.

It is the economic thing to do exploit the easy to access (and by extrapolation high EROEI) reserves first. It is only human nature to gloss over the dry holes that get drilled, and concentrate test holes in the areas where rich seams (to mix metaphors) are first found. Then it is too easy to extrapolate from the success rate of holes drilled into areas of apparently similar geology across huge areas of very thin data. I'm not saying that the report you quote does this, but it wouldn't be the first if it does.

Anyway, as you point out, gas is not like oil. For one thing, if all the US transport fleet was converted to CNG the total consumption of US NG would increase sharply (my first WAG is double). That will have an impact on the number of years supply before peak. If CNG did replace oil for transport, then more than half the US's total energy supply would come just two energy sources, coal and gas. Most of the gas would probably unconventional. The recent glut of gas and idling of drilling rigs has show that unconventional gas has a steep price sensitivity.
Then we have to ask the question - if the supply of that energy is largely a question of price, what is the maximum price that the economy can support? Given that energy is a critical resource to industrial society, if the price of more than half the supply (coal and gas) was to, say, increase five fold in real terms, it is hard to see how the economy could support the extra cost without contracting.

In conclusion, the more resource substitution we employ for critical resources, the more brittle and unsustainable our society becomes.

I fully expect industrial society to implode long before we have burnt all the gas we could theoretically drill.

Given that energy is a critical resource to industrial society, if the price of more than half the supply (coal and gas) was to, say, increase five fold in real terms, it is hard to see how the economy could support the extra cost without contracting.

In such a situation ALL energy classes would rise in price to maintain parity with the expensive sources .. otherwise many users would jump to, say, nuclear to save money.

If energy WERE to increase in price by a factor of five or more then we would see some very odd and unexpected results:

- the third world would become the fifth world
- marginal countries would join the third world
- the rich countries would probably do well ... but in very different forms
- nuclear power might become much more cost effective & popular
- conservation would become key ... but it would simply allow the rich areas to maintain their standard of living
- oil-based warfare might be replaced by bugs, chemicals and small nasty biting robots
- the rich-poor gap would widen
- we might launch MORE satellites in order to provide ubiquitous comms instead of flying people around the world for meetings & conventions

I don't think that high energy prices would simply result in car-based workers being unable to travel and so losing their jobs. The medium/long term effects would be much more complex.

[quote="RalphW"]

RGR wrote:

ziggy12345 wrote:How does burning more gas help climate change? (If you believe man made CO2 is actually causing climate change that is)

If you were asking me that question, I think all human based CO2 emissions of any kind should cease immediately.

This will of course interfere with normal human activity ( such as respiration ) but our planet will respect us.

Care to start the ball rolling?

RGR wrote:
The stone age did not end for lack of stones, I doubt either the oil age, or the natural gas age, will end for lack of available resource either.

And every time this myth is brought out, I point people to Grimes Graves - a neolithic flint mine not far from here, were stone age man had to dig 40 foot deep holes in limestones with antler picks to find good quality flint which was then exported across Europe. By the start of the copper age (a distinctly inferiour material) there was a widespread shortage of good quality stone around here....

RalphW wrote:

RGR wrote:The stone age did not end for lack of stones, I doubt either the oil age, or the natural gas age, will end for lack of available resource either.

And every time this myth is brought out, I point people to Grimes Graves - a neolithic flint mine not far from here, were stone age man had to dig 40 foot deep holes in limestones with antler picks to find good quality flint which was then exported across Europe. By the start of the copper age (a distinctly inferiour material) there was a widespread shortage of good quality stone around here....

Strangely enough, referred to as 'flat earth' economics.

ziggy12345 wrote:How does burning more gas help climate change?

It helps peak oil.