The President’s post-election remarks contained something of an “olive branch” to Congressional Republicans. It came in the form of a broad hint that the Administration might backpedal on its opposition to natural gas development.
Obama’s Enthusiasm for Gas Drilling Raises Eyebrows
“We’ve got, I think, broad agreement that we’ve got terrific natural gas resources in this country,” Obama said when he was pressed for issues on which he could compromise with Republican leaders. “Are we doing everything we can to develop those?”
With all due respect, Mr. President, the answer to your question is not “No”, but “Hell, no!”
Your tax proposals would structurally alter the economics of drilling and chase capital away.
Your EPA looks to restrict hydraulic fracturing, a relatively benign but critical process that typically takes place many thousands of feet deeper than the groundwater supplies that it supposedly threatens.
Your populist impulse to target Big Oil for punishment post-BP misses the true multinationals and falls disproportionately on the domestic independents, the non-integrated exploration firms which drill 90+% the nation’s gas wells.
Your Secretary of the Interior has blocked the awarding of leases in Federal lease sales in the Mountain West in order to appease anti-development environmentalists. Furthermore, he sees energy companies as the enemy and still maintains his “boot on the neck” attitude toward companies that had nothing to do with BP’s problems.
You, the Interior Secretary and the BOEMRE have overreacted to the BP spill to stall orderly development on the Gulf of Mexico Shelf. Shelf drilling poses a miniscule environmental risk compared to BP’s deepwater Macondo fiasco: BOPs are at the surface, pressures are generally lower, and intervention is much easier than in water a mile deep. When the rare blowout does happen, more often than not a shallow well “bridges off”, or plugs itself, within a few days.
Plus, a natural gas “spill” never killed a pelican, a sea turtle or a dolphin.
Forty-two thousand shelf wells were drilled from 1970 until March of 2010. Probably 80% of them targeted natural gas. By the government’s estimates, the total volume of oil spilled by drilling and producing well blowouts during that period is 1,800 barrels. Out of several billion barrels produced, that’s a ridiculously low percentage.
Natural gas is a clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic fuel. It’s insane to be hostile to its development.
Cross-posted at VladEnBlog.
Moe Lane
Erick Erickson
Jeff Emanuel
Steve Maley
Caleb Howe
Dan Spencer
Vlad', would you favor government involvement in T Boone's idea
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 2:06PM EDT (link)to convert semi’s to nat gas and build the infrastructure for same?
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
There are issues with liquifying natural gas for use in vehicles
JSobieski (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 2:18PM EDT (link)Not to say that the issues can’t be overcome, but they do add to the cost. Natural gas is after all a gas. Also, I believe that the energy density of liquified natural gas is roughly 60% of diesel, so trucks would have to refuel more often.
It probably makes more sense to focus LNG in the opposite direction, small cars in urban environments. You could sprinkle a relatively small number of stations in a city like Chicago or San Francisco, and let the limousine liberals put their money where their mouth is.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
good one - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 2:29PM EDT (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
It's Being Done Now Outside Reno, NV
reaganauh2o Saturday, November 6th at 2:41PM EDT (link)http://advancedrefiningconcepts.com/
They have a low temperature, low pressure refining process that makes a fuel they call Gdiesel. It’s 2 parts diesel to 1 part liquified natural gas. It’s gin clear, and when they use it in vehicles getting 18 mpg on regular diesel, mileage goes up to 23 mpg and the emissions are almost non-existent.
I wish I could buy the stuff here in Portland OR, but you can only get it around there because it’s so new. This should be going like wildfire everywhere and I don’t know why the word hasn’t gotten out more.
Making clean fuel out of food is stupid. Biodiesel (soybeans) and ethanol (corn). We have plenty of natural gas. They’re working on getting their blend to 50/50 diesel to natural gas.
Most of those are already covered, J.
acat (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 2:44PM EDT (link)For example, U-Haul have a nationwide network of filling stations:
http://www.uhaul.com/Propane/
Here’s a California outfit:
http://www.westernpropaneservice.com/fillingstations.html
They’re a little less common in urban areas at this point, but the safety procedures around propane are pretty simple… big concrete wall around the tank to direct any explosive blast upward, and a trained technician with a heavily insulated glove to do the fueling. So, there’s even a jobs aspect…
You’re dead on right about modifying smaller cars first. The wallet hit is rather dependent on the car, ballparks seem to be in the $5k range, so an easy way to get the greenies to go greener would be to offer a tax credit of, say, $100 for every year they own a propane-powered vehicle.
That the cleaner emissions would both increase engine life and decrease pollution would be good ways to sell this to the general public.
The thing that appears to have delayed acceptance of propane is EPA regulation. Canada is much further along in this than the U.S.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Natural gas isn't propane
JoeG Sunday, November 7th at 2:36PM EDT (link)Propane is a product of oil refining. Natural gas is mostly methane.
Common abbreviations:
LPG = Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Propane, Butane or a mixture of both. Can be stored as liquid at moderate pressure. This is what U-Haul sells
LNG = Liquefied Natural Gas
Stored at very low temperatures where methane is a liquid.
CNG = Compressed Natural Gas
Stored at high pressure to pack enough energy in.
The insights of RedStaters continues to impress me.
SoFiMil (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 2:54PM EDT (link)I don’t want to get off topic, but I wonder if the President supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide, being the consciousness environmentalist that he is. I seriously wouldn’t be surprised if he does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com
It's not liquid, it's high pressure
JoeG Sunday, November 7th at 2:31PM EDT (link)Natural gas’s critical temperature is well below ambient temperatures. It can only be liquefied by chilling it to cryogenic temperatures.
For vehicle use natural gas is compressed to very high pressures and stored in carbon fiber tanks.
Liquid is definitely possible for aircraft where the volumes are much larger and continuous boil off of the liquid is OK.
Nat. Gas makes sense as a fleet fuel...
Steve Maley (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 2:44PM EDT (link)…for buses, taxis, public vehicles, etc. Range is limited, about 200 Miles vs 350 or so for a gasoline vehicle. Emissions are clean & engines run cleaner.
The gas is compressed to about 3600 psi, not liquified.
Right now, the nat gas energy equivalent of one barrel of crude oil costs about $20, about a quarter the cost of oil. We’ve got enough nat gas that friendly gov’t policies could keep prices low for a long time.
So, yeah, the nat gas portion of the Pickens Plan makes sense. Wind? Meh.
The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.
Looks to make sense for the "daily drive" as well, Vladimir...
acat (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 2:49PM EDT (link)That is, the car that gets driven to the office, left in a parking space all day, then driven home at night.
There are trade-offs, of course. Having to refuel more often, while a bit of a pain, may be worth it if the cost of the fuel is lower and there’s a “greenie” appeal – propane is a lot cleaner burning than gasoline.
Just saying that, in some cases, it would be a good trade.
Mew
(farms use a lot of propane, and it’s not uncommon to convert one or more family vehicles if the family farm has a big propane tank onsite…)
——
Caveat Suffragator
Given the traffic accident scenario, wouldn't liquefied be preferable to pressurized?
JSobieski (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 2:50PM EDT (link)3600 psi makes for a heck of a blow-out.
If you use presurized natural gas, what does that do to the cost of the vehicle to sustain the pressurization safely?
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Agreed
rsjt Saturday, November 6th at 2:59PM EDT (link)Pefect for fleet refueling and I certainly think converting the nation’s school busses would be a great start. This would almost certainly help lower diesel costs as well.
Vlad,
itrytobenice (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 3:15PM EDT (link)I though liquified nat gas was different from compressed. I read an article some years ago about the conversion of coal to diesel and it included a step in common with liquifying nat gas.
It used just like diesel except was much cleaner. They were working on the technology somewhere (maybe Africa) and were using techniques developed in Nazi Germany.
Hubby used to drive a truck fueled with compressed nat gas and it was very different from what this article described.
Proper grammar saves lives.
Let’s eat Grandma.
Let’s eat, Grandma.
Chemistry geekery, ahoy!
juumanistra (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 5:27PM EDT (link)The “techniques developed in Nazi Germany” which you refer to are the Fischer-Tropsch process, which dates from 1921. (Which, technically, predates the Third Reich. Though its fame, at least in Western popular memory, derives from the industrial usage of it by Germany during the Second World War; its most ardent backers nowadays have been the South African utility Eskom and distiller Sasol.) It’s the back-end of any carbonous feedstock-to-liquids program, in H2 and carbon monoxide are heated with a catalyst to breed all kinds of wonderful complex hydrocarbons, including synthetic diesel.
I’ve been meaning to do a diary on energy policy and Fischer-Tropsch for a while now. If our side is genuinely serious about energy independence, a functional understanding of Fischer-Tropsch is integral to…well, everything.
I think it's possible
itrytobenice (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 10:43PM EDT (link)that your technical knowledge of the subject exceeds mine.
Please write said diary. I may be uninformed, but I like to pick people’s brains who are not so encumbered.
Proper grammar saves lives.
Let’s eat Grandma.
Let’s eat, Grandma.
But I'll also mention...
itrytobenice (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 10:48PM EDT (link)By golly, I’m pretty impressed with the old gray matter right now. I remembered more of that article than I ever dreamed I’d be able to fetch back out of the old, rusty, gray filing cabinet in my head.
Not to brag or anything, but as someone who frequently has trouble remembering when my kids were born and sometimes even their names…
Proper grammar saves lives.
Let’s eat Grandma.
Let’s eat, Grandma.
A few points about natural gas vehicles
Steve Maley (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 4:49PM EDT (link)Honda sells a natural gas vehicle, the Civic GX, mainly in California. It uses a compressed gas system. I saw something this week about natural gas conversions for conventional vehicles. In addition to the obvious changes to the engine, they beef up the suspension and take out the spare tire to accommodate the hardened & explosion proof cylinders. There hasn’t been an instance of exploding fuel tanks in many years.
Years ago they were studying a tank system that was filled with some sort of pellet that could adsorb the gas molecules, and thus store a large volume of gas at lower pressure and zero risk of explosion. Not sure whatever happened with this technology, however.
There is a home refueling station called the Phill (http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/naturalgaspropane/ig/Phill-CNG-refueling-photos/) that uses a domestic gas hookup in your garage. The Phill takes and overnight recharge since your home gas pressure is only a few ounces. Commercial stations use higher pressure gas & can refuel a car in a time comparable to gasoline.
It is important to note that compressed natural gas and liquified propane gas are entirely different animals. Natural gas is methane (CH4) which has a very strong propensity to be a gas. Propane is a related but larger molecule (C3H8) that is a byproduct of natural gas production. Propane is easier to liquify & store as a liquid. The big advantage of natural gas is an extensive national distribution system of pipelines, including delivery to millions of homes.
The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.
Indeed. Cryogenic fuels are dangerous enough in rockets, let alone putting them on the road.
juumanistra (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 5:13PM EDT (link)You are quite right, Vlad, that natural basically just sulfur-contaminated methane. (As the stuff is, by mass, something like 98.4% methane.) It’s a pity that LNG/liquified methane is such a poor vehicle fuel. As the stuff’s got the holy grail of alternative fuels: An energy density comparable to gasoline. But with a boiling point of -259*F, it’s an absolute nightmare to handle and would make darn near every vehicle on the road a rolling death-trap. (I can hear my auto-eng buddies reaching for the rope to hang themselves at trying to make a road-safe sedan with LNG in the tank.)
To say nothing of trying to operate an LNG fueling infrastructure. It’d be cheaper to build a nuclear plant than operate an LNG fueling station, given the ease with which someone fueling an LNG vehicle could take off their own extremities from mishandling a pump.
Current EPA rules kill conversions
JoeG Sunday, November 7th at 2:42PM EDT (link)Anybody selling a kit or any mechanic making conversions must pay a $25K certification fee for each model.
The certification isn’t good for multiple years, so if for example they pick a Corolla because it is the most common car, they need a Corolla 2010 kit, a Corolla 2009 kit and so on, each at $25K. It is way too much risk for anyone to take on trying to make the money back.
The President Believes in Natural Gas
maindependent Saturday, November 6th at 5:02PM EDT (link)As proof. I would refer you to his “press conference” Wednesday afternoon. Nothing but gas for the whole presentation!
Now that there's funny.
itrytobenice (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 10:45PM EDT (link)I don’t care who you are.
The Boy Presentdent™ = natural gasbag. heh.
Proper grammar saves lives.
Let’s eat Grandma.
Let’s eat, Grandma.
*falls over laughing*
Finrod (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 9:09PM EDT (link)Yeah right. I’ll believe Obama has respect for natural gas when he comes out in favor of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48. You know, like a certain former Alaska governor was pushing.
Like that will ever happen.
PETA and the ASPCA are pure evil. See here and here.
Don't you have to drill for oil to find natural gas?
walter_hanson Sunday, November 7th at 5:55PM EDT (link)Excuse me for asking a silly question, but don’t you find natural gas only by drilling for oil. It sounds like that Obama is saying that’s it okay to drill for oil.
Has any of his advisers pointed out that horrible fact of life to him?
Will he change his policy when he realizes that you have to drill for oil to find natural gas?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
No
PowerToThePeople (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 6:46PM EDT (link)natural gas is found in many different areas such as marshes, bogs, etc.
It is a by product of drilling, but was long ago found in much more quantity in other areas.
I usually do not use Wiki, but here is a link with tons of info that will give you whatever information you need.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
Oil and gas are commonly found together...
Steve Maley (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 6:58PM EDT (link)…but there are places, like western Kansas for one example, you can drill for gas and be pretty certain that that’s what you’re going to find.
In the Gulf of Mexico, most of the oil fields are near the mouth of the Mississippi River and in the deepwater. The farther west you go in shallow water, it’s mostly gas.
Most of the shale plays are mostly gas bearing.
The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.
Statistics show natural gas sources power at one fifth the cost of wind
ashland_avenue (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 7:07PM EDT (link)The following table noted at http://blog.american.com/?paged=2 shows just how much less expensive is electricity produced from natural gas, compared with coal as a benchmark.
Interesting also to note just how expensive it is to produce solar and sometimes wind powered electricity.
Coal, conventional 100.4
Natural gas, combined cycle 83.1
Natural gas, with CCS 79.3
Advanced nuclear 119.0
Wind 149.3
Wind, offshore 191.1
Solar PV 396.1
Solar thermal 256.6
Hydro 119.9
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html
The Enterprise blog points out:, “Wind power is expensive, and wind turbines are a blight on the landscape and are harmful to wildlife (unless we paint them purple). Imagine, hundreds of purple wind turbines the size of the Statue of Liberty. Yes, that’ll go over well with the public. Adding insult to injury, there is evidence that using more wind power will increase greenhouse gas emissions rather than lowering them. Finally, if you like blackouts, you’ll love wind power: The power that wind farms produce is intermittent, and endangers grid stability.”
http://blog.american.com/?paged=2
that's a fifth of solar and a third of wind powered
ashland_avenue (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 7:10PM EDT (link)nt