The nice thing about natural gas is that it looks good on paper.
The bad thing about natural gas is that it is bad in reality.
Methane does far more damage in terms of GHG than CO2 and methane leaks from natural gas extraction. Of course much of this leaked gas never goes on the books. It's not extracted; it's not burned.... it just goes from the ground straight into the atmosphere and on paper that's just awesome. But we're still getting warmer.
How does it leak? Sounds like a fixable problem. The US shale boom is relatively new as are a lot of the natural gas power plants. One would expect the technology to improve a lot over the next few years as more money is poured into it.
From National Geographic:
"An ongoing effort to monitor and actively curb methane would end up costing the companies money, because they would have to conduct monthly or quarterly inspections of well sites, using infrared cameras to scrutinize equipment for methane missions. As a result, most oil and gas facilities would end up spending slightly more than they saved, with companies shelling out as much as $2,500 per well and up to $8,000 per gas plant annually." http://energyblog.nationalgeographic...y-study-finds/
Obviously cost is a factor. But, there was an article in Canadian Machining the other day that talked about Alberta energy companies using drone technology to do 24/7 monitoring on wells because the drone technology was a lot cheaper in all ways.
I knew there was some leaking during transport and incomplete combustion but didn't think it was that big a deal, interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Perhaps we will get warmer regardless of what we do?
I support clean energy and regulations to get there, but what if our efforts aren't enough to thwart mother nature when she decides to warm up?
If it were some other process then yeah we might not be able to do anything about it.
Mother nature isn't whimsical, any warming or cooling is a combination of all the influences. The dominant forcing right now is what we're putting into the atmosphere.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I'm not even convinced that if we went all out replacing coal with nuclear as fast as our steel and concrete and expert work force that we can stop the warming, just because it wouldn't be fast enough.
Fusion breakthrough would be nice.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
How does it leak? Sounds like a fixable problem. The US shale boom is relatively new as are a lot of the natural gas power plants. One would expect the technology to improve a lot over the next few years as more money is poured into it.
It leaks because of the way it's mined. And I can't see anything besides some serious leap in technology that will fix that anytime soon, because of the way it's mined. Can't change that.
If your breaking rock underneath the earth and collecting the gas that pours out, basically in gas form as I understand it. How do you prevent gas from escaping in other areas? It's not like liquid oil that sits in wells.
Just saying that there is a chance we won't be able to stop the warming trend, and a hundred years from the Canadian North will be a lot different.
Sorry to double challenge you, but cannot let this one go. The first quote wasn't entirely a challenge anyway.
That is PRECISELY what you are saing in your 'but' statement. It's as clear as the Edmonton homer we had such a laugh about in the 'Edmonton is no good thread.'
Your second statement is in complete ideologal and practical opposition to your first one. It's not even a question of viewpoints or misunderstanding though I'm preyty sure you'll argue it as such for a page or two.
Not saying we should do nothing... But chances we can't do enough to matter doing anything, so why do anything?
I'm not saying we should do nothing, but why rock the boat for a cause to big to fix?
Not saying we should do anything, but my kids will live in a time where it will be essiet to tackle this problem.
Hey, I'm not saying do nothing. But it's still on the table.
Please check put my other post in the other environment thread. Over simplified? For sure. Preachy? Yeah probably. The ultimate response to 'is the cost of the solution worth the disease? Absolutely.
Oh and if you disagree on your my assesment on your statements making sense as a whole... please... before you call me out on putting words in your mouth, simply explain to me how the two statements actually can live in a universe together in harmony.
If you can do this? I retract.
Your second statement does, in not that many words, say we should consider doing nothing.
Last edited by Daradon; 06-05-2014 at 04:18 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
It leaks because of the way it's mined. And I can't see anything besides some serious leap in technology that will fix that anytime soon, because of the way it's mined. Can't change that.
If your breaking rock underneath the earth and collecting the gas that pours out, basically in gas form as I understand it. How do you prevent gas from escaping in other areas? It's not like liquid oil that sits in wells.
Okay, the way this statement is worded makes me want to point out to anyone who may be reading it, that Daradon should not be taken as any source of truth on this particular topic.
Speaking about the way natural gas is "Mined" and how it "pors out, basically in gas form" followed by "as I understand it" is a pretty clear indication that while parts of what he is saying are technically accurate, he does not in fact understand it.
That being said, as for leakage, and monitoring, methane is ~30 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but considering it produces 50% less CO2 than coal, then we'd have to have a 3-4% leak rate to balance that out. Trust me, at least here in Alberta, we'd know if we were leaking anywhere near that ammount. Beyond that, there are regulations about monitoring for leaks, and it is done, most companies going well beyond what they are required to do.
It certainly isn't perfect, no fuel is, but natural gas has some pretty large advantages over coal, not just from a CO2 emissions standpoint, but also with respect to other envirionmenal impacts (Again, it's not perfect and comes with it's own set of challenges).
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 06-05-2014 at 09:59 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
Okay, the way this statement is worded makes me want to point out to anyone who may be reading it, that Daradon should not be taken as any source of truth on this particular topic.
Speaking about the way natural gas is "Mined" and how it "pors out, basically in gas form" followed by "as I understand it" is a pretty clear indication that while parts of what he is saying are technically accurate, he does not in fact understand it.
That being said, as for leakage, and monitoring, methane is ~30 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but considering it produces 50% less CO2 than coal, then we'd have to have a 3-4% leak rate to balance that out. Trust me, at least here in Alberta, we'd know if we were leaking anywhere near that ammount. Beyond that, there are regulations about monitoring for leaks, and it is done, most companies going well beyond what they are required to do.
It certainly isn't perfect, no fuel is, but natural gas has some pretty large advantages over coal, not just from a CO2 emissions standpoint, but also with respect to other envirionmenal impacts (Again, it's not perfect and comes with it's own set of challenges).
Quote:
A new University of Waterloo report warns that natural gas seeping from 500,000 wellbores represent "a threat to environment and public safety" due to groundwater contamination, greenhouse gas emissions and explosion risks wherever methane collects in unvented buildings and spaces.
The 69-page report on wellbore leakage cowritten by three expert UofW professors outlines a longstanding and largely invisible engineering problem for Canada's oil and gas industry.
It also calls for dramatic reforms in monitoring and regulation including greater engineering oversight of the cementing of wellbores and "doing it right in the first place."
The scale of the problem? Ten per cent of all active and suspended gas wells in British Columbia now leak methane.
In addition, some hydraulically fractured shale gas wells in that province have become super methane emitters that spew as much as 2,000 kilograms of methane a year.
That amount of methane would make an audible hiss at the wellbore or form a big bubble in a swamp, says report lead author Maurice Dusseault, one of nation's top petroleum engineers.
An average wellbore may leak about 100 kilograms of methane a year, or the same as cow, but little data has been collected or accurately verified.
In Saskatchewan, about 20 per cent of all energy wells leak. In Alberta, regulators report chronic seepage from 27,000 wells.
Twenty years ago, the heavy oil fields of Lloydminster reported a leakage rate as high as 46 per cent. A 2010 industry study noted that the failure rate for steam injection wells for bitumen production approached 30 per cent.
...
Methane leakage from wellbores, pipelines, pumps and urban gas distribution systems have become a hot button issue because they can undermine or reverse the greenhouse gas advantage that natural gas has over coal or oil.
A natural gas field that seeps three to four per cent of its product can be a more aggressive forcer of climate destabilization than coal and therefore dirtier, say a growing number of scientists.
That's because methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame.
Due to its potent climate effect, methane leakage from thousands of wellbores will ultimately become "a federal issue," warns Dusseault, who recently made presentations to the Alberta Energy Regulator on the scale of the problem.
"The Americans are going to get us moving on this issue," adds Dusseault, citing U.S. President Barack Obama's recent decision to reduce climate change emissions from power plants by 30 per cent.
Ignoring the problem or shooting the messenger will just erode the industry's social license to operate, warns Dusseault. "I think the industry has to be more pro-active and should get in front of this issue."
Awareness 'exploded'
The problem has existed for decades, but industry and regulators have largely ignored the liability until climate science changed its profile along with an unconventional drilling boom that added tens of thousands of wells to the North American landscape.
Fourteen years ago, when Dusseault first wrote about the subject in a scientific paper titled "Why Oilwells Leak," he got no mail. "But now the public awareness has exploded."
Together with engineer Richard E. Jackson, a co-writer of the recent report, Dusseault has been making non-stop presentations.
Each and every wellbore that punctures the earth potentially becomes a man-made superhighway for methane and other gases such as radon that would normally take millions of years to migrate to the surface.
If not cemented and sealed properly, stray gas will travel from deep or intermediate zones and migrate along the casing to the atmosphere, surface waters or into aquifers.
The shattering or hydraulic fracturing of rock formations, which often result in fractures jumping out of targeted oil and gas zones, can also provide additional pathways for methane seepage.
Across North America, leaking methane from wellbores has killed vegetation, contaminated groundwater and infiltrated buildings resulting in dangerous and fatal explosions in both urban and rural environments.
That's great, and despite the fact that it is really poorly written, and none of the numbers in it are presented with any context, it kind of makes my point.
It says that 10% of wells in BC leak, and that the average well leaks 100 kg of methan a year.
So that means they are leaking ~150 m3 of methane per year, ~5.3 mcf/y.
I can assure you that 10% of wells in BC leaking 5.3 mcf/y is a VERY small drop in the bucket.
If 10% of wells are leaking on average 5.3 mcf/y that means overall the average is ~.5 Mcf/y. For that to reach the 3% threshold I mentioned (and that is also mentioned in the article) that means the average well would be doing ~17.5 Mcf/y. I can assure you, the average well is doing a whole lot more than that.
Hell, even if that 100kg/year number applies to all wells, it's still a VERY small number compared to the reduction in emmissions vs coal.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 06-05-2014 at 10:57 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
That's great, and despite the fact that it is really poorly written, and none of the numbers in it are presented without any context, it kind of makes my point.
It says that 10% of wells in BC leak, and that the average well leaks 100 kg of methan a day.
So that means they are leaking ~150 m3 of methane a day, ~5.3 mcf/d.
I can assure you that 10% of wells in BC leaking 5.3 mcf/d is a VERY small drop in the bucket.
If 10% of wells are leaking on average 5.3 mcf/d that means overall the average is ~.5 Mcf/d. For that to reach the 3% threshold I mentioned that means the average well would be doing ~17.5 Mcf/d. I can assure you, the average well is doing a whole lot more than that.
From the same article:
Quote:
To date, industry and regulators have done a poor job quantifying the scale and significance of methane leaks from wellbores, says Dusseault.
"The severity of the problem is not known because neither industry or oil and gas regulators are collecting the data," says the widely published engineer who advises both industry and government on topics as varied as hydraulic fracturing and cap rock integrity.
"We don't even know the total number of wells that are actually leaking. The numbers are not being collected and estimates range from a few percent to as high as 15 per cent."
The situation is even more complicated. About 151,000 abandoned wellbores in Alberta, 35 per cent of the well population, aren't being monitored for seepage: "there is no monitoring regulation in Canada that requires operators to test wellbores for leakage following final abandonment," says the report.
Yet, as Dusseault notes in a separate paper, "abandoned or active wells" that intersect wells being hydraulically fracked "constitute the seepage pathway of greatest risk for hydraulic fracking fluids" to penetrate shallow aquifers.
Nor does government know what volume of methane is exactly leaking from wellbores or how it contributes to the overall burden of methane seepage from the natural gas industry.
"We don't know what percentage is going into the atmosphere or into the ground," says Dusseault. "There is no incentive to collect the numbers because industry views it as a bad news problem."
You know what is also not very well understood? Methane seepage and leekage from coal mining. You know all those coal gas explosions that keep getting coal miners in trouble? Methane. I'm pretty sure that for every ton of coal mined, there is a 100% leekage of the methane that was associated with that ton of coal, both sitting in the cleats/fractures of the coal seam, as well as desorbed off of the coal itself, not to mention the emissions coming into the mine from depressurized un-mined coal seams. The same kind and volume of methane that is captured in coal-bed methane wells. So, for example, if a coal-bed methane well leaks, even at the ridiculous 15% value, that's still a potential 85% reduction in emissions from that same coal bed being mined.
I understand that there may be some waste in the production of natural gas, but don't for a minute think that this seepage is in any way comparable to the volume of methane involved in open pit coal mining, or mountain top removal, or even deep shaft mining.
You know what is also not very well understood? Methane seepage and leekage from coal mining. You know all those coal gas explosions that keep getting coal miners in trouble? Methane. I'm pretty sure that for every ton of coal mined, there is a 100% leekage of the methane that was associated with that ton of coal, both sitting in the cleats/fractures of the coal seam, as well as desorbed off of the coal itself, not to mention the emissions coming into the mine from depressurized un-mined coal seams. The same kind and volume of methane that is captured in coal-bed methane wells. So, for example, if a coal-bed methane well leaks, even at the ridiculous 15% value, that's still a potential 85% reduction in emissions from that same coal bed being mined.
I understand that there may be some waste in the production of natural gas, but don't for a minute think that this seepage is in any way comparable to the volume of methane involved in open pit coal mining, or mountain top removal, or even deep shaft mining.
Luckily no one is extolling the virtues of strip mining coal as an effective means of lowering green house gas production.
Luckily no one is extolling the virtues of strip mining coal as an effective means of lowering green house gas production.
No, but you were saying, in effect, that Natural gas was not an effective solution because of Methane. It seemed like one of those disingenuous "concerns" that environmentalists have when there is a technological solution found to an environmental issue.
Unless the solution is somehow to just drop our standard of living, or employ some method of "solution" that has been shown to not properly work, they are unhappy, and will look for any reason at all to kill the new solution. I have a feeling it is because "the people who are causing the problem", in this case, the Oil and Gas industry, "cannot be trusted to have a solution", even if it is indeed a solution.
I don't think there is one united group of "environmentalists" all singing from the same song book. I hope most people are rational and open to all evidence-based options, and are not blinded by conspiracy theories.
I don't think there is one united group of "environmentalists" all singing from the same song book. I hope most people are rational and open to all evidence-based options, and are not blinded by conspiracy theories.
Fair enough. I should have said "certain environmentalists".
Unless the solution is somehow to just drop our standard of living, or employ some method of "solution" that has been shown to not properly work, they are unhappy, and will look for any reason at all to kill the new solution. I have a feeling it is because "the people who are causing the problem", in this case, the Oil and Gas industry, "cannot be trusted to have a solution", even if it is indeed a solution.
I think, at least for me, the thought process on something like this is that for oil & gas based energy companies, the solution doesn't become a solution until it is economically viable and cost-effective for them to make the change, and we can't necessarily wait for that.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
