John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

[Slimprofits]

A version of this article appeared September 7, 2012, on page B1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Shale Revolution: What Could Go Wrong?.

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh...=550&width=980

A funny thing happened on the way to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney's goal of greater U.S. energy independence: American industry got there first, on paper at least. Now the question is: What can go wrong?

Thanks to the hustle of innovative U.S. energy companies, the discovery of vast shale gas and oil fields, and stronger national conservation, some forecasts peg energy independence for North America at just a few years off. A Citigroup report calls the region "the new Middle East." Pimco says the trend is a "game changer." Bain & Co. declares it a "new paradigm."

The knock-on effect, some believe, could be historic: millions of new jobs and the "reindustrialization of America" as companies hitch new manufacturing to cheap energy. Shell and Dow Chemical, among others, are already planning new chemical plants fueled by rocketing shale output. Driven by new fields such as the Bakken in North Dakota, U.S. oil production has hit levels not seen since 1998.
So why is John Hofmeister, the former chief of U.S. operations for Shell, sounding an alarm? "Unless something seriously changes in the next five years," he said in an interview, "we'll be standing in gas lines because there won't be enough oil to go around."

The reason is that there's still disagreement over the factors governing the growth of production from the new fields. Among those factors: the direction of global supply and demand, how price will help or hinder exploration, whether new regulation will impede development, and how long it will take to build the infrastructure needed to get more oil to market.

Mr. Hofmeister said he believes forecasts also understate the "decline" rate of shale fields. The hydrocarbons tend to flow robustly in the first months of drilling, then decline before plateauing at lower levels.

To sustain growth, companies will need to drill many wells at a rate "beyond the capacity of the industry as currently defined," he says. "Those who ballyhoo oil shale and say that this will take care of us—no, it won't."

What's more, Bakken oil currently trades at a discount to world market prices in part because of crimped infrastructure: The U.S. currently doesn't have enough pipelines to get the oil to refineries efficiently.

full text cont.

[Chris Coles]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

What can go wrong? let me give you an example. In point of fact, they are going to drill the surface of the states in question like an old fashioned pin cushion, many tens of thousands of deep holes right through the overlying strata that have prevented the release of Natural Gas into the environment at the surface of the planet for billions of years. So what happens when NG gathers into sufficient quantities to be come dangerous; you get VERY violent explosions.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18600446


Now add the potential for one quiet morning with misty fog covering an area of, say, five hundred square miles and it just happens to contain just enough NG suspended in the atmosphere to become explosive? You will get an explosion that will destroy an entire state in a few seconds.......

I dread that history will prove me right.

[GRG55]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

What can go wrong? let me give you an example. In point of fact, they are going to drill the surface of the states in question like an old fashioned pin cushion, many tens of thousands of deep holes right through the overlying strata that have prevented the release of Natural Gas into the environment at the surface of the planet for billions of years. So what happens when NG gathers into sufficient quantities to be come dangerous; you get VERY violent explosions.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18600446


Now add the potential for one quiet morning with misty fog covering an area of, say, five hundred square miles and it just happens to contain just enough NG suspended in the atmosphere to become explosive? You will get an explosion that will destroy an entire state in a few seconds.......

I dread that history will prove me right.

You're joking, aren't you?

[astonas]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

You're joking, aren't you?

I imagine he must be. (Alternatively, a review of the elementary principles of gas diffusion may be in order.)

I think shale gas will wind up being seen as a ponzi scheme, or at best, a very poor investment. And I certainly believe that the environmental impact in terms of groundwater pollution could be dramatic. But I don't see it igniting the unbound atmosphere.

[Slimprofits]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

I should have gone with a different headline. The highlight is clearly Hoffmeister's comments, not the reporter. No other mainstream news outlets picked up on these comments. There is nothing on the Bullhorn news wires. I found that one blogger for the Houston Chron. posted the link in a "daily links" post. I first saw the link to Evernote posted on the Exiled's news links page.

Is this not the first mainstream shot across the bow of the 100 Year Myth?

Mr. Hofmeister said he believes forecasts also understate the "decline" rate of shale fields. The hydrocarbons tend to flow robustly in the first months of drilling, then decline before plateauing at lower levels.

To sustain growth, companies will need to drill many wells at a rate "beyond the capacity of the industry as currently defined," he says. "Those who ballyhoo oil shale and say that this will take care of us—no, it won't."

[flintlock]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

Oh brother.

[Chris Coles]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

You're joking, aren't you?

I will add to Astonas comment.

No, I am not joking; neither am I discounting gas diffusion. This is not about a small leak, but a nice and very simple low pressure meteorological system sitting over, (how many discarded holes per square mile), releasing sufficient gas to cause an explosion? Perhaps several decades AFTER they have all been abandoned. Stand by one and yes a small smell of gas, now add thousands of holes and no maintenance of the fittings, let alone the splits in the underlying rock from fracking.... We have record of extinction events caused by massive gas explosions; so why not a man made event?

https://pangea.stanford.edu/research...aneGeology.pdf

If you want more info Google: Methane-driven oceanic eruptions and mass extinctions.

If you want another line of thought, it makes sense to remember that many of the now extinct Mammoths found locked up in perma frost had food in their mouths when discovered. So, again, why not caused by Methane gas burning from a sudden outpouring of Hydrates. Same thing. Just because we have not had any recent events does not mean it cannot occur.

The NG industry is drilling many many thousands of holes deep into the sub structure of the planet to get at NG in vast quantities; so what happens when the holes and the infrastructure is abandoned?

[GRG55]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

I will add to Astonas comment.

No, I am not joking; neither am I discounting gas diffusion. This is not about a small leak, but a nice and very simple low pressure meteorological system sitting over, (how many discarded holes per square mile), releasing sufficient gas to cause an explosion? Perhaps several decades AFTER they have all been abandoned. Stand by one and yes a small smell of gas, now add thousands of holes and no maintenance of the fittings, let alone the splits in the underlying rock from fracking.... We have record of extinction events caused by massive gas explosions; so why not a man made event?

https://pangea.stanford.edu/research...aneGeology.pdf

If you want more info Google: Methane-driven oceanic eruptions and mass extinctions.

If you want another line of thought, it makes sense to remember that many of the now extinct Mammoths found locked up in perma frost had food in their mouths when discovered. So, again, why not caused by Methane gas burning from a sudden outpouring of Hydrates. Same thing. Just because we have not had any recent events does not mean it cannot occur.

The NG industry is drilling many many thousands of holes deep into the sub structure of the planet to get at NG in vast quantities; so what happens when the holes and the infrastructure is abandoned?

Might I point out that in the USA there are almost 500,000 producing natural gas wells, and quite a good number more that have been drilled over the more than 100 years since man first started drilling them. In addition virtually every one of the more than 350,000 producing oil wells in the continental USA produces associated natural gas. I doubt even the most determined and deliberate effort could achieve a "mass extinction" from petroleum and natural gas wells. The lower explosive limit for methane is about 5% and upper explosive limit about 16%. Anything outside that range won't burn. Try maintaining the narrow range over a broad area in the open atmosphere. Probably more dangerous is a deep natural gas well with high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide, which is toxic even in very small concentrations...but even then a leak releasing a cloud of H2S laced (sour) gas is going to rapidly dissipate in quite a short distance in the open atmosphere (the producers use computer simulations to map concentration isopleths as part of the normal emergency evacuation planning around sour gas wells, pipelines and processing plants).

No offense intended CC, but I can think of at least a thousand things that might keep me up at night that are far more plausible threats than a mass extinction from gas wells.

[Chris Coles]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

No offense intended CC, but I can think of at least a thousand things that might keep me up at night that are far more plausible threats than a mass extinction from gas wells.

No offence taken either. All I have done is think forward to an (agree) extreme possibility. The classic, "we never thought it would be possible" event. To get at NG in shale requires the drilling of a very large number of holes in the underlying strata, all of which will, inevitably, become saturated with a water column infused with whatever, (now uneconomic to extract quantities of gas), is continuing to peculate from below the surface. Exactly the conditions described in the PDF paper; but not in a mass of water in an ocean, but instead in a massive number of holes drilled systematically over a VERY large area of the surface of the planet.

You are taking the absolutely correct line; it is quite impossible to occur; I am taking the opposite line, asking what if?

By asking that; then we can also ask the question; what would conditions need to be like to arrive at that point where it just might.

If you like; exactly the sort of questions NOT asked when designing the safety mechanisms at Fukushima.

[c1ue]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

All I have done is think forward to an (agree) extreme possibility.

Chris, can you provide at least one example anytime/anywhere of such a massive open air explosion caused by methane leak? i.e. not one where compressed methane was involved as might be the case with a leaking storage tank.

[BadJuju]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

Chris, can you provide at least one example anytime/anywhere of such a massive open air explosion caused by methane leak? i.e. not one where compressed methane was involved as might be the case with a leaking storage tank.

It really isn't a realistic scenario at all. One need only look at places like the permafrost in the north or the Arctic near-surface methane clathrates to find areas of high methane saturation, yet they do not ignite and explode into a massive inferno.

[Chris Coles]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

It really isn't a realistic scenario at all. One need only look at places like the permafrost in the north or the Arctic near-surface methane clathrates to find areas of high methane saturation, yet they do not ignite and explode into a massive inferno.

I simply return to my earlier point regarding Fukushima where everyone in the industry was certain that they had covered every base with their projections of the dangers to the plant. It was the unexpected that caught them out.

Turning to the argument about existing oil wells not creating similar danger, as I understand it, the new NG exploitation requires horizontal drilling followed by Fracking, (splitting the surrounding shale strata to release the gas), that has already been shown to also carry the potential to release the gas, (under geological pressure I might add), up into the surface strata, particularly to contaminate the water table. Again, this is drilling systematically, closely spaced right across VERY wide areas of the continent. The potential NG gas deposits are not points on a map, but very wide areas of the entire continent.

It is simply that my "minds eye" tells me that there may be unintended consequences.

As for previous examples, I return to the earlier link where, if you will search, geologists have recently been discovering that there have been past extinction events that seem to have been caused by gas explosions.
https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/methaneGeology.pdf

Yes, one may argue that in the case of such past geologic events these were from ocean sediments and associated water columns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGXi_Ehffz4&feature=related

One might also add including that there is also a new debate regarding the Methane Clathrate Gun theory with the potential for sudden release events caused by global temperature instability that might be sufficient to cause a sudden shift in temperatures on a global scale; in turn again causing the sudden release of Methane; but on a geologic scale never before observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_causes/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

However, this debate here is about fracked NG wells, and what I am saying is that, over time, the wells will become both redundant and forgotten; just that smelly thing in the corner of a field; ("Hey, we have one too says my neighbour, sometimes the whole field smells of gas and my water well smells of gas too"). But now add them all together into a block equally spaced apart covering the surface of a state; might it be possible that an unexpected event, a substantial earthquake for example, that under unexpected circumstances, we will see a sudden release of sufficient gas to endanger a VERY wide area of the continent?

This is a thought exercise; something to think about.

[c1ue]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

I simply return to my earlier point regarding Fukushima where everyone in the industry was certain that they had covered every base with their projections of the dangers to the plant. It was the unexpected that caught them out.

I'm sorry, but the parallels between Fukushima and the possibility of a atmospheric fireball due to fracked natural gas is thin, to say the least.

The designers of Fukushima knew full well that there was a possibility of a 500 year tsunami/earthquake event in the right vicinity. For whatever reason, the risk/benefit/cost was designed toward a 100 year likelihood of a earthquake/tsunami in a less ideal (from a disaster standpoint) location. Fukushima did have earthquake proofing as well as a anti-tsunami breakwater after all - what it did not have was a breakwater designed to handle a 14 meter tsunami from almost directly offshore, arising from a magnitude 9 earthquake.

Thus the risk to Fukushima was not unknown nor the event unprecedented, it was simply a calculated risk which did not succeed.

The natural gas scenario you've put forth, however, has no historical precedent that I am aware of - hence my question. The paper you put forward is not a series of leaks leading medium/long term into an atmospheric buildup - it is predicated on a thermocline type event where an earthquake disturbs a vast mass of methane underwater to the surface in a near instantaneous release.

This is in no way similar to methane leaks from dispersed wells.

Equally so while the clathrate alarmism is plausible, the reality is that there is very little if any proof of sudden release in the historical record.

As for your thought experiment - it is pretty easy to validate.

If we say the wells are 1000 meters apart, how much methane must be released in order to bring atmospheric concentrations to the 5% which GRG55 noted earlier?

5% of a mere 1000 meter by 1000 meter by 1000 meter cube would yield 50 million cubic meters of methane, an enormous number. At today's wellhead prices, this is 3 or 4 million dollars of natural gas. I don't see wells being abandoned when that much natural gas is available for harvest - though no doubt an industry expert would know better.

Add into it the rapid dispersion into the overall atmosphere; I just don't see it even if somehow the price of natural gas fell to 1/10th of present prices.

[Chris Coles]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

As for your thought experiment - it is pretty easy to validate.

If we say the wells are 1000 meters apart, how much methane must be released in order to bring atmospheric concentrations to the 5% which GRG55 noted earlier?

5% of a mere 1000 meter by 1000 meter by 1000 meter cube would yield 50 million cubic meters of methane, an enormous number. At today's wellhead prices, this is 3 or 4 million dollars of natural gas. I don't see wells being abandoned when that much natural gas is available for harvest - though no doubt an industry expert would know better.

Add into it the rapid dispersion into the overall atmosphere; I just don't see it even if somehow the price of natural gas fell to 1/10th of present prices.

You have speculated upon a gas layer 1000 metres thick, when my thinking is a gas layer, at most a mere 25mm thick, but spread over a very much larger area. Yes normal seepage will only provide a trace smell; but I am supposing that, under unexpected conditions, you might see a sudden release of sufficient to provide a layer with explosive quantities.

[astonas]

Re: John Bussey writing in the WSJ calls out the Shale Gas Revolution Myth

You have speculated upon a gas layer 1000 metres thick, when my thinking is a gas layer, at most a mere 25mm thick, but spread over a very much larger area. Yes normal seepage will only provide a trace smell; but I am supposing that, under unexpected conditions, you might see a sudden release of sufficient to provide a layer with explosive quantities.

Such a layer could not build up over a large area outdoors, as the driving forces for segregation (which are minuscule) would be vastly smaller than the dispersive forces, even in the absence of wind. Diffusion alone eliminates the possibility, let alone other (convective) mixing factors.