• FIND Pre-screened, full-service heating oil suppliers in your neighborhood.
  • GET Up to three competitive quotes on heating oil or new equipment.
  • SAVE As much as $300-$400 on your heating oil bills this winter.

  • Need a New Heating Oil Company?

    Get up to three free quotes from pre-screened heating oil suppliers. Save up to $400 next winter.

Natural Gas Reality Check: No Magic Bullet for US Energy Issues

7 Comments

Posted by Jared Killeen on October 16, 2009 at 9:15 am


Natural gas terminal. (image: blog.kir.com)

Natural gas terminal. (image: blog.kir.com)

Of late, there has been much talk of natural gas being the latest—and best—answer to the United States’ energy woes, particularly the threat posed by what is called Peak Oil. Hailed by certain corners of the energy industry as “the prince of hydrocarbons,” gas has much to recommend it indeed: it is easy to transport, easy to use, cheap, and relatively clean. Moreover, recent reports suggest that gas shale fields in the US contain more natural gas than was originally suspected, and that such resources are enough to end (or at least greatly diminish) our country’s dependence on foreign oil.

However, not everyone is so easily convinced. As was reported by The Huffington Post on Wednesday, Arthur Berman, a Texas-based geological consultant, compared optimistic predictions concerning gas extraction and production to the mindset of banks buying into mortgage securitizations, which, of course, ultimately spurred the housing market crisis and the subsequent global financial meltdown. “In the midst of a boom or bubble, it’s hard to sit on the sidelines,” Berman said during the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas conference in Denver this week. “If you’re not in one of these plays, then Wall Street says, ‘Well, what’s the matter with you guys?’” Such aggressive speculation is exactly what leads to economic bubbles, Berman said, especially when there is reason to believe that recent reports on natural gas production are exaggerated. Berman said that he does not expect the yields from wells to be high enough or to last long enough to make the gas shales very profitable, even if gas prices rise.

Berman’s views clash with those of other analysts, who predict that natural gas will play a key role in easing concerns about declining oil supplies. The Potential Gas Committee at the Colorado School of Mines stated in June that US natural-gas reserves total nearly 2,000 trillion cubic feet, an increase of about 30 percent over 2006 estimates; while no less an energy expert than T. Boone Pickens has touted natural gas as the next big thing. In an article he penned for the Salt Lake Tribune, Pickens asserted that “Every study of natural gas reserves indicates we have not just an abundance, but a super-abundance of natural gas in traditional fields and in shale deposits under Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Appalachia.”

Not just an abundance, but a super-abundance. Pickens goes on to make the claim that natural gas can rescue the United States from dependence on foreign oil. “The most recent study showed that the amount of energy stored in our recoverable natural gas reserves exceeds the amount of energy in all of the oil in Saudi Arabia. That means we are closer than ever to energy independence, but only if we have the national will to utilize our natural gas reserves.”

Of course, Pickens may have his own reasons for painting such a pretty picture of the US natural gas industry. As HeatingOil.com reported last week, many critics say that Pickens’ interest in the industry—along with his much-touted Pickens Plan, which would use natural gas to power the 6.5 million diesel trucks on America’s roads—is spurred more by financial self interest than by concern for the well-being of Americans. Indeed, we ought to take Pickens’ claims with a few grains of salt. For instance, his claim that “Natural gas is much cleaner than gasoline and produces virtually no particulate emissions…” Is this true—or too good to be true?

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), natural gas—which, like coal, is a fossil fuel—produces 43 percent fewer carbon emissions for each unit of energy produced, and 30 percent less than oil. While this is certainly an improvement over both coal and oil, it in no way supports Pickens’ claim that gas is virtually emissions-free. Furthermore, the UCS tells us that the combustion of gas produces nitrogen oxides, a cause of smog and acid rain. “And while carbon emissions are lower, natural gas itself is a powerful greenhouse gas. Natural gas (methane) is much more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, 58 times more effective on a pound-for-pound basis. Methane concentrations have increased eight times faster than carbon dioxide, doubling since the beginning of the industrial age.” This hardly sounds like much of an improvement over current fossil fuels.

It is also important to remember that natural gas is a fossil fuel—thus, it is not a renewable resource. For this reason, gas is subject to the same decline model as oil. Eventually, a moment of ‘peak gas production,’ at which time demand for gas would begin to outstrip gas production. And because recent speculation concerning exactly how much gas is contained in US mines has been contested, there’s no telling how long the US could survive on gas alone.


Share


7 Responses to “Natural Gas Reality Check: No Magic Bullet for US Energy Issues”

  1. Glad you are into hydrogen and alternative energy, keep up the articles.

  2. [...] In the meantime, Progress Energy will continue to operate three coal-fired plants in North Carolina, which annually produce 3,542 megawatts of electricity. To help make these plants cleaner, the company has invested more than $2 billion in pollution-control equipment, which helps curb nitrogen-oxide and sulfur-dioxide emissions, but does little to control carbon dioxide, which is regarded as the leading greenhouse gas. This is presumably a quick fix until more gas-burning units can be built; gas is generally thought to be cleaner than coal, though exactly how much cleaner is a matter for debate. [...]

  3. [...] but it has its own significant health and environmental risks: it is a powerful greenhouse gas (almost 60 times as powerful, pound for pound, as carbon dioxide), and its combustion creates nitrog…, which cause smog and acid rain. There’s also the little fact that its extraction can release [...]

  4. [...] take what Palin says with a grain of salt. It’s worth noting, for example, that she mentions natural gas (which has its own issues), a major Alaskan export, as an alternative to other fossil fuels but omits nuclear power, which [...]

  5. [...] gas than originally thought. In fact, those resources are enough to end our foreign oil dependence, reports Jared Killeen for Heating Oil. (Read about UNG’s strategy changes [...]

  6. Mr. Killeen makes some good points. However,in my opinion, whereas T. Boone Pickens is overoptimistic about the natural gas energy supply, jared Killeen is overpessimistic. Parts of the developing world are so rapidly inceasing CO2 emissions that the U.S. alone cannot solve the global warming problem. By the way, methane in the atmosphere eventually oxidizes to CO2 and water in a couple of decades. Noty that the CO2 is good, but possibly the atmospheric methane fears are overblown. Natural gas can certainly be used to greatly reduce U.S. oil imports for over a decade or more. That gives us a chance to develop viable alternatives if the country can take the ball and run with it.

  7. It is very important to note that the supposed cleanliness factor for natural gas assumes that the gas is produced domestically from traditional sources.

    The increased greenhouse gas, energy use and other pollution aspects of nontraditional gas extraction or transportation is -not- factored into that.

    Several studies have shown that the vast amounts of energy required to compress LNG and ship it across oceans, to feed America’s hydrocarbon addiction, makes natural gas imports nearly equal or worse than coal.

    More importantly, switching from coal to nat gas only incrementally decreases the pollution equation.

    And, the increase in drilling for nat gas, and increase in LNG imports, will only fuel use of that energy for the vast amounts of energy needed for coal sand petroleum extraction.

Leave a Reply