Reposted from Energy Resources Yahoo! Group.
Kermit Schlansker
At the present time we are sitting on the edge of catastrophe. We are using 22 trillion cu ft of gas/year. Since production is insufficient to get through the winter, we are storing about 3 trillion cu ft during late spring and early fall and barely have enough gas to make it to spring again. Some gas wells deplete to 50% of initial production in a year’s time. Therefore there must be constant drilling to keep up. Drilling is going deeper and farther offshore and costs are rapidly increasing. Presently we are getting about 15% of our gas from Canada. They are running low so any political decision to reduce the gas shipments would immediately cause a catastrophe here. Natural gas is one of the best replacements for gasoline, is the only cheap way of making hydrogen, and causes less pollution than coal in power plants. However any attempt to use gas for these purposes in the quantities that we need would immediately increase the depletion rate of gas to the crisis point. Economists are optimistically predicting that natural gas consumption in this country may soon increase from 22 trillion cu ft to 30 or more. Certainly the construction of new houses and shopping malls will greatly increase consumption. By 2020 shortages of heating oil and natural gas may cause many homes in the US to go unheated.
The USGS has optimistically forecast that we have about 60 years of gas left at present consumption. There is no accuracy to these estimates and I don’t believe them. Strangely, in spite of this forecast, greatly accelerated drilling for gas has not produced a surplus. Why is gas getting harder and harder to find? If we have so much gas, why are we importing 15% of our consumption from Canada? They are running out and will need what they have left for themselves. Why do we need to drill so much in the Gulf of Mexico? We are exporting gas to Mexico so they are not likely to help us. Why are we trying to import gas from Alaska?
Although there are large quantities of world gas, the competition for that gas from nearby users, and the difficulties of transporting it here in sufficient quantities make it impossible for us to maintain our production by importing. The low energy density of gas as compared to oil makes shipping it into a very costly thing. A pipeline from Alaska can only supply a small portion of present consumption. Any attempt to transport cryogenically liquefied natural gas in sufficient quantities by tanker will need investments in liquefaction facilities, export port facilities, Tankers, oil to run the tankers, and import facilities. It would take an impossibly large fleet of energy hungry tankers to import our total gas consumption.
Chemically converting gas to liquids using the Fischer-Tropsch process is also a possibility that could result in automotive fuel. However, the investments to get significant quantities, in conversion plants on politically sensitive foreign shores, would be so costly that it would not be worthwhile. It might make sense however to put such facilities in Alaska and Canada where the investment would be safe from politics and the waste heat might be used for building heating. The total cost of importing gas, coupled with a greedy public, could cause monstrous trade imbalances that would break our economic system.
These costs are so large that it is better to invest the money in more permanent energy producers such as windmills. Every energy investment must be compared in terms of permanence, security, and cost with other investments. The long term solutions that are secure from politics are investments in our own country in the form of apartments that save energy, windmills, tree planting programs, and solar energy facilities. Extended use of fossil fuels is causing a Greenhouse effect that could be the worst catastrophe of all. Therefore it does not make sense to invest large amounts of capital in getting fossil fuels. We need this capital here to help our long range resource problems while making jobs for Americans.
Discovery and Production of Natural gas
Gas and oil deposits must first be discovered before they are produced. In some cases the lag could be as much as 30 years. For example in the lower 48 states on shore, USA, oil discovery peaked in 1930 while production peaked in 1970. With this graph, the author, Jean Laherrere of France who has many years of experience in the gas and oil business and has published in “The Scientific American” is using the discovery of oil to forecast future availability.
The green line is oil discovery. The brown line is production. Notice that the pattern of production while shifted 35 years into the future is very similar to the pattern of discovery. This is always the case. This same pattern is found with discovery and production of natural gas.
Natural gas discovery has been falling for years. Similar graphs by Jean Laherrere for the discovery and production of natural gas indicate that by 2010 gas production will be half of what it is now. Even if the dates are off a few years the graph shows that the decline of gas could be rapid and unexpected. When this occurs there will be no energy to heat houses. The possibility of a small error in time can be no comfort to a small child of today who would like to live another 80 years and have children. Another thing that supports this graph is the fact that ever since the gas crisis in California there has been a tremendous increase in the number of gas drilling rigs, yet the production is flat.
Other experts are making similar warnings. We need to take drastic conservation efforts before it is too late. If you wish to get some more good information on gas and oil, then search the Internet for “ASPO”, “Laherrere”, or “Campbell” on Google.
Contact: Kermit Schlansker, PE
Web page at http://www.provide.net/~kssustain