# New energy revolution? Frozen natural gas



## metric (20 April 2008)

Scientists unlock frozen natural gas

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA 
A methane hydrate mound sits on the sea floor off British Columbia, 850 metres below the surface.    

Methane hydrate deposits are vast potential energy source; researchers had problems with a consistent flow of thawed gas

Apr 16, 2008 04:25 PM 
THE CANADIAN PRESS

A remote drilling rig high in the Mackenzie Delta has become the site of a breakthrough that could one day revolutionize the world's energy supply.

For the first time, Canadian and Japanese researchers have managed to efficiently produce a constant stream of natural gas from ice-like gas hydrates that, worldwide, dwarf all known fossil fuel deposits combined.

"We were able to sustain flow," said Scott Dallimore, the Geological Survey of Canada researcher in charge of the remote Mallik drilling program. "It worked."

For a decade now, Dallimore and scientists from a half-dozen other countries have been returning to a site on Richards Island on the very northwestern tip of the Northwest Territories to study methane gas hydrates.

A hydrate is created when a molecule of gas – in this case, methane or natural gas – is trapped by high pressures and low temperatures inside a cage of water molecules. The result is almost – but not quite – ice. It's more like a dry, white slush suffusing the sand and gravel 1,000 metres beneath the Mallik rig.

Heat or unsqueeze the hydrate and gas is released. Hold a core sample to your ear and it hisses.

More significant is the fact that gas hydrates concentrate 164 times the energy of the same amount of natural gas.

And gas hydrate fields are found in abundance under the coastal waters of every continent. Calculations suggest there's more energy in gas hydrates than in coal, oil and conventional gas combined.

Getting that energy to flow consistently and predictably, however, has been the problem. Using heat to release the gas works, but requires too much energy to be useful. Researchers have also been trying to release the methane by reducing the pressure on it.

Last month, the Mallik team became the first to use that method to get a steady, consistent flow.

"That went really well," said Dallimore. "We definitely demonstrated that these hydrates are responsive enough that you can sustain flow.

"We were able to take conventional technologies, modify them, and produce. That's a big step forward."

Although countries including India, China, Japan and the United States have undertaken major programs to identify gas hydrate fields, it's the first step in years toward making them productive.

The Mallik well produced fire from ice for six days at a rate lower than conventional gas but about equivalent to a coalbed methane well, Dallimore said.

This year's results prove the basic idea works, he said. The next step is a full-scale pilot project with every consideration that goes into a commercial production rig, including safety and environmental concerns, and questions regarding how much water and sediment are produced per unit of gas. 

Dallimore suggests that as conventional natural gas prices increase and supplies diminish, gas hydrates could offer an alternative. They also emit less greenhouse gas than oil or coal.

So far, no Canadian agency is planning a full gas hydrate pilot project. 

But Japan is planning one using data from the Mallik project. The United States Geological Survey is trying to start one with other agencies and energy companies.

"Everybody agrees this is what we need to do. It's just (a question of) where," said Brenda Pierce of the U.S. survey. "We're trying to look at doing this on the north slope of Alaska." 

Commercial production of natural gas from hydrates is still a few years off, said Dallimore – but perhaps not too far off.

"This stuff may fit into that medium- to longer-term world for North America. For countries like Japan and North Korea, where they have no conventional resources, it may come up quicker."



http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/415215


----------



## metric (20 April 2008)

> More significant is the fact that gas hydrates concentrate 164 times the energy of the same amount of natural gas.
> 
> And gas hydrate fields are found in abundance under the coastal waters of every continent. Calculations suggest there's more energy in gas hydrates than in coal, oil and conventional gas combined.




i doubt this will even be mentioned at the elitist, 2020 pontification, clap fest. 

if all the money spent on pipe dreams like wind and wave energy was spent on this, the west wouldnt have to murder mid east citizens, to keep their way of life.



> For the first time, Canadian and Japanese researchers have managed to efficiently produce a constant stream of natural gas from ice-like gas hydrates that, worldwide, dwarf all known fossil fuel deposits combined.


----------



## metric (21 April 2008)

i would have thought that this would be a relevation to some people and create discussion. 

i cant believe that this resource has not even been mentioned in all the head scratching talk about GW and alternate energy, in media etc. one wonders why. 

that every continent has access to it, and need not rely on US dollars and mid east oil to obtain it, may have some significance. or perhaps its my cynicsm that leads me to wonder if some governments believe control of the worlds energy is more important than the good of humanity ?


----------



## Datsun Disguise (28 May 2008)

Hi Metric - just found your post - very interesting. You would think people might be interested in this, but then again  it is probably not something people know a whole lot about.

I had a look at another site that also talked about hydrates as a method for transporting gas instead of compressing it.



> At atmospheric pressure the concentration of methane in hydrate is over 600 times greater than in the free gas form. Methane hydrate is also significantly denser than liquid natural gas. Methane hydrate may provide a cost effective way of transporting and storing methane. To produce methane hydrate is relatively simple, it just involves freezing water and natural gas together. Researchers from Norway have shown that the processes of freezing natural gas into methane hydrate is 25% less expensive that compressing natural gas to form liquid natural gas, which is the current industrial procedure for transportation and storage. Once the methane is produced it remains stable between -5 ° and -15 ° at atmospheric pressures, so it is relatively easy to store. The other great asset for transporting and storing methane in the hydrate form is that it is much less explosive than compressed liquid natural gas. Methane hydrate has formed in the pipes of the natural gas processing plant in Victoria with disastrous consequences.




 The only thing is keeping it that cold for shipping. I reckon oce it can be commercially exploited then ASFers won't be able to shut up about it. that's when you call bragging rights......

Then again, maybe it's a conspiracy man <spaced out hippy voice> - if we can use this stuff instead of oil then what will oil be worth now it's getting harder to get? Don't even have to drill it - just sidle up in your floating factory ship drop your pipe (heated at the tip) and start pumping - 'hydrate' it again for shipping to shore. Easy - anyone want to back me? happy to place to institutions and sophisticated investors. $1 a share 100million shares on offer.  (This is the prospectus).

Cool man.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 May 2008)

metric said:


> i would have thought that this would be a relevation to some people and create discussion.
> 
> i cant believe that this resource has not even been mentioned in all the head scratching talk about GW and alternate energy, in media etc. one wonders why.
> 
> that every continent has access to it, and need not rely on US dollars and mid east oil to obtain it, may have some significance. or perhaps its my cynicsm that leads me to wonder if some governments believe control of the worlds energy is more important than the good of humanity ?



A couple of issues. Firstly, it's still natural gas - a fossil fuel which when burnt releases CO2. It reduces emissions compared to coal or oil but if we see continued growth in energy consumption then it doesn't actually fix the CO2 emissions problem, only reduces it.

From a long term strategic perspective, does it really make sense to invest heavily in a solution which, assuming ongoing economic growth, doesn't actually work beyond literally a few years? If we switched all oil use to gas and assume 2% annual growth in demand then in 20 years time we're right back where we are now with CO2. 

And given that we couldn't realistically make such a shift in less than 20 years anyway, all it really offers is the potential to hold oil-related emissions flat for 20 years then resume growth. A long way short of the deep cuts being called for in CO2 emissions.

Second is the risk. If we end up destabilising the methane hydrates and releasing large volumes of unburnt gas then it's goodbye planet Earth. The greenhouse potential of that vastly exceeds anything we've done or could realistically do with conventional gas, oil and coal combined.

Overall, it's much the same as wind, hydro, solar and so on. It offers a partial solution but it's no magic bullet. At least not unless we can somehow extract the stuff with zero unburnt gas release, separate out the hydrogen for use as an energy source (though it's rather difficult to transport) then store the carbon safely somewhere. Possible...

I do think we'll use it, but it's not a magic bullet. But neither is "clean" coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal or any of the others. In my opinion we'll end up using everything that works since none is a complete replacement for declining oil supplies. 

In all seriousness, I think we'll end up burning, reacting, damming, collecting, drilling and farming everything we can to keep the lights on and the wheels turning. Methane hydrates are just another one on that list, though probably one of the more significant ones given the established gas infrastructure.


----------



## Michael9 (29 May 2008)

Aren't there NZ cars running conventional engines on compressed natural gas (CNG)? Apparently lower polluting and pretty efficient. Actually, if there's any substance to this being a viable fuel and the conversion being like an LPG conversion then we, of all countries, should be at least raising a conversation about it. If you weren't absolutely certain that some drunk moron would incinerate the entire neighbourhood (and I am) then you could look at a fuel infrastucture with domestic or district compressors using this relatively cheap energy source.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 May 2008)

Michael9 said:


> Aren't there NZ cars running conventional engines on compressed natural gas (CNG)? Apparently lower polluting and pretty efficient. Actually, if there's any substance to this being a viable fuel and the conversion being like an LPG conversion then we, of all countries, should be at least raising a conversation about it. If you weren't absolutely certain that some drunk moron would incinerate the entire neighbourhood (and I am) then you could look at a fuel infrastucture with domestic or district compressors using this relatively cheap energy source.



Yep, sure has been done in NZ and was relatively common at one stage. They also set up methanol plants and a synthetic petrol plant (long since closed). It all worked well until the giant Maui gas field started running out, something very much accelerated by the decision to stop adding to hydro capacity and switch NZ's only coal-fired power station (right next to the coal mine) to gas.

NZ had lots of gas like we have now. They burnt it for power and exported it as methanol. At one point NZ was producing about 10% of world methanol production.

Australia's exporting it as LNG instead and also now moving to use it for electricity. We'll end up in exactly the same situation as NZ, indeed we already seem set to export most of the gas we have as well as much of the CSM.

Not that I'm really saying don't export gas. It's just that the world market will take everything we can find and more - it won't be a cheap and domestically abundant energy source for much longer for that reason, at least not unless Russia, Iran and Qatar suddenly decide to deplete their reserves more quickly and flood the world LNG market. Not that it makes the slightest bit of sense fo them to do so...


----------



## So_Cynical (29 May 2008)

Michael9 said:


> Aren't there NZ cars running conventional engines on compressed natural gas (CNG)? Apparently lower polluting and pretty efficient. Actually, if there's any substance to this being a viable fuel and the conversion being like an LPG conversion then we, of all countries, should be at least raising a conversation about it. If you weren't absolutely certain that some drunk moron would incinerate the entire neighbourhood (and I am) then you could look at a fuel infrastucture with domestic or district compressors using this relatively cheap energy source.




Hello...CNG has been used for years to run cars/vehicles etc...and some day in the next 
20 years, most cars in Aust will run on CNG.

Australia has 100 years supply of NG (natural gas) which when compressed makes CNG 
(Compressed natural gas)...if half the current cars ran on CNG the net saving to the 
economy would be in excess of 10 billion per year.

U will get home from work and plug your car in to your home CNG compressor and...bingo, 
your ready to go 200 km in the morning...at about half the price of petrol or diesel....LPG 
and CNG are essentially the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_petroleum_gas

We should halt the NG/LPG exports now and save what we have for our selfs.


----------



## RP_Automotive (11 March 2013)

All,

If you are interested in the viability of Methane Hydrates, you should follow the Japanese research consortium named 'Project MH21'. Information can be hard to find, but they are currently conducting a test to see * if * methane hydrates can be commercially extracted, and if methane hydrates can even sustain flow rates for a significant amount of time. The test conducted by the Canadians only went for 24hrs before sand production blocked everything up. It's all well and good saying there is a crapload of resource sitting on the sea bed, getting it out fro man engineering point of view, and then getting it out commercially are two very different things.

As an example, the flow rates for the test that was originally conducted by the Canadians flowed ~2mmscf/day (in English terms: Two million standard cubic feet per day of gas). A general rule of thumb is that 6000scf is equivalent to 1bbl of oil. So a hydrate well has been proven to flow the equivalent of 333bbl/day of Oil...and it hasn't even been proven whether that flow rate is sustainable yet. Assuming you are flowing every single day of the year, that's $12.1m per well, per year......which for an offshore well is very marginal if not economically unviable once you factor in exploration and production costs.

The methane hydrate industry is very similar to the CSG industry in Australia in that the extraction techniques are similar and the sheer volume of wells required to get a viable volume of gas out of the ground is huge. The biggest difference is that Methane hydrate wells are offshore. If you compare a 'viable' offshore well to a Methane hydrate well, you are comparing a 333bbl/day well to a 5000+bbl/day well...


Having said all of that, it's a very exciting prospect and we should all remember that Coal Seam Gas, Shale Oil, Shale Gas and all of these marginal resources were not even a afterthought 10, 20 years ago.....now they are at the forefront of the energy industry thanks to new technologies. So I hope we can find a way to get this happening commercially.....just don't go around thinking that this stuff is gonna be coming out of the ground and up to your gas stove anytime soon


----------



## RP_Automotive (11 March 2013)

Wow I just realised this thread was posted way back in 2008...not sure why it came up in the ASF popular thread list! Sorry all.


----------



## RP_Automotive (13 March 2013)

Even though I 'revived a thread from the dead', it's a bit of a coincidence that this project I was talking about above seems to be going well today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/b...e-deposit.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=business


----------

