Swimming in Natural Gas

Last July when I launched the Pickens Plan to get America to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, one of the pillars was to rely on home-grown energy. It makes no sense for us as a country to be shipping billions of dollars overseas when we have such abundant resources that could be tapped, including wind, solar, and, as yesterday's Wall Street Journal points out, natural gas.

"U.S. Gas Fields Go From Bust to Boom" read the headline of the front-page story, and the focus was the "big shift in the nation's energy landscape." We now have the technological know-how to tap into trillions of cubic feet of natural gas trapped in rock formations called shales. I've been a geologist for over 50 years, and I promise you this is a game changer. Wildcatters have been drilling in the Haynesville Shale since the 1870s. Trouble was no one could figure out how to extract the natural gas. Just three years ago natural-gas production was thought to be permanently declining in the U.S.

But in North Texas -- my backyard -- we found the answer. Last year, by itself, the Barnett Shale produced four billion cubic feet of natural gas a day, and it's one of 20 shales in America. As the Journal points out, "the U.S. is now swimming in natural gas." One study estimates that we have enough natural gas to satisfy current demand for the next century. So why are we still importing foreign oil?

I've been on The View, The Tonight Show, Larry King Live, and just about every other show on TV pitching my plan. I've backed it up by spending millions to buy television ads to spread the word. If you've ever heard me talking about natural gas, then you'll know I always say that it's cheap, it's clean, and it's ours. The Journal makes the same point:

"The discoveries have spurred energy experts and policy makers to start looking to natural gas in their pursuit of a wide range of goals: easing the impact of energy-price spikes, reducing dependence on foreign oil, lowering 'greenhouse gas' emissions and speeding the transition to renewable fuels."

I don't care how you put it. Just a few years ago energy experts were writing natural gas off. Now, it's almost as if divine intervention has occurred. We're swimming in it. That's why H.R. 1835, the NAT GAS Act, enjoys such strong bipartisan support with 10 Republicans and 20 Democrats writing and cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.

One last point: 98 percent of the natural gas used in the U.S. is produced right here in North America. Why is that important? Just ask Europe. This January in the dead of winter, Russia slashed natural gas shipments to the Ukraine and Western Europe and completely cut off the Balkans and Turkey over a contract dispute. How did the European Union respond? By telling the Russians that their actions were "completely unacceptable." Hell of a response. You think OPEC wouldn't cut off our crude over a major disagreement? Hugo Chavez would do that in a heartbeat.

Remember, establishing a sustainable energy policy that relies on domestic resources such as natural gas is not just an economic issue. First and foremost, it's a security issue.

Comments

[NaturalGasForAmerica]

America needs to use natural gas- it is affordable, secure, reliable, clean and avalaible domestically.
Technology has allowed America to access more natural gas- and yes, now we are swimming in it.
Will natural gas turn the energy debate on its head in the U.S.? Come visit our blog and share your opinion. www.naturalgasforamerica.com

C. Keddy
http://www.naturalgasforamerica.com

[un-naturalgas]

"Swimming in natural gas" - hmmm, odd visual. What's really going on here?

Wall Street Journal, 2/29/09: "Such industry heavyweights as Newfield Exploration Co., Devon Energy Corp. and Chesapeake Energy Corp. will announce Wednesday the formation of the American Natural Gas Alliance to push broadly for more use of gas in power generation, transportation and other fields....Policy makers have not embraced wide use of natural gas, in part because U.S. production was declining until the recent discoveries.... Producers and their investors are increasingly concerned that the market will remain oversupplied even when the economy recovers.

“'In order to promote greater use of natural gas, *you’ve got to convince people it’s abundant*,' said Newfield Chairman and Chief Executive David Trice, who will serve as chairman of the new coalition."
- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123552499920765485.html

Scratch the environmental or national security veneer ever so slightly, and what's underneath is mass public persuasion.

"Swimming in natural gas" is marketing talk, part of marketing strategy.

These are days in which we need to be citizens, not consumers.

[paxatman]

Russia shuts off Nat Gas to Europe-Opec cuts our supplies-Chavez would do it in a heartbeat.
OK. 98 % of Nat Gas is ours? I don't think so. It's the oil companies and they have been choking
us for decades and will continue to do so as long as our government also remains oil controlled. Americans have no say or control of their energy future. Lemmings to the sea marching in lock-step to the secret Cheney Energy Task force scheme. But then again they've been having their way with us by controlling the flow ever the first wooden oil pipe line was constructed from Pennsylvania to N.Y. courtesy of J.D. Rockefeller. Remember Ludlow, Colorado.

[TxAggie]

Kinda rambling here aren't you? Aren't you just a tad paranoid? Not sure where you are going with this but, yes, natural gas is abundant in North America and a heck of a lot of it is in the good ole USA. It is clean burning and efficient and we should be using more of it for vehicle fuel and power generation. Now as for the over 5000 US oil and gas companies that have been "choking" us for years, yes they are ready, willing and able to find and produce the natural gas we need. Now- for the paranoia thing, they can't really help you with that. ..

[aurora88]

The best way to use natural gas is to run stationary fuel cell power plants. Combined with microturbines they are more than 60% efficient. Then use this extremely clean energy to charge electric cars (which we already have the technology for). It is much simpler and safer than redesigning the entire auto industry for fuel cell cars or autos running on LNG, for which to date we don't have any economical prototypes.

Plus the plants are very easily sited and can be put wherever there's a gas line (and can even run off methane from landfills-reducing greenhouse gas release into the atmosphere), eliminating the need to add transmission lines in grid-constrained cities.

[Tom95134]

"...charge electric cars (which we already have the technology for)" or maybe, as an interim step, develop natural gas/plug in hybrid vehicles.

[KPinSEA]

The Honda Clarity and Home Energy Station already have a technical solution to turning natural gas into hydrogen to run your fuel-cell powered automobile. All in your own home.

[rajdc]

Shale mining, like coal mining, destroys the mountain.

ilovemountains.org

[AllenD]

Mining shale oil is disastrous to the environment. However shale gas is a different animal. Much of the shale gas deposits are in the plain states. Also since natural gas is a gas, mining it would not work because it would escape to the atmosphere. There are water issues associated with shale gas production that need to be closely monitored though.

[sclucie]

THank you.

[dsws]

Gas looks plentiful because the amount in the ground isn't currently a limiting factor. We're not using all that much of it because it's expensive to transport. Relative to that usage, there's a lot of "stranded" gas (i.e. gas where it's too expensive to bring it to market). Relative to our total energy usage over the time period affected by current infrastructure decisions (the lifetime of a power plant, for example), the amount of gas in the ground isn't a game-changer. We need to switch to renewables in the next few decades.

From an environmental perspective, any of our coal usage that we can switch to gas is a big improvement. Not as good as wind, waves, and solar, but worth doing in many cases.

From a geopolitical perspective the best option is to develop the infrastructure to switch to gas quickly and seamlessly, but leave it mostly unused except when oil supplies are interrupted. If we make it our main energy source, rather than developing renewables and nuclear, we will soon run out of the convenient­ly-located reserves.

[joebaggadonuts]

Excellent advice. Agree completely.

[BlackbirdHighway]

Sorry, but no, any plan backed by the head of all swiftboaters has to be a bad one.

Lets use the natural gas, wind and solar to replace the coal plants, and run our cars on electricity.

Maybe use some natural gas for trucking, but bio-diesel could also work well. Same for airplanes.

[DailyElitist]

Why do you assume Pickens' proposals are suspect just because you disagree with him politically? This is about as far from an ideological debate as one could get and still remain in the political/policy realm.

As for using NatGas to generate electricity for electric cars, that's much less efficient. The great thing about using CNG fuel to directly power cars and trucks is that you bypass the inefficiency of converting into heat, then into electrical power, transmitting the electrical power, charging up the batteries, and then converting the stored electrical power back into mechanical power.

It's also safer than liquid fuels, as I've described in a post below. As for airplanes and jets, natural gas is an excellent fuel there as well; unfortunately though, we've neglected to invest in CNG jets, and the Russians have a good lead on us in that technology. BioDiesel (or BioKerosene) is rather a lousy option compared to almost all others. Even if better feedstocks (i.e., algae) than we currently use can be commercialized, by all accounts, it's much more efficient to use BioGas. I believe I read one German study which puts BioGas at nearly 5x more efficient than liquid biofuels, so if biofuels are the path we're going to take, we may as well start developing the infrastructure for a CNG economy.

[CanadianBeef]

I have respect for Pickens, but I've been hearing unrealistic stories about oil shale saving us for far too long. If the mining process is anything like fracturing coal seams for natural gas, it's extremely polluting. It involves forcing large quantities of diesel fuel and often solvents directly into the ground. If you were looking for a way to pollute groundwater, you couldn't invent a better method. Just ask the ranchers who live near the coal-bed methane mines.

[WorkingClass]

Google "Haynesville Shale". I live right on top if it in northwest Louisiana. It has nothing to do with oil shale or coal mining.

[dudedudeduuude]

Go Mr. Pickens! Keep up your good work between wind, solar, gas and nuclear (if the French can do it, we most certainly can) we can become energy self sufficient. Eventually with enough research money used wisely in promising fusion projects we can then get rid of all of it and use the power that powers the stars :) . Too many dollars leave our circulation and end up in women demonizing countries like Saudi Arabia and others giving them power over us. All this can change with the next generation if we put our minds to it, just like Obama has said a multitude of times.

[DailyElitist]

You sir/madame, have hit the nail directly on the head. We must not give in to the "oh well, it's too hard, we're anyway" attitude. This nation has proved over and over that the only limit is what we can imagine.

You're also dead-on in your prescriptions: we should immediately begin replacing liquid transport fuels with CNG, and for electrical power, deploying wind and solar where they're viable. The relatively small economic potential for wind and solar should not be exaggerated, however. In the intermediate term, uranium- and thorium-fueled nuclear power is the only way to go. Longer-term, fusion is most definitely the only option even worth discussing.

[BBackSoon]

But we still have the problem with spent nuclear fuel.

I truly believe that if we have a couple of decades of hard core development of solar and wind power it will be cheap enough and efficient enough to be used more widely.

The idea that ‘It’s too expensive’ is BS. Everything is expensive when it is new or not widespread.

[gaubladt]

We have recieved pamphlets asking us to lease our mineral rights to some drillers. We are not going to do it.
"natural" gas is a Green house gas and produces green house gasses, including carbon dioxide, when it is combusted.
The process of extraction requires addatives to the H2O injected into the shale. The addatives are all concealed from the EPA by laws which protect companies from divulging food recipes to the general public. But, this is a recipe for death and disaster on a massive scale. Because, all of the water for our neighborhood comes from the ground.
The tank pressure required when natural gas is used in automobiles is tremendous.
What Pikkens is proposing is a...
WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN EVERY TANK

[dsws]

There are already quite a few cars and buses on the road that run on natural gas, and I've never heard anything about them being unusually dangerous.

[DailyElitist]

They're not. CNG is significantly safer than liquid fuels, in fact.

[Hank007]

If you look at countries which already generate a large portion of their energy from wind etc, what enabled them to do it was having a government willing to do much of th heavy lifting to benefit society. While I am all for as much alternative energy as possible, getting a grass roots movement to put the nation's burgeoning alt. energy program into making profits for a private individual creates an inherent conflict of interest. It's in our interest to gets lots of energy at a good price, it's in his interest to make as much profit as possible, pubic be darned. Don't forget, this is the same guy who funded the Swift Boaters to get Bush elected, and backed John McCain and his 'Drill Baby Drill' mantra.

Put panels on your roof, and if you have land, a windmill on your property. When electric cars come down in price (watch Tesla's next move), get one.

[BBackSoon]

Agreed, Profit will make anything less attractive at least to the consumer.

[Lahonda]

Natural Gas is the best interim transition­/conversio­n fuel. Hybrids using NG would provide an even smaller carbon footprint. His other good point is that all the delivery systems are in place for this clean fuel.

The best case is when you use the a portion overseas oil money saved from this conversion to fuel new energy technology research.

[ipv4]

This Gas game Pickens is playing is a ruse and will not just become a bridge until green technologies take over but in my opinion will stall it.

Do you think after the billions of dollars are put toward this natural gas utopia that they would simply cut and run on their investments once a viable green solution exists?? I think not. (But ,I do think their are viable alternatives today.)

Today, I live off of the grid with my solar panels and once I am able to purchase an electric car I don't need pickens natural gas vehicles.

So , the whole idea is once electric cars become more common is for people that own their own houses to purchase solar panels to charge their electric cars.Sorry pickens, I don't need your natural gas for my car.

75-85% of Americans drive less then 40 miles a day. It seems that most auto companies over the next 2 years are coming out with plugin hybrids that would allow you to for the first 40 miles to use primarily electric from the batteries.

This would dramatically reduce out dependance of foreign oil a lot faster then pickens plan.

In the process of electric cars being put on the road their needs to be wind and solar powerplants built to replace the fossil fuels that will feed your cars for the people that cannot afford their own solar panels.

Again, chasing after natural gas is a ruse.

[Hank007]

Great post.

[Lorianne]

What produces the electricity for the electric car?

[bunnyv]

Perhaps you should read the post again; this time, don't skip any parts.

[DailyElitist]

You know, 99% of the people in the world don't enjoy you privileges. They can't afford to spend thousands and thousands of dollars procuring the windmills and solar panels needed to enjoy the luxury of living off-grid and charging a $50k electric car.

As far as "chasing" natural gas, if you knew how much we really have here, you would make the absurd claim that it's a "ruse." It most definitely is not; the United States is awash in natural gas reserves. There's so much of it that we don't even know how much there is; however, once we figure it out, we may well have more gas under the ground than any other country.

Now, if you want to get off foreign energy imports as quickly as possible, the electric car route is most definitely not the way to go. The fastest way to get off foreign oil is by rapidly developing nuclear industrial process heating with coal liquefaction. This could practically eliminate our foreign oil imports in 10 years' time; it would be possible to do it in as little as 5, and with a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions to boot.

[ipv4]

It's irrelevant how much we really have. How long will it take to do what Pickens is suggesting which is to outfit existing gas station to facilitate the selling of natural gas?????

New cars also have to be bought, right????

Why take all these uneeded steps when as previously stated 75-80% of American drive less then 40 miles a day. Car companies with plugin will achieve these goals as in the advertised Volt from GM or the plugin Escape from Ford.

Why do I need natural gas in my Car to drive and for what purpose if I can get it for free.

Solar now may be expensive for most people but it wont be , and will be dropping dramatically once mass manufactured properly. (this is now happening via a printing press method.)

[Juneauwhat]

Mr. Pickens, whether you agree with him politically or not, is far from being a selfish Bush oilman or greedy automobile executive. Yes he represents natural gas interests and (listen up, here comes the difference) and, yes, he puts his own money where his mouth is. He is direct and honest about what he is doing and doesn't just collect billion dollar bonuses and perks off other people's investments while he cuts wages and jobs. Neither is he obsessed with expensive office redecorating with his back turned to plummeting stock prices and dividends. T. Boone Pickens is the energy conservative worth hearing.

I can see where an environmentalist may have some issues with him, but keep the fight clean. The man deserves that much.

[Nazz]

yes I agree ...I hope carmakers build cars/trucks which run on nat gas ...Govt, state govt, counties should buy new vehicles which run on nat gas only ...slowly we will start building these type of vehicles ..ofcourse electric veh will play a big part too ...Just get off the oil but I doubt the Joe will buy into it ...they all want to drive big hummers as a small lady told me it is safe ...

[DailyElitist]

Agreed. While I disagree with him strongly about many things, there is no reason to doubt his intentions here. He is honest and forthright about his investments and how he'll benefit from a whole host of energy proposals. What people fail to realize is that his biggest interest is in commodities derivatives; he actually stands to gain the MOST financially from us continuing to ignore our energy problems. So to it is with the oil business generally.

Investors will find a way to profit from any energy policy we choose to pursue, such is the nature of capitalism. Mentioning the potential profit motives of someone like Pickens is a complete red herring.

[Juneauwhat]

When Mr. Pickens and Mr. Obma (both men whom I respect greatly) are in harmony on an issue this important, I realize once again that the issue is not liberal vs conservative but sanity vs insanity,

Right on there sanity!!

By the by, Christian conservatives (oxymoron anyone?) please quit claiming my lord is one of you. Joseph Caiaphas considered Jesus a radical pinko liberal --and he was there.