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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If T Boone Picken's really isn't in it for the money, which I sincerely doubt, then he needs to forget about the nuclear angle. Who's going to want to live any where near one of those plants?
Stick to wind & solar energy. Study up on Tesla & tap into the free energy source that has been left out of the equation, especially.
If T Boone gets his nuclear reactor projects going who wants to bet the wind power & other sources of alternative energy go by the wayside real fast?
Bush always talked about our addiction to oil never doing a thing about it & until the auto-industry makes major changes in production of vehicles not dependant on oil, we can expect the oil tycoons staying in business for who knows how long to come, too. Add nuclear waste & what an enviorment mess & potential ongoing fear of hazzard.
Why constrain ourselves to wind and solar power? The solar panels, thermal plants, and windmills eventually break down, you know - they're no more "sustainable" generating technologies than uranium- or thorium-fueled nuclear fission reactors. And if any of the recent breakthroughs in nuclear fusion power yield commercially viable fusion reactors, we've got all the power we need for literally millions of generations to come.
As far as living near a nuclear power plant, odds are that you already do. If you live in any of the 50 most populous metropolitan areas in the country, you live near at least one nuclear reactor currently in operation, even though you probably didn't know it. I live 10 miles down the road from one myself, and it's never bothered me a bit.
Unconventional gas drilling is irresponsible, and real national security can only come from local, sustainable energy sources. Shale gas, using current methods-- will continue to ruin communities in mostly poor rural areas-- and rich people like T. Boone will benefit. How endangering water supplies is good for America, I cannot understand.
When our shale gas is gone--we will then have to be reliant upon overseas natural gas deposits because we will not have put appropriate resources into sustainable alternatives.
Why do you automatically assume that brand-spankin'-new shale gas drilling technologies can't be made environmentally sound? We put a man on the moon for Christ's sake - do you really think we can't figure out how to drill for gas without degrading the environment?
As far as who benefits from developing our vast natural gas resources, sure rich investors profit. However, you're neglecting the much larger part of the equation - the energy itself! We need energy; specifically, high power-density sources of energy. The accounting profits are really beside the point; investors profit from development of ANY source of power, you know - clean or not.
And when the shale gas is gone, we do not have to become reliant on foreign sources of natgas. We just need to learn from our failure to prepare for peak domestic oil production, and have the next source of power ready to go before the natgas runs out. The next logical power source would likely be new generation thorium-fueled nuclear power, or even better, nuclear fusion.
The point is that EVERY generating technology has a finite life span. No doubt natgas will eventually run out. Likewise, windmills and solar panels eventually need to be replaced. Even though we waste 99% of the usable power in nuclear fuel, that too is finite in supply. That's why we must continually use the creative powers of the human mind, and our ability to discover new scientific principles, to develop new technologies and sources of power.
"The point is that EVERY generating technology has a finite life span."
BZZZZT. Wrong. Waves, Wind and Solar will be here pretty much forever, or at least for so long as the planet is habitable.
Overseas natural gas deposits, that will be one hell of a long pipeline. What about the 100 year plus natural gas supply that we have, do we just leave it in the ground?
The United States ought to be leading the world in the development of fourth generation nuclear energy generating and distribution systems. Senator Lamar Alexander's proposal should be discussed publicly in the media now. American brain and brawn power unleashed, has the power to turn back the economic collapse. The United States can be so much more than a country that contemplates the legalization of drugs. Great campaigns and projects and the accompanying benefits await us and can be shared with the rest of the world. The U.S. created the war on poverty: We must not submit to the "can't do mentality".
I've read about new generation Nuke reactors, vastly safer than the old versions, being used as mini nuke reactors that would each power Neighborhoods. The claim is that they work on entirely different design principles than the "China Syndrome" reactors. That would be great, but I don't know enough about it, and it frightens me.
However, I am all behind increasing the use of large format, new Nuke reactors. France gets the vast majority of their power from plants like that.
The citizens in US are so foolish ..on nuclear energy ...We should go for nuclear energy, wind, solar...Find a way if we can to tap coal if can be done without pollution ..
I certainly agree whole-heartedly with your last statement. Especially amongst environmentalists, the attitude increasingly seems to be "it's too hard, best not to even try." Except, bizarrely, when it comes to powering up our country from low-density sources of power that have little useful potential even in theoretical terms - there, they seem to think that the sky's the limit, notwithstanding the laws of thermodynamics.
But yes, I've been reading up on Sen. Alexander's proposal, and that's definitely something we ought to be doing. If anything, I'd say it's too timid: why shoot for only 100 new plants? We have plenty of excess manufacturing capacity in the auto sector, why not put the unemployed autoworkers to work churning out the component parts for new nuclear power plants assembly-line style? I suppose that makes far too much sense for our elected officials to consider...
Has anybody ever told you that you have a very 19th century sounding name? (nothing wrong with that btw)
Something in the cadence.
Posters are commenting on Pickens profit angle in the natural gas field and it is obvious. He's in it for the money. He's also pushing for "wind farms". Do you think he's going to make money off that too? Who's going to profit from the proposed solar farms?
We are right to complain about the corporations that continue to buy our gov't so let's start phasing them out. Now is the time. We have an over supply of natural gas now. Stop shutting in gas wells and start generating more electricty with it so we can use less coal. Phase the gas out as we come online with more renewables.
Push our pols to implement benefits to American communities that generate their own power. Let's achieve true energy independence from oil and the corporations that are strangling our great nation by making citizens the "generators". Rather than give all the breaks to the profit whores, provide assistance to individuals and communities for solar and wind.
Everything has its drawbacks but this is more evironment friendly from beginning to end that coal or nuclear. We have an estimated 100 year supply so we're sitting on a resource. We don't need a century, more like 100 months. Didn't the Tesla Motors guy tell Dave that we were two years away from cheaper technology in electric cars?
We have an over supply of natural gas NOW. Stop stacking out drilling rigs. Pick up the production for 24-48 months before phasing it out as the cheaper EV technology becomes available. Put 1000's of Americans to work immediately, generating tax revenue and wages that are spent strengthening LOCAL economies. Let's keep our money circulating here at home and establish energy independence for our future.
Hippie-How do we "stop stacking out drilling rigs"? The rig count is around 925 today, natural gas is selling for $3.50 MMCF. Rigs are expensive, the economics are simply not there for oil and gas companies to bear the risk of drilling wells with a 25% chance of success that will not payout , would you put your money in a guaranteed to lose proposition? Neither would oil companies be they private or public, it simply does not make economic sense.
I am sure Mr. Pickens has a dog in this fight. But that's okay since he is up front about being backed by Big Gas. New York down thru Pennsylvania has a huge natural gas deposit. Extracting it on any large scale will scar the landscape. Landowners will become rich leasing plots and we will restart the problems of oil and coal extraction of the last century. Problems still polluting and disrupting the environment up until today. No free lunches T. Boone. Since France and many many countries use nuclear power to produce electric energy in a safe manner why are we still talking about burning something that, however clean, still necessitates busting up the landscape and creating industrial sites in the middle of forests and lakes. Everyone wants to make a pile of money from this gas extraction. The initial cost of a nuclear plant may be high but the electric is pretty cheap to produce. The waste is a solvable problem.
Yeah, right: "Solvable"? The only technological aid I have read about requires an enormously complex and dangerous sorting of the long-term poison from the even much longer-term poison. I will believe "solvable" when I see the emergence of an industry that can turn a profit by reprocessing the huge collection of poison we already have on hand. (I'm sure you can acquire it cheap, so go get it.)
Why would anyone want to continue to produce a guaranteed million-year life-killer material?
There are many potential solutions to the waste problem. First off, it makes the most sense to reprocess the waste in breeder reactors, as we're currently throwing about 99% of its potential energy away.
Aside from that, we can always just bury it deep underground, as the French do. Over a long period, the natural workings of the earth's geology will redeposit the waste back into the mantle, where it will sink down into the natural nuclear reactor at the planet's center from whence it came. A small percentage of the waste will make its way back up to the surface through volcanic activity, again over millions of years. From the perspective of the planet's inhabitants, there will be no lasting impact whatever.
You make a good case, Boone, and you certainly walk the walk. I live near Austin, South of you. If Texas were a nation, it would be the world's seventh largest polluter of greenhouse gases, thanks to an almost total reliance on coal-fired power plants. How difficult would it be, and how much would it cost, to power those same generators with natural gas instead of coal?
JOBO- Can't answer for Boone but early in my career I worked for one of the utilities that owned a piece of the So. Texas Nuclear Project in Bay City. At the time, natural gas was at the sky high price of $3.50 per mmcf (about where it is now) and in Texas it was the primary generation fuel... We later added coal fired plants. It would seem, at least for Texas, that gas fired generation would make sense but natural gas prices need to be higher than where they are currently to stimulate drilling. I suspect that the fact that the clean coal crowd has Obama in their pocket will thwart any attempt to do that however, but it does seem odd that Obama has not embraced Boone's natural gas and wind power idea. Back to your question, I suspect it would be pretty simple to convert the coal plats to natural gas but probably not in the political winds.
Mr.T. Bone Pickens;
You don't get the point of this energy crisis - it's contrived. The Department of Energy doesn't give a rat's hole about energy independence. And every president since Nixon doesn't either, including the present one.
Carter created the Energy Department with its monstrous budget and it has to date not produced a single drop of oil or one cubic foot of natural gas. Why is that? Do you think they are incompent or stupid? Or are they deliberately dragging their feet? The last explanation makes more sense since engineers and scientists aren't stupid. There are probably some who are frustrated with the White House and Congress for not getting the oil and gas out of the ground. But is has been the policy of every administration going back to Nixon to stifle production of those two abundant energy sources. Again why ?
The only possible expanation is to reduce American 's standard of living to match the SOL of the rest of the world, (or at least the 3rd world), so that we can merge with them politically and economically.
Insofar as your "wind farm" plan goes, four states full of wind turbines can cannot compare to one Nuclear power plant.
Are you asking for a subsidy? Of course you are.
Reducing a country's standard of living is an option but it is unrealistic. What are you suggesting people give up?
A new energy source will only work if people see no difference in their comfort and their wallets.
I think archtoplee's point (fear, rather) is: a secret agenda (handed down from administration to administration, apparantly) to supress domestic energy development, thus artificially "capping" standard of living, for reasons of "merging with them [rest of World] politically and economically" whatever that means. I don't think s/he agrees with that "capping"..
I've read variations on this in other places. (eg. the "secret giant Texas oilfield" urban legend.. kept under lid until the "price is right"..)
With regard to SoL, I could never understand the either/or thinking.. that cheap energy and high SoL are inexorably intertwined and can never be broken.
There are SO many inefficiencies all around us-- eliminate one inconsequential thing (eg Australia banning incandescent bulbs) and you've eliminated a few coal-fired plants without NO effect on SoL.
One-fourth of US workers could be taken off the road tomorrow: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/12/study_few_us_workers_who_could_telecommute_do_so/ (this is old but probably still holds up..)
Conservation - the unsexy, forgotten part of the equation.
I am suggesting that we dump the regulatory agencies and drill, dig and erect enough Nuclear power plants to provide all the energy we require so that we don't have to lower our standard of living.
We don't have to sacrifice a darn thing to bring about a cleaner planet. We do have to cast aside our fears and quite holdling on to myths that keep us from drilling , digging and using the power of the atom.
"Insofar as your "wind farm" plan goes, four states full of wind turbines can cannot compare to one Nuclear power plant."
OK let us see your calculations.
Some of the comments that say in so many words "so what's wrong if Pickens gets richer" are missing the fundamental point of the posts to which they're objecting.
What the original comments are trying to tell all of us, when they use words to the effect of, "He's only in it for the money" is that the Pickens Plan is not science. It's not good energy policy. It's not good national security policy.
It's marketing talk.
It's a good plan, if natural gas is truly the transition fuel and not the answer. The key then becomes the conversion of vehicles to natural gas... More info in CNG conversion: http://www.dasolar.com/wind-power/cng-conversion
Your statement proceeds from a dubious assumption - that there is some final "answer." There is not. All energy sources are finite, and thus inherently transitory in nature. Wood-burning civilization was a transitory stage to coal-burning civilization. Oil was a transition away from coal. In the same way, natgas is a transitory step between oil and the next thing, probably new-generation nuclear. After that, fusion power is the next logical step in our development. What lies beyond that is still unknown, and requires new laws of physics to be discovered - the point is that there's no such thing as a permanent solution to our energy needs. Even supposedly "sustainable" sources such as wind and solar require continuous repair, replacement, and development.
Such is the nature of the universe.
If Mr. Pickens is right and we are awash in natural gas the price of natural gas should be falling like a stone. As far as I can tell the price is still going up. Look at these gov data pages:
nat gas
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm
propane
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/propane/
I has some personal experience with rising propane prices. Until 2004 I had a moderately large house with radiant floor heating (4 zones). The boiler used propane from a 500 gallon tank buried in the yard. The house had lots of premium glass and was insulated properly but still cost far too much to heat - too big, too open, high ceilings, etc. The expense was greater every year because the price of propane kept going up. (Don't be confused by seasonal price swings. You have to correct for seasonal variations. I used to tank up every summer when it was cheap.)
That information's too old.
The links give current prices for fuel. My point with the house story is that prices affect us as individuals.
$3.43 per mmcf as of last Thursday (Henry hub) and in a downward trend. Looks like the rock already fell. Your data is 2008 data, look at current prices and look at the rig count (945 per Baker Hughes). We are awash in natural gas due largely to the resource plays and many prospects are uneconomic to drill hence the drop in company earnings, layoffs and reduced rig count.
:)
Thank you for the article, Mr. Pickens. And thank you double for your effort and investments in clean natural gas, wind and solar power. Here is a great discussion forum on alternative energy and air pollution health hazards from burning of solid fuels:
Join the discussion at:
http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=14
Nuclear, mountaintop mining, now this? When are we going to get over our love of "so crazy it just might work" ideas.
Rupturing substrata - then blasting-in water/sand to force out natural gas - is about as responsible as it sounds. It contaminates groundwater with Methane. And oh so good for the upper atmosphere..
We have an unfortunate history of latching onto newfangled crap without a clue what we're doing environmentally.
Don't even get me started on the waste of fresh water. This is the next major environmental/health/national security risk, and natural gas extraction requires millions of gallons of fresh water, they pump it into holes in the ground to force up the gas. And them they use millions of gallons more to make steam to run the turbines. Bad news. Wind and rooftop solar or nothing!
I totally agree! Anyone heard about the cows poisoned this week by some effluence of the extraction process? and then the gas will run out (since it is NOT a renewable energy source and we're right back where we started from ... Seems to me to simply make more sense to go 100% renewable immediately. Sorry about your bank account Mr. Pickens ...
If you hold anything but wind or rooftop solar to be heresy, that's certainly your right. However, you do not have the right to force others to embrace your religion of anti-development and energy poverty.
As for fresh water, that is only becoming a crisis due to our neglect of New Deal-era water systems, and our failure to invest in new water technologies. As far as that goes, nuclear-powered desalination is the next logical iteration of development, and a solution that is particularly useful in India and Africa.
In North America, we also have abundant fresh water resources we're not using - they're just not located where they're needed. One plan I've read involves a multi-generational undertaking to redirect the headwaters of the Yukon river from British Columbia down through Canada, the United States, and Mexico. I realize that doesn't fit in with your religious opposition to human development, but it does show that our problems are not due to insoluble material constraints - merely our failure to apply our creativity to develop solutions.
Godspeed and best wishes, Mr. Pickens.
I look forward to natural gas leading us to prosperity, security, and and a cleaner environment.
Jezus! I simply cannot comprehend how a leftist commenter would join the sycophantic ranks lined up to join tradition energy's big push with a traditional conservative and well known enemy of the left at its head.
What is with that?
Well, the plan appeals to most, but the problems are in the details. I personally would support Mr.Pickens' plan if I was convinced it worked. I wouldn't care whether he is a conservative or a liberal. My problem is, I don't think the plan is a smart idea. I see huge deficits when it comes to things like nation wide insulation standards, demand-reduction, and solar/thermal power, and that's where the rubber meets the road. Who would need Mr.Pickens' services if energy demand constantly decreases and everybody could fuel their cars with solar created electricity?
1) Energy independence gets us out of the Middle East. Forever. We have no other motive for our involvement there except oil interests, which are inextricably tied to National security interests, in that, for instance, If Iran mines the gulf tomorrow, the price of oil goes to $500, gas to 12 per gallon, and our economy straight down into a depression that makes this one look mild.
2) energy independence , led by nat gas, solar and wind, brings EPIC amounts of money back home (no longer enriching the Saudis, et al) and creates huge numbers of new jobs.
3) there is no other viable alternative available to us, RIGHT NOW, that could offset as much foreign crude oil usage as Nat Gas. It is not perfect, but it is significantly better, and acts as a stopgap for oil dependence until solar and wind and others can overtake it.
So, it improves national security by reducing the necessity of the US to do desperate, ugly things in the M.E. to ensure our access to oil. It creates VAST wealth here in the US.
It creates HUGE numbers of new jobs. It constitutes a way to reduce carbon emissions NOW, while helping to break the stranglehold of the oil companies on the US economy. It inspires MUCh greater use of other new, green energy, as it only represents a stopgap and not a final solution.
What liberal would NOT want all of that????????
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
