It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abundance of Methane Hydrates will Destroy the Oil Market

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Abundance of Methane Hydrates will Destroy the Oil Market


oilprice.com

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu contributed a statement to an announced breakthrough in research into tapping the vast fuel resource of methane hydrates that could eventually bolster already massive U.S. natural gas reserves.

For experts the methane hydrates resource is the largest reserve of hydrocarbons in the planetary crust. So far humanity has not devised a process to economically harvest this immense energy wealth. Today’s DOE announcement may point the way to a new
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I have been watching the news on Arctic Methane releases since I first heard about it last year. To me, this is an extremely serious potential problem that could trigger a tipping point in global warming, and greatly accelerate climate change.

This is great news to hear, that we might be able to develop the tech to tap this methane, and turn what could be a global menace into a new source of abundant energy.

oilprice.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Still in the realms of a pipe dream.


Gerald Holder, dean of the engineering program at University of Pittsburgh, who has worked with the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory on the hydrate issue, said before the announcement he had been sceptical about what researchers would be able to accomplish.

He said the main problem until now was finding a way to extract natural gas from solid hydrates without adding a whole lot of steps that made the process too expensive, which makes the success of this new test significant.


Not to say it won't ever be viable:


For everyone the matter of coming up with the CO2 for the injection is going to be a significant issue. First just gathering it remains a significant problem. Making it from – natural gas – is the preferred method today. That raises the question if the CO2 injected is lost to sequestration or is it recycled for reuse, or what proportion is being lost or recycled? CO2 is very useful and it may become a valuable resource in its own right very soon.


Without knowing the process in depth, the idea that you can burn what you take out and recycle the co2 for further extraction sounds interesting.

*



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I think considering the rather urgent need for this technology and a pending planetary disaster, this might not be a pipe dream, except that it is just the slightly upgraded fossil fuel lie we're still in, when the real tech is far beyond this level so I want the real tech out.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
As bocho points out, this is years away from ever being a reality.

But the idea is scary, because it would likely totally destroy the oceans and remaining water tables.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Yeah, this is a big future maybe, but I'm just happy to hear that there are people in positions of power looking into this situation, and taking it seriously.

There is a lack of details on these tests, but at least someone is looking into the possibility, and thinks it might be feasible. I see too many environmental problems with fracking, so maybe this could become a realistic alternative.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


So you think this is a POSITIVE bit of technology? This would likley have the same problems as fracking, no?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Hopefully it will stop them frackin people from destroying the land



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
This is just more big corporate interest BS. Farmers have been making their own methane for a century. We also have ethanol, bio-diesel, wood gas, solar, wind, etc that could easily make us energy independent. We can make plastics with hemp etc. There is no reason other then big oil corporate greed that we could not begin right now making the transition and be largely off oil in 3 -5 years


edit on 9-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
We also have ethanol, bio-diesel, wood gas, solar, wind, etc that could easily make us energy independent. We can make plastics with hemp etc. There is no reason other then big oil corporate greed that we could not begin right now making the transition and be largely off oil in 3 -5 years



Not exactly. If we made all our plastics from Hemp, as you suggest, it would require a massive level of monoculture hemp production (chemical intensive) to ensure a larger enough crop to replace oil.

A more realistic approach is not to get off oil completely, but to find a balance between it and the other sources you speak of. (Plus, of course, USING LESS, which is the only real solution)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
This is just more big corporate interest BS. Farmers have been making their own methane for a century. We also have ethanol, bio-diesel, wood gas, solar, wind, etc that could easily make us energy independent. We can make plastics with hemp etc. There is no reason other then big oil corporate greed that we could not begin right now making the transition and be largely off oil in 3 -5 years


edit on 9-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


No.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by hawkiye
We also have ethanol, bio-diesel, wood gas, solar, wind, etc that could easily make us energy independent. We can make plastics with hemp etc. There is no reason other then big oil corporate greed that we could not begin right now making the transition and be largely off oil in 3 -5 years



Not exactly. If we made all our plastics from Hemp, as you suggest, it would require a massive level of monoculture hemp production (chemical intensive) to ensure a larger enough crop to replace oil.

A more realistic approach is not to get off oil completely, but to find a balance between it and the other sources you speak of. (Plus, of course, USING LESS, which is the only real solution)


Hemp is just one alternative there are a number of things plastics can be made from and also recycling.

www.thenakedscientists.com...
edit on 9-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Hard to say what kind of environmental impact this would have, but I suspect a great deal less than fracking, or deep water wells. There aren't any details about the process being proposed.

It seems the bigger problem would be collecting the released Methane. Thing is, massive amounts of methane boiling up out of the Arctic Ocean is right now a major environmental concern. If we could figure out a way to tap this resource, and soon, that would be working to improve the environment, hopefully.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye


Hemp is just one alternative there are a number of things plastics can be made from and also recycling.


Indeed. Recycling is another example of a technology that can help us lower the amount of oil we must harvest. But it is also fraught with problems and is energy intensive and polluting. There is no magic green bullet.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Hard to say what kind of environmental impact this would have, but I suspect a great deal less than fracking, or deep water wells. There aren't any details about the process being proposed.


Why would you 'suspect' that? The technology sounds very similar to fracking.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


We could still do oil but we have to lower our consumption so it's there if needed in the future. Man will be around for a while yet, can't we save a little for the future?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by hawkiye


Hemp is just one alternative there are a number of things plastics can be made from and also recycling.


Indeed. Recycling is another example of a technology that can help us lower the amount of oil we must harvest. But it is also fraught with problems and is energy intensive and polluting. There is no magic green bullet.



Yes there is www.thenakedscientists.com...

There are plenty of alternatives contrary to big oil propaganda that we could not survive without them...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Hemp is not a fertilizer intensive crop, just the opposite, it is a weed. And there are numerous products to be made from this amazing agricultural crop.

I see a mix of solutions and a large drop in the need for energy consumption also as the answer.

I also think the only reason we haven't gone in this direction so far is directly connected to big industry profits in general.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


We could still do oil but we have to lower our consumption so it's there if needed in the future. Man will be around for a while yet, can't we save a little for the future?


I totally agree. My contention was with your 'off oil in 3-5 years' claim. That's not doable at our present rate of consumption. At. All.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


There is no hydraulic fracking going on. The Methane is essentially on the ocean bed of the continental shelf. Using gases to release this methane for capture should have very little impact. These aren't toxic releases as is the case with crude oil.

The biggest impact would be on sea life in the areas where this takes place, but there is a good chance this would only move sea life around.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join