[uhoh]

It is certainly confusing. The shales, shale gas such as the Haynesville shale and shale oil, such as the Bakken and now the Eagle Ford shale, certainly do seem to be a game changer but I don't know if even they can avert peak oil. I do think it will slow it down. But then I read this and that about how much demand will grow and that's the scary part.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('uhoh', 'I')t is certainly confusing. The shales, shale gas such as the Haynesville shale and shale oil, such as the Bakken and now the Eagle Ford shale, certainly do seem to be a game changer but I don't know if even they can avert peak oil.

[americandream]

Nonsense, thr future is inherently a nothing. It's what we do in the here and now that determines how it turns out. It's like anything in life, you cause tomorrows effects in how you live in the now. Take drugs, you ruin your health, eat to excess, ditto. Run a global economy on pie in the sky growth, you damn sure you're in trouble tomorrow.

Rein all that in, create a world economy that serves humankind and our your rather modest needs rather than some bloated privateer and it's contrived ballast of cornucopia, and the future could be rather cosy (of course it may be lacking in the excesses we take for granted but then again, do we really need a world awash with an army of idiots, all ensconced in their tweeting world of virtual society?)

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'N')onsense, thr future is inherently a nothing. It's what we do in the here and now that determines how it turns out.

[rangerone314]

I don't know about anyone else, but I really trust the competency of the oil & natural gas industries.

After all, why would they lie?

I mean they have demonstrated their competence and that they deserve our trust time and time again, small exceptions being the Exxon Valdez, the Gulf of Mexico spill, lol

[Graeme]

Study Says Natural Gas Use Likely to Double

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')atural gas will provide an increasing share of America’s energy needs over the next several decades, doubling its share of the energy market to 40 percent, from 20 percent, according to a report to be released Friday by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The increase, the report concluded, will come largely at the expense of coal and will be driven both by abundant supplies of natural gas — made more available by shale drilling — and by measures to restrict the carbon dioxide emissions that are linked to climate change.

In the long term, however, the future may be dimmer for natural gas if stricter regulations are put in place to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 — a goal set by President Obama. Although lower in carbon than coal, natural gas is still too carbon-intensive to be used under such a target absent some method of carbon capture, the authors of the report concluded.

The report, one of a series on energy resources, is the result of a two-year effort by 14 prominent energy experts, led by Ernest J. Moniz, an M.I.T. professor who is a former under secretary of energy. Previous reports focused on nuclear power and coal. The report was financed in part by the American Clean Skies Foundation, which represents the interests of the natural gas industry.

In the report, the authors point out that there is a mismatch between current energy practice in the United States and the nation’s energy goals. As zero-carbon wind is added to the national electric system, the report said, it is being used to reduce consumption of natural gas, which is relatively benign in carbon impact, rather than coal, which has twice as much carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. The reason is that gas is more expensive than coal.

Gas will eventually replace some of the coal used to make electricity, the study predicts, and gas will be the benchmark against which other carbon-saving technologies like wind or nuclear will be measured. But those other technologies will eventually be needed.

[Graeme]

For climate relief, US will turn to gas

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f the United States — and by extension the world — has a hope of shifting to a low-carbon future, that shift will almost certainly involve burning a vast volume of natural gas. So concludes an assessment by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who estimate that the US could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by at least 10 percent virtually overnight by shutting down inefficient coal-fired plants and ramping up gas-powered generators.

"In a carbon-constrained future, gas plays a particularly important role as a bridge," says Ernest Moniz, who headed the project as director of MIT's Energy Initiative (MITEI).

Burning natural gas to generate electricity emits roughly half as much carbon dioxide as coal. Following up on earlier reports covering nuclear power and coal, Moniz and his colleagues took an in-depth look at natural gas supplies and the role they could play as the world moves toward a low-carbon energy system. The new report on The Future of Natural Gas [link to pdf of report] comes at a time when 'hydraulic fracturing' technologies have opened up huge reserves of gas associated with shale formations across the US. The technique, which involves injecting high-pressure fluid into rock to open cracks and release gas, has also raised environmental concerns because of contamination risks to aquifers and surface water.

[Graeme]

In response, I can only quote their report because I don't have any further details.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the transportation sector, the study found a somewhat smaller role for
natural gas. The use of compressed or liquefied natural gas as a fuel for
vehicles could help to displace oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
but to a limited extent because of the high cost of converting vehicles to
use these fuels. By contrast, making methanol, a liquid fuel, out of natural
gas requires much less up-front conversion cost and could have an impact
on oil usage and thus improve energy security, but would not reduce
greenhouse gases.

Remove policy and regulatory barriers to natural gas as a transportation
fuel.

[Hughj]

Lot's of it here too!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12245633

[ian807]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hughj', 'L')ot's of it here too!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12245633

[Hughj]

No Ian, my calculator will remain in the drawer. I choose to consider this great news and
will take the IEA's word for this. Fact is, it is probably conservative, just like the history
of oil reserves have been.

Furthermore, every truck and car that is converted to LNG or CNG makes OPEC's job
more difficult. When crude demand drops 20 percent, pricing will again follow the supply
and demand curve.

Hugh

[sicophiliac]

I am curious to why there is so little talk of gas to liquids technology out there given the cheap abundant natural gas and expensive and scarce oil supplies. There is Sasol from South Africa that's got a few gas to liquid projects going based on what they have already done with coal to liquids but other than them, at least to my knowledge there isn't much going on here.

[seahorse3]

There's lots of NG, but nobody is using for transportation, despite Boone Picken's best lobbying efforts.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am curious to why there is so little talk of gas to liquids technology out there given the cheap abundant natural gas and expensive and scarce oil supplies. There is Sasol from South Africa that's got a few gas to liquid projects going based on what they have already done with coal to liquids but other than them, at least to my knowledge there isn't much going on here.

[Hughj]

I think it is because of the schizophrenic character of manipulated world oil market.
Every runup is followed by a precipitous price drop, some prolonged in length, making investment
in any alternative a marginal investment. Remember.....$22 average crude for 140 years.

Hugh

[Logic]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hughj', 'N')o Ian, my calculator will remain in the drawer. I choose to consider this great news and
will take the IEA's word for this. Fact is, it is probably conservative, just like the history
of oil reserves have been.

[Hughj]

Welcome to PO, Logic. Honored to respond to your first post. I'm excited to hear someone
here using the word "solution" in a sentence.

I really don't feel qualified to second-guess the IEA's math. If it ends up being somewhat
less than 250 years, I'm good with that, as will my daughter, and my future grandchildren.

Now between you and me, just as technology has broadened the time horizon of natural
gas, don't you think it is going to do the same for other petroleum products? In the 1860's,
oil production meant what could be scooped off the surface and packaged. Then it meant
what was available in the US at a depth of 500 feet. Then we got to 2000 feet. Then 5000.
Then injection for recovery. Then Middle East oil, South America, Alaska. Now we are
drilling below the basement rocks for both gas and oil. Fracking, oil sand, shale,hydrites.......
Hubbert would be proud, wouldn't he?

I am hopeful about the future.

Hugh

[Serial_Worrier]

Hugh - welcome to the cornucopia. Land of plenty. Unlimited resources and bounty. Have fun and don't eat too much corn on the cob!