methane hydrates aff HSS 14
plan texts
The United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in oceanic
methane hydrate extraction via carbon capture and sequestration.
The United States federal government should substantially increase its oceanic methane hydrate
extraction via carbon capture and sequestration.
The United States federal government should substantially increases its investment in oceanic
methane hydrate extraction using carbon capture and sequestration.
***WARMING ADV***
Clathrate Gun Module
Methane hydrates are melting now – that leads to massive methane blowouts that
lock in positive feedbacks and guarantee global extinction – only a risk extraction
solves – and the Alaskan Arctic is key
Light 12 (Malcolm, PhD from the University of London, “Charting Mankind’s Arctic Methane
Emission Exponential Expressway to Total Extinction in the Next 50 Years”, http://arcticnews.blogspot.com/2012/08/charting-mankinds-expressway-to-extinction.html // AK)
Unless immediate and concerted action is taken by governments and oil companies to depressurize the
Arctic subsea methane reserves by extracting the methane , liquefying it and selling it as a green house
gas energy source, rising sea levels will breach the Thames Barrier by 2029 flooding London. The
base of the Washington Monument (D.C.) will be inundated by 2031. Total global
deglaciation will finally cause the sea level to rise up the lower 35% of the Washington
Monument by 2051 (68.3 m or 224 feet above present sea level). Introduction Recent atmospheric methane
observations (May 01, 2012) at Barrow Point Alaska show extreme methane concentrations as high
as 2500 ppb (2.5 ppm Methane, Figure 1)(Generated by ESRL/GMD May 01, 2012 from Carana, 2012b). The present
atmospheric methane concentration at Point Barrow exceeds all previous measurements in the
Arctic and if it represented the mean atmospheric concentration after an extended period of
subsea Arctic methane emission (10 to 20 years) at a methane global warming potential (GWP) of
100 (Dessus et al. 2008) it would be equal to a 2.5 degrees C mean global temperature increase
and a methane-carbon output of some 6 Gt. This would be equivalent to adding and extra 250
ppm of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere or about 2/3 of the present carbon dioxide content. The
rising light Arctic methane migration routes have been interpreted on the Hippo profile in Figure 2a (from Wofsy et al. et al. 2009)
using the inflexion points on the temperature and methane concentration profiles similar to the system used to identify deep oceanic
current trends using salinity and temperature data (Tharp and Frankel, 1986). The light Arctic methane is rising almost vertically up
to the stratosphere between 60o North and the North Pole. This is consistent with the methane rising in the same way as hydrogen
with respect to the cold dry polar air because it has almost half the density of air at STP(Engineering Toolbox, 2011) (methane in wet
air may be transported horizontally by storm systems). In
addition because methane has a global warming
potential of close to 100 during the first 15 to 20 years of its life (Dessus et al. 2001) it will preferentially warm
up and expand compared to the other atmospheric gases and thus drop even further in density making it much
lighter than the air. This methane rises into the upper stratosphere where it is trapped below the hydrogen against which it has an
upper diffuse boundary as shown by the fall off in methane concentration between 40 km and 50 km altitude (Figure 2a after Nassar
et al. 2005). It
is clear from the flattening of the methane concentration trend in the stratosphere
between 30 km and 47 km (Nassar et al. 2005) that this probably represents an expanding, world
encompassing methane global warming veil (Figure 2a after Nassar et al. 2005). This stratospheric methane is
above the ozone layer and it appears entirely stable between 30 km and 40 km where it shows little change (Figure 2a after Nassar et
It is therefore very likely that the methane global warming veil will form a giant reservoir
for quickly rising low density methane emitted into the dry Arctic atmosphere by progressive
destabilization of subsea Arctic methane hydrates (Light, 2011, 2012) combined with smaller amounts of methane
al. 2005).
formed by methanogenesis (Allen and Allen, 1990; Lopatin 1971). Much of the dry, light methane is able to bypass the ozone layer
unimpeded in a tropospheric - stratospheric circulation system to be discussed later. There
is a transition zone from
about 60o to 65o North where the methane begins to spiral outwards from the Arctic region
towards the mid latitudes and upwards towards the stratosphere to reach the base of the ozone
layer where it is being mixed into the stratosphere by giant vortices active at different times (Light 2012;
NSIDC 2011a). The continuous vertical motion of the methane in the Arctic region as it rises to the stratosphere between 60o to 65o
North which has a lateral motion impressed on it at lower latitudes must set up a methane partial pressure - concentration gradient
between the Arctic surface atmospheric methane emissions and the stratospheric methane global warming veil. Therefore
any
marked increase in the surface methane concentration and partial pressure should be marked by
similar increases in the upper stratosphere within the methane global warming veil. A further
consequence of the light methane rising like hydrogen into the upper stratosphere where it
forms a stable zone beneath the hydrogen between 30 km and 50 km height, is that this
methane is never recorded in the mean global warming gas measurements made at Mauna Loa.
We therefore have a completely separate high reservoir for methane, which at the moment we
only have vague information on and it may contain sufficient methane gas to multiply the
Mauna Loa readings by a considerable amount. Graphic Display of The Effects of the Methane Warming Veil
Figure 2b is a graphic display of the atmosphere from 0 to 55 km altitude versus increasing Arctic atmospheric methane
concentration reaching up to 6000 ppb (6 ppmv methane). The troposphere, tropopause, stratosphere, stratopause, mesosphere,
and ozone layer are from Heicklen, 1976. The various events related to global warming (droughts, water stress, coral bleaching and
death, deglaciation, sea level rise and major global extinction) are from Parry et al. 2007. Figure 2b has been designed to graphically
portray the growth of the subsea Arctic atmospheric methane as new observations become available and how this build up
strengthens the methane concentration in the stratosphere where it forms a world encompassing methane global warming veil at an
altitude of 30 km to 47 km. Figure 2b will be used to progressively chart mankind's Arctic methane emission, exponential
expressway to extinction within the next half century. As
the light-rising Arctic methane is spread around the
world by the Arctic stratospheric vortex system (NSIDC 2011a), it can be expected to lead to more
ozone and water vapor in the stratosphere, both of which will add to the greenhouse effect and
thus cause temperatures to increase globally. In the Arctic, where there is very little water vapour in the
atmosphere, the ozone layer may well be further depleted, because the rising methane behaves like a chloro-fluoro-hydrocarbon
(CFC) under the action of sunlight increasing the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation on the Earth’s surface (Engineering
Toolbox, 2011; Anitei, 2007). Large
abrupt releases of methane in the Arctic lead to high local
concentrations of methane in the atmosphere and hydroxyl depletion, making that methane will persist
longer at its highest warming potential, i.e. of over 100 times that of carbon dioxide. (Carana, 2011a).
The presence of a large hole in the Arctic ozone layer in 2011 is most likely a result of this same
process of ozone depletion caused by a buildup of greenhouse gases from the massive upward transfer of
methane from the Arctic emission zones through the lower stratosphere up into the stratospheric veil between 30 km and 47 km
height (Science Daily, 2011). Anomalous Arctic Atmospheric Methane Concentrations The
extremely high content
of atmospheric methane measured in May 2012 at Barrow Point Alaska (2500 ppb) represents a
very dangerous turn of events in the Arctic and further substantiates the claim that the whole
Arctic has now become a latent subsea methane hydrate sourced blowout zone which will
require immediate remedial action if there is any faint hope of containing the now fast
increasing ( exponential ) rates of methane eruptions into the atmosphere (Light 2012c - Angels
proposal; see end of this text). The exponential increase in the Arctic atmospheric methane content from
the destabilization of the subsea methane hydrates is defined by the exponential decrease in the
volume of Arctic sea ice caused by the resulting global warming due to the build up of the
atmospheric methane (Carana, 2012d). The exponential increase in the Arctic atmospheric methane
is also implied by an exponential decrease in the continent wide reflectivity (albedo) of the
Greenland ice cap caused by increasing rates of surface melting (Figure 3; NASA Mod 10A1 data, from
Carana, 2012c). Albedo data for Greenland shows that it will become free of a continuous snow cover by about 2014, so that the
underlying old ice cover which has low reflectivity will be totally exposed to the sun in the summer (Carana, 2012c). This
darker
material will become a major heat absorber after 2014 starting the fast melt down of the
Greenland ice cap and this process will probably affect the older ice in the floating Arctic sea ice
fields. The Arctic ocean will also become free of sea ice by 2015 exposing the low reflectivity
ocean water directly to the sun, causing a high rate of temperature rise in Arctic waters and the
consequent destabilization of shelf and slope methane hydrates releasing large volumes of
methane into the atmosphere (Carana, 2012d; AIRS data Yurganov, 2012). As a consequence, the enhanced
global warming will melt the global ice sheets at a fast increasing rate causing the sea level to
begin rising at 15.182 cm/yr in the first few years after 2015 giving an accurate way of gauging
the worldwide continental ice loss (Figure 3). This sudden increase in the rate of sea level rise will
mark the last moment mankind will have to take control of the Arctic wide blowout of methane
into the atmosphere and a massive effort must be made by governments and oil companies to
stem the flow of the erupting subsea methane in the Arctic before this time. The loss of complete
snow cover in Greenland precedes the loss of the sea ice cap in the Arctic by a year which may be
due to the more extreme weather conditions that usually prevail over continents than over the
sea which moderates the weather. Methane and Ozone Circulation The components of the atmosphere undergo diffusion by a number of processes.
The mean speed of horizontal displacement of the stratosphere around the Earth is known to be about 120 km/hr from the Krakatoa eruption in 1883 (Heicklen, 1976). Winds
also transfer material northward and southward in the stratosphere in quite a different pattern to that of the tropospheric wind flows (Heicklen, 1976). Mean wind velocities
within the global methane warming veil and above it (36 km to 91 km altitude) are some 48 m/sec during the day and 56 m/sec at night (Olivier 1942, 1948). Large latitudinal
variations in the atmospheric density at 100 km altitude require meridional flows of 10 to 50 m/sec (Heicklen, 1976). At subarctic latitudes at the height of the global methane
warming veil (30 km to 50 km altitude) the ozone concentration lies between 1.7 to 1.9*10^12 molecules/cc to 5.4*10^10 molecules/cc and does not vary during the day
(Heicklen, 1976). The sub-arctic ozone reaches a maximum in the lower stratosphere in winter at an altitude of 17 km to 19 km (7.7*10^12 molecules/cc) and in summer at an
altitude of 18 km to 19 km (5.1*10^12 molecules/cc)(Heicklen, 1976). The seasonal variation of ozone in the stratosphere in Arctic latitudes is caused by a circulation transfer
system which moves ozone from the upper stratosphere in equatorial and mid-latitudes to the Arctic lower stratosphere during the winter (Heicklen, 1976). The stored Arctic
lower stratospheric ozone is lost in the summer by chemical dissociation when it moves downwards or by photosynthetic destruction if it moves upwards (Heicklen, 1976). The
Hippo methane concentration and temperature profiles shown in Figures 2a and 2b extend from the surface to some 14.4 km altitude and from the North Pole southwards
across the Equator to a latitude of -40o south (Wofsy et al. 2009). As already described the methane flow trends on Hippo methane concentration and temperature profiles have
been interpreted in detail using a similar system to that used by the Meteor expedition in determining deep ocean circulation patterns from salinity and temperature data
(Figure 2a - see Tharp and Frankel, 1986). Methane erupted from destabilizing methane hydrates in the subsea Arctic and of methanogenic origin has almost half the density of
air at STP in dry Arctic conditions and is seen to be rising vertically to the top of the Troposphere between 70o North and the North Pole on the Hippo methane concentration
profiles (Engineering Toolbox, 2011; Wofsy et al. 2009 ). On the Hippo data, at latitudes less than 70o North, the rising methane clouds are being spun out and laterally spread
in the middle and upper troposphere and upper stratosphere by stratospheric vortices (NSIDC, 2011a). The methane appears to be entering the lower stratosphere in the low
latitudes between 25o North and the equator which it then overlaps and is carried into the Southern Hemisphere to almost -40o South (Figure 2a)(Light 2011c). In the
equatorial regions the growth of the methane global warming veil will amplify the effects of El Nino in the Pacific further enhancing its deleterious effects on the climate. As this
vertically and laterally migrating methane enters the stratosphere in equatorial and mid-latitude positions it is helping to displace the equatorial and mid-latitude ozone which
migrates downwards and northwards towards the north pole (Heicklen, 1976) to complete the cycle. The methane may be partly drawn up into the lower and upper stratosphere
by a global pressure differential set up by the poleward and downward motion of the ozone (Heicklen, 1976) Once the methane has entered the stratosphere and has helped to
displace some of the ozone, it is able to accumulate in the upper stratosphere beneath the hydrogen as a continuous stable layer between 30 and 47 km forming a world wide
global warming veil (Figures 2a and 2b; Light 2011c). In the Arctic region methane has been shown to rise nearly vertically and is locally charging the global warming veil in
addition to methane that has diffused from mid latitude and equatorial regions. There must therefore exist a partial pressure gradient between the Arctic surface methane
anomalies and the upper stratosphere methane global warming veil such that any increase of the surface methane concentration and partial pressure should lead to a transfer of
methane into the upper stratosphere and to a similar increase in the partial pressure and concentration of the methane there. The methane partial pressure gradient that exists
between the anomalous Arctic ocean surface methane emissions and the stratospheric methane global warming veil at 30 km to 47 km height is partly controlled by the complex
motions and reactions of the Arctic ozone layer which separates the troposphere from the upper stratosphere and shows little variation in the day or between summer and winter
(Heicklen, 1976). Consequently the concentration of the methane in the upper stratospheric global warming veil should track the increase of Arctic atmospheric methane to
some degree and knowledge of the latter can allow absolute maximum estimates to be made on the magnitude of the former. This will give a rough estimate of what the highest
value the methane concentration is likely to reach within the global warming veil within the Arctic area. This is a worst case scenario which has to be assumed in order to prevent
Murphy’s law being operative (i.e. if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong in estimating the maximum methane value). An alternative is to view this solution of the methane
concentration in the global warming veil as German over-engineering in order to eliminate any possible errors in the estimate of the maximum value. My Father, a Saxon would
have commended me on this approach. This is precisely what mainstream world climatologists have failed to do in their modeling of the effects of Arctic methane hydrate
emissions on the mean heat balance of the atmosphere and why we are now facing such a severe climatic catastrophe from which we may very likely not escape. Let us hope and
pray that the Merlin Lidar methane detection satellite does not find methane magnitudes in the Arctic global warming methane veil (30 km – 47 km altitude) at the levels
predicted in this paper, when it is launched in 2014. The maximum global methane veil concentration in the mid latitudes (30o to 60o North) between 30 km and 40 km altitude
was estimated by occultation at some 0.97 ppmv methane (970 ppb) between February to April, 2004 (Nassar et al. 2005). In 2004 - 2005 the Arctic atmosphere at Point
Barrow, Alaska reached an anomalous maximum of some 2.014 ppmv methane (2014 ppb)(Carana, 2012e). This means that the most extreme methane concentration anomalies
in the Arctic (Point Barrow) are leading the maximum concentration in the global warming methane veil by some 1.044 ppmv methane (1044 ppb). Consequently as a first rule
of thumb assuming that the vertical methane partial pressure gradient has remained relatively unchanged, we can estimate the maximum methane concentration within the
Arctic methane global warming veil between 30 km and 47 km height by subtracting 1.044 ppmv methane (1044 ppb) from measured surface Arctic atmospheric value at the
same time. High methane concentrations of 2 ppmv (2000 ppb) were being reached in the Arctic in 2011 (position a. in Figure 2b) similar to those recorded in 2004 – 2005 at
Point Barrow Alaska (Carana, 2012e). It is therefore likely that by 2011 that the maximum concentration of methane in the methane global warming veil had remained relatively
unchanged since 2004. This is consistent with the start of major methane emissions in the Arctic in August 2010 as recorded at the Svalbard station and in the East Siberian
Shelf in 2011 which would not have given the emitted gases sufficient time to reach the upper stratosphere(Light, 2012a, Shakova et al. 2010a, b and c). On May 01, 2012 an
atmospheric methane concentration of 2.5 ppmv (2500 ppb) was recorded at Point Barrow indicating an increase in the maximum methane concentration anomaly of 0.5 ppmv
methane (500 ppb) in one year (yellow spike on Figure 1; position b. in Figure 2b)(ESRL/GMO graph from Carana 2012b). We can therefore predict conservatively that the
maximum concentration of the methane in the Arctic stratospheric methane global warming veil between 30 km and 47 km altitude may be as high as 1.456 ppmv methane
(1456 ppb) (= 2500 -1044 ppmv) (position b. in Figure 2b)(ESRL/GMO graph from Carana 2012b). Assuming that the maximum Arctic surface atmospheric methane content
continues to increase now at a rate of 0.5 ppmv (500 ppb) each year we can roughly predict that by 2013 it will have reached 3 ppmv (3000 ppb) and by 2014, 3.5 ppmv (3500
ppb) which is when the Merlin Lidar methane detection satellite will be launched (Ehret, 2010). Using the previous method of predicting the maximum likely methane content
in the Arctic methane global warming veil between 30 km and 47 km altitude, the maximum for 2013 is 1.956 ppmv methane (1956 ppb)(position c. in Figure 2b) and for 2014 is
2.456 ppmv methane (2456 ppb) (position d. in Figure 2b). This means that by the time the Merlin Lidar satellite is launched the Arctic Ocean will have emited sufficient
Once the entire atmospheric mean exceeds a 2oC temperature
increase it will precipitate fast deglaciation, the start of widespread inundation of worldwide
coastlines, extensive droughts and water stress for billions of people (Figure 2b)(after Parry et
al. 2007). This high predicted concentration of methane in the Arctic methane global warming
veil in 2014 is consistent with the exponentially falling albedo data for the Greenland ice cap
which suggests that major melting will begin in 2014 (Carana, 2012c). The exponential reduction in
volume of the Arctic sea ice to zero in 2015 (Carana, 2012d) will precipitate a massive increase in
the release of Arctic subsea methane from destabilization of the methane hydrates as the dark
ice free Arctic ocean absorbs large quantities of heat from the sun (Light, 2012a). MERLIN Lidar Satellite The MERLIN
methane to have surpassed the 2oC anomaly limit.
lidar satellite (Methane Remote Sensing Lidar Mission) , which is a joint collaboration between France and Germany will orbit the Earth at 650 km altitude and will be able to
detect the methane concentration in the atmosphere from 50 km altitude to the surface of the Earth (Ehret, 2010). The Lidar methane detection instrument was jointly
developed by DLR (Deutches Zentrum für Luft –und Raumfahrt), ADLARES GmBH and E. ON Ruhrgas AG (Ehret, 2010). This satellite is scheduled to be launched sometime in
2014 (Ehret, 2010) and will be the first time that real time data will be able to detect the concentration of methane within the world encompassing methane global warming veil
between 30 km and 47 km altitude and give us the first detailed picture of the size of the beast we are dealing with. Previous indications of this layer in the mid latitudes was
made using occultation (Nassar et al. 2005) The high anomalous atmospheric methane contents recorded this year (May 01) at Barrow Point Alaska (see Figure 2b, Carana
2012b) and the fact that they may be linked via a stable partial pressure gradient with increased maximum methane contents in the world encompassing global warming veil
(estimated at ca 1456 ppb methane) makes it imperative that the Merlin lidar satellite be launched as soon as is feasibly possible so we can get a clear idea of how high the
Earth’s stratospheric methane concentrations are. The Merlin satellite will continuously give us real time information on the size of the stratospheric methane global warming
This information shows how extremely serious the Arctic
methane emission problem is and how urgently we need to measure the status of the Arctic stratospheric methane global warming veil between 30 km
veil that is gathering its strength in the upper atmosphere.
and 47 km height. An early warning of high methane contents in the methane global warming veil will give humanity time to react to the existing and new threats that are
developing in the Arctic. Methane detecting Lidar instruments could also be installed immediately on the International Space Station to give us early warning of the methane
build up in the stratosphere and act as a back up in case the Merlin satellite fails. Sea Level Rise The progressive rise in sea level from 2015 is shown on Figures 3, 4 and 5.
Figures 4 and 5 are simplified versions of Figures 7, 8 and 9 in Light 2012a and Figures 12 and 13 in Light 2012c. The various events related to global warming (droughts, water
stress, coral bleaching and death, deglaciation, sea level rise and major global extinction) are from Parry et al. 2007. At the time of total worldwide deglaciation, the sea level is
estimated to rise some 68.3 metres (224 feet) (Wales, 2012) The maximum time of inundation of various coastal cities, coastlines and coastal barriers is shown on Table 1 (after
Hillen et al. 2010; Hargraves, 2012). Rising sea levels will breach the Thames Barrier by 2029 flooding London. The base of the Washington Monument (D.C.) will be inundated
by 2031. Total global deglaciation > will cause the sea level to rise up the lower 35% of the Washington Monument by 2051 (68.3 m or 224 feet above present sea level). Because
of the massive increase in the strength of the storm systems and waves, high rise buildings in many of the coastal city centers will suffer irreparable damage and collapse so that
the core zones of the cities will be represented by a massive pile of wave pulverised debris. Unfortunately by that time a large portion of sea life will be extinct and the city debris
fields will not form a haven for coral reefs. The seas will probably still be occupied by the long lasting giant jellyfish (such as are now fished off Japan), rays and sharks (living
respectively since 670, 415 and 380 million years ago) and the sea floor by coeolocanths (living since 400 million years ago)(Calder, 1984). The city rubble zones will probably be
occupied by predatory fish (living since 425 million years ago)(Calder 1984). Life will also continue in the vicinity of oceanic black smokers so long as the oceans remain below
boiling point. ANGELS Proposal
If left alone the subsea Arctic methane hydrates will explosively
destabilize on their own due to global warming and produce a massive Arctic wide methane
“blowout ” that will lead to humanity’s total extinction , probably before the middle of
this century (Light 2012 a, b and c). AIRS atmospheric methane concentration data between 2008 and 2012 (Yurganov 2012)
show that the Arctic has already entered the early stages of a subsea methane “blowout” so we need
to step in as soon as we can (e.g. 2015) to prevent it escalating any further (Light 2012c). The Arctic Natural
Gas Extraction, Liquefaction & Sales (ANGELS) Proposal aims to reduce the threat of large, abrupt releases of
methane in the Arctic, by extracting methane from Arctic methane hydrates prone to
destabilization (Light, 2012c). After the Arctic sea ice has gone (probably around 2015) we propose that a large
consortium of oil and gas companies/governments set up drilling platforms near the regions of maximum subsea
methane emissions and drill a whole series of shallow directional production drill holes into the subsea subpermafrost “free
methane” reservoir in
order to depressurize it in a controlled manner (Light 2012c). This methane will be
produced to the surface, liquefied, stored and transported on LNG tankers as a “green energy”
source to all nations, totally replacing oil and coal as the major energy source (Light
2012c). The subsea methane reserves are so large that they can supply the entire earth’s energy
needs for several hundreds of years (Light 2012c). By sufficiently depressurizing the
Arctic subsea subpermafrost methane it will be possible to draw down Arctic ocean water through the old
eruption sites and fracture systems and destabilize the methane hydrates in a controlled way thus shutting
down the entire Arctic subsea methane blowout (Light 2012c).
[insert warming impact here]
Marine CCS Module
[warming real and anthropogenic]
Reductions in emissions alone are insufficient – even absent a methane leak,
current consumption levels have made CO2 based warming inevitable - strongly
err affirmative
Mills 11—Robin Mills, Head of Consulting at Manaar Energy Consulting, Non-Resident Scholar
at INEGMA, MSc in Geological Sciences from Cambridge, Capturing Carbon: The New Weapon
in the War Against Climate Change, p. 41
Even if carbon dioxide emissions were to stop today, the built-in inertia in the climate system would
lead to temperatures increasing further. In addition to the 0.75CC rise since the nineteenth century, we are already committed to a further
warming of 0.6°C. If emissions, and hence temperatures, continue to rise, warming may be as much as 4°C by 2050—and locally much more, 15°C hotter in the Arctic and 10°C
in western and southern Africa. At this level, climate impacts will become more and more serious.
Extinctions are likely to increase
sharply , while extreme heat-waves, forest die-offs, flooding of major river deltas, persistent severe droughts, mass
migrations,33 wars and famines are all possible. We may soon pass, or already have passed, the point at which, over the next few centuries, parts of
the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt irreversibly, with potential sea level rises of 1.5 and 2-3 metres respectively.34 Due to feedback
mechanisms and poorly understood components of global climate, there is even the possibility of a sudden, rapid
catastrophic change . For example, open ocean absorbs more heat from the sun than ice. Melting
permafrost35 and warming ocean bottom waters36 release carbon dioxide and the powerful greenhouse gas methane, driving further
warming. Carbon sinks will become increasingly ineffective37 as forests die off, soils dry out and
warmer oceans dissolve less carbon dioxide, so that ecosystems may become net
contributors
of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere,
rather than net absorbers as today. The shade of clouds may diminish over warming
oceans,38 while melting ice shelves may lead to sudden collapse of grounded ice, and hence rapid rises in sea level. The picture is complicated further by some offsetting effects,
due for instance to increased plant growth in a warmer, more CO2-rich world. Changes in cloudiness, snowfall and albedo (reflectiveness) of vegetation may have warming or
non-linear effects can lead to prolonged droughts in the
Mediterranean, California41 or West Africa,42 or to weakening of ocean circulation43 with knock-on effects including a rise in North Atlantic sea
levels of up to 1 metre, a collapse of fisheries, disruption of the South Asian monsoon,44 and possibly (albeit unlikely)
sharp cooling in Europe.45 Similar rapid changes are documented from Earth history, as at the end of the Ice Ages. At one time, at the end of the so-called
Younger Dryas event around 12,000 years ago, Europe warmed by some 5°C within two decades.4" It seems increasingly clear, from
geological studies, that the climate system is unstable and prone to abrupt transitions from one
state to another, so further warming might trigger entirely unforeseen consequences.47 We should not give in to
cooling effects. Such positive feedbacks may greatly accelerate warming. Unpredictable,
alarmism, and such disastrous shifts are thought to be unlikely—but their consequences are serious enough to be worth guarding against. This is about as far as the weight of
many
continue to deny
anthropogenic climate change
consensus has reached,48 Yet
individuals and corporations
the reality of
. The
US petroleum and coal businesses, in particular certain commentators,49 and many of the general public across the world, 50 continue to maintain that the climate is not
warming, that elevated carbon dioxide does not cause warming, that rising carbon dioxide and temperatures are not caused by humans, that the consequences of climate change
will be benign, or some combination of these positions. Beyond this understanding, there remains great uncertainty and debate on how much warming will occur for given
changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, how serious the impacts of this warming will be, how the climate will change at regional and local levels, how much it is worth spending
Despite extensive and
continuing research, these major uncertainties will persist for the foreseeable future. Some of the debate is
a normative one, about the values of our civilisation, and therefore is not even capable of being solved by scientific inquiry. Such uncertainty and controversy,
though, is not a reason for inaction . After all, we ban certain drugs suspected to be carcinogenic, without waiting for
absolute proof, and we will only know the truth about some of these climate change disasters when they
actually strike. I will take as my starting point here, in this fast-evolving area of research, the view that we should attempt to keep total warming below 2-3°C.52 The
to reduce climate change,51 exactly what types of action we should take, and how we should go about encouraging global action.
original goal of the EU, recommended by the International Climate Change Task Force, was for a maximum temperature rise of 2°C,53 but given the delay in taking major
Anything above 2°C is already dangerous but, with luck,
avoiding rises over 3°C will prevent the most damaging effects of climate change .
action, and the latest science, this already seems to be very tough to achieve.
Otherwise, we will venture into uncharted territory, where the risk of abrupt climatic changes is
high : 'Once the world has warmed by 4°C, conditions will be so different from anything we can observe today (and still more different from the last ice age) that it is
inherently hard to say where the warming will stop.'55
Carbon sequestration in methane hydrates is specifically key to solve – other
approaches fail
Park et al. 8 (Youngjune Park, Minjun Cha, Jong-Ho Cha, Kyuchul Shin, and Huen Lee,
Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology, Department of Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University, Korea
Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, “SWAPPING CARBON DIOXIDE FOR
COMPLEX GAS HYDRATE STRUCTURES” // AK)
Large amounts of CH4 in the form of solid hydrates are stored on continental margins and in
permafrost regions. If these CH4 hydrates could be converted into CO2 hydrates, they would
serve double duty as CH4 sources and CO2 storage sites. Herein, we report the swapping
phenomena between global warming gas and various structures of natural gas hydrate including
sI, sII, and sH through 13C solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance, and FT-Raman
spectrometer. The present outcome of 85% CH4 recovery rate in sI CH4 hydrate achieved by the direct use of binary N2 + CO2 guests is quite
surprising when compared with the rate of 64 % for a pure CO2 guest attained in the previous approach . The direct use of a mixture of
N2 + CO2 eliminates the requirement of a CO2 separation/purification process. In addition, the
simultaneously-occurring dual mechanism of CO2 sequestration and CH4 recovery is expected
to provide the physicochemical background required for developing a promising large-scale
approach with economic feasibility . In the case of sII and sH CH4 hydrates, we observe a spontaneous structure transition to
sI during the replacement and a cage-specific distribution of guest molecules. A significant change of the lattice dimension
due to structure transformation induces a relative number of small cage sites to reduce,
resulting in the considerable increase of CH4 recovery rate. The mutually interactive pattern of targeted guest-cage
conjugates possesses important implications on the diverse hydrate- based inclusion phenomena as clearly illustrated in the swapping process between
CO2 stream and complex CH4 hydrate structure. INTRODUCTION There
are currently two urgent global issues that
should be resolved, global warming effects and future energy sources . In order to
effectively control atmospheric CO2 levels, CO2 needs to be sequestered to appropriate
sites on a large scale . Several suggested methods that entail injecting CO2 into the ocean involve producing relatively pure CO2 at its
source and transporting it to the injection point [1]. In particular, when CO2 is injected in seawater below a certain
depth, a solid CO2 hydrate can be formed according to the stability regime [2]. On the other hand,
naturally-occurring gas hydrates are deposited on the continental margin and its permafrost
regions and are scattered all over the world [3]. The total amount of natural gas hydrate over the
world is estimated to be about twice as much as the energy contained in fossil fuel reserves [4,
5]. In order to recover CH4 efficiently, several strategies such as thermal treatment, depressurization, and inhibitor addition into the hydrate layer have
been proposed [6]. However, all these methods are based on the decomposition of CH4 hydrate by external stimulation and could potentially trigger
catastrophic slope failures [7]. It thus needs to be recognized that the present natural gas production technologies have inherent limitations in terms of
their adoption for the effective recovery of natural gas hydrates. As
such, the safest and most economically feasible
means should be developed with full consideration of environmental impacts. Recently, the
replacement technique for recovering CH4 from CH4 hydrate by using CO2 has been suggested
as an alternative option for recovering CH4 gas [8, 9]. This swapping process between two gaseous
guests is considered to be a favorable approach toward long-term storage of CO2. It also
enables the ocean floor to remain stabilized even after recovering the CH4 gas, because CH4
hydrate maintains the same crystalline structure directly after its replacement with CO2. If the
CH4 hydrates could be converted into CO2 hydrates, they would serve double duty as CH4
sources and CO2 storage sites. Here, we further extend our investigations to consider the occurrence of CO2 replacement phenomena
on sII, and sH hydrate. In this point of view, we present an interesting conclusion reached by inducing a structure transition. A microscopic
analysis is conducted in order to examine the real swapping phenomena occurring between CO2
guest molecules and various types of hydrate through spectroscopic identification, including
solid-state Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectrometry and FT-Raman spectrometry. More
importantly, we also investigate the possibility of direct use of binary N2 and CO2 gas mixture for recovering CH4
from the hydrate phase, which shows a remarkably enhanced recovery rate by means of the
cage-specific occupation of guest molecules due to their molecular properties.RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION The recoverable amount of CH4 by replacing sI CH4 hydrate with CO2 could reach around 64% of hydrate composition because CO2
molecules only preferably replace CH4 in large cages, while CH4 molecules in small cages remain almost intact [8]. This swapping process between two
gaseous guests is considered to be a favorable way as a long-term storage of CO2 and enables the ocean floor to remain stabilized even after recovering
the CH4 gas because sI CH4 hydrate maintains the same crystalline structure directly after its replacement with CO2. We first attempted to examine
real swapping phenomenon occurring between binary guest molecules of N2 and CO2 and crystalline sI CH4 hydrate through spectroscopic
identification. For CO2 its molecular diameter is the same as the small cage diameter of sI hydrate, and thus only a little degree of distortion in small
cages exists to accommodate CO2 molecules. Accordingly, we sufficiently expect that CO2 molecules can be more stably encaged in sI-L under favorable
host-guest interaction. On the other hand, N2 is known as one of the smallest hydrate formers and its molecular size almost coincides with CH4.
Although N2 itself forms pure sII hydrate with water, the relatively small size of N2 molecules leads to the preference of sI-S over other cages and
moreover the stabilization of overall sI hydrate structure when N2 directly participates in forming hydrate. Figure 1 13C cross-polarization NMR spectra
for identifying replaced CO2 molecules in sI CH4 hydrate.  Accordingly, CH4 and N2 are expected to compete for better occupancy to
sI-S, while CO2 preferentially occupies only sI-L without any challenge of other guests. Thus, the successful role of these two external guests of N2 and
CO2 in extracting original CH4 molecules makes it possible for diverse flue gases to be directly sequestrated into natural gas hydrate deposits. Figure 2
In-situ Raman spectra of sI CH4 hydrate replaced with N2 + CO2 (80 mol% N2 and 20 mol% CO2) mixture. (a) C-H stretching vibrational modes of
CH4 molecules, (b) N-N stretching modes of N2 molecules, (c) C=O stretching and bending vibrational modes of CO2 in clathrate hydrate cages. To
verify several key premises mentioned above we first identified ternary guest distribution in cages through the 13C NMR and Raman spectra. As shown
in Figure 1. the NMR spectra provide a clear evidence such that CO2 molecules are distributed only in sI-L. For qualitative description of cage
occupancy enforced by N2 molecules, we measured the Raman spectra of the sI CH4 hydrates replaced with N2 + CO2 mixture. Two peaks in Figure 2a
representing CH4 in sI-S (2914 cm-1) and CH4 in sI-L (2904 cm-1) continuously decreased during the replacing period of 750 min, but after that no
noticeable change occurred in peak intensity. This kinetic pattern can be also confirmed by crosschecking them with the corresponding Raman peaks of
N2 and CO2 (Figures 2b and 2c). The quantitative Raman analysis revealed that, 23% of CH4 in hydrate is replaced with N2, while 62% of CH4 is
replaced with CO2. Accordingly, approximately 85% of CH4 encaged in saturated CH4 hydrate is recovered and, of course, this recovery rate might be
expected to more or less change with variations of external variables such as pressure, temperature and hydrate particle size. The overall kinetic results
lead us to make a clear conclusion that the replacement of sI CH4 hydrate with N2 + CO2 mixture proceeds more effectively in crystalline hydrate than
using only pure CO2 because N2 molecules is confirmed to possess the excellent cage-guest interaction in an unusual configuration. Even for simple
hydrate systems focused in the present work the unique cage dynamics drawn from spectroscopic evidences might be expected to offer the new insight
for better understanding of inclusion phenomena, particularly, host lattice- guest molecule interaction as well as guest-guest replacement mechanism.
However, sII and sH hydrates, which are known to be formed by the influence of thermogenic hydrocarbon and mainly includes oil-related C1-C7
hydrocarbons, were discovered at shallow depth in sea floor sediment in a few sites such as the Gulf of Mexico or Cascadian margin [10-12]. Thus, it is
also required to verify the swapping phenomena occurring on sII or sH type clathrate hydrate. For sII hydrate, C2H6 is specially selected to form the
hydrate with CH4. We note that both CH4 and C2H6 form simple crystalline sI hydrates with water. But, when they are mixed within the limits of
specific concentrations, they act as binary guests causing to form the stable sII double hydrate [13]. Figure 3 shows the 13C HPDEC MAS NMR spectra
of  mixed CH4 + C2H6 hydrates that are replaced with CO2 molecules. Three peaks representing the CH4 in sII-S, CH4 in sII-L and C2H6 in sII-L
appeared at chemical shifts of -3.95, -7.7 and 6.4 ppm, respectively. Interestingly, during swapping process the external guest CO2 molecules attack
both small and large cages for better occupancy, which causes the structure transition of sII to sI to continuously proceed. Within 24 hours the sII
peaks almost disappeared and instead only a very small amount of CH4 in sI-S and sI-L and C2H6 in sI-L was detected at chemical shifts of -4.0, -6.1
and 7.7 ppm, respectively. Figure 3. The 13C HPDEC MAS NMR spectra of sII CH4 +C2H6 hydrate replaced with CO2. Figure 4. Relative moles in the
sII CH4 + C2H6 hydrate replaced with CO2 measured by gas chromatography. From structural viewpoint we think that the hydrate lattices are slightly
adjusted to accommodate three guests of CH4, C2H6 and CO2 in the highly stabilized hydrate networks. The cage-specific behavior revealed by CO2
can be sufficiently expected according to its molecular dimension over a small cage. Thus, the approaching CO2 competes only with CH4 and C2H6 in
sII-L at the initial stage of swapping. CH4 and C2H6 expelled from sII-L provoke losing sustainability of sII phase by getting out of the limit of critical
guest concentration. The reestablishment process of guest molecule distribution in the hydrate network causes to alter and ultimately adjust the lattice
dimension for structure transition to occur. The effect of a substantial small-cage reduction on CH4 recovery rate was checked by the GC analysis and
the results are shown in Figure 4. During the swapping process, the CH4 and C2H6 molecules in hydrate phase continuously decrease until reaching
the recovery rate of 92% for CH4 and 99% for C2H6. Both the NMR and GC results imply that most of CH4 molecules in sI-L as well as sI-S were
displaced by CO2 molecules. The externally approaching CO2 guests attack and occupy most of the sII-S and sII-L cages accompanying structure
transition of sII to sI. We note again that CO2 molecules possess a sufficient enclathration power to be entrapped in sI-S during change of sII to sI,
while the CO2 occupancy to sI-S of pure CH4 hydrate is very difficult to occur. The 30% or more CH4 recovery enhancement in sII over 64% in sI is
caused by structure transition totally altering the host-guest interactions during swapping. Furthermore, the naturally-occurring sII hydrates contain
more amount of CH4 than the laboratory- made sII hydrates used in these experiments and thus the actual limitation of recoverable CH4 in sII hydrate
would be higher than the present outcome of 92%. We also examined the swapping capacity of the N2 + CO2 mixture occurring in the mixed sII CH4 +
C2H6 hydrate and found that the recovery rates are 95% for CH4 and 93% for C2H6. Figure
5. The 13C HPDEC MAS NMR spectra of sH CH4 + isopentane hydrate replaced with CO2. In case of sH CH4 hydrate, structure transition was also
occurred during the swapping process as shown in Figure 5. Before replacement, isopentane was entrapped in large cages of sH hydrate with CH4 in
both small and middle cages. However, external CO2 gas provokes structure transition to sI type hydrate and finally sH phase disappeared. During the
replacement, 92% of CH4 was recovered. In addition, by using N2 + CO2 mixture exceeding 90% of recovered CH4 readily achieved. Table. 1.
Recoverable CH4 (mol%) in various types of gas hydrates CONCLUSION In
this study, we investigated the swapping
phenomena through flue gas mixtures of N2 and CO2 for efficiently developing gas hydrate in
the deep ocean floor. The direct use of N2 + CO2 mixture enhanced CH4 recovery as well as
eliminated the CO2 separation/purification process for sequestering CO2. In addition, a
spectroscopic analysis reveals that the external N2 molecules attack CH4 molecules already
entrapped in sI-S and play a significant role in substantially increasing the CH4 recovery rate. In
particular, we performed the replacement experiment for naturally occurring sI, sII, sH hydrate.
During the swapping the sII and sH CH4 hydrate, structure transition to sI were observed. The
utilization of this natural swapping phenomenon might greatly contribute to realizing both
ocean storage of CO2 and CH4 recovery from marine deposits in a large scale.
Only carbon dioxide REMOVAL solves—slow absorption rate proves
Mills 11—Robin Mills, Head of Consulting at Manaar Energy Consulting, Non-Resident Scholar
at INEGMA, MSc in Geological Sciences from Cambridge, Capturing Carbon: The New Weapon
in the War Against Climate Change, p. 41
we can at a cost in money and energy, remove any quantity of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This may be crucial if we discover that we are on the path
to sudden, catastrophic climate change. Even if we were to halt all emissions immediately, it
Indirect capture is therefore the ultimate backstop for climate policy. Storage capacity permitting,
,
would take millennia for the elevated concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide to be fully
absorbed . By contrast, air cap-ture might be able to take us back to pre-industrial levels within
some decades. As a 'geo-engineering' solution, it addresses the problem directly, rather than reducing global warming indirectly.141 Undesirable
sjde-effects are, as far as we can tell now, minimal compared with other geo-engineering techniques, and it
also addresses the other key issue of ocean acidification. Some major studies have dismissed air capture without serious consideration,14mainly on cost grounds. It is, indeed, likely to be one of the more expensive carbon mitigation options, but it does not have to compete with CCS on large centralised sources, nor
It is intended to address otherwise intractable polluters such as flying,
and to provide a way of returning rapidly to a pre-industrial atmosphere. In contrast to other 'carbon offset' schemes
with major low-carbon power solutions such as wind or nuclear.
such as forestry (see Chapter 4), which have been heavily criticised,141 it offers completely verifiable, and unde-niably 'additional', reductions. I will return to this issue in
Chapter 6.
US leadership on marine CCS spills over globally by demonstrating
economic feasibility—modeling gets China and India on board
MIT 7—MIT Panel Provides Policy Blueprint for Future of Use of Coal as Policymakers Work to
Reverse Global Warming, p. http://web.mit.edu/coal/
Leading academics from an interdisciplinary Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) panel issued a report
today that examines how the world can continue to use coal, an abundant and inexpensive fuel, in a way that
mitigates , instead of worsens, the global warming crisis. The study, "The Future of Coal – Options for a Carbon Constrained World," advocates
the U.S. assume global leadership on this issue through adoption of significant policy actions. Led by co-chairs Professor John Deutch,
Institute Professor, Department of Chemistry, and Ernest J. Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physics and Engineering Systems, the report states that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)
is the critical enabling technology to help reduce CO2 emissions significantly while also
allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs. According to Dr. Deutch, "As the world's
leading energy user and greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. must take the lead in showing
the world CCS can work . Demonstration of technical, economic, and institutional features
of CCS at commercial scale coal combustion and conversion plants will give policymakers and the public confidence that a
practical carbon mitigation control option exists, will reduce cost of CCS should carbon emission controls be adopted, and will maintain
the low-cost coal option in an environmentally acceptable manner." Dr. Moniz added, "There are many opportunities for enhancing the performance of coal plants in a carbonconstrained world – higher efficiency generation, perhaps through new materials; novel approaches to gasification, CO2 capture, and oxygen separation; and advanced system
concepts, perhaps guided by a new generation of simulation tools. An aggressive R&D effort in the near term will yield significant dividends down the road, and should be
undertaken immediately to help meet this urgent scientific challenge." Key findings in this study: • Coal is a low-cost, per BTU, mainstay of both the developed and developing
world, and its use is projected to increase. Because of coal's high carbon content, increasing use will exacerbate the problem of climate change unless coal plants are deployed
with very high efficiency and large scale CCS is implemented. • CCS is the critical enabling technology because it allows significant reduction in CO2 emissions while allowing
coal to meet future energy needs. • A significant charge on carbon emissions is needed in the relatively near term to increase the economic attractiveness of new technologies
that avoid carbon emissions and specifically to lead to large-scale CCS in the coming decades. We need large-scale demonstration projects of the technical, economic and
Several integrated largescale demonstrations with appropriate measurement, monitoring and verification are needed in the U nited S tates over the next decade
environmental performance of an integrated CCS system. We should proceed with carbon sequestration projects as soon as possible.
with government support . This is important for establishing public confidence for the very
large-scale sequestration program anticipated in the future. The regulatory regime for large-scale commercial sequestration
should be developed with a greater sense of urgency, with the Executive Office of the President leading an interagency process. • The U.S. government should provide assistance
only to coal projects with CO2 capture in order to demonstrate technical, economic and environmental performance. • Today, IGCC appears to be the economic choice for new
coal plants with CCS. However, this could change with further RD&D, so it is not appropriate to pick a single technology winner at this time, especially in light of the variability
in coal type, access to sequestration sites, and other factors. The government should provide assistance to several "first of a kind" coal utilization demonstration plants, but only
with carbon capture. • Congress should remove any expectation that construction of new coal plants without CO2 capture will be "grandfathered" and granted emission
Emissions will be stabilized
only through global adherence to CO2 emission constraints. China and India are unlikely
allowances in the event of future regulation. This is a perverse incentive to build coal plants without CO2 capture today. •
to adopt carbon constraints unless the U.S. does so and leads the way in the
development of CCS technology.
Future Sustainability Module
Natural methane gas is a bridge fuel to renewables, but it fails alone – conjunction
with CCS is key to future sustainability
Brown et al. 9 (internationally recognized scholar for his work in energy economics, PhD and
professor of economics at UNLV, “Natural Gas: A Bridge to a Low‐Carbon Future?” // AK)
Over the next 20 years, the United States and other countries seem likely to take steps toward a
low‐carbon future. Looking beyond this timeframe, many analysts expect nuclear power and emergent energy technologies—
such as carbon capture and sequestration, renewable power generation, and electric and plug‐in hybrid vehicles—to
hold the keys to achieving a sustainable reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In the
meantime, however, many are discussing greater use of natural gas to reduce CO2 emissions.
Recent assessments suggest that the United States has considerably more recoverable natural gas in shale formations than was
previously thought, given new drilling technologies that dramatically lower recovery cost. Because natural gas use yields CO2
emissions that are about 45 percent lower per Btu than coal and 30 percent lower than oil, its apparent abundance raises the
possibility that natural gas could serve as a bridge fuel to a future with reduced CO2 emissions. Such a transition would seem
particularly attractive in the electric power sector if natural gas were to displace coal. To
assess the role of natural gas as
a bridge fuel to a low‐carbon future, we compare four scenarios that reflect different
perspectives on natural gas availability and climate policy. These scenarios run through 2030
and were modeled using NEMS‐RFF.2 Two scenarios are business‐as‐usual cases and assume that the United States
adopts no new policies to reduce CO2 emissions. The first uses what now seem to be conservative estimates of shale gas resources;
the numbers date from 2007 but have been used as recently as early 2009 by the Energy Information Administration. The second
uses newer, more optimistic estimates developed by the Potential Gas Committee (2009). The third and fourth scenarios assume
that the United States adopts a low‐carbon policy with CO2 emission targets similar to those in the American Clean Energy and
Security Act proposed by Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, and to those proposed by the Obama administration
prior to the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Like the first scenario, Scenario 3 uses conservative estimates of U.S. shale
By comparing these four scenarios, we
assess how the relative abundance of natural gas might affect its usage and potential to reduce
CO2 emissions. We find that more abundant natural gas supplies result in greater natural gas
use in most sectors of the economy. More importantly, we find that with appropriate carbon
policies in place—such as a cap‐and‐trade system or a carbon tax—natural gas can play a role as a bridge fuel
to a low‐ carbon future. Having low‐carbon policies in place is crucial. Without such
policies, more abundant natural gas does not reduce CO2 emissions. Although greater natural gas
resources reduce the price of natural gas and displace the use of coal and oil, they also boost overall energy
consumption and reduce the use of nuclear and renewable energy sources for electric power
generation. As a result, projected CO2 emissions are almost one percent higher.
resources of natural gas. Scenario 4 uses the more optimistic estimates.
Independently, carbon sequestration in methane hydrates reverses the effects of
current consumption, and causes a paradigm shift that locks in future
sustainability
Sabil et al. 11 (K.M. Sabil – Department of Chemical Engineering at University Teknologi
Petronas, PhD (Chemical Engineering) Delft University MSc (Chemical Engineering) Universiti
Sains Malaysia| BEng (Chemical Engineering), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Azmi and H. Mukhtar,
“A Review on Carbon Dioxide Hydrate Potential in Technological Applications” // AK)
INTRODUCTION The
increasing demand for energy to supply for the need of industrial
developments and the escalating human population has led to accelerated mining and
combustion of fossil fuels. These woldwide activities cause a continuing increase of the rates of
anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, resulting in the increase of the level of atmospheric
carbon dioxide. The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has increased 22% since 1958 and about
30% since 1880 (Robinson et al., 2007). The alarmingly increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
is believed to have caused some significant climate changes. For instance, the worldwide
temperature measurements, carefully screened for instrumental and experimental conditions
such as effects of urbanization, show an increase in global mean annual surface temperatures of
0.3 to 0.6°C for the last 159 years (Nicholls and Leatherman, 1996). If the temperature continues to
increase, devastating effects on world population will be unavoidable. Due to this concern,
the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has
caused widespread global concerns and has attracted international action such as the Kyoto Protocol. The main
sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are thermal power generation, oil and natural gas
refining and processing, cement manufacturing, iron and steel making and petrochemical
industries. As shown in Table 1, fossil-fuelled power combined with oil and gas refining and
processing cover more than 87% of the industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Table 1: Annual carbon
dioxide emissions from major industrial sources* *Source:http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_technical
summary.pdf As
the world’s dependency on oil and gas as the main source of energy is foreseen to
continue for years to come, a new approach should be developed in order to reduce the
increasing amount of carbon dioxide release as a by-product of energy production. A
paradigm shift is required in order to successfully combat this environmental problem and
the basis of this paradigm shift is to look at carbon dioxide not just as a polluting greenhouse gas
but also as a valuable raw material. This approach requires the development of separation
technologies to separate the carbon dioxide in bulk from the natural gas under different
concentrations, techniques to sequestrate or store the carbon dioxide and processes to convert
the bulk carbon dioxide to different added-value products like chemicals, temperate-farming-agro-products
and refrigerants. The benefits from this approach are three-fold. Firstly, for the growth of the hydrocarbon based industries, new
technologies suitable to cater for high carbon dioxide concentration have to be developed on a high
priority basis. Secondly, from the large quantities of carbon dioxide that is produced, a variety of added-value products could be
obtained, thus converting a polluting greenhouse gas into a valuable resource. Thirdly, carbon credit is gained under the Kyoto
Protocol for utilizing the carbon dioxide which can be used to generate additional revenue. CLATHRATE HYDRATES Gas or
clathrate hydrates were discovered almost two centuries ago by Davy (1814). In the early days, interest in gas hydrates was mainly
focused on the discovery of new hydrate formers, mainly inorganic chemicals and the composition of these hydrates (Sloan, 1998).
Only after the discovery of the occurrence of hydrates in oil production pipelines by Hammerschmidt (1934), a shift towards more
industrial hydrate research focusing on hydrocarbons based hydrates was carried out to cater for the needs of oil and gas production.
Since then, hydrate research has been intensified especially after the discovery of natural gas hydrate deposits in the Siberian
permafrost regions by Makogon (1981). Clathrate
hydrates or gas hydrates are crystalline solid compounds
that are formed in mixtures of water and non-or slightly polar low molecular weight gases or
volatile liquids and when subjected to appropriate temperature and pressure conditions. They
are formed when hydrogen-bonded water molecules form cage-like structures, known as cavities
in the crystalline lattice. These cavities have to be at least partially filled with the hydrateforming molecules, also known as the ‘guest molecule’s, in order to stabilize the structure. Guest
molecules are either non-polar or slightly polar in nature and the most common guest molecules are methane, ethane, propane, isobutane, normal butane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. Depending on the type and the size of guest molecule
presents, different gas hydrate structures can be formed. The types of cavities that are formed and the distribution of those cavities
in a unit cell are used to distinguish the clathrate hydrate structures. A numerous number of structures are known but there are
three different structures have been well studied, namely, structure I (sI), structure II (sII) and structure H (sH) (Sloan, 1998). The
unit cell of structure I hydrate consists of 46 water molecules forming two small cavities and six large cavities. The small cavity has
the shape of a pentagonal dodecahedron (512) while the large cavity has the shape of a tetradecahedron (51262). The unit cell of
structure II hydrate consists of 136 water molecules forming sixteen small cavities and eight large cavities. Similar to the small cavity
of sI, the small cavity of sII also has the shape of a pentagonal dodecahedron (512) but the large cavity has a shape of a
hexadecahedron (51264). In structure H, the unit cell consists of three small cavities of 512, two medium cavities of 435663 and one
large cavity of 51268. The number of water molecules, cages and some geometry of the different hydrate structures are given in Table
2. Table 2: Geometry of hydrate unit cells and cavities (Sloan and Koh, 2008) Table 3: Ratios of molecular diameter to cavity
diameters for clathrate hydrate former (Sloan, 1998) In order to form clathrate hydrate, the size of the guest molecules must not be
too large or too small compared to the size of the cavities. A ratio of the molecular diameter to the cavity diameter of approximately
0.75 appears to be optimal (Christiansen and Sloan, 1994). Structures I and II can be formed with a single guest component while
structure H requires at least two different guest molecules (large and small). Most components of natural gas (CH4, C2H6, C3H8,
CO2, N2 and H2S etc.) form hydrates. Table 3 presents the diameter ratios of natural gas components and a few other components
relative to the diameter of each cavity in structures I and II. In Table 3, size ratios denoted with a superscript ζ are those occupied by
a simple hydrate former. On one hand, if the size ratio is less than 0.76, the molecular attractive forces cannot contribute to cavity
stability. On the other hand, above the ratio value of about 1.0, the guest molecule does not fit into a cavity without lattice distortion
(Sloan, 1998). CARBON DIOXIDE HYDRATE As previously mentioned,
carbon dioxide has been known to be
among a number of molecules that can form clathrate hydrate. The first evidence for the existence of CO2
hydrates probably dates back to the year 1882, when Wroblewski reported the clathrate hydrate formation in a system of carbonic
acid and water (Wroblewski, 1882). Fig. 1: Three-phase equilibrium data of simple hydrates of carbon dioxide (Sabil et al., 2010) The
hydrate dissociation curve in the range 267 to 283 K is first published by Villard in 1897 (Villard, 1897). Later on, Tamman and Krige
measured the hydrate decomposition curve from 230 to 250 K (Tamman and Krige, 1925). Frost and Deaton determined the
dissociation pressure between 273 and 283 K (Frost and Deaton, 1946). Takenouchi and Kennedy (1965) measured the
decomposition curve from 4.5 to 200 MPa. Carbon dioxide hydrate was classified as a structure I clathrate for the first time by Von
Stackelberg and Muller (1954). As
a simple hydrate, carbon dioxide forms structure I hydrate under
appropriate pressure and temperature conditions. If all the hydrate cavities are occupied, the chemical formula is
8 CO2. 46 H2O or CO2. 5.75 H2O. Extended compilations of published hydrate equilibrium conditions of carbon dioxide in pure
water can be found in Sloan and Koh (2008). The phase behaviour of carbon dioxide and water in the hydrate forming region is
measured by Sabil et al. (2010) in the temperature and pressure ranges of 271-292 K and 1.0-7.5 MPa, respectively as presented in
Fig. 1. There are four different phases are observed namely: hydrate phase (H), vapour phase (V), liquid water phase (LW) and
condensed gas or liquid organics phases (Lv). As shown in this figure, the hydrate stability region is bounded by the H-LW-V and HLW-LV. As such, at any specified temperature, carbon dioxide hydrate will be stable as long as the pressure of the system is higher or
equal to the equilibrium pressure of the system. The upper quadruple point, Q2 (Fig. 1) at which hydrate, vapour, condensed carbon
dioxide and liquid water phases exist in equilibrium is measured at 283.0 K and 4.47 MPa. Carbon dioxide itself has a triple point at
T = 216.58 K and P = 0.5185 Mpa and a critical point at T = 304.2 K and P = 7.3858 MPa. In literature, the lowest measured
equilibrium pressure for carbon dioxide hydrate is at 0.535 kPa and 151.5 K for I-H-V equilibrium point and its value is reported by
Miller and Smythe (1970). INTERESTS ON CARBON DIOXIDE HYDRATE Like
other fields of research with a focus
on carbon dioxide, the interest of carbon dioxide hydrates is mainly based on the possibilities of
using the formation of carbon dioxide hydrates for carbon dioxide separation, capture and
storage (CCS). Any technique that prevents or reverses the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and diverts the carbon
to a viable carbon sink can be considered carbon capture. Currently, there are a few techniques available for
carbon dioxide capture and separation with some degree of success such as chemical solvents, physical absorption,
physical adsorption, chemisorptions and chemical bonding through mineralization. However, the main concerns of
these techniques are the amount of chemicals to be used in these processes, the energy penalties
and the costs associated with these processes in their present form make these processes
becoming less attractive for large-scale carbon capture (GCEP) carbon capture technology
assessment, (Anonymous, 2005). The global climate and energy project (GCEP) lead by Stanford University is a major
on-going research project with a long-term aim of the development of global energy systems with significantly
lower greenhouse gas emissions In this retrospect, clathrate hydrate technique offers a couple of
advantages. Firstly, the main chemical required for carbon dioxide hydrate formation is water
which provides the process with abundant (cheap) and green raw chemical. Secondly, reduction
of energy requirements for hydrate formation can be obtained by including certain organic
chemicals in low concentrations, known as hydrate promoter in the hydrate forming system
(Mooijer-van den Heuvel, 2004). The inclusion of one of these hydrate promoters will reduce
the pressure requirement or increase the temperature at which the clathrate hydrates are stable.
This leads to a reduction in the energy required for pressurization or cooling the targeted
systems. Moreover, the interest in carbon dioxide hydrates is not limited to carbon capture and
sequestration. As mentioned earlier, a paradigm shift is required to look into carbon dioxide also as a material to be used in
industrial processes. The various areas of interest of carbon dioxide hydrates in accordance with their respective possibilities to be
developed as tools to overcome the ever increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere are summarized in the following
sections. Marine
carbon dioxide sequestration: Due to the pressures and temperatures at ocean
depths which are suitable for carbon dioxide hydrates formation (Aya et al., 1997; Brewer et al., 1999);
sequestration of carbon dioxide as clathrate hydrates has been thoroughly investigated. Between
1000 and 2000 m (deep water), carbon dioxide in the liquid state diffuses and also dissolves in
the ocean (Liro et al., 1992). In addition, carbon dioxide hydrates can appear from 500 to 900 m
in CO2-rich seawater (Kojima et al., 2002). Due to their densities (Holder et al., 1995), these hydrate sink towards
the deep sea bottom where they stabilize in the long term (Lee et al., 2003; Harrison et al., 1995). Additionally, it
has been
proposed to replace the natural gas in naturally occurring hydrate fields by replacement with
carbon dioxide (Komai et al., 2000). In bulk, these carbon dioxide hydrates can be transported
as slurries in pipelines or in pressurized and chilled vessels from the points of carbon dioxide
captured to the points of carbon dioxide sequestrated. Currently, marine carbon dioxide sequestration is
presently at an experimental stage implying that on-going research activities on carbon dioxide solubility (Aya et al., 1997; Yang et
al., 2000); carbon dioxide hydrate formation and dissociation kinetics (Englezos, 1992; Circone et al., 2003); carbon dioxide hydrate
stability (Harrison et al., 1995), hydrodynamics conditions (Yamasaki et al., 2000) and other related fields are required to ensure the
success of this sequestration method.
[renewables good]
Solvency
Carbon sequestration in the ocean can recover methane in hydrates – oceanic
dynamics mean no risk of leakage
Dornan et al. 7 (Peter Dornan, Saman Alavi, and T. K. Woo, Centre for Catalysis Research and
Innovation, Department of Chemistry, University of Ottawa, The Journal of Chemical Physics,
“Free energies of carbon dioxide sequestration and methane recovery in clathrate hydrates” //
AK)
As concern over global warming increases, there is considerable interest in the use of carbon
neutral fuels.1 How- ever, in the short term, “dirty” hydrocarbon based fossil fuels will remain
widely used to meet the world’s growing energy needs. As such, the capture and long term
storage of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has emerged as a prominent strategy for reducing
anthropogenic release of this greenhouse gas. For example, Japan has recently set a target of storing 200 Mton of
CO2 annually �approximately one-sixth of its current carbon dioxide production� by the year 2020.2 Al- though a number of long
term storage strategies have been proposed as far back as the 1970’s,3 the technology to safely store CO2 in such vast quantities has
not been fully developed. Currently, the
leading approach involves injecting CO2 into spent natural gas
reservoirs deep underground.4 There is, however, a concern that this CO2 storage approach may be vulnerable to leakage
resulting from large scale geological perturbations such as earthquakes or fractures.5 Under the temperature and
pressure conditions of terrestrial gas wells, CO2 is more buoyant than the other pore fluids, and
therefore may escape back to the surface if there is a leak. Recently, the injection of carbon
dioxide in porous sediments at a depth of several hundred meters below the deep ocean floor
has been proposed as an alternative long term sequestration option that would be resistant to
geophysical perturbations. At a depth of about 2600 m in the ocean, CO2 becomes denser
than the surrounding seawater and is considered to be gravitationally stable. Furthermore,
depositing the CO2 under hundreds of meters of sediment prevents the transport of the carbon
dioxide back to the surface. This is in part due to the formation of a CO2 clathrate hydrate
capping layer that reduces the migration. In the ocean, temperature decreases at greater depths, but in sediments
below the seafloor, the geothermal gradient results in a rise in temperature upon further descent, causing the density of CO2���
in sediments to decrease at a quicker rate than the pore liq- uid. For example, where the seafloor depth is 3500 m, CO2��� is
denser than seawater, but at a depth of about 200 m into the seafloor sediment, the pore seawater once again becomes denser than
CO2���. This indicates that there is a significant region in the sediment, called the negative buoyancy zone �NBZ�,6 where the
density of liquid CO is 2 greater than pore sea water. The
negative buoyancy zone, where CO2��� is
gravitationally stable, overlaps significantly with the hydrate formation zone �HFZ� where
CO2 clathrate hydrate formation can occur. The clathrate hydrate layers formed at the HFZ as a
result of the contact of CO2 with the pore seawater coupled with the gravitational stability of
CO2 in the NBZ will form a cap6 which prevents CO2 from seep- ing up through the pore fluid
and into the ocean even with the occurrence of geophysical perturbations. Initial estimates
suggest that this storage strategy should be safe for millions of years.6 Determining the stability of the
clathrate phases at the NBZ will help us understand the properties of the cap mate- rial for CO2 storage in the deep ocean sediments.
Under subseafloor pressures, CO2 clathrate hydrates are likely to be structure I �sI� or structure II �sII� clathrates, whereas,
pure CH4 clathrate reserves are sI, since pure methane is a poor sII former.8 Figure 1 shows a sI CO2 / CH4 mixed clathrate.
Structures I and II clathrates have two types of cages in their unit cell. A sI unit cell has two “small” cages with 12 pen- tagonal faces
�512�, and six “large” cages with 12 pentagonal faces and two hexagonal faces �51262�. A sII unit cell has sixteen small cages of
type �512�, and eight large cages of type �51264�. For more details on clathrate structures, see some reviews.9 In
addition
to forming a capping layer to impede the migration of CO2, clathrates may play additional roles
in deep ocean carbon dioxide sequestration. Vast amounts of methane clathrates are known to
exist below the ocean floor and replacement of methane with carbon dioxide has been put
forward as an economic incentive for storing CO2 in the deep ocean.10,11 Recently, Park et al.11
have used solid state NMR and Raman studies to monitor the replacement of sI methane
clathrate exposed to carbon dioxide at 270 K and 4–12 MPa. Under these conditions,
recrystallization of the sI clathrate occurs and CO2 replaces CH4 in the large cages, while the
small cages mostly retain the methane molecules.10 The total extraction efficiency for methane was only 64%.
However, exposure of the sI CH4 clathrate to an 80 / 20 mix- ture of N2 / CO2 achieved an
extraction of 85% of the meth- ane, due to additional partial CH4 replacement by N2 in the
small cages. This suggests that injection of CO2 and N2 might be an effective way of extracting
methane from clath- rates in deep ocean sediment. Thus, injecting CO2 into sedi- ments that
contain methane clathrates could provide an op- portunity for methane recovery, but it could also
represent a hindrance, as it could lead to the uncontrolled release of methane—a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. In this
work we
have used molecular dynamics simula- tions to investigate the thermodynamic aspects of
using clathrates for CO2 storage and the possibility of methane extraction coupled to the
storage. The free energies of sub- stituting methane from sI clathrates with CO2, N2, or with
combinations of these two have been examined under deep sea conditions. Simulations with N2
or CO2 / N2 mixtures will give an indication of whether the atmospheric nitrogen gas will
interfere with the process of CO2 clathrate formation or methane recovery. Previously, only the free
energy of re- placing all of the methane in a sI clathrate with CO2 at pres- sures significantly lower than that of the NBZ of the sea
floor, has been calculated.12 In those calculations, where the substituting gas is treated as ideal, the free energy of CH4 substitution
by CO2 at 270 K and 5 MPa was determined to be favorable by �G=−3.46 to −2.70 kJ/mol per molecule, depending on the potential
model used for water. Given the recent experimental results of Park et al.,11 it is also desirable to separate the substitution of the
large cage methane and small cage methane in order to evaluate whether full substi- tution is favored over substitution in the large
cages only. In this work we have examined the free energies for CH4 sub- stitution with CO2 in small and large cages, or large cages
only in sI clathrates. Full substitution by N2 and mixed CO2 / N2 substitutions have also been examined. We have further studied
the free energy for replacement of CH4 in a sII clathrate with CO2 and examined the possibility of mul- tiple occupancies in the large
cages of CO2 clathrates. In brief, the remainder of this paper is as follows. A description of our computational approach is given in
the next section, with further details and data provided in the supplementary material. This is followed by discussion of the results
and the conclusions, with an emphasis placed on the implications to CO2 sequestration and methane recovery throughout.
Further development of methane hydrate is key to make them commercially viable
– the technology is successful and solves – experimental, numerical, and field
studies prove
Nago et al. 11 (Annick, Antonio Nieto, The John and Willie Leone Family Department of
Energy and Mineral Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, “Natural Gas Production
from Methane Hydrate Deposits Using Clathrate Sequestration: State-of-the-Art Review and
New Technical Approaches” // AK)
This paper focuses on reviewing the currently available solutions for natural gas production from methane hydrate deposits using
CO2 sequestration. Methane
hydrates are ice-like materials, which form at low temperature and high
pressure and are located in permafrost areas and oceanic environments. They represent a huge
hydrocarbon resource, which could supply the entire world for centuries. Fossil-fuel-based
energy is still a major source of carbon dioxide emissions which contribute greatly to the issue of
global warming and climate change. Geological sequestration of carbon dioxide appears
as the safest and most stable way to reduce such emissions for it involves the trapping of
CO2 into hydrocarbon reservoirs and aquifers. Indeed, CO2 can also be sequestered as hydrates
while helping dissociate the in situ methane hydrates. The studies presented here investigate the
molecular exchange between CO2 and CH4 that occurs when methane hydrates are exposed to
CO2, thus generating the release of natural gas and the trapping of carbon dioxide as gas
clathrate. These projects include laboratory studies on the synthesis, thermodynamics,
phase equilibrium, kinetics, cage occupancy, and the methane recovery potential of the mixed
CO2–CH4 hydrate. An experimental and numerical evaluation of the effect of porous
media on the gas exchange is described. Finally, a few field studies on the potential of this
new gas hydrate recovery technique are presented. 1. Introduction Since their initial discovery by Sir Davy
Humphrey in 1810, natural gas hydrates have graduated from a laboratory oddity to a hydrocarbon production nuisance as
seen forming inside the chamber bell used to cap the spill in the deep water horizon oil well, and so forth, before being
considered as a potential energy resource for the future. For many decades, countries such as the USA, Canada,
Japan, India, and China have funded major research projects to get a better understanding and knowledge of natural gas hydrates
[1]. Resource
assessment studies have demonstrated the huge potential of gas hydrate
accumulations as a future energy resource [2]. World energy demand is steadily rising due to
global population and economic growth. World energy consumption is expected to increase
from 472 quadrillion Btu to 678 quadrillion Btu in 2030, that a total increase of 44% from 2006
to 2030 [3]. China and India are currently the fastest growing non-OECD economies, and their combined energy consumption
is expected to represent 28% of the world energy consumption in 2030 [4]. Despite recent progress in obtaining energy from
nonfossil fuels, nearly
80% of the world energy supply will still be generated from oil, natural gas,
and coal. The combustion of these fuels is a major source of carbon dioxide emissions.
Unfortunately, a perceived change in the global climate has been attributed to the increasing
concentration of Green House Gases such as CO2 in the atmosphere. Geological sequestration of
CO2 is a potential solution to this problem. Typical geological sequestration consists in
capturing and storing the gas in a geological setting such as active and depleted oil/gas
reservoir, deep brine formations, deep coal seams, and coal-bed methane formation [5].
Sequestration of CO2 in marine and arctic hydrates is considered as an advanced geologic
sequestration concept, which needs further investigation [6]. Gas hydrates are found in nature,
in permafrost and marine environments. They contain mixtures of gases such as methane and
ethane, with carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide as trace. Methane is the predominant
component of natural gas hydrates, which is the reason they are simply called methane hydrates.
Gas hydrates form under specific conditions: (1) the right combination of pressure and temperature (high pressure and low
temperature), (2) the presence of hydrate-forming gas in sufficient amounts, and (3) the presence of water. CO2 and CH4 hydrates
are of interest with CO2 being a preferential hydrate guest former when compared to CH4. In
addition, CO2 hydrates are
more stable than CH4 hydrates, and the exposition CH4 hydrates to carbon dioxide has resulted
in the release of methane, while carbon dioxide remained trapped. Thus, the use of carbon
dioxide to recover natural gas from hydrate deposits has gained more and more relevance in the
industry. Other techniques are being explored in the area of production from hydrate deposits. However, the resource is still not
commercially viable due to technical, environmental, and economic issues. Any further investigation of the mixed
CO2–CH4 gas hydrate properties could lead to major breakthroughs in the fields of
unconventional resource production and carbon sequestration. 2. What Are Methane Hydrates? Natural gas hydrates,
commonly called methane hydrates, are crystalline compounds, which are constituted of gas and water molecules. The water molecules or host molecules form a hydrogenbonded lattice, in which gas molecules or guest molecules are entrapped. The presence of guest molecules stabilizes the lattice due to the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces
between molecules known as the Van der Waals forces. There is no bonding between the host molecules and the guest molecules, that is, the gas molecules are free to rotate
inside the lattice [2, 7–9]. Gas hydrate formation and dissociation are described by the following equations: and , where NH is the hydration number and G is the guest molecule.
Gas hydrate formation is an exothermic process while gas hydrate dissociation is endothermic. Gas hydrates come under three distinguishable structures: type I, type II, and
type H. All structures involve a network of interconnected cages. Structure I (sI) hydrates display unit cells that are constituted of 46 water molecules organized into 2 small
cavities and 6 large cavities. The small cavities are dodecahedral cages with 12 pentagonal faces. They are usually denoted as 512 cages. The large cavities are 14-sided polyhedra
(tetrakaidecahedron), which are usually denoted as 51262. The unit cells of Type II hydrates (sII) contain 136 water molecules. They are organized into 16 small cavities and 8
large cavities. The small cavities are of the same kind as the small cavities in sI hydrates. However, the large cavities are hexacaidecahedra (51264) with 12 pentagonal faces and
4 hexagonal faces [9]. In 1987, a new hydrate structure was discovered and called structure H (sH). This structure contains 34 water molecules in its unit cell, forming a
hexagonal lattice. Type H hydrates display three types of cavities: three 512 cages, two 435663 cages, and one large 51268 [9, 10]. Because of the size difference between the
cages, the three types of hydrates tend to trap different kinds of molecules. Type I hydrates are usually formed with smaller molecules such as ethane and hydrogen sulfide. Type
II clathrates are formed by larger molecules such as propane and isobutane. Type H hydrates require the presence of a small molecule such as methane and a type H gas former
like 2-methylbutane and cycloheptane to be created. They are less common in nature than the other types of gas hydrates [9, 10]. Figure 1 illustrates the different sorts of hydrate
structures and some of their gas-forming molecules. These structures have been observed with X-ray diffraction. 239397.fig.001 Figure 1: Different types of clathrate hydrates
[9]. Methane and carbon dioxide both form type I hydrates. The comparison of their hydrate phase equilibrium conditions suggests the occurrence of a transition zone between
both hydrate equilibrium curves where CO2 hydrates can exist while CH4 hydrates dissociate into methane gas and water. The hydrate phase diagrams of both compounds are
presented in Figure 2. In addition, the heat of formation of carbon dioxide hydrate (−57.98 kJ/mole) is greater than the heat of dissociation of methane hydrate (54.49 kJ/mole).
The heat released from the formation of carbon dioxide hydrate in the presence of methane hydrate should be sufficient to dissociate the methane hydrate and recover methane
gas [11]. Thirdly, it has been experimentally proven that carbon dioxide is preferentially trapped over methane in the hydrate phase [12]. These observations fuel the growing
interest in the use of carbon dioxide for natural gas recovery from gas hydrate deposits. 239397.fig.002 Figure 2: CH4 and CO2 hydrate phase diagrams [2]. Gas hydrates can be
naturally found in permafrost areas and subsea environments. The temperature and pressure gradients which are at play underneath the Earth help define specific hydrate
occurring zones, when associated to the thermodynamic hydrate equilibrium conditions. These zones are called hydrate stability zones [8]. Figure 3 displays the hydrate stability
zones in permafrost and marine environments. fig3 Figure 3: Hydrate stability zones in permafrost and marine environments [2]. Assessment methods for gas hydrates include
seismic studies (bottom simulating reflectors), pore water salinity measurements, well-logging, and direct observations from core samples [13]. So far, 89 hydrate locations have
been discovered all over the world [14]. These locations are presented in Figure 4. 239397.fig.004 Figure 4: World gas hydrate locations [13].3. Current Research Status Three
main production methods have so far been explored for the recovery of natural gas from hydrate deposits: depressurization, thermal stimulation, and inhibitor injection [8, 15,
16]. These methods aim at thermodynamically destabilizing the reservoir environment to provoke the release of the entrapped gas [17, 18]. They have been investigated
experimentally, numerically, and in the field. However, they have not yet been used for commercial production of natural gas hydrates due to remaining technical and economic
issues. A fourth method was introduced a few years ago and is based on the concept of hydrate guest molecule exchange between methane and carbon dioxide in the hydrate
phase. In 1996, Ohgaki et al. [12] examined the possible interactions between these two hydrates by injecting carbon dioxide (gas) into an aqueous-gas hydrate system
containing methane. CO2 displays a higher chemical affinity than CH4 in the hydrate structure since it has a higher heat of formation and equilibrium temperature; that is, at
1000 psi, the equilibrium temperature of CH4 hydrate is approximately 283.15 K while the equilibrium temperature of CO2 hydrate is around 286.15 K. Ohgaki et al.’s
experiments resulted in the synthesis of a mixed CO2–CH4 hydrate. The equilibrium concentrations obtained for CO2 were greater in the hydrate phase than those of CH4 and
less than the concentrations of CH4 in the gas phase. Nakano et al. (1998) [19] performed a similar study using carbon dioxide and ethane and obtained comparable results.
Smith et al. (2001) [20] inquired the feasibility of exchanging carbon dioxide with methane in geologic accumulations of natural gas hydrates. They numerically investigated the
effect of the pore size distribution on the conversion of CH4 hydrate to CO2 hydrate. It was demonstrated that the guest molecule exchange between CO2 and CH4, in porous
media was less thermodynamically favored, as the pore size decreased. They recommended these numerical results be validated by laboratory experiments. Seo et al. (2001) [21]
experimentally investigated hydrate phase equilibrium processes for mixtures of CO2 and CH4. They determined the existing conditions of quadruple points () in order to
examine the hydrate stability. It was noted that the equilibrium curves of the mixed hydrates lied between those of simple carbon dioxide and methane hydrates. For a given
mixture, the concentration of CO2 in the hydrate phase decreased as the pressure was lowered. In 2003, Lee et al. [22] published the results of their study on the
thermodynamics and kinetics of the conversion of CH4 hydrate to CO2 hydrate. They analyzed the distribution of guest molecules over different cavities for pure methane
hydrates and different mixtures of CO2–CH4 hydrates, using solid state NMR methods. It was observed that the cage occupancy ratio of CH4 in the pure methane hydrate
decreased as the concentration of CO2 in the mixture increased. This was explained by the fact that CO2 preferentially occupied large 51262 cages in the mixed hydrate. In terms
of kinetics, it was noticed that the conversion of CH4 hydrate to CO2 hydrate happened much more quickly than the formations of pure CO2 and CH4 hydrates. The amount of
CH4 that could be recovered from the gas hydrate of composition was limited to 64% of the original entrapped gas, even with a CO2 concentration of 100 mol%. Ota et al. (2004)
[23] focused on the gas exchange process using liquid CO2. They performed laboratory measurements using the Raman spectroscopy and numerical simulations, and they found
similar results in terms of feasibility of the molecular gas exchange. Stevens et al. (2008) [24] took the studies on this topic one step further by publishing his work on the gas
exchange between CO2 and CH4 in hydrates formed within sandstone core samples. He used a MRI to analyze the samples and realized there was formation of CO2 hydrate at
the expense of the initial CH4 hydrate. Diffusion seemed to be the main driving force behind the conversion from CH4 hydrate to CO2 hydrate. A considerable amount of CH4
was released during the process, which was judged as rapid and efficient. There was no free water present. The permeability of the core was reduced during CH4 hydrate
formation. This reduced permeability was maintained constant during the CH4–CO2 exchange, and the permeability levels were considered sufficient for gas transportation. In
2008, Youngjune et al. [25] made a major discovery while they were inquiring the effect of the injection of a binary mixture of N2 and CO2 on methane hydrate recovery. They
found out that the injection of a binary mixture of N2 and CO2, instead of the traditional pure CO2, increased the percentage of methane recovered from 64% to 85% for type I
gas hydrates. They also looked at the potential influence of structural transition by forming a type II CH4–C2H6 hydrate and injecting CO2 and a mixture of CO2 with N2. It was
determined that the hydrate structure changed from type II to type I during the gas injection, thus increasing the gas recovery to more than 90% for CH4. Besides these major
thermodynamically related numerical and laboratory investigations, several studies were conducted to evaluate the potential of this new concept as a field scale production
method for methane hydrate deposits. In 2003, Rice [26] proposed a scheme for methane recovery from marine hydrate accumulations. In this scheme, the produced methane
would be converted into hydrogen and carbon dioxide; then, the carbon dioxide would be reinjected into the ocean to be converted into CO2 hydrates and finally the produced
hydrogen would be used as fuel. Methane would be recovered from hydrates using depressurization combined with thermal stimulation. No direct molecular gas exchange
between CH4 and CO2 was inferred in this production scheme. In 2004, McGrail et al. [27] investigated Ohgaki et al.’s method to determine the rate of CO2 gas penetration in
the bulk methane hydrate, using the Raman spectroscopy. They discovered that the rates of CO2 gas penetration were too low for this method to be useful for gas hydrate
production. Then, they performed a preliminary study on a new enhanced gas hydrate recovery concept based on the injection of a microemulsion of CO2 and water in the
methane hydrate core samples. The technique was validated through laboratory experiments and numerical simulation, using a custom model based on STOMP-CO2. Finally,
Castaldi et al. (2006) [28] examined the technical feasibility of applying a down-hole combustion method for gas recovery from hydrate accumulations, while sequestrating CO2
as hydrates. The gas molecular exchange between CH4 and CO2 was not directly mentioned, but they suggested there should be equality between the rates of CO2 hydrate
formation and CH4 hydrate dissociation, during the process. In 2006, Goel [11] released a review of the status of research projects and issues related to methane hydrate
production with carbon dioxide sequestration. It was concluded that although several studies had been performed on the topic, additional experimental data was needed on the
topic of CH4–CO2 molecular gas exchange in hydrate-bearing sediments. He emphasized the importance of fully knowing the thermodynamics and kinetics of the formation and
dissociation of this mixed hydrate and of the conversion process, in porous media. He also pointed out the essence of understanding the equilibrium conditions of the mixed
4.
Conclusions This paper is a brief review of the studies that have been performed on the gas
molecular exchange between CO2 and CH4 within the hydrate phase. As this paper highlights,
such studies are even more essential in this day and age, as we need to quickly discover and
exploit new sources of energy in a sustainable and energy-efficient manner. An emphasis is put
here on experimental, numerical, and field investigations of the gas hydrate recovery process
using CO2, clathrate sequestration. All studies present positive outcomes and further research
on the topic is encouraged to make this new recovery technique commercially viable.
hydrate in sediments as a function of pressure, temperature, mole fraction of CO2 and CH4 in the mixture, pore size, porous material, and flow properties.
Experimental verification and analysis proves that methane hydrate carbon
sequestration is feasible
Seo et al. 13 (Yongwon Seo, Seungmin Lee, Jaehyoung Lee, School of Urban and
Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Offshore Plant
Resources R&D Center, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, “Experimental Verification of
Methane Replacement in Gas Hydrates by Carbon Dioxide” // AK)
If the conversion of methane hydrate to carbon dioxide hydrate with the net recovery of
methane could occur, this would be quite attractive as an innovative method of both methane
production and carbon dioxide storage. In this study, the swapping phenomenon occurring in
gas hydrates and its potential application to carbon dioxide sequestration was demonstrated
through stability condition measurements and 13C NMR spectroscopic analysis. The
hydrate phase equilibria for the ternary CH4 + CO2 + water mixtures were measured to determine the hydrate stability conditions of
the mixed gas hydrates. Through 13C NMR measurements, it was found that carbon dioxide has a preference for the large cages in
the sI hydrate and carbon dioxide is a relatively poorer guest when carbon dioxide competes with methane in occupying the small
cages of the sI hydrate. From the NMR spectra and direct dissociation, it was confirmed that about 70% of methane is recoverable
after reaction with carbon dioxide. 1. Introduction Gas hydrates are solid inclusion compounds in which guest molecules of suitable
size and shape are incorporated into hydrogen-bonded water frameworks. These compounds exist in three distinct crystal structures,
sI, sII and sH, which consist of various cages with different sizes and shapes (Sloan and Koh, 2008). Gas hydrates are of particular
interest in the gas and oil industry as well as in relation to greenhouse gas sequestration (Sloan and Koh, 2008). Naturally
occurring gas hydrates, which contain mostly methane (CH4) and are found in the permafrost
regions and deep ocean sediments, have great potential as future energy resources due to their
huge quantities and wide geographical distribution(Sloan and Koh, 2008). Furthermore, carbon dioxide
(CO2) produced from fossil fuel-fired power plants can be sequestered as solid gas hydrates in
the deep ocean (Tajima et al., 2004). Recent investigations suggest the possibility of
exchanging CH4 with CO2 in natural gas hydrates, which has the advantage of
both CO2 sequestration and CH4 recovery
(Hirohama et al., 1996; Lee et al., 2003; Park et al., 2006).
Molecular dynamic simulations revealed that the substitution of CH4 with CO2 in sI hydrate cages has a negative free energy
(Dorman, 2007). This indicates that CO2 spontaneously replaces CH4 from sI hydrates, causing the release of CH4. With the
replacement of CH4 with CO2, the naturally occurring gas hydrates can function as both CH4 sources and CO2 storage sites.
Several studies on the CH4-CO2 swapping process, covering both spectroscopic and kinetic
approaches, have recently been reported and have demonstrated notable success (Lee et al.,
2003; Park et al., 2006). However, little attention has been paid to the complex phase behavior of the mixed CH4-CO2 gas hydrates
and its direct relation to guest distribution in CH4-CO2 swapping. A
complete understanding of the complex phase
behavior and guest distribution is essential for revealing the CH4-CO2 replacement mechanism.
The phase behavior can offer stability conditions of the mixed gas hydrates and thus is very
important in determining the pressure and temperature conditions of CO2 being injected into
the CH4 hydrate layer. In addition, the guest distribution is closely related to the extent of CO2
replacement in the CH4 hydrate.
[usfg key]
***NATURAL GAS ADV***
notes
Put a shale unsustainable in the 1ac, but it’s needed for every module so it’s under general
Ext to plan solves gas gaps is also a reason plan solves energy independence so use the cards
from that header
Shale Unsustainable
1ac
Shall boom unsustainable- new methods key
Cobb , 13- Energy and environment author, speaker, and columnist, author of a peak-oilthemed novel Prelude (Kurt, “Natural gas, oil prices: why the long-term forecasts are wrong”,
The Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/EnergyVoices/2013/0114/Natural-gas-oil-prices-why-the-long-term-forecasts-are-wrong,
1/14/13)//KC
Here's the short version of why forecasts of low long-term oil and natural gas prices are almost certainly
wrong: It costs more than that to get the stuff out of the ground. Only two things could actually lead to low
long-term prices: 1) Somebody could invent and deploy some genuinely brand new technology that makes it really cheap once again
to get oil and gas out of the ground or 2) we could have a deep and grinding deflationary depression that brings demand for oil and
natural gas down so much that prices collapse. The people who are predicting $50, now $45 oil, and $3,
now $2 natural
gas (in the United States) for as far as the eye can see believe that such prices will result from the already widespread application of
currenttechnology. And yet, the very companies that use that technology to extract these hydrocarbons
say that there's no way they can produce them profitably at those prices. ExxonMobil's CEO said last
year, "We are losing our shirts" selling natural gas at such low prices. Forecasts for much lower oil prices
would also represent losses on new wells for most oil producers. Here's why: The full cost of producing new oil for the 50 largest
publicly traded oil companies in the world is $92 a barrel according to Bernstein Research. While
average costs are lower
because they include previously discovered conventional oil which is cheaper and easier to produce, the
Bernstein report challenges the notion that new technologies will lead to cheaper oil. Those
technologies including hydraulic fracturing will make it possible to extract previously uneconomic oil resources--but only at very
high and rising costs. In fact, the cost of producing the marginal new barrel of oil has been rising at 14 percent per year since 2001,
Bernstein says. Finding,
developing and producing new oil isn't getting cheaper; it's getting much
more expensive. So while oil prices could fall below the cost of producing new barrels for a while, they simply could not stay
there unless the world were to become content with ever shrinking supplies of oil. No company will continue to drill for oil when
each new well loses money. So given that the world will probably continue to seek expanded supplies of oil, prices in the long run
below $92 a barrel seem implausible. And, that floor is likely to rise as the oil resources that companies are now forced to pursue
become costlier and more difficult to extract. We've
already extracted the easy-to-get oil in the first 150 years
of the oil age; now comes the hard stuff. The same logic applies to natural gas. The bulk of new
U.S. supplies are coming from so-called shale gas deposits. Looking at the actual data, petroleum
consultants Art Berman and Lynn Pittinger found that industry claims of profitability of shale
gas production at $4 per thousand cubic feet were based on excluding important costs such as land
acquisition. Once all the costs are figured in, Berman and Pittinger found that costs for gas wells drilled in the Fayetteville Shale,
the Haynesville Shale, and the Barnett Shale were $8.31, $8.68 and $8.75, respectively. If land acquisition is excluded and only
drilling, completion and other variable costs are included, the cost falls to $5.06, $5.63, and $6.80, respectively. Even these lower
costs are still far above what some forecasts say will be the long-term U.S. price of natural gas. But, natural
gas drillers will
not drill wells indefinitely that lose money. All of this flies in the face of the current popular meme that the United States
and perhaps even the world will enjoy both cheap and plentiful supplies of oil and natural gas for the foreseeable future (whenever
that is). Keep in mind that the costs cited above include the use of the latest technology. That tells us that depletion
is long
since winning the contest with technology. Yes, technology has helped to mitigate the damage that
constrained energy supplies are inflicting on the world economy. Without it, matters would be much worse. But it
is clear now that technology will no longer be able to overcome the fact that we as a species have used up the
easy-to-extract hydrocarbons. We are now faced with exploiting ever leaner resources with diminishing returns on ever higher
investments. In fact, record investment in finding and developing new oil resources has only just kept the rate of worldwide oil
production on a choppy plateau since 2005.
2ac ext.
Shale gas unsustainable- geological formations make drilling impossible
Engdahl, 13- award-winning geopolitical analyst and strategic risk consult (William,
“America’s shale energy revolution is another Ponzi fraud”, RT, http://rt.com/op-edge/usshale-revolution-ponzi-fraud-549/)//KC
Some say America’s shale energy revolution will provide gas for a century and create millions of new
jobs. The only problem with this picture - it’s built on myths, lies and Wall Street hype. Much has been said
about the proven environmental costs of injecting millions of gallons of ultra-toxic chemicals into shale and fracturing the gas free,
how it often contaminates underground water aquifers and can induce earthquakes. Little however has been said of the fact that the
costs and economics of shale gas in the USA are actually negative. In reality it is becoming increasingly clear
that the shale revolution is a new Ponzi fraud, carefully built with the aid of the same Wall Street banks and their “market analyst”
friends, who brought us the 2002-2007 US real estate securitization bubble. What few outside the industry knew was that the
dynamics of the complex shale formations led to dramatic initial gas volumes followed by even
more dramatic declines. Shale Gas, unlike conventional gas, depletes dramatically faster owing to its
specific geological location. It diffuses and becomes impossible to extract without the drilling of costly new wells. The key
shale gas players and the Wall Street bankers backing the shale boom have grossly inflated the volumes of
recoverable shale gas reserves and hence its expected duration. Independent conservative estimates are that
recoverable shale gas is about half what the industry claims on its financial statements. In brief, the gas producers have built the
illusion that their unconventional and increasingly costly shale gas will last for decades. Real
available that show
well extraction data are now
shale gas wells decline at an exponential rate, and will run out far faster than
being hyped. This has already led to a fire sale of newly-bought shale gas leases by the major players to Chinese, Japanese,
French and other gullible foreign energy investors to buy their future reserves, a sure sign of trouble. In 2012, USA shale gas
operators poured $40 billion into drilling 7,000 shale gas wells. But the value of all shale gas produced
that year was a mere $32.5 billion. Oops… A sign of the end of the short-lived shale gas bubble is Chesapeake Energy the
premier shale gas exploiter. Its stock shares fell from $80 in 2008 to just above $20. It’s selling shale assets to pay down debt and its
debt is rated “junk.” As one industry analyst puts it, having America’s second largest natural gas producer almost completely walk
away from the shale gas business is a great indication that today’s natural gas price bubble is on the verge of popping. Aubrey
McClendon, Chesapeake founder has been forced to resign on April 1 under heat of an SEC investigation The USA shale gas boom
took off after Dick Cheney and friends managed to win a major loophole in new energy legislation in 2005 exempting the oil and gas
industry from the Clean Water Act, the only exempt industry. With soaring US gas prices, and no environmental restraint, shale gas
extraction ballooned fourfold from 2007, the first year data was tracked, to 2011, to comprise almost 40% of total dry natural gas
extraction in the USA that year. In 2002 shale gas was a mere 3% of total gas.
Shale running out- new wells not sustainable
Loder, 13 – staff writer (Asjylyn, “U.S. Shale-Oil Boom May Not Last as Fracking Wells Lack Staying Power”, Bloomberg
Business Week Global Economics, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-10/u-dot-s-dot-shale-oil-boom-may-not-lastas-fracking-wells-lack-staying-power, 10/10/13)//KC
Chesapeake Energy’s (CHK) Serenity 1-3H well near Oklahoma City came in as a gusher in 2009, pumping more than 1,200 barrels
of oil a day and kicking off a rush to drill that extended into Kansas. Now the well produces less than 100 barrels a day, state records
show. Serenity’s swift decline sheds light on a dirty secret of the
oil boom: It may not last. Shale wells start strong
and fade fast, and producers are drilling at a breakneck pace to hold output steady. In the fields, this incessant need to
drill is known as the Red Queen, after the character in Through the Looking-Glass who tells Alice, “It takes all the
running you can do, to keep in the same place.” The U.S. is producing 7.8 million barrels of oil a
day, more than it has in a quarter-century. Crude from shale formations has cut reliance on imports and put the U.S. closer to
energy independence than it’s been since 1989. The International Energy Agency predicted last year that the U.S. would overtake
Saudi Arabia by 2020 as the world’s largest producer. Whether current production can hold up is the subject of debate. David
Hughes, a
geoscientist and president of Global Sustainability Research, has examined the life span
of shale wells. “The Red Queen syndrome just gets worse and worse and worse,” he says. “The higher
production goes, the more wells you need to offset the decline.” The U.S. Energy Information
Administration estimates that about 29 percent of U.S. oil production today comes from so-called tight
oil formations. These dense layers of rock and shale are cracked open by blasting water, sand, and chemicals deep
underground, creating fissures that allow the oil to flow into horizontal pipes, some of them thousands of feet long .
Production
from wells bored into these formations declines by 60 percent to 70 percent in the first year
alone, says Allen Gilmer, chairman and chief executive officer of Drillinginfo, which tracks the
performance of U.S. wells. Traditional wells take two years to slide 50 percent to 55 percent, and they can keep pumping
for 20 years or more. In North Dakota’s Bakken shale, a well formally known as Robert Heuer 1-17R put out 2,358 barrels in May
2004, when it went live. The output proved there was money to be made drilling in the Bakken and kicked off an oil rush in North
Dakota. Continental Resources (CLR), the well’s operator, built a monument to it. Production declined 69 percent in the first year. “I
look at shale as more of a retirement party than a revolution,” says Art Berman, a petroleum geologist who spent 20 years with what
was then Amoco and now runs his own firm, Labyrinth Consulting Services, in Sugar Land, Tex. “It’s the last gasp.” There are plenty
of people who disagree. Aubrey McClendon, founder and former president and CEO of Chesapeake, called Berman a “third-tier
geologist” in a 2011 interview on CNBC’s Mad Money With Jim Cramer. Harold Hamm, the chairman and CEO of Continental,
estimated in 2010 that there were 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken and other formations underlying the Williston
basin. Now, Hamm says improved technology could eventually boost that number to 45 billion: “We’re just getting started,” he says.
Since Continental drilled the Robert Heuer, North Dakota’s oil production has increased more than 10-fold to 874,000 barrels a day,
beating Ecuador and Qatar, the two smallest members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Global
Sustainability’s Hughes estimates the U.S. needs to drill 6,000 new wells per year at a cost of
$35 billion to maintain current production. His research also shows that the newest wells aren’t as
productive as those drilled in the first years of the boom, a sign that oil companies have already tapped the
best spots, making it that much harder to keep breaking records. Hughes has predicted that production will
peak in 2017 and fall to 2012 levels within two years. “The hype about U.S. energy independence and ‘Saudi America’ is deafening if
you look at the mainstream media,” Hughes says. “We need to have a much more in-depth and intelligent discussion about this.” On
Oct. 7, Abdalla Salem el-Badri, OPEC’s secretary general, said at a conference in Kuwait that U.S.
shale producers are
“running out of sweet spots” and that output will peak in 2018.
Peak oil coming and blackouts– exhausting fields now
Ahmed, 6/6/14- International security journalist and academic (Dr. Nafeez,“US shale boom is
over, energy revolution needed to avert blackouts”, The Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/06/shale-oil-boom-overenergy-revolution-blackouts#history-link-box, 6/6/14)//KC
In 2012, the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecast that the US would outpace Saudi Arabia in oil
production thanks to the shale boom by 2020, becoming a net exporter by 2030. The forecast was seen by many as
decisive evidence of the renewal of the oil age, while informed detractors were at best ignored, at worst ridiculed. Among my many
reports exposing the geological and economic fallacies behind the shale boom narrative are this, this, this and this. Even here on the
Guardian, one headline declared the IEA report shows that "peak oil idea has gone up in flames." But the IEA's latest
assessment has proved the detractors right all along. The agency's World Energy Investment Outlook released this
week says that US tight oil production - which draws largely from the Bakken in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in Texas - will
peak around 2020 before declining. The
promulgated by industry,
new analysis puts an end to the '100 year supply' myth widely
and moves closer to the more sceptical assessment of a US tight oil peak
within this decade. The IEA report says: "... output from North America plateaus [from around 2020] and then falls back
from the mid-2020s onwards." The shortfall will make the US, and countries in Europe looking to import
from America, increasingly dependent on Middle East supplies: "Yet there is a risk that Middle East investment
fails to pick up in time to avert a shortfall in supply, because of an uncertain investment climate in some countries and the priority
often given to spending in other areas." The IEA pointed out that in the wake of the Arab spring, Middle East oil states are feeling the
pressure to divert massive oil subsidies which maintain production into more social spending to alleviate instability. If they don't,
they could topple. These countries already pour $800 billion in annual oil revenue into energy subsidies - and if they fail to cover the
predicted shortfall due to the post-peak fall in US output, by 2025 the average cost of a barrel of oil could climb up by $15. This
March, when I broached them about the danger of an imminent oil shock, I was told confidently by a spokesperson at the UK
Department for Energy and Climate Change that there was no risk of the lights going out - UK energy policy had it sorted. Now IEA
chief economist Fatih Birol says: "In Europe we are facing the risk of the lights going off. This is
not a joke." We need $48 trillion of new investment to keep the lights on - and it's far from clear that investing in
increasingly expensive unconventional oil and gas is going to cut it, without serious impacts on
the global economy. Currently, already, the IEA report reveals that over 80% of oil company
investment is going into making up for exhausted fields where production is in decline. The agency
also calls to ramp up investments in renewables and increasing efficiency, along with regulatory reform to incentivise investments,
as part of the package.
Russia Module
Frontline
Natural gas is key to Russian expansionism- half of EU is dependent
Hermant, 4/17/14- Former ABC News Moscow correspondent (Norman, “Russia's natural gas
is Vladimir Putin's political and economical weapon”, ABC News,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-16/natural-gas-is-putins-political-and-economicalweapon/5394030)//KC
For Vladimir Putin, natural gas is not just a resource. It is an economic and political weapon. I cannot
recall now whether we were heading back to Moscow from Makhachkala, Samara, or Ulyanovsk. But I do remember how we were
getting back. There on the tarmac on the side of a Soviet-era Tu-154 jet were the proud words “Газпром Авиа”, or Gazprom Avia.
This gas company is so huge it runs its own airline on the side. To understand how energy exports - especially natural gas – have
helped fuel Mr Putin's long reign, look no further than Gazprom. Since Mr Putin rose to power in 2000, the energy company has
become a colossus. It is an economy within an economy: nearly 400,000 employees, more than $US150 billion in revenues, and
$US40 billion in profits heading straight into the hands of the Kremlin. That cash, and billions more from crude oil exports, have
allowed Mr Putin to spend vast sums to prop up inefficient industries. It allows the Kremlin to essentially indirectly pay oligarchs to
keep the jobless rate down. It provides the money needed to overhaul the armed forces and the security services. Of course, all the
way up the pyramid of Russia's elite, entrenched corruption ensures everyone gets their share. Just do not rock the boat. Natural gas
is not just another export for Russia. It is a point of national pride. For the Kremlin, it is an economic and political weapon. Nearly
half of EU countries depend on Russia's natural gas We have all heard the statistics that the European Union gets
about a quarter of its gas from Russia, but that is only part of the story. Twelve European Union (EU) countries rely on
Russia for more than 50 per cent of their natural gas. That is nearly half the EU. The Baltic countries
and Finland are 100 per cent reliant on Russia. Poland, Austria and Hungary are not far off. Half of that gas makes its
way to the EU through pipelines that pass through – you guessed it – Ukraine. The former Soviet republic depends on
Russia not only for gas, but also the desperately needed transit fees it earns from the pipelines. When the
Kremlin wants to pile the pressure on Kiev, like it did just before the annexation of Crimea, it does not need force. It can just raise
the price of as. This month, Gazprom informed Ukraine's new government the price for its gas was going up 44 per cent. It also
warned if Ukraine does not pay a $US1.7 billion bill soon, it could cut off supplies. Kiev said if that happened supplies to Europe
might be cut. A Gazprom worker walks next to pipelines at a gas measuring station at the Russian-Ukrainian border. Even under
former president Viktor Yanukovych, Moscow realised the amount of gas passing through Ukraine on the way to Europe made it
vulnerable. It is already halfway through a strategy to bypass Ukraine, and cement its European markets. The first step was the Nord
Stream pipeline, which carries gas directly from Russia, underneath the Baltic Sea, to Germany. Who was on board to help get that
pipeline over the line? None other than Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor. He joined the venture shortly after he
left office, and remains the chairman of Nord Stream's shareholder committee. Nord Stream is majority owned by Gazprom. Now
Russia is racing to build the South Stream pipeline, which would carry gas under the Black Sea
to southern Europe and Turkey. If it succeeds, not only will it make countries like Romania and
Greece even more reliant on Russian gas, it will send gas exports away from Ukraine's pipelines and
further weaken Kiev's leverage. In fact, many analysts believe Moscow's power play in Ukraine has been softened by one thing
Mr Putin cannot do anything about: the seasons. By the time the Kremlin's man in Kiev, Mr Yanukovych, was on his way out, it was
nearly March. Winter had already done its worst. If Russia turned off the gas, Ukraine's masses would have been uncomfortable, but
they would have lived. The same cannot be said if the confrontation had started in December. European countries seek alternative
gas supplies Of course, all of this reliance on Russian gas puts the Kremlin in an interesting spot. It revels in the economic power it
derives from the huge role it plays in keeping the heat on in much of Europe. But the episode in Crimea, when Moscow rolled the
dice on EU sanctions, has accelerated efforts to undo the very dependence the Kremlin cherishes. Mr Putin
bet energy from
Russia would trump EU political concerns over Russian expansionism. For now, it seems that he won
that wager. But already there is talk of building huge liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals in several locations in Europe to allow
for alternative supplies from the Middle East, and possibly even the United States. However, any serious reduction in
Europe's reliance on Russian gas is still years away. Gazprom boosts its public relations offensive Until then, the
Kremlin – through Gazprom – will try to make it seem like energy from Russia is simply part of the European fabric. You can see the
PR offensive everywhere, but it is particularly noticeable in Germany. This past weekend, when Schalke 04 and Eintracht Frankfurt
walked onto the pitch in front of 61,000 fans at the Veltins Arena in Gelsenkirchen, Gazprom was everywhere. Electronic signs all
over the stadium featured the company name and logo. Gazprom is a key sponsor of Schalke 04, one of Germany's biggest clubs. It is
also a high-profile supporter of English club Chelsea, Serbia's Red Star Belgrade, and the UEFA Champions League itself. Perhaps
that helps explain why polls suggest a healthy majority of Germans are opposed to economic sanctions on Russia over its actions in
Crimea. Moscow
has said for years that it is prepared to turn away from Europe, and shift its
enormous gas exports to China and the east if it needs to. But, in reality, that pivot is also years away
and will take huge infrastructure investment. For now, there is little reason to believe the Kremlin will do anything
but press its gas abundance to maximum advantage. Nothing represents Gazprom's power in Russia more than its current plans in
St Petersburg – Mr Putin's home town. For years, preservationists in the architecturally stunning city have fought tooth and nail
against the gas giant's vision for a huge skyscraper in the city. Its new headquarters is set to rise 465 metres, making it the tallest
building in Europe. There are still some activists hoping the courts will halt the project but few doubt it will eventually come to
dominate St Petersburg's skyline. Gazprom, like Mr Putin, almost always gets what it wants.
US natural gas exports solves Russian aggression
Caruso, 13 - senior adviser in the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies and International Studies, former administrator at Energy
Information Administration (Guy, “CARUSO: Driving off Russian aggression with U.S. natural
gas”, Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/18/carusodriving-off-russian-aggression-with-us-natu/, 12/18/13)//KC
The power struggle between Russia and its Eastern European neighbors is playing out again on the heels of the European Union’s
Eastern Partnership summit. The
United States can change the political dynamic between Russia and its
Central and Eastern European neighbors. The possibility of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) coming onto
the world market could markedly change the balance of power in European energy markets and have
significant strategic consequences. Currently, Russia holds a tight grasp on Eastern European energy supplies, and it hasn’t been shy
about using that supply as a way of wielding additional leverage in its relations with its neighbors from the former Soviet Union and
Warsaw Pact. An example of this is the deal struck between Russia and Ukraine over $15 billion in loans and natural-gas subsidies
this week, which is a tactical victory for Russia just as thousands of Ukrainian protesters are asking their government to move closer
to the European Union. However, U.S. liquefied natural-gas exports to Europe could significantly undermine Russia’s regional
influence. Several countries neighboring the Baltic Sea, including Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Poland, are considering importing
U.S. liquefied natural gas to increase supply and help bring down prices. Lithuania’s planned terminal just received the green light
from the European Union, with plans for it to be built by 2015. A pipeline will link the terminal to the country’s natural-gas grid, and
may serve as a conduit to neighboring states. America’s
shale-gas revolution has opened up the possibility of
large-scale U.S. liquefied natural-gas exports. Abundant U.S. natural-gas resources have put
steady downward pressure on natural-gas prices in recent years. Indeed, the United States is
poised to become the world’s leading oil and natural-gas producer by 2015, according to the
International Energy Agency. While much U.S. liquefied natural gas will ship to Asian markets, several European nations are
betting that increased global supply will be available for them, too. The United States could export up to 10 billion to 15 billion cubic
meters of liquefied natural gas per year to Europe starting in 2020, according to an analysis by Wood Mackenzie. Despite
recent declarations from Russia’s OAO Gazprom that it is unfazed by the prospect of U.S.
liquefied natural-gas exports, this global natural-gas producer and major gas exporter is
undoubtedly looking at developments in the United States with trepidation. Russia, clearly threatened by that
move, recently announced plans to construct its own LNG terminal in the Kaliningrad region, wedged between Poland and
Lithuania, which would serve as a competitor to the Lithuanian import terminal. Russia is clearly feeling the heat. Central European
nations are also eyeing U.S. liquefied natural-gas exports. In a recent op-ed in The Washington Post, high-ranking diplomats from
Hungary and the Czech Republic urged the United States to move forward on shipping natural gas to Europe. “Look to the Visegrad
Four (Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia) to find some of the United States’ most passionate allies,” the diplomats
wrote on Oct. 10. “We have long recognized the importance of reducing dependence on a single source of gas and are eager to
achieve real competition. The
U.S. natural-gas boom raises the prospect of a reliable trade partner for
our region.” European countries see LNG exports from the United States as a way to diversify
their energy sources and lessen dependence on Russia for energy. Russia sees this potential
diminishment of its influence. While this sounds like a positive development for the United States and its geopolitical
position, there is a catch. European energy security, particularly in Eastern Europe, is inextricably linked to regulators in
Washington. In order to export liquefied natural gas from the United States to a country without a free-trade agreement, which
includes all the countries of Europe, an exporter must apply to the U.S. Department of Energy for an export license. The Department
of Energy has the power to determine whether an export-license application is in the “public interest.” The Energy Department has
approved five applications (four of those conditional) to export natural gas, while more than 20 liquefied natural-gas export
applications remain pending in a regulatory queue, the longest for more than 700 days. Many of these projects will never even be
built, given the logistical, financial and state regulatory hurdles still to come. The United States has the capacity to meet both
domestic and international natural-gas demand, and lessen the price of energy for consumers here and abroad. These lags in federal
regulatory approvals are in danger of stunting the nascent U.S. liquefied natural-gas export business. It would be useful for
European diplomats to urge their U.S. counterparts to move expeditiously in approving more liquefied natural-gas projects. Here’s
hoping that Europeans can find a way to express uniformly to the Obama administration the need to move swiftly on natural-gas
exports to Europe
If that expansionism takes hold, US-Russia confrontation becomes inevitable by
2015.
Goodrich ‘11
(Laura – Senior Eurasia Analyst for Stratfor and is a specialist in the former Soviet states. Ms. Goodrich lived in
Russia during the Yeltsin-Putin transition. There, she worked as a professor at Tomsk University. She holds degrees
in Russian language; Russian, Eastern European and Eurasian studies; Slavic literature and religious studies from
both Tomsk Polytechnical University and the University of Texas. “A New Russian Empire: What Exactly Is Putin
Planning?” – Economy Watch – November 7th – fhttp://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-financenews/a-new-russian-empire-what-exactly-is-putin-planning.08-11.html?page=full)
Over the past six years, Russia has pushed back to some degree against Western influence in most
of its former Soviet states. One reason for this success is that the United States has been preoccupied with other issues,
mostly in the Middle East and South Asia. Moreover, Washington has held the misconception that Russia will
not formally attempt to re-create a kind of empire. But, as has been seen throughout history, it must. Putin
announced in September that he would seek to return to the Russian presidency in 2012, and he has started laying out his goals
for his new reign. He said Russia would formalize its relationship with former Soviet states by creating
a Eurasia Union ( EuU) ; other former Soviet states proposed the concept nearly a decade ago, but Russia is now in a
position in which it can begin implementing it. Russia will begin this new iteration of a Russian empire by creating a union with
former Soviet states based on Moscow’s current associations, such as the Customs Union, the Union State and the Collective Security
Treaty Organization. This
will allow the EuU to strategically encompass both the economic and
security spheres. The forthcoming EuU is not a re-creation of the Soviet Union. Putin understands the inherent vulnerabilities
Russia would face in bearing the economic and strategic burden of taking care of so many people across nearly 9 million square
miles. This was one of the Soviet Union’s greatest weaknesses: trying to control so much directly. Instead, Putin is creating a union
in which Moscow would influence foreign policy and security but would not be responsible for most of the inner workings of each
country. Russia simply does not have the means to support such an intensive strategy. Moscow does not feel the need to sort through
Kyrgyz political theater or support Ukraine’s economy to control those countries. The
Kremlin intends to have the EuU
fully formed by 2015, when Russia believes the United States will return its focus to Eurasia. Washington is wrapping up its
commitments to Iraq this year and intends to end combat operations and greatly reduce forces in Afghanistan, so by 2015, the
United States will have military and diplomatic attention to spare. This
is also the same time period in which the US
in Central Europe will break ground. To Russia, this amounts to a US
and pro-US front in Central Europe forming on the former Soviet (and future EuU) borders. It is the
creation of a new version of the Russian empire, combined with the US consolidation of influence on
that empire’s periphery that most likely will spark new hostilities between Moscow and
ballistic missile defense installations
Washington .
Ext. natural gas k2 Russian expansionism
Natural gas key to Russian leverage- decrease of Russian exports would prevent
expansionism
Weitz, 14- Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at Hudson
Institute, head of the Case Studies Working Group on the Project of National Security Reform,
M.Phil. in Politics from Oxford University, M.Sc. in International Relations from London School
of Economics, B.A in Government at Harvard College, formerly worked for Institute for Foreign
Policy Analysis (Richard, “Countering Russian Energy Diplomacy”, Diplomaatia no. 130/131
June/July, http://www.diplomaatia.ee/en/article/translate-to-eng-kuidas-pareerida-venemaaenergiadiplomaatiat/)//KC
Moscow`s “energy weapon” has the potential to create a wedge in the U.S. strategic partnerships
with Europe. Europe faces the challenge that global energy demand will rise by an estimated 27 percent by 2030 while EU
domestic energy production is falling. EU countries already rely on external suppliers for more than half their energy needs at a cost
of over one billion euros each day. Dependence on external uranium (mostly from Africa) is almost total, but EU members rely on
external sources for 88 percent of their crude oil and 66 percent of their natural gas consumption. Even in the case of solid fuels
such as coal, the EU receives almost half its deliveries from non-EU members. Dependent and Divided Russia
is by a
considerable measure the largest single supplier of oil and gas to the continent. Last year, Gazprom
supplied Europe with a record 161.5 billion cubic meters of gas. As gas production in Norway – the other primary source of
European gas imports – continues to decline over the next decade, Russia’s
share of the EU market is likely to
increase. The EU is trying to compensate for this decline by importing costly LNG and especially cheaper U.S. coal, but many
Central and Eastern European countries depend on Russian oil and gas for high shares of their
imported energy. Six EU members, including the three Baltic countries and several Balkans states like Bulgaria, rely
on Russia for all their natural gas. Furthermore, few alternative suppliers have the size and
proximity advantages of Russia, leaving Europe reliant on Russian hydrocarbons for the foreseeable
future. EU governments rightly fear that this situation deprives them of bargaining leverage while
making them vulnerable to external supply shocks and political blackmail. For example, Europeans’
dependence on Russian energy supplies makes them reluctant to challenge Moscow’s policies on
Ukraine by supporting energy sanctions. Moscow’s most recent pressure on Ukraine has included threats to cut off further energy
deliveries to that country unless it repays a multi-billion debt incurred for past Russian energy purchases and agrees to pay higher
prices for future supplies. A
cutoff could easily affect other European countries since half of Russia’s gas
deliveries to Europe pass through Ukraine, whose citizens would be tempted to divert some of the
transiting supplies. Moscow could wield its energy weapon against other countries in coming years,
including EU members. The EU’s reliance on Russian energy imports has been compounded by its lack of a unified energy
policy. This state of affairs only began to change after the 2009 Russo-Ukrainian pipeline crisis, when the EU-wide “Third Package”
of energy reforms, which entered into force in 2011, made modest progress towards harmonizing member states’ energy markets.
Nevertheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin has skillfully cultivating independent ties with European leaders, thereby bypassing
EU-wide mechanisms that he holds in as much disdain as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Victoria Nuland. Moscow’s Energy Muscle Exporting
energy is the primary driver of the Russian economy
and main source of the Kremlin’s revenue and international influence. The Russian Federation
has the world’s largest natural gas reserves. Although its natural gas production rates have remained relatively
stable if enormous over the course of the last decade, Russia under Putin has steadily enhanced and expanded its oil production over
that same period. Russia has become the world’s second largest oil producer, after Saudi Arabia. The most important players in the
Russian oil industry are the state-controlled energy giants of Rosneft, Transeft, and Gazprom. OAO Rosneft is one of the largest oil
companies in the world, while OAO Transneft controls much of Russia’s oil pipeline system, including the most important one for
delivering oil to Asia, the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO). The first stage of this pipeline was completed in 2010 and the
second stage opened in December 2012. Russian oil is also exported to Asian markets from the Russian Far East ports of
Prigorodnoye on Sakhalin Island, Kozimino Bay, and DeKastri. Natural gas exports are very important to the Russian economy as
well. Roughly 35 percent of Russia’s natural gas exports are sent to other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
About two-thirds of Russia’s exports not going to these former Soviet republics go to the members of the EU. Most Russian gas is
exported via pipelines, often controlled by OAO Gazprom, which has a monopoly on Russia’s gas export pipelines. Russia also
exports small amounts of liquefied natural gas (LNG), for which Rosneft has an export license. About two-thirds of the output of
Russia’s first LNG terminal on Sakhalin goes to Japan. Gazprom’s plans to build a LNG terminal in Vladivostok that might send gas
to China, Japan, South Korea, and other East Asian countries. The gas that Russia aims to produce in the Arctic might also be
exported as LNG. The
Russian government has employed a multi-pronged strategy to increase
Moscow’s influence in foreign energy markets. First, it has invested billions of dollars to expand its domestic
pipeline system, allowing Russia to supply oil and gas directly to many countries. Since many of these deliveries occur
bilaterally, Russia is able to practice price, supply, and other discrimination. The existing Sovietera pipeline infrastructure gives Moscow control over much of the energy supplies in the former
Soviet Union. Second, the government operates its domestic energy market through quasi-monopolies subject to the Kremlin’s
direction. These state champions include Gazprom, which manages Russian natural gas production and gas pipelines, and
Transneft, which operates oil transit pipelines. It has sharply restricted foreign investment or access to its domestic energy resources
or firms. Third, the Russian government has assisted its state-owned enterprises to acquire strategic energy production and
transportation infrastructure throughout Europe and Asia. Finally, the
Kremlin has used these instruments and exploited
Russia’s control over Eurasian energy flows to coerce and punish foreign governments that impede
its energy or their goals. For example, in 2002, when Lithuania and Latvia prevented Russia from buying major energy holdings,
Moscow sharply cut oil deliveries to both states. Russia
has frequently exploited Ukraine’s dependence on
Russian gas supplies to force Kyiv to follow pro-Russian policies, including forcing a 2010 decision to extend
Russia’s Black Sea Fleet’s lease of the naval base at Sevastopol for an additional 25 years. Russian energy pressure now aims to force
Ukraine to join Putin’s Eurasian Union project. Although Russian officials have repeatedly pledged to remain a cooperative energy
supplier, they have pushed for changes in EU policies that would favor energy-exporting countries, including guarantees for
suppliers and risk-sharing between suppliers, transit states, and consumers. European Opportunities and Challenges Russia's
position as a major energy player in Europe is ensured through long-term energy contracts and other mechanisms. Nonetheless,
opportunities for further growth are constrained by economic and political factors, including marginal growth in hydrocarbon
consumption, Europeans’ stringent environmental regulations, the growing availability of some alternative energy sources
(including LNG and Caspian hydrocarbons), and renewed post-Crimea concerns about EU dependency on Russian energy supplies.
Moscow’s annexation of the Crimea, and Russia’s demand that Ukraine pay billions of dollars for past Russian gas deliveries or
suffer a suspension of further deliveries, has reinforced European concerns over the continent’s continued high dependence on
Russian gas. Speaking shortly after the announcement of the deal at a session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
President Vladimir Putin
acknowledged that Europe accounts for more than 70 percent of Russian oil
exports, but added that, “we have to admit that energy consumption in Europe is growing slowly due to low economic growth
rates, while political and regulatory risks are increasing.” Putin went on to say, “Given these circumstances, our desire to open up
new markets is natural and understandable.” Of these new markets, Russian officials and energy firms have clearly prioritized
potential sales to the faster-growing Asian energy markets, especially China. Demand for energy in Asia is projected to grow at an
annual rate of 2.5 percent through 2035, amounting to an 83 percent increase in demand over that period and at a rate that is almost
a full percentage point faster than the rest of the world. Obtaining a large share of this most rapidly developing regional market
would give Moscow considerable funds and geopolitical influence. Among the benefits from selling to Asia is that China is willing to
provide loans or prepayments that provide Russia’s often indebted energy companies with ready cash to build pipelines and
modernize their production at low financial risk. Yet, Russia’s ability to leverage its new energy deals with Asia against Europe are
limited. The two new fields that Russia will develop to provide gas to China are too distant from any existing or planned Russian
pipelines to reach Europe, limiting any positive energy incentives Moscow might offer Beijing for its support. Meanwhile. Russia’s
need to sell gas to Europe will persist due to the existing network of fixed pipelines and the long-term “pay or play” contracts signed
between Gazprom and European countries, which will oblige Europeans to pay much higher prices than Asian clients for years.
Gazprom now receives about 80 percent of its revenue from European customers, who buy only two-thirds of its gas exports. In
addition, the
unbalanced nature of the Russian economy, with its dependence on energy production
for one-third of Russia’s GDP and its limited diversification into non-energy exports besides arms, means
that a gas shutoff to Europe would result in a significant and unreplaceable loss of revenue for the
Kremlin and a further slowdown in the Russian economy, threatening Russia’s political stability since
the Russian government relies on energy exports to generate rents that they use to pay off key stakeholders as well as support
general public services. If Europe is over-dependent on Russian gas, Russia is equally if not even more reliant on European revenue.
If it loses its European oil and gas markets, Russia’s export revenues will decline for years to come. Russian officials recognize that
their country needs to diversify its economy beyond hydrocarbons to exploit the other forms of capital (human, intellectual, land) in
which Russia is rich. Innovation is important not only in the energy sector but also in manufacturing, where Russia lags far behind
the countries with more developed economies. Investment in high-tech industries such a renewable energy, semiconductors,
chemicals, and aerospace would raise labor productivity and render Russia’s economy more sustainable and competitive. Even
Siberia, besides its oil and gas reserves, is rich in other natural resources (timberland, fresh water reserves, etc.) that could be
practically utilized if efficiently organized and managed. But innovation is a risky long-term business that rarely brings quick profits
and often results in failures that never pay back. Rather than modernize their oil and gas production, Russian energy oligarchs more
often invest in foreign real estate, bonds and precious metals, which bring relatively quicker and safer benefits. High world prices for
Russia’s oil, gas, and other commodity exports have rendered Russia’s non-energy exports less competitive and hampered increases
in productivity and innovation. Alarmed by events in Ukraine, the European Council in March instructed the Commission to execute
an in-depth study of the topic and prepare a comprehensive strategy how to reduce EU dependence on external energy sources. In
addition to energy security, the EU Lisbon Treaty has enhanced the Commission’s powers on issues relating to energy competiveness
and sustainability. On May 28, the European Commission released its comprehensive energy security strategy. Although its
immediate goal is to avert another winter energy crises such as Europe experienced in 2006 and 2009, the long-term objective is to
reduce Europe’s reliance on venerable foreign energy supplies, especially from Russia. In releasing the proposed energy security
strategy, Commission
President José Manuel Barroso said that: "The EU has done a lot in the
aftermath of the gas crisis 2009 to increase its energy security. Yet, it remains vulnerable. The
tensions over Ukraine again drove home this message. In the light of an overall energy import dependency of
more than 50% we have to make further steps.” Referring to Russia, European Energy Commissioner Günther
Oettinger added that, "We want strong and stable partnerships with important suppliers, but must avoid falling victim to political
and commercial blackmail.” The European Council will discuss the proposed plan at its June 26-27 session. To deal with immediate
threats of interrupted gas supplies next winter, the Commission wants to conduct regional or EU-wide stress tests that simulate gas
supply disruptions and assess how EU energy systems respond. When the outcome is unsatisfactory, the EU would develop new or
expanded contingency plans and emergency response mechanisms such as stockpiling more gas (by expanding storage facilities),
developing more fuel-switching options (having a gas-fired electricity generating plant use coal), assessing means to urgently reverse
gas flows (e.g., sending Russian gas back from Western Europe towards Russia’s EU neighbors), and pooling energy supplies in
emergencies (allowing countries suffering the most serious shortages to quickly obtain more supplies). To enhance the EU’s
medium- and long-term energy security, the Commission emphasizes diversifying external energy supplies, upgrading energy
infrastructure, completing the EU internal energy market (by raising the interconnectivity of installed electricity capacity),
constructing missing infrastructure (such as links that allow for rapidly redirecting energy flows within the EU), promoting further
energy conservation (especially for buildings), and coordinating national policy decisions better to present a united front with
external negotiating partners. Diversification of energy supplies and transportation routes remains a serious challenge. Last year, 39
percent of EU gas imports by volume came from Russia, 33 percent from Norway and 22 percent from North Africa. The
EU has
been struggling for years to develop new supply sources from the Caspian Basin region (from Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan in particular) by expanding the Southern Gas Corridor through the South Caucuses; recent efforts
have also focused on developing a Mediterranean Gas Hub by increasing LNG deliveries to southeastern Europe. To reduce
opportunities for third parties to exploit EU divisions through “divide and rule tactics,” the Commission seeks greater transparency
and competition in European energy activities. It specifically wants EU governments to inform the Commission early on regarding
energy supply negotiations with non-member countries. But speaking with a single voice to external energy partners remains a
challenge given how many actors might engage in a large energy project. In addition, EU leaders, despite the post-Lisbon
enhancements to the Commission’s role in energy matters, often treat energy as a vital national security or domestic political issue
that should not be hindered by other, often competing EU member states. The effort to increase renewable energy use in the EU has
also encountered problems due to the continued difficulties facing by nuclear energy, the most available renewable energy source.
Although the French government has relaxed the anti-nuclear energy stance that Socialist Francois Hollande adopted during his
presidential campaign, and the United Kingdom is in the process of launching new nuclear energy plants, Germany is still decreasing
its long-term nuclear energy capacity. Europeans’ interest in nuclear energy remains contaminated by the March 2011 disaster in
Fukishima. Meanwhile, environmentalists in Europe resist proposals to rely more on coal or gas fracking. When they meet in June,
EU leaders may need to take bold action to overcome resistance to these critical energy sources.
Ext. US natural gas solves Russia
US natural gas blunts Russian Influence
Markay 3/3/14- staff writer, previous worked at the Heritage Foundation as first conservative investigative reporter, attended
Hamilton college, published in Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and Washington Examiner (Lachlan, “Experts See U.S
Energy Exports as Foil to Russian Aggression”, The Washington Free Beacon, http://freebeacon.com/national-security/experts-seeu-s-energy-exports-as-foil-to-russian-aggression/, 3/3/14)//KC
Experts suggested increasing U.S. oil and gas exports could be an effective way to blunt Russian influence following its
invasion of the Crimea. The Kremlin has used its extensive oil and gas supplies to exert influence over a
number of Eastern European countries, including Ukraine. While that country has reduced imports from Russia, it
remains highly dependent on fossil fuels from the nation. Gazprom, the Russian state-owned oil company, has signaled that
it may hike energy prices for Ukrainian energy company Naftogaz in August. Observers see that threat
as a continuation of Russia’s long use of energy policy as a geopolitical cudgel. The strategy “is a
traditional Russian move to pressure Ukraine,” said Mikhail Korchemkin, director of East European Gas Analysis. The ability of
the United States to at least partially make up for a reduction in Russian exports, which could affect not just
Ukraine but much of the continent, highlight U.S. interests in approving additional energy export projects, experts said.
Doing so could help blunt Russia’s control over the continent’s energy market, according to
Council on Foreign Relations Fellows Robert Blackwill and Meghan O’Sullivan. “The influx of North American gas to
the market will not entirely free the rest of Europe from Russia’s influence,” they recently wrote. “But additional suppliers will give
European customers leverage they can use to negotiate better terms with Russian producers, as they managed to do in 2010 and
2011.” Despite these potential benefits, the Obama administration has been slow to approve export licenses for liquefied natural gas
terminals in the United States. The Energy Department gave a preliminary nod to one such terminal in Louisiana last month. Sen.
David Vitter (R., La.), a strong proponent of additional gas exports, praised the move, but knocked “the cumbersome federal
regulatory process” preventing more projects from being approved. The
conflict in Ukraine demonstrates the
importance of additional U.S. natural gas export capacity, experts say. “Given the situation in Ukraine, this is
the best time for proponents of natural gas exports to press their case,” wrote financial analyst Varun Chandan Arora on Saturday.
The ongoing spike in U.S. oil and gas production, a result primarily of advances in extraction techniques, is seen as
an economic windfall for the country. But it is also shifting the geopolitical landscape, experts note. Even absent
additional U.S. exports of domestically produced oil and gas, the country’s increasing ability to satisfy its own energy needs means
more oil and gas available to nations in Europe and elsewhere, potentially loosening Russia’s grip on the region’s supply. Tensions
between Russia and Ukraine have the potential to drive up global energy prices. Crude oil prices jumped by $2 per barrel on Monday
on fears of a tightening global market. The Untied States’ ability to respond to a potential oil or gas shortage is constrained by
restrictions on exports of domestically produced fossil fuels. “The turmoil in Ukraine … gives a strong reason to the U.S. to remove
restrictions on natural gas exports to countries with which it does not have free trade agreements,” Arora wrote. Those
restrictions allow Russia to maintain the threat of supply restrictions, according to Gregory Mankoff,
deputy director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies. “I think it’s certainly a concern. It’s happened twice before,” Mankoff told Politico, referring to instances in 2006 and
2009 in which Russia shut off supplies to Ukraine. Anders Aslund, a fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics, said
“the tables have totally turned” since then, noting that Ukraine has reduced its use of Russian gas in the interim. However, the
immediate impacts for Ukraine would still be devastating. “Getting the amount that’s necessary at a reasonable price in a necessary
time frame is going to be hard,” Mankoff said. A cessation of exports could also have reverberations around Europe, since nearly two
thirds of Russian gas exported to other European nations passes through Ukraine. Mankoff noted that U.S. restrictions on natural
gas exports would hinder Washington’s ability to respond in the near-term to a sudden shortage of natural gas in Ukraine. That
could leave NATO countries in Europe less willing to antagonize the Kremlin for fear of energy
price spikes. The EU said on Monday that it is considering “targeted measures” against Russia in light of its increasing
aggression towards Ukraine, though member states had not yet agreed on what those measures might be. Germany, France, Great
Britain, and the Netherlands have previously signaled support for international mediation with Russia instead of the imposition of
economic sanctions. Secretary of State John Kerry threatened a number of potential economic actions against Russia on Sunday,
possibly including trade restrictions and asset freezes. Additional U.S. energy exports could offer another means of economic
reprisal. Oil
and gas revenue comprises more than half of Russia’s federal budget, and more than 70
percent of the nation’s exports, according to the Energy Information Administration. Additional U.S.
exports could eat away at that market share.
US natural gas key to geopolitical influence and European allies
Delaney, 4/02/14- US Representative for Maryland, Democratic, went to Colombia University
and Georgetown University Law Center (John K., “Natural gas is the right choice for the U.S.”,
The Baltimore Sun, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-04-02/news/bs-ed-crimea-covepoint-20140402_1_keystone-xl-natural-gas-cleanest-fossil-fuel)//KC
Increased natural gas exports, on the other hand, serve the national interest of the country on all three
questions: the environment, the economy and geopolitics. Natural gas is a central economic
opportunity for the United States, it creates a bridge to the cleaner energy future we envision, and
exports will help key strategic allies in Europe. If done properly — with high standards and the approval of local
communities — natural gas can be extracted and exported in a safe manner. As we respond to climate change and work to utilize
more clean energy sources, it makes sense to emphasize natural gas. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, producing less carbon
than either coal or oil. According to the EPA, natural gas also produces less nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide than hydrocarbons, as
well as only negligible amounts of mercury compounds. Increasing natural gas exports is also good for the American economy. The
United States is now the leading producer of natural gas in the world. However, dominance is not guaranteed,
and without engaging the global market, we may soon be overtaken by both Russia and China. In
the last decade, a natural gas jobs boom has been essential to our economic recovery. Increased exports will help sustain and expand
middle-class energy jobs. We should build on this legitimate momentum: The natural gas export facility at Cove Point in Southern
Maryland will produce more permanent jobs than the entire Keystone XL pipeline. Rather than choosing a superficial solution with
the Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama should do two things immediately: One, speed up the Department of Energy approval
process for new coastal terminals, including Cove Point; and two, expand the list of countries where we can sell natural gas, focusing
By becoming a true player on the global natural gas market, the United States can restore
balance for our allies in Europe. Russia's regional energy dominance has given
the country an outsized influence. Russia's agenda, which is paid for and brandished by Russian natural gas, is not aligned
on Europe.
needed geopolitical
with that our national values or those of our closest allies. The peaceful and prosperous Europe we've long been committed to needs
a competitive energy market that includes American natural gas. Smoothing
out the distorted energy market in
the long-run will weaken Russian hegemony. In 1848, John Stuart Mill wrote that increased international trade is
"the principal guarantee of the peace of the world." Mill's view certainly holds today, when, ironically, the ideals of political freedom
he championed are now in desperate peril. For our environment, our economy and our allies, we should reject the Keystone Pipeline
and move forward on natural gas.
New hydrocarbon key to US energy diplomacy- that solves European tensions
McHugh, 12- Research Manager Northern Australia & Energy Security Research Programmes
(Liam, “Energy Diplomacy to be Key Feature of Obama Administration”, Future Directions
International, http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publications/energy-security/27-energysecurity-swa/760-energy-diplomacy-to-be-key-feature-of-obama-administration.html,
11/24/12)//KC
If successful in the November election, the Obama Administration will make energy a centrepiece of US foreign policy. While
energy has always been central to US diplomacy, recent discoveries and technological developments have reversed
Washington’s long-term vulnerability. As a result, a government led by President Obama will exploit the forecast
hydrocarbon export potential as a diplomatic tool. If production targets are realised, US soft
power influence may change the global dynamics, approach and commitment of Washington’s
foreign policy for decades to come. In a speech at Georgetown University in Washington, Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton, detailed how America’s newly acquired energy influence would promote global opportunities.
Ms Clinton’s speech was founded on three broad themes: building capacity among allies; countering challenges
to Washington’s global interests; and fostering economic growth. Ms Clinton suggested the US
hydrocarbon expansion had international benefits. Referring to petroleum products, the Secretary of
State, argued that gas production was in danger of monopolisation. US exports of liquefied
natural gas may weaken the strength of the major hydrocarbon exporters and their influence
over energy-poor states. While not mentioned specifically, it is likely Ms Clinton was referring to Russia and its dominance
over Europe. American natural gas could change European energy dynamics, reducing Moscow’s
ability to influence policy within the continent, particularly among former Warsaw Pact states.
Given the disruptions to gas flows from Russia in recent years, it is likely that Europe will welcome
improved gas opportunities. While Russia will continue to provide a significant share of the continent’s gas, its
influence over European policy may become increasingly marginalised During increasing rationalisation
of American spending and its presence overseas, energy could prove to be an important tool in promoting US interests. Ms Clinton
suggested US
production would promote its role in energy dialogues. Citing the South China Sea
and the Arctic, she argued that the US could work as a partner to resolve tensions. This should not be perceived as a
statement of international commitment, however. Rather Ms Clinton’s speech suggests that the US will use its position to stabilise
the present volatility in the energy market, moderating shocks and sensitivities. In reality, however, achievement of this aim is
unlikely. While US production is forecast to be significant, the hydrocarbon sector is globalised and interdependent. Oil and gas
prices and supplies will continue to fluctuate, depending on trends in the international system. Analysts have also commented that
the speech suggested a shift of focus away from the Middle East. They suggest that as US energy dependence decreases, so too will
the predominance of the Middle East in world affairs. Yet this hypothesis ignores basic realities. The prominence of the region in
American strategic affairs is multi-dimensional. Israel and proliferation issues will remain as concerns in regional and global
security, regardless of Middle Eastern production levels. Equally, looking ahead the US will remain the guarantor of the global
commons, regardless of temporary budgetary constraints. Given the Middle East’s current and projected export ratios, the region
will continue to be a key area of focus for any future administration. Higher US
production will also stabilise energy
prices, decreasing opportunities for authoritarianism in supplier states. Governance and improving democratic
outcomes in developing states with newly discovered resources will be a policy priority for the Obama Administration. Accordingly, a
Democrat Presidency will place a greater emphasis on the transparency of finances in supplier states. West and Central African
emerging oil producers may particularly benefit from such measures, ensuring that they are not added to the list of regional states
afflicted by the ‘resource curse’.
Econ Module
Plan solves gas gaps
Bennet et al,09- East Carolina University Grad students, edited by Dr. Lauriston King
(Andrew, “Report on the Science, Issues, Policy, and Law of Gas Hydrates as an Alternative
Energy Source”, http://www.ecu.edu/org/tcs/Docs/CRM61002009.pdf, 12/04/09)//KC
2.3 Economic Perspectives Understanding the economic impact of methane hydrate involves understanding a wide range of
variables. Given the discussion of environmental issues that might pertain to the use of methane hydrate as a fuel, negative
externalities such as seafloor instability will need to be included in cost benefit analyses. Additionally, positive externalities such as
the possible end of U.S. foreign dependence on oil will need to be accounted for. The net social cost or benefit of the use of methane
hydrate will need to be used to augment the supply and demand curves for economic analysis. If there is net social cost a tax on
suppliers of methane hydrate would help suppliers internalize the negative externalities and produce at the socially optimum level. If
there is a net social benefit then a subsidy, as was done with ethanol, might serve to induce the socially optimum outcome (Mankiw
2008). In addition to externalities, chemical processes such as the disassociation rate of methane hydrate and the effects of global
warming need to be included into cost benefit analyses. Additionally, the cost of each type of technology used to extract methane
hydrate needs to be examined and the amount of usable methane hydrate captured considered. While the disassociation rates and
costs of technology can be studied to yield an estimate for a cost benefit analysis, variables such as environmental degradation may
be harder to estimate and various surveys might be useful. Also, a discount rate should be utilized in the analysis to examine the
costs and benefits over the long run. It is also important to note that the market price of substitutes, such as natural gas, will affect
the competitiveness of methane hydrate (Bade & Parkin 2009). It
is important to understand the possible impacts of
methane hydrates on the U.S. economy, given $500 billion of the U.S. economy is spent on
energy or fuel. The U.S. is expected to increase its consumption of energy by more than 30
percent by 2020 (DOE 1998). The increase in the number of natural gas consumers is indicative of the increase in the demand
for energy (Figure 6).The rising demand for crude oil is a serious energy problem and the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) (1998) projects that domestic oil demand will increase by more than 35
percent by 2020. However, decline is projected for U.S. oil production, from 6.5 million barrels per day in 1996 to 4.9 million
barrels per day in 2020 (DOE 1998). This decline is evident by the downward trend in U.S. field production of crude oil present since
the mid-1980s (Figure 7). Many analysts
believe that although global energy demand will continue to rise, worldwide
production will eventually peak, setting the stage for energy price increases and possible supply
disruptions (DOE 1998). Indeed, energy price increases are occurring as is shown by the upward
trends in the price paid per million BTU (Figure 8). Also, projections from the EIA show a gas gap
(Figure 9) developing where the increase in demand has outpaced the production of conventional and
unconventional gasoline sources (2002). Methane hydrate may be a possible way to bridge the gap, but in
order for methane hydrate to be competitive against substitutes, such as natural gas, it needs to be at a similar price level per BTU as
other energy sources. The prices of different energy sources according to the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA (2007) are
listed in Table 1. This suggests that the market price of methane hydrate would need to be between $12.18/ million BTU, to compete
with natural gas, to $31.21/million BTU, to compete with electricity. The NPGA neglects to include ethanol in its representative
energy costs probably because ethanol and biomass only account for 3.3 percent of the U.S. energy use (EIA, 2009). However, in
order to compete against U.S. produced ethanol, another emerging technology, methane hydrate would need to be between $12.20,
to compete against ethanol produced form wet milling corn, and $41.23, to compete against ethanol produced from raw sugar. This
range of prices was estimated using the costs of ethanol per gallon for different production technologies provided by USDA (2006)
and the BTU per gallon of ethanol. Examining the energy potential of natural gas, propane, and methane hydrate in terms of BTU
per cubic foot, methane
hydrate clearly contains more BTU per cubic foot than the other two energy
sources (Cogeneration 1999) (Table 2). Given this data, methane hydrate has approximately 178 times
more BTU per cubic foot than natural gas. One can than deduce that methane hydrate is
competitive at a price level that is approximately 178 times greater than the current market price
of natural gas. The EIA reports that the price of natural gas was $13.68 per thousand cubic feet in 2008, meaning methane
hydrate would be competitive with natural gas at a price approximately equal to $2,435.04 per thousand cubic feet. However,
the price of natural gas is on the rise, and even if methane hydrate is not competitive at today’s
price it may become competitive over time (EIA 2009) (Figure 10). In addition to rising prices being faced by
consumers, natural gas producers are facing increasing costs (Figure 11). Natural gas producers are also facing
diminishing marginal returns as the depth of the footage drilled increases but the return in terms of production has leveled off (EIA
2009) (Figure 12). In order to produce methane hydrate at a competitive price, it is necessary to utilize the most economically
feasible method of dissociating hydrates from existing hydrate reserves. In addition to understanding the appropriate method for
producing methane hydrate, it is important to identify which locations are most likely to yield economically attractive production. In
a preliminary assessment, Milkov and Sassen (2003) examined seven locations in the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 13) and ranked their
economic feasibility. In their study, they determined that location MC -852/853 in Mississippi Canyon was most likely to be
economically feasible. Milkov and Sassen determined that large structural gas hydrate accumulations are more likely to yield
economical production than smaller reserves of methane hydrate. They also determined other important variables such as:
development and production costs, water depth, and infrastructure (Table 3). A summary of their findings shows the characteristics
important to economic feasibility and each of the seven locations economic potential rank (2003). According
to the general
system of classifying energy reserves as outlined by Rogner (1997) (Figure 14), a resource is only a reserve
when it able to be exploited at economic levels and it might be premature to label methane
hydrates as reserves given the uncertainty in their geological and economic assurance. These
sentiments were echoed by Chairwoman Barbara Cubin who stated, “gas hydrates are merely resources, not reserves, because their
exploitation is sub-economic at this time” (AGI 2000). It
is important to note that Chairwoman Barbra Cubin
included a time frame reference in her statement as the production of methane hydrate may
become economical in the near future (Figure 15) given the possible effects of changes in technology
as was outlined by Rogner (1997). However, the classification of methane hydrate needs further work, as revealed by the
speculative nature of the economic feasibly of methane hydrates. (Milkov & Sassen 2002) (Figure 16)
Natural gas key to US economy
Robinson, 13- Former bureau chief for The Associated Press in Indianapolis, former editor of The Madison Press daily
newspaper in London, Ohio, B.S. from Indiana University in Pennsylvania (Keith, “Purdue study: Shale oil and gas a long-term boon
to economy”, Purdue Agriculture News, http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2013/Q4/purdue-study-shale-oil-and-gas-along-term-boon-to-economy.html, 10/08/13)//KC
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - The increasing production
of shale oil and gas should benefit the U.S. economy
by raising the nation's gross domestic product by an average of 3.5 percent annually through 2035,
according to a report by Purdue University energy economists. "The economic impact of shale oil and gas is
clear: It is a game changer for the U.S. economy," said Wally Tyner, the James and Lois Ackerman Professor of
Agricultural Economics and one of the researchers. Shale oil and gas are found deep underground, below conventional oil and far
below the water table. The oil and gas are produced by injecting chemicals, water and sand into the shale rock at high pressure,
thereby fracturing the shale rock to release the oil and gas, which is then brought to the surface. The
report summarizes
two papers - one examining the shale oil and gas boom and the other analyzing potential ramifications of significant exports of
natural gas - by three researchers in the Department of Agricultural Economics, including assistant professor Farzad Taheripour,
who was the lead author, and postdoctoral associate Kemal Sarica. The papers were presented in July at the annual North American
joint conference of the United States and International Associations for Energy Economics in Anchorage, Alaska. Paper summaries
now have been made public. "Our results indicate that the shale
oil and gas boom should have a major impact on
the U.S. economy," the researchers say, with the nation's gross domestic product from 2008 to 2035
averaging 2.2 percent higher than its 2007 level. Without the expansion in production from shale, the GDP - the value of
all of the nation's goods and services - would average 1.3 percent lower. "That means that U.S. GDP over the entire period of 20082035 on average would be 3.5 percent higher each year than it would have been without the shale boom." That
amounts to an
average of $473 billion per year added to the economy during the period. Restricting gas exports increases the
magnitude of the annual gains to $487 billion, according to the report. The shale boom has other benefits to the
economy, including substantially increasing employment and reducing oil and natural-gas
prices, the report states. On average each year from 2008 to 2035, oil prices would be 7 percent lower and gas prices 12
percent lower than they would have been without the increased production. Further, if gas exports are
restricted, prices of natural gas would drop by 24.1 percent and the economy would gain $13.3 billion, according to the report. That
pales in comparison to a U.S. economy of $15 trillion, the report notes, but the analysis shows that restricting the exports "provides a
small but positive benefit." The report points out that exporting natural gas is economically attractive to the industry because U.S.
prices currently are as little as one-fifth the prices in foreign markets. There would be considerable profit to be made even
considering the cost of liquefying the gas and shipping it. "On the other side, there is potentially large domestic demand for natural
gas in electricity generation, industrial applications, the transportation sector and for other uses," the researchers say. "Thus, the
question is which pathway provides the best economic and environmental outcome for the U.S." Permitting major exports of natural
gas would result in losses in labor and capital income in all energy-intensive sectors and increases in electricity prices, according to
the report. "The bottom line is that caution is in order in approving large levels of exports," the researchers say.
Economic decline risks global nuclear conflicts – studies confirm.
Ferguson ‘9
(Niall, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, “The Axis of Upheaval,” Foreign Policy, February 16th,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/02/16/the_axis_of_upheaval)
The Bush years have of course revealed the perils of drawing facile parallels between the challenges of the present day and the great catastrophes of the
20th century. Nevertheless, there is reason to fear that the
biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression could
have comparable consequences for the international system. For more than a decade, I pondered the
question of why the 20th century was characterized by so much brutal upheaval. I pored over primary and secondary
literature. I wrote more than 800 pages on the subject. And ultimately I concluded, in The War of the World, that three factors
made the location and timing of lethal organized violence more or less predictable in the last century. The first factor was ethnic disintegration:
Violence was worst in areas of mounting ethnic tension. The second factor was economic volatility: The
greater the magnitude of
economic shocks, the more likely conflict was. And the third factor was empires in decline: When structures of imperial rule
crumbled, battles for political power were most bloody. In at least one of the world’s regions—the greater Middle East—two of these three factors have
been present for some time: Ethnic conflict has been rife there for decades, and following the difficulties and disappointments in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the United States already seems likely to begin winding down its quasi-imperial presence in the region. It likely still will. Now the third variable,
economic volatility, has returned with a vengeance. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s “Great Moderation”—the supposed decline of
economic volatility that he hailed in a 2004 lecture—has been obliterated by a financial chain reaction, beginning in the U.S. subprime mortgage
market, spreading through the banking system, reaching into the “shadow” system of credit based on securitization, and now triggering collapses in
asset prices and economic activity around the world. After nearly a decade of unprecedented growth, the global economy will almost certainly sputter
along in 2009, though probably not as much as it did in the early 1930s, because governments worldwide are frantically trying to repress this new
depression. But no matter how low interest rates go or how high deficits rise, there will be a substantial increase in unemployment in most economies
this year and a painful decline in incomes. Such economic
pain nearly always has geopolitical consequences. Indeed,
we can already see the first symptoms of the coming upheaval. In the essays that follow, Jeffrey Gettleman describes Somalia’s endless
anarchy, Arkady Ostrovsky analyzes Russia’s new brand of aggression, and Sam Quinones explores Mexico’s drugwar-fueled misery. These, however, are just three case studies out of a possible nine or more. In Gaza, Israel has engaged in a
bloody effort to weaken Hamas. But whatever was achieved militarily must be set against the damage Israel did to its international
image by killing innocent civilians that Hamas fighters use as human shields. Perhaps more importantly, social and economic conditions in Gaza, which
were already bad enough, are now abysmal. This situation is hardly likely to strengthen the forces of moderation among Palestinians. Worst of all,
events in Gaza have fanned the flames of Islamist radicalism throughout the region—not least in Egypt. From Cairo
to Riyadh, governments will now think twice before committing themselves to any new Middle East peace initiative. Iran, meanwhile, continues
to support both Hamas and its Shiite counterpart in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and to pursue an alleged nuclear weapons program that
Israelis legitimately see as a threat to their very existence. No one can say for sure what will happen next within Tehran’s complex political system, but
it is likely that the
radical faction around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be strengthened by the
Israeli onslaught in Gaza. Economically, however, Iran is in a hole that will only deepen as oil prices fall further. Strategically, the
country risks disaster by proceeding with its nuclear program, because even a purely Israeli air offensive would be hugely disruptive. All this risk ought
to point in the direction of conciliation, even accommodation, with the United States. But with presidential elections in June, Ahmadinejad
has little incentive to be moderate. On Iran’s eastern border, in Afghanistan, upheaval remains the disorder of the day. Fresh
from the success of the “surge” in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, the new head of U.S. Central Command, is now grappling with the much more difficult
problem of pacifying Afghanistan. The task is
made especially difficult by the anarchy that prevails in
neighboring Pakistan. India, meanwhile, accuses some in Pakistan of having had a hand in the Mumbai terrorist attacks of last
November, spurring yet another South Asian war scare. Remember: The sabers they are rattling have nuclear tips.
The democratic governments in Kabul and Islamabad are two of the weakest anywhere. Among the biggest risks the world faces this year is that one or
both will break down amid escalating violence. Once again, the economic crisis is playing a crucial role. Pakistan’s small but politically powerful middle
class has been slammed by the collapse of the country’s stock market. Meanwhile, a rising proportion of the country’s huge population of young men
are staring unemployment in the face. It is not a recipe for political stability. This club is anything but exclusive. Candidate members include
Indonesia, Thailand, and Turkey, where there are already signs that the economic crisis is
exacerbating domestic political conflicts. And let us not forget the plague of piracy in Somalia, the renewed civil war in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, the continuing violence in Sudan’s Darfur region, and the heart of darkness that is Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe.
The axis of upheaval has many members. And it’s a fairly safe bet that the roster will grow even longer this year. The problem is that, as in the 1930s,
most countries are looking inward, grappling with the domestic consequences of the economic crisis and paying little attention to the wider world crisis.
This is true even of the United States, which is now so preoccupied with its own economic problems that countering global upheaval looks like an
expensive luxury. With the U.S. rate of GDP growth set to contract between 2 and 3 percentage points this year, and with the official unemployment
rate likely to approach 10 percent, all attention in Washington will remain focused on a nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. Caution has been thrown to
the wind by both the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. The projected deficit for 2009 is already soaring above the trillion-dollar mark, more than 8
percent of GDP. Few commentators are asking what all this means for U.S. foreign policy. The answer is obvious: The resources available for policing
the world are certain to be reduced for the foreseeable future. That will be especially true if foreign investors start demanding higher yields on the
bonds they buy from the United States or simply begin dumping dollars in exchange for other currencies. Economic
volatility, plus
ethnic disintegration, plus an empire in decline: That combination is about the most lethal in
geopolitics. We now have all three. The age of upheaval starts now
ext natural gas k2 US econ
Continued energy boom key to US economy
Wile, 1/8 – energy and economics reporter for Business Insider, master’s degree in journalism
from Northwestern University’s Medill School (Rob, “There's A Huge Bullish Story On Energy
And The Economy And It's Sitting Right Below The Radar”, The Business Insider,
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-energy-boom-continues-to-surprise-2014-1)//KC
Economists have recently been scrambling to crank up their U.S. GDP growth forecasts. "What's going on here?" asked Potomac
Research Group's Greg Valliere. "In a word, it's energy." In a note today, Valliere called this a huge story that's below most people's
radar. As Bloomberg's Bob Ivry said this morning about the Great American Shale Boom: "Nobody
Expected U.S. Oil
Boom to Be This Boomy." It's basically true — there have been lots of doubters who've argued it was all just a flash in the
pan. But energy has been an amazing growth story in the U.S. for the past few years. And continues to be so
today. Now, economist Ed Yardeni believes a "fracking dividend," much like the "peace dividend" that followed World War II, is
about to take hold and lift the U.S. economy. He writes: The
Fracking Dividend has already narrowed this US
petroleum trade deficit from a recent peak of $359 billion (saar) during January 2012 to $182 billion
during November 2013. The deficit could go to zero over the next couple of years. That would
provide a big dividend to real GDP growth, as well as more purchasing power for Americans. Building
the infrastructure to export crude oil would be another benefit, especially for capital goods manufacturers. On Wednesday, we
learned oil had helped cut the U.S. trade deficit to a four-year low. Petroleum product exports climbed to an
all-time high of $13.3 billion. Meanwhile, crude imports declined to $28.5 billion, the lowest since November 2010. The petroleum
deficit thus shrank to $15.2 billion in November, the lowest since May 2009. This chart from Yardeni documents these phenomena.
The units are in barrels, not dollars, and thus shows an even greater magnitude: fracking dividend Those gains are all because
domestic production continues to boom. Oil output is at 25-year highs: Natgas production is at all-time highs: And the EIA now
projects the boom will remain mostly steady into 2020 for oil and well beyond for natural gas. Oil and gas firms are now making a
strong push to allow for raw crude exports, which have been banned since the '70s oil crisis. Reuters says they're not facing much
opposition, and some analysts think it could help lower gas prices in the long term by releasing more supply onto the market, though
it would likely raise prices in the short term. Even if that were that to occur, they'd merely be rising back to levels we've seen before
— not to new highs. That's because gas prices have been drifting lower for the past few years, leading to an outcome we've called
"plateau oil." Deutsche Bank's Joe LaVorgna has said every $0.01 change in gasoline prices is worth $1 billion in the economy. Prices
have declined more than $0.50 since 2011 highs. Chart: Most importantly, the
boom has created jobs. Although the
overall numbers remain modest, payrolls in the oil and gas sector have grown faster than most
other parts of the economy. Here's a chart from Bloomberg economics editor Vince Golle chronicling the trend: We have
to mention that there remain concerns about the environmental effects of fracking. Evidence continues to mount that activity
associated with fracking has caused earthquakes in Oklahoma to spike, and an AP report showed the number of water quality
complaints in areas with fracking activity has surged, although not all of these can be linked directly to fracking, which involves
sending hundreds of thousands of gallons of water and chemicals into the ground to free up resources. But we'll give the last word to
Potomac's Valliere, who agrees with Yardeni's sentiment that energy will tip the U.S. into overdrive. In a note this morning he
writes: With Washington staying out of the way (no crises, no major new fiscal headwinds), when was the last time we could say this:
the risks on the economy are upside risks. This
is a major reason why Fed tapering will continue -- and it's
still another reason why the budget could get close to a surplus within two years. A long time indeed.
ext econ = war
Decline magnifies the severity of other conflicts – WWII proves
Miller 8 – G. Robert M. Miller, journalist for Digital Journal, 10-25, 2008, “Guns vs. Shovels –
The Central Question Behind Our Next Economy,” online:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/261595
But before we look at the
modern ‘Guns versus Butter’ model, it first has to be noted that this phrase
was originally popularized in a time where securing economic prosperity was a primary
concern in nearly every nation. More importantly, when these nations did experience
economic collapse, nearly all of them chose Guns. There is no question that Nazi aggression
spawned World War II, however, what was happening in Europe became a world war for a
purpose as central to the heart of the capitalist as was the instantaneous end of the holocaust to the heart of the
compassionate; economic prosperity. Simply said, big wars are big money; and to truly break
from the embrace of the Great Depression, a big commitment to the economy was
necessary. And due to the leadership that guided the balance between ‘Guns and Butter’ in
the US through World War II, the economy was considerably improved; this was true for many
western nations.
Economic decline cause nuclear war.
Liutenant Colonel Bearden -2K (Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, 2000, The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can
Solve It, 2000, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Big- Medicine/message/642)
Bluntly, we foresee these factors - and others { } not covered - converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about
eight years. As
the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect
catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders.
International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions.
Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and
number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a
starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal
response. Or suppose a desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In
addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict,
escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few
nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's
adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense,
the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore preemptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid
escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The
resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the
biosphere, at least for many decades.
ext diversionary theory
Economic decline causes war – studies prove
Royal ‘10
(Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic
Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed.
Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict.
Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and
defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels.
Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on
leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of
a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As
such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power
(see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of
miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead
to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining
power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles
impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections
between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000)
theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions
and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states arc likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they
have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if
the expectations of future trade decline, particularly
for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as
states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger
for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third,
others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a
national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and
external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write. The linkage,
between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing.
Economic conflict lends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the
presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts
self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been linked with an
increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which has the capacity to
spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the
popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing
unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to
fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn
(1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force arc at
least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that Ihe tendency towards
diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally
more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing
that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked lo an
increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni economic
scholarship positively correlates economic
integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science
scholarship links economic decline with external conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied
connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and
deserves more attention.
Crisis makes diversionary theory true – states will start wars to head off domestic
discontent – and use force to settle old disputes with rivals
Rothkopf 9 – David Rothkopf, Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, 3-11, 2009, “Security and the Financial Crisis,” Testimony Before the House Armed
Services Committee, CQ Congressional Testimony, lexis
--Destabilizing Bilateral or Regional Effects of the Crisis: The
weakening of states can produce instability that
spills across borders or can produce social pressures that increase migration and create
associated tensions along borders. The rise of opposition groups can create an opportunity for likeminded neighbors to support their activities and thus cause rifts and potential conflicts to
spread. Political and economic weakness in nations can be seen by opportunistic neighbors (some
wishing to produce distractions from their own crises) as an invitation to intervene in their
neighbors politics or even to step in and take control of neighboring territories or to seek to use force to resolve
in their favor long-simmering disputes. In the same vein, old animosities may be inflamed by the crisis either
because they produce tensions that play into the origins of old rivalries or because political leaders seek to play on
those rivalries to produce a distraction from their inability to manage the economic crisis.
Need may enhance tensions and produce conflicts over shared or disputed resources. A desire to
preserve national resources, jobs, or capital may produce reactive economic, border or other
policies that can increase tension with neighbors. This can include both trade and capital markets
protectionism (in traditional and new forms see below), closed or more tightly monitored borders, more disputes on cross-border
issues and thus both an increase in tensions and a decreased ability to effectively cooperate with
neighbors on issues of common concern.
at: shale gas solves – Methane hydrates are 100 times as plentiful as shale
***SOLVENCY***
USFG key
Demonstration projects are key to incentivizing private investment – uniquely true
for marine CCS
USFG demonstration projects are specifically key for CCS
Tech exists now
Holloway, 13 –B.Sc. in Technology and a Diploma in Design and Innovation from Open
University, Associate writer, (James, “New lab could unlock vast potential of seabed methane
ice”, Ars Technica, http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/new-lab-could-unlock-vastpotential-of-seabed-methane-ice/)//KC
Such environments are plentiful, of course, and so it's unsurprising that methane hydrate is thought to be abundant on planet Earth.
However, as our understanding of methane hydrate formation has grown, our best guess as to the extent of the reserves has become
smaller. Currently, the
most conservative estimate is that there are between 500 and 2,500
gigatonnes of carbon in submarine gas hydrate deposits, the majority of which are in the form of methane. Even
at the low end, however, this is more than double the Earth's 230 gigatonnes of natural gas from other sources. According to the
Department of Energy, methane hydrates are Earth's largest untapped fossil fuel resource. But quantity isn't everything; it's
the
size of the deposits that may one day prove commercially viable to tap that are key. This category of
methane hydrates may prove to be a small proportion of the total. Extracting methane hydrate poses certain logistical
headaches, including the prevention of methane gas escape. Though shorter-lived in the atmosphere, as a
greenhouse gas, methane is many times as effective as carbon dioxide (and typically ends up being oxidized to CO2 anyway). When
it's used as fuel, carbon dioxide is the primary output. The
researchers at UC Irvine, led by Derek Dunn-Rankin and Peter
to see if we could sidestep both issues. They plan on examining whether it might be
possible to use the methane and sequester the resulting carbon dioxide, all at its undersea source. "There
are, of course, tremendous challenges and uncertainty regarding the in situ utilization of methane hydrates, but the ultra high
pressure environment of the deep ocean offers some new ways to think about clean power
production," Dunn-Rankin told Ars. To that end, the new laboratory will contain a combustion reactor
vessel and a multiphase emission evolution vessel that will allow the combustion of methane
from methane hydrate in simulated deep-sea conditions. "The point of the multiphase emission evolution
Taborek, want
vessel is to see how the presence of other combustion emission gases affects the CO2 capture and stability," Dunn-Rankin explained.
"It is to look for the kinetics of hydrates and mechanisms that might enhance their stability." The methane hydrate used will itself be
made in the lab. So is there a plan to trap the carbon dioxide in a similar icy prison? "It is not necessarily a new hydrate form,"
Dunn-Rankin told Ars. "The real issue is that if you put CO2 hydrate into surroundings that have no CO2 dissolved into them, the
thermodynamics would force the CO2 to gradually try to equilibrate the surroundings—which means the hydrate would dissolve.
This is shown to be the case in most laboratory tests and theory. The thing is, the methane hydrates should do the same thing and yet
they are stable on very long timescales. The understanding of why this might occur, the kinetics of the processes, and the effects of
small amounts of natural surfactants and other species is unknown." The goal so far as methane hydrate is concerned, Dunn-Rankin
explained, is to see if it makes any sense to use methane hydrate at the source. However, it's thought that the lab could also see use
for broader energy-related research into fuel cells, obtaining hydrogen from methane, and water purification. Given
the focus
of the research, we shouldn't expect that this new facility will handle all the unanswered
questions surrounding the potential for methane hydrate exploitation. The role of methane hydrate in the stability of the ocean
floor is not fully understood, and its extraction, by drilling or other means, may contribute to landslides on sloping sea floor. But
the research does at least hint at the possibility of a more sophisticated approach to fossil fuel
extraction and use. Asked if he saw an inevitability to the use of methane hydrate as a source of
energy, Dunn-Rankin's response is nuanced. "For me, the use of methane hydrate as a source of energy in the future
depends more on what alternative sources of energy are available," he said. "The advances in the extraction of natural gas from shale
seem to me also likely to dampen enthusiasm for more expensive and potentially riskier energy source utilization. This said, our
efforts to understand hydrate dissolution and formation will always have value for the
sequestration side of the problem and will allow rational considerations of methane hydrate
utilization as well (we hope)."
Tech exists but no investment now
Jones 12- award-winning science journalist, BSc and in chemistry and oceanography at UBC
and master’s with a focus on science and Hal Straight gold medal, former New Scientist
magazine reporter, invited speaker at Brighton Science Festival (Nicola, “Gas-hydrate tests to
begin in Alaska US team will pump waste carbon dioxide into natural-gas well to extract
methane”, Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/gas-hydrate-tests-to-begin-in-alaska1.9758)//KC
This month, scientists
will test a new way to extract methane from beneath the frozen soil of Alaska:
pilot experiment will
explore the possibility of ‘mining’ from gas hydrates: cages of water ice that hold molecules of methane. Such
they will use waste carbon dioxide from conventional wells to force out the desired natural gas. The
hydrates exist under the sea floor and in sandstone deep beneath the Arctic tundra, holding potentially vast reserves of natural gas.
But getting the gas out is tricky and expensive. The test is to be run by the US Department of Energy (DOE), in conjunction with
ConocoPhillips, an oil company based in Houston, Texas, and the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation. The
researchers will pump CO2 down a well in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, into a hydrate deposit. If all goes as
planned, the CO2 molecules will exchange with the methane in the hydrates, leaving the water
crystals intact and freeing the methane to flow up the well. Conventional wells in the Prudhoe Bay gas fields
contain a very high concentration of carbon dioxide — about 12% of the gas. “You have to find something to do with it,” says Ray
Boswell, technology manager for methane hydrates at the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory in Morgantown, West
Virginia. One way to dispose of it is to bury the gas underground. Excess carbon dioxide is already pumped down some conventional
wells to encourage extraction of the last bits of natural gas; using it to extract methane from hydrates might be a good idea too. Fuel
test The test will use the Ignik Sikumi well, which was drilled on an ice platform in Prudhoe Bay last winter. Specialized equipment
has been installed, including fibre-optic cables to measure the temperature down the well, and injection pipes for the CO2. “None of
this is standard equipment; it had to be built to design,” says Boswell. ConocoPhillips helped the team to get access to the site.
“That’s one of the biggest hurdles — getting industry to let you do an experiment in their field,” says Boswell, who has been working
to arrange such tests in Alaska since 2001. “There’s a lot of inertia to overcome. Prudhoe is where they make their money,” he adds.
During the test, the researchers will inject nitrogen gas into the hydrate deposit to try to push away any free water in the system,
which would otherwise freeze into hydrates on exposure to CO2 and block up the well. The next phase is to pump in isotopically
labelled CO2, and let it ‘soak’ for a week before seeing what comes back up. This will help to test whether the injected carbon is really
swapping places with the carbon in the hydrates. Finally, the team will depressurize the well and attempt to suck up all the methane
and carbon dioxide. This will also give them a chance to test extraction using depressurization — sucking liquids out of the hydrate
deposits to reduce pressure in the well and coax the methane out of the water crystals. “We’ll continue to depressurize until we run
out of time or money, and see how much methane we can get out that way,” says Boswell. Field of dreams This
is not the first
attempt to extract methane from hydrates. In 2002, experiments at the Mallik Field site in northern Canada
pumped hot water underground to 'melt' hydrates and release the methane. In 2008, further tests at the same site tried
depressurization. That scheme seems most likely to be commercially viable, says Boswell. “The tests were
very short and the modelling has so many moving parts, no one knows exactly what the production rate will be,” he says. “But the
well produced more than the models said it would.” “There’s a perception out there that’s this is a wild
fantasy. That’s not true.” The CO2–methane exchange method to be tested at Prudhoe Bay removes the need to
either add water or dispose of extracted fluids, and doesn’t risk destabilizing the ground by melting the hydrate. It also has the
added bonus of getting rid of unwanted gas, which would offset the price of commercial
operations. “It doesn’t have to produce methane at a great rate, because you’re also disposing of CO2,” says Boswell. “The
test
concept is very alluring,” says Scott Dallimore, a hydrate expert with the Geological Survey of Canada in Sidney, British Columbia.
“Gas fields in this area have a relatively high CO2 concentration. If this CO2 can be re-injected while at the same time producing
methane, it will be a terrific option.” Commercialization
is still a long way off. The United States has no
urgent need to mine methane hydrates, says Boswell, because it will continue to have access to much cheaper
natural-gas resources for some time to come. Japan is much closer to commercialization: the country plans to open a shortterm production well in the offshore Nankai Trough in 2013, with the aim of running a longer production test in 2015. The country is
“quite eager” to explore the potential of hydrates, says Boswell, because it has few other fossil-fuel resources. “There’s
a
perception out there that this is a wild fantasy. That’s not true. I am convinced that the research
community has already demonstrated the technical viability of gas-hydrate production,” says
Dallimore. “When it comes to the question of commercial viability, things become more
complex.”
DOE key
NA 9 (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and National
Research Council, “Realizing the Energy Potential of Methane Hydrate for the United States” //
AK)
The Department of Energy’s Methane Hydrate Research and Development Program In light of
the scientific challenges posed by methane hydrate for the international research community,
the Program has supported and managed a high-quality research portfolio that has enabled
significant progress toward the Program’s long-term goals. The Program’s research in recent
years has been guided by two general aims: (1) to conduct an initial assessment of the potential
for commercial development of methane from methane hydrate resources, specifically on the
Alaska North Slope (Figure 2), and (2) to demonstrate the recov- erability of methane from
marine methane hydrate-bearing deposits, primarily through work in the Gulf of Mexico. Field,
experimental, and modeling projects supported by the program have all contributed to
addressing these aims, with more than 40 different research projects either completed or
underway since 2000. Field Research Comprehensive field projects in Arctic Alaska and the Gulf
of Mexico have been coordinated through multi-disciplinary efforts. These projects have focused
on identifying and assessing potential methane hydrate resources, drilling and sampling
methane hydrate, and developing new equipment to measure the properties of natural methane
hydrate samples. On the Alaska North Slope, an initial drill test to try to produce methane from
methane hydrate was also initiated. Experimental, Modeling, and Remote Sensing Research
Experimental and modeling research sup- ported by the Program has also added to the ability to
evaluate methane hydrate resources and to help predict how methane hydrate will behave
during production. Because extracting and preserving methane hydrate in nature for future
laboratory analysis is technically quite difficult, an ongoing challenge for these studies is to
synthesize repeat- able samples in the laboratory that are similar to natural methane hydrate.
New remote sensing methods (technologies used to “remotely” detect and characterize
subsurface methane hydrate occurrences) and ways to analyze the data gener- ated by these
methods have also been tested through the Program’s research. Findings The report found that
the Program’s manage- ment has been consistent and effective during the past five years: the
program has worked to increase the success of the research it funds, has supported education
and training of young researchers, and has enhanced collaborative efforts with other research
entities, including other federal agencies, universities, industry, and national laboratories. The
Program has also strengthened the transparency of its activities, notably through
implementation of a peer-review process for ongoing research projects and increased
communication with the public and the global research community through the Program Web
site and other outlets. Important opportunities also exist for advancing research through
interna- tional collaboration and, while challenging to develop, the extent of the Program’s
international engagement is expanding slowly. The report also provides a posi- tive evaluation of
the Program’s scientific progress to date. A wide variety of domestic projects in collabo- ration
with a range of external research groups have been successful overall, with particular advances
made through the large field projects. Although many scientific, engineering, and environmental questions in methane hydrate research remain to be answered before methane from
methane hydrate can be considered a proven energy source, the technical challenges identified
in the report were found not to be insur- mountable, as long as sustained, national commitment
and support for the necessary research continue.
Federal funding is key to incentivize private investment
Morel, 06 [Near Term Energy Potential Realization of Domestic Methane Hydrate Deposits:
The Need for Funding and Industry Participation Liz Morel 2006 WISE Intern The University
of Kansas August 3, 2006, Sponsored by The American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
http://www.wise-intern.org/journal/2006/Morel-AIChE.pdf // AK]
“Government should make targeted investments in demonstration projects bridging
development and commercialization – particularly those involving high- potential, yet high-risk,
technologies. The market place could not support these projects without such a
demonstration . Government should explore and support new R&D consortia and public/private
partnership models (with appropriate cost sharing, tax benefits, and intellectual property protections) to foster R&D on
targeted and market-relevant energy technologies.” - AIChE Policy Recommendations “Science and Technology to Meet Our Energy
Needs” 5.0 Policy Options Though
infrastructure, guidance, and funding have been given to the Methane
Hydrate Research and Development program, more is needed and Congress must be the one to provide
the support. This section reviews the funding methods and legislation of past oil and gas research programs that have seen
success and that are policy options to address the barriers to methane hydrate goal realization. Based on the findings from the
research conducted for this policy paper, recommendations are based on the past success of research program organization and the
political feasibility of implementing the needed legislation. As stated previously, the
focus of Congressional legislation
should be to increase appropriate funding, encourage industry-government collaboration, and
to promote the goal of assessing the energy potential and production viability of methane
hydrate deposits. 5.1 Increased Funding: Increased Appropriations, and Tax Incentives Funding must be increased
so that the US may adopt a more aggressive R&D schedule and to entice industry to participate
in R&D. Funding, to accelerate the R&D schedule, may simply be done by increasing the amount
of funds that are appropriated annually to the Methane Hydrate Research and Development
Program. No new legislation would be required as the amount being appropriated is less than the value that was authorized
through the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act.
Sustained R&D funding is key to make sequestration commercially viable
McGrail et al. 7 (B. P. McGrail - Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, M.S., Nuclear
Engineering B.S., Nuclear Engineering, H. T. Schaef, M. D. White, T. Zhu, A. S. Kulkami, R. B.
Hunter, S. L. Patil, A. T. Owen, P. F. Martin, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, report
prepared for the United States Department of Energy, “Using Carbon Dioxide to Enhance
Recovery of Methane from Gas Hydrate Reservoirs: Final Summary Report” // AK)
Although recent
estimates (MILKOV et al., 2003) put the global accumulations of natural gas hydrate at
3,000 to 5,000 trillion cubic meters (TCM), compared against 440 TCM estimated (COLLETT, 2004) for conventional
natural gas accumulations, how much gas could be produced from these vast natural gas hydrate deposits remains speculative.
What is needed to convert these gas-hydrate accumulations to recoverable reserves are
technological innovations, sparked through sustained scientific research and
development. As with other unconventional energy resources, the challenge is to first understand the
resource, its coupled thermodynamic and transport properties, and then address production
challenges. Carbon dioxide sequestration coupled with hydrocarbon resource recovery is often
economically attractive. Use of CO2 for enhanced recovery of oil, conventional natural gas, and
coal-bed methane are in various stages of common practice. In this report, we discuss a new
technique utilizing CO2 for enhanced recovery of natural gas hydrate. We have focused our
attention on the Alaska North Slope where approximately 640 Tcf of natural gas reserves in the
form of gas hydrate have been identified. Alaska is also unique in that potential future CO2
sources are nearby, and petroleum infrastructure exists or is being planned that could bring the
produced gas to market or for use locally. The EGHR (Enhanced Gas Hydrate Recovery) concept
discussed in this report takes advantage of the physical and thermodynamic properties of
mixtures in the H2O-CO2 system combined with controlled multiphase flow, heat, and mass
transport processes in hydrate-bearing porous media. A chemical-free method is used to deliver a LCO2-Lw
microemulsion into the gas hydrate bearing porous medium. The microemulsion is injected at a temperature higher than the
stability point of methane hydrate, which upon contacting the methane hydrate decomposes its crystalline lattice and releases the
enclathrated gas. Conversion of the microemulsion to CO2 hydrate occurs over time as controlled by heat transfer, diffusion, and the
intrinsic kinetics of CO2 hydrate formation. Sensible heat of the emulsion and heat of formation of the CO2 hydrate provide a low
grade heat source for further dissociation of methane hydrate away from the injectate plume. Process control is afforded by variation
in the temperature of the emulsion, ratio of CO2 and water, and droplet size of the discrete CO2 phase. Small scale column
experiments show injection of the emulsion into a methane hydrate rich sand results in the release of CH4 gas and the formation of
CO2 hydrate. The
experimental results were verified with computer modeling using the STOMPHYD simulator, which showed over 3X enhancement in production rate using the EGHR
technique when compared with warm water injection alone. The gas exchange technology
(including EHGR) releases methane by replacing it with a more thermodynamic molecule (e.g.,
carbon dioxide). This technology has four advantageous: 1) it sequesters a greenhouse gas
(CO2), 2) it releases energy via an exothermic reaction, and 3) it re- tains the mechanical
stability of the hydrate reservoir, and 4) produced water can be used to form the emulsion and
recycled into the reservoir thus eliminating a disposal problem in arctic set- tings.
DOE funding is key to position the US as a global leader
NRC 4 (National Research Council, “Charting the Future of Methane Hydrate Research in the
United States” // AK)
The following findings and recommendations are based on detailed consideration of the issues
discussed above and the statement of task. These findings and recommendations are discussed in greater detail
throughout the report and particularly in Chapter 6. The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of
2000 will cease to be effective at the end of fiscal year 2005. The findings and recommendations
are therefore intended to be considered with the reauthorization of the act.efficient and environmentally
sound development (research area B); developing technologies to reduce the risk of drilling (research area F); and conducting
exploratory drilling (research area G). No projects have been funded in the area of transportation and storage. None of the projects
emphasized education and training. Research projects only minimally addressed the area of environmental impacts of degassing
(decomposition as the solid-state hydrate transforms to gaseous methane and liquid water), and its potential for affecting climate.
Better estimates of the amount of hydrate in diffuse hydrate reservoirs (as opposed to focused deposits) are now available and the
estimates are lower than previously thought. Ground-truthing of geophysics requires an analysis of geophysical data taken from sites
where samples are available for testing the geophysical models. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program supported very little of
this type of analysis. For example, postcruise research from Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 204 is supported by NSF but not by
DOE. However, the MMS is updating their assessment of hydrate and the ChevronTexaco joint industry project (JIP), discussed in
Chapter 3, will address the correlation of geophysical measurements with the occurrence of hydrate. Recommendation The
DOE
Methane Hydrate R&D Program should strengthen its contribution to education and training
through funding of postdoctoral fellowships and should increase efforts in basic research to
address the relationship between gas hydrate and climate change. It is, however, appropriate that some
research areas mentioned in the act (e.g., transportation) receive no support since they are peripheral to the primary objectives of
the act. Chapter 3 summarizes the process by which projects are selected for funding within the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D
Program and reviews projects falling into four major categories: (1) international collaborative projects, (2) industry-managed
targeted research projects, (3) USGS projects, and (4) smaller-scale projects. These projects were chosen based on their potential to
meet the goals of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program and the proportion of program funds they consume. The findings and
recommendations below are based on a review of projects within these categories, which comprise more than 90 percent of the
funded work. Targeted Research Projects Targeted research projects are designed to be specific to a research area (e.g., Gulf of
Mexico, Alaska, transportation, modeling). Targeted research projects account for over 60 percent of planned DOE Methane
Hydrate R&D Program funding through 2005. Three industry-managed projects that fall into this category (reviewed in Chapter 3)
were funded with considerable cost shares from industry (Appendix G, Table G.1): BP Exploration (Alaska): Alaska North Slope Gas
Hydrate Reservoir Characterization; Maurer/Anadarko: Methane Hydrate Production from Alaskan Permafrost; and
ChevronTexaco Joint Industry Project (JIP): Characterizing Natural Gas Hydrates in the Deep Water Gulf of Mexico: Applications
for Safe Exploration. The BP Exploration (Alaska) project and the Maurer/Anadarko project are both dedicated to energy-related
research goals in the Arctic. The ChevronTexaco JIP is geared toward reducing the risk that gas hydrate deposits pose to
conventional oil and gas exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico. These projects provide opportunities to advance gas
hydrate science and engineering techniques. However, in some cases, they have had difficulty in meeting their respective objectives
due to a project assessment and evaluation process unsuited to recognize, evaluate, and select science-based investigations that
would successfully meet the objectives of the program. In addition, the results of these projects have not been made publicly
available. Finding Although the issues vary, the committee’s review of the industry-managed, targeted research projects raises
concerns about each that could limit the ability of these projects to contribute to the goals of the program. International
Collaborative Projects Gas hydrate research is international. Canada, Japan, and India, for example, are investing significant
financial resources in hydrate research. The Methane Hydrate R&D Program has made modest investments in international projects
such as the Mallik 2002 Production Research Well Program and ODP Leg 204. These
projects represent significant
achievements with relatively small investment. Together with the United States, the
international community can make substantial progress toward developing the potential of gas
hydrate as an energy resource. However, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program is currently
not funded at a level sufficient to allow a major role in large-scale international research efforts,
such as proposed for continuing studies at Mallik. Findings By effectively leveraging funding, the
DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program made wise investments of relatively small resources in
support of major international research efforts. Relative to the United States, other countries (e.g., Japan) are
spending significantly more money on hydrate research. Recommendations It will be to the benefit of all nations,
including the United States, to foster further collaboration with groups conducting methane
hydrate research. Where appropriate, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should be encouraged
to lead such endeavors. Unless substantially greater resources are devoted to the DOE Methane
Hydrate R&D Program, the United States may fall behind other nations in leading hydrate
development technology.Recommendation To ensure the future success of large, industry-managed
targeted research projects, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should implement the
following: science-based proposal review; science-based assessments of project progress and
milestones; expert consultation with a diverse project team; data made publicly available; and
peer-reviewed publication of results.
Federal funding key (are “industry-government partnerships” topical?)
Morel, 06 [Near Term Energy Potential Realization of Domestic Methane Hydrate Deposits:
The Need for Funding and Industry Participation Liz Morel 2006 WISE Intern The University
of Kansas August 3, 2006, Sponsored by The American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
http://www.wise-intern.org/journal/2006/Morel-AIChE.pdf]
Energy security is a serious concern as US natural gas imports are estimated to increase 32% by the year 2030.1 In the United States
natural gas is an essential fuel for electricity generation, home heating, and as a feedstock for producing household and industrial
products from fertilizers to paints. The US is sitting on a tremendous untapped resource that could go a long way to solving the
problem of a limited natural gas supply: methane hydrate. Before methane hydrate can be commercially produced in the US, many
questions must be answered. Specifically,
the US must be able to answer the question, "Can methane
hydrates be technically and economically produced in the US?" The roadblocks that Congress must address,
before the energy potential and production questions can be answered, are not scientific issues. The two managerial
roadblocks are the broad research goals of the government program and the funding irregularity
and deficiency that both decrease industry involvement. As time progresses, even more research goals
are added to the scope of the Methane Hydrate Research Program. With the same amount of
funds to cover more research ground, progress slows. These barriers hold back the potential US production date.
Though the 2006 Interagency Research Roadmap, created by the Methane Hydrate Technical Coordination Team, reflects the
emphasis of the 2000 Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act to determine the energy supply potential of methane
hydrates, it is helpless, since such an action is illegal, to directly suggest to Congress the funding level required to complete such a
program. The publication of the roadmap is a step to overcome the barriers, but Congress must support this newfound focus for the
program to be successful.
Because of the great benefits related to energy security, the environment, and
the economy, that may be realized through the commercialization of methane hydrate
production Congress should support the formation of industry-government partnerships, the
development of methane hydrate related technologies, and the assessment of domestic methane
hydrate deposits by the following actions: 1. Funding Magnitude: Congress must appropriate
funds to the Methane Hydrate Research Program that are at least equal to the value authorized
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 2. Funding Consistency: Multiple year appropriations are
politically unfeasible. Therefore should use an advanced appropriation process to fund the
Methane Hydrate Research Program. This would allow research programs to more accurately
plan future research and still allow Congress to maintain power through annual appropriations.
3. Research Focus: Congress must amend Section 928 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to include
an initiative to authorize funds to be directly allocated to a the USGS, the BLM, and the MMS for
assessment of domestic methane hydrate reserves. This targeted, long-term funding lends
industry confidence in government support of methane hydrate research to build strong
government-industry partnerships. It also supports organizations that have made considerable effort to integrate the
values of both government and industry to efficiently and quickly address the question of domestic hydrate energy resource and
production viability.
Data proves that the technology is feasible and no leakage
White et al. 11 (M.D. Hydrology Group, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Ph.D.,
Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, “Numerical studies of methane production
from Class 1 gas hydrate accumulations enhanced with carbon dioxide injection” // AK)
Class 1 gas
hydrate accumulations are characterized by a permeable hydrate-bearing interval
overlying a permeable interval with mobile gas, sandwiched between two impermeable intervals.
Depressurization-induced dissociation is currently the favored technology for producing gas from Class 1
gas hydrate accumulations. The depressurization production technology requires heat transfer from the surrounding environment to
sustain dissociation as the temperature drops toward the hydrate equilibrium point and leaves the reservoir void of gas hydrate.
Production of gas hydrate accumulations by exchanging carbon dioxide with methane in the clathrate structure has been
demonstrated in laboratory experiments and proposed as a field-scale technology. The
carbon dioxide exchange
technology has the potential for yielding higher production rates and mechanically
stabilizing the reservoir by maintaining hydrate saturations. We used numerical simulation to
investigate the advantages and disadvantages of using carbon dioxide injection to enhance the
production of methane from Class 1 gas hydrate accumulations. Numerical simulations in this
study were primarily concerned with the mechanisms and approaches of carbon dioxide
injection to investigate whether methane production could be enhanced through this approach.
To avoid excessive simulation execution times, a five-spot well pattern with a 500-m well spacing was approximated using a twodimensional domain having well boundaries on the vertical sides and impermeable boundaries on the horizontal sides. Impermeable
over- and under burden were included to account for heat transfer into the production interval. Simulation
results indicate
that low injection pressures can be used to reduce secondary hydrate formation and that direct contact
of injected carbon dioxide with the methane hydrate present in the formation is limited due to bypass through the higher
permeability gas zone.
***2AC BLOCKS***
Japan CP
2ac frontline
No natural gas advantage solvency – Japan won’t share the tech, US investment
key to increasing production
They don’t solve the warming advantage -melting Alaskan permafrost causes
runaway warming- Japan drilling won’t solve
Doyle and Doherty, 12 – (Alister and Regan, “Melting permafrost a new peril in global
warming: U.N.”, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/us-climate-permafrostidUSBRE8AQ0LW20121127, 11/27/12)//KC
(Reuters) - Permafrost lands across Siberia and Alaska that contain vast stores of carbon are beginning to thaw,
bringing with it the threat of a big increase in global warming by 2100, a U.N. report said on Tuesday. A thaw of the vast areas of
permanently frozen ground in Russia, Canada, China and the United States also threatens local homes, roads, railways and oil
pipelines, the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) said in the report which was released at the U.N. climate talks being held this
week and next in Qatar. "Permafrost has begun to thaw," Kevin Schaefer, lead author at the University of Colorado told a news
conference in Doha. An
accelerating melt would free vast amounts of carbon dioxide and methane
which has been trapped in organic matter in the subsoil, often for thousands of years, the report said.
Warming permafrost could release the equivalent of between 43 and 135 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, by 2100. That would be up to 39 percent of annual emissions from human sources.
Permafrost now contains 1,700 billion tonnes of carbon, or twice the amount now in the atmosphere, it
said. HIGHER TEMPERATURES And a melt of the permafrost meant that U.N. projections for rising temperatures this century
"might be too low", Schaefer said. UNEP
issued a report last week saying that rising world greenhouse gas
emissions were on track to push up temperatures by between 3 and 5 degrees Celsius (5.4 to 9F) by
2100. That is far above a ceiling set by almost 200 nations at the U.N. climate talks in 2010 of limiting any rise to below 2 degrees
C (3.6 F) to avert more floods, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels. But that report did not fully factor in the risks
from the permafrost, UNEP said. A thaw would create a vicious circle, since the release of more
greenhouse gases would trap more heat in the air and in turn accelerate the melting. That could
bring an irreversible, runaway effect.
International Fiat is bad- we have to prep for over 190 countries; it’s not reciprocal
– we get one actor, so should they; creates non- real world model – as no one
person controls the levers of power in two countries
Perm do both
Shimizu, 13- worked for United Nations, Permanent Mission of Japan to the UN, and the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, published in Journal of International Affairs, MA
in international affairs from Columbia’s University’s School of International and Public Affairs,
BA in political science and international studies from University of Chicago, JD candidate at the
University of Pennsylvania Law School, Sasakawa Peace Foundation fellow (Aiko, Energy
Security and Methane Hydrate Exploration in US-Japan Relations”, Pacific Forum CSIS Issues
and Insights Vol. 13-No.8, http://csis.org/files/publication/issuesinsights_vol13no8.pdf, March
2013)//KC
Another promising but more uncertain and longer-term area of bilateral cooperation is methane
hydrates. Methane hydrates are natural gas crystals trapped in deeply buried ice formations. If significant economic and
technological hurdles can be overcome, methane hydrate reserves would dwarf those of current conventional and unconventional
gas. Methane
hydrate deposits off south-central Japan are estimated at 10 years’ worth of
domestic consumption of natural gas, and globally the resource has been estimated to be as high as
700,000 trillion cubic feet, well over 100 times the current proven reserves of natural gas. Methane hydrates are
distributed widely onshore and offshore, especially in polar regions and outer continental shelves. 6 5 Even if, as experts expect, only
a small portion of methane hydrates could be developed, they would likely still greatly exceed estimates of current natural gas
reserves. Japan
and the United States cooperate closely in research and development of potential
large- scale methane hydrate production. In May, a U.S.-Japan field trial on Alaska’s north slope
successfully extracted methane hydrates by pumping in and sequestering CO2, demonstrating both
energy supply and environmental benefits. In light of the transformational potential of eventual large-scale methane hydrate
production, we
recommend that the United States and Japan accelerate progress on researching and
developing cost-effective and environmentally responsible production of methane hydrates. Moreover, the United
States and Japan should commit to research and development of alternative energy technologies.
CP triggers the methane gun – drilling causes landslides and earthquakes that
disturb fragile methane crystals – only scenario for massive methane pulse
Koronowski 13 (Ryan, Think Progress, July 29, 2013, “‘Fire Ice’: Buried Under The Sea Floor,
This New Fossil Fuel Source Could Be Disastrous For The Planet,”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/29/2370661/methane-hydrates-potentiallymassive-greenhouse-gas-on-the-sea-floor-faces-earthquakes-and-drilling/, alp)
Earlier this year, Japanese researchers successfully tested a new process that extracted methane
hydrate from the ocean floor for the first time. The director of Japan’s Agency for Natural
Resources compared this to the way shale gas was viewed a decade ago — too expensive for
commercialization — but concluded “now it’s commercialized.” This process does have
similarities to fracking, but instead of pumping fracking fluid into the earth and exploding the
rock, it drills down to the seabed, relieves pressure on the hydrates, and dissolves the crystals
into gas and water for collection. However, harvesting methane hydrates poses the same risks
faced by offshore oil drillers — pressure, drilling at depth, and the catastrophic ramifications of
failure. If the drilling causes an underwater landslide, the methane could erupt to the surface all
at once, a scenario called the “methane gun hypothesis.” This could release massive amounts of
methane into the atmosphere, dealing a serious blow to cutting carbon emissions.
US machinery key to fix leaks
Mann, 13- winner of U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ Keck award for the best book,
Correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, Science, and Wired, 3 time National Magazine Award
finalist, receiver of writing wards from American Bar Association, American Institute of Physics,
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Margaret sanger Foundation, the Lannan
Foundation(Charles C.“What If We Never Run Out of Oil?”, The Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-ofoil/309294/?single_page=true, 4/24/13)//KC
Almost every friend and neighbor I have spoken with about methane hydrate asked whether tapping these undersea deposits could
release vast amounts of methane all at once, disastrously altering the planet’s environment. According to Carolyn Ruppel of the
Geological Survey, these fears are understandable—but misplaced. If things go awry in a hydrate operation, some of the methane will
escape into exactly the cold temperatures and high pressures that trapped it to begin with. Some will be consumed by bacteria,
producing carbon dioxide, which dissolves in water; this raises the ocean’s acidity, but not enough to have much effect. Any
remaining methane will rise out of the sediment and, like the carbon dioxide, dissolve harmlessly in the ocean. (None of this should
be confused with a different source of methane: the decayed vegetation in permafrost, which will release methane if the permafrost
thaws.) The
real concern, Ruppel and other researchers told me, is less an explosive methane
release from under the Earth’s surface—the environmental disaster that might have caused havoc eons ago—than a
slow discharge at ground level, from the machinery that will pull methane hydrate out of the
seafloor. The problem already exists with fracking. “The rule of thumb is that if a well leaks more than about
3 percent” of its methane production into the air, “natural gas actually becomes dirtier than coal,
from a climate-change perspective,” says Ramez Naam, the author of The Infinite Resource, a just-published book about the race
between environmental degradation and technological innovation. “The amazing thing, though, is that we don’t have any data—
nobody is required to monitor methane at the well. So there’s just a few studies, which vary tremendously.” Worse still, the aging
natural-gas infrastructure is riddled with holes and seeps; early this year, a survey of gas mains along Boston’s 785 miles of road, the
first-ever such examination, found 3,356 leaks. Last August, the Environmental Protection Agency amended the Clean Air Act to
require well operators to recapture some methane; because nobody knows how much natural gas is gushing into the air, the new
rules’ impact is uncertain. Still,
fixing leaks is a task that developed nations can accomplish. “In the
United States,” Lynch says, “it is possible to hire inspectors and send them out in white vans to
measure methane emissions. They can tell companies to spray more silicone in the wellheads.
Maybe the companies will kick and scream about the bureaucracy and cost, but this is something that can
be done.”
1ar perm
Perm do both- US Japan coop solves best
Shimizu, 13- worked for United Nations, Permanent Mission of Japan to the UN, and the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, published in Journal of International Affairs, MA
in international affairs from Columbia’s University’s School of International and Public Affairs,
BA in political science and international studies from University of Chicago, JD candidate at the
University of Pennsylvania Law School, Sasakawa Peace Foundation fellow (Aiko, Energy
Security and Methane Hydrate Exploration in US-Japan Relations”, Pacific Forum CSIS Issues
and Insights Vol. 13-No.8, http://csis.org/files/publication/issuesinsights_vol13no8.pdf, March
2013)//KC
As in many areas,
the United States and Japan cooperate on the development of methane hydrate
technology. Most notably, in 2012 JOGMEC, US Department of Energy (DOE) and ConocoPhillips joined
forces to conduct a methane hydrate production test that injected a mixture of nitrogen and carbon dioxide into methane
hydrate to release natural gas in Alaska’s North Slope. The group released its results in May of that year and the test was
deemed to be a success. Building on this test, the DOE is launching a new research initiative to conduct
a long-term production test in the Arctic, as well as research to test additional technologies that could be used to
locate, characterize, and safely extract methane hydrates on a larger scale in the coast off the Gulf of Mexico. Japan, for its part,
will accelerate its efforts to develop methane hydrate technology that would be necessary for
commercial production so that they can launch commercial production of methane hydrates as early as fiscal year 2018.
The two countries should formalize a process to cooperate in the area of methane hydrate extraction while
enthusiasm is relatively high – at least in one of the partners (Japan). The United States may initially see this joint effort as
simply a means to support Japan in its enthusiasm for methane hydrate exploration, but it will benefit in the long-run
once the two countries have made progress on the development of this technology and Japan is
able to gain experience in utilizing it. With this experience, Japan may be able to help the United States in
methane hydrate extraction once the shale gas revolution ends. In addition to joint public-private partnerships in
methane hydrate research, the two countries should engage in research and discussions on the impact of extraction on the
environment and climate change. Conclusion While
challenges for methane hydrate exploration remain, it
illustrates an area in which there should be more cooperation between the United States and Japan.
After all, energy security is an area where both countries’ goals are aligned and therefore, both have
incentives to invest their time and resources into making methane hydrate a viable new energy
source for the future. Overcoming the challenges to safe, economic development of this resource will require
continued research to understand which exploration and production technologies will work best. Such research could
be done more effectively as a joint effort between the United States and Japan. The successful
joint test in Alaska demonstrated the United States’ ability to produce cutting-edge technology
for methane hydrate extraction, while Japan continues to remain at the forefront of this area. A
more formal system of joint cooperation between the United States and Japan on methane
hydrate exploration should, therefore, be created and integrated into existing energy
cooperation mechanisms.
ext. accidents turn
Japan will use depressurization to extract hydrates or no short term solvency
OGJ, 13- Oil & Natural Gas Journal editors (“Methane hydrate flow established off Japan”, Oil
& Natural Gas Journal, http://www.ogj.com/articles/2013/03/methane-hydrate-flowestablished-off-japan.html, 03/12/13)//KC
Japan Oil, Gas & Metals National Corp. (Jogmec), Tokyo, said it has produced methane from methane hydrates
during tests of a well drilled in about 1,000 m of water offshore the Atsumi and Shima peninsulas of Japan. The well, operated by
Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., produced methane by
depressurization of hydrates in a layer 270-330 m below
the seabed. Jogmec said it was the first offshore test of methane hydrate flow ever conducted. It didn’t
specify the production rate, which it called noncommercial. The test was part of a second phase of methane hydrate research, the
first phase of which was conducted during 2001-08. The Chikyu drillship drilled the well. Jogmec
said it will conduct a
second offshore production test under the second phase of research, a project of the Ministry of Economy,
Trade, and Industry. Commercial production is contemplated under a third phase during 2016-18.
Methane hydrate extraction leaks cause massive earthquakes and accelerate
climate change
Pentland, 08- Forbes Staff writer, Pace Energy and Climate Center’s Senior Energy Systems Analyst, attended Colombia
University’s Graduate School of Journalism, background in environmental trading and commercial law(William, “Energy’s Most
Dangerous Game”, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/29/energy-methane-hydrates-biz-energycx_wp_0902gashydrates.html, 9/02/08)//KC
The paradox is that while
gas can be extracted from methane hydrates, doing so poses potentially
catastrophic risks. Methane hydrates are frozen water molecules that trap methane gas
molecules in a crystalline, lattice-like structure known as a hydrate. Unlike normal ice, hydrate ice literally burns–light
a match and it goes up in flames. As temperatures rise or pressure rates fall, the hydrate disintegrates and the water releases the gas.
A substantial amount of evidence suggests that weakening the lattice-like structure of gas hydrates
has triggered underwater landslides on the continental margin. In other words, the extraction
process, if done improperly, could cause sudden disruptions on the ocean floor, reducing ocean
pressure rates and releasing methane gas from hydrates. A mass release of methane into the sea
and atmosphere could have catastrophic consequences on the pace of climate change. More than 50
million years ago, undersea landslides resulted in the release of methane gas from methane hydrate,
which contributed to global warming that lasted tens of thousands of years. “Methane hydrate
was a key cause of the global warming that led to one of the largest extinctions in the earth’s
history,” Ryo Matsumoto, a professor at the University of Tokyo who has spent 20 years researching
the subject, told Bloomberg in December.
Drilling too dangers causes earthquakes, tsunamis, and global warming
Harris, 09 –BA in biology from Virginia Tech and MA in science education from Florida State
University “How Frozen Fuel Works”, HowStuffWorks.com,
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/energy-production/frozenfuel6.htm, 5/29/09)//KC
The potential rewards of releasing methane from gas hydrate fields must be balanced with the
risks. And the risks are significant. Let's start first with challenges facing mining companies and
their workers. Most methane hydrate deposits are located in seafloor sediments. That means
drilling rigs must be able to reach down through more than 1,600 feet (500 meters) of water and
then, because hydrates are generally located far underground, another several thousand feet
before they can begin extraction. Hydrates also tend to form along the lower margins of
continental slopes, where the seabed falls away from the relatively shallow shelf toward the
abyss. The roughly sloping seafloor makes it difficult to run pipeline. Even if you can situate a
rig safely, methane hydrate is unstable once it's removed from the high pressures and low
temperatures of the deep sea. Methane begins to escape even as it's being transported to the
surface. Unless there's a way to prevent this leakage of natural gas, extraction won't be efficient.
It will be a bit like hauling up well water using a pail riddled with holes. Believe it or not, this
leakage may be the least of the worries. Many geologists suspect that gas hydrates play an
important role in stabilizing the seafloor. Drilling in these oceanic deposits could destabilize the
seabed, causing vast swaths of sediment to slide for miles down the continental slope. Evidence
suggests that such underwater landslides have occurred in the past (see sidebar), with
devastating consequences. The movement of so much sediment would certainly trigger massive
tsunamis similar to those seen in the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004. But perhaps the
biggest concern is how methane hydrate mining could affect global warming. Scientists already
know that hydrate deposits naturally release small amounts of methane. The gas works itself
skyward -- either bubbling up through permafrost or ocean water -- until it's released into the
atmosphere. Once methane is in the atmosphere, it becomAcces a greenhouse gas even more
efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping solar radiation. Some experts fear that drilling in
hydrate deposits could cause catastrophic releases of methane that would greatly accelerate
global warming.
Drilling melts hydrates underwater – accelerates methane release
Friedemann 4/28 (Alice, author of energyskeptic.com, in this article, she internally cites
qualified sources, April 28, 2014, “Why we aren’t mining methane hydrates now. Or ever.,”
http://energyskeptic.com/2014/methane-hydrate-not-gonna-happen/ , alp)
Eastman states that normally, the pressure of hundreds of meters of water above keeps the
frozen methane stable. But heat flowing from oil drilling and pipelines has the potential to
slowly destabilize it, with possibly disastrous results: melting hydrate might trigger underwater
landslides as it decomposes and the substrate becomes lubricated… 5) Which can Trigger
Tsunamis Landslides can create tsunamis that might result in fatalities, long term health effects,
and destruction of property and infrastructure.
Drilling accidents turn the advantage
Lefebvre 13 (Ben, Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2013, “Scientists Envision Fracking in Arctic
and on Ocean Floor,”
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324694904578600073042194096,
alp)
Commercial production of methane hydrate is expected to take at least a decade—if it comes at
all. Different technologies to harvest the gas are being tested, but so far no single approach has
been perfected, and it remains prohibitively expensive. But booming energy demand in Asia,
which is spurring gigantic projects to liquefy natural gas in Australia, Canada and Africa, is also
giving momentum to efforts to mine the frozen clumps of methane hydrate mixed deep in
seafloor sediment. The biggest concern is that the sediment that contains methane hydrate is
inherently unstable, meaning a drilling accident could set off a landslide that sends massive
amounts of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—bubbling up through the ocean and into the
atmosphere. Oil and gas companies establishing deep-water drilling rigs normally look at
avoiding methane-hydrate clusters, said Richard Charter, senior member of environmental
group the Ocean Foundation, who has long studied methane hydrates.
Renewables DA
Ptx Links