Home

About Us

Contact Us

 

 

Natural Gas

Freedom from Russia, August 12, 2009

Gas to liquids, December 14 2008


Freedom from Russia

Europe has become dependent on Russia for much of its natural gas. Russia supplied about 33% of EU’s natural gas in 2007.

On at least two occasions, Russia has cut off the supply of natural gas to European nations. The gas cut-offs left hundreds of thousands of Europeans shivering in the cold.

Russia has done all it could to prevent the building of alternative pipelines that could supply Europe with natural gas from sources outside Russia.

The recent emergence of natural gas from shale could change Europe’s dependence on Russia for natural gas.

Exxon’s new discovery of a huge natural gas field from shale in Canada has made the headlines. Earlier discoveries by other energy companies of natural gas from the Barnet and Haynesville shale fields have suddenly created a glut of natural gas in the United States.

Little mention has been made that Exxon and others are exploring for natural gas from shale in Europe.

Exxon is accumulating leases in shale formations in Germany, Hungary and Poland. “Tests on two wells in Hungary, where Exxon and its partners hold leases on 400,000 acres, are expected this year. It will be the first time the shale there has been tested.”

Exxon also holds 750,000 acres in northern Germany and plans to sink 10 wells to investigate the potential for natural gas production there.

"There's a possibility that under our feet are the same kind of shale-gas deposits that you have in the United States," said Brian Horsfield, a professor of organic geochemistry at the GFZ German Research Center for Geosciences in Potsdam, Germany. "There are many of the same types of shale formations in Europe."

While it will take several years to develop natural gas from shale in Europe, it represents the first possibility that Europe can achieve freedom from Russia.

Another alternative, the Nabucco pipeline traversing Turkey and several eastern European countries, was given a breath of life when the governments of these countries signed an agreement allowing the pipeline to pass through all their countries. The Nabucco venture has one problem; it still does not have a source of natural gas, and without a confirmed source it will be difficult to get the financing (approximately $8 Billion) for the project..

There is a danger that environmentalists will challenge the practice of fracturing which is needed to release the gas from the shale. In 2005 the EPA said fracturing was safe, but environmentalists are now challenging that assertion.

 

Sources: The Heritage Foundation. The Wall Street Journal. The New York Times.

 

TSAugust

August 12, 2009

 


Gas to liquids

Shell Oil Company has recently run an advertisement featuring their efforts to produce liquid fuels from natural gas. The process is known as Gas to Liquids (GTL) and produces a diesel fuel.

The inference, though not stated, was that GTL would be suitable for use in the United States.

GTL was an outgrowth of Coal to Liquids (CTL) originally developed by Germany and subsequently used by South Africa when their Apartheid policies caused the world to cut off South Africa’s oil supplies. South Africa turned to the Fischer-Tropsch, CTL process to produce a liquid fuel from South Africa’s vast supply of coal. (Coal is cooked in steam to produce syngas that is then processed in much the same way as natural gas.)

More recently the process has been used to convert natural gas to liquid fuels, first in Malaysia then in the Middle East, primarily in Qatar.

The GTL process was suitable for these locations because the natural gas at these locations was stranded, that is, couldn’t be easily transported by pipeline to countries that could use the natural gas.

The process is very expensive and loses considerable heat energy when the natural gas is converted to a liquid.

Royal Dutch Shell is building a 0.14 Million Barrels per day GTL complex in Qatar at a cost of $18 billion. This cost is higher than other proposed GTL plants due to having to build a pipelines from the natural gas field to the GTL plant. Proposals for GTL plants outside the Middle East cost about half this much. Qatar’s gas is essentially free, while natural gas elsewhere is costly.

The main attraction for GTL outside the Middle East is that the fuel burns more cleanly than diesel or gasoline. The fuel has a higher cetane rating than commercial diesel fuel.

While GTL makes great economic sense where there is stranded natural gas, GTL is a poor choice elsewhere.

GTL is inefficient in that it loses energy when converting natural gas to a diesel fuel. Natural gas is a valuable resource needed to heat homes and for use by industry.

If we were to use natural gas as a transportation fuel, it would make far greater sense to use it directly by building natural gas cars and a natural gas delivery infrastructure.

GTL is one of several alternatives in the energy mix and it’s important that we get the mix right, and make the most effective use of our energy resources.

TSAugust

December 14, 2008


 

 


 


J

 


 

 

A


 

To Top of Page
 

Copyright © 2002 - 2009 TSAugust