Custom Search

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Natural Gas? Not So Fast!

I am seeing growing discussions online about how the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf would have been prevented if only energy companies focused on natural gas. It has been frustrating to me as I closely watched the drilling debate in the last couple years within the Florida Legislature, and everyone at all close to the debate was aware natural gas deposits were a big part of why people wanted submerged lands open for drilling.

As background, the Florida House in 2009 actually passed a bill which would have allowed to Cabinet to issue drilling permits within three to 10 miles of Florida's coastline. The Florida Senate refused to take the issue up without further research. At the request of Senate President Jeff Atwater, the Collins Center did an outstanding and thorough study of the matter which extended into this year's session. Lawmakers this Spring decided the drilling debate should wait until at least 2011, but the issue is pretty much off the table now for obvious reasons. I must take a moment to commend Atwater, a Republican, for single-handedly saving our coastlines from this greedy wager of our environment and economy.

Everyone should read this report if they have the time. The Collins report was issued well before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, so parts that describe the low probability of an accident can make you wince a bit. But it reveals a great deal about how the search for natural gas was truly at the heart of the drilling debate. And it also shows how that "cleaner" resource bears many of the same flaws and inherent dangers that oil drilling presents.

I want to draw attention to several key pieces of the report. For example, few realize the amount of waste materials discharged into the water just through the drilling process itself.

Excerpt:
Liquid muds are pumped down the hole to lubricate the drill bit and help bring the debris to the surface. The muds typically contain the metal barium as a weighting agent and are considered toxic.
In addition, the materials used to make the mud are taken from onshore sites and can contain minerals and impurities not commonly found on the ocean floor. While generally water-based, the muds can be oil- or synthetic-based, depending on the well depth and the type of drilling activity, such as that used on horizontal wells. The drilling also produces tons of what are called "cuttings,” the ground pieces of rock and other material the drill bit cuts. Life on the rigs produces its share of wastes, too, such as treated sanitary water, trash and debris. Bilge water, ballast water, waste oil, contaminated drainage from the rig decks and excess cement are also produced during offshore operations.
The muds and rock cuttings represent a significant portion of drilling wastes. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated in 1993 that for each exploratory well in the Gulf of Mexico, companies discharged nearly 336,000 gallons of drilling fluids and nearly 113,000 gallons of cuttings into the water around the rigs. For development wells, the estimates were nearly 252,000 gallons of drilling fluids and 67,000 gallons of cuttings.

---

That means just the lubrication and rock cuttings create a threat to the ecosystem when nothing goes wrong. In addition, we have substantial amounts of human waste that gets dumped into the waters. This latter part is probably a greater concern with deepwater drilling, as it is less convenient to dispose of bilge when you are hundreds of mile from the shore. But those cuttings offer a greater threat to our beaches and to shallow-water wildlife the closer drills are to shore. The report says the worst pollution is in the localized area immediately around the drill, again creating a greater problem with shallow-water drilling.

The seismic processes associated with drilling can also affect the marine mammals living in areas that are getting drilled.

Excerpt:
Seismic guns and other acoustic disturbances associated with oil and gas exploration and development can have significant impacts on marine life. Each species of marine mammal and each marine fishery varies in its sensitivity to sound frequencies. Acoustic disturbances that affect one species may not affect another. Impacts are possible over large spatial areas. Incidents of direct injury or mortality are possible but much less likely than more subtle behavioral effects associated with masking communications between animals. Protocols exist that attempt to limit these impacts.
Data presented at IESES suggested that whales and fish (especially grouper) may be more susceptible to the acoustic disturbances associated with oil and gas activities than small cetaceans like dolphins and manatees.
Mitigating measures are practiced in most parts of the world, including the Gulf of Mexico. The MMS requires certain measures, such as lookouts posted on vessels to warn operators to cease testing when mammals are spotted. Companies can also be required to begin the testing with low-volume air blasts that cause marine life to scatter before the blasts build to maximum volumes.


---

And why do oil companies want to do all of this? We know there is plenty of oil in the Gulf, since we are watching it gush live and have seen it wash ashore in Louisiana. But the Gulf boasts just as much natural gas, something described by this report as an "oil equivalent."

Excerpt:

Government assessments suggest that estimates of oil and gas reserves in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico are moderate. Estimates for this region are much larger than those for Florida’s state waters, but much smaller than those for the Western and Central regions of the Gulf of Mexico. The mean estimate of 7.71 billion barrels of oil equivalents (oil plus natural gas converted into an "equivalent” amount of oil) includes 3.88 billion barrels of oil and 21.51 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These amounts are likely to be more than 10 times that of Florida state waters, pending a new round of assessments for areas covering the Florida Panhandle. However, as a comparison, this amounts to approximately one third of the estimated undiscovered reserves in the Western Gulf of Mexico and less than one seventh of the estimated undiscovered reserves in the Central Gulf of Mexico. Across the Gulf, drilling and production activities have steadily moved into deeper water, where assessments show greater resources.

Government assessments suggest that estimates of oil and gas reserves in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico are moderate. Estimates for this region are much larger than those for Florida’s state waters, but much smaller than those for the Western and Central regions of the Gulf of Mexico. The mean estimate of 7.71 billion barrels of oil equivalents (oil plus natural gas converted into an "equivalent” amount of oil) includes 3.88 billion barrels of oil and 21.51 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These amounts are likely to be more than 10 times that of Florida state waters, pending a new round of assessments for areas covering the Florida Panhandle. However, as a comparison, this amounts to approximately one third of the estimated undiscovered reserves in the Western Gulf of Mexico and less than one seventh of the estimated undiscovered reserves in the Central Gulf of Mexico. Across the Gulf, drilling and production activities have steadily moved into deeper water, where assessments show greater resources.
Of the roughly 7,300 active leases in the Gulf, 58 percent are in water 1,000 feet or deeper. That compares to 27 percent in those depths in 1992.

---

So there is slightly more gas than oil in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, which is of course where this report focuses its energies. Of note, the report also points out that job opportunities from shallow-water drilling are likely small for Florida compared to the possibilities in deepwater, simply because energy companies want to go where the larger reservoirs lay. The report seems to indicate that the reason energy companies go toward deeper drilling areas is not because of a lack of access for near-shore drilling, but because there is just more stuff to suck up further out in the sea. But we are all painfully aware now of the risks associated with deepwater drilling, where pressure makes it hard to plug a hole.

From my point of view, the answer isn't for companies to invest more in natural gas. This report shows many of the environmental problems associated with drilling are just as present with gas exploration. I would rather see companies exploring alternatives like wind, solar, biomass, heat-to-energy and other low-risk sources. There should also be a much greater emphasis in out consumer regulations on energy saving, which is clearly the best way to cut down on the use of fossil fuels in this country.

1 comment:

  1. These fluids are used for drilling natural gas, oil and water wells. The environment is currently flooded with chemicals that contaminate air, water, food and thus humans.

    Thanks....

    ReplyDelete