As we've noted once or twice, the pace of development in Carbon Dioxide utilization technologies around the world is accelerating; and, we, here, one step at a time, have not been and will not be able to keep you adequately apprised of the developments in a truly timely way.
However, if you care about the Coal industry, and, you care about sparing your grandchildren from a lifetime of financial obligation to OPEC, reading by candlelight and wearing parkas in the house in winter, maybe it's time - - from our perspective it's way, way past time - - you started letting your Coal Country political leadership know what it is you really want them to be busying themselves with; and, letting your Coal Country press corps - - and the buyers of Sunday supplement display advertisements in the Coal Country newspapers which that press corps publishes - - know that it's time they pulled their noses out of the gas pipe, and started doing some real work, instead of just reprinting gas industry press releases that roll in on the ticker. Those are likely to start drying up anyway, just like wells in the Marcellus Shale.
If any news reporter out there feels adequate to the task, they might want to consult with the Pennsylvania Departments of Environmental Protection and/or Conservation and Natural Resources on the state of the shale gas industry there. Look specifically into the rate of decline of gas well permit applications. The phrase "fallen off a cliff" and the word "precipitous" have been used to describe it.And, it's even worse than your first take on the numbers might indicate, since permit applications have to be made not just before you drill a new well, but, before your refrack an existing one - - and, shale gas wells often have to be re-fracked to maintain acceptable production, sometimes within the first year of initiating production, since the per-well production decline rates in shale gas wells are so steep, in some cases sixty percent or more in that first year, that keeping them on "active" status wouldn't otherwise be worth the while.
In fact, the math indicates, that, in some cases, just to maintain current overall output from a given area or field, the rates of drilling and refracking actually have to steadily increase to compensate for that steep decline rate; which, of course, adds considerably to the overall per-cubic-foot cost of production. That has proven so in the Barnett and Fayetteville Shale fields, with the Barnett, especially, after a few years of glory, now in serious decline.
And, that's in Texas, where they routinely take two spoonfuls of frack waste in their morning coffee with a smile and a thank you, ma'am.
The Barnett Shale, in Texas, has been in production for much longer than the Marcellus, and, in general, the average well life has proven much shorter than originally predicted and the volume of gas that can be recovered on a commercial basis has been greatly over-estimated. We've been given to understand that new information to be published this year by independent petroleum industry consultants and experts will present data more in line with earlier US Geologic Survey estimates, which indicated that there is a five- to seven-year supply of shale gas, relative to demand, and not "100" years, a number commonly bandied about.
But, that's all on you guys and gals who've likely been treated to some pretty nice lunch buffets at the Chesapeake and EQT PR functions. If you've noticed that those events aren't quite as frequent or as posh as they used to be, there's likely a good reason.
If you are interested, here's one trail marker to get you started:
Drilling permits decline sharply for the Pennsylvania Marcellus formation - Philadelphia Energy | Examiner.com; "New data released yesterday by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection shows a severe decline in new shale gas well permits issued for the first six months of this year. Permits issued by the State have declined sharply since January 2012 and dropped for the last three straight months for both new wells and “refracks” of existing wells".
And, the above is sort of strange, since, as can be learned via:
AP: Pennsylvania is approving gas drilling permits with scant review - USATODAY.com; "Pennsylvania environmental regulators say they spend as little as 35 minutes reviewing each of the thousands of applications for natural gas well permits they get each year from drillers who want to tap the state’s vast Marcellus Shale reserves. And the regulators say they do not give any additional scrutiny to requests to drill near streams and rivers, even though the waterways are protected by state and federal law";
getting a permit seems to be as easy as pie; and, as in:
PA DEP Oil & Gas Reporting Website; "The Oil and Gas Act reporting is a self-reporting system, meaning that data is reported from producers to DEP as required by law. All production data is posted as it was received from the unconventional well operators. DEP does not independently verify the data before it is posted. While the Oil and Gas Act requires accurate and on-time data reporting by producers, and the producers and DEP endeavor to correct any errors discovered after the data is posted, DEP makes no claims, promises or guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the operators’ data that DEP is required to post";
nobody fact-checks, anyway. So, there must be some underlying reason why the permits aren't being sought. One offered is that operators are now heading off to the "oil rich" shale fields in Ohio.
Keep in mind that "rich" can be a relative term. Someone with two bits is "rich" compared to someone with one red cent.
The concept of extracting oil from the shale in Ohio has been around for a long time. Some experimental mines for that purpose were actually sunk into some Ohio shale beds, not the Utica, with drainage galleries, like horizontal well bores, drilled off into the shale from the main mine entryway, very nearly three decades ago. A former professional geologist among our number here spent some time in one of them, and actually saw oil being produced - drop by excruciatingly slow drop.
Jed Clampett has absolutely no competition to be worried about; and, we seriously doubt that "oil rich" Ohio Shale is the reason people aren't going after gas in Pennsylvania Shale.
But, our Coal Country press never seems to tire of Baloney Sandwiches slathered with that Shale Gas mayonnaise. And, they're likely to keep trying to share their lunches with us.
Fortunately, though, since all the Shale hype has now built up a large public hunger for natural gas that could well go unrequited, there is an answer:
Carbon Dioxide.
As we've been documenting pretty much out the wazoo, environmental sources of energy can be harnessed to effect the catalyzed, coupled splitting of both CO2 and H2O; and, the recombination of the "C" and the "H" into gaseous hydrocarbons, with Methane being typically representative. Pure Oxygen can be a byproduct.
A recent example would include:
West Virginia Coal Association | Japan Converts CO2 into Lower-Cost Methane | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent Application 20120018311 - Carbon Dioxide Reduction Method; January 26, 2012; Assignee: Panasonic Corporation, Osaka (Japan)";
wherein sunlight, acting through a combination of catalysts in a water solution of Carbon Dioxide, both increases the reactivity of the molecules and provides photoelectric current sufficient to electrolyze the water, H2O, and the CO2, and then recombine the Carbon and the Hydrogen into, among other options, "methane ... at lower cost".
As we've discovered, such technology has been the focus of rather intensive development within Panasonic, a large, though not as big as they used to be, Japanese corporation with a long tradition in electrical equipment and electronics which we introduced in some detail in that prior report.
They have begun applying for patent protection worldwide on a whole suite of Carbon Dioxide recycling technologies related to, and in some cases perhaps integral with, that disclosed in the above-cited "United States Patent Application 20120018311 - Carbon Dioxide Reduction Method".
And, herein, we wanted to introduce you to a more recent, but far from the most recent, example. Comment follows excerpts from the initial link in this dispatch to:
United States Patent Application 20120234691 - Method for Reducing Carbon Dioxide
METHOD FOR REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE - Panasonic Corporation
Date: September 20, 2012
Inventor: Masahiro Deguchi, et. al., Japan
Assignee: Panasonic Corporation, Osaka
Abstract: The method for reducing carbon dioxide of the present disclosure includes a step (a) and a step (b) as follows. A step (a) of preparing an electrochemical cell. The electrochemical cell comprises a working electrode, a counter electrode and a vessel. The vessel stores an electrolytic solution. The working electrode contains at least one nitride selected from the group consisting of titanium nitride, zirconium nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, molybdenum nitride and iron nitride. The electrolytic solution contains carbon dioxide. The working electrode and the counter electrode are in contact with the electrolytic solution. A step (b) of applying a negative voltage and a positive voltage to the working electrode and the counter electrode, respectively, to reduce the carbon dioxide.
Claims: A method for reducing carbon dioxide, the method comprising: a step (a) of preparing an electrochemical cell, wherein the electrochemical cell comprises a working electrode, a counter electrode and a vessel, the vessel stores an electrolytic solution, the working electrode contains, as a catalyst, only at least one nitride selected from the group consisting of titanium nitride, zirconium nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, molybdenum nitride and iron nitride, the electrolytic solution contains carbon dioxide, the working electrode is in contact with the electrolytic solution, and the counter electrode is in contact with the electrolytic solution; and a step (b) of applying a negative voltage and a positive voltage to the working electrode and the counter electrode, respectively, to reduce the carbon dioxide.
The method ... wherein in the step (b), at least one compound selected from the group consisting of methane, ethylene, ethane and formic acid is produced.
Background and Field: A carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction technique using a catalyst is expected as a technique for fixing CO2 and producing useful substances.
In the catalytic hydrogenation method, CO2 reacts catalytically with hydrogen (H2) to be reduced under a high temperature and high pressure gas phase condition. The catalytic hydrogenation method allows CO2 to be converted into highly useful substances such as methanol.
In the electrolytic reduction method, the reducing reaction proceeds even at an ordinary temperature and ordinary pressure. The electrolytic reduction method requires no large-scale equipment. Thus, the electrolytic reduction method is simpler than the catalytic hydrogenation method. Accordingly, the electrolytic reduction method is considered as an effective CO2 reduction method. As catalysts capable of reducing CO2 by the electrolytic reduction method, metals such as copper (Cu) and silver (Ag), alloy materials of these, and complex materials (molecular catalysts) such as a cobalt (Co) complex, a nickel (Ni) complex and an iron (Fe) complex have been developed so far.
Summary: Generally, CO2 is a very stable molecule. Thus, the CO2 reduction treatment by the catalytic hydrogenation method requires a high temperature (a heating temperature of 300 C) and a high pressure (a reaction pressure of 50 atmospheres) for a reaction proceeding. Furthermore, the catalytic hydrogenation method uses a flammable gas such as H2. For these reasons, the catalytic hydrogenation method requires to install large-scale equipment. The catalytic hydrogenation method has a problem in that a great deal of energy must be input into the reduction treatment and in that the energy utilization efficiency is very low.
One non-limiting and exemplary embodiment provides a method for reducing carbon dioxide using a highly-durable catalyst that is capable of reducing CO2 at an overvoltage equal to or lower than overvoltages for conventional catalysts to produce highly useful substances (such as formic acid (HCOOH), methane (CH4), ethylene (C2H4) and ethane (C2H6).
In one general aspect, the techniques disclosed here feature a method for reducing carbon dioxide, the method including: a step (a) of preparing an electrochemical cell, wherein the electrochemical cell comprises a working electrode, a counter electrode and a vessel; the vessel stores an electrolytic solution, the working electrode contains at least one nitride selected from the group consisting of titanium nitride, zirconium nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, molybdenum nitride and iron nitride, (and)
the electrolytic solution contains carbon dioxide,
the working electrode is in contact with the electrolytic solution, and the counter electrode is in contact with the electrolytic solution; and a step (b) of applying a negative voltage and a positive voltage to the working electrode and the counter electrode, respectively, to reduce the carbon dioxide.
The electrochemical cell is used in the method for reducing carbon dioxide of the present disclosure. The electrochemical cell comprises the working electrode for reducing carbon dioxide. The working electrode contains at least one nitride selected from the group consisting of titanium nitride, zirconium nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, molybdenum nitride and iron nitride. These nitrides are capable of reducing carbon dioxide at an overvoltage equal to or lower than overvoltages for conventional catalysts for reducing carbon dioxide.
Therefore, the method of the present disclosure makes it possible to produce highly useful substances, such as HCOOH, CH4, C2H4 and C2H6, at an overvoltage equal to or lower than overvoltages in conventional methods. Furthermore, the high durability of the nitrides allows the working electrode to achieve high durability.
The method for reducing CO2 of the present disclosure can be applied to methods using a solar cell as an external power supply. The catalyst for reducing CO2 can be applied, by combination with a photocatalyst, to catalysts which can be used with solar energy."
-----------------------
We'll leave it at that for now. Believe us: Panasonic's technology for efficiently making such things as Methane, Ethane and Ethylene, "CH4, C2H4 and C2H6", out of Carbon Dioxide and Water, will be beaten to death in reports to follow.
And, for now, consider:
In Japan, it should be becoming clear, they know how to, using sunlight to drive the process, convert Carbon Dioxide and Water into Methane.
And, once they have the Methane, then, as seen in our report of:
West Virginia Coal Association | Japan is Recycling CO2 into Hydrocarbon Syngas | Research & Development; concerning, in part: "United States Patent 6,806,296 - Hydrocarbon Oil ... from Lower Hydrocarbon Gas (and) Carbon Dioxide; 2004; Assignee: Chiyoda Corporation (Japan); Abstract: A process for the production of a liquid hydrocarbon oil from a gas feed containing a lower hydrocarbon and CO2, wherein (as the lower hydrocarbon gas) methane ... is preferred";
they can react that CO2-derived Methane with even more Carbon Dioxide, recovered from whatever handy source, and make thereby, among other things, through intermediate formation of a hydrocarbon synthesis gas, "hydrocarbon oil".
And, if you read that above report in it's entirety, you will know that they have, in Japan, a pilot plant up and running and operating that Methane-based CO2-recycling technology.
Do you suppose we could convince them to set up a sales showroom for those CO2-recycling factories, maybe down next to the Toyota and Honda dealerships, somewhere in US Coal Country - before someone decides to pass Cap and Trade tax legislation to battle the deficit, or to fight another Persian Gulf Oil War?