No abstract

It is now clear that methane hydrates contain enormous volumes of natural gas and have the potential to play a major role in future global energy supplies. Recent developments indicate that the prospects for economic production of methane from hydrates are good, and could occur much sooner than previously thought. To ensure that the United States remains a leader in hydrates research and technology, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Strategic Center for Natural Gas (SCNG) at the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is charged with coordinating a comprehensive national research and development program in all aspects of methane hydrates. In advance of attempts at commercial exploitation, our program will support fundamental studies that will improve the understanding of the nature of hydrates, the impact of hydrates on the strength and stability of ocean-bottom sediments, and the interaction of the global hydrate reservoir with the world's oceans and atmosphere. This report outlines these key methane hydrate research and development (R&D) issues, reviews DOE's past and current hydrate programs, and outlines our plans for a coordinated and collaborative R&D program in which the nation's best minds are efficiently brought to bear on the challenge of maximizing the potential benefits of natural methane hydrates. Introduction At present, the United States is relying on the accelerated use of clean and affordable natural gas to simultaneously achieve aggressive economic and environmental goals. Fundamental to this strategy is an abundant and affordable supply of domestic natural gas. However, there are increasing concerns about the surety of this supply. In a recent workshop on post-2020 gas supplies held at the DOE's NETL, most organizations agreed that a new source of supply would most likely be needed by the year 2030. That new source will likely be methane hydrates. Clearly, no one institution has the resources and the expertise to quickly resolve the many issues and technological challenges surrounding the possible exploitation of methane hydrates. Similarly, a series of parallel, duplicative, and uncoordinated efforts will inevitably delay results and may leave key questions unanswered. The NETL believes that a nationally coordinated, collaborative effort is needed, and is committed to supporting a program of allied and focused investigations by the nation's leading researchers on all fronts of the methane hydrate issue. Methane Hydrate R&D Issues Methane Hydrates are the most abundant natural form of clathrate - unique chemical substances in which molecules of one material (in this case, water) form an open solid lattice that encloses, without chemical bonding, appropriately-sized molecules of another material (in this case, methane). Recent investigations have revealed that the widespread occurrence of both methane and water allows methane hydrates to accumulate virtually everywhere pressures and temperatures are suitable. As a result, evidence of hydrates is being discovered at relatively shallow depths beneath arctic permafrost and within the fine-grained clastic sediments on the slopes and rises of continental shelves around the world.

No abstract

This paper describes the role of the U.S. government in promoting enhanced oil-recovery technology. Today, 21 major, multiyear, cost-shared enhanced oil-recovery contracts exist with industry. The goal of the federal program is to increase production by 900,000 B/D by 1985 and to add 15 billion bbl of oil to proved reserves. Introduction When one considers that more than 50% of the crude oil used in the U.S. is supplied by foreign countries, there is little doubt that increasing this nation's ability to produce oil is important. One near-term solution to this problem of dependence on foreign oil is to augment domestic supplies by applying enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to known domestic oil deposits. The targets for EOR application are the known 290 billion bbl of normal gravity oil, the more than 100 billion bbl of heavy oil, and the more than 30 billion bbl of bitumen in tar sand deposits (Table 1). The federal role in petroleum-production research and development (R and D) was historically of low profile because of the many R and D laboratories and efforts of major oil companies. For many years the USBM has conducted a modest in-house R and D effort at its energy research centers in Morgantown, WV; Bartlesville, OK; Laramie, WY; and San Francisco, CA. In fiscal year 1974, a moderate increase in funding permitted USBM to enter into cost-shared contracts with industry for EOR field demonstrations. The EOR program then was transferred from USBM to U. S . ERDA when it was formed Jan. 19, 1975, and to DOE when it was formed Oct. 1, 1977. The EOR program in DOE now has grown to funding of $46.1 million program in DOE now has grown to funding of $46.1 million in fiscal year 1978. There are currently 21 major cost-shared contracts with industry, at a total cost of $159 million. Additional supporting research is conducted at energy research centers, national laboratories, and many universities. To understand the role of government when using EOR technology is to understand the goals, plans, and current status of the DOE program for EOR. EOR Goals A primary objective of the DOE program is to stimulate the improvement of recovery efficiency from the presently estimated level of 32% of the original oil in place to presently estimated level of 32% of the original oil in place to a level of 35 to 38%. * With the estimated original oil in place exceeding 400 billion bbl, this somewhat small place exceeding 400 billion bbl, this somewhat small increase in percentage of oil recovery would be a substantial amount of additional oil. It could increase our proved reserves as of 1976 by one-third to more than one-half. The initial goal for increased incremental production by 1985 was so at USBM as a result of information generated from the federal Project Independence Blueprint analysis in 1972. It was estimated that, with favorable economics and an aggressive R and D program, EOR could provide a daily production increment of about 1.5 million bbl by 1985. The estimate was broken down further into about 500,000 bbl daily from normal industry commercialization and about 1 million bbl daily from the impact of the suggested R and D program. Those essentially were the goals adopted by ERDA when the EOR program was transferred in Jan. 1975. program was transferred in Jan. 1975. JPT P. 1086

The concept of using gassy unmineable coalbed for carbon dioxide (CO2) storage while concurrently initiating and enhancing coalbed methane production may be a viable near‐term system for industry consideration. Coal is our most abundant and cheapest fossil fuel resource, and it has played a vital role in the stability and growth of the U.S. economy. The energy source is also one of the fuels causing large CO2 emissions with the burning of coal in power plants. In the near future, coal may also have a role in solving environmental greenhouse gas concerns with increasing CO2 emissions throughout the world. Coal resources may be an acceptable “geological sink” for storing CO2 emissions in amenable unmineable coalbeds while significantly increasing the production of natural gas (CH4) from gassy coalbeds. Industry proprietary research has shown that the recovery of coalbed methane can be enhanced by the injection of CO2 over methane which could allow for the potential of targeting unmineable coals near fossil‐fueled power plants to be utilized for storing stack gas CO2. Preliminary technical and economic assessments of this concept appear to merit further research leading to pilot demonstrations in selected regions of the United States. The benefits for considering and using unmineable coalbeds for a system concept of CO2‐CH4 cycle include the following: (1) CO2 is captured from power plant flue gas, pressurized, and transported to injection wells completed in deep unmineable coals; (2) Coals near existing power plants have enormous capacity to store CO2 while enhancing CH4 production; (3) Coal reserves underlie many U.S. power plants with as many as 90% unmineable; and (4) Injection of CO2 into unmineable gassy coals allows for displacement of one molecule of sorbed CH4 while two or more molecules of CO2 are sequestered on the coal surface.