Peak oil has always been marked as a period when there is a "creative" grab at any industry that will replace the falling amount of oil reserves we face.

And I would doubt that this type of energy, like all others, can replace oil, even as oil becomes a tighter resource.

It should get interesting.

Uhmm.... Why arent they putting millions or billions into wind and solar technology??? What a bunch of as*holes!!

jsf00: Greed. Which also translates to the fact they are a holes, but you figured that out already.

jsf00

They are putting billions into solar and wind, you a$$ hole.

Well, where is the article on that?? lol... If they are putting billions into solar and wind.... I'm not benefiting for it! Yet??

@JohnnyOnTheSpot-3794903

You mean few billions compared to trillions for oil?

What omit from the cost of oil are disaster impact on environment, the war, the cost of maintenance relationship and lives. If you include everything, it doesn't sound cheap anymore, trillions in wars, millions in lives and hundreds of billions in settling which barely cover the cost.

Let's take Gulf of Mexico from BP spill for example, we lost hundreds of billions in tax revenue each years, decades of recovering and destroy millions of jobs, lower property of millions of homes and at the end of the day, BP only settle 25 billions and tax payers pay for decades of damage. Sound fun, right?

Has anyone stopped to consider the reference to "fossil fuels"? Either, we have evidence of other forms life that is present in the universe, our solar system, ie the methane seas of Titan, or, the methane hydrates on the bottom of the ocean floors is not organically based, but, from the formation of this planet. In addition, anyone familar with astrochemisty, will assure you of the vast amount of complex chemicals present in the comos...just food for thought...just don't tell the energy mogels some of us know......

jsf00

is this good enough for you?

$800M Wind Farm in Kansas BP and Sempra announced that the Flat Ridge 2 wind farm has moved into full construction.

BP's 1,000th wind turbine now spinning in Texas BP has become one of the biggest generators of wind power in the US after opening Sherbino 2

www.BP.com

I think the most significant thing here that people are missing and that the article doesn't explain very well is the use of CO2 injection to release the methane. Methane Hydrates are methane gas combined with water ice. If you heat the methane hydrate, you release the gas and water. Some early attempts to tap into methane hydrates had to inject heat in order to melt the ice and release the methane.

This new technique doesn't use heat, it injects CO2 resulting in a "direct exchange" freeing the methane. What is good about this is that it reduces a need to expend energy to melt the ice and it allows for CO2, recovered from other sources like burning coal, to provide a useful purpose while it is sequestered under ground.

For some time now, environmentalists have suggested the sequestration of recovered CO2 from burning coal, rather than just releasing it into the atmosphere. This has proved to work, but it costs money to do it. So to recover, collect and inject the CO2 under ground had only the payback of reducing greenhouse gasses being released into the atmosphere. Now, with this method of using the CO2 to release the methane from the methane hydrates, while at the same time sequestering the CO2, there is an additional payback beyond less greenhouse gasses. Now this provides an energy bonus for doing the smart thing of reducing the release of greenhouse gasses. It also allows for using a cleaner, less environementally objectionable energy source.

The key objection to the use of this process by the environmentalist will be about being able to do this in the Alaskan arctic region without creating an enormous industrial footprint disturbing the pristine area. Ultimately this is the right thing to do from an environmental standpoint, provided it can be done without an enormous amount of industrial infrastructure. As long as this concept is approached from the standpoint of being done mainly because of what environmental benefits it provides with energy as a bonus, and not from the standpoint of exploiting a naturally occurring energy source, I believe a win-win solution is possible.

The problem potential exists when it is the oil companies, who have a reputation of exploiting the environment, who will most likely be behind tapping into this energy source. On the plus side, coal is not about to go away tomorrow and this would provide some incentive for using the CO2 recovered in the process of sequestration. CO2 isn't the only objection to coal, but it is a big one. Ideally, the CO2 source would be in close proximity to the methane hydrate wells. That doesn't sound likely in the case of the methane hydrates in the Alaskan Arctic. So the appropriate infrastructure would need to be developed to get the CO2 to where you need it. When this process would get commercialized, the worst thing that could happen is that some other method of producing CO2 near the wells looked more economically attractive. We don't need to generate more CO2, but instead we need to find ways to keep existing produced CO2 from being released into the atmosphere. When you look at a pure profit based motive, you can easily see where this could go astray.

This has great potential from both and energy and an environmental standpoint, but that is only if it is done right keeping both goals in perspective.

That CO2 they're using to extract a CO2 based fuel (methane burning produces the worst level of CO2 of any natural material besides volcanoes) and then make it practical for use in our "liquid" fuel infrastructure is just nuts! Consider using that CO2 with Algae and get vast amounts of straight vegetable oil that is 100% safe and can be converted cheaply to bio-diesel and use our "liquid" based energy refineries and distribution channels that exist today! Algae! Algae! Algae! Algae! When are the "smart" people going to see the benefits!

jsfoo-They are finding that neither solar nor wind is as reliable or productive as promised. Both are subject to variations in the weather, require large land areas to be "econmically effective", and wind farms are actually suspected of changing weather patterns "down wind". Off shore wind farms are being linked to changes in local ocean currents.

There is work being done that shows some promise. A "turban" shaped blade rather than the large propeller shape seems less disruptive of wind patterns and less of a danger to birds and bats. May even be more effective at generating power as it seems to require less wind.

There is also the "smaller is better" school that suggests placing solar for generating electricity or heating water on the sides and tops of tall buildings within the cities. Wind mills that rotate around a verticla axis rather than horizontal to suppliment. They may only support the building they are attached to, but that can still produce significant reductions.

Last I checked, the GOP was opposed to public investment in new energy resources...they say we can't afford it or the federal government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. And by definition, if the Obama administration supports it, they have to be against it. It will be interesting to hear how the GOP spins this if they bring it up at all, which is unlikely. They are so totally full of sh!t.

Mark, I don't know know where you got your info from, but on a pounds of CO2/BTU basis, methane is the lowest producer of the natural fossil fuels. It produces about a third less CO2 than fuel oil, and coal produces almost twice as much CO2/BTU. Methane is far cleaner burning too producing very little in the way of particulate matter or heavy metals.

I am not suggesting that it is perfect or somehow environmentally better than wind or solar, but it is a step in the right direction. As for most power generation, gas turbines are pretty efficient and far better than burning coal or waste oil to make steam to turn the generators. I don't think it is practical to believe that we could change over night so we need to start taking things in the right direction by taking a variety of steps. We are running out of oil and many are looking to coal of which the US has vast reserves. But coal is the worst CO2 producer as well as its other nasty byproducts of burning. Methane is a far better choice as a transition fuel.

osiris,

You hit on something that is significant in the future of energy production. Small scale has some real potential benefits. There is of course economy of scale with big power generating plants, however small scale local wind and solar production might economically be able to handle as much as 20% of our needs with today's technology. On the plus side too, when connected to the grid, all these small scale systems that are sometimes being underutilized, could be a help to supplying large grid demand periods. Solar tends to produce best during the times of day when demand is highest and in some cases, wind is similar, but it also produces at night too. During a workday when people aren't at home, their household demand tends to be lower, but this is also when the grid demand is high. The excess local capacity could offset some of this demand.

Considering that distribution already exists, connecting these small scale systems to the grid is simple. That can lower the requirements for more and bigger plants and provide some investment payback for the small system owners.

Like with a lot of things, centralized vs. decentralized is not a black and white comparison with one alone being the best choice. Usually some blending of the two provides the best and most efficient solution. With today's technology in small scale generating systems, we have the opportunity to create this blend and get some overall gains from it. We are not yet to the point that local source generation can economically meet all our needs, but it can provide at least some level of independence while also helping to contribute to the big picture. Power tranmission isn't cheap and there are losses, so at some future point locally generated power may actually provide the ultimate solution, but we aren't there yet. However, we are at a point that we can start moving in that direction. At some future time, the cost of the losses could exceed the cost of the local sytems. As the technology improves and production costs come down, we are heading in that direction. At the same time, as energy storage methods improve too, these small scale systems become viable for a higher percentage of our daily needs.

This is terrible news, unless you're a gas company. And they are well represented among MSNBC boosters. If we burn all this gas, we are screwing ourselves anyway. It's less bad than coal, true. Less bad. We should be thinking big boldly about an all-renewable grid and grid-level storage. Decisions we make now about our infrastructure will lock us in for a generation. Don't think small. Don't be satisfied with what little someone with skin in the way things are now tells you. The little extra distance we don't manage to go in the energy revolution may be the little extra bit that causes a catastrophic tipping point to be passed.

anderlan,

I applaud your enthusiasm, however I think the bold approach is a multi-faceted approach. And be careful with the term "renewable". Ethanol is a "renewable", but per BTU of energy, burning ethanol produces more than 50% more CO2 than gasoline which already produces 50% more CO2 than methane. And it gets worse than that. When ethanol is produced by fermenting, bacteria works on the sugars and converts those to ethanol. But in the process, it produces a byproduct. Guess what that is? Yeah, that's right, CO2, and lots off it. Then if you take into account the production of crops like corn, that production adds even more CO2 from farm and transportation equipment. Corn based ethanol helps get us off of oil, but as far as greenhouse gasses, it is probably far worse in total.

Wind and solar look far better and of course some greenhouse gasses are involved in the production of the equipment, but not very much. The thing is to get away from combustion based fuels to produce energy. Virtually every combustion method uses oxygen and produces CO2. Of the combustion based fuels, only hydrogen looks better than methane and it is tricky stuff to burn.

I believe the smartest move is to move away oil first and coal second. Oil first only because there just isn't much of it left and we use oil for a lot of things besides energy. There is a lot of coal, but it is nasty. As we phase out of coal, we should look at making it "cleaner" while we do it. We should start the phase out now, but it won't be overnight. All this takes time and it takes new infrastructure as well as technology. If we have already passed the "tipping point", which is potentially possible, we will find some future problems with wind and solar. It would be risky to put all our eggs in that basket. But it should play a role today. Hydrodynamic works and is cheap, but it has its own environmental impacts. Geothermal works nicely in some areas but going full scale with this doesn't seem practical and even large scale geothermal isn't inexhaustible. Nuclear is clean, but we all know its potential downsides with the waste and with what can happen when something goes wrong. Fusion holds a lot of promise, but it's a ways out from being feasable.

The thing is that we should be charging ahead, but not blindly. And making a commitment to a single direction could turn out badly. Methane is a pretty good transition fuel for combustion based energy production, but I'm not convinced that fracking to get it is such a good idea. It would be foolish and impossible to abandon the current energy infrastructure, but we need to start reshaping it no doubt. Moving in a few directions is better than not moving at all.

The trouble as I see it, is that we are not embracing new technology fast enough because the model for energy production is profit based. As long as cheaper energy sources are available, the energy producers have little interest in developing new sources. The fact is that this particular development would not have happened without government investment. The concept came from a University, not an oil or gas company. Unless we nationalize all energy production, we need to keep the current energy industry playing. Even though nationalizing energy production would be the best and quickest way to make the changes needed, it simply is not going to happen in the US. As much as I believe we are facing an urgent need to act, I see far too many people happy with the status quo.

So we are faced with trying to find the best compromise. That will pretty much have to follow a relatively slowly steered course. No doubt this methane hydrates approach is a compromise and one with the potential to work. It may not be what you would consider ideal, but it could be a positive step in the right direction.

Sure there is:

1. Don't inject dangerous chemicals into fracking wells.
2. Follow CURRENT industry and federal guidelines on fracking
3. Improve designs for nuclear so they can withstand earthquakes and so their waste is handled.
4. Invest in solar, wind, were appropriate.
5. Conserve.
6. Invest in positive technology like this.

Why is this so hard?

What omit from the cost of oil are disaster impact on environments, the wars, the cost of maintenance foreign relation and soldier/civilian lives. If you include everything, it doesn't sound cheap anymore, trillions in wars, millions in lives and hundreds of billions in settling which barely cover the cost.

Let's take Gulf of Mexico from BP spill for example, we lost hundreds of billions in tax revenue each years, decades of recovering and destroy millions of jobs, lower property of millions of homes and at the end of the day, BP only settle 25 billions and tax payers pay for decades of damage. Sound fun, right?

Cuong: The costs you mention for all are absolutely real, makes so definitely not cheap, but even that is a very small part of the cost of harnessing oil energy. The engines built to burn the oil, the refineries to refine it, the pipelines, ships, trains and trucks to move it, the technology to mitigate the environmental impacts for routine consumption, I am sure have forgotten to mention lots. Add it all up, we as a society and as individuals pay a very steep price for the privilege for being able to jump in the car to go to the mall or the grocery store.

A problem is you don't see a very big chunk of the costs in the price at the pump. Lots and lots of the costs are paid by our tax dollars, the costs of our food, or just not paid, for now, deferred to our kids who have to deal with the national debt and the degraded environment.

@Richard Lambert

Those costs you mention are scientific advancement which not develop solely for oil, but can be use for alternatives mean. True that they cost alot, but we are talking mainly on oil and the reason we are at Middle East in the first place.

If you take oil out of the equation and use less fuel efficiency, but still manage to somehow replace it, you will see that we have no need to spend trillions in wars and millions in lives. However, since oil corporations don't want it, so they by all mean make it difficult to talk about alternatives fuels.

What omit from the cost of oil are disaster impact on environments, the wars, the cost of maintenance foreign relation and soldier/civilian lives. If you include everything, it doesn't sound cheap anymore, trillions in wars, millions in lives and hundreds of billions in settling which barely cover the cost.

Methane Hydrates would eliminate the issues that you cite. It would be great to have an economy that was entirely renewable based, but environmentalists stand in the way of those energy sources, too. They have filed environmental complaints against solar farms and against turbine farms. I support clean air and clean water, and am willing to pay for those things, but sometimes I think that there is NOTHING that can satisfy environmentalists.

I live in Asia and we have many car models, and trucks for that matter, that run on NG. Why can't the US also produce vehicles that run on NG? With all the surplus it would be a tremendous boon to the economy. Oh yeah, oil inc. would be against it....oh well, it was a wonderful dream while it lasted.

Because the oil co. cant milk us for 4 or 5 $ a gallon.

My concern is similar to yours; massive permafrost drilling will collapse the sea floor, Alaska maybe looking into earthquakes in magnitudes they have never experienced before and sinking of large chunk of their land. Everything in science has unintended consequences that is why we spend years testing our hypothesis instead of diving in head first like the "drill baby drill" crowd who can't see beyond tomorrow.

Arlin, thanks for the info. You might want to check your keyboard.

spell check is available with one keystroke

Science and research can and will solve our energy problems, just keep the politicians out of the way, and nationalize it.

michelle,

You do realize that "keep the politicians out of the way" and "nationalize it" are mutually exclusive, don't you?

nationalizing anything puts the politicians in charge of it. and look at them, they are clueless and mess everything up, why let them be in charge of anything this important

Arlin Carlson

By chance are you using a speaking softwear? Just wondering...

Methane is natural gas or the main component of it anyways......So stop comparing methane to natural gas dumb-dumb..

The article said that The Energy Department paid $6 million for this test and would "invest" more. It's only an "investment" if taxpayers, those who have been paying for these tests, get the profits. ConocoPhillips gets to collect the profits as well the millions in tax breaks they have now and will again in the future. Maybe in the past big companies had a nose for money - now they just earn it hand over fist because they recreated the playing field.

You're sure the oil companies are investing or it is it again our

tax dollars, in the article they mentioned 6 million to be given for more research

We are so far in debt please let the private industry invest their money, besides

they are already getting tax incentives for that very purpose. In the article it also mentioned it

wasn't economically feasible versus the inexpensive natural gas, please don't have our

know-all government tell us how to invest our money, and watch it go down the drain, remember

Solyndra? Also, the article has to throw in the Global warming aspect which has been defunct.

Nice try but Obama has no energy policy except to shut down businesses, like coal mines, etc.

As Ronald Reagan said "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem". People

please vote out this phony president as he is destroying America, no jobs, more people on

government dowel, because of no jobs, remember when he said back in 2009 he

was going to focus on creating jobs like a laser, then again in 2010 and believe it or not

again in 2011, what a joke, and today he started his campaign for re-election.

In my opinion he has never stopped campaigning as we have gone over 5 trillion more in debt,

when is it enough, if people had jobs, it would solve allot of economic problems.

I was going off the "Backed by an oil industry giant..." comment in the article.

I assume "backed" implies financial backing. Though some more detail would have been nice.

John------I would assume you mean Global Warming has been debunked not defunct right ? Considering your mastery of vocabulary(Sarcasm) I would assume you probably suck at science and reading too right? You have no idea about climate change you just believe what Sean Hannity told you instead of 99% of climate scientists so stop trying to confuse other dimwits....mmmmmmkay.....Just use common sense everybody...Burning stuff is not good for your lungs or the atmosphere period....Just look at the smog in our cities....

John forgot what happens when we let private industry regulate themselves; hint, Wall Street and BP disaster. Letting thieves govern thieves is what let to this economic disaster and Obama has nothing to do with 2008 economic collapse. Should have paid attention in science and econ 101 in college instead of watching FOX.

Most human flatulence is ordinary nitrogen; quite harmless.

If yours is high in methane, I suggest you sell it.

They tried that with cow burps. It didn't work then either.

Sorry, Mario. The principal component of flatulence is indeed methane. Flavored with some hydrogen sulfide, of course...

How did the Epa come to control....Not become to control.....Is that the way you talk too ? It is always the people who deny science who talk like inbred hillbillies...

The major components of the flatus, which are odorless, by percentage are:^[4]

• Nitrogen: 20–90%
• Hydrogen: 0–50%
• Carbon dioxide: 10–30%
• Oxygen: 0–10%
• Methane: 0–10%

Nitrogen, the main constituent of air, is the primary gas released during flatulence,
along with carbon dioxide. The lesser component gases methane and hydrogen are
flammable, and so flatus containing adequate amounts of these can be ignited.
However, not all humans produce flatus that contains methane. For example, in
one study of the feces of nine adults, only five of the samples contained
archaea capable of producing methane. Similar results are found in samples of gas
obtained from within the rectum.

Miller TL; Wolin MJ, de Macario EC, Macario AJ (1982). "Isolation of Methanobrevibacter smithii from human faeces". Appl Environ Microbiol 43 (1): 227–32. PMC 241804. PMID 6798932

[these guys definitely know sh*t from shinola]

Generally stated, methane may not be practicably obtained from people.

Mario, thanks for correcting that misconception about farts. As you can see many people fart through both ends on this newsvine :-) Methane is produced in small amountby the bacteria in our gut. The main component of the air we swallow with eating and breathing is nitrogen. Nitrogen is poorly absorbed by our tissues thus most nitrogen will have to be expelled/farted.

If you live on the Great Plains or in the southwest, you can build your own combination wind/solar battery system and provide almost all your own power. This only works for individuals or small communes.

Are you high ? Godgravation....Your post is lacking sense...In other words it doesn't make any..

It's a partnership .... a two-way street. Something to piss off everybody right, left and libertarian.

Conoco is probably putting in some money, but mostly drilling equipment and expertise. The government provides seed money and access to the hydrate supplies. If it works, we all profit. It's called research, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I think some of the left will be pissed...the government backing huge oil company?

Why would anyone on the left be pissed about something our tax dollars have been doing for decades?

The WORLD has been converting to NG for DECADES...

It is the USA PUBLIC who has been fighting/IGNORING NG vehicles for DECADES...

Both GM & Ford offered NG vehicles for the US market back in the 80's, few buyers. Even the companies who would have benefited from fleet operations IGNORED the potential... BTY - ALL the major vehicle manufactures in Asia/EU offer NG vehicles, including GM & Ford...

Thailand started their conversion to NG during the early 2000's. NOW most of their mass transit systems are NG; trains, buses, taxis, electrical power, and even the Tuk-Tuk are converting. This has spread the NHG filling stations across the country and now NG 18 wheelers/trucks & private passenger vehicles are everywhere. Even Cambodia has NG filling stations for vehicles...

Qatar is flying their passenger jets using fuel made from NG...

Japan just shut-down their last nuclear power generator. They are relying almost entirely on NG electrical generation. Germany and other countries are also shutting-down their nuclear generators & relying on NG...

Methane hydrates have been researched by the DOE for DECADES. The Alaska test drill site is a JOINT venture with Japan, USA, and many of the large oil produces being involved. Russia also has their test site and Indonesia has their own 'mud volcano' due to a FAILED hydrate test site...

It is the Obama Administration that has been pushing 'Green Energy' that relies of China for supplying the needed 'rare earths' and a production facility. China currently has the ONLY production facility in the WORLD & has supplied 95% of the World's needs of 'rare earths' for DECADES. Last year China has stated they will be exporting ZERO 'rare earths' after 2014, unless the factories using 'rare earths' are located in China... Ha! Ha!

AC Robertson,

You sound like you know what you're talking about in your very informative post, and included plenty of information that can be verified for those who wish to do their own homework. It was nice right up to the 'Ha! Ha!' at the end.

What's that about?

Any person with a child who hopes that child will live to be about 120 with all the conveniences we've have the benefits of enjoying, also hopes something will be found toward replacing fossil fuels, or any other fuel source that is finite. But nobody starts at the finish line...not oil companies, not concerned presidents, and not research and testing on ideas.

According to Wikipedia, which is a good enough source for this non-scientific poster who is writing a non-thesis post, the other rare earth mines around the world were closed when China undercut pricing. Perhaps I'm under-thinking this, but any investments by those who search for energy must know how to re-open mines, or build processing plants. Anything that can be built in China can also be built in Brazil, Australia, Greenland or wherever.

In the meantime I'm heading out to look for the Big Moon.

easydoesit,

Research Chinagate, then you will understand my, Ha! Ha!...

A certain political party has been supplying China with information and business for DECADES. In exchange for DONATIONS...

China is a threat to the USA not only in the financial arena, but for natural resources. Becoming dependent on China for a group of materials is SUICIDE...

They have been trying to build a 'rare earth' processing plant in Indonesia for almost a decade. The environmentalist & the locals are fighting the construction. The environmental hazards associated with this type of facility has resulted in them being closed around the world. Including the one formally in Indonesia. The construction of this facility will take almost a decade...

For more info on 'rare earths' see - http://oilprice.com/Metals/Commodities/

I don't see how the biggest BS senate investigation( not to mention costliest ) has anything to do with rare earth elements...Is your foil hat made out of rare earth elements ?

sw philly,

1. Whom was receiving the money from China???

2. How many people were CHARGED & CONVICTED???

3. How much money was returned and/or given to charities by which Political party???

But like you stated this has nothing to do with the SAME Party pushing reliance on 'rare earths' supplied and processed by CHINA... Ha! Ha!

Mario 69 & Thomas Blue,

Methane hydrates have the potential to supply the USA needs for 500+years. According to the DOE or 1,000+years if you believed this article...

Nuclear power generators, have less than a 10+year supply of fuel @ current prices...

Coal powered generators have a 100+year supply, or less if we keep selling it to China at the present rates. Exports have increased 800% during Obama's rein...

Wind power HSWT have NEVER lasted longer tha 30+years or less than 10+years if you look at the Hawaii farms...

The Solar power plant using panels & thermo in Blythe, CA is projected to have a service life of 30+years...

We will not run out of cheap U-235 in ten years. Where did you hear that bunk? Mother Earth News? Even if we are within, say, 50 to 100 years of running out of cheap Uranium, we're making good inroads on being able to use U-238 (source for Pu-239) and Th-232 (to make U-233) as seed materials, and I highly doubt we'd run out of those before The Singularity occurs, at which point it may or may not matter...

Fils d'Artemis,

2008 Summary from EIA,

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has updated its estimates of uranium reserves for year-end 2008. This represents the first revision of the estimates since 2004. The update is based on analysis of company annual reports, any additional information reported by companies at conferences and in news releases, personal contacts, and expert judgment.

At the end of 2008, U.S. uranium reserves totaled 1,227 million pounds of U₃O₈ at a maximum forward cost (MFC) of up to $100 per pound U₃O₈ (Table 1). At up to $50 per pound U₃O₈, estimated reserves were 539 million pounds of U₃O₈. Based on average 1999-2008 consumption levels (uranium in fuel assemblies loaded into nuclear reactors), uranium reserves available at up to $100 per pound of U₃O₈ represented approximately 23 years worth of demand, while uranium reserves at up to $50 per pound of U₃O₈ represented about 10 years worth of demand...

reference - http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/ures.html

The POLITICS was stated when, the researcher stated that OBAMA started this site...

The only thing that has really started during Obama's rein is the Green Peace operations to shut-down the facility...

The DOE researching methane hydrates & this test site has been in operation for DECADES...

reference and latest findings - http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/

The Work began on the ConocoPhillips Gas Hydrates Production Test (DE-NT0006553) on October 1,
2008. This report is the first quarterly report for the project and summarizes project activities
from October 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008. While George Bush was still president...

see http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/Hydrates/2009Reports/NT06553_QtrOct-Dec2008.PDF

I'd love to kick sand in their faces and shove oil up their ____. But they'll probably kill each other first.

The problem is how to collect it (methane) if it's being released over vast areas of thawing tundra. At least with the hydrates, it's available in a concentrated (and therefore potentially usable) form.

If we don't jump on the bandwagon and start investing in a greener lifetstyle China is going to leave us behind in the dust. Check out what they're doing here to see how willing they are to invest in a more ecologically sound future.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120503-sustainable-cities-on-the-rise/1

As far as the methane in the tundra goes there are more youtube videos of guys lighting fart-fires with the stuff than you can take the time to look at. Russian scientists claim there are either 800 million tons or 800 billion, I can't remember, trapped but soon to be released in a catastrophic way if global warming continues, which it will.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=how+much+methane+is+trapped+in+the+russian+tundra%3F&go=&qs=ds&form=QBLH&filt=all

In the meantime, while China advances and the tundras melt, we can all sit around libbie communisting and reichwing fascisting ourselves to death. What was it the Beatles said, life goes on within you without you?

The miles deep chasms in the sea floor off the Iceland coast are the result of methane hydrates interacting with volcanic activity...

The disappearance of vessels and aircraft in the 'Bermuda Triangle' have been attributed to natural releases of these hydrates...

NATURAL Methane releases, are only news to the uninformed or Liberal Arts majors...

We are investing in solar and wind, remember solindra, sic?

We also tried dams, but the environmental wackos put a stop to that.

We will also get much resistance to the pipelines we will need.

Solar and wind won't power cars and planes.

Nuclear is the way to go for our electric needs, and it has been proven safer than oil, gas and coal, when you consider mine accidents, refinery explosions and other disasters.

I'm with you. The Arctic is too fragile an ecosystem to exploit.