The Thom Hartmann Radio Program
Live Chat Room -- Topic-by-topic audio archives -- Audio Archives -- Web Pages -- Articles on Democracy
New Since your Last Visit
 
We The People
Activism Alerts
Articles by Thom
Audio Archives
Bibliography
Biography
Book Reviews
Books by Thom
Bumper Music
Candidates
Chat Emoticons
Chat Room - main
Clips
Cracking the Code
Events
Frames
Interviews
Law
Movies
National show
News
Newsletters
NLP classes
Photos
Stack
Tag, you're it!
Thom's .com site
Transcripts
White Rose
More!
  Links
  Mercury Retrograde

Subscribe to
Thom Hartmann's Free Newsletter on Politics & the Environment
(we respect your privacy and do not sell or share our list)
Email 
First 
Name 
My email program supports HTML 
    Discussion Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Thom's Radio Program  Hop To Forums  Environment    A greener way to recover methane

Read-Only Read-Only Topic
Go
Find
Notify
Tools
  Login/Join 
Administrator
Picture of Sue N
Posted
quote:
Oil reservoirs could have an environmental make-over with the help of bacteria.
A report in Nature has shown how crude oil in deposits around the world is naturally broken down by microbes to methane.

Scientists say that increasing microbe activity would produce a more energy-efficient method of methane recovery.

It is likely field tests will start by 2009.

The ability to recover methane directly from deeply buried oil reserves means energy-intensive and thermal polluting processes are removed.


Link


Sue N.
 
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
But it's not a greener way to recover methane.

It's simply a way to get more hydrocarbons out of previously undrillable oil wells.

Except not in the form of oil, but instead as methane and a bunch of CO2.

And then if you actually want it to turn back into oil, you have to expend a lot more energy.

Whats worse, this will probably just be applied toward creating methane to run Tar Sands production.

_

It's great news if all you care about is Peak Oil.

But I wouldn't really call it "green".

I dunno, do is there anything wrong with a 2-5x increase in greenhouse emissions, ravaging millions of acres of boreal forests, creating miles and miles of toxic cesspools devoid of life, and mountains of sulfur, to be a bad thing?

http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=16059
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/200.../22/MNG46CMUPL60.DTL
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/...-to-alberta-legislat


-GreyFlcn
 
Posts: 62 | Location: California | Registered: 17 November 2007Report This Post
Administrator
Picture of Sue N
Posted Hide Post
Yes, I have grave doubts about it, too. And would we be creating super bacteria with all
those nutrients, or whatever trick they used to speed up the process, perhaps genetic engineering? And did they factor in he environmental cost of producing the fertilisers? And would the new demand for fertliisers raise the cost of fertilisers for food? And what byproducts would be left, and could they leak out into the air or water?

I've an even greener solution. Don't extract the oil/methane, but put money into renewables and conservation instead.


Sue N.
 
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
Well pretty much the part they leave out is that the digestion of the oil results in byproducts.

It results in methane which they like, but it also results in a lot of excess CO2.

If you factor that in, it's rather hard to consider it "Green".


-GreyFlcn
 
Posts: 62 | Location: California | Registered: 17 November 2007Report This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community  

Read-Only Read-Only Topic

    Discussion Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Thom's Radio Program  Hop To Forums  Environment    A greener way to recover methane

Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.