Geothunder Energy

Random Energy Thoughts…

Recently independent studies have affirmed that global warming is happening, but the new studies do not necessary tackle the issue of cause.

Some things I would like everyone to consider.

• Weather is the planet’s way of trying to distribute heat. (Energy)
• Fossil fuels are nothing more than a very inefficient storage media of ancient solar energy.
• The earth is a large semi-closed system.
• All power generation will have some affect on the climate. (Even renewable sources)

The more time I spend thinking about energy the more I realize that there is not an easy solution. All natural systems see oscillation. The norm is a moving target. A large human population liberates massive amounts of stored energy (regardless of source), which changes the rate and amplitude in which natural systems oscillate. By burning fossil fuels, we are liberating energy that has effectively been removed from a closed system for millions of years. Never mind CO2, if we think in terms of energy only we still have the ability to cause climate variation. Renewable resources should cause variation to a lesser extent, but over all a similar effect will likely occur with things like wind and solar energy. We use the electrical grid to move vast amounts of energy from one location to another in less than the blink of an eye. The fact of the matter is that even small amounts of energy robbed from the environment and rapidly moved to another geographic location can affect climate. If alternative energy sources were to become the primary energy sources I have a feeling we will not see a reversal of climate change.

Regardless, if we are going to continue to grow as a population, we will need to develop all of our energy sources simultaneously, but we may live through an interesting time in regard to how the planet handles the additional energy in its semi-closed system.

I apologize. This post is a bit like trying to comprehend an entire book just by looking at the cover. The problems we face will require tackling one page at a time, but I do worry that the people making decisions may oversimplify energy and climate issues.

Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources: Energy returned on energy invested

1. Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources: Geology
2. Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources: Technology Changes
3. Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources: Energy Return on Energy Invested
4. What Continuous Resources Mean for North America. (not written yet)

In this section, we will attempt to explain the energy return on energy invested for oil and gas plays like the Bakken and other continuous geologic reservoirs.

First, we need to address the misconception that energy return on energy invested is low.  A lot of people toss around numbers from 5 to 7 for the ratio. From what I can tell members of the oildrum were largely responsible for many of the calculations floating around the internet.   Their numbers may have been accurate a few years ago, but significant improvements have been made.

Before we go on, readers of this post need to understand that calculating a real EROEI number for any kind of operation is masters level work so the best average individuals can do is use estimates that are provided in books, which are inherently out of date.

Consider the above statement a disclaimer of sorts.

On with the calculating. For consistency and ease I am going to use the same methodology as members of the oildrum in 2008.

Assumptions:
1 bbl crude oil = 6.10E+09 Joules Equivalent (Click to see source)
In 2005 oil and gas industry had an energy intensity of $1 = 20E+6j which is about double normal industrial applications.  This number was used by oildrum (They source “Charles Hall’s Natural Gas Paper” I was unable to find the source paper myself, but it does seem legitimate. Charles Hall is sort of the father of EROI studies.) Other calculations done by the same individual on oildrum are legitimate so hopefully he was on his game the day he grabbed that number.

QEP Resources – Q2 2011 Bakken Operations Report (I could have used just about any operator in the Bakken and got similar numbers.  QEP is low to average in terms of EUR)
- Average completed well costs range from $6.5 million to $9 million per well.
- Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) per well range from 350,000 to 750,000 per well.

Calculation:
B1 = Energy/$                 2.00E+07
B2 = Energy/Per Barrel 6.10E+09

(100000*$B$2)/(5000000*$B$1) =  6.10    Oildrum (Just checking method numbers based on 2008 EUR)
(350000*$B$2)/(9000000*$B$1) =  11.86   Worst Case EROI Bakken Well
(750000*$B$2)/(6500000*$B$1) =  35.19    Best Case EROI Bakken Well

Conclusions:
Estimated Ultimate Recovery in drilled continuous resources is rapidly improving with limited additional monetary investment. Many companies are reporting EUR values between 700,000 and 1.5 million barrels (Continental, EOG, Brigam). The take-away message from this post is that EROEI for continuous resources in low cases meets the recent domestic industry average, and in high cases approach the EROEI seen domestically in the 1970s. (good thing)

Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources:  Technology Changes

1. Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources: Geology
2. Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources: Technology Changes
3. Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources: Energy Return on Energy Invested
4. What Continuous Resources Mean for North America. (not written yet)

-Introduction to drilling technology

Drilling technology has been evolving since the 1800s, and in the last few decades leaps and bounds have been made on what was once a simple operation. If you would like to know more about the history of oil check out this link and then search for the other seven episodes (they are all up)

What has changed in the last 30 years?
Fracking has been combined with directional drilling.

Last 10 years?
Computer driven systems have improved, and it is now relatively easy to control the drill bit (still not easy).

Last 5 Years?
Multi stage fracks.

The 1980 was sort of the first proving ground for horizontal drilling, and it was successful, but they did miss often. There are a lot of things that can go wrong when you are drilling more than two miles below ground and cannot see what you are doing.

Fracking during the 1980s and even early 1990s now has a joke associated with it “pump and pray.” New technology makes the old stuff look like the stone age, but it was still a necessary step. During that time water and proppant were basically free to take the path of least resistance over huge rock intervals within the target formation.

In the early 2000s multi stage fracks were being used to isolate sections of the well to provide more control on where fracking fluid and water migrated. By 2007, multistage fracks were standard, but they are consistently being improved even today. Last I had seen the most frack stages used in one well was around 60.

Fracking Basics:
What is the ultimate goal of fracking?
Surface area.
The goal is to expose as much low permeability rock to flow paths as possible. Wells in shale formations were not economic until horizontal drilling was combined with hydraulic fracturing.

There are calculated numbers for new surface area generated due to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, but I was not able to find them, so they may not be public yet. The numbers are very large. A fracked well should effectively have hundreds or thousands of times more rock in contact with the well-bore (production pipe) than a traditional well.

You may not believe the previous statement, so I will try to help you conceptualize the magnitude of the fracking process. Just for fun we will try a basic comparison that is going to be wrong, but better than nothing.

(In our case the top and bottom do not matter so I plan to ignore them)

Using the any generic rock horizon a traditional well running vertically will contact from a few tens to a few hundred feet of rock.  A producing zone is probably some small portion of that.
Vertical well surface area:
Length = 100ft
Diameter 8 in
Area = (2)(PI)(8in/2)(100ft*12in/ft) = 30159 squar inches

Horizontal legs are typically between one and two miles long so I am going to use 8000ft for a distance.

Hoizontal Well
Length = 8000ft
Diameter = 8in
Area = (2)(PI)(8in/2)(8000ft*12in/ft) = 2412743 squar inches

We are going to say that the rock is effectively shattered for a 15 foot diameter for the entire length of the horizontal leg. This number is probably significantly underestimating the effective distance from the wellbore.

While we are on the topic I had probably better point out that just about every model of hydrofracking you have ever seen is wrong. Artists like to draw nice trees coming out of a wellbore. How do things really break when a stress is applied?

Can The Broken Glass Model Be Used for Fracking?

Rocks have existing stress fields, so they will not break in a nice circular pattern, but during fracking the most stress applied to the rock closest to the wellbore so one would expect more fractures to occur near the pipe rather than at a distance.

The next time you think fracking think broken glass before you think tree growth.

Fracked Horizontal Well 

Length = 8000ft
Diameter = 15ft
Area = (2)(PI)((15ft*12in/ft)/2)(8000ft*12in/ft) = 54286721 squar inches

Since the human mind is not great at dealing with big numbers please click  this link to see a graph at full scale…

Why do frack stages matter how does it work?
Frack stages isolate horizontal portions of the well into small areas so that when fracking fluid and proppant are pumped down they only affect a small area of the well. The process improves the efficiency of the frack and keeps the proppant where you want it(that is the idea anyway). A good frack vs a bad can easily double initial production.

Packers Plus

How frack stages are isolated

Fracking Safe?
The answer is the same as driving a car or firing a gun. Yes. As long as it is done properly. As for the people who think it will poison the water supply of cities… They do not understand the process or geology in general.  Most public cases blamed on hydraulic fracturing have nothing to do with fracking.  The cases where natural gas ended up in someone water well is most often related to the drilling process.  I.e. drilled through a gas pocket near the surface or the faulty casing.  To most people, it does not matter how or what is causing the environmental problems as long as they have something to blame.  The problem is that large numbers of people are seeking the wrong solution because they do not understand the problem.  Leaky casing is a problem, but it is not likely to endanger a large water supply. Regardless, this post is not about fracking problems, so I will leave it at that.  If you want to know more about fracking, please ask or check out the rest of my site.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Continuous Resources
Disadvantages:

• Research and development is important and expensive. (This is probably why you see some companies holding back)
• Relies heavily on technology. (more things can go wrong)
• More expensive than traditional drilling.
• Mistakes can destroy small companies.
• Requires lots of mineral leasing.

Advantages:
Less Variability:

• Because continuous resources do not rely heavily on structure there is less hunting for small areas for production. If you have two good producing wells miles apart you can be pretty sure that if you drill a well in the middle it will produce.
• If an operator finds a process that works for one well it will probably work on adjacent wells because the geology is likely similar.
• Geologic transitions are generally gradual: operators usually have some warning that the geology is about to change.
• Horizontal wells are greener in the sense of surface foot print.  Wells are farther apart. (should be about half as many wells as a traditional oil field of the same size)
• Refining costs are generally lower because the quality of the oil is often better than traditional traps. (Bakken or similar only)

It is important to realize that there are always exceptions to the rule, but these are some things to consider.

Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources:  Geology

1. Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources: Geology
2. Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources: Technology Changes
3. Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Resources: Energy Return on Energy Invested
4. What Continuous Resources Mean for North America. (not written yet)

My post regarding a shift in Hubbert’s peak stirred the pot a little and brought up a lot of questions that I think are worth answering.  It also allowed me to identify knowledge gaps in people who seem to know their stuff regarding energy.

This post is broken into sections.
Step 1 Define continuous resources.
Step 2 Explain what the technological changes mean.
Step 3 Try to relate the energy return on investment to other energy sources.  I found that most people who understand energy think they understand the energy return on fracking and oil sands, but their knowledge is about 3 years out of date.

Continuous Resources:
What are they?
Continuous resources are typically large portions of geologic formations in geologic basins.  In cases like the Bakken people have known about the formations for years, but they were not considered for development because they were uneconomic to drill or mine. (This site primarily focuses on drilled resources.)

The USGS website is showing its age in identifying the different types of continuous resources, but here is what they have listed:

• Deep Gas
• Shallow biogenic gas
• Heavy Oil/Natural Bitumen
• Shale Gas and Oil (links to oil shale pages)
• Gas Hydrates (links to gas hydrates pages)
• Coalbed Methane (links to Coalbed Methane pages)

For some reason, their page does not appear to include light oil that occurs as continuous resources.  However, if you search for formations like the Bakken and Niobrara, you will see them defined as continuous resources, and both have been evaluated by the USGS as such.  I think the lack of defining a section for light oil has seriously misled people regarding EROI on shale oil because they think is all mined or at the very least bitumen.  This is not the case in what is actively being developed today.

How are continuous resources different from traditional drilling?
Traditional drilling typically relies on the structure of the rock underground to trap oil and gas.  Most commonly one of the following geologic structures is responsible trapping oil and gas:
Anticline, fault system, reef system, salt dome, unconformity, pinchout, meteorite impact

Anticline

If you would like to see other examples of traditional traps check out these links.
http://www.landforms.eu/orkney/Geology/Oil/OIL%20structural%20and%20stratigraphic%20traps.htm
http://www.spec2000.net/21-strat4.htm

All the systems above rely on buoyancy to move oil and gas into a favorable location for drilling.  Over millions of years oil and gas being lighter than water move upward and are trapped under a cap of rock that the hydrocarbons cannot ready flow through.  Ideally, the oil moves into a sandstone or a very permeable carbonate which makes the oil easy to get out of the ground, and if you are really lucky the field will even be overpressure so the oil will push its self out of the ground and you will not even need to pump it. (The Ghawar Super Field is probably the best example of an overpressure field) The downfall of a trap is that it traps just about everything that is buoyant so oil in a traditional trap is more likely to be contaminated by fluids or gases that drillers do not what to deal with. Acid gas (H2S) is probably the examples.  Continuous resources are less likely to contain hazards impurities.

Continuous resources
Why is the oil or gas there?

Continuous resources do not depend on traditional traps for accumulating oil.  They are often source rocks

In fact continuous resources are often the source rock  for many traditional fields.  If not for continuous resources traditional traps would not have any hydrocarbons in them.  A few percent of the oil and gas contained in continuous resource leaked out over long periods of time (millions of years) and accumulated in traps. (For reference the Bakken has TOC in the teens)

Although not always the case, most continuous resources that are currently being developed are nearly impermeable to fluid flow of any kind.  The oil or gas that is in place is bound to the rock and will not move under normal conditions.

Bound to the rock?
Sort of… Fluid does not flow unless it has a reason. In the case of shale, the rock has porosity (places for oil to pool at a microscopic level), but not much permeability (channels for flow) It takes a lot of head (differential pressure) to make fluids move. (Expanded upon in the next section)

Summary:  Spelling out what you should take away from the information above.

1.

Continuous resources cover large geographic areas. (Hundreds of thousands of square miles)

Traditional oil fields cover relatively small areas.  (Often just a few square miles and are dependent on geologic structure)

2.

Continuous resources are often the source rock for traditional oil fields, and they do not depend on geologic structure.

Coming up:
Changes in technology how to make continuous resources economic for development.
Advantages and  disadvantages of continuous resources.

Energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) Shale oil and shale gas

This is actually a follow-up to questions regarding energy return on investment in shale plays.  The simple answer is probably best answered with a rhetorical question.   Why would the number of drilling rigs in the Williston Basin go from 160 last winter to more than 200 this summer?

Answer: -> Profit

Profits and EROEI are actually closely related.  The resources that are preferentially developed have the best EROEI.  Energy is a currency, and in the case of oil wells, the return on investment is fast.  The total payback time on most Bakken wells is under two years, and really good wells are less than a year. Money does not directly translate to energy, but in the case of hydrocarbons, it is fairly close.

If you are a strong contributor to the green movement, you should ask the same question about wind towers and solar panels, which are currently inefficient and expensive to produce. (I like alternative, but they just are not competitive. See information provided below or read my other post “what it means to be green”)

The energy ratios for fracked oil wells are probably a little better than an average oil well which are about 19:1, but it is important to note that ratio could be all over the place. In terms of energy, I’m not sure if fracked wells are really better than traditional oil wells, but the return on investment is certainly faster. In truth, there is not much decline curve data on fracked wells so nobody really knows just how much oil the wells can produce.   Most estimates show a similar decline curve to traditional oil wells, but lack of data makes it difficult to history match so estimates will likely change.  I anticipate fracked wells to have better decline curves than most traditional wells, but I could easily be wrong. It is important to note that new tertiary recovery techniques are being developed specifically for fracked wells.

Real-world problems associated with new drilling technologies relate to water usage, surface water contamination, and infrastructure degradation.  All of these problems are being worked on, and state governments are working hard to deal with the problems associated with drilling. I say state governments because that is who should be able to control their situation.  Geology is too variable across the country.  Sweeping regulations are not the answer to new drilling technologies.

…I sort of missed the gas portion of this post, but the same rules apply. The price of natural gas should speak for itself.

Some Data for the numbers people:

It is important to realize that these ratios change dramatically year to year based on technological changes. For instance, I know that the ratio for the tar sands is off, but that is not what this post is about, and I do not feel like trying to find data that may not exist yet.

Natural gas: 10:1
Coal: 50:1
Oil (Ghawar supergiant field): 100:1
Oil (global average): 19:1
Tar sands: 5.2:1 to 5.8:1
Oil shale: 1.5:1 to 4:1

Wind: 18:1
Hydro: 11:1 to 267:1
Waves: 15:1
Tides: ~ 6:1
Geothermal power: 2:1 to 13:1
Solar photovoltaic power: 3.75:1 to 10:1
Solar thermal: 1.6:1

Nuclear power: 1.1:1 to 15:1

Biodiesel: 1.9:1 to 9:1
Ethanol: 0.5:1 to 8:1

This list comes from:

• Richard Heinberg, Searching for a Miracle: ‘Net Energy’ Limits & the Fate of Industrial Society.

Misconceptions regarding energy returned on energy invested of shale plays:

1. The oil is thick and does not flow without additional heat or fluids.  “For example, an energy source like oil shale that is a solid material at room temperature and has low energy density per unit of weight, and volume is highly unlikely to be good as a transport fuel unless it can first somehow profitably be turned into a liquid fuel with higher-energy density (i.e., one that contains more energy per unit of weight or volume).”

This is simply false in most cases.  The misconception is largely derived from people confusing the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, and the Green River Shale in Colorado and Utah with current shale oil plays. 

For the most part, Bakken, Three Forks, and Niobrara have an API of 36 to 44 degrees.  Since that number doesn’t mean anything to most people Bakken oil looks a little like dark green swamp water.  It flows and smells a little like a mix of solvents(alcohols).  It can evaporate some and looks nothing like motor oil or tar.

2 Oil shales are mined not drilled.

The answer is the same as above, and refers to the Tar Sands and Green River Shale.

One little rant for good measure:  If I read one more comment that says we should wait to develop our resources until we know how… I might reach the computer screen and punch them in the face.  There are two options if we wait.  1. Total economic collapse with nothing to show for it (This may be unavoidable at this point)  2.  Oil companies will do their development overseas, and our economy will collapse for sure.  Energy is more valuable than any currency because you can actually do something with it. Nothing beside energy can drive growth of any kind.

Energy site is now live.  I will move a few of the old energy posts over onto this sub-domain, but some of the old posts will be very hard to move so they will likely stay on the Main Site.

A few years ago if you would have told me that North America could be energy independent I would have laughed at you, and at the time I would have been right to do so, but things are changing. The estimated recoverable oil in the Bakken/Three Forks alone is probably going to be over 20 billion barrels before the field is totally developed, and that is not counting several other formations that are currently not considered as targets but have great potential. (Bakken reserves have been evaluated by the USGS twice, and is likely due for a third based on industry success 1995 → 151 million 2008 →3.65 billion barrels)

 Much to the dismay of the green movement our country is not moving toward renewable-energy sources, and I don’t expect it will anytime soon. Let me explain my reasoning.

Oil companies are in the business of making money, and they are good at it. In the 1940s-1970s they targeted the cheapest oil in the world which just happened to be on-shore oil in the US. Once primary recovery was depleted in traditional oil fields the major companies moved on to greener pastures, and that basic model was in place for more than 40 years. In the 1980s oil prices got high enough to justify developing technology. (i.e. horizontal drilling and fracking). Increased worldwide drilling and political moves caused prices to fall, and new technologies were put on hold until they were needed. In the late 1990s and early 2000s the two technologies were combined which started a new oil boom. By the late 2000s, the boom was in full swing and America was starting to import less foreign oil for the first time in more than 30 years. We are now seeing Hubbert’s Peak be rethought by those who have industry knowledge.

  A few years ago this graph represented reality

us-oil-production-up-to-2008

Now we have seen a significant production increase in domestic production (source)

Hydrocarbons 2008 On

Hubbert knew that new technologies would be discovered, but he had no way of factoring in the vast amount of hydrocarbons that were not thought of as resources in his time. Many people continue to blindly follow Hubbert’s theory, but I think we are going to see a fundamental shift in thinking over the next few years. Why? Although oil is oil and gas is gas, we might as well be comparing the switch from wale oil to hydrocarbons.

 The line of thinking that we hit peak hydrocarbon production sometime between 2005 and 2008 is rampant among most of the general public, and even people who think they understand energy. (including myself less than a year ago) However, the realization that I am coming to is that the technology being developed today may be able to inflate hydrocarbon energy production well beyond anything seen in the past. (For several decades)

North Dakota Daily Old Production. Please Note: Cumulative means that all oil producing formation are being considered.

North Dakota’s oil production is expected to hit nearly 1 million barrels a day before the Bakken is totally developed. (Far more than current infrastructure can handle [unofficial I have heard 2 million bbls a day could be possible]) Current daily oil production in ND is around 423,000 barrels, and that number increases by 8000+ barrels every day. Monthly total production increase has been around 250,000 barrels, and I expect that will number will grow even faster if next winter is closer to average than last year. (Unless oil drops below $60ish a barrel)

Why are we talking about North Dakota, and who cares?
North Dakota is not horribly special. There are other basins in the United States, and Canada that have similar formations to the Bakken, and while the Bakken gets all the press it only accounted for 11% of North Dakota’s oil production in 2010.  Other formations are currently being explored using technology that is being perfected in North Dakota. I don’t expect any other formations to see quite as much influence from the technology as the Bakken, but the Williston Basin is slated to see development for more than 20 years. (The approximate time it will take to fully develop the Bakken play.) During that time many other oil plays will develop in other geologic formations, and neighboring basins and around the world.

North Dakota’s Bakken Formation will likely be used as a model for many other formations in North America and around world. We will potentially see a huge increase in liquid fuel development even though there are a lot of other options. Liquid hydrocarbons have the most infrastructure and are more profitable than any other energy source.

 This post is getting long and by now I have lost a few readers, so I’ll wrap it up with this: Hubbert was not wrong he just didn’t have enough information at his disposal.  He made his calculations assuming drilling practices of his time.  You often hear people make the statement that we are not going to find anymore large oil fields, and geographically those people are likely correct, but re-evaluation of existing resources is going to play a big role in the future. As an example we will fall back to the Bakken which as stated before is not as special as some people make it out to be.  The estimated recoverable reserves have officially grown by about 25 fold since the 1990s, and industry leaders are projecting numbers that would make the total number grow more than 100 fold.  While the Bakken is somewhat unique other formations that have been largely ignored will also share the same fate once oil companies have time to re-evaluate them as a resource.

Someone beside Hubbert may have a chase to calculate and name a new peak for liquid hydrocarbon production. I think that we are seeing the very beginning of something that will shape the growth of the world for the next few decades.

Things I will leave until another day unless you ask:

• Other potential Bakken like formations

• The Science: How does this really work? An explanation as to what has changed.
• Computing advancements improving modeling and drilling
• Potential tertiary recovery techniques that will be utilized for shale formations around the world (Green movement might like this one seriously)
• Natural Gas (in some sense will be even bigger than oil in the future)
• Political motivation for US deflating reserves (I am currently convinced this is happening)
• Political motivation for Arabic countries to inflate reserve estimates. (Known)

If this post makes you angry, you should realize that I’m not a pro-oil nut.  For day to day activities, I would like to see local communities make a push to be energy independent.  (This includes electric vehicles.) The truth of the matter is that only a functioning government with a well-thought-out energy plan has the ability and power to make sweeping changes to energy development. However, I feel that in our current economic environment, it is more important that we produce energy as cheaply and efficiently as we can. We now have access to enough oil and natural gas to last for several decades, but renewable sources still have a window of high-energy prices, which is beneficial to their development.

It has been awhile since I have said anything about fracking, but today I saw that CNN ran a story regarding an anti-fracking protest in Philadelphia. Ironically there was no coverage of a much larger protest taking place in New York City regarding economic problems.

I to say the least I was unimpressed with CNN on the number of links provided to sites that do not provide any valid information, and lack of sites that provides facts regarding fracking. The comment section was somewhat entertaining to read. It was nice to see that there is a handful of people with some common sense. However, people with commonsense were vastly out numbered.

One short rant.
Silly Statements:
No job is worth a persons life. Oil jobs are not safe.
-True but all industrial jobs have a fairly high danger level. Even clean energy jobs can be and are dangerous. A few years back, I worked at a windmill blade factory, and we had close calls weekly.  Shortly after I stopped working there a man was crushed to death.

I’m not going to waste any more of my time on the topic right now because I think the debate is basically over. As long as the economy is doing poorly people are going to be more open minded to domestic energy development.

I lied, one more little rant. I saw one comment pointing out that they were angry that we(the us) was exporting natural gas and not using it domesticity.
- Really? Selling outside of the country will have a positive impact for our economy. When our country was at its strongest, we exported nearly everything.  Today we import almost everything, and we are currently seeing the effects of where that gets us.

(The following post was written by a friend of mine. You will never hear me defend corn ethanol as an intelligent energy source in North America.)

At a point where almost everyone has jumped off the ethanol bandwagon of the early 2000’s, I find myself debating the issue more and more, with an increasingly diverse crowd.After last night’s chat with an elderly lady at the bar about tea party politics and ethanol, I figured it was time to post my defense of ethanol.

Biofuels reached the spotlight in the late ‘90’s when a combination of rising gas prices, political climate, climate change, and farming surpluses abounded.Alcohol powered vehicles were theorized to only require minor modification to vehicles, and thus, a subsidy program was emplaced that mixed all the factors together for form the ethanol program, much like the combination of grain, water and yeast have been making alcohol for thousands of years.

By 2007 America was making 7 billion gallons of ethanol a year, much of which going to standard (and subsidized) E-10 gasohol.Brazil was nearly energy independent from a combination of energy sources (including a large portfolio of alcohol) by this time.… and skepticism in the U.S. was growing.An economic downturn was hitting, and prices were rising on food and gas.

Negative argument 1.) Ethanol raises food prices and didn’t do its job lowering gas prices.

Refute:America is the world’s breadbasket.In fact, the world’s population is completely dependent on American food exports.Additionally, prior to ethanol, some practices were encouraged such as burning of crops or leasing land NOT to farm in efforts to keep food crop prices artificially high so that farmers could survive.Ethanol was (and continues to be) a beneficial use of these surplus/waste crops to solve a different problem.

E10, straight up, replaced much of the country’s oil demand by 10% without huge infrastructure installations, automotive modification, or environmental exposés.Nothing else has been able to do that.Much of the infrastructure to handle ethanol was already in place and/or was generated more locally than gasoline, so the distribution system was easy.This paved the way for E-85, which, despite its problems (and 15% gasoline) is as close to a mass marketed alternative fuel vehicle that there is.

I admit, ethanol was, and still is subsidized, so I don’t really know how much it has done to lower gas prices, as the price drop is artificial.I’ll save my argument on this fact for a later point.

So, as skepticism started to grow, people started to research the fuel, and didn’t like what they saw.People saw complaints of car problems caused by alcohol’s higher burning temperature, the potential to dry and crack rubber and plastic seals, and that alcohol’s lower energy density than gas that would lead to lower gas mileage than non-ethanolated gas.Add to this list the affinity of alcohol for picking up water, and ethanol plants continuing to pop up across America’s backyard, and people started voicing out against the system.Carbon sequestration became less of an issue, and even the hippies started voicing out that ethanol isn’t as clean as it was lead on.

Negative argument 2:Ethanol can cause damage to your vehicle, and the lower energy density and/or water content decreases the fuel economy, making ethanol an inefficient fuel.(A parlor trick, not a miracle)

Refute:People have very short memories.Do people remember Heet?There are products out there that you used to have to add to your fuel system to prevent or stop ice from building up in your fuel system (also used to de-gel diesel systems).In the winter, people were advised to keep at least half a tank at all times because warming and cooling naturally causes condensation in your gas tank.This ice/water could cause ice buildup, rust, and fuel line stoppage, which are all bad news.What’s in Heet?It’s like… 100% alcohol.The same reason that alcohol picks up water is the same process that REMOVES water from your gas tank and cleans it out before it causes rust, ice, and blockage.

I’m sorry to burst everyone’s bubble, but just about everything has lower energy density than gasoline.Ethanol is a band-aid(or a full body cast, in parts of Brazil’s case) for our gasoline problems, not a replacement.Unfortunately, the same people that complain about huge gas mileage drops are the same people that claim that leaving your truck’s tailgate open saves you 6 mpg.

The main difference between an E-10 vehicle and an E-85 vehicle, from what I understand, is a computer that can handle the ‘weird’ readings high alcohol fuel tells the sensors and compensates for the different air/fuel ratios required, and seals that can take high percentages of alcohol exposure.Ethanol says that E10 is very mild on your seals.It’s been years, and the complaint flood of the 90′s has slowed to a trickle.

So, it turns out that ethanol is pretty much carbon neutral, not as carbon negative as was led on in the early days of ethanol.Oh well – it’s still cleaner than gas, and we don’t have to import it or fight wars over it.I’ll take carbon neutral energy over fossil energy any day.

Finally, I can’t believe people complain about ethanol plants, especially in rural areas.There has been an exodus from rural areas for the last few decades because of, among other things, the lack of high paying, technical jobs.Ethanol did its part to revitalize rural America AND it reduces the transportation cost of whatever local grain they use.

That brings us to today.Where you’re reading an article that you probably thought was some hack that has missed the last 7 years of negative press ethanol has been the target.Really, ethanol still has a very defined place in America, and the potential of future advances in ethanol chemistry are promising.Cellulosic ethanol, bio-methanol (possibly straight to hydrogen), increased automotive engineering, etc. could have huge implications for future energy, and we’re much closer to these technologies (E-85, Brazil) than we are to supporting transportation based on electric, natural gas, or hydrogen vehicles.Future technologies may remove the ‘food’ object from ethanol’s roots, instead working on true waste products, or higher efficiency, easier to grow waste crops.Any of these advancements will place today’s ethanol as a stepping stone, so stop complaining, and start refermenting your love.

-NP