<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:58645.wais]
H.R. 1753 AND S. 330, METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF
1999
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND MINERAL RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 1753, THE METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999, TO
PROMOTE THE RESEARCH, IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, EXPLORATION, AND
DEVELOPMENT OF METHANE HYDRATE RESOURCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;
S. 330, THE METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999, TO
PROMOTE THE RESEARCH, IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, EXPLORATION, AND
DEVELOPMENT OF METHANE HYDRATE RESOURCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
MAY 25, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-645 WASHINGTON : 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Virgin Islands
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado RUSH D. HUNT, New Jersey
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
KEVIN BRADY, Texas Samoa
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JAY INSLEE, Washington
------ ------
Bill Condit, Professional Staff
Mike Henry, Professional Staff
Deborah Lanzone, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held May 25, 1999........................................ 1
Statements of Members:
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming........................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Doyle, Hon. Michael F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of Guam.......................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statements of witnesses:
Collett, Dr. Timothy S., Research Geologist, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of Energy.......................... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Cruickshank, Michael J., Director, Ocean Basins Division,
University of Hawaii....................................... 65
Prepared statement of.................................... 67
Haq, Bilal U., Division of Ocean Sciences, National Science
Foundation................................................. 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Answers to follow-up questions........................... 86
Kripowicz, Robert S., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy............... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Trent, Robert H., P.E., PH.D., Dean, School of Mineral
Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks................ 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Woolsey, Dr. J. Robert, Director, Center for Marine Resources
and Environmental Technology, Continental Shelf Division,
University of Mississippi.................................. 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Additional material supplied:
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute.............................. 87
Text of H.R. 1753............................................ 6
Text of S. 330............................................... 14
H.R. 1753, THE METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999, TO
PROMOTE THE RESEARCH, IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, EXPLORATION, AND
DEVELOPMENT OF METHANE HYDRATE RESOURCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
S. 330, THE METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999, TO
PROMOTE THE RESEARCH, IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, EXPLORATION, AND
DEVELOPMENT OF METHANE HYDRATE RESOURCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
and Mineral Resources,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Cubin
[chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Mrs. Cubin. The Subcommittee will please to come to order.
Such a huge attendance here.
Forgive me for being a few minutes late.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals meets today to take
testimony on two similar bills concerning Federal research and
development efforts on gas hydrates--a class of mineral which
is a chemical mixture of water and methane gas that can exist
in a stable, crystalline form. Other gases, such as propane,
are also found in hydrate form, but the predominant gas is
methane.
The hydrate chemical structure is conducive to the storage
of large volumes of gas. A cubic foot of gas hydrate, when
heated and depressurized, can release up to 160 cubic feet of
methane. Consequently, any assessment of our domestic natural
gas resource is incomplete and woefully understated without
reference to methane hydrates. Indeed, the U.S. Geological
Survey, together with the Minerals Management Service, estimate
the mean undiscovered methane hydrate resource potential to be
over 100 times greater than is estimated for conventional
natural gas.
Much of this resource lies at the edge of the outer
continental shelf and slope in deep water, but significant
quantities appear to exist within the permafrost regions at
depths as shallow as 200 meters. However, gas hydrates are
merely resources, not reserves, because their exploitation is
sub-economic at this time, which isn't I guess unlike a lot of
conventional gas today because of depressed prices, but that is
for another hearing.
The Subcommittee's interest stems from the future potential
for leasing of gas hydrates on Federal mineral estate under the
OCS Lands Act and onshore in Alaska under the Mineral Leasing
Act.
And, if we can convince the Congressional Budget Office to
score the revenue potential from such leasing while I am still
here in Congress, then I will have some of my very own offsets,
and I will share some with you, too.
[Laughter.]
Furthermore, the Federal R&D program envisioned in the
bills before us include participation by the U.S. Geological
Survey, an agency which is also within our jurisdiction. Both
bills modify the charter of the marine mineral research centers
established by Public Law 104-325, by way of legislation from
this Subcommittee.
I want to welcome our witnesses since they have come from
far flung outposts--Honolulu, Hawaii, and Fairbanks, Alaska--
well, actually, Fairbanks, Alaska, by way of Kaycee, Wyoming, I
have to point out--as well as from Denver, Oxford, Mississippi,
and Washington, DC.
Your testimony summarizes the current state of scientific
knowledge on the origin, occurrence, and potential for
utilization of methane hydrates to help meet America's energy
needs and to understand past impacts upon global climate from
uncontrolled release of methane from gas hydrates. Also,
Congressman Mike Doyle, of Pittsburgh, a member of the House
Science Committee which shares jurisdiction over these bills,
has asked to testify before us about his sponsorship of H.R.
1753.
I look forward to hearing from all of you about the need
for authorizing this important Federal program.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Cubin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming
The Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals meets today to take
testimony on two similar bills concerning Federal research and
development efforts on gas hydrates--a class of mineral which
is a chemical mixture of water and methane gas that can exist
in a stable, crystalline (ice) form. Other gases, such as
propane, are also found in hydrate form, but the predominant
gas is methane. The hydrate chemical structure is conducive to
the storage of large volumes of gas. A cubic foot of gas
hydrate, when heated and depressurized, can release up to 160
cubic feet of methane. Consequently, any assessment of our
domestic natural gas resource is incomplete and woefully
understated without reference to methane hydrates. Indeed, the
U.S. Geological Survey, together with the Minerals Management
Service, estimated the mean undiscovered methane hydrate
resource potential to be over one hundred times greater than is
estimated for conventional natural gas!
Much of this resource lies at the edge of the outer
continental shelf and slope in deep water, but significant
quantities appear to exist within permafrost regions at depths
as shallow as 200 meters. However, gas hydrates are merely
resources, not reserves, because their exploitation is sub-
economic at this time.
The Subcommittee's interest stems from the future potential
for leasing of gas hydrates on Federal mineral estate under the
OCS Lands Act and onshore in Alaska under the Mineral Leasing
Act. Furthermore, the Federal R & D program envisioned in the
bills before us include participation by the U.S. Geological
Survey, an agency within our jurisdiction. Also, both bills
modify the charter of the marine mineral research centers
established by Public Law 104-325, via legislation from this
Subcommittee.
I want to welcome our witnesses from far flung outposts--
Honolulu, Hawaii and Fairbanks, Alaska as well as from Denver,
Oxford, Mississippi and Washington DC. Your testimony
summarizes the current state of scientific knowledge on the
origin, occurrence, and potential for utilization of methane
hydrates to help meet America's energy needs, and to understand
past impacts upon global climate from uncontrolled release of
methane from gas hydrates. Also, Congressman Mike Doyle of
Pittsburgh, a member of the House Science Committee which
shares jurisdiction over these bills, has asked to testify
before us about his sponsorship of H.R. 1753. I look forward to
hearing from all of you about the need for authorizing this
important Federal program.
Mrs. Cubin. And now I recognize our Ranking Member, Mr.
Underwood, for any opening statement he might have.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Underwood. I thank the Chair, and I thank her for her
generosity with the offset.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Cubin. Oh, you don't get half.
Mr. Underwood. Okay.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Cubin. Yes, you do.
Mr. Underwood. I am pleased to join my colleagues on the
Subcommittee today as we meet to hear testimony on H.R. 1753
and S. 330, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of
1999.
H.R. 1753 was introduced on May 11, by our colleague,
Representative Mike Doyle, of Pennsylvania, who is here this
afternoon to explain his bill. H.R. 1753 is a companion measure
to S. 330 which has already passed the Senate under unanimous
consent on April 19.
I note that we share jurisdiction on this bill with the
House Science Committee. The Science Subcommittee on Energy and
the Environment held a hearing and reported favorably both
bills, as amended, on May 12.
The primary purpose of these bills is to promote the
research, identification, assessment, exploration, and
development of methane hydrate resources. This is important
because one of our most important sources of clean, efficient
energy is natural gas. Today, natural gas comes primarily from
geological formations in which methane molecules--the primary
component of natural gas--exist in the form of gas.
Methane also exists in ice-like formations called hydrates.
Hydrates trap methane molecules inside a cage of frozen water.
Hydrates are generally found on or under seabeds and under
permafrost. While we do not know the extent or amount of
methane trapped in hydrates, scientists--some of whom will be
testifying today--believe we are talking about an enormous
resource.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, worldwide
estimates of the natural gas potential of methane hydrates
approach 400 million trillion cubic feet--as compared to the
mere 5,000 trillion cubic feet that is known to make up the
world's gas reserves. This huge potential illustrates the
interest in advanced technologies that may reliably and cost-
effectively detect and produce natural gas from methane
hydrates.
However, figuring out how to cost-effectively produce
energy from hydrates has been problematic, given the adverse
and hostile conditions in which they exist. But if methods can
be devised to extract methane from these deposits profitably,
they may become important sources of fuel in the future.
On a cautionary note, we should be mindful of the fact
that, although methane is relatively clean burning, it is still
a fossil fuel. So removing it from its safe haven on the ocean
floor and burning it will release carbon in the form of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere, which could contribute to
greenhouse gas accumulations.
Methane hydrates near offshore oil drilling rigs also pose
a threat through subsidence on the ocean floor. For instance,
if a drilling rig were hit by shifting or depressurization of
the methane hydrates underneath it, the impact on the rig and
the workers aboard could be disastrous.
Therefore, it is appropriate that Congress looks carefully
at legislation which would promote the research,
identification, assessment, exploration, and development of
methane hydrates resources.
And I look forward to hearing the testimony of our
witnesses today, especially that of our colleague.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of Hon. Robert A. Underwood, a Delegate in Congress from the
State of Guam
I am pleased to join my colleagues on the Subcommittee
today as we meet to hear testimony on H.R. 1753 and S. 330, the
Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1999. H.R. 1753
was introduced on May 11, by our colleague Rep. Mike Doyle, of
Pennsylvania, who is here to explain his bill to us.
H.R. 1753 is a companion bill to S. 330 which has already
passed the Senate under Unanimous Consent on April 19. I note
that we share jurisdiction on this bill with the House Science
Committee. The Science Subcommittee on Energy and the
Environment held a hearing and reported favorably both bills,
as amended on May 12.
The primary purpose of these bills is to promote the
research, identification, assessment, exploration and
development of methane hydrate resources. This is important
because one of our most important sources of clean, efficient
energy is natural gas. Today, natural gas comes primarily from
geological formations in which methane molecules--the primary
component of natural gas--exist in the form of gas.
Methane also exists in ice-like formations called hydrates.
Hydrates trap methane molecules inside a cage of frozen water.
Hydrates are generally found on or under seabeds and under
permafrost. While we do not know the extent or amount of
methane trapped in hydrates, scientists, some of whom will be
testifying today, believe we are talking about an enormous
resource. According to the United States Geological Survey,
worldwide estimates of the natural gas potential of methane
hydrates approach four hundred million trillion cubic feet--as
compared to the mere five thousand trillion cubic feet that
make up the world's known gas reserves. This huge potential
illustrates the interest in advanced technologies that may
reliably and cost-effectively detect and produce natural gas
from methane hydrates.
However, figuring out how to cost-effectively produce
energy from hydrates has been problematic given the adverse and
hostile conditions in which they exist. But if methods can be
devised to extract methane from these deposits profitably, they
may become important sources of fuel in the future.
On a cautionary note, we should be mindful of the fact that
although methane is relatively clean burning, it is a fossil
fuel. So removing it from its safe haven on the ocean floor and
burning it, will release carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere, which would contribute to greenhouse gas
accumulations.
Methane hydrates near offshore oil drilling rigs also pose
a threat, through subsidence on the ocean floor. For instance,
if a drilling rig were hit by shifting or depressurization of
the methane hydrates underneath it, the impact on the rig and
the workers aboard could be disastrous.
Therefore, it is appropriate that the Congress looks
carefully at legislation which would promote the research,
identification, assessment, exploration and development of
methane hydrate resources.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses
today.
[The text of the bills follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.016
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
And I guess I have to admit it is really easy to share
those offsets when we will probably both die of old age before
the CBO gives us a score on that.
I would like introduce our first witness, the Honorable
Michael F. Doyle from Pennsylvania.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and Ranking
Member Mr. Underwood, and all of my colleagues on the
Committee, for holding this important hearing today.
I know that for some of my colleagues, as I have worked on
this issue in the Science Committee, methane hydrates must have
seemed like a very obscure subject, and I would like to commend
your Committee for seeing beyond that and giving this esoteric
issue the attention it deserves.
In short, methane hydrates are little-known, but have a
huge potential as a new energy resource. Methane hydrates are
defined as methane in a crystalline, highly-pressurized form,
and are found both on the ocean floor and in some ares of the
Arctic permafrost. As a potential energy source, methane
hydrates are present on Earth in more than double the
quantities of existing fossil energy supplies worldwide.
At the same time, methane hydrates pose a threat to us as
well, for their potential to depressurize and enter the
atmosphere, contributing to greenhouse gas accumulations.
Methane hydrates located on the sea floor underneath
offshore oil drilling rigs could pose an even greater, near-
term threat. If an oil drilling rig were hit by a massive
shifting or depressurization of the methane hydrates in the
sediment at the bottom of the ocean underneath it, the impact
on the rig and the workers aboard could be disastrous.
For all of these reasons, methane hydrates definitely
deserves further study at this time.
My staff and I have had the pleasure of working a little
bit with the chairman's staff on my bill, H.R. 1753. This
legislation would further define and extend the current
interagency program for research into methane hydrates.
My bill follows, for the most part, on Senator Akaka's
bill, S. 330, with a few changes, primarily the institution of
merit review of research proposals.
In the Science Committee, I have been pleased to be able to
work with members from both sides of the aisle on this issue,
including my friend, Chairman of the Science Energy and
Environment Subcommittee, Ken Calvert, who I believe previously
served as Chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources
Subcommittee. And I would like to continue that unbroken string
of cooperation across the aisle. As your Committee continues
consideration of methane hydrates, I would like, at some point,
to resume the discussions I have had with the Committee staff
about changes to the text, if necessary, and any other way I
might enlist your support.
In the Science Committee, I was pleased to see the bill
receive a favorable report from the subcommittee on May 12. And
along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am
looking forward to a full committee mark at some point soon.
Just this morning on the Science Committee, I was assured
by Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of the committee, that reporting
my bill from the full committee and moving it to the floor on
the suspension calendar is one of the options he is looking at,
as we work to complete consideration of this issue.
The research program is run by the Department of Energy,
specifically the Federal Energy Technology Center. The FETC, as
it is called, has convened working groups to develop ``straw-
man'' proposals that outline a methane hydrates research
program, and program management staff at the center plans to
enter work agreements with scientists at USGS, the Naval
Research Lab, the DOE national labs, marine mineral researchers
in Mississippi, Hawaii, Alaska, and other States, and other
agencies, academic centers, and companies with relevant
expertise.
For this reason, appropriated funds are expected to be
directed to DOE, though I understand there may be some
ambiguity on this question that we can clear up as the bill
moves closer to floor consideration.
As I mentioned before, this is a rather esoteric subject.
Bob Kripowicz, whom I have worked with for a long time, and
other witnesses here today, are far more expert than I am on
this subject. But if you have any questions that I can answer
specific to my legislation, or the differences between it and
Senator Akaka's bill, I would be happy to hear them.
I also have one further thing to add to my testimony, as
submitted.
With methane and other gas hydrates located in the Arctic
permafrost, throughout the oceans, and particularly at the
bottom of such ocean features as the Marianas Trench, which is
located near Guam, and with the Japanese planning to drill for
hydrates this year in a similar trench, the Nankei Trough, off
the southeast of Japan, a field hearing on methane hydrates
might well be in order.
I understand that there is some interest in the Committee
in a field hearing on the subject of manganese nodules on the
ocean floor, and I would certainly lend my support and work to
make a field hearing on that subject and methane hydrates a
success.
With that, I conclude my testimony, and I am happy to
answer any questions the Committee have.
And thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania
I would like to thank Madam Chairman Cubin, the Ranking
Member, Mr. Underwood, and my colleagues on the Committee for
holding this important hearing today. I know for some of my
colleagues, as I've worked this issue on the Science Committee,
``methane hydrates'' must have seemed like a very obscure
subject, and I would like to commend your Committee for seeing
beyond that, and giving this esoteric issue the attention it
deserves.
In short, methane hydrates are little-known, but have a
huge potential as a new energy resource. Methane hydrates are
defined as methane in a crystalline, highly pressurized form,
and are found both on the ocean floor and in some areas of the
Arctic permafrost. As a potential energy source, methane
hydrates are present on earth in more than double the
quantities of existing fossil energy supplies worldwide.
At the same time, methane hydrates pose a threat to us as
well, for their potential to depressurize and enter the
atmosphere, contributing to greenhouse gas accumulations.
Methane hydrates located on the sea floor underneath
offshore oil drilling rigs could pose an even greater, near-
term threat. If an oil drilling rig were hit by a massive
shifting or depressurization of the methane hydrates in the
sediment at the bottom of the ocean underneath it, the impact
on the rig and the workers aboard could be disastrous.
For all these reasons, methane hydrates definitely deserve
further study at this time.
My staff and I have had the pleasure of working a little
bit with the Chairman's staff on my bill, H.R. 1753. This
legislation would further define and extend the current inter-
agency program for research into methane hydrates. My bill
follows for the most part on Senator Akaka's bill, S. 330, with
a few changes, primarily the institution of merit review of
research proposals.
In the Science Committee I have been pleased to be able to
work with Members from both sides of the aisle on this issue,
including my friend the Chairman of the Science Energy and
Environment Subcommittee, Ken Calvert, who I believe has
previously served as the Chairman of the Energy and Mineral
Resources Subcommittee. I'd like to continue this unbroken
string of cooperation across the aisle. As your Committee
continues consideration of methane hydrates, I would like at
some point to resume the discussions I had with the Committee's
staff about changes to the text, if necessary, and any other
way I might enlist your support. In the Science Committee I was
pleased to see the bill receive a favorable report from the
subcommittee on May 12, and along with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle. I'm looking forward to a full Committee
mark at some point soon.
The research program is run by the Department of Energy,
specifically the Federal Energy Technology Center. The FETC, as
it's called, has convened working groups to develop ``straw-
man'' proposals that outline a methane hydrates research
program, and program management staff at the Center plan to
enter work agreements with scientists at USGS, the Naval
Research Lab, the DOE national labs, marine minerals
researchers in Mississippi, Hawaii, Alaska, and other states,
and other agencies, academic centers, and companies with
relevant expertise. For this reason, appropriated funds are
expected to be directed to DOE, though I understand there may
be some ambiguity on this question that we can clear up as the
bill moves closer to floor consideration.
As I mentioned before, this is a rather esoteric subject.
Bob Kripowicz, whom I've worked with for a long time, and the
other witnesses here today are far more expert than I am on
this subject. But if you have any questions I can answer
specific to my legislation, or the differences between it and
Senator Akaka's bill, I'd be happy to hear them.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Congressman.
I don't have any questions of the Congressman.
Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Well, thank you very much, and now that you
have clarified that there is the potential for methane hydrates
being near Guam, I am for this legislation.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Cubin. It does make a difference, doesn't it?
Mr. Underwood. Does make a difference.
[Laughter.]
Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. I think a field hearing in Guam is in order.
Mr. Underwood. I think that field hearing in Guam is a
great idea.
[Laughter.]
Along with a manganese nodule.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you for being here.
Now I will introduce our first panel of witnesses--Mr.
Robert Kripowicz, with the U.S. Department of Energy; Dr.
Timothy S. Collett, with the U.S. Geological Survey; Dr. Bilal
U. Haq, with the National Science Foundation--and I probably
didn't say that correctly. I did?
I would like to call on Mr. Robert Kripowicz to begin the
testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. KRIPOWICZ, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR FOSSIL ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Kripowicz. Madam Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of Energy, and I have submitted a formal statement
that I would like to be made a part of the record.
Mrs. Cubin. Without objection.
Mr. Kripowicz. I have described in my formal statement the
chemical and physical makeup of methane hydrates and a little
of the history behind their discovery and our renewed interest
in them.
Suffice to say, I would hope that from my testimony and
from others on the panel, the Subcommittee will recognize the
significant potential of this resource. The energy content is
not only many times--but many hundreds of times--larger than
the world's currently known gas reserves.
This huge potential alone, we believe, warrants a new look
at advanced technologies that might one day detect and produce
natural gas from hydrates reliably and cost effectively.
I might also mention that aside from the enormous energy
potential, we believe a research effort in gas hydrates is
important from the perspective of safety. As I have described
in my statement, the existence or formation of hydrates in
petroleum operations can create safety problems for well
operators.
As a result of the new interest in methane hydrates, in
Fiscal Year 1998, the Office of Fossil Energy at the Department
of Energy revived research into this resource, albeit at a very
limited scale. In Fiscal Year 2000, we have proposed a budget
of approximately $2 million to begin carrying out initial
exploratory efforts.
Our new initiative will build on research conducted by the
Department from 1982 to 1992. During that initial effort, we
developed a foundation of basic knowledge about the location
and thermodynamic properties of hydrates.
Since 1992, work has continued at relatively small scales,
primarily through the Ocean Drilling Program, and the U.S.
Geological Survey, and in other laboratories, including some
work in Japan.
Our new effort in hydrates largely stems from the
recommendation of the Energy Research and Development Panel of
the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology, or PCAST. Following the PCAST report, the
Department hosted two public workshops last year to obtain
industry and academic input into developing a coordinated,
multi-agency program.
The planning efforts resulted in this document, ``A
Strategy for Methane Hydrates Research and Development,'' which
we published last August, and we have provided copies for the
Committee members and staff. An electronic version of the
document can be downloaded from the Fossil Energy Internet
website.
I should point out that we are in the final stages of
preparing a more detailed program plan that will begin
addressing the specific research needs identified in the
strategy document.
The research program is intended to answer four specific
questions.
Number one, how much? The huge range in estimates of
hydrate volume underscores the lack of detailed understanding
of the aspects of hydrate deposits. Our efforts in resource
characterization will give us much information on the location
and nature of methane hydrates.
Second is how to produce the resource. Except in one
Russian field, there is no documented commercial gas production
associated with hydrates. Much more work is needed in
depressurization, thermal processes, and solvent injection to
understand how best to produce the resource.
Third is how to assess the impact. Virtually nothing is
known about the stability of gas hydrates, especially those
along the sea floor, in a period of potential global climate
change. For example, we don't know whether warming of the sea
water could affect outcrops of methane hydrates at or near the
sea floor and lead to significant releases of methane, a gas
which is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a
greenhouse gas.
And, lastly is how to ensure safety. This is one of the
highest priorities at this time for industry. Arctic and marine
hydrates are known to cause drilling problems, blowouts, casing
collapse, and well-site subsidence in conventional drilling and
production. Research is needed to accurately document drilling
and production problems caused by gas hydrates and to develop
techniques to avoid or mitigate hazards. We also need to study
the long-term impacts on sea floor stability.
The two bills, S. 330 and H.R. 1753, provide a solid
congressional endorsement of the research effort we proposed in
this strategy, and the Department supports the legislation.
We are particularly pleased to see Congress emphasize the
need to develop partnerships among the government, industry,
and academia in future hydrate R&D. This concept of public/
private partnerships, with shared responsibilities and
resources, is fundamental to our fossil energy R&D program.
We are also pleased that the Congress has recognized the
importance of cooperation among Federal agencies in developing
hydrate technologies. As I said earlier, we would not be nearly
as well positioned to begin a new, intensified examination of
hydrate potential had it not been for the excellent work of the
USGS and the Naval Research Laboratory.
The coordinated involvement of these organizations and
others, such as the Minerals Management Service and the
National Science Foundation, will be essential in carrying out
a productive and effectively managed R&D program.
And that concludes my opening statement.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kripowicz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.026
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you very much.
Next, I would like to recognize Dr. Timothy S. Collett, for
his testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. TIMOTHY S. COLLETT, RESEARCH GEOLOGIST, U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Collett. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, and members, I am Timothy S. Collett,
research geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey.
In this testimony, I will discuss the USGS assessment of
natural gas hydrate resources and examine the technology that
would be necessary to safely and economically produce gas
hydrates.
The primary objectives of the existing USGS gas hydrate
research studies are: one, to document the geological
parameters that control the occurrence and stability of gas
hydrates; two, to assess the volume of natural gas stored
within gas hydrate accumulations; and, three, to identify and
predict natural sediment destabilization caused by gas
hydrates; and finally, four, to analyze the effects of gas
hydrate on drilling safety.
The USGS, in 1995, made the first systematic assessment of
the in-place natural gas hydrate resources of the United
States. This study shows that the amount of gas in hydrate
accumulations in the United States is dramatic.
Even though gas hydrates are known to occur in numerous
marine and Arctic settings, little is known about the geologic
controls on their distribution. The presence of gas hydrates in
offshore continental margins have been inferred mainly from
anomalous seismic reflectors that coincide with the base of the
gas hydrate stability zone. This reflector, commonly called the
``bottom simulator reflector'' or ``BSR'' has been mapped at
depths ranging from 0 to 1,100 meters below the sea floor. Gas
hydrates have also been recovered by scientific drilling along
the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific coasts of the United
States.
Onshore gas hydrates have been found in Arctic regions of
permafrost. Gas hydrates associated with the permafrost have
been documented on the North Slope of Alaska and Canada, and in
northern Russia. Combined information from Arctic gas hydrate
studies show that, in permafrost regions, gas hydrates may
exist at subsurface depths ranging from 130 to 2,000 meters.
The USGS 1995 National Assessment of United States' Oil and
Gas Resources focused on assessing the undiscovered
conventional and unconventional resources of crude oil and
natural gas in the United States. This assessment included, for
the first time, a systematic appraisal of the in-place natural
gas hydrate resources in the United States in both onshore and
offshore environments. That study indicates that the in-place
gas hydrate resources of the United States are estimated to
range from 113,000 to 676,000 trillion cubic feet of gas.
Although this range of values shows a high degree of
uncertainty, it does indicate the potential for enormous
quantities of gas stored as gas hydrates. However, this
assessment does not address the problem of gas hydrate
recoverability.
Proposed methods of gas recovery from hydrates usually deal
with disassociating or melting gas hydrates by heating the
reservoir, or by decreasing the reservoir pressure, or by
injecting an inhibitor such as methanol into the formation.
Among the various techniques for production of natural gas from
gas hydrates, the most economically promising method is
considered to be depressurization. The Messoyakha gas field in
northern Russia is often used as an example of a hydrocarbon
accumulation from which gas has been produced from hydrates by
reservoir depressurization.
Seismic-acoustic imaging to identify gas hydrates is an
essential component of the USGS marine studies since 1990. USGS
has also conducted extensive geochemical surveys and
established a specialized laboratory facility to study the
formation and disassociation of gas hydrates in nature and also
under simulated sea floor conditions. These efforts have also
involved core drilling of gas hydrate-bearing samples in
cooperation with the Ocean Drilling Program of the National
Science Foundation, and, most recently, a cooperative drilling
program onshore in northern Canada.
Sea floor stability and safety are two important issues
related to gas hydrates. Sea floor stability refers to the
susceptibility of the sea floor to collapse and slide as a
result of gas hydrate disassociation. Safety issue refers to
petroleum drilling and production hazards that may occur in
association with gas hydrates.
In regards to sea floor stability, it is possible that both
natural and human induced changes contribute to in-situ gas
hydrate destabilization which may convert hydrate-bearing
sediments to gassy, water-rich fluids, triggering sea floor
subsidence and catastrophic landslides. Evidence implicating
gas hydrates in triggering sea floor landslides has been found
along the Atlantic Ocean margin of the United States. However,
the mechanisms controlling gas hydrate induced sea floor
subsidence and landslides are not well known or documented.
In regards to safety, oil and gas operators have described
numerous drilling and production problems attributed to the
presence of gas hydrates, including uncontrolled gas releases
during drilling, collapse of wellbore casings, and gas leakages
to the surface. Again, the mechanism controlling gas hydrate
induced safety problems is not well known.
In conclusion, our knowledge of natural-occurring gas
hydrates is limited. Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence
suggests that a huge volume of natural gas is stored in gas
hydrates; the production of natural gas from gas hydrates may
be technically feasible; gas hydrates hold the potential for
natural hazards associated with sea floor stability and release
of methane to the oceans and the atmosphere; and gas hydrates
disturbed during drilling and petroleum production pose a
potential safety problem.
The USGS welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with other
domestic and international scientific organizations to further
our collaborative understanding of these important geologic
materials.
I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity
and I would refer the Committee to my written testimony for
additional information on natural gas hydrates.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Collett follows:]
Statement of Timothy S. Collett, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological
Survey
Mr. Chairman and Members:
I am Timothy S. Collett, Research Geologist with the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). In this testimony I will discuss the
USGS assessment of natural gas hydrate resources and examine
the technology that would be necessary to safely and
economically produce gas hydrates.
I. Summary
The primary objectives of USGS gas hydrate research are to
document the geologic parameters that control the occurrence
and stability of gas hydrates, to assess the volume of natural
gas stored within gas hydrate accumulations, to identify and
predict natural sediment destabilization caused by gas hydrate,
and to analyze the effects of gas hydrate on drilling safety.
The USGS in 1995 made the first systematic assessment of the
in-place natural gas hydrate resources of the United States.
That study shows that the amount of gas in the hydrate
accumulations of the United States greatly exceeds the volume
of known conventional domestic gas resources. However, gas
hydrates represent both a scientific and technologic frontier
and much remains to be learned about their characteristics and
possible economic recovery.
II. Gas Hydrate Occurrence and Characterization
Gas hydrates are naturally occurring crystalline substances
composed of water and gas, in which a solid water-lattice holds
gas molecules in a cage-like structure. Gas hydrates are
widespread in permafrost regions and beneath the sea in
sediments of the outer continental margins. While methane,
propane, and other gases are included in the hydrate structure,
methane hydrates appear to be the most common. The amount of
methane contained in the world's gas hydrate accumulations is
enormous, but estimates of the amounts are speculative and
range over three orders-of-magnitude from about 100,000 to
270,000,000 trillion cubic feet of gas. Despite the enormous
range of these estimates, gas hydrates seem to be a much
greater resource of natural gas than conventional
accumulations.
Even though gas hydrates are known to occur in numerous
marine and Arctic settings, little is known about the geologic
controls on their distribution. The presence of gas hydrates in
offshore continental margins has been inferred mainly from
anomalous seismic reflectors that coincide with the base of the
gas-hydrate stability zone. This reflector is commonly called a
bottom-simulating reflector or BSR. BSRs have been mapped at
depths ranging from about 0 to 1,100 in below the sea floor.
Gas hydrates have been recovered by scientific drilling along
the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific coasts of the United
States, as well as at many international locations.
To date, onshore gas hydrates have been found in Arctic
regions of permafrost and in deep lakes such as Lake Baikal in
Russia. Gas hydrates associated with permafrost have been
documented on the North Slope of Alaska and Canada and in
northern Russia. Direct evidence for gas hydrates on the North
Slope of Alaska comes from cores and petroleum industry well
logs which suggest the presence of numerous gas hydrate layers
in the area of the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River oil fields.
Combined information from Arctic gas-hydrate studies shows
that, in permafrost regions, gas hydrates may exist at
subsurface depths ranging from about 130 to 2,000 meters.
The USGS 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and
Gas Resources focused on assessing the undiscovered
conventional and unconventional resources of crude oil and
natural gas in the United States. This assessment included for
the first time a systematic appraisal of the in-place natural
gas hydrate resources of the United States, both onshore and
offshore. Eleven gas-hydrate plays were identified within four
offshore and one onshore gas hydrate provinces. The offshore
provinces lie within the U.S. 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone
adjacent to the lower 48 States and Alaska. The only onshore
province assessed was the North Slope of Alaska. In-place gas
hydrate resources of the United States are estimated to range
from 113,000 to 676,000 trillion cubic feet of gas, at the 0.95
and 0.05 probability levels, respectively. Although this range
of values shows a high degree of uncertainty, it does indicate
the potential for enormous quantities of gas stored as gas
hydrates. The mean (expected value) in-place gas hydrate
resource for the entire United States is estimated to be
320,000 trillion cubic feet of gas. This assessment does not
address the problem of gas hydrate recoverability.
Seismic-acoustic imaging to identify gas hydrate and its
effects on sediment stability has been an important part of
USGS marine studies since 1990. USGS has also conducted
extensive geochemical surveys and established a specialized
laboratory facility to study the formation and disassociation
of gas hydrate in nature and also under simulated deep-sea
conditions. Gas hydrate distribution in Arctic wells and in the
deep sea has been studied intensively using geophysical well
logs. These efforts have also involved core drilling of gas-
hydrate-bearing sediments in cooperation with the Ocean
Drilling Program (ODP) of the National Science Foundation, and,
most recently a cooperative drilling program onshore in
northern Canada.
III. Gas Hydrate Production
Gas recovery from hydrates is hindered because the gas is
in a solid form and because hydrates are usually widely
dispersed in hostile Arctic and deep marine environments.
Proposed methods of gas recovery from hydrates usually deal
with disassociating or ``melting'' in-situ gas hydrates by (1)
heating the reservoir beyond the temperature of hydrate
formation, (2) decreasing the reservoir pressure below hydrate
equilibrium, or (3) injecting an inhibitor, such as methanol,
into the reservoir to decrease hydrate stability conditions.
Computer models have been developed to evaluate hydrate gas
production from hot water and steam injection, and these models
suggest that gas can be produced from hydrates at sufficient
rates to make gas hydrates a technically recoverable resource.
Similarly, the use of gas hydrate inhibitors in the production
of gas from hydrates has been shown to be technically feasible,
however, the use of large volumes of chemicals comes with a
high economic and potential environmental cost. Among the
various techniques for production of natural gas from in-situ
gas hydrates, the most economically promising method is
considered to be depressurization. The Messoyakha gas field in
northern Russia is often used as an example of a hydrocarbon
accumulation from which gas has been produced from hydrates by
simple reservoir depressurization. Moreover the production
history of the Messoyakha field possibly demonstrates that gas
hydrates are an immediate producible source of natural gas and
that production can be started and maintained by
``conventional'' methods.
IV. Safety and Seafloor Stability
Seafloor stability and safety are two important issues
related to gas hydrates. Seafloor stability refers to the
susceptibility of the seafloor to collapse and slide as the
result of gas hydrate disassociation. The safety issue refers
to petroleum drilling and production hazards that may occur in
association with gas hydrates in both offshore and onshore
environments.
Seafloor Stability
Along most ocean margins the depth to the base of the gas
hydrate stability zone becomes shallower as water depth
decreases; the base of the stability zone intersects the
seafloor at about 500 m. It is possible that both natural and
human induced changes can contribute to in-situ gas hydrate
destabilization which may convert a hydrate-bearing sediment to
a gassy water-rich fluid, triggering seafloor subsidence and
catastrophic landslides. Evidence implicating gas hydrates in
triggering seafloor landslides has been found along the
Atlantic Ocean margin of the United States. The mechanisms
controlling gas hydrate induced seafloor subsidence and
landslides are not well known, however these processes may
release large volumes of methane to the Earth's oceans and
atmosphere.
Safety
Throughout the world, oil and gas drilling is moving into
regions where safety problems related to gas hydrates may be
anticipated. Oil and gas operators have described numerous
drilling and production problems attributed to the presence of
gas hydrates, including uncontrolled gas releases during
drilling, collapse of wellbore casings, and gas leakage to the
surface. In the marine environment, gas leakage to the surface
around the outside of the wellbore casing may result in local
seafloor subsidence and the loss of support for foundations of
drilling platforms. These problems are generally caused by the
disassociation of gas hydrate due to heating by either warm
drilling fluids or from the production of hot hydrocarbons from
depth during conventional oil and gas production. The same
problems of destabilized gas hydrates by warming and loss of
seafloor support may also affect subsea pipelines.
V. Conclusions
Our knowledge of naturally occurring gas hydrates is
limited. Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence suggests that
(1) a huge volume of natural gas is stored in gas hydrates, (2)
production of natural gas from gas hydrates may be technically
feasible, (3) gas hydrates hold the potential for natural
hazards associated with seafloor stability and release of
methane to the oceans and atmosphere, and (4) gas hydrates
disturbed during drilling and petroleum production pose a
potential safety problem. The USGS welcomes the opportunity to
collaborate with domestic and international scientific
organizations to further our collective understanding of these
important geologic materials.
Mr. Walden. [presiding] Thank you, Dr. Collett.
Dr. Haq.
STATEMENT OF BILAL U. HAQ, DIVISION OF OCEAN SCIENCES, NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Haq. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the
opportunity to present the Subcommittee the outline of the
state of our knowledge on natural gas hydrates.
I have submitted a formal statement that I would like to be
made a part of the record.
For several decades, we have known gas hydrates exist
within the sediments of the continental slope and in the
permafrost on land. While it was only during the last decade
that the pace of research has picked up, and especially in the
last three or four years. Research efforts in several countries
had been focused at learning more about the viability of gas
hydrate as an energy resource. In addition, their role in slope
instability and global climate change is also of considerable
interest to the research community and has obvious societal
relevance.
In marine sediments, hydrates are commonly detected
remotely by the presence of acoustic reflectors known as
``bottom simulating reflectors'' or ``BSR's.'' Now, BSR's are
known from many continental margins of the world, but hydrates
have only been rarely sampled through drilling. This lack of
direct sampling means that estimating the volumes of methane
trapped in the hydrates and the free gas below the hydrate
remain largely speculative.
One of the few places in the world where hydrates have been
drilled and directly sampled is on the Blake Ridge, a
topographic feature off the coast of the Carolinas, Georgia,
and Florida. Here it was observed that the BSR is present only
where there is a significant amount of free gas below the
hydrate zone, whereas hydrate was present even where there was
no BSR. Thus, if our estimates are calculated purely on the
basis of observed BSR's, it may lead to underestimation of the
lateral extent of the hydrate fields and the total volume of
the contained methane.
At present, even the relatively conservative estimates
contemplate as much methane in hydrates as double the amount of
oil and known fossil fuels. Whether or not these large
estimates can be translated into viable energy resource is a
crucial question that has been the focus of researchers in many
countries in the world.
Scientists theorize that when large slumps that occur when
gas hydrates disassociate on the continental slope, they can
release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere triggering
greenhouse warming over the longer term.
Of more immediate concern, however, is the response of the
methane trapped in the permafrost hydrates. If the summer
temperatures in the higher latitudes were to rise by even a few
degrees, it could lead to increased emission of methane from
the permafrost, thereby adding to the greenhouse effect and
further raising global temperature. The actual response of both
the permafrost and the ice fields on Greenland and Antarctica
to the global warming remains largely unknown at the present
time due to lack of research in this area.
Although the hydrocarbon industry has had a longstanding
interest in the hydrates, but they have been slow to respond to
the need of gas hydrate research as an energy resource. This
stems from several factors. Many of the industry believe that
the widely cited large estimates of methane in gas hydrates on
the continental margins may be overstated. Moreover, if this
hydrate is thinly dispersed in the sediment, rather than
concentrated, it may not be easily recoverable and, thus, not
cost effective.
And now, some of our research needs in this area. Much of
the uncertainty concerning the value of hydrate as a resource
for the future, their role in slope instability and climate
change stems from the fact that we know very little about the
nature of the gas hydrate reservoir. Understanding the
characteristics of the reservoir, finding ways to image and
evaluate its contents remotely may be the two most important
challenges in gas hydrate R&D for the near future.
We need to know where exactly on land and on the sea floor
gas hydrates occur, and how extensive is their distribution. We
need to be able to discern how they are distributed. Are they
distributed mostly thinly dispersed in sediments or in
substantial local concentration? Only then will we be able to
come up with a meaningful estimate of their national and global
distribution.
We also need a better understanding of how hydrates form
and how they get to where they are stabilized. This means
learning more about the biological activity and organic matter
decay that generates the methane gas for the hydrates, their
plumbing system, migration pathways, and hydrate
thermodynamics. To understand the role of gas hydrates in slope
instability, research will be needed into their physical
properties and their response to changes in pressure
temperature regimes.
To appreciate their role in global climate change, we need
to have a better grasp of how much of the hydrates on the ocean
margins and in the permafrost is actually susceptible to
oceanic and atmospheric temperature fluctuations. More
importantly, we must understand the fate of the methane
released from a hydrate source into the water column and the
atmosphere.
Once the efficacy of natural gas hydrates as a resource
have been ascertained, new technologies will be needed to
develop for their meaningful exploitation. This includes new
techniques for detection, drilling, and recovery of solid
hydrate and free gas below. Such technologies are lacking at
the present time.
Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you very much for providing
me the opportunity to testify. And I will be happy to answer
any questions that I am able.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Haq follows:]
Statement of Bilal U. Haq, Division of Ocean Sciences, National Science
Foundation
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee
for giving me the opportunity to present an outline of the
state of our knowledge of natural gas hydrates and the future
research needs in this area.
Natural gas hydrates have been known to exist within the
continental margin sediments for several decades now, however,
it is only during the last decade that the pace of research
into their distribution and nature has picked up, and
especially in the last three or four years. The research effort
in several countries has been focused at learning more about
their efficacy as an alternative energy resource. In addition,
their role in slope instability and global climate change is
also of considerable interest to the research community and has
obvious societal relevance.
Gas hydrates consist of a mixture of methane and water and
are frozen in place in marine sediments on the continental
slope and rise. To be stable the hydrates require high pressure
and low bottom temperature and thus they occur mostly at the
depths of the continental slope (generally below 1,500 feet
depth). Due to the very low temperatures in the Arctic,
hydrates also occur on land associated with permafrost, and at
shallower submarine depths of about 600 feet. Methane gas that
forms the hydrate is mostly derived from the decay of organic
material trapped in the sediments.
Methane is a clean burning fuel. Because the methane
molecule contains more hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom,
its ignition produces less carbon dioxide than other, heavier,
hydrocarbons. In addition, the hydrate concentrates 160 times
more methane in the same space as free gas at atmospheric
pressure at sea level. Thus, natural gas hydrates are
considered by many to represent an immense, environmentally
friendly, and viable, though as yet unproven resource of
methane.
In marine sediments, hydrates are commonly detected by the
presence of acoustic reflectors, know as bottom simulating
reflectors, or BSRs. However, to produce a boundary that
reflects acoustic energy, a significant quantity of free gas
needs to be present below the hydrate to induce the contrast
that causes the reflector. BSRs are known from many continental
margins of the world, but hydrates have only rarely been
sampled through drilling. Moreover, the presence or absence of
BSR does not always correlate with the presence of hydrate nor
provide information about the quantity of hydrate present. The
general lack of direct sampling means that estimating the
volumes of methane trapped in hydrates, or the associated free
gas beneath the hydrate stability zone, remain largely
speculative.
One of the few places in the world where hydrates have been
drilled and directly sampled is on the Blake Ridge, a
topographic feature off the coast of the Carolinas, Georgia and
Florida. Here it was observed that the BSR is present only
where there is significant amount of free gas below the
hydrate, whereas hydrate was present even where there was no
BSR recorded on acoustic profiles. Thus, if our estimates are
calculated purely on the basis of observed BSRs, it may lead to
underestimation of the lateral extent of the hydrate fields and
the total volume of the contained methane.
Estimates of how much methane might be trapped in the
hydrates in the nearshore sediments therefore remain
conjectural at the present, but even the relatively
conservative estimates contemplate as much as double the amount
of all known fossil fuel sources. Whether or not these large
estimates can be translated into a viable energy resource is a
crucial question that has been the focus of researchers in many
countries. In the past petroleum industry in the U.S. and
elsewhere has been less interested in methane hydrates as a
resource because of the difficulties in estimating and
extracting the gas and distributing it to consumers as a cost-
effective resource.
Since gas hydrates in marine sediments largely occur on the
continental slope, they may also be implicated in massive
slumps and slides when hydrates break down due to increased
bottom temperature or reduced hydrostatic pressure. Local earth
tremors may also cause hydrates to slump along zones of
weakness. When a hydrate dissociates, its bottom layer changes
from solid ``icy'' substance to a ``slushy'' mixture of
sediment, water and gas. This change in the mechanical strength
of the hydrate occurs first near the base because the
temperature in the sediment increases with depth and thus the
bottom part of the hydrate stability zone is most vulnerable to
subtle changes in temperature and pressure. This encourages
massive slope failure along low-angle detachment faults. Such
slumps can be a considerable hazard to petroleum exploration
structures such as drilling rigs and to undersea cables. In
addition, extensive slope failures can conceivably release
large amounts of methane gas into the seawater and atmosphere.
Scientists studying the recent geological past theorize
that gas-hydrate dissociation during the last glacial period
(some 18,000 years ago) may have been responsible for the rapid
termination of the glacial episode. During the glacial period
the sea level fell by more than 300 feet, which lowered the
hydrostatic pressure, leading to massive slumping that may have
liberated significant amount of methane. Methane being a potent
greenhouse gas (considered to be ten times as potent as carbon
dioxide by weight), a large release from hydrate sources could
have triggered greenhouse warming. As the frequency of slumping
and methane release increased, a threshold was eventually
reached where ice melting began, leading to a rapid
deglaciation.
At present, however, the response of the methane trapped in
the permafrost as hydrate is of greater concern. If the summer
temperatures in the higher latitudes were to rise by even a few
degrees, it could lead to increased emission of methane from
the permafrost, thereby adding to the greenhouse effect and
further raising the global temperatures. These increases in
global mean temperature may also lead to further melting of
high-latitude ice fields on Greenland and Antarctica. The
response of both the permafrost and the ice fields to increased
temperature, however, remains largely unknown at the present
time.
Direct measurements of methane in hydrated sediments and
the free gas below made during drilling on the Blake Ridge by
the Ocean Drilling Program, supported largely by the National
Science Foundation, show that large quantities of methane may
be stored in this gas-hydrate field, and even more as free gas
below the hydrate. In the hydrate stability zone the volume of
the gas hydrate based on direct measurements was estimated to
be between 5 percent and 9 percent of the pore space. Though
the hydrate occurs mostly finely disseminated in the sediment,
relatively pure hydrate bodies up to 30 cm thick also occur
intermittently. Below the hydrate stability pore spaces are
saturated with free gas. From the point of view of
recoverability, the free gas below the hydrate stability zone,
if it occurs in sufficient quantities, could be recovered
first. Eventually, the gas hydrate may itself be dissociated
artificially and recovered through injection of hot water or
through depressurization.
Although the hydrocarbon industry has had a long-standing
interest in hydrates (largely because of their nuisance value
in clogging up gas pipelines in colder high latitudes and in
seafloor instability for rig structures), their slowness in
responding to the need for gas-hydrate research as an energy
resource stems from several factors. Many in the industry
believe that the widely cited large estimates of methane in gas
hydrates on the continental margins may be overstated.
Moreover, if the hydrate is thinly dispersed in the sediment
rather than concentrated, it may not be easily recoverable, and
thus not cost-effective to exploit.
One suggested scenario for the exploitation of such a
dispersed resource is excavation, which is environmentally a
less acceptable option than drilling. And finally, if
recovering methane from hydrate becomes feasible, it may have
important implications for slope stability. Since most hydrates
occur on the continental slope, extracting the hydrate or
recovering the free gas below the stability zone could cause
slope instabilities of major proportions that may not be
acceptable to coastal communities. Producing gas from gas
hydrates locked up in the permafrost has so far met with
considerable difficulties, as the Russian efforts to do so in
Siberia in the 1960s and 70s would imply.
The occurrence and stability of gas hydrates at oceanic
depths of the slope and rise has also led to the notion that we
may be able dispose off excess green-house gases, especially
carbon dioxide, in the deep ocean as artificial hydrates.
Although permanent sequestration of carbon dioxide may not be
realistic since the hydrate on the seafloor would eventually be
dissolved and dispersed in seawater, the isolation of carbon
dioxide in the form of solid hydrate that remains stable for
relatively long periods of time may be plausible. The long time
scales of ocean circulation, the large size of the oceanic
reservoir and the buffering effect of carbonate sediments all
speak in favor of this potentiality. These notions, however,
need considerable measure of research, both in the laboratory
and the field, before they can be regarded as practical.
Research Needs
Much of the uncertainty concerning the value of gas
hydrates as a resource for the future, their role in slope
instability and their potential as agents for future climate
change, stems from the fact that we have little knowledge of
the nature of the gas-hydrate reservoir. Understanding the
characteristics of the reservoir and finding ways to image and
evaluate its contents remotely may be the two most important
challenges in gas-hydrate R & D for the near future.
We need to know where on land and the continental margins
gas hydrates occur and how extensive is their distribution? We
need to be able to discern how they are distributed, mostly
thinly dispersed in sediments or in substantial local
concentrations. Only then will we be able to come up with
meaningful estimates of their total volume on the U.S.
continental margins and in higher latitudes, as well their
global distribution.
We also need a better understanding of how hydrates form
and how they get to where they are stabilized. This effort
encompasses learning more about the biological activity and
organic-matter decay that generates methane for hydrates, their
plumbing systems, migration pathways and the hydrate
thermodynamics, and it will require laboratory experimentation,
field observations and modeling.
To understand the role of gas hydrates in slope
instability, research will be needed to learn more about their
physical properties and their response to changes in pressure-
temperature regimes. Both laboratory experimentation and invitu
monitoring will be necessary. Gas hydrates in the Arctic, Gulf
of Mexico and off the U.S. East Coast represent extensive
natural laboratories for all aspects of gas hydrate research.
To appreciate the role of gas hydrates in global climate
change, we need to have a better grasp of how much of the
hydrate in the continental margins and the permafrost is
actually susceptible to oceanic and atmospheric temperature
fluctuations. More importantly, we must understand the fate of
the methane released from a hydrate source into the water
column and the atmosphere. Studies of the geological records of
past hydrate fields can also provide clues to their behavior
and role in climate change.
Once the efficacy of natural gas hydrate as a resource has
been proven, new technologies will have to be developed for
their meaningful exploitation. This includes new methodologies
for detection, drilling, and recovery of the solid hydrate and
the free gas below. Such technologies are lacking at the
present time.
Madam Chairman, once again thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify and I will be happy to answer any
questions from the members of the Subcommittee that I am able
to.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Haq; I appreciate your
testimony.
I might start with some questions for Mr. Kripowicz. Thank
you for outlining the Department of Energy's role as the
programmatic lead for a Federal R&D program for methane
hydrates.
I realize both the House and the Senate bill put the
Secretary of Energy in the driver's seat for steering the
appropriated dollars to fulfill the program's goals. Perhaps
DOE is the logical home for it. However, I am concerned that
while both bills contemplate involvement by the USGS, National
Science Foundation, and Office of Naval Research, neither bill
requires the Secretary to establish the advisory panel made up
of representatives from those agencies and academia. Nor does
the Secretary have to listen to them if he does create the
panel.
Given the inevitable squeeze under the budget caps agreed
to by President Clinton in 1997, it is fair to believe that DOE
may try to keep appropriated dollars in-house for the Federal
Energy Technology Center or the national labs.
What assurances can you give the Subcommittee that the USGS
and the marine minerals research institutions under our
jurisdiction will be given a meaningful place at the table?
Mr. Kripowicz. Mr. Chairman, the assurance that I can give
you is that we have been working cooperatively with those
organizations from the very beginning on this program.
At the outset, before legislation was contemplated, we
believed that we needed to get buy-in from all of the other
organizations that had an interest in methane hydrates in order
to present a rational program.
And the way we have also set up the potential organization
is that we will have a management steering committee which
includes, not only the Department of Energy, but the USGS and
the National Science Foundation, MMS, NRL, the Ocean Drilling
Program, and several industrial organizations.
And we have worked through the original strategy document
and the beginnings of the program plan in close cooperation
with these organizations and have provided a tremendous amount
of interplay and public comment on our plans in this area.
Mr. Walden. Okay. Given the concerns the panelists have
stated about disassociation of gas hydrates on the continental
slope, leading to instability of drilling environments, do you
believe the Minerals Management Service, which regulates
drilling operations on the outer-continental shelf, should be
programmatically involved, either directly or via the Center
for Marine Research and Environmental Technology at the
University of Mississippi, which is one of the centers
established by Public Law 104-325, out of this Subcommittee?
Mr. Kripowicz. Yes, sir. MMS is one of the people that is
on the Management Steering Committee, and we have a working
relationship with MMS and would expect them to be closely
involved in this research, including possibly some of their own
funding, as well as funding from this money.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
And our full Committee chairman is interested in this
program, in part, because of the potential to bring gas to
remote native villages in the Arctic which are starved for
affordable fuels.
Will DOE ensure that gas hydrate studies in permafrost
regions be given an equal place at the research table?
Mr. Kripowicz. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, probably the
first experiments--production experiments--would mostly likely
be in permafrost areas because there would be cheaper areas in
which to drill to establish the characteristics of the resource
and get the background information needed to decide whether it
can actually be made into a recoverable reserve. So we would
expect, you know, a lot of work to go on in the Arctic and
permafrost regions.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
H.R. 1753 prescribes that the Secretary of Energy create an
advisory committee that would solicit proposals for hydrate
research which would then undergo a peer review process.
Would the peer review process be enlisted for the review of
individual research proposals submitted to the program, or only
with respect to the entire gas hydrate program, in general? And
could you explain to me how you expect this process to operate?
Mr. Kripowicz. We would assume that there would be more
than one way to allocate the funding. For example, research
within the government, that portion of it would be determined
by the steering committee on it which most of the agencies sit.
Then for universities and for industry, there would be an
allocation of money which would be available on a competitive
peer-reviewed basis.
Mr. Walden. Testimony from Dr. Woolsey on the next panel
implies the administration is pledging more support to this
effort than was outlined in the President's Science Advisors'
report several years ago.
Is the Department of Energy satisfied that a viable R&D
program for the methane hydrates can be performed under the
authorization caps in H.R. 1753?
Mr. Kripowicz. Yes, sir. The cap for Fiscal Year 2000 is $5
million; our budget request is $2 million. And the cap for the
succeeding years is $10 million. And what I have testified to
previously is that it is clear, that in a long-term program,
you need more than $2 million a year. The $2 million is a
starting figure to establish the program, but in future years,
a program of substantial size would be needed in order to
finally get to a decision as to whether this is a producible
reserve. And the numbers of $10 million appear to be a
reasonable figure, although as you get further into the
program, it may or may not be true. But we, at this point, feel
we can live with those allocations.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you.
Turn now to Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a question that is related to the length of time
that we are imagining, or we are perhaps projecting it would
take to actually--and this question is for any one of the
panelists. What is the anticipated timeline that actually we
would see the technology available, that would actually be able
to access and produce gas from these methane hydrates?
Mr. Kripowicz. I would say that that is probably a very
fuzzy date, but we would believe that if you financed the
program at somewhere near the $10-million range over a
considerable period of time, that no sooner than the year 2010,
I think you could identify whether this is really an
exploitable resource. So it is a long-term program.
Mr. Underwood. Okay. Would the other two members of the
panel agree with that?
Dr. Collett. From our perspective, a part of our program is
very focused on the Alaska accumulations onshore in the oil and
gas areas. Hydrates there are drilled almost on a daily basis
in the field areas, and this is an area where we are proceeding
with cooperative work with industry to actually develop tests
of hydrate accumulations, for the main purpose of engineering
reservoir maintenance of conventional reservoirs and,
ultimately, to feed maybe a gas-to-liquids program or LNG-type
program. So what we perceive is within a five-year timeframe,
we will see a very significant test with industry components on
the North Slope of Alaska where the interstructure is already
present.
I would certainly agree with Mr. Kripowicz, in that for
longer-term, large-scale production, we are at least looking 10
to 15 years out. And even in that situation, it will be in
isolated areas with very specific motivations to go after the
resource.
Mr. Underwood. Dr. Haq?
Dr. Haq. I don't have anything to add to that.
Mr. Underwood. Okay.
In terms of, then, we are really anticipating that the
government will invest about $100 million in this enterprise
before we see it actually bear fruit.
How much is that going to--well how much do you think
private industry is going to be putting into this? Is there a
sense of how much private industry will be putting into this
during this timeframe?
Mr. Kripowicz. Mr. Underwood, as you get closer toward
really showing that this is a producible resource, you will get
more and more industrial participation. At the very beginning
of this, I would expect that you would get some industrial
participation, but not a great deal. You might particularly get
participation in areas that affect safety because that effects
existing and planned operations on the industrial sites that we
would expect to see, you know, more participation by industry
there than you would in some of the other areas.
But as a general rule, in our research, when you actually
get to the demonstration phases of technology, you talk about
at least 50 percent cost-sharing from the industry, but I don't
believe you would see that kind of cost-sharing for some time
in this area.
Mr. Underwood. Okay. I understand that the deep seabed
mining, that the technology--what is the connection between the
technology that would be used to actually begin deep seabed
mining and actually access some of the methane hydrates that
are on the ocean floor?
I understand that the Japanese are planning to dril
somewhere in the Nanki Trough later on this year. What is the
ostensible connection between the technology used for this
purpose and deep seabed mining? And where are we, as a country,
in relationship to that technology, as compared to Japan?
Mr. Kripowicz. I can't speak to that in any detail except
to say that we, on very preliminary looks at this, would say
that deep seabed methods would probably be among the most
expensive way to recover a diverse resource like methane
hydrates.
Dr. Collett. From our perspective, we come with a
cooperative relationship that is five years old now with the
Japanese National Oil Company and the Geological Survey of
Canada, in which we actually conducted a drilling program with
the Geological Survey of Canada in Canada to look at the
producibility of Arctic gas hydrates. Just last year, we
completed a well in Canada.
Our experience, and I think we have good insight into the
Japanese program, we are mainly looking at conventional-style
borehole production associated with conventional methods. We
would perceive most of the production methodology would
probably evolve initially out of conventional oil and gas
production technology. But mining is one of the proposed and
perceived methods to look at hydrates, mainly for reasons such
as the in the Gulf of Mexico, hydrates occur right at the sea
floor, so you have this opportunity.
But most certainly, the technology is evolutionary. We are
only venturing into those water depths in the last five years,
so the type of technology we are discussing now is on the
cutting edge.
Mr. Underwood. I am just, you know, thinking out loud
because I am trying to get a sense of how the two intersect.
And then, also, in addition, we are not really participants of
the law of the sea. And in the meantime, there is a lot of this
kind of activity will occur in the ocean floor. And it seems to
me that while we are moving ahead in one sense, in terms of
developing and encouraging the science which would lead to
accessing this source of energy, the policy-end of it, in terms
of participation in the law of the sea, and also the
technological end of it.
And from what I understand--and I could be mistaken; I
could be not fully informed--I have gotten the sense that the
Japanese are proceeding with all deliberate speed, in terms of
their own technology for deep seabed mining. And that is,
obviously, a source of concern for people I represent, and I
think people who anticipate that there may be this mineral
source as well as this energy source nearby.
Dr. Collett. When we look, particularly, at this issue from
the U.S. perspective, what our group is largely responsible for
in the USGS is the assessment of oil and gas resources and
hydrate assessment is limited to the exclusive economic zone of
the U.S. That is an EEZ assessment, so our gas hydrate
assessment numbers are limited to that. So there is one issue
about law and mineral rights that are very clear.
But most certainly, when we look at it, for the lack of a
better term, a competitive sense, the Japanese are investing a
large sum of money. They have motivations to do that because
they import most of their hydrocarbon resources. Ninety five
percent of their resources are imported. So their commitment to
this has been historically much greater.
And what we are seeing now in the world that the technology
may be catching up to the point to start exploiting some of
these resources.
Mr. Underwood. Okay. We will have to deal with the policy
issue----
Dr. Collett. Yes.
Mr. Underwood. [continuing] to remaining of whether the EEZ
resources belong to the territories or to the Federal
Government.
Dr. Collett. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Dr. Collett. We will go with it.
Mr. Walden. I want to go back to Mr. Kripowicz.
I understand that methane hydrates may occur off the Oregon
Coast. Would there be an opportunity for the University of
Oregon or OSU, Oregon State University, to be involved in some
of the research there and get grants from DOE for the program?
Mr. Kripowicz. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, Oregon State
University has participated in the workshops that we have had
in establishing this program, and I believe has done some
methane hydrates research, and is doing some right now.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Dr. Collett. Excuse me.
Mr. Walden. Yes; go ahead.
Dr. Collett. They have played a leading role. Particularly,
with a cooperative research relationship with the Geological
Survey of Germany, a number of research cruises have been led
by Oregon State, which dealt with sampling gas hydrates
offshore of Oregon. It is one of the more established hydrate
sites, and, also, it was the focus of a dedicated leg of the
Ocean Drilling Program, under NSF, Leg 146.
So that margin, the Oregon coastal area, is often looked at
as one of the critical experimental areas.
And there are also proposals at present in ODP to actually
go back to the Oregon coast.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Yes?
Dr. Haq. I was just going to add to that----
Mr. Walden. Dr. Haq?
Dr. Haq. [continuing] that NSF has--that is, the Division
of Ocean Sciences at NSF has just committed to fund a cruise
led by Oregon scientists to the tune of about $600,000 to image
the hydrates, as well as to sample the hydrates with a newly-
developed sea floor coring system. That is essentially----
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Dr. Haq. [continuing] going to be funded in this fiscal
year.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Let me go back to you. What is the status of current
geologic models and understanding in predicting the occurrence
of hydrate deposits?
Status of the current models in predicting deposits?
Either?
Dr. Collett. I can reflect back to 1995; in that when we
conducted the assessment, the U.S. gas hydrate resource
assessment was based on a play model concept where we risked 18
geologic factors that control the occurrence the hydrates--the
availability of gas, water, and migration of fluids.
We actually went systematically through all of the
continental margins in the U.S. and did a scientific review of
the favorability of these factors leading to the accumulation
of hydrates. So, basically, that is the model. We assume we
understand how hydrates occur.
The problem with our model, however, is the lack of direct
information about known accumulations. Other than the Blake
Ridge accumulation on the Atlantic margin of the U.S., limited
seismic inferred gas hydrates on the Cascadia margin, and on
the North Slope of Alaska, we still know very little about any
detailed aspects of hydrate accumulations.
So to understand the accumulation of gas hydrate before we
can project it into a model for gas formation is a very
difficult step, but really the basic research hasn't been done.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Dr. Haq, am I correct to understand the National Science
Foundation receives Federal appropriation in its own right for
peer-reviewed research grants to academia in many subject
matter areas, including methane hydrate research?
Dr. Haq. Yes. The funding, of course, is extremely
competitive, and it is entirely based on the best science,
which has to be not only competitive, but also cost effective.
And the community has to agree that, yes, this is their high
priority. At this time, gas hydrates are being funded because
of that reason, because it is a issue that is high priority for
the community. And it is also of great scientific value and,
therefore, there have been several proposals that have been
funded very competitively.
Mr. Walden. How would the centralization of the Federal R&D
for methane hydrate at the Department of Energy affect the
National Science Foundation?
And do you envision that the peer review contemplated in
H.R. 1753 will allow NSF's grant proposals process to continue
to function as they always have?
Dr. Haq. NSF will continue to fund proposals in gas
hydrates, as long as they are competitive, and as long as the
funds are available. But there are no separate earmarked funds
for gas-hydrate research at NSF.
One of the effects of DOE funding would be that since we
can only fund limited number of projects, the academic
community will have another source of funding and, therefore, I
think--collaboration between DOE and NSF could actually get you
better bang for the bucks, so to speak, if that were to happen.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
I just have two other questions for Dr. Collett.
What area of the United States, for example, the coastal
waters off the Atlantic coast or the Gulf of Mexico, or onshore
in the North Slope of Alaska would be the most profitable--or
probable candidate, I should say--for a pilot project to begin
producing natural gas from hydrates?
Where do you think are the most probable?
Dr. Collett. We feel very strongly about the fact it would
be the North Slope of Alaska, particularly the areas in the
western part of the Prudhoe Bay oil field region.
The reason for this is that it is, one, an area of the most
highly concentrated hydrate accumulations in the world, so it
gives you the ability to focus on a sweet spot of hydrate
accumulation.
You also have existing industry activity, these are
accumulations that are drilled for deeper targets on a regular
basis. So you have a catalyst of already in-place resources for
the industry to use and to develop the hydrate resources.
And also there is a direct need for gas that is not often
spoke about on the North Slope, it is for existing reservoir
maintenance of conventional reservoirs and producing of heavy
oil; gas is a very important commodity on the North Slope
without coming off the slope. So I would see these areas now to
pose an immediate demand and synergy of events.
Mr. Walden. Okay. I just have one other question for you.
USGS Director Groat testified before this Committee earlier
this year during the Budget Oversight hearing. The part of the
USGS mission includes helping with the scientific needs of
sister-DOI agencies. I believe the programmer initiative was
called Integrated Science.
Does the USGS have plans for a cooperative marine science
initiatives with the MMS in regard to sub-sea slope stability
and other marine geology problems related to methane resources
and their exploitation?
Dr. Collett. On the formal nature of where these agreements
exist, I am not aware of. We can get back to you. But in the
practical sense, we are already conducted relationships or
joint cruises with the University of Mississippi--what may come
up later in the testimony today.
We have also looked at the opportunities of working with
MMS. We have been approached by individuals such as Jesse Hunt
involved with the Gulf of Mexico safety panels of MMS.
So we see a number of opportunities, but most of them have
not been formalized.
Mr. Walden. At this point, we are going to go ahead--Mr.
Underwood has no further questions nor do I, so we will excuse
this panel and then we will recess until we are done voting,
which is probably 20 minutes, and then we will resume with
panel two.
So the Committee will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Walden. Okay, if we could come back to--if we could
come back to order. And if the staff is ready, I will reconvene
the hearing.
And I will just tell the witnesses in advance that we are
having a number of amendments on the House floor, which we
anticipate will interrupt our business, probably well into the
night, every 15 minutes. So, having said that, we will try and
proceed as orderly as we can.
And I would like to welcome Dr. Trent, the dean of School
of Mineral Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and I
would tell you as a--ahead of your testimony, I am probably the
only other one in this room who ever attended the University of
Alaska Fairbanks, and I did so my freshman year in college,
so--oh, there is somebody else in the back.
[Laughter.]
Two, I know. Three--and another one.
[Laughter.]
Here we are. I can't sing the song, but I lived in Moore
Hall.
[Laughter.]
Yes, we got half the student body.
Welcome; good afternoon.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. TRENT, P.E., PH.D., DEAN, SCHOOL OF
MINERAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS
Dr. Trent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to explain my attire. In Alaska
we call it ``na-nuk,'' and today it is courtesy of Northwest
Airlines giving my luggage extra frequent flier miles
somewhere.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. Not a problem.
Dr. Trent. I will keep mine short. I will not speak to the
trillions of cubic feet of gas that is out there. I think we
all know that.
However, in Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River fields, it is
pretty well proven that there is approximately 35 to 45
trillion cubic feet of gas in those fields, one of the largest
accumulations in the world. Also, our permafrost gas hydrates
are in higher concentrations and have excellent quality.
We are working closely with two of the oil companies at
this time, developing new cementing methods for bonding casing
through permafrost gas hydrates. As noted previously, one of
the advantages of the Alaska North Slope is the infrastructure
that is available with the oil companies in there. In fact,
Japan Oil Corporation, it was there first choice to drill the
well that they did eventually put on the McKenzie Delta. It
wasn't the fact that we didn't have the infrastructure. It was
the fact that it took the attorneys too long to get the job
done.
Another advantage to Alaska, particularly--well, all the
northern areas, the circum polar northern areas--is that the
availability of natural gas from hydrates will be very useful
to the Native villages in developing other natural resources
throughout the State, Siberia, and northern Canada.
Energy in Alaska villages right now can be as high as 50
cents per kilowatt hour. If we can develop a source of natural
gas from hydrates, we could lower that considerably down,
hopefully, even to the 5 cents per hour range. In addition, we
can use it for home space heat, waste reformation, and, as a I
say----
[Laughter.]
[continuing] the warehouse of minerals that we have in the
north could be open with a source of natural energy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Trent follows:]
Statement of Robert H. Trent P.E., Ph.D., Dean, School of Mineral
Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Brooks Building,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska
This statement is respectfully submitted in support of H.R.
1753 and S. 330. Recent studies have shown that gas hydrates
are widespread along the coastline of the continental United
States, onshore areas of Alaska and the possibly in deep marine
environments of the Pacific Islands of the United States and
other countries. The amount of gas in hydrate reservoirs of the
United States greatly exceeds the volume of known conventional
gas reserves. The gas hydrate accumulations in the area of the
Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River oil fields in northern Alaska are
best known and documented gas hydrate occurrences in the world.
Recently completed domestic gas hydrate assessments suggest
that the North Slope of Alaska may contain as much as 590
trillion cubic feet of gas in hydrate form and the offshore
areas of Alaska may contain an additional 168 trillion cubic
feet of gas in hydrates. The Prudhoe Bay-Kuparuk River gas
hydrate accumulation is estimated to contain approximately 35
to 45 trillion cubic feet of gas, which is one of the largest
gas accumulations in North America. Unlike most marine gas
hydrate accumulations, such as those along the eastern
continental margin of the United States or in the Gulf of
Mexico, the permafrost associated gas hydrate accumulation in
northern Alaska occur in high concentrations and are underlain
by large conventional free-gas accumulations.
The occurrence of concentrated gas hydrate accumulations
and associated conventional free-gas accumulations are thought
to be critical for the successful economic production of gas
hydrates. An additional comparison reveals that onshore
permafrost associated gas hydrates, relative to marine gas
hydrate accumulations, often occur in higher quality reservoir
rocks which should also contribute to the economic production
of this vast energy resource. It should also be noted that the
known gas hydrate accumulations in northern Alaska are found
within an area of very active industry exploration and
development operations. The existing oil and gas industry
infrastructure in northern Alaska will certainly contribute to
the eventual economic development of the North Slope gas
hydrate resources. This infrastructure and known hydrate
reserves were the reason that this area as the first choice for
testing by the Japan National Oil Corporation last year. We
believe that the cost of developing gas hydrate exploration and
production technology will be considerably less on if developed
on land rather than at sea.
The first gas hydrate accumulations to be produced may have
unique characteristics, such as location, that may make them
technically and economically viable. For example, gas
associated with conventional oil fields on the North Slope of
Alaska is used to generate electricity in support of local
field operations, for miscible gas floods, gas lift operations
in producing oil wells and re-injected to maintain reservoir
pressures in producing fields. In the future, gas may be used
to generate steam that may be needed to produce the known vast
quantities of heavy oil and more recently the production of a
clean diesel fuel by gas to liquid conversion. Existing and
emerging operational needs for natural gas on the North Slope
are outpacing the discovery of new conventional resources and
at least one of the operators in Alaska is looking at gas
hydrates as a potential source of gas for field operations. The
North Slope of Alaska contains vast, highly concentrated gas
hydrate accumulations that may be exploited because of a unique
local need for natural gas.
In addition to the above, and even more important is the
possibility of utilizing hydrate gas for space heat and the
generation of energy in Alaska's Native villages. The current
cost of electrical power in the villages in on an average of
$0.50 per kilowatt hour. If hydrate gas can be produced it will
be possible to utilize fuel cells or other power generating
technology to reduce this cost while providing power that can
be utilized for home space heat, waste reformation, mineral and
other natural resource development. Rural Alaska is a vast
warehouse of natural resources just waiting for an economical
energy resource to make them viable. By developing natural
resources, much needed jobs will be created.
I urge the Committee to support H.R. 1753 and S 330,
``Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1999.''
Mr. Walden. All right.
Dr. Woolsey.
STATEMENT OF DR. J. ROBERT WOOLSEY, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR MARINE
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, CONTINENTAL SHELF
DIVISION, UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
Dr. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here, even on
a busy and confused day as this. It certainly gives us an
opportunity to present testimony on a subject that the three of
us are very keen on.
My two colleagues and I are part of the Center for Marine
Resources and Environmental Technology. It is a program of
applied academic endeavors and serves as an arm of the Minerals
Management Service toward this extent. We have, together,
worked on our own separate areas of interest, but collectively
work as one, and we have enjoyed, you know, some very
interesting programs amongst ourselves. We all have particular
expertise that we can bring to bear on various problems that
various of us have, within in our own areas.
On the Gulf Coast now, we have been--in a way of
background--we started working with several industries that
were experiencing problems that were quite peculiar. At one
time, gas hydrates were nothing more than a curiosity, but in
the last 10 years plus, as the major oil companies have
ventured out beyond 500 meters into the deep, deep water
production, they have encountered a series of problems. And
when we talk about the hazards that hydrates present, sometimes
we take the simplistic use of the term in the occurrence of
various amounts of hydrates that occur quite ubiquitously on
the sea floor, within the hydrate stability zone, in water
depths greater than 500 meters. And these can be readily
determined with conventional technology--sidescan-sonar and the
like.
But the real problem--or the greater problem--is the more
subtle occurrence that hydrates present when they are buried at
some depth between what appears--or under what appears to be
unstable sediments. And the problem becomes more confused when
you understand that industry, in their reporting of any types
of problems with sea floor stability, they usually use a
terminology that is descriptive. In other words, you will hear
things like ``shallow flows,'' referring to the flow of sand
under pressure. And this may or may not be related to gas
hydrates.
Well, within the last 10 years or so, the impact from let's
say accidents that have--related to these shallow flows are
more in the terms of billions of dollars--and just in the last
year, in the hundreds of millions. This is not to say that all
shallow flows are gas hydrates, but the more that we have
gotten into this study, the more that we see similarities and
ties.
For instance, I had an opportunity to speak with the
supervisor for a deep water program of a major producer here a
few months back. This was after their latest problem with so-
called shallow flows. And I asked him--I said, ``On how many
occasions have your sensors picked up fresh water in these
shallow flow sediments?'' And he looked at me straight in the
eye and said, ``On every occasion.''
Well, how are you going to get fresh water in these marine
seawater-saturated sediments, unless you had a model, whereby
you went with the disassociation of hydrates which exclude salt
in their process of formation? And so when they disassociate,
they are manifested as fresh water.
So I am just bringing this up to suggest that this hazard
problem could be much larger when we get to the bottom of it.
And that is one of the things we are doing in our program. And
so we are--I see my yellow light is on--but we have got two
ongoing programs.
One is a mobile survey, and we are working with a major
industry in this regard toward developing high-resolution
seismic techniques. And we have had really good luck with this,
being able to discern the very fine structural characteristics
that can identify these shallow flows and/or hydrates as they
occur. And so we are well on the way with this, in a
cooperative endeavor, with industry.
Then we have another program that deals with monitoring.
And this would be a subsea station. And I am very pleased to
announce that Conoco has very graciously provided us access to
one of their subsea platforms at their Marquette location,
which is very ideally suited for a subsea study. Now they are
up on the brink of the slope at about 600 feet, but within 2
miles over the edge is their Juliette platform which is 1,800
feet at only 2 miles distance. And there are a number of
hydrate occurrences around there. So we can put our sensors
there. It will save us a tremendous amount of money, just
through their efforts to help us in this instance.
There was a mention in the--I think in one of the questions
to the first panel. Is industry helping in any way? Well,
industry is not putting up dollars, but if I were to put a tag
on this, it would be worth a half a million, easy, because it
provides us with a base, a power source, fiber optic
communications, satellite uplink, the whole works, that we can
put our sensors out and work from. And this is a collective,
cooperative effort with the Navy Research Lab at Stennis,
ourselves, a number of universities in our region, particularly
in Louisiana, and also some of our friends up at USGS at the
Woods Hole facility.
So we have a number of these projects that are ongoing,
that are cooperative efforts. And like I say, we all--the three
of us--tie together and bank on each other's expertise and
assistance in all these endeavors.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Woolsey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.034
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Dr. Woolsey.
Dr. Cruickshank.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. CRUICKSHANK, DIRECTOR, OCEAN BASINS
DIVISION, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII
Mr. Cruickshank. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to be here to
have the opportunity to testify in support of these bills.
As you now know, we are part of a three-legged stool, and
we in Hawaii, look after the ocean basins, primarily in the
Pacific.
We heard a lot about big numbers this morning like
thousands of millions or trillions of cubic feet. My ``gee,
whiz'' number or--it is not exactly a number, but a factoid--is
that in the Pacific Ocean, the area of seabeds under the
jurisdiction of the United States is greater than the area of
the terrestrial United States and almost totally unexplored.
If you look at the potential for hydrates in this area,
there are many, many thousands of square miles of seabeds which
have a potential--anywhere where the sediment is over 1,000
meters thick, and there has been some significant deposition of
organic materials. So you are looking at a tremendous potential
here right across the Pacific Ocean to Guam and beyond. Hawaii
being in the middle of all this, has a prime location to work
with all these island areas--not only the U.S. jurisdiction,
but others as well--and we certainly feel that is important at
this stage because of the global consequences. We not only have
the resource, but the potential for the addition of methane to
the atmosphere affecting global climate change.
In terms of technology, you have heard already that we
really don't know a lot about characterization of these methane
hydrates. To simplify it in our terms, we see a need to target,
to go to look for them, characterize them in all ways when we
find them, and then work on the recovery method.
I just got back from a technology conference last week. I
believe you mentioned manganese nodules. We have worked with
those things for 30-40 years now, and there is no question that
the United States still takes the lead in the technology for
deep seabed mining--not only for nodules, but for crust and for
sulfide minerals. There is a lot of activity going on just now,
in terms of catch-up by other countries--Japan, Korea, and
China and we have close association with these countries and
their government research groups.
But at the Offshore Technology Conference, it was very
apparent with the deep oil leasing in the Gulf at 3,000 meters,
that the oil companies are now developing a lot of the very
critical technology that we needed 20 years ago for the mining.
It is now possible to put down 50 megawatts of power to the
bottom. It is quite possible to put down 50 ton ROVs to roam
around the bottom. It is quite possible to put down a 5,000
meter pipeline from a reel, send it down and bring it back up
again, at 30 miles an hour. These things are just mindboggling.
And this is all through oil development. We are going to be
using this technology--and hydrates are a natural for this.
The first thing we have to do, of course, is to find a
target and characterize it. And we have a very wide network of
connections, not only with the oil companies and through our
other centers, but through the international cooperation that
we have had over the years.
So we are looking with great interest on the pursuit of the
particular efforts proposed in the bill.
And nobody mentioned the idea of natural sublimation of the
hydrates. It sometimes happens with explosive force, creating
tremendous surges of gas, that has caused at least one, if not
more drilling rigs to have been lost. And it has also been
suggested--and this is another ``gee, whiz'' if you like--that
the reason the Bermuda Triangle is so dangerous, is because
every now and then, the seabed gets a burp as the warm Gulf
stream sweeps around and releases gas. It may not be true, but
it would certainly be interesting to find that out.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cruickshank follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.047
Mr. Walden. Thank you, sir. I appreciated your comments.
How will the research center which you run participate in
hydrate research? Is there an opportunity for Guam-based
operations or from any other U.S. possessions to study the deep
ocean trench environment for hydrates?
Mr. Cruickshank. Well, I believe so. It is obviously a ship
mining operation, and we do have a research fleet of our own in
Hawaii. And we also work with other agencies to acquire ship
time.
Guam is certainly the far-end of the regime. I think it
would be very appropriate to have some kind of presence there.
We have talked about it in previous times. We never had the
capital to do that, but it certainly makes a lot of sense----
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Mr. Cruickshank. [continuing] because that means that you
have got the whole coverage in between, the east and west
Pacific.
We are working, also, very closely with Battelle and the
Naval Research Laboratory, with Dr. Coffin who is here now and
has prepared a white paper on the research to look at the
characterization of these hydrates and many of the scientific
issues that are involved in hydrate recovery.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Do you believe, as with remote native villages in the
Arctic, that methane hydrates represent a potentially viable
source of energy for remote Pacific island communities?
Mr. Cruickshank. That is possible; yes.
Mr. Walden. Possible?
Mr. Cruickshank. The cost of deep water work is coming
down, as the oil companies take it, in their stride. These
depths used to be considered totally out of sight. Now, they
are looking to be not quite yet conventional, but cutting edge.
In 10 years time, that will be conventional.
Yes, a very strong possibility of these deposits putting a
completely new face on the Pacific island resources.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Dr. Woolsey, how soon do you estimate that we could have an
operational pilot project for gas production from hydrates in
the Gulf of Mexico, OCS?
Dr. Woolsey. I think that, as was brought out earlier by my
colleague, Dr. Trent, that Alaska probably takes the lead, as
far as having the opportunity to produce the first resource
derived from gas hydrates. It is more of a natural there and we
certainly understand that logic.
We also know that a lot of the--working closely with the
industries that are operating in the Gulf, their prime interest
now is to pursue the conventional resources. But they have
apparently let you know that they have the infrastructure to
produce these hydrates. They want to know all there is to know
about producing hydrates. So at an appropriate time, they can
switch over. They have--you know, they have all the big
gathering facilities in the Gulf that lead into the big
pipelines that run up to the big user areas of the Northeast.
And so they look at production--eventual production--of gas
hydrates in the Gulf as a major industry. But they are quick to
remind you that they have got a lot of conventional production
for years to come.
Their biggest concerns now are these hazards that represent
a tremendous risk, and that is why they are backing some of
these projects that we are involved with them in, to be able to
identify and really identify and assess the occurrence of these
hazards before they go in and set up unknowingly and have the
whole thing turn to quicksand under their feet--and I think it
was brought out in the first session--that there are two areas
of concern here.
One is the natural triggering of these hydrates, just by
natural phenomena--be it seismic, the water temperature
changes, gas chemistry, whatever. And then there is the
anthropogenic, or man-induced activities, when you actually go
in there and try to drill or establish a site that might
trigger these, because one thing we do know that these hydrates
occur right on the phase boundary. If you put up the phase
diagram that we try to present to our students, we are right on
the edge there, and it doesn't take much to kick these things
over into either a gaseous state if they are in the hydrate or
vice versa. And so that is where this monitoring station is
going to come in, to better identify just what causes these
changers so we will have a better understanding and establish
safer procedures in their assessment.
But when the time comes, the majors in the Gulf are very
keen on letting you know that they want to be in the number one
seat to produce hydrates and to use the facilities that they
have established there.
Mr. Walden. Tell us more about the so-called hydrate mounds
offshore. Do they have exceptional potential for commercial
methane production because of hydrate----
Dr. Woolsey. The mounds are more of curiosities. They, more
or less, are the tip of the iceberg, let's say. They are, in
most cases, you find these in the vicinity of a source of
methane, which is typically associated with a salt dome. And in
the case of salt domes, there is a myriad of fractures that
tend to characterize this--the area around the salt domes. And
gas, then--these fractures provide conduits for the natural gas
to migrate up to the surface. And then when this gas that is
probably in a rather warm state, moves into this colder zones
near the sea floor, with the pressures in the range of 150 psi
at about 500 meters and temperatures in the range of about 4
degrees centigrade, they freeze up.
And so these are typically in the upper reaches, and so--
also, when they freeze, they become lighter than anything
around them, so they will actually work their way up toward the
surface. And they will actually breach the sea floor, very
often on a submersible or an undersea video, you can see an
escarpment on the sides of these mounds. And it will be just
blue ice there, right there on the surface.
And then maybe you will come back a week later and it is
gone. And where this large area was inhabited by this big mound
of blue ice, now you have got a big slump, a big subsidence.
And very often it is breached, and you will see an avalanche
that had formed. If you look and just do a survey of these
types of occurrences, you will see some mega occurrences that
are measured in many tens of miles.
Mr. Walden. Really?
Dr. Woolsey. There is one off the coast of Norway, I think,
where the avalanche is measured some 160 miles in extent. So
some of these can be quite large.
And in our area, we have this almost catastrophic
disassociation along our slope off the Gulf Coast. And one of
the peculiarities that we have in the region are what we refer
to as ``loop currents.'' When you get real strong trades
blowing into the Caribbean, and we get a real strong jet of
water coming up through the strait of Yucatan, and a little
push of loop current up close to our shore. And these loop
currents will maybe occupy the bottom area there for maybe as
much as six weeks or so. And so there is an opportunity for a
warming of these sediments. And we will go from maybe 4 degrees
C up to 11 degrees C. And then all of a sudden, we might see
these various mounds dissociate rapidly. And these mounds might
be just all associated with a more common substratum of
hydrates. And the whole thing could--and very often does--give
way. And if you are downstream of that, it can be quite
hazardous.
Mr. Walden. How high are those mounds from the sea floor?
Dr. Woolsey. Usually a pretty good--an average height would
be maybe 5 meters, something like that.
Mr. Walden. Oh.
Dr. Woolsey. Say 3 to 5 meters. And maybe they would be
measured laterally by as much as 100 meters or so. And then you
see the smaller ones, but usually the ones that are more often
studied are more in that realm.
And what you find with the larger or more typical type
mounds, the biologists often refer to them, from their
perspective of interest, as a chemosynthetic community, because
you have such an abundance of life--that profusion of life
around them.
One problem that we have had in studying the shallower
occurrences is that the deep troll shrimpers, after the
imperial red shrimp will go out as deep as 700 meters sometimes
trying to pick these things up. And so we have learned a lot
from the shrimpers--where not to put our expensive equipment.
Now they are not supposed to go in these regions. These areas
are supposed to be protected by the Minerals Management
Service, but they are quite ubiquitous out on the slope below
500 meters.
Mr. Walden. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Woolsey.
Dr. Tent, based on your testimony, are you suggesting that
Alaska would be the best location for a pilot development of
hydrate resource because the on-land permafrost deposits could
probably be extracted with the least potential for catastrophic
impact?
Dr. Trent. Potential for what now?
Mr. Walden. That doing the development in the permafrost,
you could extract it there with the least potential for
catastrophic impacts. Is that better than out in the ocean?
Dr. Trent. Well, I believe we know far more about it, with
all the wells that have been drilled in Prudhoe Bay area.
There is still some problems that exist in having good
bonding between the casing and the permafrost as we go through
it, but not a serious problem.
The other thing, of course, we have the infrastructure, the
roads. There has been--with Dr. Collett and the Japanese, we
have identified at least two existing pads that we can put a
new winter ice road to and drive a rig right to them, and that
would save a considerable amount of money when it comes to
doing basic research.
Mr. Walden. Okay. So from your experience, what are the
relative drilling costs for, say, a 1,500 feet well in the
Arctic permafrost region versus, say, a well at the same depth
offshore in, say, 2,000 feet of water.
Dr. Trent. I am going to look across my shoulder at Dr.
Collett, but I think we would probably be looking in the
neighborhood of $3 to $4 million.
Mr. Walden. For onshore?
Is that right, Dr. Collett?
Could you speak into the microphone?
Dr. Collett. It depends a great deal on the----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Dr. Collett. This is Tim Collett, I am with the U.S.
Geological Survey.
It depends a great deal on the configuration of the well.
But in an industry development mode, you are probably looking
at around $2 million to $4 million, depending on what you are
actually going to do in the well.
In a marine environment, we would estimate about two to
three times more.
Mr. Walden. Dr. Woolsey, would you agree with that--in a
marine environment?
Dr. Woolsey. Yes. I think that would--and that would
probably be a little cheaper than we could do this in the Gulf.
They do have--another thing that Dr. Collett mentioned
earlier was that there has been a tremendous amount of
expertise developed by the Russians. Here a few weeks ago, we
had a workshop down on the Gulf Coast, and we had a contingent
of eight Russian researchers that were experts in gas hydrates.
And they are working very cooperatively with us and have for
some time. We have had a cooperative program with this group
for about 10 years now, and so they have been very open to
share with us information on a lot of their work in some of the
Siberian fields. And so I think that it would be very
appropriate to utilize some of this expertise in Alaska as
well.
Now, the Russians are no better off than we are when it
comes to subsea production of hydrates. We have learned a lot
from them on using various technologies to identify and assess
these resources, but they are back to square one, just as we
are, in----
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Dr. Woolsey. [continuing] through the process of doing a
subsea----
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Dr. Woolsey. [continuing] completion.
Mr. Walden. As long as you are not sharing nuclear secrets,
we will probably be okay.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. So, the research dollar for actual field
studies, Dr. Trent, rather than laboratory studies, you would
say goes much farther onshore as opposed to off?
Dr. Trent. Yes, and I think another thing that onshore, you
can go year to year to year, where offshore, you would have to
maintain your platform. Onshore, your costs of maintenance
would be much less.
Mr. Walden. And one final question for each of you to
answer briefly if you would.
Do you believe the program could provide discernible
benefits at the $42.5-million level over 5 years that is sought
after in the bill?
Dr. Trent, do you want to start?
Dr. Trent. I believe that that would be adequate,
especially with industry support.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Dr. Trent. Cost sharing in a lot of cases.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Dr. Woolsey?
Dr. Woolsey. In the Gulf, I would certainly like to see
this elevated. I think you referred earlier to something in my
written statement where I have been hearing--and very pleased
to hear that--from a number of experts in government and
industry suggesting that a figure somewhere between $150 and
$200 million over a 10-year period would be much more
appropriate. And we need to look at a 10-year, more than we do
a 5-year. And also--then, this was two different groups that
had arrived at these figures separately, but from their own
perspectives. And so I was very heartened to see this.
Just in my own area, just talking about working offshore
with this subsea monitoring program, one of the tools that we
would be using would be an autonomous vehicle. Well, those
don't come cheap in themselves, but we would have this docked
remotely, and when we would see one of these warm currents
coming in through satellite imagery, we could launch this
remotely to go out to these pre-located sites, where it could
make these readings remotely, and then come back and dock and
download. But we are talking about a vehicle that, for openers,
is going to run around $1.5 million.
So, when you start talking about these types of
technologies and tools--but when you look at that against a
background of just this last year, several $100 million lost
because of our lack of knowledge of hydrates and associated
problems--not even talking about, you know, the eventual payoff
in production and the problems with greenhouse gases--just
looking at the hazards, alone, then that puts it all in
perspective.
And I think there is a certain urgency there, in trying to
address these problems that are represented by the hazards.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Dr. Cruickshank?
Mr. Cruickshank. I am inclined to agree with Dr. Woolsey,
that long term is more appropriate. And also, as you get into
the deep water, costs go up commensurately.
There is no question that the oil companies are now looking
at deep water wells. They are very expensive. The latest
drilling vessels to be built may cost about $230,000 a day,
which relates to what has been stated previously. Nevertheless,
over the long-term, these costs are going to be unavoidable. It
will be in the later part of the program that these very high
costs will occur, when it is necessary to drill and even put
down systems for hydrate production--I don't think you should
start off big and stay flat. It should progress appropriately,
as new knowledge is attained.
Thus what you were mentioning before, about $10 million a
year, at the beginning, would be adequate. But the
anticipation, it would definitely go up, as we learn more.
Mr. Walden. Okay, that is it for questions from the
Committee.
[Laughter.]
I appreciate all your testimony; it has been very
enlightening for myself, and I know for the staff, and for
having it in the record as well.
We will keep the record open for two weeks for additional
testimony and comments from the public.
And, unless there is anything else, to come before the
Committee, I will----
Yes, Mr. Cruickshank?
Mr. Cruickshank. I just have a couple of things I would
like to have for the record----
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Mr. Cruickshank. [continuing] for the Committee.
Mr. Walden. Yes; just submit those to the staff. We will be
happy to include those as part of the public record.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Cruickshank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Letter to Mrs. Cubin from Dr. Haq
National Science Foundation,
4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Arlington, Virginia 22230.
June 8, 1999
Hon. Barbara Cubin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
and Mineral Resources,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Ms. Cubin:
I am responding to your request of May 28, 1999, for additional
information on methane hydrates as follow-up to my testimony before the
House Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources.
1. What is the chemical purity of methane hydrates?
Gas hydrates in nature are relatively pure, composed of methane
and water. Rarely, heavier hydrocarbons (e.g., propane, butane)
may also occur in trace quantities (<l%).
2. Are there any contaminants contained within, such as heavy
metals, organic chemicals, or other waste products such that refining
or separation would be necessary, and waste products would then have to
be disposed of in order for hydrates to be utilized as an energy
resource?
During the formation of the hydrate under high pressure and low
temperature conditions, the methane molecule is captured inside
a cage of water molecules and chilled to form a solid, while at
the same time expelling salts that occur dissolved in pore
waters where the hydrate is forming. Since the hydrates occur
more commonly dispersed in the sediment, the sediment itself
can be considered as ``waste product'' if the hydrate is to be
exploited. In fact, sediment may be a ``co-product'' of
production from hydrates, which the industry is well equipped
to handle. If the hydrate occurs more concentrated locally, it
may still contain smaller amounts of sediments associated with
it. Sediments generally contain particles of sand, silt and/or
clay, as well as organic materials and trace elements.
Please contact me should you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Bilal U. Haq,
Program Director,
Marine Geology and Geophysics
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8645.053