SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
58–645 l
1999
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;
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
RUSH D. HUNT, New Jersey
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JAY INSLEE, Washington
——— ———
BILL CONDIT, Professional Staff
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MIKE HENRY, Professional Staff
DEBORAH LANZONE, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held May 25, 1999
Statements of Members:
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wyoming
Prepared statement of
Doyle, Hon. Michael F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
Prepared statement of
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from the Territory of Guam
Prepared statement of
Statements of witnesses:
Collett, Dr. Timothy S., Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Energy
Prepared statement of
Cruickshank, Michael J., Director, Ocean Basins Division, University of Hawaii
Prepared statement of
Haq, Bilal U., Division of Ocean Sciences, National Science Foundation
Prepared statement of
Answers to follow-up questions
Kripowicz, Robert S., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Trent, Robert H., P.E., PH.D., Dean, School of Mineral Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Prepared statement of
Woolsey, Dr. J. Robert, Director, Center for Marine Resources and Environmental Technology, Continental Shelf Division, University of Mississippi
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute
Text of H.R. 1753
Text of S. 330
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,
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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:]
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.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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:]
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.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[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.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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:]
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cruickshank follows:]
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?
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 |