Comments on: Japan Plans to Drill for Plentiful Underwater Methane

By: Wolfie52

Wolfie52 — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 01:06:09 +0000

The PETM ( Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum- mass extinction, 55 million years ago) was likely caused by massive releases of Methane HYDRATES from the oceans, due to global warming of about 3 degrees Celsius! It took 50 MILLION years for life on earth to recover from this “minor extinction” event. Also there are more METHANE HYDRATES in the oceans today then there was 55 million years ago.

Beware of unintended consequences!

By: Uncle B

Uncle B — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 22:05:05 +0000

Such a plentiful world! We have oil for the Americans of course . . . Then Solar, Wave, Wind, Hydro, Tidal Geothermal, Nuclear , and now Methane form the oceans! No need for War! America! let Afghanistan and the pipeline for Halliburton go! You don’t need war as badly as you need to develop known technologies! Give up your oil obsessions! Go for the perpetual energies! Go for Solar, Wave, Wind Hydro, Geothermal! all renewable – none polluting! no more breast cancer in American women! imagine the great civilization you can found! Rid yourselves of Corporatism, the tool of big oil that entraps you! Let big coal flounder! Support the perpetual energies God has given you!Even tiny Japan is getting away from oil! Lead them to Solar, Wind Wave, Hydro, Geothermal and away from poisonous Uranium practices! Fluoride Thorium bed reactors from India show the new nuclear way! Leave your bomb-factory reactors, forsake them for higher energy producing clean reactors! Let the rest of the world move forward! Show the way! With clean reactors!
Methane from the seas makes for CO2 when burnt – not good for Global Warming at all! Try for Electric world with rechargeable battery transportation to compliment nuclear/electric sourced electric bullet train networks as proliferate Asia from China today!Help the world avoid fossil fuels and their global impact! Warming is a reality! Ask the Canadian aborigines! they will tell you in simple terms!

By: Dennis Denuto

Dennis Denuto — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 02:16:05 +0000

Andrew,

Thanks for the post. Quite well balanced.

Yes, it is changing on a global scale. But note, the Earth has experience very dramatic temperature-climate changes. The end of each ice age, for example, brought on significant warming, but with no discernable response from gas hydrates…

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5762/838
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2009/April/23040902.asp

…to find the last time there may have been a discernable response one needs to go back to the end of Paleocene (55 million years ago). At that time, the Arctic Ocean was a big duckweed pond. Very warm. At that time, Hydrate may have responded enought to add an incremental warming on the warming that was already occuring for other reasons. So it takes a very very big event. If we are poised for another such big event, then (as RealClimate points out) we are already in mess of trouble.

But if hydrate can help nations like China, Japan, India, Korea make there fuel mix a bit less carbon intensive, that is absolute a good thing, environmentally speaking. Its a shame this global meltdown theme has such appeal, it is really distracting to the bigger issues, IMO.

By: Nemesis

Nemesis — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:49:21 +0000

Won’t they need to replace the gas with something else? If so: what? -Salt water from the oceans? I guess that would be one way to counter the rising oceans caused by melting glaciers- just send some of it underground. It doesn’t seem like we need to create vast empty pockets under our oceans, considering the other inherent risks of drilling for gas.

By: Andrew Moseman

Andrew Moseman — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:36:27 +0000

Dennis,

Thanks for the comment. Indeed, Re: number 2, Realclimate makes a good point that we ought to be more worried about CO2 rather than methane, the “radical wing.” I merely meant to point out that the ocean is changing on a global scale in temperature and acidity, which does have some researchers—like those covered in the past stories—worried about the hydrates.
But is there evidence that commercial hydrate production will cause hydrate dislocation or contribute to global ocean change? As you say, no.

By: Dennis Denuto

Dennis Denuto — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:28:03 +0000

Andrew

on #1 – yes, that does sound problematic. I think the point is that a lot of folks think that the methane in hydrates is something unknown and exotic, whereas its the same methane that is currently getting pumped at a rate of 450 TgC/y into the atmosphere, largely from termites and cows…whereas what comes from the ocean now is <20.

on #2 - some are freaked out, and some are not.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/arctic-methane-on-the-move/

calling what happened in the past “massive eruptions” is a tad loose and sensationalistic. More like accelerated release over 10,000 year periods or so. But, the main issue with your problem is that there is no connection, no causal link, and no clear path for interaction between potential hydrate production and the global ocean change you mention. To believe there is one, you have to hold to the idea that the drilling will lead to some mass destabilization and release. But no one has explained how one could possibly lead to the other. In fact, if gas displaces some coal, the correlation could even be negative.

on #3 – agreed, the implications are unknown…but I do know folks are studying it. Perhaps you could talk to them and get their views.