Recently, exploration and production company ExxonMobil took over XTO Energy. The move was expected to be a shift in strategies by Exxon, but Exxon did so because of the diminishing supply and it's newfound lack of ability to find and replace reserves. It acquired XTO Energy for their supply of natural gas. Exxon sees natural gas as the only short term solution to America's energy needs, a demand that will only grow, as Exxon expects.
As alternatives to gas are increasingly in the spotlight, how long before they are another viable source for our increasing energy demands? And what does Exxon's acquisition mean for us?
I'll copy and paste what another article states, but I'd be interested in hearing your own opinions.
The mainstream belief that shale plays have ensured North America an abundant supply of inexpensive natural gas is not supported by facts or results to date. The supply is real but it will come at higher cost and greater risk than is commonly assumed. The arrival of ExxonMobil and other major oil companies on the shale gas scene is positive because they will not follow the manufacturing approach, and will do the necessary science that should make shale plays more commercial. This does not, however, ensure success.
A switch to natural gas (methane) could either aid our efforts to stop global warming. The natural gas which Exxon is looking to develop is essentially another form of fossil fuel, and burning it will release greenhouse gases previously sequestered under ground. However, by providing more natural gas, Exxon will facilitate the transition of elements of economy from other fossil fuels to natural gas. This could prove to be a good thing, as there are sources of natural gas that we can utilize and actually help combat global warming by doing so. I refer to the utilization of natural gas which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere, the burning of which is beneficial because methane, once in the atmosphere, proves an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The natural gas which would otherwise be released, moreover, tends to come from sources like decaying organic matter and livestock, and could thus be considered renewable.
ReplyDeleteNatural gas is a positive alternative to carbon because it doesn't produce as much CO2 and it doesn't have sulfur so no acid rain, but it's like 80% methane which, although it doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2, traps a lot more sunlight. So its actually pretty mediocre. To be honest, every alternative energy option has faults. The only real alternative to coal power plants is energy reduction. Putting in a plug for the solar panel campaign: please support the current Kzoo effort to conserve energy and then with the saved money we are buying solar panels so it combines necessary energy reduction with utilizing renewable energy. All money saved will also be matched because its that cool. Yay!
ReplyDeleteI agree that all the alternative energy resources have a fault in them because all of them do release something when it is used. Most of them harmful to the atmosphere. However the next type of alternative energy source will arise shortly as people are constantly researching for the next best source. Due to the pollutants given off by each fossil fuel or hybrid of fossil fuel, i believe also that using the sun through solar panels or wind energy is one of the best ways to create energy or even hydroelectric pumps. These do not harm the environment and use what will never be depleted from the earth for energy.
ReplyDeleteIts interesting to see how as the scarcity of a product, in this case energy, increases how businesses make decisions in order to survive. We have not found completely harmless sources of energy that can be easily and has productively transfered yet. I think we will come up with this technology however, in the meantime finding what we can to keep our country moving is a good thing and the companies that help bring these sources of energy to us realize that.
ReplyDelete