Anerobic Microoganisms Produce Methane

LUCA Technologies, Golden, Colorado, has discovered that many hydrocarbon deposits such as coal beds, organic-rich shales and oil fields currently are, or have potential to produce large amounts of methane, using naturally occurring populations of anaerobic microorganisms, on an ongoing, real-time basis. In the absence of atmospheric oxygen, these underground communities of organisms feed on the complex organic molecules that make up the coal or oil, yielding methane as a metabolic byproduct.

Luca has identified 46 years of gas supply, at 23 TCFY (approx. current U.S. consumption rate), that could be produced using anaerobic microorganisms, assuming 1% of the substrate is converted to methane.

LUCA has coined the term "Geobioreactors" to refer to these large, naturally occurring bioreactors (containers in which microorganisms are used to perform chemical reactions), and to differentiate them from the human-engineered conversion of plant materials into methane that is currently done on a small scale.

Through a series of controlled laboratory experiments, LUCA has shown that coal samples extracted from a number of suspected Geobioreactors will produce methane on an on-going basis. Moreover, this methane production can be stimulated by the introduction of additional nutrient compounds, or suppressed by heat sterilization or the introduction of oxygen, both of which will kill anaerobic organisms.

The biogenic creation of methane from a higher molecular weight hydrocarbon source is a multi-step process, most likely accomplished by a consortium of microorganisms acting together in a symbiotic fashion. Through a series of steps, various organisms in the consortium breakdown the large hydrocarbon molecules in coal or oil into intermediate, water-soluble compounds, which are then reduced to even smaller hydrocarbon molecules, and finally metabolized into methane by a group of organisms known as methanogens.

In order for a Geobioreactor to function, the appropriate environmental conditions must be present, including an abundant hydrocarbon substrate (such as a coal bed), a water-saturated environment, a complete absence of free oxygen, and the presence of the correct consortia of organisms.

The United States has enormous amounts of buried hydrocarbon reserves, many of which cannot be extracted in an economical or environmentally benign fashion with current technologies and practices. Almost all of these reserves still contain most of their original hydrocarbon energy source due to extraction technology which still leaves most of the hydrocarbon behind.The most thoroughly studied region so far is the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. This region has seen extensive development for natural gas in the past decade. LUCA believes it to be an actively functioning Geobioreactor with the capability to produce significant amounts of methane for the foreseeable future, if managed properly.

The basin covers an area of over 12,500 square miles, and has the estimated potential to yield around 30 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas during a projected lifespan of 15-20 years, using traditional extraction techniques. This total projected basin yield, however, amounts to only slightly more than one year's total domestic consumption of natural gas at current rates of use.

Although the actual rate of biogenic methane production in the Powder River Basin is unknown, LUCA Technologies estimates that -- assuming a 1% conversion of coal into methane -- the basin has the capacity to produce 86 TFC of methane over the same 15-20 year period if gas collection methods leave the bioreactor intact and healthy. This is an increased yield of approximately 650% over traditional extraction procedures for the same time period.

According to Forbes:

In late September, LUCA raised a combined $20 million in venture funding in a Series B round led by superstar Silicon Valley venture firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, with participation from Oxford Bioscience Partners and BASF Venture Capital America, an arm of German chemicals giant BASF. The latter firm invested $3 million in Luca last year.

The latest venture round will help LUCA refine its technology. LUCA hopes to start operating commercially in a couple years. LUCA is already working with an oil and gas company (which LUCA CEO Robert Pfeiffer won’t name) using the new technology, on a research basis.

Synthetic Genomics Inc is working with BP to develop microbes "for subsurface hydrocarbons that could lead to cleaner energy production and improved recovery rates."

Notice that LUCAS includes shales in the reserves his bugs can work on.  If this technology can be used on shale, it would be a tremendous new resource.  Their 46 years of supply includes the shale resources. The estimate that 1% of the substrate could be converted to natural gas is strictly a guess and could be higher or lower since no field tests have been conducted. I did see 3% mentioned in another article, but that is not mentioned on the website.

Comments

[James]

How much greenhouse gases does it produce compared to natural gas? I hear methane is a major offender when it comes to CO2 production...

[jcwinnie]

You left out a key ingredient in the recipe, Jim. An effective means of capturing the methane that prevents adding to GHG load.

[JE]

A perhaps minor technical glitch in the article is that Oxygen, at least at atmospheric concentrations seldom if ever kills methane forming anaerobes. It merely stops methane formation. We seed anaerobic digesters with air exposed methane formers all the time. Should not be much of an issue since it would likely be undesireable to add oxygen into this "LUCA" envronment in the first place.

[fjh]

A.D. isn't new; using it for coal and peat is.

Carbon rich slurries have to be formulated for maximizing the microbial action, first acidification, then methane production.

And they have to be heated...some use heated water from the 'producer' gas; but a new wrinkle are solar heaters since once installed are cost free.

BASF...hmmm. everyone is getting into the act these days.

[bigTom]

James,jcwinnie: Natural gas is (primarily) methane, the terms are often used interchangeably. Presumably extraction is the same as conventional natural gas wells. Natural gas is not a GHG free process, but produces about half the CO2/Joule as coal. It at least gets us part way towards lower emmisions.

[Kit P]

When it comes to reducing ghg emissions in the US, capturing methane and burning it is the second largest source of ghg reductions (improvements at existing nuclear power plants being the largest).

“The collective results of EPA's voluntary methane partnership programs have been substantial. Total U.S. methane emissions in 2005 were more than 11% lower than emissions in 1990, in spite of economic growth over that time period.”

One of the reasons is “Methane is about 21 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2)”

http://www.epa.gov/methane/index.html
http://airnow.gov/

The second reason is that methane has value when the CO2 and H2S is removed.

[Harvey D]

According to Ontario's Clean Air Alliance, NG Power plants generate 60.4% less GHG than Coal Power plants, i.e.
Nitrogen Oxides = up to -88%
Sulphur Dioide = - 98 to -99%
Mercury = -100%
CO2 = - 60%

Would the methane produced by this process have the same clean burning properties as NG?

Secondly, NG (or methane) seems to be much easier to transport, especially over land by existing or new pipelines.

[Kit P]

Methane in pipelines has already been cleaned of CO2 and other imputities. Methane is methane.

Harvey D, I am not too keen on replacing coal with natural gas for base load electricity generation because natural gas is very useful for many distributed uses. In terms of air quality and AGW, natural gas is only marginally better than coal.

[bigTom]

KitP:
Interesting observations on methane emmisions reduction. That is one of the cheaper ways to make progress against GHG emmisions. And I do advocate starting with the most cost effective methods. We disagree on NG however. Bacause of the high efficiency, and relatively low capital cost of gas turbines, NG is a good fit for meeting transient demands, such as peaking plants. If we desire to add significant amounts of time variable renewables to the grid, then having the capability to make up power supply shortfalls due to weather or other factors becomes important.

Using NG for low grade heating applications, such as water and space heating is thermodynamically inefficient, in the sense that electrically powered heat pumps could produce considerably more BTUs per unit of input and should be discouraged.

You might be concerned that the technology being discussed would be used on minable carbon resources, instead of just the unminable resources currently being discussed.

An interesting accounting discussion. For the Powder River basin project discussed, the biogenic gas is supposed to increase the amount of recoverable gas from the field. The gas companies presumably will be paying some sort of royalties to
LUCAS. There needs to be some agreed upon method to determine how much of the produced gas is due to LUCAS's efforts, and how much would have been producable without their efforts. Presumably there is some sort of signature such as isotopic composition, or the compostion of trace gases from which reasonable estimates can be made?

If the trace gases of the biogenic gases differ, it is possible that some sort of processing changes before end use may be required. Sometimes trace impurities can foul equipment.

[GreyFlcn]

In terms of air quality and AGW, natural gas is only marginally better than coal.

In general, the Carbon:Hydrogen ratio of coal is about 4:1

Where as the Carbon:Hydrogen ratio of natural gas is 1:4

Thats pretty significant.

[Angus]

What would be the effect of injecting Hydrogen gas (say from some undisclosed hypethetical clean sources) into a coal bed?

[Thomas Marihart]

fjh said"A.D. isn't new; using it for coal and peat is."

Well, there is one company that I am watching that is doing this above ground today:

They make the Biogas from cow poop:
http://www.intrepid21.com/westpoint_dairy.htm

Clean and compress in tanks (Dairy CNG to pipeline):
http://www.intrepid21.com/ex_tubetanktrailer.htm

And work with a company called Organix
to make the separated solids into a peat like product called RePEAT for the nursery market:
http://streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/Zamzows+First+to+Carry+Organix+Peat+Replacement/2972017.html

It's not underground AD or peat formation, but it is a first...and it could play a positive role in preserving carbon/methane sinks from being diminished for commercial purposes.

[Kit P]

TM, thanks for the links. It is good to see that AD projects are getting built. The organic product has greater value than the energy depending on the market.

[oatsleeksbeans]

Methane when not combusted is a far stronger green house gas than carbon dioxide. If I recall correctly about 60 times stronger. Any leakage of CH4 (methane) would rapidly undo any benefit of switching from coal to natural gas generation.

Sad to see Ray Lane et al., of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers funding a fossil fuel burning venture. Please stick with true renewables resources.

[Stat Guy]

"There needs to be some agreed upon method to determine how much of the produced gas is due to LUCAS's efforts, and how much would have been producable without their efforts. Presumably there is some sort of signature such as isotopic composition, or the compostion of trace gases from which reasonable estimates can be made?"

Natural gas wells usually have somewhat predictable decline trends. This is established as operators often sell their wells during the production phase and must be properly valued.

"Sad to see Ray Lane et al., of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers funding a fossil fuel burning venture. Please stick with true renewables resources."

It all cycles. This is using biology to harness stored energy. Energy that was generated in the first place by the sun. If you want to get very technical about the word "renewable", NOTHING is renewable if you look at the scale. It's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Should we utilize the sun? YES. Do we want everyone to freeze while we look for something that is better? NO. Did the scientists who came up with fossil fuel technology understand the effects that GHG would have on the environment? NO. Do scientists now understand the problems that could result from the implementation of renewable energy? NO. For example, has anyone come up with an estimate on how world weather would change if we used wind energy across the planet? No, because that would be an insanely complex problem.

Decrease consumption and at the same time increase the percentage of cleaner burner fuel. Otherwise, poor people are going to get the shaft when energy costs go through the roof. Kinda like they are now with ethanol (energy wasting) causing corn prices to go through the roof.

[Alex.D]

Several differing theories attempt to explain the true origin of natural gas, though the most widely accepted explanation is that natural gas forms from the remains of ancient microorganisms as well as plant and animal matter that have undergone conditions of extreme heat and pressure over very long periods of time.

[Kit P]

Alex, I think you are confusing the development of coal with natural gas. In any case, the issue here is methane from living bacteria can be increased as a source of fossil fuel.

[life skills coaching]

A small technical glitch perhaps in the article is that oxygen, at least in atmospheric concentrations rarely kills anaerobic methane formation. It simply stops the formation of methane. We anaerobic digester seeds exposed to air methane responsible for all the time.