The Perennial Search for Perennial Grains

Most would agree that there is no single solution to the challenges brought about - currently and in the future - by inexorably declining, worldwide oil production rates, or Peak Oil.  As Steve Andrews, one of the co-founders of ASPO-USA likes to say - there are no Silver Bullets, only Silver BB's.

So, Silver BB's - also known as partial solutions - can likely be lumped into two categories:  Substitution and Conservation.  It is becoming increasingly apparent how dominant the Conservation category will be.  After only a few years, it is obvious that we can't ever produce enough biodiesel and ethanol to create what Jim Kunstler would deride as "Happy Motoring As Usual".  And even if we could produce enough, it is obvious from a food supply standpoint that we should not attempt to totally replace gasoline and diesel with ethanol and biodiesel.  Nevertheless, even these maligned fuels have niches - they are Silver BB's.  Meanwhile, cellulosic ethanol and algal oil appear to be ever on the horizon, much like fusion or better batteries.  Maybe one of these will experience a true breakthrough, but once again, trying to totally replace the current consumption of gasoline and diesel with these fuels is likely the incorrect path.

This brings us to the topic at hand, a Silver BB of both Conservation and Substitution, and the focus of various research and development efforts, namely "the perennial search for perennial grains".  Why perennial grains?  Primarily to eliminate the fuel, fertilizer and herbicide required for planting, cultivating and growing plants which must be seeded each year - also known as annual crops.  And of course there are other reasons why staying out of the pasture would be a good thing - with topsoil loss being chief among them.  Essentially all of our current grain crops - wheat, corn, oats, barely, rye, millet - require seedbed preparation, weed control and fertilization in order to become established and yield a crop - all within a few months.  The hope is that perennial crops, while they might yield far less, would require a lower energy investment per pound of food produced.

So, what's the status on this perennial grain effort?  A substantial effort is spearheaded by The Land Institute, whose principal, Wes Jackson, recently spoke to ASPO - USA.  Mr. Jackson and his group have been working this problem for decades - a dedication that deserves applause.  However, he explains that the creation of perennial wheat might take another 25 years, and that creation of perennial crops in general might require an incremental ... $1.6 billion!  Meanwhile, a recent success of theirs is Kernza, a relative of wheat, native to Turkey and Afghanistan.  Kernza is touted as currently having yields of around 15 % of wheat.  Importantly, the yield advances that have been made to date have been via selective breeding rather than genetic engineering.  Nevertheless, Mr. Jackson mentions that Kernza as a commercial crop may be ten years in the future.

So, where to find some other plants that might yield better returns, faster ... and for less than billions?  One might guess that plants that are already native or naturalized would be a good place to start looking for domestic solutions.  But what is amazing is how little we know about our native and naturalized plants.  Sure, there is a lot of information out there, but there is no central aggregation of that information such that it can be assimilated into research and development, as well as conservation, education and wise use.  What is needed is a single source which documents all known uses - from prehistoric to modern.

Enter The Useful Wild Plants Project.  For over 30 years, this effort has flown under the radar of most of the public.  To date this group has published three archive-quality volumes, and the fourth will soon go to the printer.  Much of the data is already gathered for the remainder of the volumes, however the effort must be accelerated in order to finish the 14 volume set as soon as possible.

Here's a case-in-point:  Chasmathium latifolium, common name Inland Sea Oats.  It is native in the shady creekbanks around Austin, and it ranges throughout much of the Southeastern US.  It is already a perennial grain!  And I likely wouldn't know about it if it weren't for The Useful Wild Plants Project.

Inland Sea Oats is also commonly used as a drought and shade tolerant landscape plant.  Recently, I noticed a neighbor had, over several years, established two small beds of Chasman­thium latifolium. The beds are intended as a landscape accent, not food, but they made me think, here is a place we could get a semi-realistic yield number, because it is a mature stand and the plants are about as densely spaced as possible. And one of the beds is square, the other semi-triangular, so it is easy to calculate the area.

So, a month or so ago we harvested the seedheads. We had two boys use the “walk through and scrape the seeds off between your fingers into a shoulder bag” method. It took 30 minutes to harvest 148 sq. ft.

I dried the seed heads for a few weeks, and then threshed them using the “Ellison taped blender blades” method from UWP Newsletter 19. I winnowed and screened them and was con­servative as I did not want to lose much seed. A few years ago I purchased a number of small framed screens. The 10/64" round hole screen worked best. It let some hulls through­. The secret to minimizing this is to watch what you are doing, shake it a few times, stop when you don't see any more seeds and discard the hulls. More shakes will lead to more hulls in the product. The threshing took 15 minutes, and I spent 45 minutes on winnowing/screening.  It shouldn't have taken so long - I was piddling and trying to not lose any seeds. Basically, it took about an hour for both.

We started off with 1½ gallons of seed heads, and this, by coincidence, weighed 1 lb 8 oz. The cleaned seeds occupied 6.5 oz. by volume and weighed 5 oz.

This has been a year of record heat. The owner watered to keep her oak trees alive, so the plants got some relief. Neverthe­less, the seeds were half the size of those in a normal year. The yield could easily be twice this in a normal year.

So, here is a perennial grain that is ready today! Of course, the above calculates out to only about 92 pounds per acre.  In the summer of 2011, in one area of North Dakota the wheat yield was 43 bushels/acre (or 2580 lb/ac at 60 lb/bu).  (In 2010, the wheat yield was 65 bushels.)  But, these C. latifolium yields are without fertilization or weed control and under extreme conditions. The important aspects are that this crop is already “perennialized”, it is drought tolerant and it is a native which is already accustomed to our ecosystem in general.  Further, yield improvement is likely a lot simpler than turning an annual into a perennial.

How many other prospective perennial grains might there be?  The completion of The Useful Wild Plants Project must be accelerated so that we can begin to discover and develop other potential perennial grains, as well as Silver BB solutions to other Peak Oil challenges.

Marcellus Shale reserves "only" 43 TCF ...

On August 23, 2011, the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) submitted 84 trillion cubic feet (84 TCF) as their estimate for undiscovered, recoverable natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, located primarily in Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia.  Additionally, they believe 3.4 billion barrels of natural gas liquids will accompany that 84 TCF. (for reference, the great East Texas Field - discovered in 1930, and which helped the Allies win World War II - will produce about 5.2 billion barrels.)

The USGS pointed out that in this new analysis, they were increasing their estimates of recovery from the Marcellus, since their last report.  They actually publish range of estimated recoveries, ranked by the probability or confidence in a given estimate. So, a 50 % confidence level, or N50, is similar to the mean value, or the likelyhood that half the estimates would produce more than that amount, and half less.  Such is the 84 TCF number which the USGS quoted in their first paragraph.

USGS Marcellus Press Release

Curiously, there seem to be many opponents to natural gas, these days.  Some of them would likely tell you they are just opposed to shale gas, not natural gas in general.  But a more in-depth analysis of their positions would show that they just don't like anything except renewables.  So, some of these folks were quick to spin what the USGS termed an increase in estimated recoveries for the Marcellus, into a dramatic decrease!  One opponent of natural gas was quick to focus only on the very highest probability, and lowest reserve number, that being 43 TCF.  Another writer smugly commented, "There may not be as much natural gas in our future as some claim."

Additionally, neither of the two articles linked above happened to mention the associated 1.6 billion to 3.4 billion barrels of natural gas liquids (N95 to N50 estimates)!  That's enough liquid hydrocarbons to qualify the Marcellus as what's known as a "giant" oilfield.  How could they leave out that detail if they were trying to be objective, whatsoever?  The answer can only be that they were not making any attempt to be objective; rather, they were trying manipulate public opinion.  One of the articles also forgot to mention that there was a N5, or 5 % probability of having 144 TCF and 6.2 billion barrels recoverable from the Marcellus. Clearly, these folks want to suggest to the casual observer that "there just isn't very much natural gas in shale plays."  After all, how much could only 43 of something be???

Well, let's look at that.  Some of the folks writing these articles like to use the entire domestic natural gas consumption as the dividend, in doing their comparisons. And they fail to include that multi-billion barrel NGL production that comes along with the gas.  Is that a fair way to look at it?  After all, this Marcellus is a relatively new discovery (2004), and as such it is incremental or additive to the reserves prior to that point.

But let's look at "only" 43 TCF:  using 1 mcf = 1 mmbtu of heat energy (approximation for methane, the primary component of natural gas), 293 kwh/mcf, a combined-cycle gas turbine generation plant efficiency of 57 %, and 570 MW/coal power plant (594 coal plants in 2009, with 338,000 MW of total capacity), we find that 43 TCF could replace the average coal power plant for ... 1430 years.  Or, that 43 TCF could replace ALL 594 coal power plants for ... 2.4 years.  Oh, and then you still have the 1.6 BILLION barrels of natural gas liquids (ethane, propane, butane, etc.) to heat homes, make plastic, even run in vehicles - essentially to use in every application where natural gas can be used, plus a few more.  (Total production from the giant Prudhoe Bay Field in Alaska, has been about 11 billion barrels to date, for reference.)

So, even 43 TCF and 1.6 billion barrels of NGL comprise an awful lot of lower carbon, comparatively clean energy.  Further, those are the low estimates, not the mean, and the mean is about twice those amounts.  It makes one wonder,  "What is going on with all these anti-natural gas efforts?".  We'll attempt to take that up in a future article.

In closing, one might wonder, "Does the Marcellus or the Eagleford or the Bakken - or all the shale gas and shale oil plays taken together - eliminate the paradigm shift of Peak Oil?"  Unfortunately not.  However, these plays will mitigate, to some degree, the effects of Peak Oil.  They are very important in that regard; namely, they will somewhat reduce the "severe consequences" mentioned by Hirsch, the Bundeswehr and others.  But they will only do so if we can quickly integrate natural gas and NGL into the transportation sector, while we simultaneously work on conservation, efficiencies, mass transit retrofits, renewables and every other partial solution.

Note:  Our calculations on the original posting were incorrect - we omitted a "24 hours in a day" factor, yielding an incorrect 34,000 years, versus a more correct 1430 years, for running a single coal plant with 43 TCF (43 TCF being the USGS' N95 estimate of reserves from the Marcellus).  Dividing that number by the 594 coal plants in existence in 2009 indicates that the Marcellus alone could run all of the nation's coal power plants for 2.4 years, not 57 years.   We did have a third party do a quick check on the calculations before the original posting, but evidently they missed the error, as well.  Many thanks to commenter Nate for correcting our miscalculation.  (Nate was gracious, btw, and came up with 3 - 4 years, arriving at that answer in a slightly different, and probably more accurate method.)

We shouldn't have been off by an order of magnitude plus, but of course these calculations are not realistic, anyway.  The Marcellus would never be expected to replace all the coal fired power plants, nor would that be physically or economically possible.  The point is, the Marcellus has huge natural gas reserves, along with giant-class natural gas liquids (NGL) reserves.  Taken together, the natural gas and NGL from the Marcellus and other developing shale gas and shale oil (not be confused with oil shale) plays cannot solve Peak Oil;  however, if we use the resources from these unconventional plays wisely, these plays can help mitigate the serious transportation problems which will impact every facet of our lives, as Peak Oil becomes manifest in the United States. 

Not there when you need it - Texas wind energy fails during power emergency

First let us say, we are supporters of wind energy, solar pv, and solar thermal energy ... as well as fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources.  We support what makes long-term and short-term economic sense, with consideration for the environment as well.  And we realize that not everything makes economic sense, initially.  Often, in any fledgling industry, "loss leaders" and development time are required before economic benefits are realized.  However, folks who exclusively support "clean energy" or "renewables" need to realize the limitations thereof - both from an economic standpoint and from an absolute "energy availability" standpoint.

Here's a good example:

Texas has 10,135 megawatts (MW) of installed wind generating capacity, nearly three times that of any other state.  On August 24, 2011, ERCOT, the state's grid operator, declared a power emergency due to the excessive electrical demands brought about by the extreme temperatures.  At that time, this 10,135 MW wind generation capacity was only able to muster 880 MW, or about 8.7 % of the capacity.  Since low winds are the result of high atmospheric pressure conditions, which in turn result in high temperatures, and thereby create record electrical usage ... this scenario can be expected over, and over again.  This is why natural gas or other conventional fossil fuel or nuclear generation must be "paired" with wind generation, in order to call it "real" capacity. 

Source of story, here, courtesy Garrett M.:


National Review, 8-29-2011: Texas Wind Energy Fails, Again.

Great headset, with mike, for your iPhone (these are hard to find in stores)

Perhaps you saw where the World Health Organization said that holding a cell phone close to your head "might cause cancer".  Who knows (no pun intended), but it makes sense that holding a device emitting so much microwave frequency energy right next to your head is probably not a good idea.

So you would think it would be easy to find a headset, with a mike, for your iPhone.  Not so!  It took us a long time to find this great product, and we have test driven it for over a year, and given away a couple of them.  I have spoken with many other folks who have looked and looked on the racks in stores, for something like this.  You can find Bluetooth devices (could be problematic, as well), ear buds (which tend to fall out of your ears), etc., but it is just plain difficult to find a headset with a mike, in a store.  The cord is really not that difficult to get used to, and the volume goes way up on this unit.  You can wear it slightly in front of your ears so you can hear what is going on around you, at the same time.  Neat product, so we feature it here:






They were $50, now they are only $24.95, so we are going to stock up on a few more, in case they go away, like great products sometimes do ...

A snip from 2009, Mechanical Engineering magazine

Recently, in cleaning out some articles we found this piece of clarity, from the August 2009 issue of Mechanical Engineering, the magazine of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME):

excerpts from: the Oil Age, by Frank Wicks

"Most oil producing countries have passed peak production.  The United States had been an exporter until production peaked in 1970.  It now relies on imports for about 60 % of the 20 million barrels per day that the country consumes."

"Another rough estimate is that the world started the Oil Age with about two trillion barrels of recoverable oil.  About half of that has been extracted.  The remaining trillion barrels represent about a 30 year supply at the current rate of consumption and will be much more difficult to recover."  [MP Note:  Unfortunately, it won't be possible to extract the last trillion barrels over 30 years, due to the physics of flow through porous media; so the rate of consumption will have to drop, each year.  A good guess would be that the last trillion barrels might last around 80 years - and in order to do that, the rate of extraction will have to drop continuously, and precipitously, once again due to physical constraints, not due to man.]

"The fundamental problem is that oil is too good.  It is required for most things that we do.  The alternatives are mostly inferior or less acceptable.  Adapting to the next half and the end of the Oil Age may be the greatest challenge our civilization has ever had to face."   [emphasis is ours]

Is it any wonder everyone's confused? Saudi's boost output ...

From Bloomberg, June 10, 2011:

Crude oil tumbled the most in four weeks after al-Hayat newspaper reported Saudi Arabia will raise oil production to 10 million barrels a day next month. Source: Bloomberg

 

Play Video

June 8 (Bloomberg) -- Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., talks about the outlook for Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' oil production. OPEC ministers were unable to reach a decision on production quotas at their meeting in Vienna today. Gheit speaks with Betty Liu and Dominic Chu on Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop." (Source: Bloomberg)

Saudi Arabia signaled it’s ready to deliver on a pledge to boost the supply of oil after the collapse of OPEC talks two days ago.
The world’s largest oil exporter will increase production, though it’s too early to say by how much, a Saudi industry official with knowledge of the matter who declined to be identified said today. Al-Hayat, citing senior officials, reported earlier that the kingdom will boost output to 10 million barrels a day in July from the current 8.8 million. Oil fell as much as 3.3 percent, the most in three weeks.
Saudi Arabia “wants everyone to understand that they’re serious,” Olivier Jakob, an analyst at Petromatrix GmbH in Zug, Switzerland, said today by phone. “It’s important that the Saudis are signaling that they’re offering additional barrels.”
The June 8 meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Export Countries broke down after six nations led by Iran opposed a Saudi plan to replace lost output from Libya and aid the U.S. economic recovery, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said on the day. The kingdom, along with Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, wanted to increase production by 1.5 million barrels a day. OPEC accounts for 40 percent of global supply.

More on the Saudi's slash of oil output

Soon after we posted the piece on April 18 regarding the report from the Saudi Oil Minister, Ali al-Naimi, we discovered an article we'd clipped from the Oil & Gas Journal, sourced from the Oil & Gas Journal Online, dated March 28 (two days before the President's energy speech).  So, this March 28 article actually contained the news of the "output cut", which Mr. Naimi re-delivered on April 18.  The article quotes Barclays Capital managing director Paul Horsnell, and he paints a far different picture of the worldwide supply, demand and capacity issues than did Mr. Naimi:

"Saudi Arabia's production is estimated at 8.2 million b/d. [which is what Mr. Naimi said they had indeed produced in March, some four weeks later]  However, Horsnell said, recent data are pointing to Saudi output close to 9 million b/d in December and "and at that level in January and February." [Mr. Naimi confirmed the 9 million b/d, as to February]

"He said, "This has two main implications. First, it is the source of another downward revision of start-of-year spare capacity levels, since Saudi Arabia's output has been higher than was originally reported.  The second implication is in what it suggests to us about how much Saudi Arabia needs to produce to balance the market."

In other words, Mr. Horsnell is saying that since the world previously thought that the Saudi's were producing less in December than they actually were, then the estimated worldwide "buffer" production capacity was significantly less than believed, as well.  Also, his observation that the Saudi's evidently needed to produce at 9 million b/d in order to balance the market is the exact opposite of what Mr. Naimi said, four weeks later.

Mr. Horsnell went on to say:

"Even producing 9 million b/d, Saudi Arabia still has left "a significant deficit at the margin of the market with inventories falling faster than normal, even before Libyan exports came off the market.  Allowing for a normal second quarter global inventory build and replacing lost volumes from elsewhere seems likely to require Saudi Arabia to move up to 10 million b/d, in connection with higher volumes from the other holders of spare capacity ..."

This doesn't sound much like a market which is oversupplied ...

Earlier in the same article, with respect to demand, Mr. Horsnell said:

"Oil demand growth in 2010 earlier was estimated at 2.57 million b/d, with 2011 growth previously forecast at  1.56 million b/d.  Now 2010 demand growth is put at 2.83 million b/d-making it "the strongest year for global oil demand growth over the past 30 years."

This doesn't seem to jive with the drop in demand/oversupplied market to which Mr. Naimi referred ...

Tom Whipple, a former government analyst and current Peak Oil news aggregator came out soon after the Naimi announcement, outlining the oversupply scenario.  However, on April 25, Mr. Whipple supplied some alternate explanations for the Saudi cutback.  One of his explanation's revolved around the fact that Saudi oil production has finally reached the practical limits to its growth, and that the Saudi's could not sustain the 9+ million b/d rate comfortably.   Stuart Staniford, a PhD physicist and analyst of Saudi production, provided some interesting graphs on April 13.  Looking at one of those graphs in particular, what stands out is the substantial rate variation in the 2003-2011 period.  Of course, Saudi is the ultimate swing producer.  But with the exception of a period in 2005, it appears that rates never stay above 9 million b/d for very long; that is, even in face of high prices and a tight market the rates come down substantially, after a brief peak.  One might worry that the "maximum reservoir contact" (MRC) wells in Ghawar and elsewhere are tending to cone water after a short run at high rates, and that some wells might be threatening to water out if these high rates are sustained.  If this is the case, this would mean that the often touted "worldwide spare capacity" of 3 million b/d or so ... is just not there (as it derives primarily from the Saudi's).  In turn, if the Saudi's can't really sustain even 9 million b/d, then this would have serious implications for the world in that the next, more intense manifestations of Peak Oil may be nearer than we think.

(Mr. Whipple also offered an alternate explanation in terms of "the Saudi's making a political statement" in their cutting of production.  This theory would suggest that the Saudi's were upset with the flip-flops in US support for some of the other Arab regimes, and cut production as a result.  This might be, but in light of the prior, substantial fluctuations shown by Staniford, it seems that some production capacity-related explanation is a better fit.)