Development Plan started with Pilot Project

Development Plan for the #1 Ranking Project

NASA satellite photo showing Lake Kivu's key resource data
Opportunity Location & Data Points

Resources included in the development plan

We outline in this web-site the development plan for Hydragas Energy. We do this as a gas extraction technology provider. It therefore details the development plan and funding of the company as a project developer to deploy the technology. Hence, we focus now on completing fund-raising to build a demo project in 2020. We plan to initiate a full series of up to 16 projects on both sides of Lake Kivu. Our team will move on to initiate further development of the other exciting technology applications.

Schematic of Hydragas Development Plan for IFC
Hydragas Development Plan Actions for Lake Kivu

We patented the Hydragas technology to ensure that we fully protect our know-how. The technology enables a quantum improvement of methane gas extraction efficiency from deep water-borne deposits. It therefore enables recovery from a specified range of different methane-rich water bodies globally, including lakes, seas, oceans and aquifers.

In our demo project of Lake Kivu, we aim to pursue a complete proof-of-performance. This must show the highest levels of gas recovery (89%) and full compliance with the Management Prescriptions for Lake Kivu Development.

Methane resources – scale & distribution

Methane-in-water comes with various manifestations. It may be the largest unexploited hydrocarbon source on planet earth. Near-shore oceanic methane hydrate deposits (in 300-3000m depths offshore) represent the vast majority of this resource. There are some 6 million tcf in situ, according to sources such as the USGS. Methane in permafrost soils, some buried deep underwater, are also hydrates. But they are more susceptible to seep out.

At the same time, coal seams also account for thousands of trillions of cubic feet (tcf) in coal mine methane (CMM) and coal seam gas (CSG).

Alternate forms of methane hydrate accumulations in oceanic deposits
Methane Hydrate Formations in Polar and Continental Margins, Showing Those Subject to Climate Risk (c World Ocean Review)

Global resources of methane distribute widely around the planet. Due to their genesis, they are mostly oceanic. One can search informative papers on the subject, such as world ocean review. The origin of methane in hydrates is often biogenic in the form of permafrost-bound organic material. But significant reserves of hydrates formed through gas escaping from fracturing  “hydrocarbon kitchens” and through cracks in marine rock strata over conventional gas traps.

Hydrate resources concentrate in the Polar Regions. Fugitive gas, in zones of high hydraulic pressure from deep sea water, forms hydrates in layers or in beds of particulate hydrate in mud zones. They also accumulate adjacent to subduction faults on the margins of tectonic plates.

For example, one can find major deposits off the North American West Coast and the Nankai Trough off Japan. Estimated methane in water is an energy resource potentially larger than all oil, conventional gas and coal combined.

Exploitation and benefits

However, the world exploits very little of these hydrate sources due their remoteness and to a lack of appropriate methods. Therefore, the various resource forms have a high and growing risk of escape to atmosphere. However, exploitation will reduce the greenhouse gas threat, if done correctly.

Our calculated carbon mitigation is more than 2 Gt by implementing the full project plan. We need to perform this mitigation by controlled combustion of produced methane to carbon dioxide, while generating useful energy efficiently.

We are focusing our initial projects on Lake Kivu, between Rwanda and DRC. This lake contains a renewable methane resource of over 2.2 tcf, or 65 billion cubic metres. It grows steadily, fueled by the world’s largest natural bio-digester.

Project drivers for development plan

We intend to use Lake Kivu as our first major project for a number of important and urgent reasons. These are technical, environmental, social and economic. We drive this project by acting on these principles from the MPs:

Pilot-project crew assembling the riser pipe in 2004
Repairs on the Kivu Pilot Project
  • Social Responsibility: We take on our humanitarian responsibility with a sense of urgency to make this resource safe. Our plan to achieve this is by harvesting the methane to reduce both the risk and severity of eruption, before it can be triggered.

An eruption threatens millions of people around it, with rapid exposure to a toxic gas cloud from erupting gas. We must preempt this predicted major natural disaster by reducing methane in situ;

  • Environmental Responsibility: The need to avert the consequent environmental release of two billion tons of carbon (equivalent) in a single-day event of a limnic gas eruption. Removing methane is the most effective approach. Extraction of methane averts a risk that has an increasing of risk probability within the next 70 years;
  • Community Benefit: Enabling the harvest to achieve its potential $60 billion, has a great economic impact on Rwanda and DRC. We achieve this by converting the methane resource to power, pipeline gas and other potential energy products. These are outputs that will reduce the cost of energy and increase tax revenues of the host countries. The most widespread benefit may come from natural gas distribution to homes, to replace more expensive charcoal and even firewood.

4 Comments

  • tlovertonet

    I like the valuable info you provide in your articles. I’ll bookmark your blog and check again right here regularly. I’m somewhat certain I’ll learn plenty of new stuff proper right here! Good luck for the next!

  • Buy blog links

    This blog is an incredible resource for anyone looking to expand their knowledge on a variety of topics. The author’s writing is both informative and engaging, and their ability to present complex ideas in an accessible way is truly impressive. I appreciate the level of research that goes into each post, as well as the author’s commitment to providing balanced and unbiased perspectives. What I love most about this blog is its ability to make even the most complex subjects approachable and interesting. Whether you’re a casual reader or a serious scholar, there’s something here for everyone.

  • Walter J Strutt, P.Eng, CCE.

    Dear Philip Morkel; We are CAPAC Engineers and Constructors headquartered in Calgary and we also have been studying the feasibility of a pilot project on Lake Kivu over the past year. We also have designed an innovative concept of extracting the methane gas from the lower resource zone of the lake and utilizing the treated gas to fuel a power plant onshore powered by a Solar Turbine Titan PGM250 to produce a net 25 MW to the local grid with another 5 MW back to the gas plant via an exhaust gas cycle cogen unit. Can we offer to be your EPC contractor on your planned 5 MW pilot plant. We have agreements in place with a local EPFC module fabrication shop to build the modules you will require which can be shipped out of Alberta via rail to the east coast of Canada, then by ocean freight to either Mombasa or Dar es Salem for highway shipment to the west side of Lake Kivu. Kindly checkout our website for information on our company. Best Regards, Wally Strutt, P.Eng. M.Sc. CCE

    • Philip Morkel

      Hi Wally, Thanks for the introduction and the common interest expressed with Lake Kivu. I will suggest that it’s a much tougher prospect to get right than it seems at first. I have spent years formulating the method, modelling it, pilot-testing and then doing two rounds of feasibility. The second round was necessitated by the compliance needs of the Management Prescriptions, requiring major upgrades to the solution. The work should come with a warning label on trying to design to the simple legacy solution. 4-5 others at least have pursued it that way and none will ever be compliant with the rules, nor financially successful due to low yield. The first rule that you are seemingly not meeting is that one is obliged under the rules to build a maximum 5 MW facility to prove your compliance before going bigger scale to 25-50 MW. Unfortunately the government has been somewhat random, if not just ill-prepared, about applying the rules. I was part of an international expert advisory group to both countries and know the rules very well. But, for example, if a US President helps you get going with a lot of political pressure, they waive some of them and regret it later once you have gone too far. If you want to know more, before you may incure wasteful expenditure, give me a call. I’m on 416 723 8488. Whether or not you wish to, best of luck. Regards, Philip

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content