Elon Musk plans to use Texas natural gas for his vessels

Photographer: Austin Barnard / Bloomberg

Elon Musk became the richest man in the world thanks to the enthusiasm for stylish electric cars from Tesla Inc. – and the company’s stratospheric stock price. But while Musk is perhaps the most well-known clean energy CEO, SpaceX, his other company, will likely rely on drilling for natural gas to power Starship, the new spacecraft and rocket designed to transport the humans on the Moon, Mars and beyond.

Musk SpaceX aims to use a site in South Texas to launch rockets to transport people and goods to the Moon and Mars. To do this, the company intends to drill gas wells to make its own fuel and electricity, according to a Federal Aviation Administration document seen by Bloomberg.

Musk has long mocked the oil industry, touting renewables and electric vehicles as the keys to averting climate catastrophe. But the FAA document and SpaceX’s comments to Texas regulators show how, at least in the short term, some of its targets will depend on fossil fuel extraction plans that are already attracting criticism from environmental groups.

Although Musk has said he ultimately aims to extract carbon from the atmosphere to produce fuel, a cost-effective method has yet to be developed. The billionaire donates $ 100 million for a award for “best carbon capture technology”.

The SpaceX site in Texas will be powered by at least five nearby gas wells, as well as two gas-fired power plants, according to the FAA document. Purified gas from the wells will be pumped into refrigeration equipment which turns it into liquid methane, the document said. Methane can be combined with liquid oxygen and other compounds to make rocket fuel.

SpaceX did not respond to requests for comment. But in a hearing last week with the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas in the state, lawyers for the company said the gas from the wells would be used for “the operation of rocket facilities.”

The document Bloomberg saw appears to be an unfinished environmental review project, an FAA spokesperson said. A public comment period that ended last week will be used to complete the formal assessment project. Once completed, the draft will be posted on the agency’s website for another round of public comment.

The company is also seeking FAA permission to add a gas processing plant and equipment that will turn methane into its liquid form, and it plans to expand a nearby solar farm and build a desalination plant to the water, according to agency records.

SpaceX originally built the coastal site for its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, which are used to deploy satellites, but never used it for that purpose. The company is now seeking permission to use it as a launch site for spacecraft that will transport people and goods to the moon and Mars, according to FAA records.

Vertically integrated

One of the potential motivations for SpaceX’s plans to produce gas: vertical integration. Musk has been a long-time fan of the strategy, which he used to keep control of his companies’ supply chains. By drilling for gas, SpaceX would avoid paying a third party to produce it and direct it to the launch site.

Based on liquid fuel-oxygen-liquid methane ratios, a single launch would require tens of millions of cubic feet of gas.

Even without factoring in the need for gas to power SpaceX’s power plants at the Texas site, a minimum of 10 launches per year would require around half a billion cubic feet. It would cost around $ 1.37 million, based on current benchmark gas futures that trade in New York City.

To secure this gas, SpaceX launched a subsidiary called Lone Star Mineral Development in June. The company wasted no time in purchasing mineral rights in the area, as well as an 806-acre lease initially drilled by the Houston-based oil company. Sanchez Energy, which renamed itself Mesquite Energy after emerging from bankruptcy last year.

However, it is not known how much Lone Star gas will be able to extract from the site. Cameron County, where the launch site is located, is not a prolific source of fuel. Sanchez’s lease, which went into production in 2011, produced about 536 million cubic feet of gas in that first year, according to data from the Railroad Commission. But after that, production continued to sag until the well was decommissioned in March 2014.

Geology isn’t the only obstacle to SpaceX’s gas production plans. The company faces legal challenges for a piece of land that forms a small corner of the drilling lease. Closely kept producer Dallas Petroleum Group LLC says it is paying property taxes on two wells there and is asking the Railway Commission to resolve a well control dispute with Lone Star. He previously sued Sanchez for access to the wells and amended the complaint on Friday to add SpaceX and Lone Star as defendants.

Lone Star also bought two offshore platforms from drilling contractor Valaris Plc last year. They will likely be used as landing platforms for SpaceX’s reusable rockets, according to FAA records.

Environmental opposition

A coalition of a dozen environmental groups is already raising alarm bells about SpaceX’s expansion plans. The rocket launch site has gone well beyond the scope of its original license, and the company’s plans threaten an environmentally sensitive wildlife corridor along the US-Mexico border, according to the coalition.

At the launch site last year, “there were at least three explosions, some of which sparked more fires that burned smaller areas” of public land, said EJ Williams, vice president of the ‘American Bird Conservancy, in an email. “These explosions had a direct impact on the designated critical habitat used by federally listed species and other declining species.”

To explore Bloomberg ESG insights, click here

Increased traffic on the highway leading to the launch site has dramatically increased the number of animals killed by vehicles, and road closures for rocket launches have made it difficult for biologists to study migratory bird species. endangered nesting nearby, according to David Newstead, director of bird conservation projects for the Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries program in Corpus Christi.

The FAA initially cleared SpaceX for 12 launches per year and 180 hours of highway closures, but Newstead said his group documented more than 1,100 hours of highway closures last year.

Because of changes to SpaceX’s plans for the Texas site, environmental groups want the FAA to use a more stringent and transparent process to review the company’s proposals. For example, the The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requires companies looking to build new pipelines or export terminals to file regular public updates, while the FAA does not mandate the same level of disclosure, said Patrick Anderson, president from the Lower Rio Grande Valley section of the Sierra Club.

Although SpaceX seeks permission to produce gas in the short term, the Texas launch site could ultimately promote Musk’s zero carbon ambitions. Drilling for gas could potentially be part of gaining longer-term in situ resource use experience, or ISRU, the practice of producing products with local materials. While there are no fossil fuels on Mars, those who land there might need to drill for water or minerals.

Musk could also use the drilling to gain experience in developing carbon dioxide storage sinks. SpaceX will likely have to use the carbon capture on Mars to make fuels for the return trip, which makes the right technology crucial.

Historically, liquid hydrogen was the fuel of choice for early space missions, while a rocket laden with kerosene and liquid oxygen sent Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and Michael Collins to the moon.