New US natural gas production record?

[OilFinder2]

At the very least it'll come real close.

LINK

EIA outlook pegs US natgas output at record high
Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:28pm GMT

NEW YORK Dec 10 (Reuters) - A recent natural gas outlook by the U.S. Energy Information Administration pegged domestic gas production this year at a record high.

In its December Short-Term Energy Outlook released on Tuesday, EIA said it expected marketed natural gas production in 2010 to be up 2.11 billion cubic feet per day to 62.09 bcf daily.

That was EIA's fourth straight monthly upward revision for 2010 U.S. gas production and if realized, would put total annual output this year at 22.66 trillion cubic feet, just above the all-time high for marketed production of 22.65 tcf set in 1973.

While final output figures for 2010 will continue to be revised, probably through May 2011, production this year is likely to be the highest or second highest ever recorded for the United States.

[...]

[pstarr]

What percent of increased NG production has (or will) offset declines in domestic conventional liquid petroleum oil production? Perhaps you might want to post it over on PeakNaturaLGas.Com on the "This has nothing to do with Peak Oil" thread? or perhaps under "Shale Gas is an Investor's Trap. Whoops."

[OilFinder2]

According to the latest EIA data, October had the 3rd highest natgas marketed production total in recorded history, exceeded only by Jan and Feb 1973. The chances of a new yearly record are looking better, depending on what Nov and Dec do.

DATA

[Tanada]

Given that the USA was at peak petroleum drilling in the dawn of the 1970's and that in those days , most Natural Gas was associated gas, not separately drilled for the fact that there was a bonanza of gas then should be no surprise to anyone. The fact that it took 40 years to get close to that level again shows how much less important Natural Gas was to the USA compared to Petroleum.

[TheAntiDoomer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M

[Maddog78]

What percent of increased NG production has (or will) offset declines in domestic conventional liquid petroleum oil production? Perhaps you might want to post it over on PeakNaturaLGas.Com on the "This has nothing to do with Peak Oil" thread? or perhaps under "Shale Gas is an Investor's Trap. Whoops."

Brought to you by the "let's keep sending our money to the Middle East and not spend it in America" crowd.



......and cue up expected response in 3, 2, 1,;
I live in a tree house and grow weed for a living.
I don't need oil or n. gas.
Go pump your stock options elsewhere.

[pstarr]

What percent of increased NG production has (or will) offset declines in domestic conventional liquid petroleum oil production? Perhaps you might want to post it over on PeakNaturaLGas.Com on the "This has nothing to do with Peak Oil" thread? or perhaps under "Shale Gas is an Investor's Trap. Whoops."

Brought to you by the "let's keep sending our money to the Middle East and not spend it in America" crowd.



......and cue up expected response in 3, 2, 1,;
I live in a tree house and grow weed for a living.
I don't need oil or n. gas.
Go pump your stock options elsewhere.

But you didn't answer my questions, all valid. Instead you mock my patriotism. Let's try rewording the question for a bonehead. You don't seriously plan on running your tar-sands strip mining operations on CNG golf carts? I believe those big D9's still run on oil. So does Mom's SUV. So does the real world.

MD you need to explain how NG will mitigate a liquid-fuel petroleum decline. A successful example of a modern 1st-world country transitioning to natural gas transport. NO. I don't want to hear about golf carts in Pakistan again.

[Maddog78]

Why go around and around in circles with you again?
That's all it's been with you for the two years I've been coming to this site.
You ignore and discount anything said and then claim you've "won".
You've admitted several times you just like to troll me so I don't take anything you say seriously any more.
Go read the Natural Gas Vehicle thread all over again.



btw, off topic but for extra laughs go and read all the GOM blowout threads again.
Very entertaining reading what all the nut jobs were posting last summer.
You weren't the worst offender but you were right there in the mix.

[pstarr]

Why go around and around in circles with you again?
That's all it's been with you for the two years I've been coming to this site.
You ignore and discount anything said and then claim you've "won".
You've admitted several times you just like to troll me so I don't take anything you say seriously any more.
Go read the Natural Gas Vehicle thread all over again.



btw, off topic but for extra laughs go and read all the GOM blowout threads again.
Very entertaining reading what all the nut jobs were posting last summer.
You weren't the worst offender but you were right there in the mix.

You can be all sensitive and all, and break my heart, but you still have not to date answered the important questions. Montequest when he was a regular poster here used to lecture on "solutions in isolation." You can tout all the natural gas in the world, but the truth is the stuff will always be too expensive, to inconvenient (read: inefficient to use, expensive to apply to real-world problems) as a replacement of liquid petroleum. Sure it has btu's. Yes there is a big supply. But not it is not a replacement. And you can not prove it will be.

Otherwise why is Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake's CEO, selling gas and going heavily into oil?

[Maddog78]

Otherwise why is Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake's CEO, selling gas and going heavily into oil?

That should be obvious, even to someone hiding away in a treehouse.
Gas is abundant and cheap. Looks like it will be for at least a couple of years, maybe more.
Better to divert your capital to something with a little higher returns.
Oil is a pretty good price now. Spend your money on drilling oily plays as opposed to gassy plays.
My company is doing the same thing. Haven't given up completely on gas plays but have tipped the balance to 75/25 oil/gas whereas it was the other way around a couple of years ago.
Two years from now it might flip back again.
You have to be flexible in the oil and gas business. Things change you know.

[pstarr]

Otherwise why is Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake's CEO, selling gas and going heavily into oil?

That should be obvious, even to someone hiding away in a treehouse.

So you have not answered my question, so perhaps I should give it a shot?

Gas is abundant and cheap. Looks like it will be for at least a couple of years, maybe more. . . .
Oil is a pretty good price now.

Wait you might have hit on the answer after all! Let me see if I understand? Oil is peaking, i.e. running out, and so the price goes up. Okay. Now natural gas is abundant and the price goes down. Right. Go it.

That tell me that natural gas does not replace oil. Thanks for the lesson.

[Maddog78]

1) A company is in business to make a profit.
2) A company is not in business to help pstarr understand if n. gas can replace oil in the future.

[pstarr]

1) A company is in business to make a profit.
2) A company is not in business to help pstarr understand if n. gas can replace oil in the future.

Natural gas prices do not track petroleum because demand for one does not constitute demand for the other. . . because the two fossil fuels are not fungible That means one will not replace the other.

[OilFinder2]

^
Wow, that was brilliant!

I can have fun with photos too.

+ =

[Ferretlover]

Ahem. Back on topic, gentlemen........

[OilFinder2]

Natural gas prices do not track petroleum because demand for one does not constitute demand for the other. . . because the two fossil fuels are not fungible That means one will not replace the other.

You replaced the correct definition of one "cannot" replace the other, with a potentially counter-factual projection of one "will not" replace the other. Alas, you do not know one "will not" replace the other. Some believe otherwise, for the simple reason that one "can" replace the other.

LINK

20th of January 2011 | 07:22 GMT | Bogdan Popa
Natural Gas Vehicles to Reach 3.2 Million per Year by 2016

Natural gas vehicles have adopted an ascending trend all over the world, so there should be no surprise that their number is expected to reach new milestones in the next few years. A report conducted by Pike Research predicts that worldwide sales of natural gas vehicles will grow from 1.9 million units per year to more than 3.2 million units by 2016. Is that possible?

Researchers claim it is. Mostly because they expect refueling stations for this particular type of vehicles will grow from 18,000 in 2010 to around 26,000 in 2016, a figure that's likely to be enough for the whole industry of NGVs at that time.

[...]

[joewp]

Natural gas prices do not track petroleum because demand for one does not constitute demand for the other. . . because the two fossil fuels are not fungible That means one will not replace the other.

You replaced the correct definition of one "cannot" replace the other, with a potentially counter-factual projection of one "will not" replace the other. Alas, you do not know one "will not" replace the other. Some believe otherwise, for the simple reason that one "can" replace the other.

LINK

20th of January 2011 | 07:22 GMT | Bogdan Popa
Natural Gas Vehicles to Reach 3.2 Million per Year by 2016

Natural gas vehicles have adopted an ascending trend all over the world, so there should be no surprise that their number is expected to reach new milestones in the next few years. A report conducted by Pike Research predicts that worldwide sales of natural gas vehicles will grow from 1.9 million units per year to more than 3.2 million units by 2016. Is that possible?

Researchers claim it is. Mostly because they expect refueling stations for this particular type of vehicles will grow from 18,000 in 2010 to around 26,000 in 2016, a figure that's likely to be enough for the whole industry of NGVs at that time.

[...]

Ya know, OF2. You kind of just proved pstarr's point with that article. It says

"Corporate and government fleets are the strongest adopters of natural gas vehicles," says senior analyst Dave Hurst. "Not only will this trend continue, but in fact fleet sales will increase as a percentage of all NGV sales, representing two-thirds of the total market by 2013.

.
So yeah, in the extremely limited area of government and fleet vehicles, natural gas is a good option. But I bet those companies still keep gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles on hand for trips farther away than available natgas pump.

What even makes you think that there's enough natgas out there to make even a moderate dent in gas and diesel demand? Or more to the point, that we can extract it fast enough to satisfy the increased demand?

[OilFinder2]

"Not only will this trend continue, but in fact fleet sales will increase as a percentage of all NGV sales, representing two-thirds of the total market by 2013.

2013 . . . is just two years from now. The rest of the article dealt with five years from now.

I wouldn't be surprised if fleet sales lead the growth in the near term. But as fleets add more CNG cars, more stations will follow, and consumer/retail growth will follow.

There's plenty of natgas to fuel millions and millions and millions of cars. Really!

[Maddog78]

What even makes you think that there's enough natgas out there to make even a moderate dent in gas and diesel demand?
Or more to the point, that we can extract it fast enough to satisfy the increased demand?

What makes you think there isn't?
More to the point you haven't noticed the reversal in US n. gas production?
You haven't noticed that storage is completely full? The coldest stretch of winter weather in years is only just now barely putting a dent in it.
You haven't noticed the unbelievable amount of gas that can be produced in the U.S. and Canada?
The kicking off of the shale gas business in Europe and Russia now?
Extraction is no problem. Gas wells are being shut in. Drilled wells are left unfracced.
Estimates are in the thousands.
If demand was such in the future, it would not be a big deal to put another 1000 rigs to work. It's been done before.
These would be rigs that would be working in North America. Not the middle east.
Imagine that. Not sending all that cash overseas and employing Americans to deliver American energy to the country.
Yeah, I guess that sounds crazy. Better to just keep sending money to the sheiks until the country rolls over and dies.

[dinopello]

Better to just keep sending money to the sheiks until the country rolls over and dies.

Which county would roll over and die ? The one that depletes it's resources first ? Drain the middle east first as long as they're willing to sell what they have at these low prices. When their wells are sucking sand then we can ramp up our own.