[Graeme]

US Has Almost 100-Year Supply of Natural Gas

The amount of natural gas available for production in the United States has soared 58% in the past four years, driven by a drilling boom and the discovery of huge new gas fields in Texas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, a new study says.

The report, due to be released Thursday by the nonprofit Potential Gas Committee, concludes the U.S. has more than 2,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas still in the ground, or nearly a century's worth of production at current rates. That's a 35.4% jump over the committee's last estimate, in 2007, of 1,532 trillion cubic feet, the biggest increase in the committee's 44-year history.

rigzone

[vision-master]

Lot's of gas

[heroineworshipper]

Uh huh. Under 5000ft of solid bedrock under North Dakota, next to the 200 year supply of oil.

[mefistofeles]

Uh huh. Under 5000ft of solid bedrock under North Dakota, next to the 200 year supply of oil.

Lol I have to agree 200 years...............if you can get it.

[Tanada]

Hmm, what do you guys think the drillers use those big drills to go through? Here is a hint, it isn't much sand and clay, it is mostly stuff a whole lot tougher that acts to hold Natural Gas in.

[AirlinePilot]

The report, due to be released Thursday by the nonprofit Potential Gas Committee, concludes the U.S. has more than 2,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas still in the ground, or nearly a century's worth of production at current rates.

rigzone

I believe Dr Albert Bartlett would take issue with that little tidbit. I've always looked at claims like this with a very jaundiced eye when I see those few words:

"At current rates".

That's a meaningless and purely speculative comparison that we all know will change and could change significantly. Especially in the harsh light of oil depletion down the road.

[Graeme]

Is there a green fossil fuel?

The natural gas interests are interested in the being the first choice fuel in the American future. A report just issued from the Potential Gas Committee sure makes natural gas look like the best potential fuel for generating electricity in coming decades. The U.S. is actually adding to its estimated reserves. Unlike Peak Oil, there seems no fear that natural gas is in seriously dwindling supply.

How can there be more natural gas? More sophisticated exploration techniques and more effective gas release technology. Of course, any exploited resource comes with a cost. From coal mining to obtaining minerals for lithium-ion batteries to casting solar panels to storing nuclear waste, we’ve no energy source that does not exact some environmental toll. We need a new calculus that takes into account the full costs of any future technology, even that of burning natural gas.

zdnet

[Graeme]

The Good and Bad of Abundant Natural Gas

The good news is that the United States has plenty of natural gas, according to a new report described in the New York Times. The bad news is that the carbon-emissions targets in the energy bill working its way through the United States House of Representatives didn't take this into account.

The best solution is probably increased federal funding for research, especially basic research into things like the physics of excitons in solar-cell materials. Then even if companies fail to plan ahead, the breakthroughs that they need to meet later targets could be ready for them.

technologyreview

[TonyPrep]

I believe Dr Albert Bartlett would take issue with that little tidbit. I've always looked at claims like this with a very jaundiced eye when I see those few words:

"At current rates".

That's a meaningless and purely speculative comparison that we all know will change and could change significantly. Especially in the harsh light of oil depletion down the road.

I agree, AP. It always amazes me how apparently intelligent people can put out such ... well ... garbage.

Not only will current consumption rates increase, if BAU continues and efforts to use more of the stuff bear fruit, but production rates will likely start to decrease at some point in the future.

Meaningless and very misleading.

[JohnDenver]

The report, due to be released Thursday by the nonprofit Potential Gas Committee, concludes the U.S. has more than 2,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas still in the ground, or nearly a century's worth of production at current rates.

rigzone

I believe Dr Albert Bartlett would take issue with that little tidbit. I've always looked at claims like this with a very jaundiced eye when I see those few words:

"At current rates".

That's a meaningless and purely speculative comparison that we all know will change and could change significantly. Especially in the harsh light of oil depletion down the road.

Actually, "at current rates" applies very well to the case of coal in the US.
There's no growth at all in coal usage because new coal-burning plants are being mothballed, and enviros are waging an all-out assault on the substance. You know Coal=Death.

Indeed, the US produced less coal in 2008 than it did in 1998. Which means that "current rates" is a good approximation, and the US actually does have 100+ years of coal (or more if the enviros and AGW maniacs keep it up). That's a lot of feedstock for plastics/fertilizers etc.

Add that to the monster new NG supplies that Graeme and OF2 have kindly pointed out, and it's clear that the fossil fuel era has quite a ways to run yet.

Isn't it funny? When I joined this group in 2004, the scare du jour was the impending natural gas cliff. In fact, Matt Simmons said that natural gas armageddon was a certainty by Aug. 2005. And here we are 4 years later, swimming in veritable seas of the shit. LOL. What a stooge.

[shortonsense]

Isn't it funny? When I joined this group in 2004, the scare du jour was the impending natural gas cliff. In fact, Matt Simmons said that natural gas armageddon was a certainty by Aug. 2005. And here we are 4 years later, swimming in veritable seas of the shit. LOL. What a stooge.

JD, now you are just being MEAN! Everyone has always known that Simmons was a tool, but its polite to pooh-pooh him in a slightly jesting way rather than just coming out and calling it like it is.

However, I think at the core of this is a larger issue, which is how many of the "experts" have missed the transition into unconventional resources, even though the US has been using them and building natural gas production using them for better than 20 years now.

The claim of "you can't drill your way out of a Hubbert production decline" now has a countrywide example to refute it, and size of some of these things is just immense.

[TonyPrep]

Actually, "at current rates" applies very well to the case of coal in the US.
There's no growth at all in coal usage.

The comment wasn't about coal. However, it is just as meaningless with coal, unless you believe that the coal can be produced "at current rates" (in terms of BTUs) until it's all used up. Is that what you believe, JD?

[TonyPrep]

The claim of "you can't drill your way out of a Hubbert production decline" now has a countrywide example to refute it, and size of some of these things is just immense.

Just immense, eh? That's rhetoric. Because drilling has reversed a declining trend, for now, in one country, you assume that there will never be a problem with natural gas? How cornucopian of you. US natural gas marketed production is still over 1 trillion cubic feet pr year behind 1973's peak, despite recent increases. The US still imports about a fifth of what it produces, so don't jump for joy just yet.

[TonyPrep]

I just checked the EIA's AEO 2009 and it projects coal consumption, in the US, to increase through 2030, by about 18%. So, from all perspectives, "at current rates" is just as meaningless for coal as it is for all resources.

[JohnDenver]

I just checked the EIA's AEO 2009 and it projects coal consumption, in the US, to increase through 2030, by about 18%. So, from all perspectives, "at current rates" is just as meaningless for coal as it is for all resources.

That forecast is not very credible. How do you figure that's going to happen?

This is the current climate:

"Wall Street is every day becoming more aware of the risks of building new coal plants - both the carbon-cost risks and the reputation risks," says Dan Bakal, director of electric power programs for CERES, a coalition of environmental groups and institutional investors.

Texas's big global warming battle

Coal-fired plants suffered a stunning setback when two private equity firms agreed to buy TXU (Charts) for $32 billion, and immediately dropped plans for eight of 11 planned coal plants. The buyers, Texas Pacific and Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts, sought the approval of environmentalists before announcing the deal. Before then, TXU had staking its future on coal plants.

Another setback: The decision by the Edison Electric Institute, the utility industry's trade association, to drop its longtime opposition to the federal regulation of carbon emissions, if certain conditions are met.

Still another: A forthcoming study from MIT faculty members will raise tough questions about so-called clean coal technology, according to The New York Times. This technology injects carbon dioxide into deep geological formations, but the study found that this won't be as easy to do as proponents have argued. Some utilities have been hoping that carbon storage will overcome environmental objections to coal.

As if that weren't enough, James Hansen, one of the world's top climate scientists, went to Washington last week to call for a moratorium on building any new, conventional coal-fired plants. And a United Nations panel of 18 scientists who spent two years studying global warming also concluded that no more conventional coal plants should be built.

What are you expecting? That carbon emissions do not get regulated (through cap-and-trade or taxes)? That carbon capture will actually work, and be cheap enough? That large CTL plants will be built? That AGW pressure against coal plans will slack off? I find all of those to be extremely dubious.

And why bother when you can just build capacity with NG, or concentrating solar, without all the headaches?

Sorry, but I don't see any realistic scenario where coal consumption in the US grows to any significant extent. Perhaps you can describe one for me.

[shortonsense]

The claim of "you can't drill your way out of a Hubbert production decline" now has a countrywide example to refute it, and size of some of these things is just immense.

Just immense, eh? That's rhetoric.

I posted the link to the size of the resource estimate. I certainly didn't make it up, and some of the names as authors on that link certainly rank nearly everyone here except RocDoc when it comes to doing this for a living. I suppose if you can't refute it...you call it rhetoric?

Because drilling has reversed a declining trend, for now, in one country, you assume that there will never be a problem with natural gas?

I certainly didn't say that. What I said was, there is a tremendous resource base available ( link already provided ), unconventionals have reversed a Hubbert production decline spanning decades in the worlds largest consumer of natural gas...just all those itty bitty wells and presto....so much for the bell shaped curve in natural gas. But you already know this Tony, lots of countries and large areas display multiple peaks with oil as well, this entire bell shaped curve thing just ain't cutting the mustard the more of this type of information I run into.

Will there be problems with natural gas? Sure...just there have been problems with oil. Nothing is without problems, so I certainly don't assume any different in the future.

How cornucopian of you. US natural gas marketed production is still over 1 trillion cubic feet pr year behind 1973's peak, despite recent increases. The US still imports about a fifth of what it produces, so don't jump for joy just yet.

Well, when well withdrawals can rank right up there with the 1973 peak nearly 40 years later, it obviously begs the question....what happens when full scale production of unconventional oil begins? We could still be debating Peak 2 40 years from now at the global level!

I wonder who will be the first to postulate the bi-modal population within resource depletion, first the conventional, then the unconventional? I'll bet someone like Laherre has already done it, he seems like a smart cookie.

[JohnDenver]

Even assuming that coal production grows according to the EIA forecast (extremely dubious, as I noted above), the growth rate they are forecasting is incredibly low: 0.6%/year.
At that growth rate, it would take roughly 117 years for current production to double. Current reserves would still not be exhausted, even after 120 years of production at that growth rate.

[TonyPrep]

Sorry, but I don't see any realistic scenario where coal consumption in the US grows to any significant extent. Perhaps you can describe one for me.

I don't need to, the EIA has already provided scenarios.

However, one possible scenario is that the good stuff starts to irreversibly decline (if it hasn't already) and so more of the not so good stuff needs to be mined to get the same, or even gently declining energy.

Another scenario is that oil starts to decline significantly and CTL plants start to spring up.

But it's not just consumption, as I've pointed out. Your statement requires production of the same energy content, from coal, for the length of time you claim coal will be around, at current consumption levels. That is not remotely possible and so such statements of resource longevity are meaningless.

[TonyPrep]

I posted the link to the size of the resource estimate. I certainly didn't make it up

I didn't say you did.

Because drilling has reversed a declining trend, for now, in one country, you assume that there will never be a problem with natural gas?

I certainly didn't say that.

True, but that was the implication. If you didn't mean that, then I apologize. Hopefully, you can see that irreversible declines of all finite resources is inevitable,

Well, when well withdrawals can rank right up there with the 1973 peak nearly 40 years later, it obviously begs the question....what happens when full scale production of unconventional oil begins?

Who knows? Certainly not you. Perhaps when marketed production gets back up there and rises further, then you can begin to gloat.

[TonyPrep]

Even assuming that coal production grows according to the EIA forecast (extremely dubious, as I noted above), the growth rate they are forecasting is incredibly low: 0.6%/year.
At that growth rate, it would take roughly 117 years for current production to double. Current reserves would still not be exhausted, even after 120 years of production at that growth rate.

If the reserves are there and if production can rise at that rate. Are you suggesting that both are true?