![]() | Forecasts on Saudi Arabia liquids production | The Oil Drum | When CHOPS are not a dinner menu, but for heavy oil production | ![]() |
358 comments on DrumBeat: July 30, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
358 comments on DrumBeat: July 30, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
- The Future of European Transport: iTREN-2030
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“To be thrown upon one's own resources, is to be cast into the very lap of fortune; for our faculties then undergo a development and display an energy of which they were previously unsusceptible.”
—Benjamin Franklin
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
After reading the nat. gas article that proclaimed 2,247 Tcf reserves (replacing different 2006 guess of 1,530 Tcf) I asked myself the same question.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm
shows a yearly US nat.gas consumption for 2007 of c.23 tcf and a marketed production of c.19.277 tcf and only with this last number you can arrive at nearly 118 years of supply.
assumption 6 mcf = 1 boe
US 20.68 million barrels of oil/day = 7548.2 mbo/year = c. 45.289tcf per year
replace 20% of oil use with nat gas results in an increase to c.32.5 tcf per year = 69 (47 based on lower guess) years of "reserve"
replace 40% of oil use with nat gas results in an increase to c.41.11 tcf per year = 54 (37) years of "reserve"
replace 60% of oil use with nat gas results in an increase to c.50.17 tcf per year = 44 (30) years of "reserve"
I have read quit a few different views regarding North American Nat. Gas so what is true, will the new shale plays save the day for decades to come?
Any recommended articles on nat.gas.? Thank you!
This is quite obviously nothing but a puff piece for the natural gas industry. The subtext is that natural gas will somehow be a cheaper transport fuel than "$4.00 per gallon gasoline," which is highly doubtful, and especially so if natural gas advocates succeed in making it a transport fuel. For the past few years natural gas has sold on a BTU basis for much cheaper than oil, but this is not the historical norm. I've seen this discussed here on TOD before.
ROCKMAN, JonFreise and I had a lengthy conversation on yesterday's Drumbeat about natural gas. JonFriese linked to some very enlightening articles regarding the economics of drilling gas shales that you might find interesting. One cannot help but admire the pluckiness of those doing the gas shale development, but I think it is far from being the silver bullet they would have us to believe that it is.
Thank you, I read that yesterday and found it very interesting, btw if somebody looks it was JonFreise.
Regarding Management blowing smoke / Investor return I wonder if this will ever be moved away from the short term option perspective of the management again.
This problem of how corporate management has become unmoored from its investors and from the larger society is part of a much larger cultural phenomenon. The cultural curmudgeon Jacques Barzun is not optimistic and believes Western society has descended into fullblown, irreversible decadence. "The point at which good intentions exceeded the power to fulfill them marked for the culture the onset of decadence," he writes in From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present, 500 Years of Western Cultural Life.
The veteran pollster and lay philosopher Daniel Yankelovich is much more explicit, but much more optimistic that our ship can once again be uprighted:
--Daniel Yankelovich, Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World
DS et al,
I just reponded to questions about this report on TOD. I'll repost here. These folks are really starting to irritate me. They think all they have to do is say" some geologist said" and the world should believe them. Now you can here what this geologist has to say.
I’ll offer some insider insights…I’m drilling two of the unconventional gas plays right now. First and more important than anything else I might say: numbers in any report like this that offer X amount of any reserves is completely meaningless unless it is quantified by a pricing forecast. I have a field I would drill 20 wells in right now and produce 40 bcf of NG if NG were $9 a unit. If NG were $4 a unit I wouldn’t drill any wells. So…how much gas reserves are in that field: 40 bcf or 0 bcf? The gas is still there and the technology to get it out is still known…so how much NG reserves are there? Now multiply this scenario by 10,000 such fields. Is there 40 tcf of NG or is there 0 tcf of NG? Obviously depends on the pricing forecast.
The gas in all these plays has been known for decades. Three things have changed the game big time. First, there have been some tremendous improvements in technology. The two biggest being horizontal drilling and big fracturing jobs. Second, these improvements have been driven by higher NG prices. Third, the public oil companies are desperate to keep their reserve base expanding. That’s an absolute requirement by Wall Street (can we say “Chesapeake?). We call these “cookie cutter” plays because you’re basically drilling the same well over and over. There are variations in the results but you live with the average. I can’t offer a guess as to how much recoverable NG there is in these plays at any given price. In 5 or 10 years the industry might be able to tell you how much gas could be produced in all these plays after 4 or 5 thousand more wells are drilled. I know how these jokers came up with their numbers: it by assuming that all wells in each play will average a certain amount of NG even in areas with limited testing. So few wells have been drilled in the Marcellus that no one can predict the variations that might be encountered across the whole play. There are always sweet spots and dog patches (you gotta luv our terminology, don’t you?)
Bottom line: there is a hell of a lot of NG to be produced at $8 or $9 per unit. But how much? Check back with me in 5 or 10 years. But if you insist I’ll guess it’s between 100 tcf and 2000 tcf. And you can take that to the bank. (and I will hold my breath waiting for someone to ask what price forecast I used to pull those numbers out of my butt)
I sure know the price
8$ -> 100tcf
9$ -> 2000tcf
13$ -> Wow! neither fusion nor fision necessary
NG is just like oil - reserves have nothing to do with adequate flows, and flows are about profits and affordability.
Thank you for that very helpful post.
ROCKMAN,
I don't dispute anything you say. There may indeed be plentiful natural gas reserves to be produced from these shale plays.
What I do disagree with is that these shales will provide natural gas that is both plentiful and inexpensive. When donkeys fly!
It's like these babbling idiots who come on here and other blogs and say you can produce oil from the Athabasca Oil Sands for $60 a barrel. Anybody who can read a financial statement knows that's pure poppycock. The forward-looking cost is over $100 per barrel, which a 15-minute glance at Suncor's or any other operator's financials readily demonstrates.
But it is entirely one thing for some annonymous blogger or some air-headed pundit to say you can produce natural gas from the Barnett shale for $6.00 per MMBTU and for an executive of a company, like Chesapeake, who is in that business, with his fiduciary and social responsibilities and access to superior proprietary knowledge, to say the same thing. It is derelict. And it is a lie. And he knows it.
It's what happens when you have people with a car salesman's mentality rise to positions of power and prestige. In speaking of the fall of the Spanish empire, J.H. Elliot called it the "moral and intellectural bankruptcy of the...ruling class," the "triumph of mediocrity" where the Cortes of Castile "had long since shown itself to be little more than a forum in which the procuradores watched over the interests of their own privileged class."