208 comments on Can US Natural Gas Production Be Ramped Up?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
208 comments on Can US Natural Gas Production Be Ramped Up?
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.
“Of all races in an advanced stage of civilization, the American is the least accessible to long views… Always and everywhere in a hurry to get rich, he does not give a thought to remote consequences; he sees only present advantages… He does not remember, he does not feel, he lives in a materialist dream.”
—Moiseide Ostrogorski (1902, 302-303)
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
Well worth the wait Gail. An excellent picture of today’s unconventional NG plays. I can back up some of your assertions from the front lines. The technology improvements have been THE key along with supporting NG prices. As an example, 5 years ago a vertical UNG well might be drilled on a 40 acre unit. A year or two later, one horizontal well 1000’ long might be drilled on 80 acres thus replacing 2 vertical wells. This well might be fractured in 3 or 4 spots thus allowing even better results then the 2 vertical wells it replaced. Today, a horizontal well drilled with a lateral length of 4000’ might be drilled on a 320 acre unit. This well may also have 10 or 12 intervals fractured. This latest effort would replace 8 vertical wells drilled just 5 or 6 years ago. The initial production rate might easily exceed that of the combined 8 wells also. Thus there would be a big disconnect between the number of wells drilled and expected results if these advances were not taken into account. It’s difficult to estimate future expectations of advancing technology but I’ll guess we’re getting close to the point of diminishing returns on that front. Some improvements for sure but nothing like we’ve seen in the last 5 or 6 years. On the other hand, new UNG plays are now being explored which have never been considered viable targets in the history of resource development in the USA. With that in mind, any effort to offer a maximum/minimum detailed expectation of future recoveries would be almost pointless at this time IMHO.
With respect to increasing gas storage, this has been one of the most sought after opportunities in the last 5+ years. But there have been significant road blocks. Only certain reservoirs are suitable for NG storage. And this number is limited. Complicating the effort even further is that many such sites are in the Gulf coast region. Adding storage here does little to alleviate demand out side the region due to the transportation bottle neck. Even where potential storage reservoirs are close to the end users it isn’t a sure thing. If the sites are distant to the pipeline system it adds a huge cost factor to make the connection. Additionally, building the new pipeline connections take a considerable amount of time. This adds considerably to the risk of predicting future demand/pricing. And even when conditions are favorable, NG storage is an expensive proposition to initiate. A certain volume of “bunker gas” is needed. This is the volume of gas that will never be produced as long as the facility is operating. A NG storage of significant size night require 10 bcf of such gas or more. At $10/mcf this would tie up $100 million of capital indefinitely.
A significant amount of tite NG sand production is still locked up in the western states due to lack of regional transportation lines. But advances on this front have been made over the last 5 + years.
But, as to the question of these plays being similar to the giant conventional gas plays of old, the simple answer is no…not even close. I’ve worked in some of those old fields where an individual well might produce 30 or 40 bcf over its life time. Cumulative production from some of the best UNG wells might approach this level but the vast majority will produced just several bcf of NG. The production profile of the typical UNG well is very different: a high initial rate with production dropping as much as 70% to 90% in just several years. This is why you’re seeing such an acceleration in new completions. (and given current NG prices these wells do generate a very acceptable, if short, rate of return). As wells drilled just 2 or 3 years ago start their steep decline rates the companies (especially the public one) must drill more wells to replace them. But as these newer wells begin their decline even more wells are needed to replace. Almost all the big UNG players are public companies. As outlined here earlier, these companies must show consistent y-o-y growth in reserve volume. This is how their stock is valued by most on Wall Street. This fact actually adds to the potential recoverable NG values. Even if NG prices were to drop to a level that a public company could only expect to just recover their capital cost they would have no choice but to continue drill as fast as their cash flow would allow. We may actually reach a point where NG prices won’t support continued development of UNG due to over supply conditions. But these periods will be relatively short lived as production rapidly declines.
Many thanks for your comments. Your on-the-ground comments are always helpful.
I was looking at your statement, "The vast majority [of UNG wells} will produce just several over its life time." This fits in with what I was seeing at BP's Wamsutter. They were talking about production of 1 or 2 bcf over a well's lifetime. I hadn't realized that old conventional natural gas wells might produce 30 or 40 bcf over their lifetimes.
I suppose that we could be seeing a "U" in productivity. There is a huge drop down from conventional to unconventional, but now the unconventional could be coming up a bit. With the huge resource there, it is theoretically possible to extract quite a large amount at a low, but acceptable, EROEI.
If my fading memory is correct the highest recovery I've seen from a single well was around 120 bcf from an offshore TX field drilled by Chevron decades ago. It was a one well field...I suspect Chevron didn't realize how big the reservoir was and thus didn't drill additional wells to accelerate recovery.
I also meant to point out something important about the spike from the Independece Hub. The various Deep Water wells tied into it will also have a relatively short life compared to old conventional fields. Don't know the details but I'll guess 5 or 6 years. They may eventually be replaced by new wells down the road but only time will tell. Having the Hub inplace might bring more drilling back to this rather NG prone area.
The natural gas through the Independence Hub would actually be conventional natural gas, rather than unconventional natural gas. It would be good to have a breakdown on conventional vs unconventional in real time, rather than years later. Does anyone have a source that breaks out the amount of this flow separately? Perhaps some of the MMS offshore data, perhaps?
If the new offshore wells are much more productive than the unconventional wells, this could also be skewing the well productivity somewhat also.
In my Figure 1, I made a guesstimate of the 2007 and 2008 conventional / unconventional split. It is possible this split is skewed too much toward unconventional.
Gail,
I think in your previous post you said that the production per well of shale/tight gas was MUCH lower than a conventional gas well.
Some here seem to be ignoring the fact that Peak Gas will be governed by the 'size of the trap' not the size of the resource(which seems to be growing by the second).
But let's look at the 'natural gas fairy' for a sec.
It takes 127.77 SCF to equal 1 GGE. The US uses 150 billion GGE per year so that works out to 19.165 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Current US consumption is around 24 Tcf of natural gas so adding domestic production of natural gas just for CNG cars will increase by 80%. We still would use at least 3.65 billion barrels of oil per year and we produce 1.9 billion barrels per year. We would still have to get about 900 million barrels a year from Canada and 600 million barrels a year from Mexico (will Canada's tar sands grow as fast as Mexico depletes?). So we still import 250 million barrels of oil.
How long will our new NG 'potential' last? The USGS says that unconventional gas is around 544 Tcf of gas. Conventional is around
400 Tcf and then there is the ever popular undiscovered potential of something like 300 Tcf. Total ~1200 Tcf. Divided. By. 44 Tcf. Equals. 28 years. (Assuming unconventional gas flows like conventional gas, which it doesn't).
And what do you know... Boone says other technologies will take over in 30 years(probably hydrogen from much more abundant coal)!
'Fool me once...I won't get fooled again', right?
I am happy we have found some more natural gas but I'm not deleriously so.
Could somebody please tell the agents of the natural gas companies that the party is over?
Get off fossil fuels.
You are right. Anything is temporary.
Also, it is not clear that continuing our motoring ways is the best use of resources.
Hi Majorian,
I'm working on a post about T. Boon's idea for CNG powered cars, and you are correct. If you power all 134 million passenger vehicles with CNG, it would overwhelm our current production. But if you use plug-in hybrid CNG cars (CNGPIH - bad acronyms strike again!), then you only need about 10% to 15% more gas after 20 to 25 years, which is not too bad (time required to replace 134 M cars at current scrapping rate of 5.8 million cars/year).
I see at least two potential problems with a only CNG-auto approach:
1) If you invest lots of $$ in a CNG vehicle infrastructure, then you've got to live with it for awhile, otherwise, you'll have to pay in $$ AND energy to build a different one. So that implies that the car of the future would be either a CNG/biofuel dual fuel model, or you go in the direction bio-CNG as a replacement for oil/gasoline. I'm not sure CNGPIH only is the way to go.
2) Natural gas is now the lifeboat of choice for many, power plant folks included. Using the EIA’s data for proposed power plants, I calculate that between now and 2015, about 6.3 TCF additional will be needed to power them plants (see my response to Gail below). When you start to add all of this on to CNG's back, it makes me nervous, especially if we don't have a clear picture of what future gas supplies will be.
However, if CNGPIH’s are part of a balanced solution and/or peak oil strikes with a vengeance before we are ready, then CNGPIH’s would be a easy way to handle part of the loss until we can find and produce bio-fuels in sufficient quantities. - SMH
I've got some stock in a little oil company that's planning on drilling two or three exploratory sub-salt wells in the later half of this year and the first part of next year in Southern Lousiana.
These wells are deep and they're extremely expensive--they're talking between $25 and $30 million each. But the reserve figures they're throwing out are jaw-dropping, something like 50 to 100 BCF per well.
Have you heard much about these plays, ROCKMAN?
Is the geophyisics used to locate these prospects new?
Is the technology used to drill through the salt new?
Isn't drilling the subsalt the same thing Petrobras has done with such stunning results?
What kind of potential could this unlock for U.S. natural gas producers?
I've heard a lot about these shale and other resource plays, but almost nothing about the sub-salt.
DS,
I'm not too knowledgeable about sub salt plays in S La. My work has been in the Deep Water GOM. But there are similar aspects. To answer your specific questions:
It's 100% seismic exploration. Even when there are a lot of offset wells (and there are very few in your play) most deep targets are confirmed seismically. Advances in seismic over the last 10 years have led these plays.
No...drilling through salt is old hat...been doing it for 30+ years. But there are still significant mechanical risks. The weight of the drilling mud is varied to deal with high reservoir pressures in all deep wells. Too heavy a MW and you'll collapse the hole. Too light a MW and you risk a blow out...makes for a very bad day. This is actually my job these days: monitor the drilling situation and make MW recommendations. The one caution: a $25 million hole can turn into a $50 million one in a blink of an eye. Drilling deep is always a risky proposition. Make sure your guys have deep enough pockets to handle such a cost overruns. My last Deep Water $100 million hole cost $148 million by the time we were done. And it was a dry hole.
Same type of animal Petrobras is chasing but otherwise no relationship.
I know Exxon and others have been chasing ultra deep targets in S La but haven’t heard of any great successes. There isn’t a potential for the cookie cutter type plays in the unconventional shale gas plays. The deep exploration programs are chasing very specific types of structural traps similar to the old conventional NG fields. There may be a number of fields to find out there but nothing like the 10’s of thousands of unconventional gas well that will be drilled. Huge payday for a company that finds one but the play won’t ever add up in aggregate like the UNG plays.
And this is why you don’t hear much about sub salt: just a few players with new discoveries coming just a few times a year at best.
Thanks for the heads up, ROCKMAN.
From what you're saying, it sounds like these are highly speculative ventures, not only from a gelogical perspective, but from an operatonal one as well.
It makes one wonder whether the potential rewards justify the risks.
These domestic oil and gas producers face some pretty tough choices. Despite all the technological advances in seismic, drilling and completion technology, a panacea of quick riches doesn't seem to be in the cards: they can either opt for the low risk-low return that the resource plays offer, or they can go for the high risk-high return projects like the subsalt.
It's a hard business.
Joe Stiglitz has a new column out today. Even though I disagree with his conclusions, I nevertheless think his division of the economy into two parts--manufacturing vs. service--is insightful:
Guys like yourself are out there doing the heavy lifting in the manufacturing sector. Meanwhile, the so-called "whiz kids" reap the huge monetary rewards in service sector endeavors like banking and finance.
Where I think Stiglitz gets it wrong is his characterization of the service economy as the "knowledge" economy, the "information" economy, the "innovation" economy. His blind spot is in thinking that guys like yourself, dedicated to the manufacturing sector, don't deploy as much knowledge, information and innovation as his fair haired boys in the service sector. The reality is that you probably deploy about 1000 times as much.
As much as I admire Stiglitz--his strident condemnations of the Iraq war and Bush's profligate and disastrous fiscal policies--I nevertheless think the time is rapidly approaching when we will see that he lives in a world of illusions, a dream world of smoke and mirrors.
I think Stiglits is right here, but only in times of great surplus.
Surplus energy, food, water, basically all resources.
However we are entering or in a period of huge forced constraints on all of the above.
So he is DEAD wrong. IMO
"His blind spot is in thinking that guys like yourself, dedicated to the manufacturing sector, don't deploy as much knowledge, information and innovation as his fair haired boys in the service sector. "
No, when someone like Stiglitz refers to the "knowledge" economy, he's including people like Rockman. Rockman is a knowledge worker, not a manual worker. That's Stiglitz's whole point - Rockman may not drag wellcasings around, but his services are essential to drilling.
Thanks for information on spacing. I was wondering how they were doing that. I had heard they were drilling laterals up to 4000 or 5000 feet. And I had heard they were drilling on 40-acre spacing. And I figured if you drill wells on 40 acre spacing with 4620 foot laterals, then the laterals are only going to be a few hundred feet apart, because a 40-acre parcel 5280 ft. long would only be 330 ft. wide. So I was intrigued, since that would mean they were figuring these wells could only drain 165 ft. from the wellbore.
I had also heard they were drilling numerous wells from a single location, like a fan, and I was also curious as to how that works.
It's all very interesting, and certainly a big change from the days when I was in the business.
It is a whole new world from when I started in 1975. Maersk is drilling hundreds of 25,000'+ laterals in the Persian Gulf developing a tite chalk gas reservoir. That was their chopper that just hit the platform and killed 7. I think one of my cohorts was killed but still waiting on confirmation.
Right now, in many of the UNG plays, operators are targeting a certain direction for the laterals based upon assumed orientation of natural fractures. Thus you might just see two wells at most drilled from a single location.
And you're right: the more we drill the more we learn. The wells probably aren't draining much more than 100' or 200' from the lateral. That's why you're starting to see 10 or 12 fracs per hole becoming more common. Essentially, only those portions of the reservoirs in direct contact will the frac will produce. That's one big reason why folks throwing around those big "in place" gas reserve numbers are misleading. That NG may be there but an whole lot will be left behind when the wells are depleted.