There is an incredible amount of resource out there. This is a map I posted earlier regarding tight gas.


Shale gas resources are just as widespread. Even coal bed methane is theoretically very widespread, since veins that are too deep to mine can possibly be used.

These resources will certainly vary in quality from one part of the county to another. Originally, none of it could be extracted profitably. Companies have chosen what appear to be promising sites, and gradually made incremental progress on being able to extract the natural gas profitably and in reasonable quantity. It is yet clear how much of this gas can be extracted profitably, since this will depend on how much technology can be adapted to extract gas in different formations. In some formations, the gas may be so "dilute" or bound so tightly that nothing can be done to profitably extract it.

One of the issues in determining gas reserves is how closely wells can be spaced. The original spacing (I believe) was one well to 80 acres. This is now coming down to one well to 40 acres in some places, and even one well to 20 acres a few places.

In my visit to BP's Wamasutter WY location, BP said that it has produced about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas since 1977. This represents less than 20% of the resource available in BP's portion of Wamsutter field. We were told that gas wells from the 1970s are still flowing.

If we had unlimited resources (including no peak oil), I can imagine a scenario where unconventional gas could keep producing at a high level for 20 or 30 years, because rigs could be moved on to new locations, as old locations became exhausted. In the real world, I doubt that this is will happen.

Cheers Gail and thanks for the excellent article. Just a few thoughts:

1. Doesn't this put a little wrinkle in the 'peak oil' situation? Can we use Nat Gas to release some of the burden on Coal and potentially, oil?
2. As for excess gas, doesn't this play well to the Pickens plan? If we could run 10% of our transport on Nat Gas, wouldn't that help ease any glut while providing a more steady demand? Added benefit -- less foreign oil imports (10% Nat gas + 10% biofuels + 20% efficiency gain +10% all electric might just destroy our imports and achieve the dream of energy independence -- I know, you guys will all cry cornucopia. Just a thought).
3. How much of the gas could we liquefy and export? Europe needs gas bad. Russia is a geopolitical problem. A few bargaining chips other than the navy in the Black Sea would be nice.
4. Can you 'crack' gas into traditional petroleum products? If so, at what cost/EROI?
5. With demand curtailed for oil and new supply of nat gas is the energy market headed for a mini bust?
6. Chemicals/plastics/fertilizer. Bring more industry back to the states. Am I wrong???
7. This looks like one giant opportunity in need of a few good capitalists.
8. Or would it be best just to pace production so we can make the best use of our resource over the longest period?

As for 4: Yes, I think this should be possible. Methane has even advantages to longer hydrocarbon chains as it has a better hydrogen/carbon ratio. So a plethora of natural gas would be a great fix to bridge the gaps opened by peak oil. But I'm still not sure how far the UNG resources provide is a sustainable solution or are only a temporary straw fire (see the comments below).