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:

Some looking at the U.S. economy's decreasing reliance on manufacturing and increasing dependence on the service sector (including financial services) have long worried that the whole thing was a house of cards. After all, aren't "hard objects"--the food we eat, the houses we live in, the cars and airplanes that we use to transport us from one place to another, the gas and oil that provides heat and energy--the "core" of the economy? And if so, shouldn't they represent a larger fraction of our national output?

The simple answer is no. We live in a knowledge economy, an information economy, an innovation economy. Because of our ideas, we can have all the food we can possibly eat--and more than we should eat--with only 2 percent of the labor force employed in agriculture.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=947bf9e5-923b-409a-adac-579658...

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.