[Graeme]

US Has Almost 100-Year Supply of Natural Gas

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 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.

[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]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')h huh. Under 5000ft of solid bedrock under North Dakota, next to the 200 year supply of oil.

[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]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 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.

[Graeme]

Is there a green fossil fuel?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 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.

[Graeme]

The Good and Bad of Abundant Natural Gas

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 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.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '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.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 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.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')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.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')ctually, "at current rates" applies very well to the case of coal in the US.
There's no growth at all in coal usage.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'T')he 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]

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]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('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.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'T')he 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.

[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]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'S')orry, 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.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'I') posted the link to the size of the resource estimate. I certainly didn't make it up

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'E')ven 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.