In 2008 this country used 23.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Of that 2.9 trillion cubic feet was imported, primarily (90%) from Canada.
Here are the pertinent figures from the EIA (Energy Information Administration).
- Natural gas - production: 582.2 billion cubic meters ( 20.5 trillion cubic feet)
- Natural gas - consumption: 657.2 billion cubic meters (23.2 trillion cubic feet)
- Natural gas - exports: 28.49 billion cubic meters ( 1.0 Trillion cubic feet)
- Natural gas - imports: 112.7 billion cubic meters ( 3.9 trillion cubic feet )
- LNG – Imports: 416.8 Billion Cubic Feet.
The United States is the Number one consumer of Natural gas, and the worlds second largest Producer. We have the 5th largest amount of proven reserves, and we are the number one importer, importing 17% of our natural gas consumption in 2008.
Five states: Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming, currently produce about 80% of our domestic natural gas supply.
The existence of pipelines is a very important part of natural gas recovery. Indeed, if natural gas is produced by a well, and there is not a nearby pipeline to transport it, it is often burned off. Natural gas cannot reasonably be transported by trucks, or ships until it is either compressed into CNG, or liquefied into LNG. CNG is natural gas compressed to less that 1% of it’s volume, and is usually stored in tanks at about 2200 PSI. In terms of energy content (energy density), CNG takes up about 2 times the volume of LNG, and 4 times the volume of diesel fuel. LNG is natural gas that has been cooled to about minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature natural gas becomes a liquid. It has to be maintained at this temperature in special cryogenic (refrigerated) tanks, which adds to the high cost of LNG.
Here is an interesting discussion (and map) of current major natural gas pipelines in the US:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/index.html
And, here is a map of conventional Gas Production wells in the US:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/rpd/conventional_gas.pdf
While not as complex as Crude Oil refining. Natural gas from the well is nowhere near pure. It has many other constituants from water to natural gas liquids (liquids closer to our familiar petrochemicals).. These have to be removed via various processing stages before the gas (now called dry gas) can be placed into a pipeline.
The actual methodology of quantifying and classifying reserves is rather complex. I am going to use the EIA's system (also used by the Natural Gas Association). I am also going to simplify a bit. In discussions, these distinctions are important, because various people will quote different numbers often to support a claim. There are also various different organizations with different estimates, albeit they normally end up pretty close.
The widest measure is the total estimated Resource base. This is an estimate of all possible estimated gas. For the US, this number is 1,747 trillion cubic feet. The vast majority of this gas is unrecoverable for various technical reasons. But the number pops up. It can be ignored!
Another distinction is between Conventional sources (Those trapped in reservoirs), and unconventional, gas trapped in structures that require non-conventional, and sometimes extreme, methods to recover them. These sources are further broken down into proved reserves – those that we know are there, and can be recovered, and unproved reserves – another way of saying we THINK they are there based on geology and surveys. The Unconventional reserves estimate below includes both proved and unproved, as it is hard to separate them. So, some numbers:
- US Conventional Proved Reserves - 211.9 Trillion Cubic Feet
- US Conventional Unproved Reserves - 373.4 Trillon Cubic Feet
- US Unconventional Reserves - 644.9 Trillion Cubic Feet. (This includes)
- Tight Gas – 309.5 Trillion Cubic Feet
- Shale Gas – 267.2 Trillion Cubic Feet
- Coal Methane – 68.1 Trillion Cubic Feet
It is important to note, that according to the Natural Gas Association, Tight Gas is extremely hard to extract. As to shale gas, the above number is from EIA. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) puts the estimate at 742 Trillion Cubic Feet. However, according to the Natural Gas Association it is expected only about 10% of the shale gas can actually be extracted (Produced).
You can learn much more about our resources, and how they are measured at:
http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp
A recent (December 2009) report on Gas shale was produced by Advanced Resources International and presented at the United Nations Climate Change Conference. This report focuses on the “Magnificent Seven” North American Gas Shales – the primary resources on the North American Continent. 5 are in the US, and 2 are in Canada. They reached the following conclusions as to our North American Supply.
- US (5 basins) – Total reserves: 3,760 Trillion Cu Ft. - Recoverable reserves: 475 Trillon Cubic Feet
- Canada (2 Basins) - Total reserves: 1,380 Trillion Cu Ft. - Recoverable reserves: 240 Trillon Cubic Feet
This report puts our total recoverable US Shale Gas at 475 Cubic Feet. Less than the FERC, but more than the Natural Gas Association, and a little less than the EIA Estimates. As should be obvious there is just a little bit of uncertainty and disagreement about how much Gas shale actually exists and is recoverable. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle...
You can read the entire report here:
http://www.adv-res.com/pdf/Kuuskraa%20Condensed%20Worldwide%20Uncon%20Gas%2012_12_09.pdf
And, at the EIA Website:http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_top.asp
Finally, This quote is taken directly from the Natural Gas Association Web Site:
“In recent years, demand for natural gas has grown substantially. However, as the natural gas industry in the United States becomes more mature, domestically available resources become harder to find and produce. As large, conventional natural gas deposits are extracted, the natural gas left in the ground is commonly found in less conventional deposits, which are harder to discover and produce than has historically been the case. However, the natural gas industry has been able to keep pace with demand, and produce greater amounts of natural gas despite the increasingly unconventional and elusive nature. The ability of the industry to increase production in this manner has been a direct result of technological innovations.”
You can read more about our Natural Gas Supply at their website:
http://www.naturalgas.org/business/supply.asp
Just go with the demands of natural gas, you can blame people why they used to consume natural gas because with this they can save money. Grab the opportunity to supply natural gas. And besides you are helping others as well as helping our environment.
Posted by: Plumbing | February 8, 2011 at 11:22 PM
Natural gas logs are very popular, but there are a number of things to consider when choosing logs. There are specific logs that are suited for many different purposes. One of the first important decisions you must make will be to consider whether you will purchase a vented, or unvented, natural gas log fireplace.
Posted by: plumbing | February 15, 2011 at 09:26 AM
Hi Surdas, thanks for renadig and taking the time to comment. I have to disagree with your contention that we are not going to find ways of extracting oil or gas at lower costs than conventional. Natural gas disproves that entirely. The line between conventional and unconventional is a moving target, but shale and tight gas are unconventional by almost anyone's definition. The cost of gas out of shale wells in Alberta and elsewhere is far cheaper than out of conventional wells in the same jurisdictions. In fact, you do see people shutting-in conventional production while unconventional production expands. I do agree that we are unlikely to discover giant conventional fields. Importantly, high oil prices don't drive people to seek out low GHG energy they drive people to seek out oil or a good substitute. Some of those might be low-GHG sources, but only high GHG prices will create a preference for low-GHG oil substitutes over high GHG ones.The thought process I am trying to drive here is not to think about oil prices as purely a force which acts on the demand side, and to also think of prices as a consequence of the interaction of supply and demand, not a driver for supply or demand. For example, you argue that low oil prices will drive lower investment in renewable energy this is certainly true in a vacuum, but I would push you one step further and ask you why oil prices are low? Suppose that there is a breakthrough on par with horizontal drilling and fracking that leads to massive cost reductions in next gen biofuels. The availability of a cheap substitute for oil would drive down the price of oil, and rather than that driving down investment in the renewable energy source, it would be because of the investment (and breakthrough) in the renewable energy source. I think it's tempting to think of oil sands and renewable fuels as fundamentally different because of their environmental footprint. Unfortunately, in the absence of pricing policies on those environmental attributes, the race is simply to provide energy to the market which is signaling value through the price. Whether the ramp up is slow or fast, the technology which can best do this will be the one which is adopted the fastest. thanks again for renadig.
Posted by: Elgen | May 25, 2012 at 09:31 PM
I think you're being a little siiitmslpc when it comes to a couple facets of your argument. One As more of these deep water wells are drilled or oil sands plants are built, the technology will improve, and the costs will go down. These are expensive, long to develop, capital intensive plays with uncertain flow through rates and a host of other uncertain variables. There are all kinds of natural limits you can butt up against (water use if the oil sands significantly scales up, black swans when it comes to deep water drilling). All the technology in the world isn't going to make bitumen anything less than 20-40% oil when it comes out of the ground. There are limits to natural capital that all of the tech in the world can't solve whether it makes sense from a price perspective or not. I'm fairly indifferent to the price of oil. I'm more of a fan of the price going up because of the limits it puts on the depletion of natural capital but there are a lot of moving parts here. The price of oil will do its thing. I'm currently more worried about food price volatility/climate change related matters and its effect on politics around the world. If what happened in Moscow this summer happened in Chicago (and it will eventually) you're going to be hearing a different tune from south of the border. TwoYou seem to have been sucked into this view that environmentalists are this homogenous block who all want electric cars and alternative fuel sources so we can continue to run this amazing and trouble free transportation system we have. I don't think electric cars are worth the rare earths that you dig out of the ground to run them. Looking at it from a systems perspective, our road system is an investment in infrastructure that is simply unsustainable (damn that word). Two cars a household, the investment in public space for private property (parking), ever widening roads and the vehicles that fill them, this is not planning, it's madness.
Posted by: Hamada | August 4, 2012 at 06:35 PM