« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

‘We have more oil and natural gas than anyone thought possible even 5 years ago.’

The domestic oil and gas supply picture is better than it’s been in a generation, and it’s getting better every day. That’s not just my opinion; it’s also the conclusion of Adam Sieminski, chief administrator of the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), the government’s one-stop shop for all statistics related to our nation’s energy production and consumption. Sieminski was interviewed by Platt’s Energy Week upon the release of EIA’s annual reserve statistics on August 2, 2012 (link to Platt’s video, approx. 10 minutes).

The questions an intelligent voter may ask: “Why is the professional press continually suggesting that ‘the oil boom is a mirage’? Why am I learning about this from a part-time blogger, and not from the government? Why is this apparent ‘windfall’ not shaping economic policy?”


OIL AND CONDENSATE RESERVES*

According to the latest available reserve estimates (Year End 2010), domestic reserves of liquid petroleum stand at a 21-year high: 25 billion barrels. During the last year of reporting, oil reserves grew by 13%; within two years, according to Sieminski, reserves might be equal 1980′s level. Note that the time frame of the report is nearly two years ago. Since drilling activity continues unabated, it’s entirely plausible that we may already be at the 30 billion barrels level. If true, that will represent an unprecedented growth of nearly 50% in five short years. Not only are we replacing increasing levels of production, our ready inventory is growing.

The new numbers include not just oil but natural gas condensate as well. Gas condensate is a light oil-like by-product of natural gas production. For some reason, EIA began tracking oil and condensate only recently. The crude oil history is here.

Under Peak Oil Theory, the growth in reserves you see here is not supposed to be possible. Once Peak Oil has been achieved, so the theory goes, the decline in both reserves and production is “inexorable”. But your lying eyes are telling you that the decline is, for lack of a better word, “exorable”. Who are you going to believe? (Peak Oil theory is flawed because it has an inherent blind spot for improved economics and advances in technology. Higher product prices spur innovation, which unlocks new supplies in unanticipated places, like the deepwater Gulf of Mexico and in shale rocks previously believe non-productive. Peak Oil assumes that one can make a valid projection of historical trends to define the resource limit; as we have seen it can lead to bad conclusions.)


NATURAL GAS RESERVES

If the oil picture seems rosy, the natural gas story is even better. Gas reserves are already (YE 2010) the highest in history at 300 trillion cubic feet, having increased for twelve straight years. The gas production rate, expected to average 69 billion cubic feet per day in 2012, is also the highest ever.

So much for “Peak Gas”. The abundant supply of gas has driven prices to historic lows relative to oil. Even hard-core environmentalists are beginning to concede the advantages of clean, abundant, domestic gas as an alternative to coal (as an electricity-generating fuel) and oil (as a transportation fuel). In fact, gas recently surpassed coal as the #1 fuel for electricity.

We currently consume about 28 trillion cubic feet (TCF) per year of natural gas, importing about 4 TCF/yr, mostly from Canada. In the interview, Sieminski forecasts that by 2022 the U.S. will be a net exporter of gas.

An interesting passage from Sieminski’s video interview:

Q: One issue that always comes up, and it’s a political one, is who does take credit for these sorts of increases, the government or the industry? Of course, Republicans and Democrats will argue that it’s one party or another, but how should credit be assigned for this sort of surge?

SIEMINSKI: Well, I think realistically it’s the companies themselves in terms of where they’ve been operating, and the capital that they’ve invested, the people and technology that they’ve been able to bring to the task. Now, in terms of the land, one of the things EIA was able to do was to look at where the oil and gas shale formations are; for the most part they are not coincident with federal landholding so it’s hard for the federal government to actually show big either oil or gas shale production numbers on its own land simply because the geology favors private and state landholdings. In terms of which political party really deserves the credit, as you know EIA does not make policy judgments, but oil investments are a very long term process, and I would say that everybody that has been working on these things for the past ten years gets some credit for it.

This week, Marty Durbin, Executive VP of the American Petroleum Institute spoke at the American Energy Initiative hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He believes, as I do, that North American energy self sufficiency is achievable. An excerpt of his remarks provides a fitting summary:

“We are an energy-rich nation. We have more oil and natural gas than anyone thought possible even 5 years ago: more potential energy than many oil-exporting nations in the Mideast, and more than most countries in the world.

“If we are allowed to safely produce more of our domestic energy resources and invest in more Canadian oils sands we could provide 100 percent of our U.S. liquid fuel needs in a matter of years,” said Durbin. “We need leadership. We have an opportunity to spur millions of jobs and billions of dollars of revenue to our government. We need smart public policies to develop these vast and critical resources now.”

Emphasis added. Hear, hear. – Ed.

* – “Reserves” are a petroleum engineering term of art. “Resources” is the more all-encompassing term. Reserves are like the cash in your checking account; resources are like your total assets. Reserves are a small, highly certain subset of total resources. People who carelessly use the terms interchangeably (like our current President) inevitably conclude that we’re going to “run out” of reserves in 10-15 years if we keep consuming at today’s rate. Fact is, the reserve number has always been 10 to 15 years’ worth of production. Technology, economics and policy determine how readily resources can be turned into reserves.

Cross-posted at Maley’s Energy Blog.


Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Common_Cents

    what is holding back a big push for lp/nat gas in transportation? either conversions of existing vehicles or newly designed engines? Is is just distribution? heck, there are companies now delivering BBQ tanks to your home cheaper than you can pick them up at a Cstore now.

  • Dave_A

    Safety issues (related to compressed gas storage) and the need to essentially rebuild/replace the whole fuel and engine computer system (for a retrofit)….

    Nat gas is best for fixed plant usage like power generation….

    BBQ cylinders are propane… totally diff

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    There is, however, an upside to building a methane or propane driven vehicle (or retrofitting an existing one). An internal combustion engine run on methane or propane has a life extension, on average, of between 3 to 5 times, meaning that, if you are like me and don’t trade cars every 3-5 years, your engine will require less frequent oil changes, and will last a lot longer, with considerably less maintenance. The rub is that finding a filling station is a bit more difficult.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    The biggest problem is not in supplying Nat Gas to filling stations, that could be done pretty quickly and cheaply. The biggest problem is range.

    Those vehicles just don’t have much range, only about 40% of a Gasoline vehicle.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Another thing to consider is that our trade partners, Canada and Mexico have also increased their reserves due to this new technology.

  • stevemaley

    You’re kind of the Baghdad Bob of CNG vehicles. What are the safety issues again? There is a sizable fleet on the road and I’ve never heard of a fuel explosion. There are two fueling stations within about a mile of my house – certainly cleaner than gasoline stations. There are power and range issues to be sure, but it’s so clean-burning that maintenance is a big plus. I’m told that the technology is almost there that will enable over-the-road trucks to burn CNG. That will be a game-changer.

  • Dave_A

    the safety issues in retrofitting existing vehicles involve where to mount the high pressure gas cylinder.

    Nat gas is not propane – its not liquified easy enough to store in a BBQ style tank….

    LNG requires higher pressures, which means a different sort of tank (iirc they have to go in the trunk on an existing vehicle)

    also, a LNG filling station likely is tied to the local gas main, not filled by truck… so there aren’t any in the large parts of the country with no gas service….

    And filling stations need gas compressors…

    too many issues vs using gas for home heat, generation, and such…. freeing oil for use as motor fuel

  • stevemaley

    My city’s buses run on natural gas. Apache Corporation, a large oil and gas company, runs its fleet on compressed (not liquified) natural gas.

    Here’s one of their fueling stations. When I was there it was selling fuel at the equivalent of $1.79/gal of gasoline.

    http://stevemaley.com/2012/06/21/lafayettes-first-public-natgas-station-apache-rsrh/photo4-2/

    Yep, that’s right, 3600 psi. According to the Apache rep I spoke with last week, the worst incident he’s heard of is due to an untrained mechanic making some homemade modifications. The fuel tanks have not presented an explosion hazard in practice.

    These high-pressure stations refuel a vehicle in a time comparable to a gasoline station. There are also home garage compressor stations that take household gas & compress it, but that takes overnight to fill.

  • satchman3

    I think this fairly recent surge in domestic oil/gas production is a very inconvenient truth for the press and the liberalocracy. They’ve been trying for years to reduce the consumption of transportation fuels under the guise of reducing global warming (other inconvenient truths forced them to rename it climate change). Rising fuel prices and our high proportion of imports helped make the case for reducing consumption of transportation fuels.

    The US has always been the Saudi Arabia of coal. Now through newer technology like horizontal drilling and better fracking strategies our companies are exploiting oil and gas resources that couldn’t be produced 20 years ago.

    I agree with you that this is a great story of technology development and it’s inexplicable that the press doesn’t talk about it.

  • http://deadite.wordpress.com deadite

    Steve, I am a big proponent of natural gas, like yourself. I work in the energy field (not on the upstream side, but on the downstream side).

    Part of the problem of getting natural gas into common use lies, as usual, with the regulatory state. EPA uses CARB standards for natural gas vehicles, which are ridiculously high. That’s because CARB hates carbon based fuels, and they know natural gas would be a real competitor with gasoline – and would kill their vaunted electric vehicle program…

    I’m not an ethanol fan, but this news story could make me one, however… http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/03/ethanol-minus-the-corn-it-could-fuel-america-if-it-werent-illegal/
    We can already do this with methanol, but the ground water issues are tougher. Ethanol would work well with our current distribution system, and you really could get a 15% mix. The cheap price of this ethanol would make up for the loss in fuel economy.

    EPA has, of course, doubled down on stupid by this year coming out and insisting on new ethanol fuel standards, http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/14/epa-to-america-you-will-use-more-biofuels-and-you-will-like-it/
    just as a drought begins to drive up food prices even more. It is said that famine is a man made phenomena – I only wonder if we will see that soon here…

  • Common_Cents

    I know, was using the example as possible distribution methods.

  • f224

    As the book “Black Gold, Strangle Hold” explained, we will never run out because the magma of the earths core is making more every day. Go figure, God provided us with unlimited sources of energy.

  • greyeagle

    As long as Obama is in office we will NOT get the chance to become energy independent. He is just focusing only on wind, solar, increasing ethanol, which will destroy our vehicle engines.

  • thx1138v2

    in 1902 the preminent scientists of the day discussed the need to develop alternative sources of energy. Their proposals were to use windmills, vegetation grown for fuel, and the sun’s rays harnessed for power. Sound familiar?
    Their worries were based on the fact that at some point the world would have to run out of coal. Yes, in 1902 coal was the source of power for the entire industrial revolution.
    Of course there were nay sayers. Thomas Edison said it was hog wash because there was enough timber in the Amazon to fuel the mankind’s needs for 50,000 years. Oh! The horror! It’s enough to make environmentalists choke on their tofu.
    There was one man, however, who got it right. Rear Admiral R. B. Bradford said the problem would be solved by man’s wit. And it was. Petroleum products came onto the scene. Note also that we still have plenty of coal today so it may have not been quite the problem they envisioned – peak coal, if you will. Imagine driving a coal powered steam engine car to work.
    So the idea that man’s wit has once again proven capable of solving a problem still holds – more production from better exploration and production techniques.
    This is but one of the articles in a collection by John Ratzlaff titled “Tesla Said”.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24306442/Tesla-Said-Compiled-by-John-Ratzlaff

    It is an interesting read. This particular article starts on page 73 in the PDF document.

  • stevemaley

    About the author: “Dr. Jerome Corsi is a Senior Staff Reporter for World Net Daily where he works as an investigative reporter.”

    The success of the shale plays pretty much confirms the conventional theory of hydrocarbon generation. It comes from organic matter that is buried in mud, which turns to shale. Pressure and temperature cook the organic matter into hydrocarbons.

    If some small fraction of oil and gas is of an abiotic source, it is of little significance unless it can recharge reservoirs as fast as they’re depleted. And there’s never been any evidence of that.

  • dbecraft

    Great! Am still waiting for a Presidential Candidate to actually push for development of our own resources including new refineries. All of this means nothing if we can’t get by the environmentalists (lawyers).

    Until then, we continue to purchase and pay the Middle East for oil… Nobody ever said America was smart but we have become apologetic!

  • ag8tor

    “We need leadership. We have an opportunity to spur millions of jobs and billions of dollars of revenue to our government. We need smart public policies to develop these vast and critical resources now.” It’s obvious what is missing from the message in this statement. Nobody I know is against conservation and protecting the planet. As we have seen in the past four years, the green technology just isn’t there yet. Until it is we will need supplies of oil and gas. This adminiistration has already stated that gas should be in line with Europes $6-8/gal. That is not leadership during an energy crisis, it is a socialist agenda disguised as an energy policy. If it weren’t we would be drilling for the resources we need rather than regulating the industry and production to a standstill.

  • hart65

    Trend is not destiny… the
    willed future always prevails over the logical future. Let’s stipulate there
    are issues with living with some form of natural gas; for electricity
    generation and to power our vehicles. There are also issues with being held hostage
    by a part of the world that has some of the oil we can’t live without. So with
    a willing suspension of disbelief, let’s just will it. Natural gas can fuel the
    majority of vehicles, and it is a cleaner replacement for other fossil fuels
    for electricity generation. And what about solving another problem along the
    way. There is $60 trillion in American retirement accounts; with the biggest
    chunk held by “oh crap what I do now” Boomers. As a recent retiree, I would
    love to have some energy bonds in my portfolio that pay, say, 6% tax free. How
    about we Boomers fund the infrastructure bonds for the natural gas distribution
    and vehicle conversions. Until all this is up and running and generating
    positive cash flows, we might need a temporary government authorized Ponzi
    scheme, like Social Security, to pay the bond yields. At some point in time,
    say about when Social Security and Medicare are about to go bust, the profits
    from this moon shot could augment the funding of these entitlements. The
    “Greatest Generation” won the war that gave us our chance to
    prosper… maybe our generation can be remembered for investing some of our
    good fortune to win today’s War on Prosperity. That would be a good thing.

  • celador2

    We need some change and I do not think Romney has added more than lip service to an aggressive energy policy. Bush did not. There are always reasons gridlock keeps the status quo. Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich were radical in their energy dtermination. They are on outside looking in.
    Canada has a Conservative PM who develops energy and Pipleline. Wll Romney see that through? Energy independence hould be highlighted instead of being on a laundry list.

  • Dave_A

    They have CNG busses here in WA too…

    Doesn’t change any of the issues with (a) the retrofit question I was replying to, including CNG storage on an existing vehicle, (c) how much CNG you can store on a new small vehicle, and (d) how to get CNG to the overwhelming majority of the US that doesn’t have a single gas line operating…

    The fact is, the same techniques getting us a bonanza of gas, are also freeing up more oil & condensate. This can be refined into stable, liquid-at-room-temperature fuel for vehicles…

    At the same time, we can eliminate a significant diversion of oil from fuel-use, by converting power generation and structural heating to natural gas (where it can be supplied by the traditional method of low-pressure pipeline) or electricity generated by gas or nuclear…

    CNG may work well for large vehicles operating within (or between) locations with low-pressure gas utility infastructure…

    It’s useless as a fuel for existing vehicles, or to fuel small motor vehicles that operate to/from areas with NO gas-lines.

    Gasoline and diesel are the perfect motor fuels… We just need to make sure we have sufficient domestic and allied sources of crude to make it from…

  • Dave_A

    15% ethanol will be even more destructive than 10% has been… Anything with a fiberglass or resin fuel tank? No-go… And most older vehicles will have serious fuel-system issues – hence the 10% max.

    Ethanol should be BANNED from gasoline.

    We have enough oil to run the pure stuff… Why not do so?

  • gulfcoastcommentary

    America has a great opportunity to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as transportation fuel–personal autos, buses, trucks. It can displace million of barrels per day of oil imports. I’m living in Thailand and it’s difficult to find a taxi or public bus that is NOT fueled by CNG. http://gulfcoastcommentary.blogspot.com/2012/04/real-energy-plan-for-america.html

  • http://deadite.wordpress.com deadite

    To normal vehicles. Not to Flexible Fule Vehicles. I’m not saying that we should shove the stuff in your 1987 Honda. I’m saying its a legitimate addition to our current fuel mix, if its made from a source that is cost effective. Our pipelines are set up to distribute it. There are, much as you would like to think otherwise, vehicles that will work with it.

    I also like CNG vehicles. But there seems to be a group of folks who despise giving Americans fuel choices. “Its bad!” “it’ll blow up!” “It causes acne!” As long as we aren’t causing famine (i.e., if we are using NG to create it, and not food) I have no problem with with. Or do you think that ethanol is so nasty there is no known technology that can wrk with it? I suppose beer and spirit distilleries, and other alcohol distribution centers (bars) don’t work either….

    I need a drink.

  • Dave_A

    1) You CANNOT distribute ethanol or ethanol-contaminated fuel by pipeline. Period. The ethanol itself, and the fuel it’s mixed with (post mix) must be delivered by TRUCK or TRAIN.

    2) There are alot more things powered by gasoline than cars (and very few of those ‘other things’ became ethanol tolerant in *any quantity* until the late 90s/early 00s. For example, due to the continued use of 100LL (leaded gas) as the ‘normal’ aviation fuel, aircraft still aren’t.)

    3) In cars, most vehicles are NOT flex-fuel – only a limited number designed for fleet-sales or marketed as ‘the environmentalist’s choice’ are FFVs. The remainder have a limited ethanol tolerance – capped at 10%.

    4) What is most telling, is that the only places ethanol sells in the US, are where it is mandated to be sold by government. Take away the mandate, and the market goes away.

    5) I will be very honest: I could care less about new vehicles & new vehicle production.

    My concern is the impact of said fuel on the used vehicle market, and on non-car applications.

    When you combine a fuel that has been proven destructive to EXISTING VEHICLES, with government mandates that it be mixed with ALL GASOLINE SOLD AT RETAIL…. You have a BIG PROBLEM. For now, there are exceptions for gas sold as ‘off-road use only’, but that’s a small (And likely temporary) comfort.

    For the above reasons, all government support for ethanol should be pulled. Selling ethanol-gas-mix as gasoline should be made illegal – the term is ‘gasohol’ and it should be offered as an alternative, not the primary fuel product.

  • Dave_A

    As for natural gas…

    It’s great if you live inside the gas-company’s pipeline coverage… No good at all if you don’t (that’s why outlying developments rely on PROPANE for gas-heat, or just go with electric)….

    As a vehicle fuel, we have storage and distribution issues – I’m not saying your car will blow up, but rather that the safety considerations involved in properly storing NG limit the fuel-capacity of the vehicle & add weight…

    You can’t store it in a light, sheet-metal tank like you can gasoline or diesel fuel.

    And the distribution issue, is that filling stations have to be within the urban footprint, in order to have access to gas-company supply lines (which would provide the gas to the filling station’s gas-compressor)…. Not workable if you live 30 miles+ from the nearest place that has gas service…. Unless you consider ‘fill up every day, so you can get home and back to where you can fill up again’ a good solution…. Remember: if you run out of compressed NG, you can’t just grab a can and go buy some… Time for a tow….