IEA: Natural Gas Can Supply World For 250 Years
Supplies of natural gas could last more than 250 years if Asian and European economies follow the U.S. unconventional reserves, the IEA said.
The abundance of shale gas and other forms of so-called unconventional gas discovered in the United States prompted a global rush to explore for the new resource.
The International Energy Agency said Australia is taking the lead in the push toward unconventional gas, though China, India and Indonesia are close behind. European companies are taking preliminary steps to unlock unconventional gas as are other regions.
“Production of ‘unconventional’ gas in the U.S. has rocketed in the past few years, going beyond even the most optimistic forecasts,” said Anne-Sophie Corbeau, a gas analyst at the IEA. “It is no wonder that its success has sparked such international interest.”
Shale gas production in the United States is booming and the IEA estimates that unconventional gas makes up around 12 percent of the global supply.
Global supplies of natural gas could last for another 130 years at current consumption rates. That time frame could double with unconventional gas, the IEA said.
“Despite the many uncertainties associated with production, countries are still prepared to take risks and invest time and money in exploration and production, because of the potential long-term benefits,” Corbeau said.
from the GWPF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Plenty out there. Methane digesters produce methane from rubbish which is better than burying it.
The bottom line: The more shale gas available means gas prices will be kept low and there will be less need for coal generation, CCS technology, heavily subsidised renewables or carbon trading markets.
Shale gas is a game changer.
Well, not to be a old stick-in-the-mud, but I can hear the moaning from the ecoloons already: ” But what will we do 251 years from now? Think of posterity!”
This is talking about gas demand alone, not energy supply including oil? Or are they claiming that the peak-oil event will not be soon unless other factors reduce the demand through normal economic models?
Beware – corporate monopolists (Gazprom) and environmental Malthusians (Tyndall Centre) want to stop this for environmental reasons, although at a first glance the environmental issues look thoroughly manageable, compared with say biofuels. However, we cannot have prosperity and economic and social progress, can we? Fortunately the sensible countries are driving on with this anyway, and others (e.g. UK) will just be left behind.
Hmm, the Economist had a similar argument some months ago, positing that “natural gas is becoming lot more like coal and less like crude” (or something to that effect), in the sense that reserves for NG were lengthening to centuries’ worth (like coal) rather than decades as previously thought (like crude).
Looks like “peak hydrocarbon” won’t be reached for hundreds of years yet, assuming we can manage the noted production issues…
Paul
That should read “becoming _a_ lot more like” in my earlier comment.
Should read…apart from the UK
Shale gas moratorium in UK urged by Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12190810
Sigh…..
“Peak oil” has become a refuge for CAGW believers still intent upon taxing “carbon” and covering the world with windmills. Good to see yet another hiding place being demolished. Wonder how the Japanese are getting on with exploiting methane clathrates (and the Indians with Thorium reactor research?
Meantime, we in UK expecting the lights to go out, if Mr Huhne stays in charge of energy policy.
The following article expands a bit:
http://www.suite101.com/content/investors-abandon-green-energy-in-wake-of-huge-new-gas-and-oil-fi-a335451
The downside to shale is that high volumes of fluid are needed to create the network of ruptures in the shale that allows the trapped gas to escape.
Disposing of that fluid is the problem.
It is laden with biocides to reduce fouling. In addition it picks up other substances, some of which may be very undesirable, while getting squirted into rock under high pressure. Absent very stringent supervision, these fluids will just be dumped at the surface and represent a large new pollution source.
Is this development due to the free market and and private profit-driven technological creativity?
So if the original gas reserves are being referred to as “natural gas”, then why isn’t this new stuff “unnatural gas” ?
Though there are some environmental concerns, primarily risks to groundwater, shale gas could be a world-wide political game-changer. Best of all, it will throw a monkey wrench into the renewable energy industry, being far cheaper, and, for the carbophobists, it produces half the C02 that coal does. It also could be cheaper than nuclear.
Peter Foster’s commentary at the National Post:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/20/peter-foster-solar-fades-as-shale-gas-flares/
“China reportedly has some two-thirds of the US$39-billion global market for solar panels, but it doesn’t use them very much. Why? Because they’re uneconomic.”
I remember reading in Flannery’s Weathermakers, about how gas was going to run out in 40 years or something ridiculous like that. It could be longer but I refuse to punish myself by opening that waste of paper ever again. No matter, another one wrong!!! I recall laughing and thinking to myself, I’ll betcha somebody will figure out where or how to get more.
My thoughts:
One: Anything being extracted from the ground other than open pit coal and sweet oil is gonna be more expensive, even without environmental controls.
Two: While the number said to be peak oil is hard to quantify, one thing is a for sure thing, energy extraction of any kind is a self-limiting endeavor.
Three: However, we harvest crop energy all the time, such as oil, and regrow it every year. We also produce the stuff to put in ethenol, and regrow that every year.
Four: The fly in that ointment is that if you also want the world to eat less meat, you have to increase vegetarian protein production, which would fight for the same land being used to produce crop energy. You can’t do both for an ever growing population without getting into some heated arguments.
Five: So, if you want to grow energy, something I think is doable, you have to admit that changing omnivores into herbivores along side increased crop energy production is just fantasy pot-smoking thinking.
And not considering clathrates: significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth.….where, obviously all organic sea creatures go when dying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
Here is the original from USGS. So much for peak oil BS – http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911 Even when considering that only 20-40% is recoverable with current technology, peak oil is just another scare tactic.
Wonderful! (and I’m not trying to be facetious, either). I believe the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the better it is for our friends the plants; we are the immediate beneficiaries. Let those who eschew CO2 figure out a way to backtrack on their nay-saying when future trends indicate practically all aspects of a warmer, CO-richer world are positive.
I’m just wondering how all those recently-installed windmills located just to the southeast of me will fare; will they eventually be abandoned and dismantled as their ROI suddenly has turned negative?
UK government;
‘We can’t hear you – la-la-la – we must cover out tiny islands with windmills – la-la-la – we’ve passed a law to reduce our CO2 emissions by 80% – la-la-la – not interested that this figure is impossible – la-la-la – we’re only fifteen years behind with building new nuclear power stations – la-la-la – lots of gas..? Don’t believe it – la-la-la….’
Sean Houlihane says:
January 21, 2011 at 4:45 am
This is talking about gas demand alone, not energy supply including oil? Or are they claiming that the peak-oil event will not be soon unless other factors reduce the demand through normal economic models?
I guess I must have missed the part in the article where they discuss “peak oil” (though I checked several times). Perhaps it’s hiding in the same place as Trenbilge’s “missing heat”?
re: Etudiant
The industry has been fracking wells for decades. The fluids have not been, are not now, and will not be just dumped at the surface. Take a look, for example, at BLM rules.
re: pyromancer76
100%. No tax incentives. No subsidies.
250 years is a lot of gas. Sadly, for most people it is another reason to believe in climate change.
The keys to this historic success have been engineering inventiveness in drilling and completion technologies, together with recognition by geologists of the vast recoverable resources in rocks previously considered to be non-prospective. Those who, like me, have been in the industry for decades are simulataneously astounded and proud as hell.
This is the latest example of the abject failure of Ehrlich (Population Bomb) and Club of Rome (Limits to Growth), both of which sucked me in when they were published. They simply didn’t understand the nature of resources, and they completely discounted the world’s capacity for invention. Those were world-class misjudgements, and they still don’t get it.