Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ronwagn

USGS Est. 214 trillion Cubic Ft. of Gas in Appalachia

Recommended Posts

On 10/4/2019 at 9:00 PM, ronwagn said:

https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-estimates-214-trillion-cubic-feet-natural-gas-appalachian-basin-formations

USGS Estimates 214 trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas in Appalachian Basin Formations

Image shows a map of the Eastern United States with the boundaries of the Marcellus Shale superimposed

Is that a lot? 

Seriously, it would help if posted articles came with a "submission statement" briefly summarizing them.  It would help even more if the poster provided some context. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Is that a lot? 

Seriously, it would help if posted articles came with a "submission statement" briefly summarizing them.  It would help even more if the poster provided some context. 

You could, oh I don't know, look something up or click the link provided...

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/NG_PROD_SUM_DC_NUS_MMCF_A.htm

214,000,000,000/32,000,000,000 = ~70 YEARS FOR ~1/3 of energy supply @ current population. 

There is far more NG along/in the Gulf.  Bossier/Haynesville.  Does not include everything else. 

USA currently has roughly 1000TcF. 

Frankly, people are just starting to look at NG, so if you compare to other countries, they aren't truly looking other than for oil, so I think their totals are much lower than reality (everyone in middle east)

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2019 at 12:00 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

You could, oh I don't know, look something up or click the link provided...

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/NG_PROD_SUM_DC_NUS_MMCF_A.htm

214,000,000,000/32,000,000,000 = ~70 YEARS FOR ~1/3 of energy supply @ current population. 

There is far more NG along/in the Gulf.  Bossier/Haynesville.  Does not include everything else. 

USA currently has roughly 1000TcF. 

Frankly, people are just starting to look at NG, so if you compare to other countries, they aren't truly looking other than for oil, so I think their totals are much lower than reality (everyone in middle east)

Link provided no context.

To be fair, I could do research - but now you're asking everyone who reads the post to do individual research.  Why not have the poster do the research once and post results for everyone to see?  Then everyone else will have a good starting point from which to add information. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2019 at 11:00 PM, ronwagn said:

https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-estimates-214-trillion-cubic-feet-natural-gas-appalachian-basin-formations

USGS Estimates 214 trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas in Appalachian Basin Formations

Image shows a map of the Eastern United States with the boundaries of the Marcellus Shale superimposed

214 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is a lot, but is just the equivalent to 30 billion barrels, is a lot but not thaaat much

Which is pretty much the same amount as the oil there's in the Marcellus Basin

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2019 at 9:24 AM, Sebastian Meana said:

214 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is a lot, but is just the equivalent to 30 billion barrels, is a lot but not thaaat much

Which is pretty much the same amount as the oil there's in the Marcellus Basin

Thank you for that. I think we need to start using metric figures for natural gas. A cubic foot doesn't amount to much. Or we could use cubic yards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In July 2019 dry natural gas output was 2830 BCF, if we multiply by 12 to get an annual rate we have 34 TCF per year.

 

So 214 TCF takes care of US annual production for about 6.3 years.  The earlier estimate of 70 years was off by an order of magnitude, fine for astronomy, not really acceptable in physics.  :)

 

The Utica estimate seems very preliminary with F95 at 21 TCF, F50 at 97 TCF, and F5 at 281 TCF, the mean is 117 TCF but the range from F95 to F5 is a huge 260 TCF,   

Compare with the Marcellus (where there has been a lot more drilling so there is far more known) where

F95=34 TCF, F50=90 TCF, and F5=181 TCF with a mean of 96 TCF, the 90% confidence interval is 147 TCF, nearly 2 times smaller than the confidence interval for the Utica estimate.

 

Note also that these are technically recoverable undiscovered resources, even if we assume the are all "discovered" not all of this gas will be profitable to produce.  Also there is very little detail in the Utica assessment which makes it a bit questionable.

About 24 TCF of Marcellus estimate may have too low an EUR to be profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0