Hijexx wrote:
]
] Where did you read this? I refer you to this study: The difference is whether you consider estimated or proved reserves. The people who are arguing that we're about to run out of natural gas are arguing that all the estimates are wrong and that there is no more natural gas out there then we've already located. They also seem to be ignoring several new sources of natural gas because we haven't perfected extraction technologies. Historically increases in proved reserves have matched increases in consumption. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/natgas.htm In 2000, natural gas reserves in the United States were estimated to be 1,190 trillion cubic feet, and U.S. gas production was 19.2 trillion cubic feet. 61 years... http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp The graph below shows the change in proved natural gas reserves in the United States from 1990 to 2000, as recorded by the EIA. As can be seen, the levels of proved reserves in the United States have not changed significantly over the past 10 years. If the additions to proved reserves in a given year are larger than the subtractions from production, then proved reserves will increase, and vice versa. Usually, however, the additions are close enough to the subtractions to maintain a relatively constant level of proved reserves. This peak oil website juxtaposes the above information with the idea that the total number of wells we drill seems like "a large number." http://www.hubbertpeak.com/gas/primer/ In June 1999, a disturbing article was published in Oil & Gas Journal. It described how Texas, which produces one-third of the nation's gas, must drill 6,400 new wells each year to keep its production from plummeting. That's 17 wells each day. As recently as 1998, the state only needed to drill 4,000 wells to keep annual production steady. The reason for the change? As drillers target ever-smaller pools, new wells experience steeper depletion rates. Indeed, a typical new well has an astounding first-year decline of 56%, which is another way of saying it begins dying soon after it is born. No one likes talking about depletion; it is the crazy aunt in the attic, the emperor without clothes, the wolf at the door. But the truth is that drillers in Texas are chained to a treadmill, and they must run faster and faster each year to keep up.
I don't really understand this concern. The number of wells drilled is increasing. This reflects increase in demand. It can reflect smaller well size, but the fact that we are tapping smaller wells doesn't directly imply that there are no larger wells to tap. The economics are more complex then that. Some wells are easier to tap then others. Cheaper transportation costs are a huge factor. In the US much of our supply is on federal lands and is illegal to tap. Furthermore, there are new technologies for extracting natural gas that have nothing to do with wells. How does it relate to estimated supply? For example: http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/unconvent_ng_resource.asp Methane hydrates are the most recent form of unconventional natural gas to be discovered and researched. These interesting formations are made up of a lattice of frozen water, which forms a sort of 'cage' around molecules of methane. These hydrates look like melting snow and were first discovered in permafrost regions of the Arctic. However, research into methane hydrates has revealed that they may be much more plentiful than first expected. Estimates range anywhere from 7,000 Tcf to over 73,000 Tcf! In fact, the USGS estimates that methane hydrates may contain more organic carbon than the world's coal, oil, and conventional natural gas - combined! However, research into methane hydrates is still in its infancy. It is not known what kind of effects the extraction of methane hydrates may have on the natural carbon cycle. RE: As prices rise, concerns grow about world oil supplies | 
