Last week, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) announced that proved reserves of natural gas in the U.S. have risen to their highest level in 40 years, reaching 284 trillion cubic feet at the end of 2009. US natural gas proved reserves are now at their highest levels since 1971.
Why do domestic natural gas reserves matter? 284 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is enough to power every American household’s electricity consumption, for over 73 years.* While estimates of the emissions reductions that could be induced by natural gas vary—anywhere from a 50% reduction to a 22% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as compared to coal, depending on the criteria used–the takeaway is clear: plentiful domestic natural gas resources can decrease U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
In 2008, as oil prices spiked, oil magnate T. Boone Pickens and others touted natural gas as a potential solution to decreasing the U.S. reliance on foreign oil. As oil prices dropped at the end of 2008, however, gas coverage waned. Yet, new technological developments that make tapping additional reserves possible—and the controversies surrounding those technologies—have brought gas back to the forefront of American consciousness.
The recent increase in U.S. domestic reserves was driven by the ability to extract gas from shale rocks in places like Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas, possibly creating jobs and streams of income for those locations. We’ve known about natural gas that resides in shale deposits for years. Only recently, however, has the US developed the technology to extract gas from the shale deposits.
The Fracking Controversy
Extracting gas from shale deposits is a potentially tricky process. One of these controversies involves hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking, fracing, or hydrofrac(k)ing), which involves drilling a mixture of sand, water, and chemicals deep into the ground, to “unlock” the natural gas that lies within. You can find a number of videos that walk through this process online (it’s a difficult process to visualize through mere description).
As fracking has developed, critics have pointed out that using the technology is risky. Given the potent chemicals involved in hydrofracking, the Nation and others have been quick to point out the capacity that fracking has to contaminate the water table. Gasland, an acclaimed 2010 documentary, highlighted the risks of fracking as well. The most shocking, memorable image in the film shows water that can be ignited straight from the tap, presumably due to water table contamination caused by hydrofracking chemicals.
Given the potential dangers of fracking, Congress has attempted to step in to federally regulate the process. In June 2009, the FRAC Act was introduced as an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Act would require oil and gas companies to disclose the chemicals used in their hydraulic fracturing operations. The bill is currently in committee and the EPA is conducting a study on fracking that won’t be completed until 2012.
Corporations’ reluctance to disclose the makeup of their drilling mixtures is understandable, given their incentives. Were they to disclose the mixtures, other companies who did not invest in fracking research could benefit from the disclosure, copycatting the mixtures to compete with current hydrofrackers. In other words, disclosure and regulation, while allowing hydrofracking to continue in a potentially safe way, could significantly cut into profits for companies who have invested heavily in drilling research and development, and are therefore hoping to reap the benefits of their foresight.
Clarifying the Debate
Documentaries like Gasland play an important role: hydrofracking clearly presents risks that have been obscured, and policymakers and media must take appropriate action. Polemic pieces, however, can also obfuscate, creating fear about technologies not yet perfected, but which have the eventual capability to improve lives.
The natural gas industry’s response to concerns about hydrofracking has been nearsighted, defensive and less than inspiring. Yet there is a compelling case to be made on the part of the industry: if there is a safe way to extract these significant natural gas deposits—now or in 10, or 20 years—our national goals to decrease reliance on foreign oil compel us to explore these methods in a coordinated way, while developing renewables and cleaner energy sources in parallel. Given the potential, it is surprising that the natural gas industry has not been more proactive and aspirational in defining the potential value of natural gas development for the general American consumer, and for America in general.
At a higher level, the hydrofracking controversy maps onto general misconceptions Americans have about natural gas. The gas-consuming public doesn’t know how to understand natural gas. Is gas “dirty,” like oil or coal? Is it “clean,” like renewable energy sources? Though classified as a fossil fuel, is it just a different type of energy source altogether? Our conception of gas is amorphous—much like the substance itself. Given the abundance and potential of American natural gas—this lack of clarity represents a missed opportunity for natural gas advocates.
See also: “How U.S. Natural Gas Can Expand Safely” by Sam Lederer
* This calculation is based on the following assumptions: 1 cubic foot of natural gas = 1027 BTUs (US DOE), 1 KwH = 3412 BTUs (US DOE), average annual electricity consumption/US household = 11040 KWh (US DOE), Number of households in the US = 105,480,101 (US Census Bureau)
__
Elizabeth Campbell is a Policy Fellow in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project and will be a regular contributor to the website. She is an Associate at FTI Consulting in Boston, MA. Previously, Elizabeth was Chief of Staff at JUCCCE (Joint US-China Collaboration on Clean Energy), where she assisted the Chairperson in organizational development.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of AEL.
[...] also: “EIA Reports Increased U.S. Natural Gas Reserves” by Elizabeth [...]
I saw Gasland last month… it was quite well done, and a strong case against the current natural gas development paradigm. The answer seems simple enough — better regulation and zoning around natural gas wells, and better protection or compensation for people living in the area. It might raise the cost of natural gas somewhat, but the natural gas glut from the Marcellus Shale was going to be driving prices down. It’s too good a fuel to waste.
For those of us who are opposed to hydrofracking, bad cement jobs are at the heart of what worries us most. Also what terrifies us is that we can trust neither the energy industry nor our government to discuss openly what we have discovered through the wikileaks release of government cables, part of which I quote below. Right now there is serious concern that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill-due to a bad cement job like the gas explosion in Azerbaijan in 2008-is now coating the bottom of the ocean is interfering with the Gulf Stream and causing unusually frigid weather in Europe, This article seems to say the industry has to learn how to sell gas to overcome the misconceptions of the American people. No, they just have to tell the truth and deal with it openly.
“According to another cable, in January 2009 BP thought that a “bad cement job” was to blame for the gas leak in Azerbaijan. More recently, BP’s former chief executive Tony Hayward also partly blamed a “bad cement job” by contractor Halliburton for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The blowout in the Gulf led to the deaths of 11 workers and the biggest accidental offshore oil spill in history.
“BP was also criticised for not initially sharing all its information with the US authorities about the scale of the Gulf spill. The gas field in the Caspian Sea was in production when the leak and blow out occured, unlike the well in the Gulf which was being drilled to explore for oil.
“BP declined to answer questions put by the Guardian about the cause of the Azerbaijan gas leak and who carried out the cement job, pointing to a general statement it had made about the cables.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-bp-azerbaijan-gulf-spill
Ration(al) Energy Use
Carole Satrina Marner
1245 Oak Hill Road
Franklin, NY 13775
(607) 829 8451
carolemarner@frontiernet.net
[...] “EIA Reports Increased U.S. Natural Gas Reserves” by Elizabeth Campbell [...]
Great article, I need to run out and grab Gasland
The figure of 73 years appears to assume current consumption rates (i.e., no change in annual demand). When a 2% annual demand growth is applied (large scale replacement of coal would raise that percentage substantially), I calculated an exponential expiration time of 45 years. While natural gas will certainly play a role in a lower carbon economy, increased demand growth in Asia and the US will likely cause gas prices to continue their historic volatility. Gas will likely be one of the “carbon wedges” along with many others rather than a full replacement for coal.
Hi, this is Elizabeth Campbell — author of this post–jumping in to comment as well. Thanks to each of you for your comments; I’m really delighted that you’ve taken the time to contribute to this conversation.
R Margolis, a quick clarification: you’re absolutely correct; I’ve assumed current consumption rates to paint a quick picture of the landscape. As you’ve pointed out, if demand were to grow, the expiration time would change, other variables held constant. I’m inclined to personally agree with your thought about gas being a “carbon wedge,” as well – but am rather hoping to be proven wrong.
On a separate but related note, I’ve found it interesting that, recently, Exxon Mobil (in New York Times blogs, an ad on the front page of the WSJ last week [if memory serves], and elsewhere) has projected that our current gas reserves would supply us for 100 years–though it’s unclear to me where their number comes from, exactly. According to Exxon Mobil’s blog, that projection also assumes that current demand levels remain constant. In addition, I imagine their calculation is more holistic and includes various other energy sources supplementing gas. I’d be interested to see Exxon Mobil’s claim laid out more fully; if you know of a place where they’ve done so, please let me know.
[...] Source This entry was posted in Energy Leaders, Home Energy News. Bookmark the permalink. ← Natural Gas Falls Most in Three Weeks on Milder Weather Outlook [...]
Elizabeth -
Interesting point on carbon wedge. Of course, if demand in Asia is high enough for a sustained period the natural gas surplus may end up being exported as LNG. That might make it helpful globally for carbon control, but would leave the US with fewer BTUs of gas to use for coal replacement.
Some are proposing to convert from gasoline and diesel to natural gas which is relatively simple. However, this would radically change the consumption such that in perhaps as soon as 20 years the supply would dwindle. But, this could be a good thing since this would force the issue to develop zinc-air batteries for electric vehicles an other viable products related to transportation and renewable energy. Regardless, if we don’t find an alternate to foreign oil and minimize our off-shore manufacturing this country will soon be toast.
[...] to contribute slightly more to domestic energy production, largely due to updated assumptions about greater availability of domestic shale gas and oil which will coincide with lower prices. While this is good news for US energy independence, [...]
[...] causing a rippling effect throughout the entire domestic energy industry. As my colleagues at AEL Elizabeth Campbell and Sam Lederer have reported, technological advancements in drilling have opened up vast reserves [...]
[...] “EIA Reports Increased U.S. Natural Gas Reserves” by Elizabeth Campbell [...]