[Maddog78]

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3021012

CALGARY - Canada is sitting on nearly 4,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, a dramatic jump from previous estimates thanks to the inclusion of unconventional natural gas estimates, says a report released yesterday that for first time measures shale gas and other plays that are difficult to access.

The amount of marketable gas -- the chunk that can be recovered and sold to the market after impurities are stripped out -- hovers between 700 TCF and 1,300 TCF, the Canadian Society for Unconventional Gas said.

Total marketable gas from conventional sources is estimated to be 357 TCF, the Calgary-based organization said. Canada's previous gas estimates were based on only conventional plays without providing hard data on unconventional resources

The country burns through roughly three TCF per year of natural gas, and exports another three TCF per year, said Kevin Heffernan, one of the report's authors. At that rate, the low end of the marketable gas estimate -- 700 TCF -- would meet current domestic consumption and export demand for more than 100 years.

[Rod_Cloutier]

Huge quantities of Natural gas have to be burned to create the steam to extract oil from the tar sands. Currently being used at a rate of a billion cubic feet of Natural gas a day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands

Their planning on doubling or tripling output in the next 20 years. How many years of Natural gas does Canada have left? I bet oil sands consumption wasn't factored into that 100 year figure.

[Maddog78]

I bet oil sands consumption wasn't factored into that 100 year figure.

You lose.

[dinopello]

I bet oil sands consumption wasn't factored into that 100 year figure.

You lose.

According to the quote it considered all CURRENT domestic useage and exports, but assumed zero growth in useage over the next 100 years. Is that correct ?

[Maddog78]

Yes, but you can also see they used the minimum number on production.
700 tcf when they can probably produce 1350 tcf and quite likely more than that since there is 4000 tcf available to produce.


There was also an announcement just yesterday that the biggest shale gas field in Canada was discovered in New Brunswick by Corridor Resources and will start to be developed by a Corridor/Apache partnership.
This was not taken into account and there is no doubt there are more n. gas shale fields to be discovered.
Exports are not likely to increase significantly for a long, long time since the US has their own vast amount of n. gas shale fields.

This is quite a change from a few years ago when there were stories of only a few years of n. gas left.

[shortonsense]

I bet oil sands consumption wasn't factored into that 100 year figure.

You lose.

Yeah really.... 1/3 of a T per year for the crude from the Athabasca? No problem....lets TRIPLE that one without even blinking.

[Sixstrings]

Their planning on doubling or tripling output in the next 20 years. How many years of Natural gas does Canada have left? I bet oil sands consumption wasn't factored into that 100 year figure.

This "enough for 500 years" fallacy has been thrown around for a long time now. It always assumes ZERO GROWTH, so in this case they may have 100 years of nat gas but that's assuming absolutely no growth in the nation of Canada for a century. Mmkay.

As we all know, if we don't have growth everything collapses anyhow and then nobody will need so much natural gas.

[copious.abundance]

There was also an announcement just yesterday that the biggest shale gas field in Canada was discovered in New Brunswick by Corridor Resources and will start to be developed by a Corridor/Apache partnership.
This was not taken into account and there is no doubt there are more n. gas shale fields to be discovered..

Thanks for the info!

Makes me wonder if this thing extends into Maine, too.
Mining company says find could lead to hundreds of gas wells in southeast N.B.

Norm Miller of Corridor Resources (TSX:CDH) said Wednesday the concentration of gas trapped in the shale between Sussex and Elgin is huge.

"We know from the work we've already done, that per unit of area or square mile for example, it's the largest that we know of in Canada and perhaps North America," said Miller.

According to Miller, the shale containing the gas is over a thousand metres thick.

[copious.abundance]

This "enough for 500 years" fallacy has been thrown around for a long time now. It always assumes ZERO GROWTH, so in this case they may have 100 years of nat gas but that's assuming absolutely no growth in the nation of Canada for a century. Mmkay.

As we all know, if we don't have growth everything collapses anyhow and then nobody will need so much natural gas.

Interestingly, it's not out of the question that uses of NG could increase and the economy grow without a corresponding increase in consumption. I don't know the figures for Canada, but in the US, in spite of a significantly bigger economy, in spite of hundreds (?) of gas-fired power plants being built, and in spite of a significantly larger population with 100's or thousands (milllions?) of houses built with gas stoves and gas water heaters since 1970, total NG consumption in the US since 1970 has remained relatively flat.


Source

[dinopello]

Exports are not likely to increase significantly for a long, long time since the US has their own vast amount of n. gas shale fields.

If the US was smart they would suck all the gas out of Canada before starting to deplete domestic sources. But, whichever country has the least "environmentalist" opposition will probably develop the most (and whoever's gas is most profitable overall gets exploited first - unless there are trade barriers). I thought I read somewhere that NAFTA requires Canada to make available for export and equal amount to that produced for domestic consumption. I could be misremembering though.

[copious.abundance]

BTW, it just occurred to me that the above example of US gas consumption is an example of Jevon's Paradox not holding true. In spite of what are obviously huge increases in efficiency, this has not led to an increase in consumption (at least not by much). Don't know if this is the exception or the rule, but at least it shows that Devon's Paradox does not always hold.

[shortonsense]

As we all know, if we don't have growth everything collapses anyhow and then nobody will need so much natural gas.

As we all know, the US hasn't had growth of crude imports in nearly 4 decades now and we didn't collapse...and yet our own crude production peaked back in the 70's and obviously we haven't been able to produce more ourselves.

Imagine that....the economy has grown.....no collapse...and we still all drive autos powered by crude based fuels?

Do you envision your theory requiring another 40 years to be properly tested?

[shortonsense]

BTW, it just occurred to me that the above example of US gas consumption is an example of Jevon's Paradox not holding true. In spite of what are obviously huge increases in efficiency, this has not led to an increase in consumption (at least not by much). Don't know if this is the exception or the rule, but at least it shows that Devon's Paradox does not always hold.

Good catch.

[copious.abundance]

Here we go. Simce 1987, the number of residential and commercial consumers of natural gas has risen substantially while consumption in those sectors has remained flat, and the number of industrial users has remained about flat while consumption has gone down.

Residential users and consumption



Commercial users and consumption



Industrial users and consumption

[bencole]

Yes, but you can also see they used the minimum number on production.
700 tcf when they can probably produce 1350 tcf and quite likely more than that since there is 4000 tcf available to produce.

A completely baseless assumption considering the FACT that it is unknown how much of this shale gas can be economically produced. Some estimates as low as 86 TCF have been suggested as being availible in the entire western Canada sedimentary basin, for example.

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/NaturalGas/944.asp

Estimates of shale gas within the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin resource vary from 86 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) to over 1000 Tcf. While there is huge potential in Alberta, shale gas production is in very early stages and commercial development is not likely to occur in Alberta for a number of years. This energy source has the potential to make a significant contribution to Alberta’s future natural gas supply.

While it is not known how much of the shale gas can be economically produced, current experience regarding the development of unconventional gas sources suggests recoverable reserves are about five to ten per cent of the resource potential.

[copious.abundance]

OMG . . . *shakes head*

Some estimates as low as 86 TCF have been suggested as being availible in the entire western Canada sedimentary basin, for example.

1. Do you know how much 86 TCF is? Let me give you a hint: In 2007, Canada consumed just 3.3 TCF. So even your low estimate of the one sedimentary basin would supply Canada for 26 years. It's roughly the energy equivalent of a 13 billion barrel oil field. Even if only 5 or 10 percent of that can be extracted, it alone could supply Canada for more than a year.

2. Did you even look at the map in your own link?



This is just one sedimentary basin in one corner of Canada. You also seemed to conveniently ignore the upper bound in your own link:

Estimates of shale gas within the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin resource vary from 86 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) to over 1000 Tcf.

As noted above, even the lower bound is huge. The upper bound is . . . staggering.

[shortonsense]

A completely baseless assumption considering the FACT that it is unknown how much of this shale gas can be economically produced. Some estimates as low as 86 TCF have been suggested as being availible in the entire western Canada sedimentary basin, for example.

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/NaturalGas/944.asp

And now the quote which shows that cherry picking information may lead you astray....

Estimates of shale gas within the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin resource vary from 86 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) to over 1000 Tcf.

come on now....choosing only the low end of a range...tsk...tsk....one could be led to think that you are not being objective by ignoring your own reference material.

[copious.abundance]

Here's a map I just found showing the extent of (some of) the major black shale areas in Canada. Notice this does not include the one in NB Maddog referenced before.



Then there are tight gas areas:



And coal bed methane:


Source for all

No doubt there are other areas not shown on the maps. Looks like at least 1/3 of the land area of the lower provinces is underlain by at least one gas-bearing formation. It will take them centuries to exhaust a resource like that.

[bencole]

OMG . . . *shakes head*

I could say the same thing considering your ignorance of Canadian geography.

This is just one sedimentary basin in one corner of Canada

.

No, it is THE sedimentary basin in Canada, by far the most important, in fact it contains the one of the WORLD's largest reserves of oil and natural gas, your ignorance of this fact says a lot.

As noted above, even the lower bound is huge. The upper bound is . . . staggering.

No, the upper bound is meaningless, considering the fact that it is unknown if any of it can be produced economically. The huge difference between the upper and lower bounds is indicative of this uncertainty.

[bencole]

come on now....choosing only the low end of a range...tsk...tsk....one could be led to think that you are not being objective by ignoring your own reference material.

I think someone selecting a figure of 1350 TCF arbirarily fits the definition of not being objective quite nicely.