Shale fields 'add 47% to global gas reserves'

Jun 10, 2013
Jeff Boggs of Consol Energy in in front of a rig exploring the Marcellus Shale outside Waynesburg, PA in April. Shale-based resources increase the world's total potential oil reserves by 11% and natural gas by 47%, according to a US report.

Shale-based resources increase the world's total potential oil reserves by 11 percent and natural gas by 47 percent, according to a US report released Monday.

In an initial assessment of resources and an update of reserves, the US Energy Information Agency said shale deposits could add 345 billion barrels of oil to global reserves, increasing the total to 3,357 billion barrels.

Shale gas adds 7,299 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or 32 percent of the world total, the EIA report estimated.

The report seeks to quantify the potential global significance of the shale boom, after the exploitation of North American shale deposits has already transformed the US oil and gas industry.

It said an improvement in outside the US has allowed a better view of global resources.

However, it cautioned that the estimates are "highly uncertain and will remain so until they are extensively tested with production wells."

It also does not assess the of developing the resources.

Because of both geology and "above-the-ground conditions" such as political debates on shale, "the extent to which global technically recoverable shale resources will prove to be economically recoverable is not yet clear," the report said.

The US boom has been enabled by the controversial drilling technique of , which involves pumping fluids deep into the rock to allow extraction.

Some countries, such as France and Bulgaria, have blocked fracking, while others, such as the Netherlands are studying the issue.

Explore further: 'Doing nothing' to maintain the dunes on Ameland does not affect coastal safety

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UK 'likely' to have 102 trln cubic feet of shale gas

Jun 03, 2013

British exploration company IGas Energy on Monday said it believed it was sitting on a far bigger amount of shale gas than thought, ahead of controversial drilling work to begin this year in northwest England.

Recommended for you

Australia approves huge India-backed mine

10 hours ago

Australia has given the go-ahead to a massive coal mine in Queensland state which Environment Minister Greg Hunt said Monday could ultimately provide electricity for up to 100 million Indians.

User comments : 7

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Howhot
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2013
Great! More of the greenhouse gas CO2 pumped into the atmosphere like the fire-hose just isn't large enough! For you nerd types like me, here is a stupidly simple calculation of global temp rise from oil and coal without this added cluster funk.

Total world oil reserves is 1350 Billion Barrels. Average daily oil consumption is estimated at 85.6 million barrels/day. 1350GB / 0.0856GB = 15771 days of oil left. 15771 / 356 days/year = 44 years of oil left. +/- a couple of years.

3.15 barrels produces 1.0 tonne of CO2. So in 44 years, we will have dumped
1350GB/3.15B = 428,571,428,571 (429 G Tons CO2).

Every 15 GT CO2 will rise CO2 by 1.0ppm. 50ppm will rise global temps by 1C.

429GT / 15GT = 28.6ppm. 28.5 ppm/50 ppm per degreeC = 0.572C (1.03F) in 44 years.
This is from oil only.
--------------
Add in contributions like this, coal, natural gas, fires and global warming feedback mechanisms like methane an your looking at a possible 10C rise by 2100 global average. Enjoy
VENDItardE
Jun 10, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 10, 2013
Great! More of the greenhouse gas CO2 pumped into the atmosphere like the fire-hose just isn't large enough! For you nerd types like me, here is a stupidly simple calculation of global temp rise from oil and coal without this added cluster funk....blah....blah...blah

Now, if these AGW Alarmists would just show us how they go about life without consuming fossil fuels or products produced from it, imagine how fast this "destruction" to the environment would end. The cost of gasoline and power is going through the roof, so I imagine the only one with no need to change would be the cult's Vicar Gore.
deepsand
3.6 / 5 (15) Jun 11, 2013
We here gathered would be pleased if AO would just show that he has something to offer other than his threadbare BS.
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2013
Anti the glowplug who plays with inflatable cat toys for his own jolly says;
he cost of gasoline and power is going through the roof, so I imagine the only one with no need to change would be the cult's Vicar Gore.

Now.. isn't that just the dumbest statement you have ever read? Vicar Gore? cult. What a buffoon the funky anti is. His hobby is probably has something to do with Al-Gore and Popsicles!
.

I used 1350 billion barrels of oil in a simple calculation. But the article says, the total is 3,357 billion barrels. That is an in-excusable amount of pollution to dump into the atmosphere.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2013
We here gathered would be pleased if AO would just show that he has something to offer other than his threadbare BS.

As suspected, the hypocritical AGW Alarmist turd, supported by its cult, is all talk and no action.
I bet these shameless turds are burning power like their Vicar Gore.
ricarguy
1.8 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2013
Those overtly concerned about AGW claim that if we continue as we have, the world as we know it will end. Their solution ironically is even more sure to end the world as we know it because the economics of their solutions don't work.
All you have to do is to find and demonstrate the energy alternatives that are economically viable, those that won't bankrupt us further and faster. Show it and we can all agree. Its that simple.

In the meantime, isn't the so-called carbon footprint of using natural gas about half that of coal and only 60 something percent of oil? Isn't natural gas a significant AND viable step in the right direction? Instead of embracing a better solution, it is condemned by those alarmed by AGW because it falls short of their ultimate utopian goal. Instead they would rather engage in trading personal insults like spoiled children. (Both sides can be guilty of that.) Grow up!
Howhot
5 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2013
" Grow up!" I suggest you grow up first! There is nothing hokey about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or its claims. It's all very scientifically validated and has been for years. Your claims that somehow exposing the absolute shill mentality of the AGW deniers is detrimental to a global solution is simply bunk. It only pleases the shills.

Burning Natural gas does reduce the tones of CO2 per BTU, but it is still a fossil fuel (and a limited resource that will be used up). However, you need all of the worlds BTUs from oil and coal converted to NatGas. Then you can ask, 'how long will the NatGas reserves last if that happens?'. I would bet about 10 years give our consumption, plus the long time it takes for infrastructure changes that are needed to switch. It would be worst than our current slow transition to an electric society.

No it's far better to concentrate on Smart Grid, Distributed solar, wind, hydro, with Nuclear as the transition.