U.S. expected to be largest producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons in 2013

US Department of Energy ^ | October 4, 2013 | Hannah Breul and Linda Doman

[2ndDivisionVet]

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration Note: Petroleum production includes crude oil, natural gas liquids, condensates, refinery processing gain, and other liquids, including biofuels. Barrels per day oil equivalent were calculated using a conversion factor of 1 barrel oil equivalent = 5.55 million British thermal units (Btu).

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States will be the world's top producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons in 2013, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia. For the United States and Russia, total petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbon production, in energy content terms, is almost evenly split between petroleum and natural gas. Saudi Arabia's production, on the other hand, heavily favors petroleum.

Since 2008, U.S. petroleum production has increased 7 quadrillion Btu, with dramatic growth in Texas and North Dakota. Natural gas production has increased by 3 quadrillion Btu over the same period, with much of this growth coming from the eastern United States. Russia and Saudi Arabia each increased their combined hydrocarbon output by about 1 quadrillion Btu over the past five years.

Comparisons of petroleum and natural gas production across countries are not always easy. Differences in energy content of crude oil, condensates, and natural gas produced throughout these countries make accurate conversions difficult. There are also questions regarding the inclusion of biofuels and refinery gain in the calculations. Total petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbon production estimates for the United States and Russia for 2011 and 2012 were roughly equivalent—within 1 quadrillion Btu of one another. In 2013, however, the production estimates widen out, with the United States expected to outproduce Russia by 5 quadrillion Btu.

[Ben Ficklin]

If you exclude those areas that have or had been using LNG, and possibly even including those areas, the US has probably never used more natural gas than could be domestically produced.

There were the shortages in 2000-2001, but many still say that happened because Enron was gaming. The post Katrina shortages were from loss of infrastructure.

But the general consensus was that as the US used more and more NG to generate electricity, then domestic demand would exceed domestic supply. As you pointed out there were regions already using imported LNG, such as the NE and thru the Sempra terminal in Baja, but it was the 2000 shortages that pulled the trigger. I don't really recall exactly how many import permits were issued in 2001 and/or 2002. But it seems like Exxon, Cheniere, and Freeport.

Now it is how many export permits will be issued. Either way, a world market for natural gas gets expanded. I still remember buying into a natural gas lease in Indonesia in the mid 70s.

[thackney]

If you exclude those areas that have or had been using LNG, and possibly even including those areas, the US has probably never used more natural gas than could be domestically produced.

Not true, simple math shows this year after year. LNG imports are tracked separately from Pipeline imports. LNG imports were running about 10% of what we imported by pipeline.

U.S. Natural Gas Imports by Country
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_a.htm

[thackney]

[Ben Ficklin]

"You are living in a fantasy world"

Actually, I had 31 hours of college chemistry and a career in industrial chemicals, working in both consumables and capital equipment. I've been retired for a while now.

The first time I worked in pollution control and abatement was before the Clean Air Act. My employer transferred me to CA where Rule 66 was being implemented. I had decades of experience dealing with both federal and state environmental codes as well as OSHA, fire, and electrical code

[Ben Ficklin]

I'm not really talking about pipelines because the North American energy markets are highly integrated, nor was I talking about preexisting LNG terminals.

So actually I am only addressing those LNG import terminals that began as result of the 2000 shortages. And on the flip side of that are the export terminals where the gas originated. One of the delays was construction of the LNG trains in Qatar.

Your chart shows it well. After the domestic shortages, LNG imports rose sharply. That didn't have any thing to do with new terminals being built, the increase in LNG imports was thru pre-existing terminals.

So just to make sure you approve, let me reword my statement. Including the natural gas that was entering the US thru pipelines or could enter the US thru pipelines plus the LNG that was entering the US thru pre-existing LNG terminals or could enter the US thru the pre-existing LNG terminals, the US never had to supplement her supply with new terminals. It is also very possible that the increase in pipeline imports were more than adequate to cover the shortfall, that the increase in LNG thru the pre-existing terminals was not actually needed

Would you happen to know what the percentage of total NG use in the US was being fulfilled by the import pipelines and the preexisting LNG terminals?

[Balding_Eagle]

Here is one of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of such articles;

“U.S. Dithers while World Feasts on New Energy Discoveries “
—
From the column
—

“Yet here in America, our administration continues to view oil and natural gas development – and U.S.-based technological advances – with hostility. During President Obama’s tenure in office, his administration placed a moratorium on U.S. offshore oil and gas production, refused to approve the Keystone XL pipeline bringing oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries, issued a five-year drilling plan that puts 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off-limits to energy development, and repeatedly proposed to raise taxes on the oil industry, which would have the effect of reducing the industry’s ability to invest in the search for energy.”

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2012/10/04/us_dithers_while_world_feasts_on_new_energy_discoveries

[fireman15]

One needs to look no further than the “debate” over “global warming” to see how far the EPA has gone off the tracks since you retired. The surface temperature data that we have available even as manipulated and flawed as it is... still shows no statistically sinificant warming for approximately 18 years. Yet our EPA and Obama still insist that CO2 is a harmful polutant that is causing irreversable damage. Where is the measurable data that supports this belief? It does not exist.

Yet you call this type of argument, “rightwing rhetoric”. I actually work on a hazmat team. My interaction with the people I come into contact with, the technicians who work with the EPA have mostly been positive. Unfortunately, the technicians make up only a very small percentage of people working for the EPA. I have had conversations with some of the technicians and in some most they are as appalled as I am over what is going on at the administrative level.

[fireman15]

I would also like to add that the EPA was started to address real problems. I remember when I was a teenager and my family drove to Disneyland for vacation. From the hills surrounding Los Angeles I can still remember seeing the huge layer of smog in the valley... and that was a bad thing. Unfotunately the government bureaucracy that was spawned by President Nixon morphed into something that has gone out of control and whose leadership has lost touch with the original intent... They need to be reigned in and I can guarantee that Obama is more than sympathetic to their new agenda has no desire or intention to do anything about the problem.

[thackney]

Including the natural gas that was entering the US thru pipelines or could enter the US thru pipelines plus the LNG that was entering the US thru pre-existing LNG terminals or could enter the US thru the pre-existing LNG terminals, the US never had to supplement her supply with new terminals.

It is easy to say that today. In 2000 almost no one would have agreed. That is why the majors were willing to spend billions for the new LNG import facilities. George Mitchel probably would have agreed with you at the time.

Would you happen to know what the percentage of total NG use in the US was being fulfilled by the import pipelines and the preexisting LNG terminals?

You can do the math by comparing the above data (charts link to data) combined with the breakdown per LNG location at:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/xls/NG_MOVE_POE1_A_EPG0_IML_MMCF_A.xls

Then compare to total usage at:

[thackney]

Then compare to total usage at:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm

[1010RD]

Think fungible assets.

[1010RD]

Actually, the export restrictions are killing the nat gas market. It’s keeping prices artificially low and hurting our allies/helping our enemies.

[Smokin' Joe]

Obama loves natural gas.

LOL! With the way the administration has tried to find a problem with fracking, that's like loving beef and hating cattle.

[Smokin' Joe]

Meanwhile there are some seriously disruptive technologies just over the horizen in the form of electric cars and fourth generation portable nuclear power plants that could just kill the hydrocarbon industry.

They won't be plugging those electric cars in at the nearest current bush. They'll be getting the electricity from a natural gas fueled power plant, most likely. Short of a revolutionary upscaling of LENR, hydrocarbon based energy (not to mention lubricants and synthetics) will be around for a while yet.

[GladesGuru]

“My wife had Mexican style black beans with various peppers for dinner.

Now she is the world’s greatest natural gas producer, for the moment.

Glad I don’t smoke.”

Mrs. MadMax read his post - and the fight began .....

[ckilmer]

Short of a revolutionary upscaling of LENR,
..........
Agree. Its the LENR that’s the wild card. (or some other4-6 generation nuclear reactor.)

However, even if natural gas powers the plants that make the electricity that fuel the electric cars—that’s still means there’s falling demand for gas and diesel powered internal combustion engine cars. Just so, natural gas buses and trucks divert demand for fuel away from expensive gasoline or diesel

[Ben Ficklin]

That doesn't have anything to do with natural gas.

Don't get me wrong, those are good issues. But......

As for Keystone, it will eventually be approved. All the legal issues in Texas have been resolved and the Nebraska lawsuit is headed for court. You might want to read up on that.

As the moratorium offshore, that was for only for one year to set up the new standards, and few objected that. If you comprehend the long cycle of drilling and producing, the moratorium had little effect.

As for the 5 year offshore drilling plan, offshore drilling is determined by the states. WA, OR, CA, FL, SC, NC, NJ, MD, NY, MA, etc don't want offshore drilling so Obama or Congress will not drill there. Neither would Bush. Obama did open Chukchi and Beaufort Sea off shore Alaska, so the only state in question is Virginia. Before they can drill offshore VA they have to chart it because that hasn't been done since the early 80s. Also, Congress has to resolve the Royalty Sharing issue for VA. VA's willingness to offshore drill is predicated on VA receiving half of the federal royalty and that they can use that money for roads.

BTW, there is an article at Fuel Fix this morn in which a republican on the Texas O&G commission predicts that Obama/Moniz will issue more natural gas export permits.

[Ben Ficklin]

"The administration has tried to find a problem with fracking"

Obama hasn't set any fracking standards. He really doesn't have much authority because that belongs to the state agencies. He has complained that there a couple of states that haven't upgraded their standards so he could set stds on federal lands in those states. What he has proposed is not much different from what Texas is doing.

[Ben Ficklin]

"One needs to look no further than the debate over global warming"

That is being driven by the courts.

In 2007 SCOTUS ruled that CO2 was a pollutant, that EPA should determine the risk, and regulate CO2 with the clean air act.

Both Bush and Obama tried to get Congress to deal with it, but Congress failed because of conflicts within the GOP.

That resulted in the 2010 lawsuit against EPA over how and why EPA would regulate CO2

In June 2012, the DC Court of Appeals ruled for the EPA.

In May 2013, the DC Court's decision was appealed to SCOTUS and that is where it sits. Its not known if SCOTUS will take the case or how they might rule.

[CPT Clay]

Thanks Thackney