IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v3y2011i10p1986-2008d14439.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Energy Return on Energy Invested for Tight Gas Wells in the Appalachian Basin, United States of America

Author

Listed:
  • Bryan Sell

    (Section of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, Rue des Maraîchers 13, Geneva 1205, Switzerland)

  • David Murphy

    (Program in Environmental Science, State University of New York – College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA)

  • Charles A.S. Hall

    (Program in Environmental Science, State University of New York – College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA)

Abstract

The energy cost of drilling a natural gas well has never been publicly addressed in terms of the actual fuels and energy required to generate the physical materials consumed in construction. Part of the reason for this is that drilling practices are typically regarded as proprietary; hence the required information is difficult to obtain. We propose that conventional tight gas wells that have marginal production characteristics provide a baseline for energy return on energy invested (EROI) analyses. To develop an understanding of baseline energy requirements for natural gas extraction, we examined production from a mature shallow gas field composed of vertical wells in Pennsylvania and materials used in the drilling and completion of individual wells. The data were derived from state maintained databases and reports, personal experience as a production geologist, personal interviews with industry representatives, and literature sources. We examined only the “upstream” energy cost of providing gas and provide a minimal estimate of energy cost because of uncertainty about some inputs. Of the materials examined, steel and diesel fuel accounted for more than two-thirds of the energy cost for well construction. Average energy cost per foot for a tight gas well in Indiana County is 0.59 GJ per foot. Available production data for this natural gas play was used to calculate energy return on energy invested ratios (EROI) between 67:1 and 120:1, which depends mostly on the amount of materials consumed, drilling time, and highly variable production. Accounting for such inputs as chemicals used in well treatment, materials used to construct drill bits and drill pipe, post-gathering pipeline construction, and well completion maintenance would decrease EROI by an unknown amount. This study provides energy constraints at the single-well scale for the energy requirements for drilling in geologically simple systems. The energy and monetary costs of wells from Indiana County, Pennsylvania are useful for constructing an EROI model of United States natural gas production, which suggests a peak in the EROI of gas production, has already occurred twice in the past century.

Suggested Citation

  • Bryan Sell & David Murphy & Charles A.S. Hall, 2011. "Energy Return on Energy Invested for Tight Gas Wells in the Appalachian Basin, United States of America," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(10), pages 1-23, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:3:y:2011:i:10:p:1986-2008:d:14439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/10/1986/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/10/1986/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brandt, Adam R. & Yeskoo, Tim & Vafi, Kourosh, 2015. "Net energy analysis of Bakken crude oil production using a well-level engineering-based model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(P2), pages 2191-2198.
    2. Chen, Yingchao & Feng, Lianyong & Wang, Jianliang & Höök, Mikael, 2017. "Emergy-based energy return on investment method for evaluating energy exploitation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 540-549.
    3. Wang, Jianliang & Liu, Mingming & McLellan, Benjamin C. & Tang, Xu & Feng, Lianyong, 2017. "Environmental impacts of shale gas development in China: A hybrid life cycle analysis," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 38-45.
    4. Fizaine, Florian & Court, Victor, 2015. "Renewable electricity producing technologies and metal depletion: A sensitivity analysis using the EROI," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 106-118.
    5. Jingxuan Feng & Lianyong Feng & Jianliang Wang, 2018. "Analysis of Point-of-Use Energy Return on Investment and Net Energy Yields from China’s Conventional Fossil Fuels," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.
    6. Chen, Xuejun & Lu, Hailong & Gu, Lijuan & Shang, Shilong & Zhang, Yi & Huang, Xin & Zhang, Le, 2022. "Preliminary evaluation of the economic potential of the technologies for gas hydrate exploitation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    7. Devin Moeller & David Murphy, 2016. "Net Energy Analysis of Gas Production from the Marcellus Shale," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-13, May.
    8. Louis Delannoy & Pierre-Yves Longaretti & David. J. Murphy & Emmanuel Prados, 2021. "Assessing Global Long-Term EROI of Gas: A Net-Energy Perspective on the Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-16, August.
    9. Hall, Charles A.S. & Lambert, Jessica G. & Balogh, Stephen B., 2014. "EROI of different fuels and the implications for society," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 141-152.
    10. Roman Nogovitsyn & Anton Sokolov, 2014. "Preliminary Calculation of the EROI for the Production of Gas in Russia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-15, September.
    11. Devin Moeller & David Murphy, 2019. "Comments on Energy Return on Investment (EROI): Reconciling Boundary and Methodological Issues," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 1-3, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:3:y:2011:i:10:p:1986-2008:d:14439. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.