U.S. Energy Information Administration Independent Statistics & Analysis www.eia.gov

Annual Energy Outlook 2018

For

Oil and Gas Supply, Natural Gas Markets, & Liquid Fuels Markets Working Group

July 26, 2017 | Washington, DC http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/workinggroup/

By

Office of Petroleum, Natural Gas, & Biofuels Analysis

Modeling updates in oil, natural gas, & liquid fuels 

WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES

DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
• Introductions & AEO2018 overview 

(2:00-2:10)

• Liquid fuels markets (2:10-2:40)

– World oil prices 

– Petroleum and biofuel updates

• Natural gas markets (2:40-3:15)

– New model NGMM

• Design: granularity, bi-directional 

flows

• Improvements: prices, Mexico, 

LNG

• Oil & gas supply (3:15-3:45)

– EURs and TRRs

– Changes to accommodate new NGMM 

model

– NGPL and API gravity characteristics

– Canada representation

– Supply response 

• Wrap-up (3:45-4:00)

Agenda

2 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis

Lead modelers:

• Liquid Fuels Markets Module (LFMM)

– Elizabeth.May@eia.gov

– Adrian.Geagla@eia.gov

– James.Preciado@eia.gov

• Natural Gas Markets Module (NGMM)

– Kathryn.Dyl@eia.gov

– Joseph.Benneche@eia.gov

– Peter.Gross@eia.gov

• Oil and Gas Supply Module (OGSM)

– Dana.VanWagener@eia.gov

– Terry.Yen@eia.gov

– Meg.Coleman@eia.gov

3 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

John.Staub@eia.gov
The AEO2018 is a “full” report and will include:

• AEO standard cases

– Reference price case (with or without Clean Power Plan (CPP)?)

– High and low price cases

– High and low economic cases

– High and low resource and technology cases

• Additional AEO side cases will be included because this is a “full” AEO year

– Suggestions?

• Charts and tables will present projections to 2050

• Report structure will include the annotated slides and Issues in Focus 

articles

4 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Liquid Fuels Markets 

& 

world oil prices

5 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Discussion topics

• Lower World Oil Price compared to AEO 2017

• General crude oil and petroleum product model updates

• Reduced sulfur specification for marine bunker fuel in 2020

• Revised existing and planned biofuel production capacity and select biofuel 

feedstock supply curves

6 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Brent crude oil spot price

2016 dollars per barrel

Crude oil price lower for AEO2018

Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2017 and preliminary Annual Energy Outlook 2018

7 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

AEO2017

AEO2018 preliminary
Lower World Oil Price compared with AEO 2017 

• The outlook for global liquids supply is relatively unchanged from last year, 

with slightly higher OPEC production largely offset by slightly lower nonOPEC production.

• Expectations for global liquids demand are lower compared with AEO 2017, 

with lower GDP growth in OECD and non-OECD contributing to the reduced 

outlook for demand.

8 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
General crude oil and petroleum product model updates

• Import and export levels of petroleum products better reflect global and 

domestic demand trends

• Availability and price of international crude oils are more aligned with the 

global refinery complex

• Octane rating for gasoline better incorporates demands for premium and 

mid-grades

• Distribution and marketing costs from the refinery to end-users were updated 

for all petroleum products

• Expected results include a reduced diesel-gasoline price spread and higher 

refinery utilization throughout the projection

9 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
General crude oil and petroleum product model updates (cont’d)

• Existing US refinery capacity updated using EIA’s Petroleum Supply Annual 

(PSA)

• Existing Canadian and Caribbean refinery capacity updated using Oil and 

Gas Journal

• U.S. crude oil pipeline capacities updated

– Dakota Access pipeline will be included in the model starting in 2017

– Expanded pipeline capacity from the Permian to the Gulf Coast refining region

10 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Reduced sulfur specification for marine bunker fuel in 2020

• The AEO will represent the International Maritime Organizations planned 

implementation of a 0.5% limit on sulfur content for marine bunker fuel in 

2020

• Effects on the volume of U.S. domestic consumption of marine bunker fuel 

will be relatively small

• Updated international supply/demand curves for petroleum products resulted 

in a larger low-high sulfur residual fuel oil spread compared to AEO 2017

11 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Revised existing and planned biofuel production capacity and biofuel 

feedstock supply curves

• Based on EIA’s market research, updated existing and planned capacity for 

various biofuel production facilities

• Using information from a new version of Polysys, updated corn starch, seed 

oil, and cellulosic biomass feedstock supply curves

• Key assumptions maintained from AEO2017

– GTL, CTL, BTL (xTL Fischer-Tropsch) expansion are restricted until 2025 at the earliest

– No changes to California low carbon fuel standards (LCFS) representation

12 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Contacts for Liquid Fuels Markets including biofuels

13 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

For questions about the Liquid Fuels Market Module contact:

Elizabeth May: elizabeth.may@eia.gov

For questions about the International Energy Module contact:

Adrian Geagla: adrian.geagla@eia.gov

For questions about Biofuels contact:

Steve Hanson: steve.hanson@eia.gov

Liquid Fuels Markets Team Lead: 

James Preciado: james.preciado@eia.gov

Biofuels and Emerging Technologies Team Lead: 

Mindi Farber-DeAnda: mindi.farber-deanda@eia.gov
Natural Gas Markets

14 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
AEO2018 Natural Gas Model Updates

• Implementation of new Natural Gas Market Module (NGMM)

– Changes between Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Module (NGTDM) and NGMM

– Model structure and design

– Major changes in how natural gas markets are modeled

15 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Transition to new Natural Gas Markets Module (NGMM)

• The NGMM will replace the Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Module 

(NGTDM) in NEMS to serve the same following functions:

– Represent the transmission, distribution, and pricing of natural gas in North America, with 

representations of Canada, Mexico, and LNG trade.

– Given annual regional/sectoral natural gas consumption and short-term regional supply 

curves, balance supply and demand across the network on marginal cost basis

– Determine annual interregional flows, production, imports, exports, and associated wellhead 

and delivered natural gas prices

– Include seasonal storage, transmission and distribution pricing, pipeline capacity and 

expansion, as necessary to capture the impact on the primary outputs

– Produce projections that both align well with history and capture likely future market behavior

• NGMM was designed to solve for flow reversals, is significantly more granular to 

improve results (particularly marginal pricing), and balances supply/demand 

(including trade) with a Quadratic program, rather than the heuristic used in the 

NGTDM

16 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Decision to redesign NGTDM

• Being too constrained to previous year, limits ability to respond to larger 

annual changes in the market

• Limitations in modeling flows, capacities, and pricing at such an aggregate 

level ‒ some calibration factors too large

• Heuristic algorithm limited in ability to represent bidirectional flows and 

changing primary flows

• Model has become difficult to modify and update after many incremental 

code and data changes, complicating the need for it to be managed by new 

people

17 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
NGMM model requirements

• Project delivered, wellhead, import, and export prices given delivered 

volumes and regional short-term supply curves

• Balance market and establish production, imports, and exports, as well as 

lease, plant, and pipeline fuel, and supplemental supplies

• Project region-to-region flows and pipeline capacity

• Produce reasonable projections, align well with history, but capture likely 

future market behavior (such as under different scenarios)

• Be easier to maintain, update, debug, and learn

18 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
NGTDM Network and Structure

• 2 seasons

• 12 U.S. and 2 Canadian 

demand nodes

• Additional nodes account for 

international trade

– Border crossings with Canada (7) 

and Mexico (3)

– Generic LNG terminals for each 

U.S. region with a coastline (8)

• Alaska accounted for outside 

of network

19 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
NGMM Network and Structure

20

• Transshipment nodes (hubs) at 

each Lower 48 state, in Canada 

(2), in Mexico (5), and at each 

border crossing, including generic 

LNG points at coastal states

• Solves for monthly/state spot 

prices at each hub and associated 

flows between neighboring regions 

based on variable transport costs 

and capacity

• Twelve months (solved 

independently with no 

interrelationships) 

• Capacity expansion and storage 

withdrawal/injection set separately

Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Quadratic program (QP) (with linear constraints)

• Max consumer plus producer surplus minus variable transportation costs, 

subject to mass balance constraints

• Variable transportation costs include pipeline fuel charge and variable tariff

• Output volumes, flows, and marginal prices (fixed charges post-processing)

21

Supply

LNG exports

Flow between nodes (supply, hub, demand, LNG exports, storage)

Tariff curve quantity (variable transportation costs)

Mass balance for all node types

Flows between nodes limited to previously projected pipeline capacity

Decision variables:

Primary Constraints:

Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Major model changes

• Implementation of new Natural Gas Market Module (NGMM)

– Changes between Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Module (NGTDM) and NGMM

– Model structure and design

– Major changes in how natural gas markets are modeled

• Variable tariff curves used to represent pipeline transmission costs

• City gate prices set by econometric estimation 

• Mexico now modeled using 5 regions with flows solved endogenously in the QP

• LNG export facility utilization solved endogenously within QP

• Canada supply representation will be done by OGSM

Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change 22
Variable tariff curves

• Based on difference between region/state spot prices

• Components of basis differentials

– Pipeline fuel charge

– Variable Tariff 

• Assumptions

– Differences in spot prices are pipeline fuel and variable charges

– Difference between spot and city gate prices are the fixed charges

• Variable tariff set in a QP using a curve for each arc, function of utilization

• Curves are used as a basis for calibrating the model to history and are held 

constant throughout forecast, unless assumed otherwise

• Tariff curves based on flow one direction will be assumed to be the same for 

flow in opposite direction

• Extended beyond existing capacity when projecting capacity expansion, 

reflecting the consideration of reservation fees

23 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
City gate prices: Method

• Use multiple linear regression to set state/month city gate prices as a function of state/month 

spot prices and a factor to reflect fixed charges 

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCssssssssss,mmmmmm m = CCoooooo ssssssssss + αssssssssss ∗ SSSS ssssssssss,mmmmmm m + βssssssssss

RR RR ssssssssss,mmmmmm m

• In theory, if LDCs purchase natural gas at close to the spot price, pay an additional fixed charge 

for transportation and storage, and the residential and commercial consumption is a reasonable 

proxy for total volumes purchased: 

– Conststate would be close to zero, 

– αstate would be close to 1

– βstate would equal the annual fixed charge.

• Pros: Straightforward and easy to maintain and implement; expect reasonable results, with limited 

exceptions (e.g., spot price spikes)

• Cons: No direct means to capture factors that might change fixed charges in the future; challenge 

in addressing exceptions 

24 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
City gate price multiple regression model: 

3 groups of states using different methods

25

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Adjusted R2 by state

1. All months in same 

regression

2. Summer and winter 

(Nov-Mar) regressions

3. Summer regression with 

winter months set as 

extrapolation

1 2 3

Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Mexico 

• Mexico now modeled by 

5 regions (SENER) 

instead of 3

• Current and future 

pipeline capacities 

between regions are 

modeled

• Considered part of QP; 

natural gas trade with 

Mexico is now solved for 

endogenously

26 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
U.S. supply 

curve (implied)

LNG export facility utilization

27

Quantity

Price

U.S. LNG Export Capacity

World 

LNG 

Price

LNG export capacity expansion routine 

determines from U.S. supply price and 

world LNG price whether additional 

volumes of U.S. LNG would be 

competitively priced

• U.S. LNG export facility utilization is 

now determined endogenously 

(solved for directly in the QP)

• LNG export capacity expansion 

algorithm based off of that in NGTDM 

using EIA International Energy 

Outlook data to project world LNG 

price

• LNG export facilities under 

construction are assumed; Elba Island 

(0.35 Bcf/d in 2018-9) only difference 

from AEO 2017

Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
For questions about NGTDM, NGMM design, and comparisons between models:

Joe Benneche: Joseph.Benneche@eia.gov

For questions pertaining to NGMM, design in AIMMS, suggestions for improvements to new model:

Katie Dyl: Kathryn.Dyl@eia.gov

Natural Gas Markets Team Lead:

Peter Gross: Peter.Gross@eia.gov

Contacts for Natural Gas Markets

28 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
OGSM / Upstream

29 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Discussion topics -- primary AEO2018 OGSM updates

• Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of tight/shale oil and gas wells

– Preliminary unproved technically recoverable resources for select plays

– Permian Basin EUR distributions: Avalon/Bonespring, Spraberry, and Wolfcamp

– Appalachian Basin EUR distributions: Marcellus and Utica

• Assumptions for announced discoveries in the GOM

• Additional updates in progress but not included in presentation

– NGPL and API gravity updates

– Canada supply representation

– Technological improvement (learning by doing)

30 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017

Edition of the Annual Energy Outlook

0

100

200

300

400

500

200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017

Edition of the Annual Energy Outlook 

Unproved tight oil (including shale oil)

Unproved other oil (including Alaska and offshore)

Proved reserves (all types and locations)

U.S. dry gas resources

trillion cubic feet

U.S. crude oil and lease condensate resources

billion barrels

Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

Technically recoverable resources reflect new information; understanding 

of U.S. shale gas resources has increased substantially in the past decade 

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2017 and prior editions.

Note: Resources are as of January 1 of two years prior to the “edition” year of the AEO (e.g. AEO2017 is 1/1/2015). Excludes NGPLs.

31

Unproved shale gas (including tight oil plays)

Unproved other gas (including Alaska and offshore)

Proved reserves (all types and locations)

369

825

1,161

2,355

90

146

40

276
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Eagle Ford (TX)

Bakken (ND & MT)

Spraberry (TX & NM Permian)

Bonespring (TX & NM Permian)

Wolfcamp (TX & NM Permian)

Delaware (TX & NM Permian)

Yeso & Glorieta (TX & NM Permian)

Niobrara-Codell (CO, WY)

Haynesville (LA, TX)

Utica (OH, PA & WV)

Marcellus (PA,WV,OH &NY)

Woodford (OK)

Granite Wash (OK & TX)

Austin Chalk (LA & TX)

Monterey (CA)

tight oil production

million barrels of oil per day

U.S. tight oil production – selected plays

Sources: EIA derived from state administrative data collected by DrillingInfo Inc. Data are through June 2017 and represent EIA’s official tight 

oil estimates, but are not survey data. State abbreviations indicate primary state(s).

32 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Unproved technically recoverable resources in select tight oil 

plays (as of 1/1/2016)

Preliminary estimates assuming 100 acre spacing

33 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

Tight Oil Play

Crude oil

(billion barrels)

Natural gas

(trillion cubic feet)

NGPL

(billion barrels)

Austin Chalk 5 18 1 

Avalon/Bonespring 4 13 1 

Bakken 12 8 1 

Bakken Three Forks 15 9 1 

Buda 4 32 1 

Eagle Ford – Oil zone 7 7 2 

Spraberry 8 16 2 

Tuscaloosa 6 4 0 

Wolfcamp 32 102 8 

Woodbine 1 0 0 

Total 94 209 17 
Crude oil EUR distribution for 3 key tight oil plays in the 

Permian Basin, 1,000 barrels per well (mb/well)

Wells drilled in 2016-2017 with at least 4 months of production.

34 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Avalon/Bonespring 2016-2017 wells

Wells drilled in 2016-2017 with at least 4 months of production.

35 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

EURs per Well

■ < 100 mb

■ 100-299 mb

■ 300-499 mb

■ >= 500 mb
Avalon/Bonespring crude oil EUR distribution, mb/well

Wells drilled in 2016-2017 with at least 4 months of production.

36 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Spraberry 2016-2017 wells

Wells drilled in 2016-2017 with at least 4 months of production.

37 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

EURs per Well

■ < 100 mb

■ 100-299 mb

■ 300-499 mb

■ >= 500 mb
Spraberry crude oil EUR distribution, mb/well

Wells drilled in 2016-2017 with at least 4 months of production.

38 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Spraberry crude oil EUR distribution, mb/well

Wells drilled in 2016-2017 with at least 4 months of production.

39 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Wolfcamp 2016-2017 wells

Wells drilled in 2016-2017 with at least 4 months of production.

40 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

EURs per Well

■ < 100 mb

■ 100-299 mb

■ 300-499 mb

■ >= 500 mb
Wolfcamp crude oil EUR distribution, mb/well

Wells drilled in 2016-2017 with at least 4 months of production.

41 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Wolfcamp crude oil EUR distribution, mb/well

Wells drilled in 2016-2017 with at least 4 months of production.

42 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
shale gas production (dry)

billion cubic feet per day

U.S. dry shale gas production

Sources: EIA derived from state administrative data collected by DrillingInfo Inc. Data are through June 2017 and represent EIA’s official tight 

gas estimates, but are not survey data. State abbreviations indicate primary state(s).

43 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Marcellus (PA, WV, OH & NY)

Utica (OH, PA & WV)

Permian (TX & NM)

Haynesville (LA & TX)

Eagle Ford (TX)

Fayetteville (AR)

Barnett (TX)

Woodford (OK)

Bakken (ND & MT)

Antrim (MI, IN & OH)

Rest of US 'shale'
Unproved technically recoverable resources in select shale gas 

plays (as of 1/1/2016)

Preliminary estimates assuming 100 acre spacing

44 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

Shale Gas Play

Crude oil

(billion barrels)

Natural gas

(trillion cubic feet)

NGPL

(billion barrels)

Antrim Shale - 10.3 0.8 

Barnett 0.2 16.9 1.1 

Cana Woodford 0.7 12.0 0.5 

Devonian Shale 0.7 31.6 1.3 

Eagle Ford - Gas zones 6.0 45.5 5.0 

Fayetteville - 39.6 -

Haynesville-Bossier 0.1 88.5 -

Lewis - 16.3 -

Marcellus 0.6 437.1 20.6 

Utica 1.0 217.6 7.3 

Total 9.3 915.4 36.6 
Marcellus 2012-2016 wells

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production.

45 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

EURs per Well

■ < 1 bcf

■ 1-2.99 bcf

■ 3-5.99 bcf

■ >= 6 bcf
Marcellus natural gas EUR distribution, bcf/well

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production.

46 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Marcellus natural gas EUR distribution, bcf/well

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production.

47 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Marcellus natural gas EUR distribution, bcf/well

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production.

48 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
GIP Category 

(bcf/sq. mi)

Average EUR 

(bcf/well)

0-25 1.084

25-50 3.175

50-75 3.814

75-100 5.079

100-125 6.978

125-150 8.501

150-175 10.899

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production. Gas-in-Place (GIP) layers from Range Resources.

Pennsylvania Marcellus

49 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Utica 2012-2016 wells

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production.

50 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

EURs per Well

■ < 1 bcf

■ 1-2.99 bcf

■ 3-5.99 bcf

■ >= 6 bcf
Utica natural gas EUR distribution, bcf/well

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production.

51 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Utica gas-core natural gas EUR distribution, bcf/well

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production.

52 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Utica gas-extension natural gas EUR distribution, bcf/well

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production.

53 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Utica gas-extension natural gas EUR distribution, bcf/well

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production.

54 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Utica oil-core natural gas EUR distribution, bcf/well

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production.

55 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Utica oil-extension natural gas EUR distribution, bcf/well

Wells drilled in 2012-2016 with at least 4 months of production.

56 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

minimum

maximum

25th percentile

mean

median

75th percentile
Major deepwater announced discoveries

57 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

Field nickname Production 

Start Date

Oil Peak 

Production 

Volume 

(Mb/d)

Gas Peak 

Production 

Volume 

(MMcf/d)

Field nickname Production 

Start Date

Oil Peak 

Production 

Volume 

(Mb/d)

Gas Peak 

Production 

Volume 

(MMcf/d)

Horn Mountain Deep 2017 25 0 Caicos 2020 0 0

Son of Bluto 2 2017 20 0 Cheyenne East 2020 0.5 30

Amethyst 2018 10 15 Shenandoah 2020 30 0

Stampede-Knotty Head 2018 40 0 Appomattox 2020 87.5 60

Stampede-Pony 2018 40 0 Phobos 2020 10 0

Otis 2018 10 75 Gila 2020 50 0

Rydberg 2019 10 0 Holstein Deep 2020 20 50

Tiber 2019 50 0 Tahiti 2 [vertical expansion] 2020 20 0

Tomcat 2019 10 20 North Platte 2021 45 100

Kaikias 2019 30 0 Mad Dog Phase 2 2021 140 200

Bushwood 2019 15 0 Parmer 2022 10 30

Gotcha 2019 10 0 Guadalupe 2024 35 0

Diamond 2020 0.5 50 Katmai 2024 10 0

Fort Sumter 2020 0 0 Gettysburg 2024 25 50

Hadrian North 2020 100 75 Leon 2024 25 0

Kaskida 2020 50 100 Anchor 2025 60 0

Vicksburg 2020 87.5 20 Yeti 2025 25 0

Vito 2020 25 0 Sicily 2025 0 0

Yucatan North 2020 10 0
Contacts for OGSM

58 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

Lower 48 onshore

Dana Van Wagener: dana.vanwagener@eia.gov

Lower 48 offshore and Alaska

Terry Yen: terry.yen@eia.gov

Exploration and Production Team Lead

Meg Coleman: meg.coleman@eia.gov
We welcome feedback on our assumptions and documentation

• Working group meetings http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/workinggroup/

• The AEO Assumptions report http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/

• NEMS Model Documentation

– Oil and gas supply 

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/documentation/ogsm/pdf/m063(2017).pdf

– Natural gas transmission and distribution 

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/nems/documentation/ngtdm/pdf/m062(2014).pdf

– LFMM 

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/documentation/lfmm/pdf/m059(2014).pdf

• Working papers series http://www.eia.gov/workingpapers/

59 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change
Thank you

60 Office of Petroleum, Gas, and Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington, DC, 

July 26, 2017 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE as results are subject to change

Next Working Group Meeting

Tentatively planned for September 2017.

Will present preliminary results for AEO2018.