natural gas research

Global gas: is there enough gas for energy transition?

Global gas production is forecasted to double from 400bcfd in 2023 to 800bcfd in 2050.

Our roadmap to ‘Net Zero’ requires doubling global gas production from 400bcfd to 800bcfd, as a complement to wind, solar, nuclear and other low-carbon energy. This data-file quantifies global gas production forecasts by country, what do you have to believe about global gas reserves, and is there enough gas?

Global gas production doubled in the c30 years from 1990-2019, rising at a 2.5% CAGR, which is the same trajectory that needs to be sustained to 2050 on our long-term energy market supply-demand balances.

Amazingly, from 1990-2019, global gas reserves increased from 4,000 TCF to 7,000 TCF, for a reserve replacement ratio of 190%, although the numbers have been cyclical and have fallen below 100% in recent years (chart below).

Another fascinating feature of gas markets is their flexibility, shown by plotting monthly gas production by country over time (chart below). In the Northern Hemisphere, production runs 6% higher than the annual average in December-January and 6% lower than average in June-August, as producers consciously flex their output to meet fluctuations in demand. Gas output does not show volatility, but voluntarity!

Global gas production by month is typically 15-20bcfd higher than average in Northern Hemisphere winter months and 15-20bcfd lower in Northern Hemisphere summer months, due to variations in heating demand

On our numbers through 2050, as part of the energy transition, a reserve replacement ratio of 107% is needed, while the ‘reserve life’ (RP ratio) will likely also decline from around 50-years today to 25-years in 2050. Please download the data-file for reserve numbers and production numbers by country.

Global gas reserves and RP ratio by country, from 1980 to 2050.RP ratio is expected to decrease from roughly 40 years today to 25 years in 2050.

Onshore resource extensions are seen primarily coming from shale, with continued upside in the US, and vast new potential in the Middle East, North Africa and possibly even European shale as a way of replacing Russian gas.

Another offshore cycle is also seen to be necessary, discovering and developing an average of 45 TCF of offshore resources each year in 2023-2050. These are big numbers, equivalent to discovering a large new gas basin (e.g., an “entire Mozambique of gas”) every 3-5 years.

Global gas consumption by region and over time is also estimated in the data-file, flatlining at 150bcfd in the developed world, but rising by 2.5x in the emerging world, with the largest gains needed in India, Africa and China (chart below).

Global gas consumption by country, from 1990 to 2050. Consumption is expected to double from 400 bcfd today to 800 bcfd by 2050 due to increased consumption from emerging markets.

Global LNG demand would also need to treble to meet this ramp-up, linking to our model of global LNG supplies. Within today’s LNG market, 25% flows to Europe, 20% to Japan, and 55% to the emerging world. By 2050, the emerging world would be attracting 80% of global LNG cargoes, with the largest growth in China and India.

Global LNG imports by country, from 1990 to 2050. Imports are expected to triple from 400 MTpa in 2023 to almost 1200 MTpa by 2050. The major importers will be China, India, and other Asian countries.

Our best guesses for how a doubling of global gas production might unfold is captured in this model of global gas forecasts by country/region. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that coal-to-gas switching will occur on the needed scale for global decarbonization, especially as 2023/24 has seen emerging world countries (India, China) ramping coal instead for energy security reasons.

Back up: does ramping renewables displace gas?

Comparison of the same Australian gas plants in May 2014 and May 2024. The increasing share of renewables reduces the utilization of baseload gas plants and turns them into peaker plants.

This 12-page note studies the output from 10 of the largest gas power plants in Australia, at 5-minute intervals, comparing 2024 versus 2014. Ramping renewables to c30% of Australia’s electricity mix has not only entrenched gas-fired back-up generation, but actually increased the need for peakers?

Mainspring Energy: linear generator breakthrough?

Linear generator technology can convert any gaseous fuel into electricity, with c45% electrical efficiency, and >80% efficiency in CHP mode. This data-file reviews Mainspring Energy’s patents. We conclude that the company has locked up the IP for piston-seal assemblies in a linear generator with air bearings, but longevity/maintenance could be a key challenge to explore.

EtaGen was founded in 2010 by three Stanford engineers, and rebranded as Mainspring Energy in 2020. Its headquarters are in Menlo Park, California; and the company has c400 employees, having closed a $290M Series E financing in 2022.

Mainspring is commercializing a linear generator, which is low-cost, reliable, flexible and can use any clean fuel (e.g., natural gas, biogas, hydrogen, ammonia), in sizes from 230kW to multiple-MW, >45% electrical efficiency and >80% total thermal efficiency in CHP mode.

In a linear generator, the compression of fuel and air causes a uniform and flameless combustion reaction to occur, releasing the energy from the fuel, but creating no NOx emissions. The energy from combustion pushes a piston through a cylinder (or in Mainspring’s case, two pistons, through two cylinders). Stator magnets in each piston move past coils in each cylinder, inducing a current. An air spring on the other side of the cylinder is thereby compressed, and re-expands to drive the piston back to its starting point.

Illustration of the working principles of a linear generator.

The main advantages are the simplicity, which could in principle translate into lower capex, compared to the blades and precision-engineered compression and turbine stages within a gas turbine.

Higher efficiency can also be unlocked by harnessing the expansion of combustion gases directly, rather than having to convert it into rotary motion, per the loss attributions for conventional thermal generation. On the other hand, maximum efficiency will always be lower for low-temperature combustion, due to the laws of thermodynamics.

From reviewing Mainspring’s patents, we think there are three main challenges for commercializing linear generators. The main challenge is linked to longevity and maintenance.

Mainspring’s patents focus upon piston-seal assemblies, and seem to have locked up the IP for its linear generator designs. This may also be relevant to other companies aiming to commercialize linear generators, such as Hyliion in the vehicle sector.

Gas power: does low utilization entail spare capacity?

The US has >400GW of large gas-fired power plants running at 40% average annual utilization. Could they help power new loads, e.g., 60GW of AI data-centers by 2030? This 5-page note shows why low utilization does not entail spare capacity, and in turn, estimates true gas power spare capacity available for loads such as data-centers.

How much gas power spare capacity exists within the US power grid, and could this help to power the rise of AI or the rise of EVs, without having to construct new power generation?

To answer this question, we have aggregated EIA power market data across 1,850 active US gas-fired power generation facilities.

This 5-page note summarizes our key conclusions on the first page, followed by three pages of follow-up charts.

The note covers the generation capacity growth we are forecasting for AI and other new loads; the average utilization rates of gas generation by plant size (in MW) and by state; why low annual utilization cannot simply be translated into spare capacity; and our estimates for how much true spare capacity really exists within the US’s current fleet of gas turbines.

As a general rule of thumb, a typical US gas power generation facility runs at 40% annual utilization, which translates into 60% peak monthly utilization, 80% peak daily utilization and 100% peak hourly utilization.

This research note is available for TSE written subscription clients, while the underlying data behind our assessment of gas power spare capacity are linked below for TSE full subscription clients.

US gas power: generation by facility over time?

Energy and AI: the power and the glory?

Electric vehicles: breaking the ICE?

Global biogas production by country?

Biogas production by country from 2000 to 2023. China has now become the worlds' largest producer of biogas, though it only covers 2% of their gas demand.

Global biogas production has risen at a 10-year CAGR of 3% to reach 4.3bcfed in 2023, equivalent to 1.1% of global gas consumption. Europe accounts for half of global biogas, helped by $4-40/mcfe subsidies. This data-file aggregates global biogas production by country, plus notes into feedstock sources, uses of biogas and biomethane.

Germany has historically been the largest producer in the world, with biogas output rising to 0.8bcfd by 2015, 10% of Germany’s total gas needs, then flat-lining on the phase-back of subsidies, such as 6-25 c/kWh feed-in tariffs for biogas->power.

40-45% of Germany’s biogas feedstock is from the anaerobic digestion of crop residues (70% corn silage), 40-45% is from animal waste (80% cattle), 6% is from wastewater. 85% is produced as biogas and 15% is upgraded to biomethane. 78% is used to produce electricity. Larger listed companies include EnviTec and Verbio.

China has now overtaken Germany to become the world’s largest biogas producer, reaching 0.9bcfed in 2023, although biogas has fallen from 4% of China’s total gas use in 2013 to 2% in 2023.

The US produced 0.6bcfd of biogas in 2023, or 1% of total gas consumption, with 2,400 production sites, of which 70-80% is captured from landfills. BP acquired the US’s largest RNG producer, Archaea Energy, for $4.2bn in 2022.

Brazil arguably has most growth potential, producing 0.1bcfed, across around 1,000 production sites, 65% from agricultural wastes, and c80% is used for electricity generation.

Denmark sources the highest share of its total gas needs from biogas of any country in our database by a wide margin, at c50%. 80% is upgraded and delivered into the gas grid, encouraged by a $6.2/mcfe subsidy program for raw biogas production, and $13/mcfe for upgraded biomethane, which supports the economics in our biogas costs models.

The data-file contains underlying data into global biogas production by country, in TJ terms, in TWH terms, and in bcf of gas equivalent terms (bcfed). Backup tabs contain workings and other input data. For further data, please see our broader biogas research and biofuels research,

US gas transmission: by company and by pipeline?

Gas volumes transported in US gas pipelines as a function of their length in miles. Longer pipelines also transfer significantly more gas.

This data-file aggregates granular data into US gas transmission, by company and by pipeline, for 40 major US gas pipelines which transport 45TCF of gas per annum across 185,000 miles; and for 3,200 compressors at 640 related compressor stations.

This data-file aggregates data for 40 large US gas transmission pipelines, covering 185,000 miles, moving the US’s 95bcfd gas market. Underlying data are sources from the EPA’s FLIGHT tool.

Long-distance gas transmission is highly efficient, with just 0.008% of throughput gas thought to leak directly from the pipelines. Around 1% of the throughput gas is used to carry the remaining molecules an average of 5,000 miles from source to destination, with total CO2-equivalent emissions of 0.5 kg/mcfe. Numbers vary by pipeline and by operator.

Greenhouse gas emissions of US gas pipelines in kilograms of CO2 equivalent per mcf transported as a function of their total network length.

Five midstream companies transport two-thirds of all US gas, with large inter-state networks, and associated storage and infrastructure.

The largest US gas transmission line is Williams’s Transco, which carries c15% of the nation’s gas from the Gulf Coast to New York.

The longest US gas transmission line is Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s Northern Natural Gas line, running 14,000 miles from West Texas and stretching as far North as Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

Our outlook in the energy transition is that natural gas will emerge as the most practical and low-carbon backstop to renewables, while volatile renewable generation may create overlooked trading opportunities for companies with gas infrastructure.

In early-2024, we have updated the data-file, screening all US gas transmission by pipeline and by operator, using what are currently the latest EPA disclosures from 2022. The data-file also includes gas market volumes across 670 entities, based on Ferc 552 disclosures.

Our recent research into power grid bottlenecks and the rise of AI also leaves us wondering whether there will be increasing pipeline utilization ahead for the US gas transmission network. Hence we have also broken down capacity utilization by pipeline in the file (chart below).

Implied utilization of gas pipelines in the US. Higher capacity gas pipelines are at 80-100% utilization while smaller pipelines have more spare capacity.

Previously, we undertook a more detailed analysis, matching up separately reported compressor stations to each pipeline (80% of the energy use and CO2e come from compressors), to plot the total CO2 intensity and methane leakage rate, line by line (see backup tabs).

major US gas pipelines ranked by CO2 intensity

US gas transmission by company is aggregated — for different pipelines and pipeline operators — in the data-file, to identify companies with low CO2 intensity despite high throughputs.

Peak commodities: everything, everywhere, all at once?

Commodities needed for energy transition

This 15-page note evaluates 10 commodity disruptions since the Stone Age. Peak demand for commodities is just possible, in total tonnage terms, as part of the energy transition. But it is historically unprecedented. And our plateau in tonnage terms is a doubling in value terms, a kingmaker for gas and materials. 30 major commodities are reviewed.

Renewable-heavy grids: dividing the pie?

The levelized cost of partial electricity (LCOPE) is very different from the levelized cost of total electricity (LCOTE). This 21-page note explores the distinction. It suggests renewables will peak at 30-60% of power grids? And gas is well-placed as a back-up, set to surprise, by entrenching at 30-50% of renewables-heavy grids?

Density of gases: by pressure and temperature?

The density of gases matters in turbines, compressors, for energy transport and energy storage. Hence this data-file models the density of gases from first principles, using the Ideal Gas Equations and the Clausius-Clapeyron Equation. High energy density is shown for methane, less so for hydrogen and ammonia. CO2, nitrogen, argon and water are also captured.

The Ideal Gas Law states that PV = nRT, where P is pressure in Pascals, V is volume in m3, n is the number of mols, R is the Universal Gas Constant (in J/mol-K) and T is absolute temperature in Kelvin.

The Density of a Gas can be calculated as a function of pressure and temperature, simply by re-arranging the Ideal Gas Law, where Density ρ = P x Molecular Weight / RT. Our favored units are in kg/m3.

Density of methane in kg/m3 and kWh/m3

The Density of Methane (natural gas) can thus be derived from first principles in the chart below, using a molar mass of 16 g/mol, and then flexing the temperature and pressure. This shows how methane at 1 bar of pressure and 20ºC has a density of 0.67 kg/m3. LNG at -163ºC is 625x denser at 422 kg/m3. And CNG at 200-bar has a density of 180kg/m3.

The Energy Density of Methane can thus be calculated by multiplying the density (in kg/m3) by the enthalpy of combustion in kJ/kg, and then juggling the energy units. A nice round number: the primary energy density of methane is 10 kWh/m3 at 1-bar and 20ºC, increasing with compression and liquefaction. CNG at 200-300 bar has around 30-60% of the energy density of gasoline, in kWh/m3 terms.

The energy density of methane is 10kWh/m3 as a nice rounded rule-of-thumb.

Clausius-Clapeyron: gas liquefaction?

Methane liquefies into LNG at -162ºC under 1-bar of pressure. The boiling points of other gases range from water at 100ºC, ammonia at -33ºC, CO2 at -78ºC, argon at -186ºC, nitrogen at -196ºC to hydrogen at -259ºC. This is all at 1-bar of pressure.

However, liquefaction temperatures rise with pressure, as can be derived from the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, and shown in the chart below. At 10-20 bar of pressure, you can liquefy methane into ‘pressurized LNG’ at just -105 – 123ºC, which can sometimes improve the efficiency of LNG transport. This can also help cryogenic air separation.

Density of CO2: strange properties?

The Density of CO2 is 1.87 kg/m3 at 20ºC and 1-bar of pressure, which is 45% denser than air (chart below). But CO2 is a strange gas. It cannot exist as a liquid below 5.2 bar of pressure, sublimating directly to a solid. CO2 can also be liquefied purely by compression, with a boiling point of 20-80ºC at 30-100 bar of pressure.

Density of Gas — Density of CO2 according to pressure and temperature in kg per m3

Hence often the disposal pipeline in a CCS or blue hydrogen value chain may often be pumping a liquid, rather than flowing a gas. And finally, these properties of CO2 open the door to surprisingly low cost CO2 transport by truck or in ships. This is all just physics.

Super-critical fluids: fourth state of matter?

There is also a fourth density state for all of the gases in the data-file. Above their critical temperature and critical pressure, fluids ‘become super-critical’. Sometimes this is described as ‘having properties like both a gas and liquid’. Mathematically, it means density starts rising more rapidly than would be predicted by the Ideal Gas Equations.

Super-critical gases behave unpredictably. Their thermodynamic parameters cannot be derived from simple formulae, but rather need to be read from data-tables and/or tested experimentally. This is why the engineering of supercritical systems tends to involve supercomputers.

Examples of super-critical gases? Steam becomes supercritical above 218-bar and 374ºC. CO2 becomes supercritical about 73-bar and 32ºC. Thus CO2 power cycles inevitably endure supercriticality.

CO2 compression: stranger things?

Energy density of hydrogen lags other fuels?

The Density of Hydrogen is 0.08 kg/m3 at 20ºC and 1-bar of pressure, which is very low, mainly because of H2’s low molar mass of just 2g/mol. Methane, for example, is 8x denser. CO2 is 20x denser. In energy terms, gasoline is 3,000x denser per m3.

Hence hydrogen transportation and storage requires demanding compression or liquefaction. Tanks of a hydrogen vehicle might have a very high pressure of 700-bar, to reach a 40kg/m3 (the same density can be achieved by compressing methane to just 50-bar!). Liquefied hydrogen has a density around 70kg/m3 (LNG is 6x denser).

The density of hydrogen is just 0.08 kg/m3 at 20ºC of temperature and 1-bar of pressure

The energy density of hydrogen, in kWh/m3 also follows from these equations. At 1-bar and 20ºC, methane contains 3x more energy per m3 than hydrogen. Under cryogenic conditions, it contains 2x more energy. Under super-critical and ultra-compressed conditions, it contains 4x more.

The energy density of hydrogen is 50-75% lower than natural gas, even after compression/liquefaction

Data into the energy density of gases?

Similar energy density challenges constrain the use of ammonia as a fuel, as tabulated in the data-file, contrasted with other fuels, and discussed in our research note here.

Combustion fuels: density, ignition temperature and flame speed?

This data-file allows density charts — in kg/m3 and in kWh/m3 — to be calculated for any gas, using the Ideal Gas Laws and the Clausius-Clapeyron equations. The data-file currently includes methane, CO2, nitrogen, ammonia, argon, water and hydrogen.

Gas dehydration: costs and economics?

Gas dehydration costs might run to $0.02/mcf, with an energy penalty of 0.03%, to remove around 90% of the water from a wellhead gas stream using a TEG absorption unit, and satisfy downstream requirements for 4-7lb/mmcf maximum water content. This data-file captures the economics of gas dehydration, to earn a 10% IRR off $25,000/mmcfd capex.

Wellhead gas might have up to 0.2% water entrained within it (100lb/mmcf). This should ideally be reduced by 90-95%, to below 7 lb/mmcf, sometimes below 4lb/mmcf.

The main reasons for reducing the water content of natural gas are to avoid issues in downstream equipment and pipelines, such as plugging or hydrate formation. For example, as an LNG plant cools the gas stream to -160C, any water is clearly going to freeze out.

Dehydration is also necessary for other gas streams. For example, some of the recent projects that have crossed our desk are aimed at dehydrating CO2 in CCS projects, so that it does not form carbonic acid and dissolve disposal pipelines. Hydrogen may also require dehydration, downstream of a reforming unit or some electrolysis plants.

Gas dehydration most commonly takes place by absorbing the water in tri-ethylene glycol (TEG). TEG acts as a solvent for water at ambient temperatures in an absorber unit. Then the water can be stripped from the TEG solution by heating to 200ºC in a reboiler unit. Many readers will note this is effectively the same plant configuration as for post-combustion CCS using amines.

The global TEG market is worth around $800M per year, implying c500kTpa of production at $1.5-2.0/kg. TEG is made via the step-wise oligomerization of ethylene oxide.

In our base case model, gas dehydration costs $0.02/mcf to earn a c10% IRR while covering the capex of the TEG unit, using up 0.03% of the energy in the gas itself (i.e., a 0.03% energy penalty) and adding 0.03 kg/mcf to the CO2 intensity of gas.

This data-file allows for stress-testing of TEG unit capex (chart below), maintenance, electricity use, heat consumption, CO2 prices, TEG make-up costs and other opex costs.

TEG dehydration units are under increasing scrutiny due to methane emissions, including from pneumatically powered components.

Alternatives to TEG dehydration units include solid sorbents and molecular sieves. For an overview, see our note into swing adsorption.

But we think the most interesting read across from our gas dehydration model is for CCS/DAC. Using this fully mature technology, for which over 200,000 units have been installed to-date, we think the costs “per ton of water removal” still equate to $450/ton and the capex costs equate to around $5,000/Tpa. Details in the data-file.