Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

'The United States is banking on decades of abundant natural gas to power its economic resurgence. That may be wishful thinking.

...Companies are betting big on forecasts of cheap, plentiful natural gas. Over the next 20 years, US industry and electricity producers are expected to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in new plants that rely on natural gas. And billions more dollars are pouring into the construction of export facilities that will enable the United States to ship liquefied natural gas to Europe, Asia and South America.

All of those investments are based on the expectation that US gas production will climb for decades, in line with the official forecasts by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). As agency director Adam Sieminski put it last year: “For natural gas, the EIA has no doubt at all that production can continue to grow all the way out to 2040.”

But a careful examination of the assumptions behind such bullish forecasts suggests that they may be overly optimistic, in part because the government's predictions rely on coarse-grained studies of major shale formations, or plays. Now, researchers are analysing those formations in much greater detail and are issuing more-conservative forecasts. They calculate that such formations have relatively small 'sweet spots' where it will be profitable to extract gas.'

Natural gas: The fracking fallacy : Nature News & Comment


Though the above is not proof, it is more evidence.

I have said many times, and have posted links to other articles of evidence, that the shale/fracking frenzy is probably overblown.

There is (IMO) less recoverable oil/gas down there then is generally reported and the wells do not last nearly as long as conventional ones seem to.

The support for fracking goes something like this: "They are getting rich off rocks and since there are rocks under my property, one day I will get rich too. Fracking Hell yeah!"

DA60 said:

'The United States is banking on decades of abundant natural gas to power its economic resurgence. That may be wishful thinking.

...Companies are betting big on forecasts of cheap, plentiful natural gas. Over the next 20 years, US industry and electricity producers are expected to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in new plants that rely on natural gas. And billions more dollars are pouring into the construction of export facilities that will enable the United States to ship liquefied natural gas to Europe, Asia and South America.

All of those investments are based on the expectation that US gas production will climb for decades, in line with the official forecasts by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). As agency director Adam Sieminski put it last year: “For natural gas, the EIA has no doubt at all that production can continue to grow all the way out to 2040.”

But a careful examination of the assumptions behind such bullish forecasts suggests that they may be overly optimistic, in part because the government's predictions rely on coarse-grained studies of major shale formations, or plays. Now, researchers are analysing those formations in much greater detail and are issuing more-conservative forecasts. They calculate that such formations have relatively small 'sweet spots' where it will be profitable to extract gas.'

Natural gas: The fracking fallacy : Nature News & Comment


Though the above is not proof, it is more evidence.

I have said many times, and have posted links to other articles of evidence, that the shale/fracking frenzy is probably overblown.

There is (IMO) less recoverable oil/gas down there then is generally reported and the wells do not last nearly as long as conventional ones seem to.

Click to expand...

I had understood that the shale reserves were relatively restricted and would be relatively short lived. But there was no robust information. But what we need is a little more time so alternative technologies are more efficient, when we build up the capital investment.

DA60 said:

'The United States is banking on decades of abundant natural gas to power its economic resurgence. That may be wishful thinking.

...Companies are betting big on forecasts of cheap, plentiful natural gas. Over the next 20 years, US industry and electricity producers are expected to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in new plants that rely on natural gas. And billions more dollars are pouring into the construction of export facilities that will enable the United States to ship liquefied natural gas to Europe, Asia and South America.

All of those investments are based on the expectation that US gas production will climb for decades, in line with the official forecasts by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). As agency director Adam Sieminski put it last year: “For natural gas, the EIA has no doubt at all that production can continue to grow all the way out to 2040.”

But a careful examination of the assumptions behind such bullish forecasts suggests that they may be overly optimistic, in part because the government's predictions rely on coarse-grained studies of major shale formations, or plays. Now, researchers are analysing those formations in much greater detail and are issuing more-conservative forecasts. They calculate that such formations have relatively small 'sweet spots' where it will be profitable to extract gas.'

Natural gas: The fracking fallacy : Nature News & Comment


Though the above is not proof, it is more evidence.

I have said many times, and have posted links to other articles of evidence, that the shale/fracking frenzy is probably overblown.

There is (IMO) less recoverable oil/gas down there then is generally reported and the wells do not last nearly as long as conventional ones seem to.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I'm going to read a news site called "Nature News & Comment" when it comes to Fracking. :roll:

DA60 said:

'The United States is banking on decades of abundant natural gas to power its economic resurgence. That may be wishful thinking.

...Companies are betting big on forecasts of cheap, plentiful natural gas. Over the next 20 years, US industry and electricity producers are expected to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in new plants that rely on natural gas. And billions more dollars are pouring into the construction of export facilities that will enable the United States to ship liquefied natural gas to Europe, Asia and South America.

All of those investments are based on the expectation that US gas production will climb for decades, in line with the official forecasts by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). As agency director Adam Sieminski put it last year: “For natural gas, the EIA has no doubt at all that production can continue to grow all the way out to 2040.”

Natural gas: The fracking fallacy : Nature News & Comment


Though the above is not proof, it is more evidence.

I have said many times, and have posted links to other articles of evidence, that the shale/fracking frenzy is probably overblown.

There is (IMO) less recoverable oil/gas down there then is generally reported and the wells do not last nearly as long as conventional ones seem to.

Click to expand...

I don't see the US involvement overblown nor our northern neighbor Canada. What I see overblown is the administration currently calling the shots. And a bunch of idiots willing to believe anything without questioning or even dare to investigate it themselves only relying on what some asshole tell them what they should believe.

The amount being produced going to market in the U.S./Canada, I believe can be proved it has had an adverse effect on the Saudis and other oil producers in the Middle East and Russia. And lets set the record straight all this oil/gas being produced in the U.S, lets make perfectly clear the new production of oil and natural gas is being done on private lands. This administration has pretty much refused such activity on federal government controlled grounds. What these private lands are producing IS making a difference.

It is no secret the Saudis and others recently convened a meeting on how to deal with this new found competition globally. Their response is obvious. To increase their production of oil to lower the value per barrel so to discourage those in North America from producing because it cost a whole lot more to produce a barrel of oil in the U.S. than it does in Saudi Arabia.. Now please remember the Obama administration along with all the carbon footprint people believing fossil fuel is BAD explains why it is so expensive for anyone to produce fossil fuel in the U.S. Whether it be oil, gas or coal. I'm convinced there is an idiot born every minute. If it weren't for idiots, the U.S. and Canada would be self-sufficient in energy and great exporters of the same.

Have you ever watched the flames burning off all the natural gas on an oilwell? Just pissing away a needed resource in many parts of the world like Japan? Well thank the global warming environmentalists for that one. Even with the new technology of being able to liquidize the natural gas for export, this administration has thwarted it. Every time there is an effort to use fossil fuel in any form it is met with opposition and more regulations.



After all, when you consider all the regulations placed on oil/gas companies in the U.S./Canada through regulations through an EPA on steroids under the current administration that is directly linked to the global warming activists and the United Nations/IPPC wanting to stop the use of fossil fuel because of its "carbon footprint", it costs much more to produce a barrel than that in the Middle East and in Russia. Between the cost to produce in North America versus the Middle East, the Middle East knowing this, by design ratchet up production so it would cause oil prices to plummet in the market causing those in the U.S. to back off on their production. There is no lack of resources. There is however a strategy playing out to cause those in the U.S. to slow down their production because it has become too expensive for them to continue.

This isn't rocket science. Energy is now political. The science of global warming is political. Wake up and smell the coffee! The U.S and Canada have enough fossil fuel oil/gas to become self sufficient plus offer a vast amount to be exported to the rest of the world and this is a direct threat to the Middle East and Russia. At least for the next 100 years at current rate of consumption the U.S. can hold its own if allowed by the government. Ther is nothing wrong with seeking alteratives. It should be encouraged to prepare for the future, but not designed under a political agenda. Period.

DA60 said:

'The United States is banking on decades of abundant natural gas to power its economic resurgence. That may be wishful thinking.

...Companies are betting big on forecasts of cheap, plentiful natural gas. Over the next 20 years, US industry and electricity producers are expected to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in new plants that rely on natural gas. And billions more dollars are pouring into the construction of export facilities that will enable the United States to ship liquefied natural gas to Europe, Asia and South America.

All of those investments are based on the expectation that US gas production will climb for decades, in line with the official forecasts by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). As agency director Adam Sieminski put it last year: “For natural gas, the EIA has no doubt at all that production can continue to grow all the way out to 2040.”

But a careful examination of the assumptions behind such bullish forecasts suggests that they may be overly optimistic, in part because the government's predictions rely on coarse-grained studies of major shale formations, or plays. Now, researchers are analysing those formations in much greater detail and are issuing more-conservative forecasts. They calculate that such formations have relatively small 'sweet spots' where it will be profitable to extract gas.'

Natural gas: The fracking fallacy : Nature News & Comment


Though the above is not proof, it is more evidence.

I have said many times, and have posted links to other articles of evidence, that the shale/fracking frenzy is probably overblown.

There is (IMO) less recoverable oil/gas down there then is generally reported and the wells do not last nearly as long as conventional ones seem to.

Click to expand...

All I know is....

Fracking has started in North Texas.

I live in North Texas.

For the first time in our history, we have been hit with earthquakes. Several last month. Another one a few days ago. Fracking is being investigated as a possible cause. Doesn't mean it is, but it is supposedly being included as one of the causes for such an abrupt change in the area. I was sitting on the sofa with my dog. I felt (or heard?) a boom. Both the dog & I looked at each other, then we got up to look outside. Did a big thunderstorm suddenly come along? No. Everything was quiet, the wind barely blowing. I found out later that was an earthquake a few miles away. Another time I didn't hear it or feel it, but a neighbor posted to our crime site "Did anyone feel that earthquake that just happened?!!?"

Denton County, north of where I live, the citizens have voted to ban fracking. A conservative area, to be sure. But the citizens have surveyed the fracking business, looked at what's going on in their area, and have decided that fracking should not be allowed.

That is all I know.

DA60 said:

'The United States is banking on decades of abundant natural gas to power its economic resurgence. That may be wishful thinking.

Though the above is not proof, it is more evidence.

I have said many times, and have posted links to other articles of evidence, that the shale/fracking frenzy is probably overblown.

There is (IMO) less recoverable oil/gas down there then is generally reported and the wells do not last nearly as long as conventional ones seem to.

Click to expand...

It may be overblown but then again it may be understated.

The study focused on, potentially, how much gas we could expect to extract from regions where we are extracting right now and how the estimates may have been inflated. Even if 100% correct in their findings I am failing to see how this study would suggest that fracking is not good for the economy. It is as long as wells are producing and when wells stop producing what would be the downside to exploring untapped regions? North Dakota wasn't even mentioned in the article or the study? Alaska?

Fracking gives us a tool to tap into resources that are vital to our national interest. Abandoning this technology because... "hey, there might not be as much gas down there as we first thought" is a pretty poor reason to abandon the technology, IMO.

vesper said:

I don't see the US involvement overblown nor our northern neighbor Canada...
.
......The amount being produced going to market in the U.S./Canada, I believe can be proved it has had an adverse effect on the Saudis and other oil producers in the Middle East and Russia. And lets set the record straight all this oil/gas being produced in the U.S, lets make perfectly clear the new production of oil and natural gas is being done on private lands. This administration has pretty much refused such activity on federal government controlled grounds. What these private lands are producing IS making a difference.

.... Now please remember the Obama administration along with all the carbon footprint people believing fossil fuel is BAD explains why it is so expensive for anyone to produce fossil fuel in the U.S. Whether it be oil, gas or coal. I'm convinced there is an idiot born every minute. If it weren't for idiots, the U.S. and Canada would be self-sufficient in energy and great exporters of the same.

Have you ever watched the flames burning off all the natural gas on an oilwell? Just pissing away a needed resource in many parts of the world like Japan? Well thank the global warming environmentalists for that one. Even with the new technology of being able to liquidize the natural gas for export, this administration has thwarted it. Every time there is an effort to use fossil fuel in any form it is met with opposition and more regulations.



After all, when you consider all the regulations placed on oil/gas companies in the U.S./Canada through regulations through an EPA on steroids under the current administration that is directly linked to the global warming activists and the United Nations/IPPC wanting to stop the use of fossil fuel because of its "carbon footprint", it costs much more to produce a barrel than that in the Middle East and in Russia. Between the cost to produce in North America versus the Middle East, the Middle East knowing this, by design ratchet up production so it would cause oil prices to plummet in the market causing those in the U.S. to back off on their production. There is no lack of resources. There is however a strategy playing out to cause those in the U.S. to slow down their production because it has become too expensive for them to continue.

This isn't rocket science. Energy is now political. The science of global warming is political. Wake up and smell the coffee! The U.S and Canada have enough fossil fuel oil/gas to become self sufficient plus offer a vast amount to be exported to the rest of the world and this is a direct threat to the Middle East and Russia. At least for the next 100 years at current rate of consumption the U.S. can hold its own if allowed by the government. Ther is nothing wrong with seeking alteratives. It should be encouraged to prepare for the future, but not designed under a political agenda. Period.

Click to expand...

Wow, right on so many points! By any chance were you listening to the CBC yesterday? An economist made many of those very points and added that OPEC, not just the Saudi's, can play the long game.

What the Obama administration won't tell you is that fracking with high pressure water and steam is over 100 years old. They do not document the claims of danger, the most recent "studies" read like a global warming report, assuming first that the claims are true, it is up to the oil companies to prove they are not.

While the cost of oil is tanking, the cost of 'power' is rising, and sooner or later something has to give. Economics, I have been told, is like a pressure cooker, whatever the influence, good or bad, it will not be suppressed and eventually emerge like an apple in the old "bob' game.

However, the Obama administration and to a certain degree Canada's Tories, are playing pin the tale on the donkey, and more worried about the value of the Canadian dollar than the real issue, the cost of power.

There is no abundance of natural gas anymore, we are punching holes like we're aerating a golf course, and another multi-billion dollar LNG pant broke ground this summer...destined for a power hungry Asia. And that is what OPEC is trying to fight, the only seriously expanding market anymore is Asia, and she sees Canada dipping its toe into her well.

What no one mentions much, is that we are talking the spot or day price of a barrel of oil, which has become meaningless. BC just signed a several billion dollar deal with China for LNG which carries a mandated price, as is the case with every barrel of crude or gas shipped to the US. The oil industry has been around a long time, and governments have been taxing them for as long. Their economists work with five, ten, twenty and fifty year averages and set a contract price. It is the power sold over and above that that is subject to the world price, but not likely the day price.

DA60 said:

'The United States is banking on decades of abundant natural gas to power its economic resurgence. That may be wishful thinking.

...Companies are betting big on forecasts of cheap, plentiful natural gas. Over the next 20 years, US industry and electricity producers are expected to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in new plants that rely on natural gas. And billions more dollars are pouring into the construction of export facilities that will enable the United States to ship liquefied natural gas to Europe, Asia and South America.

All of those investments are based on the expectation that US gas production will climb for decades, in line with the official forecasts by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). As agency director Adam Sieminski put it last year: “For natural gas, the EIA has no doubt at all that production can continue to grow all the way out to 2040.”

But a careful examination of the assumptions behind such bullish forecasts suggests that they may be overly optimistic, in part because the government's predictions rely on coarse-grained studies of major shale formations, or plays. Now, researchers are analysing those formations in much greater detail and are issuing more-conservative forecasts. They calculate that such formations have relatively small 'sweet spots' where it will be profitable to extract gas.'

Natural gas: The fracking fallacy : Nature News & Comment


Though the above is not proof, it is more evidence.

I have said many times, and have posted links to other articles of evidence, that the shale/fracking frenzy is probably overblown.

There is (IMO) less recoverable oil/gas down there then is generally reported and the wells do not last nearly as long as conventional ones seem to.

Click to expand...

If that were the case, the oil companies wouldn't be spending so much money to produce those reserves.

Fearandloathing said:

Wow, right on so many points! By any chance were you listening to the CBC yesterday? An economist made many of those very points and added that OPEC, not just the Saudi's, can play the long game.

What the Obama administration won't tell you is that fracking with high pressure water and steam is over 100 years old. They do not document the claims of danger, the most recent "studies" read like a global warming report, assuming first that the claims are true, it is up to the oil companies to prove they are not.

While the cost of oil is tanking, the cost of 'power' is rising, and sooner or later something has to give. Economics, I have been told, is like a pressure cooker, whatever the influence, good or bad, it will not be suppressed and eventually emerge like an apple in the old "bob' game.

However, the Obama administration and to a certain degree Canada's Tories, are playing pin the tale on the donkey, and more worried about the value of the Canadian dollar than the real issue, the cost of power.

There is no abundance of natural gas anymore, we are punching holes like we're aerating a golf course, and another multi-billion dollar LNG pant broke ground this summer...destined for a power hungry Asia. And that is what OPEC is trying to fight, the only seriously expanding market anymore is Asia, and she sees Canada dipping its toe into her well.

What no one mentions much, is that we are talking the spot or day price of a barrel of oil, which has become meaningless. BC just signed a several billion dollar deal with China for LNG which carries a mandated price, as is the case with every barrel of crude or gas shipped to the US. The oil industry has been around a long time, and governments have been taxing them for as long. Their economists work with five, ten, twenty and fifty year averages and set a contract price. It is the power sold over and above that that is subject to the world price, but not likely the day price.

Click to expand...

No sweetie, I did not see any CBS coverage. It was an honest observation. I happen to have a lot of money wrapped up in oil, coal and gas. When they continued to decline in the market, I went looking for answers. I know damn well it is linked to the Obama administration through their global warming agenda forcing harsh EPA regulations.

From the volume of production increased in the states on private lands and Canada it has become a real threat to the Middle East, Russia.

There are no shortages of the resources. Neither in Canada or United States. The amount being produced in North America has become a threat to OPEC. That is why they increased production to lower the cost per barrel because they know it costs a whole hell of a lot to produce oil here than it does in a place like Saudi Arabia.

But when you have a political agenda being promoted by this administration and globally via propaganda it becomes the lie that became the truth because it was allowed to circle the globe a half dozen times before the truth was able to find its running shoes and put them on to debunk it.

A few more tidbits of information.

No doubt it is going to take a bunch of major media sources to flat out say 'Shale oil dream overblown'; or something similar before most people will even consider believing it. But what the heck?

Maybe I will get a 'told you so' out of it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...shale-turn-unprofitable-7.html#post1064029556

vesper said:

No sweetie, I did not see any CBS coverage. It was an honest observation. I happen to have a lot of money wrapped up in oil, coal and gas. When they continued to decline in the market, I went looking for answers. I know damn well it is linked to the Obama administration through their global warming agenda forcing harsh EPA regulations.

From the volume of production increased in the states on private lands and Canada it has become a real threat to the Middle East, Russia.

There are no shortages of the resources. Neither in Canada or United States. The amount being produced in North America has become a threat to OPEC. That is why they increased production to lower the cost per barrel because they know it costs a whole hell of a lot to produce oil here than it does in a place like Saudi Arabia.

But when you have a political agenda being promoted by this administration and globally via propaganda it becomes the lie that became the truth because it was allowed to circle the globe a half dozen times before the truth was able to find its running shoes and put them on to debunk it.

Click to expand...

Which of course fits in with the hold up on the Keystone XL 4, which is Canadian high grade lubricant through the US [profit] for the Asian market, again OPEC's lusted after market.

That would make sense, play to the environment heads by halting the last 15% of the 20 year project and make it look like he's halted the whole thing, while playing nice to the Saudi's at the same time.

It amused me that Obama visited right after Stephen Harper who came away with a new, expanded trade agreement, and lots and lots of deals on oil, gas and wheat.

I don't recall Obama mentioning trade deals, but the opposite in terms of energy, new supposed limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Hamster Buddha said:

Oh yeah, I'm going to read a news site called "Nature News & Comment" when it comes to Fracking. :roll:

Click to expand...

My brother ran a frack rig for Halliburton back in the 1970's. Fracking goes back to the late 1940's. It's funny that as long as fracking has been around, now all of a sudden it's a problem.

I think the REAL problem is that any time someone comes up with a way to provide cheap, plentiful energy, whether it's nuclear, natural gas, or otherwise, it threatens the nature Nazis hold on government.

Hamster Buddha said:

Oh yeah, I'm going to read a news site called "Nature News & Comment" when it comes to Fracking. :roll:

Click to expand...

Yes, by all means. The best news site for that information would be "Fracking 'r Us". :mrgreen: