Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby vox_mundi » Thu 04 Dec 2014, 13:42:57

New study suggests US fracking boom may not last as long as predicted
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-fracking-boom.html
A team of researchers with the University of Texas has conducted an analysis of the fracking business in the United States and has found that the estimates made by other groups, most specifically the Energy Information Administration (EIA) regarding the amount of natural gas that can be extracted, is much too high. In a Nature News Feature, team lead Mason Inman suggests that the boom may last just half as long as predicted.
Image
... EIA suggested that peak production would likely last up till 2040, and then taper off after that. Now, the Texas team is suggesting that even that estimate is too optimistic—they suggest the peak will likely come in 2020, and after that production will fall off dramatically.

The estimates differ, Inman says, because of differing approaches used to arrive at estimates. The Texas team used finer resolution he says, which offers a more realistic view of where we stand. As an example, he notes that the EIA made estimates based on county wide production in a given area, whereas the Texas team divided areas into one square mile units. Basing estimates on counties, he says, isn't fine enough because county size varies so much, with some as large as a thousand square kilometers. He and his team believe that the EIA also erred by overlooking human nature in the equation. Mining companies tend to look for the sweet spots, which is where production will be highest, he notes—once the sweet spots are depleted, production drops dramatically because there is less gas to be found, which means adding more costs to retrieve it.

The lower forecasts from Texas mesh with a few independent studies that use simpler methods. Studies by Weijermars6, as well as Mark Kaiser7 of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and retired Geological Survey of Canada geologist David Hughes8, suggest that increasing production, as in the EIA's forecasts, would require a significant and sustained increase in drilling over the next 25 years, which may not be profitable.

Some industry insiders are impressed by the Texas assessment. Richard Nehring, an oil and gas analyst at Nehring Associates in Colorado Springs, Colorado, which operates a widely used database of oil and gas fields, says the team's approach is “how unconventional resource assessments should be done”.

... The results are “bad news”, says Tad Patzek, head of the University of Texas at Austin's department of petroleum and geosystems engineering, and a member of the team that is conducting the in-depth analyses. With companies trying to extract shale gas as fast as possible and export significant quantities, he argues, “we're setting ourselves up for a major fiasco”.


Report: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 04 Dec 2014, 17:45:46

First fracking oil killed by the OPEC decision, now fracking gas killed by physics. What is this world coming too? /Sarc
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Thu 04 Dec 2014, 22:05:53

If these frakkerz keep gittin' their asses whupped by sheiks and academics, we might be payin' 99 cents/gal fo' gas purty soon.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby GoghGoner » Fri 23 Jan 2015, 12:08:13

EIA has published a rebuttal. They criticize Professor Patzek because he is the President of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. The EIA (a bunch of whacked-out economists who have yet to grasp their flawed forecasts even though they have been repeatedly wrong for decades) didn't mention the other facts:

Tadeusz (Tad) Patzek is a Professor of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering in the Earth Sciences & Engineering Division of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST). He has also been appointed Director of the New Upstream Petroleum Engineering Center (UPEC).

Between 2008 and 2014, Patzek was the Lois K. and Richard D. Folger Leadership Professor and Chairman of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at The University of Texas at Austin. He still holds the Cockrell Family Regents Chair #11. Between 1990 and 2008, he was a Professor of Geoengineering at the University of California, Berkeley. Prior to joining Berkeley, he was a researcher at Shell Development, a unique research company managed for 20 years by M. King Hubbert of the Hubbert peaks. In November 2012, Patzek became President of ASPO, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.


http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/article/Nature_news_feature.pdf
GoghGoner
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Stilłwater subdivision

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby GoghGoner » Fri 23 Jan 2015, 12:14:10

The EIA expert quoted in the Nature article:

John Staub is ... John began his career as a Presidential Management Fellow in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Policy...He received an undergraduate degree in physics from Concordia College, Moorhead, Minn., and a master’s degree in public policy from the University of Chicago.


That's right folks, he is an expert in public policy.
GoghGoner
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Stilłwater subdivision

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby sjn » Fri 23 Jan 2015, 12:17:25

I don't think "forecast" means what EIA thinks it means. :roll:
User avatar
sjn
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 23 Jan 2015, 13:00:19

A different view from the Bureau of economic geology at the university of Texas. Along the lines of our semi-official state motto: Don’t mess with Texas! LOL. As the head dog at the BEG states below: “With due respect, in our opinion, Nature is lacking in objective and balanced coverage of broad energy research”.

15 December 2014
Dr. Philip Campbell
Editor-in-Chief, Nature

Dear Dr. Campbell,
Nature, as one of the most respected and cited scientific journals in the world, has a responsibility to rise above the politics, avoid conflict-seeking journalism, and report objective, balanced, agenda-free science. We believe that the recent news feature titled “Natural Gas: The Fracking Fallacy” (Dec 3, 2014), which compares research results from the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) with the U.S. EIA 2014 Annual Energy Outlook, contains misrepresentative speculation and apparent bias based on the limited data presented. Energy—all energy—is an immensely important global topic and deserves more careful treatment.

We represent the team of BEG-based geoscientists, engineers, and economists who for nearly four years have conducted in-depth studies on the four major shale gas basins in the United States. The BEG is a 105-year-old research institution, 250-people strong, with an international reputation for objective, unbiased science. Our ongoing research on shale resources—which involves rigorous, quantified, integrated, data-rich analysis and modeling, and is published in top peer-reviewed journals and presented to large audiences at major international conferences—should be of high interest to Nature readers: http://www.beg.utexas.edu/shale/.

We highlight several issues that we find objectionable in the Nature feature.
1. The “Battle of the Forecasts: Big Four Sources” figure attributes a graph to UT that we did not create. We provided the author with results from our peer-reviewed, published Barnett and Fayetteville studies. However, the Haynesville manuscripts are still in peer review and the Marcellus work is ongoing. On occasion, we show preliminary results at professional meetings of work from these as yet unpublished basins, but always with the caveat that it is not to be re-created or shared. To attempt to re-create our work without permission is unacceptable.

2. Pitting the BEG against the EIA appears to be an effort to create “drama” instead of providing an objective and thorough scientific view. The numerous responses we have received since the release of the news feature substantiate our belief that Nature readers expect more. In our conversations with the author, we emphasized that we work collaboratively with the EIA and that we both consider future scenarios and perform sensitivity analyses to show how variations in input parameters affect production outlooks. The EIA result is, in fact, one possible outcome of our model. The author misleads readers by suggesting faults in the EIA results without providing discussion on the importance of input assumptions and output scenarios.

3. The article pivots on quotes from Dr. Tad Patzek. Tad and his student, whose work focuses on individual well-decline forecasting and represents early-stage input for each studied basin, are valuable members of our team. However, Tad has not participated in the majority of the work in each basin, including Geologic Analysis, Well and Play Recovery Analysis, Well Economics, or the Production Outlook Studies.

4. In summary, the feature includes no original scientific data or work, misrepresents the BEG study results, ignores the treatment of uncertainties and scenarios, and editorializes a very important global issue. These lapses are further compounded by Nature’s editorial pointing to the feature and making what we believe are unfounded, and seemingly biased, conclusions about the future of the U.S. natural gas supply.

With due respect, in our opinion, Nature is lacking in objective and balanced coverage of broad energy research. Just as in climate, biotech, medical, and physics, there is rigorous research being conducted in energy—all energy. We question why Nature would not ask the BEG team, rather than a freelance writer, for a manuscript discussing our work. When our Marcellus work is completed, we offer to provide a scientific report of the kind that Nature readers have come to expect. We will use peer-reviewed results and explain assumptions, methodology, uncertainties, range of potential outcomes and scenarios, and risks to the outlook before addressing implications. We already work closely with the EIA and will include a rigorous discussion to explain differences in assumptions and results.
We ask that you run this letter in Nature or provide us the opportunity to write a guest editorial clarifying some of the more critical issues.

Regards,
Dr. Scott W. Tinker and Dr. Svetlana Ikonnikova
Co-PI’s on behalf of the BEG Reserves and Production Forecasting Group

Tinker is the director of the Bureau of Economic Geology and a professor holding the Allday Endowed Chair of Subsurface Geology in the Jackson School of Geosciences. Ikonnikova is an energy economist at the Bureau of Economic Geology.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby sjn » Fri 23 Jan 2015, 13:23:56

“To attmpt to recreate our work without permission is unacceptable”

Am I missing something here? Isn't reproducibility one of the fundamental principles of the scientific method?
User avatar
sjn
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby sjn » Fri 23 Jan 2015, 13:30:33

All this talk of bias from the PO crowd is interesting from an objective point of view. I'm pretty sure we all like to believe we strive for objectivity, yet normalization of opinion is usually the counterpoint it seems.
User avatar
sjn
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 23 Jan 2015, 13:51:49

sjn - I think what they mean by "recreating their work" doesn't refer to the data gathering and analysis but the interpretation. And then not using the data as presented to make the interpretation. Folks what to argue with the BEG they can have at it. But they better have their act together otherwise the BEG will hand them their ass on a platter. No organization on the planet has more detailed data on the subject and more experienced personnel. They are part of the academics at the university and are independent of the industry. I'm not saying anyone should accept anything they put out. But if you're going to disagree you better have a sh*t load of hard data to back it up because the BEG does have it.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby GoghGoner » Fri 23 Jan 2015, 15:15:56

sjn wrote:All this talk of bias from the PO crowd is interesting from an objective point of view. I'm pretty sure we all like to believe we strive for objectivity, yet normalization of opinion is usually the counterpoint it seems.


The article didn't seem too biased so why such strong comebacks from the Industry spin machine? The EIA rebuttal mentions Tinker and the BEG rebuttal is from Tinker. Listen to me, I am the Tinker! Neither rebuttal covers the criticisms of the EIA forecast (which isn't really a forecast, haha) unless my fast reading has caused me to miss something.
GoghGoner
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Stilłwater subdivision

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 08 Feb 2015, 15:00:53

More here on this study and others:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015- ... -to-an-end

The world's energy information duopoly comes to an end
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19995
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 09 Feb 2015, 04:22:32

Thanks. I hadn't heard of that distinction before.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19995
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby dashster » Fri 27 Feb 2015, 04:26:18

pstarr wrote:All oil has some sulfur, deep ocean is not that new, and the North Slope is above the arctic circle and has been producing for 40 years. I prefer Westexas's definition of unconventional: basically any oil not benchmarked-priced. So for instance tar sands are not benchmarked priced until they are upgraded and shipped to the terminal. Same with NGL's and ethanol. By his definition peak ended by 2006.


Wouldn't fracking oil be included in "benchmarked priced" oil? By that peak is past 2006 and I don't think we have even hit it. Even if you only go by a definition of "drill a hole and pump it out" I have seen graphs where the peak appears to be 2011. I saw a graph somewhere (Peak Oil Barrel? ) that showed it as 2011, although I can't find them now. This one from ( http://www.euanmearns.com/) shows a peak in July 2008:

Image
dashster
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2012, 08:39:24
Location: California

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby Pops » Fri 27 Feb 2015, 10:12:32

I don't see any advantage in splitting hairs unless it is just to be able to say 'told ya.' But then what good is that when everyone merely pays a little more at the pump and tools on down the road?

This paper has lots of basic info about oil and such stuff. The POV is basically that a transition away from liquid hydrocarbons didn't happen when conventional oil peaked, what happened instead was a change in the liquids.

The plateau in conventional oil and the corresponding increase in the
demand for liquid fuels have motivated markets to respond with higher oil
prices. And the current economics of oil are spurring a technological transformation
of petroleum supplies, not a transition away from
oil.


It (like the IEA, EIA, etc) classes "unconventional oil" as stuff that doesn't flow: heavy, x-heavy, coal. Stuff that can't follow the conventional oil process "stream." LTO then is basically just another conventional oil, albeit one with a much more expensive extraction process.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19081
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 29 Mar 2015, 18:02:17

Post of link of Richard Heinberg talking about his book "Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise of Plenty Imperils Our Future". I heard of Richard back in 2005, when we began to really notice peak oil. He has always seemed to me a true scholar and excellent analyzer of the energy situation. here is the link in which he does a great job of exposing the false promise of fracking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIAFRzaHnb4
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 29 Mar 2015, 19:08:52

And what was the SPECIFIC promise and who SPECIFICALLY made the promise? Frac'ng, made practical by high oil prices, increased US oil production faster the ever before and nearly reached the peak of production attained over 4 decades ago. How could that be considered anything but a success. Now how much profit those operators made, or didn't make, is a different issue. But that's a problem for those shareholders, investors and bond holders. But for the American consumers a huge and wonderful promise has been met: lots of domestic oil production. Think what it would be like for US consumers had the shale plays not existed. Actually it's pretty easy to imagine: just look at all the major oil consuming countries that didn't see their domestic oil production increases when oil prices spiked upwards.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby Lore » Sun 29 Mar 2015, 19:14:00

ROCKMAN wrote:And what was the SPECIFIC promise and who SPECIFICALLY made the promise? Frac'ng, made practical by high oil prices, increased US oil production faster the ever before and nearly reached the peak of production attained over 4 decades ago. How could that be considered anything but a success. Now how much profit those operators made, or didn't make, is a different issue. But that's a problem for those shareholders, investors and bond holders. But for the American consumers a huge and wonderful promise has been met: lots of domestic oil production. Think what it would be like for US consumers had the shale plays not existed. Actually it's pretty easy to imagine: just look at all the major oil consuming countries that didn't see their domestic oil production increases when oil prices spiked upwards.


But isn't that extra shot in the arm just a temporary blip and really only prolongs the myth of endless supply. When in reality we've only extended the walking plank a few feet.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: New study suggests US fracking boom may not last

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 29 Mar 2015, 19:28:26

well the promise is specifically that it promises something like 100 years of energy supply and as for who made it the Corporations, Government and media. In reality it is a temporary blip, the wells very quickly deplete, environment is contaminated and costs increase tremendously over time. By the way according to the cited book, more like 15 years supply. So nobody is denying what has already been accomplished. The point is that it will be short lived and just another example of living for today and not looking at tomorrow which is so prevalent in all of the activities and systems of this world civilization.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Next

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests