Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 09 Mar 2014, 10:48:02

ustralia...Precambrian. What would be the origin of the gas found in Precambrian rocks? We did work on stable carbon isotopes in Archaean black shales from South Africa and Isua (Greenland) long ago back in the early 1970s, but I'd never thought of them as potential source rocks for hydrocarbons. Now I'm excited.


one of the issues is that the average person thinks of hydrocarbons having originated from buried animal remains. Such is not the case it is mainly bacteria or plant material, both of which were present several billions of years ago. The reason why there is not more knowledge of PreCambrian source rock is likely a combination of lack of preservation, overmaturity (deep burial over a long period of time can convert all of the organics to hydrocarbon of some kind which would have been expelled and lost a long time ago.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6116
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Synapsid » Sun 09 Mar 2014, 17:42:27

rockdoc,

Make that "I'd never thought of them as source rocks for surviving hydrocarbons." As you point out, there's been plenty of time for any hydrocarbons that formed to have passed away.

We knew that the source organics would have been prokaryote; it was the pesky blue-green photosynthesizers we wanted to nail. The rocks we were looking at were about 3.4 billion years old, if memory serves. I still have a chunk somewhere around here. Now that I think about it, the Isua stuff might have been older, maybe 3.75.
Synapsid
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 15 Mar 2014, 13:58:00

A little reality check regarding shale gas saving the Ukraine from those mean Russian NG sellers.

Reuters - Ukraine's crisis underscores the importance of Europe's drive for greater energy security and could buoy development of shale gas as the continent looks to cut back on Russian supplies. Significantly, EU politicians left shale out of tougher rules on exposing the environmental impact of oil and conventional gas. Poland also introduced an investor-friendly shale gas bill aimed at cutting red tape and regulatory hurdles. Britain and Poland have for years pressed for shale gas development to help lessen their dependence on imported fossil fuels. Should Russia's seizure of Crimea include a takeover offshore gas fields, Ukraine's best remaining sources of new energy will be its two large, untapped shale finds.

[A tad late with that speculation: the Crimean gov't has just taken control of those offshore fields. Given the dominance of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea it should be a safe bet this move will stick]

"Ukraine has Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet (1.2 trillion cubic metres), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration." No Ukraine doesn't have the third largest shale gas RESERVES. They have exactly ZERO reserves but there is a great deal of unconventional NG RESOURCES that yet to be proven as commercially viable.

Kiev has signed a deal with Chevron to develop the Olesska block in western Ukraine and one with Royal Dutch Shell to develop its Yuzivska field in the east. "Unrest in any part of the world related to oil and gas production and transport argues in favour of long-term diversity of supply," said the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. Thus far, Europe's hoped-for shale boom has struggled, with estimates of Poland's reserves slashed, public unease holding up British plans, and outright bans in France and Bulgaria."

So let's hear from the somewhat biased voices of the Ukraine gov't: "In 2012, Ukraine's central government (under Yanukovych) selected Shell and Chevron as the winning bidders for two shale-gas concessions. As is the case across Europe, shale drilling has faced some controversy in Ukraine, but regional councils have voted overwhelmingly to approve the deals. The Shell deal alone is estimated to entail long-term investment of $10 billion, though commercial-scale production is not expected until 2017 at the earliest. The government's target is for 2030 shale-gas production of 0.2 to 0.4 Bcf per day, less than 10% of current consumption levels."

So even the Ukraine gov't says many tens of $billions will need to be invested by foreign companies and even their presumably optimistic forecast is that it will take at least 15+ years before shale gas (of which no one has yet produced any commercial volume) to deliver just 10% of their consumption level. Of course, one has to wonder if the Shell Oil drilling rigs a lining up next to those Russian tanks on the Ukraine border just ready to spud in. Having worked with a few Dutchmen I would guess they'll wait till they know exactly who will have complete control of their future POTENTIAL revenue stream.

Of course that 10% of their consumption figure assumed the Ukraine would still be receiving NG and oil from their offshore fields. Fields that have now been taken over by the Crimean gov't. And the potential out there: Offshore Crimean play: Until now, that is part of the exclusive economic zone of Ukraine, according to the international Law of the Sea. But if Crimea formally votes on March 16 to give up its autonomous republic status in Ukraine and join the Russian Federation, and if the Russian parliament and President Vladimir Putin formally accept, these resources are no longer Ukrainian. They become Russian. The potential is enormous. The Crimean offshore areas already identified represent a third of the undiscovered natural gas resources of Ukraine and a fifth of the undiscovered oil resources…including: oil and condensate – 6 billion bbls and NG - 3.5 TCF. The most prospective for the search of significant deposits is the deep part of the Black Sea. Its potential recoverable resources reach more than 54% of the total Black Sea resources.

Details including cool maps: http://johnhelmer.net/?p=10359#ixzz2w3gkhqBx
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby XOVERX » Tue 18 Mar 2014, 13:13:18

Isn't the US still a net importer of gas? Can someone point me to a chart or graph with respect to US gas usage versus domestic production versus amount imported? Thanks.
User avatar
XOVERX
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Pops » Tue 18 Mar 2014, 13:25:24

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: 17974
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 18 Mar 2014, 16:19:04

X – It can get be difficult to see the big picture when dealing with nets especially when folks forget how much NG is produced in the US. Here are the simple and straight forward numbers from the EIA

2013 US NG production: 24,279,569 million cubic feet
2013 US NG consumption: 26,034,354 million cubic feet
2013 US NG exports: 1,572,351 million cubic feet
2013 US NG imports: 2,883,115 million cubic feet
2013 US LNG imports: 96,589 million cubic feet
2013 US LNG exports: minimal

You can see the misconceptions when they are talking about imports/exports and nets. Basically we import/export very little NG. We produce and consume a very large amount of NG compared to what is shipped into or out of the country.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: NO SOUP FOR YOU…OR SHALE GAS!

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 25 Mar 2014, 13:25:01

And not only no soup or NG we’re going to take away your steel industry…eventually. And no Black Sea NG for the Ukraine either. With a bit of a stretch this also ties into the earlier discussion about the Gulf Coast region becoming (over decades, of course) more of energy consumer than an exporter. And in a bit more of a stretch emphasizes the vulnerability of the Ukraine steel makers with respect to their desperately needed cash flow and the loss of Crimean NG. Bottom line: as we go down the PO path we may see more business activity relocating around the fossil fuel producing regions. The movement of refineries into producing regions (especially by China) has already been noted.

From RigZone: Eagle Ford Gas Draws Steelmakers to Texas' Coastal Bend

Upstream, midstream and downstream sectors of the oil and gas industry have long contributed to the economy of South Texas' "Coastal Bend”. Not only is the region accessible to onshore and offshore oil and gas fields, but it boasts the infrastructure necessary to ship, store and process hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon products. {Catch the potential similarities to Crimea?}

Lured by the region's growing port facilities and ready availability of cheap natural gas from the prolific Eagle Ford Shale play, two foreign-owned firms are bringing a newcomer – iron and steel manufacturing – into the Coastal Bend's economic fold. This region is experiencing an uptick in interest from international manufacturers interested in leveraging our low-cost, politically stable supply of natural gas as a fuel source for their manufacturing processes and our immediate proximity to the U.S. (Western Hemisphere) markets."

The Voestalpine Group, an Austria-based producer of high-quality steel used in automobile and home appliance manufacturing as well as oil and gas applications, will invest $750 million to build hot-briquetted iron (HBI) and a direct-reduced iron (DRI) plants at the La Quinta Trade Gateway that Port Corpus Christi is developing near the town of Gregory. The company expects to begin operations in December 2015.

The La Quinta site will also house a $1 billion steel manufacturing facility that Tianjin Pipe Corp.-America (TPCO) is building. The plant, which will produce seamless steel pipe for the oil and gas industry, will represent the largest single investment that a Chinese company has made in a U.S. manufacturing facility. {So instead of importing expensive LNG it’s a better move to bring the mountain to Mohamed.}

The addition of iron and steel manufacturing to the Coastal Bend serves as a case study in how the shale revolution can create new avenues for a region's economic growth. {Or how a region, such as Crimea, suddenly gets a new growth spurt not only from the new oil/NG income but by being the potential center of the future development of fossil fuels in the Black Sea region.}
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: NO SOUP FOR YOU…OR SHALE GAS!

Unread postby Subjectivist » Tue 25 Mar 2014, 15:29:30

From the BBC 25march2014
Plans to expand shale gas "fracking" in the UK must learn from leaks and poor monitoring at existing onshore oil and gas sites, scientists say.

A review of 2,152 wells drilled from 1902-2013 found up to 100 "orphaned" wells for which no firm is responsible.

Only two cases of well "failure" were recorded, but legacy sites are not monitored for leaks, the authors note.

The study led by ReFINE (Researching Fracking in Europe) is published in the journal Marine and Petroleum Geology.

It is perhaps the most comprehensive review yet of Britain's inland oil and gas legacy - pulling together scientific papers, government reports, and industry data.
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: 4312
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: NO SOUP FOR YOU…OR SHALE GAS!

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 27 Mar 2014, 22:01:35

"...to 100 "orphaned" wells." The Texas Rail Road Commission has had an orphans well fund (they actually call it that) that every operator who gets a drill permit contributes to. It essentially covers plugging and rehabilitation of wells drilled by companies that go bankrupt and disappear. Given how many wells we drill in Texas it's a rather small fee per permit. It really isn't difficult to ding the oil patch for such costs given how much caped we spend on actual operations. No one is going to stop drilling because of those fees. Not that the industry talking heads won't bitch about it. LOL
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: NO SOUP FOR YOU…OR SHALE GAS!

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 21 Apr 2014, 09:57:14

Apparently now the unions are saying "Soup for everyone!!!": Fracking Foes Cringe As Unions Back Drilling Boom

So if the POTUS approves the Keystone Pipeline crossing permit after the November elections he can just say it was to help the American union workers. After all: if it’s good for the unions it’s obviously good for the country.

AP — After early complaints that out-of-state firms got the most jobs, some local construction trade workers and union members in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia say they're now benefiting in a big way from the Marcellus and Utica Shale oil and gas boom. That vocal support from blue-collar workers complicates efforts by environmentalists to limit the drilling process known as fracking. "The shale became a lifesaver and a lifeline for a lot of working families," said Dennis Martire, the mid-Atlantic regional manager for the Laborers' International Union, or LIUNA, which represents workers in numerous construction trades. Martire said that as huge quantities of natural gas were extracted from the vast shale reserves over the last five years, union work on large pipeline jobs in Pennsylvania and West Virginia has increased significantly. In 2008, LIUNA members worked about 400,000 hours on such jobs; by 2012, that had risen to 5.7 million hours. Nationally, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says total employment in the nation's oil and gas industry rose from about 120,000 in early 2004 to about 208,000 last month. Less than 10 percent of full-time oil and gas industry workers are represented by unions.

Alex Paris, head of a Pittsburgh-area contracting firm founded by his grandfather in 1928, said many of the jobs in the early years of the boom went to out-of-state workers, perhaps because the biggest drilling firms come from Texas and Oklahoma. Now there's been a shift to hiring local contractors that use union labor. "It has created more work for our business. There are jobs here for the first time in many, many years. Legitimate, good-paying jobs," Paris said of a region that was hit hard by the decline of the steel industry in the 1980s and '90s.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby copious.abundance » Tue 17 Jun 2014, 23:04:51

Been a while since I posted updates on US production so I thought I'd give an update now. :)

March saw an all-time monthly record for US natural gas marketed production.

Image

Thank you, and have a nice day. :)
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9535
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby copious.abundance » Tue 17 Jun 2014, 23:08:57

And - while it's always wise to take long-term projections with a big grain of salt - here are the latest EIA production projections:

Image
LINKY

Abundance aplenty. :)
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9535
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 23 Jun 2014, 15:27:19

And despite what they offer below the shale gas reserves in Turkey do not "compare" IMHO with the EIA's estimate of US shale gas reserves of the US. The US has produced more than 35 tcf from our shales. Turkey...zero cf.

Reuters - U.S. oil firm ExxonMobil is in talks with state-run Turkish Petroleum Corporation over a venture to explore for shale gas in the country's southeast and northwest regions, a Turkish energy official said. Exxon held talks with TPAO in 2012 to over a partnership in shale, but the negotiations were inconclusive. Turkish officials say talks have since advanced and are likely to result in an agreement. "ExxonMobil is coming to Turkey to partner up with TPAO," Selami Incedalci, the head of the energy ministry's General Directorate of Petroleum Affairs, said late on Sunday. He said ExxonMobil was interested in onshore opportunities in the southeast and Thrace, in northwestern Turkey. Turkey wants to reduce its annual energy bill of around $60 billion and is developing domestic resources including nuclear, coal, solar and wind energy. With domestic gas consumption rising, and its location well-placed to supply international markets, major exploitable reserves could be a game changer for Turkey's economy and highly lucrative for whoever finds them. Investors from the United States, Europe and Canada are also interested in Turkey's shale gas and oil, Incedalci said, adding that the Ministry was planning to hold talks with potential investors in October. Royal Dutch Shell is also drilling for shale gas in the region around the southeastern city of Diyarbakir, while Canadian firm TransAtlantic Petroleum is also active in the region. Estimates of how big Turkey's shale gas reserves are vary wildly. One energy official said data from some international bodies suggested Turkey could have a massive 20 trillion cubic metres (cbm) of total reserves. Another industry expert said proven reserves so far stood at just 6-7 billion cbm. That compares with EIA assessment of 7,300 trillion cubic feet of estimated shale gas reserves in the United States, among the world's top producers of the commodity.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Outsailing » Thu 26 Jun 2014, 09:58:34

Subjectivist wrote:Other than Europe and North America where do shales with hydrocarcon reservoirs exist?


All over the place by the looks of it.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14431
User avatar
Outsailing
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri 23 Jul 2010, 22:39:59

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 26 Jun 2014, 15:45:11

O - Shales make up the largest portion of sedimentary rocks on the plant by a very wide margin. Present in huge volumes on every continent including Antarctica. Just as shales constitute the vast majority of sedimentary rocks in the US. And the vast majority of shale formations in the US have been proven to have little or no commercial hydrocarbon potential even with current high prices. Dozens of different shale formations have been tested by hundreds of recent wells. and yet even now 80%+ of the US oil production from shales comes from just two formations: the Bakken (which actually isn't a purely shale play) and the Eagle Ford. And even at that most of the production comes from just several dozen counties. Did you know that there are several other shale formations sitting immediately above and below the EFS with no drilling boom going on in any of them? The EFS formation and its stratigraphic equivalent covers a swath across the Gulf Coast that's almost 10X as large as the area currently being drilled. When was the last time you heard the EFS boom in Mississippi? LOL.

All shales don't produce commercial hydrocarbons just as the vast majority of sandstone and limestone formations in the world don't produce commercial hydrocarbons. Just the presence of thick shale formations in any country has no bearing on thy country's unconventional resource potential. Shales don't produce oil/NG...only productive shales produce oil/NG.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Outsailing » Thu 26 Jun 2014, 20:55:53

ROCKMAN wrote:All shales don't produce commercial hydrocarbons just as the vast majority of sandstone and limestone formations in the world don't produce commercial hydrocarbons. Just the presence of thick shale formations in any country has no bearing on thy country's unconventional resource potential. Shales don't produce oil/NG...only productive shales produce oil/NG.


Quite true. And the EIA seems to know this as well, because in addition to providing maps and short articles for the citizens that pay their salaries, they have also spent some money rounding up the ones that might be deemed worthy of potential.

Quite a nasty, "make your eyes bleed" type report, but there don't appear to be others available to joe sixpack that are so comprehensive in nature.

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/
User avatar
Outsailing
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri 23 Jul 2010, 22:39:59

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 27 Jun 2014, 05:29:58

Outsailing - Yes...a nice compilation. A rather worthless one IMHO. And that point is highlighted in their own words: "Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas unproved resources in the context of total world resources". Let's take it word by word. "Technically recoverable" - this would include all the oil/NG in all the shales on the planet that couldn't be produced at a profit. This supports my point that the vast majority of shales on the planet have no commercial potential. "Resources", "reserves" and "economically recoverable reserves"...the EIA definitions: Resources: Naturally occurring concentrations or deposits of coal in the Earth's crust. Reserves: Quantities of unextracted material that comprise the demonstrated base for future production, including both proved and probable reserves. Economically recoverable reserves: that portion of the reserve base that is PROVEN recoverable at a defined price utilizing existing technology.

So take another look at the categories in that impressive list of global shale POTENTIAL: proved and unproved resources as well as proved and unproved reserves. Notice one category not seen in that chart: economically recoverable reserves. Or in their own words: "...it is evident that shale resources that were until recently not included in technically recoverable resources constitute a substantial share of overall global technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources." IOW they've concluded that there is a sh*t load of oil/NG in most of the shales around the globe that have yet to be proved to commercially recoverable. Which includes the intensely evaluated dozens of shale formations in the US (compared to most global shales which have received little or no testing) which so for have yielded only two formations that constitute the great majority of unconventional production.

So despite what many folks think that report says the EIA is essentially pointing out that there is very little proven economically recoverable shale reserves on the planet. Granted they say it thru omission but once you realize the exact nature of the categories they do quantify one can see the entire picture...hopefully. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Outsailing » Fri 27 Jun 2014, 09:35:24

ROCKMAN wrote:Outsailing - Yes...a nice compilation. A rather worthless one IMHO.


Do you have any recommendations for anything available to the public that is better?

When there is no information, any information is better than none. When there are competing products, we can then compare them.

ROCKMAN wrote:So despite what many folks think that report says the EIA is essentially pointing out that there is very little proven economically recoverable shale reserves on the planet. Granted they say it thru omission but once you realize the exact nature of the categories they do quantify one can see the entire picture...hopefully. LOL.


They didn't calculate economically recoverable, therefore there is no way to figure that out without putting the economic layer on top of the technically recoverable, to figure out the fraction involved. So they are actually saying nothing about economically recoverable at all. Maybe someone like you industry folks can take the big number and sheer it down to establish how much is economically recoverable?

I think it is obvious that once upon a time the Bakken was technically recoverable, without much in the way of economically recoverable. And industry, and prices, turned it into this huge oil field driving the EIA projections to nearly all time country highs.
User avatar
Outsailing
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri 23 Jul 2010, 22:39:59

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 27 Jun 2014, 10:34:31

Outsailing - But that's the problem: despite how it seems I'm not saying the EIA or anyone else is incompetent for not coming up with the economically recoverable shale reserves on the planet. It can't be estimated by them because there is insufficient data. Consider the Eagle Ford Shale. There is no shale formation on the planet that is better understood. And I mean understood by the experts developing it and not the folks with the EIA who have access to very little predrill data that the oil patch has. And I don't know how much credit I would give to any oil patch numbers. Once again I'll pick on my cousins at Shell Oil. They have always been known as one the more technically competent operators around. So with access to much more geophysical and geologic data as well as a large dedicated staff compared to what the EIA could bring to the table Shell estimated $X billion in recoverable EFS oil on a big ranch in S Texas. So they paid about $1 BILLION just for the rights to drill and then poked more than 185 wells on the lease. And that drilling probably cost in excess of $2 BILLION. So how did that $3 BILLION investment work out for them? As reported to the Texas Rail Road Commission the AVERAGE INTITIAL PRODUCTION RATE of the wells tested so far was 79 bopd and 900 mcfpd. And that's before the typical high decline rate kicks in. IOW on average Shell lost money on every one of those 185+ wells. And they had a better handle on the potential of that shale lease then the EIA could ever dream to have for any share formation on the planet. So is it any wonder why the EIA isn't offering economically recoverable reserves estimates for shale formations around the world that Shell Oil has much less knowledge of then they have for the EFS? BTW: after the S Texas shale project blew up in their face Shell Oil announced they were abandoning all the shale tends in the US. Trends which they had much greater knowledge of then any other potential shale plays on the planet.

The EIA is simply following the "Dirty Harry" protocol: "A man has to know his limitations". LOL. The EIA is offering what they can estimate. And not what they know they can't: the amount of commercially recoverable oil/NG there is in the global shale formations. What I might fault them for is giving the impression that the numbers they do put out have any relationship to what might eventually be produced. Trust me: they know it as well as I do. They just don't want to openly admit they can't make an estimate of the critical answer. But they have to justify their existence so they generate volumes of interesting but useless data when it ones to future production rates..
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 01 Aug 2014, 00:29:33

copious.abundance wrote:Abundance aplenty. Mass quantities of plenitude. Billowing founts of wholesome goodness. :)

And still more. :)

Chart of the day: The amazing 12-fold increase in natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale in just four years

Image
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9535
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests