Friday, July 27, 2012

National Shale Gas Production Up 24%: Where's The Ponzi Scheme?

The NYT's Drilling Down Series featured the wild charge that shale gas was a Ponzi scheme and  rooted this  fear, or perhaps hope for some, in the public mind.  Loving attacks on gas production, whether they be true or false mattering not, Rolling Stone Magazine as well rolled with the NYT's Ponzi scheme invention, in its scandal-mongering, fear-inducing writing.

Partially because prominent publications warmly embraced the Ponzi charge, this falsehood will have adherents, no matter what the actual production from shale gas is.  Some folks will even say with a straight face both that shale gas is a Ponzi scheme and so much gas exists that it will destroy renewable energy.  I have heard several times both of those statements in the same conversation.


For those interested in facts and staying in touch with reality, the shale gas production numbers uproot and discard the Ponzi scheme charge.

From May 2011 to May 2012, national shale gas output rose another 24% to reach an incredible 25.58 billion cubic feet per day.  http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/07/24/u-s-says-shale-gas-output-rose-24-in-may-from-year-earlier/.  The surge in production led to a enormous new supply and a cratering of the gas price as supply outstripped demand, even though gas displaced large amounts of coal generation over the last 12 months.

Shale gas now provides about 37% of America's natural gas, with about a quarter of our shale gas coming from the Marcellus.

And since natural gas provides about 26% of America's total energy, shale gas provides nearly 10% of America's total energy.

Those are big, real production numbers, the very opposite of a Ponzi scheme fraud. But don't expect the NYT or Rolling Stone Magazine to run front page stories saying they were wrong.  Don't expect them to drive a stake through this vampire-like lie that they did so much to promote.  Others will have to labor to undo this piece of damage to public understanding.


6 comments:

  1. Concerned ScientistJuly 27, 2012 at 8:06 AM

    Truly Amazing. Both the production numbers and the silence from the NYT on this matter. Rolling Stone I can understand. But the NYT has really let me down here. I used to read that paper every day. Now I don't trust much that I read there.

    I just went on the NYT website and searched for "Dimock EPA 2012" and found an article talking about the EPA's planned testing in Dimock but nothing on the results. Not one article on the results that showed that the groundwater there had no evidence of frack fluid contamination.

    I am guessing that many in the anti-fracking movement will choose to act as if this never happened. They all were screaming for the EPA to get involved and now that they have come back with these results we hear nothing at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you want a better image, disband EID. That's step one! Then you can start by disclosing the chemicals used and stop this "proprietary" nonsense. Then you can do what was promised all along and frack with clean and biodegradable substances. When you get that done, maybe we can talk.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Where can I find reliable statistics on proven sources of shale energy (oil & gas) in the US? Is there an average percentage established between production and/or reserves of oil & gas in each source (be it an open well formerly producing natural fossile gas, etc., or an open field with shale sand)? How can industry and/or government be sure about future productivity of the new shale industry if, foe example, it 'dries' or become unprofitable in, say 10-20-30 years? I ask these quests because I'm not a chemist nor an electrical engineer. And I fear the extraordinary propaganda pro-shale/fracking I've met with during this past year, could be at some time counter-productive. What about gas/LNG prices diminishing due to competence with shale, and fracking technology becoming unprofitable in 10-20 years? I feel there is to much discussions and arguing going on, but not serious scientific facts and data. If this is correct -most probably not, how will US consumers pay in the future (growing) investments in a 'promising' industry -or source of energy, if it comes to a close. Is there any possible parallel with a species of Ponzi scheme?
    I'll appreciate any positive feedback at . PS. Perhaps EID doesn't need being disbanded ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take a look at my March 22nd posting on the topic. Also take a look at International Energy Agency (IEA) reports. Shale gas has now been producing for more than 10 years in the US and the production numbers have just gone up. They have far exceeded the projections of the Energy Information Administration Administration (EIA) made just 5 or even less years ago. They have exceeded even company or industry projections. The surprise has all been on the up side. The only real limit on production over the next 10 years is price. As gas prices collapsed to $2 drilling rigs were redeployed to oil or wet gas. But the Marcellus can be economically produced at $2.50 or less. It is low-cost to produce. And there is a huge amount of gas that can be economically produced at $4 to $6 per mcf, low prices compared to the $13 per mcf July 2008 market price.

      Delete
    2. Take a look at my March 22nd posting on the topic. Also take a look at International Energy Agency (IEA) reports. Shale gas has now been producing for more than 10 years in the US and the production numbers have just gone up. They have far exceeded the projections of the Energy Information Administration Administration (EIA) made just 5 or even less years ago. They have exceeded even company or industry projections. The surprise has all been on the up side. The only real limit on production over the next 10 years is price. As gas prices collapsed to $2 drilling rigs were redeployed to oil or wet gas. But the Marcellus can be economically produced at $2.50 or less. It is low-cost to produce. And there is a huge amount of gas that can be economically produced at $4 to $6 per mcf, low prices compared to the $13 per mcf July 2008 market price.

      Delete
  4. When there is silence, there is usually a reason. More times than naught, it's because of a settlement and gag order.

    ReplyDelete