Articles Posted in Energy Policy

A study written by J. David Hughes and published in February by the Post Carbon Institute claims that shale gas reserves are vastly overstated. “Drill Baby Drill – Can Unconventional Fuels Usher In a New Era of Energy Abundance?”  A companion article by Deborah Rogers claims that the shale “frenzy” is a Wall-Street-created bubble, that “U.S. shale gas and shale oil reserves have been overestimated by a minimum of 100% and by as much as 400-500% by operators according to actual well production data filed in various states,” and that “shale oil wells are following the same steep decline rates and poor recovery efficiency observed in shale gas wells.” “Shale and Wall Street: Was the Decline in Natural Gas Prices Orchestrated?” Both are published on a website called shalebubble.org.  These nay-sayers are continuing a tradition that has followed the oil and gas industry for decades – the debate between the peak-oil advocates and those who believe we will never run out of fossil fuels.

David Hughes’ study is worth reading. He studied more than 60,000 shale wells in the US and their rates of decline, costs and reserves. Hughes concludes that more than 1,542 wells will have to be drilled each year in the Bakken and Eagle Ford plays just to maintain current production, at a cost of $14 billion per year. He estimates that it will take $42 billion and more than 7,000 wells per year to maintain current levels of production of shale gas, whereas the value of the gas produced in 2012 was only $32.5 billion. Some examples from Hughes’ study:

On overly optimistic predictions by the Energy Information Administration:

Rolling Stone magazine’s Jeff Goodell has weighed in on the debate over natural gas reserves, the safety of hydraulic fracturing, global warming, methane groundwater contamination, and Chesapeake Energy’s controversial finances, in an article titled “The Big Fracking Bubble: The Scam Behind the Gas Boom.” Goodell pulled no punches. He calls Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake’s CEO, “an influential right-wing power broker.” He says that “Fracking, it turns out, is about producing cheap energy the same way the mortgage crisis was about helping realize the dreams of middle-class homeowners.” He claims that “for Chesapeake, the primary profit in fracking comes not from selling the gas itself, but from buying and flipping the land that contains the gas,” and that Chesapeake “has more in common with Enron than ExxonMobil.”

Goodell’s article covers ground that is not new in the debate over the safety, ecology and economics of hydraulic fracturing. He touches on the study by Anthony Engraffea at Cornell University on whether natural gas has less global-warming effect than coal. He discusses the Duke University study of methane in water wells in Pennsylvania. He quotes Arthur Berman (Berman says miss-quoted), a long-time critic of the industry’s estimates of shale gas reserves.

McClendon says he agreed to talk to Goodell after he was told that the magazine would publish an article on Chesapeake whether it cooperated or not. Chesapeake has issued a rebuttal to the article (“Although our expectations for honesty and fairness were quite low, the writer failed to reach even that low bar.”), and Goodell has responded to Chesapeake’s rebuttal (“The company entirely dodges the article’s central point: that Chesapeake is a highly-leveraged firm operated by a corporate gambler who engaged in complex scheme to profit off the illusion that America has a virtually unlimited supply of cheap natural gas.”). (Isn’t the internet amazing?)