ext_48536 ([identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics 2013-07-08 11:38 pm (UTC)

Good write-up, and with a touch of clarification I would happily recommend it. The clarification involves improving the distinction between a shale natural gas well and a shale oil play. Only occasionally are the two one in the same. The northeast's Marcellus Shale, for example, is almost entirely a natural gas resource, while North Dakota's Bakken is mostly shale oil.

The problem with this conflation is that natural gas cannot drive vehicles (without expensive conversions) and oil cannot drive a natural gas electric turbine. The two fuels are all but mutually exclusive. Part of the problem I've seen comes when people conflate the "gas" of natural gas with the "gas" they put in their car's tank. Not the same, not at all.

That said, you're right in that both seem to experience similar declines in productivity, producing (as you say) up to 60% of their capacity in the first year. Not good for a well that costs 10 times as much as a conventional liquid crude well (in the case of shale crude).

I'm right now transcribing some interviews that directly relate to this topic, but whether or not I can finish in time to write something up before my vacation at the end of the week remains to be seen. In the meantime, feel free to ignore Jeff's "prediction." He's wrong on these here facts, that's for sure, and I'd be happy to explain why, typing very, very slowly so he can follow. ;-)

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting