Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Gas Boom to Slow This Year

February 16, 2013

PITTSBURGH (AP) — Energy experts say the boom in Marcellus Shale natural gas production will slow this year but not because there’s any lack of supply....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(36)

LogHog

Feb-16-13 4:31 AM

yea, a big slow down is here for most companies..."the recession is over and things are great" sure for a select few, not for most...The Great Depression of the 21st century is still being propped up by funny money and Govt. over spending of such, to be followed by over taxing to try to pay for it

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-16-13 6:08 AM

OMG! Laws of Supply and Demand have caught up with the Gas Industry??

Like gas prices at historic LOWS and supplies, thanks to Marcellus, at record HIGHS??

Well my my my!

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Feb-16-13 8:12 AM

how about you increase production and lower the prices for the working people that have to pay for everything.oh,we might spend some of our money on something besides utilities.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvhoopie2

Feb-16-13 12:51 PM

I was wonder why revenue is down in WV will all these oil and gas options being bought. That alone should make up for a high increase in revenue for the state. The gas and oil companies are cutting back because they do not have the entire pipeline in to pump gas to the processor. The wells that they drill are just testing to see how rich the area is in wet gas.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvhoopie2

Feb-16-13 12:54 PM

Laws of Supply and Demand does not work any more. It is the Greed factor of how you drive demand to create high prices even if you have to ship our energy supply over seas.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DisplacedWVian

Feb-16-13 1:14 PM

Maybe they'll take time during the slowdown to fix up the roads that these companies are destroying.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-16-13 3:46 PM

"2" what driving to you have to do??

NG in the US about $2.100 mcft, Europe and Japan $10-$18 a mcft.

Just figure out how to get it there.

Then we will see how happey everybody is with 400% increase in electric bills because they closed all of the coal fired power plants and NG goes through the roof.

Suckers!!!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Feb-16-13 4:46 PM

"NG in the US about $2.100 mcft, Europe and Japan $10-$18 a mcft. Just figure out how to get it there. Then we will see how happy everybody is with 400% increase in electric bills because they closed all of the coal fired power plants and NG goes through the roof. Suckers!!!" We don't often agree with "daWraith", but, he's got this one nailed. Couple it with the dramatic production decline rates of shale gas wells, after some Coal-fired power plants have been switched to gas, and there's another, even less polite, "S" word that's going to be both done and applied to y'all.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Wheeldog

Feb-16-13 7:04 PM

The only way for gas production from these reserves to remain constant is for more drilling to take place. Shale gas reserves tend to deplete rapidly requiring on-going drilling just to maintain a given level of production. Drilling activity may be declining because gas prices are depressed, cost of production is squeezing profits or the drilling companies anticipate declining production even with increased drilling. The companies are undoubtedly tapping into the most promising reserves first and then moving down the ladder to less productive reserves. The early returns on investment are high jacking up the price of shares. However, as the best pockets of gas are used up profits decrease and stock values follow. The drilling companies may believe the time is coming when they will have to pull up stakes and leave the marginal gas reserves in place.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Feb-16-13 7:38 PM

Wheeldog is absolutely correct. A lot of it is the nature of shale gas deposits and the way gas flows through it; the per-well annual decline rates are very, very high. Once you reach a production plateau in a shale gas field, you have to keep drilling more and more wells just to maintain that plateau. The gas companies know that from experience in the Barnett and Eagleford Shales. One oil geologist, Arthur Berman, do a web search for him, with more than 30 years experience, says of the Eagleford Shale: "The decline rates are incredibly high ... the annual decline rate is higher than 42%. They're going to have to drill hundreds, almost 1000 wells in the Eagleford shale, every year, to keep production flat. Just for one play, we're talking about $10 or $12 billion a year just to replace supply." In other words, if the drilling slows down, it's a sign that the game is over. It's just too expensive to drill that many wells, and there's no way the gas can be produced affordably.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Feb-16-13 7:57 PM

According to an August 17, 2012, article in the Philadelphia Examiner, "Drilling Permits Decline Sharply for the Pennsylvania Marcellus Formation", applications both for drilling new wells and for refracking existing Marcellus wells in Pennsylvania have declined so much in the past year another article about it says they've "fallen off a cliff". Like this News-Register/Intelligencer article, industry apologists try to explain it away, but with some different excuses. It just doesn't wash. Some investigative journalists in the New York Times and Rolling Stone Magazine have called the whole shale gas biz a "Ponzi scheme".

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-16-13 11:17 PM

WVUGEO is probably right. It’s clear the shale gas boom is already over. Time to move on to new, more reliable sources of energy. Like the Government-subsidized coal to gasoline scam he’s peddling, or the Government-subsidized CO2 to fuel scam he’s peddling. LOL

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

whgfeeling

Feb-17-13 3:14 AM

good!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Feb-17-13 6:58 AM

Troll: They've been converting Coal to gasoline and diesel in South Africa for more than half a century. It started as a government-subsidized effort to avoid apartheid-era international sanctions, but, SASOL, South Africa Synthetic Oil Limited, is now wholly-private and very profitable. China's Shenhua, the largest Coal mining company in the world, says they are making, their words, "huge profits" from Coal liquefaction; and, they have close ties with WVU. Carbon Recycling International, in Iceland, is a completely private company, and, they are profitably selling Methanol made from recycled CO2 through service stations in parts of Europe.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Feb-17-13 9:00 AM

Everyone really needs to be made more aware of what's happening elsewhere in the world. OPEC is making ready to start selling tankers full liquid hydrocarbons made from recycled Carbon Dioxide to us. Make the effort to look up:"United States Patent 8,288,446 - Catalytic Hydrogenation of CO2 into Syngas Mixture; 2012; Assignee: Saudi Basic Industries Corporation, Riyadh (Saudi Arabia)". The "syngas" is a blend of gases that can be catalytically condensed, via the Fischer-Tropsch process that Germany used to make liquid fuels from Coal during WWII, into stuff like Gasoline and Diesel fuel. Our understanding is that a CO2-reycling pilot plant, using yet a different process, is being tried out in Bahrain. We, here, in US Coal Country, being left uneducated and uninformed, are on the verge of being monumentally ripped off.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-17-13 9:46 AM

Oh we’re definitely on the verge of being monumentally ripped off, all right. And it’s the next set of secret Government mandated and subsidized Solyndras like WVUGEO’s coal liquefaction and WVUGEO’s perpetual motion machines running on CO2 that will be doing the ripping off, not the gas companies.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Feb-17-13 11:45 AM

Troll, the no-baloney sandwich folks in our US military also tell us that CO2 can be recycled into liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Look up: "US Patent 8,017,658 - Synthesis of Hydrocarbons via Catalytic Reduction of CO2; Assignee: The USA as represented by the Secretary of the Navy; Abstract: A method of: introducing hydrogen and a feed gas containing ... carbon dioxide into a reactor containing a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst ... to produce hydrocarbons"; and: "US Patent 7,420,004 - Producing Synthetic Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels; Assignee: The USA, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy; Abstract: A process for producing synthetic hydrocarbons that reacts carbon dioxide, obtained from seawater or air, and hydrogen obtained from water, with a catalyst in a chemical process ... combined with Fischer Tropsch synthesis". Also on the books are designs for fuel production ships to operate the processes and ways and means to harness environmental energy to drive them. It is quit

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Feb-17-13 12:06 PM

The Navy's developments in Carbon Dioxide recycling grew out of earlier work done by the Department of Energy, on a process they called "syntrolysis", and, which is explained to a certain extent in a paper: "Co-Electrolysis of Steam and Carbon Dioxide for Production of Syngas; Fifth International Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and Technology Conference; July, 2007; J.E. O'Brien, C.M. Stoots, et. al.; Idaho National Laboratory, USDOE; and Ceramatec, Inc., Utah". There is a lot of information in the DOE's "Energy Citations Database" concerning it; and, a number of US Patents evolved out of it.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Feb-17-13 12:12 PM

The USDOE's and Navy's CO2 recycling work was founded on even earlier efforts made by the US National Laboratory organization that became a part of the DOE. Look up: "US Patent 3,959,094 - Electrolytic Synthesis of Methanol from CO2; 1976; Assignee: The USA as represented by the USDOE (Brookhaven, NY, National Laboratory); Abstract: A method and system for synthesizing methanol from the CO2 in air using electric power. The CO2 is absorbed by a solution of KOH to form K2CO3 which is electrolyzed to produce methanol, a liquid hydrocarbon fuel".

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-17-13 12:39 PM

WVUGEO, there’s no doubt those processes are possible. The problem is that they, like ALL physical processes, operate at less than 100% efficiency so result in a net LOSS of energy that could have been more cost-effectively put onto the electrical power grid instead of used to inefficiently convert fuel from one form to another, or to foolishly convert waste back into fuel. Sure, the Navy can do it. Is the Navy a non-Government subsidized commercial fuel producer?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-17-13 12:41 PM

WVUGEO, if your coal-to-liquids or your CO2 to fuel ideas were commercially feasible without Government mandates or subsidies, US energy companies would already be doing them now to make more money. Those processes are not secret. So why aren’t US energy companies jumping at the chance to increase their profits by implementing either of those ideas?

If it’s economically feasible, just do it, and become rich. But don’t bribe politicians to enact new regulations that will force your net energy-losing scams down our throats, and use our tax dollars to pay for them, and then call them smart and profitable businesses.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Wheeldog

Feb-17-13 5:30 PM

The Rest of the Story: The early hype about shale (tight) gas and oil was that there is enough down there to meet our energy needs for decades - if not centuries. On its face they were/are right - if it can be economically developed and turned into a useable product. What they neglected to say was that the reserves are thin and rapidly deplete requiring ever increasing drilling to keep supply constant. They also failed to mention that the first wells drilled would be in the most productive locations. As time passes the quality and quantity of the remaining shale gas/oil reserves will decline. In the end we are all fracked.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-17-13 6:58 PM

The REST of the STORY Neuterdawg is that WITHOUT modern technology, IDIOTS like you counted the RESERVES as ZERO ZILCH NADA NOTHING in the first place.

What were the gas reserves in Ohio WV et al 30 years ago??

Zilch!

That is same reason your idiotic Peak Oil theory crashed and burned 30-40 years ago.

Modern technology for exploration and production FINDS new deposits and NEW WAYS of extracting product from areas that were considered WORTHLESS.

HORIZONTAL DRILLING and FRACTURING have vastly increased the yield of NG and OIL fields BOTH.

It was predicted the world would run out of oil within 20 years by Chicken Little Wheeldogs . . . . . in 1901.

BBBWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Wheeldog

Feb-17-13 8:27 PM

dah, don't take it personally, but you are babbling. We will never run out of oil and natural gas. No one with any knowledge of energy resources would say we will. The issue is EROI (energy return on investment) or "net" oil gain. In the early 1900s the money represented by one barrel of oil could result in a 100-to-1 return on investment. Currently, we are lucky if we can get 10-to-1 investment return. Even if we can withdraw an increasing amount of oil & gas from the ground we are barely holding our own, because it costs more and more to get the same amount. Keep in mind that the price of oil and gasoline remains high even as more fracking wells are drilled - because the net gain is marginal. We have to run harder just to stay where we are.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Feb-18-13 4:55 AM

Gasoline consumption in the USA is at a 16 yr. low, and yet retail prices keep going up..supply and demand is the problem alright. It's to much funny money being printed. Called inflation by design. QEs are doing what our Govt. wants.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 36 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: