The new Eldorado according to some, to others it’s just “this side” of poison. One thing for sure that this weekend’s long article on Shale Gas in the New York Times does put the sector in perspective here and here. My usual source of “all things energy related" here has more to say on the whole issue
First, a few months ago a study was published that showed the incidence of water table poisoning for test samples within 1km of the drilling/fracking site (doesn’t that sound a little too much like Battlestar Galactica!) however it refers to the practice of fracturing the rocks so that the gas/oil can be extracted. Part of the problem with regards to the “poisoning” aspect of the gas extraction is that certain of these chemicals have not been deemed to be poison, because they are almost never found in the drinking water. Especially with regards to Methane that has been found (and has been documented recently in a feature length movie).
Now, today natural gas is sold for about $4 (per million BTU) and shale gas extraction costs about $7, so there’s a tiny little hole in the profitability of the endeavor. However, natural gas is ‘clean energy” therefore favored by many jurisdictions – the Germans just announced their intention to shut down all their nuclear power plans (currently producing 25% of all of Germany’s electricity) and replacing this energy with gas power solution (to note here that most natural gas come from Russia – who’s had few compulsion to use its ability to shut down supply to meet certain geo-political objectives).
Anyway the articles in the NYT discuss the hype in the shale gas business, and how reserves seem to be overestimated – to make the investment pill more palatable. Part of the dilemma of a new industry is the extraction rate. When the oil sand business was started in the mid 1980 (yes that long) extraction rate for above ground supplies (literally the oils ands were sitting out in the open (BTW leaching into water supply) was low – probably no more than 1% (it stands at about 10% today). This is the problem, 1980 technology would show that recoverable oil would be 1/10 of what it is today (it may be even higher as new technologies are introduced). Still, the data from the NYT seems to indicate that shale gas companies are playing loose with recoverable levels and production costs – as the “new energy” of Pennsylvania is seen as an Eldorado.
The basic rule of investment remains: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!
First, a few months ago a study was published that showed the incidence of water table poisoning for test samples within 1km of the drilling/fracking site (doesn’t that sound a little too much like Battlestar Galactica!) however it refers to the practice of fracturing the rocks so that the gas/oil can be extracted. Part of the problem with regards to the “poisoning” aspect of the gas extraction is that certain of these chemicals have not been deemed to be poison, because they are almost never found in the drinking water. Especially with regards to Methane that has been found (and has been documented recently in a feature length movie).
Now, today natural gas is sold for about $4 (per million BTU) and shale gas extraction costs about $7, so there’s a tiny little hole in the profitability of the endeavor. However, natural gas is ‘clean energy” therefore favored by many jurisdictions – the Germans just announced their intention to shut down all their nuclear power plans (currently producing 25% of all of Germany’s electricity) and replacing this energy with gas power solution (to note here that most natural gas come from Russia – who’s had few compulsion to use its ability to shut down supply to meet certain geo-political objectives).
Anyway the articles in the NYT discuss the hype in the shale gas business, and how reserves seem to be overestimated – to make the investment pill more palatable. Part of the dilemma of a new industry is the extraction rate. When the oil sand business was started in the mid 1980 (yes that long) extraction rate for above ground supplies (literally the oils ands were sitting out in the open (BTW leaching into water supply) was low – probably no more than 1% (it stands at about 10% today). This is the problem, 1980 technology would show that recoverable oil would be 1/10 of what it is today (it may be even higher as new technologies are introduced). Still, the data from the NYT seems to indicate that shale gas companies are playing loose with recoverable levels and production costs – as the “new energy” of Pennsylvania is seen as an Eldorado.
The basic rule of investment remains: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!