$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', 'T')his is going to be mighty costly - $100 billion. I'm still trying to figure the EROEI on this.

I wonder how much millions of barrels of oil it will take to provide the power and build the equipment that will let us "wean ourselves off oil"?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')hesapeake CEO: Shale Play Investment Could Top $75 Billion Over Next Decade
By Mark Hengel
4/15/2008 3:08:01 PM

A recent economic impact study projected the impact of the Fayetteville Shale Play on Arkansas would total about $18 billion over the coming decade. That number will be much larger according to the CEO of one of the natural gas companies drilling in the region.

"We are about to make that completely irrelevant," Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy Corp., said of the economic impact study conducted by the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. "The way I see it, [natural gas companies] are going to spend somewhere between $75 [billion] to $100 billion in your state over the next decade or so."

[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', 'I')'m glad as hell about it if it's as good as what Oilfinder says it is.

What about Julian Darley? Is he just a denialist then? He doesn't seem like the sort who would just ignore such good news without comment, acknowledgement or rebuttal.

He showed a powerpoint at the New Urbanist Conference in Texas just last week re-iterating his dire warnings about NG in North America. It would appear that he is setting himself up to be not just wrong, but a liar to boot.

Why would he not comment about NG from shale? It just seems too curious to me - why I am hearing this here on PO.com but nowhere else.

[copious.abundance]

OK, here's another one of these which shows production going through the roof. This one is not as "old" as the Barnett Shale, but it's still been around long-enough to give you an idea that, yes, these shales can produce a ton of gas.

The Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas.

Here is 2004 production from the Fayetteville shale:
LINK (PDF)
^
On the last page, it says that 100,627 million cubic feet of gas was produced from the Fayetteville Shale in 2004. Notice also that it's only about 1-1/4 pages of well listings.

Jump forward just 3 years . . .

2007 Fayetteville Shale production:
LINK (PDF)
^
On the last page, it says that 89,167,902 million cubic feet of gas have been produced. Not all of them say they are from the "Fayetteville" target, but most of them are. The page I got them from here is entitled "Fayetteville Shale Production Information," so maybe these other areas are sub-sections of the Fayetteville shale. At any rate, instead of just 1-1/4 pages of wells, it's got 109 pages of wells! And that production is almost a 900-fold increase!

[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')2007 Fayetteville Shale production:
LINK (PDF)
^
On the last page, it says that 89,167,902 million cubic feet of gas have been produced . . .

[ColossalContrarian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')That's about $7.5 to $10 billion/year. But seriously, a billion dollars isn't much these days!

[PeakingAroundtheCorner]

I live in the heart of the Barnett Shale play in Cleburne, Texas. I can tell you this. We went from bucolic rural countryside to bustling gas field in no time flat. Looks like a giant pin cushion around here now.

This is a massive play. If they're able to use elsewhere the technology (developed over 26 years since the Barnett discovery) that they're now using here, we should be good to go for nat gas for a long time.

That is until our entire transportation system begins to suck it dry.

Here's a few pics I took while out getting material for my employer's website:

[copious.abundance]

^
Hey, nifty. They power some of the well with solar power.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PeakingAroundtheCorner', 'I') live in the heart of the Barnett Shale play in Cleburne, Texas. I can tell you this. We went from bucolic rural countryside to bustling gas field in no time flat. Looks like a giant pin cushion around here now.

This is a massive play. If they're able to use elsewhere the technology (developed over 26 years since the Barnett discovery) that they're now using here, we should be good to go for nat gas for a long time.

[texasgirl]

If you have 5 acres in that area, how do you get a lease from the company?

Texasgirl

[OilAndGasBuyer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('texasgirl', 'I')f you have 5 acres in that area, how do you get a lease from the company?
Texasgirl

[texasgirl]

I was approached by a broker a few weeks back. Was not interested in his proposal. Do you work directly for Cheapeake?

texasgirl

[OilAndGasBuyer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('texasgirl', 'I') was approached by a broker a few weeks back. Was not interested in his proposal. Do you work directly for Cheapeake?
texasgirl

Idea now being reported on CNN.

--> Abundant clean energy in your backyard <--
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')mericans are used to hearing that their energy supplies are dwindling.

But new discoveries of huge new natural gas fields in the United States and Canada could change that, cutting foreign imports and boosting production of a relatively clean energy source as global warming concerns take center stage.

Natural gas is used to generate about 20% of the nation's electricity and heat half its homes. Many people also use it for cooking, and it's seeing a small but growing use in vehicles.

[...]

Output from the three new finds could boost production by six billion cubic feet a day over the next three to five years, according to Christopher Ruppel, an energy analyst at Execution LLC, a broker and research firm for institutional investors like hedge and mutual funds. That's about 9% more than the current U.S. output.

[Schadenfreude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'I')dea now being reported on CNN.

Abundant clean energy in your backyard

[copious.abundance]

@Schadenfreude,

With the exception of the Barnett, most of these shale plays are just beginning to be tapped. Many of them have only been "discovered" in the past year, or less. The prof. who made the huge estimate for the Marcellus shale, for example, only did so in January, and that was in response to a Range Resources well drilled back in the fall. Many of these new shale plays have only a handful of wells drilled from them, so it's not as if these new plays are going to run out of gas (no pun intended) any time soon.

And as I already said before, the success of the Barnett shale essentially proves that large amounts of gas can be extracted from these things.

Here is a link to the EIA's stats on yearly dry natural gas production in the US. Production last year was higher than any other year since 1980, with the exception of 2001:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us2a.htm

EDIT: And also look at this chart on monthly US production (which unfortunately only goes back to 1997). Look at the number for January of this year. There is not another number on that whole chart as high as the one in January, so NG production in January reached at least an 11-year high:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us2M.htm

Proven reserves are also at an at least 27-year high:

US Natural Gas Proven Reserves

source

[Schadenfreude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '@')Schadenfreude,

With the exception of the Barnett, most of these shale plays are just beginning to be tapped. Many of them have only been "discovered" in the past year, or less. The prof. who made the huge estimate for the Marcellus shale, for example, only did so in January, and that was in response to a Range Resources well drilled back in the fall. Many of these new shale plays have only a handful of wells drilled from them, so it's not as if these new plays are going to run out of gas (no pun intended) any time soon.

And as I already said before, the success of the Barnett shale essentially proves that large amounts of gas can be extracted from these things.

Here is a link to the EIA's stats on yearly dry natural gas production in the US. Production last year was higher than any other year since 1980, with the exception of 2001:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us2a.htm

EDIT: And also look at this chart on monthly US production (which unfortunately only goes back to 1997). Look at the number for January of this year. There is not another number on that whole chart as high as the one in January, so NG production in January reached at least an 11-year high:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us2M.htm

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '[')b]Marcellus Shale in the Appalachians could hold a staggering 516 trillion cubic feet, with at least 50 tcf of it extractable. This was really just "discovered" late last year.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pablo2079', 'I') believe NG is a big component in fertilizer, so that will also help a lot....

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', 'W')hat sort of general estimate would you venture as a percentage increase in North America NG production? How far out would you guess this might push out the peak?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '[')b]Marcellus Shale in the Appalachians could hold a staggering 516 trillion cubic feet, with at least 50 tcf of it extractable. This was really just "discovered" late last year.

[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', '
')Considering that a barrel of oil went for $117 today, one would think that enormously good news like this would make some big headlines. However, I haven't seen anything at all mentioned on TV News and the CNN article is the first one I've seen in MSM print.

Americans are hungry for good news right now and the media knows this. If this were a sudden bonanza of magnificent proportions, it would be all over the news - even more the Jack 2 pilot well in the Gulf. Jack 2 got a lot of coverage. Where is the media now?