Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 28, 2013
Study Claims EROEI of Fracked Gas Higher Than Coal
Hydraulic fracking has been studied with a published paper showing the energy return on investment (aka EROI) with a total input energy compared with the energy in natural gas expected to be made available to end users is similar to or better than coal.
The news for the natural gas industry, consumers and landowners lucky enough to get a well on their land is tremendously helpful. It’s also a huge and crushing disappointment for the anti fracking crowd. Hydraulic fracturing pays off in a very big way.
Related article: Frackers Under Scrutiny for Buying Silence
The analysis indicates that the EROI ratio of a typical well is likely between 64:1 and 112:1, with a mean of approximately 85:1. This range assumes an estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of 3.0 billion cubic feet per well. This is similar but significantly higher to the EUR of coal, which falls between 50:1 and 85:1.
Obviously the coal folks are less than thrilled, too. For now though over 75% of our current electricity needs come from a mix of gas and coal, and 83% of our homes are heated by gas. Luckily they are the low cost leaders except for nuclear.
U.S. utilities have ordered 20 reactors shut, the most in a three-year span since Chernobyl’s aftermath, saddling the industry with a possible $26 billion in costs to pass along to consumers. The nuclear fraction of power generation is going to shrink – a massive cost instead of a savings due to the political environment built up over two presidential election cycles. And the technology remains stalled in bureaucratic red tape machine and a paper blizzard.
Lead author Michael L. Aucott said in the Wiley press release about the study, “Our analysis indicates that gas can be extracted from shale efficiently, from an energy perspective. The energy return on (energy) investment ratio (EROI) does seem to be at least as favourable as coal. However, a comparison with coal is difficult. There appear to be large amounts of coal still available. Estimates of the amount of gas available from the shale plays vary widely. It is not clear yet whether there is anywhere near enough to rival coal over the long haul.”
Aucott concluded with, “There are concerns about water pollution and other environmental impacts associated with shale gas production. With the assumption that these can be managed, and that production quantities remain consistent with initial production data, the favourable EROI suggests that shale gas will be a viable energy source for quite some time.”
The value of a fuel’s long-term usefulness and viability is judged through its EROI. The EROI had been for a few years the darling of the peak oil enthusiasts. Now it’s come full circle for consumers, business and policy makers to use productively again.
Related article: Shale, Gales, and Tipping the Scales
There is sure to be some blowback from the opposition. But to temper things right at the start Aucott and his coauthor Jacqueline M. Melillo used natural gas records obtained from horizontal, hydraulically fractured wells in only in the Marcellus Shale region commonly identified as of Pennsylvania and New York. The study was conducted using net external energy ratio methodology and available data and estimates of energy inputs and outputs. The Marcellus Shale is only one of several fields in active development and not necessarily with the best economics, but certainly is close to a huge hungry market.
The curious part of the back-story is Aucott and Melillo aren’t claiming a university association. That comes as no surprise as the results are going to be quite a political “hot potato”, right or wrong, for years to come. Still, a little googling will reveal the pair is worthy of the peer-reviewed paper getting published. Your humble writer will respect their privacy.
The last point from here is noting the study illustrates why the board of directors at Chesapeake Energy ran off co-founder, retired chief executive officer and former chairman Aubrey McClendon. And shows the grounding of the latest news that McClendon is pitching Wall Street on his new energy company for taking another shot at the US energy boom with perhaps $1 billion of startup funds.
The only way – the only way possible to screw up the U.S. energy economy is for politics and bureaucrats to get further involved.
19 Comments on "Study Claims EROEI of Fracked Gas Higher Than Coal"
BillT on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 11:21 am
Who paid for the “new study’? Odds are great that it was the fraking industry. Hense the ‘no connections’ claims.
Interesting that the ‘facts’ are from the ‘sweet spot’ in the M. Shale and not the overall field. And what connection do these two people have to the fraking industry other than a huge paycheck?
BillT on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 11:34 am
BTW: Does this run up the red flag?
“…EROI ratio of a typical well is likely between 64:1 and 112:1…”
I guess that is why fraked oil needs $80/bbl to be profitable. When oil was 100:1 it sold for $20/bbl.
Something is rotten in this article and it should be obvious to anyone with two working brain cells.
mike on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 12:43 pm
looks like they won’t be needing any subsidies in future then, I’ll make a note of this for them,
Arthur on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 12:46 pm
“I guess that is why fraked oil needs $80/bbl to be profitable.”
The article is about GAS, not oil. No reason to a priori doubt it. I vaguely remember that NG is indeed produced at low cost, in contrast to oil. These people are out for a buck, so I do not see why they should delude themselves (too much). Benefit of the doubt.
Ed on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 3:15 pm
The figures need to be verified by someone who I can trust. If they stand up to scrutiny then I’ll have to change my view on gas fraking.
Norm on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 3:48 pm
What Bill T said.
The claimed numbers look suspicious.
Why? The highest possible EROEI is about 100. its for tapping a 100′ well in Saudi Arabia, and watching the light sweet crude pour out. We know that gas from fracking is much more difficult than any of that… so we know its EROEI is much less than the ultimate of about 100.
So we know this article is suspicious.
Arthur on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 3:52 pm
“The figures need to be verified by someone who I can trust. If they stand up to scrutiny then I’ll have to change my view on gas fraking.”
There will be still the issue of polution as well as depletion in the long run.
But it does not matter very much if the EROEI is 80, 50 or 20.
Plantagenet on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 5:48 pm
This paper was published in a refereed scientific journal. The data is all clearly presented in the paper. There is no reason to doubt its veracity.
There is an unfortunate anti-science bias among some of the doomers posting here.
Arthur on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 6:05 pm
Agree with Plant, this is Yale stuff, very likely peer reviewed. No reason for Pavlov-reactions.
Kenjamkov on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 6:29 pm
Damn and I was ready to salivate.
James A. Hellams on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 7:00 pm
Folks, the thing that this article did not cover was the amount of natural gas needed each year to satisfy the oil equivalent of worldwide oil demand.
The thermal content of a barrel of oil is 5,800,000 BTUs. Each cubic foot of natural gas contains 1,000 BTUs. Therefore, the total number of cubic feet of natural gas to equal the thermal content of a barrel of oil are 5,800 cubic feet.
The total number of cubic feet of natural gas needed to equal the worldwide consumption (33 billion barrels annually) of oil would be 191.4 quadrillion feet of natural gas per year. Does any one out there have the total number of cubic feet of natural gas are in the world?
rollin on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 7:16 pm
Looks like world use is about 2,800 BCM.
shortonoil on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 9:19 pm
An ERoEI of 64:1 would indicate that NG is being extracted for less than 1 cent per cubic foot. Absurd!
shortonoil on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 9:27 pm
Mud on my face!!! Used the wrong variable. That is $2.55/ cubic foot. Still unlikely, or these guys are making billions. Why then did Chesapeake bail out of the fracked gas business with huge losses.
rollin on Sat, 29th Jun 2013 12:00 am
There is no way that we can produce enough gas to provide transportation. Gas production would have to be more than tripled from current levels.
Dmyers on Sat, 29th Jun 2013 1:34 am
I don’t think we should gawk at the “peer-reviewed” status, until we’ve seen the peer reviews.
A lot rides on methodology here. If you design the study to enhance ER and diminish EI you get a high EROEI. The big question here is how far out do you go on the perimeter in counting EI. My preference would be to count everything, even down the air conditioning for the administrative offices.
The distinguished author, Aucott, makes some inane points. He begins by acknowledging that a comparison with coal is difficult because its quantity is well established while the actual quantity of gas is still up in the air. For that, he states “It is not clear yet whether there is anywhere near enough to rival coal over the long haul.”
Then, he turns around and says “…the favourable EROI suggests that shale gas will be a viable energy source for quite some time.” You can’t lose if you bet on both sides.
“The EROI had been for a few years the darling of the peak oil enthusiasts. Now it’s come full circle for consumers, business and policy makers to use productively again.” The only reason these “scholars” even care about peak oil is that is has now endowed itself with a popular patina.
I doubt that we’ve seen the real numbers yet, and with respect to gas, its most critical feature is rapid depletion, and you’ll find examples of that going clear back to the turn of the twentieth century (see “Indiana gas boom”).
BillT on Sat, 29th Jun 2013 3:08 am
As I said, who signed the big paychecks…
BillT on Sat, 29th Jun 2013 3:12 am
Arthur, where does it say WHO reviewed it? The Natural Gas Industry Salesmen?
“…The curious part of the back-story is Aucott and Melillo aren’t claiming a university association….”
I suspect that inference does NOT indicate fact. This is nothing more than misinformation designed to muddy the fraking water.
Arthur on Sat, 29th Jun 2013 8:48 am
I saw a logo of Yale somewhere… still have some faith in these institutions, that they are not totally making things up.
Again, this is not to endorse fracking. For the umptieth time, as Heinberg says, we must leave fossil before it leaves us. If a fracking bonus can help prevent a massive die-off/collapse, than so be it.