Cross-Posted from DeSmogBlog
Food and Water Watch recently demonstrated that the dominant narrative, “100 years” of unconventional oil and gas in the United States, is false. At most, some 50 years of this dirty energy resource may exist beneath our feet.
Bill Powers, editor of Powers Energy Investor, has a new book set for publication in May 2013 titled, “Cold, Hungry and in the Dark: Exploding the Natural Gas Supply Myth.”
Powers’ book will reveal that production rates in all of the shale basins are far lower than the oil and gas industry is claiming and are actually in alarmingly steep decline. In short, the “shale gas bubble” is about to burst.
In a recent interview, Powers said the “bubble” will end up looking a lot like the housing bubble that burst in 2008-2009, and that U.S. shale gas will last no longer than ten years. He told The Energy Report:
My thesis is that the importance of shale gas has been grossly overstated; the U.S. has nowhere close to a 100-year supply. This myth has been perpetuated by self-interested industry, media and politicians…In the book, I take a very hard look at the facts. And I conclude that the U.S. has between a five- to seven-year supply of shale gas, and not 100 years.
The hotly-anticipated book may explain why shale gas industry giants like Chesapeake Energy have behaved more like real estate companies, making more money flipping over land leases than they do producing actual gas.
Powers told The Energy Report:
Put simply: There is production decline in the Haynesville and Barnett shales. Output is declining in the Woodford Shale in Oklahoma. Some of the older shale plays, such as the Fayetteville Shale, are starting to roll over. As these shale plays reverse direction and the Marcellus Shale slows down its production growth, overall U.S. production will fall.
Powers believes we are quickly approaching a gas crisis akin to what occured in the 1970′s and because of that, prices will soon skyrocket.
Art Berman Also Sounds the “Shale Gas Bubble” Alarm
Arthur Berman, another investment insider, echoed Powers in a recent interview with Oil Price, remarking that the decline rates in production in shale basins nationwide are “incredibly high.”
Berman is a petroleum geologist, Associate Editor of the American Association of Petroleum Geolgists Bulletin and Director of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. He maintains the blog Petroleum Truth Report.
“In the Eagleford shale, which is supposed to be the mother of all shale oil plays, the annual decline rate is higher than 42%,” he stated. “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.”
Berman believes there’s a possibility that this could lead to an economic crisis akin to which happened during the Big Bank bailouts of 2008.
“I add all these things up and it starts to approach the amount of money needed to bail out the banking industry. Where is that money going to come from?,” he asked the interviewee.
Who Will Be Left “Cold, Dark and Hungry” and Living in the “Dark Ages”?
It’s a deep dive into shale gas production numbers that have led insiders like Powers, Berman and others to conclude that the behavior of the industry is akin to Enron’s behavior in the 1990s, described by some as a “Ponzi Scheme” in a June 2011 investigation by The New York Times.
“What a glorious vision of the future: It’s cold, it’s dark and we’re all hungry,” Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon said of anti-fracking activists in Sept. 2011. “I have no interest in turning the clock back to the dark ages like our opponents do.”
The reality, though, is far murkier. It appears the real culprit “turning the clock back to the dark ages” may actually be the unconventional oil and gas industry after all.
Photo by dorena-wm under Creative Commons license.




17 Comments

There is so much nonsense and bad faith reporting and predicting surrounding the gas bubble that it will be good to add these two voices to the conversation. I had no way of determining the potential reserves, but the effects of fracking on the environment are easily seen and documented. The only reason this threat to the environment has not been stopped is the very loud voice of money talking and the concommitant visions of dancing dollars.
One of the unnoticed effects of this is how the separation of mineral rights from property rights allows corporations to degrade the real property through its actions and then buy out the remaining rights at a discount.
Consider the very famous Hinkley, CA.
“Erin Brockovich” Town Faces New Threat
It may be running out and it may make the shales more unstable/earthquake prone, but I’d bet you $10,000 that America will end up looking like Swiss cheese and tar sands oil soaked before they’re done.
Why even ask where the the money will come from to make these cowboys whole?
That’s what Social Security is for, isn’t it?
thanks, Steve, for your excellent updates on the extractive corps. is it a “bug or feature” that the extractors are sucking up, poisoning and injecting water back to earth?
cheney’s congress exempted the extractors from the clean water act; and the last “next big thing” will be control of potable water: Paraquay (bush dynasty) and Lybia (quadiffi had just completed aquaducts?) aquifers.
which would you rather have: a bag of diamonds, a sack of gold or a glass of water?
Steve, thanks for all your work on this.
This is far from an ideal situation, but imho it’s a decent intermediate step that helps wingnuts realize that renewables already have parity.
“World’s largest power-to-gas plant for methane production goes into operation”
“The Centre for Solar Research Baden-Württemberg (ZSW) has inaugurated a research facility to convert solar power to methane. The methane is then added to the natural gas grid.
The project uses solar power to electrolyse water in a pressurised alkaline electrolyser, producing hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen gas then undergoes methanation, and with the facility able to produce up to 300 cubic meters of renewable methane per day, it is the largest of its type in the world.
Commenting on the opening, Dr. Michael Specht, head of ZSW-Renewable fuels added: “Our research system works dynamically and intermittently. Unlike the first system it can respond flexibly to the rapidly changing supply of electricity from wind and solar power and to sudden interruptions. This is a condition of future energy systems with a high share of renewable electricity.”
Future plans are to further optimise the system, along with partners Fraunhofer IWES and SolarFuel, and to potentially scale it up to 1 to 20 megawatts.”
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2012/october/world%E2%80%99s-largest-gas-to-power-plant-for-methane-production-goes-into-operation
“situation” should have been solution.
Burning the methane still releases carbon, but it sounds like the entire process does a lot less damage than fracking.
Steve, I don’t trust Endbridge as far as I can throw them, but I thought this was an interesting use of the natural gas pipelines. If they can actually hold “leaky” hydrogen, this looks promising.
“Endbridge, Hydrogenics partner for utility scale storage of renewables”
“….But the way Enbridge describes this collaboration, it has little interest in fuel cells. Instead, it wants to generate hydrogen and inject it into its natural gas pipeline assets, “proportionally increasing the renewable energy content in natural gas pipelines.” In other words — the way I read it from the press release — it wants to reduce the carbon intensity of the natural gas in its pipelines by mixing it with hydrogen. That cleaner natural gas will then be burned in natural gas-fired plants, people’s home furnaces, etc……
We already have a huge storage and transport system that is all bought and paid for and can be used for hydrogen,” says Daryl Wilson, CEO of Hydrogenics. “It is the natural gas pipeline system.” Hydrogenics is pioneering what it calls “power-to-gas” – the idea of feeding excess electrical power as hydrogen into the natural gas grid. The company recently announced a deal with Enbridge, owner of the world’s largest liquid pipeline and a company that also has significant investments in photovoltaics, to jointly develop utility-scale energy storage in North America. Wilson admits that “power-to-gas” is just one of the many ways in which hydrogen can be used. “We live in a world where energy has traditionally been separated into different industries – we use gasoline for transport, natural gas for fuel and electricity for power. Hydrogen has the potential to be used for all these applications and so brings a new economic flexibility,” says Wilson. “Of all the energy storage solutions available, hydrogen is the only one that will be able to cope with demand. If Germany continues of its path of implementing renewable energy, it may need to store up to a month’s worth of energy. You can’t do that with batteries!….”
http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2012/04/23/enbridge-hydrogenics-partner-for-utility-scale-energy-storage-for-renewables/
OT, I have been very impressed with “Solar Roadways.”
http://www.solarroadways.com/main.html
Can’t wait for some working prototypes.
We’re already paying $1,000/ton for concrete. These folks are claiming the 12×12 solar panels could pay for themselves in 20 years. They also want them to be the backbones for the next generation electricity grid. As you know, price for stringing high tension wire is from $1 to $2 million a mile.
Any opinion you have would be appreciated.
The issue with fracking is the chemicals in the fracking fluid. What are they and do they harm the public aquifers? It is inexcusable this information is not made widely available.
That said, government estimates of reserves have historically been conservative. Shale wells are not the same as tapping into conventional gas pockets. I am not sure well depletion rates between conventional and shale wells are an apples to apples comparison.
What bubble? Gas prices are not inflated, they are and have been look to continue to be at historic lows in real dollars. Coal plants are being retired and replaced with natural gas fired generation. Why is that bad? Moreover, these new gas plants represent billions in new investment, do you seriously think these companies are investing that much in real in the ground assets based on a scam? I doubt it.
The focus of concern ought to be on the composition of the fracking fluids.
The propaganda being fed the public about how the US can be truly “energy independent” with all these reserves reminds me of the 19th century lie that the West could be settled and cultivated using ordinary farming, that the “rain would follow the plow”. This was a lie used by hucksters to lure unsuspecting settlers to the western states to claim their 160 acres. For many people, this was an article of faith. John Wesley Powell, explorer of the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon, and founder of the U.S. Geological Survey who tried to establish a settlement policy that would prevent the settlement and and improper cultivation of these areas, places that would later be turned into the Dust Bowl.
Sadly there was an article on CNN website today titled:
U.S. set for fracking bonanza, says historian Ferguson
See:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/23/business/america-shale-gas-ferguson-stevens/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1
As expected Ferguson trumpets the vitues of fracking, ignoring its environmental consequences as well as the environmental impacts of burning these gases. Never-the-less, I thought the reader comments very interesting. Clearly a significant number are very concerned about the matter of fracking. One other thing we should be watching – Methane Hydrates. That will be the next oil/gas extraction frontier.
And an Oh, by the way related comment: In the Nov 2012 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the organization’s latest offical statement on Climate Change was posted (released 20 Aug 12).
The entire statement is here:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
Key points addressed:
1. How is climate changing? The first sentence says: Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.” Can you be any more blunt than that?
2. Why is climate changing? The very first thing they say: “Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.”
3. How can climate change be projected into the future? They say: “Factors that have altered climate throughout history, both human (such as human emission of greenhouse gases) and natural (such as variation of the Sun’s energy emission, the Earth’s orbit about the Sun, and volcanic eruptions), will continue to alter climate in the future. Climate projections for decades into the future are made using complex numerical models of the climate system that account for changes in the flow of energy into and out of the Earth system on time scales much longer than the predictability limit (of about two weeks) for individual weather systems.”
4. How is the climate expected to change in the future? Again: “Future warming of the climate is inevitable for many years due to the greenhouse gases already added to the atmosphere and the heat that has been taken up by the oceans. ”
The last sentence of the statement sums everything up nicely:
“Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.”
Its pretty clear this body of experts overwhelmingly is very concerned about climate change and anthropogenic causes. We should heed theirs and others environmental, social, and economic warnings and be wary of those pushing for continued gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power production. Rather, our efforts should focus on alternatives as the long term solution. And, perhaps even more fundemental to many problems, yet seldom addressed these days is population growth. That is the fundemental problem which drives so many concerns of the day.
Good Point on the Dust Bowl. After just watching the Ken Burns PBS program on the Dust Bowl, it constantly amazes me how arrogant people are. An interesting comment at the end was related to how irrigation from pumping the Ogallala aquifer will be a problem in the region 20 years from now. We are again ignoring the voices of the past for the dollar of today and apparenly oblivious to the future consequences of those actions.
BTW I still find Marc Reissner’s 1986 book, Cadillac Desert one of the best and prescient discussions on water in the west.
If you’re paying a thousand bucks a ton for concrete, you need a new supplier. I do general contracting and last bought ready-mix about a year ago. It cost around a hundred dollars a yard,(cubic yard, a little over a ton). Granted, you need to buy probably 5 or 6 yards at a time to get that price, and I’m talking about Houston prices, but a thousand dollars a ton?
strato, appreciate the reply/correction.
I got that number from the Solar Roadways site. The Electrical Engineer who thought this up is in northern Idaho. Maybe those are his prices?
I don’t want to be giving out bad info.
Hi BooRadley,
The story I hear from people who have experience with hydrogen has been very discouraging about a “hydrogen economy” based on pumping hydrogen around like methane (a.k.a. natural gas). Apparently, it embrittles the metal in the pipes etc. and leaks out of exceedingly small gaps.
On the other hand, it’s not terribly difficult to make methane from hydrogen (H2) and CO2, so I’m told.
The other trick that I read about from the Stranded Wind folks in Iowa was to make Ammonia (NH3) from excess electricity, e.g., from wind turbines that are off the grid. Ammonia is extensively used for fertilizer and there are ammonia pipelines throughout some parts of the upper midwest. It can also be used to power automobiles and presuably to generate electricity. The difference (from CH4) is that there is a lot of nitrogen the atmosphere, roughly 80% IIRC.
Much appreciated.