Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sesport on September 6, 2009 at 12:24

Thanks, Jay.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Parkdota on September 6, 2009 at 5:52

The industry documented decline rates in the Haynesville are as follows: Year 1 - 81% Year 2 - 34% Year 3 - 22% Year 4 - 17% Year 5 - 13% Year 6 - 7% and then this rate going forward.

Chesapeake just came out with a revision based on their wells and the decline rates were slightly higher.

Yeah, that article was slightly depressing for sure. However, these big oil/gas companies know what they're doing. The industry is in a bad spot due to prices in connection to our devastating recession. Both will recover in time. If it weren't for the recession I don't think it would be nearly this bad with regards to prices. I normally lean towards the pessimistic side but I'm optimistic on natgas and the future.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on September 6, 2009 at 7:52

too much of arthur berman's opinion in that piece, even if he did admit he was initially wrong about the haynesville

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on September 6, 2009 at 12:23

Thanks, Logan & essay - I recognized the pessimism and potential bias, wasn't sure about the idea about the decline rate.

I did get to click around on some of the embedded links, especially re. ng vehicles. Those links make it sound highly unlikely that ng, either cng or lng, are viable options as a transportation fuel. The links identify problems such as the size of the tank needed for cng and the refrigeration problem for lng (which I think was an idea that Mac Davis was exploring, too).

I know this article is a few months old, but the amount of gas in storage is bursting my bubble, and more lng is to arrive in port soon. I can't find any info that there will be a shift in fueling off-peak power production anytime soon, either.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the opportunity to put into place the reasons to consume ng is/will pass by.

• ▶ Reply