New York Times article refers to shale gas drilling as a "giant ponzi scheme".

Views: 325

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

SB,

Because they have a BIG MEG-A-PHONE in a big paper that has an agenda. What is said in the article does not have to be true or correct. It can be propaganda with little or no truth to it. That's a right that our constitution guarantees - FREEDOM OF SPEECH. As long as it is not libelous or slanderous against someone then it can be said with impunity until and unless someone creditable counters it and gets the same publicity. There are some people that have no integrity that have figured this out and are using it to their advantage. Look at the TV Ad for US Representative in New York that showed Gran Maw being pushed off the cliff by Republicans because we need to change the SS system. The Republican candidate lost the election because of a lie. No changes were or are going to be retroactive to the current Social Security System. 

We generally believe that people have integrity and we have a tendency to sit here and take the position that its some wacko that is saying things that are not correct and it really does not matter. If this attitude continues and we continue to just sit here and don't speak up then we are sunk as a people and a nation. 

Joe--- I hope we all speak with BIG MEG-A-PHONE at the POLLS next NOV 2011 and FIRE BO and STAFF

Thanks adubu.

I agree 100%. We've got to vote this bunch out. They are killing us with half truth's and out right lies. I just hope we make it to 2012 with some freedoms left.

Joe--- I good friend's son just return from DC for a one month internship in US House of local Rep. He will be going to Tex A&M as Freshman this Fall-- very conservative kid. He return disappointed in what he experience with one statement to me " They All Are Nothing But Bunch Of Liars" speaking mostly about the Democratic but also included some long time in office Rs. BO only care is getting re-elected
adubu, congratulate the kid on his return from the crazy world of DC and pat him on the back for me in his realization that a lot of those folks in DC are not for the folks back home. I have got to commend a young person that goes to the capital to look at the interworkings of what goes on up there and comes back with a real perception of how things work. I will take his word for it because I have felt the same way for years, that they are mostly a bunch of fibbers or liar's or down right scum of the Earth. My hat is off to this young person for going into this den of liars, thieves, perverts and just damn right scam artists that seem to be running our country today and realizing that we need something better. This young person needs to be praised by all Americans for giving us the inside information that he gleaned from his/her stint working at the capital.

2 dogs--- He received a nice steak dinner from me. He is way ahead of understanding what going on for his age. Now hope he can convert his friends to understand.

Maybe this young new generation will see the light
seaport-- wonder what this investigation with report will cost taxpayers. Recommend the final bill be sent to NY Times when they prove Urbina is stupid liberal  liar.

sesport,

thank you for providing the link to this! Please, if you can, let us know when the response comes or how can I find out and where would I check for it? As adubu notes if taxpayers will foot the bill I would at least like to read it!

Anne

Guys, I want to weigh in on this just a bit.  First, as a Geologist, I'm unqualified to talk about a specific wells' economic performance - that would be the place of a Reservoir Engineer.  However, I have seen the decline curves and reserves for many Barnett and other unconventional resource wells.  The bottom line is the wells have a very steep decline curve through the first year or so (relative to a conventional well), and lose about 80% of rate from IP - then flatten out to a pretty long life.  At some point in the future (varies by well), the production then tails off, which is typically when a second frac takes place - performance after that  approaches but doesn't reach the original IP, but my understanding is the profile is pretty much the same. I'm unclear if the same perfs are frac'd or if the old ones squeezed and new ones shot first, but I think you get the idea that they restimulate the well.

 

As a Geologist, the best explanation I can think of is that once you produce the area of and directly around the fractures, it's still a shale and impermeable - thus the decline later in the wells' life.  Also, remember that companies won't pursue these resources if they're uneconomic - so I believe calling this a Ponzi scheme is misleading, and if it negatively affects stock price could set up the NYT to some lawsuits.

I e-mailed IHS Drilling Data media relations for a statement about the "analyst" who made the Ponzi scheme comment in the 2009 e-mail. The company's reply not only casts doubt about the analyst's description but also the New York Times's article as a whole. The words in bold are the spokesman's:

 

The Times' article “Insiders Sound Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush,” does not reflect the IHS position on shale gas.

 

Emails referenced in the article were written in 2008 and 2009, early in the understanding of the performance metrics for shale gas and have been proven completely wrong by events. One of the emails that was referenced in the article as from IHS was apparently written by someone misidentified as an IHS employee when in fact that person had not been employed by IHS for more than a year.

 

Unconventional technologies and resources have moved with great speed. There is much more information about the performance and potential of shale resources available today than in the past. Shale gas supplies have built up very rapidly and now are 25 percent of total U.S. gas supply, as costs have come down dramatically and experience and knowledge have progressed.

 

In February 2009, the IHS CERA report, “The Shale Gale,” stated that the “recent revolution in the production of unconventional shale gas” would result in “a substantial increase in shale production and reserves”’ and “a rapid growth of shale gas supply.”  Also in February 2009, IHS CERA’s study Rising to the Challenge said: “Unconventional gas will drive growth.”  

 

That was the IHS position then and it continues to be our position today.  Both of these reports were released well before the 2009 email cited in the NY Times story.

 

Thank you for contacting us so we can correct the erroneous and misleading information that was in the Times' article.

 

Let me know if you need anything else.

 

 

Ed Mattix
VP-Corporate Communications
IHS Inc.
Nice work...
Pure and simple--the NYT article was ghost written by Art Berman, who is the ex-employee IHS is referring to.

RSS

© 2020   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service