This is a very interesting article from the New York Times about how the economic benefits of fracking are not living up to expectations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1
Bill
Yes, it is interesting. But I don't think it is reliable reporting, sadly. I looked at some of the emails and memos that the article is based upon. There are links in the article. Many are dated 2009 and one in particular was really misrepresented by the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4.... NYT summarizes the email by saying, "the word among independent oil and gas producers is that shale gas drilling is a Ponzi scheme and that it will be difficult for companies to make money in the Marcellus and Haynesville shale formations,
In fact, the email says, "The word I hear from every company THAT IS NOT IN HAYNESVILLE AND MARCELLUS is that they are not economic. "
Dee
-----Original Message----- From: Wonderlin, William wwonderlin@hsc.wvu.edu To: mvcac@cheat.org mvcac@cheat.org Sent: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:59 am Subject: [MVCAC] Article from NYT
This is a very interesting article from the New York Times about how the economic benefits of fracking are not living up to expectations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1
Bill _______________________________________________ MVCAC mailing list MVCAC@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac
Just for clarification...the e-mail is cited correctly in the main article, which only mentions the Ponzi part of the e-mail. The error you have highlighted is in the summary of the e-mail included in the supplementary document that lists their sources. Obviously, that error is not good, but it is a little different journalistic "crime." I am reluctant to throw out the whole article because of an error that appears to be limited in scope to the supplementary online information.
I had only read the hard copy version of the article before sending it out, and your careful reading nicely illustrates the new and very useful opportunities available with online articles.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill Wonderlin, Ph.D. Associate Professor Dept. Biochemistry West Virginia University 304-293-3159 ________________________________________ From: Dee Fulton [dfvet@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:50 AM To: Wonderlin, William; mvcac@cheat.org Subject: Re: [MVCAC] Article from NYT
Yes, it is interesting. But I don't think it is reliable reporting, sadly. I looked at some of the emails and memos that the article is based upon. There are links in the article. Many are dated 2009 and one in particular was really misrepresented by the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4.... NYT summarizes the email by saying, "the word among independent oil and gas producers is that shale gas drilling is a Ponzi scheme and that it will be difficult for companies to make money in the Marcellus and Haynesville shale formations,
In fact, the email says, "The word I hear from every company THAT IS NOT IN HAYNESVILLE AND MARCELLUS is that they are not economic. "
Dee
-----Original Message----- From: Wonderlin, William wwonderlin@hsc.wvu.edu To: mvcac@cheat.org mvcac@cheat.org Sent: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:59 am Subject: [MVCAC] Article from NYT
This is a very interesting article from the New York Times about how the economic benefits of fracking are not living up to expectations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1
Bill _______________________________________________ MVCAC mailing list MVCAC@cheat.orgmailto:MVCAC@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac
Here is a collection of rebuttal comments. http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/06/what-they%E2%80%99re-saying-36-hours-la...
Among those listed in website above, I find this one to be compelling: Financial analyst with degree in Petroleum Engineering from Stanford: “The NYT suggests that maybe there isn’t as much natural gas as the industry says. Indeed, some wells will be less economic than others, driven both by rock characteristics and gas prices, so no, at $4 per mmbtu there isn’t as much gas as has been targeted by wells drilled assuming $6 long-term gas prices, a huge difference.But the fact is, shale wells are quite productive and applicable to gigantic areas that we wouldn’t have thought of drilling ten years ago. Challenged by lower prices, gas producers are innovating to reduce costs and improve recoveries, the way learning curve behaviors would predict. … Typically slower in making big moves, domestic majors including ExxonMobil and Chevron have also embraced gas and oil shales development in the U.S. Along with many of the top independent producers in the U.S., these are excellent technology companies with prudent risk management, and part of why 25% of today’s natural gas production comes from shales, and the driver of the large increase in U.S. gas production since 2005.” (Duane Grubert, Susquehanna Financial Group, 6/28/11)
Also, I have a confession to make. I listen to Jim Cramer on CNBC from time to time. He wasn't convinced by the NYT article. Of course, consider the source.......business news CNBC. Not as bad as FOX but prone to show some conservative bias. Cramer asks, "Can ALL the big gas companies be wrong?' http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2011/Mad_Money_Jim_Cramer_Blasts_Times_Repor...
I think Ian Urbino's erlier 3-part piece on the risks of fracking was right on. I don't think this piece has the same level of factual foundation. Dee
-----Original Message----- From: Wonderlin, William wwonderlin@hsc.wvu.edu To: Dee Fulton dfvet@aol.com; mvcac@cheat.org mvcac@cheat.org Sent: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 10:58 am Subject: RE: [MVCAC] Article from NYT
Just for clarification...the e-mail is cited correctly in the main article, which only mentions the Ponzi part of the e-mail. The error you have highlighted is in the summary of the e-mail included in the supplementary document that lists their sources. Obviously, that error is not good, but it is a little different journalistic "crime." I am reluctant to throw out the whole article because of an error that appears to be limited in scope to the supplementary online information.
I had only read the hard copy version of the article before sending it out, and your careful reading nicely illustrates the new and very useful opportunities available with online articles.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill Wonderlin, Ph.D. Associate Professor Dept. Biochemistry West Virginia University 304-293-3159 ________________________________________ From: Dee Fulton [dfvet@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:50 AM To: Wonderlin, William; mvcac@cheat.org Subject: Re: [MVCAC] Article from NYT
Yes, it is interesting. But I don't think it is reliable reporting, sadly. I looked at some of the emails and memos that the article is based upon. There are links in the article. Many are dated 2009 and one in particular was really misrepresented by the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4.... NYT summarizes the email by saying, "the word among independent oil and gas producers is that shale gas drilling is a Ponzi scheme and that it will be difficult for companies to make money in the Marcellus and Haynesville shale formations,
In fact, the email says, "The word I hear from every company THAT IS NOT IN HAYNESVILLE AND MARCELLUS is that they are not economic. "
Dee
-----Original Message----- From: Wonderlin, William wwonderlin@hsc.wvu.edu To: mvcac@cheat.org mvcac@cheat.org Sent: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:59 am Subject: [MVCAC] Article from NYT
This is a very interesting article from the New York Times about how the economic benefits of fracking are not living up to expectations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1
Bill _______________________________________________ MVCAC mailing list MVCAC@cheat.orgmailto:MVCAC@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac
-
Dee Fulton -
Wonderlin, William