[Peakoil] Shale gas revolution a major boost for US

[W & C Steensby]

Chris Martenson has also analysed the shale oil claims and finds them wanting.

He bases his findings on industry data. In brief, shale oil wells initially flow quite well but after the first year they decline at something like 40% annually. This is a huge decline. They cost a lot of money to drill, the necessary capital is not always available, and we need to drill a lot of them. In some areas we need so many of them to make up for the declines that (in my words) the place looks like a pincushion and there's no room to fit in yet another well.

Petroleum geologists have known about shale oil "plays" for decades but the price of conventional crude made shale unaffordable. The best areas are of course being tapped first (Eagleford, Bakken); the PR people are assuming that every other area will be as productive and making claims based on unproven recovery rates.

Regards,
Walter

On 2013/01/04, at 09:41, Keith wrote:

> On 03/01/2013, at 10:02 PM, Jenny Goldie wrote:
> 
> Shale gas revolution a major boost for US
> http://www.theage.com.au/business/shale-gas-revolution-a-major-boost-for-us-steel-sector-20130101-2c4co.html 
> 
> Earlier this week Jim Kunstler devoted a large part of his look into 2013 to shale gas and shale oil. He is not as sanguine as the industry boosters.
> 
> I ask myself if he is desperately hanging on to his version of the shale story in the face of counter-evidence? Or is his arch-skepticism well founded? I'm still inclined to side with Kunstler. His overview covers factors (such as the shortage of capital) the boosters ignore. And his perspective is consistent with historical precedent. His position is not that shale oil is insignificant physically, but that it will never be able to halt the decline in available CHEAP oil, on which we all depend.
> ------------------------------
> Keith Thomas
> myrmecia at gmail.com
> 074 2929 4146
> ------------------------------