I The Economic Impact Of The Haynesville Shale On The: Fill & Download for Free

The “inventor” of the Peak Oil concept, Dr. M. King Hubbert, also made a prediction for Peak Gas in the U.S. His original estimate was based on the estimate that Ultimate Recovery of gas in the Lower 48 would total 850 trillion cubic feet (TCF).Right on schedule, as if obeying his dictates, natural gas production “peaked” in the early ‘70’s. Annual production reached 24 TCF, then declined. In the late ‘70’s, amid natural gas shortages, Hubbert updated his estimate of Ultimate Recovery to 1,100 TCF, but hedged his bets by declaring that estimate was perhaps too optimistic.But something happened in the early ‘80’s. Natural gas “broke” Hubbert’s Peak projection and stayed flat at ~22 TCF/yr for a couple of decades. It never looked back.Then came the shale boom, first in the Barnett Shale, then the Haynesville, the Marcellus, etc.In 2018, the U.S. produced 37 TCF of gas, more than 50% higher than the supposed peak of the ‘70’s.Domestic gas reserves stood at 464 TCF at year-end 2017, almost 2–1/2 times the reserves in 1993. Undiscovered resources are estimated in the range of 4,000 TCF.In early 2012, I blogged about Peak Gas. Since then, we’ve blown the lid off production.What did Hubbert get wrong? The accuracy of his projection depends entirely on whether the estimate of ultimate recovery is sound. Like his oil analysis, Hubbert’s gas forecast failed to anticipate new technologies and the impact of economics. In Hubbert’s day, few companies actively searched for gas; it was seen as a byproduct of oil that was just a little bit too valuable to flare. Natural gas wellhead prices were low and heavily regulated until President Reagan moved to lift price controls in the ‘80’s. A few years later, decontrol came to the pipeline and distribution end of the business. Altogether, these policy changes totally changed the playing field for natural gas.

TRUE CREDIT : COPIED FROM WEB. I DOWNLOADED FOR MY UNDERSTANDING.What Is Shale Gas and Why Is It Important?Shale gas refers to natural gas that is trapped within shale formations. Shales are fine-grained sedimentary rocks that can be rich resources of petroleum and natural gas. Sedimentary rocks are rocks formed by the accumulation of sediments at the Earth's surface and within bodies of water. Common sedimentary rocks include sandstone, limestone, and shale.Over the past decade, the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has allowed access to large volumes of shale gas that were previously uneconomical to produce. The production of natural gas from shale formations has rejuvenated the natural gas industry in the United States. (Courtesy of EIA)What Are the Marcellus and Utica Plays?Both the Marcellus and Utica Shale plays are geological formations that were formed by the accumulation of sediment into a sea. This formation was eventually buried over many thousands of years and compressed to produce an organic-rich black shale.The Marcellus geological formation, which dates back to the Devonian time period, stretches from the northeast to the southeast in direction. The Marcellus starts at the base of the Catskills in upstate New York, stretches across the upstate towards Marcellus, New York (the town from which the formation was named) and southwest to West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. The Marcellus Shale is known to be deeper on the southeast edge of the formation that borders the ridge and valley regions of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia. The Marcellus gets more shallow as it heads northeast towards Ohio and Lake Erie.The Utica geological formation dates back to the Ordovician time period with sediments deposited between 488 and 443 million years ago. The Utica formation underlies portions of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, New York, West Virginia, and Maryland. Similar to the Marcellus, Utica Shale is known to be deeper on the southeast edge of the formation that borders the ridge and valley regions of New York and Pennsylvania and in the region of southwest Pennsylvania bordering Maryland and West Virginia. The Utica gets more shallow as it reaches Ohio and upstate New York.Why Now?Although throughout the geological world, Marcellus and Utica Shale plays have been identified as potentially rich in fossil fuels, it was not until recently that the industry has invested into exploration. Two factors are clearly present in the ramp up in exploration and production (E&P) activities related to these plays. First, the success of the Barnett Shale play in North Central Texas has allowed companies to transfer the hydrofracturing technology to other areas, such as the Fayetteville Shale play (Arkansas), Haynesville Shale play (Louisiana and Eastern Texas), and the Marcellus and Utica Shale plays. Second, the population centers of Northeastern U.S. are very close in proximity to the both the Marcellus and Utica Shale plays, which results in lowering the cost of bringing natural gas to the Northeast market.What Does the Future Hold?As America demands more and more energy, the role that natural gas will play in that demand is uncertain. One thing that is certain is the Marcellus and Utica plays are shaping up to be key suppliers for domestic natural gas. Impacts from this industry are uncertain as well. Historically, the energy industry has gone through times of "boom and bust" and is driven by the economical conditions present across the nation. The industry is also known for paying a higher wage, on average, compared to an equivalent manufacturing job. One thing that is not uncertain is that the natural gas industry associated with shale gas exploration will give the nation another source to potentially reduce the intake of foreign supplies of natural gas.The Lifespan of Shale GasDividing the natural gas development process into three phases (pre-drilling, drilling, and production), industry surveys used to create the 2011 Pennsylvania Statewide Marcellus Shale Workforce Needs Assessment show that 98% of natural gas exploration and development jobs are found in the pre-drilling and drilling phases of bringing a well into production. No one can accurately estimate how long the drilling phase will last within the Marcellus and Utica plays, but estimates range from 10 to 70 years which in part reflect uncertainty created by future fluctuations in commodity prices, economic conditions, and technological changes among other variables. A number of drilling scenarios are possible for future shale gas development, and they include a relatively quick flurry of activity that subsides when drilling moves to another location, high-intensity driling that jumps from hotspot to hotspot and moderate and sustained driliing across the Appalachian Basin lasting for decades. Each development scenario changes the direct workforce requirements and opportunities for business development and entrepreneurship

There are a few incorrect assumptions stuffed inside your question.The biggest is that “drilling for oil = protecting taxpayers”. I haven't seen a study yet that shows how increased oil production results in lower taxes, and it seems like drilling in Alaska will do little to change that. A few reasons why:1. Oil in the US is drilled by private companies. Unlike large oil-producing countries like Canada, Norway, or many OPEC nations, the US government does not levy aggressive royalties or a revenue share in producing projects. However, Alaska is a bit of a unique case in that the state actually owns a lot of the land (how socialist!), rather than private landowners. So the state does receive a steady stream of cash from leasing lands for oil exploration and production activities, and does take a slice of oil revenues as a royalty. But this benefit is significantly muted (at least in the early years of oil projects) by the fact that Alaska also offers huge tax breaks and reimbursement of capital expenditures for oil drilling activities. So the economic benefits of oil production disproportionately accrue to the companies drilling and their shareholders, not public citizens.2. There is already an enormous amount of oil exploration and production in Alaska:Alaska Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day)So it's unclear what you mean by saying there is no drilling in Alaska, because there is, and there is a lot of it. But you probably are complaining about the fact that a significant portion of Alaska includes a large wildlife refuge (ANWR) where drilling is restricted. Which brings me to my next point…3. Our country is awash in oil-rich resources. Oil is being produced in North Dakota (Bakken), Texas (Permian, Eagle Ford, Barnett), Louisiana (Haynesville), Pennsylvania and Ohio (Utica and Marcellus), Colorado, Oklahoma, West Virginia - hell, even California. Thanks to hydraulic fracturing technology, the US is the second largest oil producing country in the world and oil production is hitting 30-year highs. The fastest growth in production came during the Obama administration:Weekly U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day)So it's tough to make the argument that Democrats have held back the production of oil (the other wrong assumption in your question). But perhaps your argument is that even MORE could be produced in Alaska. Well, there's a reason it's not, and it actually has very little to do with Democrats: ANWR is more or less unexplored. In layman's terms, that means making a profit from drilling there is not only hugely expensive (you would have to build tons of infrastructure), but also hugely risky. Those private companies are not willing to bet their shareholder money on that, and generally are focused on picking the lower-hanging fruit in the dozen or so shale basins I listed up above.Of course, we're not considering non-economic costs of drilling in ANWR, in addition to the above investment risks. But those are also significant:Arctic Refuge Has Lots of Wildlife—Oil, Maybe Not So Much4. But let's push forward and assume that if ANWR was opened up, there would be enough interest and investment there, and oil could be produced economically. This would have a few impacts:More jobs. But unfortunately, these will be fairly undesirable jobs, as ANWR is completely uninhabited and workers will be flown in for two or three week shifts by the (likely multinational) companies working on these projects. So it's unclear if this would really impact the US job market in a meaningful way.More oil exports. For many years, oil exports from the US were banned for national security reasons. But the advent of surging oil production convinced many (mostly republican) lawmakers to repeal this law in 2015. Given where Alaska sits on the globe, ANWR oil would likely be loaded onto tankers for export to China. More reading on US crude exports can be done here: Crude Exports | RBN EnergyOne thing that won't likely happen is lower oil prices. For one (as outlined above), that oil will probably be exported outside of the US rather than stay in the US market (where it would potentially depress local prices). Globally, crude oil is a 100 million barrel (give or take) per day market, and even the most aggressive estimates on ANWR assume it could maybe represent 1% of that after a decade or more of intensive, expensive development. That's not enough to swing prices one way or the other.Having set the facts straight, I'll take a stab at the first part of your question. My personal view is that energy production is dictated ultimately by economics. This would explain why oil production rose at historic rates during the Obama years when the government did very little incrementally to incentivize drilling of oil and gas.While Democrats may not personally believe the environmental cost of drilling in one part of Alaska (ANWR) worth it, the reality is that Alaska is simply not as economically attractive at this moment as other parts of the country for oil production, and that is unlikely to change any time soon.