Jump to content
REGISTERING FOR MEMBERSHIP ON UPLAND JOURNAL Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
fuess

Marcellus Shale

Recommended Posts

DonS
DonS,

The reason most of us like this place is because things can actually be discussed in a civil manner. We all have differing opinions and perspectives, which serves to make a lot of these dicussions well rounded and interesting.

It seems you don't enjoy that, You'd rather jump up and down on your soap box with your fingers in your ears. You're coming across very childish with your snide comments and ridiculous behavior.

Joe,

That's certainly not my intent.  My comments are intended to focus on facts (or absence thereof) and reason (ditto) - not to  adversely characterize other board members, personally.

R,

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roost em 1st

Troll food for DonS

My good sir Mr Don S,

This is just one little company doing business in PA. Perhaps you can dispel any non actual facts represented on the link.

1. They are obliged to pay a $240,000.00 fine for contaminating.

2. They may well be guilty of sourcing spent frack water to the Delaware, which, guess what supplies drinking water to 17 million folks in SE PA, it's all pending mind, and of course it will take a while to sort out

3. They lost a suit and agree to pay $4.1 million for damages caused by their fracking.

Thats just one drilling company that drills MS. And they just started a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Gowdey
Dave,

Ah - there you are!  I'd have been disappointed if you hadn't weighed in.  I'm struck with your persistence in attempting to redefine every discussion to claim sole proprietorship of environmental rectitude, with a keen eye toward cultivating a "we good guys vs those bad guys" spin.   We are pretty much all good guys here, no boogermen.

Most of us recognize that when you prohibit or stifle one form of energy production, another will generally take its place.  Mishaps can and do occur in the course of any productive venture - have you heard of  TMI and Fukishima - or seen an industry more heavily regulated than nuclear power production?  Massive new regulations on a well established, successful, and SAFE industry would serve only to increase consumer costs.    

I think most of us are here are in agreement that natural gas is here, much needed - and one of the cleanest (if not THE cleanest) of all energy sources.  Its production should be encouraged, not discouraged. On behalf of - not despite of - our environment.

R,

Don

Don,

Actually most of recognize what you just posted as pure industry propaganda that is demonstrably NOT true.  And it may appear that we are examples of environmental rectitude simply because your positions are so anti-environmental.  We are not all good guys here - some here are supporting practices and policies that hurt a lot of people and cause terrific environmental damage.  

If you want to get educated about natural gas and fracking - this is probably the best series of stories you'll find.  Pro publica is a non-profit, non-partisan investigative journalism website run by some former editors of the Wall Street Journal.  

http://www.propublica.org/series....-threat

As you'll find in those stories, the claims of natural gas being "clean" are overblown.  Professor Howarth's study says that it may even be worse than coal.  And the fact that another cleaner energy source would replace natural gas is the point.  As long as America focuses all of its subsidies and investments on dirty energy forms that are harmful and that will inevitably run out -this country is doomed to decline.  

The country that finds the next, clean, cheap form of energy is the one that will dominate the next world economy -and America's losing the race because we are weighed down by these ties to a dinosaur industry. If we devoted half of the subsidies we give to the oil industry in one year to developing a clean hydrogen economy we wouldn't be having these discussions -we would be busy building and selling the technology to the rest of the world and watching our enemies in the oil producing world recede into irrelevance.  

And the notion that government regulation causes higher prices or harms the public is simply dogma - that is not supported by facts in the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ANF grousin
If we devoted half of the subsidies we give to the oil industry in one year to developing a clean hydrogen economy we wouldn't be having these discussions -we would be busy building and selling the technology to the rest of the world and watching our enemies in the oil producing world recede into irrelevance.  

Ohhhhhhh please explain these subsidies.

"Big bad oil" works under the same tax laws that all other industries work under.  The subsidies you talk about is leftist propoganda to make oil look bad and a few political baffoons look like they really care for the people.  The only difference in the tax laws, is drilling companies get to claim a large chunk of their capital investments early on instead of smaller write-offs over a longer period of time.  That is it, nothing more, nothing less.  So are you saying we need to have special tax laws just for the oil industry?  Why dont you report back on the taxes "Big Bad Oil" paid vs what GE paid?

And while we're on oil and gas prices, and the profits Big Bad Oil makes, they make 6-7 cents/gallon.  Governments make 50+ cents/gallon.  So if the rules were changed and Big Bad Oil wasnt allowed to make any profit, gas would only fall 7 cents/gallon.  Now look at how much the industry reinvests back into energy development of all kinds, with their own money, and then compare that to how much the government invests in energey development... WITH SOMEONE ELSES MONEY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DonS
Troll food for DonS

My good sir Mr Don S,

This is just one little company doing business in PA. Perhaps you can dispel any non actual facts represented on the link.

1. They are obliged to pay a $240,000.00 fine for contaminating.

But you make my points which are:

1. There is (and may never be) a perfectly clean source of energy - but gas appears to be the best in that regard.

2. Remedies for the inevitable mishap exist and are properly applied.

R,

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roost em 1st

Fair enough Don S, with regard to the fact that there may never be a way to have a perfectly clean source of energy. But why should we settle?

The outcry is about the unclean part being catapulted into fresh water sources. Earth is 70% water, 3% is fresh water. Why would anyone think we should contaminate the 3% we have with heavy metals, chemicals, etc...? There must be a better way, and to turn a blind eye to this pollution with the excuse that it's cleaner than xyz energy is-well-ludicrous. Sitting in Alexandria, Manassas, Leesburg, Warrenton, Culpepper, Winchester or wherever the heck in Northern VA it is that you live and claiming that fracking in the Marcellus Shale is ok is a smug perspective. If Goose Creek, the Shenandoah, Rappahanock, Rapidan, or the Potomac was being polluted would you turn a blind eye?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DonS

Fair enough Don S, with regard to the fact that there may never be a way to have a perfectly clean source of energy. But why should we settle?

Sitting in Alexandria, Manassas, Leesburg, Warrenton, Culpepper, Winchester or wherever the heck in Northern VA it is that you live and claiming that fracking in the Marcellus Shale is ok is a smug perspective.

I'm in favor of the cleanest possible affordable energy, and bet we all are.  But its sort of like when the oxygen mask drops down in mid-flight. If you don't use what is available now,  you won't be around long enough to insist on a cleaner mask or sweeter air mix.

I  think sitting here in the District of Columbia (Navy Yard), looking out over the Anacostia River (samples available) - I, like most urban residents, are uniquely aware of the environmental costs imposed by ever more people in the same limited spaces.  Unfortunately, that awareness is not always matched by any practical knowledge of where today's breakfast sausage or air conditioning came from.

Seek a better way? Yes.

Hamper production of best  currently available fuels in the hope that the resulting economic desperation will stimulate an immediate technological miracle? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roost em 1st

EDIT: Scratch, I had this posted but never hit reply this morning...phone rang...seems the question I asked below was answered by you somewhat, before I ever posted...simple minds must think alike, or share the same brain..

from this morning about 9am, but never got posted till now.

The other side of the coin, I am a small brained person but I always try to view situations with an open mind.

This was sent to me by a friend and fellow bird hunter from New Orleans....We debate the pluses and minuses of oil and gas production about every time we get together. He makes his living pushing offerings from independent smaller companies in the industry to hedge fund managers(pretty good at it too) . I post it so everyone can read and either support or gut the initiative stating CHK's stance. I haven't looked at the NYT article yet.... The $ is staggering if accurate...Knee jerk from me is that with all the $ involved we must proceed (we do need to have affordable ways to live and drive, get our economy back on track and we need to quit sending our troops to overseas sand boxes imo), we just need to make sure gas exploration and production is done in a way that does not destroy the places we love to visit as hikers/hunters/fishermen. Is there a way to have both? read and discuss...

from an email....

From: Aubrey McClendon

Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:37 PM

To: All Employees

Subject: FW: CHK's response to 6.26.11 NYT article on shale gas

Dear CHK Employees:  By now many of you may have read or heard about a story in today’s New York Times (NYT) that questioned the productive capacity and economic quality of U.S. natural gas shale reserves, as well as energy reserve accounting practices used by E&P companies, including Chesapeake.  The story is misleading, at best, and is the latest in a series of articles produced by this publication that obviously have an anti-industry bias.  We know for a fact that today’s NYT story is the handiwork of the same group of environmental activists who have been the driving force behind the NYT’s ongoing series of negative articles about the use of fracking and its importance to the US natural gas supply growth revolution – which is changing the future of our nation for the better in multiple areas.  It is not clear to me exactly what these environmental activists are seeking to offer as their alternative energy plan, but most that I have talked to continue to naively presume that our great country need only rely on wind and solar energy to meet our current and future energy needs. They always seem to forget that wind and solar produce less than 2% of America electricity today and are completely non-economic without ongoing government and ratepayer subsidies.  

During the past seven years, Chesapeake has helped create an extremely disruptive and valuable technology in the form of shale gas, and now shale oil is on the way, and hopefully it too will be as disruptive, and will lead to lower oil prices, a stronger economy and fewer foreign military entanglements.  Since the shale gas revolution and resulting confirmation of enormous domestic gas reserves, there has been a relatively small group of analysts and geologists who have doubted the future of shale gas.  Their doubts have become very convenient to the environmental activists I mentioned earlier. This particular NYT reporter has apparently sought out a few of the doubters to fashion together a negative view of the U.S. natural gas industry. We also believe certain media outlets, especially the once venerable NYT, are being manipulated by those whose environmental or economic interests are being threatened by abundant natural gas supplies. We have seen for example today an email from a leader of a group called the Environmental Working Group who claimed today’s articles as this NYT reporter’s “second great story” (the first one declaring that produced water disposal from shale gas wells was unsafe) and that “we've been working with him for over 8 months. Much more to come. . .”

But I wanted you to know that this reporter’s claim of impending scarcity of natural gas supply contradicts the facts and the scientific extrapolation of those facts by the most sophisticated reservoir engineers and geoscientists in the world. Not just at Chesapeake, but by experts at many of the world’s leading energy companies that have made multi-billion-dollar, long-term investments in U.S. shale gas plays, with us and many other companies. Notable examples of these companies, besides the leading independents such as Chesapeake, Devon, Anadarko, EOG, EnCana, Talisman and others, include these leading global energy giants:  Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, Conoco, Statoil, BHP, Total, CNOOC, Marathon, BG, KNOC, Reliance, PetroChina, Mitsui, Mitsubishi and ENI, among others.  Is it really possible that all of these companies, with a combined market cap of almost $2 trillion, know less about shale gas than a NYT reporter, a few environmental activists and a handful of shale gas doubters? I seriously doubt it and I expect you do as well.  

It is also ludicrous to allege that shale gas wells are underperforming as we sit awash in natural gas, with natural gas prices less than half of what they averaged in 2008.  I also note that CHK and other shale gas producers are routinely beating our production forecasts – how can shale wells be underperforming if shale gas companies are beating their production forecasts and as US nat gas production has recently surged to new record highs (in fact, in 2009, thanks to shale gas, the US passed Russia as the largest natural gas producer in the world). Also, isn’t it completely illogical when this reporter argues that shale gas wells are underperforming, yet acknowledges that gas prices are less than half the price they were three years ago.  Today gas shale production represents 25% of US natural gas production, if it were underperforming, how come gas prices are so low when US gas demand is at a record high?

This reality of generations’ worth of natural gas abundance is also supported by virtually every credible third-party expert, such as the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the Colorado School of Mines’ Potential Gas Committee, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Navigant Consulting and others. You also need to know that all these facts and others were provided to the newspaper by our media team well in advance of publication and the NYT predictably choose to ignore them.

By analyzing actual Chesapeake well performance, we know that the initial productivity associated with a majority of our shale gas wells have been steadily improving over the years in all of our gas shale plays, both in initial production rates and the expected ultimate recoveries of natural gas. We fully expect that the majority of these wells will be productive for 30-50 years, or even longer. In fact, the industry has vertical Devonian Shale wells in Appalachia that have been producing natural gas for more than 100 years, and I believe it is quite likely many of our horizontal shale wells will produce for a similar length of time. Further, there is no reason to believe that shale gas wells will have shorter lives than our conventional wells – some 8,000 of which are 30 years old or older.  

As far as accounting practices, we follow full-cost accounting rules to the letter and routinely have our filings reviewed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, as is typical for any public company of our size. The same holds true for the rest of our industry – our reserve accounting techniques are strong and have stood the test of time for decades.  In  2008 in fact, the SEC recognized that the prior rules regarding direct offset wells were too restrictive, especially in shale plays where producing horizontal wells typically prove up larger areas for development.  Once a shale gas play becomes well-defined by drilling results, exploration can be more accurately described as a manufacturing process because well outcomes become very predictable, substantially reducing risk.  We believe that the new modernized SEC rules very reasonably reflect the advancements in our industry’s ability to predictably produce oil and natural gas resources from unconventional formations.

In summary, you work for a great company and a great industry that is changing our country (and someday our world), much for the better. We have detractors out there, as any successful company or person has, but there are other, more prestigious and less biased, publications that really do understand the big picture as you can read today on myCHK.com and through the links I have provided below.  Again, thank you for all your hard work in building our company and in delivering to all Americans a brighter future through more affordable energy, more American energy, more clean energy and more job and wealth creation.  Sure, it's become a little noisier in the media since we started moving some folks’ cheese, but we will remain committed to state of the industry performance in all that we do and we will now re-double our efforts to educate as many people as possible so that they may know the truth from us rather than distortions and dishonesty from others.  

We hope that every Chesapeake employee can be part of our public education outreach.  At more than 11,000 strong, we are an army of “factivists” – people who have knowledge of the facts and the personal knowledge and ability to spread them.  You can do this by talking to your families, friends and others in your spheres of influence (schools, churches, civic organizations, etc) about the kind of company you work for and the integrity of what we do every day for our shareholders, our communities, our states, our nation, our economy and our environment. You don’t have to be an expert to stand up and tell folks that Chesapeake is committed to doing what’s right – and that commitment is expressed every day by you and your colleagues across the company.

You can also get involved by joining Chesapeake Fed PAC, our political action committee.  Our opponents are extremely well funded and organized. We need to make sure our voice is heard in Washington, DC and with elected officials who are making decisions that affect our industry, our company and our ability to operate in the many states in which shale gas and oil have been discovered. The Chesapeake Fed PAC is an important way to reach the decision makers who can impact our business for better or worse.  Please look out for more information on this effort soon inviting you to support this important effort with a contribution. Thanks to each of you for making Chesapeake a leader in all we do.   Aubrey

PS:  please see the links below for further information:

http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2011....pref=tw

http://finance.yahoo.com/news....tml?x=0

http://www.nohotair.co.uk/compone....le.html

http://online.wsj.com/article....Wj.html

PSS:  never forget a few other important facts:

1)     The US natural gas industry is providing a direct daily economic stimulus to the economy of $250 million through lower gas prices from 2008.  The indirect economic effects are likely many times this amount.

2)     The US natural gas industry has created more than 500,000 jobs in the past 7 years of the gas shale revolution and created tens of billions of $ in economic value at the same time, plus reduced the amount of coal and oil burned in the US – I ask you, what value has the NYT or environmental activists created during these same past seven years?  You either create value in this world or you consume/destroy it – we are value creators, please never forget that and know that you are on the right side of history, they are not, so always stand tall and proud for CHK and our industry.

PSSS:  feel free to email this message to whomever outside the company you wish to read it.

Aubrey K. McClendon

Chesapeake Energy Corporation

6100 North Western Avenue, 73118

Post Office Box 18496, 73154-0496

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Office: (405) 879-9226

E-mail:  aubrey.mcclendon@chk.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DonS
Hamper production of best  currently available fuels in the hope that the resulting economic desperation will stimulate an immediate technological miracle? No.

I may have overestimated the problem - forgot about our strategic oil reserves.  We still have more than a month's worth -so they say.

R,

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×