The war against fracking is expanding to supply size.
Renewable energy propagandist Chris Nelder writes on lefty Slate.com:
The recent press about the potential of shale gas would have you believe that America is now sitting on a 100-year supply of natural gas. It’s a “game-changer.” A “golden age of gas” awaits, one in which the United States will be energy independent, even exporting gas to the rest of the world, upending our current energy-importing situation.
The data, however, tell a very different story. Between the demonstrable gas reserves, and the potential resources blared in the headlines, lies an enormous gulf of uncertainty…
Shale gas has made renewables even more uncompetitive with fossil than they already were.
Expect the left to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, to stop the shale gas boom.
EnergyinDepth.org responds below in an e-mail to JunkScience.com:
What I love about these pieces is that the authors so quickly and blithely discount any data coming in from plays like the Marcellus and Haynesville – that’s the telltale sign that the fix is in. They say there’s not enough wells out there yet to make a determination as to size of the resource basin, but that’s baloney. The reason they exclude the Marcellus and Haynesville in particular is that the numbers for those two plays are absolutely staggering. In 2007, the Haynesville yielded exactly zero BCF of natural gas. Today, we produce more than 6.3 billion cubic feet of the stuff a day from the Haynesville – and we do that from barely 2,200 wells. In the Marcellus, we’re producing natural gas from about 1,900 wells – at 3.5 BCF a clip. And we haven’t even begun to get into the Utica yet in OH – or the other “Devonian” shales that exist above and below the Marcellus in PA and NY. So, in short, the trick these guys use is simple: they discard all pieces of data that undermine their argument, and include only those stray data points that could be construed as point to uncertainty. The good news is: we won’t have to wait very long to see who’s right. If the Haynesville goes from 6 BCF to, say 9 BCF over the next two years – and if the Marcellus goes from 3.5 BCF to, say, 6 over the same period – those folks will be stuck with an indefensible argument.
Why call the renewable industry an ‘industry’? They are not part of the industrial revolution, but grew out of contempt for it.
Renewable energy is a myth, unless you are talking about burning wood. The Green Jobs initiative is a myth, unless you are talking about trash sorters. Green energy is a myth, unless you are talking about finding a use for the hot air generated by the foil hat, zero growth hysterics that make up the enviro-nazi lobby.
We need to stop using the term “renewable” energy. That’s their focus group tested, marketing campain terminology anyway. Much like the progressive’s butchering of the word “subsidy”. There is nothing renewable about energy and there never will be. You will always need new energy to perform new work.
I’d like to submit the following suggestions for the new terminology:
1) Inefficient Energy, 2) Government Sponsored Energy, 3) Limited Availability Energy, 4) Unreliable Energy, 5) Disregarded Cost Energy, 6) Weather Permitting Energy,
Nelder places too much emphasis on “Proved Reserves”. Proved reserves conform to SEC definitions and are required for reporting public company investors. Proved reserves are typically 10-12 times production. As they represent recoverable volumes from existing wells plus nearby offsets, they would be a decent estimate of what’s left if drilling stopped.
Nelder has also asserted (on twitter) that reserves in the past were systematically underreported. Public companies, if anything, have an incentive to overestimate. Of course, if that happens these days, there’s Sarbanes-Oxley & the Crossbar Hotel to contend with.
the emperor has no clothes
SHHHHHHHH!!!
renewable energy isn’t
SHHHHHHHH!!!
North America has enough gas, oil, coal, and nuclear fuel for nearly 1,000 years of power generation.
SHHHHHHHH!!!
Hmmmmmm…. I detect a trend here. [/snark]
“blared in the headlines, lies an enormous gulf of uncertainty…”
Like the predictions for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming