New Study Says Petchem Investment in M-U Better than Gulf Coast
This week representatives from Shale Crescent USA are in Houston, TX attending the 33rd Annual World Petrochemical Conference–and they have in hand a dynamite study that shows it’s more cost effective to build a petrochemical plant in the Marcellus/Utica region than it is along the Gulf Coast. Which is heresy if you live along the Gulf Coast. “Benefits, Risks, and Estimated Project Cash Flows: Ethylene Project Located in the Shale Crescent USA versus the US Gulf Coast” is an independent report by IHS Markit commissioned by Shale Crescent USA to evaluate and compare the financial returns and risks of a major petrochemical and plastics investment in the region with an identical investment in the US Gulf Coast. The numbers don’t lie. Here’s one juicy statistic from the newly released study: ethane (the feedstock used to make raw plastics) in our region costs 32% less than it does in the Gulf Coast region. One more factoid from the report: If the Marcellus/Utica were its own country, it would be the #3 natural gas producing country, IN THE WORLD! Our region produces more natural gas than the countries of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Qatar. Last year the Shale Crescent folks were the new kids at the World Petrochemical Conference. They were just about laughed out of the event. We have a feeling this year is going to be a lot different…
Read More “New Study Says Petchem Investment in M-U Better than Gulf Coast”
Yesterday our favorite government agency, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), issued our favorite monthly report, the Drilling Productivity Report (DPR). The DPR is the EIA’s best guess, based on expert data crunchers, as to how much each of the U.S.’s seven major shale plays will produce for both oil and natural gas in the coming month. The numbers continue to be mind-blowing–hitting new all-time highs that take your breath away. Last month EIA estimated the Marcellus/Utica (called Appalachia in the report) would produce a new high of 27.15 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day of natural gas, which would be 321 million cubic feet (MMcf) (nearly 1/3 of a Bcf) higher than the month before. The actual number for February turned out to be 27.56. That is, EIA underestimated the number! This month, which is an estimate for all of March, EIA says M-U natgas production will go up ANOTHER 359 MMcf (over 1/3 of a Bcf)! The Permian, an oil play that produces “associated natural gas” along with oil, is estimated to go up another 233 MMcf/d. Yikes! The new total natgas production from all seven major shale plays is estimated to be 66.119 Bcf/d in March. Last year this time output was 55.2 Bcf/d. Mind blowing!…
Did you know that once upon a time, around 100 million years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth, that mom earth had no permanent polar ice caps, and that the amount of greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, CO2) in the atmosphere was 10 times (i.e. 1000%) higher than it is today? And yet, somehow, life survived. Who knew? Contrary to the scaremongering balderdash being pedaled today, the amount of CO2 we humans pump in the atmosphere today by burning fossil fuels is puny compared to what volcanoes used to pump into the atmosphere eons ago. Humans today are pikers–bush league–compared to the volcanoes of old when it comes to warming up mother earth. That’s what we learned in reading a newly published study on the link between the formation of today’s shale oil and gas deposits and ash from long-ago volcanoes. “Nutrient-rich ash from an enormous flare-up of volcanic eruptions toward the end of the dinosaurs’ reign kicked off a chain of events that led to the formation of shale gas and oil fields from Texas to Montana.” So says “Volcanic ash as a driver of enhanced organic carbon burial in the Cretaceous”–a new study just published in the journal Nature…
The Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (ODNR) has just issued production numbers for the fourth quarter of 2017. Production was up for both natural gas AND oil, as it was in the third quarter (see 
Pennsylvania ended 2017 with a bang–at least with respect to natural gas production. Yesterday, the PA Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) released their latest quarterly Natural Gas Production Report for Oct-Dec 2017 (full copy below). It shows natgas production rose 9.8% compared to the same period last year. It also shows the number of producing wells is up 9.2% from last year. Total natural gas production volume was 1,401.8 billion cubic feet (Bcf) and the number of producing wells in 4Q17 was 8,268…
Yet another “fracking may cause earthquakes” study has been published in the so-called peer reviewed journal PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). Researchers from the University of Miami (in Ohio) admit the kind of earthquakes they talk about in their paper, potentially caused by Utica Shale drilling, are “rare.” But, they are also “concerning.” Yes, everyone should be concerned that in zero percent of Utica well drilling cases (statistically speaking) there have been NO earthquakes. Actually a couple of cases are thought to be related to fracking over a fault–but it’s still unproven. Statistically speaking, it’s 0%. But, there could be problems! Maybe. If the conditions are “just right.” Ya never know. We note the researchers didn’t address concerns over fans in football stadiums that, when they all stomp their feet at the same time, have caused “earthquakes” that are higher on the Richter scale than the ones they postulate “may, maybe, might” happen in Utica drilling. No mention of football fan earthquakes in this study. Below is the “news” about this latest, breathlessly urgent report that everyone should read…
Yesterday our favorite government agency, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), issued our favorite monthly report, the Drilling Productivity Report (DPR). The DPR is the EIA’s best guess, based on expert data crunchers, as to how much each of the U.S.’s seven major shale plays will produce for both oil and natural gas in the coming month. The numbers continue to be AMAZING. Natgas production continues to explode (poor metaphor!)–especially here in the Marcellus/Utica region, which is labeled “Appalachia” in the report. EIA predicts production in the Marcellus/Utica will soar another 321 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d), roughly one-third of a billion cubic feet (!), between February and March. That’s after M-U production went up a stupendously massive 428 MMcf/d last month, even more than the 377 MMcf/d originally forecast (see 
This is one of those zany Friday kind of stories. Yet another so-called study on the Marcellus Shale industry recently caught our attention. We’ve often pointed out the “bought and paid for” research that abounds on shale drilling. This one goes to a whole new metaphysical plane. Instead of researching and drawing conclusions from research data, the recently published study “Engaging over data on fracking and water quality” (University of Pittsburgh and Penn State University) talks about talking about the issue of Marcellus Shale drilling. Yeah. How do you *feel* about drilling? Here, lie down on this sofa while we ask you some questions about your childhood and fracking practices. OK, so maybe a study about how people talk about the issues involved with Marcellus Shale drilling isn’t so far-fetched–if such a “study” were to appear in the Journal of Idiosyncratic Sociology. This “study” however, was published in the journal Science. As in hard science–not social science. So now it no longer matters what real science finds–whether or not fracking actually pollutes water and air. Whether or not living near a fracking site will stunt your growth. Whether or not fracking carves up forests or increases automobile accidents or any of a plethora of other issues. What REALLY matters is what you *think* about all that. That’s what now passes for science in Science…
In 2011, then-Gov. Tom Corbett’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission filed a final report with 96 recommendations (see 
How often do we have to repeat the warning that electrical blackouts are coming to New England if the region does not get new sources of natural gas by building more pipelines? This is not some reckless, wild eyed blogger guy saying it–the warning comes from the top, from the people who operate the electric grid! We first raised the warning back in 2014 (see 
The price of natural gas is a complicated subject. First, “the price” is never just “the price.” Many people look to the NYMEX or Henry Hub spot price as “the price.” Indeed, most of the financial contracts for natural gas are based on the Henry Hub price. However, as we’ve written many times over the years, gas is bought and sold at hundreds of points along major interstate natural gas pipelines. The price at one place on a pipeline, like the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Zone 4 in northeastern Pennsylvania, is vastly different from the Henry Hub. Price is dependent on many factors–supply and demand to be sure. But also weather. Weather is probably the biggest influencer of natgas prices. Why? The warmer (or colder) it is, the more natural gas is used to cool or heat homes and businesses. The more demand, the higher the price. Conversely, the less demand, the lower the price. Henry Hub is a useful yardstick and the most-watched natural gas price in the world. Our favorite government agency, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, recently published their Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). In the STEO, EIA predicts the price of natural gas at Henry Hub will remain relatively flat both this year and next year. This year (2018), EIA says the average price of gas at Henry Hub will be $2.88 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf). Next year? EIA says the price will average $2.92/Mcf. The average price of gas at Henry Hub for all of 2017 was $2.99/Mcf. Bottom line: The price of gas is a bit depressing for gas drillers for the foreseeable future. Here’s EIA’s reasoning…
Last year a peer reviewed study published by researchers from the University of Maryland in the American Geological Union’s (AGU) Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres claimed methane was leaking from the Marcellus Shale at a rate of 3.9% based on three flight measurements in September and August 2015. That’s a lot. Using that rate of 3.9%, the authors boldly concluded that shale gas development is a “climate detriment.” They actually said, “the use of natural gas rather than coal for combustion will result in a relatively greater climate impact over the next few decades.” Yeah, burning natgas is worse than burning coal for the environment. Just one teeny, tiny problem. The research is wrong. In a huge “oops we screwed up”–the study has now been retracted. Why? Due to an “error in wind measurements” that led to wildly wrong emissions estimates. And will you read about that in mainstream news–the same news that carried the original “shale gas is worse for the environmental than coal” stories? Nope. Crickets. Silence. Here’s the news from our friends at Energy in Depth about the yet another so-called research study exposed as fraudulent…