<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Everything you know about shale gas is wrong ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-20T09:34:35-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Technical Papers]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63867]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Yes Agree. These are &quot;interesting view points, public do not accept it&quot;. These are real technical studies, which forecast the end. We are not going to die if oil and gas do not existPlanet will go for earlier days, just produce food, water and maintain living (Those who remain on the earth, after fighting wars for oil and gas!!!!) in the remaining part of the world. This seems practical to me!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63867]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[p_mani10@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:11:26 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Hints, not necessarily hard evidence]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63873]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Chris:It would be difficult at best to share the evidence that I have gathered in support of the theory in a blog comment. However, I can provide some links that might provide some tantalizing information. I have more, but do not want to overwhelm or overstay my welcome.Here is a link to an article I wrote about ExxonMobil's 2010 purchase of XTO for $41 Billion.http://atomicinsights.com/2011/02/exxonmobil-earnings-9300-million-for-qtr-just-36-million-from-xto-production.htmlHere is another that I wrote about the price war against nuclear energy:http://atomicinsights.com/2011/07/is-big-oil-using-crude-gasoline-profits-to-temporarily-hold-down-natural-gas-prices.htmlRod AdamsPublisher, Atomic Insights]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63873]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rod.adams@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:36:10 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Interesting theory]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63848]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I haven't seen any evidence to support that theory (although I grant it would be very hard to find), but it's an interesting one. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63848]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Nelder]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:37:50 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Inertia and price wars]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63840]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The original analysis seems spot on to me, though it overlooks one other aspect of the recent history of natural gas production in the face of ever lowering prices. The overlooked aspect is the existential threat to long term profitability that was posed by the &quot;nuclear renaissance&quot; that was widely discussed and in progress during the period from 2005-2009.By about 2005, after five years of ratcheting increases in the price of natural gas, the nuclear energy industry started to show signs of life. After the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there was a flood of applications for new projects and many hundreds of millions invested in the early engineering work required to turn those applications into real projects.In 2008, when the economy collapsed, partially due to ever increasing energy prices and wealth transfers from consumers to oil and gas producers, the price of gas fell dramatically. Almost overnight, the nuclear projects became uneconomical if the now far lower prices for natural gas were projected far out into the future.I believe that the majors have supported the continued drilling in the US to purposely keep our domestic prices FAR below the world average prices. (Natural gas in Japan is selling for about 5-6 times as much as it is in the US. In Europe the ratio is about 3-4 times the US price.) The well promoted view is that gas is cheap and will remain cheap forever. That is discouraging the needed investment in nuclear energy - which requires patient and sustained investments in order to bring a very low marginal cost energy production play into operation. The multinationals can afford to suppress gas prices in the US because they are rolling in cash from international operations and from the 50% or so of their energy output that comes from selling petroleum at the world elevated market price.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63840]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rod.adams@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:24:12 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Just another 2 cents]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63813]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Check it out.  http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/End-of-the-Boom-The-True-State-of-the-Shale-Gas-Industry.htmlI wouldn't worry about what the industry leaders or the politicians say  and who is making money on it, but on what is out there.  It seems to me, making money or not, the gas is not as plentiful as originally stated.. and if the US doesn't use what is there, China and India will..  Meaning.. the important thing to me would be to realize, without a doubt that the limitations in finite fuels are coming sooner not later (not in 100 years.. more like 10 if China and India and others continue to grow as they are)..  and a solution to that must be addressed.. and so far, the transformation does not seem to be occurring.. Just seems to be an endless arguments on items that distract from what should be talked about.. like a real, long term solution to a very serious problem.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63813]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[robhannum]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:29:14 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Truth telling versus polite dismassal]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63662]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My dad was in politics. People would come up to him all the time with crack-pot (but seemingly well researched) theories. &quot;Cell phones are going to give us cancer&quot;,. &quot;TV is ruining my kids eyes&quot;, &quot;Despite the current glut, we're on the verge of a shortage of natural gas&quot;. A nice way to get rid of such people is to say &quot;That's an interesting viewpoint, but I don't think the public is ready to accept it&quot;.I can imagine Chris Nedler and Art Berman soliciting such a response. A lot.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63662]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[pjcpjcpjc]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:59:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Art Berman's glorious past predicting shale gas]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63627]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Here is one of my favorite Art Berman quotes.???If shale operators cannot substantially reduce their costs, I doubt that most of them can survive a year or so more of low prices ???http://www.energybulletin.net/node/49342This is from June 2009. So???. it???s been two and a half years of low prices since then. Let???s see those shale operators that have failed to survive.Berman is usually clever enough to avoid making predictions like this??? he usually sticks to the trees, and doesn???t try to see the forest. Nice to find him pulling a really newman???.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63627]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[pjcpjcpjc]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:25:06 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[To clarify...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63616]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Funny, Jardinero1! Fair points. To clarify: - Profitable production is good. Unprofitable production is bad, because it can set up boom-and-bust cycles, and an air pocket in supply, among other things. - It's good that increased shale gas production was able to offset the decline of conventional gas, and keep US gas production stable over the past two years.- Good data is good. Bad data is bad. - At this point supply will have to fall, so prices can rise and put producers back in the black, leading to higher  sustainable production. That's good. But exporting almost-free LNG is silly, nor should we contemplate LNG exports as a form of price manipulation. I explained my concerns about LNG exports in the previous article.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63616]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Nelder]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:51:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Econ 101 lesson needed here]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63626]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Since the beginning of widespread adoption of shale gas development,  natural gas production is way up, and prices to the consumer are way down. And Chris and Art conclude from this that shale gas is a flop???!!!!Chris, let me refresh you a bit with Econ 101. The price is down, so the drillers have less incentive to maintain production. If/when production falls, the price will rise. This will increase the incentive to drill out more shale, and lo and behold, the production numbers will go back up.Nifty, huh? I'm glad to be hear to explain these things to you.The broader point is this - natural gas will remain cheap for many years in the future (maybe not quite as cheap as right now, but much cheaper than what consumers were paying a few years ago. Production will remain high for many years in the future -- perhaps not quite as high as right now, but much higher than what Art Berman and you were predicting just a few years ago. This is because of shale gas.Care to wager on this? Let's hear your prediction for natural gas prices 3 years from now. I say lower than $4. What's your prediction? I'd happily wager with you if you differ significantly.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63626]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[pjcpjcpjc]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:48:32 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Which part are you worried about?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63633]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This piece is a roller coaster.  Production is down and prices are down.  That's bad.  Wait, if we export LNG, then prices will go up and production might increase.  That's bad.  So we don't want to export LNG to keep prices down.  But wasn't that bad?  But the wells won't turn a profit if the price doesn't go up.  Is that bad or good?   I am really confused.With regard to the specific issue of the profitability of some of these plays, it is entirely possible that they are still profitable, in both a real and tax sense in the face of declining prices.  These plays are frequently structured and sold to investors in the form of Master Limited Partnerships(MLP's).  Typically, all losses, from amortization of capital expenditures, are distributed in first years, to the limited partners and profits are distributed, in the later years after all the capital expense has been fully amortized.  In the later years, even though prices are declining, the only expenses the MLP accrues are operating and bookkeeping expenses and even at $2.60 that still translates into a nice profit.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63633]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jardinero1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:29:09 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[When does Cynical become Horrible?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63621]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It can't be far off?  Berman said, &quot;...encounters with politicians. They admitted to him, straight-up, that they can???t tell the public the truth about energy issues like gas reserves and peak oil because nobody wants to hear it, and they???ll just wind up getting voted out of office.&quot;There's a very narrow time for truth telling after the election is decided before the next electoral cycle gets a full head of steam.  It hasn't happened yet.  Will it happen this time?Does anyone have a guess?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9213-63621]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron Shook]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:49:48 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

