<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Shale Gas Boom?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/06/a-shale-gas-boom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/06/a-shale-gas-boom/</link>
	<description>Truth in Energy</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Energy In Depth &#187; Blog Archive &#187; **UPDATE III** NYT’s “Dewey-Defeats-Truman” Moment on Shale?</title>
		<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/06/a-shale-gas-boom/#comment-5365</link>
		<dc:creator>Energy In Depth &#187; Blog Archive &#187; **UPDATE III** NYT’s “Dewey-Defeats-Truman” Moment on Shale?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:32:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aspousa.org/?p=1913#comment-5365</guid>
		<description>[...] the</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NYT’s “Dewey-Defeats-Truman” Moment on Shale? &#124; Energy In Depth &#8211; Northeast Marcellus Initiative</title>
		<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/06/a-shale-gas-boom/#comment-5218</link>
		<dc:creator>NYT’s “Dewey-Defeats-Truman” Moment on Shale? &#124; Energy In Depth &#8211; Northeast Marcellus Initiative</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:53:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aspousa.org/?p=1913#comment-5218</guid>
		<description>[...] the APSO-USA website: “If Berman is right, we will not see large increases in shale gas production through 2011, or [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the APSO-USA website: “If Berman is right, we will not see large increases in shale gas production through 2011, or [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Commodities Peaks and the Long Term... - TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum</title>
		<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/06/a-shale-gas-boom/#comment-4580</link>
		<dc:creator>Commodities Peaks and the Long Term... - TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:17:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aspousa.org/?p=1913#comment-4580</guid>
		<description>[...] Even with potentially huge reserves the economics are actually marginal. Here is a good analysis: A Shale Gas Boom? :: ASPO-USA: Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas  F      __________________ &#34;Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Even with potentially huge reserves the economics are actually marginal. Here is a good analysis: A Shale Gas Boom? :: ASPO-USA: Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas  F      __________________ &quot;Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Stewart</title>
		<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/06/a-shale-gas-boom/#comment-4102</link>
		<dc:creator>James Stewart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aspousa.org/?p=1913#comment-4102</guid>
		<description>Hello Dave,
This is the best article I have read on shale gas and I have one request to ask you to clear up some confusion for me in your article. In the middle of the article you talk about the wells in the Barnett Shale having a 65% observed decline rate after the first year, 53% second, 23% third, etc. Does this mean that the wells first year production rate was estimated to be 0.568 Bcf, and the second year only 35% of .568, third year 47% of 35% of 0.568, etc.  Or do you mean the first year will be 0.568, second year 65% of 0.568, third year 53% of 0.568, etc. 

My career was in building and operating LNG ships, so shale gas is new and exciting to me.

Best regards,
Jim Stewart
281-358-2377
LNGworldwide@earthlink.net</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Dave,<br />
This is the best article I have read on shale gas and I have one request to ask you to clear up some confusion for me in your article. In the middle of the article you talk about the wells in the Barnett Shale having a 65% observed decline rate after the first year, 53% second, 23% third, etc. Does this mean that the wells first year production rate was estimated to be 0.568 Bcf, and the second year only 35% of .568, third year 47% of 35% of 0.568, etc.  Or do you mean the first year will be 0.568, second year 65% of 0.568, third year 53% of 0.568, etc. </p>
<p>My career was in building and operating LNG ships, so shale gas is new and exciting to me.</p>
<p>Best regards,<br />
Jim Stewart<br />
281-358-2377<br />
<a href="mailto:LNGworldwide@earthlink.net">LNGworldwide@earthlink.net</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shale Gas Exploration will have a massive effect on European energy - Page 3 - Politics.ie</title>
		<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/06/a-shale-gas-boom/#comment-3372</link>
		<dc:creator>Shale Gas Exploration will have a massive effect on European energy - Page 3 - Politics.ie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:03:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aspousa.org/?p=1913#comment-3372</guid>
		<description>[...] EROEI (making it more polluting and more expensive to extract). ASPO has a pessimistic analysis:  A Shale Gas Boom? :: ASPO-USA: Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas   [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] EROEI (making it more polluting and more expensive to extract). ASPO has a pessimistic analysis:  A Shale Gas Boom? :: ASPO-USA: Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas   [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pjc</title>
		<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/06/a-shale-gas-boom/#comment-2720</link>
		<dc:creator>pjc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aspousa.org/?p=1913#comment-2720</guid>
		<description>"The pessimists believe the marginal cost of shale gas production is $7-8/Mcf". That doesn't strike me as very pessimistic at all. Natural gas is relatively cheap as a transportation fuel even when it is over $10/Mcf (as it has been recently). If that's the worst case for a 100 year supply, what's the worry.

The other wild card, which you fail to mention, is shale gas outside of the continental U.S. Canada will almost surely have large amounts, and Europe might be able to kick in a decent amount. 

Add to this the LNG infrastructure that's coming on-line now and over the next few years, and it seems reasonable to conclude that the global supply will be quite large, and relatively diverse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The pessimists believe the marginal cost of shale gas production is $7-8/Mcf&#8221;. That doesn&#8217;t strike me as very pessimistic at all. Natural gas is relatively cheap as a transportation fuel even when it is over $10/Mcf (as it has been recently). If that&#8217;s the worst case for a 100 year supply, what&#8217;s the worry.</p>
<p>The other wild card, which you fail to mention, is shale gas outside of the continental U.S. Canada will almost surely have large amounts, and Europe might be able to kick in a decent amount. </p>
<p>Add to this the LNG infrastructure that&#8217;s coming on-line now and over the next few years, and it seems reasonable to conclude that the global supply will be quite large, and relatively diverse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Hirschberg</title>
		<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/06/a-shale-gas-boom/#comment-2704</link>
		<dc:creator>Don Hirschberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:43:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aspousa.org/?p=1913#comment-2704</guid>
		<description>What a punk day. No one is interested enough to post a comment about the article.

The house passed (using the sleaziest of tactics) an energy bill that defies arithmetic, thermodynamics and geology. The 1300 pages or so include a multitude of fatuous provisions impinging on every individual. The bill commits us far into the future. Yet not a single representative could have possibly read the bill, 300 pages were added at 3 AM. Let’s hope the senate kills this monstrosity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a punk day. No one is interested enough to post a comment about the article.</p>
<p>The house passed (using the sleaziest of tactics) an energy bill that defies arithmetic, thermodynamics and geology. The 1300 pages or so include a multitude of fatuous provisions impinging on every individual. The bill commits us far into the future. Yet not a single representative could have possibly read the bill, 300 pages were added at 3 AM. Let’s hope the senate kills this monstrosity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

