WWAAYY Off-Topic: The Atlantic on Methane Hydrates
The right way to understand the potential of unconventional fuels like methane hydrates and tight oil is to closely examine their production rates and their prices. If these fuels can be produced at large scales and profitable prices, they very well might influence geopolitics and economics in the ways that Charles C. Mann speculates in his recent Atlantic cover story. If they cannot, then it truly doesn't matter how much of those resources may exist underground and in the ocean floor.
If Mann's data on methane hydrates is correct, then Japan's experiment so far has taken 10 years and $700 million to produce four million cubic feet of gas, which is worth about $16,000 at today's U.S. gas prices, or about $50,000 at today's prices for imported LNG in Japan. At this point, it is an enormously expensive experimental pilot project, and nothing more. We do not yet know when it might be able to recover commercial volumes of gas, or at what rate, or at what price. We have no reason to believe that if commercial quantities are recoverable by 2018 as Japan hopes--which seems incredibly optimistic--that the price of that gas will be competitive with imported LNG.
Methane hydrate extraction, which is still in the early stages of testing and requires techniques that have only recently been attempted for the first time, is in no way comparable to tight oil and shale gas extraction. Methane hydrates are not "being developed in much the same methodical way that shale gas was developed before it," and skepticism on methane hydrates isn't comparable to skepticism on shale gas. Skepticism isn't some fungible property of everything; facts about prices and production rates are essential.
Resources in the ground are one thing, but extraction is another matter entirely. And while production of fuels like methane hydrates may be technically possible, that does not mean that they will be affordable, or that their production will be scalable.
Norris, did you notice that the RLP figuring included the difference in WI by reducing the fraction of 25%/60% and not bothering to mention where he got the 5/12 number from....lol....(oooo, how cryptic)
...but he also left out the difference in IP rates which on average are a little over 1.56 times what hogshooters were on the Texas side if you use the published numbers.....as expected (2,150 for Tx...compared to 3,375 average for Ok)
So should we help him with his numbers a bit?
or, just notice the distortion attempts and what was not mentioned/left out etc.?
Whatever he thought... and posted.... to be multiplied by 3,375 ok IP /2150 tx IP = 1.5697
and that is still only IPs.....so it still does not tell us all that much....but it was just not mentioned.....Gee I wonder why.
..and also did not mention the number of wells upon which any of these numbers were based...
.....so what is the Linn specific Texas side (28 wells) results sample compared to a sample size of only 4 Oklahoma Linn hogshooter wells so far?
....and he wants to extrapolate and conclude that into some general statement about how much less (or more) ......while also forgetting to mention the reduction in cost for the Oklahoma hogshooters which is discussed in the call, Hmmm.....?
You know, I just think he is a bit lost again.
He might learn a bit more than just trying to incorrectly "figure" or distort with numbers ... if he took the time to listen to the last Linn conference call.