| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| An energy answer in the shale below? |
| 2009-12-05 |
| The first time Chesapeake Energy tried to buy mineral rights from Diana Whitmore, a 74-year-old retired real estate broker in southern New York, it offered her $125 for every acre of land plus a 12 percent royalty on whatever natural gas it extracts. Nearly two years later, she's still holding out. Along with hundreds of other landowners, she has joined a coalition that is negotiating with nine oil and gas companies. The latest offers in the area are running as high as $5,500 an acre with 20 percent royalties. "It's what's really going to turn this whole place around," said her son Daniel Fitzsimmons, who has since helped form the Binghamton Conklin Gas Lease Coalition. This corner of the state is at the forefront of an old-fashioned land rush that has implications far beyond Conklin, N.Y. Oil and gas companies are vying to stake out territory where they can tap natural gas trapped in shale rock. Just a few years ago, the industry didn't have the technology to unlock these reserves. But thanks to advances in horizontal drilling and methods of fracturing rock with high-pressure blasts of water, sand and chemicals, vast gas reserves in the United States are suddenly within reach. As a result, said BP chief executive Tony Hayward, "the picture has changed dramatically." "The United States is sitting on over 100 years of gas supply at the current rates of consumption," he said. Because natural gas emits half the greenhouse gases of coal, he added, that "provides the United States with a unique opportunity to address concerns about energy security and climate change." Recoverable U.S. gas reserves could now be bigger than the immense gas reserves of Russia, some experts say. The Marcellus shale formation, stretching across swaths of Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia, has enough gas to meet the entire nation's needs for at least 14 years, according to an estimate by two Pennsylvania State University experts. Just in Broome County, N.Y., where Fitzsimmons lives, shale gas development could create $15 billion in economic activity, according to consultants hired by the county. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #11 Gas discovered in shale in Wyoming, Cheney's state. Coincidence? I think not. His mere presence generates fossil fuels. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-12-05 15:03 |
| #10 But, burning natural gas produces HEAT!!!! And CO2!!!!, so it contributes to global warming! It must be stopped. We must return to those halcyon days of yesteryear (about 10000 years ago) when the climate was perfect and the seas were lower, and there were very few people! /sarcasm |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-12-05 14:55 |
| #9 But 746, Wyoming gas wells are far from where the people who matter live, so it's not a big problem. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-12-05 13:59 |
| #8 they had environmental issues in Wyoming as well |
| Posted by: 746 2009-12-05 13:32 |
| #7 they were closing down the gas fields in Wyoming this summer. Price to low to transport it to market. |
| Posted by: bman 2009-12-05 12:21 |
| #6 Another factor is the new REX natural gas pipeline from CO to OH, and perhaps farther. This was completed a few weeks ago, and is the first pipeline from the western gas fields to the east. Before that, gas was very cheap in the mountain west, hardly worth the effort to bring out of the ground, and comparatively expensive in the east. Now regional differences have flattened out. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-12-05 09:39 |
| #5 Oh, and the jury is still out on whether these shale gas wells will produce enough to make money - and thus to justify long-term expanded drilling. The 'best' wells clearly do, but statistics are what matters, because the capital investments are huge, the product prices erratic, and the profit margins generally slim. The first month of production may look great, but the profitability depends on how production holds up the 6th month, and the 26th month (etc.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-12-05 07:11 |
| #4 DFMD, Environmentalists ARE against it! And not entirely without reason. The techniques that make shale gas extraction potentially economic involve generating lots of fractures in the rock (on purpose): if not done correctly the fractures can cause leakage of gas or salty water from one rock layer to another. Depending where that other layer goes, one could end up damaging an aquifer providing drinking water to people. Most companies do their best to avoid such incidents, and government agencies have all sorts of regulations to prevent them. They shouldn't happen, and seldom happen, but they can and do sometimes happen. Of course the energy we use that is produced elsewhere is produced with FAR less environmental and safety concern, but that's not our problem (some countries use E&S regulations as nothing more than a means for legalizing bribery.) I'll feel a lot less annoyed with our environmentalists when I see them WALKING to Starbucks to buy a cup of locally grown dandelion tea, etc. (I'll believe the alleged problems are serious when they start ACTING like it rather than just talking about it and making other people do all the acting.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-12-05 07:06 |
| #3 $5,500 an acre with 20 percent royalties Is she planning to change the way she dresses? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-12-05 05:17 |
| #2 Wow, a new American energy source, wanna bet environmentalists are against it? |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-12-05 03:13 |
| #1 I've been following natural gas supply & demand for years, and I've been surprised by how quickly the situation turned around. Bravo to the explorers. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-12-05 00:54 |