Start the conversation
So, as we await the latest developments in the European debt mess, today seems like a good time to answer a few. This time around, I am addressing some of your questions and comments that deal with natural gas.
By the way, my staff and I read all of the input and feedback you send our way, and we're very grateful for it. Please email me at email@example.com. (I can't offer any personalized investment advice, but I can address your questions and comments in future broadcasts.)
Let's get started...
Q: I've just read recently several articles stating that the EIA has revised downward its estimate of our natural gas shale reserve potential by deciding to accept, unconditionally, the most recent U.S. Geological Survey stating that the Marcellus, Eagle Ford, Barnett, and other shale formations hold only 20% of the heretofore accepted reserves. This is an 80% reduction! This changes everything if true.
That's the question - is this bogus, or is there factual evidence to conclusively support this new estimate? ~ Howard B.
A: Howard, this reminds me of a famous statement from the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (though the comment is also variously ascribed to Mark Twain, Alfred Marshall, and many others): "There are three ways to hoodwink the masses - lies, damn lies, and statistics."
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) - a unit of the U.S. Department of Energy - continues to wrestle with the distinction between reserves and extractable reserves.
The first is the volume of gas indicated by field tests and analysis. The second is gas available for extraction at current methods. I would also stipulate as "extractable" reserves only the volume that market conditions allow.
When you equate the two, we are still in the same ballpark.
Current estimates put no more than 20% of known reserves as "extractable." As technologies improve, that figure could improve, too.
For now, the EIA estimate falls in line with most others.
So to answer your question, nothing much has changed here, aside from some government bureaucrats wanting their figures to be more accurate.
Q: Kent, your work appears to be expanding into areas of advisement that could affect the future profitability and wellbeing of nations and their business relationships with existing partners. A delicate balancing act if there ever was one! If such arrangements are not handled carefully, could sanctions and/or military skirmishes be the outcome? Are we facing the possibilities of "gas wars"? ~ Fred P.