That matters
because shale gas is mainly methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Speculation swirls around the ultimate amount of gas that might be recovered, especially
because shale wells never produce as much in subsequent years as they do in their first.
It now appears likely that oil prices will remain low throughout the world for many years and perhaps even centuries
because the shale formations from which oil is now being obtained using the new technology are very abundant on Earth.
And
because shale gas is cheap (for now), most of the new generation currently being built in the region is fueled by gas.
As far as gas prices go, they «eventually» have to be much higher
because shale plays are not economic at this price.
While those oil stockpiles have fallen this year, they haven't come down as quickly as hoped,
because shale drillers promptly ramped back up.
Crude oil continues to trade lower than expected this year
because shale producers have ramped their output, offsetting the OPEC - led production cuts.
Not exact matches
As for Schlumberger, investors appear jittery about the stock, in part
because the world's supplier of oilfield equipment has less exposure to the lucrative
shale market ---- the biggest near - term driver for sales ---- than competitors.
«Looking at
shale resources has typically been understated by outside market participants
because the geology is new and the technology is growing rapidly,» said Edward Morse, head of commodities research at Citigroup.
The increase in domestic production barely moved the supply needle during the first few years of the
shale boom
because it was merely offsetting the production shut - ins from war - ravaged Libya and Iraq.
Despite the gusher of U.S.
shale oil production, Grantham believes that prices are likely to reset higher again — to a baseline above $ 100 —
because, outside of
shale, finding new oil is getting harder.
Despite environmental concerns around fracking, production has surged
because of the country's large
shale reserves in places like North Dakota and Texas.
That is
because U.S.
shale companies have been somewhat protected from the full vagaries of oil price swings up until now.
Tax expenditures in the energy sector, in particular, are prime candidates for falling under the axe, both
because nixing them would generate a lot of money and
because they're looking increasingly anachronistic in the era of the
shale boom.
Moreover, the investment bank argued that OPEC probably shouldn't extend its production cuts anyway
because the group could cede market share to other producers (i.e. U.S.
shale).
And Hamm would know,
because Continental Resources was a pioneer in making oil from
shale rock profitable in North Dakota.
The recent oil
shale boom was powered mostly by small firms
because larger multinationals like Exxon and BP are structured for big payoff, technically - difficult projects like deep water drilling and Arctic exploration.
The
shale oil industry was scam by the big private equity funds who took a flier on the
shale business
because the bond market gave them access to dirt cheap capital thanks to the Fed's ZIRP.
At the same time, many argue the OPEC cuts still need to be extended
because a $ 60 price signal will spur more
shale drilling, putting downward pressure on the market all over again.
One small group thinks that lower for longer could end soon
because U.S.
shale can't keep a lid on prices forever and can't catch up with expected robust demand — all the more so that investments in conventional supply around the world have slumped since the oil prices started crashing.
Oil prices are unlikely to keep a sustainable level above US$ 60
because U.S.
shale supply would rapidly increase, effectively capping prices, oil traders tell Bloomberg.
However, instead of killing that emerging industry, it has only made
shale stronger,
because good old American ingenuity drove out costs through efficiency gains and innovation.
The crash in prices meant that
shale drillers moved on to greener pastures, and most of them began looking for oil rather than gas
because crude fetched $ 70 to $ 80 per barrel.
The U.S. is awash in natural gas from newly exploited
shale deposits, but New Englanders paid record prices for gas this past winter
because of inadequate pipeline capacity.
Earthquake central: A small tremor was recorded early Friday in the
shale heartland of Oklahoma, one day after state regulators limited work
because of seismic activity.
I think Core Labs will have trouble growing earnings
because the major
shale basins are running into production problems.
«Even at these lower prices, the US
shale production will continue to increase
because technologies and knowledge of
shale prices are getting better month after month,» says Leonardo Maugeri, former top manager at Italian oil company ENI and now associate professor at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Making fracking easier Extracting
shale gas from the ground requires some genuine political courage,
because there's deep suspicion across the country about what the process of hydraulic fracturing actually involves.
Riverkeeper is actively involoved in litigation, advocacy, and public education surrounding the issue of
shale gas extraction and related infrastructure, particularly
because of the potential impacts on New York State's drinking water supplies.
Nicolas Greber of the University of Geneva and colleagues say previous studies got it wrong
because scientists looked at silicon dioxide in
shales, which bear the...
«
Because they allow us to distinguish if contaminants are coming from natural sources, fracking and
shale gas development, coal mining, coal ash disposal, or other causes.»
The EPA's comments, in a series of letters this week to the state's Department of Environmental Conservation, are significant
because they suggest the agency will be watching closely as states in the Northeast and Midwest embrace new drilling technologies to tap vast reserves of
shale gas.
Gas turbines are also attractive
because natural gas is relatively cheap and abundant, due in part to the introduction of hydraulic fracturing technology, or fracking, which uses high - pressure water to extract hydrocarbons from previously inaccessible
shale deposits.
But Clarens says fracking fluids could theoretically leak into aquifers,
because the wells must be dug through shallow layers where the aquifers lie in order to reach
shales.
Nicolas Greber of the University of Geneva and colleagues say previous studies got it wrong
because scientists looked at silicon dioxide in
shales, which bear the detritus of continental rocks.
The proportion of titanium isotopes in
shale is a useful stand - in for silicon dioxide concentrations
because titanium isn't as easily altered by weathering.
If such developments were to occur elsewhere, either
because of
shale gas or the advent of a truly global natural gas market, then, according to our analysis, this could have a major impact on the use of different fuels — oil, gas, coal, renewables, and nuclear.»
The fossil was found alongside ammonites and crustaceans, called index fossils,
because they date the
shale layer.
This has happened in part
because much of the Northeast relies on readily available hydropower from Canada and rapidly expanding natural - gas - fired electricity generation made possible by cheap natural gas from newly exploited
shale deposits in Pennsylvania.
Schwietzke said it's also important to account for the emissions from all the fossil fuels that are produced in a given
shale gas field
because many wells produce oil, natural gas and other hydrocarbons.
Stefan Schwietzke, a research associate at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., said Howarth may be overestimating methane emissions from
shale gas
because his 12 percent leakage rate estimate is based mostly on a single satellite study.
Some scientists, including Cornell University environmental biologist Robert Howarth, have questioned natural gas's use as a «bridge fuel»
because producing the gas, most of which is released from underground
shale formations through hydraulic fracturing, often emits a lot of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
The
shale gas in recent exploration in the United States, that could meet the domestic demand of the country for natural gas at current levels of consumption for over 100 years, is extremely negative for the environment
because it generates half the carbon emissions from coal, and pollutes the sheets underground aquifers.
There is very very little competition in the GOM
because people have been investing in
shale instead and it's been very hard to get permits to drill (so drill rig rates are very low).
The Saudi need for money is a much simpler explanation than trying to knock out US
shale oil, or gouge the Iranians,
because it has the Saudis acting directly in their own interests, and it fits the price series for crude oil better.
Today, most experts assume that gas abundance and low price will define the next several decades
because of
shale gas.
I'm cross-linking
because these posts relate nicely to examinations here of the «dread to risk ratio» in arenas ranging from
shale gas drilling (a k a fracking) to nuclear power, toxic chemicals to climate.
However, peak oil means a double whammy — it reducec GHG emissions from oil, however, there is the danger, that we switch to coal - to - liquids, gas - to - liquids, tar sands and oil
shales, just
because increases in energy efficiency, solar and wind output are not enough to counter population increase, decrease in oil availability, and increase in total energy consumption...
Because of the pace of
shale gas development, scientists are basically playing catch up.
The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration has posted a short update on trends in natural gas production in the United States that's worth noting simply
because it illustrates the profound nature of the energy transitions that are being propelled by the exploitation of
shale deposits using hydraulic fracturing, known best as fracking, along with horizontal drilling.