Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Umunhum who wrote (125038)	10/19/2009 12:29:41 PM
From: CommanderCricket	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206151

uhm, Welcome back, it's been awhile since you've posted. CC

To: Umunhum who wrote (125038)	10/19/2009 1:40:06 PM
From: zebra4o1	Respond to of 206151

Great presentation on shale gas plays. Really like the subprime mortgage/credit bubble analogy. So is UNG still a horrible way to play the US natural gas market? If this guy is right, maybe shorting Chesapeake would be the best play.

To: Umunhum who wrote (125038)	10/19/2009 2:50:18 PM
From: cyesp	3 Recommendations Respond to of 206151

The shale play analysis is interesting and caution is merited, but I struggle with his decline analysis for the first 10-20 years. Shale formations are clearly tight and I have never seen a tight formation decline exponentially, every single one declines hyperbolically. It is related (I believe) to a bounded vs unbounded reservoir size. A tight formation is so tight it doesn't see the reservoir boundary in 10 years time. Natural fractures add an additional complexity, but should not effect this behavior. Excessive infilling to the point of well to well interference could cause the declines he is reporting.