Yes, Iconoclast421, I agree, and I don't see a single one of the four observations I made that is ironclad, that couldn't be explained in a differnt way.

The increase in $/MCF could indeed be due more to an increase in $/foot-drilled than a drop in MCF/foot-drilled.

Likewise, one could argue the March to July run-up in gas prices had nothing to do with supply and demand, but instead was a bubble caused soley by speculation and manipulation. Many in fact do make this argument.

And if we take a look at rig activity, one could surmise that 400 rigs are needed just to maintain production flat. Anything over 400 rigs adds new production. So an increase from 500 rigs to 600 rigs doubles the number drilling for new production (600-400)/(500-400)=2 whereas in absolute numbers it is only a 20% increase. An increase from 500 to 800 quadruples the number drilling for new production: (800-400)/(500-400)=4, whereas in absolute numbers it is only a 60% increase. So a relatively small percentage uptick in overall rig activity could indeed represent a much larger percentage uptick in the number of rigs toiling at increasing gas production.

And I suppose natural gas demand really could have increased by 11% over the last 16 months. If the production figures are correct, that would have to be true, because as memmel pointed out, it hasn't gone into storage.

It's just that when one looks at the whole picture, it seems to me that the Texas Railroad Commission production figures do a lot better job of explaining all the interrelated and interdependendent phenomena than the EIA figures do.

Like I said, time will tell. But for me, the jury's still out.