I think that Khebab noted that NGL's have been showing a declining BTU value for a while, which is probably a reflection of the declining contribution from associated gas from oil fields.

That is a very valid point. What does that mean for plastics like polypropylene? I do know that cracking heavy crude gives you a big mess of undersaturated shorter chain hydrocarbons.

Also, there is the net energy aspect. It takes a lot more energy to put swarms of smaller wells on line to offset a smaller number of high volume wells.

BTW, if we use a six to one conversion factor for gas to oil, to get barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), which is accurate for BTU content but not price, some historical perspective for Texas oil & gas production, in terms of BOE (RRC data, assuming the annual data are reasonably accurate):

1972: 7.83 mbpd

2006: 3.69
2007: 3.86

This illustrates my point about the difference between making money and making a material long term difference in total energy supplies, especially on a net energy basis.

Q2-2003 $2.27 $58.86
Q2-2008 4.73 142.71

In the last five years, production costs per MCF have increased by 208%

Just to help keep the discussion clear: going from $2.27 to $4.73 means costs have increased by 108% or to 208%. Compare to "increased by 10%".

You voiced my fear.

We need Khebab and WebHubble's help here, but it is my understanding that the peak hight and width are controlled by how fast you can drain the reservoirs. If you can drain them very fast, you get a tall narrow peak. And if you are restricted to draining them slowly you get a low wide peak. (basically what we saw with Prudhoe bay where the oil pipeline kept the flow rates low, vs Cantarell where nitrogen injection kept flow rates high). A popping balloon curve shape would be lethal.

I just hope costs creep slowly upwards. Slow enough they don't destroy the economy. Fast enough that people can be convinced to take some action.

The other issue that worries me is that the nat gas sector is consuming ever larger quantities of steel. And that is going to compete directly with building wind turbines.

But on a whole, if any fossil fuel is going to be found in greater abundance, I would much rather it be natural gas than oil or coal. Natural gas has the lowest carbon footprint, and it does not discourage peak oil preparation. Keep up the good work Texans!

[...]and the move to diversify away from nat gas (e.g. wind) won't have happened.

Wind power is currently built under the assumption of natural gas providing most of the power and the wind turbines providing a bit of power when they can. Wind power in its current form should be seen as a slightly more efficient way to burn natural gas, not as a way to reduce gas dependency.

If you actually want to divest from natural gas build grid energy storage and wring out a little extra hydropower from less than ideal locations.

Decline rate for the average shale gas play is about 95% within 4 years.
From Barron's Inverview with Eric Sprott: "Fracturing techniques and horizontal drilling have caused things to pick up. But with these new discoveries, the first year's production is quite flash, but then there is a very sharp decline. IN THE FOURTH YEAR OUT PRODUCTION IS PROBABLY 5% OF THE FIRST YEAR'S OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

http://webreprints.djreprints.com/2012610711858.pdf

As Memmel has said recently:

Given the decline of the Barrnet Shale and the fact that the more of this we bring online the more we have to drill it will be impossible to keep up and the tighter the rig market gets the higher the cost of drilling.
In short these guys are looking at a exponential increase in cost going forward to even keep production levels the same. Throw in a dash of EROI and ...
Next of course we will continue to have production declines in traditional plays.
My opinion is that in time the shale plays will behave pretty much like the tar sands they will be a produced at a fraction of the overall reserve levels. We can and will continue to produce them for value add production like Ammonia synthesis for a long time.

Aubrey is talking his position - if he actually gets approval for LNG export facilities, our gas futures strip will bump up 20%+ to a new higher price deck.