Last month Nature magazine published an eyebrow-raising article entitled “Natural gas: The fracking fallacy.” The article and an accompanying editorial condemned what Nature claims are “overly optimistic” assessments of the amount of natural gas that can be extracted economically from America’s shale regions.

As a result, Nature charges, companies that are investing based on expectations that U.S. natural gas production will increase over the next quarter-century are in for a very rude awakening.

The article cites analysis by researchers at the University of Texas who have “spent more than three years on a systematic set of studies of the [nation’s] major shale plays.” They believe natural gas production will actually peak in about 2020 and then begin to decline. “By 2030,” says Nature, “these plays would be producing only about half as much as in the [Energy Information Administration’s] reference case.”

That last part is important because most companies’ calculations (including ExxonMobil’s) align fairly closely with the projections offered by EIA. Specifically, we project that by 2040 North America’s natural gas production will grow by about 75 percent over 2010 levels, thanks in large part to natural gas production from shale tripling during that timeframe. Other independent experts, like those at the International Energy Agency, have made similar projections.

Two different takes on fracking

So whom to believe? Is natural gas production set to continue growing, as most authorities and industry observers project? Or will it fall off the charts in just a few years as Nature suggests?

Because of the importance of North American shale gas, these are more than just academic questions. Billions of investment dollars – not to mention tax revenues, royalty payments, and millions of jobs – are at stake depending on who is right about future natural gas production.

Shortly after Nature’s article appeared, a top official with EIA sent the magazine a blistering critique and rebuke pointing out a slew of errors in the reporting. At one point the letter states:

EIA would expect a journal of Nature’s reputation to adopt a scientific approach to journalism, pursuing information and having the story follow where the information leads, rather than selectively collecting information and sources to fill what appears to be a dramatized story line built around the journalistic device of a (false) conflict meme.

That’s not the only criticism the article received.

Dr. Scott W. Tinker, director of the University of Texas’ Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG), which conducted the analysis that was the basis of Nature’s claims, said the article “contains misrepresentative speculation and apparent bias based on the limited data presented.”

In his own letter to Nature, Tinker wrote:

The feature includes no original scientific data or work, misrepresents the BEG study results, ignores the treatment of uncertainties and scenarios, and editorializes a very important global issue. These lapses are further compounded by Nature’s editorial pointing to the feature and making what we believe are unfounded, and seemingly biased, conclusions about the future of the U.S. natural gas supply.

ExxonMobil’s resource assessments

As one of the many U.S. companies investing in the bright future of North American natural gas, ExxonMobil has a unique perspective on this.

The resource estimates we make are used to guide our business planning, so we have an obvious interest in them being as accurate as possible.

How do we calculate ours?

Our resource assessments begin with specific well locations. They are then guided by decades of work as well as by an understanding of the rapidly evolving technologies in the field. Thus, our assessments are much more detailed and deeply technical because we want them to reflect the accumulated expertise and experience of our engineers and geologists from around the world.

Our data are about as up-to-date as possible. Simply put, we have real-time information that is unavailable to many in government and academia.

Constantly evolving, constantly improving

Because we are constantly adding to our stores of knowledge about the various shale basins around the country, our projections are not static – which is critical anytime revolutionary technologies are transforming an industry and the economy.

Our ongoing drilling activities don’t just aim at expanding supplies from today’s wells, our efforts are also designed to provide information that will improve the productivity, efficiency, and safety of tomorrow’s wells.

In other words, we are working pretty hard.

Nature did not contact us to get our perspective on the matter.  Strange, as we are the largest producer of natural gas in the United States, with a knowledge of U.S. resource basins that stretches far back – nearly a century in some cases.

Had they done so we would have made clear we think their analysis is off-track.

ExxonMobil is bullish about the future of American shale gas production over the next few decades, and the knowledge we have gleaned in recent years has only confirmed our optimism.  And as our investments show, we believe that expanded supplies will help fuel growth across every sector in our economy and support America’s continued prosperity.