Appalachian Basin Shale Gas Production Hits Record High

Guest “Frac on!” by David Middleton

Shale natural gas production in the Appalachian Basin sets records in first half of 2021

Dry natural gas production from shale formations in the Appalachian Basin that spans Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio has been growing since 2008, and monthly production has recently set new record highs. Production in the region reached 32.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in December 2020, and it averaged 31.9 Bcf/d during the first half of 2021, the highest average for a six-month period since production began in 2008. The Appalachian Basin contains two shale formations, Marcellus and Utica, which accounted for 34% of all U.S. dry natural gas production in the first half of 2021. On its own, the Appalachian Basin would have been the third-largest natural gas producer in the world the first half of 2021, behind Russia and the rest of the United States.


Principal contributors: Corrina Ricker, Warren Wilczewski

Source: Graph by U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on state administrative data collected by Enverus Drillinginfo Inc.

This is pretty amazing:

On its own, the Appalachian Basin would have been the third-largest natural gas producer in the world the first half of 2021, behind Russia and the rest of the United States.

Gas production
million cubic feet/day
Eagle Ford5,9715,965-6
Drilling Productivity Report (EIA)

The most recent full year of data for all of the top 10 natural gas producing nations was 2019. Here are the August 2021 US “shale” plays compared to the top 10 gas producing nations:

 Nation 2019 (Bcf/d)|RegionAug 2021 (Bcf/d)
        United States           93.06|Total Shale                    85.93
        Russia           65.58|Appalachia                    34.37
        Iran           22.98|Permian                    17.95
        China           17.35|Haynesville                    13.41
        Canada           17.29|Anadarko                      6.19
        Qatar           16.20|Eagle Ford                      5.97
        Australia           14.12|Niobrara                      5.03
        Norway           11.10|Bakken                      3.01
        Saudi Arabia           10.91|
        Algeria              8.50|
Bcf = Billion cubic feet


Oh… I almost forgot this…

Bash: “Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Just to clarify, would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?”

Biden: “No, we would — we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either — any fossil fuel.”

Blank Looks Matter

Fracking A! MAGA!

4.9 12 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 2, 2021 2:06 pm

Frac, Babee, Frac!!!!! My gas bill is down and many of my friends who own farms are building new structures and buying new equipment, all thanks to the Evil Marcellus Shale. God Bless America!

Tom Halla
September 2, 2021 2:08 pm

And that production level is with a ban on producing in New York State, which probably has quite a lot of gas.
Perhaps with Cuomo out, that could change.

Ron Long
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 2, 2021 3:16 pm

Do you mean with Cuomo out there will be less gas? His diet is also bad?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 3, 2021 6:46 am

I wonder what the new New York Governor’s attitude is towards Human-caused Climate Change? I saw her nodding vigorously while listening to U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Shumer yesterday blame the results of Hurricane Ida on Human-caused Climate Change and telling us we need to spend Trillions of dollars to fix the hurricane problem.

I don’t know if the new governor was nodding her head in agreement with the Human-caused climate change claims or the call for spending more money, or both. Don’t know much about her.

If she has any brains, she will cancel the shutting down of nuclear reactors in New York and she will promote the drilling for natural gas in New York State.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
J Mac
September 2, 2021 2:32 pm

Meanwhile, the north eastern states (ex: New York) are refusing additional pipelines as they experience winter shortages in natural gas for home heating.

Now that is stuck on stupid!

Last edited 1 year ago by J Mac
Joe B
Reply to  J Mac
September 2, 2021 8:52 pm

Algonquin Citygate (aka New England) strip price for this winter is in the $14/mmbtu range which assures very high electricity prices.
Fallback LNG is imperiled as there are increasingly NO bidders into the upcoming months. (Pakistan got zero bids for October offer and only one for September … ~$18/mmbtu … a record high).
Should severe cold snaps occur, there is increasing likelihood of insufficient fuel with which to generate electricity.
And this, with the world’s largest, cheapest supply a short car ride away.

Reply to  J Mac
September 2, 2021 9:12 pm

The only attempt at a natural gas pipeline I’m aware of in recent years is one that would follow Masspike to Dracut, MA, for loading onto foreign-bound LNG, with a few spurs along the way for gas supply in the surrounding region. MA balked and attempts were made to route the pipeline through the “Granite” state, which attempts were turned down as unsafe and impractical. The easiest path for a major pipeline remains, if NY would allow a pipeline, along the Masspike In MA.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  J Mac
September 3, 2021 2:31 pm

Bring on the next bad winter and see how long these pipeline bans last. With people freezing in their homes and maybe having blackouts too, attitudes may start to change.

Rud Istvan
September 2, 2021 2:47 pm

More good news. Most of the gas production is from the Marcellus, which is shallower that the Utica so cheaper to drill/frac. The Utica is thicker, so maybe has more resource in place, especially in NY (where fracking is presently banned). A lot of the western shallower Utica has been drilled mainly for crude, with gas as a big ‘byproduct’. Eastern Deeper Utica is past the oil window and is likely only gas.

Joe B
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 2, 2021 9:01 pm

West Virginia University claims ~800 Trillion cubic feet of Utica gas recoverable, about the same as the Marcellus.
This would make combined both formations about the biggest sources in the world.
(Upper Devonian could provide over 100 Tcf more).

Regarding extant of the Utica … in 2008, Questerre drilled a handful of successful (for that time) Utica wells just south of Montreal.
That’s Canada Montreal.

If the Know Nothing policy makers were removed, the industrial, economic vitality of that region could be breath taking.

Jeff Corbin
Reply to  Joe B
September 3, 2021 7:23 am

800 trillion cubic feet in Utica formation and 100 Trillion cubic feet in Marcellus Formation in New York of recoverable natural gas is worth about 825 trillion dollars retail. This sure beats marijuana and legalized gambling as a tax revenue source. Given the world’s current consumption of natural gas, New York State could provide the world natural gas at the current demand level for close to 7,000 years. Add PA. Texas natural gas, and the US oil and Brazil’s Natural gas….. and the supply becomes boundless. Sounds like there is enough natural gas to glut the market well into the next glacierization period (tongue firmly in check). Save cartels, carbon taxes, climate change false flag propaganda etc, many hydrocarbon based economies will have to figure out their future into 2100, as demand slacks as tech advances are inevitable and electricity will be generated and distributed more efficiently. No wonder Russia took control of Sebastopol and the Black sea. Think of fleets of US Liquid NG tankers pouring cheap NG into eastern Europe and central Asia from ports on the Black sea. Cheap NG into Central Asia and all of a sudden central Asia becomes the globalized industrial dollar world that so much of the East has become. The world politique twists and turns on numbers like these, which are compounded by the inevitable tech advancement that will eventually reduce domain for hydrocarbon fuel. Vast supply with a shaky long term future with gazillions of dollars at stake….much of the NG will remain in the ground. This is the power that has descended upon us in 2021 c. A warfare that is a conflict waged with lies. I am sure there are many of us who wonder just how bought out our political system is.

Joe B
Reply to  Jeff Corbin
September 3, 2021 10:22 am

Mr. Corbin,
If I understand your post correctly, I am in complete agreement that the vast amount of global natgas – at fairly low pricing – is an absolute, long lived game changer in the realms of politics, economics, social institutions, at al.

To be clear, the ~800 Tcf of recoverable Utica resource is matched – according to some researchers – by the additional ~800 Tcf recoverable in the Mighty Marcellus also.
The Upper Devonian formations include the Genesee, Geneseo, Burket, Rhinestreet, and Middlesex, amongst others.
The 100 Tcf recoverable from these horizons is probably on the low side as several Genesee and Geneseo wells have near-Marcellus production profiles.

Interestingly, there is another formation deeper than the Utica … the Trenton Black River.
It has historical production spanning from upstate New York to Michigan down to, I believe, Tennessee.

Lottsa gas out there.

John Garrett
September 2, 2021 3:02 pm

Mr. Middleton,
I have no doubt you are well aware of what a typical decline curve for Marcellus production looks like.

The Baker Hughes rig count reported by EIA currently shows ninety-seven (97) rigs drilling for natural gas (nationally) compared to over 1,500 back in 2009.

You can connect the dots.

It ain’t a matter of “if,” it’s only “when.”

Last edited 1 year ago by John Garrett
Ron Long
Reply to  John Garrett
September 2, 2021 3:22 pm

David is a Black Gold Exploration/Development geologist, whereas I am a Yellow Gold Exploration/Development geologist, and each of us can find additional plays/resources when a reasonable product price supports exploration/development. The Club of Rome was even worse than the CAGW crowd at predictions. Frack both of them.

John Garrett
Reply to  Ron Long
September 2, 2021 3:35 pm

Exploration geologists are some of my favorite people.

You and I both know that throughout the history of the natural gas industry, it has always been cyclical with lots of price volatility.

Reply to  David Middleton
September 2, 2021 4:49 pm

Pyrolizing clean cuttings into a mass spectrometer gives a good idea of which hydrocarbons are present.

John Garrett
Reply to  David Middleton
September 2, 2021 4:05 pm

Looks like a pretty steep decline curve to me (supplied by EQT):

John Garrett
Reply to  David Middleton
September 2, 2021 4:10 pm

Thanks. While well productivity has undoubtedly improved, I do recall $13+/Mcf in 2008 and as much as $19/Mcf in 2003.

Michael Moran
Reply to  David Middleton
September 2, 2021 6:34 pm

Wrong. Marcellus producers do not make money at $2 mcf. They go bust. See page 20 of linked Antero Resources powerpoint. All producers lose money at $2 mcf but COG who breaks even. And these numbers only include well costs, not corporate overhead. So you break even at well level, you go bust at corporate level. See link:
Also key issue limiting production growth is lack of pipeline takeaway capacity. Thanks to the greens.

John Garrett
Reply to  David Middleton
September 3, 2021 4:42 am

Effectively sold forward at ~$2.50-2.90/Mcf and reported a GAAP loss as the derivatives were “marked to market” and run through the income statement.

paul courtney
Reply to  John Garrett
September 2, 2021 3:52 pm

Mr. Garrett: I see other dots connected. These dots begin before fracking came on, when the price was 4-5 times higher. The drop in price allowed B. Obama to win his war on coal, but it ruined his plan to skyrocket electric bills. If the number of rigs has dropped as you say, how has the supply stayed up and price low? Price down=good supply, as you are no doubt well aware. AFAIK price of NG still low, I’m hoping Biden Admin does not launch program to keep price down (given what he thinks “success” looks like).

Reply to  paul courtney
September 2, 2021 4:59 pm

The number of rigs is not representative of what is going on. The new rigs with directional drilling can drill multiple wells in different directions. The old rigs did one well per rig at one location. With directional drilling along a producing formation can have an internal producing area much larger than multiple vertical wells.

Joe B
Reply to  otsar
September 2, 2021 9:29 pm

Appalachian Basin drillers are routinely drilling over a mile of lateral per day with Antero having the record of ~11,300 in 24 hours.

Likewise, new completion hardware is enabling 2 frac spreads to be operated simultaneously by one frac crew.
Stages per day average is almost 10 with, IIRC, the record being almost 20 stages in one 24 hour period.

Numbers aside, the pinpointing of precise breakdown pressure for the rock along the lateral is enabling stage spacing/length, cluster number and configuration to more precisely target homogenous rock to be fractured and scoured far more extensively without breakthrough/frac hits.

Use of near wellbore and far feild diverters, micro and – now – nano proppants, real time monitoring of frac propagation, Extreme Limited Entry Perforation techniques are just some of the innovations that make a 2021 App Basin well very different from a 2016 version.

Joe B
Reply to  David Middleton
September 3, 2021 10:45 am

Mr. Middleton
Much thanks to you and your colleagues for continuing on in the Globull Warming brouhaha.
As irrefutable evidence continues to arise regarding the incoming Grand Solar Minimum, more and more observers are becoming engaged and skeptically questioning the ‘orthodox narrative’

Looking to the future in the unconventional hydrocarbon world, advances in Artificial Lift and EOR – Enhanced Oil Recovery – are having large – albeit unreported – impact.
The introduction of Single Point High Pressure Gas lift is showing great results in the early going.
(Sweeping out to the toe using tube within a tube configuration is an ongoing project).
A big plus is that the emplacement of onsite high pressure compressors greatly expedites the potential for field repressurization or – in the case of the Bakken especially – creating a miscible sweep using the rich gas mixture commonly found in the Bakken.

We are still in the early decades of this so called Shale Revolution.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joe B
September 3, 2021 7:00 am

Thanks for the details, Joe.

John Garrett
Reply to  paul courtney
September 3, 2021 5:18 am

I own natural gas producers.

The flip side of Boone Pickens’ lovely insight (“The solution to high prices is high prices”) is, of course, “The solution to low prices is low prices.”

There is nothing scarier to me than the seemingly endless number of people in this country who apparently do not know or understand where electrons come from or why this country enjoys affordable and reliable energy supplies.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Garrett
paul courtney
Reply to  John Garrett
September 3, 2021 8:00 am

I must be missing your point here, are you invested in wells you believe are running out?! Maybe I’m scaring you, hope not, but clearly electrons come out of those three holes in the wall. <sarc> Your initial comment looked like a couple of well-established tr0lls who seem to be ex-wives of MR. Middleton.

Reply to  paul courtney
September 3, 2021 8:42 am

Electrons come out (and go back in) just two of the holes. The 3rd hole helps to prevent you from being electrocuted.

Reply to  John Garrett
September 2, 2021 4:57 pm

It’s always a matter of when. It’s no different for Marcellus. It was true when the first well was drilled. It’s true now. It will continue to be true in the future.

James F. Evans
Reply to  MarkW
September 2, 2021 10:19 pm

It’s been a good 162 year run.

John Garrett
Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2021 4:29 am

I own a lot of Marcellus gas producers.

With Henry Hub gas at ~$4.50/Mcf, you’d think they’d be coining money but many of them sold gas forward at $2.00-$3.00/Mcf as part of a hedging strategy and have reported GAAP accounting losses as the hedges are “marked to market” through the income statement.

John Garrett
Reply to  John Garrett
September 4, 2021 4:17 am

Judging by the downvotes, it is apparent that my original comment was misinterpreted. That is the result of poor writing on my part. I should have been explicit in making my point.

Here’s what I should have written:

A continuing low natural gas rig count combined with rapid production declines (34% at the end of year 1, 60% at the end of year 2 [according to EQT supplied decline curve]) virtually guaranties declining supply and rising natural gas prices (which we are, of course, seeing).

Last edited 1 year ago by John Garrett
Frank Hansen
September 2, 2021 3:38 pm

It might be a good idea to measure the gas production in cubic meters per day, so the rest of the world may follow the discussions. It is absolutely ridiculous to measure anything in feet.

R Grubb
Reply to  Frank Hansen
September 2, 2021 5:56 pm

Why should the US bother? We landed men on the moon using inches/feet/yards/miles. Metric users haven’t.

I’m conversant in the conversions of US Standard to Metric for volume, weight and distance for everyday small units. Plus, I have an app for that for large measures. I have built structures with 2×4’s that aren’t. My 36 yard zero will still hit center of mass at 270 meters. Meh.

Frank Hansen
Reply to  R Grubb
September 3, 2021 5:24 am

I don’t see the relevance of having put men on the Moon in this discussion. The SI system is logical and almost universally implemented. As far as I remember there was a failed landing on Mars that was caused by wrong conversion to the metric system.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Frank Hansen
September 2, 2021 6:22 pm

I have two feet, not two meters. 😎

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 3, 2021 7:30 am

I have two meters; an electric meter and a water meter. The electric meter is two feet above the ground.

Joe B
Reply to  Frank Hansen
September 2, 2021 9:08 pm

Mr. Hansen
Multiplying by 35.3 will give the cubic meters/feet conversion.
Not gonna get into metric tonnes, kilowatthours, or liquid/gaseous equivalents as they can be eye glazing.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Frank Hansen
September 3, 2021 4:07 pm

There are Industry Standards and there is “what people grew up with”.
It takes time to switch.
I work in the water treatment. “Mg/L” (milligrams per liter) has pretty much replaced “ppm” (parts per million parts or pounds per million pounds) but that’s easy because the number is the same for both. No “conversion factor” needed.
While the metric system makes the math easier, I can’t judge how many “meters” away as easily as I can judge how many yards or feet something is.

PS Why no conversion factor needed? Because one million milligrams weighs the same as one liter of water.

September 2, 2021 3:46 pm

Do we still have numbers of Drilled Not Completed wells? At one time there were ~5300 DNCs in Texas.

Loren C. Wilson
September 2, 2021 4:43 pm

Since natural gas combustion produces more of the strongest green-house gas per BTU than other fuels, you would think the true greenies would dislike it more. Evil hydrogen’s combustion product is 100% the strongest IR absorber in the atmosphere. Not only that, this combustion product is way more prevalent in the atmosphere, and in its liquid form is quite toxic to breathe.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Loren C. Wilson
September 3, 2021 4:20 pm
September 2, 2021 5:33 pm

Frac on!!! D— straight!!! More heating gas and cooking gas for us at modest costs, and no dependence on some other country to supply us.

I admit to not understanding the objection to using natural gas for heating and cooking, when using a wood-fired stove for cooking and a wood-fired fireplace produces far more CO2, as well as ashes (which can go on the garden plot).

Anyone objecting to it is a numbskull.

September 2, 2021 6:12 pm

As usual, conflating volumes/masses with profitability. The 2 biggest Appalachian gas producers have lost nearly $30B from their peaks. They are running short of infill opportunities, are getting decreased EUR’s/well, and are facing YUGE service cost increases. The market has also spoken w.r.t. their 1/4erly growth, which is pretty nonexistent.

And the name of the game continues to be externalizing asset retirement obligations for short term gains. With EQT, it’s personal. I ran their completions for all of a month, a decade ago. Then I took a field trip and saw how they were trashing out Appalachia, both in superterranea and below. Quit the next day. Their fouling is even more egregious than that of the several conflict zone and FSU fields I have worked in for the last 2 decades.

Actually, I hope for Appalachian shale gas success. If they can (finally) do it right, sustainably, and make good on cleaning up their Appalachian trash canning, I’m high behind them. We need the gas as a bridge fuel, and for chemical processes…

pHil R
September 2, 2021 6:19 pm

New York still sucks.

John F Hultquist
September 2, 2021 8:43 pm

I’m from a county on the west side of the green area. The region had glass factories using the gas. Friends used it to heat a swimming pool and their summer camp – the well was about 200 feet away. Great Aunt Lizzy had a well and used it for small gas lights on the walls. My sister and I didn’t like to visit her (required) because she was too old to keep the house and walls clean – there was an odor.
Plastics made the glass bottle business difficult.

pHil R
Reply to  John F Hultquist
September 3, 2021 9:55 am


If you’re talking glass factories I assume you’re talking about Corning. My mom’s family was from northern PA but had a small (140 acre) farm in Chemung County and kept the mineral rights when they sold the farm. us four kids share the mineral rights now, but they’re essentially worthless with the Fracking moratorium.

Gunga Din
Reply to  John F Hultquist
September 3, 2021 4:30 pm

A couple (or more) decades ago I remember reading about a convent where natural gas was found on the property.
There wasn’t enough to be commercially viable but, with the proper equipment installed, it was enough to supply their heating, hot water and cooking needs.

September 3, 2021 4:13 am

So why don’t countries outside the US frack?

Could there be some environmental downside? Or some need to reduce fossil fuel use?

John Garrett
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2021 6:16 am

Because they’re as stupid as New York State and the Soviet Socialist People’s Republic of Maryland.

Reply to  griff
September 3, 2021 6:52 am

Shale exploitation requires lots of well directed CAPEX, a great service infrastructure, lax ES&RC enforcement. and good prospects. The Chinese shale, for example is generally less accessible.

Shale gas exploitation in Saudi, might be on the horizon. SA has the talent, compliant regulators, a semi indentured, low paid, work force, the accessibility, and the $. If they can do it right, Mo’ Power to ‘Em. The gas would be burnt, instead of oil, for domestic AC, and since they are (at least nominally) bounded by their promised production maximums, they would then produce the oil more slowly.

Reply to  griff
September 3, 2021 7:50 am

There is no environmental downside, nor is there a need to reduce fossil fuel use.
Some countries outside the US don’t frack, because they are run by idiots.

Joe B
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2021 11:10 am

The Bazenhov currently produces 20,000 bbld with Gazprom Neft’s share being 2,000 barrels per day. Gazprom expects to increase their output tenfold by 2025 as they are starting to finally ‘crack the code’.
While sanctions have hobbled development, the Russians just built a state of the art Rotary Steerable System which is greatly boosting productivity.
The potential of the Bazenhov dwarfs the Permian.

Although the Brits hold many, many decades worth of gas in the Bowland and Weald Basins, preposterous restrictions have stifled development.
Should this – and future – winter deprivstions kindle enraged citizen involvement, saner policies may be forthcoming as to Great Britain’s energy situation.
The near term pain looks to be, tragically, as intense as it is unnecessary.

Gunga Din
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2021 4:54 pm

Why aren’t kids mining lithium in California?
Think about it.
In Africa they send kids into mines for the $Green$ New Screw.
(California has lots of landfills. Probably lots of lithium to mined.)
Why isn’t California drilling for fossil fuels to “Save the Children”?
They prefer the real human downside to the theoretical environmental downside?

Tom Abbott
September 3, 2021 6:36 am

From the article: “Biden: “No, we would — we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either — any fossil fuel.”

It looks like Joe Biden doesn’t know the difference between a tax break and a subsidy.

Joe, a tax break means a company doesn’t have to pay in as much taxes as it would have without the tax break. A subsidy is when the taxpayers give a company money directly. The taxpayers are not giving the fossil fuel companies any money, Joe. Do you get it now?

Reply to  David Middleton
September 3, 2021 7:06 am

Once again, you conveniently ignore the 11-12 figures worth of delayed/shirked, asset retirement obligations, just in the CONUS. The delays go from 0-many decades. They are bonded at pennies on the actual $…

Not to mention the externalized AGW costs. I know they are dissed amongst the dozens of acolytes here, but thankfully you all continue to lose ground above ground…

paul courtney
Reply to  bigoilbob
September 3, 2021 8:16 am

Mr. bob: We ALL lose ground above ground??!! By dissing the imagined AGW costs?? What’s your unit of value in AGW costs, is it like the money units Vulcans used on a Star Trek episode??
If you fail at drilling for oil (which makes you a white supremicist in the eyes of your AGW friends, but we like you- well, maybe not all), you should avoid bookkeeping.

Reply to  paul courtney
September 3, 2021 4:25 pm

What’s your unit of value in AGW costs.”

I’m happy to start with the $/ton CO2 sequestration corporate welfare that Mr. M. is pimping for (unfunded) CCS paybacks. If CCS is actually cost competitive, then MORE oil, gas, coal will be produced, and then it will be sequestered out of a carbon tax. The CCS projects will be paid, and then any remaining $ will be regularly, equitably, fully rebated to every US resident. Since low income/net worth US residents have per capita carbon footprints lower than average, but suffer more hydrocarbon environmental and AGW costs, they will be partially repaid for being disproportionately affected….

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bigoilbob
September 4, 2021 6:03 am

We need to increase the carbon-footprint of low income households, then.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 4, 2021 6:12 am

Since they would get more back in carbon tax rebates than their increase in carbon spending for their current use level, they would have means to do so.

As Milton Friedman said, Free To Choose. Folks remember that, but not his oppo to the external cost communizations that are exemplified by oil, gas, and coal’s extraction, conditioning, transportation, refining, use.

paul courtney
Reply to  bigoilbob
September 4, 2021 7:44 am

Mr. bob: Gee, your program sounds SO much better than letting each person decide how much energy they can afford. I know, I know, it’s all Middleton’s fault. I was gonna mock you again, but your tender concern for the poor, protecting them from Middleton’s nefarious scheme to take their pennies for his CCS pimpers, gave me pause.

paul courtney
September 3, 2021 12:25 pm

Mr. i: Dizzy Dean, pitcher, was told that a scientist determined that the “curveball” didn’t really curve, it was an optical illusion. He claimed that the scientist could stand against a tree, Dizzy would go 60’6″ to the other side of the tree, and wop the scientist upside the head with an optical illusion. Mr.i, you are that scientist, hope NG doesn’t explode near the side of your head.

Mark D
September 3, 2021 12:56 pm

If an undefined huge amount of natural gas is trapped in formation,
and if that formation is broken up by tectonic plate movement,
can that release large amounts of natural gas,
and if so can that influence global temperatures?

Natural fracking as it were?

Last edited 1 year ago by Mark D
September 4, 2021 10:57 am

In what ever world you infest, chemical energy does not exist?

%d bloggers like this: