Monday, May 13, 2013

Response from Jon Campbell

Here is a response I got from Jon Campbell about my blog challenging his assertion that 400 wells per county is an "unlikely assumption" for the 28 NY counties sitting over the Marcellus.

http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2013/05/fact-check-gannett-is-400-wellscounty.html

Hi Bill,
Thanks for this, but you're completely misinterpreting/
misrepresenting my words.

The 400 wells per county figure in the Empire Center report is over a four-year period, not the life cycle of the Marcellus.

I added that sentence to show that the $8 billion added income figure was based on the unlikely assumption -- which it is -- that each of the 28 counties that have even a sliver of the Marcellus would see 400 wells by 2015, and therefore the income figure is likely inflated.

Jon Campbell Correspondent
Gannett Albany Bureau
150 State Street
Albany, NY 12207



Whoops! He's right! My numbers are inflated by 7.5 times.
(Since the study's period, 4 years, goes into 30 years-- my life-cycle numbers-- 7.5x).

So I ran the numbers again. Turns out that 400 wells per county average
is a likely number of wells, running counter to Jon's (unsourced) assertion.

Here is my letter to Jon.


Hi Jon,

Thanks Jon... Yes, it looks like I did miss the 4-year bit.
So let's do some math. I am pretty sure about these numbers:

NY can expect between
42,000 wells and 120,000 Marcellus wells over 30 years.

Divided by 28 counties, this is between
1,500 to 4,400 wells per county AVERAGE over 30 years.

4 years goes into 30 years 7.5 times.
Assuming linear build-out, then

42,000 wells and 120,000 Marcellus wells over 30 years / 7.5 =
5,600 to 16,000 in the first four years state-wide.

divided by 28 counties yields 200- 570 wells per county.
400 is on the high side of the middle of that.
This is still contrary to your (unsourced) assertion
that 400 wells on average per county is "unlikely".
Jon, 400 wells per county on average IS LIKELY.

Please consider publishing a correction,
or ask your editor to allow me a guest editorial.
Thanks,
BH 





No comments: