Government data now show that the frenzy of drilling for shale gas in Susquehanna County and Pennsylvania has not been the economic boom that industry claimed.

The StandardSpeaker reports:

“Shale-gas development also had minimal impact on Susquehanna County income, even though the region is among the state’s most-heavily
drilled
. The county’s average income decreased from 2008 to 2010, its unemployment rose by 3.2 percentage points and poverty increase from 2000 to 2010.”

“Gas development was still emerging during the period and few Susquehanna County residents initially found employment in the industry, said Dennis Phelps, executive director of TREHAB, a Montrose-based agency that provides services to the poor, unemployed and elderly in six counties,including Susquehanna, Wayne and Wyoming.”

“Everybody was rolling in from out of the area,” he said. “It was easier to bring people in from Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas than do the
training here.”At the same time, he said, the housing market crash hammered Susquehanna County.”

A lot of the local business basically collapsed,” Phelps said. “The timbering business associated with housing slowed down, the stone business slowed down. All the basic infrastructure associated with jobs went into a spiral.”

As I have pointed out in prior posts, industry claimed massive job gains for Pennsylvania which obviously have not materialized. It is also important to note that existing jobs and local economies have clearly been devastated by shale gas extraction though little economic benefit has accrued from natural gas extraction.

Unfortunately it looks as though the “resource curse” has raised its head yet again in Pennsylvania.

The resource curse thesis was first put forward by Richard Auty in 1993 and argues a paradox that resource rich communities end up with more poverty and degradation rather than the promised wealth. Numerous studies have linked natural resource abundance and poor economic growth. It is unfortunate given Pennsylvania’s long struggle with poverty and resource extraction that lessons have not been heeded.

Link

According to BusinessWeek, oil and gas investor T. Boone Pickens has sold his entire stake in Chesapeake Energy.

“Pickens said yesterday Chesapeake will survive the current crisis. The company will be able to raise the cash to fill a funding shortfall this year, getting $6 billion from selling oil and gas assets in the Permian Basin, Pickens predicted.”

Although this is an optimistic assessment, it is interesting to note the following:

“Asked if he was putting his money where his mouth is and buying the shares, Pickens responded, “No.”

Link

Chesapeake Takes On More Debt

May 16, 2012 Economic Impacts

By Deborah Rogers Chesapeake Energy (CHK) shares fell again today as the company announced several new twists in their story. Firstly, news came that the $3B unsecured loan which Goldman and Jefferies set up last week has been expanded to $4B total. So Chesapeake has now increased their debt once again. The company attempted to [...]

Read the full article →

Are Reserves Overstated?

May 11, 2012 Economic Impacts

By Deborah Rogers Although more bad news came out on Chesapeake Energy (CHK) today regarding their admission that material impairment charges may be on the way, I want to write about something other than Chesapeake for a change. Obviously it is no surprise that impairment charges might be forthcoming. Paulo Santos, however, wrote a piece [...]

Read the full article →

Confirmed: Loans Are Not the Only Worry at Chesapeake

May 11, 2012 Economic Impacts

By Deborah Rogers On April 18, I posited on Energy Policy Forum that the $1.1B in undisclosed loans which Reuters had exposed belonging to Chesapeake Energy (CHK) CEO Aubrey McClendon might merely be the tip of the iceberg. I was concerned about volumetric production payments (VPPs). Late this afternoon, the Wall Street Journal independently confirmed [...]

Read the full article →

“Too Good a Deal” at EIG…but what if you’re a shareholder of Chesapeake?

May 9, 2012 Uncategorized

By Deborah Rogers Reuters broke another astonishing story tonight about additional loans entered into between EIG, a Washington DC based hedge fund, and Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy (CHK). These new loans are in addition to the $1.1B in unreported loans which Reuters exposed several weeks ago. What is interesting about this new information [...]

Read the full article →

Spin and More Spin

May 8, 2012 Economic Impacts

By Deborah Rogers In the first quarter of 2012, natural gas prices plunged to 10 year lows due to a market glut from over-production of shale gas. According to the DOE, production in 2011 reached 4.5 billion cubic feet per day but demand was a mere 920 million cubic feet per day in comparison. So [...]

Read the full article →

Is Chesapeake Energy Merely an Example of Virtual Reality?

May 3, 2012 Economic Impacts

By Deborah Rogers We have been watching the demise of Chesapeake Energy (CHK) unfold. In addition to the news of $1.1 billion in unreported loans, Reuters has now exposed a $200 million hedge fund which Aubrey McClendon ran from the headquarters of Chesapeake Energy. This hedge fund invested in the same commodities that Chesapeake produces. [...]

Read the full article →

IRS Opens Investigation of Chesapeake

May 1, 2012 Economic Impacts

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has opened an investigation into the unusual well participation program enjoyed by Chesapeake Energy (CHK) CEO Aubrey McClendon. Shareholders found out about the investigation when the company filed the disclosure with the SEC on Monday. No prior announcement had been made to shareholders. Further the Board has removed McClendon as [...]

Read the full article →

Chesapeake Exec’s Not Allowed to Have “Skin in the Game”, Only Aubrey

April 29, 2012 Economic Impacts

Further information is coming out on the corporate governance practices of Chesapeake Energy (CHK). After learning that CEO Aubrey McClendon had $1.1B in unreported loans using company wells as collateral, we now learn that other top executives within the company do not enjoy the same perks. In fact, they are barred from investing in any [...]

Read the full article →