The barrels produced by each, in the same play, are greatly different. Comparing cost per well do not have meaning for investment. They sell oil, not wells. Total oil in the ground does not have meaning to the investment. Only the technically and economically recoverable amount.
In the same play, the horizontal, hydraulically fractured well is done because it produces oil for less cost per barrel, or it isn't done.
I totally agree that Aubrey is reckless. I've set in dozens of meetings where he expressed his philosophy on numerous things. But Chesapeake energy was a pioneer in developing the methods for fracking shale production. Even developing software to track the bit and make certain it stayed in the lease.
Mitchell may have come up with the idea... but just google a little and see when the Barnett shale began really producing. It was when Chesapeake moved in and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars not only leasing, and drilling.... but developing the infrastructure to produce oil IN FORT WORTH where much of the barnett shale was. When that shale area took off, there wasn't even the pipelines to produce it. In those days it took Chesapeake 3 months to setup, drill, and complete a Barnett shale well. It took 20 months to get the pipeline layed to it, because much of it was in Fort Worth proper. Just google production curves on the Barnett shale.
And the fact remains, producing oil in the United States costs more than it does to produce mideast oil. And, as the mideast NEEDS to produce formations besides sand.... in the same way the US NEEDS to produce oil from formations besides sand... then that will be a good thing for US producers.