In the old days they would frac a traditional, vertical well to increase production. It was an enhancement when you fracked a 30 or 40 foot sand payzone. And, if you remember, sometimes those wells were fracked with nitrogen instead of water. But, you're right that would increase the production on those wells. Shale drilling is different. There is no production from shale without fracking. Used to shale was just a tight formation that couldn't be produced. Today the horizontal drilling through that formation combined with fracking allows oil and gas to be produced. But the reserves aren't necessarily greater than the reserves on a traditional well.
At the end of the day, that's what you're talking about. Reserves, cost to drill, cost to produce.... and what you have to sell it for to be profitable.
No economic production, the cost to drill and complete was too great to recover from the minimal flow.
Hydraulic fracturing, combined with horizontal drilling, lower the cost of production per barrel. It does not raise the cost. It lowered the cost to produce enough to make it economic to produce.
It brings more oil and gas to the market by making it cheaper to produce.
False. You may be thinking of George Mitchell.
The Father Of Shale Gas
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/16/george-mitchell-gas-business-energy-shale.html
George Mitchell and his engineers developed the techniques to exploit shale in the Barnett Shale formation in North Texas. The wildcatters started trying in 1981, finally nailing it in the early 1990s. “My engineers kept telling me, ‘You are wasting your money, Mitchell,’” the 90-year-old billionaire told Forbes this week. “And I said, ‘Well damn it, let’s figure this thing out because there is no question there is a tremendous source bed that’s about 250-feet thick.’ … We made it to be the hottest thing going.”
When They were starting to drill the Barnett Shale, Aubrey McClendon was graduating from Duke with a B.A. in history.