Oil: Shale Growth in Decline?

Though this Dallas News (Sep 20) opinion piece is more of a look at how US shale has helped the United States in terms of geopolitical ramifications, it does make the following point: 

When investors looked at the shale companies, it was no longer growth at any cost but rather growth at what cost. As share prices declined, companies were forced to reset their businesses, get their spending under control, and live within their budgets — and thus deliver returns to investors either in the form of dividends or share buybacks . . . 

The shale industry has changed in another way. While the independents have scaled back, the majors have stepped up . . . When it was all added up, the growth in U.S. output seemed destined to slow to a much smaller annual increase, far less than the hectic pace registered in preceding years.

. . . As a result of a drastic cutback in investment, shale output will go in reverse and decline. When growth returns, it will be at a slower pace. But, whatever the trajectory, shale is now established as a formidable resource.

A prediction that shale production will start to decline, but with little data. The opinion piece mentions that investors are wanting their money back, which results in a shift from growth at all cost (capital investments over profits) to one of a mature corporation where shareholders want profits. I would love to know how much of an impact this could have on capital investments. I think by default, one would also think that oil majors grabbing up shale acreage would impact investments as they have dividends to pay out and can't allow losses. To me, the problem with the article is that it argues that certain changes in the business environment will obviously result in lower investments that will impact shale output, but doesn't go into any details. I just wish there were some numbers behind this article versus just saying that the points being made should be obvious as to why production will decline in the short term.