EMD Logo

Energy Minerals Division

A Division of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists

Energy Economics and Technology

Website upgrade in progress. Please bear with us while we work behind the scenes to improve and update for all EMD members

EMD
Join AAPG-EMD Today!

AAPG Home
AAPG

AAPG Career Center
“Your career partner for life.”


Support the
AAPG Foundation!

Latest Search & Discovery Digest

search and discovery brought to you by AAPG Datapages

Introduction

As usual, natural gas continues to dominate energy-consciousness because (a) the story of gas shales is still shocking, as the shift from scarcity to abundance continues to take shape, (b) the cost of natural gas – cheap or expensive – is critical to economic evaluations across the spectrum of energy investment, (c) in a remarkable shift, gas shales have become the means for producers to survive a market downturn, (d) end users have experienced the unthinkable, such as turning the tables on the competitiveness of coal vs. gas-fired electric generation, and (e) stakeholders are gearing up to address the apparent problem of too little demand.

The commentary addresses several of these developments. How things look really depend on one’s time frame. The comments below are largely based in part on research conducted for the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

Excess Natural Gas Supply – An Unavoidable Interim Condition

Quarterly Production of Gas SupplyFigure 1: Quarterly Production (Wet, Lower 48 States)

Too Much Supply! An extended period of U.S. domestic “oversupply” with global consequences has been triggered by the gas shale boom, by the pernicious effects of the Great Recession, and by the momentum of long-fuse investments made in an era of very different expectations (namely, LNG). The shock of this change and its scale are evident in Figure 1 showing quarterly changes in U.S. production since 1999.

Of interest on Figure 1 is (1) the 4-year, gradual decline in production preceding the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita beginning 3Q2005, (2) the dramatic, sharp turnaround in response to high prices and drilling from 2007 to the present, and (3) the topping out of production in 2009 at even higher levels than 2008, even as rig counts plummeted.

Gas Shales Production projectionFigure 2: Gas Shales Production- 2003 and Estimate to 2013

Shale Production Growth in a National Context. Production from gas shales has contributed significantly to the turnaround in production, accounting for 70% or more of net production growth since 2003. For all the attention being given to gas shales, unconventional production to date has been dominated by production from tight sands and, secondarily, coalbed methane (Figure 2). The Barnett Shale dominated shale production growth through 2008. Estimates of future production from shales, while varied, anticipate considerable expansion. One recent estimate (Figure 2) projects 14 Bcf/d from shales in 2014 (somewhat lower than the Navigant Consulting and Tristone Capital estimates issued in 2008 and summarized in the June report to the EMD).1 Unconventional production altogether contributed to 31% of production in 2000 and has been estimated to account for 57% by 2014.

Major Shale's Gas Production & U.S. Gas-Directed Rig CountFigure 3: Major Shale’s Gas Production and U.S. Gas-Directed Rig Count

Robust Shale Production Despite Downturn. One of the surprises accompanying the market price and drilling collapses of 2009 has been the apparent economic robustness of shale gas production. The trade literature reports a number of companies have divested or adjusted their asset portfolios to maintain or expand shale activities. While economics of shale production may be obscure, or frankly inaccessible, to those outside the gas industry, confidence in shales from those presumably “in the know” was underscored by Exxon Mobil’s pending acquisition of XTO Energy, Inc. in a $41 billion all-stock transaction (Exxon Press Release, Dec. 14, 2009).2 The tenacity of shale gas production is stunningly portrayed by the uninterrupted, 18-month 3 Bcf/d climb in shale production as of June 2009 (Figure 3), seemingly impervious to the rig collapse. Close and timely tracking of production by play is a challenging analytical and data-gathering exercise, not yet readily available from public sources.

For a complete version of the above, see the Committee’s Annual Report (May 2013) on the EMD Members Only page (log-in required).

End Notes:

1. EPRI-EEI 2009 Annual Seminar on Technology, Fuel Supply, and Market Risk: “Long Term Assessment: Tension Over the Supply and Demand Balance”, S. Thumb, Energy Ventures Analysis, Inc.

2. Asset repositioning continues apace. In December Devon announced a sale of its Gulf of Mexico development projects to Maersk Oil, a “first step” in divesting its Gulf and international assets to focus on its “world class North American onshore assets”, per Devon press release. In February 2010, Range sold its properties in Ohio tight sands, continuing a process that began with its sale of West Texas properties in the second quarter of 2009 aimed at directing capital to its “core”, “higher growth” and “higher return” assets. And in January, Chesapeake entered into a Barnett Shale joint venture with Total (Chesapeake January press release), which continued its “Big 4” strategy in which it completed joint ventures with Plains Exploration & Production in the Haynesville (completed July 1 2008, later modified), with BP America in the Fayetteville (completed Sept. 2 2008) and with Statoil in the Marcellus (completed November 25 2008).

If you would like to learn more about energy economics and technology or to receive information on energy economics and technology, or on activities of the EMD Coal Committee, join the EMD http://emd.aapg.org/emdApplication.pdf . If you are already an EMD Member, see “Members Only Pagehttp://emd.aapg.org/members_only/energy/index.cfm for updates on energy economics and technology, for links to technical information on energy economics and technology, and for related environmental information that may impact energy economics and technology.

For further information on this committee’s activities, go to the Members’ Only Web page or contact:

Jeremy B. Platt, Chair
Phone: (650) 855-2179
Email