No end of surprises

Adapting to Lower Cost Natural Gas

MD’s Energy Economics and Technology Committee is a resource center for individuals with interests in business, planning and forecasting aspects of the energy industries.

While oil has long been a dominant agent in global and national economies – particularly at $100 per barrel – natural gas is the most important fuel to changes taking place in the energy economy.

These changes are greater than anyone could have imagined and are far reaching.


Among producers, necessity (i.e., how to survive with low natural gas prices) has been the mother of financial invention, and particularly of joint venture financial arrangements bringing money into development and production.

The gas-directed rig count from 2000 to 2006 experienced an initial spurt followed by sustained increases. Production generally declined and LNG was widely expected to serve as the only major source of incremental supply until Arctic gas pipelines were completed. Since 2008, both prices and rig counts collapsed while annual production has grown 1.5 to 2.0 billion cubic feet per day. Financial arrangements, horizontal drilling and other procedures in core regions have improved productivity while leasing terms (to hold leases by production) have sustained drilling under falling prices. During 2010, a shift in the mix to oil-rich plays also has contributed to co-product oil and gas production, stabilizing the level of drilling even PLATT as prices continued to decline.
The gas-directed rig count from 2000 to 2006 experienced an initial spurt followed by sustained increases. Production generally declined and LNG was widely expected to serve as the only major source of incremental supply until Arctic gas pipelines were completed. Since 2008, both prices and rig counts collapsed while annual production has grown 1.5 to 2.0 billion cubic feet per day. Financial arrangements, horizontal drilling and other procedures in core regions have improved productivity while leasing terms (to hold leases by production) have sustained drilling under falling prices. During 2010, a shift in the mix to oil-rich plays also has contributed to co-product oil and gas production, stabilizing the level of drilling even PLATT as prices continued to decline.

In a perverse manner, this kind of financing decouples production (up) from prices (down), exacerbating the oversupply that forced creative steps in the first place. These divergent paths are summarized in the accompanying chart.

Related inventions are the unheard-of concepts of exporting LNG or even entertaining gas to liquids, both possible means to “monetize” shale production.

Among buyers of natural gas, particularly the power industry, low gas prices have translated into low electricity prices. Although good for consumers, these deteriorate power generators’ balance sheets just when economic recovery is improving sales.

Most unusual in that sector, however, is the flip-flop in cost competitiveness of coal and gas-fired generation. Displacement of coal by gas broke all historic records through most of 2009. It quite likely exceeded those records last year and may reach even greater heights in 2011. While occurring principally in eastern and southeastern states, this kind of fuel switching alone helps prop up natural gas demand nationally by a number averaging about one to 1.5 billion cubic feet per day.

A contributing factor has been global escalation of metallurgical and thermal coal prices – not only has gas-fired generation benefited from low prices, but coal generation has incurred a premium.

Current solid fuel markets look a lot like those in 2008, when we experienced the global commodities supercycle.


Looking farther ahead, the impact of unconventional supplies – and especially the growth in reserves and resources of shale gas – can hardly be overstated. Due to their relatively low capital costs and high efficiencies, natural gas in combined cycle applications is the dominant economic benchmark for virtually all electric generation investments, affecting choices across the technology spectrum from wind and solar to nuclear or coal with carbon capture plus sequestration.

Because of compelling economics, commitments to natural gas are growing while wind projects face far worse returns than expected.

A widely accessible barometer of new attitudes toward natural gas is the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook, whose 2015 Henry Hub estimate is below $5/million Btu, and 2020 estimate is a mere $5.18, or $1.46 below its prior estimate and $2.29 below the year before that.

This change in thinking has tended to track the forward curve, whose decline has been nothing but remarkable, dropping about $1.50 in the first 10 months of 2010 (about the time that EIA’s forecasters are completing their next update).

No doubt these, as all forecasts, will be proven wrong. Major wildcards are the price of natural gas at some new equilibrium and the level of demand (we must keep a close eye on retirements of coal-fired capacity in the intermediate term and on the fate of non-gas options such as nuclear in the long term).


In the EE&T Committee’s annual report, authors review these and additional topics. As principal author, I am indebted to contributions from natural gas industry consultants George Lippman and James T. Jensen, to special consultant Dieter Bieke and to the Electric Power Research Institute.

Results of economic modeling of gas shales are presented with an open invitation to members to provide data-backed analyses that will further our understanding of play economics under varying assumptions. The big-ticket items are the first years of production and the magnitude of drilling and completion costs, affecting both breakeven prices and years to payback.

Oil also makes a huge difference, suggested to improve Eagle Ford economics by an amount equivalent to a $2 per million Btu increase in the price of natural gas.

Unfortunately, no plays offer the multi-year history provided by the Barnett Shale, meaning much rides on assumptions.

Comments (0)

 

See Also: Book

Alternative Resources, Structure, Geochemistry and Basin Modeling, Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, Geophysics, Business and Economics, Engineering, Petrophysics and Well Logs, Environmental, Geomechanics and Fracture Analysis, Compressional Systems, Salt Tectonics, Tectonics (General), Extensional Systems, Fold and Thrust Belts, Structural Analysis (Other), Basin Modeling, Source Rock, Migration, Petroleum Systems, Thermal History, Oil Seeps, Oil and Gas Analysis, Maturation, Sequence Stratigraphy, Clastics, Carbonates, Evaporites, Seismic, Gravity, Magnetic, Direct Hydrocarbon Indicators, Resource Estimates, Reserve Estimation, Risk Analysis, Economics, Reservoir Characterization, Development and Operations, Production, Structural Traps, Oil Sands, Oil Shale, Shale Gas, Coalbed Methane, Deep Basin Gas, Diagenetic Traps, Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs, Stratigraphic Traps, Subsalt Traps, Tight Gas Sands, Gas Hydrates, Coal, Uranium (Nuclear), Geothermal, Renewable Energy, Eolian Sandstones, Sheet Sand Deposits, Estuarine Deposits, Fluvial Deltaic Systems, Deep Sea / Deepwater, Lacustrine Deposits, Marine, Regressive Deposits, Transgressive Deposits, Shelf Sand Deposits, Slope, High Stand Deposits, Incised Valley Deposits, Low Stand Deposits, Conventional Sandstones, Deepwater Turbidites, Dolostones, Carbonate Reefs, (Carbonate) Shelf Sand Deposits, Carbonate Platforms, Sebkha, Lacustrine Deposits, Salt, Conventional Drilling, Directional Drilling, Infill Drilling, Coring, Hydraulic Fracturing, Primary Recovery, Secondary Recovery, Water Flooding, Gas Injection, Tertiary Recovery, Chemical Flooding Processes, Thermal Recovery Processes, Miscible Recovery, Microbial Recovery, Drive Mechanisms, Depletion Drive, Water Drive, Ground Water, Hydrology, Reclamation, Remediation, Remote Sensing, Water Resources, Monitoring, Pollution, Natural Resources, Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Hydroelectric Energy, Bioenergy, Hydrogen Energy
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/book-m95-Lacustrine-Sandstone-Reservoirs-and-Hydrocarbon-Systems.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 5822 Book

See Also: Bulletin Article

In this study, seismic models and a Starfak and Tiger Shoal fields data set in the Gulf of Mexico Basin are used to investigate uncertainties caused by the frequency dependence of seismic data and solutions for avoiding pitfalls in seismic-stratigraphic and facies interpretation. Seismic amplitude and instantaneous attributes, along with stratigraphic interpretation of these attributes, are controlled by seismic interference, or tuning, between thin geologic units. Seismic-tuning effects include thickness tuning and frequency tuning, which cause nonlinear variations of reflection amplitude and instantaneous seismic attributes with thickness and/or data frequency. Seismic modeling shows that, whereas thickness tuning determines seismic-interference patterns and, therefore, occurrence of seismic events and seismic facies in layered rock, frequency tuning may further influence the nature of the correlation of seismic data and geologic time and modify seismic facies. Frequency dependence offers a new dimension of seismic data, which has not been fully used in seismic interpretation of geology.

Field-data examples demonstrate that a stratigraphic formation is typically composed of lithofacies of varying thicknesses, and a broadband, stacked seismic data set is not necessarily optimal for stratigraphic and facies interpretation. Although it is difficult to predict correct frequency components for interpretation of not-yet-known geologic targets, local geologic models and well data can be used to optimize the frequency components of seismic data to a certain degree and intentionally modify seismic-interference patterns and seismic facies for better seismic interpretation of geologic surfaces, sediment-dispersal patterns, geomorphology, and sequence stratigraphy.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/frequency-dependent-seismic.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3609 Bulletin Article

See Also: CD DVD

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 4101 CD-DVD

See Also: Energy Policy Blog

Induced seismicity frequently is in the news, especially in Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma and Ohio, where an increase in the number of earthquakes may be tied to injection wells.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/EPA-Regulation-of-Induced-Seismicity-and-Injection-Wells-2014-07jul-16-hero.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 12906 Energy Policy Blog

See Also: Online e Symposium

Join two GIS/geoscience experts Scott Sires and Gerry Bartz as they use information from the Teapot Dome Field in Wyoming (DOE/RMOTC program).

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/oc-es-the-many-faces-of-gis.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 1435 Online e-Symposium