Theoretically, we have a very large amount of resources of many kinds available–oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, gold, fresh water. There is a relatively small amount of high quality, inexpensive-to-extract resources, and we tend to extract those first. From there, we move to lower quality resources that are more expensive to extract. The question comes: How do we reach limits for the extraction of any of the resources?
For oil, I have shown this chart:
Figure 1. My version of the oil resource triangle.
I recently explained what I think is happening with oil, as we are extracting lower and lower quality resources, in my article Oil Limits, Recession, and Bumping Against the Growth Ceiling. High oil prices are squeezing the economy, leading to recession. I think this squeeze may ultimately lead to serious financial problems and reduced oil production.
In this post, I want to discuss natural gas, instead of oil. Here we are also moving down the resource triangle, getting to lower quality, more difficult to extract resources as well.
Figure 2. Stephen Holditch’s resource triangle for natural gas
Shale gas is very low on the resource triangle for natural gas, at least according to Stephen Holditch, in a paper authored under the Distinguished Author Series of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. It has even lower permeability measured in millidarcies or md) than tight gas or coal bed methane.
It seems to me that in the United States we are, or will soon be, reaching a different kind of squeeze at the bottom of the triangle for natural gas–the squeeze of too low prices for shale gas producers to be profitable. If, somehow, natural gas prices do manage to rise sufficiently for the majority of shale gas producers to be profitable, the higher prices are likely to add to the oil’s high price squeeze on the economy that I noted in my earlier post.
In this post, I will explain what I see as happening with US natural gas supply and prices, and how this fits in with the natural gas supply controversy we have been reading about in the press recently.
1. The cost of extraction seems likely to increase as we move down the natural gas resource triangle, toward shale gas.
As we move toward more and more difficult to extract natural gas, located in less advantageous locations (next to cities, for example, as compared to in a location with few neighbors) I would expect the cost of extraction to get higher. This higher cost may relate to indirect costs related to extra precautions for protecting the environment in sensitive locations as well as direct costs of extraction.
We know that if we look at US natural gas extraction, the cost per foot drilled rose more than four-fold between 2000 and 2007 (Figure 3), based on EIA data. At least part of the reason for this increase in cost is the greater use of fracking, which is very expensive.
Figure 3. US natural gas cost per foot drilled, based on EIA data.
In Figure 3, the amounts shown are averages for all types of natural gas wells drilled, including those that use little fracking as well as those that use a lot. Shale gas wells use a great deal of fracking, so would be expected to have higher costs than the average per foot drilled. (This is not complete proof that shale gas costs are higher, of course. If the fracked shale gas wells are extremely efficient, the benefit of the new wells could theoretically offset their higher cost.)
2. Part of the current shale gas controversy relates to how high the price of natural gas needs to be for shale gas to be profitable; part of the controversy relates to how much natural gas can be extracted from a given acreage.
There is a great deal of estimation that goes into figuring how profitable shale gas production will be. When a well is drilled, the producer hopes it will continue to produce natural gas for a very long time–30 or 40 years. One question is whether wells will really last that long, and continue to produce enough natural gas to remain economic. Another is whether it is possible to extrapolate favorable results for a few small areas to the entire acreage. It could be that the shale gas is concentrated in sweet spots, and these are drilled first.
A recent analysis by Art Berman and Lynn Pittinger is given in this recent Oil Drum post. According to their calculations, reserves in the aggregate appear to be overstated by more than 100% (suggesting that there is less than half as much natural gas per acre recoverable as what most operators are expecting), and the price needs to be more than double today’s price, for shale gas to be profitable.
3. In the US, natural gas prices have been unstable. Current natural gas prices are low (around $4/mcf) in comparison to historical prices.
With oil prices, we are used to oil prices rising, as oil gets harder and harder to extract. This occurs because there is an international market for oil, and so a shortage of oil leads to higher prices for oil, enabling the extraction of lower quality resources (at least until recession sets in, and lowers price, in my view).
With natural gas, in the United States, the situation seems to be different (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Production versus annual average Henry Hub wellhead price per thousand cubic feet, in 2005$, based on EIA data.
Natural gas prices rise when there is a local shortage (1973-1983 and 2000-2008). But once the amount of gas extracted exceeds the amount that the market requires, prices drop sharply. Prices have been low, roughly in the $4 per thousand cubic feet (abbreviated mcf, where M is the Roman numeral for thousand) range, for about three years now–since late 2008. These low prices are what one would expect when there is an oversupply of natural gas.
The reason why prices drop when there is even a small oversupply of natural gas is because natural gas is difficult to store and transport. Once available storage space is full, there is no place to put the extra natural gas, and so prices can go to $0. Also, it is impossible to ship natural gas to buyers elsewhere in the world unless pipelines or liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities have been built in advance.
Furthermore, shipping natural gas is expensive. For example, one estimate for shipping natural gas by pipeline from Alaska to the 48 states was $2/mcf. If the selling price in the $48 states is only $4/mcf, the high shipping cost means that a producer in Alaska must produce gas for less than $2 /mcf, in order to make a profit, something that would be virtually impossible for most producers to do. Thus, high shipping costs can make long-distrance transport not feasible, unless a high price can be guaranteed in the receiving location, over the long term.
4. There is an un-level playing field in the cost of production of natural gas. The way costs are allocated, some producers can produce natural gas for practically nothing, while the cost of production is much higher for producers who must cover their true cost of production.
With oil, where there is a well-developed international market, we often hear, “The Easy Oil is Gone.” Oil companies sought out the cheap-to-extract oil first, and it is generally not available for new extraction. There may be some oil companies that are still extracting “cheap oil,” but if those companies want to find new resources, they pretty much have to go after expensive-to-extract oil.
With natural gas, the situation is different. Natural gas can be produced (1) virtually on its own, as with most shale gas production, or (2) almost as a bi-product of the extraction of oil in an oil field, or of natural gas liquids, in “liquids-rich fields”. When natural gas is produced as a bi-product, producers are often happy with a very low price, since the high price of the oil or natural gas liquids makes extraction profitable overall. Thus, some of today’s natural gas producers are happy with a $4/ mcf price.
The significant difference in cost structure of production puts high-cost producers at a distinct disadvantage. While others can make an overall profit at a low price, they cannot.
5. Compared to the price of oil, the current price of natural gas in the United States is extremely low.
The price of natural gas now is around $4 /mcf, which is low in relationship to the price of oil. The usual conversion factor (based on equivalent heat energy) makes $ 4 /mcf gas is equivalent to $24 barrel oil, but in my view this is too low. Natural gas is harder to transport and has more distribution costs after it is extracted, so $4 gas is probably more equivalent to $40 barrel oil. But if West Teas Intermediate oil is at $85 a barrel and Brent is at $110 / barrel, the US natural gas price is still very low in comparison, no matter what conversion is used.
6. There is growing uncertainty about the volume of natural gas that is technically recoverable.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently issued a report on the Marcellus Shale (covering a large part of Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, and Tennessee). The USGS said that based on its evaluation, the Marcellus Shale has 89 trillion cubic feet of mean undiscovered natural gas resources. These resources are estimated to be technically recoverable, using currently available technology, but without consideration of price or accessibility or regulatory issues. Actual recoveries are expected to be lower, because some gas will be inaccessible, and because prices may not rise to a high enough level for some extraction.
The new USGS estimate is much higher than its previous estimate of 2 trillion cubic feet of mean undiscoverable resources, but it is not as high as the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has been using in its estimates of resources available. The EIA had been using information from industry sources to base it future production estimates on. It is now saying that it will use the new USGS estimates in its model, and will sharply downgrade its estimates.
Some estimates in newspapers have claimed that the United States has 100 years of natural gas available. These estimates are based on reports of the Potential Gas Committee and the American Clean Skies Foundation. The Potential Gas Committee gives an estimate of recoverable resources for the Atlantic Region of 353 trillion cubic feet. This is about four times as much as the current USGS estimates for the Marcellus Shale, which would appear to cover a similar region.
We can’t know without actually doing the extraction how the amounts will actually work out, but this comparison indicates the range of estimates that researchers evaluating resources are coming up with.
7. A major part of the problem in getting demand for US natural gas to rise (so prices will rise) is the fact that US industrial use of natural gas has been declining for years.
If we look at US natural gas consumption, it has been close to level for many years (Figure 5).
Figure 5. US natural gas use by sector (stacked chart) based on EIA data
What has happened is that over time, industrial use has dropped, partly because of the high price of natural gas in this country, and partly because manufacturing has been moving overseas, where labor is cheaper. Electrical use has risen to offset declining industrial use. Residential and commercial use (both of which are mostly space heating and water heating) have remained virtually flat. Vehicular use of natural gas is so small as to be invisible.
Figure 6. US natural gas use by sector (line graph) based on EIA data.
Figure 6 shows the same data as Figure 5, but as separate lines for the individual components. It may be easier to see the relative sizes and the extent of growth from Figure 6.
Electrical use is probably the easiest way to add use of natural gas, since building gas-fired power plants is relatively quick and inexpensive, and since coal has serious pollution issues. But historically, growth in the use of natural gas for electricity production has not been enough to raise total natural gas use because of the offsetting contraction of industrial use.
One advantage natural gas has had in the recent past has been its low price. At $4 /mcf, natural gas has also been cheaper than coal or wind for producing electricity. If the price of natural gas should double, there would likely be a price incentive to switch from natural gas back to coal.
Creating an increase in the industrial use of natural gas is likely to be difficult, unless the US economy is growing more than it is now, and unless potential users can be convinced that natural gas prices are likely to stay low for an extended period. There is also the wage difference, relative to emerging markets, to overcome.
Adding more commercial and residential use of natural gas would require changing things in such a way that some people who are currently using heating oil or propane could substitute natural gas for their current fuel source. In order for this to happen, three things would have to take place:
- Additional pipelines to homes and businesses would need to be built, and as well as pipelines connecting these lines to major pipelines.
- Additional caverns for storage of natural gas would need to be added, so as to have to be able to store natural gas pumped in summer for winter use.
- The people who currently have propane or heating oil furnaces would need to replace them with natural gas furnaces.
Given the cost and difficulties involved in making such a change, such a change is likely to take place slowly, if at all. More efficient furnaces and greater use of insulation are likely to have an offsetting impact, keeping total demand growth low for residential and commercial users in the future.
One possible source of growth in the use of natural gas would seem to be in the use of natural gas for vehicles, especially for vehicles like delivery vans and city busses that operate from a central location where they always do their refueling. Adding individual automobiles running on natural gas would be more difficult, since it would require adding a refueling network as well.
If we do convert many vehicles to natural gas, we will want to keep a close eye on the total amount of natural gas that is truly available. If in a few years we start running short of natural gas, we could find ourselves with a shortfall of natural gas both for electricity production and for vehicle fuel use.
8. Another situation which contributes to the oversupply of natural gas relative to demand is use-it-or-lose-it drilling rules.
The way natural gas leases work is that companies pay upfront fees, plus ongoing rental fees for leases of a specified term. Once companies have a lease, they effectively have no choice but to produce natural gas immediately from the property (or lose their initial investment, with no return). This means that companies tend to produce natural gas, even when prices are too low to cover their up front cost of investment.
Instead of looking at total profitability, what companies tend to look at when making a go/ non go decision regarding whether to drill (or to keep producing) is simply a comparison of future revenue compared to future costs (ignoring their sunk costs). Because many costs are front-ended, this means that low natural gas prices do not lead to a shut down in production of shale gas production, or for that matter, most any other kind of natural gas production, unless prices are extremely low. Thus, natural gas supply tends not to respond very quickly to low demand expressed as low price.
9. The way natural gas reserves are counted seems overly generous in oil company financial statements.
Oil and gas companies are concerned with “replacing their reserves” each year. In recent years, it has been getting more and more difficult to find locations where oil might be produced in the future, at reasonable cost, so companies are finding it more difficult to replace their oil reserves.
The way oil companies recently seem to be getting around this difficulty is by buying natural gas-producing companies, so that new reserves include a higher proportion of natural gas reserves, instead of oil reserves. The way that reserves are calculated is in terms of “barrels of oil equivalent,” using a conversion in which 6000 cubic feet of natural gas is equivalent to one barrel of oil.
The thing that seems strange to me about this conversion is that value of the natural gas reserves is far lower than the value of the oil reserves they replace. An mcf of gas produces roughly 1/6 of the heating value of oil. If conversion is done on this basis, 6,000 cubic feet of natural gas are worth about 6 x $4 = $24, while a barrel of oil is worth something in the $85 to $110 range. Even if natural gas prices were not at their current very low level, the conversion factor would seem to be overly generous.
10. The situation in other countries is likely to be different.
The situation I have described relates to the United States. Eurasia is different, because Russia is a major producer, and a major trans-shipper, so can hold back natural gas (and not import gas) to produce the price it desires. The Far East is different, because rising demand from China and other emerging market nations tends to keep demand very high. Also, other countries of the world have not yet begun producing shale gas, to nearly the extent the United States does, so differences in cost levels may not be as much of an issue.
Over time, international trade may even out differences between countries. But for right now, the United States seems to have a tendency toward too low a natural gas price, relative to what appears to be the cost of production for some producers.
ECA-T has a plan to help deal with the gas glut.The natural gas giant is taking a page out of the century-old playbook of major oil companies that also own gasoline stations and broadening its reach from production of natural gas to new ventures in downstream marketing.Encana is at the forefront of the natural gas industrys effort to develop new markets to help North America make good use of prolific shale gas plays and bring some vitality to a commodity that has long suffered from chronic oversupply and weak prices..
Pingback: Natural Gas: The Squeeze at the Bottom of the Resource Triangle | Bear Market Investments
Pingback: Natural Gas: The Squeeze at the Bottom of the Resource Triangle » Plan B Economics
Dear Mr. President Obama, Gov. Cuomo
and all people who should protect your voters and the nation!
To allow immediately the extraction of natural gas at all places the DEC has already declared outside watersheds is the only way to save the future.
The economy hits rock bottom, the cure is in your hands but you gave the power to a group of environmental extremists. They want a perfect regulation but that is impossible. Not one kind of industry is without risks, not now and not in future. They are talking about environmental impacts caused by natural gas drilling. But they cannot exhibit any evidence, not one. They are just playing for time to find a basement for the own unfounded pronouncements and theses. They are talking about methane in aqueducts. Nobody ask first the person who has drilled the water well on the farm whether it has hit any methane shale. Just for example.
A lot of studies based on canards. That is a modern version of the inquisition.
They do not see more than the own tunnel straight ahead.
They will wait until the economic disaster is irreversible.
The U.S. economy is down.
Smaller companies will become insolvent, not just gas drillers.
A lot more people will be unemployed. Maybe some small town will die.
Infrastructures will be destroyed and the U.S. economy won’t be better.
Alone the current official plan to balance the debt won’t be sufficient, on the contrary.
Investors will be discouraged.
Every child knows that you cannot expect to get juice from a dry pressed fruit.
Certainly you can try other methods, from the other side or with more pressure, but it won’t work.
You have to find another fruit to get juice.
Your fruit is natural gas.
So just take back the responsibility from the DEC and take action, before it is too late.
Every day without natural gas drilling will be a month to repair the economic aftermath.
Hi econ,
Thank you for highlighting the important work of the New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation. We should encourage every state in the union to follow suit. Protection of our environment should be the most fundamental mission of government. Individuals and corporations that damage and degrade our environment are a bigger threat to our safety and security than any foreign terrorist group.
Our economy and national health can only achieve a solid and sustainable footing by fully embracing the principals of efficiency, conservation and further: curtailment of the most wasteful and damaging behaviors that are currently ingrained in our US (and all Western) culture.
Hoping that NG will support BAU is simply an example of “fiddling while Rome burns”. NG can play an important part in our transition to human life without fossil fuels. But, the extraction of NG should be part of a comprehensive national strategy to minimize environmental damage (including GW) and husband this precious resource for many generations to come. We have very little time to start this transition.
For more information visit: http://www.dec.ny.gov/index.html
Back in 1981, while I was working for a company doing the engineering for quite a few nuclear power stations, I met a man who had debated Ralph Nader concerning nuclear energy, and had raised the issue of Peak Oil. Nader said that was a meaningless worry, that recently scientists had found more natural gas in, among other places, the floor of the Gulf of Mexico than we could ever use in centuries. The nuclear champion was flummoxed. And humiliated in the debate. He tried to look it up later, and could find nothing to that effect. (Wish I could remember the guy’s name. Nevertheless, at the time he was peddling some home brew I would never care to imbibe. Like some objections to solar power that my Dad would have described as “Straight from the How’s-That-Again Department.”)
Today we know that Nader was not telling a lie. He was talking about the methane clathrates. And we know that these methane clathrates, considering all of them in the world, are not going to permit BAU forever and ever, Amen. Thanks, Gail and Bicycle Dave, for pointing out the why (for this and a horde of others) of this. But whereas Nader was the only misleading smoothtalker back then, on this issue, they are everywhere nowdays, from all over the spectrum. And folks are eager to be smoothtalked at. And unfortunately, Apollo’s curse upon Cassandra has fallen upon the rest.
An ancient Spanish saying speaks of a disaster as “That was Troy” (Eso fue Troya). I wish we could be shed of Apollo’s curse.
Pingback: Natural Gas: The Squeeze at the Bottom of the Resource Triangle | Environmental, Health and Safety News
Hi Gail,
I think this is an extremely important discussion. Very often I encounter average folks who deeply believe that NG will ultimately mitigate the worse consequences of oil supply depletion. Based upon the industry hype and guys like Pickens, they believe that we (here in the US) will sustain BAU by gradually converting from coal, oil, and uranium to NG – and probably some wind and solar just to make sure there is zero shortage of energy. I find this is the primary argument against any PO concern. There is also the belief that NG will prevent GW due to lower CO2. For most people, 100 year supply predictions are enough to cease any and all concern for the future – surely mankind will come up with a magical energy supply within the next 100 years. Don’t worry – be happy!
Your analysis (no quarrel with it) really does not put a nail in the heart of these beliefs. One could read this discussion and come away with the notion that the numbers are so fuzzy that it is possible to see a relatively modest price increase with abundant supply for many decades to come. I find this hard to swallow. Rockman (on TOD) has often discussed the fragile economics of the investment world as regards NG – especially shale gas. Studies I’ve read about on TOD seem to imply that the depletion rates of fracked gas is almost certainly going to be faster than conventional wells. Environmental issues are almost certainly going to lead to more regulation (which most likely means higher cost), and the conversion issues you mention (especially for transportation) have not even begun to be implemented on any meaningful scale.
I’m not trying to press you for predictions (we all know how risky this is) but it seems to me that both production and price levels are bound to change significantly in the next decade. A couple of years ago the price was nearly $8 and now it has trouble going over $4. Given all the above factors, it just does not seem feasible that NG in the US can stay at $4 for the next couple of decades (much less 100 years). $6, $8, or $10 would dramatically burst the belief bubble for maintaining BAU with “abundant” NG. Without pressing for hard predictions, what might be some of the more likely scenarios for NG in the next decade?
I wrote a couple of earlier posts, Is shale gas the answer to peak oil? and Don’t count on Natural Gas to solve US energy problems, both in February of this year. It is hard to keep saying exactly the same things over and over, even though they are still true.
It seems like there are a lot of interesting things going on with natural gas supply.
It would be nice if every post could come down to a prediction that says, “The sky will fall in ___ days because of ________.” Unfortunately, it is hard to do that–our knowledge is incremental, and some of the intermediate pieces can seem to be a little boring, or hard to understand.
I think a big piece of what happens is that high oil prices squeeze the economy, leading to recession, or something close to recession. The reduced industrialization related to recessionary influences and the flatter demand for electricity because of recession keeps the demand for natural gas low, and keeps the price too low for natural gas use to rise to offset the shortfall in oil supply. Maybe I need to write a shorter, more focused, post saying that.
Hi Gail,
I reread the February articles and, yes, you covered the issues very well – I forget where many of my general impressions are formed (often from your research!) However, I guess I failed to convey the idea that I’m not looking for that date-certain of sky collapse. I’m concerned about having a fairly concise argument that supports the need for fairly radical changes in the way we consume fossil fuels. NG keeps getting in the way due to all the industry hype, disinformation and general denial. If not a great argument, at least a good debate.
I don’t look towards the future with any kind of fixed prediction – or believe anyone who offers one. Hopefully, you know from my other comments that potential scenarios and their early warning signs are my focus. Here are some (very sketchy) scenarios that might possibly materialize:
1. NG supply proves to be as abundant and cheap as the NG industry claims. For the next several decades we simply have the inconvenience of switching from things like gasoline powered cars to NG or electric powered cars. But, overall, we continue with BAU – the future looks pretty bright for new generations of US citizens. Probability = 2%
2. NG supplies prove to be less abundant and more expensive but never-the-less forms the backbone of a transition away from oil. Mild recessions and slightly lower standard of living are coped with and adapted to without major economy disruptions or social upheaval for the next several decades. Probability = 30%.
3. NG supplies decline much faster than predicted while population increases along with PO and environmental issues correlates to significantly increased demand for NG. NG prices rise dramatically which increases supply potential but also creates great financial distress and social discord. Probability = 60%
4. The combination of NG supply/cost issues along with PO, population growth, environmental degradation, GW and monetary/debt crises conspire and conflagrate into a collapse scenario within the next decade or two. Probability = 8%
These scenarios are admittedly WAGs. However, it seems that some kind of national conversation about these types of probabilities would be much more useful than the daily bombardment of disinformation from Exon-Mobile. The people behind these TV commercials should be held criminally responsible if events unfold as many of us suspect will happen.
I’ll think about a different way to approach the topic. You have some good ideas.
Thanks!
Pingback: Natural Gas: The Squeeze at the Bottom of the Resource Triangle | Crude Oil News
Gail, I don’t understand the city gate reference in the link, or what the different lines refer to. Is the top line eroi at well head and the bottom, at point of utilization? I think I must be mistaken, because it looks to me like it would have been becoming less efficient..
“City gate” refers to natural gas that has been transported to the edge of a city. From there, the natural gas still needs to be transported to individual homes, and that still adds substantial costs. So EROI at City Gate still isn’t EROI when the gas is finally delivered.
You will recall that a high EROI means that it takes little energy to get the natural to that point (= good, or cheap) and a low EROI means lots of energy is required (= bad, or expensive). So the lines run the way you would expect them too. The EROI is high at the well head, and drops as you get to the city gate. It would be lower yet, when it actually got delivered to users.
Got it. Unfortunately. That eroi sure isn’t very high. I certainly hope that most of that energy for delivery is already sunk into the infrastructure, as opposed to the process of pumping ng through the pipes. The buffering effect of ng for making this a softer crash will be nullified if its eroei is that low.
Thank you for all your hard work, Gail.
You know, i’m somewhat torn between letting my kids experience this as a “normal person”, and shielding them from it. It all depends on severity. 6 and 5 year old boys.. 1 australian shepherd, hopefully to be 2 soon. 1 cat. was 3 goldfish, now none (long story.. cannibalism is disgusting). *sigh* Soon to be a small school of brightly colored school fish *bold*
I would like to make a proposal. Make energy that is presently being sunk into the energy sector accountable as “sinking energy”. Call anything that has been sunk as infrastructure (a good thing), but with an expectation of increasing “sinking energy” in the future. Even give it an increasing variable or equation given the time of its expected needed replacement or maintenance…..
But it would give a good metric for true eroei for energy companies… Call it a public service…….
Aight, I’m done talking to myself, I preface my sentence with too many qualifiers neways.
strav
this’ll never get done… please.
Yes, we do have to keep replacing infrastructure, and when we reach the point of declining oil/gas supply, this becomes more and more difficult.
Hi Gail:
Very interesting post! While I understand EROEI in regard to oil, does the same apply relative to natural gas considering the transportation and storage difficulty plus the fact that for many years gas was flamed at the well-head as waste. Can you shed some light on this?
St. Roy
I can’t post images in comments on WordPress–just links to images. This is a link to an image that shows the EROI of natural gas seems to drop greatly, between initial extraction and “city gate”. (It is from this post.) The drop to delivery at a person’s home would seem to be even larger.
Natural gas is still flamed at the well-head. This seems to be what happenso much of the Bakken natural gas, for example, based on EIA figures.
I don’t think EROI works very well when a product is treated as a bi-product of some other product. And not having the delivery costs in the calculation very much overstates the real EROI.