Effects of Future Global Trends on Shale Gas – When is the sweet spot?

My intent with this post is to provoke thought and discussion on when the best time is, “the sweet spot” to enter a lease, produce, bring to market, export and so on, activities related to shale gas production.  First of all, I’m not an expert, only providing my opinion as a smaller tract landowner.

There is virtual certainty that demand for energy will rise about 50 percent over the next 15-20 years in large part due rapid economic growth in the developing world and demographics. The US Energy Information Agency anticipates steadily rising global production through 2035, driven by OPEC production increases and unconventional oil and gas in North America.  US production of shale gas has exploded; a nearly 50 percent annual increase between 2007 and 2011, resulting in a collapse in the price of natural gas in the US.  The 3 year futures prices uptick only slightly. 

As a landowner, my interest is minimal impact to surface area and no adverse long-term impact to water or long-term property usability and value, all while maximizing profit and keeping taxes in check.  Producers are motivated by maximizing profit as well as minimizing liabilities and managing risk.  I suspect large and multi-national energy players want large pooled packages to posture themselves on the national and international market.  Government (pick your political position) is a no brainer.

Shale oil production in the US is still in its early stage but preliminary estimates for 2020 range from 5-15 million barrels per day with a production breakeven price as low as $44-68 per barrel depending upon the fields.  By the 2020, the US could emerge as a major energy exporter.  I’m not well informed but have hear discussion of a major pipe in Maryland which could carry product to the coast having some political tension and also needing fitted for outbound vs. inbound product.  For the US, lower energy prices will have a positive effect on the US economy and may encourage those taking advantage of lower energy prices to locate or relocate back to the US.  If this became reality, these developments could impact the US economy, perhaps delivering a 1.7-2.2 percent increase in GDP and 2.4-3.0 million additional jobs by 2030.  For the US government, this would contribute (hopefully) to reducing the ever growing national debt, annual deficit spending and hopefully bring us part way out of the hole.

On the global scene the International Energy Agency also posits growing global production of key fossil fuels through 2030 (about 1 percent annually for oil).  Increased production could offset or erase the US net trade balance or even push global spare capacity to exceed 8 million barrels per day, at which point OPEC could lose price control and crude oil prices would drop, possibly sharply.  Such a drop would take a heavy toll on these energy producers, increasingly dependent on relatively high energy prices to balance their budgets.  Other regions and countries also have shale reserves.  China has the world’s largest reserves of nonconventional gas, double estimated US reserves but their lack of equipment, experience and extraction resources (mainly water) may inhibit development there.  Europe has generally stricter regulation than the US, (exception Poland) while the French banned hydraulic fracking.

Alternative fuels such as hydropower, wind, and solar energy continue to provide a relatively small increase in energy requirements as the IEA baseline scenario shows renewables rising just 4 percent during the 2007-2050 period. Hydropower accounts for the overwhelming majority of renewables in this scenario, with wind and solar energy providing 5 and 2 percent contributions in 2050 respectively and contributions in 2030 even less and an effort to raise that bar would require substantial investment in alternatives.  The same reason steam took 40 years to replace the sail fleet as ships were built and operational and to replace them with substantially more expensive steam ships just didn’t make sense, the same as for electric cars now.

For the landowner, it seems to me if you have not signed a lease and do not have the offer you want, depending on your age and needs, you have time.  Current prices are down, 3 year futures are relatively flat, infrastructure for export is incomplete and then there is the current “administration.”  This being said and barring another war, I see the sweet spot 2018-2024.

For the producer, you want all the leases you can get or can afford before prices move up and they will move up.  For the large and cash heavy multi-nationals, leases are an effective means to move cash off the balance sheet while prices are a bargain and before regulation moves south.  For the government, pick your flavor.

Views: 372

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

NFF, there is nothing in what you have stated that I could or would take exception; and, there is little I can add to your detailed analysis.

 

All I can come up with are a few (related?) observations:

The Landowners seem to currently be milling about in confusion, as little positive is occurring at this time; as what is happening can be difficult to comprehend.

Dreams of “sugarplums” have been replaced by fears of having been left behind.

Bad news: the train HAS left the station; good news: there will be other trains yet to ride.

If the Landowner is in a position to exercise patience, I share your opinion that they would be well rewarded by being patient.

 

Meanwhile, pending a recovery in price, the O&G Companies have not been inactive; simply the focus of their activity has shifted – they have staff that want to keep on the payroll, staff they need to keep busy.

A number of steps that the Industry have been taking are evident in numerous active Discussions on this site.

The Industry are actively working to increase the size of pooled units; they are cajoling and pressuring Landowners to increase the size of pooled units; thus tying up larger and larger blocks of acreage, which can be held indefinitely with minimal activity. Landmen seem to be running around like a bunch of rats in heat … pressing their questionable rationale for an increased size of pooled units.

Since the Industry have been making less money in their basic business, they seem to be searching for ways to minimize their obligations to Landowners; the Industry are becoming more “aggressive” and original in coming up with deductions to royalties … what the Industry cannot obtain in the market, they will attempt to claw back from the Landowner; doing so to (and potentially) beyond the limits of the Law.

To quote a Landman, “There is more than one way to skin a Landowner”.  

Furthermore, there seems to be an increase in the number of reports of questionable steps taken to either refuse (or delay) the release of leases that seem to have legitimately expired.

And, there seems to be an increase in the number of posts concerning the receipt of nominal royalties on wells that do not appear to (in reality) be in production; all to fraudulently HBP.

 

Since Landmen are not now busy out there chasing down leases, they have more time on their hands; we will therefore likely need to endure more of their twisted logic on this site.  I have heard the argument that what a Landowner receives in compensation for their Mineral Rights is all “free money”; next, we can expect to hear that what a Farmer receives for their crops is “free money” (after all,  the nurturing sunshine is free and the sustaining rain is likewise free).

 

All IMHO,

                     JS

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service