Archive for the ‘Economic history’ Category

h1

Devon Energy’s bet on Barnett Shale, made 10 years ago, has paid off

August 15, 2011

Michael Giberson

Yesterday, August 14, 2011, was the ten-year anniversary of the announcement by Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy of its intention to acquire Houston-based Mitchell Energy and Development for $3.5 billion. The prime target of interest lay about halfway between the two company headquarters, in the Barnett Shale surrounding Fort Worth, Texas. Mitchell had figured out how to use hydraulic fracturing to produce gas from shale formations, and was beginning to add horizontal drilling to its mix.

As Jack Smith explains in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram‘s Barnett Shale blog:

At the time, it had drilled about 400 wells in the Barnett, and executives saw the potential for 1,200.

But over the decade, Devon would advance the ball significantly with improved horizontal drilling and an expansion of drilling far beyond areas north of Fort Worth where Mitchell Energy had focused. The result would be a drilling boom that by 2008 would draw numerous rivals into the field and make the Barnett the biggest gas-producing area in the U.S. Tarrant and Johnson counties would emerge as the top two gas-producing counties in Texas.

Contrary to reports by some people that shale gas production is economically doomed, Devon says things are looking up:

In the Barnett, “our drilling costs are down, our production is up and our efficiencies are increasing,” said Brad Foster, senior vice president of Devon’s Central Division, which includes Barnett operations.

Devon has achieved, or is on the verge of, several Barnett milestones:

It posted record production in this year’s second quarter, averaging the equivalent of 1.28 billion cubic feet of gas per day, even while keeping only 12 drilling rigs busy. That’s less than a third as many as it ran in 2008, before gas prices cratered.

Devon’s total Barnett production since the Mitchell acquisition is expected to hit the equivalent of 3 trillion cubic feet by year’s end, spokesman Chip Minty said. It’s at 2.8 trillion now.

Despite weak gas prices, now about $4 per 1,000 cubic feet, Devon is realizing solid returns from the Barnett because “our ability to drill wells economically just gets better every year,” said Chairman Larry Nichols, who was CEO during the Mitchell acquisition.

The story continues with some details that help make sense of various claims made by the industry. On the one hand the industry claims that hydraulic fracturing is an old, frequently-used technology that has been time-tested and proved safe. On the other hand, companies assert they are rapidly improving methods to cut cost and need trade secret protections for their hydraulic fracturing fluids.

The truth is hydraulic fracturing has been around for a long time, but its combination with horizontal drilling techniques and application in development of oil and gas from shale is much more recent. As the immense economic potential of shale-based production has become clear, many companies have sought out ways to do the job better.

More from Smith:

When Devon began drilling in the Barnett in 2002, it took three to six weeks to drill a single horizontal well, said David Fortenberry, Devon vice president of technology.

“The rigs we used were really too small and underpowered for horizontal wells,” he said.

Now, with higher-efficiency rigs and much more experience, Devon averages only about 12 days to drill a Barnett well, and “we’ve actually drilled some wells down in southwest Johnson County in about six days,” Foster said.

Drilling-rig design “has improved dramatically in the past 10 years,” with rigs now “ideally suited to drill these horizontal wells,” Nichols said.

Devon uses a “walking rig” device to scoot a 156-foot-high rig between surface well bores at its southwest Tarrant pad site. If well bores are 20 feet apart, the rig can move that far in just an hour. Without the walking device, it could take two days to disassemble a rig and set it up 20 feet away.

The Barnett wells that Devon has drilled this year have provided “some of the best results we’ve ever gotten,” Nichols said.

Ample supplies from dramatic increases in U.S. shale-gas production have kept prices low, as the industry has become “in part … a victim of our own success,” Nichols said.

Devon has dropped to 12 drilling rigs because it can keep production at least flat at that level of activity and because “at this time, the country just doesn’t need any more natural gas,” Nichols said.

Production declines have been lower than expected in Barnett wells, he said. There will be “steep declines in the first year, but it flattens out a lot sooner than we originally thought” — often after 12 to 18 months of production, he said.

Natural gas consumers are not complaining. Even while oil prices have moved much higher post-2008, domestic U.S. natural gas prices remain held in the $4 to 5 MMBtu range. And with natural gas prices playing a significant role in competitive wholesale power prices, electric consumers are seeing some benefits, too.


ALSO: Another good story on Devon’s acquisition of Mitchell and development in the Barnett Shale appeared in The Oklahoman yesterday.

h1

Role of independent producers in the early development of California’s oil and gas industry

July 8, 2011

Michael Giberson

The Summer 2010 issue of Business History Review included an interesting article on the role of independent producers in the development of the oil and gas industry in California. In the article, Michael Adamson makes the case that official statistics on oil production overstate the role played by large, vertically integrated oil companies (the “majors”) at the expense of contributions of independent companies. While the majors did produce most of the oil in California, from the early days to the present, they did so in a kind of complex coordination with independents, sometimes cooperating and sometimes competing. Independents were particularly valuable in the high-risk exploration stage and in the championing of the development of regions neglected or deprecated by majors, occasionally turning unattractive prospects into major producing areas. The Summer 2010 Business History Review was a special issue devoted to the oil industry (unfortunately the articles are gated, so you’ll need a subscription or access through a library.)

This same kind of complicated coordination between independents and majors has existed through most of the history of the oil and gas industry, but it is taking a new turn with the development of oil and gas shale resources. The preliminary work in the Barnett Shale was pursued by independents, as was most of the subsequent development there and elsewhere. Only as the techniques used became better developed and clearly demonstrated have the majors taken significant notice – sometimes pursuing their own shale projects directly, sometimes buying properties from independents, and sometimes buying the independents outright.

Adamson tells his story mostly by focus on one key independent developer, Ralph Lloyd. Here is a bit of the conclusion from “The Role of the Independent: Ralph B. Lloyd and the Development of California’s Coastal Oil Region, 1900–1940” (BHR, 84:2, Summer 2010, pp. 301-28):

Lloyd benefited Associated and Shell as an entrepreneur acting on his conviction that he could mobilize their “static” power to mutual advantage. He cooperated with firms that had the resources to tackle the formidable geology of the Ventura Avenue field. Subsequently, he assumed the risk of drilling its unproven areas. As a result, his Lloyd Corporation became one of California’s leading producers of crude oil. Yet, even as he competed against majors, Lloyd recognized that maximizing his profits required ongoing cooperation with them. Such symbiotic relations constituted an important factor in the oil business: one that is buried under an avalanche of academic and popular literature that pits independents against majors on matters of business and politics.

Statistics on exploratory wells drilled explain why many an independent made its name in the search for oil. … At the same time, the numbers conceal the role of independents in developing extractive regions in cooperation with other firms. After demonstrating the presence of crude-oil reserves in a wholly neglected area, Lloyd and his partners participated for two decades in the development of a gigantic field in ways that do not show up in statistics. This approach to the oil business is underplayed, if not generally overlooked, in the literature. It is entirely absent in the literature on the California industry.

Lloyd’s relation with Associated and Shell illustrates why the oil business during the “gusher age” was in large part “shaped by risk” …  Since the organizational capacities of the “first movers” in the industry were not decisive in the search for oil, companies had an incentive to cooperate in their exploitation.

h1

Appropriable quasi-rents, local governments, and state and federal renewable power policy

June 30, 2011

Michael Giberson

State and federal policy provides substantial subsidies to renewable power producers, but just because the subsidies go to renewable power producers in the first instance doesn’t mean they receive the full net subsidy. Figuring out the exact distribution of the subsidy requires extensive additional analysis. For example, local governments are exercising their authority to capture some small bit of the action through inspection and permitting fees and local excise taxes.

Stories like this one, from Renewable Energy World, suggest that the renewable power business is feeling the sting just a bit.

I was reminded of John Neufeld’s economic history work on the role protection of quasi-rents played in the origins of state electric power regulation, discussed at KP here.

h1

Enlightened economic history: honoring Joel Mokyr

June 24, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

Earlier this week on Twitter Tim Harford asked “Should economic students learn more econ history? … I learned none, feel poorer as a result.” Naturally, my immediate answer to that question was “Yes. Next question?” The cliché reason, avoiding the mistakes of the past, is only the first of the reasons to learn more economic history. Paraphrasing Deirdre McCloskey, economic history is a truly scientific discipline within economics — start with an interesting real-world puzzle or empirical question, combine attention to detail in gathering quantitative and qualitative data to understand the question and its context with well-grounded theory (both narrative and formal, but not “math for math’s sake”), and formulate your analysis of the real-world phenomenon that you are trying to understand. For that and several other reasons I’ve found that my background in economic history gives me a valuable context for analyzing modern electricity regulation.

I’ve been thinking about books I’d recommend to Tim to give him a general grounding in economic history, and the breadth and depth of the scholarship in economic history makes such a “short list” difficult. Most of the best economic history scholarship is focused on specific topics (technological change, political economy, banking, labor, education, industrial development, etc.). One great resource for folks like Tim who want to dip into economic history is the compendium of book reviews at EH.net, the website of the Economic History Association. The EH.net website also has a compendium of course syllabi that provide good resources for getting a broad, general grounding, usually from a geographic perspective (US, Britain, Europe, Latin America, Asia).

Among the works I’d recommend to Tim are, of course, the works of my thesis advisor and colleague Joel Mokyr, particularly Lever of Riches. Lever of Riches provides a wonderful introduction to the details of technological change and its relationship to economic growth, and an economic framework for analyzing and understanding that relationship. Working with Joel while he was working on Lever of Riches changed my world. His subsequent work on the role of useful knowledge, ideas, and values in shaping the ways that technological change contributes to economic growth has been an important contribution to our economic understanding and a true model of scholarship.

And I’m not alone; Joel has had over 30 graduate students who have gone on to make their own valuable contributions to economic history scholarship and teaching (and has 7 or 8 current graduate students between economics and history!). This week, we all gathered, along with some of Joel’s current and former colleagues and co-authors to celebrate Joel’s scholarship, ideas, mentoring, collegiality, and friendship. I was pleased and honored to help organize this festschrift conference, which included papers from several of Joel’s students, as well as Joel talking about one of his current projects (thanks to Mauricio Drelichman for the photo):

Joel Mokyr is a wonderful scholar, teacher, colleague and friend, and I am pleased that we have had this opportunity to celebrate those relationships.

h1

Don, Deirdre, dignity

April 7, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

As if Mike and I haven’t given you enough nudges to go read Deirdre McCloskey’s Bourgeois Dignity, here’s another one: Don Boudreaux has a lovely column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that introduces the work via the question of whether economic incentives are sufficient to understand and explain human behavior and economic growth. What role does culture play in that dynamic?

Our modern standard of living was sparked by a major cultural change that occurred only a few generations back.

That cultural change — happening first in the Netherlands and soon afterward in Britain — was a change in people’s attitude toward the bourgeoisie. Merchants, innovators and business people came to be, for the first time in human history, not only tolerated but respected. Profit-seeking production, trade and commerce became, for the first time in 70,000 years, widely regarded as worthwhile and productive not only for the profit-earning producers but for society writ large.

And very importantly, the way that people spoke about market activity and about the bourgeoisie who are so essential to it reflected this Earth-shifting change in attitude.

This change in rhetoric about what we today call capitalism and entrepreneurs and profit-seeking and risk-taking and arbitrage and creative destruction is the theme of the most important book I’ve read this millennium: economist Deirdre McCloskey’s magnificent new volume “Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World.”

Don’s excellent essay could also point at another book I’ve recommended here before, and will do again enthusiastically: Matt Ridley’s The Origins of Virtue.
h1

Dignity and liberty for ordinary people brings social growth and development

March 24, 2011

Michael Giberson

At AidWatch, an interview with Dierdre McCloskey, author of Bourgeois Dignity: “Don’t be snobbish towards merchants & entrepreneurs, and you’ll develop.

Short, and to the point, so likely worth a few minutes of your time to read.

Here is a shorter and even more to the point summary of her message: History shows stasis until a society discovers dignity and liberty for ordinary people, and in particular dignity and liberty for entrepreneurs.

Note not just liberty, dignity and liberty. McCloskey said, “My libertarian friends want the politics by itself, Liberty Alone, to suffice.  I don’t think so: we need dignity, too.  We need the sociological admiration for innovation and markets, to protect and inspire the liberated.”

h1

Deirdre McCloskey on Bourgeois Dignity

March 18, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

For your weekend intellectual stimulation and viewing pleasure … I cannot recommend this highly enough: Deirdre McCloskey’s recent talk at George Mason University about her new self-recommending book Bourgeois Dignity, the second in what’s likely to be a 4-volume re-examination of Western economic history.  I guarantee you will learn more, and think more, in the 1.5 hours of this talk than any other way you are likely to spend that time. Enjoy!

h1

A revival of interest in the history of economic thought?

January 11, 2011

Michael Giberson

David Warsh, at Economic Principals, sees signs of a revival of interest in the history of economic thought emerge from the recent meetings of the American Economic Association in Denver.

 

h1

The 128th anniversary of the beginning of the electric power industry

September 4, 2010

Michael Giberson

From the IEEE Global History Network:

With the opening of the Pearl Street station in lower Manhattan at 3 o’clock in the afternoon on 4 September 1882, Thomas Edison publicly presented a complete system of commercial electric lighting and power. The success of the Edison bulb created a demand for a source of power. It was this demand that led to the construction of the Pearl Street station and launched the modern electric utility industry. The Pearl Street station featured reliable central power generation, safe and efficient distribution, and a successful end use (that is, his long-lasting incandescent light bulb) at a price that competed with gas lighting.

When I introduce my students to the origins of the electric power industry, I try to disabuse them of the idea that Edison did everything. I note, for example, that Joseph Swan patented an electric light before Edison and that Edison took Swan as a partner rather than risk a patent battle over Edison’s very similar bulb. Westinghouse, Tesla, and Insull share the stage with Edison. But I think it pretty clear we can date the emergence of the electric power industry to September 4, 1882, when Edison flipped a switch at the Pearl Street Station and powered up many electric lights all at once.

Sometime today when you flip a light switch, marvel at the instant-on, safe, reliable lighting that is made possible by the efforts of Thomas Edison and the many, many other people working in the electric power industry.

h1

WSJ review of The Enlightened Economy

August 30, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

I recently recommended Joel Mokyr’s The Enlightened Economy and mentioned that I was going to have a more lengthy discussion of it soon. I still have things I want to say about it, but Trevor Butterworth fills some of the void with his review in the Wall Street Journal. Butterworth has some pointed (and I would argue accurate) criticism of modern economics and the overly materialist and anti-scholarly focus of economic theory; he also doesn’t spare policymakers when he notes that

… its perceptive examination of the birth of economic prosperity holds many arresting insights for our fraught economic times, where freedom is increasingly associated with government regulation and politicians appear all too-willing to accommodate new varieties of rent seeking.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers