Posts Tagged ‘shale gas’

h1

Matt Ridley writing up the shale gas shock

May 6, 2011

Michael Giberson

Matt Ridley, esteemed science writer (The Red Queen, The Origins of Virtue, Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters, Nature via Nurture, Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code, and most recently The Rational Optimist), turns his prodigious writing talent to a short booklet on the prospects for shale gas to remake the energy landscape: The Shale Gas Shock.

At Knowledge Problem, we’ve covered bits and pieces of the  shale gas story and the policy and market consequences, but now you can get a current, thoughtful and well-written assessment from Ridley. Among other things, he addresses resource estimates, costs, shale gas skepticism, environmental concerns, and effects on electric power, transport fuel, and other markets. It is an excellent overview and introduction to the topic for the general public and (especially) folks in the public policy community.

Ridley also had a column on this topic in The Times which appeared earlier this week.

h1

The international possibilities of petroleum from shale will reshape markets

April 6, 2011

Michael Giberson

There is a lot of natural gas locked up in shale in the world. Once shale gas was mostly a footnote to the energy industry, known about but inconsequential because mostly inaccessible. But the technology, and hence the economics, of shale gas development has improved. And those improvements are reshaping the world’s energy markets.

The Energy Information Administration has released a preliminary analysis of several regions throughout the world which concludes the now-producible shale gas resources are vast:

Although the shale gas resource estimates will likely change over time as additional information becomes available, the report shows that the international shale gas resource base is vast. The initial estimate of technically recoverable shale gas resources in the 32 countries examined is 5,760 trillioncubic feet… Adding the U.S. estimate of the shale gas technically recoverable resources of 862 trillion cubic feet results in a total shale resource base estimate of 6,622 trillion cubic feet for the United States and the other 32 countries assessed. To put this shale gas resource estimate in some perspective, world proven reserves of natural gas as of January 1, 2010 are about 6,609 trillion cubic feet, and world technically recoverable gas resources are roughly 16,000 trillion cubic feet, largely excluding shale gas. Thus, adding the identified shale gas resources to other gas resources increases total world technically recoverable gas resources by over 40 percent to 22,600 trillion cubic feet.

By the way, the U.S. Department of Energy wants you to know that its early R&D investment in shale gas technology is producing results today.

But it isn’t just natural gas.

Technology is improving access to oil from shale formations as well. A story in the Wall Street Journal yesterday suggests that Israel may have the potential to become a major oil producer based upon its shale oil potential. See “Could Israel Become an Energy Giant?” In the U.S., oil from shale is one of the reasons North Dakota is booming, and their are several other oil shale efforts now new-and-improved as technology has improved.

It isn’t that everything you once thought you knew about the oil and gas industry is wrong, but you do have to pay attention and allow yourself to, reluctantly, learn something new once in a while.

h1

Progress toward a Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline thwarted by shale gas

March 9, 2011

Michael Giberson

In February, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission made its eleventh report to the U.S. Congress on the status of efforts to build a natural gas pipeline in Alaska. The twice-annual reports are required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Three efforts to bring gas from the North Slope of Alaska to market seem to be underway: TransCanada Alaska Company LLC, Denali – Alaska Gas Pipeline LLC – both of which intend to deliver gas across Canada to U.S. and Canadian markets  - and efforts by Alaskan state agencies for a pipeline to bring the gas to the southern coast for conversion to LNG.

TransCanada route map. Links to additional company information on route.

TransCanada route map. Image links to additional company information on route.

Reading between the lines it looks like all three gas pipeline efforts remain alive, more or less, but no one is anywhere close to actually building such a thing. With the current relationship between natural gas prices and oil prices in the United States, natural gas on the North Slope may be currently more valuable where it is, reinjected into reservoirs or otherwise used to aid crude oil production, than it would be in the lower 48 states.

If sufficient people in the industry believed shale gas skeptics and were pessimistic about the long term viability of the resource, someone would be beginning construction on a pipeline from Alaska. I conclude that the skeptics have not yet been persuasive.

Also at ferc.gov: links to all eleven reports to Congress.

h1

New York Times article advances public view of environmental issues surrounding hydrofracking

March 3, 2011

Michael Giberson

At first it seemed like just another newspaper article on the potential environmental dangers of fracking to produce natural gas from shale, but on second look there is something new in the New York Times article, “Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers.” Most such stories, and much of the public’s attention, have been focused on the possibility that a badly drilled well could taint groundwater. The new article reveals that disposal of the produced water recovered during fracking operations is likely the more important environmental concern. While produced water is (generally supposed to be) treated before being returned to waterways, some of the facilities used for treatment may not be capable of providing the services needed.

The web version of the story includes extensive related materials, including interactive maps, spreadsheets filled with data, and perhaps most significantly 1,113 pages of documents with annotations provided by the Times (described as the most significant documents out of more than 30,000 pages the Times reviewed for the project). The documents were collected via open records requests, obtained directly from regulators in the Marcellus shale region, or leaked to the Times by state or federal officials.

No doubt that a badly-drilled or poorly finished well can create problems, but the enviro-hype and associated docudrama film have insisted that this is the biggest problem. Probably not. The industry can reasonably point out that thousands and thousands of hydrofracking wells have been completed and of those many thousands only a handful have been linked to any kind of groundwater issue. In fact, as one of the documents points out, fracking has been used for years in Pennsylvania without a lot of controversy to produce coal-bed methane. The bigger hazards may be in produced waters downstream from drilling operations.

Some of the documents relied upon are several years old, and some reports are preliminary rather than final. There is much more to be learned, including – possibly – that the wastewater disposal problems are not as serious as the story suggested (or, of course, it could be worse).  Clearly, this newspaper article isn’t the end of the story, but it does the service of advancing the public’s understanding of the issue.

UPDATE, March 7: Fracking wastewater not causing radioactivity issues in Pennsylvia rivers

h1

Polish gas choices: LNG imports, shale gas resource development, and/or trusting Gazprom

December 1, 2010

Michael Giberson

The is significant industry optimism concerning the potential for shale gas development in Poland (more here), with estimates sufficiently high to suggest that Poland  could shift its supply base away from heavy dependence on Gazprom and Russia’s good will to domestically produced gas from shale.  Granted exploration for shale gas in Poland is new and the resource may not turn out to be as good as expected.  Poland is also seeking to build an LNG import terminal on the Baltic Sea coast.  Nonetheless, and despite opposition from the European Union, Poland has recently entered into a another long term agreement that continues its dependence on Gazprom.

Craig Pirrong assesses the developments in an article at Seeking Alpha: “Poland: Marry Gazprom in haste, repent at leisure.” As Pirrong points out, the uncertainty surrounding shale gas resources in Poland is good reason to avoid making a long-term commitment now.   Real options analysis, Pirrong said, suggests that “considerable uncertainty with an appreciable upside potential means that it is wise to avoid locking into long term commitments until that uncertainty is resolved.”

That the state-owned monopoly gas production and distribution company  chose to lock into a long term commitment with Russia rather than explore its domestic resources more completely suggests to Pirrong that Polish officials have either been “suborned by Gazprom/Russia” or are just clueless.  Either way, not good news for Polish industry or consumers.

 

h1

The rule of capture in Pennsylvania oil and gas law

December 1, 2010

Michael Giberson

Via the Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center at Pennsylvania State University, a presentation on “The rule of capture in Pennsylvania oil and gas law(see also this summary). Among other things, the presentation clears up my question (in yesterday’s post on oil production in the state) about the current relevance of the rule of capture in Pennsylvania.

In brief, yes the rule of capture still applies, but many of the adverse consequences that could flow from the legal approach are mitigated by the state’s 1961 Oil and Gas Conservation Law (see summary).

Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Conservation law provides for well spacing, pooling and tools for compulsory unitization for oil and gas developments.  The law applied only to production from underground resources in the Onondaga horizon (an underground geological feature) and below on the theory that the resources nearer the surface had already been extensively developed.  Interestingly, the Marcellus Shale, currently the subject of great interest, lies above the Onandaga horizon.

Related: a video produced by Penn State’s Agricultural Extension service explains whether the rule of capture allows someone to “steal” gas from their neighbors.

Summary: It isn’t stealing if your neighbor didn’t own it in the first place, and they don’t own it under the rule of capture until it is produced. (I’m brushing over some important legal details, I’m sure.)  On the other hand, you can’t send your drill horizontally under your neighbor’s property – that would trespassing.

Also related: A writer at the Huffington Post advocates use of the legal doctrine of “anticipatory nuisance” to sue  neighbors before they begin drilling for gas on their property.

h1

U.S. companies getting into the LNG export business

November 22, 2010

Michael Giberson

More evidence that shale gas development is changing the international (not just the United States) natural gas market:

Contrast the picture of the natural gas market presented by the above developments to the US Energy Information Administration outlook in 2004; selected quotes from EIA’s “The Global Liquefied Natural Gas Market: Status and Outlook,” (December 2003):

  • EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (AEO2004) projects that four new LNG regasification terminals will be constructed on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts from 2007 through 2010 to meet the 58-percent increase in LNG imports that is projected for that timeframe.
  • The first new U.S. LNG terminal in more than 20 years is projected to open on the Gulf Coast in 2007. It is projected that additional terminals will be constructed to serve markets in Florida, the south Atlantic states, and the western Gulf Coast. EIA also forecasts that a terminal targeting the Florida market will be constructed in the Bahamas with the gas piped to Florida.
  • By 2010, the new terminals are projected to be collectively importing 812 billion cubic feet annually.
  • Based on EIA long-term forecasts, U.S. natural gas consumption is projected to increase from 22.5 Tcf in 2002 to 26.2 Tcf in 2010 and 31.4 Tcf by 2025. Domestic gas production is expected to increase more slowly than consumption over the forecast period, rising from 19.0 Tcf in 2002 to 20.5 Tcf in 2010 and 24.0 Tcf by 2025. The difference between consumption and production will be made up by imports, which are projected to rise from net imports of 3.5 Tcf in 2002 to 7.2 Tcf by 2025.
  • Nearly all the increase in net U.S. natural gas imports from 2002 to 2010 is expected to come from LNG, with an almost 2.0-Tcf (42.0-million-ton) increase expected over 2002 levels. Net U.S. LNG imports are expected to rise from 5 percent of net U.S. natural gas imports in 2002 to 39 percent in 2010.

For the time being, the U.S. remains a net importer of natural gas.

h1

Industry, environmental group working on shale gas drilling rules

November 3, 2010

Michael Giberson

The Environmental Defense Fund’s Scott Anderson and Southwestern Energy EVP Mark Boling have been working together on proposed environmental rules to govern the use of hydraulic fracturing, a key technique in the development of shale gas resources.

The Houston Chronicle reports:

Energy companies and environmental groups have more often been adversaries than allies when it comes to hydraulic fracturing, the drilling technique used to unlock natural gas from shale rock nationwide.

But a handful of gas producers and environmental advocates are striving to change that dynamic by collaborating on a plan to step up the safety and regulation of hydraulic fracturing.

Now regulated at the state level, the technique involves injecting fluids deep underground and at high pressure to break up shale rock and produce natural gas.

In New York, Pennsylvania and other states with promising shale formations, the industry has faced off with environmentalists who worry that natural gas or the liquids known as “fracking fluids” can contaminate nearby groundwater supplies.

When a segment of the industry joins in political purpose with groups that have traditionally been opposed to industry, the savvy political economist suspects a “Bootlegger and Baptist” coalition in the making.  Maybe it is an effort to raise rival’s costs or otherwise advance the interests of one segment of the industry at the expense of the rest.

In this case I don’t think so.  The focus is primarily on technical issues involved in drilling and well integrity issues.  It is a relatively easy topic for the industry to work on, since the environmental risks are already minimal when wells are well done.  Companies that expect to do good work on their own wells don’t want to see the industry’s reputation spoiled by sloppier operators.

Yes, regulation to ensure a certain level of operating standards would raise the costs of low-budget operators more than the rest of the industry.  But the overall impact of developing reasonable regulations may be a reduced likelihood of burdensome regulations in the future and any reduction in generalized environmental concerns surrounding shale gas will likely expand the industry’s access to undeveloped resources.  Consumers will benefit from this strange-bedfellows coalition.

See also, this E&ETV video interview on fracking issues with EDF’s Scott Anderson:

EDF's Scott Anderson interviewed for E&ETV

EDF's Scott Anderson interviewed for E&ETV

And don’t miss the National Geographic spread on shale gas development in Pennsylvania.

h1

Shale gas in Pennsylvania, illustrated & explained

November 3, 2010

Michael Giberson

National Geographic takes an in-depth look at changes being brought to Pennsylvania courtesy of the development of the Marcellus shale for natural gas.  They give us many different viewpoints through which to see the changes – landowners for and against, job-seekers, small business owner, environmentalist – all in all excellent work.  About the only side of this story not featured here is that of the northeastern energy consumer, the group who will benefit the most from the tapping of this once-nearly-impossible-to-reach resource.

h1

The sound and fury of the shale gas fracking debate

October 13, 2010

Michael Giberson

Holman Jenkins’s Wall Street Journal column on the shale gas fracking debate seems to be right on the money.

Jenkin’s writes:

As a report from the Houston investment firm of Tudor Pickering shrewdly predicted in June, there will be no fracking ban. Too much money, too many jobs, too much revenue for state government is at stake. Instead: “The gold-rush-like endeavor called shale drilling will morph from trial-and-error into a more institutionalized affair. . . . Bigger companies will have a growing advantage, because they can better afford to prevent spills and leaks and correct them when they happen.”

Yep, the sound and fury of the fracking debate is really just the noise of the fracking phenomenon being domesticated.

[...]

An entire region of the country is unexpectedly being transformed by a new industry. Toes are being stepped on, but money and politics will slop around in ways designed to reduce the opposition to manageable proportions. That’s what politics is for.

A lot of noise is being made at present about environmental and other concerns surrounding fracking, but the prospect of a lot of money to be made will win out in the end. It isn’t that there are no real environmental concerns, but the environmental risks associated with development are small.  In fact, the environmental risks of developing shale gas are likely smaller than the environmental risks associated with not developing the resource.

And development allows access to a huge quantity of low-cost natural gas in a region of high energy demand. Lawmakers and utility commissions often strain to fund low-income energy assistance programs, but I’m guessing such programs are a pittance compared to what advancements in fracking technology are doing for energy consumers. If natural gas prices were still in their pre-shale gas boom relationship to world oil prices, we’d likely have $8-$9 natural gas right now instead of a NYMEX price under $4 per mmBTU.

[HT to TMc. Thanks.]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers