shale gas – The Burning Platform

Rig Count Increases by 19 As Oil Prices Plunge–What Are They Thinking?

Guest Post by Art Berman at The Petroleum Truth Report

The U.S. rig count increased by 19 this week as oil prices dropped below $48 per barrel–the latest sign that the E&P industry is out of touch with reality.

Getty Images from The New York Times (July 26, 2015)

The last time the rig count increased this much was the week ending August 8, 2014 when WTI was $98 and Brent was $103 per barrel.

What are they thinking?

In fairness, the contracts to add more rigs were probably signed in May and June when WTI prices were around $60 per barrel (Figure 1) and some felt that a bottom had been found, left behind in January through March, and that prices would continue to increase.

Figure 1. Daily WTI crude oil prices, January 2-July 24, 2015. Source: EIA and NYMEX futures prices (July 21-24).

Even then, however, the fundamentals of supply, demand and inventories pointed toward lower prices–and still, companies decided to add rigs.

Continue reading “Rig Count Increases by 19 As Oil Prices Plunge–What Are They Thinking?”

FRACKED UP

There is no doubt that fracking stopped the long-term decline in U.S. oil output. Since the all-time low output in 2006, daily oil production has increased by 30%. Natural gas production has soared even higher, but seems to have leveled off. Ignoring the environmental impacts of fracking, just the economics alone show that shale oil and gas are not the miracle that will save us from the perils of peak cheap oil. Fracking extraction of oil is extremely expensive. If oil prices were to fall to $80 per barrel, there would be no profits for frackers. They would stop drilling wells. So don’t plan on ever paying less than $3 per gallon for gasoline ever again.

Other inconvenient truths about fracking are self evident, but covered up by the MSM and Wall Street shysters.

To maintain production of 1 million barrels of oil a day from Iraq one needs to drill just 60 new wells a year. Extracting the same amount from the Bakken would require 2,500 new wells.
A typical fracked well poked in the ground in Oklahoma in 2009 debuted with an output of about 1,200 barrels of oil per day. Just four years later, however, output from the same well has fallen to just 100 barrels of oil per day.
To double that output from the Bakken, for instance, would require 5,200 new wells a year, and tripling it would require 7,800 and so on. Then, to the horror of all, less than a decade after all that was done, that additional million barrels of oil a day in production would be reduced to just 100,000, no matter what the oil companies do, because of the nature of the formation where the well was drilled.
California’s Monterey Shale, which the U.S. Energy Information Agency thought contained 13.7 billion barrels of oil in 2011, came up a little light in the loafers. Closer examination revealed the formation to be much more broken up underground than previously thought — so much so that only around 600 million barrels may ultimately be recovered with current technology. That’s a 97 percent downgrade, and there is no guarantee that other rosy predictions of shale oil riches both in the U.S. and elsewhere won’t have similar outcomes.

The best fracking locations were selected first. As time goes on, the new locations will be less productive. The existing locations deplete rapidly. The shale oil and gas boom will be peaking out over the next few years. Don’t believe in miracles.

You will find more statistics at Statista

A BAD CASE OF GAS

I love those energy independence stories. They always warm the cockles of my heart while my ass is freezing from the global warming currently consuming the nation. Remember all those stories about U.S. exports soaring? It wasn’t oil exports. It was LNG exports from our shale gas boom. It seems we may have exported too much propane. There are shortages across the country, as the polar express keeps chugging along. National prices have surged by 30% over last year and in some places have doubled or tripled to $5 or $6. But, don’t worry. The BLS will adjust away the increase, so your inflation won’t be higher. And energy independence is right around the corner. CNBC tells me so.

It seems the shale gas boom is running out of gas. The MSM has been telling me we have so much shale gas, we’re going to need Gas-Ex to get rid of it. I’ve read that we’re at capacity. Someone seems to be lying as the amount of natural gas in storage is currently 13% BELOW the 5 year average and 20% below last year levels at this same time. Where the frack did all the Marcellus shale gas and the Ford shale gas go? You aren’t going to tell me the corporate MSM and the Wall Street shysters have been peddling a false storyline?

Well thank God for Global Warming. We all know the planet is getting warmer, so we surely don’t need more propane and natural gas. What you say? Record cold temperatures are here to stay. How can that be? Combine the false storyline of global warming and the false storyline of 200 years supply of shale gas and you’ve got yourself a cold day in hell and a heating bill that will make you shit ice cubes. Keep worrying about that deflation. Your owners are counting on you staying willfully ignorant.

U.S. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Listening to the two clowns running for President discussing energy policy is like listening to those babies on the internet babbling jibberish as if it means something. One clown babbles about renewable energy and green jobs. The other clown babbles about drill, drill, drill and 100 years of supply under our feet. These two lying sacks of shit are telling the American public that America can and will be energy independent any day now. You see stories in the MSM that we have become a net exporter of “petroleum products”. The clueless masses thinks this means we have an excess supply of oil. What it means is that our economy is so bad, we have gasoline left over to sell other countries because we don’t have enough business to generate demand in this country.

The fact is that the United States uses 18 million barrels of oil per day. We import 10 million barrels of oil per day. We export 2 million barrels of petroleum products per day. We extract 5.7 million barrels per day from our soil. Do these facts support the idea of energy independence in the near future? Ever?

Is fracking going to save the day? When was the last time you filled up your tank with shale natural gas? How will our glut of shale gas save us? I haven’t seen the plans for converting gas stations and vehicles to natural gas. Have you? Obama wants you to plug your cars into an outlet and use coal to power your cars. The 2,000 Chevy Volts that Government Motors has sold this year will surely save the country from Big oil.

The dishonesty and lies spewed by both parties regarding U.S. energy independence benefits no one. An honest discussion about the implications to our society of much more expensive energy is too much to ask in the land of delusion.

DON’T WORRY, DRIVE ON: Fossil Fools & Fracking Lies from MONSTRO on Vimeo.

From both political parties come cliches on energy policy

Monday, September 24,2012

We’ve heard it all before. Over and over for most of the last 40 years.

From politicians of both parties, cliches and nonsense on energy. Take the biggest cliche of all: U.S. energy independence. The candidates are all for it. Mitt Romney says he’ll make us independent by 2020, conveniently at the end of his second term. President Barack Obama says the route to energy independence is an “all-of-the-above” strategy and a “doubling-down” on renewables, especially if, as Obama has argued at various times, we have “Apollo” programs for new energy technologies.

These pronouncements are imprecise to the point of being meaningless.

Virtually any policy could be attached to the slogans, and their interminable restatement seems mainly an effort to produce a few uplifting sound bites on the evening news.

So Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, R-Wis., are for U.S. energy independence.

How original! This has been proposed by, well, just about every politician since Richard Nixon. He came up with the idea in 1973 (to be achieved by 1980). Romney’s only innovation is an eight-year time frame and he has called for “North American energy independence,” to include Canada and Mexico, both major energy exporters. Nixon wanted independence in seven years, but since Gerald Ford, the standard energy independence time frame has been 10 years. When Ford’s aides first looked into the matter, they felt their first goal was to redefine “independence” and their second was to redefine “10 years.”

The pained effort to define energy independence has been ongoing. In the 1970s Nixon’s (and Gerald Ford’s) Treasury Secretary William Simon thought energy independence meant having diversified sources of oil supply. By that definition we’ve been energy independent for about 25 years.

I have no idea what Romney means by it, especially since he seems to want us to only be independent of such countries as Venezuela (at least under Hugo Chavez) and of the Middle East.

Of course, the simplest definition is one Nixon first used: We would only use energy supplies produced in and by the U.S. This is possible; we could forbid imported energy supplies. Period.

It would also be almost unspeakably stupid. It would mean, for example, if world energy prices were low, we would forcibly lower our standard of living and put American firms at a great competitive disadvantage by choosing expensive energy over cheaper. No doubt other nations would send us a “thank you.” Complete energy self-sufficiency was tried in Romania under the Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

Ask any Romanian who lived through that time how well the experiment worked out; you won’t get a recommendation.

A few politicians and pundits argue that our engagement in the global energy market does cost us. That is why we went to war, in 1991, most notably. But does anyone seriously believe the U.S. (the world’s only military superpower) would just stand aside while the global economy fell to pieces because of a major disruption of the oil market?

Of course, Obama also touts energy independence on his campaign website along with a few new imprecise energy slogans.

“All-of-the-above,” for example, could mean “anything-I-like-to the extent-I-like it.” “Doubling-down” could mean spending twice as much money as we already have or just reinforcing some nebulous commitment with twice as much rhetoric, uttered twice as loudly.

Obama also has the burden of having spent billions of taxpayer dollars already on his fantasies of renewable energy “Apollo” programs, programs that were supposed to create millions of “green jobs.” Like energy independence, as studies have shown, it’s unclear just what constitutes a green job.

What is really unfortunate about the president’s policies is that he could actually do some good on the energy front by ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to suspend the pernicious Renewable Fuel Standard — a.k.a. the ethanol mandate. He could even blame George W. Bush since the 2007 ethanol bill was one Bush strongly endorsed.

Then again so did Sen. Barack Obama and many other Democrats in Congress.

Of course, that bill had a lofty goal beyond ethanol: As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described it, this was the U.S. “energy independence day” bill.

And who opposes that?
Peter Z. Grossman is a professor of economics at Butler University in Indianapolis and the author of “U.S. Energy Policy and the Pursuit of Failure.”

THIS BUST SHOULD BE A DOOZY

Automatic Earth with another reality check on the shale gas BOOM!!!

Let’s see – tremendous levels of debt, hype times infinity, Wall Street shysters, douchebags like Aubrey McClendon, delusional drillers, record low prices, high drilling costs, and low EROEI. Sounds like a perfect combination.

Shale Gas Reality Begins to Dawn

SUNDAY, JUNE 24, 2012 2:30 PM

It has long been our position at The Automatic Earth that North America is collectively dreaming with regard to unconventional natural gas. While gas is undeniably there, the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) is dramatically lower than for conventional supplies. The critical nature of EROEI has been widely ignored, but will ultimately determine what is and is not an energy source, and shale gas is going to fail the test.

As we pointed out in Get Ready for the North American Gas Shock in July 2011, the natural gas situation is not what it seems at all:

The shale gas bubble is a perfect example of the irrationality of markets, the power of perverse short-term incentives, the driving force of momentum-chasing, the dominance of perception over reality in determining prices, and the determination for a herd to stampede over a cliff all at once.

The perception of a gas glut has driven prices so low that none of the participants are making money (at least not by producing gas) or creating value. We see a familiar story of excessive debt, and the hollowing out of productive companies dead set on pursuing a mirage.

Many industry insiders know perfectly well that the prospects for recovering substantial amounts of gas are poor, and that the industry is structured as a ponzi scheme. Still, there has been money to be made in the short term by flipping land leases and building infrastructure to handle gas.

The hype is so extreme that those who fall for it contemplate, in all seriousness, North America becoming a natural gas exporting powerhouse, and a threat to Australian LNG producers, or to Russia’s Gazprom.

This concept, constructed from a mixture of greed and desperation (at the lack of conventional gas prospects), is entirely divorced from reality. (See here for Dimitri Orlovs excellent piece on why Gazprom has nothing to worry about.)

Nevertheless, euphoric hype is extremely catching. Given that prices are driven by perception, not by reality, hype has the power to change the dynamics of an industry, exaggerating boom and bust cycles in practice. The hype has resulted in the perception of glut – that North America is drowning in natural gas. The inconvenient fact that this peception is completely wrong does not alter its power in relation to prices.

Natural gas companies gambling on shale gas have been facing prices so low – far below the cost of production – that all of them have been producing gas unprofitably. The financial risk has been increasing dramatically as the companies have been drowning in debt trying to ride out the rock bottom prices that have been the result of people believing the fantasy. Finally, casualties of the financial shenanigans involved are emerging. It is very likely that there will be many more, as companies that have tried to ride out the low prices go under.

Wolf Richter:

Natural Gas: Where Endless Money Went To Die

Alas, thanks to the Feds zero-interest-rate policy and the trillions it has handed over to its cronies since late 2008, the sweeps of creative destruction have broken down. Instead, boundless sums of money have been searching for a place to go, and they’re chasing yield when there is none, and so theyre taking risks, any kind of risks, in their vain battle to come out ahead.

The result is a stunning misallocation of capital to the tune of tens of billions of dollars to an economic activity drilling for dry natural gas that has been highly unprofitable for years. It’s where money has gone to die. What’s left is debt, and wells that will never produce enough to make their investors whole.

But the money has dried up. And drilling for natural gas is collapsing. Last week, there were only 562 rigs drilling for dry natural gas, the lowest number since September 1999…

…At $2.53 per million Btu at the Henry Hub, the price of natural gas is up 33% from the April low of $1.90 per million Btu, a number not seen in a decade.

.But even if it doubled, it would still be below the cost of production. And if it tripled, it might still be below the cost of production for most producers. That’s how mispriced the commodity has become.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

From both political parties come cliches on energy policy

Share this:

Shale Gas Reality Begins to Dawn

Share this: