The New York Times & Shale Gas
It is easier to cast doubt than to inform and draw succinct conclusions. A NYT article, “Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush” by Ian Urbina, published on Sunday attempted to discredit the overarching assumptions of the natural gas industry’s shale gas production outlook and measurement of reserves. Sensationalist overtones and a lack of credible sources will get the article attention, but see it quickly archived.
Shale gas production is in its infancy and there remain significant unknowns. However, we have examples of successful shale fields (Barnett & Haynesville) with production records, actual decline curves and well economics. To state that shale gas is “inherently unprofitable” and compare it to the dotcom bubble of the early 2000s is inaccurate. Fringe operators who cannot profit in a $4 to 5.00 natural gas environment may have paid too much for their lease positions and have a high cost of capital; their situation cannot be used to generalize the entire industry.
When looking at the Marcellus shale play, we see Exxon, Anadarko, Apache, Range Resources, smaller public companies and private players who make business decisions based on making profits while maximizing shareholder and stakeholder value. Exxon, for example, invested $1.7 billion in two Marcellus shale companies this month. While the Enronesque rhetoric makes for headlines, the market makes for reality. The reality is that smart money continues to invest in both the technology and the underlying resource of shale. The question is not availability, rather at what price availability.
Shale represents fast reaction reserves that are fairly low cost. Ultimately, the technology advancements have moved the duration of the gas curve much closer to “storage type” economics versus the traditional resource play. Shale with its massive reserves, steep declines, long lives, environmental issues et al is here to stay. Just ask Exxon, they will give you 1.7 billion reasons to bet on it.
Category: Blog

