About This Item
- Full text of this item is not available.
- Abstract PDFAbstract PDF(no subscription required)
Share This Item
The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database
Houston Geological Society Bulletin
Abstract
Abstract:
Shale
Plays, Risk Analysis, and Other Perils of
Conventional Thinking
Shale
Plays, Risk Analysis, and Other Perils of
Conventional Thinking
Director
Labyrinth Consulting Services
In mid-July 2008, the United States somewhat unexpectedly
discovered that it had an oversupply of natural
gas
and prices
fell sharply. Jen Snyder, head of Wood Mackenzie Limited’s North
American
Gas
Research Group, recently said that the development
of
shale
gas
plays has caused "a significant potential over-supply"
(Oil and
Gas
Journal, December 1, 2008).
Shale
plays had become
increasingly irresistible to the North American industry before
prices fell this summer. Many traditional E&P companies ,
including some majors, decided to become
shale
gas
players, and
many are still considering the possibility despite low
gas
prices.
The global financial crisis has accentuated the aversion to risk
that fueled
shale
plays to begin with, and it seems that no one
now wants to pursue anything but
shale
. I believe that we have
finally arrived at the end of domestic onshore exploration. In the
first half of July 2008, spot
gas
prices were more than $13.00 per
million British thermal units (MMBtu). Six weeks later, the price
had fallen below $8.00, and it has averaged around $6.75 per
MMBtu since October 2008. Some analysts predict that
gas
prices
will be in the $5.00-6.00 per MMBtu range at least through the
end of 2010.
A total of 1,966 horizontally-drilled wells producing from the
Barnett
Shale
were evaluated to determine commercial
gas
Figure 1. U.S.
Gas
Production Has Increased
End_Page 27---------------
reserves using standard decline methods. Based on this analysis,
only 30% of Barnett
Shale
wells will realize revenues that meet or
exceed drilling, completion, and operating costs in the most-likely
case based on assumptions incorporated into a 10% net present
value (NPV10) economic model. The economic model includes
per-well drilling and completion costs of $3.25 million, a
wellhead
gas
price of $6.25 per MMbtu (the average spot sales
price for 2007), 75% net revenue interest, 7.5% Texas severance
tax, and $1.25 per thousand cubic feet of
gas
(Mcfg) lease operating
and overhead cost. These assumptions are consistent with
information published by a UBS consortium of independent
gas
producers, including key Barnett
Shale
operators Chesapeake,
Devon, EOG, and XTO. The model requires per-well cumulative
production of about 1,325 million cubic feet of
gas
(MMcfg) over
10 years to reach a commercial threshold.
A scoping analysis was done to compare early information
(reported initial production rates) of the Haynesville
Shale
with
date from the Barnett
Shale
. The results suggest that Haynesville
per-well reserves may be two to three times higher than in the
Barnett
Shale
. Drilling, completion, and leasing prices are
correspondingly higher in the Haynesville, so it is difficult to
conclude that full-cycle Haynesville economics will be much
different than the more well-established Barnett data.
I have struggled to understand the appeal of
shale
plays based on
economic factors, and thought that low
gas
prices would greatly
reduce activity. At $10.00 per MMBtu, about half of horizontally
drilled and fracture-stimulated Barnett
Shale
wells were
commercial. So, while prices were rising even higher,
shale
plays
made some sense. At current prices, however, only about 25% of
Barnett wells pay out, and all indications are that prices will fall
lower or, at best, remain at current levels. While leasing has
largely stopped, drilling continues, and the enthusiasm of both
companies and analysts seems strong, at least for the Barnett,
Haynesville, and Fayetteville shales.
How can we understand what is happening with
shale
plays?
The diffusion model of innovation (Ryan and Gross, 1943, and Rogers, 1962) shows that people adopt new ideas and technologies slowly, and that only about 5% of people make the decision to adopt based on information. The other 95% decide because of the views of opinion leaders in the community, and on the eventual social momentum that develops—what Malcolm Gladwell called the “tipping point.” The 5% who base decisions on information in the diffusion model are critical thinkers; the rest are conventional thinkers.
What causes people to decide to abandon an idea that almost everyone previously accepted? It is reasonable that only critical
Figure 2. Barnett
Shale
Horizontal EUR Histogram (1966 wells)
End_Page 29---------------
thinkers make this decision based on information, and that conventional thinkers follow in what may become a stampede. Thomas Kuhn (1962) explained that scientists resist abandoning a ruling theory in favor of a new paradigm with a kind of orthodox fervor of conventional thinking, and often ostracize those critical thinkers who point out problems with the existing model. At some point, when opinion shifts to support a new paradigm, the previous theory is unceremoniously dropped, and its remaining supporters are criticized as dinosaurs.
A review of some of the history of how our industry arrived at its
present state is relevant. The collapse of oil prices in 1982-1986
and the ensuing 13 years of over-supply and low prices created an
environment in the E&P business in
which cutting cost and reducing risk
were paramount. Thousands of jobs
were lost and companies disappeared as
layoffs, reorganizations, mergers, and
consolidation became the core business
of oil and
gas
companies.
As oil prices slowly recovered in the late 1990s, risk analysis teams were formed to manage technical work. Executives abdicated their technical responsibilities to risk committees and turned their attention to business models. With the help of consultants, they envisioned companies in which exploration and production would become a manufacturing operation, and risk was eliminated. Execution was paramount, standardization was essential, and new geological ideas were unnecessary. The new vision for the E&P business represented the victory of conventional over critical thinking.
Shale
plays not only satisfied this model, but also solved the
perennial E&P problem of being opportunity-constrained. That
is, because
shale
is practically ubiquitous, there are no limits to
what can be spent pursuing new and existing opportunities. This
shift was widely supported by the capital investment community
because of the low perceived risk, and the fact that non-scientists
could understand the play.
Returning to the present, the myths about the current state of
domestic E&P must be clarified to put
shale
plays in context.
These plays are an important component of domestic natural
gas
production, but they represent a relatively small—though growing
—portion of the total
gas
supply. Even among unconventional
gas
resources, tight
gas
and coal-bed methane dominate production.
Second, these plays involve considerable risk. The fact that 75%
of wells are commercial failures at current
gas
prices is a tangible
risk. Great emphasis is placed on engineering ideas and technology,
but it seems that concern for geological and geophysical
understanding is uneven among
shale
players. Each
shale
play is
different and requires unique approaches based on thermal
maturity, structural factors, fracturability, and identification of
sweet spots.
Third, economic models must be aligned with full-cycle PV10
industry standards. Wood MacKenzie’s Snyder says that
established
shale
plays have "sufficient volumes available at a development break-even price of $5.50 per MMbtu or below" (Oil
and
Gas
Journal, December 1, 2008). I do not believe that. I do not
know any credible industry analysts who believe that
shale
plays
are commercial below $8.00 per MMbtu. The only way to arrive at
the thresholds that Snyder mentions is
to understate or ignore current levels
of capital expenditure, as well as costs
associated with general and administrative
operations, lease operations, midstream,
and discounted capital costs, or to inflate
rates and reserves beyond what can be
supported by performance history.
Additionally, the over-supply of natural
gas
that analysts describe may be
relative, and that would be positive for
shale
plays. Spot prices
rose to $13.00 per MMcf in mid-2008 because of an imbalance
between supply and demand. Prices fell when about two billion
cubic feet per day (Bcfd) of additional supply came online from
the Independence Hub, Thunder Horse, and Tahiti fields in the
offshore Gulf of Mexico, in addition to increased unconventional
gas
production, including
shale
gas
. Monthly natural
gas
production
over the past year averaged approximately 1.75 trillion cubic
feet per day (Tcfd). The additional 2 to 3 Bcfd resulted in an oversupply
is only 3.5-5.5% of total production. Many circumstances
might quickly upset the supply-demand balance and result in
higher prices. At the same time, the global financial crisis will
probably reduce demand and somewhat offset other factors that
may favor rising price. The point, however, is that the difference
between what the market perceives as over- and under-supply
can be razor-thin.
Finally, rig counts and rates have fallen sharply in recent weeks, and
some predict that hundreds of rigs will be idle in early 2009.
Unconventional wells have steep decline rates, and any decrease in
drilling activity will quickly result in dramatically lower
gas
production
from these plays. That, in turn, will affect supply
and prices could rise, but this may also expose the ephemeral contribution
of unconventional
gas
sources to total natural
gas
supply.
There is little doubt that
shale
plays are likely to be important for
End_Page 30---------------
some time. I hope that operators will continue to learn how to
reduce costs, optimize production, and better incorporate geology
and geophysics into their play strategies. Whether the United
States has a long-term over-supply of natural
gas
, or that today’s
surplus is chiefly due to
shale
gas
production is not certain.
In the E&P business,
shale
plays represent a disturbing tendency
away from critical thinking. The belief in reward without risk is
irrational. The failure to acknowledge the marginal economics of
the play is bewildering. Unless opinion leaders confront the underlying
economic and geological risks of these plays, I fear that a
financial crisis may develop that will discredit the E&P industry.
End_of_Record - Last_Page 35---------------