LNG Trumped

Image via Wikipedia

The burst of enthusiasm for shale gas could put LNG on the sidelines of global gas trade

This article appears in the October 2010 issue of Oilweek

By Peter McKenzie-Brown

If you want to understand the performance of global natural gas markets in the next few years, think hockey. On one side the team captain is liquefied natural gas (LNG); on the other natural gas from shale reservoirs (“shale gas”).

The matches are serious, but they are also friendly. Each side is a team of rivals. The squads frequently swap players in and out, but they can play nail-biting games.

Robin Mann’s description of an annual CBM conference in Asia calls the game during two days of play. The first day of the Singapore conference, the president of AJM Petroleum Consultants says, the dominant theme was that “if there is a lot of shale gas development in India, Europe and China, there will be no need for much LNG project development.”

Shale Gas one; LNG zip.

On the second day, however, “the speakers suggested that new LNG projects will be needed no matter how much shale gas is developed in those countries. LNG development might not be as dynamic as people had thought it would be, but the projects now built or on the books to be built will remain viable.”

Game tied.

He cautions, though, that “In the end price will be the deciding factor.” Of course, everything from geopolitics to economics can influence price. This is the recurring theme in the competition between LNG and shale gas.
.
Three Sources of Gas
From the perspective of North American producers, the future of three gas sources (not two) is of interest. The first is the wild success of shale gas production in the US and Canada. The shale gas revolution, as it is called, is largely the result of rapid innovation in such down-hole technologies as horizontal drilling, better bit design, coil tubing, down-hole motors, geo-steering, microseismic, measurement-while-drilling tools and more powerful fraccing systems. It has truly been a revolutionary development.

The second is the evolution of a global market for liquefied natural gas. This development has been decades in the making, and it has eliminated the need for pipelines to tie stranded gas into the world’s industrial markets. To cite the extreme example, Qatar is developing liquefaction facilities for an offshore reservoir with more than a quadrillion cubic feet of proved reserves, and it will be able to deliver that gas around the world for a century or more.
.
The gas industry’s third area of interest lies in the huge conventional gas reserves in Alaska and the Northwest Territories. While companies are proposing expensive pipeline systems to deliver those resources to southern markets, Mann doubts that those proposals will go ahead in the foreseeable future. “Because of the development of shale gas formations like the Montney and Horn River and other with great potential right next to infrastructure and right next to pipelines, and with our existing conventional gas and our exports to the United States going down daily, we have more than enough (gas) for our own (use) so why is it important to build these pipelines? Why are we worrying about anything north of Alberta and BC?” asks Mann.

“Their costs keep going up and up and up, and economics will trump any national sovereignty argument for the Canadian pipeline. Maybe the best way is to develop LNG facilities in the north, but what will the economics of that kind of project be? Will the price of LNG justify building facilities up there? Certainly at the Singapore conference there was no strong feeling that there would be much in the way of LNG exports from North America, apart from a few small projects” like the proposed LNG terminal in Kitimat, BC. The only really positive argument for developing LNG facilities is that the many existing receiver terminals in the world offer a lot of flexibility. Given a Northwest Passage free of ice, you could take Arctic LNG anywhere – if the price were right.
.
Arctic Gas Pipelines: benched.
.
International sketches
While Robin Mann acknowledges the large potential for shale gas development in Asia, especially in China and India, he is sceptical that this will happen in the near term. “North America’s shale gas sector is advanced, it’s more of a mature industry” he says, sketching out the situation around the world. “Europe is in its infancy. In Asia it isn’t even that far – it’s in its beginning stages. People have barely gone beyond looking at resource potential. The idea of unconventional gas in Australia, China, India and Indonesia is still CBM” (coal bed methane) – a resource the North American industry is not heavily investing in anymore. “Europe is more interested in shale gas because they don’t have much CBM.”

One problem those countries face in developing a shale gas industry is “getting the hardware needed to properly develop the resource – getting the right equipment to the right spot and (having) the expertise and manpower to get things developed. That’s why CBM is still on the books in those regions. To manage in the CBM world you don’t need (heavy-duty) frac equipment or (specialized) manpower.”

Here is the kind of problem he is talking about. Huge fraccing jobs for shale gas development in north-eastern B.C. require a great deal of logistical support. Each horizontal hole can require 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes of fine-grained sand as a propping agent. To take on one such project may require a 40-member crew and 20 or more hydraulic compression systems mounted on huge fraccing trucks. This equipment isn’t widely available outside North America, and there are gas-bearing shales around the world that are remote from the kind of sand quarries needed.

Moreover, a great deal of water is required. While the water commonly comes from deep formations, a typical shale gas fraccing job requires a large water storage pit in addition to a string of high-volume steel tanks. According to Dave Russum, an AJM vice president who also attended the Singapore conference, “in India and Australia they are drilling their first holes into shale just to gather information. They aren’t even into pilot projects yet.” Given those realities, Mann concludes that shale gas will not have a large impact on LNG development – at least not initially
.
Geopolitics and the local community
As a domestic source of supply, shale gas is an attractive alternative to imports. For the United States, which has huge trade deficits, it slows down the haemorrhage of US dollars. For Europe it offers a geopolitically smart alternative to Russian supply. Also, governments want this kind of development because it contributes to security of supply
.
In recent years Russia has turned off the taps a couple of times because of disputes with Ukraine over payment. As collateral damage, countries in the European Union were temporarily cut off, too. It is therefore ironic that the best shale gas prospects in the European Union are in the north – especially Poland, Ukraine’s neighbour. In northern Europe, according to Mann, “you can get access to enough land to make a viable shale gas project.” In more developed and densely populated southern parts of the union, this is much harder.

As Europe develops shale gas, geopolitics is again likely to enter the fray compliments of the Russian bear. “Are the Russians just going to sit by and let Poland and northern Europe develop natural gas so they can turn off the taps from Russia?” asks Mann. “I don’t think so. They could retaliate with price, and make shale gas uneconomic.”

So could LNG producers. In fact, rather than shale gas driving LNG out of global markets, the exact opposite could take place, with LNG putting the screws to shale gas development irrespective of its geopolitical and trade balance advantages. Qatar, you will recall, has huge reserves that it can liquefy and deliver cheaply, causing international gas prices to crater and rendering some shale gas projects uneconomic.

Yemen and other exporters could do the same. According to Dave Russum, “It wouldn’t take much of a gas surplus on the oceans to really drop the price of gas in many markets. Although (shale gas) reservoirs can be prolific, gas from shale is not cheap, and whether production is sustainable over time is a real question.”

In addition to the prospect of price competition, shale gas development is likely to face environmental and population density issues in Europe and Asia. Environmental concern is likely to be most intense in Europe, and to echo concerns already being expressed in a number of places in the US. Will fraccing contaminate groundwater reservoirs? Are the chemicals used in development safe? Will shale gas production lead to unintended consequences of the undesirable kind?

The matter of population density ranges from critical in India and coastal China to highly significant in much of the southern states in the European Union, where the industry can’t get access to enough land to develop a viable shale gas project. Shale gas development requires drilling many wells. Multilateral horizontal drilling and fraccing from a single pad can take weeks and even months to complete. These drilling pads are large and operations can be dirty and noisy. Moreover, in densely populated countries good drilling prospects can be covered over with villages, small farming operations, markets and industrial operations. This inconvenient truth is hard to ignore

Game plans
Mann’s assessment of the situation involves pretty raw political analysis of the situation. “In China the communist government would just do it,” he speculates. The country has almost the same landmass as Canada, yet the population is mostly located along a relatively thin band along the east coast. There are many prospective sedimentary basins within the country, which is geologically more like the United States than Canada. “The ones that are now being looked at for shale gas are out in a desert in the western China, where there is virtually a zero population problem and access is not a problem either. None of these projects are commercial yet, they are just at the stages of looking at resource potential, doing some tests, seeing whether they are viable and then going down the road” to development.

Having said that, he recalls an argument from Singapore that “Even if China developed shale gas at the same rate and volume as North America did over the past ten years they would still require LNG because (in ten years) shale gas would meet only around 15% of their total requirements.” That’s a compelling argument against the notion that shale gas will displace global LNG
.
Shale gas development is going to be difficult in most places except northern Europe, potentially China and eventually India. “In India, you do have British law covering land ownership so you do have land issues but you wouldn’t have the same environmental issues as you have in Europe. (Gas producers) could get (to viable projects) if they worked with the local population, most of whom have very low incomes. In much of Europe, where the amount people make on average is much higher and people have a much higher standard of living, it would likely be more difficult to work with local populations.”

Shale gas and LNG can coexist, but as team captains for the gas industry’s two big new hockey clubs there are many ways they can affect price and therefore development. Too much LNG on world markets could hinder development of shale gas in certain parts of the world. A great deal of shale gas development could hinder LNG development in others. But, says Mann, “Either thing could happen. It’s going to depend on geography, on what resources you have, on governments’ want to develop security of supply – a whole bunch of political things can get rolled up into that.”

“North America is a great example,” he concludes. “A few years ago we wanted to have LNG receiver terminals dotting the east coast, the southern coast and the west coast of North America. People didn’t want them. Then all of a sudden by some miracle we ended up with the shale gas revolution and we suddenly found we didn’t need them. So LNG – go away.”

For North America, at least, shale gas was the game changer. Shale Gas five; LNG one.

A Natural Gas Crisis Coming?

This resource triangle illustrates that conventional resources (the apex of the triangle) represent a relatively small volume of the total hydrocarbons in an area or basin. Unconventional hydrocarbons depicted by the lower part of the triangle tend to occur in substantially higher volumes. Early exploration and production is focussed on the apex of the triangle. Industry only pursues opportunities lower in the triangle when the opportunities at the top of the triangle are inadequate to meet demand and consumers are prepared to pay to make the opportunities economic. The oval illustrates that the Alberta oil and gas industry has moved significantly down the triangle in pursuing both oil (heavy oil, tar sands) and gas (coalbed methane, tight gas).

By Dave Russum

The final years of the 20th century saw a rapid escalation in natural gas drilling in Western Canada. For the first time, however, the rate of production growth began to falter. In early 2000, as Murphy Oil, Apache and Beau Canada announced their discovery of the Ladyfern Slave Point gas field in a remote area of Northeastern British Columbia, their achievement seemed to herald a new era of successful wildcat exploration.

As word of a major discovery leaked out, many of the significant players in the industry jumped on the bandwagon. A frenzy of land purchases, drilling and pipeline construction followed. In little more than a year, production from the new fields rose to more than 700 million cubic feet per day - and this from an area only accessible during the cold winter months. Production from this region helped raise Canada's gas production to a new peak (in late 2001) of 17.4 billion cubic feet of sales gas per day.

Rather than representing a new era of large discoveries, Ladyfern appears to have been just another increasingly-rare large gas find. During boom periods in the 1950s, for example, gas exploration yielded large new gas fields almost every year, and many discoveries waited for years to be tied into the pipeline network. As the industry matured, such discoveries became unusual. Prior to Ladyfern, the last large gas discovery had been at Caroline, more than ten years earlier.

Unconventional gas: In any given area, free-flowing, buoyancy-driven conventional gas represents a very small fraction of the natural gas resources present. Unconventional gas represents possibly hundreds of times more natural gas resource than there is for conventional gas. It comes from five major sources:

 1. One is shallow, biogenically-derived gas in mixed sand and shale sequences. Shallow biogenic gas is considered to be an unconventional gas resource since it is not generated in the same temperature and pressure systems found in conventional hydrocarbon generation. The Milk River and Medicine Hat sands of southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan are classic examples of this type of unconventional gas. This is the area where gas was first produced in western Canada, and it is still a major producing region. This continuously gas-producing area is the largest in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin.

 2. Coalbed methane is natural gas within the structure of coal. Special production techniques to remove this gas from its coal seam reservoir include lowering reservoir pressures rather than keeping them high. Coalbed methane knowledge has advanced rapidly. So has the development of water-free natural gas from coal in the Horseshoe Canyon Formation in Central Alberta. First commercial production only occurred in 2002, but current production is already more than 500 million cubic feet per day.

 3. Tight gas is gas in low-permeability rock. Reservoirs require artificial fracturing to enable the gas to flow. Canadian Hunter Exploration in the 1970s identified a huge gas resource in the Deep Basin of western Alberta. In this area, much of the sedimentary section is charged with natural gas. The rock can have extremely low permeability but production is not hampered by the presence of water. Similar gas-charged areas have been found in many parts of the world; a common term for this kind of reservoir is "basin-centred gas".

 4. Shale gas is held in shale reservoirs. This is also a low-permeability, highly-challenging resource. Large volumes of gas molecules are trapped in shales which represent one of the commonest rock types in any sedimentary sequence. Shale gas production has been pursued in the United States since the early days of the natural gas industry, and in recent years the Barnett Shale in west Texas has been a tremendous success. Many companies are experimenting with shale gas production in Saskatchewan, Alberta and northeastern British Columbia, but a commercially viable project has yet to be announced.

 5. Gas hydrates consist of natural gas trapped in ice crystals in areas of permafrost and on the ocean floor. In 1985, unconventional gas production received a boost when the United States introduced incentives to encourage the development of energy alternative. This incentive advanced the technical understanding of the resources themselves and of ways to develop them. Canada has benefited from this, learning new ways to exploit her own unconventional resources.

Complacency: The existence of these resources has led to complacency among consumers, who still assume they will always be supplied with gas at "reasonable" rates. Developing these resources can have substantial impacts on the environment through closer well spacing, more intensive infrastructure, additional noise from compression, the challenges of water disposal, NIMBY issues, and other factors. More to the point, most people do not understand that little unconventional gas is extractable in large volumes at lower prices. Consider this matter in the context that natural gas producers generally buy mineral rights from the Crown but must negotiate surface access and other land rights with their neighbours. In this environment, the chances are high that some projects will face delays as a result of public hearings - for example, as Shell and the other contenders did at the Caroline hearing. After all, those with an interest in a single land use decision could include petroleum producers, Aboriginals, landowners, farmers, ranchers, loggers, trappers, campers, sports and environmental groups, and others.

Many conflicting interests need to be resolved. Forecasters now commonly suggest that western Canada's conventional gas production has peaked and will continue to decline. Gaps between traditional supply and growing demand are already being filled with gas from such diverse sources as tight sands; coalbed methane; and since January 2000, frontier gas and liquids from Nova Scotia's Sable Offshore Energy Project. Other possible future sources include Mackenzie delta gas and liquefied natural gas from abroad. This suggests higher future costs and risks, and that suggests higher-priced future energy.

Note to readers: This article first appeared as part of a series in Wikipedia. To read it in context, click here. Then scroll down until you find the "resource triangle" graphic.