clear as mud(rocks): a forward view of natural gas · annual reports; michot foss analysis...
Post on 19-Aug-2018
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
©BEG/CEE-UT, 1
Clear as Mud(Rocks): A Forward View of Natural GasERCOT BOD April 10, 2018
Michelle Michot Foss, Ph.D., UT BEG/CEE
©BEG/CEE-UT, 2
Overview: U.S. and Texas Natural Gas Supply
• What a success story! The only considerations are…• …downward pressure on natural gas prices…
– How much? How long? With what consequences (more on that later)?
• …because of tight rock dynamics…– The “bidness” and how to think about it
• …and the need to re-plumb the gas system…– “Primer” on Texas/ERCOT gas infrastructure and flows
• …in an extended period of consumer sovereignty.– Plenty of ideas. Will they all work?
©BEG/CEE-UT, 3
$0$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8$9
$10$11
"Moderate" HH Price Deck "High" HH Price Deck
Gas Price Economics (2030)
Annual average, real price; Michot Foss, OIES NG 18 (2007) and NG 58 (2011); www.oxfordenergy.org
Supp
ly M
ix
HH price dependent (**70-80%, “NAG”, dry; ~60% gas wells)
Oil price dependent (**20-30+%, “AG”, “wet”;
*Production (25-30+ TCF):
Price events below $3 can happen
NGLs, Condensate, “wet” gas(oil linked, S-D, export drivers)
Price events above $6 can happen
LNG In?S-D interactions relative to supply cost, deliverability
Total Methane Supply
* Canadian gas production, pipe delivery subject to same conditions; **EIA reserves reporting.
LNG Out?
©BEG/CEE-UT, 4
Ever More Reliance on “Mud Rocks”
Offshore (Federal, State)
Onshore (Conventional)
CBM
Tight Rock (Shale)
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Tilli
on C
ubic
Fee
t
Note: 2017 data are estimates
Of which (approx.):TX 28%PA, OH, WV 28%While:GOM OCS 1%
U.S. Energy Information Administration; Michot Foss analysis
©BEG/CEE-UT, 5
Ever More Reliance on Associated Gas
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Trill
ion
Cubi
c Fe
et
Associated Gas Production
Nonassociated Gas Production
U.S. Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)
Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in the U.S. (MMcf)
Note: 2017 data are estimates
U.S. Energy Information Administration; Michot Foss analysis
“Free” gas. Yay!Byproduct of• Hunt for liquids, especially
Permian black oil;• Over-pressured tight rock;• Enormous gas drive
“engines”.How much? How long?
©BEG/CEE-UT, 6
Oil, Liquids Drive DecisionsRelative to Opportunities
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Oil Wells (MMcf)
U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Gas Wells (MMcf)
WTI:HH
Oil, Gas Prices in Rough Parity
Oil Premium
U.S. Energy Information Administration; Michot Foss analysis
Gas Premium
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
OilGas
Share of rigs drilling for:
Gas Premium
Drilling targets reflect relative premiums and expectations
©BEG/CEE-UT, 7
Consequences for Producers
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
0%
50%
100%
MM
BOE
US NGL Production US Oil and Liquids ProductionUS Natural Gas Production US Total Production
An Equivalent Barrel
0 2 4 6 8 10
20092010201120122013201420152016
3-Year MA FD Costs Cash Costs 10% Return
Cost Stack with 10% Return ($/BCFE)
0 10 20 30 40 50
20092010201120122013201420152016
3-Year MA FD Costs Cash Costs 10% Return
Cost Stack with 10% Return ($/BOE)
Note: CEE 2017 results expected to be broadly equivalent.CEE producer benchmarking, 16 companies, annual reports; Michot Foss analysis
• Extraordinary hunt for liquids rich (black oil) acreage as producers continue to shift portfolios
• Rapid accumulation of debt (now, deleveraging)• “Gassy” producers are lower cost but…• …if all of the cost burden was placed on methane,
would need a supporting gas price
©BEG/CEE-UT, 8
Consequences for Producers
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
$/BO
E
Annual Waterfall: (Multiple Items), (All)
Note: CEE 2017 results expected to be broadly equivalent; slight improvement in net income, more capital discipline
CEE producer benchmarking, 16 companies, annual reports; Michot Foss analysis
Bernstein Research (right), used with permission
• Challenges keeping spending in line with cash flow (better)• Large contribution of depreciation to cash flow funded
spending (too much)• Reliance on external capital markets, especially for organic
capex (M&A, property dispositions)
2009-2016 All Companies
©BEG/CEE-UT, 9
Long Term Spending and Cash Flow
(40.0)
(35.0)
(30.0)
(25.0)
(20.0)
(15.0)
(10.0)
(5.0)
-
3Q14 4Q14 1Q15 2Q15 3Q15 4Q15 1Q16 2Q16 3Q16 4Q16 1Q17 2Q17 3Q17
$/BO
E
Industry Average CEE Group Avg
Note: CEE 2017 results expected to be broadly equivalent; slight improvement in net income, more capital discipline
CEE producer benchmarking, 16 companies, annual reports; Michot Foss analysis
Bernstein Research (right), used with permission
Capex-CF
The “treadmill” shows up in the need for continuous outlays of capex, largely funded by accumulated depreciation and external capital
©BEG/CEE-UT, 10
Midstream, the Giant Sucking Sound
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$/BO
E
Production Exploration Non-income Tax G&A Mktging
Expected total cash cost 2017
Expect increase in G&A Marketing
Note: CEE 2017 results expected to be broadly equivalent; slight improvement in net income, more capital discipline. CEE producer benchmarking, 16 companies, annual reports; Michot Foss analysis
“Producer push” as opposed to “demand pull” for midstream investment• Producers now much more
constrained
©BEG/CEE-UT, 11
Realizations: Expected vs Reported RevenuePositive = Realized < Expected
Bernstein Research, used with permission
Gassy companies have greater difficulty meeting realized revenue targets
©BEG/CEE-UT, 12
In Sum: State of the Industry
• Improvements in cost management, so far, but– Midstream continues to burden producers– Capex will grow again as companies try to reposition
• Acreage consolidation to pursue drilling patterns• The “cube” strategy of “wine rack” near simultaneous
completions as companies work to manage “parent-child”well interference (charts on right, proprietary project)
• The need to drill to sustain upstream businessesis quite real– “Prove up” to retain, attract new capital– Volumes to produce sufficient funding for operations
• Given these realities + predominant “gas drive”reservoirs + midstream bottlenecks + offtake = impact on prices and spreads
Mar
-17
May
-17
Jul-1
7
Sep
-17
Nov
-17
Jan-
18
Mar
-18
May
-18
Jul-1
8
Sep
-18
Nov
-18
Jan-
19
Mar
-19
May
-19
Jul-1
9
Sep
-19
Nov
-19
Jan-
20
Mar
-20
May
-20
Jul-2
0
Sep
-20
Nov
-20
Jan-
21
Mar
-21
May
-21
Jul-2
1
Sep
-21
Nov
-21
Jan-
22
Mar
-22
May
-22
Jul-2
2
Sep
-22
Nov
-22
$Mill
ions
and
$M
illio
ns
5 Yr. Development Horizon by MonthFCF Cume FCF
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
$Mill
ions
and
$M
illio
ns
Full Project Life by Year
FCF Cume FCF
Assumptions: Avg realized crude price $55; Avgrealized gas price $3.20
©BEG/CEE-UT, 14
Weekly
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/data/data_products/weekly?location_id=SLAHH®ion_id=south-louisiana
Deterioration of spreads
©BEG/CEE-UT, 15
Forward - Fixed
Forward prices of natural gas delivered for each reference period at the various locations/hubs.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/data/data_products/forward-contracts?location_id=SLAHH®ion_id=south-louisiana
©BEG/CEE-UT, 16
Forward - Basis
"Basis price" represent the differential, for each reference period, between the Henry Hub and various locations/hubs.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/data/data_products/forward-contracts?location_id=SLAHH®ion_id=south-louisiana
HENRY HUB
©BEG/CEE-UT, 17
A fix?
©BEG/CEE-UT, 18
Usefulness of Spreads
• Lure investment to bottlenecks and…• …attract monetization options…
– Gains from trade– End users
• …so long as business conditions support “optionality”.– And it can be paid for.
©BEG/CEE-UT, 19
(5.0)
(4.0)
(3.0)
(2.0)
(1.0)
-
1.0
-
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Cove Point
AECO Hub
LNG import only
Major gas pipeline flows
LNG export only
LNG import (M)/export (X)
BC (Canada) Projects
Pacific Northwest
Major NGLs flows
Henry HubMarket Region
Impacted gas pipeline flows
Wah
a
12 mosthrough Jan 18: -4.3 BCFD
U.S. is about47% of Mexican
consumption (2016)
U.S. is about24% of Canadian
consumption (2016)
12 mos to Jan 18: 5.7 BCFD
2013: ~2x current NA exports by 2020
to ~9+ BCFD?As of Jan 18
~9 BCFD (4.0)
(2.0)
-
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
12 mos to Jan 18: -0.4 BCFD
(3.0)
(2.0)
(1.0)
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
12 mosthrough Jan 18:-1.8 BCFD
US/NAM Gas Trade
Net Imports
Michot Foss, Chapter 3, Pricing of Internationally Traded Gas, www.oxfordenergy.org; EIA; FERC
U.S. LNG
©BEG/CEE-UT, 20
Waha Infrastructure
©BEG/CEE-UT, 21
Big Bets
©BEG/CEE-UT, 22Guillermo Turrent, CFE, Energy Mexico 2018, Jan 30, used with permission
CFE’s zonal pricing strategy intended to:• Improve signaling for
internal de-bottlenecking and expansions
• Improve price signals for imports
• Provide price signals for domestic production
PetroLida(Michot)
©BEG/CEE-UT, 23
Our Renaissance
• About 100 Projects• About $90 billion• Incremental NG
demand of ~3 BCFD
CEE industrial database
©BEG/CEE-UT, 24
Global LNG complexities…• “Low” demand growth (China, India,
Japan, and others): – Coal, nuclear, renewables have priority -
energy security – Not enough gas infrastructure (especially
storage) – Low gas market readiness – Sluggish economic growth– Japanese energy policy: nuclear,
renewables, efficiency• “Surging” global LNG supply excess
supply until the mid 2020s– Unsubscribed U.S. liquefaction capacity– Parts of contracted volumes not tied to
specific destinations
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/template/IAEE%20Energy%20Forum_062116.pdfhttp://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/thinkcorner/CEE_Advisor_Research_Note-Andy_Flower_LNG_Supply_Outlook-Aug16.pdfhttp://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/thinkcorner/CEE_Research_Paper-China_and_India_Current_Future_Natural_Gas_Demand-Apr17.pdf
©BEG/CEE-UT, 25
…and rapidly shifting terrain.
Creditworthiness of buyers is a substantial risk to global LNG trade growth.
Shell LNG Outlook 2018
©BEG/CEE-UT, 26
Closing Thoughts
• How to keep the success story going– First, do no harm
• Ultimately, market will set pathway…– Cost of capital– Attraction of oil and gas for investment portfolios– Ability of producers to consolidate acreage positions
in order to sustain, improve efficiencies and get offthe treadmill (???)
– Trade, petrochemicals do not provide enough “oompf”– Gas competitiveness for electric power is key
• …perceptions will dictate
top related