Chinese Well Data is Expensive!

The Chinese government recently sentenced an American citizen to eight years for selling data relating to the locations and reserves associated with more than 30,000 Chinese oil and gas wells to IHS. The sentence has provoked demands from US officials for Xue Feng’s immediate release and deportation to the US.

As outrageous as this may sound to Americans accustomed to “freedom of information,” we should look in the mirror before we judge the Chinese too harshly.  Here in the US we can usually purchase this type of information (well locations, production data, well logs, etc.) from companies such as IHS, Tobin, and others, or in many cases get the data for free from state regulatory agencies; but this is not always the case.

 

I was recently involved in an Eminent Domain case which involved a large interstate pipeline company wishing to expand a gas storage facility. In this case the pipeline company was concerned that its storage gas may leak out of the boundaries of the existing facility onto the property of nearby landowners. The pipeline company was exercising its federally backed right to take the mineral rights of these owners so it could expand the storage facility to prevent this potential loss.

 

Despite the fact the pipeline company was taking the property of these citizens, they refused to disclose the locations of their wells, the current and future boundary of the storage facility, and their geologic justification for the expansion. They claimed “national security” as their basis for withholding this information from the citizens being impacted.

 

While the US government hasn’t nationalized its oil industry, these large interstate pipelines and utilities have been granted powers approaching that of a NOC. US oil and gas companies are required by most states to provide this type of information with the knowledge that it will be made publicly available, but these interstate pipeline gas storage facilities can hide behind the federal government (FERC).

 

So, before we start making demands of other countries let’s take a minute to think what the repercussions would be for an employee of this US pipeline company had they sold their “national security” secrets to IHS.

Plume vs Cloud

With all of the "he said, she said" and finger pointing going on in the media surrounding the BP blowout, MSNBC has a very good slide show describing the physics behind what happens to oil after it's spilled into a body of water.  Perhaps this will help explain why BP claims no large scale "plumes" of oil beneath the surface, while NOAA claims to have found evidence of large "clouds" of low hydrocarbon concentrations (0.5 parts per million) extending hundreds of miles from the well site, as reported in this LA Times article

I certainly don't want to make light of this environmental disaster, and I don't know the long term effects of these concentrations on marine life, but by my quick calculations 0.5 ppm is equivalent to 2-3 tablespoons dissolved in a 20,000 gal swimming pool If you wear sunscreen when you swim, you may be swimming in one of these hydrocarbon clouds without realizing it.  Hopefully people can understand why BP executives may not be thinking of these areas of low concentration as they are tasked with cleaning up millions of gallons of heavily concentrated oil floating towards the area beaches. 

I don't think the existence of these areas of low hydrocarbon concentrations (be it a "plume" or a "cloud") should be all that surprising given the fact BP has been using chemical dispersants for some time now.  These dispersants are designed to breakup the areas of high oil concentration into lower concentrations that can then disperse into the surrounding waterThere are numerous questions that need to be answered about what caused the blowout and why it wasn't controlled, but the debate about the existence of these "oil plumes" seems to me can be addressed by everyone agreeing on a definition of a "plume." 

BP reports they are now recovering 15,000 BOPD (barrels of oil per day) and hope to increase this recovery by utilizing the lines that were installed into the BOP (blowout preventer) for the failed "top kill" operation.  This is certainly an improvement and a step in the right direction, but realistically the only thing that is going to stop this well from flowing are the two relief wells currently being drilled, and they are still a month or two away, or if something unforeseen happens down hole at the source.

BP's Deepwater Horizon and the Future of US Offshore Production

These are scary times.  We all know about the tragic accident that occurred April 20th at Mississippi Canyon 252.  Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig contracted to BP experienced a blowout resulting in an explosion that killed 11 workers and began spilling an estimated 5,000 bbl per day into the Gulf of Mexico.  This incident was indeed a tragedy for the families of the 11 who died, the residents along the Gulf affected by the spill, the companies involved and their investors, and now potentially for the future of offshore production and the country's energy security.

The Gulf of Mexico is a significant source of oil and gas for the US.  In a recent blog, Stephen O'Brien points out the historical importance of the Gulf to total US domestic production.  As can be seen in the production plots of domestic onshore and offshore oil taken from his article, onshore oil production has declined significantly from its peak in the mid 1980's and appears to be leveling off around 100,000,000 bbl per day; despite the run up in oil prices over the past decade, indicating the maturity of this supply.

On the other hand, the plot of offshore oil shows growth, significant growth, over the past decade due to both higher prices and technological advancements that have allowed deep water exploration and production; this is indicative of a less mature source which has future potential for expansion.  If we are serious in this country about trying to be less dependent on foreign oil, we need sources that can be exploited to grow supply.

Meanwhile the government is debating increasing the liability limits for offshore operations in light of the pending environmental disaster and subsequent impact to the economies of the region.  In recent statements released by Alliant Insurance and Lloyd Partners Insurance it is apparent that if these liability levels are increased as currently proposed, sufficient insurance will not be available for offshore exploration and development projects and the insurance that is available will be very expensive. 

This will no doubt signal the end of the smaller domestic offshore producer leaving only those companies who can afford to self insure a significant portion of their exposure.  This leaves the large international corporations (Exxon, BP, Shell, etc) and foreign national oil companies (NOCs).  So much for less reliance on foreign oil, now supplies that are currently "domestic supplies" could be predominately controlled by foreign countries (like China).

 For an update of BP's efforts to control the flow from the damaged well watch this video.

Gas Hydrates

With the failure of BP's recent attempt to control the blowout being attributed to the formation of gas hydrates, I thought it might be helpful to discuss hydrates in general.  A gas hydrate is a crystalline structure that forms in cold temperatures under high pressure.  The crystal is formed with water molecules surrounding a hydrocarbon molecule and resembles ice...ice that will burn.

Hydrate formation is something the oil and gas industry has been fighting for some time.  These crystals are an unwanted obstacle to production and they can form whenever the conditions are right (composition, temperature and pressure).  The offshore environment, especially deep water, is particularly susceptible to the formation of hydrates both in producing wells and in underwater pipelines.

The usual treatment for dealing with hydrates is first to attempt to design around them (try to keep the product from entering the hydrate formation envelope) but if that doesn't work, to treat with chemicals that will "melt" the crystals-- usually methanol.  And in fact I read where BP is considering a "top hat" device that will allow for methanol treating to melt the hydrates.

Here is a link to a Texas A&M article on hydrates which has more information and discusses naturally occurring hydrates as a potential future energy source.

The Future of Oil and Gas

I recently had the privilege to attend a couple of presentations at the local ADAM (Acquisitions, Divestitures And Mergers) meeting concerning the future world energy demand and I thought I'd share a few observations.  The presentations I attended were given by Scott Nauman with ExxonMobil (April 1) and Dr. Economides from the University of Houston (March 4).

In Mr. Nauman's presentation he discussed ExxonMobil's long term global energy outlook where it is estimated global energy demand will increase 35% above 2005 levels by 2030 (this represents an annual growth rate of 1.2%).  The major driver of this increase will be in the form of fuel for electricity generation.

This increase in world energy demand is expected to be lead by the non-OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries (India and China, mainly) with demand in OECD countries (US and Europe, etc) actually slightly lower than in 2005 due to increases in efficiencies.

By 2030 it is estimated that 65% of the world energy demand will be from non-OECD countries Today 1.5 billion (25% of the world's population) do not have electricity and a whopping 2.5 billion (over 40%) do not have access to modern cooking and heating fuels and must rely on burning wood, dung and other biomass.  There is a very strong correlation between economic prosperity and energy consumption as can be seen in Dr. Economides' graphic.

Several types of fuel can be used to generate electricity and in Mr. Nauman's presentation he showed a very interesting graphic depicting the costs of generating electricity with different fuels.  These graphics show coal is the clear winner for low cost electricity (followed closely by natural gas), but when the potential costs of CO2 are added to the equation other fuels begin to compete (nuclear, wind) and eventually overtake coal.  Natural gas, however, remains competitive with or without CO2 costs.  So if you're looking to build an electricity generation plant I would think you would look real hard at natural gas as your fuel of choice, and given the expected increase in electricity demand, this should bode well for the long term future of natural gas.

Transportation fuel choices are currently much more limited than those for electricity generation.  Globally 98% of transportation fuel is oil based.  Currently light duty vehicles (cars, SUVs, etc) account for the majority of energy used for transportation.  In the US 80% of the population own cars.  In Europe the number is less (about 50%), and in China the number is less than 3%. 

As economic prosperity grows in the non-OECD countries it is expected that the number of vehicles will also grow.  ExxonMobil's forecast is for a modest increase in vehicle ownership to only 8% of China's population by 2030, but that is still a very large number of cars and represents significant increase in transportation fuel demand.  It is interesting to note that the ExxonMobil model forecasts personal transportation fuel requirements in the OECD countries will drop 25% due to increased efficiency, while the non-OECD demand is expected to more than double.

Currently vehicle fuel is primarily gasoline and diesel with hybrids making up less than 1%.  ExxonMobil expects this to continue to be the case with hybrids (and other advanced fuels) market share increasing to 15% by 2030. 

So what does all this mean?  The long term outlook for energy demand is strong.  The world is currently struggling its way out of a recession and oil is holding its own around $80/bbl, with the prospect of strong demand increases in the future.  Currently natural gas is struggling in the low $4 range and there is a lot of hand-wringing about its future.  Certainly $4 gas is not attractive to those looking at multimillion dollar horizontal wells in shale plays, but unless there is some new fuel on the horizon that can compete with natural gas for electricity generation, the future for natural gas is also bright-- albeit a little scary in the short term.