

The decline in natural gas prices and rig counts has
significant ramifications to the US economy.
While low prices are a positive for consumers of natural gas and
downstream products, the current pricing is not sustainable. Exploration and production (E&P) firms
are tapping into their cash reserves and limiting expenses until prices
recover. As shown in last week’s post,
capital expenditures were expected to drop from the peak in 2014 of about $200
billion to $100 billion in 2016 for North America. This $100 billion decrease impacts multiple
sectors of the economy: the steel industry which supplies piping, construction firms
which build pipelines, contractors who operate the drilling rigs and so on. This depressed spending on capital
expenditures will persist until prices recover sufficiently to support new
drilling. Therefore, while consumer may
prefer the current low cost of natural gas, price increases are inevitable
until E&P firms become profitable again.
Instead of waiting for domestic supply and demand to balance, there is
another opportunity available to the US.
Given the current domestic oversupply, natural gas producers – and the
US as a country - should look to LNG exports to shore up the domestic price
since a rebound is inevitable and it will drive economic growth.
First, a brief background into LNG. Natural gas is typically been a regional
commodity, using pipelines to transport it form one area to another. In its gaseous form, natural gas does not
transport well – such as by rail or tanker – since the energy density is too
low. To economically transport natural
gas by a method other than pipelines, it must first be liquified. The liquification of natural gas is a complex
process which takes it from ambient temperatures to about -260°F
(or -160°C),
and in turn reduces the volume to 1/600th the original size. LNG can then be shipped anywhere in the world
by sophisticated refrigerated tanker vessels.
However, nothing is free, and the same can be said about LNG. The cost of converting natural gas to a
liquid and shipping it to a destination port is approximately $2-3/Mcf.
Despite the conversion and transportation cost, current
prices in both the US and international markets support the US exporting LNG. Below is a figure provide by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), showing landed LNG prices throughout the
globe. Outside the US, prices range from
$6/MMBtu (MMBtu is one million British Thermal Units) in Europe and Asia, to
over $7/MMBtu in South America. Even
with transportation costs of $3/Mcf, there is tremendous upside to exporting
LNG internationally. Note the units here
switch around between MMBtu and Mcf – thankfully the conversion factor is almost
1 (1 MMBtu equals 0.9756 Mcf). By developing the infrastructure to ship LNG,
the US can turn its domestic supply of natural gas into a worldwide
product. This will help stabilize the
price of natural gas in the US to ~$2-3/Mcf lower than the prevailing rate at
import markets.
By opening up the international markets to US LNG exports,
the benefits will be multiple. First,
there will be significant capital expenditure by the US E&P firms as
production ramps up. These capital
expenditures will create waves throughout the US economy. Steel producers will get significant orders
for new piping, construction firms will build new pipelines, the number of rigs
in use will increase significantly, and a considerable number of jobs would be
created in the process. Second, there
are environmental benefits from using natural gas versus other forms of
hydrocarbons. Natural gas has less
impacts to the extraction region than mining coal – which removes significant
material from the earth. Natural gas also
burners cleaner than any other fossil fuel and is a significant improvement
over the current standard in many countries.
Finally, there are significant geopolitical benefits to the US exporting
natural gas. The discussion on
geopolitics is expansive and will be included in next week’s continuation of
this subject.
One key question that needs to be addressed before shipping
US natural gas worldwide is whether or not the US has enough to spare. Below is a chart provided by the EIA, which
shows the US has on the order of 300,000 Bcf (billion cubic feet) of proved
reserves. The US currently uses slightly
under 30,000 Bcf of natural gas per a year – which puts about 10 years of
proved reserves available. However, as
it may be noticed, the drop in proved reserves between 2014 and 2015 is greater
than consumption. This is because proved
reserves mean it is economical at current prices. Therefore, proved reserves will drop as
prices go down. Therefore, it is better
to use technological feasible reserves. The
EIA currently estimates the US has around 2,474,000 Bcf of feasible natural gas
reserves – which is enough for over 90 years at current consumption rates. Therefore, there is plenty of natural gas in
the US to support exports.
Lastly, there are currently 7 LNG export facilities approved
and under construction in the US with an additional 4 approved but not yet
under construction (see the figure below).
The 7 facilitates will have a total capacity of 10.35 Bcf/day and if the
other 4 are built, the total will be up to 17.14 Bcf/day. Given that this last number equates to 514 Bcf/month,
or around $38 billion a year in possible export revenue. Therefore, the US should encourage development
of LNG export facilities and the infrastructure to support them since it can
grow capital expenditures by US firms and help grow the US economy. Below is an illustration of approved LNG
facilities in the US and Canada.
Next week’s edition will discuss the opportunities to export
natural gas to Canada and Mexico as well as the geopolitical intricacies of the
US becoming a major exporter of energy.
Sources:



At first, thank you so much for this very informative and interesting port.
ReplyDeleteAs the Micro Economics theory indicates, "the more demand, the more probability to increase the price", which will be applicable for the US after exporting LNG.
Vice versa, "the more supply source, the more probability to decrease the price" which will be applicable for the country who will import the gas from the US; like Asia, especially Japan where I am from. Let me comment you from importer's point of view.
The Ranking of LNG import amount (2014)(source: IEA and JOGMEG)
1st : Japan 128.3 (10 Billion cubic meter =BBm3)
2nd : Korea 49.1 (10 Billion cubic meter)
3rd : China 25.2 (10 Billion cubic meter)
Ref : EU* 49.9 (10 Billion cubic meter)
(*limited to OECD member countries)
**Ref : Mexico 21.3 (10 Billion cubic meter)
**Ref : Canada 18.3 (10 Billion cubic meter)
** Import gas by pipeline from the US as of 2014
As seen, Japan is the world largest LNG importing country. Since Japan is an island country which does not produce gas, it depends on importing LNG from various countries: Qatar 23.8 BBm3, Australia 26.4 BBm3, Malaysia 22.1 BBm3 and so on)
Historically, Japanese gas users (gas companies and electric utility companies) had contracted their long term gas import price linking to Dubai Crude Oil Price Index, over the past decade. This was why, Japanese gas import price had been crazily higher than the other countries. In 2012, after Fukushima nuclear accident, Japan depended majority of power generation on thermal power plants, at that time, Japanese average gas import price was more than $0.16/mmbtu (while the gas price in the US at that time was $0.02), which damaged Japanese economy remarkably.
Then after, Japanese gas users have tried to amend the import contract based on linking to US NYMEX price index which has decreased the Japanese import price. And currently, as you showed in the post, the price is about $0.07-8/mmbtu.
Not only linking the price index, but to export the shale gas from the US has been a big ambition for Japanese gas users.
Various Japanese companies have invested to develop shale gas field and liquefy & exporting projects.
For example, among those the export terminal projects you listed in the post, "Freeport TX" 2.14 Bcfd - a largest project among the under construction projects- is invested by Japanese companies. Osaka Gas, Chubu Electric Power, and Toshiba corporation (Osaka/Chubu and Toshiba develop different terminal within the Freeport).
According to several news articles, Toshiba struggles to sell the gas from Freeport, because they contracted the project in 2013 when the gas price in Japan was far higher than nowadays. It makes difficult for them to obtain buyers of the gas at the price they wish for.
Anyhow, from 2018, those project will start the actual shipment and Japanese users look forward to import those fuels and the US gas export will make the international gas trading market more "fair".
(typo)
Deleteline 1: this port --> this post
Sorry,again typo..
Delete>(10 Billion cubic meter)-->(Billion cubic meter)
Great reading Chris. Nicely done. You make a good case for a concrete point: LNG exports are beneficial, pose little risk to domestic supply and should engender optimism for the U.S. economy. Very well written too. Lots of moving parts here. I look forward to seeing how you guys bring them all together in terms of a succinct op-ed with a clear position that you are trying to convince the reader of (not meant to imply that you must bring to bear everything from blog posts on your Op-Ed).
ReplyDeleteHere’s a parenthetical point. It’s related to an old cliché about oil and the global nature of its market: “All sources supply all uses.” The “enough to spare” argument has been used a lot over time. But it doesn’t make much sense to me, at least not for the U.S., its market economy and its institutions of private property. This is because gas (oil, etc) are commodities that trade in international markets at market prices. “Enough to spare” ultimately must imply that there is some state of nature in which supply gets low and the U.S. just keeps a bunch of its domestic supply for its own citizens use. But, of course, the owners of the commodity would rather either sell it in international markets, or have the U.S. government buy it from them at market prices. But if the government is going to pay the market price, then they might just as well buy it from the world market and the whole “hoard it for domestic use” argument falls apart.
Grading Rubric (badly formatted because comments don’t allow formatting)
Possible “grades:” Excellent (E), Very Good (VG), Good (G), Could be Better(CBB)
Takes a clear position: VG
Substantiates the position: VG
Informs the casual reader: E
Clarity/quality of exposition: E