How to profit as the shale gas revolution disappoints

By Matthew Partridge Feb 08, 2012

Matthew Partridge

Share with
friends:

Comments (10) Print this article

Shale is being hailed as the solution to the West’s energy problems. The ability to drill gas and oil trapped in shale rock more cheaply could make the US “energy independent” by 2030, reckons BP.

It’s a seductive idea. The prospect of becoming less reliant on foreign powers is very appealing. Americans don’t like enriching Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries while Europeans hate the leverage that Russia’s gas gives them.

While there are other alternative energy sources, they all have their own problems: coal is too dirty, solar power is too expensive, and nuclear energy is - rightly or wrongly - seen as too risky.

There is no doubt that shale will lead to cheaper energy - already gas prices in the US (though not elsewhere) are at record lows - but it’s not a miracle cure. It has problems of its own; and that means there’s a good chance that shale will disappoint some of its more enthusiastic fans, as well as consumers hoping for permanently lower energy prices.

However, that could be good news for investors. We’ll look at why – and how you can profit from the sector – in a moment.

But first, what are the downsides about shale?

Shale gas is dirtier than you might think

Shale gas fans claim that it emits 50% less carbon than coal. And if you are just talking about its end use, then they might be right. However other experts point out that it could be up to twice as dirty as coal, due to its byproducts - as well as producing greenhouse gases, shale gas may also pollute vital water supplies.

'Fracking', the process of blasting open shale formations to get at the gas, has been blamed for spoiling farmland and rivers with methane and chemicals. In some cases the radioactive gas radon has been released. It has even been linked to earthquakes around the world. Because of all this, it has been banned in many parts of the US, Canada and Europe, and faces stiff opposition elsewhere.

Searching for shale gas also requires a lot of land, making it unsuited to urban areas.


Sign up for a 3-week FREE trial of MoneyWeek
and get the following free as well

"The only financial publication I could not be without."
John Lang, Director, Tower Hill Associates Ltd


It may not be as abundant as the optimists think

Because shale gas has only been tapped relatively recently, there is great uncertainty about reserves. Initial reports suggested that the US alone might have enough shale gas to last 100 years. However, as more wells have been sunk and more data becomes available, the estimates have started to fall. The US Energy Information Agency slashed forecast reserves by 41% last month. And so far, proven reserves only cover a decade’s worth of gas.

 

Several high-profile drilling efforts in Europe have failed too: Exxon couldn’t find viable reserves in either Hungary or Poland, while Shell also drew a blank in Sweden. Progress outside the EU and US is even slower. PFC Energy believes that even by 2020, Argentina and China, two hotly tipped areas, will only produce small amounts of shale gas.

There may be other significant reserves of shale gas in areas such as Ukraine, Libya and Algeria – but that again leaves us with the problem of relying on politically unstable areas for energy supplies.

Low prices for natural gas won’t last

We’ve already mentioned shale’s role in lowering US natural gas prices. However, much of this comes down to how the natural gas industry operates.

Shale gas firms buy land-use options. These options require companies to drill for gas even if prices are low. Firms also need to recoup large capital costs quickly. This leads to a situation where a large number of firms are desperate to sell as much gas as possible purely to generate cash flow, even if it would be more logical to wait until gas prices rise.

This pushes down prices and makes it appear that energy is cheaper than it really is. However, once prices fall far enough, firms start letting leases expire and cutting production. Production falls until higher prices make fresh drilling economic again.

And this now seems to be happening. US shale gas production may already have peaked, with the number of rigs falling by 18% compared with last year. Andrew Liveris, the head of Dow Chemicals, believes that the price of natural gas – a key input for the chemicals industry - will soar in the future. As a result, he is considering hedging the company’s exposure.

Get ready for rising gas prices

What does this all mean? Shale gas can only push prices down so far. So consumers hoping for ever-lower gas prices look set to be disappointed. And perhaps hopes for self-sufficiency by 2030 are overdone (for more on this, see the feature in this week’s issue of MoneyWeek magazine: Does the US still need the Middle East?).

However, rising gas prices are great news for the firms producing the shale gas. A particularly attractive option is Chesapeake Energy (US: CHK). The company, which is run by Aubrey McClendon, a veteran wildcatter, has been ahead of the curve. It has already stopped expanding its shale gas portfolio, has cut deals with bigger companies, and is now reducing output and closing wells and rigs.

This will help the company to repay some of its debt and increase cash, putting it on a much stronger footing compared to other firms. It also means that it will be able to expand production – and profits - again when prices increase.

Meanwhile, Chesapeake’s focus on Texas, and other areas in the US, means that it should benefit if there continues to be problems with drilling in Europe, especially if regulations are reduced further in America following this year’s US presidential election (you can find out more here on how a Republican victory could be good for oil stocks: What this year's US election could mean for stocks).

Comments (10)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. Aidan

    (08 February 2012, 11:18PM)  Complain about this comment

    I hope you are right ,investments in natural gas the worst i ever made lost 50% in UNG united states natural gas, then i invested in encana last year and down about 25% but am staying with it as it is an equity and at least has assets in the ground, also those investments were made when natural gas was cheap less than $4 after the big price falls had already happened,

  • 2. alex

    (09 February 2012, 10:53AM)  Complain about this comment

    I'm a fan of CHES, having had the good fortune to sell out at $27, I am now back in at $22 with the intention of holding to $30 this time. $20 really does seem to mark the bottom for this stock with $35 seeming to be the top. I think regardless of the shale gas story it's also worth looking at firms developing transportation engines for gas like Westport who've developed a gas powered train engine which costs 1/10th the amount per mile to run than a diesel......

  • 3. Milligan

    (09 February 2012, 11:49AM)  Complain about this comment

    I thought Chesapeake cut production BECAUSE the price of gas was so low.
    By the way we have naturally occuring Radon gas here in Cumbria.I got a property checked for it.So I wouldn't put too much on that one.
    There may be correlation with minor earthquakes and fracking.That I do conceed.

  • 4. SteveBee

    (09 February 2012, 12:52PM)  Complain about this comment

    Is this the same CHK that Moneyweek tipped at a much higher price several months back? It deserves some acknowledgement.

    That said I like the analysis and am somewhat tempted -it is on my watch list.

    What's the chance of it going bust if prices saty low?

  • 5. Lew Stules

    (09 February 2012, 01:28PM)  Complain about this comment

    Corac - CRA looks a good investment, downhole gas compression which can boost gas output from existing depleted wells. Technology has to be the way forward......

  • 6. Milligan

    (09 February 2012, 02:55PM)  Complain about this comment

    An article in Jan 2012 said US natural gas ouput growth in 2011 was so abundant,gas prices should be subdued for 2012.The overwhelming majority of output growth came in the form of shale gas.Inventories are glutted with supply.Cheap prices have made it difficult for drillers.Production costs are decreasing.Breakeven costs in major plays range between $3 to $7 per MMBtu.The Henry Hub spot price averaged $4.00 per MMBtu in 2011,but estimates for 2012 is $3.53 MMBtu.At date of article,16.1.12 Henry Hub spot price was under $2.67 per MMBtu in the middle of winter.
    Gas prices for Europe and Asia are at least double those of US and are oil indexed.Japan has been importing LNG at an average price of $16.5 per MMBtu since July 2011.Premium paid due to earthquake and nuclear plant shutdowns.Additional imports have increased spot prices.
    So prices are down.Yes,but the US gas market is a major contrast to the rest of the world due to ongoing shale gas revolution.

  • 7. Steve

    (09 February 2012, 05:58PM)  Complain about this comment

    @alex, NB the top for Chesapeake was 74 in July 2008 and the bottom was 10 in December 2008. An 86% fall.

  • 8. Bazzer

    (10 February 2012, 10:10AM)  Complain about this comment

    For an appraisal of the prospects for shale gas revolutionising the energy market in America, have a look at the following 'myth shattering' report on the Post Carbon Instutute site. I have shares in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (for the income) which is based upon a conventional natural gas field in Texas. If shale gas fails to live up to its promise, and supplies dwindle, I would expect to benefit from the ensuing rise in the gas price.

    http://www.postcarbon.org/report/331901-report-will-natural-gas-fuel-america

  • 9. sodium999

    (11 February 2012, 01:48PM)  Complain about this comment

    I have profited greatly from shorting natural gas
    via ETF ticker SNGA up 95% in one year . Up 15% in the last month.Up 565% in 5 years. I still am confused by the energy companies price hikes.

    You may want to think about investing in this company .
    http://www.executiveinterviews.net/players/mini/default.asp?order=UK04811b

  • 10. Colin Selig-Smith

    (12 February 2012, 08:32PM)  Complain about this comment

    100 years reserve available?

    That would be "at the current rate of consumption" as these quotes always are. Which means in reality...

    At 3% per year growth: 47 years of use of the resource before it is exhausted. Even better, the peak production of the resource will happen at half of this value, which means, 23 years (2035) before production peaks and begins declining.

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>