u.s. shale gas and implications for u.s. politics and …...51石油・天然ガスレビュー...

51 石油・天然ガスレビュー

JOGMEC

アナリシス

U.S. Shale Gas andImplications for U.S. Politics and Marketsはじめに

　2005年頃から生産量の増加が顕著となり、2008年には米国内の天然ガス生産量の10%を超え、現在も増加し続けているシェールガスは、米国の天然ガス産業の景色を変え、Hydraulic Fracturing（水圧破砕）による飲料水源汚染の問題を孕

はら

みながらも、オバマ政権のエネルギー政策上重要な位置を占める資源となっている。　2008年央に12 $/MMBtuを超えた米国内天然ガス市場価格（Henry Hub Gulf Coast Natural Gas Spot Price）は、現在4.0 $/MMBtu程度で推移している。高騰する原油価格とは対照的に低い国内ガス価格の市場環境のなかにあっても、シェールガス開発への投資は、開発コストの低下と中小石油企業・メジャーによる旺盛な投資意欲のために停滞は見られない。またシェールガス開発で培われた技術がBakken Playほかでのシェールオイル開発に適用されているという側面もある。　他方、米国北東部の州ではHydraulic Fracturingによる坑井掘削への規制が強化される一方、テキサス州では、石油企業と協調しつつFracturingに使用する化学物質の情報公開を目的とした州法制定の準備がなされるなど、地域ごとにシェールガス開発規制の差異が顕著になりつつある。このレポートでは、米国におけるシェールガス開発を概観しつつ、今後のオバマ政権のエネルギー政策への影響について考える。

JOGMEC Washington Office Jasmin Sinclair

　Shale gas has been hailed as a game-changer and lauded as the bridge fuel for the 21st century. The Financial Times even went so far as to call it “sexier” than oil＊ 1 . It is natural gas extracted from shale formations throughout the continental U.S., and it has certainly been one of the most dynamic issues in the energy sector. Since 2005, natural gas production has been growing steadily, primarily because of the technological advances in horizontal drilling coupled with hydraulic fracturing in unconventional shale formations.

From Decline to Abundance

　Development of new sources of shale gas has offset declines in production from conventional gas reservoirs.

According to a 2009 report from the Potential Gas Committee （PGC）, shale gas accounts for 616 Tcf

（trillion cubic feet＊2 ） or 33 % of the 1,836 Tcf total potential resources in the U.S.＊ 3 And in April 2011, the PGC increased its estimate to 2,100 Tcf, with shale gas accounting for 687 Tcf.＊4 This number represents a 3 % increase, a significant jump in just two years' time.　The U.S. Energy Information Administration's （EIA） Annual Energy Outlook 2011 states that technically recoverable shale gas resources account for 862 Tcf of U.S. total natural gas resources of 2,543 Tcf.＊5 Just a year previous, the EIA estimated the number to be 347 Tcf.＊ 6 The new number for 2011 is thus more than twice the amount published for 2010.

522011.9 Vol.45 No.5

JOGMEC

アナリシス

Natural Gas Industry Redesigned

　What has become known as the “unconventional natural gas revolution” has turned a shortage into a large surp lus in a re lat ive ly short t ime . I t has transformed the natural gas business. This revolution has also arrived at a moment when the “Arab Spring” is in full swing during the summer months and the nuclear crisis in Japan have both raised anxiety about energy security. Government and producers alike have turned their focus once more to developing domestic resources.　The rapid rise of shale gas has also drawn scrutiny and controversy. Some environmental groups say that the technology used to extract natural gas from its shale formations threatens to contaminate drinking water supplies. The industry vigorously defends its practices, pointing to a long safety record, with some form of hydraulic fracturing having been in use for 60 years.

U.S. as LNG Exporter?

　Whereas a decade ago, market watchers portended that the U.S. would become a net importer of LNG, these same analysts now point out that due to the abundant supply of natural gas and prices averaging $4/MMBtu （million British thermal units）, the U.S. may have the budding potential to becoming an LNG exporter. Should the U.S. go this route, the question of what happens to prices for the domestic industrial end-user and consumer comes into play. 　But with the global markets experiencing turmoil not seen since 2008, there are portents of a double-dip recession. As such, ebullient expectations for the U.S. becoming an LNG exporter may be premature at best. A recession would lower prices and energy markets would experience surpluses.

From a Green to a Hybrid Presidency

　When Barack Obama was elected president in November 2008, environmentalists and green groups were heartened as they fi nally saw an ally in the White House. The Obama administration's strong support for renewable energy and increased eff ic iency and conservation over the promotion of traditional energy

sources put him in good stead with the environmental community. Since taking office, President Obama has eschewed promotion of domestic drilling for oil and gas as part of its energy policy, despite abundant U.S. oil and natural gas resources.　In general, he seeks to move the U.S. economy away from a dependence on fossil fuels of both domestic and foreign origin. The Obama administration has sought more stringent fuel standards for new cars. The administration has also taken a cautious approach to conventional energy resources, freezing leases to develop oil shale reserves and carefully reviewing future off shore leases for oil and gas in the wake of the Macondo disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. 　Instead, the administration seeks to increase the share of renewable energy. But it is commonly known and understood in the U .S . energy sector that expansion of renewable energy even with strong support from the Obama administration will not signifi cantly change U.S. energy mix in the near term. After President Obama's “shellacking” in the mid-term Congressional elections on November 2, 2010, he identified the increased exploitation of natural gas as his fi rst example of where Republicans and Democrats could work together in the future to improve U.S. energy and environmental security. He emphasized that he still wants to tackle the problem of global cl imate change. Hence, when President Obama expressed enthusiasm for gas drilling in November 2010, many groups raised their eyebrows in surprise. 　He delivered another speech on securing U.S. energy independence at Georgetown University on March 30, 2011, outlining his “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.” In it, he proposed a new national objective of cutting U.S. oil imports by one-third over the next decade. That equals to a reduction of more than three million barrels a day over the next ten years. He also called for responsible development of domestic oil and natural gas.

　This paper will explain what shale gas is, locate shale formations in the U.S. and explain why its exploration and production has been dubbed the “unconventional gas revolution.”＊ 7 The paper will also describe the


JOGMEC

U.S. Shale Gas and Implications for U.S. Politics and Markets

1. Shale Gas:

What is it?

　Shale gas is natural gas produced from shale, a dense sedimentary rock. Shale gas is one of a number of

“unconventional” sources of natural gas . Other unconventional sources of natural gas include coalbed methane and tight gas sands. Unconventional gas formations are “continuous”, deposited over large areas

rather than in distinct traps. The geologic setting of unconventional gas is several times more complex than conventional gas. For coalbed methane and gas shales, the gas source, trap and reservoir are the same, not three distinct elements, as it is for conventional gas.＊8

　Because shales ordinarily have low permeability or are not porous, they have not been commercial sources

controversies surrounding the technique of hydraulic fracturing, along with how natural gas is transforming markets. It will also address U.S. energy policy in light of President Obama's pledge to support renewable technologies, along with U.S. Congressional interest in

the shale gas boom. These issues must be addressed if shale gas and other “unconventional” gas resources are to be understood in the context of carbon-constrained future.

Fig1 Active Shale Gas Plays and Basins

出所：EIA, “Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays,” July 2011.

542011.9 Vol.45 No.5

JOGMEC

アナリシス

of natural gas. In other words, shales do not have many connections between the pores, so the trapped oil and gas cannot flow easily. But over the past decade, the combination of horizontal dril l ing and hydraulic fracturing has allowed access to large volumes of shale gas that were previously uneconomical to produce. The shale gas boom in recent years has been due to modern technology in hydraulic fracturing to create extensive artifi cial fractures around well bores.

Where is it?

　Shale gas is found in shale gas “plays” in shale basins. These are shale formations that contain significant accumulations of natural gas and which share similar geologic and geographic properties. In the continental United States, they are predominantly located in and east of the Rockies. Indeed, the major shale plays are in the eastern U.S. They are the Barnett in Texas; Fayetteville in Arkansas; Woodford in Oklahoma; Haynesville located in Louisiana; and the Marcellus, encompassing three states in the mid-Atlantic.　But where the shale boom can be said to have begun is in the Barnett Shale play in Texas, lying under Fort Worth. A decade of production has already come from the Barnett . The breakthrough in Barnett has improved the efficiency of shale gas development around the country.　Another important play that is attracting much controversy is the “mighty” Marcellus. The Marcellus Shale is located in the mid-Atlantic states of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York.

How much of it does the U.S. have?

　The U.S . has an abundant supply of shale gas resources. According to the EIA, the United States possesses 2,543 Tcf of potential natural gas resources. Natura l gas f rom sha le resources , cons idered uneconomical just a few years ago, accounts for 862 Tcf of this resource estimate, more than double the estimate published last year, which was 347 Tcf. At the 2010 rate of consumption, the U.S. has over 100 years of supply with 2,543 Tcf of natural gas.＊9

　The abundance bodes well as natural gas is used for everything from home-heating and cooking to electric

generation, industrial processes and petrochemical feedstocks. A study by MIT reports that natural gas will provide an increasing share of America's energy needs in the future, doubling its share of the energy market to 40% from 20% .＊10

So what the frack is hydraulic fracturing all

about?

　Considerable controversy surrounds the current implementation of hydraulic fracturing technology in the United States. Environmental safety and public health concerns have emerged and are being debated at the state and national levels.　Hydraulic fracturing （also known as fracking or fracturing） is the use of high-pressure fluids to force open seams in natural gas-rich shale allowing the gas to be extracted. Although the technology has only recently come into the limelight, the process has been around for nearly 100 years. Hydraulic fracturing was fi rst used in 1903, but the fi rst commercial fracturing treatment was performed in 1949. It took another 40 years for engineers and geologists to perfect the process. By the late 1980s, it became the ideal way to bring new life to old wells.

・A fracking history　The man credited with truly contributing to the shale gas revolution and pioneering hydraulic fracturing is George P. Mitchell. In the early 1980s, Mr. Mitchell was a Houston-based independent gas producer . But the reserves on which he was dependent were running down, and he was not sure where he could fi nd more natural gas to replace the dwindling supply. However, he had a notion, before anyone else thought it possible, that the natural gas trapped in the Barnett Shale could be freed if only tapped into. Almost everyone cautioned him against the futility of his efforts. But he persisted in his experiment. He believed in his technology and continued.　The payoff came in the late 1990s. His company, Mitchell Energy and Development Corp., discovered a relatively economical way to create or expand fractures in the gas-bearing Barnett Shale and to get the gas to fl ow. In 2002, Mr. Mitchell then merged


JOGMEC


his company with Devon Energy Corp., and added that company's expertise in the second technology that would unleash the shale gas revolution —horizontal drilling. ＊11 ,＊12

　Combined with horizontal drilling, fracking has become one of the leading technological advances in the oil and gas industry, with some 60 % of all wells drilled today being fractured in the U.S.＊ 13 This innovation in energy extraction is now used in other unconventional shale gas plays including the Marcellus, Woodford, Fayetteville, Haynesville, among others.＊14 　To get to the natura l gas locked in the sha le f o rmat i on , a company dr i l l s more than a mi l e underground to the shale formation. The drill bit is then angled to extend the well horizontally. Water, sand and chemicals are then blasted into the ground to break apart the rock and release the trapped gas. Water makes up nearly 95% of the fracturing fluid. It is water-intensive, needing up to 1 to 3 million gallons of water for each well. Up to 5 million gallons of water

may be used for a large project. For example, a vertical well in the Barnett Shale can use more than 1.2 million gallons, whereas a horizontal well can require more than 3.5 million gallons.＊15 　The technique has proven controversial as the explosive growth of shale gas development in recent years has led to drilling in places that are relatively unaccustomed to it, such as Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio which share the Marcellus Shale formation.＊16 The controversy has developed in part because these shale plays are near huge urban centers such as New York City and Philadelphia.＊17 　The controversy has seeped into American public awareness, garnering media attention outside of the energy sphere. In 2010, four documentary films on hydraulic fracturing were released — two pro, two con. With scenes of igniting water taps, the one capturing much rebuttal from the energy industry and praise from environmenta l i s ts , and earn ing an Oscar nomination along the way was the independent,

“Gasland.” Hydraulic fracturing also showed up as a

Fig2 Drilling and Fracking

出所： http://www.fossil.energy.gov/images/programs/oilgas/hydraulic_fracturing_large.jpg

562011.9 Vol.45 No.5

JOGMEC

アナリシス

main theme in a U.S. police drama, “CSI,” with one analyst calling it “silly.”＊18 Stories have also appeared in popular, mainstream magazines, such as Vanity Fair and Popular Science. ＊19 　Several salient factors contribute to the controversy:

（1） general confusion about drilling versus fracking; （2） environmental safety and public health concerns due to the mixture of water and chemicals used; and

（3） the pa t chwork a r ray o f s t a t e and f edera l regulations, with several key states adopting divergent approaches to regulating fracking.

（1） general confusion about drilling versus

fracking

　People in the oil and gas industry commonly say "fracking" to describe just one part of the whole gas exploration and production process. Chemical-laced water and sand are blasted underground to break apart rock and release gas. （See Figure 2 above.） But to many outsiders, particularly industry critics, fracking and drilling are the same thing. Advances in fracturing technology made possible the current shale gas drilling boom, so they have deemed all shale gas production under the banner "fracking," calling it a new form of natural gas drilling. To industry purists, drilling is the beginning of the process, and fracking is the end.＊20

（2） environmental safety and public health

concerns

　Adding fuel to the fire is that hydraulic fracturing has also prompted concerns about its environmental impacts, including the possible contamination of underground water sources and the release of methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Environmental groups and some residents in drilling areas fear chemicals from the hydraulic fracturing process will seep into drinking water supplies. In areas where natural gas drill ing activities are nearby, careless disposal of fracking fl uids at the site has the potential of contaminating the nearby water well.＊21

　The situat ion is exacerbated by the fact that companies until recently have remained tight-lipped about their operations. The natural-gas industry has finally bowed to long-time pressure and will disclose

more information about its cocktail of chemicals used in fracking. The industry had previously opposed providing detailed information, arguing that they are trade secrets. But in recent months, as proponents of disclosure have accused companies of obfuscation, many industry leaders have come to see the situation as unsound.＊ 22 Last year , the f irst company to voluntarily disclose the chemicals used in its wells in Pennsylvania was Range Resources Corp. Earlier this year, Chesapeake Energy Corp., Chevron Corp. and BP Plc, said they would also begin publicizing their chemicals at the online site FracFocus.org. 　Environmental groups and other opponents remain unsatisfi ed, as they contend that many fracturing fl uids contain chemicals that can be toxic to humans and wildlife, and are known to cause cancer. These include diesel fuel; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; methanol; f o rma ldehyde ; e thy lene g lyco l ; g lyco l e thers ; hydrochloric acid; and sodium hydroxide. Very small quantities of chemicals such as benzene in diesel fuel, which causes cancer, are capable of contaminating millions of gallons of water.＊ 23 Bolstering their arguments is evidence of mercury-laden and radioactive fracturing fluids seeping into local drinking water supplies in at least fi ve states, including Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania , Texas and West Virginia . In late February and early March 2011, the New York Times ran a series of articles detailing the lax regulation of gas wells as tainted fracturing fluids contaminate rivers. The articles state that some of the high levels of contaminants include radium, uranium and gross alpha, a type of radiation caused by uranium and other elements, and that although water from fracking fl uids is recycled, public health dangers remain. ＊24

（3） patchwork of state and federal regulations

　To add another layer of confusion, as companies have started to publicly disclose formerly proprietary issues, states and federal authorities each have their own layers of regulations, while the DOE's Shale Gas Subcommittee draft report recommends publ ic disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, except for “genuinely proprietary information,” along with cessation of use of diesel fuel in extraction operations. ＊25


JOGMEC


　In what has been called the “Halliburton loophole,” the Energy Policy Act of 2005 stripped the U.S. Environment Protection Agency （EPA） of authority to regulate this technique under the Safe Drinking Water Act （SDWA）　State authorities alone have the responsibility of regulating hydraulic fracturing. Individual states can also outlaw hydraulic fracturing. State-level regulations and standards are tightening, but EPA intervention will likely grow.＊26

　In light of the regulatory environment, several key gas-rich states have approached the regulating of fracking with divergent approaches:・ Colorado：　 In the summer of 2008, Colorado passed a law

requiring oil and gas companies to disclose the content of their fracking fluids upon demand by state regulators. The information, however, is not available to the public.

　 On June 23, 2011, that state's gas and oil regulators held a review of its rules both to improve their current regulations and to increase public knowledge. Bu t the Co l o rado O i l and Gas Conserva t i on Commission has no plans to follow the new Texas law described below.＊27

・ New Jersey：　 The New Jersey state legislature passed a complete

ban on fracking on June 29, 2011. 　 If the legislation is signed into law, New Jersey

wou ld become the f i r s t s t a t e i n the U .S . t o completely ban the technique.

・ New York：　 T h e s t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l

Conservation released a report on July 1, 2011, recommending that surface drilling be banned on state-owned land and in the New York City and Syracuse watersheds.

　 But this restriction would still allow fracking in 85% of lands in which the Marcellus Shale occurs in the state.

　 The current fracking ban ended on July 1, 2011, but was extended by the New York State Assembly through June 1, 2012. The measure must still pass

the Republican-dominated Senate to become law.

・ Pennsylvania：　 Chesapeake Energy lost control of a natural gas well

in northern Pennsylvania in April 19, 2011. The blowout spilled thousands of gallons of fracking chemicals, contaminating a stream and forcing the evacuation of seven families nearby.

　 The Marce l lus Sha le Coal i t ion , appointed by Republican Governor Tom Corbett, recommended on July 15 levying a generic local impact fee on deep-well gas drillers, though one much smaller than that considered by the legislature. The state legislature ended on June 30 without the passage of a local impact fee, in large part because of a looming veto by Gov. Corbett.

・ Texas：　 Republican Governor Rick Perry signed into a law on

June 17, 2011, a bill that would require companies to disclose the chemicals used in every hydraulic fracturing job in the state. The new law will require companies to post this information starting next year on FracFocus.org, as noted above. The industry strongly supported the measure. Among the 12 producers to support it were Range Resources, Anadarko Petroleum and Apache. They wrote letters to Texas legislators urging them to pass the bill.

・ West Virginia：　 On July 12, 2011, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin （D） issued

a n e x e c u t i v e o r d e r t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Environmental Protection （DEP） to draft additional regulations for drilling operations in the Marcellus Shale, and recommended that the DEP review its authority to regulate horizontal drill ing. West Virginia already has tight oversight on gas drilling operat ions , part icu lar ly in the area o f water protection. The rules are supported by both the industry and environmentalists.

　 However, the state legislature has failed repeatedly to pass a bill governing shale gas activity. A new bill being crafted over the summer is expected to face the same challenges.

582011.9 Vol.45 No.5

JOGMEC

アナリシス

2. Shale Gas Redesigning the Markets

・ Wyoming：　 In September 2010, Wyoming became the fi rst state

in the U.S. requiring full disclosure of chemicals used in fracking. The ingredients must be revealed to state regulators, but the actual formula can remain a trade secret.

・ U.S . Congress ional Spot l ight on Hydraul ic Fracturing

　 In addit ion to t ightening local and state level regulations, Democratic members of Congress, influenced by environment and local stakeholders, have introduced legislation designed to monitor and regulate fracturing. Democrats Diana DeGette of Colorado and Maurice D. Hinchey of New York introduced in mid-2009 the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act （FRAC Act, HR 2766） seek ing to end hydrau l i c f rac tur ing ' s exemption from the Hal l iburton loophole and disclosing the chemicals used. A similar version in the Senate was introduced by Democrat Sen. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania （S 1215）. Also, a part of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's （D-NV） Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act from summer 2010 included provisions to regulate hydraulic fracturing.

　 It is important to note that none of these bills received any action in the Democrat-dominated fl oor

when they were introduced. Under the current Congress, with Republican control of the House, a bipartisan approach to regulation of hydraulic fracturing is highly unlikely.

・ U.S. Department of Energy （DOE） Shale Gas Subcommittee

　 President Obama unveiled his administration's energy s t ra tegy a t a speech a t George town University on March 30, 2011. The report, entitled

“Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future,” calls for incentives to spur domestic oil and gas development.

　 Through the “Blueprint,” President Obama directed DOE Secretary Steven Chu to convene the Shale Gas Subcommittee whose mission is to “work to identify, within 90 days [of March 30, 2011] any immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of fracking” and shale extraction.

　 The Subcommittee released its draft report on August 11, 2011 recommending transparency from the natural gas industry, especially on hydraulic fracturing. Also among its many recommendations, the Subcommittee calls for improved coordination between state and federa l regulators , publ ic disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, and cessation of use of diesel fuel in extraction operations.

　In less than ten years, the natural gas industry has transformed from a business in decline and depletion to an affordable and sustainably-abundant business. As recently as 2008, the conventional wisdom was that the U.S. was running out of natural gas. The evidence now is that it is abundant, and will be for some time. Due to shale plays still in the early stages of production, at current rates of development and consumption, shale gas could last at least one hundred years at current consumption rates.＊ 28 And despite the recent furor over another series of articles from the New York

Times about the viability of the natural gas industry, shale gas economics, well productivity and technical r a t e s o f r e c ove ry a r e c r ed i b l e a nd h a s s o l i d underpinnings.＊29＊30

Price-Swings a Relic of the Recent Past

　The breakthrough in shale gas has profoundly changed the energy equation. U.S. domestic natural gas output has risen dramatically, thanks to shale gas. For years, volatility of natural gas prices impeded the production growth of natural gas. As an example,


JOGMEC


prices swung violently in 2008, as can be seen in the table above. For extended periods since, prices have averaged to $4/MMBtu. The table illustrates prices from 1997 to 2011 with data from EIA.　According to the newest data from the EIA, U.S. natural gas production is at its highest since 1973.＊31

As recently as 2000, shale gas accounted for less than 1 % of U.S. domestic gas supplies. It has surged today, approach ing 25 percent o f t o ta l domest i c gas production.＊32

The U.S. as an LNG Exporter?

　This abundance of supply means that the U.S. is now poised to reduce its dependence on imported natural gas. As recently as three years ago, the conventional wisdom was that the U.S. needed to conserve and import natural gas. Now, with the year 2011 already being seen as a watershed for natural gas, industry experts believe that the U.S. can now become an LNG exporter. Many analysts and experts see the U.S. as having the potent ia l to becoming more energy independent. The surge in domestic natural gas supply is seen as perhaps even supplanting foreign oil.＊33 　With healthy gas supply seen as sustainable, several Gulf Coast LNG terminals are now being retrofitted to

export U .S . gas to overseas markets . The U .S . Department of Energy （DOE） gave Cheniere Energy permission in late May 2011 to export domestically produced natural gas from its Sabine Pass LNG terminal in the state of Louisiana. This is the first long-term authorization to export LNG to all U.S. trading partners. Cheniere was one of three other companies to have applied for permission. （The other two are Freeport LNG in Texas, and Southern Union and BG with its port in Lake Charles, Louisiana.） The project sponsors are seeking markets for their LNG. Cheniere has signed eight memoranda of understanding, with additional interest coming from disaster-stricken Japan. That country's demand for LNG is set to increase in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami and nuclear disaster which struck it in March. The company must still win approval from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission （FERC）.＊ 34 But, in contrast to the politicized DOE process, FERC approval is seen by one analyst as a done deal.＊35 　However, the one consideration that has been overlooked is U.S. demand. U.S. consumers of natural gas are divided into five categories: residential , commercial, industrial, vehicle fuel and electric power. The question that arises is if the U.S. becomes a net

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 3.451 2.151 1.891 2.033 2.246 2.203 2.190 2.491 2.883 3.074 3.008 2.348

1998 2.091 2.229 2.242 2.428 2.141 2.167 2.167 1.851 2.018 1.912 2.123 1.722

1999 1.849 1.771 1.792 2.150 2.260 2.304 2.307 2.795 2.546 2.728 2.367 2.355

2000 2.422 2.660 2.793 3.040 3.586 4.289 3.989 4.429 5.056 5.022 5.524 8.898

2001 8.172 5.606 5.230 5.192 4.191 3.720 3.109 2.968 2.192 2.461 2.343 2.302

2002 2.318 2.324 3.029 3.427 3.498 3.262 2.987 3.088 3.549 4.127 4.043 4.741

2003 5.432 7.708 5.933 5.263 5.814 5.819 5.026 4.985 4.620 4.627 4.470 6.128

2004 6.139 5.369 5.394 5.709 6.334 6.270 5.931 5.406 5.145 6.353 6.165 6.577

2005 6.150 6.138 6.960 7.159 6.472 7.183 7.629 9.533 11.745 13.422 10.304 13.049

2006 8.686 7.536 6.888 7.164 6.245 6.210 6.168 7.135 4.896 5.847 7.405 6.734

2007 6.552 8.002 7.108 7.601 7.637 7.346 6.219 6.218 6.079 6.743 7.102 7.105

2008 7.985 8.544 9.413 10.181 11.269 12.685 11.089 8.257 7.674 6.737 6.684 5.815

2009 5.241 4.515 3.960 3.495 3.833 3.800 3.384 3.141 2.987 4.008 3.663 5.348

2010 5.832 5.320 4.291 4.034 4.140 4.801 4.627 4.315 3.894 3.434 3.714 4.249

2011 4.494 4.093 3.974 4.235 4.311 4.537 4.424

Table Henry Hub Gulf Coast Natural Gas Spot Price （Dollars/Mil. BTUs）

出所： EIA

602011.9 Vol.45 No.5

JOGMEC

アナリシス

3. An Old U.S. Presidential Habit

exporter, what other impact could there be but higher prices than they otherwise would be for the U.S. consumer? There are fears that exporting LNG would pull up U.S. prices due to Brent being almost three times higher than Henry Hub.＊ 36 While seemingly a prudent question from critics of the viability of natural gas in light of LNG exports, it also refl ects ignorance of the fundamentals of the gas market and uncertainty about the role of LNG. Three recent New York Times a r t i c l e s f r om June c i t ed above a l s o r e f l e c t a misunderstanding of the risky nature of volatile markets and unknown outcomes facing exploration and production.＊37 　The answer is that to sustain U.S. long-term supply of natural gas in such a way that end-users continue to pay stable, reasonable prices, there must also be demand. And there is demand coming from electric power generation. The growth in demand is price-driven. As noted in Table 1, whereas, just three years ago, Henry Hub price peaked at $12.68, it has now averaged $4.24 from January to June this year. Once prices go above and beyond this average, power-

generation demand will respond economically, drop off and be replaced by another source, thus leveling natural gas price once more. Some analysts have forecast that LNG exports can actually act as a stabilizing force, negating price swings. The notion is that U.S. LNG exports will equal or exceed current import levels to an extent that net imports will be zero or negative.＊38

　But with the global markets experiencing turmoil not seen since 2008, there are portents of a double-dip recession. As such, ebullient expectations for the U.S. becoming an LNG exporter may be premature at best. A recession would lower prices and energy markets would experience surpluses due to lower energy demand. The world economic contraction and the Standard and Poor's downgrade of the U.S. debt have brought about economic uncertainty. The International Energy Agency （IEA） and the EIA have recently cut U.S. oil demand forecasts.＊39 This will also aff ect the natural gas market.

　Ever since the fi rst Arab oil embargo of 1973, U.S. presidents have endured the up-and-down effect of gasoline prices and they have long issued energy-independence goa l s . The ho ly gra i l o f energy independence hearkens back to Richard Nixon who in 1973, called for the U.S. to be oil independent by 1980. P r e s i d e n t N i x o n ' s p l a n wa s c a l l e d “Pr o j e c t Independence,” focusing on increased domestic production, conservation and alternative energy. President Jimmy Carter's energy agenda also called for conservation and more alternative sources of energy. He went so far as to install solar panels on the White House roof, only to be removed by President Ronald Reagan.＊40 President Obama has not been immune to making pronouncements on U.S. energy independence and security.

From a Green to a Hybrid Presidency

　When Barack Obama became president in November 2008, environmentalists and green groups were heartened as they finally saw an ally in the White House. The Obama administration's strong support for renewable energy and increased eff ic iency and conservation over the promotion of traditional energy sources put him in good stead with the environmental community. Since taking office, President Obama has eschewed promotion of domestic drilling for oil and gas as part of its energy policy, despite abundant U.S. oil and natural gas resources. During his 2008 campaign, he outlined a goal of reducing U.S. oil imports equal to that supplied by Venezuela and the Middle East within ten years.＊41

　After President Obama's “shellacking” in the mid-term Congressional elections in November 2010, he


JOGMEC


announced that increased exploitation of natural gas would be an issue upon which Republ icans and Democrats could work together in the future to improve U.S. energy and environmental security. He emphasized that he still wants to tackle the problem of global climate change. 　He delivered another speech on securing U.S. energy independence at Georgetown University on March 30, 2011, outlining his “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.” 　Through the “Blueprint,” President Obama directed DOE Secretary Steven Chu to convene the Shale Gas Subcommittee whose mission is to “work to identify, within 90 days [of March 30, 2011] any immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of fracking” and shale extraction to ensure the protection of the environment and public health.　President Obama also proposed a new national objective of cutting U.S. oil imports by one-third over the next decade, hearkening to President George W. Bush's comment that the U.S. is “addicted to oil.” That equals to a reduction of more than three million barrels a day over the next ten years. But transportation accounts for the high bulk of energy demand in the U.S. 　To get to that reduction, President Obama has expressed support for aggressively promoting the use of natural gas vehicles （NGV）. Indeed, many advocates of NGVare calling for federal incentives along with private investment to support the increase of NGVs outside of centrally fueled fleets, such as garbage trucks and buses, with a heavy focus on heavy-duty trucking. 　In April 2011, legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives for just such incentives. Its official title is the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act or the NAT GAS Act or the Boone Pickens bill. One argument against the bill is that it would simply be a subsidy for the natural gas industry.＊ 42 Another opposing view is that if natural gas is used in vehicles, doing so would drive up its price. Critics argue that efforts boosting domestic demand for natural gas would create upward pressure on prices　H o w e v e r , t h e “c l e a r e s t s i g n a l” f r o m t h e

administration that it is “on board with the shale gas revolution,” was its implicit support in May for Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass project to export domestic LNG, as described earlier. As Eurasia Group notes, the Obama administration, eyeing the 2012 presidential election year:　“sees the sector as a long-term and global play where the US industry can be a leader. The DOE review of the Sabine Pass project echoed arguments from the White House "Global Shale Gas Initiative" that the growth of global shale gas is consistent with GHG reduction efforts, by replacing coal-f ired power generation.”＊43

　Another indication for the Obama administration's support of shale gas was its announcement on August 1, 2011, through the DOE, that it will disburse $12.4 million for unconventional oil and gas technology projects, aimed at helping U.S. industry extract more energy through enhanced oil recovery （EOR）, while reduc ing env i ronmenta l r i sks f r om sha l e gas development.＊44

Positive Outlook for States

　At a time when creating jobs is top among the nation's priorities with U.S. unemployment rates above 9% , the drilling industry finds itself scrambling to beef up its workforce to keep up with the drilling boom. Oil-field giant Halliburton must add 15,000 employees in North America. Other oil-field services companies, such a s Sch lumberger and Baker Hughes , a re a l s o experiencing a tightening of equipment and personnel as companies are switching from drilling for gas to drilling for oil in the same shale plays from the same shale basins from the same types of rigs and drilling equipment. ＊45

　Individual states are also profiting from the shale boom in terms of job growth, busting state coffers and higher revenue. In Pennsylvania, 48,000 people were hired by the natural gas industry dril l ing in the Marce l l u s Sha l e i n t he l a s t 1 2 mon ths . I f t he moratorium were lifted in New York State, up to 18,000 jobs would be created. Another 75,000 to 90,000 jobs would be available to New Yorkers if the Utica Shale were also opened to drilling.＊46 Gov. Perry boasts that since 2009, 40% of jobs created in the U.S.

622011.9 Vol.45 No.5

JOGMEC

アナリシス

4. Conclusions and Caveats

　With an eye to the 2012 elections, President Obama has transformed from a green to a hybrid president. His support for DOE programs on unconventional oil and gas technology, and implicit backing of potential LNG exports can only be positive for the industry, and provide a lift for the Obama administration. 　Because of the shale revolution, U.S. consumers are benefi ting today due lower natural gas rates and more stable natural gas prices. The sustainable abundant supply also means that the U.S. may now be poised to

reduce its dependence on imported natural gas, with the prospect of becoming an LNG exporter. 　But due to economic uncertainty with the global markets experiencing turmoil not seen since 2008, there are portents of a double-dip recession. As such, ebullient expectations for the U.S. becoming an LNG exporter may be premature at best. A recession would lower prices and energy markets would experience surpluses.

have been in his home state of Texas due to the oil and gas industry.＊47 　Development of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and New York stand in stark contrast, however. Pennsylvania has embraced economic opportunity, while New York has bowed to environmental concerns. To illustrate, Pennsylvania's revenue has swelled

thanks to drillers paying more than $1 billion in state taxes since 2006. Pennsylvania's Achilles' heel may be that it is the only state lacking a severance tax on the natural gas industry, losing $70 million last year.＊ 48

New York, with its moratorium in place, stands to lose $1.4 billion in tax revenues.＊49

＜注・解説＞＊１： http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/06/16/259536/forget-oil-shale-gas-just-gets-sexier/.＊２： A trillion cubic feet of gas can heat 15 million homes for one year. From Hobson, Margaret Kriz, “Pollution

Worries Surface Along With Energy Trove,” CQ Weekly, May 9, 2011, p. 993.＊３： Potential Gas Committee: http://www.mines.edu/Potential-Gas-Committee-reports-unprecedented-increase-

in-magnitude-of-U.S.-natural-gas-resource-base.＊４： http://www.potentialgas.org/PGC% 20Press% 20Conf% 202011% 20slides.pdf.＊５： http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/about_shale_gas.cfm. ＊６： “Analysis: U.S. Shale Gas Could Play Large Role in Future Production,” Rigzone, June 28, 2010, accessed at

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=95222＊７： Vello A. Kuuskraa, President, Advanced Resources International, Inc.＊８： Ibid.＊９： http://www.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/about_shale_gas.cfm＊10： Wald, Matthew L., “Study Says Natural Gas Use Likely to Double,” accessed at https://www.nytimes.

com/2010/06/25/business/energy-environment/25natgas.html?src=busln＊11： Yergin, Daniel, “Stepping on the Gas,” The Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2011, p. C1, accessed at http://

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576232582990089002.html


JOGMEC


＊12： Adams, Mikaila, “Mitchell honored for contribution to shale gas revolution,” OGFJ, August 1, 2010, available at http://www.ogfj.com/index/article-display/5950865680/articles/oil-gas-financial-journal/unconventional/other-unconventional/mitchell-honored_for.html

＊13： http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2010/12/10Hydraulic.pdf＊14： Adams, Mikaila.＊15： Congressional Research Service, “Unconventional Gas Shales: Development, Technology, and Policy Issues,”

Report Number R70894, p. 33, accessed at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40894.pdf,＊16： O'Neil, Lauren, Rachel Seeley, “New York May Ban Some Marcellus Drilling,” Oil Daily, Monday, July 4,

2011, p. 1＊17： “Huge Promise, Huge Risks in Shale Gas,” Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, May 23, 2011.＊18： Smead, Richard G., “Is 2011 the Watershed Year for Natural Gas?,” Natural Gas & Electricity, January

2011.＊19： http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2010/12/10Hydraulic.pdf. The articles are as follows: Bateman,

Christopher, “A Colossal Fracking Mess,” Vanity Fair, June 21, 2010; Binns, Corey, “Instant Expert: The Drama and Controversy of Fracking,” Popular Science, October 2010.

＊20： Soraghan, Mike, “Baffled About Fracking? You're Not Alone,” The New York Times, May 13, 2011, available at https://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/13/13greenwire-baffled-about-fracking-youre-not-alone-44383.html?sq=hydraulic% 20fracturing&st=cse&scp=9&pagewanted=all

＊21： Congressional Research Service, “Unconventional Gas Shales: Development, Technology, and Policy Issues,” Report Number R70894, p. 26, accessed at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40894.pdf.

＊22： Casselman, Ben, “Fracking Disclosure to Rise,” The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2011, accessed at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395630839520062.html.

＊23： http://www.earthworksaction.org/FracingDetails.cfm＊24： Urbina, Ian, “Regulation Lax as Gas Wells' Tainted Water Hits Rivers,” February 27, 2011; “Gas Wells

Recycle Water, but Toxic Risks Persist,” March 2, 2011; “Pressure Stifles Efforts to Police Drilling for Gas,” March 4, 2011.

＊25： The report released on August 11, 2011 can be accessed here: http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/081111_90_day_report.pdf.

＊26： Goldberger, Nitzan, “US/Shale Gas: EPA intervention likely to grow, but states will remain primary regulators,” Eurasia Group Note, April 5, 2011.

＊27： Hanel, Joe, “Fracking rules go under review,” The Durango Herald, June 23, 2011, available at http://durangoherald.com/article/20110624/NEWS01/706249919/Fracking-rules-go-under-review

＊28： Pickering, Gordon, “LNG Exports Would Bolster America's Energy Independence,” NG Market Notes, March 2011.

＊29： The articles are all from Ian Urbina. “Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush,” The New York Times, June 26, 2011; and two subsequent articles, both dated June 27, 2011.

＊30：Merolli, Paul, “Industry Group Says US Shale Gas Boom Has Solid Underpinnings,: Oil Daily July 7, 2011.＊31：Seeley, Rachael, “US Gas Output at Highest in Nearly 40 Years, Oil Daily, July 6, 2011.＊32： Pickering, Gordon, “LNG Exports Would Bolster America's Energy Independence,” NG Market Notes,

March 2011.＊33：Ibid.＊34：Seely, Rachael and Casey Sattler, “US Approves Cheniere LNG Export Scheme,” Oil Daily, May 23, 2011.＊35： Johnston, Robert, “Obama's LNG export approval boon for US natural gas producers,” Eurasia Group Note,

May 23, 2011.

642011.9 Vol.45 No.5

JOGMEC

アナリシス

執筆者紹介

Jasmin Sinclair（ヤスミン　シンクレア）College of Charleston, Political Science/International Relations卒業（B.A.）。JETプログラム（The Japan Exchange and Teaching Program）で来日し、鹿児島県で3年間英語教育に携わる。帰米後、在米国日本大使館（ワシントン）勤務を経て、2001年1月にJNOC（石油公団）ワシントン事務所の調査員として採用、現在に至る。休日は家族とともに古武術の道場で鍛錬に励む。その他の趣味は料理と映画鑑賞。

＊36： Smead, Richard G., “LNG Export Proposals Raise Concerns — What Is the Right Answer?” Natural Gas & Electricity, April 2011.

＊37： Pugliaresi, Lou, “Natural Gas Industry Fakes the Moon Landing,” EPRINC Briefi ng Memorandum, July 1, 2011.

＊38： Smead, Richard G., “The US Natural Gas Market Is About to Get Complicated,” Natural Gas & Electricity, August 2011.

＊39：Herron, James, “Oil Surplus Seen if Recession Re-Emerges,” Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2011, p. C3.＊40： Koss, Geof, “New Plan to Kick An Old Habit,” CQ Weekly, April 11, 2011, p. 790.＊41：International Technology and Trade Associates, Inc., “Status of US Energy Policy Debate,” April 4, 2011.＊42： International Technology and Trade Associates, Inc., “Initiatives to Promote the Deployment of Natural Gas

Vehicles,” August 1, 2011.＊43： Johnston, Robert＊44： International Technology and Trade Associates Inc., “Obama Funds Unconventional Oil/Gas Technology

Projects,” August 1, 2011.＊45： Zeidel, Matthew, “Halliburton Adding New Employees to Keep Up With Drilling Boom,” Oil Daily, July 19,

2011; and Sattler, Casey, “Shale Boom to Tighten Supply of Services,” Oil Daily, July 25, 2011.＊46： Considine, Timothy J., Robert W. Waston, Nicholas B. Considine, “The Economic Opportunities of Shale

Energy Development,” Manhattan Institute, May 2011.＊47：https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/job-creation＊48：Rogers,II Oliver N., “The Need for Serverance Tax Enactment” July 18, 2011.＊49： Merolli, Paul, “Study: Fracking Benefi ts in NY Trump Risks,” Oil Daily, June 8, 2011; and “A Tale of Two

Shale States,” Wall Street Journal Editorial, July 26, 2011.

u.s. shale gas and implications for u.s. politics and …...51石油・天然ガスレビュー...

Documents