Building on earlier comments, there are some legitimate "shale gas" targets in Europe onshore. Poland, Germany, France, Netherlands, England, other areas. Aside from France (Where frac'ing is verboten), one of the biggest issues to exploiting these formations is logistics - dense population and development makes drilling and facilities installation (plus new gathering lines) difficult to construct.
And when you add in the costs to "import" horizontal drilling and frac stimulation technology from the US, the costs go through the roof and individual wells costs are at least double a US well with similar depths and completion approach.
As a NG royalty owner, I'm pleased that the LNG demand has bumped up prices. The more the better. Anyone want to speculate on how many decades into the future that the U.S. has in regards to NG supplies for its own needs? I'm sure when it runs out, which it eventually will as it was trending to do before the shale came along with its vast reserves, that the coal mines will still be around to step up and supply their mineral hordes for the gasification plants that'll be built, like they were in times of old.
Depending on future prices, present "uneconomic" gas plays may move into the "economic" window and help to extend future gas supply.
Present uneconomic plays like the Pearsall Shale (S Tx), much of the Woodford and Barnett in Permian Basin (non Alpine high area), the Collingwood (Utica equivalent / Michigan) and other "failed" shale plays may eventually have their day/
$10+ gas will do that.
There is probably something on the order of 100,000 acres, maybe twice that, of currently non-economic LA Haynesville Shale areas. As wells become more efficient and the price rises, those areas will become economic. I think the US has another fifty years of supply which should be more than enough to transition to other future energy sources.
Yep. And one additional but important difference between the US and just about everywhere else: the government owns the minerals, not the land owners. In the US many land owners put up with some inconvenience because they get paid. If you own land in Europe, you get the inconveniences but no money. So, the government can allow development and attempt to keep their political office in the face of massively pissed constituents, or they can cover their posteriors and just say no to E&P companies. Seems like a pretty simple choice to me but I am just a lowly landman.
Rock Man, in France it would be interdit. In Germany, verboten. However we say it, it's a tough hill to climb. Let's just let our European friends buy our LNG enough to keep Russia from turning the screws on them.
I failed French - but liked German as my language requirement in college! LOL
US companies have bailed out of some areas around the Baltic Sea as their shale gas play efforts "failed". Part of this issue is "bad rock" - the other parts are bad economics and politics!
Just adding to the thread. This person seems to think we are exporting about 4.7 Bcf/day and will approach 9 Bcf/day next year. That is essentially 5% of production today and 10% next year at this time. Frankly, I can't believe we are holding above $4 right now.
It got cold in the eastern US and that drove up the price. It will probably go back down and then up again when another cold snap comes through. Gas consumption drives the price at the well head.