Musings: Natural Gas Trade Challenged by Commodity Focus Shift

In recent weeks, Wall Street has been shifting its energy focus from crude oil to natural gas as the price of the latter has become historically cheap. The first signs of global economic recovery spurred investors to jump on the energy and materials stocks. The logic was that any increase in economic activity would require an increase in demand for industrial-related commodities and energy and their prices would rise. As we showed in our last Musings issue, industrialized commodities have been leading the recent rally in prices. The greatest price laggard of the 14 commodities we follow was natural gas, which through the end of May was down 44.3%.

The heat content ratio (British thermal units) between a barrel of crude oil and a thousand cubic feet (Mcf) of natural gas is 5.6-to-1. For ease of analysis, most energy pros and investors use a 6-to-1 ratio to translate volumes of oil or gas into the comparable fuel for purposes of estimating reserve values. This heat content ratio has seldom been achieved price wise in the marketplace as many factors interrupt the straight heat value proposition. For example, natural gas must move through a pipeline from its production source to where it is burned. The lack of adequate pipeline capacity or the absence pipelines to consuming areas can limit market opportunities for natural gas and depress the relative price comparison.

Other factors that can alter the heat-content price ratio include the lack of storage for competing fuels such as petroleum or coal; environmental restrictions on the burning of dirtier fuels; and concern about the availability and price of future supplies. All of these issues have at one time or another disrupted the pricing ratio from more closely matching the physical value of competing fuels.

Over a long history of gas and oil price competition in this country, the average ratio has been 9.3 times - meaning that crude oil prices were slightly more than nine times the price for natural gas. That historical norm is shown in the chart of the ratio of the wellhead price for natural gas compared to the first price paid for oil by refiners during the period from 1976 to May of this year based on monthly price data.


What the chart shows is that natural gas is almost as cheap compared to crude oil as it has ever been in the past 33 years with the exception of the time of the first Gulf War and during the oil price explosion in response to the 1979 Iranian revolution, the holding of American hostages and the withdrawal of oil supplies from the world market. If one goes back to the mid 1970s, oil was more valuable because natural gas was under significant use restrictions. Those restrictions followed the supply crisis precipitated by earlier federal government limitations on the price of gas that caused companies to stop seeking supplies for the interstate natural gas market.


Today, natural gas is cheaper than it was in the 1980s and 1990s when supplies were plentiful and demand was restricted. Those years saw natural gas prices in the $1.50-$2.50 per Mcf range when oil sold somewhere in the mid-teen or mid-twenty dollars per barrel, or about a 10-times ratio. Since January 1994 to now, the average price ratio of crude oil to natural gas is 8.5 times. Today, natural gas is selling in the $3.75-$4.00 per Mcf range while oil trades for about $70, making the resulting price ratio closer to 15 -18 times, or nearly twice the 15-year average. While the current ratio is calculated by comparing the futures prices for crude oil and natural gas, they do not totally reflect the economic realities of oil and gas as in the longterm historical comparison reflected in Exhibit 5.

Why is natural gas priced so cheaply in today's energy market? One has to conclude it is all about supply and demand. The imbalance between the two price determinants is behind the move to "Buy natural gas and sell crude oil" trade recommendations that started emanating from Wall Street brokers and commodity traders in the past few weeks. Part of the rationale for the trade was the belief that natural gas supplies would begin to decline as the downturn in the rig count curtails the petroleum industry's drilling as many new gas wells, especially since natural gas prices are so depressed compared to their levels of last year. This means that less new gas should come into the market, slowing the supply growth until it eventually declines leading to higher gas prices.


A chart on natural gas industry economics prepared by analysts at Bernstein Research tends to support the view that the rig downturn will lead to cutback in new gas production. As they show, spot natural gas prices have fallen below their estimate for cash costs, and well below their estimate of the marginal cost to find new gas supplies. In their analysis, there have only been a few periods when natural gas prices rose to levels that destroyed demand - and almost all of those times were during periods of conflict or natural disasters. On the other hand, for almost the entire ten-year span from 1993 to 2003, natural gas spot prices hung close to the estimated cash cost for creating new supplies. The chart helps demonstrate why it was so hard to be in the exploration and development business during the 1990s.


The global recession and credit crisis along with the deteriorating economics of natural gas exploration and development in the face of a continuing rise in gas supplies has combined to send the U.S. rig count into a depression. Since the industry peak in late August 2008, the total rig count has fallen by 1,155 rigs (as of June 12th) for a decline of 57%. Rigs dedicated to natural gas drilling have fallen by a similar percentage amount or by 921 rigs in the period. The share of the total working rigs drilling for natural gas has fallen slightly to 78.2% from 79.1% at the peak. This would certainly suggest that operators have not been overly dissuaded by low gas prices to cut back by a greater amount their gas-oriented drilling activity.


In fact, the data for the types of drilling done since the peak in late August 2008 shows that vertical rigs drilling have fallen by 67% from 1,017 to 331. At the same time, horizontal rigs, mostly associated with drilling the prolific natural gas shale formations in this country, are down only 39% from 626 rigs to 381 rigs while directional rigs are down 58% to 164 from 388 rigs.

Based on the expectation that the prolific natural gas shale formation wells experience declines of 60% - 70% from initial production by the end of their first year of operation, the slowdown in complex drilling (horizontal and directional wells) suggests that by 2010 the U.S. should experience a decline in natural gas production. That would be a welcome development for natural gas producers who are struggling with low gas prices due to rising production, demand destruction due to the recession, and growing supplies of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Since early 1999, the U.S. gas rig count was about 400 and daily natural gas production was around 63 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d). With the exception of the industry recession of 2001-2002, the gas rig count marched steadily higher reaching about 1,600 at the recent 2008 peak. The four-fold increase in the rig count has been only able to grow daily gas production by roughly 10 Bcf/d, or about 16%. But virtually all the production growth came in the period since 2007 as the technical success of the various gas shale plays around the country brought significant new production. This is the challenge the domestic gas industry faces - can gas production growth be choked off without destroying gas prices in the interim and setting up the country for a new price spike?


While a drop in drilling and eventually a decline in natural gas production, the most important variable in the equation is the economy. If the U.S. economy experiences a recovery in both the housing and automotive industries, then the gas industry should be able to reach equilibrium sooner than many expect suggesting the natural gas trade could be very profitable. On the other hand, a weak economic recovery could doom the domestic natural gas and oil service industries to an extended, challenging and less profitable environment.


Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

Gib  |  June 28, 2009
There are several issues happening -- drilling costs are down, loyal employees need work, lease contracts must be honored, and gas wells can just be shut in while still considering it an asset on the books. As with oil at least 50% of the cost is determined on Wall Street.
Tim Howard  |  June 26, 2009
I enjoy reading through the analysis and comparisons. However, supply vs. demand also plays a big role on the cost to acquire gas.

At the height of last year, drilling costs had sky rocketed due to lack of available rigs & personnel. Costs should fall dramatically as drillers are looking to put rigs & people back in service.

 |  June 26, 2009
I cannot understand why natural gas doesn't get more of push from the green people, after all it is our cleanest burning fossil fuel. There's no infrastructure for wind power either but natural gas supplies are proven. Why aren't our lobbyist in Congress pushing to convert city buses and government vehicles to natural gas when both are fueled from central facilities that would be easily converted to dispensing natural gas.
Alastair M. John  |  June 26, 2009
A great article, although there is one detail I fear may have been overlooked. Although the rig count started declining in August of last year, that fact only implies that less wells were being drilled. Since there is a significant delay time between wells being drilled and completed (i.e. between the rig being moved off site and first production from the well), it seems that the timing of any recovery in gas prices based on a decline of overall supply will be later too. Another factor that should be considered is the number of capped wells -- i.e. wells that have been shut in pending a rise in natural gas prices. If these well are brought on-line too soon, they could provide a harmful impact on prices too.
John Simpson  |  June 26, 2009
Recent technological and exploration advancements (i.e. shale gas and gas hydrates) make the long term future of natural gas look good. The transportation and or storage of natural gas are now the key challenges to complete the market cycle (well head to consumer).

Your BTUs versus volume is good logic and was well presented. Thanks for the analysis.

Ralph Smith  |  June 26, 2009
As usual, very well written and informative. Rather than a comment, I have a question. Why, with all the ballywho about getting off imported oil/gas, are we still importing and letting the domestic market reach historical lows? It seems that a little stimulus in the U.S. oil patch would increase employment and help the economy due to the associated business activity created by the oil industry.
Earl sebring  |  June 26, 2009
If the shale gas wells have the average annual 65 to 75% decline(80% for the Haynesville) over their first year as discussed in the various gas processing publications, only a short cessation of drilling or just a slowdown in shale drilling is all that will be required to fix the supply and demand imbalance. There is not enough drilling capital to arrest the subsequent decline on deliverablity the U.S. is about to experience.
Chuck Pyle  |  June 26, 2009
LNG is the wild card here. Henry Hub and Europes National Balancing Point (NBP) prices have almost equilibrated, suggesting a high probability that LNG supplies to the US will increase over the near future perhaps more than offsetting US production declines. If this is the case, natural gas prices will continue to be depressed.
Tim Brittan  |  June 26, 2009
LNG can be offloaded for a breakeven cost of $2.00 or less anywhere in the world. The United States is the only country with excess capacity. Thus, we would be the dumping ground for the surplus of tankers that are loaded and looking for a market.

New LNG facilities are coming on line almost weekly. The natural gas storage in the U.S. is almost full already. Far ahead of historical trends. The demand destruction for industrial usage caused by the recession will keep the prices from rising for a long time.

This is good news for the consumer, as natural gas is a great baseload fuel. It does not bode well for natural gas producers, who need prices in excess of $7.00 to $8.00 per mcf to break even. The aforementioned prices are the historical average F&D (finding and development) costs for the oil and gas industry.

John Symons  |  June 26, 2009
Population has not peaked out gas resources. That is what this article is all about: low prices evidencing abundant supply. After shale gas will come gas hydrates. Countries like Nigeria are still struggling to gather gas that would otherwise be flared. The problem is commercialization of these supplies: basically, making a profit out of your investment.

It will take a prolonged period of high crude oil prices, probably above $140/barrel, to significantly increase gas price parity levels. Prices like $13/mscf, described in the article as demand destroying, have to become the norm if the gas industry is to grow. Even that corresponds to only about 80% parity at $100/barrel.

Michael Trewick  |  June 25, 2009
It is only a matter of time before the heat content ratio and the price ratio for these commodities are once again numerically closer. With gas prices being historically low and the price of electricity also we are all keeping our houses a bit cooler in the summer and a bit warmer in the winter. Also, because companies are seeing a lower realization for natural gas there will be a decline in drilling. Effecting both sides of the supply and demand chain will eventually drive prices back up.
Ronnie Owens  |  June 25, 2009
What I do not understand is how does natural gas not qualify as a way to reduce greenhouse gases along with wind and solar? Wind and solar will have to be backed up with natural gas during windless nights. It seems there is more to this global warming issue than a sincere desire to reduce CO2. The proven reserves of natural gas are high and I believe we have only begun discovering the deeper, tighter formations. Pickens is right about natural gas being the bridge this country needs. If the price stabilizes, the E&P companies will go after these reserves and discover more, boosting this economy and keeping this countries wealth in the hands of our citizens.
John B. Ashmun  |  June 25, 2009
It seems odd that the last 18 months has seen only a 16% increase in gas production - it may be too early to get an accurate picture of the shale gas impact, or perhaps it's not as great as all the bubbling behind it!

The basics of supply and demand are certainly present in this market and a price of $6-$7/mcf should be realistic, not considered a "new price spike" at these levels.

How in the world can LNG be profitable?!!

Carrol Castille  |  June 25, 2009
I believe population has peaked out natural resources and all industries have come to a level with these factors. We are unlikely to see any booming of economies anywhere on the Globe.

Most Popular Articles