BHP expects U.S. shale gas production to quadruple by 2020

BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP), Australia’s biggest oil and gas producer, expects output from its U.S. shale assets to quadruple by 2020, driven by the $12.1 billion purchase of Petrohawk Energy Corp.

Production of natural gas and liquids trapped in shale rock is forecast to surge to an average of 1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day by the end of the decade from 250,000 barrels a day this year, J. Michael Yeager, chief executive officer of BHP’s petroleum unit, said on a call with investors today.

“Shale gas is changing the landscape,” Yeager said. “This is going to be a game changer for energy supply across the United States, and for BHP to not be a part of it we think is irresponsible.”

BHP entered the shale gas industry this year with its acquisition of Petrohawk Energy and the $4.75 billion purchase of assets from Chesapeake Energy Corp. Shale may account for almost 50 percent of total U.S. gas production by 2020, the Melbourne-based company said in a presentation today.

The company is betting that gas prices in the U.S., which are less than quarter of those paid by Japanese importers, will rise as producers export liquefied natural gas, Yeager said.

Japan, the world’s biggest buyer of liquefied natural gas, paid about $14.90 per million British thermal units for its LNG supplies in September, data from the country’s Ministry of Finance showed today. Prices at Henry Hub, the U.S. benchmark, were at $3.527 per MMBtu.

‘Prices Will Rise’

“The market expects gas prices will rise over time,” Yeager said.

The mining and energy company expects its petroleum production to surge by 41 percent to 225 million barrels of oil equivalent in the year ending June 2012 from 159.4 million barrels last year, BHP said today.

The company’s oil and gas unit expects an annual growth rate of at least 10 percent for the rest of the decade, and spending on U.S. shale to rise to about $6.5 billion in the financial year ending June 2020 from around $4.5 billion this year, BHP said.

The Petrohawk acquisition makes BHP the seventh-biggest independent oil and gas company by resources, the company said today. The petroleum producer committed earlier this year to spend $80 billion on growth projects by 2015.

Chief Executive Officer Marius Kloppers has had three deals totaling more than $100 billion aborted or rejected over the past four years, including hostile bids for Rio Tinto Group and Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc.

BHP, also the world’s largest mining company, would consider expansion in LNG, Kloppers said in August. BHP, a partner in Woodside Petroleum Ltd.’s proposed Browse LNG venture in Western Australia, aims to have “many tools in the toolkit,” he said.

BHP’s oil and gas sales climbed 22 percent to $10.74 billion in the year that ended June 30.


5 comments (Add your own)

1. Randi wrote:
Your asewnr lifts the intelligence of the debate.

Mon, January 23, 2012 @ 1:29 PM

2. Frenchie wrote:
I'd vneutre that this article has saved me more time than any other.

Tue, January 24, 2012 @ 4:53 AM

3. bhztrulziuf wrote:
C3xvUp zqwzdhtzxpvj

Wed, January 25, 2012 @ 2:28 AM

4. xmkjozcc wrote:
RMxxcp jnwaztzoryyp

Wed, January 25, 2012 @ 3:15 AM

5. Sara wrote:
Amy Myers Jaffe, director of Baker Institute Energy Forum, a polciy think tank at Rice University in Houston. "They are saying to themselves: I am going to produce the gas regardless of what the price is, because I'm making money on the oil and liquids."The article isn't about shale gas. It talks a great deal about gas production coming from drilling for oil. A lot of that gas comes from conventional oil wells, not shale. Yes, these companies can make a lot of money. But that does not mean that the shale gas producers who get a bit of liquids can make it with prices as low as they are. With petroleum selling for $90 a barrel, drillers in places like the Eagle Ford shale or the Bakken can give away their natural gas for nothing and still make 100% annual returns on their drilling dollars. -- ForbesShow me the 10-K forms that tell me that shale gas is profitable. (And when you do make sure that you are not just looking at the production cost, which is a fraction of the total.)Technology development and application are and will remain key elements in maximizing the full value of these large, long-life resources. Here are some examples: Unconventional production from Haynesville increased four-fold in 2010, while production in Fayetteville doubled in 2010. The Barnett Shale, where we currently have gross production of approximately 900 million cubic feet per day of gas, is another good example of value creation through technology. We have been able to maximize long-term ultimate recovery with longer lateral lengths and improved drilling and completion efficiency. And our net unit development cost in this shale play is about $1 per thousand cubic feet equivalent, a 50 percent improvement in the last five years ..." -- ExxonMobileWhat exactly is meant by net unit development cost? What happens when you include all of the other costs? Does this cost include the full depreciation or is Exxon using the overstated reserve estimates and the high EURs that have yet to be seen in the real world?And surely if shale gas were this profitable the pure shale gas players would be swimming in cash. But if that were true why are they swimming in read ink instead and trying to sell themselves off or find new credit lines.

Tue, May 22, 2012 @ 7:57 AM

Add a New Comment

Enter the code you see below:
code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.