Il suicidio del fracking

[Amati75]

Oil Has To Plunge Even Further Before The Shale Industry Gets Seriously Damaged

​Even after a massive plunge in oil prices, which have dropped more than 50% in less than six months, analysts are saying that it won't be enough to put much of the US oil industry out of business. Goldman Sachs researchers say that oil prices would have to drop to $40 per barrel for six months, down another 15% from their current level, to "keep capital sidelined." That's the level at which Goldman says high-yield defaults might start.
The prices are already starting to hit some of the more expensive extraction companies:

The more credit intensive companies are already in maintenance mode where cash is being reserved for maintaining fields only. We now expect US supply growth to slow to 400,000 barrels per day, year on year by the 4th quarter of 2015.

However, most aren't in this position yet, and it'll take some time before they are:

To keep all capital sidelined and curtail investment in shale until the market has rebalanced, we believe prices need to stay lower for longer. As short cycle shale production is a 12 month investment proposition, producers typically hedge out 9 to 12 months.

In short, this means that it's not the spot price, but the price over about a year that is relevant to most producers. The energy minister of United Arab Emirates, one of the countries hoping to retake market share and squeeze out domestic US oil, has actually referenced the fact that prices will have to be held low while the companies are still hedged.
Despite the massive drop in prices, most non-OPEC producers are still cost effective at a much lower price. Non-OPEC oil sources produced 56.55 million barrels of oil per day in 2014. About half of this has an operating cost of less than $20 a barrel.



Read more: Oil Has To Plunge Even Further Before The Shale Industry Gets Seriously Damaged - Business Insider

Oil Has To Plunge Even Further Before The Shale Industry Gets Seriously Damaged - Business Insider

[kudlum]

perchè provoca devastazioni ambientali mostruose per uno sfruttamento che sarà di qualche anno al massimo. E infatti nemmeno negli USA lo possono fare negli stati più popolati, perchè inquina irreversibilmente le falde idriche e sarebbe una catastrofe ecologica in zone altamente abitate.

Qualsiasi attività estrattiva Dell uomo provoca danni. Dalle miniere in Africa al fracking statunitense.
Quindi, per me, l'importante è che gli effetti negativi non siano in casa mia, visto che al momento è impossibile rinunciare al petrolio.

Pertanto, se diversificare l'offerta mi permette di pagare il petrolio 60$ al barile, ben venga lo shale. Per me


Inviato dal mio XT1032 con Tapatalk 2

[amaryllide]

Oil Has To Plunge Even Further Before The Shale Industry Gets Seriously Damaged

vabbè, quando saranno fallite tutte meno una Amati verrà a raccontarci che è stato un gran bene, perchè è sopravvissuta solo l'azienda più capace

[Amati75]

vabbè, quando saranno fallite tutte meno una Amati verrà a raccontarci che è stato un gran bene, perchè è sopravvissuta solo l'azienda più capace

Capisco ch tu sei alla disperata ricerca di un appiglio per cercare in qualche modo di poter mettere la tua faccina sorridente... ma nuovamente non io colui che credeva che fossero impossibili da sostenere economicamente a 100 e passa al barile eravate voi...avendo torto...evidenza....ci e' voluto un calo del 60% per poter iniziare a mettere in difficoltà.... cioè'..ti rendi conto o semplicemente non sa cos stai dicendo?

Poi.. come postati, ed hai fatto finta di non leggere in quanto una riposta non la puoi avere, dovresti perdere atto che porca paletta... quello che vi si diceva era appunto il risuolato del prendere atto dei fatti.... l'industria dapssera per una fase di consolitamento, nella quale vi saranno aziende che falliranno, cosa ovvia e normale, sempre successo, cosi come la differenza fra questo (resta) e la vostra superficiale posizione dettata da stupida ideologia, e che voi cedete che questo implichi che "magicamente" non ci sara piu' lo shale... no... errate, com spesso vi accade, questo implica appnto che vi sara' consolidamento, lo shale e' qui e ' sara' qui anche domani dato che il mondo funziona tramite il consumo di energia, le verdi e le rinnovabili sono lontane dall'essere economicamente viabile per i volumi necessari, forse fra un 20 anni anche grazie ad un miglio mix energetico, maggiore efficienza e innovazioni tecnologiche.

Vedi, c'e' un differenza fra parlare in base a quello che E', ed in base a quello che si vorrebbe che fosse, prima lo capirete e prima la cesserete di sparare cacchiate a gogo.


Se mi puoi dimostrare il contrario di quanto affermato sopra, benissimo, ma dato che non protrai, che farai? Nuovamente finta di non leggere come tuo solito quando l' appiglio ti sfugge di presa (come per la fuga di capitali?).

[Amati75]

Nel mentre:


Cheap Gas Makes U.S. Only Place Where Export Makes Sense

While plunging prices tied to oil have derailed natural gas export projects from Australia to Africa, U.S. plans to build new terminals are getting a boost from a pricing system that charges a set fee to liquefy and ship the gas.
The U.S. model is based on how much gas is bought, not on the price of Brent, the global crude oil benchmark. Linking the price of liquefied gas, or LNG, made sense when Brent was above $100 a barrel. Now, it’s priced at less than $50 after losing more than half its value in six months.
That means new LNG facilities whose output remains tied to crude prices will struggle to make money even as more capacity comes online. U.S. suppliers, meanwhile, can be expected to deliver deliver some profits even as energy markets slump, said Chris McDougall, vice president of research at Westlake Securities LLC in Austin, Texas.
“Oil prices have dropped but U.S. LNG still looks good,” McDougall said in a telephone interview. “There are enough buyers that are willing to commit to paying some fee for the ability to access U.S. gas pricing.”
The deals that link crude and LNG prices are widely used in Asia, at a cost of about 14 percent of the value of a barrel of Brent for every million British thermal units of gas. Falling oil prices mean cheaper LNG, making the fuel from the region more competitive with U.S. exports and more attractive to buyers.
For sellers, sliding prices threaten profit for LNG terminals. Projects in Australia, for example, would get less than $7 per million Btu of LNG; they need at least $14 to make a profit, according to a study from Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science & International Affairs.

U.S. Suppliers

Those figures put U.S.-based suppliers in a winning position, said Leonardo Maugeri, a researcher at the Belfer Center. At the same time, the U.S. has lower labor and capital costs than Australia, where LNG construction has strained a limited workforce and sent salaries soaring.
LNG plants in the U.S. “have the best economics,” said Mauger, a former executive at Italian oil producer Eni SpA, in a telephone interview. “Projects still on paper in Australia for sure will be postponed or will die, and that’s it.”
Chevron Corp. (CVX), based in San Ramon, California, and Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA)are among producers racing to supply the cleanest fossil fuel to Japan and other large consumers amid opposition to coal and nuclear power. Slumping oil prices are pouring cold water over an investment frenzy that led to scores of LNG ventures, leaving a handful of U.S. projects as front-runners.

Toll System

In the U.S., developers will charge a set fee to liquefy and ship the gas, based on how much capacity buyers want to secure, similar to deals for pipelines. In some cases, buyers procure the gas themselves in a market where the fuel currently sells for less than $3 a million Btu.
U.S. producers can be profitable and compete for Asian contracts even with oil below $50 a barrel, according to the Harvard study.
The diverging fortunes of gas exports can be shown in the differing potential for two suppliers.
Cheniere Energy Inc. (LNG), the Houston-based developer of the first U.S. LNG export terminal in decades, gained 63 percent in 2014, partly on plans to start shipping from its $12 billion plant inCameron Parish, Louisiana, by year-end. In December, the Houston-based developer announced a 20-year deal to deliver LNG to Energia de Portugal SA and received a permit to build a second terminal in Corpus Christi, Texas. Cheniere declined to comment for this story.

Shares Down

The Australian producer Woodside Petroleum Ltd. (WPL), based in Perth, didn’t fare as well as the oil rout cast a shadow over its plans for a $35 billion LNG project off Australia’s western coast. Its shares ended 2014 down 2.3 percent, after gaining as much as 13 percent, and the company announced last month it will delay until mid-2016 a final decision on whether to pursue the west coast project.
The Woodside delay echoes recent ones by BG Group Plc (BG/) and Petroliam Nasional Bhd on projects for Canada’s Pacific Coast.
Petronas, as the Malaysian state-run producer is known, said last month it’s seeking ways to align costs in Canada with lower costs in the U.S. before deciding whether to move forward with its C$36 billion ($30 billion) Pacific NorthWest LNG project in British Columbia.
The seven plants under construction in Australia include the $54 billion Chevron-backed Gorgon project, whose price tag increased by $17 billion from initial estimates partly because of higher labor costs.

Sempra Facility

In the U.S., Sempra Energy (SRE) broke ground on its Cameron LNG facility in October in Hackberry, Louisiana. Dominion Resources Inc. (D) began construction activities the same month at its Cove Point project in Lusby, Maryland.
Other planned U.S. projects include Cheniere’s Corpus Christi plant, the Jordan Cove LNG terminal backed by Calgary-based Veresen Inc. (VSN) and Oregon LNG, proposed by Leucadia National Corp. Freeport LNG Development LP plans a $14 billion terminal in Quintana Island, Texas.
Veresen is in talks with buyers in Asia, after spending more than $130 million on permitting, environmental analysis and other review procedures required by regulators, said Dorreen Miller, director of investor relations.
“Our potential customers are quite comfortable with North American gas over the long term,” Miller said.
Labor and construction costs may increase for LNG plants in the U.S. if several are built at the same time, while competition for contracts will limit how many can secure deals, Harvard’s Maugeri said.
“No matter how many authorizations the Department of Energy gives, I think that no more than five to six LNG plants will actually materialize in the United States,” he said.
Still, the advantage is clear, Westlake’s McDougall said.
“The U.S. projects are less sensitive to what oil prices are,” he said. “The things it has going for it are low capital costs to develop and a deep resource base.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Zain Shauk in Houston at zshauk@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Susan Warren at susanwarren@bloomberg.netCarlos Caminada, Robin Saponar



Cheap Gas Makes U.S. Only Place Where Export Makes Sense - Bloomberg

[Metabo]

Che poi....io non capisco perché esultare per il fallimento dello shale gas e oil. Più concorrenti ci sono e più il prezzo del petrolio potrebbe rimanere basso


Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk

Sinceramente non c'è da esultare è un dato di fatto, le bolle economiche fanno questa fine ,poi non piangiamo quando ci sono colassi tipo il 2008.
Qui il principe ti spiega che gli shale sono bolle e che appena saltano il petrolio risale.
https://forum.termometropolitico.it/...l#post14052181

[Amati75]

Sinceramente non c'è da esultare è un dato di fatto, le bolle economiche fanno questa fine ,poi non piangiamo quando ci sono colassi tipo il 2008.
Qui il principe ti spiega che gli shale sono bolle e che appena saltano il petrolio risale.
https://forum.termometropolitico.it/...l#post14052181

"Bolla".. quando per vcedere un impatto si deve avere una diminuzione del 60%?

Un Bear Market lo si definisce tale dopo un calo del 30%.. Metabo... ma che ti sei bevuto?

[Metabo]

"Bolla".. quando per vcedere un impatto si deve avere una diminuzione del 60%?

Un Bear Market lo si definisce tale dopo un calo del 30%.. Metabo... ma che ti sei bevuto?

Aspetta che il primo fallimento negli shale gas è già arrivato, altri a breve.

[Amati75]

Aspetta che il primo fallimento negli shale gas è già arrivato, altri a breve.

Ma nuovamente, non mi stai dicendo nulla d'imprevisto, come quotatoti due volte... Le consolidazioni sono normali, e come scrittoti e riquotatoti, aziende che falliranno ve ne saranno, ovviamente, ma non ero io che dicevo che sarebbero fallite quando il barile era a 100$, quello eri tu, quindi, sparavi fantasie all'epoca si o no?

Poi, nuovmaente, una cosa e' shale oil unaltra, coem da articolo sopra, e' lo shale gas, che evidenemente ancora non lo avete capito.

[Lawrence d'Arabia]

Ottima notizia

Eleven earthquakes recorded in less than 24 hours near birthplace of fracking | US news | theguardian.com