2011/6/30 日本経済新聞

期待のシェールガス、「割安」は神話か 米紙報道に波紋

　福島第１原子力発電所の事故以来、火力発電の需要が世界的に高まるなかで、期待を一身に集める新たな発電燃料が「シェールガス」だ。これ まで開発困難だった硬い頁岩（けつがん＝shale）の岩盤に含まれるガスで、近年の技術開発で大量生産が可能になった。30日には三井物産が新たな権益 取得を発表するなど、日本企業の参入も相次ぐ。だが、開発ブームの原動力だった「シェールガス＝割安」の“神話”に米有力紙が疑問を呈し、波紋が広がって いる。

　三井物産は米テキサス州の鉱区権益を６億8000万ドル（約550億円）で米石油会社から取得するという。日本勢によるシェールガス・オイル関連投資では過去最大だ。

　シェールガスの新規開発は世界中で引きも切らない。日本企業では三井物のほか、三菱商事、住友商事など大手商社がそろって参入済み。中国は 27日、同国南部のシェールガス４鉱区を対象に初の入札を実施し、国内開発・量産へ一歩前進した。先週は英石油大手ＢＰのロシア合弁会社ＴＮＫ−ＢＰも、 ウクライナのシェールガス田開発に18億ドルを投じる計画を明らかにしたばかり。米ではガスの供給拡大に伴うパイプライン需要逼迫（ひっぱく）の思惑か ら、パイプライン会社のＭ＆Ａ合戦が過熱するなどの余波も広がっている。

　ただ、ブームにあやうさはつきもの。シェールガスを巡ってはかねて、乱開発による環境への悪影響が指摘されてきた。金融危機を招いた米金融 機関のずさんな経営を暴き、２年連続でピュリツァー賞を受賞した非営利組織（ＮＰＯ）の「プロパブリカ」も、シェールガス開発による河川の汚染問題などを 頻繁に取り上げている。

　今回、冷水を浴びせかけたのはニューヨーク・タイムズだ。27日付の１面記事でシェールガス開発の経済性に真っ向から疑問符を突きつけた。

　その根拠は、同紙にリークされた米政府エネルギー情報局（ＥＩＡ）内の電子メール。 一部のＥＩＡ職員はシェールガス開発の費用対効果に懐疑的で、ガス開発会社は「失敗のために設立されたようなもの」「その多くは破綻する可能性が高い」と 書いた。ある高官は企業側の産出予測について、最も生産性の高いガス井をもとに算出した楽観的なもので「理性を失った誇張」と批判。同紙はこのほか、 シェールガスの開発ブームに警鐘を鳴らす数多くのメールを紹介した。

　ＥＩＡは中立の立場から政府のエネルギー政策を支えるのが主な役割で、シェールガスについては推進の立場をとっている。賛否両論が渦巻いていたＥＩＡ内部の事情が明らかになり、エネルギー業界は蜂の巣をつついた騒ぎとなった。

　真っ先に反応したのは米ガス開発２位のチェサピーク・エナジー。27日の寄り付きで株価が急落したこともあり、マクレンドン最高経営責任者 （ＣＥＯ）は同日、報道を批判する声明を発表。米エクソンモービルやＢＰに混じって「ミツビシやミツイ」の名も挙げ「シェールガスの経済性について、合計 で時価総額が ２兆ドルにも上るエネルギー業界の優良企業が、ニューヨーク・タイムズの一記者や一握りの活動家よりも詳しくないことがあろうか」といささか挑発的に反論 した。「伝説のオイルマン」と呼ばれる米有力投資家ブーン・ピケンズ氏も「業界よりニューヨーク・タイムズが詳しいわけがない」と同調した。

　一方、勢いづく勢力もある。ニューヨーク州選出のモーリス・ヒンチー下院議員（民主）は、報道は「ウエイクアップ・コール（目覚まし）」と述べ、米証券取引委員会（ＳＥＣ）に対し、業界が「投資家や世間を欺いたかどうか」調べるよう要請した。

　ニューヨーク・タイムズは「複数の関係者がメールを提供した」と書いた。メールが寄せられた背景が義憤なのか、ＥＩＡ内部の主導権争いなの かは判然としない。まだ議論百出といった状況で、本当の費用対効果はヤブのなかだ。ただ、シェールガスの将来に過度な期待は禁物ということなのかもしれな い。30日の三井物の株価も小幅に上昇しては押し戻される展開が続いている。

June 26, 2011 New York Times

Drilling Down
Behind Veneer, Doubt on Future of Natural Gas

Energy companies have worked hard to promote the idea that natural gas is the fossil fuel of tomorrow, and they have found reliable allies among policy makers in Washington.

“The potential for natural gas is enormous,” President Obama said in a speech this year, having cited it as an issue on which Democrats and Republicans can agree.

The Department of Energy boasts in news releases about helping jump-start the boom in drilling by financing some research that made it possible to tap the gas trapped in shale formations deep underground.

In its annual forecasting reports, the United States Energy Information Administration, a division of the Energy Department, has steadily increased its estimates of domestic supplies of natural gas, and investors and the oil and gas industry have repeated them widely to make their case about a prosperous future.

But not everyone in the Energy Information Administration agrees. In scores of internal e-mails and documents, officials within the Energy Information Administration, or E.I.A., voice skepticism about the shale gas industry.

One official says the shale industry may be “ set up for failure.” “It is quite likely that many of these companies will go bankrupt,” a senior adviser to the Energy Information Administration administrator predicts. Several officials echo concerns raised during previous bubbles, in housing and in technology stocks, for example, that ended in a bust.

Energy Information Administration employees also explain in e-mails and documents, copies of which were obtained by The New York Times, that industry estimates might overstate the amount of gas that companies can affordably get out of the ground.

They discuss the uncertainties about how long the wells will be productive as well as the high prices some companies paid during the land rush to lease mineral rights. They also raise concerns about the unpredictability of shale gas drilling.

One senior Energy Information Administration official describes an “irrational exuberance” around shale gas. An internal Energy Information Administration document says companies have exaggerated “the appearance of shale gas well profitability,” are highlighting the performance of only their best wells and may be using overly optimistic models for projecting the wells'productivity over the next several decades.

While there are environmental and economic benefits to natural gas compared with other fossil fuels, its widespread popularity as an energy source is relatively new. As a result, it has not received the same level of scrutiny, according to some environmentalists and energy economists.

The Energy Information Administration e-mails indicate that some of these difficult questions are being raised.

“Am I just totally crazy, or does it seem like everyone and their mothers are endorsing shale gas without getting a really good understanding of the economics at the business level?” an energy analyst at the Energy Information Administration wrote in an April 27 e-mail to a colleague.

Another e-mail expresses similar doubts. “I agree with your concerns regarding the euphoria for shale gas and oil,”wrote a senior officialin the forecasting division of the Energy Information Administration in an April 13 e-mail to a colleague at the administration.

“We might be in a ‘gold rush'wherein a few folks have developed ‘monster'wells,” he wrote, “so everyone assumes that all the wells will be ‘monsters.'”

The Energy Information Administration's annual reports are widely followed by investors, companies and policy makers because they are considered scientifically rigorous and independent from industry. They also inform legislators'initiatives. Congress, for example, has been considering major subsidies to promote vehicles fueled by natural gas and cutting taxes for the industry.

In any organization as big as the Energy Information Administration, with its 370 or so employees, there inevitably will be differences of opinion, particularly in private e-mails shared among colleagues. A spokesman for the agency said that it stands by its reports, and that it has been clear about the uncertainties of shale gas production.

“One guiding principle that we employ is, ‘look at the data,'” said Michael Schaal, director of the Office of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels Analysis within the Energy Information Administration. “It is clear the data shows that shale gas has become a significant source of domestic natural gas supply.”

But the doubts and concerns expressed in the e-mails and correspondence obtained by The Times are noteworthy because they are shared by many employees, some of them in senior roles. The documents and e-mails, which were provided to The Times by industry consultants, federal energy officials and Congressional researchers, show skepticism about shale gas economics, sometimes even from senior agency officials.

The e-mails were provided by several people to The Times under the condition that the names of those sending and receiving them would not be used.

Some of the e-mails suggest frustrations among the staff members in their attempt to push for a more accurate discussion of shale gas. One federal analyst, describing an Energy Information Administration publication on shale gas, complained that the administration shared the industry's optimism. “It seems that science is pointing in one direction and industry PR is pointing in another,” wrote the analyst about shale gas drilling in an e-mail. “We still have to present the middle, even if the middle neglects to point out the strengths of scientific evidence over PR.”

The Energy Information Administration, with its mission of providing “independent and impartial energy information to promote sound policymaking” and “efficient markets,” was created in response to the energy crisis of the 1970s because lawmakers believed that sound data could help the country avoid similar crises in the future.

As a protection from industry or political pressure, the Energy Information Administration's reports, by law, are supposed to be independent and do not require approval by any other arm of government.

Its administrator, Richard G. Newell, who announced this month his plans to resign to take a job at Duke University, has hailed the prospects for shale gas, calling it a “game changer” in the United States energy mix. “The energy outlook for natural gas has changed dramatically over the past several years,” Mr. Newell told the Natural Gas Roundtable, a nonprofit group tied to the American Gas Association. “The most significant story is the transformative role played by shale gas.”

A number of factors have also helped create more interest in shale gas. The nuclear disaster in Japan in March has focused attention on the promise of natural gas as a safer energy source.

And last year, as energy market analysts warned about tougher federal regulations on oil and coal, particularly after the BP oil spill and the Massey coal mining accident, they also pointed to natural gas as a more attractive investment.

But a look at the Energy Information Administration's methods raises questions about its independence from energy companies, since the industry lends a helping hand to the government to compile those bullish reports.

The Energy Information Administration, for example, relies on research from outside consultants with ties to the industry. And some of those consultants pull the data they supply to the government from energy company news releases, according to Energy Information Administration e-mails. Projections about future supplies of natural gas are based not just on science but also some guesswork and modeling.

Two of the primary contractors, Intek and Advanced Resources International, provided shale gas estimates and data for the Energy Information Administration's major annual forecasting reports on domestic and foreign oil and gas resources. Both of them have major clients in the oil and gas industry, according to corporate tax records from the contractors. The president of Advanced Resources, Vello A. Kuuskraa, is also a stockholder and board member of Southwestern Energy, an energy company heavily involved in drilling for gas in the Fayetteville shale formation in Arkansas.

The contractors said they did not see any conflict of interest. “Firstly, the report is an extremely transparent assessment,” said Tyler Van Leeuwen, an analyst at Advanced Resources, adding that many experts agreed with its conclusions and that by identifying promising areas, the report heightened competition for Southwestern.

Intek verified that it produced data for Energy Information Administration reports but declined to comment on questions about whether, given its ties to industry, it had a conflict of interest.

Some government watchdog groups, however, faulted the Energy Information Administration for not maintaining more independence from industry.

“E.I.A.'s heavy reliance on industry for their analysis fundamentally undermines the agency's mission to provide independent expertise,” said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a group that investigates federal agencies and Congress.

“The Chemical Safety Board and the National Transportation Safety Board both show that government agencies can conduct complex, niche analysis without being captured or heavily relying upon industry expertise,” Ms. Brian added, referring to two independent federal agencies that conduct investigations of accidents.

These sorts of concerns have also led to complaints within the administration itself.

In an April 27 e-mail, a senior petroleum geologist who works for the Energy Information Administration wrote that upper management relied too heavily on outside contractors and used “incomplete/selective and all too often unreal data,” much of which comes from industry news releases

“E.I.A., irrespective of what or how many ‘specialty'contractors are hired, is NOT TECHNICALLY COMPETENT to estimate the undiscovered resources of anything made by Mother Nature, period,” he wrote.

Energy officials have also quietly criticized in internal e-mails the department's shale gas primer, a source of information for the public, saying it may be “on the rosy side.”

The primer is written by the Ground Water Protection Council, a research group that, according to tax records, is partly financed by industry.

The Ground Water Protection Council declined to respond to questions.

Tiffany Edwards, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, said that the shale gas primer was never intended as a comprehensive review and that further study was continuing.

Asked about the views expressed in the internal e-mails, Mr. Schaal says his administration has been very explicit in acknowledging the uncertainties surrounding shale gas development.

He said news reports and company presentations were included among a range of information sources used in Energy Information Administration studies. Though the administration depends on contractors with specialized expertise, he added, it conforms with all relevant federal rules.

And while production from shale gas has not slowed down and may not any time soon, he said, a lively debate continues within the administration about shale gas prospects.

June 28, 2011

Lawmakers Seek Inquiry of Natural Gas Industr

Federal lawmakers called Tuesday on several agencies, including the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, the Energy Information Administration and the Government Accountability Office, to investigate whether the natural gas industry has provided an accurate picture to investors of the long-term profitability of their wells and the amount of gas these wells can produce.

“Given the rapid growth of the shale gas industry and its growing importance for our country's energy portfolio, I urge the S.E.C. to quickly investigate whether investors have been intentionally misled,” wrote Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, in one of three letters sent to the commission by four federal lawmakers, all Democrats.

The calls for investigations came amid growing questions about the environmental and financial risks surrounding natural gas drilling and especially a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, used to release gas trapped underground in shale formations.

Members of the House Committee on Natural Resources said they hoped to hold a hearing in the next several weeks to discuss natural gas drilling.

Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, asking it to look into questions about the environmental impacts of hydrofracking, the accuracy of reserves estimates, and industry regulation.

State lawmakers also sought more information.

In Maryland, Delegate Heather R. Mizeur, Democrat of Montgomery County, sent a letter to the state comptroller and the attorney general calling for an investigation into disclosures related to the financial and environmental risks of drilling.

In New York, Assemblywoman Barbara S. Lifton, a Democrat and longtime critic of drilling, sent a letter to the New York State comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, calling for a similar investigation and citing roughly $1 billion in state pension funds invested in shale gas companies.

The New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, sent subpoenas to five oil and gas companies ordering them to provide documents relating to the disclosure the companies made to investors about the risks of hydrofracking, according to sources briefed on the investigation.

A spokesman from Mr. Schneiderman's office declined to provide copies of the subpoenas.

The five companies subpoenaed - Talisman, Chesapeake Energy, E. O. G. Resources, Baker Hughes and Anadarko - all declined to comment.

The calls for investigations follow articles in The New York Times describing doubts reflected in internal e-mails from federal regulators and natural gas industry officials about the costs associated with shale gas and the reliability of company reserves estimates.

Oil and gas companies and energy market analysts strongly rejected the views expressed in the industry and federal e-mails published by The Times.

In an open letter to his employees, the chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, Aubrey McClendon, said the company's prospects were bright.

“There is no reason to believe that shale gas wells will have shorter lives than our conventional wells ? some 8,000 of which are 30 years old or older,” Mr. McClendon wrote.

Some financial services companies also released research notes saying they believed shale gas was now profitable for many companies.

But four federal lawmakers - Mr. Hinchey; Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts; and Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney and Jerrold Nadler, both Democrats of New York - sent letters calling for the S.E.C. to reconsider recent rule changes that allow companies to avoid disclosing details about the proprietary technology used to predict future gas production and to avoid some third-party audits of those predictions. They asked the commission whether third-party reserves audits should be made mandatory.

The lawmakers also called for an investigation into industry representatives'accusations of possible illegality or reserves overbooking. A spokesman for the S.E.C. declined to comment.

In a letter to Steven Chu, the secretary of energy, Ms. Maloney and Mr. Nadler asked his department to assess how inaccuracies in production projections could affect energy policy.

The federal Energy Information Administration also faced questions from Mr. Markey and Mr. Hinchey about its reports related to natural gas and its use of industry-tied contractors in writing those reports.

Voicing strong support for the natural gas industry, a bipartisan group of eight federal lawmakers from gas-producing states sent a letter to President Obama on Monday asking him to promote continued natural gas development “by any means necessary, but most specifically, by unconventional shale gas recovery.”

“The need for the United States to move toward energy independence becomes more crucial as the crisis in the Middle East and North Africa worsens,” the letter said.

2011/9/7 　日本経済新聞　

国連、シェールガス採掘に国際標準
環境汚染の懸念払拭狙う


　国連は新型天然ガスの「シェールガス」の普及を後押しするため、地下水の汚染などの環境問題を起こさない採掘方法の国際標準をつくる。フランスが生産を禁止するなど採掘時の環境汚染への懸念が開発の妨げとなっているためだ。欧米各国の政府のほか、資源開発会社や非政府組織（ＮＧＯ）を加え、11月に欧州本部で開く会合で具体的な基準について議論を開始する。

　シェールガスは地中の頁岩（けつがん）に含まれ、化学物質や砂を含んだ水を高圧で注入して岩盤に亀裂をつくり、採取する。しかし、採掘によって地下水が汚れたり、ガスが地表に漏れ出したりする危険性が指摘され、北米以外では商業生産は本格化していない。

　国連は注入水が含有する化学物質や採掘方法を一つ一つ点検し、最も安全性の高いやり方を特定し、それを国際標準にして各国に示す。今のところ、地下水に悪影響を与える化学物質の使用は禁じ、注入水は最終的に抜き出すよう求める方針。セメントで地下水と隔離することも有効と見ている。飲用水の水脈近くでの採掘を避けるため、水脈を確認する地質調査の実施も盛り込む見通し。

　北米以外での採掘が本格化すれば開発会社にとってもメリットが大きいため、欧米の主要企業が議論に参加する意向を示しているという。環境関連のＮＧＯも議論に参加させ、慎重派の意見も国際標準に反映させる。

　国際エネルギー機関（ＩＥＡ）の予測では、2035年時点の天然ガス需要は08年に比べて63％増え、世界のエネルギー需要の４分の１を賄う。開発が順調に進めば、35年に天然ガス全体の11％をシェールガスが占める見通しだ。