NextWave EFT

5.8K posts

NextWave EFT

NextWave EFT

@NextWaveEFT

Fundamental analysis in the energy space. Not investment advice.

Katılım Aralık 2019
191 Takip Edilen11.2K Takipçiler
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
For those that want a “15 years later” update on whether fracking was safe: - Since 2010, 300,000 shale wells were fracked all across the United States - No groundwater issues - Nobody got sick - Hotspots of drilling are thriving You were lied to.
English
136
897
9K
216.1K
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
@patrick_oshag The objections he expected to get aren’t the objections that dismantle the entire thesis (and they do). He simply expanded upon why the factors he looked at are correct.
English
0
0
4
357
Patrick OShaughnessy
Patrick OShaughnessy@patrick_oshag·
As part of Matthew's letter (which I recommend reading in its entirety) he includes an appendix of expected pushback. It lays out the objections and his responses across available gas resource, midstream, power, and LNG. On available gas resource: "Technical gas-in-place and 'recoverable resource' do not mean the gas is economic or will ever be produced. The industry has tested 500-600-ft spacing and single wells were materially less productive due to well cannibalization. Child wells are significantly less productive than the parent wells and therefore far less capital efficient. Much higher prices are required to drill infill wells in the Marcellus. The same is true in Haynesville. Significant infrastructure will also be required. It is currently not contemplated." On midstream: "It takes years to build new gathering systems, processing, pipeline and other infrastructure, and if it is to be built to solve the acute tightening in 2028, the market would already be aware of the projects." On power: "We are modeling natural gas from the wellhead, and whether it is behind-the-meter or grid connected, it is consuming natural gas. All incremental natural gas power generation contributes to the natural gas deficit beyond 2027. Any behind-the-meter projects pull forward the natural gas tightness we foresee." On LNG: "U.S. LNG exports will make up approximately one-third of global LNG supply by 2030. The majority of the 35 Bcf per day of approved LNG nameplate capacity is either contracted or likely to be contracted to global counterparties, including foreign utilities. LNG contracts are generally long-lived, volumes are predetermined, and the contract terms are used to finance the LNG projects. Unwinding these commitments is a complicated and expensive proposition."
Patrick OShaughnessy tweet mediaPatrick OShaughnessy tweet media
Patrick OShaughnessy@patrick_oshag

Matthew Smith has spent the last 18 months modeling every well, pipeline, storage facility, and power plant in the American natural gas system. His conclusion is that the US is heading toward a natural gas shortage with no precedent, beginning in 2028. By 2030, he believes we could exhaust our working natural gas storage entirely. The fuel everyone in AI is counting on, and that everyone assumes is abundant, is not there. And because gas sets the price of electricity in most of the country, he argues Americans will pay for the shortage in their power bills. Matthew has worked in energy markets for over 20 years and is the CIO of Chronometer Partners. This is his second time on the show, and he's one of my favorite people to talk to about energy. We discuss: - Why the bottleneck is moving from power to fuel - Why we can't just shut off exports - 2028 as the inflection point - Large-scale nuclear v. SMRs - Who wins, who loses, and what can still be done Enjoy! TIMESTAMPS 0:00 Intro 1:30 What Drives the Deficit 11:00 Why Supply Can’t Catch Up 20:35 The 2030 Gas Crisis 25:05 Winners and Losers 29:00 Nuclear and Solar 33:30 Consumers Pay the Bill 37:20 AI’s Next Shortage 45:25 Solutions and Global Stakes 51:15 The Coming Gas Knife Fight

English
25
31
330
95.3K
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
@ScottW_Grizzle Rigs show up when there is a structural change in s/d and operators fully believe in a reset higher. That spike in 2022 wasn’t that, and so the rig response was muted. Was the right decision. When you see $4 as an acceptable base case price deck, that’s when rigs show up
English
0
0
2
125
Scott Willis
Scott Willis@ScottW_Grizzle·
@NextWaveEFT I'm curious if you were following the supply response closely in 2022? Did the industry just sit out $8/gas or did a flood of new rigs attempt to start drilling?
English
1
0
1
189
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
I’ll give my brief take on this interview Smith gave of nat gas long term. In short, I respectfully disagree. Smith’s thesis relies heavily on a single monster assumption which would take the story down if not true: If primary basins today can’t fill demand, nat gas prices 🚀 If we were reliant on primary basins to fill demand, that would be true. But that’s not the case. The last 15 years our industry has been lulled into thinking the only basins with meaningful resource is Appalachia, the Haynesville, and the Permian. This is not true. Those are just the basins that work at $3/mcf. When you make small increases in nat gas prices (ie, $4-5/mcf) there are vast reserves across the L48 that would be activated. None of them on their own are large enough to move the needle, but when you’ve got 50 small programs each capable of growing to 0.5 bcfd, thats more meaningful than finding a new monster gas basin. None of those small programs are being modeled today. Nobody has “300 mmcfd coming from a no name private operator in the piceance” or “400 mmcfd from a new operator in Mississippi” in their model. But when you look at the economics of those programs at $4/mcf, they make a hell of a lot of sense to drill. I’ve seen these deals and projects. They’re popping up everywhere at an accelerated pace. With increased confidence in a $4 world, they will get funded, and those volumes will show up. Over the last 20 years the nat gas business has become hyper concentrated in the hands of a few key players in a few key basins. The next 20 years what I believe you’ll see in a $4-5 world is a much more distributed network of nat gas producers who make a killing at those prices. We had 100 nat gas operators, we now have 5. What I believe Matt and many others miss is in 10 years, in a $4-5/mcf world, it’s likely we once again have 100 nat gas operators across the L48. You model that and the thesis of nat gas going to the moon completely crumbles. That flawed thesis is underpinned by a complete disregard of what new nat gas teams are capable of delivering if they were given even a moderate opportunity ($4/mcf). I’m bullish relative to strip today, but the idea of runaway nat gas prices over the long term is highly improbable. There’s simply too much talent, resource, and $ sitting on the sidelines that would storm the field at $4-5/mcf.
Patrick OShaughnessy@patrick_oshag

Matthew Smith has spent the last 18 months modeling every well, pipeline, storage facility, and power plant in the American natural gas system. His conclusion is that the US is heading toward a natural gas shortage with no precedent, beginning in 2028. By 2030, he believes we could exhaust our working natural gas storage entirely. The fuel everyone in AI is counting on, and that everyone assumes is abundant, is not there. And because gas sets the price of electricity in most of the country, he argues Americans will pay for the shortage in their power bills. Matthew has worked in energy markets for over 20 years and is the CIO of Chronometer Partners. This is his second time on the show, and he's one of my favorite people to talk to about energy. We discuss: - Why the bottleneck is moving from power to fuel - Why we can't just shut off exports - 2028 as the inflection point - Large-scale nuclear v. SMRs - Who wins, who loses, and what can still be done Enjoy! TIMESTAMPS 0:00 Intro 1:30 What Drives the Deficit 11:00 Why Supply Can’t Catch Up 20:35 The 2030 Gas Crisis 25:05 Winners and Losers 29:00 Nuclear and Solar 33:30 Consumers Pay the Bill 37:20 AI’s Next Shortage 45:25 Solutions and Global Stakes 51:15 The Coming Gas Knife Fight

English
23
23
199
29.5K
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
…cont…last point… Here’s the smoking gun highlighting the critical flaw in their methodology, point #2 from the paper they published: “2. We model most relevant public companies and most relevant private companies in our universe, asset by asset, bottom up.” Of course they did that. And of course their conclusion is what it is. The reality of the situation is this: The “most relevant” public and private companies today are not the most relevant influence on future US nat gas supply. They’re just not. And when you only focus on the big boys in established plays (with dwindling inventory) you completely miss the collective behemoth that’s waiting for a sustained 4 handle. If/when that hits, people will finally be reminded how deep the nat gas bench is in this country.
English
1
1
15
991
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
@avidwanderer Yes. His work focuses on capacity out of the primary basins. Underappreciates the capacity available in non-core basins that could bridge us to 2030 when additional pipe is needed
English
1
0
4
236
Avidwanderer🇺🇸
Avidwanderer🇺🇸@avidwanderer·
@NextWaveEFT But for those 50 fields that become economical at $4-5mcf, are they all in locations easily tied into existing natgas pipeline infrastructure? That seems like where Smith has done significant work based on his statements in the podcast
English
1
0
0
320
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
💯. This blind spot tends to exist w/ people who deal primarily w/ the large publics. In this case (and many others), it’s not the large publics that dictate a step change in US supply trajectory. Starts with the privates who get these programs going. Without an understanding of that underworld you end up with trash theories like the interview above.
English
3
0
25
878
Michael Spyker
Michael Spyker@ShaleTier7·
@NextWaveEFT I know we've gone back and forth on this over $0.25/m, but good way of framing this guy's blindspot. It is insane if you ask any operator/PE team/landman/BD analyst how much gas they could add if HH was $5 and hedge-able they'd say 3-500mmcf/d easily.
English
1
1
24
1.4K
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
@TeddyGambino Yep - key leading indicator is whether new teams can get funding, and for that people need increased confidence $4 is a real thing. When $4 is an acceptable assumption, that’s when things start to fly. Hasnt happened yet.
English
1
0
10
260
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
@TeddyGambino 30 rigs and 15 frac fleets would add 3 bcfd y/y growth. There’s ample OFS equipment to handle that today. Pipe is the big limiting factor. These non-core basins have 8-10 bcfd capacity today given declines the last 20. Above that is what needs to be built and there is ample time
English
1
0
15
682
Teddy “Trican-Jesus” Gambino
Assuming you are correct, the pipelines take 3-4yrs to build out. US Frac fleet is 205/210, would required a massive sector wide build to meet the demand. Earliest to see equipment show is late 2028, more like mid 2029. By YE 2031, US needs 50 bcf for the LNG+power+Mexico demand, add on 5-10 bcf to build storage for winters. Maybe gas supply/demand finds an equilibrium early 2030’s but we have a crisis coming 2027-2030.
English
2
0
14
978
Michael Spyker
Michael Spyker@ShaleTier7·
@NextWaveEFT I knew this was coming. I'm arguing for $4.50 either way. This guy is way overshooting it and it just plainly wrong. I'm pretty sure we were more in the weeds than the guy that thinks the answer to structural gas demand is storage drawing.
English
1
0
7
549
Michael Spyker
Michael Spyker@ShaleTier7·
I did the same thing. How can the conclusions be so radically different. Nobody that truly forecasted out *EVERY* single asset, especially the upstream supply part of things; can arrive at the conclusion we'll be short of gas. At best you can arrive at the conclusion the price of gas will be like $1.50/MMBtu higher. I have a feeling that the "16 months of research" was just shoe-horning data to fix a preexisting narrative. Again, I'm bullish gas. But a fatal flaw of a lot of these guys models, is they; a) grossly underestimate the amount of supply that isn't "obvious", and they b) grossly overestimate the inelasticity of international demand. Remember that $10/MMBtu gas in the US is $15/MMBtu gas in Asia, and electricity switching is becoming easier, especially as China tries to push their solar exports. On the supply side, it's easy to not understand what "Tier 2" really means. A core/Tier 1 Marcellus well might do, for our sake, 25 Bcf EUR and have a $2.15/MMBtu realized gas breakeven behind ~$1.10/MMBtu of basis/tolls/whatever. A Tier 2 Marcellus well (of which there are thousands) may recover just half the gas at 12 Bcf EUR, but has a realized gas breakeven of $2.90/MMBtu, so ~$4/MMBtu Hub. Even if new pipe tolls are $1.65/MMBtu that's ~$4.50/MMBtu to bring like another 50-100 Tcf of gas into the market. Or effectively 15 Bcf/d of production for 10 years. This doesn't even touch the Green River, Piceance, San Juan, Arkoma, and Barnett, Fayetteville & Haynesville refracs, Canada imports -- anything. There are too many moving parts to say "we're going to run out of gas" with any level of reasonable confidence. Again, maybe "a buck higher sounds fair within 5-10 years", but not "2030 we're going to run out of storage". If the thesis was infrastructure is a limiter -- I'm all for that. We haven't built new Appalachia pipelines, we might not even know how to anymore. Absolutely there will be massive regional gaps, or productive capacity that can't make it to an end user somewhere else; but those don't last long and typically aren't structural (well, on a long enough timeline). But you truly have to have made some massively fatal error to say that we; a) don't have the inventory available, b) we don't have the ability to build infrastructure at all, and c) demand is rigid and won't adjust to higher prices. Again, I AM BULLISH GAS, for a lot of the reasons within, but it's just blasphemous to say there "is no future supply response". I would like to debate this guy I'll come to your city and we can do it on whatever podcast you choose.
Michael Spyker tweet mediaMichael Spyker tweet mediaMichael Spyker tweet mediaMichael Spyker tweet media
Colossus@colossusmag

In June, Matthew Smith wrote a letter to a small group of confidants about the U.S. natural gas market. "This will sound like heresy. Energy, power, and AI heresy." In it, he projects an unprecedented natural gas shortage beginning in late 2028. By 2030, working gas storage could be exhausted entirely. Gas is the marginal fuel for electricity in most of the country. When it becomes scarce, everyone pays. Hyperscalers, LNG buyers, and households alike. The letter was never meant to be public. We asked if we could publish it so listeners could see the full work. It includes the model, the math behind it, the winners and losers, and his rebuttals to every objection he expects. He said yes. Full, 20-page letter in the comments.

English
17
19
192
32K
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
Hold on. So you’re telling me: A company tasked w/ needing to achieve perfection in well to well communication in the harshest, most costly, most erratic geo environment… AND has no cost data, long term production history, or OPEX info… They’re NOT worth $10 bn?? $FRVO
English
6
0
40
8.4K
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
@heik_energy When you quantify the impact of those things, it doesn’t come close to the impact of shale The oil industry “moves” when one thing happens; when a new resource type is discovered. If AI help with that, great. Otherwise, it’s a good tool that makes things incrementally better.
English
0
0
0
229
David Heikkinen
David Heikkinen@heik_energy·
The most credible examples are not single $30/bbl cost cuts; they are compounding AI improvements across the barrel lifecycle. Devon is using AI to autonomously optimize artificial lift across 850+ wells, delivering low-single-digit production uplift with minimal incremental capex. It is also using AI to improve drilling speed, with examples around 30% faster drilling and record Delaware Basin performance. Aker BP is using AI and digital infrastructure to compress exploration and maintenance workflows from weeks to hours or minutes, run data-rich wells like Omega Alpha, and design Yggdrasil as a remote-operated, sensor-heavy, AI-ready field. The value comes from better barrels: more uptime, faster wells, fewer failures, better reservoir targeting, and lower capital per recovered barrel. That is how AI can materially reduce full-cycle cost per barrel, even if neither company has disclosed a literal $30/bbl AI saving.
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT

@FracSlap @nimblephatty The bar here is: Shale lowered US’s cost structure by $30/ bbl, and opened up $10tn of value to be captured by US operators over a 30 yr period. What are some examples you see of AI lowering cost/bbl produced by $30/bbl, or creating $10tn of additional value over 30 yrs?

English
1
2
9
2K
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
@FracSlap @nimblephatty The bar here is: Shale lowered US’s cost structure by $30/ bbl, and opened up $10tn of value to be captured by US operators over a 30 yr period. What are some examples you see of AI lowering cost/bbl produced by $30/bbl, or creating $10tn of additional value over 30 yrs?
English
3
0
40
4.1K
Collin McLelland 🏴‍☠️
AI will have bigger impact on oil and gas than American Shale did. A board member for one of the largest american independents called me the other day and told me he had never seen an interest in a technology like this, not even fracking. Fracking has been around since the 60's, we generally understood it, but AI is something completely new. No one knows how to start, no one knows where they sit on the adoption curve compared to their competitors, but it is becoming generally accepted that this is a material shift change. Any company that treats it as a pet project will be left behind by the ones making it the priority,
English
24
10
111
14K
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
The most entertaining story in the Oil and Gas space this year will NOT be the closing of the strait. No no. It will be @PhilMickelson pounding the table on Sable Offshore (Phil no, why), and then $SOC plummeting 83% (Phillll whyyyyy)
NextWave EFT tweet mediaNextWave EFT tweet media
English
13
13
399
120.4K
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
The similarities between the early days of US Shale (2007) vs Enhanced Geothermal in 2026 is striking If you invested in Shale in 2007, you’ve made a 1x over 20 yrs If you invested in the 2010 peak, you’re down 40% today Reason: hype, under-appreciated downhole challenges
English
4
3
59
6.8K
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
@AmbroserayRay @ScottW_Grizzle Interesting way to look at it. Simple and seems to make sense. 60 mmcfd avg over 20 years = 440 bcf. Avg Marcellus/haynesville well these days is about 20 bcf, so, 22 wells. So yea, about 4x more wells for EGS. And then there’s the opex, which nobody is asking about
English
1
1
2
100
Ray Ambrose
Ray Ambrose@AmbroserayRay·
Ok, did some research. They have predicted they would need 92 wells to produce 500 MW of power. 500 MW of CCGT would require about 50-70MMscf/d. Or about 1/10th the number of wells. I understand that there is a time period for this, as I think Fervo is using a 20 year time horizon. So I think my numbers of 5-10x are pretty close.
English
1
0
0
64
NextWave EFT retweetledi
WhisperO&G
WhisperO&G@GWhispero·
Imagine: You are Gloria Moncrief, you are on the gondola skiing in Aspen while entertaining family at your Gunnison ranch. You just celebrated Christmas and the New Year; your cell buzzes. It's Magnolia O&G's successor CEO. (He followed Stephen Chazen (ex ceo of OXY, he paid $52m for Highlander #1 Well)). He tells Gloria the well had a bottom hole intrusion event.
English
8
6
113
31.6K
Ray Ambrose
Ray Ambrose@AmbroserayRay·
@NextWaveEFT @ScottW_Grizzle Just look at the total net energy that these enhanced geothermal projects estimate per well. Compare that to a Haynesville/Marcellus/Utica well. That says all I need to know.
English
1
0
0
103
NextWave EFT
NextWave EFT@NextWaveEFT·
@ScottW_Grizzle No opinion yet. There aren’t any sizable projects online with meaningful production history (> 1 yrs). CAPEX costs aren’t being reported, and you’d be the first person to ask what OPEX is to run these. The range of possible outcomes is very wide.
English
1
0
0
125
Scott Willis
Scott Willis@ScottW_Grizzle·
@NextWaveEFT Thanks. So bottom line you think the cost of geothermal energy will end up significantly higher than company's are promoting and potentially also from results of a few early wells?
English
1
0
0
173