Summary
*While Chevron, Exxon, Occidental and other oil majors are eagerly ramping up shale acquisitions and production, Shell has been more reserved in this regard.
*Shale resources may help companies improve on upstream production volumes and reserves, but profitability is questionable, leading to potentially net negative trade-off for investors.
*The ethane plant in Pennsylvania is an example of Shell wisely making use of lower natural gas prices, rather than being on the upstream side, losing money.
Much has been made lately of the deep dive into shale that the likes of oil majors such as Chevron (NYSE:CVX) and Exxon (NYSE:XOM) decided to take in the past few years. A fight over Anadarko (NYSE:APC) between Chevron and Occidental (NYSE:OXY) was perhaps the most emblematic symbol of this industry-changing trend. Analysts and investors quickly jumped to the conclusion that it is imperative for all oil majors to jump in and compete with each other on acquiring and developing shale assets. Exxon and Chevron are currently planning to increase shale production to 1 mb/d each. Shell (NYSE:RDS.A) (NYSE:RDS.B) has been more timid in this regard, and given the profitability profile of the overall shale industry, I am fully satisfied with its position in this regard. Shell’s downstream investments, such as the Pennsylvania ethane plant, meant to take advantage of low shale prices, seems to make far more sense than rushing to produce the low-priced natural gas. Nor does it seem all that wise to rush to produce shale oil, which requires extremely high capital expenses to produce. Some investors may believe that it is more important to maintain reserves and production by diving into the shale patch. I personally think that it is not worth diluting Shell’s overall profitability profile by producing shale oil and gas for the sake of maintaining the company’s overall production numbers.