profile image of guests

Technology Extends Reach As Easy Oil, Gas Run Out

April 15th, 2014 vaddison Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

By Giacomo Del Panta, GE

Oil and gas currently accounts for close to 50% of total primary energy demand. While the total remaining recoverable resources are estimated to last for almost 200 years, we are facing an annual oil depletion rate of 8%, making it hard to anticipate how we can meet demand that is expected to increase by 28 MMbbl/d by 2040.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), 42% of worldwide recoverable gas is unconventional and three-quarters of ultimately recoverable resources will still remain to be recovered in 2035. The global reserves-to-production ratio of conventional gas based on current consumption levels is in the range of 55 to 60 years.

As far as oil is concerned, even with discoveries of new proven reserves, oil prices continue to rise as we deplete a finite natural resource. Even with these additional documented reserves, 40% are hard to reach offshore—two-thirds in the Arctic and one-third in deep water.

Deep water and subsea: the future of energy production

As the conventional “easy” reserves are exhausted, energy producers will need to push the limits of technology to gain access to resources in new and extreme locations, including distant offshore and deepsea resources, subsea production and shale deposits; reserves that might have been seen as economically unviable a few years ago.

There are three areas in particular that are receiving large amounts of investment to ensure we can meet future energy demand:

1. FLNG plants: Floating vessels with facilities to produce, liquefy, store and transfer LNG at sea, enable further access to natural gas, the cleanest-burning fossil fuel which is abundant and affordable. Having the ability to process gas at the point of extraction eliminates the need for costly long pipelines and onshore production facilities and the product can be shipped straight to market. You can read more on FLNG in our recent post on the topic.

2. Subsea extraction involves moving to ever deeper waters and more challenging environments. The deeper we go in future—3,000 m (9,843 ft) below sea level and beyond—the higher the costs and risks involved in processing resources topside. Even though subsea production is still in its infancy, it brings many potential benefits as outlined in one of our recent blog posts, including tapping into new reserves.

3. Shale gas extraction has seen unprecedented growth in recent years and significant investments are being made in research and development to support the industry. The combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has allowed access to large volumes of shale gas that were previously uneconomical and unsafe to extract. While North America accounted for around 90% of unconventional gas production in 2012, other resource-rich countries, including China, Latin America and Russia, are set to accelerate production.

Electrification powers exploration

A key requirement for these oil and gas extraction techniques is electric power. In the case of FLNG plants, where space is at a premium and weight restrictions apply, electric drive motors are used to run the compression and cooling systems for liquefaction. In a deepsea scenario, HVDC extends transmission range, allowing us to power electrical equipment installed on the seabed from land or FPSO based power supplies. The shale gas boom, on the other hand, has driven a need for more sophisticated and flexible LNG distribution networks, for which small-scale LNG plays a key role.

The world’s power needs continue to grow at a substantial rate and our energy future remains a topic of significant debate. Unlocking the potential of these more challenging energy reserves is a core objective of the next decade of exploration, research and development, and electric technology has a key role to play.

Giacomo Del Panta leads the European region for oil and gas in GE’s power conversion business.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Do You Know The One About Fracking And Fishing?

April 8th, 2014 vaddison Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

By Jonathan Weil, Bloomberg

There is a chance you missed an excellent story by Bloomberg News reporter Asjylyn Loder about the inherently unreliable methods energy companies use to measure how much oil they have in the ground. So allow me to direct you to it here.

The article focused on shale-oil reserves. The problem it described: Many drillers apply a formula developed in 1945 called the Arps equation to shale technology, which didn’t exist then. (The method is named for Jan Arps, the petroleum engineer who created it.) As a result, future energy production is being exaggerated.

But there is more to this story. And here’s where I can add some value, along with some ancient oil-patch humor. Estimates of companies’ petroleum reserves always have been sketchy, no matter what kind of crude or natural gas. The stuff sometimes is buried miles underground, often beneath deep water. It can be hard to measure.

One incident that comes to mind occurred a decade ago, when Royal Dutch Shell admitted that top executives had overstated reserve data. The financial press treated it like a big scandal. But investors mostly it shrugged off, which was understandable, because they knew that reserve numbers are far from precise.

Indeed, when U.S. accounting rulemakers back in the early 1980s first wrote the standards for disclosing companies’ proved oil-and-gas reserves, they decided that the figures should be reported as “supplementary” information outside the companies’ official financial statements. The reason they cited at the time: the numbers weren’t reliable enough to justify the cost of having them audited independently.

This brings me to the real purpose for this column: To share some old jokes with you. These have been around a long time. I’m not sure who first wrote them, and I’ve seen many variations over the years. This one comes from a slide presentation on the website of Ryder Scott Co., a Houston-based petroleum-consulting firm that does reserves certifications. And it goes like this:

Reserves are like fish …

• Proved developed: The fish is in your boat. You have weighed him. You can smell him, and you will eat him;
• Proved undeveloped: The fish is on your hook in the water by the boat, and you are ready to net him. You can tell how big it looks…and they always look bigger in the water;
• Probable: Fish are in the lake. You may have caught some yesterday. You may be able to see them today, but you have not yet caught any; and
• Possible: The lake has water. Someone may have told you there are fish in the lake. You have your boat on the trailer, but you may go play golf instead.

Old jokes are the best, aren’t they?

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

U.S. Energy Assistance For Ukraine Has Limits

April 2nd, 2014 vaddison Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

By Frank A. Verrastro and Charles K. Ebinger, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Over the weekend, the crisis in Ukraine took a more ominous turn with the referendum in Crimea rejoining the peninsula with Russia while Russian troops amassed on the country’s eastern border. In addition, the United States and European Union’s imposition of what is forecasted to be the first salvo of economic sanctions was launched. On Wednesday, Ukraine’s defense minister announced that he would go to Crimea to seek a diplomatic solution, an offer immediately rebuffed by Crimea’s prime minister, thus setting back prospects for a reasoned solution (e.g., a more autonomous Crimea within an independent Ukraine).

At the same time, the focus of meaningful economic sanctions has increasingly honed in on energy—and for good reason. More than 90% of Russian gas exports and 80% of its oil sales go to Europe. (Overall, energy sales generate more than half of the revenues needed to meet the Kremlin’s budget.) Further, fully half of the natural gas sold to Europe is transported through Ukraine. While European gas demand in total is projected to remain flat for the rest of the decade and perhaps longer, supplies from other sources (Norway, Algeria and Netherlands) are in decline. Consequently, Russia expects European and especially eastern and central European dependency to increase even as Russia looks east to Asia for additional markets in China, Korea and Japan as well as into the Pacific LNG market.

Ironically, the seeds of Europe’s current dependency grew out of an effort to diversify energy imports in the wake of the energy crises of the 1970s. Construction of pipeline infrastructure linking Soviet supplies to European markets seemed like a win-win for both parties. The breakup of the Soviet Union a decade later, however, produced noticeable tensions with former Soviet states, now situated in key transit areas.

To some, the stark reversal in America’s energy fortunes—spawned by the dramatic resurgence in U.S. production as a consequence of the shale gas and tight oil revolutions provides the perfect foil for limiting Russian ambitions. The crisis in Ukraine has reinvigorated the debate in Washington over the Keystone XL pipeline, the accelerated permitting of LNG export facilities, and spurred calls for lifting the ban on crude oil exports to a beleaguered Europe. While the rhetorical flourish associated with the linkage is politically intoxicating, the underlying facts bear scrutiny.

For starters, while the acceleration of U.S. energy exports would add incremental barrels and gas volumes to the international market (a good thing for consumers everywhere), the volume and timing of their availability—outside of supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)—would not be available in time to have an immediate impact on the current crisis. The first available LNG export shipment from the United States will not be ready until late 2015 or the spring of 2016 at the earliest, and these volumes are already contractually committed.

On the oil side of the ledger, since Russia is one of the largest oil producers in the world—with exports averaging 7 MMbbl/d, incremental U.S. production or even a sizeable SPR release (the current maximum drawdown rate is about 4 MMbbl/d for the first 90 days and declining thereafter) would not be adequate to replace or offset Russian barrels lost as the result of potential sanctions. Consequently, in the absence of Russian barrels, world oil prices would undoubtedly spike—causing economic pain for the United States and its sanctions partners.

More importantly, however, is the impact more onerous sanctions will have on the relationship between the United States, the EU and Russia going forward. We can certainly opt to boycott this summer’s Group of Eight meeting in Sochi and limit Russia’s participation in other global fora, but to what end? Russia will remain a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and an uneasy partner in multilateral efforts to promote constructive resolutions to at least two other important international crises—the ongoing strife in Syria and resolution of the nuclear standoff with Iran. And further to that point, the removal of Russian oil from global markets could actually work to undermine the sanctions on Iranian oil sales.

As for Europe—east and west—there are a variety of actions that can be taken over time to enhance their collective and individual member nation’s energy security, including:

• Increasing domestic production of indigenous resources of coal, shale gas and oil;
Promoting efficiency and revamping price structures;
• Developing alternative energy and integrating renewable supplies into the energy mix;
Revisiting bans on nuclear development and the planned shut downs/retirements of existing reactors;
• Developing fully integrated gas and electricity networks throughout Europe including pipeline interconnects, reversing or redirecting lines where feasible, and increasing storage of natural gas and oil;
• Building out LNG receiver facilities especially in places like Croatia to accept cargoes from a variety of suppliers;
• Reforming the highly inefficient and corrupt energy sector in Ukraine to reduce the vulnerability to Russian gas cutoffs to Europe and Ukraine;
• Removing the regulatory and physical bottlenecks to integrate fully Pan-European gas and electricity networks; and
• Conducting a crash assessment on how quickly rooftop solar and other distributed generation could reduce Ukraine’s vulnerability to natural gas curtailments.

For its part, the United States can provide regulatory, technical and financial assistance as well as encourage American companies (drawing on their experience in North American basins) to work with their European counterparts to develop unconventional energy resources.

Most importantly, we would be well advised to tamp down the public rhetoric and posturing and de-escalate the tensions currently surrounding the crisis unfolding in Ukraine before we either reach an impasse with only suboptimal outcomes or expand the crisis into a truly global one.

Frank A. Verrastro is senior vice president and James R. Schlesinger Chair for Energy & Geopolitics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Charles K. Ebinger is director of the Energy Security Initiative and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “The Geopolitical Realities of the Ukraine Crises, the Limits of U.S. Energy Assistance, and the Need to Tone down the Rhetoric” originally appeared on the CSIS website March 21.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Greenhouse Gas Inventory May Not Reflect Full Scope Of Oil,Gas Emissions

March 25th, 2014 vaddison Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

By David Lyon, Environmental Defense Fund

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released its draft inventory of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Reporting 2012 data, the inventory estimates methane emissions coming from natural gas and petroleum systems at around 7.6 million metric tons—that’s enough natural gas to provide energy to more than 7 million homes annually. This new estimate when compared with last year’s report, which estimates emissions for the 2011 calendar year, shows overall methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum systems are 1.2% lower.

Although this seems like good news, the new data is no cause for complacency, as it’s important to understand the cause of the changes which requires closer examination.

The draft inventory introduces some new methodological changes that reduce estimated emissions from previous years. The primary change was driven by the way EPA estimates emissions from gas well completions and workovers, the steps that follow hydraulic fracturing and clear liquids and sand from the well before production begins.

EPA’s previous calculation method first estimated the potential emissions from all well completions and workovers, assuming no emission controls were used, and then calculated actual emissions by subtracting estimated reductions resulting from compliance with state air regulations and from companies voluntarily participating in EPA’s Natural Gas STAR Program. The new method evolves the calculation to improve accuracy, using data from EPA’s mandatory GHG Reporting Program, to directly estimate emissions from wells that do not control emissions and those that utilize some combination of control technologies (which will become mandatory in 2015 for most natural gas wells).

Although the Reporting Program data better accounts for emission reductions from individual wells, EPA’s method for determining the number of overall well completions likely underrepresents total emissions from this source.

Co-producing wells: an overlooked emission source?

Another key issue is the way EPA estimates emissions from completions of oil-producing wells. Hydraulic fracturing is increasingly being used to develop new shale oil resources. Oftentimes, depending on the geology, shale resources can either be explored for oil or natural gas. Given today’s fuel prices, market forces are driving more onshore shale oil development. However, the inventory continues to base its emission estimates for these oil wells on data from the mid ‘90s pertaining to conventional, non-fractured oil wells. Several data sources—including the GHG Reporting Program, the UT study, and the Stanford Novim study—suggest that hydraulically fractured oil well completions have emissions more than a 100 times higher than the current estimate for conventional oil wells.

Fortunately, the same techniques that will soon be required to control completion emissions from natural gas wells can also be applied to many hydraulically fractured oil-producing wells (which we call “co-producing” wells, because they frequently produce both gas and liquids). In a white paper, we summarize the data we have collected on emissions from oil-producing well completions, and what they tell us about the potential to cost-effectively reduce emissions from these wells.

Good data, better outcomes

EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory is a great tool for improving our understanding of the impact human activity has on climate change, and it underscores that there is an urgent need to mitigate methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. At the same time, it is important that the inventory appropriately characterizes all of the significant sources of methane from this sector.

Accordingly, EDF has submitted comments asking EPA to include estimated emissions from oil well completions with hydraulic fracturing based on recent data such as the GHG Reporting Program, the UT study, and our analysis of well production data. Because drilling activity has shifted more and more towards oil-producing formations, we estimate that emissions from oil well completions are similar in scale to gas well completions.

U.S. Petroleum and Other Liquids Supply, 1970-2040
Figure 1. U.S. Petroleum and Other Liquids Supply, 1970-2040 (Source: EIA)

It’s also critical that EPA regulations addressing emissions from the oil and gas sector keep up with our improved understanding of the methane inventory. Consistent with our findings on emissions from co-producing well completions, we’ve encouraged EPA to extend proven emission controls for well completions to oil and condensate-producing wells. These wells are largely unaddressed under EPA’s current New Source Performance Standards for the oil and gas sector, which only require “green completions” for wells that are drilled for the purpose of producing natural gas (read the UT study FAQ for more detail).

Reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector is critical to protecting human health and the environment from climate change, and deep reductions in methane emissions are necessary both to slow the near-term rate of climate change and to ensure that the use of natural gas in lieu of other fossil fuels yields net climate benefits. Data and cost-effective technologies needed to secure these urgently-needed emission reductions are available and it is imperative that we deploy them swiftly.

We’ve submitted comments to EPA to provide our suggestions and hope others will join us, as EPA is accepting comments on the draft inventory until March 26, 2014.

Tomás Carbonell and Peter Zalzal contributed to this post, which originally appeared on the Environmental Defense Fund’s website.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

EU Must Curb Its Reliance On Russian Gas

March 18th, 2014 vaddison Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Bloomberg

After the bogus referendum March 16 in Crimea, Russian President Vladimir Putin can be increasingly confident that his annexation of Ukrainian sovereign territory will stand: The European Union (EU) and the U.S. lack the will and the means to stop it. The main questions now are whether a line can be drawn at Crimea and how big a price Russia will pay for its land grab.

The short-term response turns on sanctions and diplomatic pressure. The calculations here are unavoidably complicated, especially for the EU, because its economy is now so interconnected with Russia’s. Too bad. If Putin gets away with Crimea, Russia should be made to pay, and Europe is in the best position to extract a price. Otherwise Putin will be encouraged to go further.

For the longer term, the U.S. and (especially) the EU need to fundamentally rethink their economic relations with Russia – not to pile on the punishment but as a matter of simple prudence. There’s no need to cast Russia as an implacable Cold War enemy to understand with new clarity that it is not a reliable friend. That means changing any policies based on the misconception that Russia is a good global citizen.

Energy policy is especially crucial. Europe’s economies are far too dependent on Russian supplies of natural gas. Russia is the EU’s main supplier of natural gas, accounting for roughly 30% of the total. In Germany, where successive governments have made stronger economic ties with Russia, the figure is about 40%.

Putin has been more than willing to enable this dependence. Russia and Germany cooperated in building a direct pipeline under the Baltic Sea, for example, bypassing Ukraine’s pipeline system (and allowing Russia to tighten the economic screws on its neighbor). Many EU businesses are heavily invested, literally and figuratively, in the Russian energy business.

Breaking these links can’t be done cheaply, easily or all at once, but a patient strategy to diversify from Russian energy supplies is long overdue. It should have four parts: a stronger negotiating approach over existing supplies; new regional sources for natural gas; new infrastructure to allow delivery and distribution of natural gas in liquefied form; and alternative domestic sources of energy.

EU members currently negotiate gas prices with Russia bilaterally. Bigger countries get lower prices, an advantage they won’t wish to surrender – but Russia increases its market power by dividing its customers and discriminating among them. At a meeting last week, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk told German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the EU should negotiate with Russia as a bloc. It’s a good idea.

Next comes new sources of supply. The Caspian Sea region, central Asia and north Africa are capable of providing far more natural gas than they do now. Heavy investment, including in pipelines, will be needed to tap this potential. Europe’s economic and geopolitical interests lie in supporting those efforts.

In recent years, Europe has increased its imports of liquefied natural gas, mainly from north Africa – but there’s scope for much more. Thanks to its shale-gas boom, the U.S. could play a central role in supplying Europe with LNG. The U.S. is now the world’s biggest producer of natural gas, but the approvals process for exports and their supporting facilities is slow and costly. The economic case for speeding and simplifying this system was already compelling. Putin’s master class in intimidation makes the geopolitical case equally strong.

Europe has shale gas of its own – maybe a 25-year supply at the current rate of gas consumption – but it has been in no hurry to exploit it. A U.S.-style boom may be unlikely for reasons of geology and population density, but that’s no excuse for failing to examine the possibilities. And there are other paths to energy diversification. If the annexation of Crimea makes Merkel regret her country’s dependence on Russian gas, it should also make her wonder about her decision to close Germany’s nuclear power plants years ahead of schedule.

In a way, it all comes down to price. Europe’s energy policies have taken cheap Russian gas for granted. Among many other things, the events of the last month make it clear: Russian gas isn’t as cheap as it looks.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Anti-Fracking Activists Are Not What They Used to Be

March 12th, 2014 vaddison Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

By Dave Quast, Energy In Depth

Activists have long been a part of America’s public policy discussions, advocating tirelessly for social change.

Over the years, environmental activists specifically have pushed for policy options that were pragmatic, responsive to real problems and rooted in some form of reality. They have advocated for clean air and clean water protections, and have fought to preserve funding for public parks across the country. These resources, when protected, clearly benefit all of us. The results have been mixed, of course, but there is no denying the fundamental seriousness of early environmentalists’ intent.

One such activist is current California Gov. Jerry Brown, who has always made environmental issues, including addressing climate change and pushing for more renewable energy, his top priority. He has frequently opposed industry — especially California’s oil companies — regarding, among other things, the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

How times have changed. All one needs to know about the fundamental un-seriousness of today’s radical environmental activists is captured in the slogan of the anti-fracking campaign of one such group: Oil Change International (OCI).

OCI has partnered with a laundry list of extremist groups including CREDO, Food & Water Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity claiming that there is a California politician who has blindly aligned himself with California’s energy industry, and has thus somehow abandoned reason and his lifelong commitment to environmental stewardship.

That politician? Gov. Jerry Brown, who — because he had the audacity to follow science and oppose an outright ban on “fracking” — has been dubbed “Big Oil Brown.”

OCI writes: “Jerry needs to pick a side: either he’s the climate champion he says he is, or he’s Big Oil Brown, champion of fracking and the oil companies.” Translation: If you don’t ideologically oppose a process that even the Obama administration has defended as safe, then you’re a sellout.

The fact is that Gov. Brown has listened to his scientific advisers, as well as scientists and regulators across the country, and recognizes that hydraulic fracturing is a fundamentally safe technology with manageable risks. As such, he and Democrats in the Legislature have decided that allowing fracking to continue in California, albeit with many more regulations, is consistent with their responsibility to jump-start the state’s economy and protect the environment.

Brown also knows that the United States leads the world in carbon dioxide emissions reductions because of the increased use of clean-burning natural gas. In fact, emissions are nearly at 1990 levels, which was the goal of California’s 2006 global warming law. Activists conveniently ignore this achievement, which would not have been possible without “fracking” unlocking a 100-year supply of domestic natural gas.

In fact, UC-Berkeley climate scientist Richard Muller said recently that environmentalists who oppose fracking are “making a tragic mistake.”

The governor also knows that every barrel of oil we produce in California is one less barrel we must import, often from countries with significantly fewer environmental protections than in California.

Additionally, by producing more oil domestically, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Californians will benefit with the creation of high-paying jobs. This is why President Obama’s energy and climate change adviser Dan Utech said recently: “It’s better to produce these things [oil and natural gas] here than import them.”

Sadly, activists could be heard yelling things like “we don’t want these new jobs!” at a series of recent public hearings around the state regarding the implementation of California’s new hydraulic fracturing regulations. Would the people of Kern County — where 97% of all “fracking” in California occurs, and where the unemployment rate is in double digits — agree?

Thankfully, the debate about banning fracking in California is over. A bill to impose a moratorium on the practice only garnered 24 votes in the 80-member Assembly last legislative session, a margin of defeat not unlike what the activists suffered in deep-blue Illinois.

We are better off today because of at least some of the efforts of old-school, serious environmental agitators. But for new-style fringe activists like OCI and its allies to suggest that California’s policymakers — particularly lifelong environmental leaders like Brown — intentionally gave succor to any industry merely because their policy prescription avoided shutting it down, is as preposterous as it is insulting.

This column was originally published by U-T San Diego.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Fracking Doesn’t Threaten Russia’s Gas Power

March 5th, 2014 vaddison Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

By Leonid Bershisky, Bloomberg

It is an uncomfortable fact for European politicians professing resistance to Russia’s geopolitical assertiveness that their energy dependence on Russia is growing. In 2013, the Russian state-controlled natural-gas monopoly, Gazprom, increased its market share in Europe and Turkey to 30%, the company proudly announced. This share is bigger than the 2011 historic maximum of 27%. Gazprom’s exports to Germany increased by 21%, to Italy by 68% and to the UK by 54% in 2013.

While hydraulic fracturing – or fracking – of shale formations is helping the US achieve energy independence, giving it a freer hand in Middle Eastern policy, the expected effects of the shale revolution for Europe haven’t materialized. LNG from the Persian Gulf could have been diverted from the US, where demand has shrunk, to Europe. But in 2013, LNG supplies to Europe actually dropped: They mostly went to Asian markets where exporters could command higher prices. If the US manages to export LNG in significant quantities, its price will be roughly the same as what Gazprom charges, a little less than US $11 per million British thermal units, not counting delivery costs from ports to the heart of the continent, according to the International Energy Agency.

The US shale revolution, then, isn’t doing much to help Europe expand its range of energy sources. Sustainable energy subsidies are going out of fashion even in Germany: They are too much of a burden on industry, which already pays three times US rates for electricity. Only a shale boom of its own could help Europe out of this predicament. Or could it?

The Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations at Sciences Po, the prestigious social sciences school in Paris, recently issued a policy paper saying that even in the US shale gas and tight oil have not had the touted effect on the economy, and that the EU shouldn’t count on unconventional extraction as a magic pill.

Thomas Spencer and his two co-authors from Sciences Po have calculated that unconventional oil and gas development in the US only added 0.88% to US gross domestic product between 2007 and 2012. Nor has the shale revolution done much to reduce the US’s manufacturing trade deficit, which increased from $662.2 billion in 2006 to $779.4 billion in 2012. According to the policy paper, gas-intensive sectors, such as basic petrochemicals, are responsible for only 1.2% of US GDP, and the increases in exports from these sectors have been a drop in the bucket.

The Sciences Po team points out that despite a steep fall in gas prices caused by the arrival of fracking, both household and industrial electricity prices in the US have kept rising. And natural gas prices will go up again, the paper predicts. “The dramatic decline of US natural gas prices does not appear sustainable in the longer term,” the document says, pointing to short-term factors that led to the price collapse, such as a limited export capacity and inelastic gas consumption. “Longer-term expectations of production costs for shale is situated closer to $6-10/MBtu,” according to the report. The high end of this prediction is close to Gazprom’s European prices.

All in all, the Sciences Po team predicts, the shale revolution will give the US 0.84% in GDP growth from 2012 to 2035 – not annually, but in total.

Europe, according to the policy paper, can’t even count on that much. The US drilled 17,268 exploratory natural gas wells between 2000 and 2010; Europe has only 50 such wells now. Science Po predicts that by 2035, shale gas will cover between 3% to 10% of its natural gas demand.

That still leaves Gazprom plenty of room on the European market. Besides, if it wanted to wage a price war on unconventional producers, it could. The Russian company’s production cost is about $1.5/Mbtu, which pipeline delivery to Europe roughly doubles.

It appears to many observers as if Russia has slept through the shale revolution, falling hopelessly behind the US Russian President Vladimir Putin was ridiculed for saying last year he did not “see much in the way of serious change for the global gas market.” If the Sciences Po experts are to be believed, Putin is reading the cards right, and Russia’s energy power in Europe faces no serious threats for the foreseeable future.

Any revolution is at least part hype, and the shale one is no exception. So far, its economic and geopolitical effects are in question, and large parts of the world are beyond the reach even of its theoretical influence. Europe is one example: No disruptive technology is likely to make Russia irrelevant here, and its virulent distrust of the West makes it a dangerous and unpredictable player. So far, the EU and the US have only fostered the hostility as if Russia could be written off. That is a mistake.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

States Must Contain Fracking’s Enormous Thirst For Water

February 25th, 2014 vaddison Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

By Bloomberg

Among the environmental worries posed by hydraulic fracturing, including the release of methane into the air and contamination of groundwater, one has recently escalated: the concern that the enormous quantities of water used in fracking will leave parts of the country parched.

In 2012, fracking consumed some 50 billion gallons of water – water that many communities can ill afford to spare. New practices can make fracking somewhat less thirsty, however. States should see that drilling companies are encouraged to use them.

Each fracking site needs 2 million to 4 million gallons of water, to create sufficient pressure to fracture oil- and gas-containing rocks deep underground. When fresh water is used, it may be diverted from other users, including farms, manufacturing plants and households. There’s not always enough to go around; 55% of the wells fracked since 2011 are in drought areas.

One way to minimize fracking’s drain on fresh water is to substitute, as much as possible, water that’s already been used to frack other wells. After fracking, 10% to 50% of the water flows back up through the oil or gas well and is typically disposed of through injection into deep wells, a practice that has been linked with minor but troubling earthquakes. If it is instead cleaned of chemical additives as well as metals and minerals from deep underground, it can be reused. Frackers can also use brackish water from aquifers or municipal and industrial wastewater. Some are even beginning to frack not with great quantities of water but with a foam that contains nitrogen, carbon dioxide and relatively small quantities of water. Some of these options even make fracking cheaper.

Regulators need to ensure these alternative practices are consistently adopted. Pennsylvania has the right approach. Before withdrawing water in that state, drillers must win approval for a water-use plan that discloses how much water a well will use, from where and what effect that will have on local sources. To be approved, these plans must include wastewater recycling.

Other states – including Kentucky, which exempts frackers altogether from its water-withdrawal rules, and Texas, which allows unlimited withdrawals from groundwater – should follow Pennsylvania’s lead.

By making approval for fracking contingent on responsible water practices, states can drive even greater innovation – perhaps to the point where frackers come to operate without using any water at all. Gasfrac, a Canadian company, has been using liquefied petroleum gas in gel form to fracture shale, which so far is relatively expensive. But as the technology improves – and water grows harder to come by – operators may find it to be the most attractive strategy.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

US Shale Helps Moderate Global Oil Prices

February 18th, 2014 vaddison Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

By Dana Bohan, Energy In Depth

A new report from Fitch Ratings is another point in a growing line of evidence that US shale development is aiding in moderating global oil prices and shielding the United States from price shocks.

According to the report, production from American shale plays – including the Eagle Ford, the Bakken, and the Permian basin – has increased total US oil output by 3 MMb/d since 2008, roughly equal to 3% of total world consumption. The benefits of this production have been felt here at home from new job creation to more tax dollars flowing into state coffers. Yet what is becoming increasingly clear is domestic energy output is having an impact far beyond America’s shores.

From the report:

“Many of the benefits of the US oil and gas [fracing] revolution accrue only to the US: increased employment and GDP, a lower trade deficit, a booming petrochemical industry, manufacturing benefits across a range of other energy-intensive industries, cheaper and cleaner electricity.

“These are the benefits of increased energy independence – more and cheaper domestic oil and gas. But all oil-consuming countries benefit from the stabilizing effect of increased US output on world oil prices. This is the benefit of energy interdependence – the linkage of US and world oil markets through reduced imports of crude and increased exports of products.” (emphasis added)

While the United States is, and will continue to remain, a part of the complex global energy market, the increase in US production has provided clear benefits for American and international consumers alike. As a new report from the Center for New American Security explains, “internationally, new US oil supplies have helped to cap the price spikes caused by severe global supply disruptions and to moderate oil prices for consumers.”

Major US Shale Oil & Gas Production Areas

Meanwhile, North American oil production is slashing imports from OPEC and sending “shock waves” throughout global markets – a development that is providing tangible national security benefits. As the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) highlighted in October 2013, “greater availability of domestic energy resources benefits the United States by reducing dependence on imported energy and diversifying the economy.”

Charles Ebinger from the Brookings Institution also notes how American oil and gas abundance “pose the opportunity for a manufacturing renaissance and a revitalization of the North American industrial base,” in addition to positive international implications.

Ebinger continues, “With the surplus of natural gas and crude oil beyond our domestic needs, we also have the opportunity to help alleviate the dependency of our major trading partners in Europe and Asia on more politically insecure regions of the world.”

From improving American security to shielding consumers from global price shocks, the development of shale is providing enormous benefits across the globe. Members of OPEC now have to look to American energy production – a “defining feature of tomorrow’s market” – as a dominant contributor to the world oil supply. Few people could have envisioned such a turnaround just a few short years ago.

This blog originally appeared on Energy In Depth’s website.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

US Needs Energy Nationalism

February 11th, 2014 vaddison Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

By Carl Pope, Bloomberg

A fundamental question faces the US: Is our vision of the future Made in America or Saudi America? Does the US want to reclaim its value-added manufacturing economy, or become an extractive petro-state? Will the US produce cars and the fuels to power them, or keep importing both foreign cars and refined fuels even as we export cheap domestic oil and natural gas?

The US oil industry views exports of natural gas and crude oil as a twin engine capable of powering windfall profits. Thanks to a confluence of abundant domestic fuel and the industry’s even more voluminous greed, it appears we’ll finally have the national dialogue we have long needed on energy’s role in our economic future.

Six months ago, when I warned in Bloomberg View that the oil industry intended to lock in ever higher North American oil prices by gutting the federal ban on oil exports, some observers thought this ‘‘unthinkable.”

Now, Senator Lisa Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and the US Chamber of Commerce have all signaled that they no longer believe the US should keep its natural gas and crude oil at home. Senate hearings are set to began Jan. 30.

In recent months, the Department of Energy has approved, on average, a new export permit for LNG every six weeks. In response, Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan blocked one of President Barack Obama’s Energy Department nominees because she considers these almost automatic permit approvals to be reckless. The battle is joined.

Exporting US crude will affect more than the price of gas; the nation’s shipping industry is also at risk. If exports can travel in cheap Liberian tankers, the oil industry claims, it’s unfair to require crude shipped from the US Gulf to the East Coast to use the more expensive US Merchant Marine. (The other option, to require all shipments of US oil to travel in US ships served by American crews, simply doesn’t occur to the government these days.)

Some independent refiners, who want cheap US crude oil since they buy it to refine, have broken with Big Oil to oppose the export agenda. Joining them in opposing exports are steel and aluminum producers; chemical companies; electric utilities; trucking and auto industries; industrial and maritime unions; clean-technology biofuel companies; states in the Northeast, Great Lakes and Pacific West; households that rely on gas heat; and environmentalists worried about the impact of oil and gas extraction from the Canadian tar sands and the Chukchi Sea.

In addition to oil and gas drillers, those favoring exports include multinationals such as Exxon Mobil Corp., the Chamber of Commerce (so much for its defense of all US business), the states of Alaska, North Dakota, Louisiana and Texas, and competitors to US manufacturing overseas.

The divide between these two odd lots concerns more than the price of gasoline at the corner station. Big Oil and its allies envision a future Saudi America that helps OPEC support monopoly oil and gas prices around the world. Opponents of the export strategy veer toward a vision of the US as a middle-class manufacturing power – more like Germany but with lower fuel costs.

The US can see how these competing visions play out simply by looking at its neighbor to the north. What happened in Canada as the global price of oil rose, making its tar sands an attractive investment? Did Canadians benefit?

The province of Alberta gains from tar sands production; the rest of Canada loses, hugely. Canada is a big oil exporter, but gasoline in the Saskatchewan city of Saskatoon, right next to the tar sands, costs almost US $5 a gallon – even after you adjust down for Canada’s higher gas tax rates.

In 2000, Canada enjoyed a nicely balanced economy with a healthy balance of trade. Energy companies had a $26 billion trade surplus, roughly matching the rest of the Canadian economy. By 2013, the oil industry had more than doubled its surplus, to $63 billion. But the rest of the economy had collapsed, running a trade deficit of more than $70 billion. Canada as a whole was in the red. Huge oil exports drove up the value of the Canadian dollar, making it impossible for manufacturing to compete globally.

We can expect a similar result if the US opts to export oil. Meanwhile, at least nine European nations are seeking to support the US oil and gas lobby to pressure the federal government into exporting natural gas, as well.

It’s understandable that foreign manufacturers would like access to cheap US fuel to help them undercut American steel, cars and chemicals products. But nothing about that is good for the average US worker or company. Let’s keep our oil and gas on American soil, in the American economy.

Carl Pope is a former chairman of the Sierra Club.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button