Yesterday brought major, new data for conducting life cycle calculations of the comparative carbon emissions from natural gas and coal production.
The API and ANGA released a paper that sharply cuts estimates of methane emissions from gas production, as a result of new data collected from a massive survey of 20 companies and 91,000 gas wells.
http://anga.us/media/249160/anga%20api%20survey%20report%201%20june%20final.pdf. It is the single, biggest source of data about methane emissions ever made available for public inspection and discussion.
A good result of the shale gas battles is the increased focus on getting better data about gas drilling and specifically on how much methane "leaks" or is emitted to the atmosphere from the gas drilling stage all the way to combustion. Broad agreement exists that the data available to estimate methane emissions must be increased and urgently. The urgency springs from the increasing role of natural gas in powering America and the incompleteness of current data.
Despite the data gaps, EPA revised upward by 204% in 2011 its previous 1996 estimates of methane emissions during gas production. The EPA upward revision was based on data gathered in 2010 through its Natural Gas Star program and from about 8,800 or 2% of the nation's gas wells. This data, from 4 sets, was then used to extrapolate emissions for all the nation's more than 440,000 gas wells.
The EPA 2011 upward estimate was made without the benefit of a formal public comment and hearing process that can provide a testing of information and diverse inputs. Once the EPA released last year its upward revision, some observers questioned the accuracy of the data and analysis, while others accepted the new projection.
In his paper, Professor Howarth even pushed forward a range of higher estimates and made other assumptions that inflated the life cycle scoring of emissions from gas. Numerous studies have now been published that rebut the conclusions reached by Professor Howarth.
To fill the data gaps that has been one basis for controversy, the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board on Shale Gas in its 2011 Report called for the industry to cooperate to provide more complete information to the public as soon as possible.
With that as background, now comes the API and ANGA with its paper based on data from a survey of 18.8% of the nation's estimated total gas wells. The paper focuses on two parts of the gas production process--gas wells liquid unloading and rates of unconventional well re-fracturing--that accounted for 59% of the EPA's 2011 total emission estimates.
The API/ANGA reported data reduces by 86% the EPA emission estimate for gas well liquids unloading that accounted for 51% of the EPA total methane emissions. The paper also reduces by 72% the EPA emission estimate for unconventional well refracturing emissions that accounted for another 8% of the EPA 2011 total methane emission estimates.
On the rate of refracturing of wells, the EPA had estimated that 10% of wells are refractured, while the API data reports the re-fracture rate is 0.7% to 2.3%.
The API/ANGA data on just gas wells liquid unloading and unconventional well re-fracturing would indicate that the EPA 2011 revision is significantly mistaken. Using the API/ANGA data for just the two processes that they surveyed would cut the EPA 204% upward revision to about a 50% upward revision.
Importantly the API/ANGA survey does not provide a basis for adjusting the 41% of total emissions in the EPA 2011 revision that are attributable to processes other than re-fracturing and liquids unloading. Also this survey was done before the EPA final rule on gas air emissions went into effect, and that rule will cut further methane (and other) emissions from gas production.
While API and ANGA themselves state more work must be done to refine and collect more information about methane emissions, this paper sharply boosts the available data and will be undoubtedly carefully reviewed by many observers. Moreover, still more data is being collected by the EPA and others.
All the new data and efforts to collect more will increase public and scientific understanding, and that is a good thing indeed.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
High Gasoline Prices--Again--Mug Jobs and Economic Growth:
How many times does the economy have to be damaged by high gasoline prices, before we break our addiction to oil, still America's number one source of energy, supplying about 34% of our total energy?
The May jobs report shows that the US economy slowed substantially this Spring; just as it did in the Spring of 2011; and just as it did in July 2008, when oil hit $147 per barrel, and then plunged into an 8% GDP contraction, during the fourth quarter of 2008.
The connection between rising gasoline prices and falling economic growth and lost jobs is plain to see.
At the end of 2010, gasoline prices averaged $2.83 cents per gallon; then hit $3.96 by April 2011; fell to $3.19 by December 10, 2011; and then surged to $3.92 by April 2012. All data from gasbuddy.com.
Put simply, consumer demand in the USA cannot withstand $3.90 gasoline, and so the economy slows to a crawl, when gasoline prices rise to that level.
Since peaking in April, gasoline prices are heading downward quickly, already averaging about $3.59 across America. In my home area, prices are down to $3.30, while they are below $3.00 in South Carolina.
The difference between $3 and $4 gasoline is $500 to $750 per year for many Americans. Rising gas prices take that much out of pockets, and falling prices put that much back into the economy. These flows of cash are big enough to impact consumer confidence and spending and hence economic growth and jobs. Indeed, the on-going fall in prices--the return to $3 gasoline or lower--could fuel another burst of job creation in late 2012.
While we remain painfully vulnerable, getting repeatedly mugged by rising gasoline prices is finally causing significant moves to lessen the impact of oil on our economy. The country is becoming more fuel efficient, having cut its oil demand to 1999 levels. Substitutes like biofuels, natural gas, and electric vehicles are growing but too slowly to prevent the most recent damage.
Domestic oil production too is increasing, but it is priced in the global market.
Few things are as important to our future and security than breaking our addiction to oil and ending the repeated beatings of our economy by $4 gasoline. Uncle Sam just got another painful lesson why.
The May jobs report shows that the US economy slowed substantially this Spring; just as it did in the Spring of 2011; and just as it did in July 2008, when oil hit $147 per barrel, and then plunged into an 8% GDP contraction, during the fourth quarter of 2008.
The connection between rising gasoline prices and falling economic growth and lost jobs is plain to see.
At the end of 2010, gasoline prices averaged $2.83 cents per gallon; then hit $3.96 by April 2011; fell to $3.19 by December 10, 2011; and then surged to $3.92 by April 2012. All data from gasbuddy.com.
Put simply, consumer demand in the USA cannot withstand $3.90 gasoline, and so the economy slows to a crawl, when gasoline prices rise to that level.
Since peaking in April, gasoline prices are heading downward quickly, already averaging about $3.59 across America. In my home area, prices are down to $3.30, while they are below $3.00 in South Carolina.
The difference between $3 and $4 gasoline is $500 to $750 per year for many Americans. Rising gas prices take that much out of pockets, and falling prices put that much back into the economy. These flows of cash are big enough to impact consumer confidence and spending and hence economic growth and jobs. Indeed, the on-going fall in prices--the return to $3 gasoline or lower--could fuel another burst of job creation in late 2012.
While we remain painfully vulnerable, getting repeatedly mugged by rising gasoline prices is finally causing significant moves to lessen the impact of oil on our economy. The country is becoming more fuel efficient, having cut its oil demand to 1999 levels. Substitutes like biofuels, natural gas, and electric vehicles are growing but too slowly to prevent the most recent damage.
Domestic oil production too is increasing, but it is priced in the global market.
Few things are as important to our future and security than breaking our addiction to oil and ending the repeated beatings of our economy by $4 gasoline. Uncle Sam just got another painful lesson why.
Monday, June 4, 2012
PA Passes Oklahoma: Now Number 4 Gas Producing State
New April 2012 data shows Pennsylvania rapidly moving up the natural gas production rankings.
After being a small gas producing state, not even in the top 10 for most of its recent history, Pennsylvania ended 2011 ranked 6th for the year, when it produced 1.3 trillion cubic feet. Only Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Colorado produced more gas last year. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6030. That was an impressive, quick climb up the rankings but just the beginning.
The Commonwealth's ascent continued in the first 4 months of 2012, and it jumped over Colorado and Oklahoma into the Number 4 position.
By this April, Pennsylvania was producing 5.3 billion cubic feet of gas per day or the equivalent of 1.93 trillion per year, according to data collected by Bentek and reported by the Associated Press. See
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gYjYjHdeWNik7faGQhVkuGZ6Uinw?docld=69e15e2ecf2b4365a768257d86aa783c. In 2011, Oklahoma and Colorado produced 1.8 and 1.6 trillion cubic feet respectively.
Moreover, Pennsylvania's climb up the gas producing rankings is not yet done. Bentek reportedly forecasts that Pennsylvania gas production could increase 31% over the next 16 months.
After being a small gas producing state, not even in the top 10 for most of its recent history, Pennsylvania ended 2011 ranked 6th for the year, when it produced 1.3 trillion cubic feet. Only Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Colorado produced more gas last year. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6030. That was an impressive, quick climb up the rankings but just the beginning.
The Commonwealth's ascent continued in the first 4 months of 2012, and it jumped over Colorado and Oklahoma into the Number 4 position.
By this April, Pennsylvania was producing 5.3 billion cubic feet of gas per day or the equivalent of 1.93 trillion per year, according to data collected by Bentek and reported by the Associated Press. See
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gYjYjHdeWNik7faGQhVkuGZ6Uinw?docld=69e15e2ecf2b4365a768257d86aa783c. In 2011, Oklahoma and Colorado produced 1.8 and 1.6 trillion cubic feet respectively.
Moreover, Pennsylvania's climb up the gas producing rankings is not yet done. Bentek reportedly forecasts that Pennsylvania gas production could increase 31% over the next 16 months.
Gov.Johnson Shakes Up Presidential Politics Like Nader & Perot
Perot, Nader, and now the former, two term Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson.
May was a big month for Johnson that puts him on course to shake up the 2012 Presidential race, as Nader and Perot did respectively in 2000 and 1996. In May, Governor Johnson became the Libertarian Party's nominee for President of the United States; qualified for federal matching funds; and registered some impressive state polling results.
Just in the last 2 weeks, polling has put Johnson's support at 9% in Arizona, 6% in Wisconsin, and 12% in New Mexico, his home state. www.uncoveredpolitics.com/2012/05/24/ppp-survey-shows-johnson-polling-at-9-in-arizona/ and www.reason.com/blog/2012/05/24/reason-rupe-wisconsin-recall-poll-walker. Governor Johnson will be the most successful candidate for President in the Libertarian Party's history, but he could make a bigger mark than that.
His recent polling numbers in Arizona, Wisconsin, and New Mexico mark him as a third party candidate in the same class as Nader in 2000 and Perot in 1996. Unsurprisingly, Johnson's inclusion in polling impacts the Obama versus Romney numbers.
For example, the PPP poll (www.publicpolicypolling.com) of Arizona had the race 50-43, without Johnson, but 45-41-9, with Johnson. A 7-point lead for Romney shrank to 4 points, with Johnson taking about 2 votes from Romney for every vote he claims from Obama's totals. Older polling showed Johnson impacting similarly Virginia.
History, however, would suggest that Johnson's support may actually decline from current levels, when the election nears and voters understand that the third party candidate will not win. Yet, three factors may help Johnson avoid that fate.
First, unlike many third party candidates, Johnson is qualified to be President. He is a former two-term Governor of New Mexico, with more experience and success in government than Governor Romney, and more experience than President Obama when he ran in 2008. He is a serious man who should be taken seriously.
Second, the Ron Paul campaign has successfully spent the last 12 months bringing increased visibility to Libertarian ideals and principles. Unlike the President or Governor Romney, Johnson provides a home for those Ron Paul supporters who are committed to building a Libertarian movement.
Third, the trials and tribulations of the country make 2012 particularly fertile ground and timing for a serious third party effort. Polling shows up to 20% of voters are open to voting for a third party this year.
How much will Johnson impact the unfolding 2012 story? Polls of battleground states, without his inclusion, are useless. He matters a great deal in his home Southwest region and is pulling enough votes to impact the outcome in as many as 15 states around the nation. That makes him a key character in the 2012 drama.
May was a big month for Johnson that puts him on course to shake up the 2012 Presidential race, as Nader and Perot did respectively in 2000 and 1996. In May, Governor Johnson became the Libertarian Party's nominee for President of the United States; qualified for federal matching funds; and registered some impressive state polling results.
Just in the last 2 weeks, polling has put Johnson's support at 9% in Arizona, 6% in Wisconsin, and 12% in New Mexico, his home state. www.uncoveredpolitics.com/2012/05/24/ppp-survey-shows-johnson-polling-at-9-in-arizona/ and www.reason.com/blog/2012/05/24/reason-rupe-wisconsin-recall-poll-walker. Governor Johnson will be the most successful candidate for President in the Libertarian Party's history, but he could make a bigger mark than that.
His recent polling numbers in Arizona, Wisconsin, and New Mexico mark him as a third party candidate in the same class as Nader in 2000 and Perot in 1996. Unsurprisingly, Johnson's inclusion in polling impacts the Obama versus Romney numbers.
For example, the PPP poll (www.publicpolicypolling.com) of Arizona had the race 50-43, without Johnson, but 45-41-9, with Johnson. A 7-point lead for Romney shrank to 4 points, with Johnson taking about 2 votes from Romney for every vote he claims from Obama's totals. Older polling showed Johnson impacting similarly Virginia.
History, however, would suggest that Johnson's support may actually decline from current levels, when the election nears and voters understand that the third party candidate will not win. Yet, three factors may help Johnson avoid that fate.
First, unlike many third party candidates, Johnson is qualified to be President. He is a former two-term Governor of New Mexico, with more experience and success in government than Governor Romney, and more experience than President Obama when he ran in 2008. He is a serious man who should be taken seriously.
Second, the Ron Paul campaign has successfully spent the last 12 months bringing increased visibility to Libertarian ideals and principles. Unlike the President or Governor Romney, Johnson provides a home for those Ron Paul supporters who are committed to building a Libertarian movement.
Third, the trials and tribulations of the country make 2012 particularly fertile ground and timing for a serious third party effort. Polling shows up to 20% of voters are open to voting for a third party this year.
How much will Johnson impact the unfolding 2012 story? Polls of battleground states, without his inclusion, are useless. He matters a great deal in his home Southwest region and is pulling enough votes to impact the outcome in as many as 15 states around the nation. That makes him a key character in the 2012 drama.
Friday, June 1, 2012
The Good & Bad Japanese Nuclear News: Nukes May Restart But Estimates of Radiation Releases Double
The New York Times reports this morning that, after recently closing all of its nuclear plants, Japan may restart its first nuke as early as next week. That news has multiple implications, including for fossil fuel pricing around the world, as nuclear power had supplied 30% of Japan's electricity, the world's third largest economy, and for global carbon emissions. Japan's carbon emissions jumped, returning to 15% above 1990 levels, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.
The Japanese government's and Tokyo Electric Power Company's credibility about the status and impacts of Fukushima has been shot for a long time. Local government Japanese resistance to restarting nuclear plants had been rooted in their public's concern that Japanese nuclear regulators were not independent of the industry and had refused to face obvious earthquake and tsunami risks. Undoubtedly, local confidence has been further shaken by the national government's information management.
Over the last 14 months, the estimates of the amount of radiation released have been repeatedly and significantly revised upwards. For example, in February, 2012 the radiation release estimate was moved up to 480,000 terabecquerels.
Three months later, the estimate of radiation released from the 3 core meltdowns and the fire in a cooling pool storing waste rods doubled last week to 900,000 terabecquerels. www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-24/fukushima-s-estimated-radiation-leak-doubles-versus-government.html. At this most recent estimate, Fukushima released 17% of the radiation during the Chernobyl disaster that caused substantial illness and increased cancer mortality.
Apparently, plans to create an entirely new and independent nuclear regulatory agency plus the desperate need for some nuclear plants to operate this summer to avoid blackouts are causing softening of resistance to restarting at least some of the closed units.
The real world of energy choices is far from perfect. All have strengths and weaknesses. Using more of one means using less of another. Making a smart choice requires understanding the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each energy source.
In this real world, I view the restart of Japanese nuclear plants as good news. Others undoubtedly disagree.
The Japanese government's and Tokyo Electric Power Company's credibility about the status and impacts of Fukushima has been shot for a long time. Local government Japanese resistance to restarting nuclear plants had been rooted in their public's concern that Japanese nuclear regulators were not independent of the industry and had refused to face obvious earthquake and tsunami risks. Undoubtedly, local confidence has been further shaken by the national government's information management.
Over the last 14 months, the estimates of the amount of radiation released have been repeatedly and significantly revised upwards. For example, in February, 2012 the radiation release estimate was moved up to 480,000 terabecquerels.
Three months later, the estimate of radiation released from the 3 core meltdowns and the fire in a cooling pool storing waste rods doubled last week to 900,000 terabecquerels. www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-24/fukushima-s-estimated-radiation-leak-doubles-versus-government.html. At this most recent estimate, Fukushima released 17% of the radiation during the Chernobyl disaster that caused substantial illness and increased cancer mortality.
Apparently, plans to create an entirely new and independent nuclear regulatory agency plus the desperate need for some nuclear plants to operate this summer to avoid blackouts are causing softening of resistance to restarting at least some of the closed units.
The real world of energy choices is far from perfect. All have strengths and weaknesses. Using more of one means using less of another. Making a smart choice requires understanding the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each energy source.
In this real world, I view the restart of Japanese nuclear plants as good news. Others undoubtedly disagree.
Birthplace of Shale Gas (Texas) Meets Renewable Standards 13 Years Ahead Of Schedule
This is no "Oops" moment.
In 2005, Governor Perry signed into law Texas's second renewable energy portfolio standard, since the 1999 standard championed by George W. Bush had been met years ahead of schedule.
The 2005 Texas RPS required that 5,800 megawatts of renewable energy be operating in Texas by 2015 and 10,000 megawatts by 2025. Back in 2005, talking about requiring 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy in any one state was pushing the envelope at the least. It is a lot of power of any type.
Yet, a full 13 years ahead of schedule, Texas in 2012 surpassed its 2025 renewable energy requirement. http://leadenergy.org/2011/02/the-curious-case-of-the-texas-wind-industry/. Harvesting the world class wind resource in West Texas and on the Gulf Coast, wind farms provide the overwhelming majority of Texas' renewable energy. At this point, wind alone accounts for 8% of the electricity powering Texas, an economy the size of Spain.
All that wind comes with no needs for water withdrawal or disposal, creates no air pollution, and generates thousands of jobs, and millions of dollars of lease payments to landowners and tax payments. In some parts of Texas, wind farms provide about one-third of local school taxes.
The renewable energy boom in Texas is also one more example of renewables growing rapidly exactly where shale gas is booming. Indeed, the shale revolution began in Texas in the Barnett and has recently took off in the Eagle Ford area.
If renewable energy can boom in Texas, perhaps it is fair to say that they can boom anywhere. Possibly that is why renewables are booming around the world.
In 2005, Governor Perry signed into law Texas's second renewable energy portfolio standard, since the 1999 standard championed by George W. Bush had been met years ahead of schedule.
The 2005 Texas RPS required that 5,800 megawatts of renewable energy be operating in Texas by 2015 and 10,000 megawatts by 2025. Back in 2005, talking about requiring 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy in any one state was pushing the envelope at the least. It is a lot of power of any type.
Yet, a full 13 years ahead of schedule, Texas in 2012 surpassed its 2025 renewable energy requirement. http://leadenergy.org/2011/02/the-curious-case-of-the-texas-wind-industry/. Harvesting the world class wind resource in West Texas and on the Gulf Coast, wind farms provide the overwhelming majority of Texas' renewable energy. At this point, wind alone accounts for 8% of the electricity powering Texas, an economy the size of Spain.
All that wind comes with no needs for water withdrawal or disposal, creates no air pollution, and generates thousands of jobs, and millions of dollars of lease payments to landowners and tax payments. In some parts of Texas, wind farms provide about one-third of local school taxes.
The renewable energy boom in Texas is also one more example of renewables growing rapidly exactly where shale gas is booming. Indeed, the shale revolution began in Texas in the Barnett and has recently took off in the Eagle Ford area.
If renewable energy can boom in Texas, perhaps it is fair to say that they can boom anywhere. Possibly that is why renewables are booming around the world.
Forbes Magazine Gets Right Coal-Gas Competition Right
Entitled "Shale Gas Takes On Coal To Power America's Electrical Plants," Forbes Magazine published an astute an article on how the battle between coal and gas for electrical generation market share is affecting pricing of both fuels. It is well worth reading.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/05/30/shale-gas-takes-on-coal-to-power-americas-electrical-plants/.
Other than weather, currently the most crucial factor affecting natural gas prices is demand for gas from power plants. Indeed, gas would be below $2 but for the significant switching from coal to gas in the last 8 months.
But the success of gas in gaining electric generation market share has caused US demand for coal to drop significantly and coal prices have dived in response. At this point, any gas price around $2.75 or even a bit lower would cause significant switching of generation back to coal. And that is one fundamental reason that the price recovery of gas since April hit a wall around $2.60.
The now intense coal-gas competition for power plant demand will be another obstacle to a return to even $3 gas pricing next year. Such pricing for gas, in the next 12 months, will hinge on either much more significant declines in gas production than has been seen so far in 2012, or another major source of new demand.
In the short run, major new demand could only come from the combination of a hot summer and then a cold winter. That's always possible.
But the odds are growing against that combination. Rising average temperatures make the hot summer more likely but the cold winter less so.
All that adds up to the likelihood of gas prices remaining below $3 longer for many more months.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/05/30/shale-gas-takes-on-coal-to-power-americas-electrical-plants/.
Other than weather, currently the most crucial factor affecting natural gas prices is demand for gas from power plants. Indeed, gas would be below $2 but for the significant switching from coal to gas in the last 8 months.
But the success of gas in gaining electric generation market share has caused US demand for coal to drop significantly and coal prices have dived in response. At this point, any gas price around $2.75 or even a bit lower would cause significant switching of generation back to coal. And that is one fundamental reason that the price recovery of gas since April hit a wall around $2.60.
The now intense coal-gas competition for power plant demand will be another obstacle to a return to even $3 gas pricing next year. Such pricing for gas, in the next 12 months, will hinge on either much more significant declines in gas production than has been seen so far in 2012, or another major source of new demand.
In the short run, major new demand could only come from the combination of a hot summer and then a cold winter. That's always possible.
But the odds are growing against that combination. Rising average temperatures make the hot summer more likely but the cold winter less so.
All that adds up to the likelihood of gas prices remaining below $3 longer for many more months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)