Nothing drives home more powerfully why the Marcellus, in particular, is a massive bounty of gas than recent production data crunched by the good folks at MarcellusGas.Org (www.marcellusgas.org).
A 7-well pad in Morris Township, Greene County, that includes the top producing well in Pennsylvania, has produced 23 billion cubic feet of gas. Of that total, the top producing single well in the Commonwealth has provided 6 billion cubic feet. A true gusher!
Since the annual, average residential gas consumption in Philadelphia is about 87,000 cubic feet, this prolific well pad has supplied enough gas for 264,000 residential gas accounts in Philadelphia for a full year. That's more than half of the homes using gas in Philadelphia and is just amazing!
Even using a low at the well head price of $1.94, MarcellusGas.Org calculates that Pennsylvania's top single well has so far printed $1.5 million in royalties and $12 million worth of natural gas. Yes, shale production has made millionaires of some landowners.
Moreover, the Greene County well is not a one-in-a million fluke. In fact, MarcellusGas.Org states that another well, completely across the state in Dimock Township Susquehanna County, nearly matched the Greene County well by producing also more than 6 billion cubic feet. That well is one of three at its well pad (King wells) that cumulatively supplied to date 12 billion cubic feet, about $3 million in royalty payments, and still another shale gas millionaire.
For gas consumers, all this gas has brought rock bottom natural gas prices, with consumer and economic benefits of approximately $1 billion per day. The jaw-dropping facts just keep rolling out of the shale gas revolution and especially the Marcellus.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Gasoline Costs In 2011 Hit Record Average of $2,850
While natural gas prices hit rock bottom, sustained high oil prices pushed average annual gasoline costs to a record high of $2,850. http://www.consumerfed.org. Not surprisingly, in response to these high prices, consumers have been snapping up higher mileage vehicles, and oil consumption is now back to 1995 levels.
But here is a question and answer that points to continuing massive market and policy failure. What would that $2,850 average bill been had the consumer fueled up with natural gas during 2012? At least one-third less and possibly more.
In other words, using natural gas would have cut that $2,850 bill to about $2,000 or saved about $850 in one year. That dollar savings equals about 2% of the pre-tax median annual income of a Pennsylvania family.
And these avoidable high gasoline costs add up. The failure to deploy aggressively natural gas fueling stations and electricity charging stations across America and the Commonwealth is costing Americans about $100 billion each year in lost fuel savings.
But here is a question and answer that points to continuing massive market and policy failure. What would that $2,850 average bill been had the consumer fueled up with natural gas during 2012? At least one-third less and possibly more.
In other words, using natural gas would have cut that $2,850 bill to about $2,000 or saved about $850 in one year. That dollar savings equals about 2% of the pre-tax median annual income of a Pennsylvania family.
And these avoidable high gasoline costs add up. The failure to deploy aggressively natural gas fueling stations and electricity charging stations across America and the Commonwealth is costing Americans about $100 billion each year in lost fuel savings.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
New Study For Mayor Bloomberg Finds Gas Provides 57% of NYC's Total Energy & Cuts Carbon Emissions By Up To 47%
A study prepared for New York City Mayor's Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability finds gas provides 57% of NYC's energy. www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2012/icf_natural_gas_study.pdf at page 2. NYC is much more dependent on gas than the rest of the country. In fact, NYC gets twice as much of its total energy from gas as America does (gas accounts for about 28% of America's total energy).
The study further concludes that gas provides substantial climate benefits, compared to coal or oil. Specifically, the study concludes that gas on a life cycle basis emits 36% to 47% less carbon than coal and 20% less carbon than heating oil. The study was done by ICF International.
And thanks to shale gas production, gas right now is available for bargain basement prices, reducing the energy expenditures of New Yorkers by about $1,500 per year, when compared to 2008 gas and wholesale electricity pricing.
Compared to coal and oil, gas provides more of NYC's energy, is cleaner, and today cheaper. All that makes New York City better economically and environmentally for all its residents and visitors.
The study further concludes that gas provides substantial climate benefits, compared to coal or oil. Specifically, the study concludes that gas on a life cycle basis emits 36% to 47% less carbon than coal and 20% less carbon than heating oil. The study was done by ICF International.
And thanks to shale gas production, gas right now is available for bargain basement prices, reducing the energy expenditures of New Yorkers by about $1,500 per year, when compared to 2008 gas and wholesale electricity pricing.
Compared to coal and oil, gas provides more of NYC's energy, is cleaner, and today cheaper. All that makes New York City better economically and environmentally for all its residents and visitors.
Stunning Fact: Global Solar Now Bigger Than Global Arms Market
The world has yet to beat swords into plowshares. Not by a long shot. Indeed, the global arms market sharply increased in 2011 to more than $85 billion, as Persian Gulf states, fearful of a bellicose Iran, went on an American arms buying spree. www.postgazette.com/stories/news/world/us-arms-sales-make-up-most-of-global-market-650724/.
Yet, notwithstanding the boom in weapons purchases, the global solar market was bigger in 2011 than the global arms market. The solar market exceeded last year $91 billion, when 27,000 megawatts of solar were installed around the world. www.statista.com/statistics/217177/global-projected-growth-of-solar-power-by-2020.
The global wind market that was worth $68 billion in 2011, when 40,500 megawatts of wind power was installed, is also nearing the amount spent around the world on arms purchases. www.gwec.net/fileadmin/documents/NewsDocuments/Annual_report_2011_lowres.pdf.
Even if peace does not breakout around the world during 2012, more may be spent this year on building wind farms or solar projects than buying arms. That fact underlines why the US would make a huge economic mistake in turning away from the big, booming global wind and solar markets.
Yet, notwithstanding the boom in weapons purchases, the global solar market was bigger in 2011 than the global arms market. The solar market exceeded last year $91 billion, when 27,000 megawatts of solar were installed around the world. www.statista.com/statistics/217177/global-projected-growth-of-solar-power-by-2020.
The global wind market that was worth $68 billion in 2011, when 40,500 megawatts of wind power was installed, is also nearing the amount spent around the world on arms purchases. www.gwec.net/fileadmin/documents/NewsDocuments/Annual_report_2011_lowres.pdf.
Even if peace does not breakout around the world during 2012, more may be spent this year on building wind farms or solar projects than buying arms. That fact underlines why the US would make a huge economic mistake in turning away from the big, booming global wind and solar markets.
Key Fact: US Approved Nuclear Uprates Total 6,500 Megawatts & Is The Main Source Of New Nuclear Power
Nearly every owner of generation in the USA judges buidling new nuclear reactors to be prohibitively expensive, despite massive subsidies being available for nuclear construction, and even though many utilities still have state sanctioned monopolies and "rate bases" that can be used to make captive ratepayers repay generation investment. Only the boldest (and some would use less favorable adjectives) generation owner is building new nuclear plants here.
But making improvements to existing nuclear plants to increase their generating capacity--so-called "nuclear uprates"--makes good sense for plant owners, consumers, and the environment. Indeed, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, since 1997, has approved 144 uprates that cumulatively add 6,500 megawatts of capacity. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7130. How much power is that?
That much additional nuclear capacity, given that nuclear power plants operate at about 95% of their capacity, would be equal to approximately 20,000 megawatts of wind power, about 35,000 megawatts of solar power, or another 11 nuclear units the size of Three Mile Island. It would be enough to supply about 6.5 million homes or more than all the residential electricity accounts in Pennsylvania.
The combination of sharply better nuclear plant performance over the last 25 years and nuclear uprates increased electricity generated by existing nuclear plants so that nuclear continued to keep its market share at about 20% of all electricity generated in the USA.
Today, EIA reports that 16 nuclear uprate projects that constitute another 1,140 megawatts of capacity are pending approval by the NRC. Approval of the project by the NRC, however, does not automatically mean the project will be completed, and the EIA data does not state how much of the approved uprates were in fact constructed.
Nuclear uprates are much lower cost than construction of new nuclear plants, but major ones can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. Low wholesale power prices in the last three years represent a real short-term barrier to completing some uprates. As a result, Pennsylvania considered legislation in 2010 that would have increased its Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard and included nuclear uprates as a qualifying technology.
Nuclear uprates have proven good for investors, consumers, the economy and environment, a real win, win, win, win. They increase supply and help keep prices affordable by doing so. They diversify how electricity is made, generating reliability and more economic benefits. They produce no air or climate pollution. They increase revenues for owners of nuclear plants. They lower risks for everyone!
But making improvements to existing nuclear plants to increase their generating capacity--so-called "nuclear uprates"--makes good sense for plant owners, consumers, and the environment. Indeed, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, since 1997, has approved 144 uprates that cumulatively add 6,500 megawatts of capacity. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7130. How much power is that?
That much additional nuclear capacity, given that nuclear power plants operate at about 95% of their capacity, would be equal to approximately 20,000 megawatts of wind power, about 35,000 megawatts of solar power, or another 11 nuclear units the size of Three Mile Island. It would be enough to supply about 6.5 million homes or more than all the residential electricity accounts in Pennsylvania.
The combination of sharply better nuclear plant performance over the last 25 years and nuclear uprates increased electricity generated by existing nuclear plants so that nuclear continued to keep its market share at about 20% of all electricity generated in the USA.
Today, EIA reports that 16 nuclear uprate projects that constitute another 1,140 megawatts of capacity are pending approval by the NRC. Approval of the project by the NRC, however, does not automatically mean the project will be completed, and the EIA data does not state how much of the approved uprates were in fact constructed.
Nuclear uprates are much lower cost than construction of new nuclear plants, but major ones can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. Low wholesale power prices in the last three years represent a real short-term barrier to completing some uprates. As a result, Pennsylvania considered legislation in 2010 that would have increased its Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard and included nuclear uprates as a qualifying technology.
Nuclear uprates have proven good for investors, consumers, the economy and environment, a real win, win, win, win. They increase supply and help keep prices affordable by doing so. They diversify how electricity is made, generating reliability and more economic benefits. They produce no air or climate pollution. They increase revenues for owners of nuclear plants. They lower risks for everyone!
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
NY Hesitates To Frack But Gas Usage Up 18%
As New York ponders producing shale gas or allowing "fracking", New York might want to remember that it really likes using natural gas. Already big before this year, New York's appetite for natural gas got a lot bigger in the first half of 2012, when its consumption of natural gas rose 18.6%, compared to the same period in 2011. See table 2.8b at: www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/epm.pdf.
Why is New York using more natural gas? Most of New York's growing gas consumption is to make electricity and to keep its lights on. Like most states, New York would be in the dark, grind to a halt, and be cold without natural gas. And that is more true today than was the case even just last year.
Moreover, if New York does succeed in its campaign to close the Indian Point nuclear plant, take one guess what will provide most of the replacement power if that big nuke goes off line. Mostly more coal and gas generated electricity that feeds into the grid around the clock, plus a bit more wind and solar, will fill the void that then opens.
And given all the heat from Ithaca and Manhattan about gas production in Pennsylvania, New Yorkers may be surprised to learn that New York uses considerably more gas than does Pennsylvania. In fact, New York used 10% more, a total of 34 billion cubic feet more than Pennsylvania, during the same period.
New York guzzles gas everyday and supports fracking with its purchases, whether or not it does its part to meet America's energy needs.
Why is New York using more natural gas? Most of New York's growing gas consumption is to make electricity and to keep its lights on. Like most states, New York would be in the dark, grind to a halt, and be cold without natural gas. And that is more true today than was the case even just last year.
Moreover, if New York does succeed in its campaign to close the Indian Point nuclear plant, take one guess what will provide most of the replacement power if that big nuke goes off line. Mostly more coal and gas generated electricity that feeds into the grid around the clock, plus a bit more wind and solar, will fill the void that then opens.
And given all the heat from Ithaca and Manhattan about gas production in Pennsylvania, New Yorkers may be surprised to learn that New York uses considerably more gas than does Pennsylvania. In fact, New York used 10% more, a total of 34 billion cubic feet more than Pennsylvania, during the same period.
New York guzzles gas everyday and supports fracking with its purchases, whether or not it does its part to meet America's energy needs.
Wave Power Hits Shore: FERC Issues Tidal Power Permit
Renewable energy is generally classified as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro electric generation and biofuels for transportation. But the definition may soon need to be broadened to include tidal or wave power.
While not the first tidal wave project in the world or the US, Ocean Power's Oregon wave power project is the only such project with a current FERC permit to feed power into the grid and a true energy pioneer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57496932/ore-wave-power-project-gets-federal-permit/. As planned, Ocean Power will generate 1.5 megawatts of tidal power off Oregon and feed that power into the grid.
If Ocean Power is successful, the Energy Information Administration will have another technology category to start tracking and the definition of renewable energy will have to be updated by us all. Moreover, the potential of tidal power is considerable and is an example of why the future of energy always surprises.
While not the first tidal wave project in the world or the US, Ocean Power's Oregon wave power project is the only such project with a current FERC permit to feed power into the grid and a true energy pioneer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57496932/ore-wave-power-project-gets-federal-permit/. As planned, Ocean Power will generate 1.5 megawatts of tidal power off Oregon and feed that power into the grid.
If Ocean Power is successful, the Energy Information Administration will have another technology category to start tracking and the definition of renewable energy will have to be updated by us all. Moreover, the potential of tidal power is considerable and is an example of why the future of energy always surprises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)