Category Archives: Domestic Energy

EPA Chief Provides Non-Answer To Reporter.


Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 7, 2016. The event seerimageswas focused on the “threat” of climate change. A CNSnews.com posting “EPA Chief: Climate Change Is Certain But You Can’t Predict the Future” related the comments made by the Administrator at that meeting.

A CNS News reporter asked the Administrator the following question:

“According to the Energy Information Administration – although alternative and renewables are growing slightly – fossil fuels will still account for 80 percent of U.S. energy needs through 2040. Federal data also shows that U.S. carbon emissions are at almost a 20-year low right now. How do those facts fit into the picture the EPA is painting of the U.S. energy landscape?”

Continue reading

Why Not Make North America, the New Middle East?


Several years ago, a study done by the Manhattan Institute titled “ Unleashing the North American Energy Colossus: Hydrocarbons Can Fuel Growth and Prosperity”, by Mark P Mills pointed out that we have the capability to replace the Middle East as the major source of crude oil.  This, he says, would be of shaleoilhuge economic benefit to the US, Canada and Mexico. Something like $7 trillion dollars of value over the next 15 or 20 years.

Mills argues that the problems with becoming the New Middle East are political, not geological nor technological. One of the political roadblocks was resolved when the latest Federal budget bill was enacted. The bill included the removal of the prohibition against selling US crude oil on the world market. That prohibition had stood since the Nixon Administration.

While the Executive Summary that follows is probably enough for most readers,  Mill’s full report, some twenty pages in length, can be read by clicking here.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States, Canada, and Mexico are awash in hydrocarbon resources: oil, natural gas, and coal. The total North American hydrocarbon resource base is more than four times greater than all the resources extant in the Middle East. And the United States alone is now the fastest-growing producer of oil and natural gas in the world.

The recent growth in hydrocarbons production has already generated hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in local tax receipts by unlocking billions of barrels of oil and natural gas in the hydrocarbon-dense shales of North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and several other states, as well as the vast resources of Canada’s oil sands.

It is time to appreciate the staggering potential economic and geopolitical benefits that facilitating the development of these resources can bring to the United States. It is no overstatement to say that jobs related to extraction, transport, and trade of hydrocarbons can awaken the United States from its economic doldrums and produce revenue such that key national needs can be met—including renewal of infrastructure and investment in scientific research.

An affirmative policy to expand extraction and export capabilities for all hydrocarbons over the next two decades could yield as much as $7 trillion of value to the North American economy, with $5 trillion of that accruing to the United States, including generating $1–$2 trillion in tax receipts to federal and local governments. Such a policy would also create millions of jobs rippling throughout the economy. While it would require substantial capital investment, essentially all of that would come from the private sector.

The underlying paradigms embedded in American energy policy and regulatory structures are anchored in the idea of shortages and import dependence. A complete reversal in thinking is needed to orient North America around hydrocarbon abundance—and exports.

In collaboration with Canada and Mexico, the United States could—and should—forge a broad pro-development, pro-export policy to realize the benefits of our hydrocarbon resources. Such a policy could lead to North America becoming the largest supplier of fuel to the world by 2030. For the U.S., the single most effective policy change would be to emulate Canada’s solution for permitting major energy projects: create a one-portal, one-permit federal policy for all permits.

The recent preoccupation with technologies directed at creating alternatives to hydrocarbons misses how technology also unleashes alternative sources of hydrocarbons themselves. A number of detailed analyses of the new hydro- carbon realities have emerged, not least of which are excellent ones from Citi, Wood Mackenzie, IHS, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The authors of Citi’s detailed report “Energy 2020: North America, the New Middle East?” note that “[t]he main obstacles to developing a North American oil surplus are political rather than geological or technological.”

The projected growth in total world energy demand through 2030 is equal to an additional two Americas’ worth of consumption. Every credible forecast shows hydrocarbons fueling the major share of that growth, as they have in the past. While alternative energy has grown rapidly, the overall contribution to U.S. and world supply remains de minimus and stays that way in every credible future scenario.

There will doubtless be objections to the idea of a radical shift in policies and attitudes toward hydrocarbons. But the benefits to the U.S., to the rest of North America, and to the rest of the world are so dramatic and important that abandoning them without serious policy deliberations would be unconscionable.

cbdakota

 

The Perilous Business Of Predicting The Future


The National Review.com posted “Why Climate Change Won’t Matter in 20 Years”. They subtitled the posting “The perilous business of predicting the future.” The subtitle accurately depicts what happens when politicians or anyone for that matter, think they can safely make the future an extension of the present.

First of all, the warmers should be willing to take seriously the abject failure of their vaunted climate models to make prediction on any time frame. Yet they insist that the Earth in 2100 will be x degrees hotter and the sea level will be y meters higher than today because the climate models told them so. The odds are that they might do just as well talking to Madame Charmaine, the village palm reader.

The author of this posting, Josh Gelernter, put in a lot of effort into showing why projecting the present as a representation of the future is very unlikely to be successful. So I will let him speak:

“Michael Crichton — the brilliant novelist and thinker — posed this horsespulling streetcarquestion in a speech at Caltech in 2003, re climate predictions for 2100. What environmental problems would men in 1900 have predicted for 2000? Where to get enough horses, and what to do with all the manure. “Horse pollution was bad in 1900,” said Crichton. How much worse would someone in 1900 expect it to “be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?”

Continue reading

“California Dreamin’” Or Perhaps Hallucinatin’.


California, always trying to be an environmental leader, has recently enacted SB 350 which will require that, by 2030, electrical utilities must get 50% of their power from renewable resources. The bill also requires greenhouse gases emissions (GHGE) be reduced by 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 versus the carsonhighwayimages1990 GHGE baseline. Dropped from the bill were measures to compel a 50% reduction in petroleum use by 2030.

These reductions are more stringent than those that failed to get accepted by the nations of the World at the COP21 meeting in Paris. California against the world. Further, even if these SB350 mandated changes are met, they will be too small to even be measureable. That is the definition of futility.

Continue reading

Social Cost Of Carbon–The Administration’s New Way To Justify Regulations


The Obama administration has instituted new criteria for supporting their climate change regulations. It is called the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC).   The eventual cost of an increase in atmospheric CO2 is calculated for each regulation. corncropUnknownThe calculation is based upon their model’s forecasts of temperature, sea level, storms, droughts, etc. All the bad things they believe will happen if the rise of atmospheric CO2 is not stopped. You can be certain that each regulation could prevent millions, perhaps billions, of dollars damage according to their SCC calculation.

The SCC calculations use several discount rates that most rational economist would say were not germane. SSC presumes that the next generations will not have more knowledge and money to adapt to what ever actually happens. For example at the turn of the last century, do you think the forecasters would have come up with airplanes, nuclear energy, penicillin, satellites, for several example of things that have made enormous changes? And the many people that would be lifted out of poverty and provided a much-improved life?

Continue reading

Au Revoir, Adios, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye OPEC


OPEC faces serious challenges. Bank of America is quoted as saying that OPEC is frackingamericansimages“effectively dissolved”. And the author of the Telegraph posting “Saudi Arabia may go broke before the US oil industry buckles” reports “The cartel might as well shut down its offices in Vienna to save money.”

OPEC Cartel

Well, is the OPEC collapse imminent?   Probably not, but the major nation in OPEC, Saudi Arabia, appears to be in trouble and quoting from the Telegraph posting:

It is too late for OPEC to stop the shale revolution. The cartel faces the prospect of surging US output whenever oil prices rise. If the oil futures market is correct, Saudi Arabia will start running into trouble within two years. It will be in existential crisis by the end of the decade.

The contract price of US crude oil for delivery in December 2020 is currently $62.05, implying a drastic change in the economic landscape for the Middle East and the petro-rentier** states.

Continue reading

Has OPEC Been Successful In Closing Down The US Shale Oil Business?


In the fall of 2014, Saudi Arabia began increasing the amount of crude oil they put up for sale. The objective is often thought to be an attempt to drive US oil fracking out of business. The price was expected to drop below the point where it was profitable to put in new wells and perhaps even close off many of those already in production. The oil rig count in October of last year was 1608 and it now stands at 747 Telegraph has posted : “Oil slump may deepen as US shale fights Opec to a standstill” gives a current status in this battle. And it seems to be going pretty well for the US and not so good for Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC members. From the Telegraph posting:

“There was a strong expectation that the US system would crash. It hasn’t,” said Atul Arya, from IHS. “The freight train of North American tight oil has just kept on coming. This is a classic price discovery exercise,” said Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil, the big brother of the Western oil industry. Mr. Tillerson said shale producers are more agile than critics expected, which means that the price war will go on. “This is going to last for a while,” he said, warning that any rallies are likely to prove false dawns.

The US “rig count” – suddenly the most-watched indicator in global energy – has fallen from 1,608 in October to 747 last week. Yet output has to continued to rise, stabilizing only over the past five weeks.”

usrigcountandcrudeproduction by bloomberg etc

Others are noting that innovation is cutting costs of new wells:

“We’ve really only begun to scratch the surface. Shale can keep growing by 500,000 to 700,000 b/d easily,” said Harold Hamm, founder of Continental Resources. His company has cut costs by 20pc to 25pc over the past four months.

US shale will “roll over” to some degree as producers exhaust their one-year hedges and face the full shock of lower prices. But it is hazardous to bet too heavily on this assumption.

IHS said an astonishing thing is happening as frackers keep discovering cleverer ways to extract oil, and switch tactically to better wells. Costs may plummet by 45pc this year, and by 60pc to 70pc before the end of 2016. “Break-even prices are going down across the board,” said the group’s Raoul LeBlanc.

Shale bosses have been lining up at this year’s “Energy Davos” to proclaim the fracking Gospel. “We have just drilled an 18,000 ft well in 16 days in the Permian Basis. Last year it took 30 days,” said Scott Sheffield, head of Pioneer Natural Resources.”

We’ve cut spud-to-spud time to 19 days,” said Hess Corporation’s John Hess, referring to the turnaround time between drilling. This is half the level in 2012. “We’ve driven down drilling costs by 50pc, and we can see another 30pc ahead,” he said.”

Large scale frackng has precipitated a number of geopolitical issues such as the stability of Middle East nations and on some nations that rely on crude oil sales to balance their budgets.  My next posting will look at some of these problems.

One thing though noted in the Independent posting is that:

“The market is primed for a sudden spike in prices if anything goes wrong. It is more than ever at the mercy of geopolitical events. One thing is for sure. If and when prices rebound, US shale is ready to sweep in with lightning speed to snatch yet more market share. Opec has met its match.”

Thanks to the US oil industry ingenuity, OPEC seems to be losing the fight. cbdakota

 

 

 

Can we trust the EPA? Part 2—Particulate Matter, 2.5 Microns Or Smaller


In the previous posting, it was noted that the Supreme Court stopped enforcement of an EPA regulation that reduced emissions of mercury (Hg) from coal-based power plants. In addition to Hg, the regulation was designated to reduce “Air Toxins”. In this case the toxins are particulate matter—2.5microns (PM2.5) or smaller in diameter.   For perspective, how big is a 2.5micron particle? 2.5 microns are equal to 0.00025 centimeters or 0.000099 inches. Yes, you are right, you can’t see them.

The EPA touts a study that says PM2.5 is dangerous, but they wont share all the secretscienceimagesdata with anyone. Thus, no other science body can confirm or deny the studies results. Secret Science. We are told we must take their word for it.

Continue reading

Can We Trust The EPA? Part I— Mercury


Enforcement of an EPA regulation that would shut down many, if not all, of the US coal based power plants has been stopped by the Supreme Court.

The Science and Environmental  Policy Project  reports:

“By a 5 to 4 vote, the US Supreme Court overturned a decision by a lower Austin power-plantcourt enforcing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) rules on Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) released from power plants. . Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that it was not appropriate for the EPA “to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.” The EPA argued that it factored in cost later in the process of crafting the rules, even though the EPA has failed to calculate costs of some of its earlier regulations. In fact, the EPA has long publically asserted that it is not required to include the costs of regulations under the Clean Air Act.”

There it is. The EPA says it isn’t required to factor in the cost of regulations. That is convenient in that they believe that they can do any thing they think is appropriate.

Lets look at the EPA reasoning behind the MATS regulations and see if the regulations are really needed.    Lets look first at mercury (Hg) emissions  which they say are bad for the children. How do they know that? Some actual data on Hg from “Bogus Mercury Scare Used To Shutdown Coal Electricity Generating Plants“:

Mercury Emissions – Natural and Man-Made

Source Emission Quantity, Mg/Year % of Total
Natural 5207 69
Manmade 2320 31
            TOTAL 7527 100
North American Coal Plants 65 0.9

 Data From Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5951–5964, 2010 by N. Pirrone, S. Cinnirella, X. Feng, et al.

The  total mercury emissions from the North American coal-based plants are less than one per cent of global emissions!!  So the effect on the health of people in the US through reduction of some fraction of the coal-based plants mercury emissions is essentially too small to measure.  Even if they had data showing that Hg was causing a problem, shutting down US coal-based plants to reduce Hg would likely not have any measurable effect at all.

Tests of communities where fish is the main staple in the diet have not shown any measurable IQ problems in the children—(see Bogus Mercury Scare Used To Shutdown Coal Electricity Generating Plants above).  Pat Michaels gave a talk at the 10th International Conference on Climate Change where he reported the EPA,  developed their cost model using a hypothetical group of 240,000 women that would give birth to a child. From this they claimed to have calculated the harm caused by Hg to our nation’s children. Because some fish do accumulate Hg, this pretend group of women would pretend to each eat 300 pounds of fish per year. Almost a pound per day on average.

The EPA decided that each child had a resulting loss  of 0.00209 IQ points. And they calculated that loss of IQ would yield a $1425/per year loss in income per child. The grand total loss annually for the nation would be $3,350,000. If you are not rolling on the floor laughing your behind off, I am very surprised. Only hypothetical people in the US eat 300 lbs of fish per year. IQ scores have a +/- 10 points 95 % confidence level. And the EPA has audacity to think that a 0.00209 IQ loss can actually be measured and used to provide meaningful data?

So much for the Hg scare.

Next we will look at the secrete science behind the EPA’s claim that certain air toxics are potential killers. But that will take up some more words so it will be saved for part two.

cbdakota

Crude Oil Sales Ban Must Be Lifted


This site has written before (click here)  about the crippling of the US petroleum producers by not permitting them to sell crude oil outside of the US. The posting crude-oil-diagram-barrel-price-32155165warned of continuing loss of American jobs and resulting in higher crude oil prices.   Now the chairman and CEO of Continental Resources (Harold Hamm) tells why the ban on US crude oil sales must be lifted. In a WSJ online posting, he says this:

” The situation is urgent, as OPEC’s recent predatory pricing tactics are also hurting America and prematurely ending the boom in U.S. oil production due to hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, and horizontal drilling. The U.S. rig count has dropped by more than 50% since Thanksgiving, according to the oilfield services company Baker Hughes. More than 126,000 oil and gas workers have been laid off, and job losses are expected to double if the export ban is not lifted.”

Continue reading