Tech Talk - Coal begins to fight back

As the President moves further into his second term, he appears to be growing more willing to tackle the concerns that his supporters have over projected Climate Change over the next century. Given the makeup of the Congress it is likely that this will be through additional regulation and Executive orders. There have been a number of reports that have documented the projected costs of climate change. Some of these have been relatively modest in statement. The Copenhagen Consensus Center, for example, noted:

Climate change is real and man-made. It will come as a big surprise that climate change from 1900 to 2025 has mostly been a net benefit, rising to increase welfare about 1.5% of GDP per year. Why? Because global warming has mixed effects and for moderate warming, the benefits prevail. The increased level of CO₂ has boosted agriculture because it works as a fertilizer and makes up the biggest positive impact at 0.8% of GDP. Likewise, moderate warming avoids more cold deaths than it incurs extra heat deaths. It also reduces the demand for heating more than increases the costs of cooling, totaling about 0.4%. On the other hand, warming increases water stress at about 0.2% and negatively impact ecosystems like wetlands at about 0.1%. Storm impacts are very small, as the total storm damages (including naturally caused storms) are about 0.2%.

As temperatures rise, the costs will rise and the benefits decline, leading to a dramatic reduction in net benefits. After year 2070, global warming will become a net cost to the world, justifying cost-effective climate action.

This, of course,led The Guardian to stress the post-2070 part of the comment. On the other hand there are the projections of the latest IPCC report (available here) that suggest that costs are already present in the global economy and that they see impacts ranging from a possible fall of 2% in global economic growth, as well as impacts on health and agriculture.

The projections, of which there are many, have focused on the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions and have moved governments around the world to take steps to reduce gas emissions, without a lot of comment from the industries most effected by the proposed regulatory changes. It appears that this relatively low key approach is going to change as a new report prepared for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) provides some strong factual discussion points that argue rather for the benefits of carbon use, and contrast these with the costs.

It has become politically popular in recent years to increasingly demonize the fossil fuel industries, and particularly the coal industry. And I have suggested, in the past, that this was an over-reaction. However it is of value to rational discussion of the issue to recognize the points that Management Information Services have put forward in this report.

Much is made of the increased fuel use that continues to power the Industrial Revolution as it continues to spread into under-developed countries and brings their standards of living up to those enjoyed by many in North America, Europe and the more well developed countries. The transition to the better standards of life is considered to need an energy consumption, per capita, of 4,000 kWh per year.

Figure 1. The UN Human Development Index and per Capita Electricity Use (America's Power )

When one considers the relative benefits of the use of power it sometimes help to recognize the mind-set of those making the comparison. The view of someone just gaining access to electric power, and who built a windmill to provide that power, reflects a greater recognition of the benefits of electricity than sometimes seems to be currently politically correct.

The benefits brought by the available power that is now in individual hands as a result of the Industrial Revolution are manifest in virtually every aspect of our daily lives. To maintain and spread that wealth of benefits through the expanded use of electricity to an increasing global user market the IEA projects that there will be an increase in virtually all power sources for electricity over the next twenty-five years.

Figure 2. Projected Electric Power Generation by Energy Source (America's Power )

However one of the impacts of increasing regulation, and the drive to switch to alternate, renewable power sources in Europe has already been an increase in the cost of that power. This is already leading the European Union to review their policies since increasing power costs lower the competitive position of European industries relative to those of countries (such as the USA) with lower power costs.

Within the United States the report concludes that there is a negative correlation between electricity prices and the economy with a suggestion that a 10% increase in electricity prices will cause a 1 % drop in GSP. (This is an awkward argument to make given that the economies of places such as Massachusetts are significantly better with an energy cost of over $0.14/kWh that those of West Virginia where the cost is about $0.08 per kWh – though the argument is about relative change).

But the increases in power costs do not just impact the competitive advantage of industry. As prices rise, so the poorer segment of the community find it harder to meet all their living needs. There is a graph that shows their choices:

Source: National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association. Figure 3. Potential Health Impacts of Increased Energy Costs on Low Income Persons (America's Power )

It is the broad use of coal that keeps the prices of power in many countries low, and the ability of many to utilize a domestic resource allows developing countries the opportunity to climb the ladder faster than the rates that they would be able to achieve without this resource. It should be remembered that over the course of the changes brought by industrialization since 1750 (as the report notes):

From 1750 to 2009, global life expectancy more than doubled, from 26 years to 69 years; global population increased 8-fold, from 760 million to 6.8 billion; and incomes increased 11-fold, from $640 to $7,300. . . . . . . in the U.S. from 1900 to 2009 population quadrupled, U.S. life expectancy increased from 47 years to 78 years, and incomes (denoted “affluence”) grew 7.5-fold while carbon dioxide emissions increased 8.5-fold.

The reality of the next decades is that coal and the other fossil fuels will, over the next twenty-five years, remain the basis for electricity generation for a significant portion of the global economy. This is likely to be particularly true for those nations that will grow the most in population and GDP over that interval.

By discounting the benefits that these improvements in life will bring to those countries, and focusing more on the hypothetical costs of anticipated problems the Administration has made a case for changing the energy mix. It is interesting to see that the industry that it likely to be most changed by their policies is now beginning to publically and with facts, shown willing to rebut some of those arguments.

Tech Talk - A cautionary tale evolves over shale gas

The development of the shale gas deposits in the United States, led by the drilling and fracking of horizontal wells into the Barnett Shale of Texas at the turn of the century, has opened up a resource that continues to draw visions of American energy independence from a number of commentators. The success of the development in exposing a potential resource that has been found in a number of states around the country continues to underwrite optimism for the short-term energy future of the country. In turn it has led to projected dreams of enhanced domestic supply in some of the countries of Europe, and the rest of the world.

However, from that highly promising beginning things have not gone that well (depending on your viewpoint). In part this is because of the overwhelming success of the industry in finding productive formations. As production spread through the Haynesville to the Marcellus increasing volumes of natural gas fed into the market, which had, at the beginning, only a certain limited capacity to absorb the increased flow rates. As a result natural gas prices, which had been bringing a comfortable profit to companies, rapidly fell.

Figure 1. Wellhead price for natural gas in the United States (EIA )

The collapse in price from the high of $10.79/kcf was related to the developing recession, but while the price of oil rebounded, the domestic price of natural gas has not.

Figure 2. Spot prices for natural gas around the United States in August 2013 (Boston Globe)

Because of the current cooler weather in parts of the country, gas prices for September are down to $3.35/kcf.

This was one of two contributing factors to the problems that the domestic industry is undergoing, both foreseen by Art Berman, an accurate, albeit in some quarters very unpopular, prophet to the industry. The first problem, clearly is the low price that natural gas continues to sell at in most of the country. (The high prices in the NorthEast are because of the perception that the fuel is abundant, set against the current limited capacity of pipelines to carry sufficient gas into the region.) The second problem, which Art has also clearly identified, lies in the very rapid decline rates that are seen in the natural gas wells that have been drilled and fracked in these shales.

The Barnett shale has now been sufficiently well developed that production has now peaked and is recognized to now be in slow decline, though that rate is projected to accelerate.

Figure 3. Projected decline in Barnett shale production (assuming continued drilling). Note the steep decline rates for new wells.(Bureau of Economic Geology)

There is also sufficient information such that, for example such industrial stalwarts as the Oil and Gas Journal are confirming some of Art’s earlier predictions. A current article examines the economics of the Barnett shale development under DFW airport, first undertaken in 2009 following a lease agreement in 2006. The article examines the economics of the operation in which the airport has made over $300 million. Chesapeake, who have drilled 110 wells on the property, out of an anticipated 330 originally projected, has recovered some 104 bcf, but the undiscounted all-in cost is calculated at $7.21/kcf. While that was viable in 2008, when gas prices were north of $9.00/kcf it becomes quite a burden when they are down around $3.35/kcf. The loss to the operator is reported to be more than $300 million.

These relatively poor returns on investment might not be so disproportionate in Europe where there have been potentially similar shale deposits found in countries such as the UK and Poland. Art has however already reviewed the British Bowland shale projections, suggesting that only 3% of the natural gas estimated to be in place may be recovered. While this is still a respectable number it falls short of the more optimistic numbers that, among others, Bishop Hill has collated. And while Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that this could bring as much as $10 billion a year into the British economy by 2020, this is all at a point where Egdon hopes to sink its first well into the formation at the end of next year. Cuadrilla Resources drilled their first well last year and now plans a six-well exploration program, but it has been suggested that it will be at least a decade before any significant gas production is available.

In this regard it is well to remember the case of Poland, where the presence of gas-bearing shales led to predictions that the industry would “transform Europe.” But then the results of the well tests came in, and the volumes of natural gas available were reduced by up to 90%. Although 40 wells have been drilled, to date none are reported to have produced commercial quantities of natural gas, although in only four cases was there fracking of the horizontal well section. Three major oil companies have backed away from committing to the program, and that initial enthusiasm is now considered to have been a “bubble,” while Chevron is seeing more protests over their planned fracking tests.

This collapse of hope for a potential resource has led the Polish Government (who are responsible for ensuring that the country has enough fuel at a viable price) to move back toward the greater use of lignite as a power source. Coal is the fuel for the power stations that produce 90% of the country's electricity, and lignite is readily and cheaply available. Prices for lignite (a brown coal that is softer and not yet fully geologically morphed into the harder black coal most envisage when coal is discussed) are quoted as giving a price of $2.00 per gigajoule, roughly a fifth of the cost for black coal. The country has large deposits of lignite, much of which is available for surface mining, at relatively low financial cost.

The government decision underscores a point that I have made a number of times, namely that as other fuel costs increase more and more countries will move to the use of coal, where it is domestically available and relatively inexpensive in financial cost, to produce.

The Chinese diesel situation

Well it appears that we are about back up to $90 a barrel oil which is the top end of the range which the Saudi Oil Minister said he was comfortable with, the other day. However, I suspect that were it to go higher, it would not change the current Saudi plans on oil production.

It might, however, draw more attention to the problems of dealing with an increasing demand for oil, in face of a limited ability to meet that demand. OPEC have just announced that they see next year’s average demand to be at 87 mbd, up about 120,000 bd over their estimate last month. Whether that projection proves realistic will depend on what happens in Asia.

Refineries in Asia have been faced with an increased demand from China, where there have been recent shortages of diesel across country, likely leading to the price increases that have just been imposed. Part of the cause of the increase is because refineries in China were reported to be losing up to $18 a barrel in refining oil they were buying at $80 a barrel. (Diesel was at $2.43 a gallon, and prices have been raised 10%, which given the current oil price, still leaves the refineries making a loss). Nevertheless Chinese government data shows that refining reached a record volume (8.8 mbd) in October, at the same time that overall Chinese crude imports fell for the month. In light of the increased demand it is expected that this month’s production will be even higher. Sinopec will also import feedstock for ethylene production so that refineries that were being used to supply the feed can, instead, concentrate on making diesel.

The unexpected size of the problem has been caused by the Chinese government trying to lower electricity consumption to meet a national target for energy savings by the end of the year. As a result of those decisions coal-fired power fell back, in October to the levels of a year ago, after an earlier increase. Because of these cuts in power, those who still need it (including metal production plants) have switched to diesel generators, with the increase in demand overwhelming the available supply. (Though some have had to close including 100,000 tons of aluminum smelting capacity). Thus the situation may be transient and improve, with electricity supply, after the end of the year, though that is not necessarily a given at this point, since it is dependant on government policies. (And hidden in that discussion has been the Chinese record refinery outputs of gasoline, which also hit a new record this month.)

For countries in Asia outside China the situation is reversed. With the profit on refining Dubai crude at over $14 a barrel in Singapore, refineries around the region are seeking to increase imports of crude. (China has been a net exporter of diesel until recently, but demand had grown, until recently, at 13% this year leading China to the potential switch to becoming a net importer of diesel, though that is debatable.) There are thus some strains evident in current ability to match existing demand.

In addition to getting additional supplies of crude from Russia, China has also increased crude imports from Iran, helping that country at a time when gasoline rationing and sanctions are being blamed for an 18% drop in internal gasoline demand.

In the United States there has been an increase in distillate demand according to the latest TWIP that is somewhat greater than usual:

(EIA)

The heating season is however anticipated to be, in general warmer than usual (sorry NorthEast), reducing heating fuel needs.

Fuel expenditures for individual households are highly dependent on local weather conditions, market size, the size and energy efficiency of individual homes and their heating equipment, and thermostat settings. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) projects population-weighted U.S. heating degree-days will be about 4 percent lower than last winter. However, heating degree-day projections vary widely between regions. For example, NOAA projects that the South, a large market for propane, will be about 17 percent warmer than last winter, while the Northeast will be about 4 percent colder. The largest residential propane consuming region is the Midwest, where 8 percent of the homes heat with this fuel. Projected temperatures in this area are 2.2 percent warmer than last year. EIA projects Midwest propane prices to increase by 18 percent this winter while consumption in that region falls by 2.3 percent, resulting in an expenditure increase of 15 percent.

Oh, and in case you missed it, following my piece on explosives on Sunday, just to prove that not everything in life goes perfectly, here is a chimney demolition falling the wrong way.

The risks of "cap and trade"

When discussions arise about Climate Change, and the possibility that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases are responsible for the rise in global temperatures, one prevailing argument is that “we cannot afford to take the risk of the AGW argument being right, without doing something.” However, in that discussion, there is rarely any mention of possible negative consequences to mitigating against increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The only positions mentioned are frequently the projections of dramatic rises in sea levels, the promise of worse storms, droughts and climate conditions and other projected severe costs of inaction. The costs of the actions themselves are not addressed, and the implications are that the world will be a better place if some of the current trends in Climate Change are, if nothing further, stopped from progressing further.

But there are costs to the required changes in lifestyle that a reduction in carbon dioxide production will require, and those potential impacts are rarely spelled out to the public, or to the politicians who must enact the legislation to put new laws in place. However politicians, particularly in those districts that are likely to be impacted by the changes in regulations, are already showing some sensitivity to the potential negative aspects of “cap and trade” and so it might be worth exploring the topic in a little more depth.

The Energy Summit in Columbia last week allowed some of the utility companies to spell out the levels of cost that will be incurred if cap and trade legislation is enacted, based on a projected cost for the allowance to generate a ton of carbon dioxide. But they largely built their discussion around the price of that portion of the electricity that they will still be allowed to generate. A cap and trade system, however, comes in two parts. The first part is to look at the overall production of carbon dioxide, say 6 billion tons/year, where the program cuts this back by, say 500 million tons a year. (This is the reduction in the capacity to produce or the “cap.”) For the sake of the following discussion I will assume that 1 ton of coal produces very roughly 3 tons of carbon dioxide to make the arithmetic easier.

The first argument of those who look at this problem of a reduced supply is to suggest that the gap can be met by improving efficiency of electrical use, and conservation. However the implementation of a cap and trade policy is not predicated on that efficiency change happening, but it will occur as a separate event. And Jevons Paradox will tell you that “improving energy efficiency increases energy consumption.” So that the savings in power required are unlikely to be realized.

Which means that if the utilities are restricted in the amount of power that they can generate with carbon-producing strategies, then they must have alternate supplies in place. Theoretically that may well be the case. The number of states that are including a “sustainable source” quotient in their mandated supplies is steadily growing. However, as Montana, for example, is discovering there may be a difference between the targets and the practical realities. As credit has become tight, available funds for new farms are becoming harder to raise, and without a perceived increase in demand, it is harder to justify a new investment in plant when the old coal plant is still producing at a relatively low cost. And without the lead time being used to produce the new energy sources that will be needed, when the time comes to flip that switch, it may not yet be connected.

The problem actually is a little worse that this. Because most of the coal-fired power plants are quite old, and while maintained to continue to produce power, they are less efficient and more polluting that the more modern plants that are planned to replace them. But with the anticipated change in regulation now that EPA has ruled on carbon dioxide , almost all the originally about 200 planned new coal-fired power plants are holding back on commitments and roughly half have cancelled or indefinitely postponed their planned construction. Thus the increased supply of power from new plants may not appear.

There are two additional thoughts to consider. The first is the proposed restriction on emissions from these new plants:

The (Waxman – Markey) proposal unabashedly bans new coal-fired electric plants. In 2009 new coal-fueled electric plants are limited to 1100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour (MWh) and 800 pounds after 2020. Present fossil-fuel electric plants emit the following pounds of CO2 per MWh: 2100 for coal, 1900 for oil, and 1300 for natural gas. . . . The bill that includes "security" in its title limits our plentiful secure coal supply to discharges of about one-half that allowed for oil and natural gas.

The second is that some parts of the country do not have the ability to tap into the wind and solar resources that are currently being suggested as the solution to the problem.

Productive wind is only available in a limited number of states and their regions, and similarly solar power cannot be relied on in a North-Eastern Winter. One cannot legislate an alternative technology that does not yet exist to fill in the gaps between what will be allowed from the power plants of yesterday, and the demands that a rebounding economy may place upon them. Mandating that the older suppliers of power close, before the new plants to replace them are installed will have significant consequences to the available jobs that can be supported, if the factories and industrial base begin to lose the reliability of the power sources that they have today.

Even, however, if they find some way of meeting the target for the renewable portion of their portfolio, the utilities won’t be out of the wood. Because the purchase of the allocation for the carbon dioxide they do admit will also bring additional cost. As noted at the Energy Summit a price of $50 per ton of carbon allocation would likely double electric bills in Missouri. Burning a ton of coal, that now costs $50, would raise its price to $250. While if the price per allocation ton was raised to $200 per ton (which has been suggested as being necessary to support some alternate energy choices) this would raise the cost by a factor of five (i.e. a current electric bill of $200 would rise to $1,000 per month). In much the same way as Secretary Chu recognized at the EIA Conference that increases in the cost of oil contributed to the severity of the recession, one can equally imagine that a similar effect will be felt with an equivalent rise in the cost of electricity.

The current path forward, with a hesitation in construction of new power plants holds the risk that the United States will not have the power that it needs in the future to match industrial and domestic demands. In those cases it is often industry that is the first to see the cutbacks in supply when load shedding is needed. But the resulting drop in production, and international competitiveness, may well damage or destroy the recovering economy after this recession comes to an end. That too is a risk that should be protected against.

P39. Pick Points

Half-a-dozen or so stories of interest:

China is going to need a lot of oil, and to ensure it gets it, it has just loaned the Russian oil companies Rosneft and Transneft (who runs the pipelines) $25 billion, and for this they get an annual delivery of 15 million tons of oil (300,000 bd) for 20 years. Of the sum Rosneft will get $15 billion. The first pipeline heading that way will carry up to 0.6 mbd, but needs a spur to carry the oil to China. The oil will likely come from the Vankor field in the Tyumen region of Siberia, with the pipeline running from Taishet in Siberia to Skovorodino, a town of about 10,000 people, on the border, and in Amur province. Overflying part of the route on Google Earth, it doesn’t look quite as uncivilized as the articles make out. There is a Youtube video of the town of Tynda, for example.

Despite the problems that they are having with the California budget, customers of the Southern California Gas Company are getting a 20% drop in their heating bill. The average winter bill of 75 therms per month is expected to be in the $70-80 range. However there is a drive to change the gas hot water heaters to solar heating, given that about 38% of the home power goes to heating water. Unfortunately I suspect that the $250 million price tag will be too much for the state right now, even though it would be through rebates. Oddly Government support for such a move in Australia is meeting some opposition from Greenpeace, on the odd argument that they don’t generate electricity. It was only last week that tentative agreements were signed for solar-thermal power for Southern California Edison, with Brightsource Energy building 7 plants for a total of 1,300 megawatts over the next seven years. though the first 100 MW unit, in the Mojave Desert won’t be ready until 2013. SCE states that it now gets 16% of its energy from renewables. (Though by next year the state target is 20%).

BrightSource CEO John Woolard said the 400-MW Ivanpah project will create about 1,700 full-time jobs in construction and another 3,500 jobs to last the 40-year life of the plants.

The technology uses the tower approach rather than the trough shaped collector idea used by Acciona in Nevada. Israel contrarily has just approved the connection of a photo-voltaic power station to their national grid, though it will take 4 years to install the connection.

Perhaps the money put into the stimulus package for high-speed rail might head toward maglev. China is looking to start a new project next month although there is already one system in operation in Shanghai, that uses German technology. Plans for high speed rail systems in California are being debated even though no-one knows where the stimulus money is going yet.

While recent talk has focused on a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and on to India, and recent reports have been either favorable or discouraging, Bangladesh remains strapped for energy, and so there is now talk of a pipeline from Myanmar, through Bangladesh to India.. However economic reality, and the fact that coal is indigenous to many in the region is causing the countries of South Asia to seriously consider switching to coal. India, for example, is now seeing a gap of some 5.7% between available supply and demand and needed the pipelines that had been planned, since even now gas can only meet 60% of industrial demand.

There have been concerns in the past over the ability of wind turbines to operate in cold climates, but with turbines now working successfully in Alaska those days may be over. It may still take about 17 years to pay for the installation, however, on an expected life of 20-25 years. Yet with that promise there is still uncertainty over the future of wind in Canada. In the UK permission was given to install ten new wind farms around Scotland. Britain currently generates some 3 GW from wind, and these farms may add double that amount.

And the EU has just released the Market Observatory for Energy report looking at energy generation in the EU. However since the range of oil prices assumed go from $61 to $100 per barrel for oil in 2020 it may still be a little unrealistic – but I will take a look!

More stories can be found at The Energy Bulletin and Drumbeat at The Oil Drum.