Showing posts with label renewables. Show all posts
Showing posts with label renewables. Show all posts

Thursday, December 29, 2016

36 to Follow on Climate & Energy Issues: March Update




In 2017,  if I could follow only 36 people or organizations on Twitter to learn about real-time climate and energy issues, this would be my (highly subjective,  purposefully diverse) list.  I disagree completely with many of the opinions of some on the list, others I support fully. I constructed the list to include content expertise, wide-ranging viewpoints, data/infographics access, information and insights on fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear energy, and environmental, climate, economic, security and policy issues from academic, industry, media, NGO, and political perspectives.

I'll update the list periodically ( as with this March update), as no doubt I've inadvertently omitted even some of my own favorites. Your thoughtful recommendations and comments are appreciated. My hope for 2017 is that we learn as much or more from those with whom we disagree as from those who share our opinions.

Yale Climate Program    

And one for you to consider:
David Lawrence





Monday, November 21, 2016

The University Carbon Fund

Two years ago, I imposed a Carbon Tax on Me. It was a very simple idea needing no government intervention, regulation or political posturing. And it worked!  The concept has a certain attraction in today's post-election climate and energy world. How else might it be applied?

Let's start with some places where interest in climate change is very high and people are searching for constructive solutions to meet the world's energy needs while lowering CO2 - our colleges and universities.  Outlined below is a proposal for The University Carbon Fund - a simple way for universities to reduce CO2 emissions, save energy and money, and spur investments in clean energy. The University Carbon Fund can be implemented now, is designed to be revenue neutral, and can be tailored to each university. The beneficiaries are students, faculty, administration, researchers, clean energy companies and the planet.

How the University Carbon Fund works:
  • The University, with student and faculty input, establishes baselines for energy use and CO2 emissions and proposes reduction targets. 
  • The University saves energy (and importantly) money, while helping achieve the CO2 targets through energy efficiency, conservation measures, and implementation of new technologies, products and services. 
  • The University implements a staged Carbon Tax and establishes a University Carbon Fund with the revenues received. 
  • The Fund is retained and managed  by the University, with student and faculty input. 
  • The energy cost savings offset the Carbon Tax. 
  • The University Carbon Fund is invested in in clean energy companies, services, efficiency measures, products and research and development.

How your University can do it:

Step 1: Determine current CO2 output

Many universities and colleges have some form of a Sustainability Office and can provide an estimate of the institution's energy consumption and CO2 footprint, often broken down to a department or school level, as a baseline. For those universities yet to take this step, a student-led task force might accomplish the task to sufficient accuracy using financial and operations data and a number of available online calculators in a matter of months. It's a great semester class project.

Step 2: Establish and implement a carbon reduction target

Again, many Universities have already taken this important step. For those that haven't, consider cutting your emissions by 25 percent over the next 5 years, and an additional 10 percent before 2025.


Step 3: Establish an energy cost saving target:

Actual energy cost and emissions reduction is the crux of the challenge. It's much easier to set the targets than achieve them. There are many ways for Universities to achieve a reduction in their energy costs and CO2 emissions: conservation and efficiency measures,  choosing lower carbon alternatives to travel, renewable energy options for electricitY, innovative building design and retrofitting, choices in diet, recycling and vehicles.

Step 4: Apply a price for carbon to the university CO2 output and determine a carbon tax.

Universities might consider a staged approach to a carbon price as they work out kinks in their program, for example starting at $10 per ton CO2 in 2017 rising by $5 per ton per year to $30 per ton CO2 in 2021 and $40 per ton in 2026.  Universities may of course reserve the right to set a more or less aggressive target and to review their carbon price targets annually. For example, a university might consider simply capping the carbon price at a level that produces a tax equal to their projected energy cost savings.

Step 5: Save and invest the carbon tax proceeds in the University Carbon Fund

What can your university do with their University Carbon Fund?
Invest in clean energy companies and deployment of new cleaner energy technologies. Invest in research and development, in efficiency measures and in low carbon products and services. The University Carbon Fund grows in value through time, spurs economic growth and create jobs. Three different investment options are provided below - there are of course others.


  • Investment Option 1: Invest in and build a portfolio of companies that develop, produce and deploy technologies and products to reduce CO2 or improve energy efficiency. Be pragmatic - invest in companies making a difference now.
  • Investment Option 2: Invest directly in products, services and efficiency measures that reduce the university carbon footprint and can save energy costs. Take advantage of renewable energy options from existing utilities, participate in distributed energy systems, purchase solar panels, insulation and high efficiency appliances and lighting, build a high MPGe vehicle fleet, support local foods, install efficient lighting: there are many options.
  • Investment Option 3: invest in  basic and applied research in science and engineering directly related to energy. Consider this investment seed money, providing your university and the world with ideas for future investment options. Pursue partnerships with matching funds from industry. Investment helps bridge the gap between innovation and deployment.


Let's put some numbers to all this to illustrate how it can work in practice
A university with 18,000 students emits around 90,000 tons CO2 per year and has all inclusive
(heating, cooling, lighting, lab, physical plant, operations, transportation & commuting, air travel, operations) energy costs of about $18 million dollars per year.

The university targets a 5 percent  CO2 reduction each year through the end of 2021.

The university establishes a carbon price of $5 per ton CO2 for 2017 (purposefully low to work the kinks out of the process) rising to $15 per ton in 2018, and then increasing by $5 per ton each year  until the goal of $30 per ton CO2 is reached in 2021.

The University targets a 3 percent reduction in energy costs year on year, measured against its 2016 baseline costs.

In this example, the carbon tax, including targeted emissions reductions, would total $7.1 mln for the 2017-2021 time period, rising from $430,000 in 2017 to almost $2.3 mln in 2021. CO2 savings would be over 60,000 tons.

Cumulative total energy cost savings for this same period against the 2016 baseline would be $7.8 mln, creating a surplus (above the carbon tax) of $700,000 for the university to use as it sees fit. In any year that the actual cost savings turn out to be less than the carbon tax, the university could retain the option to cap the tax to retain cost neutrality. Alternatively, some universities have suggested that alumni challenge grants based on beating energy and CO2 targets might provide an additional funding source.

A sample portfolio for the University Carbon Fund might work as follows: 50% invested into a University Clean Energy Investment Fund, 20% into a Products, Services and Efficiency Fund, 25% into University Energy and Climate R&D, and 5% into Administrative Fees to run the program.

With this portfolio, over the 2017-2021 time period, the University Clean Energy Investment Fund would grow to $3.6 million (conservatively, without including any interest, dividends or capital gains). The Product, Services and Efficiency Fund would total $1.4 million, and almost $1.8 million dollars would be available for university energy and climate R&D.

Your university can take a leading role. Take action now and establish a (Your University Name Here) Carbon Fund.

#myuniversitycutscarbon

Saturday, January 24, 2015

A Revenue-Positive Carbon Tax and Investment Program You Can Begin Now



         Time is valuable, especially when it comes to the difficult task of addressing climate change while providing people around the world with the energy they need. Are you frustrated by the pace and proposals of climate and energy talks and searching for solutions that are within your control and enable you to make a difference? Would you like to lower your carbon emissions, save energy and money, invest in clean energy, and help end energy poverty? Here's a one-minute overview of a Do-It-Yourself, revenue-positive carbon tax and investment program to help you achieve your goals, starting now.

1. Cut your CO2 emissions in half over the next decade through energy efficiency, conservation, lifestyle choices, and use of cleaner energy technologies.  Start slow or fast - it's up to you. See valuable how-to links here.

2.Tax yourself with a $5 - $40/ton self-imposed price on carbon. It's easy to make an estimate of your carbon footprint and tax.

3. Save money through your energy savings to offset or complement the tax.
4. Create value by investing your tax and energy savings in companies, institutions and organizations researching, developing, implementing and deploying clean energy solutions. You choose the investments and you receive the returns on those investments.
5.  Go one step farther and contribute a percentage of your tax to organizations and institutions helping to end energy poverty around the world. 

                                            You can make a difference

           For more information on how to start click here.

          Join us  @lawrence_energy  #carbontaxonme






Sunday, January 4, 2015

A Do It Yourself Carbon Tax in 5 Simple Steps


Six weeks ago, I decided to impose a carbon tax on me.  Call it a DIY carbon tax.

I received lots of enthusiastic comments and great ideas for improvement. Many people joined me and together we are reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide, improving our energy efficiency, saving money, investing in cleaner energy and helping to end energy poverty. My thanks for your efforts.

Others were quick to criticize the initiative, suggesting that individuals make little difference, and that it is only through regulation and legislation at a massive scale that CO2 emissions will be reduced. Perhaps. But it is all too easy make demands of others. If you want to see change, you often need to start with yourself.

So, I started with me. You can make the choice to do the same. Then imagine if everyone you know who is concerned about energy, climate and energy poverty initiated their own personal carbon tax.  Imagine the energy savings, the cuts in emissions, the business and research opportunities, the improved lives of people living in energy poverty, and the opportunities for creating wealth and investing in our future.

What is needed now is for a lot more people to actually move beyond imagination - to take up the challenge - and to challenge their friends, family, colleagues and neighbors to do the same.

Here is how my Do It Yourself Carbon Tax works:
  • Cut CO2 emissions by 10 percent next year and 50% over the next decade through energy efficiency, conservation, lifestyle choices, and implementation of new technologies.
  • Tax yourself with a $40/ ton self-imposed price on carbon (or whatever price you feel is most appropriate).
  • Save money through energy efficiency measures to offset or complement the tax.
  • Invest your tax and savings in companies, institutions and organizations researching, developing, implementing and deploying clean energy solutions.
  • Contribute to organizations and institutions helping to reduce energy poverty around the world.
How you can do it:

Step 1: Determine your current CO2 output
You can calculate your personal  CO2 footprint using any number of widely available, free online calculators. See the full proposal for useful links. With the help of these calculators (there are many others) in less than 30 minutes you can determine your personal CO2 output in tons per year.

Step 2: Establish your carbon reduction target
My goal is a 10 percent reduction in my own CO2 emissions in year one and to cut my emissions in half over the next decade. I plan to review my target range annually. There are many ways you can achieve a reduction in your CO2 emissions. For some useful links to  lists of CO2 reduction measures each of us can take, again refer to the original #carbontaxonme proposal.

Step 3:  Apply a price for carbon to your CO2 output and determine your annual carbon tax
Just this past week, in a well-reasoned article in the Financial Times, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers called for a carbon tax and suggested a price of $25/ton.   I will take a more aggressive approach and impose a personal carbon price of $40/ton CO2 per year on myself. Note that this is well above the price of carbon as traded anywhere in the world.  I will review my personal carbon price annually.

In application then, I simply multiply my carbon price of $40/ton times my calculated CO2 emissions
to arrive at the annual carbon tax.  At the average per capita emissions of CO2 in the US of 17 tons
per annum, the carbon tax would be $680.  With strong energy conservation and efficiency measures you can save money to offset the tax and in many cases will actually come out ahead.  Still, if my proposed $40/ ton carbon tax is too high for your budget, simply consider a lower carbon price, such as Summers' $25 or Microsoft's $6-7. Corporations have disclosed a wide range of prices which you may wish to use as benchmarks:

Step 4:  Save and Invest the tax proceeds
Which brings us to what you can do with your tax proceeds and cost savings? Invest!  As with any investment you can choose between many options, but I will narrow it down to three.

Investment Option 1: Invest in companies that develop, produce and deploy products and services available now to reduce our carbon footprint - solar solutions, efficient wind turbines, high MPGe vehicles, storage, grid and off-grid solutions,  local produce, Socially Responsible Investment funds and energy financing options to name but a few.

Investment Option 2: Invest and support Research and Development with institutions and organizations doing high quality basic and applied research in science and engineering directly related to energy, as well as those addressing broader policy issues.

Investment Option 3: Invest directly in the products and services that reduce your carbon footprint.
Buy solar panels for your home, participate in distributed energy systems, purchase a hybrid or an electric vehicle, support local foods, install efficient lighting. There are many options which will help you save energy and money.

Step 5: Support Organizations Helping to End Energy Poverty:

Use a portion of your tax and savings to invest in organizations that help alleviate energy poverty 
around the world. The world needs energy now, especially in poverty, famine and disease stricken places like sub-Saharan Africa.  Every contribution helps.

Each of us can make a difference. How much of a difference is up to you. Collectively the impact can be massive. Join me now by posting your personal pledge at #carbontaxonme and copy me @lawrence_energy and we'll track our momentum together. Let's watch our contributions add up.

Friday, January 2, 2015

A Time for Giving: Help End Energy Poverty


What can you do to help end energy poverty?

Every week, more than a million new people are born into the world to feed, clothe and shelter.  And the greatest growth in population comes from many of the least developed nations. Today, in this rapidly expanding world, 1.3 billion people have no access to electricity, and nearly 900 million still use unsafe drinking water.  More than 2.5 billion people still rely on biomass, like wood and dung, for cooking.  Energy is crucial to lift people from a life of hardship and poverty.

Traditionally, much of the resource, service provision, investment and technology to address energy poverty is driven by government policy / funding and corporate, institutional and financial sector investment. But as individuals we can each make our own significant contribution - starting now.

For #GivingTuesday,  here is a list of non-profit and charitable organizations all helping to make a difference to help end energy poverty. Consider contributing. The list is not all inclusive nor intended to be a specific endorsement but is a good and efficient starting point.  I hope you find it useful and welcome your additions, critiques and ideas for the list. Thanks in advance for your help.

Select Non-profit Organizations Addressing Energy Poverty:
Ashden Trust: http://www.ashden.org
Energy for All: http://www.energyforall.info
Engineers without Borders http://www.ewb-usa.org/our-story/about-us
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves: http://www.cleancookstoves.org
Grid Alternatives: http://www.gridalternatives.org/where-we-work
ImpactCarbon: http://impactcarbon.org
Innovation: Africa http://www.innoafrica.org/projects.html
Light Foundation: http://www.lightfoundation.org/who-we-are
Practical Action: http://practicalaction.org/energy
Sirona Cares: http://www.sironacares.org
SolarAid: http://www.solar-aid.org
Solar Electric Light Fund: http://self.org
Solar Sister: http://www.solarsister.org
STG International: http://www.stginternational.org
Unite to Light: http://www.unite-to-light.org
US Aid http://www.usaid.gov/powerafrica

Select Non-Profit Agencies and Organizations Addressing General Global Poverty And Energy Poverty
CARE: http://www.care-international.org
ONE: http://www.one.org/us/issues/energy/
Rockefeller Foundation: http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/our-work/current-work/smart-power-india
UNICEF: https://www.unicefusa.org/donate/end-preventable-child-deaths/20281?gclid=CKDsxs_d5sICFc9lfgoddkwAmA
United Nations Foundation: http://www.unfoundation.org/blog/ending-extreme-poverty.html


Diverse Viewpoints and General Information on Energy Poverty:
http://www.cgdev.org/blog/seven-graphics-explain-energy-poverty-and-how-us-can-do-much-more
http://www.one.org/us/energy/
http://www.iea.org/topics/energypoverty/
http://www.se4all.org/our-vision/our-objectives/universal-energy/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2014/07/15/its-time-to-flip-the-switch-on-energy-poverty/
http://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Powering-the-Fight-Against-Poverty
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/sorry-bill-gates-but-you-are-wrong-about-energy-poverty-79861
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus//its-not-about-the-climate/
http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/energy-pragmatism_17.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_poverty

One Way to Help Fund Your Contributions to Help End Energy Poverty:
http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-carbon-tax-on-me-how-to-cut-emissions.html


Best wishes to all for a productive, peaceful,and healthy New Year.  Let's see what we can do together to help end energy poverty.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Global Energy Security: No Time for Energy Complacency Part 2



     
    Recent world events highlight the criticality of a diverse, dispersed, affordable and available energy supply to meet growing energy demands. Dependence on a single source of energy, a single supplier, or a single geography drives instability and insecurity. Geopolitical constraints in a tight market create unwelcome volatility and can create undesirable leverage to those wielding control over supplies. The complacency with which many view our energy supply quickly evaporates when that supply is threatened.

    Energy optionality requires decades to construct ( see No Time for Energy Complacency http://theenergycollective.com/david-lawrence/449261/no-time-energy-complacency  and Energy Pragmatism http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/energy-pragmatism_17.html) Forward looking countries recognize this, and act accordingly. While recognizing the need for research, innovation and investment in renewable energy to build additional energy capacity and critical mass, these countries take an approach based on current realities and also invest significantly in gas, oil, coal and nuclear – while simultaneously seeking solutions to manage emissions and CO2.  An “eithor / or”  single-issue strategy for energy supply reduces optionality and energy security; an “and” strategy increases both. It's time to take a more inclusive and pragmatic approach to the hard decisions on energy policy and energy security.

    In this regards, oil and gas will continue to play a vital role in providing global energy security. Several weeks ago, I posted an article on the world’s current proved oil reserves and their role in meeting the energy needs of people as demand increases and population grows:  http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/reserve-life-resource-life-and-meeting.html  The article was written in response to misleading newspaper headlines  trumpeting, with remarkable precision, that we have only 53.3 years of oil left.  The accuracy is a bit off. The headline number ( not the conclusion) was based on information provided in BP’s 2014 Annual Statistical Review  and was derived by dividing global proved reserves by the projected production rates of oil.

    Fortunately, proved reserves are just part of the resource story.  They neglect oil and gas yet to be discovered and new plays. Proved reserves are, in part, a function of the price of oil – if oil prices drop and costs remain the same then fewer resources can be recovered economically at that price, and, hence, by definition, fewer proved reserves. Conversely if prices rise or costs drop then proved reserves can increase. And proved reserves are only a portion of ultimate recoverable resources in and around already discovered fields. Advancements in exploration, drilling, completion, development and production technologies continue to add resources during the lifetime of a field or play. The rule is:  Big fields get bigger. And as the resource base grows, the resource life is extended. So, it's probably a bit premature to say we only have a half century of oil left. And it would be misguided to base any policies on this assertion.

   The challenge for oil and gas and energy security though is not so much the total proved reserves or resource base remaining in the earth  - it's the geography of those resources and the pace at which they can be delivered as demand increases. There are ( at least) seven components which could contribute to tension on this supply side of the equation over the next decade and undermine energy security globally, even while production levels in the US reach record levels: 1) production decline rates of existing fields,  2) the pace of unconventional resource development internationally, 3) continual project delays from some of the worlds largest oil and gas developments, 4) smaller global discovery volumes,  5) capital availability and investment levels, 6) Black Swan events  and 7) geopolitical and social disruption impact on exploration and production in major energy producing regions.

1. Decline rates for conventional fields, (albeit poorly understood for some of the worlds larger fields, (which is itself a concern) ) average somewhere around 6 percent. And unconventional oil and gas wells have very rapid decline rates in the first year or two of production, requiring continual drilling to replenish the supply and arrest the decline. To offset these declines and accomodate growth in demand in developing countries, in the next decade the  world will need about 40 million barrels per day of new oil production on stream, much of it from fields that haven’t been developed yet, along with volumes obtained through massive investment in field redevelopment and production optimization. That’s equivalent to about four times the current production of Saudi Arabia and more than twice the US daily crude consumption.   It's a staggering amount of new oil to develop, produce and deliver. If decline rates are actually higher, or if some of the worlds super giant fields begin to struggle, the task will be that much greater.

2. While unconventional resources in North America are adding significantly to reserves, resources and production (with the US now assuming the leadership role in oil and natural gas liquids as well as gas), the pace of unconventionals growth elsewhere continues to languish. Challenges in infrastructure, logistics, technical and operational resources, regulations and policy still need to be overcome. The oil and gas resource is there – in geologic basins in Argentina, Russia, China, Colombia, Mexico, South Africa, Europe, Australia and the Middle East. The real supply side questions in the next 10 years will be whether the operational and commercial  pace of exploration, development and production of the unconventional resources internationally will meet the anticipated demand requirements in a timely and economic manner and how long political and regulatory restrictions delay the exploration and evaluation of resources.

Globally, unit costs for development of unconventional oil and gas exceed those in the US, driven largely by supply chain, logistics and infrastructure limitations. Drilling and hydraulic fracking policies in the face of environmental and social concerns have shut down or delayed exploration in several plays in places like France, Germany and South Africa.  Mineral ownership internationally is typically controlled by the state, compromising the private entrepreneurial incentive present in many locales in the US where mineral rights may be held privately ( although this may be turned to an advantage should governments assume an advocacy role). The engineering and operations learning curve for unconventional gas and oil is still in its infancy in many international plays. Rigs and fracking equipment and supplies are often costly, and few and far between. In many places, there is no oil and gas infrastructure to build on. And uncertainty in policy and regulations or legislative action can lead to extensive delays. For these reasons, a time lag of at least several years in significant production for international unconventional plays should be expected, and the pace of production growth is not likely to approach that of the US, at least in this decade.

3. While there has been some success in project delivery in places like the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico ( which again have infrastructure, logistics and resource advantages)  many major projects, critical to replacing production, face ongoing delays and cost escalation, from the giant Kashagan project in the Caspian, to the pre-salt in Brazil, to Gorgon in Western Australia, to the recovery and development of the large Iraqi oil fields, to exploration and development projects across the Arctic. Each delay in production, while not in itself of major significance, cumulatively create short term and potentially costly tensions in supply scenarios.

4. Conventional oil and gas discovery volumes are getting smaller. According to IHS, the 2013 global oil discovery volume of 13 Bbbl of oil was the lowest it has been since 1952, the number of new field discoveries has fallen by 50%  and the average exploration  success rate is now below 15%. The impact of this on current production is of course not immediate. It can take 5-10 years or more to bring a discovery in a remote region with little infrastructure to first production.  To be sure there have been some strong exploration bright spots and exploration discovery volumes are historically lumpy. But pressures on timeliness of production will continue to mount over the next decade if conventional exploration performance does not improve.

5. The oil and gas industry is a capital intensive business. According to the US EIA, major oil companies major uses of cash( capital spending, dividends, buy backs) this past year totaled $677 billion. The gap between cash from operations and major uses of cash has widened in recent years from a low of $18 billion in 2010 to $100 billion to $120 billion during the past three years. Many companies have been reducing their capital expenditures after a period of significant growth over the last decade. While in the short term this reduction may result in greater focus, more efficient capital deployment and higher returns on capital, if the trend continues, discoveries volumes,  development projects and ultimately  production will lag.

6. The potential for  Black Swan events ( major spills, massive shutdowns etc), whether caused by natural disasters, human error, equipment malfunction, malicious intent or otherwise, while extremely remote, can never be completely and absolutely eliminated. Industry and regulators have done much to improve safety management systems and processes, strengthen competencies, add resources, and provide additional and redundant hardware and inspections. Still, should such an event occur in a prolific hydrocarbon basin, supply disruptions could be significant.

7. Despite the wishes of some, geology does not respect political boundaries. Many areas of large potential eithor are in areas of turmoil or political sensitivity ( e.g. Iraq,  Kurdistan and parts of North Africa, Nigeria, and South China Sea), or require transport of resources across such areas  (e.g. Russia and Ukraine). You can't explore when you’re at war. Other potentially prolific areas, like the Arctic, already facing considerable logistical and development challenges, are continually delayed by regulatory, legal, legislative and political action.  Massive resources in Canadian oil sands await resolution of pipeline issues in the US even while alternative transport solutions are implemented. War, civil unrest, terrorist acts, geopolitical strife, and social and environmental concerns have always been a component of the supply/demand equation, but as demand grows and supply tightens, the ability to accommodate disruptions diminishes. The world has been very fortunate that reductions in oil supply in the Mideast this past year have been offset by increases in unconventional light tight oil and gas in the US.

     Why raise these concerns at a time of significant growth in US oil and gas supply? Certainly there is supply upside too, as best demonstrated by the shale gas and tight oil revolution in the US.  There will be other new plays still just a glimour in a geologist’s eye. Global oil and gas demand may decrease below that of envisioned scenarios through vastly accelerated disruptive deployment of alternative energy technologies or by sustained weak economic growth.

    Still, today, over 55 percent of the worlds primary energy consumption is oil and natural gas and demand continues to grow, driven by emerging economies and the increased use of gas in power generation. The global energy supply of that oil and gas  (which so many take for granted, and which some would want to see curtailed or even abandoned), does not come easily or in one smooth upward trending planning curve. Of course, trading volatility mirrors this reality in the short term. But in planning for energy needs to meet national and global requirements, challenges faced in delivering oil and gas production shouldn’t be dismissed in a time of apparent abundance or misdirected towards discussion of perceived stranded assets. The world will need this base load of global energy to feed, clothe, shelter, transport, care for and educate a population that will grow at an average rate of well over a million people per week until the middle of this century. Energy drives our economies and our lifestyle and is crucial to lift people from a life of hardship and poverty: for schools, farms, businesses, hospitals, and industry – and to meet basic needs.

     Energy policies forged in times of crisis are typically too little and too late. Pragmatic policies that encourage access, investment, innovation, technology development and deployment across all energy sectors, including oil, gas, renewables, nuclear and coal will be essential to provide energy security and meet the energy needs of people everywhere, while managing emissions and CO2. Better to act when you can than when you must.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

No Time for Energy Complacency


The United States produced 11 million barrels of oil and natural gas liquids per day in the first quarter of 2014,  overtaking Saudi Arabia as the number one producer in the world. Already, in 2010, the US had made its mark as the number one producer of natural gas. This enormous accomplishment, unthinkable just a decade ago, was a product of  technical, operational and commercial tenacity and innovation, coupled with the efforts of a skilled and available workforce, a solid supply chain foundation, the availability of capital and a fiscal and mineral ownership system that incentivizes production.

Meanwhile, this past year,  the world’s reserve base continued to grow,  even while demand continued to increase. According to the BP Statistical Review of 2014, global oil reserves rose by 600 million barrels to 1,688 billion barrels in 2013, an increase of 27% over a decade earlier, despite cumulative production of 332 billion barrels during this same period. Gas reserves grew by 19%,  while production grew by 29%. Resource growth was enabled by unconventional oil and gas success, engineering innovation, delivery of new projects, successful new exploration plays, technical advancements across the entire exploration and production value chain, significant investment over the past decade and improved access to prospective basins.

Global energy consumption growth also accelerated in 2013, from 1.8 percent to 2.3 percent, slightly below the 10 year average growth rate of 2.5 percent.  BP’s annual review revealed that consumption and production increased for all fuels, reaching record levels for every fuel type except nuclear power. Somewhat alarmingly, for all fossil fuels,  global consumption rose more rapidly than production.

Still, with all the success in adding resources and production, and even with significant progress in renewables, it's no time for energy complacency.

Today, some see a future with so much oil and gas resource, and so little need for that resource given its carbon footprint, that trillions of dollars of carbon-rich assets will be left stranded.  Perhaps. But such scenarios heavily discount some elements of current reality: the dominance of oil, gas and coal in today's energy use ( more than 80% of primary energy consumption), the future energy needs of people in undeveloped countries striving to lift themselves from energy poverty ( 1.3 billion people today have no access to electricity), the magnitude of new oil and gas resources required to simply replace existing production decline in developed fields ( ~ 6% per year), and the growth of existing economies and emerging economies built on affordable, available and reliable energy.

World energy demand is likely to increase by around 40% in the next two decades, driven largely by the needs of emerging economies, and despite the best efforts of conservation and energy efficiency.  All energy sources will be required to meet this demand. Energy scenarios which minimize the role of oil, gas,  coal and nuclear to help meet these needs require a rate of market penetration of renewable energy at an unprecedented pace. Even with the welcome possibility of disruptive technologies, breakthrough acceleration of market share for renewable energy is an especially challenging task given 1) the enormity of the global energy scale, 2)  the incumbency and residency times  of planes, trains, automobiles, ships, trucks, heavy equipment, power plants, furnaces, smelters, factories, homes, hospitals, schools, businesses and infrastructure already in place relying on fossil fuels, 3) the magnitude of projects currently under construction ( for example, 1900 coal-power plants planned around the globe), 4) the often lower economic returns of renewable projects relative to other investment opportunities and consequent difficult availability of  large amounts of capital and 5) the low operational and high retirement costs for already built assets. For these reasons (and cost, availability and reliability)  the demand for fossil fuels today is increasing, not decreasing worldwide.

Massively increased research, innovation and investment across the entire energy sector  – solar, wind, battery storage, hydrogen,  coal ( clean coal, CCS), oil, gas and, yes, nuclear – is essential to meet the energy needs of our growing population while reducing the carbon footprint of that necessary energy. Energy pragmatism also helps. Low carbon scenarios become more plausible  when they embrace technologies like CCS and clean coal and step changes in energy efficiency. The scenarios gain more substance when natural gas is considered a key component of the solution rather than a problem, and the revitalization of nuclear power is again placed in the mix. And every new technology and breakthrough in renewable energy implemented on a commercial scale and providing cost competitive power to consumers provides more credibility and momentum than a hundred op-eds. We should support these efforts through investment.

Given the ever expanding energy demands of the world’s growing population, and the energy poverty in which so many live, our greatest concern should be the complacency with which so many view our energy supply. If supplies were constricted, whether by choice, depletion, natural or man-made disasters or geopolitics who would  want to have to choose between the energy haves and have nots?

On the demand side, some low carbon scenarios envision startlingly low levels of energy consumption, especially in the developing world.  Currently, the IEA defines “modern energy access” for those living in energy poverty in places like sub-Saharan Africa as 50 to 100 kWh/person/year - almost enough to power a  60W light bulb for five hours per day for a year. The average American would use that much energy in just three days. So, while a laudible first step on the energy ladder, would you want that for your own children?  Clearly, more energy will be required.

Even the IEA low level of modern energy access is considered high by some searching for more pragmatic energy solutions to help those living in energy poverty. In a recent report from the Sierra Club, Clean Energy Services for All (CES4All),  the first tier of energy access provides a person just 10 kWh of electricity per year -  less than 0.1 % of the  average American’s consumption of 13,000 kWh of electricity per year.  Is it realistic or desirable to assume this kind of level of energy use in energy planning? Shouldn’t we aspire for more?

The CES4All report clearly sees 10kWh per person per year as only a starting point  in alleviating energy poverty, recognizing the urgent need for implementing off grid solutions and the limited availability of investment capital. You have to start someplace.  But the point here is that to truly help those most in need will ultimately require significantly more energy – not less.

The people of the world need energy now. Complacency regarding meeting energy resource requirements when and where they are needed should be a greater concern now than concern over such issues as future stranded assets.  The  great challenge across the energy sector will be meeting continually growing demand in a timely fashion, without significant economic and societal disruption, and while reducing CO2.  The next article in this series will take a deeper look into this challenge, starting with oil and gas.

Additional posts on related topics by David Lawrence:

Energy Pragmatism http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/energy-pragmatism_17.html

Who Determines  Energy Haves and Have Nots http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/who-will-determine-energy-haves-and_23.html

Reserve Life, Resource Life and Meeting World Energy Needs http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/reserve-life-resource-life-and-meeting.htm

Monday, June 30, 2014

Reserve Life, Resource Life and Meeting World Energy Needs


A national newspaper headline this past week stated we have 53.3 years of oil left. The precision is remarkable, but the accuracy is a bit off.

The story was based on information in BP’s 2014 Annual Statistical Review  and was derived by dividing global proved reserves by production rates of oil.

Fortunately, proved reserves are just part of the resource story. They neglect oil and gas yet to be discovered and new plays.  And they are only a portion of ultimate recoverable resources in and around already discovered fields. Advancements in exploration, drilling, completion, development and production technologies continue to add resources during the lifetime of a field or play. The best recent example of this is in unconventional oil and gas: the shale plays, and light tight oil ( for example the growth of the Bakken, Eagleford, Marcellus and Permian). But it's true in conventional fields as well. A prime example is the new Shell Mars B development in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico which recently came on production in the prolific Mars Basin.  The same applies to most of the other big deep water fields around the world as well as the giant fields of the Mideast, the North Slope of Alaska, Latin America and the Far East – in fact most of the largest discoveries of the past century. The rule is:  Big fields get bigger. And as the resource base grows, the reserve base also grows, and both reserve life and the resource life are extended.  History supports this:  Proved reserves have more than doubled since 1980 – even while the world consumed more oil in that time period than it had proved reserves in 1980. 

So, it's probably a bit  premature to say we only have a half century of oil left. To be fair, the newspaper story actually recognized this early on in the body of the article ( and, clearly, the original BP review took the broader view of resource growth and historical increase in reserves.) Hopefully readers made it past the sound byte of the headline.

Why is this important? The world needs energy to feed, clothe, shelter, transport, care for and educate a population that will grow at an average rate of over a million people per week until the middle of this century. Energy is crucial to lift people from a life of hardship and poverty: for schools, farms, businesses, hospitals, and industry – and to meet basic needs.

Today in this rapidly expanding world, 1.3 billion people have no access to electricity, and nearly 900 million still use unsafe drinking water.  More than 2.5 billion people still rely on biomass, like wood and dung, for cooking.  The dilemna we face is that under almost any energy scenario, world energy demand will continue to grow at a pace even greater than the pace of population growth – this despite the best efforts of increased efficiency and conservation efforts.

To the  worlds emerging economies and for the livelihoods and health of people around the world, affordable, available and reliable energy is essential.  It is highly likely that, even while renewable energy makes gigantic and welcome strides, at least until the middle of this century the majority of that affordable energy supply will still need to come from oil, natural gas and coal, and as is increasingly evident nuclear.  As I’ve discussed in a previous article, ( see Energy Pragmatism http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/energy-pragmatism_17.html )  only the most innovative technologies, policies and investments across all energy sectors will allow us to both meet the energy needs of the world and mitigate the impacts of that very energy.

And that's why it's important that we have more than 53.3 years of oil left. And why it's important to read beyond the headlines.