Celebrating with the 1960’s Chad and Jeremy classic “A Summer Song” and the beautiful “Song of Summer Solstice” (Sweden).
Archive for the ‘climate’ Category
Happy Summer Solstice!
Posted in climate, Uncategorized, tagged A Summer Song, Song of Summer Solstice, Summer Solstice on June 21, 2022| Leave a Comment »
Discontent with the Climate Office?
Posted in climate, Offshore Energy - General, tagged 5 year leasing plan, Climate Office, offshore leasing on June 10, 2022| 1 Comment »
Several Democrats both in and out of the administration laid out their discontent with the office, led by National Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy, over its involvement in other agencies’ work, saying it slowed down several high-profile agenda items.
The Democrats said the office has gotten in the way of agency rulemakings. A Democratic Hill staffer told Zack the office edited and chose the day after Thanksgiving to release last year’s long-awaited Interior Department report on the federal oil and gas leasing program.
More on the leasing report cited in the above quote.
I guess we can assume that the Climate Office is currently reviewing the Proposed 5 Year Leasing Program that the Department of the Interior has promised to release by June 30. Is DOI subordinate to the Climate Office?
HSBC exec suspended for questioning climate hysteria
Posted in climate, energy policy, tagged climate, HSBC, Stuart KIrk on May 26, 2022| Leave a Comment »
His speech began with a slide declaring that “unsubstantiated, shrill, partisan, self-serving, apocalyptic warnings are ALWAYS wrong.” Stuart Kirk, HSBC
Financial Times
Here is the presentation that caused the furor:
Sadly, any oil industry exec who dared to publicly question climate orthodoxy would face a similar or worse fate.
I do like this very sensible quote:
A former Blackrock executive focused on sustainable investment said Kirk’s remarks had “done us a service” in discussions on climate change risk by “infusing a dose of honesty into a debate that is otherwise leading us nowhere,”
NY Post
Stupid use or stupid comment?
Posted in climate, energy policy, natural gas, Russia, tagged CCS, Enel, natural gas on May 24, 2022| Leave a Comment »
I vote for stupid comment.
The CEO of Italian power firm Enel has cast doubt on the continued benefit of using gas to produce electricity, telling CNBC it is “stupid” and that cheaper and better alternatives are now available.
“You can produce electricity better, cheaper, without using gas … Gas is a precious molecule and you should leave it for … applications where that is needed,” he added.
Francesco Starace to CNBC
Gas is scarce and expensive in Europe because of bad foreign and energy policy decisions, most notably dependence on Russia and unrealistic expectations regarding renewables. Mr. Starace seems intent on doubling down on the latter. Of course, Enel is a large renewable energy generator and a natural gas purchaser and consumer (not a producer). His comments are thus rather self-serving.
I do agree with Enel on CCS:
Although the company could rely on carbon offsets or carbon capture to hit that target, Bernabei said the technology has failed to take off, despite receiving funding from the EU and national governments. He said there is no reason to expect that situation to change, especially since carbon capture and storage, or CCS, technology is not guaranteed to eliminate 100% of emissions.
“These are very big and complex projects. And at the end, they will not solve the problem,” Bernabei said. “We already tried CCS in the past and it didn’t lead to success. So why do it again?”
SPGlobal
Lithium shortage? Petroleum engineers to the rescue!
Posted in climate, drilling, energy, tagged Kyung Jae Lee, lithium, Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania, Petroleum Engineer, University of Houston on May 23, 2022| Leave a Comment »
Through her research of Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale play, Lee found that highly concentrated lithium was found in the produced water (water produced as a byproduct during the extraction of oil and natural gas) along with produced natural gas and oil.
“We found lithium in the petroleum-based rock brines, which opens new pathways to address the shale plays as a substantial source of lithium, given that they are ubiquitous in the U.S.,” Lee said.
University of Houston
As energy prices soar, remember these 3 things…
Posted in climate, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged 5 year leasing plan, DC Federal Court, India coal, Lease Sale 257, oil prices on May 18, 2022| Leave a Comment »
- Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 257 was vacated on 1/27/2022 because DC Federal Court Judge Contreras ruled that BOEM failed to consider the “positive” effect that higher prices (the logical result of lower production) would have on reducing foreign consumption and the associated GHG emissions. Think about that in the context of the timing and magnitude of this ruling. Why did the court fail to consider the other logical consequences of tight oil supplies and higher prices – increased coal consumption and energy poverty? To avoid the latter, India, the world’s second largest coal producer and consumer, is boosting coal production to record highs.
- The Administration, which had only proceeded with Sale 257 because a prior court ruling invalidated the President’s leasing pause, chose not to appeal the decision by Judge Contreras. Why appeal a decision that is consistent with your agenda?
- The legislatively mandated 5 year leasing program, without which no Federal offshore leases sales may be conducted, expires at the end of June. This is why last week’s cancellation of the 3 remaining sales in the current 5 year program was rather meaningless. Despite bipartisan congressional support for prompt completion of a new 5 year plan, this does not appear to be a high priority for the Department of the Interior. The only hope for a sale this year might be a successful appeal by Lousisiana and API of Judge Contreras’s Sale 257 ruling.
Interesting shareholder votes
Posted in climate, energy policy, Uncategorized, tagged bp, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, energy transition, Exxon, Marathon, Oxy, Shell, targets on May 17, 2022| Leave a Comment »
From Reuters article:
- bp: Only 15% of shareholder votes backed a call for the company to accelerate its energy transition, compared with the 21% in favor in a similar vote last year.
- Oxy: Only 17% of investors backed a call for emissions-reduction targets. (I wonder how Buffett voted 😀)
- Marathon: 16% supported a measure calling for the company to report on how its transition plans affected workers and communities
- ConocoPhillips: 42% supported an emissions-reductions targeting measure vs. 58% last year.
Exxon, Shell, and Chevron are on deck!
Important hydrogen transmission study
Posted in climate, Offshore Wind, Wind Energy, tagged hydrogen embrittlement, hydrogen transmission, PG&E, Rick Carrier on May 17, 2022| Leave a Comment »
PG&E will conduct a study of different levels of hydrogen blends in a multi-feed, multi-directional natural gas pipeline system that is separate from its current natural gas transmission system.
The study will help to determine the extent to which hydrogen can be transported in natural gas pipelines without introducing embrittlement and other pipeline safety risks.
Good advice to industry execs from Congressman Donalds
Posted in climate, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Uncategorized, tagged bullying, Byron Donalds, Congress, JustSayNo on May 16, 2022| Leave a Comment »
The video below is from 6 months ago but is even more relevant today. Those who produce nothing but insults shouldn’t be dictating corporate strategy.
Amen Byron!
Questions about Gulf of Mexico carbon sequestration
Posted in CCS, climate, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, pipelines, Regulation, tagged BOEM, carbon sequestration, CCS, DOI, Exxon, Gulf of Mexico, infrastructure bill, Lease Sale 257, OCS Lands Act on May 12, 2022| Leave a Comment »
Background:
- A provision in the “Infrastructure Bill” that was enacted on 11/15/2021 amended the OCS Lands Act to provide for offshore carbon sequestration.
- Because carbon disposal is arguably dumping, the legislation included an exemption from the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries (Ocean Dumping) Act of 1972.
- The bill mandated that the Secretary of the Interior (DOI) promulgate implementing regulations within one year (l.e. by 11/15/2022).
- These provisions were added to the bill without debate and their inclusion was a surprise to most observers. Presumably, DOI had the opportunity to review the text, because that is standard practice.
- The legislation also authorized $2.5 billion for commercial sequestration projects.
- 2 days after the Infrastructure Bill was signed (11/17/2022), Exxon was the only bidder (Oil and Gas Lease Sale 257) on 94 nearshore tracts off the Texas coast. The sale notice did not mention carbon sequestration; nor had DOI assessed the potential environmental impacts of sequestration as required by NEPA.
- Sale 257 was vacated by the DC Federal Court for reasons unrelated to the sequestration bids.
Questions:
- What are the costs per ton of offshore carbon sequestration including emissions collection, offshore wells and platforms, the associated pipeline infrastructure, ongoing operational and maintenance costs, and decommissioning?
- What is the timeframe given that the starting point is likely years away?
- How long would CO2 sequestration continue.
- Who pays? Polluters? Federal subsidies? Tax credits?
- Who is liable for:
- safety and environmental incidents associated with these projects?
- CO2 that escapes from reservoirs, wells, and pipelines (now and centuries from now)?
- decommissioning?
- hurricane preparedness and damage?
- For Gulf of Mexico sequestration, how much energy would be consumed per ton of CO2 injected? Power source? Emissions?
- To what extent will these operations interfere with other offshore activities?
- Relatively speaking, how important is US sequestration given:
- the steady progress that is being made via natural gas and renewables?
- the massive emissions elsewhere?
- the continued growth in worldwide coal consumption?
- What are the benefits of offshore sequestration relative to investments in other carbon reduction alternatives?
- Will BOEM conduct a proper carbon sequestration lease sale with public notice (as required by BOEM regulations) such that all interested parties can bid?
- What will be the lease terms?
- Environmental assessment?
- How will bids be evaluated?
- What happens to the Exxon bids if the Judge’s Sale 257 decision is reversed?
- What is the status of the DOI regulations mandated in the legislation with an 11/15/2022 deadline?
- When will we see an Advanced Notice or Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
- Given that DOI has no jurisdiction over the State waters and onshore aspects of these projects, what is the status of parallel regulatory initiatives?
- Finally and most importantly, how does drilling offshore sequestration wells instead of exploration and development wells increase oil and gas production?
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 