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.
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.
Rep. @ByronDonalds: "How do we ever expect to beat [China] on the world stage when we're cutting our neck when it comes to energy production while they are burning more coal, burning more oil, they're increasing their emissions and they're not showing up in Scotland." pic.twitter.com/WnIyUbKKPG
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.
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?
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?
Given the importance of flaring and venting from both environmental and resource conservation standpoints, accurate and reliable data are necessary and should be readily available to the public. ONRR has advised me that they will begin posting flaring and venting data on their website within 2 months. This is a positive step. Currently, data from the 3 primary sources differ considerably.
Data Sources:
US Energy Information Administration (EIA): Per EIA, their flaring and venting data are received directly from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).
Office of Natural Resources Revenue: ONRR is a sister bureau of BSEE within the Department of the Interior. Per BSEE regulations, all flared or vented gas must be reported to ONRR. As noted above, ONRR will begin regularly posting flaring and venting data within the next 2 months. This is a most welcome and positive step and may help address these inconsistency issues.
World Bank Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership: “a multi-donor trust fund composed of governments, oil companies, and multilateral organizations committed to ending routine gas flaring at oil production sites across the world.”
Comments:
The EIA (from BSEE) and ONRR flaring/venting numbers should be the same given that the ONRR data are reported in accordance with BSEE regulations, and BSEE is presumably providing ONRR data to EIA. This needs to be clarified.
The World Bank’s gas flaring estimates are based on observations from satellites. This explains their lower numbers given that vented gas would not be detected and some flares might be missed.
In a 1/2021 interview with World Oil, the exiting BSEE Director commented that the “industry has consistently achieved a ratio of less than 1.25% of flared, vented gas to produced gas.” However, based on EIA flaring and venting data (from BSEE per EIA) and EIA gas production data, the volume of gas flared/vented exceeded 1.25% of the gas produced from 2016-2020 and was as high as 1.8% in 2019. (See the chart below.) Even if the lower ONRR flaring/venting totals are used, those volumes exceeded 1.25% in 2019 (1.5%).
BSEE/ONRR should make more detailed flaring/venting data available so that the differences between facilities and sectors (e.g. deepwater vs. shelf) could be assessed. Efforts should also be made to post these data in a more timely manner. At this time, 2021 data are still not available.
p. 17 – “The 2015 BSEE/BOEM study on reducing methane emissions observed that “while natural gas production has declined, …vented and flared gas volumes as a percentage of produced natural gas are increasing” and noted that additional investigation is needed to determine why.” This is consistent with my observations and is probably due in large part to the fact that most gas production is now from oil-wells (e.g. associated gas).
p. 24 – “Argonne estimates, in 2015, platform startups for deep-water floating structures accounted for roughly 15% of the total annual flaring volume on the OCS and an additional 20% of the annual total resulted from monthly spikes associated with compressor outage, pipeline maintenance, and well-unloading.”
Univ. of Michigan study (2020): “Large, older facilities situated in shallow waters tended to produce episodic, disproportionally high spikes of methane emissions. These facilities, which have more than seven platforms apiece, contribute to nearly 40% of emissions, yet consist of less than 1% of total platforms.”
This is a great Gary Brookins cartoon from March 2006 that has been featured in some of my presentations. We now have only one month until the official start of the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season so my post is a bit late! However, the season peaks in mid-September, so you could also argue that I’m posting this too early!
In addition to the obvious concerns about depleting the strategic petroleum reserve, further mortgaging our economic future, and increasing national security risks, the directive to withdrawal 1 million BOPD from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 6 months raises a few comments specific to US offshore production:
The 1 million BOPD withdrawal is equivalent to ~60% of the daily production from the entire Gulf of Mexico offshore sector. How will this massive 6-month withdrawal will effect regional markets and logistics?
Will the Dept. of Energy have to assess the GHG effects associated with their withdrawal of oil from the SPR? More specifically, will DOE be required to assess the increase in GHG emissions as a result of the increased foreign oil consumption that will result from the reduction in oil prices? This is what Judge Contreras ordered BOEM to do when he vacated Gulf of Mexico sale 257.
If it’s okay to produce and consume oil from the SPR facilities (mapped below), why is new leasing and exploration being constrained in the adjacent Gulf of Mexico?
UAE Energy Minister Suhail al-Mazrouei has most definitely not forgotten:
“I think in COP 26 all the producers felt they were uninvited and unwanted but now we are again superheroes, it’s not going to work like that,” he said.
ClientEarth, a Shell shareholder, notified the energy major on Monday that it would commence legal proceedings against the company’s 13 executive and non-executive directors for what it said was the board’s failure to adopt a strategy that “truly aligns” with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The not-for-profit group, which has a strong record of winning climate-related cases, wrote to Shell in advance of petitioning the High Court of England and Wales for permission to bring the claim.
Wind and solar energy are likely to continue growing in importance over the next several decades, but massive space requirements and intermittency may prevent these energy sources from ever being dominant. On the other hand, geothermal power could prove to be the ultimate energy solution if we can effectively drill deep beneath the surface and tap into superheated rock.
Quaise Energy, headed by ex-Schlumberger/MIT engineer Carlos Araque, is developing a radical new approach to ultra-deep drilling. Quaise will use conventional rotary drilling technology to reach basement formations before switching to high-power millimeter waves that vaporize boreholes through rock and provide access to deep geothermal heat. Quaise’s timeline calls for operation of their first full-scale hybrid drilling rig in 2024 and their first super-hot geothermal system in 2028. Those interested in energy solutions should follow their progress.