Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘climate’ Category

Danish Tax Minister Jeppe Bruus boasts that other countries will be inspired by the world’s first tax on livestock emissions. Are you inspired?

Not at all inspiring was Denmark’s weak-kneed response to the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines near the Danish island of Bornholm. After 17 months of investigation, Denmark meekly declined to pursue criminal charges or even to release a report on their findings. How does the “world’s climate leader” simply shrug its shoulders after investigating a massive methane release in their waters?

A recent professional paper concludes that 478,000 tons of methane were released to the atmosphere as a result of the Nord Stream sabotage, making this “the world’s largest natural gas leak.” The Nord Stream sabotage thus released 3.6 times the amount of methane (133,000 tons) contributed by Danish livestock in an entire year. The total amount of methane released by the Nord Stream pipelines is also 2.5 times the entire amount attributed by EPA to all Gulf of Mexico producers in 2020.

Denmark and Sweden have concluded that “there was deliberate sabotage of the gas pipelines.” The Nord Stream insurers claim that “a government did it.” So which government was it? Why are sovereign governments of affected nations afraid or otherwise unwilling to comment on such a consequential attack?

Read Full Post »

Carbon sequestration (i.e. subsurface disposal) is a controversial and divisive topic, and important questions regarding the costs and benefits remain. Nonetheless, the Infrastructure Bill of 2021 authorized the disposal of CO2 on the OCS, and stipulated that the Secretary of the Interior promulgate regulations for that purpose. However, that major task cannot be completed without a better understanding of the potential environmental impacts.

BOEM has announced a study (see attached pages from their new Environmental Studies Plan) to consider the potential for CO2 leakage and related environmental concerns. A few excerpts from BOEM’s summary follow:

Problem:  Potential CO2 leakage from carbon sequestration (CS) project activities could occur via a number of pathways. Few studies model and/or measure CO2 leakage, transport, dispersion, attenuation, and environmental impacts in the offshore environment, and those that do exist are preliminary. 

Intervention:   BOEM needs more information about the dynamics, fate, transport, and potential environmental impacts of CO2 leakage under various scenarios, including worst-case, on the OCS to inform the new nationwide CS Program and to protect the environment from CO2 leakage. 

Comparison:   The study will model CO2 leakage under various scenarios, including worst-case scenarios, using the GOM OCS Region as a case-study and can be applied to all OCS regions. Outcome The leakage and worst-case scenario modeling will aid BOEM’s ongoing rulemaking efforts, program development and implementation, and future operational needs including NEPA analyses, lease planning, lease stipulations, consultations, plan and permit approvals, mitigation measures, risk assessment and monitoring requirements, etc. Study results will also provide direction for future studies to include field and/or laboratory analyses.

The performance period for this important study extends through 2027, so it’s hard to envision final CS regulations prior to that date. You can’t issue regulations without first assessing the potential harm that could result from their promulgation (as required by NEPA).

BOEM’s summary mentions “the anticipation of a CS lease sale in the GOM after final regulations are published.” Hopefully, this also means that BOEM will not permit improperly acquired oil and gas leases (Sales 257, 259, and 261) to be converted to CS leases.

Read Full Post »

At Sale 261, Repsol was the sole bidder for 36 nearshore Texas tracts in the Mustang Island and Matagorda Island areas (red blocks at the western end of the map above). Exxon acquired 163 nearshore Texas tracts (blue in map above) at Sales 257 (94) and 259 (69).
  • The 199 oil and gas leases that were wrongfully acquired for carbon disposal purposes remain idle with the government collecting rental payments at the rate of $10/acre/yr ($7 for Sale 257 leases). Collectively, this amounts to approximately $10 million/yr.
  • Presumably, the lessees cannot claim CCS tax credits for their bonus and rental payments.
  • The primary term for these leases is only 5 years, and the clock is ticking. The 94 oil and gas leases acquired by Exxon at Sale 257 for carbon disposal purposes are approaching the end of their second year. They would be almost a year older if litigation hadn’t delayed the issuance of Sale 257 leases (break for Exxon?).
  • No exploration plans have been filed for any of these leases. Presumably Exxon and Repsol do not intend to drill any wells unless the leases are converted to authorize carbon disposal.
  • The “Infrastructure Bill,” signed 2 days before Sale 257, required the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations not later than one year after the date of enactment (11/15/2021). That deadline has long passed.
  • The delay in the regulations is understandable given the complex lease management, operational, and environmental issues.
  • Like the practices and operations they are intended to enable, the regulations are certain to be divisive. Neither the offshore industry nor the environmental community are of one mind on these issues, particularly with regard to the acquisition of oil and gas leases for carbon disposal purposes.
  • Energy Intelligence suggests that final carbon disposal regulations will be promulgated this year. This is highly unlikely, given that a proposed rule must first be published for public comment.
  • Interior could seek to demonstrate “good cause” for a direct final or interim final rule. However, such an attempt at corner-cutting is unlikely, especially given the controversy associated with carbon disposal.
  • Publication of a proposed rule prior to the election is unlikely – too controversial.
  • Presumably, the regulations will establish a competitive process for the conversion of any oil and gas leases.
  • The leases that were wrongfully acquired at Sales 257, 259, and 261 should not be extended for any period of time, even if their expiration date approaches before a competitive process is established.

Closing comment: “Sequestration” is a euphemism that is being incorrectly applied to soften the reality of disposing carbon beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Sequestration implies storage for later use and that is clearly not the intent. Because carbon disposal is arguably dumping, a special exemption from the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries (Ocean Dumping) Act of 1972 had to be added to the Infrastructure Bill.

Read Full Post »

“Exxon Mobil has led a persistent and apparently successful lobbying campaign behind the scenes to push the US federal government to adopt rules that would allow the conversion of existing oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico into offshore carbon capture and storage (CCS) acreage, according to documents seen by Energy Intelligence and numerous interviews with industry players.” Energy Intelligence

The Energy Intelligence article documents the ongoing carbon disposal lobbying by Exxon and others. Those meetings are okay prior to publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for public comment. However, the article implies that the next step is a final rule: “Whether or not Exxon succeeds will become fully clear when the US issues final rules guiding CCS leasing, expected sometime this year.”

A final rule this year is unlikely, because an NPRM has to be published first for public comment. The only exception would be if BOEM was able to establish “good cause” criteria for a direct final or interim final rule in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. Such an attempt at corner cutting seems unlikely, especially in an election year when all regulatory actions are subject to additional scrutiny.

Exxon must have thought they had a clear path forward after 11th hour additions to the “Infrastructure Bill” authorized carbon disposal on the OCS, exempted such disposal from the Ocean Dumping Act, and provided $billions for CCS projects. Keep in mind that the Infrastructure Bill was signed just two days before OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 257, at which Exxon acquired 94 leases for carbon disposal purposes.

What the Infrastructure Bill did not provide is authority to acquire carbon disposal leases at an oil and gas lease sale. Now the lobbyists are apparently scrambling to overcome that obstacle administratively.

BOEM, which arguably made a mistake in accepting irregular carbon disposal bids at the last 3 oil and gas sales, should not amplify Exxon’s unfair advantage (also Repsol at Sale 261) by allowing the conversion of these leases (map below). This is not a small matter given that Exxon has publicly projected that carbon disposal is a $4 trillion market opportunity.

A single company or small group of companies should not be dictating the path forward for the Gulf of Mexico. Super-major Exxon is a relative minnow in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. They have not drilled an exploratory well since 2018, not drilled a development well since 2019, operate only one platform (Hoover, installed in 2000), ranked 11th in 2023 oil production, and ranked 29th in 2023 gas production.

Lastly, and most importantly, public comment on the myriad of technical, financial, and policy issues associated with GoM carbon disposal is imperative. That input is essential before final regulations are promulgated.

At Sale 261, Repsol was the sole bidder for 36 nearshore Texas tracts in the Mustang Island and Matagorda Island areas (red blocks at the western end of the map above). Exxon acquired 163 nearshore Texas tracts (blue in map above) at Sales 257 and 259.

Read Full Post »

Our last Nord Stream pipeline post discussed the Nord Stream AG suit to recover damage costs from insurers Lloyd’s and Arch.

In a court document (excerpt below) obtained by Swedish engineer Erik Andersson, Lloyd’s and Arch assert that the damage was inflicted by, or under order of, a government , and therefore the insurers are not liable.

Given that the suspect governments have denied responsibility, shouldn’t the insurers have to prove that a government did it, and identify the government? That is what Nord Stream AG is asserting in their filing (except below).

Long, but interesting video with Erik Andersson:

Read Full Post »

… and you deniers are fully responsible. There’s a reason why Texas is the most affected state 😉

But fear not, we will line our shores with wind turbines, restrict offshore oil and gas leasing, and subsidize carbon disposal in the Gulf of Mexico. All of this “help” will have a negligible effect on the climate, which will continue to change as it always has and always will.

Read Full Post »

Add Dunkelflaute to the list of interesting and expressive compound German words. Die Dunkelflaute is a dark lull, a period of time in which minimal energy can be generated by the sun or wind. More specifically in German:

Die Dunkelflaute als sogenanntes Kofferwort beschreibt das gleichzeitige Auftreten von Dunkelheit und Windflaute. Diese Wetterlage entsteht typischerweise im Winter und sorgt für geringe Erträge aus Solar- und Windenergie bei gleichzeitig saisonal hohem Strombedarf. Eine Dunkelflaute kann mehrere Tage andauern. Kommen zu Dunkelheit und Windflaute noch niedrige Temperaturen hinzu, die für gewöhnlich den Strombedarf weiter ansteigen lassen, spricht man auch von “kalter Dunkelflaute.”

Note the prolonged Dunkelflaute (below) during which renewables provided minimal power in the middle of winter.

Unsurprisingly, wind and solar output are the lowest when the temperatures are the coldest. See the Danish summary for 2023 below. Note that wind output was also low when temperatures were above 15 deg. C.

Regional wind energy grids are not always an effective solution as Danish physicist Jens Christiansen, a nuclear energy advocate, has illustrated:

‘The wind always blows somewhere.’ Is that really true though? Here I’ve looked at the capacity factors of wind from five northern European countries in August The winds seem highly correlated, and there is almost a week-long period without significant wind anywhere.

Christiansen illustrates Denmark’s reliance on imported electricity:

Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with electricity imports is that you eventually run out of other people’s electricity.” In the U.S., California imports more electricity than any other state and typically receives between one-fifth and one-third of its electricity supply from outside of the state.

Given that massive battery storage is well beyond current capabilities and restrictions on electricity consumption and economic growth are undesirable, redundant or complementary power sources are essential for a reliable grid. Natural gas power generation is most responsive to variable demand, and is thus a good complement to variable sources like wind turbines and solar panels.

Read Full Post »

…. and gets slammed. 😁

Read Full Post »

I’m posting Sunday’s 60 Minutes segment that focused on deep sea mining and the failure of the US to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Supplementary comments:

  • Most Federal employees involved with ocean energy policy, past and present, have supported US government ratification of UNCLOS.
  • The offshore industry has long supported UNCLOS. Industry trade associations, including API, IADC, and NOIA, are on the record as favoring ratification.
  • While concerns about UN management of deep sea mining access are understandable, some coordinated administrative structure is needed.
  • The Metals Company and other companies pursuing deep sea mining opportunities clearly disagree with the assertion that ocean floor mineral harvesting is not economically viable.
  • While it’s too soon to draw firm conclusions, there are reasons to believe that deep sea mining is environmentally preferable to onshore mining.

Read Full Post »

Unsurprisingly, the winner is natural gas.

A new report ranks eight key energy industry sectors based on their ability to meet the growing demand for affordable, reliable, and clean electric power generation.

As governments around the nation attempt to impose a transition from traditional energy resources to energy sources open referred to as renewables, natural gas is the energy source that is best suited to integrate with the intermittency inherent in the use of wind and solar. Gas provides a reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean source of energy in both traditional and “carbon-constrained” applications.

Gas faces headwinds in the form of increasingly extreme net zero energy policies that will constrict supplies if implemented as proposed. Gas could also improve overall reliability if onsite storage was prioritized to help avoid supply disruptions that can occur in just-in-time pipeline deliveries during periods of extreme weather and demand.

MCPP-NWU Report Card

This blog has been saluting natural gas for years, most recently in this post. From an environmental standpoint, offshore natural gas production is particularly attractive, especially nonassociated gas-well gas.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »