The Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Lease Sale We Need

Tomorrow’s scheduled Central Gulf of Mexico oil and natural gas lease sale in New Orleans will be the first in that area since March 2010. Setting aside for a moment the two-year gap in exploration and development caused by two years without new sales, tomorrow’s auction is important to America’s economic and energy security.

Unfortunately, the two-year gap is real and has real impact. Because it takes seven to 10 years for an offshore lease to start producing oil or natural gas, there’s a gap in the development timeline. It’s like a vintner who skips two years growing grapes; at some point in the wine-producing process there’ll be a lean vintage year. Here’s a chart that shows the stages and time requirements of offshore development:

A couple of other points about tomorrow’s lease sale, underscored by API’s Upstream and Industry Operations Director Erik Milito during a conference call with reporters: While it’s good the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is holding the sale – which will generate significant industry interest – the areas in the Gulf being offered aren’t new, emphasizing the administration’s restricted approach to developing America’s energy resources. Milito:

“Every lease sale is important, but more important for our energy future than any individual sale is our nation’s broader energy policy framework. That, unfortunately, has been inadequate. The administration’s proposed five-year offshore leasing plan for 2012 through 2017 … would limit offshore development to where it historically has always been – parts of the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska. It would restrict opportunities when it should be expanding them. It would not help prepare us well for our energy future.”

If the energy goal is to reduce oil imports, then tomorrow’s sale reflects a short-sighted vision that will struggle to take us there. Good news: It doesn’t have to be that way. America is energy-rich, with the resources, financial wherewithal and technological know-how to substitute domestic production for much of what we get now from foreign suppliers. It simply takes the right plan, the right approach.

With the right access policies – capitalizing on tight oil and shale gas discoveries, our offshore potential and increased supplies from neighbor and ally Canada – we could see 100 percent of our liquid fuel needs met by 2024, a little more than a decade away. Milito:

“We can do it safely. Industry continues to demonstrate a commitment to continuous improvement in operations to make things safer for our personnel, the public and the environment. In the offshore the industry, working closely with government, has enhanced its ability to prevent, contain and respond to a spill.”

Energy development is a long-term process. Limited vision and action sows seeds for the future. Milito:

“The proposed Department of Interior five-year plan is insufficient, and each year we implement it we will fall further behind what we really should be doing. The administration ought to begin working on a new plan immediately.  … Maintaining the status quo won’t work. Existing wells are continually depleting and need to be replaced with new discoveries. It is also important to open new areas for leasing so that industry can use new exploration technologies that will increase production.”

View the original article here

Lights, Cameras…Fracking!

Great time Thursday night at the grand, lovely Warner Theater in Washington, D.C., for API’s “Big Screen Energy” event, featuring film trailers from pro-energy documentaries on hydraulic fracturing including “Truthland,” “Empire State Divide” and “Frack Nation.” After the trailers, representatives of the films talked about their projects and answered questions from the audience. Some important points that emerged:

#1: Shale Energy = Economic opportunity

For lots of people in the Marcellus Shale portions of Pennsylvania, energy from fracking is helping them alter the courses of their lives. And it could help even more if New York state approves hydraulic fracturing on some scale. “Empire State Divide’s” Karen Moreau said New York agriculture needs working capital to survive. Energy development from that state’s portion of the Marcellus could supply that, keep farms operating and allow them to be handed off to the next generation, said Moreau, who since making her film was named executive director of the New York State Petroleum Council.

#2: Countering Frack Fiction

“Truthland,” featuring Pennsylvania science teacher and mom Shelly Depue, spends much of its 34 minutes dispelling misinformation about hydraulic fracturing and natural gas development. The film is a step toward centering the national fracking debate on science and fact instead of fear and misrepresentation. “Frack Nation’s” Phelim McAleer said some opponents aren’t interested in responsible development; they want to block natural gas altogether.

#3: The Right to Prosper

Moreau said the divide in New York over fracking is actually a property rights test – whether individuals may develop resources on their land. She said some opponents of natural gas development in New York’s southern tier, the counties in the Marcellus along the Pennsylvania border, aren’t residents of those areas. Still, they are trying to control or block development. The contest is still playing out, as state officials weigh how much development, if any, to allow.

Again, the evening provided an interesting perspective on an important public policy issue. At the center of it is a truth, noted by McAleer: the ability of energy to lift lives, to lift standards of living. McAleer said the lack of affordable, reliable energy usually characterizes areas that are impoverished and unhealthy – places where people have little chance to lift themselves. Energy changes that, he said.

In energy from shale, the United States has an historic opportunity to be more prosperous – with abundant fuel for the lifestyles of its citizens and the power to revitalize critical industries like manufacturing and chemicals. The U.S. also can make its future more secure, less dependent on imports. Industry’s role is to develop these resources safely and responsibly. It is doing this while striving to continually improve technologies and performance.

View the original article here

Made in America: For a Sustainable Energy Future

Access, common-sense regulation and a governmental approach that encourages energy investments: Each one is integral to an American-made, more secure energy future. Getting there will require continued improvements in efficiency and investments in renewable energy – two areas where the oil and natural gas industry has been a leader. This is the fourth recommendation in API’s recent report to the two political parties’ platform committees.

Today, the U.S. uses about half as much energy for every dollar of GDP as it did in 1980, according to the Energy Information Administration:

Efficiency helps energy companies manage costs, which in turn makes them more competitive and allows them to bring more affordable energy products to consumers.  Efficiency also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Industry is committed to technologies that help the environment, investing $71 billion in developments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2010 – far more than the federal government ($43 billion) and nearly as much as the rest of domestic private industry combined ($74 billion).

This is what energy companies do. They produce the oil and natural gas that run our economy now and which will continue to fuel it in the future. They work on efficiencies that will make our energy go further. They look to the future for additional resource options that will be necessary to complete the energy picture.

The question is whether governmental policies will or hinder these efforts. Some think the path to our energy future should be selected by Washington, using the tax code to preordain winners and losers. They think an industry sector that contributed nearly a half-trillion dollars to the economy in 2010, which already sends $86 million a day to the U.S. Treasury, should be taxed more.

The wrongheadedness of this path was detailed in a Wood Mackenzie study last fall, which compared the likely results of pro-energy development policies with policies leading to higher energy taxes:

With a pro-development approach, America’s oil and natural gas companies can add jobs, increase energy supply and generate more tax revenue for government. Higher taxes on our industry will likely lose jobs, decrease tax revenue and result in less energy production.

The United States has tremendous energy resources to support and grow our economy and meet the challenges of the future. With the right vision and leadership we can stride into the future confidently – as befits an energy-rich nation.

View the original article here

Another Study ‘Showing’ No Contamination from Fracking

Where to begin in a review of Pro Publica’s article on new research into the migration of subterranean brine to shallow water above? The inflammatory, overreaching headline? The leap from Duke University’s study to conclusions suggesting to the public that hydraulic fracturing is polluting drinking water?

Let’s start there. On that point the article is self-rebutting. See the fourth paragraph:

"No drilling chemicals were detected in the (shallow) water, and there was no correlation between where the natural brine was detected and where drilling takes place."

Then, near the end of the article:

"Nevertheless, (Robert) Jackson, one of the study's authors, said he still considers it unlikely that frack fluids and injected man-made waste are migrating into drinking water supplies. If that were happening, those contaminants would be more likely to appear in his groundwater samples, he said. His group is continuing its research into how the natural brine might have travelled, and how long it took to rise to the surface. 'There is a real time uncertainty,' he said. 'We don't know if this happens over a couple of years, or over millennia.'"

As for the study itself, Jackson and his team say they found that naturally occurring brine migrates upward to shallower depths. They say the risk of the migration could be greater in areas that have undergone hydraulic fracturing. Yet, there’s this from the study’s introductory summary:

“The occurrences of saline water do not correlate with the location of shale-gas wells and are consistent with reported data before rapid shale-gas development in the region …”

Energy In Depth has solid analysis on the study, here. Highlights:

The study fails (as Jackson notes above) to establish whether the migration occurs over 10 years or 10 million years. Without that, it’s impossible to determine whether the phenomenon is cause for concern.If brine is traveling up from thousands of feet below the surface, why haven’t the pathways Duke’s researchers identify allowed natural gas in the Marcellus region to leak out and disappear over time?There’s no discussion of whether the Marcellus Shale – which is largely a dry region with “virtually no free water,” according to Penn State’s Terry Engelder – even contains enough brinewater to leak.

Engelder, a Marcellus expert who was asked by the researchers to review their work, notes a number of questions the study leaves unanswered, reducing its usefulness. He writes:

"My review is predicated on the objective of your paper which is stated as a search for '...specific areas of shale-gas development in northeastern Pennsylvania that are at increased risk for contamination of shallow drinking water resources with deeper formation brines...' (the last sentence of your abstract). The term, risk, suggests that your paper veers from a conventional geology paper and enters into the realm of science-based advocacy or if you like, science policy."

Engelder is on target there. Unfortunately, the academics, wittingly or unwittingly, produced a study that is easily morphed into a siren call by opponents of natural gas production. Pro Publica’s article is Exhibit A. Exhibit B is a Bloomberg News story under this headline: “Pennsylvania Fracking Can Put Water at Risk, Study Finds” – despite the fact the study found no evidence of such a risk.

Words like “can,” “may” and “might” camouflage the point that the study didn’t find a correlation between the location of shale-gas wells and occurrences of saline water. To suggest otherwise in a news article is disingenuous and counterproductive in the national discussion of energy from shale.

As Engelder notes, the study is a platform from which advocates can mislead. On this story, The Associated Press got it right, focusing its report on what the study showed: “Gas drilling in northeastern Pennsylvania did not contaminate nearby drinking water wells with salty water, which is a byproduct of the drilling.”

View the original article here

Welcome to Williston, Welcome to Prosperity

Perhaps only The New York Times could reduce the energy/economic miracle of North Dakota’s oil and natural gas bonanza to something akin to a toothache. Columnist Gail Collins ventures forth from the concrete canyons of Manhattan to discover the hubbub on the high plains and doesn’t avoid raising a skeptical eyebrow.

To her credit, Collins was able to confirm what lots of people already know: Oil and natural gas extracted from the Bakken Shale formation through hydraulic fracturing is practically evaporating unemployment in North Dakota , which has a jobless rate considerably lower than New York:

Collins writes:

"If you did come, however, you would feel really, really wanted. Radio ads urged me to embark on a new career as a bank teller, laborer, railroad conductor or cake decorator. The local Walmart has a big sign up, begging passers-by to consider starting their lives anew in retail sales. The Bakken Region Recruiter lists openings in truck driving, winch operating and canal maintenance work, along with ads for a floral designer, bartender, public defender, loan officer, addiction counselor and sports reporter. All in an area where the big city has a population of around 16,000."

In other words, if you want to work it’s almost guaranteed you can land a job. But there’s a “but.” Collins describes the Bakken boom as filled with traffic, dust, man camps, bursting schools, long lines (as though waiting 30 minutes for a Big Mac is too much to pay for May’s 2.7 percent state unemployment rate) – while suggesting the most ambitious eatery in town probably wouldn’t impress many folks on the Upper West Side.

It’s true that strong economic growth creates many demands, and, as North Dakotan Rob Port regularly notes on his Say Anything Blog, state and local officials and support businesses need to do a better job seizing the opportunities. But Collins loses us – and perhaps credibility – describing the fracking used to extract oil and natural gas as “environmentally suspect.”

Suspect? Not to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, talking April 27 to Fox News:

“In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemical contamination of groundwater.”

…basically repeating what she told Congress in May 2011:

“I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.”

Collins may have turned in her piece before this came in, but on Wednesday the EPA removed suspicions surrounding hydraulic fracturing and well water in Dimock, Pa. – ground zero for those who claim fracking fouls drinking water. Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin:

“The sampling and an evaluation of the particular circumstances at each home did not indicate levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action. Throughout EPA's work in Dimock, the Agency has used the best available scientific data to provide clarity to Dimock residents and address their concerns about the safety of their drinking water.”

(Also see Kenneth P. Green’s blog post on the Dimock announcement over at AEI, here.)

Earthquakes and fracking? David J. Hayes, Interior Department deputy secretary, in April:

“We also find that there is no evidence to suggest that hydraulic fracturing itself is the cause of the increased rate of earthquakes.”

Bottom line: Collins may have environmental suspicions about shale energy and fracking, but a number of people paid to pay attention to such things don’t share them.

View the original article here

Lights, Cameras…Fracking!

Great time Thursday night at the grand, lovely Warner Theater in Washington, D.C., for API’s “Big Screen Energy” event, featuring film trailers from pro-energy documentaries on hydraulic fracturing including “Truthland,” “Empire State Divide” and “Frack Nation.” After the trailers, representatives of the films talked about their projects and answered questions from the audience. Some important points that emerged:

#1: Shale Energy = Economic opportunity

For lots of people in the Marcellus Shale portions of Pennsylvania, energy from fracking is helping them alter the courses of their lives. And it could help even more if New York state approves hydraulic fracturing on some scale. “Empire State Divide’s” Karen Moreau said New York agriculture needs working capital to survive. Energy development from that state’s portion of the Marcellus could supply that, keep farms operating and allow them to be handed off to the next generation, said Moreau, who since making her film was named executive director of the New York State Petroleum Council.

#2: Countering Frack Fiction

“Truthland,” featuring Pennsylvania science teacher and mom Shelly Depue, spends much of its 34 minutes dispelling misinformation about hydraulic fracturing and natural gas development. The film is a step toward centering the national fracking debate on science and fact instead of fear and misrepresentation. “Frack Nation’s” Phelim McAleer said some opponents aren’t interested in responsible development; they want to block natural gas altogether.

#3: The Right to Prosper

Moreau said the divide in New York over fracking is actually a property rights test – whether individuals may develop resources on their land. She said some opponents of natural gas development in New York’s southern tier, the counties in the Marcellus along the Pennsylvania border, aren’t residents of those areas. Still, they are trying to control or block development. The contest is still playing out, as state officials weigh how much development, if any, to allow.

Again, the evening provided an interesting perspective on an important public policy issue. At the center of it is a truth, noted by McAleer: the ability of energy to lift lives, to lift standards of living. McAleer said the lack of affordable, reliable energy usually characterizes areas that are impoverished and unhealthy – places where people have little chance to lift themselves. Energy changes that, he said.

In energy from shale, the United States has an historic opportunity to be more prosperous – with abundant fuel for the lifestyles of its citizens and the power to revitalize critical industries like manufacturing and chemicals. The U.S. also can make its future more secure, less dependent on imports. Industry’s role is to develop these resources safely and responsibly. It is doing this while striving to continually improve technologies and performance.

View the original article here

Shale Gas and a Refining Revival

NPR/State Impact Texas reports on the economic growth that’s being generated by Gulf Coast refineries revitalized with the help of affordable natural gas produced through hydraulic fracturing. It’s a good-news story:

"Along the Texas Gulf coast in cities where the skylines are formed by the stacks of refineries, they’re talking about a perfect storm headed their way. But this storm has nothing to do with the tropics and everything to do with natural gas. 'It’s almost a perfect storm of low energy costs, low financing costs, low construction costs,' said Bob Leiper, the city manager of Baytown."

Here’s what that “perfect storm” looks like:

Exxon Mobil’s announced plan to expand its refinery/petrochemicals complex with construction of an ethane cracker.Shell and Saudi Aramco’s newly expanded Motiva refinery in Port Arthur, which opened last month after a $10 billion upgrade.Chevron Phillips Chemical’s plan to spend $5 billion on its Baytown petrochemical plant.Seven thousand to 15,000 high-paying construction jobs, which Leiper says will produce a positive ripple across Baytown’s housing and retail sectors.

At the heart of it, NPR says, is surging natural gas production via fracking:

"Hydraulic fracturing has dramatically increased the amount of gas extracted from shale plays around Texas and nearby states with much of it sent in pipelines that come right through Baytown. The cheap gas can be used in a variety of processes to make petrochemicals and plastics and make them more cheaply than competitors overseas. 'This has led to a rebirth of the U.S. petrochemical industry,' said A.J. Teague, COO of Enterprise Products which last month announced its plans to build what it said would be one of the world’s biggest facilities to process 'natural gas liquids' into propylene which is used in plastics."

According to NPR, Texas has spent more than $11 million in state economic development funds on companies to encourage expansion of plants or offices over the past few years. In terms of jobs, the oil and natural gas industry has proven to be a sound investment:

"When a watchdog group, Texans for Public Justice, analyzed whether the public money actually promoted new jobs, it found the companies delivered largely as promised, especially compared to other industries. 'I don’t recall much criticism of oil and gas,' said Craig McDonald, the group’s executive director."

View the original article here