Category: Uncategorized

Divers say less than 5% of Great Barrier Reef is dead, not half

Divers say less than 5% of Great Barrier Reef is dead, not half

via Climate Change Dispatch
http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

A team of divers is pushing back on a so-called second mass bleaching event occurring on the Great Barrier Reef, which media reports said affected 50 to 60 percent of Cape York region. Scientists from the government-funded ARC center also found a 35 percent mortality rate, with an ultimate death toll topping 90 percent. That’s […]

via Climate Change Dispatch http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

March 20, 2017 at 07:28AM

US Shale Boom Is Back

US Shale Boom Is Back

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://ift.tt/2mN4CtK

 

The Times reports:

 

Among many bold promises made on the presidential campaign trail, Donald Trump pledged to unleash an “energy revolution” that would release vast riches from America’s shale oil reserves. It is doubtful that he expected Saudi Arabia to do the job for him.

Yet, since the Saudi-led Opec cartel agreed to cut oil production in November, the US shale industry has been boosted to levels not seen since 2014.

“The shale boom is back,” Norbert Ruecker, head of commodities research at Julius Baer, said. “Over the coming one and a half to two years, we’re probably going to be back at the previous high levels of production.”

The first US shale boom, which lasted from 2012 to 2014, took advantage of oil prices that hovered around the $100 mark. By the end of 2014, however, oil had plunged below $50, and a year later, was close to $25.

The price collapse was orchestrated by Opec. Its 13 members pumped and pumped to create an oil glut that pushed down prices, knowing this would make it uneconomical to extract oil from shale. However, the price fell too far, and Opec members suffered. In November, they and 11 other nations including Russia agreed to cut production for the first time in eight years. The oil price has since held around $50, despite concerns that Opec members would not adhere to their promises.

The US is thought to hold the world’s largest reserves of shale oil, with about 80 billion recoverable barrels, according to the last count by the US Energy Information Administration. Britain, in stark contrast, holds less than 1 per cent of that amount: about 700 million barrels. Shale oil accounts for about 52 per cent of all oil production in the US.

The EIA last week forecast US shale oil production would climb in April at its highest rate in five months. Production is expected to rise by 109,000 barrels per day to nearly 5 million.

All over the US, dozens of oil rigs are coming back online every month. The count has increased for nine straight weeks, figures published yesterday by Baker Hughes, the oilfield services company, showed. There are now 631 active oil rigs in the US, more than double the number at the end of 2016. The EIA expects that output next year will surpass a record set in 1970.

http://ift.tt/2mN4CtK

 

One of the results of the shale gas revolution has been the renaissance of US manufacturing, as CNBC relate:

 

The United States is in the early stages of a manufacturing renaissance, and is expected to grow, thanks to cheap and plentiful natural gas.

The U.S. is expected to see a wave of petrochemical plant openings between now and next year. Those plants represent about $50 billion of $160 billion in manufacturing investment earmarked by the industry since 2012, according to James Fitterling, president and COO of Dow Chemical. Among them are several big ethylene plants, including one expected to be opened by Dow in Freeport, Texas, in the second quarter.

"It’s about 1.5 million tons of new capacity for us. It will be up in the second quarter sometime," said Fitterling, speaking in Houston at the CERAWeek conference, sponsored by IHS Markit. He said Dow also opened a billion-dollar propane dehydrogenation plant in Freeport at the end of 2015. "That was the first megaproject we’ve done on the Gulf Coast for quite some time."

CB&I’s Cameron LNG project in Hackberry, Louisiana

CB&I’s Cameron LNG project in Hackberry, Louisiana

Exxon Mobil this week announced a $20 billion spending program to expand its manufacturing capacity along the Gulf Coast, including some previously announced investment. The announcement came at CERAWeek.

Industry executives say this is the first big wave of chemical plant construction in decades.

President Donald J. Trump tweeted congratulations on Exxon’s investment and promise of jobs. But the petrochemical renaissance has been building for several years. Trump’s policy may unleash more if it results in the creation of pipelines and other infrastructure.

"The U.S. has gone from a shale gas boom to a petrochemical boom," said Scott Sheffield, CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources. While natural gas industry experts discussed the outlook for a long period of low gas prices at the conference, the petrochemical industry described what only can be viewed as a boom in an industry that had been declining in the United States.

 

Natural gas production in the United States is expected to continue to grow, with an expanding LNG export market that should make the United States a net exporter in the next several years, along with pipeline gas sales to Mexico.

Natural gas analysts say industrial demand is one thing that could help the natural gas market, which is expected to see prices remain flat for years. That’s a positive for the petrochemical industry, which uses natural gas as a feed stock. There are five big ethylene plants coming online on the Gulf Coast in coming months, and the first, Occidental Petroleum‘s joint venture with Mexichem, started up this past week. Others are being built by Exxon Mobil and a Chevron Phillips venture.

The big ethylene plants are energy intensive, and now it’s cheaper to operate them in the United States, where plentiful natural gas is less expensive than other locations. "They’re so big, they consume 75,000 (barrels of oil equivalent) a day," Witte said. He expects to see more big plants come online, and in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Royal Dutch Shell currently has a big project under way in Pennsylvania.

Dow’s next big-scale project would be in a seven- to 10-year window. "The question is, where would that be? We have a range of options around the world where that might be," Fitterling said. "If the environment is right and the economy’s right here, and you’d think with the reserves you’ve got in the U.S., the U.S. is going to be on that shortlist as a place to make a next-generation investment," he said.

http://ift.tt/2niM9Vp

 

And all of this is good news as well for India:

 

image

The Indian government can breathe more easily about one of its macro-economic concerns: Rising global oil prices. Despite a successful effort to reduce oil production by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, oil prices recently fell to below $ 50 a barrel, a three-month low. The primary reason: A countervailing surge in shale oil production by the United States. The US’ ability to quickly ratchet up oil production in response to higher prices has put a ceiling on global crude prices. There is an additional benefit in a parallel compression of natural gas prices. This is excellent news for India, among the world’s largest importers of oil and gas.

The Narendra Modi government has benefited hugely from the slump in oil prices that began in 2014. By some estimates the drop in world oil and gas prices provided a windfall of over $10 billion to New Delhi in the 2015-16 financial year. The benefits were two-fold. The central government has had to pay less in fuel subsidies. It has also, by passing on as little as a fifth of the drop in oil prices to Indian customers, given the Indian exchequer a multi-billion dollar revenue windfall. One of the main reasons the Modi government has largely been able to meet its fiscal deficit targets has been its ability to impose higher taxes on imported oil without affecting prices for Indian users.

http://ift.tt/2n710Fs

 

With oil and natural gas so abundant and cheap, renewable energy looks ever more irrelevant.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

March 20, 2017 at 07:00AM

“No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”

“No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Guest post David Middleton

Multiple Choice Quiz

“No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”

  • a. Chairman of BP Capital Management, T. Boone Pickens
  • b. U.S. President Donald Trump
  • c. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
  • d. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
  • e. Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Energy, Industry and Mineral Resources, Khalid A. Al-Falih

The answer is “d”…

Trudeau

..

“No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”

Perhaps that’s true, but it certainly still is a betrayal of the image that he crafted for himself in recent years as someone “who cares” about the climate. Unsurprisingly (since the crowd was full of oil and gas execs), Trudeau received “an unusually warm reception” for the speech, as reported by Business Insider.

Trudeau continued: “The resource will be developed. Our job is to ensure that this is done responsibly, safely, and sustainably. Nothing is more essential to the US economy than access to a secure, reliable source of energy. Canada is that source.”

Hmm, that’s not very climate friendly, even if packaged in a pretty box.

[…]

So, what’s going on here exactly? Is Trudeau serious about a real (not simply market-driven) phaseout of the tar sands? Is he just telling any particular audience what he thinks it wants to hear? Or is he as supportive of tar sands oil development as predecessors? Here’s more for additional context:

“Trudeau’s speech also touted his support for the Keystone XL pipeline, one of the few areas where he and US President Donald Trump share common ground. He further discussed juggling the priorities of combatting climate change and bolstering Canada’s oil and gas industry.

“Under Trudeau, Canada’s Liberal government has approved new pipelines while working with provinces to implement a carbon-pricing scheme. The prime minister has long maintained that developing fossil-fuel resources can go ‘hand in hand’ with fighting climate change.”

That’s precisely what Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Energy, Industry and Mineral Resources, Khalid A. Al-Falih, who is also chairman of Saudi Aramco, said recently in a video interview published by CleanTechnica, even though it is obviously false…

[…]

“You cannot make a choice anymore on what’s good for the environment and what’s good for the economy,” Trudeau stated in that interview.

So, what do you think? Is he the Canadian version of former US President Barack Obama, as some people say, or even more fossil-friendly than that?

CleanTechnica

Firstly, the prime minister is exactly correct: “No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.” Particularly if those 173 billion barrels were proved reserves.  At $50/bbl, 173 billion barrels is worth a lot of dollars… both US and Canadian.

Secondly, the prime minister is exactly correct here too: “The prime minister has long maintained that developing fossil-fuel resources can go ‘hand in hand’ with fighting climate change.”  Since fighting climate change is about as possible as fighting plate tectonics or entropy, it absolutely “can go ‘hand in hand’ with” developing fossil fuel resources.

Thirdly, the prime minister is exactly correct here too: “You cannot make a choice anymore on what’s good for the environment and what’s good for the economy.”  IF you make bad choices for the economy, you won’t have enough money to make good choices for the environment.

Fourthly, the writers for Clean Technica are a hoot!!!  US President Barack Obama… fossil fuel-friendly???

Featured Image Source

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

March 20, 2017 at 06:32AM

These Hydro Power Plants Survived WWII Bombs But Maybe Not Merkel

These Hydro Power Plants Survived WWII Bombs But Maybe Not Merkel

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

After surviving wartime bombing and Soviet-era seizures, some power plants in central Europe are facing extinction because of flat prices, newer technologies and red tape in Berlin.

The facilities at risk used to make money buying cheap power at night to pump water up mountains, then releasing it downhill to turn generators during the day, when prices were higher. While they were cash cows before the era of wind and solar, market conditions are now so bad for pumped-hydro plants that Sweden’s Vattenfall AB and Norway’s Statkraft AS say they might close plants in Germany, while Alpiq Holding AG wants to unload some units in Switzerland.

Vattenfall’s Goldisthall hydro power plant. – Photographer: Stefan Thomas/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Photos

It’s yet another example of how Chancellor Angela Merkel’s unprecedented Energiewende has gone awry. Designed to start within seconds, pumped storage is ideal for smoothing fluctuations in power supplies exacerbated by the expansion of intermittent renewables. While solar and wind get 20 billion euros ($21 billion) in subsidies per year from Berlin, the pumped-hydro plants get nothing but more regulation and rising bills for grid access.

“I’d be pretty perplexed if all these plants would shut down,” Andreas Gandolfo, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said by phone from London. “You created a reservoir, dug the mountain, you laid the concrete. Why replace a technology that is already there?”

Share of Germany’s power generation

The jump in solar generation has eroded the traditional premium for daytime peak over nightly rates to just 25 percent. It was more than four times that in 2008. Even income from providing near-instant power to the grid at times of high demand has dwindled, dropping as much as 95 percent over the past six years.

On top of that, operators of hydro storage plants more than 20 years old must pay for using the grid when drawing electricity for pumping because they count as consumers by the regulator. This eats up almost all their profit, according to the German Association of Energy and Water Industries, or BDEW.

Full story

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

March 20, 2017 at 06:15AM