Tag: "natural gas"

Mexico Opens to Big Energy

For the past 55 years, Mexico has prohibited private companies from owning any of its oil and natural gas production. The national oil and gas company PEMEX, once a major international energy player, has been reduced to an irrelevant player due to the government’s ever increasing and frequent siphoning of funds from PEMEX. The demise of PEMEX and the rise of the reform minded President Enrique Pena Nieto opens the door to changes to the Mexican constitution now allowing big energy companies to purchase oil and natural gas land.

Mexico’s break-even costs are low:

  • Deep water production is $50/bbl or lower.
  • Energy output from Mexico’s deep water could be transported to the U.S. by existing infrastructure.
  • Mexico is far more stable than the Middle East.

Mexico is currently 10th in oil production and opening the country up to big energy will greatly benefit Mexico and the world energy market.

Jul 13, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Oklahoma Fracking Companies Could Face Earthquake Lawsuits

Last week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that earthquake injury lawsuits against oil and gas companies could now be heard in district courts. Previously, the oil industry had been trying to avoid such court cases and asked for them to be heard only through the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

The State’s highest court rejected the request, stating:

The Commission, although possessing many of the powers of a court of record, is without the authority to entertain a suit for damages.

The court was in no way ruling that earthquakes are caused by companies using hydraulic fracturing technology to extract oil and natural gas.

Instead, the opinion spoke only of which court was best suited to hear such claims in Oklahoma. This opinion upheld the longstanding tradition of allowing district courts exclusive jurisdiction over private tort actions.

A recent flurry of earthquakes in Oklahoma have placed the state at the center of the fracking debate. A recent study by the University of Oklahoma, Columbia University, and the U.S. Geological Survey reported potential links between wastewater injection, a practice often used for the disposal of water waste in fracking, and earthquakes. The study has been heavily disputed and many conclude the earthquakes are simply a manifestation of natural causes.

 

Jul 06, 2015 | 1 comment | by

U.S. Now Top Oil Producer

The United States has officially surpassed both Saudi Arabia in terms of crude oil production. In 2014, the U.S. had already exceeded both Russia and Saudi Arabia in hydrocarbon, oil and natural gas, production. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently predicted that such high production is likely to continue into the future, with an expected 9.4 million barrels a day this year and 9.3 million barrels a day for 2016.

Adam Sieminski, U.S. EIA administrator, said:

Despite the large decline in crude oil prices since June 2004, this May’s estimated oil output in the United States is the highest for any month since 1972.

U.S. producers have managed to maintain production levels by becoming more efficient and generating new cost savings. Lower prices have led to many labor cuts, with a loss of nearly 100,000 energy-related jobs. Some companies have cut up to 40 percent of their service and supply crews. By April 2015, only 750 rigs were still in operation compared to 1,596 in October 2014.

Industry insiders were not surprised by the EIA report and had previously expected production to keep steady while the growth rate slowed. With prices hovering around $60 a barrel, shale oil exploration is still profitable and will continue be an important source of production.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ (OPEC) plan to cut prices and hurt high-cost U.S. shale producers, however, remains unchanged. On June 7, OPEC announced it would keep production levels unchanged despite pressure from countries within the organization to lower production and increase price.

Fawad Razaqzada, a technical analyst at the trading website FOREX.com, commented on OPEC’s influence saying:

The cartel is losing some influence to the U.S. shale oil market and to a lesser degree Russia, but it still remains a dominant force ― just not as powerful as before.

 

Jun 15, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Political Versus Market Energy Economics

With news of a consensus on its financing structure, details of a proposed natural gas pipeline called the Turkish Stream are expected to be finalized as early as June 18th. The pipeline, which is estimated by internal sources to cost over $2 billion, will originate in Russia, pass through Turkey and end in Greece. The move seems very strategic of Russia — one of the largest exporters of gas in the world — which has shown interest in the financial backing of Greece’s new leadership under leftist hardliners. Ironically, amidst a very public distaste regarding the European Union’s stance on repayment of Greek debts, the ailing state has expedited approval of the project, which would bottleneck Russian gas through the country, forcing many European countries to pay them transit fees.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) warned that expanding Europe’s dependence on Russian gas would only increase political instability in the region and could reduce price competitiveness of natural gas in Europe, however members of Greece’s ruling party, Syriza, quickly rebuked the observations and labeled them as attempted blackmail. The DOS also claimed that Russia did not build the pipeline out of benevolence or even a desire for financial gain, but purely to snub the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, an alternative Western-backed project which was also forecasted to bring needed gas resources from Azerbaijan to Europe through Greece. Members of the DOS even went so far as to say that Turkish Stream in itself is not an economic investment, and there are perhaps a few reasons to believe so:

  • The offshore portion of Turkish Stream completely circumvents other European countries in almost a comical fashion given the alternative price of simply building land-based pipelines through Ukraine… this costly act of political angst immediately made the marine portion of the pipeline $600 million more expensive;
  • According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Russian gas has been losing market share with almost every passing year for over ten years, while European demand for gas has fallen and stagnated, no doubt due to Europe’s lethargic growth numbers:

Nat Gas Prod and Consumption

  • Perhaps in an effort to shift infrastructure costs onto the European Union (EU), Russia has announced a “build it yourself” policy for all potential client nations hoping to have pipelines connecting them to Greece… while such a proclamation may seem efficient for them and strategically savvy, consider that many European countries such as Sweden now acquire less than 48 percent of their energy consumption needs from fossil fuels. In the meantime, Italy, Romania, Germany, Estonia and Bulgaria among many others are in the process of phasing out much of their gas use, and are actually years ahead of their target schedules for implementation of nuclear and renewable energies.

At the aggregate level, natural gas is an extremely profitable energy resource which is seeing double-digit growth across many different countries, mainly in the developing world. However, mature economies such as those in Europe have not characterized themselves as extremely profitable or high-growth markets, meaning that they are among the least likely areas to see attractive returns on expensive fossil energy infrastructure projects like Turkish Stream.

 

Jun 15, 2015 | 1 comment | by

Germany Leads Charge for New Emission Commitments at G7

German Chancellor Angela Merkel won a key victory in her fight against climate change when the G7 agreed to adopt emission targets to limit the increase in future global temperatures. Chancellor Merkel had hoped the G7 would adopt these measures to show a united front prior to the climate summit in Paris this December.

The G7 plan aims to meet an emissions target outlined by a United Nations recommendation to reduce emissions in 2050 from 40 to 70 percent below 2010 levels. Many believe this would be enough to stop global temperatures from reaching dangerous levels.

It would, however, also come at a very high cost as many utility plants using fossil fuels would have to be shut down permanently. The cost of reducing emissions comes at an especially heavy price for developing countries, who simply cannot afford to divest from traditional forms of energy.

During the summit, Canada and Japan were the most hesitant to sign these commitments. Since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, Japan has had to rely more heavily on coal, while Canada has seen economic growth opportunities from the oil boom in the Alberta tar sands. Pressure from both President Obama and Chancellor Merkel eventually convinced the two countries to sign onto the commitments after they had worked to water down the statement.

These commitments follow five controversial years in which five of the G7 countries have increased their coal use. While pressuring developing countries to lower emissions, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan and France have burned 16 percent more coal in 2013 than in 2009. Only the United States and Canada have lowered their emissions, due to a boom in natural gas consumption. The Stockholm Environment Institute also reported that developing countries were on track to reduce emissions more than industrialized nations.

For now, the commitments come without specific plans to lower emissions. Environmental lobbyists criticized the lack of real plan, saying the countries’ failures to agree to their own immediate binding emission targets weakened the promise of reduced emissions.

 

Jun 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Oklahoma Follows Texas to Prohibit Hydraulic Fracturing Bans

On Friday, May 30, 2015, Oklahoma became the second state to officially ban local bans on hydraulic fracturing. The bill prohibits bans on hydraulic fracturing, as well as other oil and gas drilling operations. The three-person Oklahoma Corporation Commission will now continue to act as the main regulator of oil and gas operations in the state.

Governor Mary Fallin said:

Corporate Commissioners are elected by the people of Oklahoma to regulate the oil and gas industry. They are best equipped to make decisions about drilling and its effect on seismic activity, the environment and other sensitive issues.

The bill was written in response to proposals to increase oil and gas drilling regulations in major cities and as an increasing number of Oklahomans become disgruntled with the mounting number of earthquakes. Sponsored by leaders in the Oklahoma House and Senate, the bill passed the House by a vote of 64-32 and the Senate by 33-13. Amendments to the original bill will still allow cities and municipalities to place “reasonable” restrictions on oil and gas operations, such as setbacks, noise, traffic and fencing regulations.

The bill comes at a time of great controversy within Oklahoma as the Oklahoma Geological Survey recently said increases in earthquakes were “very unlikely to represent a naturally occurring process.” In February, the U.S. Geological Survey published a paper written by Oklahoma Seismologic Austin Holland stating that the increase in seismic activity in Oklahoma was from human-induced activities.

Kim Hatfield, chairman of the regulatory committee at the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA) responded:

This is something the Oklahoma Geological Survey, Oklahoma Corporation Commissions and OIPA have been working on for well over a year. We knew this was a possibility.

Oklahoma’s oil and natural gas producers have a proven history of developing the state’s oil and natural gas resources in a safe and effective manner.

 

Jun 08, 2015 | 4 comments | by

States vs Local Hydraulic Fracturing Bans

In the past few years, hydraulic fracturing/frac bans have become increasingly common in communities opposed to the drilling practice that extracts oil and natural gas from shale rock by injecting sand, water and chemicals into the ground. Such bans focus on either the actual drilling methods or the transportation of waste from the hydraulic fracturing process.

State legislatures are now finding themselves in a fight against local authorities for control of hydraulic fracturing regulations in their own states. While Vermont and New York have already implemented state wide bans on hydraulic fracturing, Texas has banned local bans and Oklahoma is considering banning local bans on the practice as well.

Current hydraulic fracturing ban legislation:

  • Over 470 local measures have passed in towns, cities, and counties.
  • 24 states and Washington D.C. have seen at least one such local measure passed.
  • Oklahoma introduced legislation imposing a ban on local frac bans.

The debate has sparked questions over who has the right to regulate oil and gas activity in the state, state agencies or individual communities. For New York, the state-wide ban followed a court decision that town zoning laws allowed the banning of hydraulic fracturing. In an attempt to achieve a compromise between state and local control, state legislation banning cities and counties from outlawing hydraulic fracturing opens the door for local oil and gas regulations, specifically where it concerns health and safety. Texas House Bill 40, signed into law this week by Governor Greg Abbott, includes a four-part test for determining city drilling regulations while prohibiting hydraulic fracturing bans throughout the state.

Lauren Aragon is a research associate at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

May 20, 2015 | 1 comment | by

New Opportunities for U.S. Oil?

In a surprising Monday move, the U.S. government approved Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean this summer. The company has been pursuing drilling in the Arctic since 2007 and was set back by bad weather and mechanical failures in 2012. While the new drilling project will face tight restrictions, Royal Dutch Shell will be the first energy company to drill in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean.

Opening up the Arctic Ocean is a big step for the oil and gas industry, but it still leaves 87 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf off-limits to the industry. While it’s a good sign of progress, this “big step” isn’t enough for some members of Congress. Three bills were introduced to the Senate on Tuesday that aim to open up parts of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic to offshore drilling.

With the Interior Department considering drilling in the Atlantic for the first time in decades and Alaskan legislators calling for more ― not less ― oil and gas activity in the area, now is a great time to push the Obama administration to reconsider its restrictive drilling regulations and proposals.

May 13, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Offshore Access Critical to U.S. Energy Security

The Department of the Interior granted conditional approval to a plan by Shell Gulf of Mexico to begin exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic Ocean. Federally owned offshore oil and natural gas reserves of the United States are estimated to hold over 50 billion barrels of crude oil 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. However, close to 87 percent of federal offshore acreage is off limits to energy exploration and development. Without energy exploration to give a more accurate estimation of energy reserves, the closed off area could hold far more oil and natural gas reserves.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s offshore oil and natural gas leasing plan for 2017-2022 excludes promising areas in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic and in the Gulf of Mexico.

Expanding offshore access would:

  • Create nearly 840,000 new American jobs.
  • Increase oil production by 3.5 million barrels per day.
  • Generate $200 billion cumulative revenue for the U.S. government.
  • Add $450 billion in private sector spending.
  • Add $70 billion per year to the U.S. economy.

The United States is now producing the most oil in the world and can continue to do so if more pro-energy policies, such as opening all federally owned offshore areas, are adopted by the federal government.

May 13, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Crowdfunding Oil and Gas

Crowdfunding energy and agriculture initiatives is nothing new. Yet new federal legislation has opened the gates to allow crowdfunding for for-profit companies — and the oil industry is jumping at the opportunity.

Two Texas companies, EnergyFunders and CrudeFunders, are reaching out to investors to fund smaller projects big banks would toss back. While crowdfunding efforts could open up the oil and gas industry to new investors, some experts warn those inexperienced with the industry to proceed with caution.

“I don’t want to pour cold water on what might be a valid new source of funding, but from the investor’s point of view I would say a very strong caveat emptor (buyer beware),” cautioned Christopher Ross, a former BP Plc executive and current finance professor at the University of Houston.

For those without an understanding of drilling technology, mineral leases and royalties, and geology, directly investing in the oil and gas industry could get tricky, he warns.

So far, EnergyFunders is doing its part to remain transparent by posting data on all of its projects, including lease information and seismic data, on its website for investors.

With prices expected to continue at record lows, now could be a great time to get in on the ground floor of an oil project. Potential investors should do their homework before jumping into any project they don’t fully understand.

 

Apr 15, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by
« Previous Page — Next Page »