Tag: "oil"

New York Primary “Fracking” Fight

Bernie Sanders is demanding a nation-wide ban on hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” while he campaigns in the state of New York against Hillary Clinton, using the anti-fracking position of the state of New York to sway more voters over to his side.

Bernie’s campaign aligning with the anti-fracking effort claims that the drilling process has extremely hazardous effects. However, some very extensive studies prove otherwise.

Last year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted an extensive study on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. The study:

  • Did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.
  • Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, there were specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells.
  • The number of identified cases, the study concluded however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.

In addition to the EPA’s findings, the processes of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling created an energy/economic boom in the United States.

Apr 13, 2016 | 3 comments | by

Available and Off-Limits Offshore U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Resources

Despite the fact that the federal government has made it clear that all oil and natural gas drilling along the Atlantic coast is off limits, oil and natural gas companies are still going ahead with seismic surveys to see just how much oil is resting off of our eastern coast.

Close to 87 percent of all federally controlled offshore acreage are off-limits to offshore oil and natural gas development. If included in the federal government’s next five-year leasing program and lease sales beginning in 2018, exploratory drilling could start the following year with commercial production expected as early as 2023.

Opening the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to offshore oil and natural gas development could have remarkable benefits. By 2035, this opportunity could:

  • Create nearly 840,000 new jobs along coasts and across the country.
  • Add about 3.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day to domestic energy production.
  • Generate more than $200 billion in cumulative revenue for the government.
  • Lead to nearly $450 billion in new private sector spending.
  • Contribute more than $70 billion per year to the U.S. economy.

Specifically, increasing access to offshore oil and natural gas resources in the Atlantic with an investment of an estimated $195 billion cumulative between 2017 and 2035, could by 2035:

  • Produce an incremental 1.3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (MMboe/d).
  • Add nearly 280,000 jobs.
  • Contribute up to $23.5 billion per year to the U.S. economy.
  • Generate $51 billion in cumulative government revenue.

If seismic activity were to begin in 2017 and lease sales in 2018, first production could be expected as early as 2026.

Mar 30, 2016 | Leave a Comment | by

Obama Announces $98.1 Billion More Transportation Spending Waste

A major portion of the Administration’s proposed new transportation spending — 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan — is a series of proposals to expand transit systems (31 rail, bus and streetcar systems in 18 states costing $3.5 billion), revive the failed high speed rail initiative, modernize freight systems and provide grants to regional authorities to implement innovative “clean” technologies and “green” transportation programs. This new transportation spending is expected to cost $98.1 billion in just FY 2017.

The President just recently signed a groundbreaking transportation bill — the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act or FAST Act — that gave a longer temporary partial solution for the nation’s transportation infrastructure. However, the Fast Act and the new transportation proposal both fail to address several key problems with the Highway Trust Fund and the federal gas tax.

The new administration budget for transportation is a 60% increase over the current annual spending level. To partly pay for the new spending, the Administration is calling for a $10 per barrel tax on oil or a 25 cent/gallon increase in the price of gasoline at the pump which is estimated to bring in $650 billion over a decade.

Despite this, the administration’s budget request was declared dead even before its arrival on Capitol Hill, just like most of Obama’s previous transportation budget proposals.

 

Feb 24, 2016 | 1 comment | by

U.S. House Energy Bill Debate Today

The House of Representatives starts the debate today on 38 amendments out of an original 103 submitted for H.R. 8 —North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015 — and concludes discussion tomorrow. The 2015 energy bill would modernize energy infrastructure, build a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster America’s energy security and diplomacy, and promote energy efficiency and government accountability.

Despite the President’s threat to veto the House bill, lawmakers from both parties have over one hundred amendments to the Energy and Commerce Committee’s broad energy bill to discuss in this week’s floor debate.

The amendments included many policy recommendations relating to energy, natural resources, infrastructure and grid security. Below are a few of the 38 amendments to be debated:

  • Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) has filed an amendment to repeal the crude oil exports ban.
  • Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) is proposing to require the Secretary of Energy to collaborate with the Secretariat of Energy in Mexico and the Ministry of Natural Resources in Canada when developing guidelines to develop skills for an energy and manufacturing industry workforce.
  • Rep. Gene Green (D-Tex.) has offered an amendment that would establish a permitting process within DOE, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the State Department for cross-border infrastructure projects.
  • Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) has an amendment that includes energy storage as a form of energy that DOE should consider to enhance emergency preparedness for energy supply disruptions during natural disasters.
  • Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) has an amendment that secures the most critical components of America’s electrical infrastructure against the threat posed by a potentially catastrophic electromagnetic pulse.
Dec 02, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

War on Domestic Energy Supply

Anti-energy activists are planning to attack the oil and natural gas supply in the United States through a critical strategy. They want the federal government to stop new leases for oil and natural gas development. The damage to our domestic supply and energy output could:

  • Increase oil imports and greater dependence on foreign oil. As EIA projects, the United States will continue to use oil well into the future, and more imports would increase U.S. dependency on others for its energy needs.
  • Diminish U.S. energy security. At home and abroad, less domestic energy production and increased dependency would make the U.S. less secure in the world, more vulnerable to global energy pressures.
  • Weaken the economy. Oil and natural gas are the engines of our economy, and cutting domestic development will mean job losses, lower GDP, less revenue for government and higher household costs.
Oct 28, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Close to Lifting the U.S. Crude Oil Export Ban

Congress is planning to vote on lifting the ban on U.S. crude oil exports by the end of this month. Across the aisle, most Republicans support the end of the export ban. In fact, the Republican-controlled House is scheduled to vote on legislation that would lift the restrictions. In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said for the first time he supports lifting the ban.

Congress passed the ban after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which sent gas prices soaring. Now, the “shale revolution” has stimulated tremendous domestic oil and natural gas production, thanks mainly to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling methods. The Obama administration has permitted exports of some exchanges of oil with Mexico and federal policies permit exports of crude oil to Canada.

The EIA projects the U.S. will eliminate net energy imports sometime between 2020 and 2030. Rising oil prices would mean the U.S. reaches this landmark turning point sooner, but even low prices are unlikely to stop the swing from importer to exporter. The U.S. has been a net importer of energy since the 1950s.

Opponents of lifting the ban include former Secretary of State and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton who said she would only support lifting the U.S.’s 40-year-old ban on oil exports if it was part of a broader plan that included concessions from the oil and natural gas industry. The United Steelworkers, which represent workers at several Louisiana refineries, contends that lifting the ban would jeopardize U.S. energy security and adversely affect gas prices.

The controversy over whether or not to lift the ban centers around fears that no ban could mean higher gasoline prices held by some Democrats and consumer groups. Further, environmentalists worry lifting the ban would lead to more oil & gas exploration and development. Even, President Obama opposes such legislation.

However, a recent Government Accountability Office review noted wide agreement among analysts that allowing crude exports would tend to decrease international oil prices, which is the way to depress gasoline prices. That is why analysts predict that lifting the export ban would increase U.S. crude oil prices by $2 to $8 per barrel but reduce U.S. gasoline prices by 1.5 cents to 13 cents per gallon.

Another recent report by the United States Energy Information Administration says that although unrestricted exports of U.S. crude oil would either leave global crude prices unchanged or result in a small price reduction compared to parallel cases that maintain current restrictions on crude oil exports, other factors affecting global supply and demand will largely determine whether global crude prices remain close to their current level.

Sep 21, 2015 | 1 comment | by

New Study Looks at Lifting the Crude Oil Export Ban

According to a new report out from the United States Energy Information Administration:

Recent increases in domestic crude oil production and the prospect of continued supply growth have sparked discussion on the topic of how rising domestic crude oil volumes might be absorbed, including the possibility of removing or relaxing current restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports.

Current laws and regulations allow for unlimited exports of petroleum products, but require licensing of crude oil exports.Through the first five months of 2015, crude oil exports averaged 491,000 b/d. In addition, exports of processed condensate through the first five months of 2015 are estimated to have reached an average of 84,000 b/d.

  • The discount of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude to North Sea Brent, the latter a key marker for waterborne light crudes, is expected to increase to more than $10/b in cases where current crude oil export policy is maintained and domestic production reaches or exceeds about 11.7 million b/d by 2025.
  • In cases where the Brent-WTI spread grows beyond $6/b–$8/b, removal of current restrictions on crude oil exports would result in higher wellhead prices for domestic producers, who would then respond with additional production.
  • Petroleum product prices in the United States, including gasoline prices, would be either unchanged or slightly reduced by the removal of current restrictions on crude oil exports.
  • Combined net exports of crude oil and petroleum products from the United States are generally higher in cases with higher levels of U.S. crude oil production regardless of U.S. crude oil export policies. However, crude oil export policies materially affect the mix between crude and product exports, particularly in the HOGR and HOGR/LP cases, which have high levels of domestic production.
  • Refiner margins (measured as the spread between crude input costs and wholesale product prices), which tend to increase as the Brent-WTI spread widens, would be lower without current restrictions on crude oil exports than with them in high-production cases where export restrictions lead to a widening Brent-WTI spread.

Although unrestricted exports of U.S. crude oil would either leave global crude prices unchanged or result in a small price reduction compared to parallel cases that maintain current restrictions on crude oil exports, other factors affecting global supply and demand will largely determine whether global crude prices remain close to their current level, as in the Low Oil Price case, or rise along a path closer to the Reference case trajectory.

Sep 09, 2015 | 1 comment | by

Increased Energy Use Raises Standard of Living in Developing Nations

Global production of oil and natural gas has increased in recent years, and prices have been falling.  This is not only good news for consumers in developed countries, but also for the poor in developing countries around the world.  Increased energy use is essential in developing countries if they are to raise the living standards of the poor and grow the middle class.  Even rapidly growing economies use much less energy than developed countries.  For instance, India uses one-tenth as much energy per person as the United States and, despite decades of rapid economic growth, China still uses only one-third as much energy per capita.  [See the figure.]

jaiwin fossil fuel

 

Special contribution by NCPA research associate Jiawen Chen. 

Aug 24, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Lifting Crude Oil Export Ban Benefits U.S. Economy

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) suggests that removing crude oil export restrictions could both reduce consumer fuel prices and increase the price of U.S. crude oil from ~$2 to ~$8 per barrel.

Regulations implemented 40 years ago are being reviewed as technological advances in the extraction of crude oil from shale formations, commonly known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”, have contributed to increased U.S. oil production. In recent years U.S. crude oil prices have been lower than international prices but removing export restrictions could generate more revenue for oil companies and cause international crude oil prices to decrease.

If, as estimated, international crude oil prices do decrease, consumers could see anywhere from 1.5 to 13 cents per gallon drop for refined oil products such as gasoline and diesel. However, experts cautioned that estimates of the price implications of removing export restrictions are subject to uncertainties and there could be important regional differences.

Additionally, removing crude oil export restrictions could benefit in the following areas:

  • Economy: Removing export restrictions would lead to increased investment in crude oil production and increases in employment. This could result in additional positive effects for employment and government revenue.
  • Industry: Increased domestic production of crude oil will result from eliminating current export restrictions. Estimates range from an additional 130,000 to 3.3 million barrels on average per day until 2035.

After decades of generally calling U.S. crude oil production, from 2008 through 2014 production increased by about 74%. Perhaps, lifting the restrictions on crude oil could help both the economy of the U.S. and the average consumer.

Aug 12, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

NCPA Nationwide Survey of Anti-Fracking Activism – the “Frac Map”

3038

The NCPA completed a nationwide survey of successful anti-fracking activism that we presented to state legislators, energy associations and think tanks. This map demonstrates the threat of misguided activism to oil and gas production, the key to continuing our economic recovery, addressing the national debt, lowering the trade deficit and preserving U.S. superpower status into the future.

The NCPA “Frac Map” was also featured at the Washington Post.

 

 

Aug 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by
Next Page »