Fueling the World's Growth

Several articles led me to what is apparently BP's first-ever public long-term energy forecast, "BP Energy Outlook 2030", which was released earlier this week. It's a fascinating document on several levels, and it builds on the reputation established by the BP Statistical Review, an annual compendium of historical energy data and trends. The figure that I've already seen cited in a number of places is that BP expects fossil fuels to contribute just 64% of the growth in energy over the next twenty years, compared to 83% in the last twenty. A quick internet search revealed many other tidbits that reporters and bloggers have picked up on, including a very interesting comparison of future energy security trends among China, the EU and US. I could spend hours detailing the observations that intrigued me, but I'll focus on just a few.

The mere fact of BP's releasing such a forecast seems noteworthy. Perhaps it's aimed at increasing transparency under a new CEO, as Mr. Dudley suggests in his introduction, or maybe the folks who've been creating such documents internally finally convinced management that they had at least as much PR value as the venerable Statistical Review. Their approach to the report also reminds us just how different BP's culture is from that of its UK (and Dutch) arch-rival Shell, which has long preferred scenario planning to conventional forecasting. Both have their uses, though for deep insights I also prefer scenarios and use that technique with my clients. I suggest having a look at Shell's latest publicly-available pair of scenarios looking out to 2050 for another perspective on future energy. The current edition morphs a previous version's theme of "TINA" (There Is No Alternative) into "TANIA" (There Are No Ideal Answers). Amen. And now back to BP's point of view.

The report's projection concerning how energy growth is likely to be satisfied over the next two decades is a classic half-full/half-empty proposition. On the half-full side I consider it a remarkable indication of the success of renewables and the expansion of global interest in nuclear power--it's really only a "renaissance" in the US, never having waned in many other places. The idea that the combination of these sources could be viewed in a serious base-case projection as providing more than a third of incremental energy growth would have lacked credibility not very long ago, for reasons the charts on page 10 of the report should make clear. However, I have no doubt that many will find such a projection altogether too faint-hearted, believing that we surely ought to be able to dispense with these dirty fuels entirely within two decades or less. Well, the first step toward living without oil and coal (and maybe even gas) is being able to cover 100% of future energy growth from other sources. BP makes a coherent argument that we are not yet at that point, even in the more aggressive "policy case" results they present later in the report.

From the perspective of long-term emissions reductions and future energy transformation, two other sets of figures in the outlook look more promising. First is the lengthy discussion of energy efficiency and the accelerating reduction in the energy intensity of GDP that's woven all through the document. That is the main reason why, in a view that is distinctly not a low-growth scenario, total energy demand grows by just 39% and not some much higher value. The other key point is that BP sees 57% of that growth being focused on electricity, rather than transportation fuels. Since we have many more effective low-emission options for making electricity than transportation fuels, the opportunity to reduce emissions in the future will expand significantly, even if in the short run coal is merely losing market share, while its use still increases in absolute terms.

BP's detailed projections for oil and biofuels, along with the growth of China, deserve an entire posting of their own, and perhaps I'll come back to them in the next week or two. In the meantime the last item I wanted to highlight concerns energy security, which has been such a prevalent theme in US politics and public discussion for so long. As I read the chart on page 72--and to the extent I accept its assumptions--I would not trade (energy) places with the EU or China for all the tea in the world, despite all the recent talk of US decline and Chinese ascendancy.

With regard to Europe we see the inevitable consequences of the peaking and decline of the North Sea oil and gas resources. Already more dependent than the US for imports of both oil and gas at this point, Europe will need a generation for its massive focus on renewables to stem the steady rise of its energy import dependence. China's situation is entirely different, as its explosive growth outruns the steady increases in its oil and gas production. If you want to understand why China hasn't abandoned coal and suddenly seems so interested in nuclear and renewables, this picture is worth the proverbial thousand words. Of course the US trajectory is hardly a given. Skim through the report's other charts to see how much that pleasant outcome of greatly improved energy independence depends on shale gas (page 54), fuel economy gains (page 30) and biofuels (page 40). And note that BP suggests that most of the latter will come from "first generation" sources--corn and sugar cane--in this timeframe.

Read More

Oil Plumes and the Fate of the Spill

I'm as reluctant to insert myself into the debate over what happened to all the oil that leaked from BP's Macondo well between April 22 and July 15--when the second cap stopped the flow--as I was concerning the earlier controversy regarding flow-rate estimates. At the same time, I find the coverage of this story lacking in crucial details that could help us to understand how much of the oil evaporated into the warm air of the Gulf or degraded naturally, how much was collected, and how much potentially remains in the sea. The assessment issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on August 4, 2010 has been disputed by some scientists, and reports of lingering oil plumes add to the public's apprehension that the pieces don't quite add up. But although I don't have nearly enough information to conclude which group is closer to being right, I feel much more confident in pointing out where their arguments seem weak.

Let's begin with the estimate of the total quantity of oil leaked into the Gulf, which lately seems to have become cast in stone at 4.9 million barrels (205.8 million gallons.) This is the crucial starting point for any analysis of how much of it remains in the Gulf. This figure appears to be based on the estimate by the Flow Rate Technical Group of an average rate of around 58,000 bbl/day for the 85 days that the well was leaking. NOAA indicates an uncertainty for this figure of +/- 10%, but with all due respect to the scientists who worked on it, that seems excessively precise for something that was never measured directly.

There are only two ways I know of to measure such a flow, as distinct from estimating it. The most accurate involves gathering all the oil flowing during a given interval--say, a day--and gauging the tanks into which it flowed at the beginning and end of the interval. From a quick review of the transcripts of BP's technical briefings, it appears that the largest quantity of oil that was actually collected in a 24-hour period equated to a flow rate of about 24,000 bbl/day, though this represented only a portion of the total flow, with the remainder continuing to leak into the sea due to containment limitations. So we know the rate must have been higher than that figure, but not how much higher. The other way to measure oil flow is with a flow meter. It's a pity that BP's "Lower Marine Riser Package", the second cap and valve assembly installed on the well, didn't include this capability. I don't even know if it would have been feasible, given the pressures and high flows of oil and natural gas involved.

In the absence of direct flow measurements, the Flow Rate Technical Group had to rely on sophisticated techniques for calculating the flow, based on the observed velocity of the fluid leaving the well and a complex set of assumptions--grounded in a limited amount of actual data--concerning the gas:oil ratio of the fluid, the rapid expansion of the gas coming out of solution within the space over which the velocity was determined, as well as the changing pressure and temperature within this regime. Tricky stuff, particularly considering how much of the observed flow was attributable to gas, rather than oil, as I noted in May. I'd also note that since the estimated 58,000 bbl/day flow rate is at the top of the range of flow rates observed from other oil wells in the history of the industry, it's quite possible that the range of uncertainty for the total amount leaked is not only wider than +/- 10%, but also non-symmetrical, with more downside than upside. I'm sure we will hear much more about this in the future, not least because the size of the fine BP would ultimately pay for the leak depends on it. That's not the concern of the moment, however.

The pie chart in NOAA's report indicating the breakdown of the different fates of the oil that leaked has gotten a lot of scrutiny. Some reports have interpreted it as indicating that only a quarter of the oil remains in the marine environment. I wouldn't read it that way. Instead, I'd see three distinct categories for the oil's current status. The first and least ambiguous concerns the oil physically collected directly from the well, skimmed from the surface, or burned off, constituting an estimated--and only partly measured--25% of the uncertain total discussed above. This oil is clearly no longer in the water. The next category is oil that is likely no longer in the water, and that is the portion of the "Evaporated or Dissolved" segment that evaporated. If the oil had all reached the surface, I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of that segment should be attributed to evaporation; this was, after all, light, sweet oil with a high proportion of volatile fractions. The problem is that we don't know how much of the oil that leaked a mile down made it to the surface. The portion that didn't, which in NOAA's parlance was dissolved, naturally dispersed or chemically dispersed--potentially up to 49% of their total estimate--could still be in the water column, along with the 26% "Residual"--less the unknown portion actually broken down by bacteria and other processes. And it's some of this remaining oil that makes up the plumes we've been hearing about.

The undersea oil plume currently in the news was found in June by scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. They describe it as being at least 22 miles long, 1.2 miles wide, and 650 ft. high. The total volume of the plume, assuming it filled that entire rectangular solid, would be about 3.6 trillion gallons. However, the critical data point that I didn't see reported in any of the newspaper accounts I read was the concentration of oil in that water. According to the report on the Woods Hole site, the concentration of specific oil-derived molecules ("BTEX") is "in excess of 50 micrograms per liter". Adjusting for the density of the chemicals in question, that means that they found oil-related concentrations of approximately 57 parts per billion by volume. So by my math, the total volume of these chemicals within the plume is on the order of 200,000 gallons, or under 5,000 bbl. Unless these chemicals are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of oil derivatives in the plume--and Woods Hole hints that there is more--then we're talking about less than 0.1% of the 4.9 million barrels estimated to have leaked into the Gulf. In other words, while a plume like this might be potentially serious for aquatic life, it's not clear how much doubt its existence casts on NOAA's analysis of where all the oil went.

I will be very interested in seeing further refinements of all these estimates in the weeks and months ahead. Perhaps the media will even include more of the details crucial for putting it into perspective.

Read More

The Incredible Shrinking Energy Bill

When legislation is introduced in the US Congress, most of the discussion typically concerns its specific provisions. Sometimes, as in the case of the "public option" absent from the final healthcare bill, notable omissions vie for attention. However, in the case of this year's greatly-diminished energy bill released this week by Senator Reid (D-NV), most of the controversy seems to be focused on its long list of missing elements, including but not limited to cap & trade, a national renewable energy standard for electricity, and extensions for various expiring renewable energy incentives. That's not to say that what's left doesn't deserve careful scrutiny, particularly provisions affecting offshore oil and gas drilling. But compared to the energy bill that might have been, this draft looks like a pitiful remnant, even at 409 pages.

Although I can appreciate the frustration of those who expected Congress finally to enact cap & trade this year, I find the convoluted tactical arguments and finger-pointing over its failure to reach consensus on this issue to be mostly "inside baseball" rationalization. The clues adequately explaining its omission from the current bill are on display in the bill's title, "The Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act of 2010". In other words, what happened to cap & trade this year was the recession and the oil spill. The former made the country less receptive to what is at its core a substantial new tax, while the latter scuttled the best chance for a bi-partisan "grand compromise" based on swapping expanded access to US off-limits oil and gas resources for stronger emissions regulations. Even though the taxation underlying cap & trade is intended to recognize a serious unpriced externality of our energy economy, it still represents a significant redistribution of wealth from energy producers and consumers to the government and the purposes for which the government chooses to spend the proceeds: at best a zero-sum game with frictional losses, and at worst--insert Waxman-Markey--a monumentally-distorting boondoggle.

Then there's the missing national renewable electricity standard (RES), which in clear English is a mandate for utilities to obtain a defined and escalating percentage of the electricity they provide customers from selected renewable sources. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the trade association for the US wind industry, sees this as an absolute necessity for their industry to continue growing and was vexed over its exclusion from the current bill--this in spite of the fact that the wind industry's main federal support, the Production Tax Credit, was previously extended through 2012, along with the valuable option to select an Investment Tax Credit instead. I see two practical explanations for this omission, though it's clear from the efforts of AWEA and other groups that it could still find its way back into the bill. First, the RES is really another tax. Instead of being levied on taxpayers by the government, it would be levied by utilities on ratepayers when the costs of the renewable energy projects or the tradeable Renewable Energy Credits they can buy in lieu of buying green power are passed on to their customers. On a more practical level, with 29 states plus the District of Columbia already having equivalent Renewable Portfolio Standards in place, most of the best US wind and solar resources are already covered by such targets. A national RES might not add a lot more of these energy sources, but it certainly would trigger a scramble for the states with limited renewable resources to line up supplies from elsewhere. That might be good for the renewable energy sector, but it's of questionable benefit to a national economy still struggling to emerge from the recession.

Also absent from this draft are the expiring renewable energy incentives highlighted in yesterday's New York Times editorial. These include the $0.45/gal. ethanol blenders' credit, about which I've blogged extensively, and the Treasury renewable energy grants offering up-front cash for the Investment Tax Credits that would otherwise require waiting for next year's tax return--assuming the recipient company had sufficient taxable income to benefit from the entire amount of the credit. These grants look problematic, as I noted last fall, when reports first surfaced that most of the money paid--approaching $2 billion--had gone to non-US firms. As I discussed at the time, this reflects the reality of a wind energy market in which US firms account for less than half of domestic sales, supported by a thoroughly-globalized supply chain, not unlike many other industries. The arguments pro and con too easily reduce to unappealing sound-bites.

That leaves us with what is currently in the bill, which I have so far only had time to skim. It seems to consist mainly of well-intended but overly-politicized efforts--one section is entitled the "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2010--to hold BP accountable for the Gulf Coast oil spill and to address the liability for future spills, while trying to reduce the chances of another one. That sounds like motherhood and apple pie at this point, but as always the devil is in the details; implementing some of these details would leave the US with a much smaller offshore oil capability. That might appeal to environmentalists but would be catastrophic for energy consumers, our trade deficit, and US energy security. And why would you charge the Secretary of Energy with issuing a monthly report, starting in September or October, on the economic and employment impact of a deepwater drilling moratorium that is only intended to last through November? Interestingly, the bill would also establish a Congressional version of the President's oil spill commission, this time with specific technical criteria for appointment to this body. Alternative, compromise versions of the bill's oil provisions are already emerging from within Senator Reid's own party, and with a lot of luck we could end up with measures that would actually make offshore drilling safer and more responsible without killing it--and the roughly 30% of domestic oil production it provides.

In addition to its oil spill provisions, the bill also offers some generous tax credits for converting heavy-duty trucking to natural gas, along the lines of the Pickens proposals I discussed last Friday, plus similar help for vehicle electrification and infrastructure, yet more energy efficiency measures (this time focused on homes), and funding for an old government program to buy up land and waterways for parks and nature preserves. All of this is notionally paid for ("PAYGO") by raising the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund fee on all the oil produced and used in the US from $0.08 to $0.45 per barrel, which would directly increase the size of the fund to cover future disasters from $1 billion to $5 billion, while indirectly making all the bill's other provisions appear deficit-neutral. The proposed fee increase has the potential to raise an extra $2.5 billion per year.

It's not clear whether even this slimmed-down bill can garner enough votes to pass in the Senate, let alone do so before the summer adjournment. In any case I'd expect the version that comes up for a final vote--if it does at all--to look somewhat different than this draft. It would almost certainly grow much longer, a malady that has afflicted all major legislation in recent Congresses. Whether it will actually make a meaningfully-positive impact on the serious energy challenges the US faces remains to be seen.

Read More

BP Shrinks by $16 Billion

I've been going though BP's second-quarter earnings press release and results to get a better sense of the impact of the Gulf Coast oil spill on the company's finances. It's a measure of the scale of a "Supermajor" like BP and the robustness of its underlying cash flows that it could continue to invest more than $6 billion (B) in capital projects and acquisitions in the quarter and even pay down a bit of debt, while recording a charge of $32.2 B against earnings related to the Deepwater Horizon disaster and ensuing oil leak. To put that figure in perspective, it's more than the market capitalization of Exelon Corporation, the largest owner and operator of nuclear power plants in the US. Yet among all of the remarkable and morbidly-fascinating numbers presented here, the one that stood out for me was the net decrease of shareholder equity by $16 B since the end of 2009. Anyone seeking to explain the decision of BP's board to change CEOs should start there.

The media have tended to focus on the impact on BP's market capitalization, which is a more immediate, though also much more volatile measure of shareholder value. As of today, it's down by about $70 B compared to its pre-disaster level. If it remained there and the market believed that the $32 B that BP has just recognized was likely to be the full extent of the impact on the company, a flurry of takeover bids would follow shortly. However, when you read BP's description of how they arrived at that amount, it's clear that there's relatively little upside--mainly from its partners in the Macondo field, if they eventually pay the $1.4 B of costs that BP believes they owe--and a great deal of downside. While including the entire $20 B escrow account set up to cover claims, BP has apparently not reserved extra amounts for the outcome of future lawsuits beyond litigation costs, or for the additional fines and penalties that would follow if it were found to have been grossly negligent.

All of these costs must be balanced somehow. BP's other businesses have continued to generate roughly $7 B per quarter, but the key to finding the money to pay all the claims and damages from the Deepwater Horizon disaster rests with the company's decision to sell up to $30 B of assets, with the first $7 B already sold to Apache, and in its coerced but convenient decision to suspend dividend payments for the balance of 2010. The latter was never really necessary to secure the $20 B escrow account, which BP indicates "will be assured by the setting aside of US assets with a value of $20 billion." No matter what, BP will be smaller in the future as a result of this event, but its management has effectively trimmed the shrinkage by investing some of the shareholders' money--their expected dividends--in projects and activities that might otherwise have been curtailed or sold.

Another figure in BP's results that is attracting some attention is the $10 B tax credit it is recording in conjunction with that $32 B charge. It's simple accounting--the spill-related charges are being incurred pre-tax and will reduce the income upon which BP pays taxes--but this may not sit well with Gulf Coast residents and US taxpayers who have been assured by BP that they will be kept whole. This is as meaningful a source of cash as an asset sale, though it could deliver yet another blow to BP's reputation.

Mr. Dudley has assumed the reins of a company that is still undergoing a near-death experience. Time will tell whether BP's accountants have included a sufficient "haircut" in the second-quarter results to allow him to begin rebuilding the firm's fortunes and restoring the lost shareholder value that was patiently accumulated over many years but destroyed in the course of just a few weeks. I've already seen a fair amount of speculation concerning whether his Gulf Coast roots and American accent will help mollify angry stakeholders, government officials, and Members of Congress, and it's hard to see how he could fare worse in this regard than his predecessor. However, it's going to take a lot more than that to enable BP to retain its access to valuable government contracts and exploration leases, including the extremely thorny decision about whether, when and how to bring up the subject of returning to unlucky Macondo to drill some proper wells and produce a field that some experts seem to think could hold up to a billion barrels of oil, less the several million that flowed into the Gulf.

Read More

Moratorium Follies

This week Secretary of Interior Salazar reissued the administration's deepwater drilling moratorium, with a few new twists and a notional six month limit. This happened in spite of loud protests from the states most affected by the spill, some of their representatives in Washington, and even some skepticism from the heads of the President's own drilling commission. The old ban is still in court, and the new one probably will be soon, but this is really all moot, because whether the Salazar moratorium is technically in force or not, the legal battle over it has created a moratorium limbo that few companies would be willing to test, given the costs involved. One irony of all this is that in addition to the obvious indirect winners in OPEC, there's at least one direct winner in this hemisphere: Brazil, which will be quite happy to export to us their deepwater oil that we're inadvertently helping them to develop quicker and cheaper.

When I read the Interior Department press release on the new moratorium, which was presumably crafted to satisfy the federal judge's objections to the original deepwater drilling ban, several points stand out, aside from the redefinition of the ban to cover not water depth, but the kind of rigs that are required to drill in deep water. In the Secretary's statement that he "remains open to modifying the new deepwater drilling suspensions based on new information", he appears to offer greater flexibility and the prospect of case-by-case exemptions or an early termination. Yet when you read the first item on the list of reforms for which the moratorium is intended to buy time, dealing with "companies demonstrating that they have the ability to respond effectively to a potential spill in the Gulf," the implication seems clear. If an unprecedented response to the Macondo spill using the state-of-the-art technology and techniques has been inadequate to meet the government's implied standard--as seems self-evident--then this is a classic Catch 22. If drilling can only resume when the industry can prove it could contain a blowout like this and any oil spilled within a few days, then we could be waiting a very long time, while technology catches up to that new, higher bar.

When you parse through this document and examine the evidence that's been made available so far concerning the causes of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and spill, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the main driver behind the moratorium is not technological, or even necessarily environmental, given the extremely low risks of a similar event occurring from a properly managed rig equipped with a properly-maintained blowout preventer. It seems due at least to "an abundance of caution"--that lovely phrase we have heard several times this week--if not ultimately from hard-nosed political considerations. If I were a President whose party was facing a tough mid-term election, I'd be tempted to eliminate any possible risk of another blowout between now and November 2, too.

The problem with that approach is that the administration won't pay the short-term price for that abundance of caution. That burden falls on the economy of the region, which has already been affected by the spill, on the domestic drilling industry--a vital national asset, not just a bunch of corporations--and its employees, and eventually on the entire US, as our domestic energy supply will again begin to dwindle. According to a new study, the economic impact of the moratorium already extends well beyond the region, because offshore oil workers, who typically work two weeks on and two weeks off, live all over the country, apparently in more than two-thirds of Congressional districts. Yet while unemployed oil workers might at least be covered by the $100 million fund that BP set aside for that purpose at the administration's request, the local businesses that employ many of them need help with more than just meeting payroll, if they are to survive until the end of the moratorium, whenever that might be. That's not BP's responsibility; it's the direct responsibility of the government that has taken a calculated decision to impose a blanket moratorium on the entire industry, rather than on individual bad actors.

Meanwhile, aside from OPEC, an indirect beneficiary of the moratorium that understands very well that when you stop drilling your existing production begins to fall away, there is at least one direct beneficiary that is about to take advantage of the opportunity the ban has created. Brazil has discovered enormous offshore oil reserves in the deep waters of the Santos Basin and elsewhere along its lengthy coastline. As I've noted before, it's the exploitation of these resources, rather than its effective but comparatively-small cane ethanol program, that has made Brazil energy independent and is turning it into one of the most important new oil exporters in the world, including to the US. Until recently, the companies exploring for oil off the coast of Brazil faced the same problems that Gulf Coast drillers did, of high rig rental costs and a long queue for hiring them. Our response to Deepwater Horizon is mitigating both issues. So while it might be promoting safer drilling in the Gulf, one of the unintended consequences of the suspension of drilling here is that it will simultaneously create a greater need for the US to import oil, while ensuring that countries like Brazil will have more of it to sell us, sooner than otherwise and at a bigger profit.

I expect to post over the course of the summer on ideas for what it would take to get our government and the rest of the country comfortable with resuming drilling, although some indications suggest that most of our fellow citizens are already there. This is complicated by an opportunistic PR campaign from environmental groups suggesting that this is the moment to get the US off oil entirely, rather than figuring out how to drill more safely. However desirable that might sound, for many reasons, at this point it's about as feasible as suggesting to a hospital patient that this is the moment for him to try living without blood. For good and ill, oil is still the lifeblood of our economy. We should absolutely work on reducing our dependence on it, but we're going to burn many billions of barrels of oil getting there, and that will require continued drilling in the US--unless we're happier than I think to go back to our former pattern of importing more and more of it from other countries. Stay tuned.

Read More

Expand the Presidential Commission on Deepwater Horizon

Amid the other news this week, including the President's address to the nation on the Gulf Coast oil disaster and his meeting with BP officials yesterday, the announcement on Monday of the five remaining members of the Presidential Commission to assess the "environmental and safety precautions...to ensure an accident like this never happens again" seems to have sunk without a trace. I don't recall seeing it mentioned in either the Washington Post or Wall St. Journal. I ran across it in the New Orleans Times-Picayune online last night. Yet it's clear that the staffing of such a commission has an enormous influence on its approach and ultimate findings, and on both counts I am seriously concerned. From my review of their published bios, I cannot discern that any named member possesses any direct training or experience with the technology and practices of offshore drilling, a field that in its own way is every bit as complex as aviation, terrorism, or other past subjects of similar commissions.

The gold standard for Presidential commissions investigating accidents of national importance was set by the Rogers Commission on the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger shortly after its launch on January 28, 1986. The commission--not just its technical staff--was packed to the rafters with figures of national prominence and deep expertise in aviation and space technology and operations. Headed by former Secretary of State William P. Rogers, it included Neil Armstrong, the first astronaut on the moon, Dr. Sally Ride, first American woman in space, Gen. Chuck Yeager, first pilot to fly faster than the speed of sound, Gen. Donald Kutyna, an expert on spacecraft launches and accidents, and Joseph Sutter, the "father" of the Boeing 747, along with an aeronautical engineering professor, an aircraft designer, a solar physicist, and several other leading experts on aerospace matters. Last but never least was Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Prize-winning physicist, quintessential iconoclast, and perhaps the smartest and most inquisitive human being ever to walk the earth, with the possible exception of Albert Einstein. It was, of course, Dr. Feynman whose famous ice-water experiment with the solid rocket boosters' O-ring material uncovered the root cause of the disaster.

Each of the fine individuals President Obama has named to the Deepwater Horizon Commission brings valuable experience and an important perspective, including that of a professional environmentalist, biological oceanographer, an accomplished physicist and manager of science, and a pair of lawyers with past experience in various aspects of the Exxon Valdez spill and cleanup. I have no objection to any of them individually. However, collectively they are not a patch on the Rogers Commission.

The obvious solution to this problem is that the President should immediately expand the commission to include at least two additional members, and preferably four, with deep expertise and experience in oil & gas drilling, geoscience, and offshore industry operations. It is absolutely essential that the commission includes people who understand not just the ocean environment, but also subsea geology, drilling technology, and relevant oil & gas industry practices, first-hand. They should of course have no connections to BP or to any other company that stands to lose or gain from the commission's findings. While that might narrow the field somewhat, it would not rule out the faculties of the leading petroleum engineering and geosciences university departments, or a wide swath of recently-retired experts in these fields. The US is blessed with abundant expertise in this area, and it would be a crime to exclude it from this vital study.

Despite a nearly universal desire to accelerate our shift away from petroleum in the wake of this disaster, we are nowhere near being able to turn our backs on either the energy or convenience we get from oil. As I've shown in a series of postings since the accident occurred, offshore drilling is a crucial component of US domestic energy supplies, and no current alternative energy source operates at either the scale necessary to replace it, or in sufficiently direct substitution for the transportation energy of which oil is our principal provider. The less oil we produce domestically, the more we will have to import.

In this context it is of the highest importance that the commission be given the best chance possible to interpret the findings of the technical investigations of what went wrong on the Deepwater Horizon rig, and to determine how to structure an approach to offshore drilling that reduces the risks posed by human error and technical failures to the maximum degree possible. Every member of the commission has important contributions to make in this regard, but without the match between relevant experience and the nature of the problem exemplified by the Rogers Commission, the Deepwater Horizon Commission will be operating at least partly in the dark.

I don't often urge my readers to take action on the subject of one of my blogs, but in this case, if you share my concerns about the omission of critical experience from the staffing of this commission, you should contact the White House and your Representatives in Congress to express that view.

Read More

Walruses and Wake-Up Calls

I just finished watching today's hearing on offshore drilling operations and safety by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, featuring the CEOs of ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips and the US heads of Shell and BP. Rather than giving in to the temptation to deliver a rant on the current level of dysfunction in Congress, I want to highlight a few things that stood out for me in the testimony of the assembled chiefs of the largest oil companies in the US, and then focus on the central dilemma that was explored in the hearing.

1. Although couched in careful language referring to the importance of completing the full investigation of the circumstances involved, the heads of the other companies came as close as anyone could reasonably expect to saying that BP's well design for Macondo and the processes for drilling it would not have passed muster in their companies.
2. A series of very interesting questions focused on the prevalence and effectiveness of "stop-work" policies, in which any employee or contractor on a rig can call a halt to drilling if he or she sees something that looks dangerous. BP indicated it had such a policy in place on Deepwater Horizon. However, John Watson, the CEO of Chevron (in which I own stock) pointed out that in order for such policies to be credible, employees who exercise that initiative must be recognized and rewarded. After all that we've learned about the warning signs on this well, I suspect I'm not alone in having difficulty imagining a "stop-work" call having been welcomed in this case. Corporate culture matters.
3. In one sentence, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson calmly demolished the half-baked notion that every deepwater well be required to have a relief well drilled in parallel, just in case it would be needed. (This was done in such a low-key way that the questioner didn't seem to grasp what had been said.) Instead of mentioning the doubling of cost involved, Tillerson pointed out that this strategy would double the risk of every project. The risks of a parallel relief well would be the same as for the exploration well, because it would be another exploration well.
4. Sometime later Congressman Scalise from Louisiana picked up on this theme with a question that should have galvanized the room, but somehow didn't. He asked BP North America President Lamar McKay if the relief wells at Macondo were being drilled to the same plans as the blown-out exploration well. Answer: yes, with oversight at every step of the way.

I'm sure I'm neglecting other important comments, though I'm also dismissing the first hour-and-a-half of the hearing, which was frittered away in a blather of posturing and wild "gotcha" chases involving extinct Gulf Coast walruses and dead experts' telephone numbers. But despite all of this, I thought the crux of the problem concerning how to address the other Gulf Coast deepwater leases came through in some astute questions and surprisingly candid answers. Many of the members recognized the importance of the resources involved to the economy of the region and to the energy and national security of the country, and the serious damage that the drilling freezes are inflicting. At the same time, they highlighted the breakdown of the public's trust in the industry to extract these resources safely, despite the statistical evidence that, with 14,000 deepwater wells drilled globally, the Macondo well stands as an anomaly at a single company. The industry representatives also made it very clear that the primary defense against the effects of uncontrolled blow-outs such as this one lies in prevention, rather than clean-up, for which the industry was not adequately prepared to handle a spill on this scale. That's a situation that can't be rectified within six months, and possibly not six years, though the innovations and inspiration coming out of this disaster ought to provide a substantial kick-start to bringing spill-response into the 21st century.

That leaves our government with a monumental dilemma regarding the resumption of offshore drilling. One answer is the total risk avoidance of the current freeze, which appears politically motivated, but for which its supporters might point to some of today's testimony. Unfortunately, the freeze will inevitably increase our reliance on imported oil, because as much as we recognize the need to move in the direction of renewable energy and other alternatives, there is currently no other meaningful substitute for the oil that we now get from deepwater, unless we are willing to consider the risk tradeoffs involved in targeting new domestic oil production on onshore and shallow-water resources that are presently off-limits, such as those in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Another, admittedly riskier solution would be to allow companies other than BP, using designs and procedures in conformance with the industry guidelines developed by the American Petroleum Institute and broadly similar to those just recommended by the Department of Interior, to resume drilling on projects already under way, while the investigations and Presidential commission determine the longer-term measures appropriate for new leases. I lean strongly toward a selective resumption, but the responsibility involved is literally awesome and properly resides with our elected leaders.

Read More

Winners and Losers from the Gulf Spill

A comment on my recent posting on oil substitution opportunities in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill got me thinking about potential winners and losers from the broad changes that seem likely to ensue from this disaster. Some of these outcomes would depend on new laws and regulations that could alter the basis of competition within the oil and gas industry, between it and other energy sectors, and between specific energy technologies. However, I also wouldn't discount the possibility of enduring changes in our perceptions of the oil industry and of the ways in which we use oil.

Until President Obama acted to freeze new deepwater leases and drilling permits, and even drilling that was already permitted and underway--a freeze that MMS appears to have used its own initiative to extend to all offshore drilling at any depth--natural gas seemed an obvious winner from any constraints on offshore oil drilling. Now I'm less sure, even if the President is apparently ready to allow drilling in shallow waters to resume. Superficially, gas should come out ahead, because the Gulf of Mexico accounts for a smaller fraction of US natural gas production than oil production, at 11% vs. about 30%. Yet it's also my understanding that offshore gas fields tend to decline more quickly than offshore oil fields, so that gas production in the Gulf of Mexico could drop faster than oil output under a deepwater drilling ban.

More importantly, shortfalls in Gulf Coast gas production could have a bigger impact on US natural gas prices than reduced Gulf Coast oil production would on crude prices. That's because the gas market is still mainly regional, connected by relatively small and expensive global flows of LNG, while oil is a truly global commodity with significant flexibility to work around localized production problems. Although the comparison is only approximate, you can see this effect by examining the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the prices for Henry Hub natural gas and West Texas crude oil. Between August 25 and October 5, 2005, the gas futures price spiked by 45%, while WTI actually dropped by 7%, because of the extent of refinery shutdowns caused by the storms. (Gasoline futures shot up by 33% but quickly fell back to where they had been.) In other words, ensuring that gas remains cheap enough to be an attractive substitute for oil in transportation and other uses depends on either restoring gas drilling in the Gulf at all depths pretty quickly, or expanding onshore shale gas production even faster than recently.

The situation for renewables looks much less ambiguous. Even though, as I have pointed out frequently, renewable electricity sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power don't substitute for oil in any meaningful way, at least not without millions of electric vehicles that will take many years to roll out, perception is a good bet to trump hard-nosed realism in this situation. Extending the stimulus benefits for renewables, especially the cash grant program that substitutes for the tax equity market that stalled during the financial crisis, looks a lot likelier today than prior to April 20, despite the massive federal budget deficit. Similarly, the ethanol industry stands a better chance of getting the administration to relax the 10% blending limit on ethanol in gasoline--a limit that would otherwise stall ethanol growth until E85 takes off, if ever. The EPA is expected to rule on this soon.

Nuclear power looks like another big beneficiary of the oil spill, and again not because nuclear power would substitute for much oil in the near-term, though nuclear blogger Rod Adams properly reminded me recently that electricity from nuclear plants could be just as effective at backing out heating oil as natural gas, via efficient geothermal heat pump systems. Electrification could also displace some oil in rail transport, depending on the cost-effectiveness of electrifying long-distance freight tracks and locomotives. But in any case, nuclear stands as the likely surviving "conventional energy" pole of any grand compromise on energy and climate legislation, now that offshore drilling has become a dead weight instead of a vote-attractor in the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill. It is also the only other low-carbon energy source currently available on a scale large enough to substitute for the energy we get from oil, though not for oil's attributes as an energy carrier and storage medium.

Assessing whether the US oil & gas industry wins or loses from all this is harder than it looks. Other than BP--an obvious loser--some companies stand to gain from improved economics and increased emphasis on onshore drilling in places like the Bakken formation, from better onshore gas and LNG economics, or from picking up opportunities that BP won't be offered. Even if they're not barred from bidding on new leases around the world, BP just won't look like anyone's partner of choice, at least for a while. And don't forget OPEC, which from the first day of this disaster looked like the single biggest winner from our misfortune. Anything that makes non-OPEC oil production more difficult or costly shifts more market power to OPEC, which is sitting on top of more than three-fourths of the world's proved oil reserves, much of it still fairly cheap to develop.

With one very large caveat the US public, as both consumers and taxpayers, looks like the big loser from the likely energy outcomes of this spill--as distinct from those whose livelihoods and environment have been affected directly. We'll all pay more for energy, at least in the medium term, and we'll pay more to subsidize alternatives that still need help to become competitive, as well as those that should already have been weaned off subsidies after decades at the trough. We might turn that prospect on its head, however, if the spill drastically changed our attitude towards energy consumption. Until this event, oil was largely invisible. Every day in the US a thousand times as much oil as has been leaking into the Gulf flows through pipelines, tankers, barges, rail cars and tank trucks, and eventually through hoses into the fuel tanks of our cars, trucks, trains and planes, all unobtrusively out of sight. This undersea gusher provides a rare visual hint of the sheer scale of our oil consumption. Could seeing all that oil lead Americans to think differently about how they use energy, and from which sources? Let's check back a year after the well is plugged and the story has moved off the front pages.

Read More

The Fate of BP

Yesterday I participated in an online panel (registration required) exploring the implications of the Gulf Coast oil spill. As the panelists were waiting for the webinar to begin, the moderator suggested a few questions he thought might come up. Although we never got to the one on the future of BP, a quick read of today's news suggests this remains a highly relevant question for the public and for BP's investors, retailers, and suppliers. While I'm not ready to hop on the bandwagon in thinking the company might end up being taken over by a competitor, I don't think we can rule out that possibility. In any case, it seems almost certain to end up a very different company than it was prior to April 20, 2010. That could have implications not just for the oil & gas industry, but also for the renewable energy sector, in which BP has been an active participant.

The first article that caught my eye this morning pondered whether Mr. Hayward was likely to survive as the company's CEO. Anyone presiding over a 34% decline in market value within the space of a few weeks--and not as part of an overall market crash--ought to be concerned about his tenure. Still, I would be as surprised as several of the experts the Wall St. Journal interviewed if the company's board saw fit to fire him before the well was secured and the investigations completed, barring credible evidence of serious errors of judgment on his part. In any case, I find the speculation about a takeover of the company much more interesting.

Even in its weakened state, BP is still a mighty big fish for someone else to swallow. As of this morning's trading, its market capitalization stood at $119 billion. As an article in today's Financial Times highlighted, that rules out all but a small handful of possible acquirers. For me the potential of an acquisition hinges less on the relative size of BP and the various firms that might be able to absorb it, than on the underlying "industrial logic." The fact that the firm is about $68 B cheaper than it was in mid-April doesn't make it a bargain, because it has acquired a large new set of liabilities, the value of which can't be accurately assessed, yet. That's true even short of a finding of criminal negligence, which various politicians have hinted at, but that remains entirely speculative at this point. I believe the real issue is whether after all damages and claims are paid the lasting harm to BP's brand and reputation is so severe--and so tangible--that its assets and operations would clearly be worth more within another large energy company.

First consider BP's capacity to cover the costs of the spill cleanup and pay all the claims accumulating against it. The media and politicians have focused mainly on the company's first quarter 2010 profits of either $5.5 B or $6 B, depending on how you measure them, though I believe that its annual cash flow and the disposition of that cash flow provide a clearer picture of its ability to pay for damages. A quick look at the financials in its 2009 Annual Report shows that from 2007-2009, BP's annual cash flow from operations averaged $30 B per year. This was spent roughly two-thirds on its capital projects budget and one-third on paying dividends to shareholders. At the end of 2009 the company held just over $8 B in cash and cash equivalents. I also scanned the report for any indication that BP had external insurance coverage for such events. I couldn't find any, and media reports indicate they were self-insured. However, even without insurance, BP could potentially pay out many tens of billions of dollars of cleanup costs, damages and penalties, if any, over a period of 3-5 years.

That's not to say that all of that cash flow would be available for such purposes--some maintenance investments would be required in any case--or that this could be done without a significant impact on both the market valuation of the company or its underlying long-term enterprise value. In effect, this is probably a big part of what the market is discounting into the stock price: a sort of rough consensus estimate of the expected value of the impact on the company of the likely payouts. This includes things as simple as the reduced value to investors of a stock paying a lower dividend (or none, as several lawmakers have suggested) to the consequences of constraining its reinvestment in hydrocarbon production that depletes a little bit every day. Other concerns weighing on the value include the perceived effect of any consumer boycotts--there's apparently one gathering strength on Facebook and in multiple YouTube videos--or the loss of government contracts as a result of the possible findings of the various investigations. That could run the gamut from losing contracts to supply the US military with fuel to losing leases to develop new resources. These are also some of the elements that any potential acquirer would assess, to gauge how much of the discount on BP is attributable to factors that could be quickly reversed under other management and an untainted brand.

Based on my experience working at Texaco, Inc. following the Pennzoil verdict, which led to the company's bankruptcy and the payment of a multi-billion dollar settlement, even if BP weren't subject to an acquisition in the short term, its future trajectory might still be so altered by this event and its costs that it would eventually end up much smaller, or perhaps as the subject of an acquisition much later. I see several relevant analogies to Texaco/Pennzoil. First, this matter will continue to occupy the attention of management long after the well is finally plugged. Claims and lawsuits will drag on for months and probably years, and top executives will be testifying before a series of investigations, tort actions, and perhaps even criminal trials. Day-to-day operations probably wouldn't suffer, but it would be very difficult to keep the firm's strategy sharply focused under such conditions. I'd also be surprised if BP didn't miss out on critical opportunities along the way.

Then there's the question of how to pay for claims and damages. At some level, if they exceeded cash on hand and easy borrowing capacity, it would likely make more sense to management to sell assets--or transfer them directly to plaintiffs--rather than funding payouts at the expense of the investments on which the future of the company would depend. The firm will also be under considerable pressure from investors to continue paying out strong dividends, or to resume them if they are suspended at some point in the process. But regardless of how BP chooses to cover its spill-related liabilities, its future capital budgets seem likely to be constrained, and projects with longer payouts or less attractive returns would fall below a higher cutoff line. Given the relative returns of renewable energy projects compared to oil & gas projects, BP's renewables could be an early casualty, unless they are deemed crucial to rebuilding the company's reputation.

While an acquisition will remain possible as long as BP's stock is this depressed, it seems likelier that the company will survive and eventually rebound, though perhaps not to former levels. But even if none of its competitors is willing to take on the big risks an acquisition would entail, let alone navigating anti-trust regimes that are likely to be much less flexible in the wake of the financial crisis, this possibility will have BP's management looking over their other shoulder--the one that the US government isn't already camped out on, adjacent to the "boot on the neck"--until this entire episode is behind them.

I'd like to close with a reminder that a consumer boycott of BP stands a much bigger chance of harming one of your neighbors than it does of hurting BP. Most of the service stations in the US aren't owned and operated by the company whose brand you see on the polesign; they are mainly independent businesses that have a supply contract either directly with the company, or with a regional distributor who has such a relationship. So if you boycott your local BP station, chances are you are not affecting BP, which will resell the product on the wholesale market, but a local business owner who is struggling in a very tough business with slim margins. And in the case of BP, many of these retailers didn't even choose BP. Depending on how long the site has been in their families, many would have originally signed up with Amoco, ARCO, or even Sohio (Standard Oil of Ohio, which BP acquired in two stages in 1978 and 1987.)

Read More

The Panic Button

I suppose it was inevitable that we would arrive at the moment in the ongoing oil spill crisis at which the baby would be thrown out with the bath. That moment came at about 7 minutes into President Obama's press conference on the spill yesterday. After announcing the suspension of offshore drilling in Alaska, the cancellation of planned lease sales for the Gulf of Mexico and Virginia, and the extension for six months of his administration's moratorium on new drilling permits for deepwater wells, he ordered a halt to 33 exploration wells currently being drilled in the Gulf, excluding the two relief wells for the leaking Macondo prospect. Everything up until that point could be considered as reasonable, prudent, and expected responses by an administration faced with an unprecedented and still-unfolding environmental and economic disaster. But while stopping work on the 33 projects already underway might look like prudence to some, it could ultimately have economic consequences rivaling those of the spill.

The President's order is based on the recommendations of the 30-day investigation of offshore drilling carried out at his request by the Department of Interior. The report recommended a number of new standards for equipment and procedures for use in deepwater drilling, and it follows that it will require some time to implement all of these changes, both on the part of the drilling industry and in the government agencies charged with regulating and inspecting these activities. Absent from this report and from the President's order is any path for companies with rigs already drilling wells in deep water to quickly demonstrate that they are already sufficiently in compliance with these recommendations--which I must add have been issued without the final results of the various investigations into the actual causes of the accident, and thus must make significant assumptions concerning the relative importance of equipment failure, procedures, and human error.

I understand that the President has an obligation to protect the residents, businesses and environment of the Gulf Coast region from further harm. Another blowout or leak could turn disaster into total catastrophe. Yet the safe drilling record of the other firms operating in the Gulf does not give us any reason to expect that allowing the projects in question to continue would constitute such an unwarranted risk. It's also worth recalling that all of the drilling projects now required to suspend operations have already passed the emergency inspections the President ordered in the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and sinking. These inspections were completed on May 9.

What does this order mean on a practical level? A number of companies that paid for leases conveying the right to explore for and develop hydrocarbons in the Outer Continental Shelf, and that subsequently invested significant effort and expense in planning and obtaining permits for the exploration of these leases--instead of other leases offshore Angola, Brazil, or elsewhere--and that signed contracts with drill-ship operators and many other suppliers must now abrogate those contracts, declare force majeure, or pay off their suppliers and abandon these wells as if they were all dry holes. It is simply not realistic to imagine that any of these companies can afford to leave these rigs and crews in place for six months, waiting for the government to either show them a way forward or deliver another moratorium extension. Instead, the companies will scramble to redeploy this equipment and some of these workers to projects outside US waters, while arguing urgently with the government--and probably in court--that they should either be allowed to complete these projects or awarded substantial damages.

Please don't imagine that I'm inviting you to a pity party for the oil industry. While some of the firms involved, particularly those with minority, non-operating stakes in these projects, are smaller players, most are big international firms with global operations and multi-billion dollar capital budgets. This move will be a financial setback for them, but they will recover and shift their efforts elsewhere, to the extent they can. When the moratoria end--if they do under the current administration--they will step back into the Gulf of Mexico OCS, but probably much more tentatively, as appropriate for the significantly higher "above-ground risk" involved--essentially a measure of the relative reliability or capriciousness of the legal and regulatory system in which they're dealing. They will not be the big losers from this decision. That honor is reserved for many of the individuals and businesses along the Gulf Coast that have added jobs and made investments to serve this growing market. In other words, the President's decision will compound the economic damage to a Gulf Coast already reeling from the impact of the spill.

We should take some consolation that the President didn't shut down the 591 deepwater wells that are already producing oil and gas in the Gulf. The mere fact that this was reported suggests it had probably been under serious consideration. As I've noted on numerous occasions in the last several weeks, the oil and gas we produce from the Outer Continental Shelf is a crucial source of domestic energy and vital to our energy security. However, that importance also extends to our offshore drilling capacity, which was put at risk by this decision.

After an event like this spill, no one should expect things to continue exactly as they were. However, the New York Times is right to call the President's response "partly a political exercise aimed at showing that his administration is on top of the unfolding disaster in the Gulf of Mexico." Instead of singling out the companies that were directly involved in the Deepwater Horizon accident for this time-out to prevent further spills, he has chosen to punish the entire industry and all its stakeholders in the region, including the most safety-conscious and diligent operators with unblemished records. Halting all of BP's projects, or even all projects involving Transocean, could have been defended as a sensible precaution. Freezing everything looks like the act of an administration that is so out of its depth in this situation that its fundamental instinct is to eliminate any possibility of another problem from this source on its watch. Unfortunately, American energy consumers will be paying for years for this extreme level of risk aversion.

Disclosure: My portfolio includes investments in Chevron, which appears to be the operator of several of the projects affected by this order.

Read More

Preparing for the Next Big Spill

In the last few weeks numerous industry experts and outside observers have pointed out that the technology for dealing with major oil spills has advanced much more slowly than the technology for finding and producing oil under increasingly marginal conditions. That's an important insight, because if all the leaking oil were being safely and efficiently collected and processed, our main focus would be on the circumstances of the tragic accident that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon and killed 11 workers, rather than on the slow-motion disaster looming off the Gulf Coast. As it debates raising the oil spill fee collected on all the oil the US produces or imports, the Congress should consider setting aside a portion of any incremental revenue to fund research on improved oil spill remediation methods and technology, rather than just accumulating more money to spend in the future on today's relatively ineffective technology, should another large spill occur.

I have no doubt that the assessment of the factors contributing to the Deepwater Horizon accident and the ensuing spill in the Gulf will lead to new regulations on offshore drilling. With some luck, those will contribute to reducing the risk of a recurrence, though regulations can never eliminate the possibility of someone making a bad decision, with tragic consequences. But even if President Obama imposes an extended moratorium on deepwater drilling, there will eventually be another big spill, somewhere--if not from a deepwater well, then from one of the many additional supertanker cargoes the US would require when domestic oil production resumes the long slide that deepwater drilling had arrested and was beginning to reverse. Either way, it's not too early to start thinking about the next spill, while this one is still fresh in our minds.

There's no shortage of ideas for dealing with the oil slick off the Gulf Coast. Online innovation sites are gathering suggestions, and the former head of Shell's US operations, John Hofmeister, has one of his own concerning the use of supertankers to skim and collect the oil. Even actor Kevin Costner has a technology to offer. Decades of offshore drilling without a major accident like this, but with plenty of spills from oil tankers, other vessels, and ports, pipelines, and other facilities, have not prepared the industry to handle the current leak, the rate of which can't even be measured precisely. But even for the spills they were designed to address, the present array of booms, skimmers, and chemical dispersants, plus bags and shovels for what eventually reaches the shore, seems decidedly low-tech. It's hard to conceive of anyone finding the current approaches truly adequate to the task.

Pending legislation in Congress would raise the ceiling on payments out of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund from $1 billion to $5 billion per incident, to be funded by increasing the per-barrel fee assessed on oil produced in or imported into the US from $0.08/bbl to $0.34/bbl. (This is the same bill that would extend unemployment benefits and a dog's breakfast of expiring tax benefits, including a retroactive extension of the $1.00/gallon biodiesel production tax credit back to 1/1/10, when it expired.) It's not clear how this would apply to the current situation, particularly since the Constitution seemly unambiguous in its prohibition on ex post facto laws. In any case, the House Ways and Means Committee estimates that the higher fee would raise an extra billion dollars a year for future oil spills. It wouldn't take very much of that to fund the R&D necessary to bring oil-spill containment and remediation technology into the 21st century, through a combination of targeted tax credits and direct funding of good ideas.

Even though this fee is levied on oil companies, we should understand clearly that consumers will eventually pay most of this increase at the gas pump, to the tune of about a half-cent per gallon. US refiners, who are experiencing low margins, are in no position to absorb it, and the market will pass it on to us. If it's going to come out of our pockets, then shouldn't at least some of it go to making sure that future oil spill response efforts have much better tools to work with? I'll bet the folks in Louisiana wish that some of the $1.5 billion currently sitting in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund had been invested that way over the last 20 years.

FYI, next Wednesay, June 2, at 1:00 PM EDT I'll be on a webinar panel convened by The Energy Collective to discuss the implications of the oil spill for the future of energy. If you're interested, please sign up using this link.

Read More

How Fast a Transition from Oil?

The Gulf Coast oil spill remains the top energy story this week, eclipsing a $10 drop in oil prices that should soon ripple through to gas pumps near you. With BP's latest effort to contain the spill having run afoul of a slush buildup composed of methane hydrate crystals, the deepwater well continues to leak at an undetermined rate. The longer the spill continues, the greater the chances for severe environmental consequences, and the likelier that it will become a perception-altering milestone event as some environmentalists have already suggested. However, even if the spill were to galvanize public opinion in a manner similar to the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, what options do we have that could realistically reduce our reliance on oil produced from offshore platforms?

Last week I focused on the energy contribution of the oil we produce offshore in US waters, particularly in the deep water of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico. It constitutes 30% of domestic crude oil production, or about 10% of our total oil consumption, and contrary to the wildly-inaccurate assertion on a widely-read environmental blog last week, essentially none of it is exported. (Anyone who doesn't know the difference between crude oil and petroleum products has no business commenting on that aspect of energy policy.) Today I'd like to go into a little more detail on the alternatives to offshore drilling that I alluded to last Wednesday.

Gasoline, jet fuel and diesel accounted for 75% of the petroleum we consumed last year. Other than the heating oil included in the diesel tally, these are the fuels that power most transportation of people and goods. Many initiatives are under way to develop non-petroleum fuels for cars, trucks and even jet aircraft, though at this point they are all in relatively early stages of development or deployment. On paper, at least, electricity looks like the best option for replacing gasoline, by means of plug-in electric vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf. Since less than 1% of US oil consumption is used to generate electricity, switching cars from gasoline to electric power represents a nearly total displacement of oil. It would also facilitate the direct use of renewable electricity sources to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. This prospect has many people excited, and I've heard it mentioned frequently in reactions to the Gulf spill. Yet this is hardly a slam-dunk, for numerous reasons, topped by scale and the unproven consumer acceptance of mass-market EVs.

In one of their periodic special sections on energy, today's Wall St. Journal included an article on the development of EV recharging networks in the US. It cited a study by Pike Research forecasting 610,000 EVs by 2015. That would be a great start, though it would fall short of President Obama's goal to put a million plug-in vehicles on the road by then. Even assuming that the million-EV mark were reached that soon, and that they were driven as much as other cars and replaced vehicles averaging 25 mpg, the quantity of gasoline they would displace amounts to just 31,000 bbl/day--less than the quantity of oil the leaking Macondo field would have been producing in a couple of years, had Deepwater Horizon's exploration well been completed uneventfully. Substituting for all of the oil currently produced from offshore drilling--or for the decline in US oil production that would occur by 2020 if we stopped drilling offshore--would require up to 50 million EVs, making up roughly 40% of all the cars likely to be sold in the US this decade. I suppose that might barely be possible on a crash basis, with a World War II-style mobilization of the resources required to achieve it, but it doesn't look very likely to me. I would be impressed if the US had 10 million EVs by 2020, implying annual production of well over a million units within just a couple of years, though that would reduce our current oil demand by under 2%.

So if EVs can only take us a small part of the way to replacing our oil consumption in the near future, what about advanced biofuels? There are many promising avenues, including biofuels produced from agricultural or forestry waste or dedicated energy crops, biofuels from algae, and bio-hydrocarbons from plant sugars. All are in their infancy. The EPA recently had to reduce its mandate for advanced biofuels delivered in 2010 from 100 million gallons to just 6.5 million gallons--424 barrels per day--because no truly commercial-scale facilities will come on-stream this year. We might get a few billion gallons per year from these sources by 2020, if numerous technical and economic hurdles can be overcome, but that would displace at most a couple of hundred thousand bbl/day of oil.

Natural gas looks like another good alternative transportation fuel. T. Boone Pickens has put forward his plan to shift long-distance trucking onto compressed or liquefied gas. There's no shortage of gas available for this purpose, thanks to the much larger supplies made possible by shale gas drilling. It starts from a very low level, however, with current natural gas used in transportation equivalent to less than 1,500 bbl/day of diesel fuel. It also competes with other uses of gas, such as generating more electricity to reduce our consumption of coal. Or, looking at it another way, there might be plenty of gas to do both, but not at today's price.

That leaves what looks like the best option for reducing our oil consumption, other than simply deciding to drive less, as some folks have apparently already done. Because the US car fleet is so large and is driven so far, increasing its fuel efficiency by just 3 miles per gallon could save nearly a million bbls/day of gasoline. That's more than the entire contribution of corn ethanol, our most significant alternative transportation fuel. In fact, the latest demand forecasts of the Energy Information Agency are already based on that kind of improvement, reflecting new regulations requiring new-car fuel economy to increase to 35 mpg before 2020. Still, only a small fraction of our fleet of 240 million cars turns over every year, so it will take a long time before average fleet fuel economy even begins to approach these levels.

Whether your preferred alternative to offshore drilling requires replacing millions of vehicles with hybrids, EVs, natural gas-powered vehicles, or highly-efficient small conventional cars like the new Ford Fiesta, or depends on a vast new infrastructure of alternative fuel production and distribution, none of these solutions can work overnight. In the meantime, every barrel of oil we consume but don't produce here must be imported, some of it from countries that don't like us very much--as we're frequently reminded--and all of it with serious implications for our national financial and trade balances. (And don't forget the inevitable oil spills from all those extra tankers.) If we don't want OPEC to be the biggest beneficiary of a new environmental mindset after the Gulf Coast spill, then we face some very tough choices, including whether we'd prefer to open up major new areas for onshore drilling, instead of some of the offshore prospects that were slated to be leased in the next few years, or to continue drilling offshore under updated procedures and with strengthened environmental protections, at the same time we pursue all of our options for reducing our overall reliance on oil.

Read More

Disaster Scenario?

As the consequences of the ongoing oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico unfold, it's still not clear what we're facing. I've seen repeated requests by those affected to know what the worst-case scenario might be. I can't blame them, though when we don't even know how much oil is leaking, and with so much uncertainty surrounding the measures that BP and the US government are pursuing to plug the well and mitigate the spill, the range of possible scenarios becomes very wide. And if these near-term effects remain unpredictable, the potential longer-term implications for US energy policy are even more divergent. Until the well is capped and the full scope of the environmental and economic damage known, we can only guess at the future shape of this component of our energy supply.

In trying to imagine the range of outcomes, we must consider the rate at which the oil is flowing, how long it will flow, and the relative success of efforts to recover or break down the oil that has leaked before it reaches the shoreline, fisheries and other sensitive environments. A high-end projection of the volume of oil spilled might involve a leak that is actually well above the current 5,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) estimate, and that continues as long as it took to cap last year's Timor Sea leak: 10 weeks. Even at 5,000 bpd, that would eclipse the total spilled from the Exxon Valdez before it ended. And if oil were leaking much faster, as some estimates suggest, the result could rival the largest oil tanker spills, such as the Amoco Cadiz in 1978, while still falling short of the 1979 blowout of Pemex's Ixtoc-1 well farther south in the Gulf. We may never know the true extent of the spill, because there's no accurate way to measure the quantity of oil currently flowing from 5,000 ft. down in the Missississipi Canyon.

If that's the far extreme, what might a less dramatic scenario look like? As described in this morning's New York Times, BP is pursuing several approaches that could either shut off the well quickly, or at least contain the leakage until the well can be sealed by means a relief well drilled into the same formation to block the flow to the current well. The critical event following the explosion on the drilling rig was the apparent failure of the blowout preventer, which BP has been attempting to activate by remotely-operated vehicles (ROVs.) The BOP was supposed to cut off the errant flow--literally. The quickest solution would be to set a new BOP in place and activate it to crimp the riser and drillpipe and shear them off. From my limited understanding of the techniques involved, doing this at depths like these, using only ROVs, and with a well that might be blowing gas and oil at much higher rates once the bent riser and drillpipe were removed would be extremely challenging. BP's plan to use "domes"--essentially underwater cofferdams--to contain and siphon off the oil as it comes out of the well could be nearly as tricky to pull off, though with less downside if it failed. If any of these techniques worked, the total volume of the spill might be limited to something under 150,000 bbls, assuming that the well has already leaked 50-60,000 bbls. That would still qualify as a very large oil spill--much larger than early estimates projected--though far short of a true worst-case.

For now the efforts of all the oil and oil-service company personnel, the Coast Guard, and other military and civilian government personnel involved--along with those whose homes and livelihoods are affected--are properly focused on addressing the leak and its direct consequences. In the interim, the rest of us have had some time to think about what all this means in a broader context. Although I would argue that any permanent changes in policy would be premature, it's not too early to think about what should happen once the leaking well is capped. None of my readers will be surprised to learn that I disagree strongly with those calling for a permanent halt to offshore drilling anywhere in the US. At the same time, I believe most observers agree that the Deepwater Horizon accident raises serious questions about the technology and practices involved in drilling at such depths. This morning's Wall St. Journal cited a 2004 study questioning the efficacy of at least some of the blowout preventers that have been used in deepwater installations, and various reports have pointed to requirements by Brazil and Norway that offshore drillers install equipment enabling the BOP to be activated remotely, should the drilling vessel lose direct communication with it. Both issues should be revisited, in light of current events.

Until the Deepwater Horizon rig and the BOP on the well are ultimately recovered from the sea bottom and analyzed, we won't know exactly what caused the accident that led to the spill. That could take a year or more. Meanwhile, drilling continues on other rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Even with President Obama calling a temporary halt to expanded drilling beyond the Gulf, that leaves a number of other blocks on the Gulf's Outer Continental Shelf that have been leased but not yet drilled. What standard should the government apply, when it receives applications for new drilling on these? (That could even include the lease encompassing the Macondo prospect, which is demonstrating its resource potential in the least-desirable manner imaginable.) Unfortunately, at this point we have nothing beyond the event itself and the previous, uneventful completion of thousands of similar wells (and many thousands of wells in shallower water) to gauge the probability of this ever happening again. If the administration opts for a hiatus in Gulf of Mexico drilling or an outright ban, that would have far-reaching economic and energy-security consequences that I will address in a subsequent posting.

Read More