Sequester Oil Instead of CO2?

I've been following developments in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for more than a decade, so I was intrigued to run across a novel suggestion for an entirely different approach, involving the "sequestration" of undeveloped oil instead of the CO2 emitted by power plants and other industrial facilities. Even allowing for the likelihood that this trial balloon by Ecuador is either intended to enhance its government's leverage in negotiations with potential oil developers, or constitutes an outright scam--the resources in question apparently lie beneath a designated national park--the idea of selling emissions offsets based on the carbon content of forgone oil output is just plausible enough to merit a bit of analysis.

The basic idea seems clever. If it's so hard to capture the CO2 from burning fossil fuels and prevent it from accumulating in the atmosphere, why not leave the carbon in the ground and take credit for that by selling emissions offsets? The benefit of such a transaction, in both environmental and economic terms, would hinge on two key parameters: the carbon content of the specific grade of oil involved and the extent of the reservoir holding it. In other words, how many barrels would be spared, and how many tons of CO2 would be avoided for each barrel? Neither figure could be determined with certainty without some actual drilling, but non-invasive seismic techniques might supply an estimate of the approximate size of the potential reserves involved, while the quality might be guessed by analogy to actual producing fields elsewhere in the country. With these estimates in hand, we could arrive at an approximate value for the avoided emissions.

Lacking detailed information on these Ecuadoran oil reserves, I'm going to punt on quantity and focus on quality and its implications for the unit price of the resulting emissions offsets. If there's enough oil there to be of commercial interest, then that ought to be a sufficient starting point to assess the merits of leaving it in the ground as a means of combating climate change. As a first approximation on quality, let's assume the oil is similar to the Oriente crude that makes up most of Ecuador's output. Oriente is a medium-sulfur, medium-gravity crude similar to the oil produced on the Alaskan North Slope and run in many US West Coast refineries. Its API gravity is listed at 29.2, corresponding to a density of approximately 308 lb. per barrel. Applying a little basic chemistry suggests that each bbl burned would emit roughly 1004 lb. of CO2, so if we knew what the oil was worth, we could easily derive a cost per ton of CO2.

Because the oil in question is still under the ground, its price can't be looked up on an exchange. However, companies are bought and sold on the basis of reserves that have yet to be produced. A recent report from IHS Herold and Harrison Lovegrove & Co., Ltd. indicated that the average value of such M&A transactions in 2008 implied a value of $11.51/bbl for proved reserves and $5.25 for "proved plus probable." The latter figure seems more relevant to the current situation, since the reserves in question couldn't be fully proved without precisely the kind of development work this idea is designed to avoid. Applying the lower "2P" figure to the CO2 calculation above results in an equivalent value of about $11 per metric ton of CO2 offset. That's roughly the same as the estimate for the proceeds from cap & trade implicit in the federal budget the Obama administration submitted to Congress and lower than the price at which offsets are trading on the European Climate Exchange.

The basic flaw in this analysis stems from the large difference between what a company might pay for the rights to oil still in the ground, compared to its ultimate value to both the resource owner and society once produced. Fundamentally, that value is much higher than the externality cost of the greenhouse gases that would be emitted along the way. If that weren't true, Europeans wouldn't pay the equivalent of $293/bbl to fuel their cars. Even if the oil in question were only worth today's long-dated futures price of around $75/bbl less production costs and a discount for quality versus West Texas Intermediate, the price of emissions offsets would have to approach at least $100/ton CO2 before the Ecuadoran government would be truly indifferent to leaving it undeveloped. At $100/ton, many other emissions reduction strategies would look more attractive, including the brute-force, industrial capture and sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks. However high the parasitic energy cost of such CCS, it would still allow most* of the energy content of fossil fuels to be applied to providing the global economy with electricity or transportation fuels, until other sources can expand enough to replace them.

The Washington Post article on this story concludes with a quote from a program director at the Nature Conservancy who characterized the idea as "probably ahead of its time." I'd go the next step and suggest that its inherent contradictions render it generally impractical. There are many reasons to forgo the development of some oil, and if Ecuador's Yasuni National Park is truly the marvel of biodiversity and unspoiled wilderness described, then leaving its oil untouched shouldn't require financial inducements extrapolated from guesses about the resources under its surface. At the same time, it's hard to see a country contemplating development of a less sensitively situated hydrocarbon resource being able to raise enough money from the sale of emissions offsets to make up for the opportunity cost of forgone profits, royalties and taxes from a production-sharing contract, not to mention the employment and other benefits to the national economy. Schemes like this shouldn't distract us from the urgent and important work of figuring out how to make true carbon capture and sequestration practical and cost-effective.

*(A good friend pointed out that my use of "most" here could be miscontrued to imply 90% or more. In fact, current estimates indicate that CCS would consume 1/4-1/3 of the energy output of a fossil-fuel fired power plant. That's consistent with the thermodynamics of combustion and CO2.)

Read More

Climate Change and Unconventional Oil

While Americans are focused on the debate over expanded oil drilling, which might eventually add up to a million barrels per day of incremental oil production, a much larger expansion is underway north of the border, tapping Canada's oil sands reserves. Today's Financial Times (subscription required for full access) reports that environmentalists and socially-responsible investment funds are meeting today with Shell and BP, concerning the environmental and financial risks of the greenhouse gas emissions inherent in oil sands production. This has important implications for future oil supplies, particularly with oil prices falling to a level that might threaten further investment in oil sands, even without considering the cost of mitigating or offsetting the sector's CO2 emissions.

Worries about the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from oil sands operations are not new. Ten years ago my former company approached one of the large Canadian producers about employing Texaco's (now GE's) gasification technology to turn byproduct petroleum coke into gas to fuel the oil sands extraction process, incidentally creating an option for the CO2 to be sequestered in depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Neither the economics nor the consensus for action on climate change was sufficient to move ahead, at the time. But with Canada imposing stricter rules for industrial sources of CO2, and with a new global agreement on climate change in prospect at the end of 2009, that perspective may be shifting.

According to the FT, the groups in today's meeting in London are focused on the financial risks associated with emissions from oil sands--emissions that are several times larger than those from conventional oil production. Some are calling for a moratorium on new oil sands and oil shale projects. If oil were still over $120/bbl, that argument would carry little weight. Even if the most extreme estimate provided by Greenpeace were correct, suggesting that oil sands extraction emits 100kg more CO2 per barrel than conventional oil production, that would equate to under $4/bbl of extra cost, based on the price of 2012 emissions credits on the European Climate Exchange at current exchange rates.

Two factors render that figure more significant than it might appear. Falling oil prices are pushing new oil sands projects close to their breakeven point, according to Total, hampering the industry's ability to mitigate emissions. At the same time, the sheer magnitude of the oil sands expansion makes these emissions too large to ignore. The latest forecast from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers indicates that oil sands output should increase from 1.2 million barrels per day (MBD) last year to 2.8 MBD in 2015 and 3.5 MBD in 2020. Without making expensive changes in operations to reduce emissions and capture and store CO2, or buying emissions offsets, oil sands operations could increase Canada's current GHG emissions by as much as 10%. As a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, the Canadian government cannot just look the other way, while these emissions mount.

There are many areas in which the goal of improving energy security aligns with reducing GHG emissions, including improved efficiency and more use of renewable energy. But oil sands--and by extension oil shale--represents a clear conflict between our desire to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and the need to halt the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And with oil nearing $90/bbl, a $4 increase in production costs to manage CO2 could stall new development and reduce future oil output by enough to tip the global supply and demand balance even further in favor of OPEC and Russia. Unless the next administration is willing to sit down with our NAFTA partners to discuss a comprehensive North American approach to both energy and emissions, this matter will ultimately be settled in Ottowa, where neither the US Congress nor President can offer more than friendly advice.

Read More

Offsets and Behavior

It took a while for US petroleum product demand to respond to high oil prices, but once gasoline neared $4 per gallon in a slowing economy that no longer afforded consumers the opportunity to translate home equity appreciation into purchasing power, it set up the first absolute decline in gasoline use since 1991. But would this response have been so dramatic, if the majority of consumers had already locked in their fuel costs, or hedged them financially? That question has interesting parallels with regard to climate change, for which emissions offsets can provide individuals with a cost-effective temporary alternative to more difficult or expensive changes.

Having just received a renewal notice from my emissions-offset provider, it seemed like a good time to recap my family's fuel consumption for the past year, in order to calculate how much CO2 our two cars emitted. I won't pretend the Styles household is typical in its gasoline consumption. Since neither adult commutes to work, we drive less than the national average. That's just as well, since our cars' fuel economy is nothing special: the station wagon and the sports sedan both get around the national average fuel economy of roughly 22 mpg. Together they consumed 705 gallons of gasoline in the last 12 months.

Tallying our fuel use also provided an opportunity to assess the actual impact of higher fuel prices on our family budget. At an average price increase since last July of 63 cents per gallon, we spent $450 more on gasoline than in the previous year. Although that result fell short of my perceptions, it still represents money we could have spent on other goods and services, or saved. Yet I also knew I couldn't view it isolation, without considering the impact of the natural hedge provided by the oil company stock I retain as a result of my previous employment. Although its performance has been disappointing since oil began its retreat from $145 per barrel, over the last four years it has more than offset the approximately $2 per gallon increase in fuel prices we've experienced. But that isn't just a benefit of being an ex-oil company executive; anyone could have created such a hedge, if they had a spare few thousand dollars to invest.

Four years ago the average US price for regular gasoline stood at $1.90 per gallon. This week it's $3.95. Although its rise has hardly been smooth, that works out to roughly an extra 50 cents per gallon each year, compounded. For a typical car consuming 500 gallons per year, that equates to a cumulative fuel-expense increase of $2,500 over the entire period. As it turns out, $2,900 invested in a fund tracking the Amex Oil Index (XOI), a basket of oil equities, on August 1, 2004 would have grown to $5,750 by now, enough to cover the entire increase in gasoline prices and still pay a 3% return on the principal, though not without significant risk and volatility. Since oil equities are hardly a perfect proxy for fuel prices, a bolder investor might have achieved the same hedge by investing directly in a commodity fund. Alternatively, anyone lacking the capital or the inclination to tie it up this way could have locked in his or her gas purchases using a service such as MyGallons.com. (I haven't tried it and can't vouch for it in any way; caveat emptor.) And never forget that hedges can lose money; if you hedge but the price falls, you will be worse off than if you had done nothing.

Even without our natural hedge, I doubt that we'd seriously be considering trading in our pair of 4-year-old cars on new, more efficient models, in order to save that $450 per year. We don't drive enough to justify taking the resulting hit on depreciation, even if we doubled our fuel economy. Nor does our desire to reduce our greenhouse emissions alter that calculation by much. The gasoline we've burned since last July produced 7 tons of CO2. Based on the rates charged by TerraPass, we can offset that for $83.30, getting us effectively to zero emissions, rather than the reduction of 1/3 to 1/2 we might expect from newer, thriftier cars--and at a much lower cost.

Now, I've heard all the arguments about "buying indulgences" instead of making real changes in our lifestyles. Although my family has effectively negated the personal impact of higher oil prices and our vehicles' CO2 emissions, the world as a whole might be better off if we had bought a pair of hybrids, instead. However, that argument contains two fallacies, one arising from the inappropriate application of a pollution mindset to greenhouse gases, and the other reflecting the limited supply of highly fuel-efficient cars and the benefit of allocating them first to the highest-intensity users. As long as my offset provider is really investing in projects that truly reduce emissions--emissions that are equivalent in impact regardless of where on the planet they occur, and that wouldn't be cut otherwise--then for less than $100 per year we have the climate equivalent of two EVs running on wind power, minus their cachet. And we aren't competing for a hybrid with someone who drives 20,000 miles per year.

That isn't an excuse for perpetual indulgence, of course. When we do buy new cars, they will be much more efficient: diesels or hybrids, at least. And if the US hasn't enacted economy-wide cap & trade or carbon taxation by then, we'd pay to offset the remaining emissions. Similar calculations by millions of Americans may help to explain the fuel economy inertia of the US vehicle fleet, and why it will only improve incrementally within the next five years, no matter how efficient the new-car fleet becomes.

Read More