What If Saudi Arabia Became an Oil Importer?

I've seen numerous references in the last several days to a Citgroup analysis suggesting that Saudi Arabia might become a net oil importer by 2030.  The premise behind this startling conclusion seems to be that economic growth and demographic trends would continue pushing up domestic Saudi demand for petroleum products and electricity--generated to a large extent from petroleum--until it consumed all of that country's oil export capacity within about 20 years.  Even if this trend didn't proceed to conclusion, its continued progression could significantly alter both global oil markets and the context for the current debate about the desirability of achieving North American energy independence.

I'd be a lot more comfortable discussing this news item if I had access to the report on which it's based.  Unfortunately, none of the dozens of references to it that I found on the web included a link to the source, which is probably on one of Citi's client-only sites.  The Bloomberg and Daily Telegraph articles seemed to be the most complete, with the latter including a couple of charts from the report.  As best I can tell, the analysis falls into the category of "If this goes on" scenarios--extrapolations of currently observable trends to some logical conclusion.  That doesn't make it simplistic, because I'm sure the author sifted through volumes of data to flesh it out.  The fact that many oil-producing countries have gone through a similar cycle lends it further credibility.  For that matter, the US was once an important oil-exporting country, until the growth of our economy overwhelmed the productivity of US oil fields early in the last century.  The gradual conversion of the remaining oil exporters to net oil consumers is a basic plank of the Peak Oil meme.

This presents a real conundrum, both for the Saudis and for us, because although many of the means by which this result could be averted are obvious, they aren't all feasible within the current political situation in Saudi Arabia, or indeed many other producing countries.  Start with per-capita energy consumption, which a chart in the Telegraph article shows to be higher than in the US. Consumption is also high relative to GDP. Energy efficiency opportunities should be ample, but it's hard to make those a priority when retail energy is heavily subsidized and thus cheap.  The Citigroup report apparently suggests reducing energy subsidy levels, but that might lead to the same kind of unrest that we've seen in other countries that have cut subsidies.  That seems to leave mainly investment-based options for substituting other energy sources for oil, to preserve oil for exports.  The Kingdom has already embarked on some of these, including nuclear and solar power.  When combined with additional natural gas development, the Saudis certainly have the means and the motivation to shift the current trend of rising internal oil consumption, along with the cash to fund the infrastructure investment involved.

This leaves us with important strategic questions: To what extent should our own energy policy rely on Saudi Arabia succeeding in preserving its oil export capacity by means of substitution or efficiency gains? And if internal Saudi consumption removed just another 2-3 million barrels per day of exports from the market, how would that affect oil prices and the functioning of the global oil market, in which Saudi Arabia has often acted as a moderating force within OPEC?  Considering that a narrowing between demand and available supply of about that magnitude was a key factor in the oil-price run-up of 2006-8, this should cause us serious concern.

That brings us to US energy independence, a tired mantra that has been proclaimed by a long succession of US Presidents, despite most experts for the last several decades having regarded it as unrealistic.  To be clear, when Americans speak of energy independence, we are referring to oil, because as a practical matter that's the only form of energy we import to any significant degree, if you don't count natural gas from Canada.  Yet suddenly energy independence no longer looks like a pipe dream, because of the combination of resurgent domestic oil production and improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency.  An earlier report from Citigroup sketched the outline of potential future North American energy independence based mainly on those elements.   It's hardly guaranteed, but it's not a fantasy, either. 

Despite the risks of a much more unsettled oil market in the future, I continue to see a great deal of misunderstanding about what energy independence could mean for the US.  Although it wouldn't cut us off from the global oil market--perish the thought--it would give us a much more flexible and influential role within it, while taking advantage of the benefits of continued trade.  No longer being a net oil importer wouldn't insulate us from future oil price movements--it's still a global commodity--but oil prices would be lower than otherwise as a direct result of the substantial additions to supply required to shrink US oil imports to near zero.  Prices would be weaker even if OPEC slashed output to compensate, because the resulting increase in spare production capacity would still reduce market volatility.  Moreover, while US energy independence would not preclude the possibility of future oil price spikes, the consequences of those would be very different.  For starters, they wouldn't entail weakening our economy by transferring tens or hundreds of billions of dollars offshore.  Most of the extra oil revenue would stay in the US, and a large slice of it would be captured by state and federal taxes and royalties.  Contrast that with what happened in 2008, and is still ongoing to a lesser degree.

The Saudi analysis from Citigroup proposed a fascinating scenario, with many interesting implications, although I'd argue that it's also subject to the simple advice of Herb Stein that "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." By coincidence, it's also relevant to the energy debate underway between the US presidential campaigns. Although it's highly uncertain that Saudi Arabia's oil exports will dry up by 2030, we shouldn't assume such an outcome to be impossible, any more than we should base US energy policy on the outdated assumption that it's impossible for us to come close to eliminating the need for oil imports from outside North America.  It might be uncertain whether we have sufficient resources accessible with the latest technology to reach that goal, but it is essentially certain that the growing but still tiny contribution of renewable energy and the eventual conversion of the US vehicle fleet to electricity couldn't get us there for multiple decades.

Read More

Should the US Become An Oil Exporter, Again?

Last week I missed attending a fascinating panel on the growth of US oil production, hosted by  the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C. Fortunately, I was able to catch most of the live webcast, which is still available for replay. Much of the discussion focused on the potential of new "tight oil" production techniques, similar to those used to extract shale gas, to help usher in a new period of relative oil abundance.  If this comes to pass, among other things it could challenge long-established views about exporting US oil.  The politics of oil exports look absolutely dire at the moment, but the economic and logistical benefits--not just for oil companies but to the nation--are such that we shouldn't dismiss the possibility lightly.

Two hours was not enough time to do justice to all the ramifications of resurgent US oil production, and I know from following the Twitter feed for the event that some in the web audience were frustrated by the limited attention given to the climate implications of these developments.  However, if you'd like an overview of the possible economic and geopolitical impact of the US becoming more self-sufficient in petroleum for at least the next decade or two, this stellar panel was highly informative and worth your time.  Much of the discussion focused on tight oil, liquid hydrocarbons trapped in rocks that can't be economically tapped by conventional drilling, but that have proved susceptible to combinations of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing similar to those that have unleashed the current shale gas boom. Although the full potential of this resource hasn't been reflected in the latest forecasts from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the US Department of Energy, the results from the Bakken shale in the Dakotas and the Eagle Ford shale in Texas are instructive.  Together these two fields now produce around 750,000 barrels per day, or 12% of current US crude oil output, up from just a trickle a few years ago.  They also hold billions, and possibly tens of billions of barrels of recoverable resources.

I was a little surprised that the first panelist to mention the possibility of exporting some of this oil--with appropriate caveats--was Adam Sieminski, the newly confirmed EIA Administrator. After all, current US law restricts the export of most US crude oil production, with special exceptions for some oil from Alaska, California, and near the Canadian border.  In practice, crude exports from those fields have declined to very low levels.  Despite that, and even after significant reductions in imports since the onset of the recession, the US is still a major net oil importer.  If that's the case, and if US refineries can benefit from the increasing domestic output, why would we even consider exporting any of this new oil?

Unfortunately, the answer doesn't reduce to a neat soundbite; it depends on two key factors that require a bit of explanation.  The first issue is the quality of the oil coming out of these tight oil plays, which at least so far has been very high. Oil from different fields varies as much as fingerprints, even when we consider only a few characteristics of concern to refiners, and these differences strongly influence the market values of the various grades of oil.  Light crudes refine easily into valuable products like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, while heavier crudes require more processing, using more expensive hardware, and often yield large quantities of low-value products like petroleum coke, even after intensive refining. There's also sulfur content--the sweet to sour spectrum that overlays the light/heavy distinctions--as well as other impurities.  Eagle Ford crude is light and sweet, as is the North Dakota Sweet crude produced from the Bakken. These crudes compare favorably with West Texas Intermediate (WTI), Brent and other premium crude streams.

The second, related factor involves the complexity of US oil refineries and the crude diet they've evolved to run. As production of high quality crudes in the continental US declined over the last four decades, many refiners invested billions of dollars to enable their facilities to run some of the heaviest, most sour crudes from around the world, because these were more readily available and usually significantly cheaper than the light sweet crudes.  This trend was particularly evident on the West Coast and Gulf Coast. The addition of complex processing hardware like hydrocrackers, delayed or fluid cokers, and residuum fluid catalytic crackers has given these refineries tremendous flexibility, but it also increased their operating costs and made it harder for them to go back to a diet of much lighter crudes.  As a result, while many of them could handle significant quantities of light crude from the tight oil fields, this would be less than optimal, resulting in economic penalties and perhaps eroding the advantages that have recently enabled gulf coast refiners to capitalize on export markets for their products. Those penalties would translate into discounts for the tight oil grades, compared to similar international crudes, much like the large gap in value we currently see for WTI compared to Brent, though for different reasons as discussed previously.

At current production levels, the mismatch of quality and capabilities isn't as big a problem as the lack of infrastructure for transporting these crudes to market.  That has resulted in discounts so large that it makes sense for private equity firm Carlyle to plan to ship large quantities of Bakken crude by rail from North Dakota to the Philadelphia refinery they've just acquired from Sunoco.  However, if tight oil output grows in line with forecasts such as those in a recent analysis from Citibank, domestic sweet crude refiners will have more than enough supply and the excess must either be sold to heavy crude refineries at a discount or left in the ground.  That's where exports come in. 

The last time exporting domestic crude became a big issue was in the late 1980s, when output from Alaska's North Slope (ANS) field reached peak levels of roughly 2 million barrels per day, far more than west coast refineries could absorb. I was trading crude on the West Coast at the time, and I observed first-hand the effects of the export restrictions that had been put in place when the Trans Alaska Pipeline was originally approved.  Those restrictions didn't just depress the price of ANS crude; they also depressed the price of the California crudes with which ANS competed, and made both types less attractive to produce. West coast consumers benefited from a few years of lower gasoline prices than they would have otherwise paid, but the net result was less industry investment and probably higher oil imports in the long run.  By the time ANS exports were finally approved in 1996, the field was already in decline and the biggest opportunity had been missed. 

The advantages of allowing a portion of these new tight-oil streams to be exported would derive from the difference between the global market premium for crude of this quality and the typical discount paid for the lower-quality crudes that gulf coast refiners would continue to import in order to optimize their product yields and costs.  A difference of just $5 per barrel across a million barrels per day of exports would translate into a nearly $2 billion per year improvement in the US trade balance.  The benefits might also include higher tax revenues and royalties if exports supported higher production.  The biggest drawback I see is that in the event of a global supply disruption, some domestic crude would be committed to non-US buyers, reducing our emergency cushion.  However, that problem might be circumvented by requiring exporters to include provisions in their contracts allowing them to suspend deliveries whenever the US government released oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or a similar contingency.

Perhaps the best summary of the benefits that US oil exports could provide was given by President Clinton, when he authorized exports from the Alaskan North Slope: "Permitting this oil to move freely in international commerce will contribute to economic growth, reduce dependence on imported oil and create new jobs for American workers."  It's probably premature to provide a similar exemption for tight oil now, but it's certainly not too soon to start the national debate that should precede such a decision.

Read More

Will Energy Determine the 2012 Election?

A year from today Americans will know who will serve as President from 2013 to 2017. Even though $4 gasoline was still fresh in the minds of voters, energy played only a minor role in the outcome of the 2008 election, overshadowed by two wars and a crippling financial crisis. Will that be the case again in 2012, or will energy loom larger, propelled by its close connection with the economy? Several Republican candidates have already raised energy as a campaign issue, and the administration has repeatedly emphasized the linkages between energy, jobs and taxes. Whether any of those arguments gains traction in a race that at this point seems likely to be dominated by unemployment and deficits could depend on how deftly the administration handles decisions such as the Keystone XL Pipeline permit, as well as the degree to which voters become interested in the details of the country's shifting energy balances.

From day one, the Obama administration has taken a calculated risk on energy by focusing most of its non-crisis-response attention on promoting renewables such as biofuels and wind, solar and geothermal power. According to the latest figures from the Energy Information Agency the combined contribution to our total energy diet from these sources increased from 2.2% in 2008 to 3.2% in 2010. Rightly or wrongly, the Solyndra fiasco could leave voters questioning the wisdom of the whole suite of renewables policies that promise large future benefits but have had little tangible impact so far. Nor do the administration's efforts to claim credit for increasing US oil production look very credible when they demonstrably reflected the characteristic time lags of investments made during the Bush years, and occurred largely in spite of policies such as the Gulf of Mexico drilling moratorium and various onshore lease cancellations.

Meanwhile, the single largest energy development of recent years, the harnessing of vast shale gas resources, which last year supplied the equivalent of more than triple the combined output of US wind, solar and geothermal power, has occurred against a background of governmental ambivalence and occasional outright hostility, as in the case of New York's state moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking". Unless the Obama administration moves to embrace shale gas, which David Brooks of the New York Times referred to in his column last week as a "wondrous gift", it might not be very hard for the President's challenger next year to portray his policies as being focused on only 3% of the energy that drives the economy, while neglecting the other 97%.

In that context, the Keystone XL decision could prove crucial. The State Department has signaled that the decision, which was anticipated by year-end, might be delayed into next year or beyond. Recent remarks hinted that the President may make the call personally. And in an interview during last Thursday's Washington Post Smart Energy Conference, Energy Secretary Chu backed away from his previous partial endorsement of the project. Taken together, these moves have me questioning the conventional wisdom that expects a grudging approval of Keystone. Turning it down outright, or killing it by attaching a set of uneconomical conditions to a contingent approval, would play well with portions of the President's base, but it might be hard to defend to independent voters later, particularly if higher oil prices or some event moved energy up the list of top election issues. Delaying a decision past the election would probably satisfy no one.

Whoever wins in 2012, the nation will need a renewed energy policy that balances the need to continue funding research and development aimed at delivering renewable energy technologies that can compete with conventional energy with little or no need for further subsidies, while simultaneously and just as vigorously promoting domestic and wider North American production of the conventional energy sources we will still need for at least another several decades, if we don't want to return to our former trend of becoming steadily more dependent on imported energy. Even if today's 3% from new renewable sources grows to 30%, we will still depend on oil, gas, nuclear and coal for the other 70%, nor can we rely on energy efficiency to end our reliance on the latter sources. I look forward to seeing more detailed energy proposals from both sides over the next year.

Read More

The East Coast Refinery Gap

I see that ConocoPhillips has announced it will idle its 185,000 barrel-per-day Philadelphia area refinery, as a prelude to selling it or closing it permanently. Combined with the recent announcement that Sunoco would exit the refining business and sell or close its two refineries in Philadelphia, this amounts to just under half of the operating refining capacity on the US east coast, and that's counting PBF Energy's Delaware refinery, which is apparently in the process of starting up again after having been sold last year by Valero. If none of these three facilities finds a buyer, the resulting closures would leave a large gap in the east coast petroleum product market that must be filled either by shipping more products via pipeline from the Gulf Coast, to the extent capacity permits, or by means of increased imports from Europe and Canada. East coast gasoline and diesel prices could be higher for years to come.

The story in Reuters gives a good overview of the circumstances leading to Conoco's decision, and you've read about most of these factors in previous postings here. Topping the list is the persistent divergence of crude oil prices between the US mid-continent and the global oil market, due to a bottleneck at Cushing, OK resulting from several factors. Last week the gross margin ("3:2:1 crack") for importing crude priced at the level of UK Brent and turning it into gasoline and diesel or heating oil for the northeast market stood at a breakeven, and it's only a few dollars a barrel in the black today, after yesterday's market recovery. That's not much of an inducement to hang onto massively complex, capital-intensive facilities and to continue investing in them to keep them in compliance with ever more stringent regulations. Sometimes it just makes more sense to take a write-down and sell to someone else, who then starts with a lower capital base and has a better chance of making a return--not unlike the restaurant business. The problem in this environment is that it's not obvious who would step into the shoes of Sunoco and Conoco in Philadelphia. A few years ago buying refineries from integrated companies that wanted to redeploy their capital was a thriving game, with lots of players. Not so much, now.

Conoco's timing on this move is interesting, too. If it were only a question of margins, I'd think they'd wait to see how much profitability improved after Sunoco's plants shut down. Instead, it appears they are focused on a bigger picture. Even if they don't find a buyer, closing a marginal or money-losing facility will improve their overall refinery portfolio as they prepare to spin off the refining and marketing business, while allowing them to use the capital expenditures they won't have to put into the Trainer refinery for more lucrative opportunities like shale gas, which the company has been touting in a series of ads. That probably makes sense for the company's shareholders, though it won't do much for consumers in my neck of the woods, especially if the company's larger New Jersey refinery meets the same fate.

Oil refining has always been a tough business, with its occasional good years normally more than offset by years or decades in the doldrums. But the combination of reduced demand from the recession-weakened economy and the increased supply of biofuel--mainly corn ethanol, so far--has increased the pressure. When I ponder all this it makes me wonder why so many startups are so eager to get into the fuels manufacturing business, even if it will be based on biomass rather than oil, when they will ultimately be exposed to similar market forces.

Read More

Oil Sands Anxiety Is Overblown

As I was catching up on a two-week backlog of news after my vacation, I ran across a New York Times editorial with the promising title of "Tar Sands and the Carbon Numbers." Thinking that perhaps the Times might have woken up to the necessity of comparing the lifecycle emissions from oil sands to those from other crude oils, I was disappointed to find its editors perpetuating the common misunderstanding concerning these emissions when viewed only from an oil-production perspective. That's a shame, because it results in the scape-goating of Canadian producers and pipeline companies while conveniently avoiding the soul-searching that ought to accompany a clear understanding that, whether we're talking about oil sands or conventional oil imported from any other source, the vast majority of the lifecycle emissions will occur here, when the products into which these oils will be refined are consumed. It is also condescending toward the sovereign responsibility of our NAFTA neighbor for managing their national emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, which they ratified but we didn't.



The pending State Department review of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project linking Alberta's oil and oil-sands projects to Gulf Coast refineries has become a hot-button issue for US environmental groups. Producing oil from oil sands, which were more commonly called tar sands until that became a term of disparagement, certainly involves more environmental consequences than most--though not all--conventional crude oils. Since US groups haven't been very successful targeting the oil sands projects in Alberta, where they contribute significantly to Canada's oil output and overall economy, the export pipeline has become a target of convenience. From my perspective, the angst about pipeline safety and acidic bitumen is mainly a red herring; the oil industry routinely handles other crude oils of similar sulfur levels and acidity, usually by adjusting the metallurgy of the pipes and vessels involved. The real issue here is greenhouse gas emissions, which the Times and most other critics of oil sands narrowly compare to those from producing conventional oils.



The Environment Canada report cited by the Times indicates that oil sands production and upgrading result in emissions about 70% higher per barrel than for the production of Canada's average conventional oil. That's in the range of other estimates I've seen. However, what the Times fails to mention is that such "upstream" emissions only account for a fraction of the total lifecycle emissions attributable to any oil. By far the biggest portion--even for oil sands--comes from the combustion of petroleum products by end-users.



So if at least 70% of the emissions from oil sands crude occur in the US, rather than Canada, and if the lifecycle (well-to-wheels) emissions from oil sands only average around 15% higher than for the average US refinery's crude slate, while emitting little or no more than some commonly imported crude oils from other countries, are the XL pipeline's opponents exaggerating its impact? I believe they are, unless they're also willing to take on imports of consumer goods and other products from higher-emitting countries like China. That would be difficult to justify to the World Trade Organization, considering that the US doesn't have a statutory limit on its own greenhouse gas emissions. It might also put us in an awkward position with regard to our exports to countries that have adopted strict emissions reduction targets.



Meanwhile we shouldn't forget that under UN agreements it is Canada that bears responsibility for the extra emissions that oil sands generate in Alberta. The Environment Canada report indicates that oil sands are likely to contribute 11.7% of Canada's GHG emissions by 2020, up from 6.7% in 2005, when Canada's share of global GHG emissions stood at less than 2%. The expected increase in oil sands output would account for essentially all of the projected 7% rise in Canada's emissions over that interval, an amount equivalent to 0.1% of current global emissions. The means by which Canada could address those incremental emissions include improved technology, offsetting cuts in other sectors, emissions trading and offsets purchased from other countries, or the Canadian government could simply choose to restrict oil sands output. Whatever path they choose, we have plenty of our own emissions to consider without going into a tizzy over a Canadian sector that currently emits roughly as much as US livestock waste management.



Trying to control the emissions from oil sands by blocking this pipeline is a perfect illustration of the difficulty of attempting to tackle a complex global environmental problem by focusing on isolated measures that only bear indirectly on the outcomes that matter. The weakness of the Times' argument is reflected in the following sentence, referring to Canada's policies: "The United States can't do much about that, but it can stop the Keystone XL pipeline." The implication seems to be that we would be better off if Canada exported its oil sands to developing Asia, their next best market, relieving us of any associated guilt, even if it made no actual difference in global emissions. I hope that when the State Department decides this matter, it gives appropriate weight to the fact that, other than fuel economy improvements in the US car fleet, our energy ties with Canada represent the single most effective energy security measure undertaken by this country since the oil crises of the 1970s.

Read More

How Do Renewables and Oil Sands Affect Energy Security?

Despite its frequent use in policy and other discussions, "energy security" lacks a single, fixed meaning, and the consensus on its definition seems to be in flux. As an outgrowth of the oil crises of the 1970s, it has usually been associated with the economic, defense and geopolitical implications of imported oil and petroleum products, focused mainly on security of supply. It was often seen as a more nuanced term than energy independence. Over time, it has taken on other connotations, including the financial impact of imported energy. However, an even more recent trend to incorporate climate change and other sustainability concerns into energy security bears careful consideration, because it can sometimes lead to a direct conflict with energy security's most basic aspects. When I see advocates of a renewable electricity technology like solar power touting its energy security benefits, I can't help wondering how carefully they've thought through that claim, especially in light of the significant energy changes arising from the shale gas revolution.

A blogger conference call hosted by the American Petroleum Institute last week got me thinking about this topic again. Based on API's analysis, increased access to US oil resources that are currently off limits for exploration and development, together with approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to bring in more Canadian crude--including synthetic crude from new oil-sands projects--could dramatically reduce US oil imports. Imports from countries other than Canada could fall from 38% of our supply in 2010 to just 8% by 2030. Their assessment builds on a US Department of Energy forecast that already incorporates improvements in vehicle fuel economy and the expected contribution of oil shale resources such as the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and Montana. In API's resulting scenario, US oil production would increase by 4.8 million barrels per day (bpd) and domestic biofuels output would grow by 1.9 million bpd, along with an extra million bpd of imports from Canada. That combination would shrink our net non-Canadian imports of crude and petroleum products from 7.2 million bpd last year to just 1.8 million bpd in under 20 years.

However one views the potential environmental consequences of the steps necessary to achieve such an outcome, that would be a stellar result under the most commonly used definition of energy security. That's because these actions would directly replace imported oil and products, barrel for barrel, with supplies from more stable and dependable countries--including our own--as an extension of one of the main energy security strategies we've employed since the 1970s. Assessing the energy security benefits of some of our other options is less clear-cut, particularly when it comes to the generation of electricity from renewable sources.

Consider today's most familiar renewable energy projects, wind farms and rooftop solar installations. Both reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but do they also enhance energy security? The answer depends on where they are installed and how their output is used. If the venue is Europe, which imports large quantities of natural gas, or Japan, where the post-Fukushima electricity shortage is leading to significant increases in imports of fuel oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), it's clear that they do. But the answer isn't as obvious in the US, where the generation they displace is mainly fueled by coal--a domestic resource--or natural gas. Prior to the explosion of domestic gas production from shale resources, it was much easier to argue that displacement of gas from a peaking gas turbine power plant backed out imported LNG somewhere and thus bolstered energy security. Today, with most gas coming from domestic wells and with most renewables relying on gas-fired backup power, that assertion is becoming a stretch.

Making the case for energy security benefits from wind and solar on the basis that they can back out oil imports by powering electric vehicles looks like even more of a stretch. This notion might be true in the 2030 time frame of the API scenario described above, by which time I'd expect to see many more EVs on the road, along with a smarter power grid capable of channeling the output of renewable power generation into EV recharging. In the nearer term, however, there simply won't be enough EVs on the road to substantiate such a claim. In fact, it would take more than 23 million EVs like the Nissan Leaf to consume the output of the wind and solar installations already in place last year. And in most locations, the EVs coming to market will be recharged mainly with average grid electricity, which includes a significant contribution from coal, even in California, thanks to that state's sizable electricity imports from neighboring states.

Resorting to such contingent and indirect claims of enhanced energy security sets up a debate that only liquid biofuels are currently positioned to win. However, it seems equally unrealistic to adhere to a definition of energy security that ignores the many ways in which our perspective on the world has changed in the last decade. I wasn't surprised to find a definition of energy security from within the US military incorporating sustainability along with sufficiency and surety. In effect, sustainability represents a new, albeit self-imposed, risk on the security of supply for conventional fuels that we're less accustomed to considering. It can also cut both ways, leaving some renewables, such as food-based biofuels, vulnerable under a definition of energy security that includes this metric.

Our notions of energy security are moving into a 21st century context, as they begin to recognize factors beyond supply and demand. That seems appropriate. At the same time, the term should still convey the pragmatism that gave rise to this concept in the first place. The traditional view of energy security never constituted a trumping argument in US energy policy, or else we wouldn't be sitting here with so many billions of barrels of technically recoverable resources off-limits to exploitation because of worries about the possible effect on beaches, tourism, wildlife and a myriad other concerns, broad and narrow. Similarly, a greater inclusion of sustainability aspects into our view of energy security should not be expected to disqualify efforts like the Keystone XL pipeline or expanded access to hydrocarbon resources. Even if such endeavors must also demonstrate their soundness on other criteria, they would unquestionably leave the US more secure in its energy sources. Instead of pitting one view of energy security against another, I'd prefer to see a scenario for 2030 that incorporates more access to North America's liquid fuel resources, together with expanded efforts on energy efficiency, transportation energy diversification, and creative capitalization on our new-found natural gas wealth--all of which would enhance US energy security.

Read More

Displacing More Oil from Power Generation

Increasing the US contribution of wind and solar power, geothermal energy, and even nuclear power would have virtually no effect on our oil imports or energy security, because we use so little oil for power. However, a pair of articles reminded me that this logic doesn't necessarily apply elsewhere. On Monday the Financial Times described the rapid growth of electricity demand in the Middle East, much of it fueled by oil that might otherwise be exported. Saudi Arabia apparently burns up to a million barrels per day of oil for power generation in the summer. And last week Fast Company highlighted the potential of large fuel cells to replace the diesel engines that generate power aboard tankers and other ships. As oil prices again approach $100 per barrel, with the possibility of even higher prices ahead when the entire global economy has returned to normal growth, these situations represent golden opportunities to save large quantities of oil for other uses for which its nearest substitutes still cannot replace it at scale.

Based on Department of Energy data the US generated just 0.9% of our electricity from petroleum and its products in the last year, with more than a third of that fueled by petroleum coke, a low-value solid byproduct of oil refining. The 43.5 million barrels of petroleum liquids used in power generation in 2009 represented only 0.6% of the 6.9 billion barrels the US consumed that year. When you break that sliver down by location, much of it is used for either backup generation or on islands or other remote locations. In other words, the remaining potential to displace oil from power generation in the US is very small and not necessarily well-suited to the intermittent renewable energy technologies now in favor. (That should change as electric vehicles enter the fleet by the millions, but that prospect remains some years off, at least.)

That situation isn't representative of the world as a whole, however, with oil accounting for almost 5% of global electricity generation in 2007. It was even higher on a regional basis, at 7% outside the countries of the OECD and 35% in the Middle East. Globally this amounted to 5 million bbl/day, or nearly 6% of total oil demand. That might not sound like much, until you consider that a drop in demand of around 3 million bbl/day from the first quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009 contributed to a decline in oil prices--ignoring the mid-2008 spike to $145/bbl--of roughly $50/bbl. The price of oil is truly determined by the last few million bbl/day of supply and/or demand. You don't need to be worried about Peak Oil to see the oil used globally for power generation as potentially low-hanging fruit for redeployment, and as a significant emissions-reduction opportunity.

The best candidates to displace that oil vary by country and region. For countries with a lot of natural gas, like the big producers of the Middle East, a switch to that fuel seems like an obvious choice. However, much of the world's natural gas outside North America, including most LNG on long-term contracts, is priced based on oil, so the savings probably wouldn't be as large as they would be here. Even for oil exporters like Saudi Arabia, it might still make more sense to burn the residual fuel from the country's many large refineries, instead of importing LNG (or developing more of its own gas) and investing in the refining hardware to turn that residuum into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. That might explain why the Kingdom is pursuing nuclear power to cover much of its future generating capacity growth. Renewables have also been capturing a foothold in the region, particularly in projects like Masdar City.

Finally, the large-scale marine fuel cell opportunity described in Fast Company would target a segment where oil has a near monopoly, outside of military fleets: shipboard power. And while these molten carbonate or solid-oxide high-temperature fuel cells would still consume fossil fuels to auto-generate the hydrogen they use, their high efficiencies would reduce overall oil consumption in shipping. If it proves possible eventually to use even larger fuel cells as the basis for electrifying vessel propulsion, as the article speculated, then oil savings would be much more substantial. Global consumption of bunker fuel by ships amounts to roughly 3.7 million bbl/day, or around 4% of total oil demand. And the environmental benefits of such a switch would go beyond greenhouse gases to include significant local air pollution benefits, particularly in ports.

None of this represents new thinking, but rather an extension of some of the strategies by which the developed world of the time adapted to the high oil prices of the twin oil crises in the 1970s. Still, it's easy to forget that that the quantity of oil tied up in the sectors mentioned above exceeds the output of the entire North Sea at its peak. If oil prices hadn't buckled under the weight of the financial crisis and recession a couple of years ago and instead remained on their previous trajectory, I imagine we'd already be well down the path of freeing up more of this oil. Recent price trends suggest that the primary motivation for doing so could be about to return.

Read More

The Results of Energy Policy

The combination of an energy event yesterday in Washington, DC that I was unable to attend and a comment I received on Monday's posting got me thinking about energy policy in the context of the new year and the start of the new Congressional session today. National energy policy has been debated throughout my adult life, whether the policy of the time was clearly articulated and effectively executed or not. The most important question is not what the policy says, but what it does and whether that aligns with what the nation really needs its energy industry to deliver. In my view our current energy policy is on the wrong track, and the new Congress and the spirit of bi-partisan cooperation that emerged in the recent lame duck session provide an excellent opportunity to revise it along more effective lines.

I would summarize our current energy policy as being focused on promoting greater efficiency and the development and deployment of new energy technologies, in order to reduce our dependence on imported energy from unstable or unreliable sources, and to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, more than 80% of which are associated with our production and consumption of energy. That sounds fine, but in practice the effect of that policy appears to be replacing low-cost energy with higher-cost energy, while attempting to maximize the employment associated with producing clean energy, rather than minimizing its cost.

What are the results so far? Well, the significant reduction in US oil imports that we've experienced recently is attributable mainly to the weak economy and high unemployment, rather than to improvements in vehicle fuel economy or domestic biofuel production. And the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that has occurred in the last several years has mainly resulted not from policy-related measures to expand wind power or replace incandescent lights with compact fluorescents, but from two events with little connection to energy policy: the recession--particularly the slowdown in US manufacturing--and the unexpected growth of natural gas production from shale resources. That might not be a fair gauge of what current policies could achieve in the future, but it's clear that an energy policy that depended on economic weakness for its success would be contrary to our national interest.

For decades the de facto energy policy of the US promoted cheap and abundant energy to sustain economic growth. We live in more complex times, but focusing most of our current energy efforts on solutions that are still small-scale and high-cost seems unlikely to do much for the economic recovery. If we were really serious about fueling the recovery, we'd be at least as interested in promoting abundant, low-cost energy at a scale suitable for the needs of a $14 trillion economy, and for which employment gains in the energy industry didn't come at the expense of productivity. A study on the trade-offs between resource access and new taxes on the oil & gas industry that was prepared in conjunction with the release yesterday of API's "State of American Energy" report provides a case in point.

An international energy consultancy analyzed the potential production and employment gains associated with expanded access to the domestic resources that are currently off limits in places like the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They also looked at the federal revenue and employment impact of higher taxes on the US oil & gas industry, along the lines of a series of proposals from the administration and Congress in the last two years. They found that access to off-limits oil and gas could yield up to an extra 2.8 million barrels per day of oil and gas liquids and 6.6 billion cubic feet per day of gas by 2025, with direct and indirect gains in employment of more than 500,000 workers. By contrast, increasing taxes on the industry would not only reduce production and employment, as domestic opportunities become less attractive than those elsewhere, but also reduce total federal revenues from taxes, royalties and leasing, following a brief uptick in the initial period after their introduction. Although I'm not sanguine about the chances for increasing access when the administration has just reversed its earlier expansion, that would at least be more consistent with an effective energy policy than raising taxes on the production of energy.

We have a long, bi-partisan tradition of well-intended but ineffective energy policy, and the current policy continues that trend, even if its shortcomings differ significantly from those of past policies. The good news is that we have many more options and choices than we did when the US energy policy debate began in earnest in the 1970s. What we need now is a policy that recognizes that most of these sources, old and new, are important for our present and future energy security, but that what we chiefly require is abundant low-cost energy to fuel an economic revival strong enough to help shrink our enormous federal, state and local fiscal deficits and resulting massive debts, which also have solid bi-partisan pedigrees. It should also put us on a path to lower emissions from whatever sources can deliver them on a meaningful scale and at a cost that we can afford.

Read More

Looking Back to Look Ahead

Last week the Energy Information Agency of the US Department of Energy released its Annual Energy Review for 2009. Although it doesn't offer predictions concerning the energy transition that was the subject of last Wednesday's posting, it does include a wealth of charts and graphs visualizing the remarkable energy shifts that have already occurred in the last several decades. Understanding these could help calibrate our expectations concerning the pace of the hoped-for clean energy revolution, while shedding light on characteristics that could move some technologies into the market faster than others. For energy the past isn't necessarily prologue, but it's certainly relevant.

Start with the US primary energy overview for the last 60 years, which shows the steady growth of our energy consumption, interrupted only by two sets of events: the oil shocks of the 1970s and the recent financial crisis and recession (accompanied by a demand-driven oil shock.) Since the early '70s much of that growth was fueled by imported energy, led by oil. This is the part of the story we know best, because its impact on energy security has kept us focused on it for my entire adult life, no matter how ineffective our responses have seemed at times. However, other aspects of our energy situation reflect big, but less obvious changes over that interval, particularly with regard to the production of electricity, the supply and uses of natural gas, and the growth of nuclear power.

We've recently heard a lot about the significance of shale gas, which for many parts of the country could bring the sources of our natural gas much closer to where it's used. Yet this is only the latest aspect of a broader shift that has turned gas from a mainly Gulf Coast and mid-continent resource into a truly national one. In 1970 Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma accounted for more than 80% of US gas production, while last year they supplied well under half. In the intervening period, production outside these three states more than tripled. At the same time, the ways we use gas have also been transformed. Gas for electricity generation has outstripped residential gas consumption and is about to eclipse industrial gas demand, which has fallen steadily since the mid-'90s, due to volatile prices and the offshoring of manufacturing. The marriage of gas to electricity was driven by a major technology change, in the form of aero-derivative gas turbines for power generation. A chart I could only find in the report's Energy Perspectives section and have reproduced below indicates how much more natural gas-fired capacity has been added in the US in the last 20 years than all other generation technologies combined. Natural gas was more expensive than coal for that entire period, yet no other technology could match its combination of low capital cost, infrastructure efficiency, low emissions, and capability to deliver power when and where needed. Can renewables succeed without matching at least a majority of those attributes?


The report puts the recent upsurge of biofuels, wind, solar and geothermal power into the context of a larger renewable energy sector that still meets just 8% of our total energy needs, mainly from mature sources such as hydroelectricity and wood. I can't help wondering whether the development of the US nuclear power sector holds any relevant analogies for the new renewables. Nuclear grew from nothing to 8% of US primary energy and 20% of electricity generation between the mid-'60s and 2000, and in the process helped displace most oil from power generation. Essentially all our current nuclear capacity was built in two waves that rose quickly, peaked in the mid-'70s and again in the mid-'80s, and then subsided to little more than capacity optimization since then. Renewables and nuclear could not be more different, other than sharing a low emissions profile, but the former face enough real-world constraints--including concerns about the environment in its broadest sense--that a scenario in which they, too, stall well short of their full potential isn't so hard to imagine. When you consider a rise as steep as that exhibited by ethanol, or the asymptotic growth of photovoltaic module shipments, it's hard to look at these graphs and not wonder what the rest of the curve will look like: continued rapid growth, plateau (and at what level?), or decay.

I found numerous other charts, graphs and tables offering insights into topics as diverse as the population of alternative fuel vehicles and their energy consumption, the breakdown of electricity consumption in commercial buildings, and the steady drop in energy consumption for space-heating by households, particularly from oil--despite a 35% increase in US population--offset by a near-doubling of household electricity consumption within a generation. And I can't close without mentioning the positive trends in the energy intensity of the US economy--a steady decline for 40 years in BTUs per dollar of GDP--and more recently in per-capita energy consumption. We've accomplished that without a full-court press on energy efficiency, beyond what was incentivized by volatile market prices. What could we accomplish on this front if we put our minds to it?

Read More

2009 US Petroleum Trends

The American Petroleum Institute (API) released its annual oil statistics for 2009 to the press yesterday afternoon, and I participated in their media teleconference this morning covering the results. The numbers reveal some interesting shifts, and they provide another useful barometer on the state of the US economy, for which oil is still the largest energy input by a wide margin. Total petroleum and refined products deliveries, reflecting aggregate demand, continued their downward trend last year, averaging 4% below 2008 levels, but interestingly were only down 1.8% in the fourth quarter, compared to 4Q08, with December actually showing a slight uptick vs. December '08. Here are a few of the underlying details that caught my eye, and my reactions to them:

• Gasoline bucked the overall downward trend in product demand. Despite prices that recovered steadily throughout the year from their late-2008 lows and surpassed their year-earlier levels in the fourth quarter, gasoline demand posted a 0.3% increase vs. 2008, with 4Q09 showing a 1.1% rise compared to 4Q08 and an even stronger finish in December. This is entirely consistent with the observed reversal of the decline in vehicle miles traveled, which still dominates improvements in fuel economy, despite the Cash for Clunkers uplift.
• In contrast, diesel demand remains very weak, with the low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel deliveries that correlate with goods shipments and overall economic activity running at 7.5% below 2008, with little or no improvement in 4Q09. (Are the results of recent gains in economic activity mainly replenishing depleted inventories?)
• US refineries operated at less than 83% of their nameplate capacity for the year and fell below 80% in December. The poor margins this creates are buffeting oil company earnings but buffering consumers from the full impact of recent increases in oil prices. If utilization stays at such low levels, a major shakeout in refining could be coming, beyond the refinery closures we've already seen. This will be exacerbated by the completion of major refinery expansions on the Gulf Coast, including Marathon's Garyville, LA refinery project starting up now and the more-than-doubling of the former Texaco Port Arthur refinery, now owned by a joint venture of Shell and Saudi Refining, due within a few years.
• US imports of crude oil and petroleum products fell by over 9%, with products taking the biggest hit, proportionally, falling by half a million barrels per day. This is good news and bad news, since much of it is the result of the weaker economy.
• Happily, roughly a third of the drop in imports was attributable to higher US production of crude oil and the liquids accompanying higher natural gas output--a byproduct of the shale gas boom. As API's Chief Economist John Felmy pointed out in the call, that was partly the result of a year without major hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. However, it also validates the time lags involved in bringing on new production triggered by the spike in oil prices that began in 2003-4.
• The mix of our foreign oil suppliers is also shifting, with lower imports from Mexico--production there is collapsing--and Venezuela, two of the mainstays of our supplies over the last several decades. Despite this, imports from the Persian Gulf made up just 17.5% of the total through October, compared to 22.5% from Canada. And although they didn't make the top 10 list this year, imports from Brazil are coming on strong. This is a testament to that country's policies for developing its vast new resources. Look for Brazil to enter the top 10 list this year, as Mexican output continues to drop and Brazil surges.

I'm sure I missed some other nuances, and I regret not being able to provide links to the original figures, since access to the data requires a subscription. I'm sure I'll be commenting on many of these trends at greater length and referring to public data from the Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy, as they become available.

Read More

Deficits, Dollars, and the Price of Energy

The latest revision to the forecasted federal deficit has implications beyond the sustainability of current government spending. Reading a pair of high-profile, skeptical assessments of Peak Oil in the context of a $9 trillion deficit projection for the next decade, it occurred to me that the most serious risk of higher oil prices in the near future might not be flagging production or surging demand but the further depreciation of the US dollar. The quickest route back to $4 gasoline could run through Washington, DC, rather than Riyadh or Beijing, and that might not be as helpful for renewable energy as its advocates might guess.

The main worry I've heard expressed about the size of the federal deficit has focused on the risk of inflation. However, high deficits carry another risk that could have a much more direct effect on energy prices, which in turn could help re-ignite inflation. The problem is acute because it goes well beyond the one-time impact of federal stimulus efforts, which have apparently ballooned this year's deficit to $1.6 trillion. Fundamentally, there is a persistent and growing gap between government revenue and expenses, exacerbated by high unemployment and lower income--and thus lower tax collection--particularly from the top quintile of earners who have consistently been paying 86% of the federal income tax. Unless that gap can be brought back into line with recent history, the government will soon face a difficult choice. Financing a steady stream of trillion-dollar annual deficits will require either interest rates high enough to attract investment from all over the world--and thus high enough to stifle a nascent recovery--or the monetization of the debt by means of the Federal Reserve printing even more money than recently. The latter course, which seems likely to be more politically palatable, despite Dr. Bernanke's reappointment, would inevitably weaken the dollar and lead in fairly short order to higher energy prices.

We got a taste of this effect in 2007, when oil prices and the dollar moved in opposite directions in an oil-dollar price loop that looked more than merely coincidental. A weaker dollar encourages producers to raise prices, or to consider pricing their output in a stronger, more stable currency. Meanwhile, non-US consumers experience stable or falling energy prices that encourage demand growth, which eventually leads to higher prices in all currencies. Either way, US consumers would see higher prices for petroleum products, though it's not clear how much further demand could fall in the near term, with US oil consumption already running 10% below 2007's, on a comparable year-to-date basis.

The dollar has already weakened by about 10% against the Euro and 5% vs. the Japanese Yen since March, as the resolution of the financial crisis and early signs of a global recovery have eased the fears that prompted a classic flight to dollar safety. This shift merely returns the exchange rate to roughly its level of pre-crisis 2008. Oil prices have risen by around 40% over the same interval, though how much of that is due to a weaker dollar is far from clear. However, from today's $70/bbl level, another 25% drop in the value of the dollar could return us to the threshold of $100 oil.

Higher oil prices due to a weaker dollar would not necessarily be beneficial for biofuels and other alternatives to oil, either. If we learned anything from the oil price spike of 2006-'08, it was that higher oil prices don't automatically make alternative energy more competitive. If only oil prices were moving, it might be helpful, but the only way to achieve that is through taxation, not inflation or currency depreciation. Just as oil functions in a global market, so too the components of the main alternative energy technologies have become global, with wind turbines and solar panels sourced globally and in high demand in many regions. So too for the steel and other basic materials for constructing such installations, as well as the grains and oilseeds turned into ethanol and biodiesel. A weaker dollar wouldn't just mean higher oil prices, but higher prices at least for all of the new energy sources to which we are turning in our effort to address climate change and bolster our energy security.

At an average price for 2008 of $93/bbl, oil made up just 15% of the value of the goods and services we imported last year, and a weaker dollar would see the prices of a host of other things--cars, electronics, call-center assistance, for example--go up, as well, fueling inflation and further depressing our standard of living. That scenario is hardly inevitable. A sea change on the part of the American public could convince the Congress and administration that we are finally prepared to pay for the government we have been demanding, or to see government services fall to a level commensurate with the level of taxation we appear willing to bear. Or the Fed could start raising interest rates to defend the dollar, in spite of the consequences for economic growth and unemployment. I'm pretty sure which choice I'd vote for.

Read More

US Refineries Under Cap & Trade

A new study confirms my previous suspicions that the allocation of free emission allowances in the Waxman-Markey climate bill would disproportionately disadvantage the US oil sector, with serious consequences for our energy security. In particular, it quantifies the impact on the refining sector, which was chosen by the bill's authors as the focal point for collecting the "tax" on all carbon emissions from the use of petroleum products. In the view of EnSys Energy Systems, Inc., based on their model of global downstream petroleum markets, US refineries would run much less crude oil and be able to invest much less in modernization. As a result, US imports of refined products would grow significantly, despite lower overall consumption, and employment in the US refining sector would fall, while the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from domestic refineries would be largely offset by increases abroad. Such an outcome would benefit neither the global climate nor US national security.

When I examined the preliminary version of Waxman-Markey in early June, I concluded that because it doled out so many free emission allowances to the electricity sector, its main effect for at least the first two decades would be to function as a tax on the petroleum sector, though without the clarity and transparency of a gasoline tax. Those allocations didn't change materially during negotiations, with the final House bill offering roughly 2% of emission allowances to refineries that would be saddled with the responsibility for between 33% and 44% of all US GHG emissions, depending on how you slice them. Compare that to the electricity sector, which accounts for 39% of emissions but would get at least 35% of the free allowances.

Rather than going through the details of the EnSys study, which was commissioned by API, I'd like to approach this by considering how an evenly-distributed cap & trade system (or carbon tax) should reasonably be expected to affect the oil industry, which after all accounts for a major share of US emissions. You'd hardly expect it to get off scot-free. However, it's a fact that most emissions in the petroleum value chain occur when refined fuel is burned, rather than during production (extraction) or refining. The Ensys study puts the refining contribution at less than 10% of all emissions from well to wheels. Although refiners ought to see their operating costs rise under cap & trade, giving them further incentives to increase their already impressive efficiency of roughly 90% (energy out vs. energy in), the impact should properly be relatively modest. The bulk of the impact from cap & trade should manifest in the form of higher end-user prices for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, putting commensurate pressure on consumers to use less. The outcome of that reduction would fall on the marginal suppliers of refined products to the US market: foreign refiners that sent us over 3 million barrels per day last year. EnSys concludes that Waxman-Markey would have entirely the opposite result, enriching foreign refiners at the expense of the employees and owners of US facilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if the EnSys study were greeted with the customary skepticism of a finding that supports the interests of the constituency that paid for it. API and its member companies have much at stake in this debate. But if you doubt the likelihood of the scenario it describes, you need only review the regulatory history of the US refining industry and the long-term trend of our refined product imports, which have increased at double the rate of our crude oil imports. Between 1993 and 2007--before the recession axed them--net US refined product imports (after subtracting out exports) grew by a compound average rate of roughly 6% per year, compared to an average increase of 3% per year for net crude imports over the same period. This coincided with increasingly strict regulations on permits for new facilities and on refinery emissions of criteria pollutants, along with ever-tougher rules on gasoline and diesel fuel specifications, culminating in the current reformulated gasoline and ultra-low-sulfur diesel specs. With the exception of a couple of years of stellar margins late in that interval, returns on refinery investments were very poor, and the major oil companies were steadily shedding refining capacity as a bad bet. Today, even the independent refining companies that created profitable businesses by purchasing these assets at a fraction of their replacement cost are suffering from low profits.

If anything, the economic impact on the US refining industry from regulating carbon emissions could be even worse than this recent history, since it hinges on the basic chemistry of combustion itself, rather than the removal of impurities that constitute only a small percentage of their feedstock inputs, even for the highest-sulfur crudes. That could happen even with an even-handed approach to cap & trade or a carbon tax, but it would be a certainty under a system that appears designed mainly to shield utilities and their customers at the expense of the entire existing transportation fuel system. The principal means of reducing GHGs from the latter is through cuts in consumption, not more efficient refining, and even our recent low level of product imports offers the opportunity to cut our emissions from petroleum products by roughly 7% with a minimal effect on US refineries. Instead, Waxman-Markey would effectively offshore many of those refineries--and their emissions. In a world transfixed by market failures, that would constitute a regulatory failure of the first magnitude.

Read More

Cash for Guzzlers

Congress appears to be moving closer to providing financial incentives for Americans to trade in older cars for more efficient new models. There are good reasons to support such a measure--and a few caveats--though the longer it takes to implement, the less relevant its benefits might seem. That argues against incorporating it as yet another element of the mammoth American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009--the Waxman-Markey Bill. (Monday's posting examined another aspect of that legislation.) If this provision were enacted quickly, the US would join Germany and the UK, both of which have instituted similar, temporary "cash for clunkers" programs to spur car sales that have been devastated by the recession and credit crisis. This has important implications for the recovery of ailing US automakers, including the Fiat/Chrysler alliance that is expected to result from the latter's bankruptcy filing.

The incentives of up to $4,500 per car are intended to promote the sale of up to a million new, more energy-efficient cars at a time when total US car volumes are down by roughly a third from their pre-crash levels. Despite a drop in the market share of large SUVs, the resulting slower turnover of the US car fleet will delay efforts to make the fleet more efficient, with a corresponding impact on both oil consumption and emissions. The measure also targets the most valuable segment of available fuel economy gains: "gas guzzlers" for which every one-mpg improvement can translate into 40-75 gallons per year in savings for the average driver, compared to gains of less than 10 gallons per year for each one-mpg increment above 35 mpg. While it's not clear that the implied price of oil associated with these subsidies could justify the outlay, it at least stands a much better chance of delivering a financial payout for taxpayers and consumers than devoting subsidies of many thousands of dollars per car to chasing the rapidly-diminishing returns on fuel economy above 50 mpg.

At the same time, we should be clear about what such a program can and can't do. While it could provide a well-timed boost to help struggling carmakers get back on their feet, the program's one-year timeline risks merely accelerating car sales that would happen anyway, leaving Detroit in an even bigger hole next year, after the benefit expires. It is a stop-gap, not a substitute for the sales growth that should accompany the eventual economic recovery. Nor would the old cars traded in disappear from the fleet, unless the final legislation required their scrapping. That compromises the measure's fuel-efficiency benefits in two ways, by keeping the same guzzlers on the road, just in different hands, and by depressing used car prices, making other older, less efficient cars more affordable, relative to the more efficient new cars the measure is intended to promote.

It also can't summon into existence vehicles that don't yet exist. That means it probably won't help the Euro-style economy cars that Ford is gearing up to produce in a converted truck factory, because they likely wouldn't be ready in time. It can't help GM with the launch of its new Chevrolet Cruze 40-mpg subcompact, which is apparently still over a year away. And it certainly won't affect the retooled cars Chrysler is supposed to build using Fiat's technology--they will still be on the drawing board when this benefit ends. The cars (and carmakers) that will benefit the most are the ones already on offer. While it should help Toyota reverse the slide in Prius sales that accompanied lower oil prices and the expiration of its eligibility for hybrid car tax credits, most of the cars likely to benefit will be solid, mid-mpg models like the Honda Accord and Chevy Malibu. A revolution in fuel economy is not in prospect with this legislation.

My advice is to view this measure as a belated addition to the economic stimulus package that might also do a bit of good in reducing oil consumption and emissions. And unlike some of the slow-acting and less-well-defined elements of the February stimulus--which I've recently heard referred to as the "porkulus"--this program appears to be prompt, precisely targeted, and well-bounded.

Read More

Is the Energy Crisis Over?

A quick check of Google Trends this morning confirmed my gut feeling that, other than from government officials, references to an ongoing energy crisis have fallen significantly in the last year. Google's statistics show that searches on this phrase have fallen back to about where they were in 2004 or 2005, though still somewhat higher than 2007. Their track of news references shows this trend even more strikingly. Without graphing the correlation, it appears to go hand in hand with energy prices that have fallen to levels that are no longer adding to our economic pain and in some respects provide significant relief. Does our waning interest in an energy crisis reflect the archetypal fickleness of the American psyche, or has the energy crisis that generated such a fever pitch of concern last year truly abated, and if so, will it soon return? A quick tally of some key statistics provides a mostly positive assessment, at least for now. While this doesn't justify complacency, it seems like a genuinely positive indicator at a time when good news has been in short supply.

The question I posed would have been a lot easier to answer if the Energy Information Agency's handy one-page summary of US primary energy production and consumption had been updated since 2007, when about the best one could say was that our net energy imports had stabilized at just under 30% of total consumption. But looking at the major components of US energy supply and demand in 2008, we see more than a few "green shoots." Net imports of crude oil and petroleum products, a much more useful measure of our dependence on foreign suppliers than just looking at crude oil imports, have fallen steadily from a peak of 13 million barrels per day in the summer of 2006 to around 11 million barrels per day. That didn't occur because US crude production was up--it's not--but because of the lagged but profound response of demand to higher prices.

Even if petroleum imports begin growing again as the economy recovers, they will do so in a global market that for at least the next several years will have ample spare capacity--a crucial measure of the market's ability to meet higher demand without creating another severe price spike. In a webcast earlier this week, Global Insight, CERA and IHS Herold (the sponsor of this blog) presented analysis suggesting that the combination of lower demand and higher output have lifted global spare oil capacity from its minimum of barely a million barrels per day in 2005 to more than 6 million this year, or nearly 8% of demand. Together with high oil inventories in consuming countries, this should cap the eventual recovery of oil prices well below the levels we saw last year. It remains to be seen whether $80 oil would prove as harmful to the weak economic recovery most economists expect next year as $140 oil did to an economy teetering on the brink of collapse.

Natural gas presents a remarkable and more uniformly positive story. A few years ago I was seriously worried that a steady decline in US gas output, coupled with strong demand supported by environmental regulations were setting us up to become major importers of gas from outside North America, putting the US in much the same position for gas as we were already in for oil. What a difference a couple of years makes. As detailed in a recent Wall St. Journal article, gas production has rebounded sharply as a result of the exploitation of enormous deposits of gas in deep shales that until recently had looked inaccessible. Marketed gas production last year was up 7% over 2007 and a whopping 13% above its 2005 trough. As a result, imports are down, especially in the form of LNG. This mini "gas bubble" could deflate, if the low gas price and tight credit continue to depress drilling activity, particularly by the independent gas producers who were mainly responsible for the recent surge in production. But as the Journal notes, the underlying resource looks robust enough to carry us well into the future. Whatever its other pitfalls, the Pickens Plan would not fail for lack of natural gas.

If anything, the electricity picture is even more encouraging. Demand in 2008 was essentially flat, compared to the prior year, and the composition of generation shifted modestly away from coal (down 1%) and other fossil fuels (down 4%), while electricity from nuclear, hydro and other renewables expanded by 2%, led by a 51% increase in wind power output. Wind, solar and geothermal power accounted for just 1.6% of all generation, but the broader group of low-emission sources, including nuclear, made up nearly 29% of the total. This looks set to continue growing, as long as the current nuclear fleet, which accounted for 2/3 of that figure, stays on line and eventually expands.

I recently ran across an interesting analysis examining the extent to which the economic crisis might have been precipitated by an oil price shock--the primary feature of the energy crisis that attracted so much attention in 2007-08. I expressed similar suspicions last December, if in less elegant economic terms. Which was the chicken and which the egg is of more than merely academic interest, because if the energy crisis was a principal contributor to the bursting of a financial bubble that couldn't last forever, rather than merely another manifestation of that bubble, then it seems that the chances of another devastating energy price spike in our near future ought to be a little lower. That would be another piece of good news to add to a generally positive current view of energy.

Read More

The Wrong Enemy

While reading an article on oil company taxation in the Wall Street Journal, I ran across a quote from Treasury Secretary Geithner that crystallized my growing impression that the administration has misinterpreted its own mantra on energy and is training its "friend or foe" radar on the wrong enemy. I would paraphrase the Obama energy strategy as seeking to reduce US oil imports and greenhouse gas emissions by strongly promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency. Unfortunately, the administration's actions risk putting the domestic oil and gas industry on the wrong side of the divide that creates. Absent the steady output from our oil & gas producers, improved energy security--let alone energy independence--would become simply unattainable no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels we build in the next few years. Domestic oil & gas is not the enemy; it is a natural ally in the administration's quest to wean the US from our harmful over-reliance on foreign oil.

Policy makers must have a clear understanding of the country's energy balance and the relative contributions of our different sources. I looked at these "Big Chunks" in some detail in January. Domestic oil and gas production covers 34% of the nation's energy needs. Imported oil provides another 28%, and that's the chunk we need to focus on, along with the emissions from coal-fired power plants. When Secretary Geithner said, "We don't believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy that are dramatically going to add to our climate change," he was implicitly lumping oil and gas from all sources together with coal. Although he was correct to the extent that domestic oil and gas--just like the imported varieties--emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases, there is simply no way to keep the US economy running in the near-to-medium term without them, emissions or not.

Consider the latest figures from the Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy. In 2008 "other renewables", excluding hydropower, generated 3% of the US electricity supply. Wind, solar and geothermal power--the non-hydro renewables that the President has targeted for doubling in the next three years--contributed just over half of that, or 1.6% of the total. That's up from 1.2% last year, for an impressive growth rate of 36%. If the renewable energy sector can maintain that growth for three years, helped by the stimulus package, it should easily double to 3.2% of our electricity supply. That might push the broader "other renewables" category close to 5%, and total renewables including hydropower to 10 or 11%--but all without displacing more than a tiny amount of oil, because oil (including petroleum coke) accounted for just 1.1% of net electricity generation last year, and plug-in vehicles aren't yet a measurable fraction of our vehicle fleet. Oil-burning power plants consumed 165,000 bbl/day, a paltry 0.8% of US petroleum demand. Even if the output of every new wind turbine and solar panel were devoted to backing out oil-fired power--a practical impossibility, given the geographical and time-of-use patterns involved--it wouldn't make a dent in our oil imports.

Increasing the tax burden on the oil and gas industry, by contrast, would most assuredly make a dent in our oil imports--by expanding them. Despite a recent uptick in oil prices, oil companies have seen their cash flows decline significantly in the last nine months. Under pressure to support dividends, those that can still borrow to maintain their capital investment programs are doing so; others have had to defer projects or sell off assets. Increasing their tax burden by revoking long-standing oil & gas tax breaks and singling the industry out for exclusion from a tax benefit offered to all US manufacturers, even with the logic of leveling the playing field for energy sources that emit greenhouse gases relative to those that don't, would be ill-timed, at best.

When the industry argued against higher taxes last year, some suggested that we were entitled to raise taxes on oil companies because political risk was lower in the US than elsewhere, while companies were denied access to key resources overseas. Those comparisons have shifted noticeably, as producing countries have become more receptive to foreign investment in their oil industries, thanks to the rigors of lower oil revenues. At the same time, political risk here has increased, as described in a provocative op-ed by Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group. The energy industry has already seen signs of this, in a proposal for an excise tax targeting companies that refuse to renegotiate the royalty relief provisions of certain Gulf of Mexico deepwater lease contracts, which were recently upheld in court. No business leader can watch the current spectacle of "outrage" and fail to wonder when he or she will sit in the hot seat.

This isn't a question of seeking sympathy for companies that have just come off a streak of record-setting profits, most of which were plowed back into the business or returned to shareholders. That would be as fruitless as soliciting aid for AIG's financial products employees. Rather, we need to look to our self-interest, here. When an oil company drills in the US, its production backs out imports directly, barrel for barrel. It pays US salaries--attractive ones--and it pays hefty taxes: income taxes at a 40% effective rate, along with billions of dollars in royalties, rents and bonus bids collected by the government. When a US oil company drills elsewhere, much of the benefit is captured by foreign governments, and when the oil we import comes from a non-US supplier, our trade deficit swells and the federal government only gets to tax the profits on refining & marketing, which are often pretty thin.

In the future, when we've cracked the code for producing liquid fuels cheaply from abundant non-food biomass, covered our hills and shorelines with wind farms and our deserts and roofs with solar arrays, and have sufficient domestic energy supplies--used efficiently--to back out the last of our oil imports, then the time will be ripe to talk about winding down the domestic oil industry, along with the emissions from the remaining petroleum products. Until then, rather than penalizing them on the basis of fractured logic suggesting this will somehow reduce our oil consumption, it is very much in the public interest for the government to treat the domestic oil industry as a partner, not a foe, and refrain from making it less attractive to drill in the US.

Read More