Archive for May, 2010

h1

Ups and downs in the CCS world

May 28, 2010

On the downside, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that environmentalist Tim Flannery, formerly a booster of carbon capture and sequestration, has changed his mind about the prospects for CCS.  Flannery is on the board of Siemens and , after meeting with some of their technical people in Germany last week, has concluded that while CCS is technically possible, it is likely not economically feasible.  However, in the same article, the head of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute maintains his belief that the current barriers to CCS are not insurmountable.   I am still on the side of CCS, but I am open to being convinced that it will not be a successful strategy.   I think a key may be turning the carbon into a commercial product and utilizing, not simply storing it.  Commercial applications include pumping carbon into mature oil wells to enhance production, “carbon farming” in which farmers generate carbon credits by storing carbon in their fields, or (down the road) supercompressing carbon to create industrial grade diamonds.

Flannery is correct that, using current technologies, CCS is too expensive and inefficient (a power plant implementing CCS would have to dedicate up to 30% of its power output to capturing its own carbon), but it is the key to a secure and clean energy future.  On the positive side – at roughly the same time Flannery was expressing his doubts about CCS – researchers at Berkeley were working on a new type of material that can efficiently – and cost effectively – scrub carbon from power plant outputs.  They hope to use automated processes to enable their break through in 3 years or less. As Instapundit would say:  “Faster, please!”

h1

Sino/American “Strategic and Economic Dialogue” ends

May 27, 2010

The two day Strategic and Economic Dialogue between the US and China has ended with no apparent deals on any of the most pressing matters.  China will not allow its currency to float, it so far remains non-committal on North Korea and it’s support of further sanctions on Iran are best described as abstract and theoretical and reserve the right to balk at specifics.

In fact, far more important to China than these talks with the US are next month’s Council of Heads of States of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Tashkent.  SCO foreign ministers were meeting roughly concurrent with Sino/American talks, preparing the ground for the Heads of States meeting.  Reportedly, the expansion of the SCO will be on the agenda, with Iran itself petitioning for membership.  I doubt that Iran will be extended membership at this point, but Chinese strategic interests are definitely geared more toward keeping Iran close than mollifying a US leadership widely perceived as weak.

h1

George W. Bush, the Green Energy President?

May 26, 2010

Maybe not, but certainly a green energy Governor.  Bush 43 was the keynote speaker at the American Wind Energy Association Conference in Dallas yesterday, where he received “raucous applause and a standing ovation,” according to this first hand report from Bill Opalka at RenewablesBiz.com.

Although his many opponents like to paint Bush as a simplistic front man for a cabal of oil industry leaders, he was, in fact, an early leader in the drive to make Texas a dominant force in the wind power industry.  Opalka reports:

“He even repeated his warning from a State of the Union address that the U.S. was dangerously “addicted to oil,” which wasn’t the usual line from a Texas politician. Or how that was dangerous to national security, which is so common today that dissenters to that view are hard to find.

But he kept returning to the uncontested legacy in wind, which he described as rewarding his faith in technology and free markets.

As he concluded his remarks, Bush noted “We said we were going to get 2,000 megawatts in 10 years but we hand no way of knowing we would reach 10,000 megawatts in 11 years.”

And for that, he was given a hero’s send-off. It was clearly Bush’s crowd, and Bush’s day in Dallas.”

h1

What is Jindal waiting for?

May 25, 2010

Why is the governor of Louisiana still waiting for the federal government to act?  Why is he waiting for those “federal permits” to build the sand berms off the coast?  He should just do it.  He should order the Louisiana National Guard to appropriate the Corps of Engineer equipment and supplies – by force if necessary – and just do the job themselves.

Frankly, a constitutional crisis over such actions would do even more for Jindal’s political fortunes than the berms would do for the coastline.  If the Feds want to come in afterward and punish him for his unpermitted actions, so much the better.  If he still harbors any dreams of running for president, getting arrested by federal marshals for standing up to an unpopular president and taking action to defend his state would put him back on the presidential contender map, a place he has not been since his disastrous SOTU response last year.

Of course, the answer might be that he is just another overly cautious, hack politician – who is not really interested in leading, only in winning the next election.  Maybe he doesn’t have the guts to make such a ballsy move.

h1

China in Africa

May 25, 2010

Read Dr. Deborah Brautigam’s book The Dragon’s Gift:  The Real Story of Africa in China and follow her excellent blog, which builds on her book.  Brautigam’s major argument is that the depiction of China as a nascent imperial power intent on acquiring oil, mineral or other assets or  access is too narrow a view.  Although this blog is sometimes guilty of that same shorthand, I would agree.  While China is, in fact, engaged in petro-mercantilism, it is also developing and exercising its soft power dimension at the same time.   While I tend to focus on the former, the latter also has important long term strategic implications.

h1

China seeks foothold in the Arctic

May 24, 2010

Yes, China, that nation with no territory bordering on the frozen northern ocean.  Nonetheless, China is beefing up its strategic, economic and diplomatic presence in the Arctic region.  The Chinese own and operate the world’s largest non-nuclear ice breaking ship, and has begun construction on a second that will make its icebreaking fleet more modern than that of either Canada or the US.  The US has only three icebreakers, two of them over 30 years old and one of those only recently re-activated for service (there is a fourth icebreaker, but it is on station in and dedicated to the Great Lakes).   There is a scramble ongoing among the “Arctic Eight” for control over the (presumed) vast energy supplies beneath the ice – Russia and Norway struck an important deal last month.  China’s intentions are unclear, but every nation in the northern hemisphere would benefit from the shorter and cheaper summer shipping transit via the Northern Sea Route or Northwest Passage.

h1

Celebrity pleas for “the end of oil” will go unheeded

May 21, 2010

Robert Redford, Ted Turner, Thomas Friedman and others are making pleas to use the Deepwater Horizon disaster as an impetus to “get America over its addiction to oil” and, even more, to begin “the end of oil.”

They are going to be terribly disappointed.

The world is about to embark on what I call The Second Age of Oil.  Or, maybe more accurately, The Shale Age.   The ability to cheaply harvest natural gas from shale formations is the biggest energy event of the century so far, not Deepwater Horizon.  Only the increasing likelihood that we will also be able to begin producing (relatively) cheap shale oil will have a bigger impact on the world energy outlook in the first half of this century.

I fully support research and development of clean, renewable energy sources, but facts are stubborn things, and the fact is that nothing comes close to fossil fuels in terms of the Three Ps:  price, portability, and potency.

What will change is the mix.  Super cheap crude will run out soon (whether in actuality or due to political peaking), but shale oil and liquid fuels derived from coal and gas will take up the slack.  It will be more expensive, but still relatively cheap – think $6 gas.  It will also be cleaner due to mandates for and improvements in CCS technology.

And the US will be the world’s largest producer, consumer, and exporter all at the same time.

h1

Russia pulls Ukraine more firmly to its orbit

May 21, 2010

As recently as 2008, Ukraine seemed a sure bet as the next full fledged member of NATO, but those plans have been fully scrapped by Russophile president Viktor Yanukovych.  Since then, a series of deals over the past few weeks have made it clear that Ukraine is no longer a western bastion on the Black Sea, but is once again in the Russian orbit, if not a full client state.  Last month, the two nations struck a deal which allowed the Russian Black Sea Fleet to maintain basing rights in Sevastopol in the Crimea until 2042.  A number of other commercial and border deals have been signed.  Today, the Ukrainian National Gas Union announced an agreement of cooperation with the Russian Natural Gas Society, a possible first step in Vladimir Putin’s stated goal of merging the two nations’ gas industries into one.

h1

Sinking oil prices put the pressure on Putin’s Petrostate

May 20, 2010

Russia’s budget reportedly relies on an international oil price of $95 per barrel in order to remain balanced.   At $70 a barrel, it is 4% in deficit.  At $50 a barrel, it drops to 8% deficit.  Oil took a steep drop today to below $65 at one point.  Although it has now recovered to $67.75 per barrel, that still represents an almost 3% drop from yesterday.

Russia has long showed a willingness to use its “energy weapon.”  But that is a weapon that can easily be turned back on them.  If the US fully develops its non-conventional oil and gas resources (see, for example, here and here), it will exert a long term downward pressure on oil prices globally.

It is a matter of will.  The United States has the resources to once again dominate the world energy market.  It need only find the wherewithal to utilize them.

h1

USGS ups the assessment of the Utah shale oil resource

May 19, 2010

The new assessment is that there are 1.32 trillion barrels of oil in the formations.   The question of how much of that is ultimately recoverable remains open.  In the post below, I used the figure 800 billion barrels.  This comes from the RAND study a few years back that estimated the ultimately recoverable value to lie between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion barrels, settling on an estimate of 800 billion as the middle value.  In any case, there is a vast resource at hand.

h1

What peak? The world is awash in oil

May 19, 2010

The world is awash in oil.

This might come as a surprise in an era that saw the price of oil near $150 a barrel less than two years ago. It’s the law of supply and demand, we are told. Too much – and growing – demand, and limited and declining supply. The oil world has reached or will soon reach its peak, at which point production will decline inevitably to zero, and the end of the Oil Age will be upon us.

The end of the Oil Age will, undoubtedly, come some day, but it won’t be in my lifetime. It probably won’t even be in this century. The problems of supply and demand are real, but they need a bit of explanation.

Demand is definitely growing.

Even though global demand will undergo a tightening in the coming months due to the shock of oil prices and an overall slackening economy, on a long term basis, it is increasing inexorably. Once this downturn is over, the wealthy nations will go back to work and the emerging nations will ramp up use once again. Global energy use has grown every year for the last two decades and more, and will likely grow in 12 (or 10 or 11 or 13) of the next 15. The current contraction will be temporary, whether it lasts for 6 months or for 60.

Oil supply is a slippery thing.

As noted above, there is a strong and growing belief in the world of the Peak Oil theory. The problem with Peak Oil is that nobody knows how much oil there is in the world, so it is impossible to know where the peak is. People have been confidently predicting an approaching peak for decades, and, not only have they been wrong, but each year global proven reserves have actually increased over the previous year. According to the BP Statistical Review for 2008, “reserves have grown 107.8 billion barrels since 2001 and 168.5 billion barrels, or 14%, over the last decade.” A good example of the uncertainty of oil reserves is the nation of Iraq. As shown in the table below, Iraq has the world’s third largest proven reserves at an estimated 115 billion barrels. However, due to decades of war and poor governance, Iraq is the most under-explored nation in the Persian Gulf region. As a means of comparison, the Energy Information Administration points out that, while the state of Texas has over 1 million oil wells, there are just 2,000 wells in Iraq. With further exploration, Iraqi reserves will certainly increase. To what extent is just guesswork, but the US Geological Survey expects another 100 billion barrels, and Iraqi government officials think they will ultimately find over 300 billion or even 350 billion barrels, dwarfing even the vast Saudi fields. Similarly, estimates of Russian oil reserves range from a low of 60 billion barrels to a high of over 200 billion. Recently, Brazil announced the discovery of a large oil field in the deep Atlantic coastal waters that some analysts predict will be as big or bigger than the big Alaskan discovery decades ago. In all likelihood, there are fields as large or larger in the waters off the American coasts, but current law bans exploration there (and exploitation of them even if they were discovered).

Having oil and getting it are two different problems

So, if there is all that oil out there, why are we hearing about supply problems? The answer is there are many answers. First, because having a massive supply and bringing it to market are two entirely different things. Going back to the example of Iraq – although petrogeologists are certain that vast quantities of oil are there to be discovered, the nation is simply too chaotic and violent to do any exploration. Russia, although it has made a comeback in recent years, still suffers from dysfunctional governance. Brazil’s offshore fields will take enormous effort to bring to market – the national petroleum company Petrobras has leased 80% of the available offshore fleet in the entire world, and that still won’t be enough (that lack of capacity is why, even if the US changes its offshore oil policy, it still won’t be able to fully exploit the resource for years, or even decades).

The problem of Political Peaking

A second reason is a phenomenon called “Political Peaking.” Petro-states, that is, nations whose economic base is completely or even largely based on selling oil, have a vested interest in understating their proven reserves. Creating the impression of limited supply increases the market price of their oil and, as night follows day, of their overall economy. Some will argue that large oil companies are in cahoots with the petro-states in this game, but there is a counter-argument that oil companies, in order to attract investors and to assure shareholders, have to demonstrate that they have access to as large a portion of the world’s reserves as possible, which works against their interests in understating supply.

The Rise of the Speculators

A third reason is that oil itself is used to satisfy two types of demand. First, as most of us think of it, oil is a commodity. This is how I have been treating it in this article. However, oil is also an investment instrument. Investors purchase oil futures, which is a bet that the global price of oil is going to increase over time, depending on the length of the futures contract purchased. While the price of oil has been increasing steadily for the last few years, the recent explosion of prices has come directly on the heels of the worldwide credit crisis. Many banks, investment houses, and hedge funds were heavily invested in mortgage securities, whose value has plummeted in the last year, placing many institutions in precarious positions. Indeed, some have already failed. Many of those remaining have turned their investments toward commodities in general and to oil in particular. Now they, too, have in interest in seeing the price of oil increase. Every dollar increase in the price of crude is an increase in the value of their futures contracts and a narrowing of their losses (at least on paper) on mortgage securities. So, when an energy analyst from Goldman Sachs predicts that oil will reach $200 per barrel, we have to remember that he has a vested interest in doing everything he can to see that it reaches that price – including pumping up the price with frightening, if baseless, predictions.

This is not to say, however, that speculation is the cause of increasing prices. It is but one factor in many. The perception of limited and increasingly scarce supply is another, and the reality of limits on production is a third.

But, really the world is awash in oil

British Petroleum’s current estimate of worldwide reserves 1.238 trillion barrels, with worldwide demand currently around 85 million barrels per day (that is a 1.1% increase from 2006 to 2007, although the United States – the world’s largest user, showed a 0.1% decrease). If current demand held steady, and estimates of reserves were complete and correct, then the world would run completely out of oil in about 40 years. If estimates of reserves are off by 50%, meaning there are actually 1.8 trillion barrels, then we have roughly 60 years. Of course, the fact is demand is increasing yearly, so the amount of time left in the petroleum age would shrink with increased use. However, even a 50% estimate is probably too low. The US Geological Survey, using statistical modeling based on the history and frequency of new oil finds, projects a total value of worldwide reserves to be about 3.338 trillion barrels, about 3 times the current estimates. The USGS model works on three possibilities. At the low end, they predict that there is a 95% probability that there at least 2.793 trillion barrels that will ultimately be recovered, while at the high end, there is a 5% chance that there will be 3.947 trillion barrels or more. Using these numbers, and assuming moderate growth in global demand, the Energy Information Administration estimates the year for peak oil production to be around 2040.

After the peak, a crash or a slope?

Most models of Peak Oil see production as a bell shaped curve, which means that there will not be a crash after the peak is reached, but rather a gentle decline. In other words, in the year 2072, thirty two years after the peak, the world will be producing as much petroleum as it is today, thirty two years before the peak. In the intervening decades, we can expect technological developments on many fronts – alternative energy sources that will do some of the jobs that petroleum does today, additives and supplements that will increase the efficiency of petroleum products, advancements in refining that will allow the generation of more gasoline from a barrel of crude (half a century ago, a 42 barrel of crude produced 11 gallons of gas; today, that same barrel produces 21 gallons of gas). Additionally, there are other, non-conventional sources of gas that will become available.

CTL

The technology for producing gasoline from coal, called coal-to-liquid or CTL, has existed for nearly a century, but it has usually been far more expensive than simply refining crude oil. As prices increase, however, CTL becomes more viable. If all the known coal reserves in the world were converted to CTL fuels, it would be the equivalent of just under 3 trillion barrels of oil. The United States alone, which controls 27% of the world coal reserves, would be able to distill 800 billion barrels – more than 3 times the proven reserves of crude in all of Saudi Arabia.

Tar Sands

Another estimated 2.3 trillion barrels

Heavy Oil

Additional 1.3 trillion barrels

Shale Oil

Estimated 800 billion barrels in the US alone

Total non-conventional fossil fuels

about 7.3 trillion barrels, which, when added to the estimates of current conventional reserves brings the total world reserves to well over 10 trillion barrels.

h1

Georgia and NATO . . . outlook not so good

May 17, 2010

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is preparing to embrace a new strategic concept for the coming decades.  Today, its “Group of Experts” delivered a report that will likely form the core of that concept, although it has yet to be formally accepted by the Alliance and its members.  Media outlets in Georgia and Eurasia believe that the report embraces a fairly rapid admission of Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance, but I am not so sure.  The report reads to me like it hedges on the question of membership for the Black Sea states, and in fact leans towards keeping the two nations as “partners” and, as such, co-equals with Russia in their relationship to NATO.  Personally, I am in favor of extending the alliance to the shores of the Caspian, with Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan admitted as soon as possible, but my take from the report is that the “experts” are too cautious to tender a full invite even to Ukraine and that Georgia is out of luck and Azerbaijan is not even in the conversation.

h1

Russia flexing muscles in Caspian energy basin

May 14, 2010

Despite the lack of a treaty with the other Caspian states (Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan), Russia is pressing forward with energy development in the Caspian Sea, launching its first offshore rig last month.

In the not so distant past, the US was in a position to influence – if not dominate – Central Asia, the Caspian basin and the Strategic Energy Ellipse.  Today, that position is nearly lost and the Russia-organized Collective Security Treaty Organization and the China-organized Shanghai Cooperation Organization are the dominant players.   US influence is in steep decline.

h1

Three alternatives in the growing struggle for scarce resources

May 13, 2010

Hydrocarbon Hegemony, Petro-Mercantilism, and Global Energy Access:

The three alternatives in the growing struggle for scarce resources

It is fashionable in some quarters to question the motives American foreign policy regardless of which party or what president is in power, and it had become especially fashionable to question the motives of the “neo-con” Bush Administration, even after most of the few actual neo-cons who were ever there had left the White House. The hidden assumption behind all this questioning is that, but for America’s greedy and nefarious motives, the international scene would be one of peace and harmony, or at the very least much more nearly so.

This is, of course, nonsense. US policy does not exist in a vacuum. Standing against US interests and motives are those of other nations. A genuine sceptic and thoughtful critic would examine the likely situation should those other nations’ preferences come to dominate the field. This is not very difficult to do. There are a limited number of actors who would fill the space left by the absence of US policy, and it is easy to compare their actions and goals to those of the United States.

Let us begin by assuming the “silver bullet” that critics on the left and right believe would allow the United States to largely disengage from global politics: Energy Independence.

Reducing our dependence on energy from odious regimes would matter not a whit, because oil is fungible and we will be held hostage to energy prices no matter where we get it.  Our chief sources already are

  • domestic
  • Canada
  • Mexico.

The cost of all that oil – regardless of the source – will go up whenever the global cost rises and falls.

The way to control those future shocks is to engage globally, not to disengage and try to hide behind an isolationist wall (and a false one, at that) of energy independence.

I’m a geographer, and the geographer’s perspective is usually left out of geopolitical discourse that has come to be dominated by the political half of the word.  But, geography is fundamental and the most unchangeable aspect of geopolitics, and we ignore it at our peril.  The facts of the matter are that

  • (a) we are fundamentally interconnected with the global economy;
  • (b) the global economy demands vast resources of energy;
  • (c) 70% of the world’s oil reserves and 40% of the natural gas reserves are held in the Strategic Energy Ellipse that stretches from the northern shores of the Caspian Sea to the southern terminus of the Persian Gulf.
  • (d)If we cede control of this region, then we cede control of our economy.

We have in place a superstructure of alliances in the region that we need to leverage to maintain our dominant role as the guarantor of safe and stable energy delivery to the world economy.  In opposition to this classic Public Good, the Russians are pursuing a strategy of what I call “Energy Hegemony,” an attempt to dominate those deliveries for private rather than public good, while the Chinese are pursuing a contemporay form of mercantilism I call Petro-Mercantilism, seeking to lock up flows of energy for their own use.  We cannot allow these private good pursuits to defeat the public good approach.  If they do, the world economy as we know it will collapse.

This is the end to which US power (in all the iterations of hard, soft, sweet and sticky power that various schools champion) must be deployed.  It is not about the freedom or democracy of this nation or that people.  It is about ensuring the free flow of energy so the best possible environment for economic and political advancement can be maintained.

h1

Is this the end of the American Era in the Middle East?

May 12, 2010

Michael Young’s sobering column.

“An Obama administration trapped in the tentacles of Afghanistan makes more likely American retreats in the Middle East. And if Barack Obama decides next year that it is time to wind down his Afghan adventure, the implications for America’s view of itself, and the world’s view of America, could be dramatic, particularly if Iran uses that opening to finalize a nuclear weapon. Obama will have presided over two major military withdrawals while allowing Iran to become a major adversary in the Middle East.”

Read the whole thing.

h1

New Chinese Dam Projects Threaten India

May 11, 2010

The Chinese government has admitted to have begun work on a large dam project near the headwaters of the Brahmaputra river in Tibet (the river is called Yarlung Zambo in China).  It is the first of five planned dams in the same area which, when combined, will have a capacity “several times” larger than the massive Three Gorges project.   The dams will be at the highest altitude ever constructed and will require the use of special materials developed by the Chinese space agency.

The Indian government is very leery of this project, as most of the length of the Brahmaputra is in India and provides the drinking water for millions of its residents.  Additionally, the reservoirs created by the dams will sit at least partially on territory whose ownership is disputed by India and which was the proximate cause of the 1962 Sino-Indian War (which has never been formally resolved via a peace treaty).

Over the coming months, India may seek to make in international case over this construction.  China has established a pattern of disregarding the concerns of its neighbors in its dam projects, as Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam all have open disputes with China over its Mekong River dam projects.

China's Three Gorges Dam

China's Three Gorges Dam (from www.shanghai-gas.com)

Brahmaputra River in Tibet, photo: Gerry Chu, via Treehugger.com

h1

China’s environmental challenges

May 10, 2010

Good overview of the environmental challenges facing China in this conversation between Atlantic editor James Fallows and Damien Ma, research analyst at Eurasia Now.

h1

Unfortunately, people choose to live where the wind does not blow

May 10, 2010

The map below from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows the locations where wind power potential is the greatest – those areas shaded purple to red:

The most fruitful areas are smack in the middle of the nation, basically down slope of the Continental Divide.  Now, compare this to the map of the nation’s population density – the dense regions are the places where the power is needed:

That’s the problem with wind power:  Transmission over vast distances from where it is best generated to where it is most needed.  Very good discussion on this problem at Future Pundit last week.

h1

Large Scale Energy Storage Systems

May 7, 2010

Excellent rundown by Harry Valentine at Energy Pulse.  He doesn’t discuss the new Austro/German technique for creating methane discussed yesterday in How to Dam the Wind, but maybe that will show up in Part 2.

h1

How to dam the wind

May 6, 2010

The major hindrance to wind (and solar) power is that they are inconstant sources.  Wind power is available only when the wind blows (and, then, often in great excess), but not when it does not.  By comparison, hydroelectricity is always available because you dam the river and release the water through the turbines as you need it.  But, you cannot dam the wind, so it is a source that you have no control over.

I have seen various solutions to this problem – batteries, of course, but batteries are insufficient at our current level of technology.  A poster to this blog once suggested using wind power to pump water back into dams.  Yesterday, Popular Science reported on a new process developed by a German/Austrian team that uses excess electricity generated from wind and/or solar to create methane.

“When the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, excess power is siphoned off and used to split water through electrolysis. But rather than storing the hydrogen gas for use in fuel cells — technology that, while potentially game-changing, is not widely employed — a simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and carbon dioxide is used to generate CH4, or a synthetic version of methane.  That methane can be stored in existing natural gas facilities for use when renewable fuel sources are having an off day. Those supplies could also be used as a heat source during cold winters or burn in natural gas powered car engines. The synthetic methane does release carbon emissions into the air, but since the CO2 used to make the synthetic methane is pulled from the atmosphere rather than the ground, the process only returns the carbon it initially pulled out.”

I will say that it is an intriguing idea, but I can’t support it at this point.  I don’t think it is a good idea to destroy an even more precious resource – water – to create fuel.  However, I am admittedly ignorant on the details of the process.  If I am wrong – if, in fact, the water is not destroyed and is somehow reintroduced back into the ecosystem at some point, I will change my mind.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers