Collaboration, Not Confrontation with EPA

EPA’s big study of the impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water is due in 2014, but an interim report might surface as early as the end of the year. Needed is focused, scientifically solid research that that will advance public discussion of shale energy development that has so much potential for our economy and future energy security.

Unfortunately, EPA’s study plan has deficiencies that ultimately could sap the integrity of the study’s findings. That’s one of the conclusions in a new analysis by the Battelle Memorial Institute. Stephanie Meadows, API upstream senior policy advisor, shared some of the study findings in a conference call with reporters:

“Battelle’s analysis of the plan, which we are releasing today, reinforces many of our previously stated concerns and raises some new ones. It finds deficiencies in the rigor, funding, focus and stakeholder inclusiveness of EPA’s plan. … We’re not calling on EPA to stop its study. We’re calling on them to do it right.”

API and America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) commissioned the Battelle study after EPA declined to engage with industry in a collaborative review of hydraulic fracturing. Battelle’s Bernard Metzger said his broad-based multidisciplinary team of engineers, oil and natural gas experts, toxicologists and others examined EPA’s study plan to determine its soundness. The findings include:

EPA is reaching beyond the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources, which was its charge from Congress, to broader oil and natural gas industry production activities.The expanded scope suggests there will be added complexity, risk, and uncertainty in EPA’s study, raising the level of difficulty in ensuring a scientifically rigorous result.Site data collected from companies comes from the years 2006-2010, making it likely some data in the final 2014 report could be nearly 10 years old. Changes at company sites in the intervening years likely will “render the data obsolete for the purposes of the study.”Case studies were selected from a limited and statistically biased pool and lack necessary baseline information which may result in incorrect and flawed conclusions. The plan suffers from a lack of “significant” industry collaboration, given industry’s extensive experience and expertise in hydraulic fracturing and associated technologies.

Metzger said gaps in EPA’s study planning can impact data quality:

“Quality cannot be built into the back end of a project through rigorous review; it must be built into each step of a scientifically rigorous process to ensure that the end product is high quality data that is defensible and achieves the study goals.”

ANGA’s Amy Farrell:

“We continue to believe a well-designed, scientifically rigorous study of hydraulic fracturing will confirm our industry’s ongoing commitment to safe and responsible development and that communities don’t have to trade the protection of the environment for the many economic, energy security and clean air benefits natural gas offers. We hope (EPA) will not only consider additional efforts to collaborate with the industry and other key stakeholders moving forward, but that they will carefully review the (Battelle) report and consider the critiques and recommendations for improvement and make adjustments as appropriate.”

View the original article here

Bakken Shale: Supplying Energy, Supporting Communities

Check out a couple of new videos from North Dakota in which Hess employees and others talk about how energy development in the Bakken Shale formation is changing lives and growing the state’s economy.

Part 1:

Part 2:

The narrative isn’t complicated. As Hess’ Steven Fretland notes in the first video, the Bakken is believed to hold between 8 billion and 40 billion barrels of oil reserves. Companies developing the energy resources need workers, and workers need places to live and services to support their lives. Fretland, who was raised in North Dakota, says Bakken energy is reversing historic trends:

“Younger kids, after they left, you know, you hated to see them go but then they come back and they decide … it’s where they’re going to have their home and raise a family and hopefully retire with the industry.”

In the second video, Hess’ Steve McNally says hydraulic fracturing that has revolutionized energy development is responsible for North Dakota’s jobs boom:

“The impact on the North Dakota area and the U.S. in the short term is numerous jobs. There’s a tremendous amount of employment opportunities here. For anyone who wants to work, you can get a job.”

The point, underscored in this new industry spot, is that fracking has made an old frontier state like North Dakota a new energy frontier. Previously unreachable shale resources are now available in abundance through responsible development. Learn more at Energy From Shale.org.

View the original article here

Editorially Speaking, New York Times is Behind the Curve on Shale Gas

Here’s what caught our eye in an otherwise relatively benign New York Times editorial on shale natural gas and hydraulic fracturing:

“For their part, the oil and gas companies — both the ExxonMobils and the mom-and-pops that abound in hydrofracturing — need to drop their warfare against necessary regulations.”

And later:

“Stronger federal rules are plainly needed.”

Last things first: Stronger federal rules? Where has the Times’ editorial board been the occasions when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has downplayed the notion of federal shale gas regulation overlaying existing state regulation? Here’s Jackson last fall:

“We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process. … So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role.”

And a couple of days later, on MSNBC:

“States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”

It’s likely Jackson knows there’s not much the feds could add to the competent, efficient oversight that state regulators already are providing. And the Times doesn’t explain what it believes federal regulation – probably duplicative, almost certainly unnecessary – would accomplish.

In fact, industry recognizes the need for regulation. We just believe it’s best handled by the states. That’s why we’ve worked with the states through the STRONGER organization to develop regulatory regimes tailored for their specific circumstances. API and its members also have worked hard to develop industry standards that often form the basis for state regulations – on wellbore integrity, water management, community relations and more. Industry supports disclosure through the FracFocus online chemical registry.

All of the above address the editorial’s other assertion – that energy companies need to “drop their warfare” against regulation. Sorry, but the real warfare here has been waged by the Times in its “Drilling Down” series, a collection of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and manipulations that the Council on Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi dubbed a “war on shale gas.” This has included flawed reporting on mortgages, leases and the economic future of shale gas – at one point drawing a penalty flag from the newspaper’s own ombudsman. 

So, while noting the editorial’s positive points about shale gas, we encourage the newspaper’s editorial board to get up to speed on the good work states are doing to regulate industry activity, as well as industry efforts to get shale gas development right.

View the original article here

EPA’s Unjustified Particulate Matter Proposal

Three good reasons EPA should shelve a proposal to tighten its air pollution standard governing particulate matter:

Science doesn’t justify it.Current control programs are working.A more stringent standard could harm jobs and economic growth.

EPA is scheduled to hold public hearings on its PM 2.5 standard today in Philadelphia and Sacramento – part of a commenting period that runs into August. The proposal, which is to be finalized by the end of the year, would tighten the standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter to 12 or 13 micrograms.

API’s Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs, discussed the proposal during a conference call with reporters:

“Changing the standard should be supported by clear scientific analysis. The science in this case cannot demonstrate a proven ‘cause and effect’ between levels below the current standard and health consequences. In part, this is because in EPA’s analysis it failed to adequately address confounding factors. EPA also assumed rather than demonstrated a linear relationship between pollution and health effects, concluding that harm to health must occur even at very low levels.”

Feldman, who was to deliver testimony in Philadelphia, said a tighter standard could result in higher costs for providing and using energy, meaning fewer businesses would be created, fewer would expand and fewer workers would be hired. Feldman:

“Existing control programs are working. According to EPA, between 2000 and 2010, concentrations of PM 2.5 in the air fell by 27 percent. As a result, more than three-fourths of Americans today live in areas where air quality meets today’s standards.”

Dr. Julie Goodman of Gradient, an expert in toxicology, epidemiology and in assessing health risks from chemicals in products and the environment, also joined the call. Goodman said EPA has not produced “coherent evidence” that a new PM standard is necessary:

“There’s no evidence that lowering (the standard) 2 to 3 micrograms will have any effect on health. In other words, there’ll be no (real) health benefits from lowering the standard.”

Goodman’s remarks for the Philadelphia hearing can be read here.

View the original article here

Enter Innovation: Improving the Fracking Process

One of the factors involved in pulling energy from shale through hydraulic fracturing is how much water is needed – typically 2 to 4 million gallons per well. Though that’s not as much water as it sounds (electrical generation for the Susquehanna River Basin requires nearly 150 million gallons per day), it’s a public concern. More on water usage at the FracFocus website.

Water also is an industry concern. It isn’t free, and once the well has been stimulated with fracking, there’s waste water that has to be disposed of or recycled. Enter innovation. A number of companies are tackling the issue.

Schlumberger’s HiWAY flow-channel technology claims to use less water, with greater effectiveness:

“HiWAY technology fundamentally changes the way proppant fractures generate conductivity. The first technique of its kind, HiWAY fracturing creates open pathways inside the fracture, enabling hydrocarbons to flow through the stable channels rather than the proppant. This optimizes connectivity between the reservoir and the wellbore—resulting in infinite fracture conductivity.”

Other companies are marketing waterless alternatives, using other agents to apply pressure to the shale – producing microscopic fractures and introducing sand or other proppants to keep the cracks open so the oil or natural gas can drain from the shale and be collected.

Baker-Hughes has developed VaporFrac, combining a high-pressure nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide gas stream and an ultra-lightweight proppant slurry:

“This method safely creates a flow stream that is more than 90% gas, significantly reducing post-frac cleanup. The high energy of the gas phase makes for easy flowback. There’s a quicker tie into pipelines.”

GASFRAC Energy Services’ liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) gel is primarily propane, which the company says has a number of advantages in fracking:

“Since our gel regains permeability with the hydrocarbons we stimulate, we have the ability to recover 100% of the fracturing fluids within days of stimulation. This creates economic and environmental benefits reducing clean-up, waste disposal and post-job truck traffic, while creating higher initial production levels.”

No doubt, other companies, other energy innovators, are at work on this question. The point here is to show the kind of invention that’s being sparked by necessity surrounding water and fracking. Businesses are taking on this issue and others associated with energy development with the goal of making processes better, safer, more efficient and more environmentally friendly. When we hear about their stories, we’ll pass them along.

View the original article here

Cooking With Gas–And Loathing It?

The intersection of a recent anti-natural gas fundraiser at the trendy Brooklyn Winery – featuring fabulous culinary delights prepared by a group of talented chefs – and the natural gas that made the evening possible was, well, simply mouth-watering.

New York Daily News columnist Bill Hammond writes that the “Taste of the Marcellus” event last week was hosted by a group called Chefs for the Marcellus, to showcase the kinds of foods they say could be jeopardized if New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo OKs hydraulic fracturing in that state’s portion of the Marcellus Shale. Hammond:

"Guests were treated to eggplant-stuffed okra, smoked lamb belly with fermented tofu and whipped ricotta jewel on toast — along with wines from the Finger Lakes and beers from Cooperstown’s Ommegang brewery. The only thing more delicious than the menu was the irony, because many if not most of those dishes were cooked over the bright blue flame of natural gas. That’s right, the Chefs for the Marcellus saw nothing wrong with using the very same fuel they portray as a dire threat to the upstate countryside."

He writes that even stuff that wasn’t simmered or seared over a gas flame was chilled in refrigerators running on electricity, much of which no doubt was generated at natural gas-fired power plants. Same thing for the restaurant AC that kept the guests comfortable. Every cubic foot of gas used, he notes, came from a hole in the ground – a quarter of it (based on national averages) from the same hydraulic fracturing process the group opposes.

Then there’s this quote Hammond got from Chefs for the Marcellus organizer Hilary Baum – as tantalizing as the sungold tomato gazpacho with smoked trout that was part of the featured fare:

“We all cook with gas. We all use gas. But we have to be looking at developing alternative energy sources and not be so stuck on fossil fuels.”

To ice the cake, Hammond quotes the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce:

“It’s easy to demonize the oil and gas industry. But getting along without the fuels they provide takes us back to the Stone Age.”

Amen. Pass the trout.

View the original article here

Welcoming Interior to the Energy Jobs Bandwagon

A couple of points from the Interior Department’s report on its contributions to the economy in 2011, which you can read in full, here.

First, we agree: Energy development indeed is a dynamic job creator and stimulus that ripples throughout local, state, regional and national economies. Interior says the development of oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower and other minerals on federal lands supported 1.5 million jobs and contributed $275 billion to the economy, and that’s great.

Every job is a paycheck, and energy development – whether on federal, state or private lands – is creating jobs. Lots of them. (Read here for an argument that oil and natural gas have been a lifeline for the struggling U.S. economy.) Our industry supports 9.2 million jobs overall and contributed $476 billion to the economy in 2010. And our companies are ready to do more.

That’s the other key point: If Interior is reporting that many jobs and that much economic stimulus – at a time when federal leasing and permitting policies onshore and offshore are less robust than they could be – imagine what could result with increased access to federal lands, more lease sales and a permitting process that’s been cleared of unnecessary delays and restrictions.

We already have. With the right policies in place, our industry could create 1.4 million new jobs and generate $800 billion in new revenue for governments by 2030, according to last fall’s Wood Mackenzie study. With a pro-energy development approach – expanded offshore leasing, drilling in an airport-sized parcel of the 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and other pipelines, the U.S. could see 100 percent of its liquid fuel needs met domestically and from Canada by 2024.

One last point. We’re glad to see Interior’s methodology for counting jobs includes “direct,” “indirect” and “induced” jobs (see pg. 197). Maybe it’ll help cool the jets of some who’ve scoffed at jobs estimates for the oil and natural gas industry.

View the original article here

EPA’s Unjustified Particulate Matter Proposal

Three good reasons EPA should shelve a proposal to tighten its air pollution standard governing particulate matter:

Science doesn’t justify it.Current control programs are working.A more stringent standard could harm jobs and economic growth.

EPA is scheduled to hold public hearings on its PM 2.5 standard today in Philadelphia and Sacramento – part of a commenting period that runs into August. The proposal, which is to be finalized by the end of the year, would tighten the standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter to 12 or 13 micrograms.

API’s Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs, discussed the proposal during a conference call with reporters:

“Changing the standard should be supported by clear scientific analysis. The science in this case cannot demonstrate a proven ‘cause and effect’ between levels below the current standard and health consequences. In part, this is because in EPA’s analysis it failed to adequately address confounding factors. EPA also assumed rather than demonstrated a linear relationship between pollution and health effects, concluding that harm to health must occur even at very low levels.”

Feldman, who was to deliver testimony in Philadelphia, said a tighter standard could result in higher costs for providing and using energy, meaning fewer businesses would be created, fewer would expand and fewer workers would be hired. Feldman:

“Existing control programs are working. According to EPA, between 2000 and 2010, concentrations of PM 2.5 in the air fell by 27 percent. As a result, more than three-fourths of Americans today live in areas where air quality meets today’s standards.”

Dr. Julie Goodman of Gradient, an expert in toxicology, epidemiology and in assessing health risks from chemicals in products and the environment, also joined the call. Goodman said EPA has not produced “coherent evidence” that a new PM standard is necessary:

“There’s no evidence that lowering (the standard) 2 to 3 micrograms will have any effect on health. In other words, there’ll be no (real) health benefits from lowering the standard.”

Goodman’s remarks for the Philadelphia hearing can be read here.

View the original article here

Hot Dogs, BBQs…and Fracking

Kudos to Fuel Fix.com for cooking up a link between hot dogs and fracking in time for the Fourth of July – making the point that chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are all around our daily lives, in some of the things we eat and other products that make our lives better.

Take the hot dog. Fuel Fix points out that the staple at cookouts, ballparks and fireworks displays often contains something called sodium erythorbate for fast curing and retention of the hot dog’s distinctive pink color. In fracking, it helps prevent precipitation of metal oxides, improving the process.

Going to a barbecue? Many BBQ sauces contain guar gum, derived from (you guessed it) the guar bean. In hydraulic fracturing, guar gum thickens the water in the fracking fluid, better suspending the sand that keeps tiny cracks in rocks open so oil or natural gas can be recovered.

It’s true: Not all of the stuff that goes into fracking fluid can be ingested by humans, yet these substances are found in things people use all the time. Check out Fuel Fix’s neat slideshow for a different way of looking at a drilling process that’s revolutionizing this country’s energy production.

Final point: The typical fracturing fluid is made up of 99.5 percent water and sand. Just half of 1 percent is chemical ingredients. See FracFocus.org for more information on fluid composition and other aspects of the hydraulic fracturing process, as well as the Energy From Shale website – and Happy Independence Day!

View the original article here

Jobs? Revenue for Government? We Can Help

A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds two of the top three issues that Americans care about the most in this election year are … jobs and reducing the federal budget deficit. Check and check. America’s oil and natural gas industry can help with both. Respondents were asked to weigh the importance of a number of issues (see chart), and 92 percent said creating good jobs is “extremely/very important.” On cutting the federal deficit the figure was 86 percent. Jobs and revenue to the government – we can help.

With the right policies in place – increasing access to American natural resources, the right approach to energy regulation, encouraging energy investments and more – our industry could create 1.4 million jobs by 2030. Here’s how the Wood Mackenzie energy consulting firm charts the potential jobs growth:

Leadership is needed to make this happen. Industry is doing its part – investing in America – and it’s willing to do more.

As for tax revenue for government, to help with the deficit, Wood Mackenzie estimates a pro-energy development strategy could generate a total of more than $800 billion by 2030:

Again, in a struggling economy the oil and natural gas industry is adding jobs and supporting communities while generating revenues for government. Energy-driven economic growth that’s being seen in North Dakota, Texas, Pennsylvania and other states can be realized in other places with a true all-of-the-above (and below) energy strategy.

View the original article here

Fix the Renewable Fuels Standard

There was good discussion of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) during a Hill hearing this week. API supports the appropriate use of ethanol, biodiesel and other biofuels in transportation fuels, but, unfortunately, in some ways the standard is bearing out the law of unintended consequences.

API President and CEO Jack Gerard addressed the House energy and power subcommittee, noting that U.S. refiners have primary responsibility for meeting the RFS requirements, blending nearly 15 billion gallons of ethanol in gasoline. But the RFS’ requirements are producing some bad policy, Gerard said:

“EPA has allowed the RFS law’s volume requirements to drive decisions that are inappropriate and unwise.  The law has become increasingly unrealistic, unworkable, and a threat to consumers.  It needs an overhaul, especially with respect to the volume requirements.” 

Gerard detailed ill effects stemming from the RFS’s volume mandates:

E10 “Blend Wall” – 10 percent ethanol content in fuel is safe for U.S. vehicle engines, service station pumps and storage tanks. But under the law, the ethanol volume in the overall fuel supply is required to increase and could exceed 10 percent as early as 2013. That’s the so-called “blend wall.” At that point refiners will have only two options: produce E15 (15 percent ethanol) and flexfuel or E85 – a blend of between 51 percent and 83 percent ethanol by volume that can be used only in flexfuel vehicles, which make up about 5 percent of the U.S. vehicle fleet today. More on E15 below. The problem with E85 is that it has a lower fuel economy than gasoline, and less than 2 percent of retail stations offer it.

E15 – EPA has approved the use of E15 for part of the vehicle fleet to help accommodate increases in the RFS volume requirement. But a recent study showed that E15 could damage engines that weren’t designed to use it, as well as gasoline station pump equipment. The risk can be measured in the billions of dollars. The Auto Alliance weighed in on E15, here. U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner shared the concerns of auto makers in a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson last summer. Gerard:

“EPA should not have proceeded with E15, especially before a thorough evaluation was conducted to assess the full range of short- and long-term impacts of increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline on the environment, on engine and vehicle performance, and on consumer safety.”

Cellulosic ethanol – A 2007 law requires increasing use of this advanced form of ethanol that theoretically can be made from a broader range of feedstocks. But it isn’t available, because no one is making it commercially. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Brian McGraw has more details, here. Even so, EPA continues to assert that aggressive mandates, not based on actual production, will somehow stimulate production. EPA could waive the provision but instead is insisting that refiners buy credits for a non-existent fuel, which will drive up costs and might harm consumers.

RINS – This stands for renewable identification numbers, which are used with renewable fuel credits that some refiners have purchased under a program created by EPA. Some refiners became fraud victims after buying invalid credits in good faith. EPA’s initial response was that the bad credits were the refiners’ problem, and that they’d have to buy more. This adds more costs to making gasoline. Industry currently is trying to work out the problem with EPA.

Again, industry supports renewable fuels. But the RFS as written threatens to become counterproductive. Gerard:

“The RFS law needs to be altered to fix what isn’t working and take into account the ability of the vehicle fleet and fueling infrastructure to safely use renewable blends. Mandates must have periodic technology/feasibility reviews to allow for appropriate adjustments. Biofuels are an important part of the nation’s energy mix.  But current law and how it is implemented have become increasingly problematic.  This could eventually hurt consumers and erode support for the RFS program.”  

The answer is commonsense problem-solving, including positive collaboration between government and industry. While the goals of the RFS are well-intentioned, the marketplace realities are concerning, with potentially negative effects on companies and consumers that should be fixed.

View the original article here

Hailing the Chief’s Support for Natural Gas Development, Fracking

President Obama deserves credit for standing fast in his support for natural gas development through hydraulic fracturing – especially given the no-to-natural gas approach taken by some of his supporters in the environmental community, including the Sierra Club. Here’s the president on Monday in Cincinnati:

“… We’re moving in the right direction in terms of energy independence. Now, part of that is this boom in natural gas.  And this is something we should welcome, because not only are we blessed with incredible natural gas resources that are now accessible because of new technologies, but natural gas actually burns cleaner than some other fossil fuels, and is an ideal fuel -- energy source that we potentially can use for the next 100 years.  So I want to encourage natural gas production.  The key is to make sure that we do it safely and in a way that is environmentally sound.”

The president is spot on – and as a response to a negative question about natural gas, his remarks were all the more remarkable. Because of abundant, affordable gas, made accessible through fracking, the global energy balance could be shifting. The president continued:

“Now, you always hear these arguments that somehow there’s this huge contradiction between the environment and economic development, or the environment and energy production.  And the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of folks right now that are engaging in hydraulic fracking who are doing it safely.”

This also is true. The oil and natural gas industry has focused on making hydraulic fracturing safer and more efficient through a set of standards that guide operators, and it has worked with states to develop regulatory regimes tailored for their specific conditions. The president went on:

“The problem is, is that we haven’t established clear guidelines for how to do it safely, and informed the public so that neighbors know what’s going on, and your family, you can make sure that any industry that’s operating in your area, that they’re being responsible.”

Well, OK. The president is mistaken or misinformed on that point. Industry has been clear and detailed in developing the standards mentioned above. It also has supported FracFocus.org to create transparency about fracking itself – a website community members can use to learn where wells are being drilled in their area, as well as the chemicals being used in the fracking fluids themselves. The industry takes community engagement and support seriously and is committed to getting shale development right.

Back to the president:

“What we’ve said is, look, we are going to work with industry to establish best practices.  We are going to invest in the basic research and science required to make sure this is done safely and in a way that protects the public health.  And for responsible companies, they should be able to operate, make a profit, and we can all benefit and put people back to work."

Best practices, we’re on it, Mr. President. Industry also is supportive of new technologies to improve operations, including those to reduce or even eliminate water use during the fracking process. Shale energy is creating jobs, thousands of them, and boosting the economy.

View the original article here

Energy: It’s About Jobs

The latest jobs report, showing the creation of just 80,000 new jobs in June, is refocusing the political debate on the economy. How meager is 80,000 jobs? Well, according to UPI that’s “not even enough to keep up with growth in the working-age population,” which last month grew by 191,000. Meanwhile, a Rasmussen survey reports that only 31 percent of likely voters say the president is doing a good or excellent job handling economic issues.

Short analysis: It’s about jobs. Good news: It doesn’t have to be hard.

Energy-related job booms in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and other states are showing what’s possible – in terms of jobs, tax-revenue generation and associated economic growth – when energy development leads the way. The Institute for Energy Research’s Robert Bradley Jr., in an article for Oilprice.com:

"In North Dakota, where drillers are producing crude oil from the Bakken Shale, workers are finding jobs offering wages that are significantly higher than the national average. Truck drivers are being paid $80,000 a year to start. Some workers on oil rigs are being paid six figures. And yet many jobs are going begging. According to the mayor of Williston, 'A lot of jobs get filled every day, but it’s like for every job you fill, another job and a half opens up.' In April, North Dakota had a jobless rate of 3.0 percent, the lowest in the country."

Additional detail:

In Pennsylvania, Bradley writes, state analysis projects jobs for drill operators will grow nearly 85 percent this year (compared to sub-3 percent growth otherwise in the state).Expansion is occurring in Texas’ Eagle Ford shale play, Louisiana’s Haynesville Shale, Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale and other energy-rich rock formations, “increasing domestic energy supplies, making energy more affordable, and spawning subsidiary investments in the private sector creating additional jobs.”A steel plant in Ohio is adding 200 jobs to produce more drill pipe.A planned ethane plant in Texas is expected to create 400 jobs.

Bradley:

"These jobs are being created by companies, not the federal government. And they are based on 'made in the USA' technologies that have the potential to greatly increase nation’s energy security and alter the world’s balance of power. As U.S. oil and natural gas supplies increase, some experts believe American energy independence is on the horizon."

On his blog, John R. Hanger connects energy production and employment:

"Jobs are a major product of that commerce and energy production. The 5 biggest energy producing states all have unemployment rates below the national average, but the same cannot be said about the 5 states producing the least energy." 

Meanwhile, Canada, which a few years ago staked its economic revitalization on energy, is looking for U.S. workers to fill anticipated job slots in Alberta. The Edmonton Economic Development Corporation expects a shortage of 114,000 workers in the coming months and has set up the aptly named opportunityawaits.com website to promote job openings. One U.S. veterans group is reaching out to former military personnel and active-duty soldiers who soon will transition to civilian life, encouraging them to consider oil sands and Keystone XL pipeline jobs in Canada. Fox News has a story, here. Again, the point is to recognize the dynamic economic power of the energy stimulus.

No question, U.S. jobs figures for June suggest a still-struggling economy. The administration says it’s not to blame, that there are limits to what a president can do to change the national economic trajectory. Indeed, a president has limited options – so perhaps the first move is to not stand in the way of growth.

Energy is a proven job creator, a shining sector in the weak economy. But the administration is making energy expansion harder, not easier. It is delaying construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and it is restricting offshore energy development. Its permitting policies in the Gulf of Mexico have suppressed production there, costing jobs and economic opportunity throughout the region. It is sending confusing messages on hydraulic fracturing, the shale technology that is unlocking America’s ample energy potential.

America’s oil and natural gas companies are creating good jobs and can create even more. With the right policies this industry can add 1 million new jobs before the end of the decade. Here’s a blueprint for an American-made energy policy.  It’s energy, it’s jobs and it’s within our reach.

View the original article here

Made in America: For a Sustainable Energy Future

Access, common-sense regulation and a governmental approach that encourages energy investments: Each one is integral to an American-made, more secure energy future. Getting there will require continued improvements in efficiency and investments in renewable energy – two areas where the oil and natural gas industry has been a leader. This is the fourth recommendation in API’s recent report to the two political parties’ platform committees.

Today, the U.S. uses about half as much energy for every dollar of GDP as it did in 1980, according to the Energy Information Administration:

Efficiency helps energy companies manage costs, which in turn makes them more competitive and allows them to bring more affordable energy products to consumers.  Efficiency also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Industry is committed to technologies that help the environment, investing $71 billion in developments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2010 – far more than the federal government ($43 billion) and nearly as much as the rest of domestic private industry combined ($74 billion).

This is what energy companies do. They produce the oil and natural gas that run our economy now and which will continue to fuel it in the future. They work on efficiencies that will make our energy go further. They look to the future for additional resource options that will be necessary to complete the energy picture.

The question is whether governmental policies will or hinder these efforts. Some think the path to our energy future should be selected by Washington, using the tax code to preordain winners and losers. They think an industry sector that contributed nearly a half-trillion dollars to the economy in 2010, which already sends $86 million a day to the U.S. Treasury, should be taxed more.

The wrongheadedness of this path was detailed in a Wood Mackenzie study last fall, which compared the likely results of pro-energy development policies with policies leading to higher energy taxes:

With a pro-development approach, America’s oil and natural gas companies can add jobs, increase energy supply and generate more tax revenue for government. Higher taxes on our industry will likely lose jobs, decrease tax revenue and result in less energy production.

The United States has tremendous energy resources to support and grow our economy and meet the challenges of the future. With the right vision and leadership we can stride into the future confidently – as befits an energy-rich nation.

View the original article here

Launching: American Energy Works.org

The intersection of a recent anti-natural gas fundraiser at the trendy Brooklyn Winery – featuring fabulous culinary delights prepared by a group of talented chefs – and the natural gas that made the evening possible was, well, simply mouth-watering.

New York Daily News columnist Bill Hammond writes that the “Taste of the Marcellus” event last week was hosted by a group called Chefs for the Marcellus, to showcase the kinds of foods they say could be jeopardized if New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo OKs hydraulic fracturing in that state’s portion of the Marcellus Shale. Hammond:

"Guests were treated to eggplant-stuffed okra, smoked lamb belly with fermented tofu and whipped ricotta jewel on toast — along with wines from the Finger Lakes and beers from Cooperstown’s Ommegang brewery. Th... more »

Jill is a district manager for Total Safety, a company that provides service solutions for various aspects of the oil and natural gas industry, as well as power-generation and industrial markets. For her, the industry is about future job security: “It’s really an industry that’s not going away.”

Her video:

Visit American Energy Works.org for more videos and information about the people who’re at work for America’s energy future.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds two of the top three issues that Americans care about the most in this election year are … jobs and reducing the federal budget deficit. Check and check. America’s oil and natural gas industry can help with both. Respondents were asked to weigh the importance of a number of issues (see chart), and 92 percent said creating good jobs is “extremely/very important.” On cutting the federal deficit the figure was 86 percent. Jobs and revenue to the government – we can help.

With the right policies in place – increasing access to American natural resources, the right approach to energy regulation, encouraging energy investments and more – our industry could create 1.4 million jobs by 2030. Here’s how the Wood Mackenzie energy consulting firm charts the pot... more »

Energy-driven economic growth is more than theory in places like Mount Vernon, Ohio, and Chandlersville, about 60 miles to the southeast. Shale energy is building growth in both places – in different ways.

In Mount Vernon, Ariel Corporation is experiencing demand for the reciprocating gas compressors it manufactures, which are used to extract, process, transport, store and distribute natural gas from shale. In Chandlersville, Steve Addis and his wife own and operate Annie’s Restaurant, which is seeing an influx of workers who’re drilling new shale gas wells in the area. Both show how the oil and natural gas industry supports jobs beyond direct industry jobs.

More in this video:

Visit American Energy Works.org for more videos and information about the people who’re at work for Am... more »

ConocoPhillips’ Bob Morton is chief materials scientist at the company’s technology center in Bartlesville, Okla. The chemical that allowed development of low-sulfur gasoline and diesel – without sacrificing octane and without increasing the cost of the fuel – was developed there, he says.

Coming up with environmentally friendly consumer products is Morton’s mission:

“What I really love about my job is sometimes I’m given the opportunity to see something that nobody has seen before. And when those moments happen truly, those are the things that I think are the most wonderful parts of doing the job.”

Check out Bob’s story:

Visit American Energy Works.org for more videos and information about the people who’re at work for America’s energy future.

... more »

View the original article here

Lights, Cameras…Fracking!

Great time Thursday night at the grand, lovely Warner Theater in Washington, D.C., for API’s “Big Screen Energy” event, featuring film trailers from pro-energy documentaries on hydraulic fracturing including “Truthland,” “Empire State Divide” and “Frack Nation.” After the trailers, representatives of the films talked about their projects and answered questions from the audience. Some important points that emerged:

#1: Shale Energy = Economic opportunity

For lots of people in the Marcellus Shale portions of Pennsylvania, energy from fracking is helping them alter the courses of their lives. And it could help even more if New York state approves hydraulic fracturing on some scale. “Empire State Divide’s” Karen Moreau said New York agriculture needs working capital to survive. Energy development from that state’s portion of the Marcellus could supply that, keep farms operating and allow them to be handed off to the next generation, said Moreau, who since making her film was named executive director of the New York State Petroleum Council.

#2: Countering Frack Fiction

“Truthland,” featuring Pennsylvania science teacher and mom Shelly Depue, spends much of its 34 minutes dispelling misinformation about hydraulic fracturing and natural gas development. The film is a step toward centering the national fracking debate on science and fact instead of fear and misrepresentation. “Frack Nation’s” Phelim McAleer said some opponents aren’t interested in responsible development; they want to block natural gas altogether.

#3: The Right to Prosper

Moreau said the divide in New York over fracking is actually a property rights test – whether individuals may develop resources on their land. She said some opponents of natural gas development in New York’s southern tier, the counties in the Marcellus along the Pennsylvania border, aren’t residents of those areas. Still, they are trying to control or block development. The contest is still playing out, as state officials weigh how much development, if any, to allow.

Again, the evening provided an interesting perspective on an important public policy issue. At the center of it is a truth, noted by McAleer: the ability of energy to lift lives, to lift standards of living. McAleer said the lack of affordable, reliable energy usually characterizes areas that are impoverished and unhealthy – places where people have little chance to lift themselves. Energy changes that, he said.

In energy from shale, the United States has an historic opportunity to be more prosperous – with abundant fuel for the lifestyles of its citizens and the power to revitalize critical industries like manufacturing and chemicals. The U.S. also can make its future more secure, less dependent on imports. Industry’s role is to develop these resources safely and responsibly. It is doing this while striving to continually improve technologies and performance.

View the original article here

Innovation: Chevron’s ‘i-field’ Links Performance, Savings

USNews.com has a good read on Chevron’s digital investments, which the company says will save up to a billion dollars a year in operating costs in 2016. The linchpin is Chevron’s digital oil field, the “i-field,” which is short for “intelligent field.” USNews explains:

“Chevron's i-field harnesses advanced technology and communications to improve performance at 40 strategic assets throughout the world, including some of its biggest and most productive oil and gas fields. The company is rolling out six to eight mission-control centers focused on separate business areas, ranging from machinery to drilling to wells and reservoirs, that monitor those assets in real-time and rely on sophisticated computer algorithms for early detection of problems. From Chevron's perspective, the i-field is now essential to its global operations, which span six continents.”

Chevron isn’t the only company doing these things (USNews notes that Shell and ConocoPhillips have their own versions), but it is recognized as one of the oil and natural gas industry’s leaders. Basically, to overcome the global and labor-intensive characteristics of oil and gas development, Chevron has digitized a number of its operations. USNews:

“Chevron has deployed thousands of tiny sensors, only millimeters or centimeters in size, that monitor field operations and transmit data, both wired and wirelessly, back to central locations. The sensors instantaneously track pressure, temperature, and other readouts and aid with the mapping of underground fuel deposits, allowing the company to maximize production. Chevron also employs analytics to evaluate data streams in real-time from oil wells, drill rigs, ships, and elsewhere.”

The company has two mission-control facilities in Houston that oversee drilling and machinery support and two others in Lagos, Nigeria, and Covington, La., that monitor deepwater drilling. USNews:

“High above Houston in an office tower, a tech-savvy team at Chevron's machinery support hub monitors thousands of pieces of equipment, in real-time, across every continent except Antarctica. Using software to analyze data transmitted by sensors, it conducts ‘predictive intelligence’ to pinpoint when equipment, such as rotating devices called compressors, needs maintenance ‘so we can change out parts before they break down,’ [Chevron Energy Technology President Paul] Siegele says.”

USNews includes some examples where the technology came into play. The machinery support center sensed that a compressor in one of Chevron’s Asian business units was experiencing valve failure. On-site inspection confirmed the problem and the valve got fixed. Another time, equipment at Chevron’s Sanha oil and natural gas field off the coast of Angola was showing an irregularity, which the team in Houston detected. A repair was made, and the company saved millions of dollars in potential damage and lost production.

Again, Chevron figures it already is saving in the millions of dollars and says that will become billions when the “i-field” and a general operational overhaul are fully implemented in four years. Efficiencies and savings, of course, mean innovating companies, like Chevron, can invest more in energy exploration and development, which is a good thing.

View the original article here

Well-Paying Jobs…Like Ours!

We like talking about our industry’s job-creating ability – how, with the right policies America’s oil and natural gas companies could create a million new jobs before the end of the decade.

Some industry opponents dismiss the assertion by deriding the number of wage positions supported by oil and gas activity. We don’t. Every job means a paycheck for an American who’s glad to have it, especially in this economy.

But guess what? Our industry supports well-paying jobs, too. Payscale.com’s list of high lifetime-earnings jobs is topped by two from oil and natural gas – petroleum engineer and landman/senior landman.

Payscale.com says the typical earnings total for a petroleum engineer over a 45-year career is nearly $6.3 million. The average starting pay is more than $84,000, and at 20+ years the typical salary is $151,000. No. 2 on the list, a landman will earn $5.38 million over a 45-year career, Payscale notes. Starting pay averages $53,600, growing to $138,000 at 20+ years. Payscale lead analyst Katie Bardaro:

“This list is dominated by left-brained jobs that require analytical thinking. We are a tech-heavy, analytics-heavy society, so jobs that focus on those skills pay well.”

Especially jobs in fields that have a future – like oil and natural gas. Our industry literally fuels America’s economy now and will do so in the future according to government estimates. It’s an industry that’s going to be around.

So what other positions made Payscale’s Top 10? Glad you asked:

Software/senior software engineer ($4.36 million over 45 years)Electrical/senior electrical engineer ($4.17 million)Mechanical/senior mechanical engineer ($3.9 million)Software/senior software developer ($3.83 million)Financial analyst/senior financial analyst ($3.44 million)Communications coordinator/manager ($3.32 million)Marketing coordinator/manager ($3.31 million)Certified public accountant ($3.2 million)

Guess what again? You can find virtually all of these positions in the oil and natural gas industry – from the people who’re pioneering “intelligent field” technologies to manage modern, global exploration and development to the folks who develop marketing campaigns – you know, like this one.

Granted, a number of these careers can be found on other paths. Yet the list illustrates the breadth of our industry, its need for workers in the future and the promising career-long opportunities that this industry provides.

View the original article here

Fix the Renewable Fuels Standard

There was good discussion of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) during a Hill hearing this week. API supports the appropriate use of ethanol, biodiesel and other biofuels in transportation fuels, but, unfortunately, in some ways the standard is bearing out the law of unintended consequences.

API President and CEO Jack Gerard addressed the House energy and power subcommittee, noting that U.S. refiners have primary responsibility for meeting the RFS requirements, blending nearly 15 billion gallons of ethanol in gasoline. But the RFS’ requirements are producing some bad policy, Gerard said:

“EPA has allowed the RFS law’s volume requirements to drive decisions that are inappropriate and unwise.  The law has become increasingly unrealistic, unworkable, and a threat to consumers.  It needs an overhaul, especially with respect to the volume requirements.” 

Gerard detailed ill effects stemming from the RFS’s volume mandates:

E10 “Blend Wall” – 10 percent ethanol content in fuel is safe for U.S. vehicle engines, service station pumps and storage tanks. But under the law, the ethanol volume in the overall fuel supply is required to increase and could exceed 10 percent as early as 2013. That’s the so-called “blend wall.” At that point refiners will have only two options: produce E15 (15 percent ethanol) and flexfuel or E85 – a blend of between 51 percent and 83 percent ethanol by volume that can be used only in flexfuel vehicles, which make up about 5 percent of the U.S. vehicle fleet today. More on E15 below. The problem with E85 is that it has a lower fuel economy than gasoline, and less than 2 percent of retail stations offer it.

E15 – EPA has approved the use of E15 for part of the vehicle fleet to help accommodate increases in the RFS volume requirement. But a recent study showed that E15 could damage engines that weren’t designed to use it, as well as gasoline station pump equipment. The risk can be measured in the billions of dollars. The Auto Alliance weighed in on E15, here. U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner shared the concerns of auto makers in a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson last summer. Gerard:

“EPA should not have proceeded with E15, especially before a thorough evaluation was conducted to assess the full range of short- and long-term impacts of increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline on the environment, on engine and vehicle performance, and on consumer safety.”

Cellulosic ethanol – A 2007 law requires increasing use of this advanced form of ethanol that theoretically can be made from a broader range of feedstocks. But it isn’t available, because no one is making it commercially. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Brian McGraw has more details, here. Even so, EPA continues to assert that aggressive mandates, not based on actual production, will somehow stimulate production. EPA could waive the provision but instead is insisting that refiners buy credits for a non-existent fuel, which will drive up costs and might harm consumers.

RINS – This stands for renewable identification numbers, which are used with renewable fuel credits that some refiners have purchased under a program created by EPA. Some refiners became fraud victims after buying invalid credits in good faith. EPA’s initial response was that the bad credits were the refiners’ problem, and that they’d have to buy more. This adds more costs to making gasoline. Industry currently is trying to work out the problem with EPA.

Again, industry supports renewable fuels. But the RFS as written threatens to become counterproductive. Gerard:

“The RFS law needs to be altered to fix what isn’t working and take into account the ability of the vehicle fleet and fueling infrastructure to safely use renewable blends. Mandates must have periodic technology/feasibility reviews to allow for appropriate adjustments. Biofuels are an important part of the nation’s energy mix.  But current law and how it is implemented have become increasingly problematic.  This could eventually hurt consumers and erode support for the RFS program.”  

The answer is commonsense problem-solving, including positive collaboration between government and industry. While the goals of the RFS are well-intentioned, the marketplace realities are concerning, with potentially negative effects on companies and consumers that should be fixed.

View the original article here

Jobs? Revenue for Government? We Can Help

A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds two of the top three issues that Americans care about the most in this election year are … jobs and reducing the federal budget deficit. Check and check. America’s oil and natural gas industry can help with both. Respondents were asked to weigh the importance of a number of issues (see chart), and 92 percent said creating good jobs is “extremely/very important.” On cutting the federal deficit the figure was 86 percent. Jobs and revenue to the government – we can help.

With the right policies in place – increasing access to American natural resources, the right approach to energy regulation, encouraging energy investments and more – our industry could create 1.4 million jobs by 2030. Here’s how the Wood Mackenzie energy consulting firm charts the potential jobs growth:

Leadership is needed to make this happen. Industry is doing its part – investing in America – and it’s willing to do more.

As for tax revenue for government, to help with the deficit, Wood Mackenzie estimates a pro-energy development strategy could generate a total of more than $800 billion by 2030:

Again, in a struggling economy the oil and natural gas industry is adding jobs and supporting communities while generating revenues for government. Energy-driven economic growth that’s being seen in North Dakota, Texas, Pennsylvania and other states can be realized in other places with a true all-of-the-above (and below) energy strategy.

View the original article here

Crude Production Rise: Credit Where Credit’s Due

Last week the Energy Information Administration (EIA) told us that U.S. crude oil production in the first quarter of the year topped 6 million barrels per day (bbl/d) for the first time in 14 years. EIA’s chart:

EIA’s analysis:

“Strong growth in U.S. crude oil production since the fourth quarter of 2011 is due mainly to higher output from North Dakota, Texas, and federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico. … After remaining steady between 5.5 million and 5.6 million bbl/d during each of the first three quarters of 2011, EIA estimates that U.S. average quarterly oil production grew to over 5.9 million bbl/d during the fourth quarter and then surpassed 6 million bbl/d during the first quarter of 2012.”

Certainly, great news like that will restart discussion of who deserves credit for such a production milestone – beyond, of course, the energy companies that are actually pulling the oil from the ground or the seafloor. Politico Pro [subscription required] reports White House spokesman Clark Stevens emailed in the administration’s claim for credit:

“Despite misleading rhetoric by some in Washington, President Obama has made expanding responsible oil and gas production here at home a clear priority and the facts speak for themselves. Since the president took office, domestic oil and gas production has increased each year, with oil production in the first quarter of 2012 higher than any time in 14 years and natural gas production at its highest level ever, and that is certainly thanks in part to steps taken by this administration.”

That’s one view. Others disagree. Politico quotes Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service:

“In the end, the president and Congress can’t take credit for what price and technology have delivered. It would be akin to taking credit for the iPad. … Unless there is a price collapse, or a true scientific indictment of fracking, one can expect to see plentiful growth in light sweet crude coming from the Rockies, North Dakota, and even Ohio or West Virginia.”

And Richard Newell, the EIA’s head from 2009-2011:

“In a political year, different parties would like to take credit for positive news in the energy sector and I think here the credit largely goes to technology."

And also Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy fellow at Rice University, who notes that North Dakota and Texas shale production has occurred mainly on private land, while increases from the Gulf result from the actions of previous administrations:

“Production rises from Gulf of Mexico would have been in the hopper way before President Obama took office.”

Settling the argument isn’t as important as recognizing that with the right policies the oil and natural gas industry can further develop America’s energy wealth. With the right strategies and leadership, the United States could see 100 percent of its liquid fuel needs met from North American sources. And along with it: jobs and tax revenues for government.

Strategies, policies and action: It’s what separates election-year rhetoric from substantive progress toward a more secure energy future.

View the original article here

Friends of Fracking and Natural Gas

Perhaps as important as the president of the United States acknowledging the importance of natural gas and hydraulic fracturing to America’s energy present (and future) is a sense that such support is pretty far and wide. Here’s a quick roundup of some notable friends of natural gas – affordable, abundant and creating jobs all across the country – with a nod to Energy In Depth’s Steve Everley for help in corralling the links.

U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio:

“Shale development means economic development, and that’s exciting news for Ohio. It means tens of thousands of good-paying jobs across our state, all while helping to lower power costs for Ohio consumers. … We know that Ohio is home to countless innovative companies and a world-class workforce—now we need to ensure that energy companies arriving in the state are utilizing all that Ohio has to offer.”

Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman:

“The natural gas boom in the United States offers a tremendous opportunity to strengthen American energy security by drastically reducing our dependence on imported oil, while at the same time creating new U.S. jobs and industries. This is precisely why President Barack Obama is committed to safely and responsibly harnessing American oil and gas resources, and to developing the technologies that will unlock new domestic energy sources.”

U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark.:

“I’m a firm believer in natural gas. It already supplies almost one-fourth of all energy in the U.S. and we’re discovering more natural gas reserves every day thanks to newer, safer drilling techniques and technologies. Better yet, more than 98 percent of natural gas comes from right here in North America. … With the Fayetteville Shale in the northern part of (Arkansas) and the Haynesville Shale in the southern part, we have an abundant supply of clean, affordable energy to offer the world.”

Natural gas and fracking have support from strong environmentalists including …

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.:

“This is what I tell environmental folks: Natural gas is really important to a lot of renewables, solar and wind, ensuring that option is out there. … Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, so you start with that as your basic proposition.”

U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.:

“I think environmentalists should want natural gas on the table as an option. When coal is also going to be considered for new electrical generation or an extension of the life of an existing coal-fired power plant, I think it would be wise for us to not take natural gas off the table.”

Gov. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo.:

“Like any industrial process, fracking has some risks but, really, if done properly, certainly out in the West, there is literally no risk — certainly much less than many industrial processes. … I love open space and wilderness, but we all drive cars, right? And we all need energy. We recognize that, along with education, energy is the other necessary component to lifting people out of poverty.”

That last point is so important. Energy development is the difference between modern and primitive civilization – facilitating greater freedom, mobility and opportunity for better, healthier lives.

Candidly, the choice offered by some opponents of natural gas and hydraulic fracturing isn’t between more responsible development and less; it’s between responsible development and NO development. It’s an extreme choice. As energy blogger Steve Maley posted a few weeks ago, “If you’re not a fan of natural gas you’re a fan of mud huts.”

The right choice is to safely and responsibly develop a resource that can play a major role in securing America’s energy future.

View the original article here

Shale Gas and a Refining Revival

NPR/State Impact Texas reports on the economic growth that’s being generated by Gulf Coast refineries revitalized with the help of affordable natural gas produced through hydraulic fracturing. It’s a good-news story:

"Along the Texas Gulf coast in cities where the skylines are formed by the stacks of refineries, they’re talking about a perfect storm headed their way. But this storm has nothing to do with the tropics and everything to do with natural gas. 'It’s almost a perfect storm of low energy costs, low financing costs, low construction costs,' said Bob Leiper, the city manager of Baytown."

Here’s what that “perfect storm” looks like:

Exxon Mobil’s announced plan to expand its refinery/petrochemicals complex with construction of an ethane cracker.Shell and Saudi Aramco’s newly expanded Motiva refinery in Port Arthur, which opened last month after a $10 billion upgrade.Chevron Phillips Chemical’s plan to spend $5 billion on its Baytown petrochemical plant.Seven thousand to 15,000 high-paying construction jobs, which Leiper says will produce a positive ripple across Baytown’s housing and retail sectors.

At the heart of it, NPR says, is surging natural gas production via fracking:

"Hydraulic fracturing has dramatically increased the amount of gas extracted from shale plays around Texas and nearby states with much of it sent in pipelines that come right through Baytown. The cheap gas can be used in a variety of processes to make petrochemicals and plastics and make them more cheaply than competitors overseas. 'This has led to a rebirth of the U.S. petrochemical industry,' said A.J. Teague, COO of Enterprise Products which last month announced its plans to build what it said would be one of the world’s biggest facilities to process 'natural gas liquids' into propylene which is used in plastics."

According to NPR, Texas has spent more than $11 million in state economic development funds on companies to encourage expansion of plants or offices over the past few years. In terms of jobs, the oil and natural gas industry has proven to be a sound investment:

"When a watchdog group, Texans for Public Justice, analyzed whether the public money actually promoted new jobs, it found the companies delivered largely as promised, especially compared to other industries. 'I don’t recall much criticism of oil and gas,' said Craig McDonald, the group’s executive director."

View the original article here

Collaboration, Not Confrontation with EPA

EPA’s big study of the impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water is due in 2014, but an interim report might surface as early as the end of the year. Needed is focused, scientifically solid research that that will advance public discussion of shale energy development that has so much potential for our economy and future energy security.

Unfortunately, EPA’s study plan has deficiencies that ultimately could sap the integrity of the study’s findings. That’s one of the conclusions in a new analysis by the Battelle Memorial Institute. Stephanie Meadows, API upstream senior policy advisor, shared some of the study findings in a conference call with reporters:

“Battelle’s analysis of the plan, which we are releasing today, reinforces many of our previously stated concerns and raises some new ones. It finds deficiencies in the rigor, funding, focus and stakeholder inclusiveness of EPA’s plan. … We’re not calling on EPA to stop its study. We’re calling on them to do it right.”

API and America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) commissioned the Battelle study after EPA declined to engage with industry in a collaborative review of hydraulic fracturing. Battelle’s Bernard Metzger said his broad-based multidisciplinary team of engineers, oil and natural gas experts, toxicologists and others examined EPA’s study plan to determine its soundness. The findings include:

EPA is reaching beyond the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources, which was its charge from Congress, to broader oil and natural gas industry production activities.The expanded scope suggests there will be added complexity, risk, and uncertainty in EPA’s study, raising the level of difficulty in ensuring a scientifically rigorous result.Site data collected from companies comes from the years 2006-2010, making it likely some data in the final 2014 report could be nearly 10 years old. Changes at company sites in the intervening years likely will “render the data obsolete for the purposes of the study.”Case studies were selected from a limited and statistically biased pool and lack necessary baseline information which may result in incorrect and flawed conclusions. The plan suffers from a lack of “significant” industry collaboration, given industry’s extensive experience and expertise in hydraulic fracturing and associated technologies.

Metzger said gaps in EPA’s study planning can impact data quality:

“Quality cannot be built into the back end of a project through rigorous review; it must be built into each step of a scientifically rigorous process to ensure that the end product is high quality data that is defensible and achieves the study goals.”

ANGA’s Amy Farrell:

“We continue to believe a well-designed, scientifically rigorous study of hydraulic fracturing will confirm our industry’s ongoing commitment to safe and responsible development and that communities don’t have to trade the protection of the environment for the many economic, energy security and clean air benefits natural gas offers. We hope (EPA) will not only consider additional efforts to collaborate with the industry and other key stakeholders moving forward, but that they will carefully review the (Battelle) report and consider the critiques and recommendations for improvement and make adjustments as appropriate.”

View the original article here

A European Perspective on the U.S. Shale Energy Revolution

The intersection of a recent anti-natural gas fundraiser at the trendy Brooklyn Winery – featuring fabulous culinary delights prepared by a group of talented chefs – and the natural gas that made the evening possible was, well, simply mouth-watering.

New York Daily News columnist Bill Hammond writes that the “Taste of the Marcellus” event last week was hosted by a group called Chefs for the Marcellus, to showcase the kinds of foods they say could be jeopardized if New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo OKs hydraulic fracturing in that state’s portion of the Marcellus Shale. Hammond:

"Guests were treated to eggplant-stuffed okra, smoked lamb belly with fermented tofu and whipped ricotta jewel on toast — along with wines from the Finger Lakes and beers from Cooperstown’s Ommegang brewery. Th... more »

Jill is a district manager for Total Safety, a company that provides service solutions for various aspects of the oil and natural gas industry, as well as power-generation and industrial markets. For her, the industry is about future job security: “It’s really an industry that’s not going away.”

Her video:

Visit American Energy Works.org for more videos and information about the people who’re at work for America’s energy future.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds two of the top three issues that Americans care about the most in this election year are … jobs and reducing the federal budget deficit. Check and check. America’s oil and natural gas industry can help with both. Respondents were asked to weigh the importance of a number of issues (see chart), and 92 percent said creating good jobs is “extremely/very important.” On cutting the federal deficit the figure was 86 percent. Jobs and revenue to the government – we can help.

With the right policies in place – increasing access to American natural resources, the right approach to energy regulation, encouraging energy investments and more – our industry could create 1.4 million jobs by 2030. Here’s how the Wood Mackenzie energy consulting firm charts the pot... more »

Energy-driven economic growth is more than theory in places like Mount Vernon, Ohio, and Chandlersville, about 60 miles to the southeast. Shale energy is building growth in both places – in different ways.

In Mount Vernon, Ariel Corporation is experiencing demand for the reciprocating gas compressors it manufactures, which are used to extract, process, transport, store and distribute natural gas from shale. In Chandlersville, Steve Addis and his wife own and operate Annie’s Restaurant, which is seeing an influx of workers who’re drilling new shale gas wells in the area. Both show how the oil and natural gas industry supports jobs beyond direct industry jobs.

More in this video:

Visit American Energy Works.org for more videos and information about the people who’re at work for Am... more »

ConocoPhillips’ Bob Morton is chief materials scientist at the company’s technology center in Bartlesville, Okla. The chemical that allowed development of low-sulfur gasoline and diesel – without sacrificing octane and without increasing the cost of the fuel – was developed there, he says.

Coming up with environmentally friendly consumer products is Morton’s mission:

“What I really love about my job is sometimes I’m given the opportunity to see something that nobody has seen before. And when those moments happen truly, those are the things that I think are the most wonderful parts of doing the job.”

Check out Bob’s story:

Visit American Energy Works.org for more videos and information about the people who’re at work for America’s energy future.

... more »

View the original article here

Make TAPS the Gift That Keeps On Giving

Worth reading is U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s op-ed piece in the Juneau Empire, marking the 35th birthday of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline System, or TAPS.

The Alaska Republican knows something about oil. She represents a huge energy state and would likely head the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee if the GOP emerges from this fall’s elections with a majority. She depicts TAPS as more than a conduit for crude from Alaska’s North Slope. It’s an economic pipeline as well – for the state and the rest of the country. Key facts:

TAPS is 800 miles long, running from Prudhoe Bay in the north to Valdez on the Gulf of Alaska.Since oil first started flowing in 1977, the pipeline has delivered more than 16.6 billion barrels.As Murkowski notes, three out of every 10 jobs in Alaska can be traced to TAPS.The pipeline has generated more than $171 billion in revenues to the state treasury. North Slope oil production allowed the state to terminate its income tax in 1980.

Murkowski writes:

“Oil wealth has paid for improving our roads, water and sewer systems, building parks, renewing our cities, and improving life in our most remote villages. The riches that Alaskans have extracted from under the North Slope have also funded our schools, and helped bring our health care system into the 21st century.”

The pipeline’s birthday is an excellent time to think about its future. Murkowski writes that at its zenith, TAPS carried 2 million barrels of oil per day. Now the daily flow is only about a quarter of that. Alaska has slipped behind North Dakota to No. 3 on the list of top oil-producing states (behind Texas). Here’s a chart from Gov. Sean Parnell’s office showing North Slope production decline, which has decreased TAPS’ flow: 

There are risks with reduced pipeline flow. According to the governor’s office, at lower flow levels it takes longer for oil to go through the pipeline, and at lower temperatures ice forms inside that can cause damage. Murkowski:

“Without new oil production, throughput in the pipeline could fall enough to threaten its future viability. Shutting down the pipeline would mean closing up shop on the North Slope. Alaska’s oil — like its massive natural gas reserves today — would be stranded with no way to market, leaving the state scrambling to replace the 85 percent of its annual revenue that today comes from oil.”

There’s a relatively simple solution: Produce more domestic crude oil to send through TAPS. The oil is there – offshore in the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea (where Shell hopes to sink exploratory wells this summer) and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which Murkowski writes is the “largest single prospective onshore source for conventional oil in North America.” Some estimate ANWR could produce 1 million barrels of oil per day, which by itself would solve the under-capacity situation with TAPS while significantly boosting our country’s oil output. 

The problem is policy. ANWR continues to be held off limits by Washington, and development of Alaska’s offshore areas has been slow in coming – again, chiefly because the federal government has been slow granting approvals. Murkowski:

“The federally owned lands and waters to the east, west and north of Prudhoe Bay hold tremendous resources, but access has been slowed by an administration more interested in designating new wilderness than shoring up Alaska’s economy.”

We need policies that create sustained and predictable access to oil and natural gas on federal lands – in ANWR and elsewhere (see map below). Access = energy development, which will mean job creation, economic growth and a more secure energy future. And a great birthday present for TAPS.

View the original article here

Lights, Cameras…Fracking!

Great time Thursday night at the grand, lovely Warner Theater in Washington, D.C., for API’s “Big Screen Energy” event, featuring film trailers from pro-energy documentaries on hydraulic fracturing including “Truthland,” “Empire State Divide” and “Frack Nation.” After the trailers, representatives of the films talked about their projects and answered questions from the audience. Some important points that emerged:

#1: Shale Energy = Economic opportunity

For lots of people in the Marcellus Shale portions of Pennsylvania, energy from fracking is helping them alter the courses of their lives. And it could help even more if New York state approves hydraulic fracturing on some scale. “Empire State Divide’s” Karen Moreau said New York agriculture needs working capital to survive. Energy development from that state’s portion of the Marcellus could supply that, keep farms operating and allow them to be handed off to the next generation, said Moreau, who since making her film was named executive director of the New York State Petroleum Council.

#2: Countering Frack Fiction

“Truthland,” featuring Pennsylvania science teacher and mom Shelly Depue, spends much of its 34 minutes dispelling misinformation about hydraulic fracturing and natural gas development. The film is a step toward centering the national fracking debate on science and fact instead of fear and misrepresentation. “Frack Nation’s” Phelim McAleer said some opponents aren’t interested in responsible development; they want to block natural gas altogether.

#3: The Right to Prosper

Moreau said the divide in New York over fracking is actually a property rights test – whether individuals may develop resources on their land. She said some opponents of natural gas development in New York’s southern tier, the counties in the Marcellus along the Pennsylvania border, aren’t residents of those areas. Still, they are trying to control or block development. The contest is still playing out, as state officials weigh how much development, if any, to allow.

Again, the evening provided an interesting perspective on an important public policy issue. At the center of it is a truth, noted by McAleer: the ability of energy to lift lives, to lift standards of living. McAleer said the lack of affordable, reliable energy usually characterizes areas that are impoverished and unhealthy – places where people have little chance to lift themselves. Energy changes that, he said.

In energy from shale, the United States has an historic opportunity to be more prosperous – with abundant fuel for the lifestyles of its citizens and the power to revitalize critical industries like manufacturing and chemicals. The U.S. also can make its future more secure, less dependent on imports. Industry’s role is to develop these resources safely and responsibly. It is doing this while striving to continually improve technologies and performance.

View the original article here

The Administration’s Flawed Five-Year Offshore Plan

Words matter. But actions matter more, and the Interior Department’s final five-year offshore oil and natural gas leasing plan shows that while the administration trumpets an all-of-the-above energy approach, it falls short of providing the bold leadership needed to fully deploy our country’s ample resources.

You can read Interior’s statement on the plan here. Basically, Secretary Ken Salazar says the strategy includes areas with the “highest-known resource potential.” Sounds good, but it took industry exploration for those areas to gain that designation. Only through exploration can we learn the resource potential of other areas. Loudly, misguidedly, the administration is saying “no” to that.

Its plan omits areas off both coasts and in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico that are believed to be rich in energy – but which will remain unexplored. There’s little incentive to spend millions of dollars to research and gather data in these areas because they are off-limits to exploratory drilling. API’s Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations:

“We must move past policies that undermine the mission of supplying Americans with the energy they need. While vitally important, the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico areas included in this proposed offshore program are not ‘new’ areas. … Today’s proposal will not allow us to realize the full benefits from safe and responsible development of America’s oil and natural gas resources, continuing a pattern of delay and unnecessary restraint.”

Milito said Interior’s plan, announced with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, actually pushes back a scheduled 2015 lease sale for the Beaufort Sea off Alaska – where leasing already has occurred. It makes more areas off limits than it makes available. Milito:

“A sensible long-term strategy would embrace and promote expanded oil and natural gas exploration and development to create new jobs and secure critical energy supplies for future generations. … Exploring and developing new areas that offer oil and natural gas gives the United States the golden opportunity to create an additional one million new jobs and billions in new revenue to our government in just seven years. We cannot reach these goals by constricting exploration and obstructing the safe and responsible development of American energy resources.”

While oil production has increased in private and state lands, this administration has consistently deterred activity on federal lands, where oil production has actually decreased. Instead of forward-looking energy leadership that would create jobs, generate tax revenue for governments and make America’s future more secure, the administration offers posturing and talk. Instead of acting to promote greater domestic oil and natural gas production it is restricting opportunity and building in delay – neither of which will prepare the United States for its energy future.

View the original article here

Another Study ‘Showing’ No Contamination from Fracking

Where to begin in a review of Pro Publica’s article on new research into the migration of subterranean brine to shallow water above? The inflammatory, overreaching headline? The leap from Duke University’s study to conclusions suggesting to the public that hydraulic fracturing is polluting drinking water?

Let’s start there. On that point the article is self-rebutting. See the fourth paragraph:

"No drilling chemicals were detected in the (shallow) water, and there was no correlation between where the natural brine was detected and where drilling takes place."

Then, near the end of the article:

"Nevertheless, (Robert) Jackson, one of the study's authors, said he still considers it unlikely that frack fluids and injected man-made waste are migrating into drinking water supplies. If that were happening, those contaminants would be more likely to appear in his groundwater samples, he said. His group is continuing its research into how the natural brine might have travelled, and how long it took to rise to the surface. 'There is a real time uncertainty,' he said. 'We don't know if this happens over a couple of years, or over millennia.'"

As for the study itself, Jackson and his team say they found that naturally occurring brine migrates upward to shallower depths. They say the risk of the migration could be greater in areas that have undergone hydraulic fracturing. Yet, there’s this from the study’s introductory summary:

“The occurrences of saline water do not correlate with the location of shale-gas wells and are consistent with reported data before rapid shale-gas development in the region …”

Energy In Depth has solid analysis on the study, here. Highlights:

The study fails (as Jackson notes above) to establish whether the migration occurs over 10 years or 10 million years. Without that, it’s impossible to determine whether the phenomenon is cause for concern.If brine is traveling up from thousands of feet below the surface, why haven’t the pathways Duke’s researchers identify allowed natural gas in the Marcellus region to leak out and disappear over time?There’s no discussion of whether the Marcellus Shale – which is largely a dry region with “virtually no free water,” according to Penn State’s Terry Engelder – even contains enough brinewater to leak.

Engelder, a Marcellus expert who was asked by the researchers to review their work, notes a number of questions the study leaves unanswered, reducing its usefulness. He writes:

"My review is predicated on the objective of your paper which is stated as a search for '...specific areas of shale-gas development in northeastern Pennsylvania that are at increased risk for contamination of shallow drinking water resources with deeper formation brines...' (the last sentence of your abstract). The term, risk, suggests that your paper veers from a conventional geology paper and enters into the realm of science-based advocacy or if you like, science policy."

Engelder is on target there. Unfortunately, the academics, wittingly or unwittingly, produced a study that is easily morphed into a siren call by opponents of natural gas production. Pro Publica’s article is Exhibit A. Exhibit B is a Bloomberg News story under this headline: “Pennsylvania Fracking Can Put Water at Risk, Study Finds” – despite the fact the study found no evidence of such a risk.

Words like “can,” “may” and “might” camouflage the point that the study didn’t find a correlation between the location of shale-gas wells and occurrences of saline water. To suggest otherwise in a news article is disingenuous and counterproductive in the national discussion of energy from shale.

As Engelder notes, the study is a platform from which advocates can mislead. On this story, The Associated Press got it right, focusing its report on what the study showed: “Gas drilling in northeastern Pennsylvania did not contaminate nearby drinking water wells with salty water, which is a byproduct of the drilling.”

View the original article here

Welcome to Williston, Welcome to Prosperity

Perhaps only The New York Times could reduce the energy/economic miracle of North Dakota’s oil and natural gas bonanza to something akin to a toothache. Columnist Gail Collins ventures forth from the concrete canyons of Manhattan to discover the hubbub on the high plains and doesn’t avoid raising a skeptical eyebrow.

To her credit, Collins was able to confirm what lots of people already know: Oil and natural gas extracted from the Bakken Shale formation through hydraulic fracturing is practically evaporating unemployment in North Dakota , which has a jobless rate considerably lower than New York:

Collins writes:

"If you did come, however, you would feel really, really wanted. Radio ads urged me to embark on a new career as a bank teller, laborer, railroad conductor or cake decorator. The local Walmart has a big sign up, begging passers-by to consider starting their lives anew in retail sales. The Bakken Region Recruiter lists openings in truck driving, winch operating and canal maintenance work, along with ads for a floral designer, bartender, public defender, loan officer, addiction counselor and sports reporter. All in an area where the big city has a population of around 16,000."

In other words, if you want to work it’s almost guaranteed you can land a job. But there’s a “but.” Collins describes the Bakken boom as filled with traffic, dust, man camps, bursting schools, long lines (as though waiting 30 minutes for a Big Mac is too much to pay for May’s 2.7 percent state unemployment rate) – while suggesting the most ambitious eatery in town probably wouldn’t impress many folks on the Upper West Side.

It’s true that strong economic growth creates many demands, and, as North Dakotan Rob Port regularly notes on his Say Anything Blog, state and local officials and support businesses need to do a better job seizing the opportunities. But Collins loses us – and perhaps credibility – describing the fracking used to extract oil and natural gas as “environmentally suspect.”

Suspect? Not to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, talking April 27 to Fox News:

“In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemical contamination of groundwater.”

…basically repeating what she told Congress in May 2011:

“I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.”

Collins may have turned in her piece before this came in, but on Wednesday the EPA removed suspicions surrounding hydraulic fracturing and well water in Dimock, Pa. – ground zero for those who claim fracking fouls drinking water. Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin:

“The sampling and an evaluation of the particular circumstances at each home did not indicate levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action. Throughout EPA's work in Dimock, the Agency has used the best available scientific data to provide clarity to Dimock residents and address their concerns about the safety of their drinking water.”

(Also see Kenneth P. Green’s blog post on the Dimock announcement over at AEI, here.)

Earthquakes and fracking? David J. Hayes, Interior Department deputy secretary, in April:

“We also find that there is no evidence to suggest that hydraulic fracturing itself is the cause of the increased rate of earthquakes.”

Bottom line: Collins may have environmental suspicions about shale energy and fracking, but a number of people paid to pay attention to such things don’t share them.

View the original article here

Innovation: Making Energy Production Cleaner, More Efficient

When we wrote last week about technologies to mitigate water demands during hydraulic fracturing, we knew we’d find more examples of energy innovation for the simple fact that there’s a lot of innovating going on. Here’s a little bit about two other advances in the area of fracking waste water, as well as another company’s initiative to make the development of Canada’s oil sands cleaner and greener.

Halliburton says it has a suite of solutions to reduce the demand for fresh water in hydraulic fracturing operations, called H2-Forward. You can read more about it, here. Basically, it’s a process that allows drillers to reuse fracturing fluid. Halliburton:

"The service includes new technologies such as CleanWave service that is used to process fracturing flowback and produced water, resulting in a clean brine fully suitable for well site operations including drilling, fracturing and completion fluids. … The system, which can treat 20 bbl/minute, uses an electrical process that destabilizes and coagulates suspended colloidal matter in water. Easy scalability enables quickly treating large volumes of water in reserve and flowback pits and, depending on the operation, treating flowback and produced water in real-time during a fracturing operation. The CleanWave system removes up to 99% of total suspended solids, heavy metals, hydrocarbon and bacteria."

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania-based Epiphany Solar Water Systems’ main product is a system that uses solar power to clean fracking waste water. Consol Energy, which is active in the Marcellus Shale area, recently announced it is investing $500,000 in Epiphany and will run a test site for the purification system beginning next month.

Here’s Ephiphany’s description of its technology:

"Dirty water passes into the distillation unit and instantly vaporizes due to the intense heat focused on the distillation unit. During the vaporization process, any dissolved solids … separate, and living organisms (bacteria) are killed due the intense heat. The water vapor (now void or any impurities) continues to pass through the distillation unit. As the steam reaches colder stages it begins to condense back down into distilled water. From the output of the distillation unit then comes freshly distillated water, safe for consumption."

Calgary-based N-Solv Corporation is promoting a technology it says will reduce the amount of energy needed to produce bitumen from oil sands, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions 85 percent without using any water. A $60 million field test in Alberta is scheduled for next April. It uses warm solvents such as propane or butane to melt the bitumen deposits, which the company says is more efficient than using in-situ steam technology. You can read more about it on the company’s website, here.

View the original article here