Together, more responsive U.S. tight oil: Another potential complication worth mentioning is that, were the United States to use the SR in this fashion, it would further reduce the incentives of Saudi Arabia to hold spare capacity.
Should the United States find: It takes approximately two weeks from the time of a decision by the U.S. president to tap into the SPR until the time the oil enters the market. Daniel Goldstein, “U.S. Adding 5 Million Barrels of Oil to Its Reserves Because of Cheap Prices,” Market Watch, March 13, 2015, www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adding-5-million-barrels-of-oil-to-its-reserves-because-of-cheap-prices-2015-03-13.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva: Agence France-Presse, “God Is Brazilian: Lula,” Fin 24, November 20, 2007, www.fin24.com/International/God-is-Brazilian-Lula-20071120.
Few American political figures have been: One exception is Pat Wood, a former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who in 2012, declared that “God gave us a great big gift here with fracking.” Shelley DuBois, “Former FERC Regulator: God Gave Us Fracking,” Fortune, April 16, 2012, http://fortune.com/2012/04/16/former-ferc-regulator-god-gave-us-fracking/.
Seven: Energy Abundance, Climate, and the Environment
The majors largely sold off: In 2016, some majors began once again to make investments in renewable energy, although such investments were very small in relation to their overall capital budget. See Joe Ryan, “Big Oil Unexpectedly Backing Newest Non-Fossil Fuels,” Bloomberg, May 10, 2016, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-10/big-oil-unexpectedly-backs-newest-non-fossil-fuels.
Some explained, quite simply, that: See, for instance, Lord John Browne, Executive Chairman of L1 Energy and former CEO of BP, “The New Energy Environment” (seminar, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA, March 10, 2016).
One form of unconventional oil: Richard K. Lattanzio, “Canadian Oil Sands: Life-Cycle Assessments of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Congressional Research Service, March 10, 2014, 2, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42537.pdf. Some studies calculated this percentage to be significantly lower. See, for instance, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Oil Sands, Greenhouse Gases, and US Oil Supply: Getting the Numbers Right (Cambridge, MA: IHS CERA, 2010), https://cdn.ihs.com/ihs/cera/Oil-Sands-Greenhouses-Gases-and-US-Oil-Supply.pdf.
It is, however, useful to keep in mind: International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2016 (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2016), November 16, 2016, 136, http://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/november/world-energy-outlook-2016.html.
Extra-heavy oil and oil shale: See Adam R. Brandt, “Converting Oil Shale to Liquid Fuels: Energy Inputs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Shell in Situ Conversion Process,” Environmental Science & Technology 42, no. 19 (2008): 7489–95, http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es800531f; Stefan Unnasch et al., Assessment of Life Cycle GHG Emissions Associated with Petroleum Fuels (Portola Valley, CA: Life Cycle Associates, LLC, February, 2009), 61, www.newfuelsalliance.org/NFA_PImpacts_v35.pdf.
By contrast, the production of tight oil: Global unconventional numbers are from International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2016, 136. As for the United States, tight oil production constituted 53 percent of U.S. oil production as of January 2017. “Table: Oil and Gas Supply,” Annual Energy Outlook 2017, U.S. Energy Information Administration, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=14-AEO2017®ion=0-0&cases=ref2017&start=2015&end=2018&f=A&linechart=ref2017-d120816a.23-14-AEO2017~ref2017-d120816a.8-14-AEO2017~ref2017-d120816a.10-14-AEO2017&ctype=linechart&sid=ref2017-d120816a.10-14-AEO2017~ref2017-d120816a.8-14-AEO2017~ref2017-d120816a.23-14-AEO2017&sourcekey=0.
Second, tight oil in the United States: Jesse Esparza et al., “Argentina Seeking Increased Natural Gas Production from Shale Resources to Reduce Imports,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, February 10, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29912.
Some research outfits have calculated: For instance, see IHS Energy, Comparing GHG Intensity of Oil Sands and the Average US Crude Oil (Calgary, IHS, May 2014), 11, https://www.ihs.com/products/energy-industry-oil-sands-dialogue.html?ocid=cera-osd:energy:print:0001.
Stanford professor Adam Brandt: Brandt is quoted in Tona Kunz, “Analysis Shows Greenhouse Gas Emissions Similar for Shale, Crude Oil,” Argonne National Laboratory, October 15, 2015, https://www.anl.gov/articles/analysis-shows-greenhouse-gas-emissions-similar-shale-crude-oil. A more recent study concludes that life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in the Bakken are comparable to other crudes because flaring is “largely offset at the refinery due to the physical properties of this tight oil.” Ian J. Laurenzi, Joule A. Bergerson, and Kavan Motazedi, “Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater consumption associated with Bakken tight oil,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, no. 48 (2016): 11, http://www.pnas.org/content/113/48/E7672.full.
One scenario, the High Oil and Gas: In the “High Oil and Gas Research and Technology Case,” the United States produces 14 percent more oil overall (crude plus NGLs) and 25 percent more tight oil in 2020 than in the EIA’s reference case. These numbers jump to 53 percent more oil overall and 90 percent more tight oil in the high-resource case than in the reference one when one looks out to 2040. “Table: Oil and Gas Supply,” Annual Energy Outlook 2017, U.S. Energy Information Administration, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=14-AEO2017®ion=0-0&cases=ref2017~lowprice~highrt&start=2015&end=2020&f=A&linechart=highrt-d120816a.23-14-AEO2017~ref2017-d120816a.23-14-AEO2017~ref2017-d120816a.8-14-AEO2017~highrt-d120816a.8-14-AEO2017~ref2017-d120816a.10-14-AEO2017~highrt-d120816a.10-14-AEO2017&ctype=linechart&sid=highrt-d120816a.23-14-AEO2017~ref2017-d120816a.23-14-AEO2017~ref2017-d120816a.8-14-AEO2017~highrt-d120816a.8-14-AEO2017~ref2017-d120816a.10-14-AEO2017~highrt-d120816a.10-14-AEO2017&sourcekey=0.
In both the reference: See U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2017 (Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Energy, 2017), https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=17-AEO2017®ion=1-0&cases=ref2017~highrt&start=2015&end=2050&f=A&linechart=ref2017-d120816a.40-17-AEO2017.1-0~ref2013-d102312a.41-17-AEO2013.1-0~highrt-d120816a.40-17-AEO2017.1-0&map=highrt-d120816a.3-17-AEO2017.1-0&ctype=linechart&sid=ref2017-d120816a.40-17-AEO2017.1-0~highrt-d120816a.40-17-AEO2017.1-0~ref2013-d102312a.41-17-AEO2013.1-0&sourcekey=0.
But the high-resource case involves: “Table: Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector and Source,” Annual Energy Outlook 2017, U.S. Energy Information Agency, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=17-AEO2017®ion=1-0&cases=ref2017~highprice~lowprice~highrt&start=2015&end=2050&f=A&linechart=ref2017-d120816a.43-17-AEO2017.1-0~highrt-d120816a.43-17-AEO2017.1-0&map=highprice-d120816a.3-17-AEO2017.1-0&ctype=linechart&sid=highrt-d120816a.43-17-AEO2017.1-0~~~~ref2017-d120816a.43-17-AEO2017.1-0~~~~~&sourcekey=0.
The data on the extent to which: See “Global Liquid Fuels,” Short-Term Energy and Summer Fuels Outlook, U.S. Energy Information Administration, April 11, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.cfm; International Energy Agency, Oil Market Report (Paris: OECD/IEA Publishing, 2017), https://www.iea.org/media/omrreports/tables/2017-03-15.pdf.
The Paris-based IEA: Pierpaolo Cazzola et al., “Production Costs of Alternative Transportation Fuels: Influence of Crude Oil Price and Technology Maturity,” International Energy Agency, 2013, 9, www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/FeaturedInsights_AlternativeFuel_FINAL.pdf.
Of the twenty possible alternative: Ibid., 7.
While moving natural gas into transportation: Several studies support this point. See Hari Chandan Mantripragada, “CO2 Reduction Potential of Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) Plants,” Energy Procedia 1, no. 1, 4331–38, http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=epp; Xunmin Ou, Xiaoyu Yan, and Xiliang Zhang, “Using Coal for Transportation in China: Life Cycle GHG of Coal-Based Fuel and Electric Vehicle, and Policy Implications,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4, no. 5 (September 2010): 878–87, www.researchgate.net/publication/2229521
35_Using_coal_for_transportation_in_China_Life_cycle_GHG_of_coal-based_fuel_and_electric_vehicle_and_policy_implications; Paulina Jaramillo, W. Michael Griffin, and H. Scott Matthews, “Comparative Analysis of the Production Costs and Life-Cycle GHG Emissions of FT Liquid Fuels from Coal and Natural Gas,” Environmental Science & Technology 42, no. 20 (2008), www.cmu.edu/gdi/docs/comparative-analysis.pdf.
Throughout the mid-2000s: This method is officially called the Fischer-Tropsch process. It was developed by Germany during World War II as the country struggled to maintain adequate access to oil. For more information on coal to liquid technology, see James T. Bartis, Frank Camm, and David S. Ortiz, Producing Liquid Fuels from Coal: Prospects and Policy Issues (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2008), http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG754.html.
One such effort was the Coal to Liquid: Editorial, “Coal-to-Liquid Boondoggle: A Risky Solution to America’s Energy Woes,” Washington Post, June 18, 2007, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700945.html; “S. 154 (is)-Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Energy Act of 2007,” U.S. Government Publishing Office, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110s154is/content-detail.html.
Enthusiasm for coal-to-liquids was not limited: “Accelergy Unveils Pilot Plant and Signals Move Into Chinese Market,” Business Wire, June 29, 2011, www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110629006179/en/Accelergy-Unveils-Pilot-Plant-Signals-Move-Chinese.
Generally viewed as not being commercial: This is $60 in 2007 dollars. Bartis, Camm, and Ortiz, Producing Liquid Fuels from Coal: Prospects and Policy Issues, xx.
The advent of shale gas: Christopher Martin, “U.S. Carbon Emissions Falling to Two-Decade Low in Coal Shift,” Bloomberg, April 9, 2015, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-09/u-s-carbon-emissions-falling-to-two-decade-low-in-coal-shift.
Between 2005 and 2015, U.S. CO2 emissions: “U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2015,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 16, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/.
In 2015, U.S. per capita: “CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita.”) The World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=US; “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,” Environmental Protection Agency, April 14, 2017, 3-33, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/2017_complete_report.pdf.
As made clear by the International Panel: Thomas Bruckner et al., “Energy Systems,” in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Ottmar Edenhofer et al. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 527, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf.
The IEA agreed, declaring in 2013: International Energy Agency, Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map: World Energy Outlook Special Report (Paris: OECD Publishing, June 10, 2013), 28, www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2013/energyclimatemap/RedrawingEnergyClimateMap.pdf.
Due to the shale gas bonanza: “Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, November 2, 2016, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdd.htm.
Utilities did what made: See Nathan Hultman, Dylan Rebois, Michael Scholten, and Christopher Ramig, “The Greenhouse Impact of Unconventional Gas for Electricity Generation,” Environmental Research Letters 6 (2011), http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044008/pdf; Ernest J. Moniz et al., The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study (Cambridge: MIT, 2011), https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MITEI-The-Future-of-Natural-Gas.pdf; Stephen P. A. Brown, Alan J. Krupnick, and Margaret A. Walls, “Natural Gas: A Bridge to a Low-Carbon Future?” (Issue Brief 09-11, Resources for the Future and National Energy Policy Institute, December 2009), www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-IB-09-11.pdf; Michael A. Levi, “Climate Consequences of Natural Gas as a Bridge Fuel,” Climate Change 118, no. 3 (2013): 609–23, www.cfr.org/natural-gas/climate-consequences-natural-gas-bridge-fuel/p29772.
After rising consistently since the 1960s: “Table 1.3 Primary Energy Consumption by Source,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/?+b1=T01.03#/?f=A.
Over the following decade: Ibid.
In 2005, half the electricity: “Net Generation for All Sectors, Annual,” Electricity Data Browser, U.S. Energy Information Administration, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=vvg&geo=g&sec=g&linechart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A&columnchart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A&map=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A&freq=A&start=2008&end=2016&ctype=linechart
A decade later, natural gas was virtually: Ibid.
The number of American coal mines: “Annual Coal Report,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, November 3, 2016, www.eia.gov/coal/annual/; Tyler Hodge, “Natural Gas Expected to Surpass Coal in Mix of Fuel Used for U.S. Power Generation in 2016,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 16, 2016, www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25392.
The industry lost 98 percent: This assessment is based on the Dow Jones U.S. Coal Index. The index peaked in 2008 at $724. In January 2016, it hit a nadir of $12, a reduction of 98 percent. In April 2016, with the Trump administration taking a policy stance more supportive of coal, the index had bounced back to $42. “Dow Jones U.S. Coal Index (INDEXDJX:DJUSCL),” Google Finance, accessed April 9, 2017, https://www.google.com/finance?cid=4931635.
Indicative of future expectations for coal: Victor Reklaitis, “Bankrupt Peabody’s stock plunge, in one chart,” MarketWatch, April 14, 2016, www.marketwatch.com/story/bankrupt-peabodys-stock-plunge-to-around-1-in-one-chart-2016-04-13.
According to David Victor: Bjørn Lomborg, “A Fracking Good Story,” Project Syndicate, September 15, 2012, www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/09/thanks_to_fracking_u_s_carbon_emissions_are_at_the_lowest_levels_in_20_years_.html. Intent confirmed via David Victor, e-mail message to author, July 27, 2016.
After a series of complex computations: Richard G. Newell and Daniel Raimi, “Implications of Shale Gas Development for Climate Change,” Environmental Science & Technology 48, no. 15 (April 22, 2014), http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4046154. Also see Haewon McJeon et al., “Limited Impact on Decadal-Scale Climate Change from Increased Use of Natural Gas,” Nature 514 (October 15, 2014): 482–85, www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7523/full/nature13837.html.
In a 2011 report discussed earlier: International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2011 Special Report: Are We Entering a Golden Age of Gas? (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2011), 37–38, www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2011/WEO2011_GoldenAgeofGasReport.pdf.
But, similar to the other studies: Ibid., 37–38.
Talking with me on the margins: Richard Newell, in-person conversation with author, Houston, Texas, March 9, 2017.
Perhaps most importantly, it is essential: Richard Newell also stressed the importance of minimizing the release of methane in natural gas production, as indicated by his study referenced earlier.
With abundant natural gas: Newell and Raimi, “Implications of Shale Gas Development for Climate Change.”
Ultimately, technologies such as carbon: For more on carbon, capture, and storage, see Michael Gebert Faure and Roy A. Partain, Carbon Capture and Storage: Efficient Legal Policies for Risk Governance and Compensation (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017).
most scenarios depicting a global energy system: The IEA makes this point in another way in its 2016 World Energy Outlook. “On the one hand, gas is too carbon intensive to take a long-term lead in the decarbonisation of the energy sector. Uncertainty over the extent of leakage of methane, a potent GHG, along the gas supply chain also cast a shadow over the fuel’s environmental credentials. On the other hand, natural gas is the least carbon intensive of the fossil fuels and thus burning gas is a much more efficient way to use a limited carbon budget than combusting coal or oil. Gas is especially advantag
eous to the transition if it can help smooth the integration of renewables into power systems along the way.” International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2016, 163.
While global investment in renewables: Angus McCrone, Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2017: Key Findings (Frankfurt: Frankfurt School–UNEP Centre/BNEF, 2017), 12, http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/attachments/gtr_2017_-_key_findings.pdf.
A closer look, however, suggests: The report also notes that the timing of investments as well as a slowdown in renewable energy deployment in China and Japan also contributed to the 2016 investment drop. Ibid., 12–13.
A report by the United National Environment: Ibid., 11.
For instance, in the United States: Tom Randall, “What Just Happened in Solar is a Bigger Deal Than Oil Exports,” Bloomberg, December 17, 2015, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-17/what-just-happened-to-solar-and-wind-is-a-really-big-deal.
With an air of excitement in the room: Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” The White House Office of the Press Secretary, March 28, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-and-economi-1.
The order focused on repealing regulations: “Remarks by President Trump at Signing of Executive Order to Create Energy Independence,” The White House Office of the Press Secretary, March 28, 2017, www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/remarks-president-trump-signing-executive-order-create-energy.
this bilateral accord was a springboard: It is important to note two things, however significant this agreement was in catalyzing further action. First, China agreed to reduce its carbon intensity and to cap total CO2 emissions, but it did not agree to decrease emissions. Second, even if all countries keep to the pledges they made in the Paris Agreement, the effort will still fall short of what is needed to avert “catastrophic” climate change.
Windfall Page 46