Drilling and Climate Change
Let's start by stipulating that when you drill for oil, the various processes involved in producing, transporting, and refining it for use as fuels for vehicles and feedstocks for industry emit greenhouse gases (GHGs). Thus the basic concern behind the objections of the Montana Environmental Information Center, Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability Project, and WildEarth Guardians is simultaneously validated and rendered as a blinding glimpse of the obvious. It's also true--though you'd never know it from their filing--that the emissions from oil & gas exploration and production represent just a fraction of the lifecycle emissions associated with their use. How large a fraction depends on the specifics of composition, geology and location, but in general roughly 80% of the emissions occur during consumption, with refineries accounting for more of the "upstream" emissions than exploration, production and transportation do. According to Shell's 2008 GHG reporting, that company's emissions from exploration and production averaged 0.11 metric tons of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) per metric ton of production. Using basic conversion factors, that works out to around 0.8 lb of CO2e emitted per gallon, compared with roughly 20.4 lb of CO2e from burning a gallon of gasoline in your car.
In other words, except for emissions-intensive extraction processes like oil sands, the fraction of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to getting oil out of the ground and to a refinery amount to no more than 3-5% of the total lifecycle emissions from petroleum. As a reality check on this I looked up the emissions for Production Field Systems within Petroleum Systems in the most recent EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory. At 29 million tons per year of CO2e, including the methane emissions that the environmental groups objecting to the April 13th lease sale were so concerned about, this constitutes just 0.5% of total US energy-related emissions. Even if you cut them by half, the impact on global climate change would be negligible, and that's why the effort to derail the Montana and Dakotas lease sales makes me suspect it is aimed at more than just promoting lower-emitting drilling practices. When you include the groups' references to "climate tipping points" and the speculative impact of localized "CO2 domes", what these folks really seem to have in mind is shutting down large portions of US oil & gas production entirely.
The leasing delays these groups have already achieved and the prospect of further delays beyond September, whether in additional BLM reviews or in the courts, are of particular concern, because the leases in question fall mainly within the Williston Basin of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. Many of them appear to overlap the Bakken Formation, which the US Geological Survey estimates to contain undiscovered, technically-recoverable oil resources of up to 4 billion barrels. So they're not just holding back a few marginal wells in the middle of nowhere; they're impeding development of a region that, with help from improved technology, is becoming one of the most important domestic oil sources in the onshore lower-48 states--even without all the hype about the Bakken that has been circulating in the blogosphere and the email rumor mill.
BLM must follow the law in terms of evaluating the environmental impact of drilling activities on its oil & gas leases, but that surely does not extend to withholding leases from future sales on the basis that drilling them in any manner will make climate change worse. Whatever the motives of the groups attempting to block the legitimate exploitation of the oil resources of the Dakotas and Montana, they are tackling the climate problem from the wrong end. Impeding US production does little or nothing to reduce end-user consumption, where most of the GHG emissions in the oil and gas value chain occur. So while not reducing emissions in any globally- or even locally-meaningful way, they are making our trade deficit bigger. If successful, they might even inadvertently increase global GHG emissions, depending on where and how the additional oil we must import is produced. I hope that BLM can dispense with these misplaced efforts at obstructionism and reschedule the April 13th lease sale promptly.
Link to original post
Other Posts by Geoffrey Styles
E15's Problems Are Symptomatic of A Failing Biofuels Policy - May 22, 2012
Are Chesapeake's Problems A Red Flag For Shale Gas? - May 17, 2012
Where Gas is Already $10 per Gallon - May 9, 2012
Resources from Space? - May 4, 2012
US Natural Gas Price Nears $10 per Barrel Equivalence - April 30, 2012
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
Geoffrey Styles said:
Erik,
That's as close to agreement as we're likely to come. Thanks.
ErikSchlenkerGoodric said:
Thanks, Geoff. My apologies if my tone was construed as condescending. It's more a response to the constant barrage of comments -- such as yours, frankly -- which think that conservation groups have some sort of hidden agenda. We have no interest in hiding our agenda: making the world a better place by harmonizing our economic, security, and environmental interests.But you are right: condescension undermines the effectiveness of a productive dialogue.And we do not have any desire for the US to suddenly halt domestic fossil fuel production. A transition is, of course, necessary. That transition better hurry up, however!
Importantly, we do not think it wise to shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing development of communities and landscapes that are more important to the long-term resiliency of our country in the face of climate change, and of value in their own right. Some places are too special, too important as they are, to be drilled to provide a quick fix to a country too addicted to fossil fuels. Elements of the Bakken Formation, for example, may generally be appropriate for drilling. But certain areas -- like the lands underlying people's homes, or key wildlife habitats -- are not appropriate for drilling.
-Erik
Geoffrey Styles said:
Mr. Schlenker-Goodrich,
Thanks for taking the time to respond at such great length, though you would have been more effective without the condescension. Needless to say, while I agree with some of what you've said, I find the rest to be at least as selective, inaccurate, and irrelevant as you claim my analysis was. We aren't going to close this gap in a few back-and-forths.
Let me just summarize by saying that if your aim is to reduce the emissions from oil & gas drilling by guiding companies towards improved practices, then I agree with your goal, if not your tactics. However, if your intention is the take the first step toward a world without oil by making it impossible for the US to capitalize on the substantial resources that still lie under our soil and waters, then that is entirely inconsistent with any notion of improving our energy security. We will need to burn a lot of oil and gas on the way to the happy world of sustainable energy for which we both seem to hope.
ErikSchlenkerGoodric said:
Geoff-
Thanks for the commentary on our work.
It's actually one of the more insightful, though flawed, comments we've seen.
As someone who is working on this issue and helped write the documents you've
selectively referenced to make your point, I'd like to make a couple of my own
points:
1. Your comment reflects a tired
approach to energy that ignores the massive security, economic, and
environmental impacts of our continued addiction to fossil fuels. Analysts such
as yourself may be unable to fathom a world that doesn't rely, in the
long-term, on massive amounts of fossil fuels, but I simply can't imagine a
productive world that doesn't rely on massive deployment of renewable energy
and energy efficiency measures.
2. Your comment reflect a standard
pro-industry tactic: play with numbers to show how insignificant any particular
source of GHG emissions is. There is of course no silver bullet when it comes
to climate change. Rather, there's only silver buckshot. Even a coal-fired
power plant's GHG emissions seem trivial when compared to total global or
national GHG emissions. This is about fully understanding lifecycle emissions,
and improving the efficiency of each part of that lifecycle.
3. We find it beyond refute that every industry -- in particular fossil fuel sectors, like upstream oil and gas production companies -- needs to quantify and reduce their GHG emissions. With oil and gas, you're often talking about the waste of precious resources, like methane. And methane, if wasted to the atmoshphere, is, according to the IPCC, a GHG 72 times as potent as CO2 over a 20-year time period (which is the best metric to determine the impacts of drilling and the efficacy of mitigation efforts).
See
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 1, Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Ch. 2, p. 212, Table 2.14 www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html.
But we can reduce those emissions significantly. EPA's Natural Gas STAR
program, for example, has made big gains, identifying over 120 cost effective
technologies and practices to reduce methane waste and improve the efficiency
of operations. For calendar year 2008, EPA estimated that it's program avoided
46.3 million tons of CO2 equivalent, equal to the annual GHG emissions from
approximately 6 million homes per year, and added revenue of nearly $802
million in natural gas sales -- revenue which translates into additional
royalties to federal and state governments for the American people.
4. You ignore (or are not aware of) the
fact that we should be quite skeptical of existing GHG emissions data from
upstream oil and gas production. When you actually review this data, and
underlying methodologies, it becomes apparent that upstream oil and gas GHG
emissions are underestimated, perhaps quite significantly. This is because the drilling
practices and equipment take are spread across a wide landscape, and emissions
-- as you yourself note -- differ depending on the company involved, the
geologic formation, etc. Some of the best inventories -- conducted at the state
specific level -- demonstrate that GHG emissions from oil and gas can be quite
significant. For example, in New Mexico, oil and gas drilling is a mature
industry, upstream oil and gas production is the second largest source of GHG
emissions in the state, second only to electricity generation.
5. You should know better than to cite
GHG emissions data from a single company, Shell. Every company is different,
with different technologies and practices, capabilities, and mixes of
activities. And in the American West, there are a host of small, independent
oil and gas companies with operations that do not have the capabilities of a
large, multi-national company like Shell to address GHG emissions. It's one of
the reasons we need government to establish the rules of the game in terms of
GHG reporting rules and inventories.
6. Companies have focused on maximizing
short-term production over long-term efficiency to satisfy investors. This may
not make sense unless you understand that oil and gas holdings are frequently
shifted between companies, and often shared through unitization/communitization
agreements. Thus, there are structural barriers to implementing efficiency
measures to reduce GHG emissions and keep mineral resources in the pipeline for
consumers. These structural barriers are compounded by the fact that BLM, as
GAO has just determined, doesn't have accurate systems to track production
data.We want policies that overcome these structural barriers and incentivize
long-term efficiency measures.
7. You disparage climate "tipping
points" without referencing the emerging scientific perspective that we
need to stabilize the concentration of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere to
350ppm but that we're now approaching 400ppm. The science behind tipping points
is well established and reflective of positive feedback loops (which are a
basic component of climatic and ecological systems). I'm not sure anyone is
going to care about the Bakken formation if these tipping points are reached.
8. You disparage the reference to
"CO2 domes" without referencing the fact that this is premised on a
recent peer-reviewed study demonstrating that C02 accumulations can interact
with other pollutants in a way which creates localized health impacts. That's
sloppy, disingenuous analysis. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/march/urban-carbon-domes-031610.html.
While this study focuses on urban areas, it may be equally applicable to
intensive oil and gas production zones where air quality now rivals that of
urban areas.
9. You ignore the fact that oil and gas
production activities are occurring on federal public lands and resources owned
by the American people, where other concerns -- like ranching, water resource
protection, and wildlife protection are important and vulnerable to the
cumulative impact of climate change and industrial-scale development. In areas
where BLM just owns the subsurface minerals, you're ignoring the plight of
communities and families that live on the surface estate. That's not right.
10. You miss the forest for the trees by fixating on the Williston Basin/Bakken Formations. BLM's leasing program is far broader and, frankly, disconnected from the actual production of oil and gas resources.
According
to an analysis of Federal data by The Wilderness Society, "although
45,365,695 onshore federal acres were under lease as of FY 2009, only
12,842,209 acres of these lands were in production." http://wilderness.org/content/drilling-acres-2009.
Why is BLM leasing more lands when other lands are already leased? Industry
should focus on the efficient development of already leased lands then
expanding their portfolio of new leases.
11.
Your comment in the comment thread -- that if we discourage drilling in Montana
it'll encourage drilling elsewhere in the world -- is an excuse for "race
to the bottom" policies. We're calling for reasonable, common sense, no
brainer measures to improve the efficiency of oil and gas production and help
safeguard the environment. Oil and gas companies in the U.S., if properly
encouraged, could actually exercise leadership that's emulated around the
world.
12.
The last part of your comment -- that "BLM must follow the law ... but
that surely does not extend to withholding leases ...." is self-refuting
and contradictory. If BLM hasn't followed the law before selling leases, how
can it lawfully sell the leases? Industry-oriented folks might disparage
compliance with environmental law as just more paperwork, but that's indicative
of the attitude of too many industries in this country. Laws like NEPA are
actually quite simple: look before you leap. If more companies started doing
that, we'd likely cause far less harm to our environment, and might just help
out the public interest, rather than their bottom-line self interest, just a
little bit more.
13.
You cast aspersions on the motives behind this work. Let me be clear: we want
everyone to live in small, thatch covered huts growing their own garden of
marijuana singing Kumbaya on some bongos without relying on a single drop of
fossil fuels (that's a joke). As should be apparent, we're trying to improve
the efficiency of oil and gas production and, ultimately, working to ensure
that continued reliance on fossil fuels is kept to a minimum as we make the necessary
transition to the efficient use of clean energy. That's necessary for our
economy, our security, our environment, and our families.
Sincerely,
Erik Schlenker-Goodrich
Western Environmental Law Center
Geoffrey Styles said:
At least when it comes to energy, everything is connected, even if the links are sometimes obscure and relate to things on the other side of the planet. What's the consequence of less drilling in Montana and the Dakotas? More drilling somewhere else, whether Canada, Venezuela, or West Africa. What would be the result of shutting down Vermont Yankee? Certainly not more wind and solar; we're already going to get as much more of them as the industry can deliver and the power grid absorb. So it's likely to be gas or coal, isn't it? And in the current environment, I'd bet on gas.David Lewis said:
I'd tend to agree with your suspicion that there is a hidden agenda. There always seems to be. Take your average enviro document, run it through a shredder, try to read it, and you will be further ahead. Everyone seems to think that the end justifies the means.I think the contrast between what a group thinks it is doing and what it is doing is the greatest over in Vermont, where "progressives", and "enviromentalists" are cheering on the anti nukes, who clearly are seeking to shut down the existing US nuclear reactor fleet. Less tritium, in total, than is contained in one EXIT sign from a commercial building has leaked, and they claim this is just cause to shut an entire nuclear reactor down. One reactor puts out more electricity in a year than the entire output of all the solar they could build in Germany in ten years with a feed in tariff. This makes as much sense to me as if a lunchbag was found blowing around on company property outside an autoplant in Detroit and the next day, under intense public pressure, the Michigan Senate voted to shut the entire auto industry down. The plan is to buy electricity more expensively from outside the US, i.e. from Quebec. The net effect of shutting down low carbon sources of electrical power as opposed to building them is to increase pressure that more coal will be used. The net effect of sourcing even more energy outside the country is a weakening of the power of the US to do anything. Whoopee. Aren't we glad everything makes sense.
RickEngebretson said:
Perhaps part of the concern is water use, not just CO2. I traveled through the region last year. It is remarkable how water projects have developed agriculture on the high plains. Most all of the concerns were about the competing use of water in this challenging oil geology. This area is one of the world's major wheat producers.-
Baby You Can Drive My (Electric) Car
Posted May 11, 2012 by Scott Edward Anderson
-
Siemens develops ABS plastic alternative
Posted May 9, 2012 by Doris de Guzman
-
Reduce CO2 and Slow Global Warming?
Posted April 30, 2012 by Willem Post
-
WGC 2012 - 25th World Gas Conference
June 4, 2012, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
-
Ecwatech 2012
June 4, 2012, Moscow, Russia
-
Intersolar Europe
June 11, 2012, Munich, Germany
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Marc Gunther is a writer, speaker and consultant, who focuses on business and the environment. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Jesse Jenkins is the director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. More »
Robert Rapier works in the energy industry and writes and speaks about energy and the environment. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
Dan Yurman is a nuclear energy blogger and writes regularly for Fuel Cycle Week. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Marc Gunther
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Jesse Jenkins
- Lynne Kiesling
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Robert Rapier
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- John Whitehead
- Dan Yurman

About Social Media Today




