A 'Hidden Agenda' in Gas-Supply

The government has hijacked the public’s concerns over energy supplies in the coming hot season as part of a hidden agenda to build more environmentally unfriendly power plants in the South, conservationists said yesterday.

Energy Minister Pongsak Ruktapongpisal said earlier that the ministry was preparing emergency measures for April to deal with an imminent shortage of power due to an expected disruption of gas supplies from Myanmar and Malaysia. 

Regional environmental conservationist Witoon Permpongsacharoen, director of the Mekong Energy and Ecology Network, argued that the gas supply from Myanmar was just one-fourth of the Kingdom's total supply. The planned halt in the supply for pipeline maintenance would not be a power crisis in Thailand, he said.

"If the shortage of supply from Myanmar could create a crisis as the minister claims, there would be a serious problem in our national energy system," Witoon said.

Jintana Kaewkhao, leader of the Ban Krut Conservation Group, said Pongsak was simply exploiting fears of a power shortage to boost support for the government's plan to build more power plants.

On Saturday, Pongsak went on TV to warn the public of a possible power shortage in April as Myanmar would shut down its natural gas fields temporarily to fix drilling rigs, causing Thailand to lose access to 1,100 million cubic feet of natural gas. 

The minister said Thailand had already lost access to 270 million cubic feet of natural gas through the Thai-Malaysian gas pipeline, but Chakree Buranakanon, vice president of PTT Plc's natural gas business unit, said the problem at the Thai-Malaysian pipeline had been fixed and supplies were normal.

"The consumption of power by Thais has not reached a crisis level yet. If a crisis occurred, it would affect large industrial projects, [rather than the general public]," Jintana said.

Witoon said the minister had stoked fears of a gas shortage to build support for the government's plan to build coal-fuelled power plants in the South.

The authority is now opening bids for six power plants to generate a combined 5,400 megawatts under the Independent Power Producers scheme, amid opposition from conservationists and southern residents in the areas where the plants would be located, he said.

Korn Kasiwat, a petroleum expert, said the closure of the gas fields in Myanmar would not affect the general public or household consumption.

Korn said the general public has been consuming petrol and diesel oil at a constant rate of about 73 million litres per day, while natural gas consumption is growing at a slow rate of 10 per cent per annum.

He said the shortage of natural gas would affect the petrochemical industry most because it uses 2.4 million tonnes of natural gas a year at a cheaper rate than is paid by the public. He said household consumption of cooking gas was 2.6 million tonnes a year, while vehicles used natural gas at a rate of 900,000 tonnes a year. The country has capacity to produce 3.5 million tonnes a year. He believed Pongsak expressed concern because the Energy Ministry might be planning to implement certain energy measures that would lead to price hikes.

Chakree Buranakanon, vice president of PTT Plc's natural gas business unit, told Nation Channel he believed Thailand would not experience a power-supply crisis.

Chakree said the short supply of natural gas would cause the power reserve to become low, which might prompt the government to believe that there is a risk of power instability in case of emergency.

He said Myanmar closed the fields to fix drilling rigs every year, but this year the closure would come early, starting on April 4 instead of during the Songkran holidays, when less gas is consumed. He said PTT would set up a "war room" to monitor the situation closely.

Read More

Natural-Gas Drilling Lease to Pay Conservancy District $40.3M

The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District approved a $40.3 million natural-gas lease yesterday for 6,500 acres at Seneca Lake in Guernsey and Noble counties.

The lease with Colorado-based Antero Resources was approved 5-0 by district commissioners, despite continued protests from a grass-roots group, the Southeast Ohio Alliance to Save Our Water.

The district will be paid a leasing bonus of $6,200 per acre plus a royalty of 20 percent on natural gas, oil and natural-gas liquids from Antero wells under district-owned land, district spokesman Mark Swiger said.

That makes the district, which stretches from southern Akron to the Ohio River, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Utica shale boom in eastern Ohio. It will get $77.4 million for the Antero lease and two earlier leases at other lakes. Additional and significant royalty income also is expected from the wells at the three sites.

The district covers 14 reservoirs and dams in 18 counties.

Lea Harper of Senecaville, spokeswoman for the grass-roots group, said the board had failed to listen to health and environmental concerns repeatedly raised by her group and experts assisting the group.

Added supporter Greg Pace of Senecaville: “You can’t drink money. That says it all.”

At Seneca Lake, no wells or related developments, including roads and pipelines, will be permitted on district-owned land under the agreement. But Antero could drill under the lake and district-owned land from wells at other sites, officials said.

The lease arrangement also adds protections to adjacent private properties within a half-mile of district-owned land, the district said.

Swiger said the number of acres could change slightly, depending on the outcome of title searches on the mineral rights.

The district owns about 7,600 acres at Seneca Lake, most of which has not been leased for drilling. The 3,550-acre lake is the third-largest inland lake in Ohio.

A total of 13 drilling companies had expressed interest in the Seneca Lake property, with two firms, Antero and Texas-based Carrizo Oil and Gas, making formal presentations.

The district signed leases in 2011 with Gulfport Energy at Clendening Lake in Harrison County and in 2012 with Chesapeake Energy Corp. for land at Leesville Lake in Carroll County.

Gulfport paid the district a $15.6 million lease bonus on 2,800 acres and royalties on natural gas produced.

Chesapeake paid the district $21.5 million in lease bonuses on 3,700 acres plus royalties.

The district has used the initial leasing bonuses to pay down its debt and to invest in improvements for public access and for its recreational facilities.

The district has identified more than $80 million worth of deferred maintenance, compliance issues and needed upgrades at its facilities.

Read More

Oil and Gas Feeding Off Each Other While They are Fueling Economic Recovery

Talk of America’s energy independence is centered on its newfound wealth of tight oil and shale gas deposits. While the market place is shifting, the winners will be those that can outlast today’s low prices and its limited infrastructure.

Oil and natural gas are often found alongside one another, making it completely logical that the oil companies would be making hefty investments in shale gas. Getting access to those deposits, however, is not for the feint-of-heart. Environmental and regulatory issues abound, not to mention the need for billions in new infrastructure to make practical use of the finds.

“After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future,” says President Obama, in his State of the Union. “We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years … We produce more natural gas than ever before … The natural gas boom has led to to cleaner power and greater energy independence.”

ExxonMobil Corp., for example, finalized its $1.6 billion purchase in December of Texas-based Denbury Resources’ Bakken Shale assets. Meantime, the Monterrey Formation in Southern California is said to hold 15.4 billion barrels of crude, or four times that of the Bakken field. Who else is betting on shale gas? Chevron bought Atlas Corp. in February 2011 for $3.2 billion. RoyalDutch Shell, meantime, acquired East Resources for $4.7 billion in cash in 2010.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the country has 25 billion barrels in proved reserves of unconventional shale oil.  

The agency also says that 2,552 trillion cubic feet of potential natural gas resources exist. It adds that shale gas had comprised about 23 percent of all natural gas production in 2010 and that it expects the fuel to make up roughly 46 percent of all such development by 2035.

Besides the Bakken and Barnett regions, the other major shale fields include the Fayetteville, Haynesville, Marcellus, Utica, Anadarko Woodford and Eagle Ford regions. In 2009, the Barnett shale play was the most prolific play, accounting for almost 62 percent of the total shale gas production, says KPMG Consulting. The second largest one was from the Fayetteville play, accounting for 8 percent of the total production, it adds.

“The rising domestic shale gas production will have profound implications on the global energy sector,” says KPMG Global Energy Institute. “Imports into the United States are likely to drop 27 percent, over the period 2007-2011.”

As the country’s fortunes brighten, more oil and gas will be required to feed a recovery. While the prospects for both are bullish, the economics behind finding those resources and then delivering them are tricky.

Consider: The Marcellus Region in the East is best known for shale gas plays and the natural gas liquids that spinoff from those searches, or ethane, propane and butane. The cost of that acreage has been high relative to the present low price of natural gas, although such lease prices are falling as some drillers pause.

That dynamic is giving the largest players such as Exxon a competitive advantage because they can hold their leases for decades and can afford to wait until the price of natural gas rises. Before the smaller players drill, they must factor in such issues as their capital and lease costs, as well as the price of the underlying commodity.

Today’s gold mine, though, may now rest with natural gas liquids, which are more correlated to the high price of oil. Producers are therefore focusing on those shale gas plays that are rife with such liquids, says Valerie Wood, president of Energy Solutions in Madison, Wis. Conversely, she says that many producers are idling rigs in dryer gas basins.

“The price correlation between natural gas liquids and crude oil is changing a little but it is unlikely to cause a significant reduction in shale gas production,” says Wood, in a talk with this writer. “Eventually, the economics of natural gas liquids may cause a slow down in that area but we won’t see that for a while.”

Wood also explains that some producers are moving from dry natural gas basins to crude oil regions where they are finding associated gas, although in some cases they are “flaring” that gas because of the lack of pipelines. If they are able to transport the commodity that is found at shallower depths than oil, then the added supply will serve to keep prices temporarily low.

America’s energy picture is getting brighter. Domestic fields are awash in tight oil and shale gas. As such, Big Oil is reaching out to natural gas producers, which may need greater access to capital. The ultimate alignment is unknown but the oil industry has the wherewithal to endure today’s climate and it will assuredly play a key role developing the shale gas fields.

Source: www.forbes.com

Read More

Natural Gas Isn’t the Only Reason U.S. Carbon Emissions are Falling

It’s become something of a cliché in energy-policy discussions: The United States is making headway on global warming and slashing its carbon-dioxide emissions all because of a glut of cheap natural gas that’s elbowing out dirtier coal power.

But perhaps that natural-gas story is overly simplistic. A notable new analysis by Trevor Houser and Shashank Mohan of the Rhodium Group suggests that America’s budding renewable-energy sector — particularly wind power and biomass — deserves a big chunk of the credit for driving down U.S. emissions. On the flip side, the report also suggests that coal could soon make a comeback.

Houser and Mohan take a novel approach to analyzing the recent drop in carbon pollution. They start by noting that at the end of 2012, U.S. carbon emissions were about 13 percent below 2005 levels. They then tried to tease out the causes of this drop by constructing a counter-factual — what would have happened if energy trends from the 1990s and early 2000s had continued apace?

The recession and financial crisis, obviously, made a big difference. A weaker economy has meant less demand for energy — that was responsible for more than half the drop compared with business as usual.

Meanwhile, Houser and Mohan find the U.S. economy actually hasn’t become vastly less energy-intensive over time (the blue bar). Yes, overall efficiency has gone up — Americans are buying more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, etc. But the country is also no longer shedding manufacturing jobs as quickly as it was during the 1990s. So the amount of energy we use per unit of GDP has generally followed historical trends, improving only gradually.

The real change has come in the type of energy that the United States is using. The country is now relying more heavily cleaner forms of energy than it used to, and that explains about half of the fall in emissions. This is where natural gas proponents usually take credit. But according to Houser and Mohan, natural gas is only responsible for part of this shift:

Natural gas is indeed pushing out dirtier coal, and that makes a sizable difference (burning natural gas for electricity emits about half the carbon-dioxide that burning coal does). But wind farms are also sprouting up across the country, thanks to government subsidies. What’s more, industrial sites are burning more biomass for heat and electricity, while biofuels like ethanol are nudging out oil. All of that has done a lot to cut emissions.

(Note that these calculations do not include fugitive methane emissions from natural gas or changes in land use from biofuel production. So that’s one key caveat.)

The other side of this analysis, however, is that Houser and Mohan aren’t particularly optimistic that U.S. carbon emissions will continue to decline. That’s because natural gas prices are starting to rise again, and coal is likely to take back some of its market share in the years ahead:

That’s one reason why many environmentalists are now warning that the United States will miss its climate target — keeping carbon emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 — unless the Obama administration takes further steps, such as regulating coal plants through the EPA and tightening efficiency standards. The recent plunge in emissions has been dramatic. But it’s not likely to last without further policy changes.

Source: www.washingtonpost.com

Read More

US Utilities Burning More Natural Gas as Prices Fall

A recent increase in US coal prices and a slight decline in natural gas are set to dent demand for coal as utilities use more gas to generate power, electricity traders said on Monday.

Prices of Central Appalachian coal have climbed to their highest levels since mid-December as prices and demand for coal remain strong in foreign markets and US miners look to export more of their product.

Meanwhile, natural gas prices have declined to their lowest levels since late January, due in part to continued high inventories from record shale production and still mild end-of-winter weather forecasts.

The relative price difference between NYMEX Central Appalachian coal and NYMEX Henry Hub gas has narrowed to less than $1 per million British thermal units (mmBtu) for the first time since early January, according to Reuters data.

Natural gas traded at $3.22/mmBtu Monday morning, while Eastern coal was selling for about $2.25/mmBtu.

Energy traders however noted it costs about $1/mmBtu to transport Eastern coal and an additional 50c to 75c per mmBtu to operate less efficient coal plants at current coal prices.

So when natural gas prices are less than $1.50 to $1.75 over coal, it's an easier decision for generators to burn gas rather than coal to produce power, according to traders.

In early 2012, a mild winter left a huge amount of gas in inventory, and record-high shale production pushed gas prices in April to ten-year lows, luring power companies away from coal in record numbers.

That is why US generators since 2009 have announced plans to shut more than 40 000 MW of coal-fired capacity over the next several years.

The weak gas prices have depressed power prices, making it uneconomic for generators to invest in emission control equipment needed to keep older coal plants compliant with stricter environmental rules.

Natural gas has been historically more expensive than coal, but in April 2012 gas traded at a ten-year low of $1.90/mmBtu due to oversupply while coal fetched about $2.12/mmBtu. That 22c gap had not been seen since at least 2001, according to Reuters data.

As gas prices rebounded, surpassing coal, the spread between gas and Eastern coal widened to more than $1, making gas less of a bargain. But now, the spread has fallen to less than $1.

The biggest US coal-fired power companies include units of American Electric Power, Duke Energy, Tennessee Valley Authority, Southern, Xcel Energy, NRG Energy and FirstEnergy.

Read More

Low Natural Gas Prices Give U.S. an Edge

When it comes to attracting foreign investors, manufacturers, and developers, there are a few factors that provide the U.S. with a competitive advantage -- and according to a recent MarketWatch blog entry, affordable natural gas prices are high on the list. Indeed, for companies in the United States, natural gas is cheaper than it is in other parts of the world, something that makes it more cost-effective to develop factories and industrial infrastructure stateside, as opposed to in Europe or in Asia. This important economic reality has earned a comment from Stag Energy Services.

Stag Energy Services is based in Houston, and provides an expansive suite of services to American oil companies. Stag Energy Services counts among its client base some of the world's best-known suppliers of oil and natural gas; the company is led by James Mann, himself a long-time energy industry veteran. Stag Energy Services has released a new statement to the press, commenting on the importance of cheap natural gas prices for attracting manufacturers from overseas.

"U.S. companies often forget about some of the rich advantages provided by our energy economy -- not the least of which is the rock-bottom affordability of natural gas," comments Mann, in the Stag Energy Services press statement. "Low natural gas costs translate to low electrical power costs, which in turn means that a factory or a plant can be established and run much more affordably. Given this, it is not at all hard to understand why so many international manufacturers cast an eye to the United States as an ideal place to set up shop, especially when U.S. natural gas prices are compared to those in many European nations."

Mann's comments find affirmation in the MarketWatch story, which notes the difference between U.S. natural gas costs and European natural gas costs.

Specifically, natural gas currently costs somewhere around $3.40 per thousand cubic feet in the United States; meanwhile, it is between $10 and $11 in Europe. In Asia, the cost is as high as $15. "The difference is really night and day -- so, again, it is not hard to understand why this is such a boon to U.S. manufacturing," offers Mann.

The MarketWatch report features a quote from Hugh Welsh, who serves as the U.S. President of Dutch company DSM; DSM is currently planning an expansion of its U.S. operations, based largely on the affordability of natural gas. Welsh calls low natural gas prices "a good incentive for any manufacturer" and "an enormous competitive advantage" for the United States.

Read More

Natural Gas Slides 1.5%

Natural-gas futures fell as temperature forecasts offered mixed signals about gas-fired heating demand.

Natural gas for March delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange settled 4.9 cents, or 1.5%, lower, at $3.230 a million British thermal units.

Investors were keeping close watch on weather outlooks, which showed fluctuating temperatures across the U.S. for the next two weeks.

Private forecaster WSI Energycast said Tuesday that cooler-than-normal temperatures are expected to move across the eastern U.S. over the next week, followed by a period of milder weather and then another temperature dip.

"What we're really seeing is a lack of sustained calls for cold weather and heating demand," said Gene McGillian, a broker and analyst at Tradition Energy.

In the winter, weather is typically the biggest factor in natural-gas prices, because cold temperatures raise demand for heating by homes and businesses. Roughly half of U.S. homes use gas-fired heating, while many more use electric heat powered by gas-fired utilities.

The temperature swings have traders on edge and have led to prices holding just above the 200-day moving average, a key technical level of support.

Jim Ritterbusch, head of oil-trading advisor Ritterbusch & Associates, said in a research report Tuesday that the fluctuating forecasts are restraining big price swings, while the coming end to the high-demand winter season is starting to diminish the importance of the predictions.

In early January, weekly withdrawals from storage are typically much larger than later in the winter. In February and March, even temperatures well below normal will often not lead to sharp stockpile declines.

"The temperature factor will continue to diminish in importance," he said.

For the past month, natural-gas prices have held between $3.20 and $3.50/MMBtu. While temperatures have fallen, in recent weeks drops in U.S. stockpile levels have come in below analyst estimates.

U.S. gas inventories stand at 2.684 trillion cubic feet, according to the Energy Department, 15% above the five-year average for this time of year.

Mr. McGillian said it now looks likely that stockpiles will end the season above 2 tcf, a level that most investors and traders take as a sign of robust supplies.

Read More

U.S. Senate Panel Mulls Future of Natural Gas Policy

U.S. natural gas policy, from hydraulic fracturing to exports, came under the microscope on Tuesday as environmental and industry groups presented their views on the issue to Congress and divided along mostly familiar lines.

On a day U.S. President Barack Obama is set to lay out his agenda in the annual State of the Union address, the Senate Energy Committee examined the implications of a shale gas revolution that has upended the American energy outlook.

Technological breakthroughs in the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, have unlocked massive reserves of U.S. shale natural gas in recent years.

The dramatic change in the energy landscape has sparked debates over the environmental impacts of rapidly expanding shale gas development and how much of the nation's gas should be allowed to be shipped abroad.

In his first hearing as chairman of Senate energy committee, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon lauded the growth in natural gas production, but stressed the need for adequate regulation and urged a thorough review of gas export guidelines.

"It is clearly time for a fresh look at our current policies and to start thinking about how to update those policies to reflect a very new reality," Wyden said.

Booming shale gas output has opened the door to substantial LNG exports. More than a dozen companies are lined up waiting for approval to send gas abroad.

The issue has divided lawmakers and manufacturers however, with some raising concerns that copious exports will hurt certain energy intensive domestic industries that recently have used low gas prices to gain a competitive advantage.

"Unchecked LNG export licensing can cause demand shocks, and the resulting price volatility can have substantial adverse impacts on U.S. manufacturing and competitiveness," Andrew Liveris, chief executive of Dow Chemical, said in prepared testimony.

Dow, one of the most vocal critics of unfettered exports, left the National Association of Manufacturers over its opposition to any bans on gas exports.

While stressing the belief that LNG exports should be governed by free trade, a NAM official said at the hearing that policy should not favor exports or domestic gas use.

"If the United States went down the path of export restrictions, even more countries would quickly follow suit and could easily limit U.S. access to other key natural resources or inputs that are not readily available in the United States," NAM's Ross Eisenberg said in prepared testimony.

Fracking Exemptions

The shale gas bonanza has also spurred a backlash from environmentalists and some communities near drilling sites, who complain that fracking is a threat to public health.

Fracking, is a drilling technique that involves the injection of water, sand and chemicals underground at high pressure to extract fuel.

Frances Beinecke, head of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the government should repeal exemptions for oil and gas industry in various environmental laws. Currently, fracking is mostly exempt from federal regulation.

"Now shale gas production is expanding with supersonic speed without having in place even the basic environmental and public health requirements that apply to other industries," Beinecke said in prepared testimony.

The NRDC opposes expanded fracking until "effective safeguards" are in imposed. Oil and gas drillers dispute the notion that fracking poses a threat to the environment and argue that states are best placed to regulate drilling.

Read More