Blogs

Energy Realpolitik

Amy Myers Jaffe delves into the underlying forces shaping global energy.

Latest Post

U.S. President Donald Trump appears before workers at Cameron LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) Export Facility in Hackberry, Louisiana, U.S., May 14, 2019.
U.S. President Donald Trump appears before workers at Cameron LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) Export Facility in Hackberry, Louisiana, U.S., May 14, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis

U.S. Natural Gas: Once Full of Promise, Now in Retreat

This is a guest post by Gabriela Hasaj, Research Associate to the Military Fellowship Program at the Council on Foreign Relations. Tessa Schreiber, intern for Energy and U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, contributed to this blog post. Read More

Energy and Climate Policy
Why Fuel Economy Standards Matter to U.S. Energy Dominance
During last week’s international energy industry gathering in Houston, CERA Week, U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry introduced a new buzzword for the Trump administration’s energy policy: “energy realism.” 
Energy and Climate Policy
OPEC’s Venezuela Dilemma and U.S. Energy Policy
As senior officials from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) gather in Houston for the international industry gathering CERA Week, they will be listening carefully to speeches by the CEOs of the largest U.S. independent oil companies about the prospects for the rise in U.S. production in 2018 and 2019. Likely, they won’t like what they hear. U.S. industry leaders are saying U.S. shale production could add another one million barrels per day (b/d) or more on top of already substantial increases, if oil prices remain stable. Best C-suite guesses from Texas are that a sustained $50 to $60 oil price could result in a fifteen million b/d mark for U.S. production in the 2020s, up from ten million b/d currently. U.S. shale’s capacity to surprise to the upside is likely to leave OPEC producers with some soul searching to do as they consider their strategy for the second half of the year and beyond. OPEC has received some unexpected help to make space for rising Iraqi and U.S. oil exports from the sudden collapse of Venezuela’s oil industry where workers, faint from lack of food, are abandoning their posts to emigrate or worse to sell stolen pipes and wires to make ends meet for their families. Energy Intelligence Group is reporting this week that Venezuela’s oil production has fallen to 1.4 million b/d last month, down from 1.8 million b/d just last autumn. But ironically, a further collapse of Venezuela’s oil industry could make OPEC’s deliberations harder, not easier, if it ruptures the conviction of the current output reduction sharing coalition. If too many Venezuelan oil workers abandon their posts at once out of desperation, the country’s fate could more closely mirror Iran in 1979 when a crippling oil worker’s strike brought Iranian oil exports to zero and rendered the Shah’s rule untenable. The U.S. also continues to mull additional sanctions against Venezuela, including oil trade related restrictions, to pressure Caracas to restore democratic processes inside its borders. Trading with state owned PDVSA is becoming more difficult but Venezuela has been using U.S. tight oil as a diluent for its heavy oil. Historically, during many past oil disruptions, OPEC’s Arab members like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have increased exports to prevent oil prices from skyrocketing. Kuwait especially is likely to argue that will be necessary to keep oil prices from going too high since it is keenly aware that the high prices of the early 2010s were exactly what stimulated the very U.S. shale oil investment and energy efficiency technologies that are plaguing the long run outlook for OPEC oil today. Studies on how digitization of mobility can eliminate oil use has led many organizations, including some large oil companies, to speculate that oil demand could peak sometime after 2030. The argument that the OPEC cuts need to be abandoned sooner rather than later could also sit well with Russia’s oil oligarchs who have been unhappy to see continued cooperation with OPEC that has left some one to two million b/d of potential Russian projects on hold. But Saudi Arabia could worry that a premature relaxing of the “super” OPEC coalition agreement could bring prices lower than the $70 it is targeting to keep its domestic spending on track and to position state oil firm Saudi Aramco for a successful five percent initial public offering (IPO) sale. It has been seeking a long lasting condominium with Russia to prevent a return to destabilizing competition for market share. Expanding U.S. exports have eaten away at Mideast sales to Asia. Russia is also looking to sell more oil and gas eastwards. All this leaves OPEC (and its partnership with Russia) in a quandary. Traditionally, OPEC’s Gulf cooperation council members, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have made extra investments to carry spare capacity to respond to sudden supply shocks and/or to punish usurpers who could challenge OPEC for market share. But in the age of U.S. oil abundance, OPEC’s Gulf members are questioning whether this approach continues to make sense. In a world where peak oil demand is being mooted, will “the shareholder” (eg ruling royal governments) order national oil companies to spend billions of dollars to develop new spare capacity, even if it could not be needed? But if producers fail to make those investments and oil prices ratchet up to extremely lofty levels, can that propel a faster acceleration to low carbon electric cars, shared mobility services, and oil saving devices, hurting those very same oil producers even more harshly in the long run? China is clearly positioning itself to take advantage of such an eventuality with a multi-trillion dollar industrial export policy for renewables and clean tech of its own making. The overall uncertain situation has led to some incoherent commentary by OPEC leaders. On the one hand, some leaders talk about the global oil field three percent decline rate in near hysterical terms as potentially leading to an epic supply crisis in the coming years. They cite this risk as a reason to keep oil prices high. On the other hand, even as they sound that alarm, they are not willing to bet with their own pocketbooks on making major investments to plug that supposed hole. The alternative option for OPEC to restart the price war seems equally toothless, especially if those flooding the market do not appear to be able to survive the sustained revenue drop to make it an effective threat. Citi projects that even with expected declines in production in certain non-OPEC producing countries, continued increases from Brazil, Canada, Africa, and global natural gas liquids will overwhelm losses elsewhere, even without a higher than expected contribution from U.S. shale, assuming geopolitical events don’t create an unexpected cutoff of a major producer. It is in this context of confusion that the United States needs to consider the dangers of altering a suite of energy policies that are working. The United States is well positioned to supply individual U.S. refiners with heavy crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), should it find that new sanctions or internal strife means those refiners have to abandon Venezuelan heavy oil imports. In other words, the SPR is not superfluous. Corporate efficiency standards for U.S. cars help constrain U.S. domestic oil use, freeing up U.S. refined products and crude oil for export and enhancing the role of U.S. energy production to constrain OPEC and Russian market power. Free trade agreements with Canada and Mexico are ensuring a strong nearby pipeline market for rising U.S. surpluses of natural gas. U.S. assistance for its clean tech industry prevents China from monopolizing benefits that can come to an economy when higher oil prices prompt countries to shift more quickly to energy saving technologies and renewable energy. The Trump administration needs to slow down in busting with tradition when it comes to energy. Some of the tried and true policies of the past are contributing to this administration’s mantra of energy dominance. They need to focus on the old saying “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.”
China
China’s Coming Challenge to the U.S. Petro-Economy
U.S. oil production is set to surpass its all-time record monthly high (first set in 1970), and U.S. liquefied natural gas exports are roaring ahead, with 800 billion cubic feet already shipped since 2016. The U.S. Energy Information Administration is expecting the United States to become a net exporter of natural gas soon. This all bodes well for the Donald J. Trump administration’s aspiration for America to “dominate” global oil and gas markets and will improve the U.S. trade balance. The geographical diversity of the shale revolution across the United States now also partly shields the U.S. economy from the net ill-effects of sudden oil price rises. This stands in contrast to China, which has become the world’s largest oil importer. But could there be too much of a good thing? Rising U.S. oil and gas production is weakening Russia’s ability to use energy as a lever in international discourse and has diminished Iran’s ability to use its oil and gas sector as a diplomatic lure. Energy abundance provides many strategic and economic advantages. But lawmakers and the White House should think twice before focusing too intently on the current U.S. petro-economy. Petro-economies can become overly vulnerable to cyclical changes in commodity prices or worse in the case of Venezuela and Russia. Ask any Alaskan who is studying the possibility of a state budget crisis, petro-linkages are a double-edged sword. The United States needs to stay the course on advancing its digital economy, even if that means reducing demand for oil. Here’s why: China has recognized the strategic detriment of being too oil dependent when the United States is not and it is making a major energy pivot that could position itself to challenge U.S. energy dominance and even U.S. strategic pre-eminence. U.S. policy makers need to recognize this risk and take steps to mitigate it. As I explain in my latest article in Foreign Affairs, it is in the vital U.S. interest to remain in the Paris accord. China is banking on clean energy technologies as major industrial exports that will compete with U.S. and Russian oil and gas and make China the renewable energy and electric vehicle superpower of a future energy world. According to the International Energy Agency, the Chinese public and private sectors will invest more than $6 trillion in low carbon power generation and other clean energy technologies by 2040. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that Beijing has spent as much as $47 billion so far supporting domestic solar panel manufacturing, an effort that allowed China to dominate the panel export market and cratered costs. Chinese investment in battery technology is likely to have a similar effect on battery prices. Later this year, Goldman Sachs is bringing a $2 billion initial public offering to market for Chinese firm CATL that analysts are saying will quickly make the company the dominant battery manufacturer in the world. China is also betting big on electric vehicles, with BYD now the largest producer of electric vehicles in the world and another half dozen Chinese firms in the top twenty. Over a hundred Chinese companies currently make electric cars and buses. What’s more, China is hoping to bring all of its clean energy products to market as part of its $1.4 trillion Belt and Road Initiative, an infrastructure program designed to expand Beijing’s influence throughout Asia. To accomplish this, China is also working to dominate the financing of clean tech and renewable energy, opening the world’s largest carbon market and encouraging its major banks, including the People’s Bank of China, to promote and underwrite green bonds. China’s goal is not just to reduce its own dependence on foreign oil and gas. It hopes to use its clean energy exports to challenge the United States’ leading role in many regional alliances and trading relationships as well as to fashion an international order more to its interests. Its clean energy pivot is providing a platform for Beijing to court countries in Europe, Central Asia, and Asia with offers of cheap finance, advanced energy and transportation infrastructure, and solutions to pollution and energy insecurity. That raises the question of how the United States will sustain its energy dominance if it abdicates its role in multinational settings that will determine global rulemaking for energy exports and greenhouse gas emissions. Presumably, China intends to fashion a global energy architecture that will favor its interests. At some point down the road, that will not be defending coal use. It will be to sell its clean energy technologies free of tariffs (and possibly aided by subsidies) while European, Chinese, and other nation’s fees on carbon emissions hamper U.S. oil and gas exports. It could also make Chinese, rather than U.S., standards for green finance, energy product labeling, and advanced vehicles the global standard. The take away from this Chinese challenge is that the United States needs to find creative ways to meet its Paris climate accord commitments and continue to develop a substantive technology innovation and climate change policy approach. Washington should consider additional policies to promote private sector investment in clean energy, including allowing renewable energy investors to form master limited partnerships in the same way as their oil and gas compatriots. Washington should also consider new uses for natural gas and bio-methane that can help meet the U.S. emission reduction pledge and stay the course on automobile efficiency standards that contribute to our shrinking oil import bill. During the Cold War, the United States rose to the task of reasserting itself in science when it realized the dire consequences of losing the space race. Meeting the challenge of China’s pivot to clean energy will be no different. The United States needs to work diligently inside and outside the Paris accord framework to fashion trade rules and carbon market systems that will accommodate U.S. oil and gas exports now and lay the groundwork to promote clean energy technologies in the future. A version of this article first appeared as a “Gray Matters” column in the Houston Chronicle.
  • Energy and Climate Policy
    Is Natural Gas the Transition Fuel for Hydrogen?
    This post is co-written by Joan Ogden, professor of environmental science and policy at UC Davis and director of the Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways (STEPS) program at the campus’ Institute of Transportation Studies. The United Kingdom is moving forward with a novel plan to lower carbon emissions in home heating by injecting low carbon hydrogen into the country’s natural gas grid. National Grid’s Cadent Gas and Northern Gas Networks, together with Keele University, have been studying how to safely add hydrogen (H2) to natural gas residential networks to clean up the country's heating sector which constitutes a fifth of the U.K.’s total carbon emissions. The pilot, if successful, would put more teeth behind the idea of natural gas as a bridge to lower carbon substitutes. However, there are many technical barriers to the practice that could be more than meets the eye. Hydrogen embrittles many of the steels used for natural gas pipelines, creating the potential for dangerous leaks. Some sections of the U.K. system already have advanced materials more suitable for hydrogen transport but adjusting end-use appliances to be hydrogen blend ready still needs to be done. The current hydrogen blending pilot will begin with safety work in 130 homes and businesses in a limited geography to convert appliances and avoid any dangerous leaks. Recent U.S. studies suggest that transporting a hydrogen-natural gas blend over an existing natural gas pipeline network safely is technically possible at levels between 5 to 15 percent hydrogen by volume, assuming the system in question is in top notch maintenance with no potentially dangerous cracks or leaks. Current European regulations allow between 0.1–12 percent hydrogen in natural gas lines. All analyses stress the critical importance of a case by case assessment before introducing hydrogen into a natural gas system. Officials are saying the U.K. system can specifically accommodate 20 percent given its history and materials. For residential use, U.K. officials believe some six million tons of carbon could be saved if the program could extend across the country. But blending does not necessarily enable major reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in transport applications, unless the “green” hydrogen—that is hydrogen produced from renewable sources as opposed to chemically “reformed” from methane—can be separated from the blend and then delivered to a highly efficient fuel cell vehicle. At this juncture, our newly published survey article of the latest science shows that costs to do so are currently prohibitive. Blending into existing networks ultimately limits the scale of possible H2 fuel adoption, because of the technical constraints on the allowed hydrogen fraction. For these reasons, locations such as Germany or California that intend to make a large H2 fueling push for automobiles are likely to build out separate networks, rather than relying on upgrading existing natural gas distribution systems. Natural gas is already in wide use as a fuel for fleet vehicles, medium-duty work trucks, and short haul drayage trucks. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is increasingly being used in long haul freight applications. By contrast, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are just beginning to be adopted in some early adopter regional settings, mainly for light-duty passenger applications. About 5,500 hydrogen cars are on the road today. Interest in using hydrogen fuel cells for zero emission medium- and heavy-duty transport is also growing. A few dozen hydrogen fuel cell buses and work trucks are being demonstrated. California policy makers were hoping synergies between natural gas fueling infrastructure and hydrogen could ease transition costs of shifting to hydrogen to get deep cuts in transport related GHG emissions. But our work suggests that biogas could be a better fit in the coming years. We find that it is not going to be commercially rewarding to re-purpose or overbuild natural gas fueling station equipment and storage for future hydrogen use. Ultimately, a dedicated renewable hydrogen system would be needed for hydrogen to play a major role in reducing transport-related GHG emissions. In the meantime, California is investigating the benefits of greening its current truck fleets by blending cleaned up bio-methane, so called renewable natural gas, into the natural gas fueling system in the state. Injection of landfill gas would be one of the more commercial and productive alternatives, for example. However, the bio-methane resource is smaller than the future potential of hydrogen manufacturing, which has led California to continue to promote a pilot for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure in select markets such as Los Angeles, as one of the central pillars in its strategy toward a zero-emissions, low carbon future.
  • Venezuela
    How Much Worse Can it Get for Venezuela’s State Oil Firm PDVSA?
    Venezuela’s latest attempt to raise capital by issuing a cryptocurrency, the petro, linked allegedly to its Orinoco oil reserves is problematical on so many levels, it is hard to know how to comment on it beyond pointing out the U.S. government has already said that trading in the new market could risk exposure to U.S. sanctions. Stopping the cryptocurrency could wind up being the easiest item for the Donald J. Trump administration to address in the steps that Caracas is taking to obviate Venezuela’s state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A’s (PDVSA) creditors. PDVSA is engaging in all kinds of no cash deal making to bypass oil cargo seizures. But the company could face even more difficulty this year as Venezuela’s financial woes have bitten into its capacity to keep its oil fields running. Citibank estimates that Venezuela’s oil production capacity could sink to one million (barrels per day) b/d over the course of 2018, down from 2.8 million b/d in 2015, as its access to credit worsens, sending even more of its facilities into disrepair. International service companies are limiting activities in the country as they take write downs on hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid fees. Venezuela’s oil fields have a natural decline rate of 25% that requires constant attention to maintain capacity. Finding a soft landing out of the crisis for PDVSA’s U.S. subsidiary Citgo Petroleum could become increasingly complex for the United States as it seeks to manage Venezuela’s deteriorating situation. Washington has placed sanctions on critical members of the Venezuelan government but has been reluctant to take action that could spill over to Citgo’s ability to operate. Citgo operates three of America’s largest oil refineries for a total capacity of 750,000 b/d, including an important regional facility near Chicago. Citgo supplied fifteen billion gallons of gasoline in the United States in 2015. So far, Citgo has been shielded from creditors by its corporate structure. But recently, impatient creditors of state oil company PDVSA are starting to use more aggressive tactics, with one such group trying to seize an oil cargo ship in an attempt to get paid. To avoid such circumstances, PDVSA, which for all intents and purposes can no longer attain bank letters of credit, is “time swapping” ownership of some of the undesignated crude oil cargoes it can muster for export for exchange of later delivery of badly needed fuel and feedstock. The arrangements are designed to discourage creditors from trying to grab oil in international locations because, in effect, the oil is already owned by other parties before it sets sail from Venezuela. Last year, Venezuela shipped about 450,000 b/d to China as part of a repayment of $60 billion in Chinese loans. That is less than half of the oil volume originally anticipated in the payback schedule. In fact, one of the largest lenders, China Development Bank, has been receiving barely enough oil and refined oil products from Venezuela to cover the interest payments on its loans, according to Energy Intelligence Group. China and Russia are still receiving repayments via oil shipments, with some small percentage of the value of the cargoes allegedly getting back to Caracas. Other buyers such as Indian refiners are still seen picking up cargoes on a F.O.B. basis (free on board) that gives immediate ownership on pickup. The question is whether the status quo will prevail or whether Citgo’s operations will be affected as financial problems escalate. The fate of PDVSA’s bonds, which are also in a state of “quasi-default,” are particularly tricky because many diverse parties are laying claim in a manner that could foreclose on Citgo shares. A deal that pledged company stock to bondholders is creating an opening to hasten foreclosure. In another deal, Goldman Sachs purchased $2.8 billion worth of PDVSA bonds at thirty cents on the dollar back in 2017. The thesis behind the Goldman purchase, and most every other credit line extended to PDVSA is that the state firm has valuable assets, some of which are abroad, and giant reserves of oil. Governments come and go but eventually, so the thinking goes, that oil can be turned back into cash. The Venezuela case could test that kind of thesis, with implications for other oil producers trying to go to global markets to turn their oil reserves into cash. The disruption of Venezuela’s oil exports from international trading has been gradual, perhaps somewhat muting its effect to date. The breakdown of the country’s refining system has created openings for U.S. refiners to export increasing volumes of gasoline and diesel to Latin America and elsewhere. To some extent, the drop in its crude oil exports has facilitated the ongoing collaboration between the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and important non-OPEC producers to steady oil prices at higher levels. Higher oil prices are a bit of a help to the Venezuelan regime but with most of its oil having to be sold in barter format, convertible foreign exchange will be increasingly hard to come by, especially if oil field production problems leave it with fewer available barrels to trade. As the financial situation for PDVSA worsens, the oil market effects could widen, especially if it leads to the collapse of Citgo Petroleum. U.S. policy makers should think about whether it’s advisable to develop a contingency plan now for the latter outcome. The Trump administration could consider being pro-active, perhaps offering a crude for products swap open tender for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) with other U.S. refiners now to create at least a small government buffer stock of refined product that could be directed to Illinois or other affected markets in the spring, should Citgo’s operations get unexpectedly interrupted by financial problems or legal proceedings. Such a plan could ameliorate the effect on U.S. consumers from any sudden event related to Venezuela and give Washington more flexibility to respond to the ongoing crisis inside Venezuela. Should nothing go wrong in the coming weeks, the contingency planning could still be a win-win. The refined product stocks could offer the same protections ahead of next summer’s hurricane season and serve as a test case for how to modernize the SPR to include refined products at no government cash outlay.