Between the Poles

Clinton and Trump on energy policy

Electric Choice has created a compilation of Clinton and Trump's announced positions on energy and related policies.  Some of the highlights:

Hillary Clinton

Nuclear Power: Clinton is an advocate for advanced nuclear power and the expansion of successful initiatives such as, ARPA-e.

Renewable Energy: Become a leader in the fight against climate change via installation of solar panels and the production of enough clean energy to power every home in the United States (within 10 years).  Her clean energy plan is focused on generating new economic investment opportunities that will help to create paying jobs nationwide.

Energy Waste: Reduce energy waste by a third to make manufacturing in the United States cleaner and more efficient.  Specifically mentions

• Improving building codes and standards
• Energy transparency
• Continued support of appliance energy standards and labels

Energy Infrastructure: Upgrade the United States energy infrastructure by modernizing the pipeline system, increasing rail safety and enhancing grid security.  Create a new Presidential Threat Assessment and Response Team to help state, local officials, and the energy industry to handle cyber security threats using new improved technologies.

Donald Trump

Coal: Trump plans to revive the coal mining industry by helping to get coal miners back to work.

Oil & Gas: Has previously stated his support for fracking as a way to end America’s dependence on imported oil.

Nuclear Power: Strongly in favor of nuclear energy, but the United States needs to put the proper procedures in place to ensure its continued safety.

Energy Infrastructure: Plans to rebuild America’s infrastructure on time and on budget, but has not yet defined a plan for how this will improve the United States energy industry infrastructure.

EPA issues new rules regulating methane emissions for new oil and gas facilities

 Methane is one of the more potent greenhouse gases for global warming.  The concentration of methane in the atmosphere stabilized from about 1999 to 2007, but since 2007 began rising again.  A recent study suggests that the more than 30% increase in U.S. methane emissions over the 2002–2014 period could account for 30–60% of the global growth of atmospheric methane seen in the past decade.  The EPA has just initiated a process to update rules covering existing oil and gas sources.

Today the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, signed the three final rules that are intended to reduce emissions of methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other toxic air pollutants from new, reconstructed and modified oil and gas sources.  The new rules were issued in response to the President’s Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions. 

The new rules apply to new oil and gas wells using hydraulic fracturing (fracking)

• Well completions (non-wildcat and non-delineation wells)
• Well completions (exploratory and delineation wells and low pressure wells).
• Fugitive emissions from well sites and compressor stations.
• Equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants
• Various types of equipment used at well sites and natural gas processing plants such as pneumatic compressors, pumps and controllers.

There are new reporting requirements.  The final rule requires owners or operators to submit initial notifications and annual reports, in addition to retaining records to assist in documenting that they are complying with the provisions of the New Source Performance Standards.

Owners or operators of wells are required to submit an initial notification two days prior to the commencement of each well completion operation. This notification must include contact information for the owner or operator, the United States Well Number, the latitude and longitude coordinates for each well, and the planned date of the beginning of flowback.

The final rule includes new requirements for monitoring and repairing sources of fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations. An owner or operator must submit an annual report, which covers the collection of fugitive emissions components at well sites and compressor stations within an area defined by the company.

The EPA has estimated emissions reductions for 2020 and 2025.  As a result of these new rules the EPA estimates that in 2020, emissions will be reduced  by 300,000 tons of methane; 150,000 tons of VOC; and 1,900 tons of HAP. The emission reductions anticipated in 2025 are 510,000 tons of methane; 210,000 tons of VOC; and 3,900 tons of HAP.

Study suggests U.S. responsible for major part of atmospheric methane rise over past decade

 Methane is one of the more potent greenhouse gases for global warming.  The concentration of methane in the atmosphere stabilized from about 1999 to 2007, but since 2007 began rising again.  A recent study suggests that the more than 30% increase in U.S. methane emissions over the 2002–2014 period could account for 30–60% of the global growth of atmospheric methane seen in the past decade.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited President Barack Obama in March, one of the topics that was discussed was joint action on climate change. Specifically, Canada and the United States committed to new actions to reduce methane pollution from the oil and natural gas sector.

In March, 2014 the U.S. Administration issued Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions, which outlined steps to cut methane emissions.  In the summer of 2015 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed standards to directly address methane from new and modified sources in the oil and gas sector with the goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025. But studies from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and others have provided significant new data on methane emitted by existing operations in the oil and gas sector that show that "methane emissions are substantially higher than we previously understood" in the words of Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator.

In 2012, the EDF initiated a series of 16 independent projects designed to find out how much and from where methane is escaping into the atmosphere across the entire natural gas supply chain: production; gathering lines and processing facilities; long-distance pipelines, storage, and local distribution; as well as some end users using natural gas, commercial trucks and refueling stations. This investigation involved nearly 100 research and industry experts.

Scientists collected data using aircraft and ground-based platforms in the Texas Barnett Shale. Using this data they estimated regional and facility-level methane emissions and found that regional methane emissions are 50 percent higher than estimates based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

Methane emissions from local gas distribution systems were also investigated it was and found that methane emissions from local natural gas distribution systems are significant.  The EDF and Google Earth Outreach released interactive maps that show methane leaking from pipelines under city streets.

The Denver-Julesburg Flyover Study found that methane emissions were three times higher than estimates derived from EPA data.

A study assessed the spatial distribution of anthropogenic methane sources in the United States by combining comprehensive atmospheric methane observations, extensive spatial datasets, and a high-resolution atmospheric transport model. Based on the results of this analysis the authors concluded that the EPA underestimates methane emissions nationally by a factor of ∼1.5 and regionally by ∼4.9.

A recent study which analyzed GOSAT satellite and surface observations of atmospheric methane suggests that U.S. methane emissions have increased by more than 30% over the 2002–2014 period.  This contrasts with EPA estimates which indicate that emissions remained flat over this period.  The increase is largest in the central part of the country. The spatial pattern of the methane increase seen by satellite does not clearly identify the sources of the increase.  The renewed growth in atmospheric methane between 2005 and 2010 is estimated to be due to an increase in global methane emissions of 17–22 teragrams per year  (Tg/yr). The new results suggest that increasing U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions could account for up to 30–60% of this global increase.  The authors state that a better understanding of U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions, particularly those from the livestock and oil and gas sectors, is needed.  The U.S. EPA inventory gives only national totals, so identifying sectors responsible for the increase is difficult. A spatially resolved version of the U.S. EPA inventory is currently under development.

The EPA's next annual methane report is due to be published by April 15 and it will be interesting to see what the EPA is doing to address the significant difference between its estimates and the estimates from academic researchers.

The shale oil and gas sector in the U.S. has been largely unregulated.  In 2005 Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was an omnibus energy bill that included the so-called "Halliburton loophole" which exempted hydraulic fracturing from protections under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA, which means that fracking has not been regulated at the federal level.  

Since Prime Minister Trudeau's visit to President Obama the EPA has initiated a formal process to require companies operating existing oil and gas sources to provide information to assist in the development of comprehensive regulations to reduce methane emissions.  The EPA is issuing an Information Collection Request (ICR) to gather information on existing sources of methane emissions, technologies to reduce those emissions and the costs of those technologies in the production, gathering, processing, and transmission and storage segments of the oil and gas sector.  The goal is to take a closer look at regulating existing sources of methane emissions, in other words, to set more aggressive rules for reducing methane emissions from existing oil and gas facilities.

EPA intended to begin the ICR process In April by signing a draft information collection request that will be made available for public comment. The agency will revise that draft as necessary based on comment and send it to the Office of Management and Budget for additional review and input. Once the collection request is approved– which can include surveys and required emissions monitoring – it will go to industry, which is required to respond and attest that the information it provides is accurate. EPA’s goal is to receive the first phase of information later this year. 

The EPA began the ICR process May 12, 2016.

Confirmation of drinking water contamination by fracking suggests widespread problem

A new study that confirms drinking water contamination by fracking, something the EPA has been unable to do, signals the beginning of a process to assess the environmental cost of "wildwest" drilling and fracking.  This study relates to drinking water contamination.  The other area where reports are also circulating about the environmental cost of fracking is the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.

The U.S. is predicted to become the biggest oil producer in the world, ahead of Saudi.  This is largely because of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and other well stimulation techniques, both for natural gas and oil.  There are over half a million natural gas wells in the U.S.  There are even wells at the Forth Worth airport to give you a feel for how ubiquitous they are in parts of the U.S. and Alberta.  "Unconventional oil and gas" as fracking is often referred to has become a significant part of the U.S. economy employing millions.

But the environmental cost of fracking remains uncertain.  In 2005 Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was an omnibus energy bill (that among many other things changed daylight savings time in the US).  Among the provisions of the bill was one (the so-called "Halliburton loophole") that exempted hydraulic fracturing from protections under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act, which means that fracking has never been regulated at the federal level (EPA).

The 2005 bill, which was passed during the GW Bush administration, prevented the EPA from doing any assessment of the environmental impact of "wild west" drilling and fracking.  However, in the last few years so many reports (and a film) have been circulating about water contamination from fracking that Congress authorized the EPA to do a study of the impact of fracking on drinking water quality. 

Needless to say there is a lot of money and jobs involved.  Hence, the study was very controversial and the oil/gas companies did not cooperate.   Based on the limited evidence the EPA was able to collect, the study's draft executive summary said that it had not found evidence of "systemic, widespread effects on drinking water".  But even the study's Science Advisory Board (SAB) disagreed with the conclusion, saying the evidence did suggest a wider problem.

Now a study by academics from Stanford in a peer-reviewed journal (Environ. Sci. Technol.,March 29, 2016, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04970) has confirmed that fracking did pollute an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyoming.  The authors state "that they have, for the first time, demonstrated impact to Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs) as a result of hydraulic fracturing."

The study involved a comprehensive analysis of all publicly available data and reports to evaluate the impact to underground drinking water sources as a result of acid stimulation (pumping acids into a well to stimulate the flow of gas or oil) and hydraulic fracturing in the Pavillion, WY, Field.  The study found that the concentrations of major ions such as chloride in samples of water from the geology surrounding wells were outside the expected levels for the aquifer, in other words, injected water and chemicals had leaked into the surrounding rock. They also found direct evidence of  leakoff of stimulation fluids into surrounding rock and inadequate casings during stimulation at several production wells.  The authors concluded that acid stimulation and fracking had impacted (polluted) the aquifer.

 

Furthermore, the authors found evidence of organic chemicals used for well stimulation in samples from two monitoring wells that had been drilled by EPA.  This was interpreted as additional evidence of impact to the aquifer and indicated that the chemicals had migrated upwards into the aquifer used for drinking water.

 

They also compiled well depths at which stimulation and fracking occurred and compared them to to the depths of drinking water wells. They found that well stimulation occurred many times at less than 500 meters from the surface and, in some cases, at or very close to depths of the deepest domestic wells.   This is evidence of shallow hydraulic fracturing, which has been shown to be of higher risk to drinking water sources than deeper hydraulic fracturing,  especially given the issues found and documented in several wells in the Pavillion field.

 

In addition they  found evidence of diesel range and other organic chemicals in domestic wells less than 600 meters from unlined pits that had been used prior to the mid-1990s to dispose of diesel-fuel based drilling mud and production fluids.

And because there is nothing especially unique about the geology and drilling around Pavillion, the study suggested that this is likely evidence of a wider problem, "given the high frequency of injection of stimulation fluids into USDWs..., it is unlikely that impact to USDWs is limited to the Pavillion Field requiring investigation elsewhere."

The problem is likely poor drilling practices and management of "produced water" because of lax or no regulation.  If the drillers neglect to put in concrete casings or if they are insufficient and leak, then the chemicals (including known carcinogens) injected into the well can get into drinking water sources.  If the water returning to the surface containing a variety of chemicals (produced water) is stored in unlined ponds as it used to be, this can also get into drinking water sources.

U.S. Administration targets methane emissions from fracking and other sources

Methane is one of the more potent greenhouse gases for global warming.  In June, 2013, President Obama issued a Climate Action Plan to cut the pollution contributing to climate change. An important part of the strategy involves cutting domestic greenhouse gas emissions. In March, 2014 the Administration issued Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions, which outlined steps to cut methane emissions.  The administration estimates that implementing this strategy could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 90 million tonnes in 2020.  The administration expects that this initiative will make an important contribution to meeting the Administration goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 % below 2005 levels by 2020.

Methane warming power

There is disagreement as to just how much more potent methane is than CO₂ in warming the atmosphere.  The EPA has estimated a factor of  21 times compared to carbon dioxide. But Robert Howarth, an environmental biology professor at Cornell University, has argued that it is actually 72 times as powerful as carbon dioxide in terms of its warming potential. 

Methane leaks from oil wells and natural gas wells and systems

In the United States the EPA estimates that emissions of methane directly from human sources were equivalent to approximately 560 million tonnes of carbon dioxide pollution (assuming that methane's warming potential is 21 times that of carbon dioxide) in 2012, representing 9 % of all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity. Methane emissions are projected to increase to a level equivalent to over 620 million tonnes of carbon dioxide pollution in 2030.  The main sources of human-related methane emissions are agriculture (36 percent), natural gas systems (23 percent), landfills (18 percent), coal mining (10 percent), petroleum systems (6 percent), and wastewater treatment (2 percent).

An important area of uncertainty is how much methane is leaking from shale gas and shale oil wells.  Howarth has argued that the type of shale gas drilling taking place in Texas, New York and Pennsylvania generates particularly high emissions of methane. A study has estimated that between 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well.

A recent study has used spatial analysis to investigate the spatial distribution of anthropogenic methane sources in the United States by combining comprehensive atmospheric methane observations, extensive spatial datasets, and a high-resolution atmospheric transport model. Based on the results of this analysis the authors conclude that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) underestimates methane emissions nationally by 50%.  The study found that methane emissions due to the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have larger greenhouse gas impacts than indicated by existing inventories.

A source of methane in the atmosphere are leaks from natural gas distribution systems.  A partnership between the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Google Earth has released the first interactive maps showing methane leaks from gas distribution systems under the streets of Boston, Indianapolis and part of New York City.
 
The Administration's strategy is to target reducing methane emissions from several sources;

• Landfills: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will propose updated standards to reduce methane from new landfills and determine whether to update standards for existing landfills.
• Coal Mines:  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will release an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to gather public input on the development of a program for addressing waste mine methane on lands leased by the Federal government.
• Agriculture: The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) will jointly release a “Biogas Roadmap” outlining voluntary strategies to accelerate adoption of methane digesters to reduce U.S. dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
• Oil and Gas: The EPA will assess several potentially significant sources of methane and other emissions from the oil and gas sector. If EPA decides to develop additional regulations, it will complete those regulations by the end of 2016. In addition the BLM will propose updated standards to reduce venting and flaring from oil and gas production on public lands.   

Improved data collection: The Administration intends to implement better data collection and measurement will to improve the understanding of methane sources and trends and enable more effective reduction of methane emissions.

As part of that strategy in April, 2014, EPA released five technical white papers that present information on potentially significant sources of emissions in the oil and gas sector and options for reducing emissions. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2011 there were an estimated 504,000 producing gas wells and an estimated 536,000 producing oil wells in the U.S.  Natural gas development is expected to increase by 44% from 2011 through 2040 and crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) are projected to increase by approximately 25% through 2019.

Two of the white papers prepared by the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) describe methane emissions due to (1) gas emissions when fracked and refracked oil wells are brought into production and (2) leaks in gas production (natural gas wells including shale gas) , processing and transmission.

Emissions from completions and ongoing production of hydraulically fractured oil wells

One of the activities identified as a potential source of emissions to the atmosphere  during oil development is hydraulically fractured oil well completions which are operations conducted to bring a new fracked oil well into production or to maintain or increase the well’s production capability as a result of refracking.  The EPA white paper estimates of nationally uncontrolled methane emissions from hydraulically fractured oil well completions range from 44,306 tons (40,194 tonnes) per year to 247,000 tons (224,000 tonnes) per year.  There is no data on the proportion of this methane that is vented, flared or captured and sold.

Leaks

Leaks are defined as methane emissions that occur at onshore production, processing and transmission facilities.  It does not include leaks in gas distribution systems (see EDF and Google Earth above). This includes leak emissions from natural gas well pads, oil wells that co-produce natural gas, gathering and boosting stations, gas processing plants, and transmission and storage infrastructure.  The white paper cites estimates of approximately 332,662 tonnes of potential methane leak emissions from gas production, 33,681 tonnes from gas processing, and 114,348 tonnes from gas transmission.

The EPA has just (Jan 29, 2015) issued a call inviting small businesses, governments, and not-for-profit organizations to participate in a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel that will focus on the development of a rule to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases including methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the oil and natural gas industry.  The agency intends to add equipment and processes, including hydraulically fractured oil wells and leaks from new and modified well sites, to those currently covered by existing standards.

EPA plans to propose a rule this summer (2015) and take final action in 2016.

Largest reservoirs of methane

An indirect effect of global warming is the destabilization of methane hydrates by warming ocean currents on the floor of the ocean.  Methane hydrates are the largest reservoir of organic carbon on Earth and there is the potential that the total volume of methane hydrates being destabilized by warming ocean currents could be significant.  Methane is also stored in shallow Arctic reservoirs of peat, such as submarine and terrestrial permafrost, which is also being affected by global warming.

FAA issues grants of exemption for commercial UAV operations for construction monitoring, agriculture, and real estate

In general the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for commercial purposes is illegal in the U.S.  But in the last few months the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issues grants of exemption to six companies for commercial UAVs for general aerial surveys (Trimble, Woolpert) and specifically for construction monitoring (Clayco, Inc), agriculture (Advanced Aviation Solutions), on and offshore oil and gas inspections (VDOS Global), and real estate (Douglas Trudeau, Realtor).

In 2011 the FAA fined a UAV operator $10,000 for flying a radio-controlled airplane recklessly over the University of Virginia campus to make a commercial for the University.  Early in 2014 a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Judge ruled that the FAA ban on flying UAVs was not legally binding. The judge said that the FAA had historically exempted model aircraft from the statutory definitions of aircraft.  March 7 the FAA issued a notice saying that it was appealing the decision to the full National Transportation Safety Board.  The FAA cited its regulation of  model aircraft under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) which states that “if a model aircraft operator endangers the safety of the National Airspace System, the FAA has the authority to take enforcement action against those operators for those safety violations.”  November 18 the NTSB supported the FAA saying that an unmanned aircraft is subject to enforcement of FAA regulations prohibiting reckless operation of aircraft.

The FAA has issued 14 grants of exemption for commercial operation of UAVs.  The first was to a manufacturer of UAVs used in film production.  The FAA found that a "grant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore ... Astraeus Aerial is granted an exemption ... to the extent necessary to allow Astraeus to  operate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of scripted, closed-set filming for  the motion picture and television industry."

The requirements for operation of the UAV imposed by the FAA are restrictive (Astraeus Aerial Grant of Exemption);

• The UAV must weigh less than 55 pounds.
• The UA can not be flown at a ground speed exceeding 50 knots.
• Flights must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL).
• The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot at all times.
• All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The VO and the pilot must be able to communicate verbally at all times.
• The pilot must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current third-class medical certificate.
• The pilot must have accumulated and logged a minimum of five hours operating the UAV.
• The UAV may not be operated directly (within 500 ft) over any person, except authorized and consenting production personnel.
• Each UAV operation must be completed within 30 minutes flight time or with 25% battery power remaining, whichever occurs first.
• The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to any operations under this grant of exemption.
• The UAV must remain clear and yield the right of way to all other manned operations and activities at all times (ultralight vehicles, parachute activities, parasailing activities, hang gliders, etc.).
• UAV operations may not be conducted at night.
• The UAV may not be operated by a pilot from a moving device or vehicle.
• The UAV may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

This is certainly not going to allow the deployment of long range UAVs like the Silent Falcon with a daytime endurance estimated to be 5 to 12 hours depending on wing configuration, weather, and flight profile. Night-time endurance is estimated at 3 to 5 hours.  For example, equipped with LiDAR this could be used for transmission line monitoring for vegetation management at a much lower cost than a manned helicopter.

December 10 the FAA issued grants of exemption to four additional companies;

• Clayco, Inc. , a general contractor, to operate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of aerial imaging to monitor and ensure safety of construction sites.
• Trimble Navigation Ltd, a provider of advanced location-based solutions, to allow Trimble to operate the UX5 UAS for the special purpose of precision aerial surveys that consist of still photographs taken by an onboard camera.
• VDOS Global, LLC, a provider of aerial inspection services to the on and off-shore oil & gas industry,  to allow VDOS to operate unmanned aircraft systems for the purpose of flare stack inspections on 14 Shell Oil Gulf of Mexico production platforms with all platforms beyond 12 nautical miles of the coast of the United States.
• Woolpert, Inc, a design, geospatial and infrastructure management firm, to allow Woolpert to operate the Altavian Nova Block III unmanned aircraft system for the special purpose of precision aerial surveys that consist of still photographs taken by an onboard camera.

January 5 two more exemptions were granted;

• Douglas Trudeau, a realtor, to operate unmanned aircraft systems for the purpose of aerial videography/cinematography and augment real estate listing videos.
• Advanced Aviation Solutions to operate unmanned aircraft systems for the purpose of aerial imagery to support agriculture.

IEA projects investment of $48 to $53 trillion in energy through 2035

Currently investment in energy is about $1.6 trillion per year.  Most of today’s investment spending, well over $1 trillion per year, is spent on extracting, transporting, and refining fossil fuels or building coal and gas-fired power plants. Renewables, together with biofuels and nuclear power, account for around 15% of annual investment flows. Investment in power transmission and distribution networks account for another 15%.  Annual spending on energy efficiency is about $130 billion today.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that more than $48 trillion in cumulative investment will be required from now through 2035 just to meet the world's increasing energy demand. More than half of the energy-supply investment is needed just to keep production at today’s levels, to make up for declining oil and gas fields and to replace aging power plants and other equipment.

Around $40 trillion is required in energy supply  
$23 trillion is in fossil fuel extraction, transport and oil refining
$10 trillion is in power generation
- renewables ($6 trillion)
- nuclear ($1 trillion)
$7 trillion in transmission and distribution.

and $8 trillion is required in energy efficiency.

$7.2 trillion in the transport and buildings sectors.

The current annual investment of $1.6 trillion per year needs to increase to about $2 trillion.  Annual spending on energy efficiency needs to rise from $130 billion today to more than $550 billion by 2035. These goals will require attracting private investors and capital.  But this investment will not come close to reaching the climate stabilization target of 2 °C.

Achieving 450 ppm CO2 or 2 °C

The IEA estimates that $53 trillion in cumulative investment in energy supply and efficiency is required by 2035 to get the world onto a 2 °C emissions path. This will require a much greater investment estimated at $14 trillion in efficiency to lower 2035 energy consumption by almost 15%. Energy supply investment remains at $40 trillion, but  investment shifts from away from fossil fuels to the power sector. The investment in low-carbon energy supply will need to increase to almost $900 billion and spending on energy efficiency will have to exceed $1 trillion per year by 2035.

IEA projects net $71 trilllion savings in fuels costs from decarbonizing world's energy over next 40 years

In its latest Energy Technology Perspectives 2014 (ETP 2014) the International Energy Agency (IEA) looked at the energy sector over the next 40 years.  ETP 2014 analyses three possible energy futures to 2050:

• 6°C Scenario (6DS) - where the IEA projects the world is now heading based on existing policies
• 4°C Scenario (4DS) - this scenario reflects the stated intentions by countries to cut emissions and boost energy efficiency
• 2°C Scenario (2DS) - this scenario is based on technological change tht results in a sustainable energy system with reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

In the 6°C scenario global energy demand is projected to grow by 70% over 2011 levels.  Concomitantly emissions are projected to grow by more than 60% over 2011 levels. 

Under the same projections for population and gross domestic product, the introduction of new technology and radical policy action in the 2°C scenario dramatically improves energy efficiency to limit increases in demand by 25% while emissions are cut by more than 50%.  The major sources of reduced energy demand and reduced carbon are (% of cumulative emissions reductions)

• End-use fuel and electricity efficiency 38%
• Renewables 30%
• CCS 14%
• End-use fuel switching 9%
• Power generation efficiency and fuel switching 2%

A major difference between the 2°C and 6°C scenarios is that in the 6°C scenario oil remains the most important primary energy source with demand increasing by 45%.  In contrast in the 2°C scenario new policies and technologies reduce oil demand by 30%.

In the ETP 2014 the IEA makes the case that there is a significant financial benefit in addition to environmental and social benefits from decarbonizing the energy system.  The IEA estimates that  US$ 44 trillion in additional investment in energy infrastructure is required to decarbonize the energy system inline with the 2°C scenario by 2050.   But the IEA forcasts that this expenditure is more than offset by over US$ 115 trillion in fuel savings.  The result is a net savings of US$ 71 trillion (assuming no discount).  With a 10% discount rate, the net savings are still more than US$ 5 trillion.

Bridging the generation gap for spatially-enabled asset management

I've blogged many times about the aging workforce challenge facing many industries.  At the SPAR International conference Wayne Rodieck of Anadarko Petroleum outlined what this means to the oil and gas industry and how he is uing IT to bridge the generation gap.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is projecting that by 2020 the U.S. will surpas Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer.  US oil and gas production, driven by technologies that are unlocking light tight oil and shale  gas resources, is rising dramatically.  Since 2008 the U.S. oil and gas industry has increased production by 25%.  This expansion has created 1.7 milllion new jobs. 

Most of these have been filled by young workers with no or little experience in oil and gas, but better acquainted with IT technology than the experienced workers who are on the verge of retirement.  As with other industries oil and gas is faced with the challenge of knowledge transfer to enable younger workers to be as productive as possible and to avoid a massive decline in productivity as the older generation retires.

Dr Apostol Panayotov of UC Denver described an online spatially-enabled asset information system at Anadarko that is designed to be accessible to both generations.  It provides a web-based user interface designed to serve up information about equipment on oil and gas facility sites including visual photographs, facility attributes and accurate geolocation.  It is based around point clouds captured by scanning valves, pumping stations, and other oil and gas pipeline infrastructure, but it hides the point cloud behind an intuituve user interface that relies on smart digital photographs of faciltiies.  Clicking on a particular piece of equipment such as a valve, tank, or catwalk in a digital photograph links the user to information about that picece of equipment including geolocation and dimensions, information that is derived from a point cloud.

Wayne described a simple use case which explains what he sees as the critical advantage of this approach.  There is an emergency and at 2:30 am he has to send a young, inexperienced worker out to a site where there are a 120 valves to turn off one of them.  He feels confident that by providing the young worker access to this online system which includes accurate geolocaton that he go to the right site and turn off the right valve.  Equally important the intuitive photograph-based used interface will not put off the experienced workers who are less comfortable with IT systems.

EPA 2012 emissions data for 8000 large emitters in the U.S. shows decrease of 4.5%

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released annual greenhouse gas emissions data for 2012 collected under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).  The program collects annual greenhouse gas information (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, SF₆, NF₃, HFCs, PFCs) from facilities in the largest emitting industries, including power plants, oil and gas production and refining, iron and steel mills, and landfills.  For 2012,  7,809 facilities in nine industry sectors reported direct emissions to the atmosphere.  Total emissions were 3.13 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), about half of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.  This represents a 4.5% decrease from the emissions reported in 2011.  In 2012 the U.S. GDP increased by 2.8%.

Power plants are represented by 1611 facilities in the database.  Together they emitted 2.090 billion tonnes of CO2e in 2012, about 40 percent of total U.S. carbon pollution.  The 2012 GHGRP data show that power plant emissions decreased by 6.3% from 2011 to 2012 or about 10% since 2010 when reporting began.  The EPA ascribes the emissions drop primarily to the switch from coal to natural gas for electricity generation.