29/12/2016

We Need To Accept That Oil Is A Dying Industry

Motherboard - Nafeez Ahmed

Skimming oil in the Gulf of Mexico during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Image: NOAA/Flickr
The future is not good for oil, no matter which way you look at it.
A new OPEC deal designed to return the global oil industry to profitability will fail to prevent its ongoing march toward trillion dollar debt defaults, according to a new report published by a Washington group of senior global banking executives.
But the report also warns that the rise of renewable energy and climate policy agreements will rapidly make oil obsolete, whatever OPEC does in efforts to prolong its market share.
The six-month supply deal brokered with non-OPEC members, including Russia, could slash global oil stockpiles by 139 million barrels. The move is a transparent effort to kick prices back up in a weakening oil market where low prices have led industry profits to haemorrhage.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), whose members include major producers from Saudi Arabia to Venezuela, have been hit particularly badly by the weak oil market. In 2014, OPEC had a collective surplus of $238 billion. By 2015, as prices continued to plummet, so did profits, and OPEC faced a deficit of $100 billion.
The immediate impact of the deal was a 4 percent price rally that saw Brent crude (the benchmark price for worldwide oil prices) rise to $56.64, its highest since mid-July. But according to Michael Bradshaw, Professor of Global Energy at Warwick Business School, a price hike would not solve OPEC’s deeper problems. In fact, it could speed up the transition away from oil.
As oil gets more expensive again, there is more incentive to use alternative, cheaper forms of energy.
“The current agreement is only for 6 months and decisions about investment in oil and gas are based on a 20 to 30 year view of future demand,” Bradshaw told me. “On that time scale, none of the uncertainties are addressed by the current agreement and oil exporting states need a strategy beyond achieving a short-term agreement on production—they need to start preparing for a world after fossil fuels.”
As oil gets more expensive again, there is more incentive to use alternative, cheaper forms of energy—like solar photovoltaics, which can now generate more energy than oil for every unit of energy invested.
“They will also incentivise more unconventional oil production that will challenge OPEC production. Clearly there is a balance to be struck and it is not a return to $100 a barrel,” Bradshaw said.
He warns that higher prices might kick-start US tight oil production, which would increase competition with OPEC, making the production cut agreement moot. They also might add “inflationary pressures in the economy” that could prolong sluggish economic growth. Both factors could end up keeping prices lower than OPEC wants.
“We are not in a business as usual world,” Bradshaw said. “Higher prices for oil and gas will drive investment in efficiency and demand reduction and also substitution, so they may actually promote structural demand destruction.”
It’s not just OPEC that needs to be prepared. A report published in October by the Group of 30 (G30), a Washington DC-based financial advisory group run by executives of the world’s biggest banks, warns investors that the entire global oil industry has expanded on the basis of an unsustainable debt bubble.
The oil industry’s long-term debts now total over $2 trillion.
G30’s leadership includes heads and former chiefs of the European Central Bank, JP Morgan Chase International, and the Bank for International Settlements.
The industry’s long-term debts now total over $2 trillion, the report concludes, half of which “will never be repaid because the issuing firms comprehend neither how dramatically their industry has changed nor how these changes threaten to soon engulf them.”
The report is authored by Philip Verleger, a former economic advisor to President Ford who went on to head up the US Treasury’s Office of Energy Policy under President Carter, and Abdalatif al-Hamad, Director General of the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.
Its main finding is that permanent shifts in global energy markets will inevitably overwhelm oil companies, along with all economies which depend primarily on fossil fuel production. The attempt to rally prices, the report confirms, is a somewhat futile effort to avoid a major debt crisis by lifting revenues.
But it won’t work because the global oil industry is in denial about the bigger trends disrupting energy markets as we know them. Oil majors, the report says, are holding on to a number of fatal delusions.
They believe that the oil price decline is “transitory”; that oil consumption will grow despite ongoing economic stagnation; that the industry will be magically immune to public and policy demands to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; that technological progress will never be able to “displace fossil fuels such as oil”; and, finally, that fracking will not produce enough supply to undermine OPEC’s market monopoly.
Oil majors, the report says, are holding on to a number of fatal delusions.
But if these assumptions are wrong: “They represent an ossified industry that will gradually fade away [and] hundreds of billions if not trillions in debt issued by these firms and countries may never be repaid.”
So what’s the alternative? Instead of tinkering with production quotas, Bradshaw said: “They [oil producing countries] should also be promoting greater energy efficiency and renewable energy in their domestic economies to preserve their exportable surplus as some will struggle otherwise due to rapidly increasing domestic demand.”
To its credit Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 plan is a step toward this. But a HSBC research note in May found that the plan would not do enough to avoid the kingdom entering “a protracted period of marked economic decline.”
In the meantime, a trillion dollar collapse in the oil market is coming because oil simply cannot compete with new energy technologies. If Bradshaw is right, then OPEC’s efforts to 'shock' the markets into boosting prices are only going to prolong the fossil fuel pain.

Links

Transforming Waste Into Fuel With Australian Innovations, From Tyres To Sugar Cane And Agave

The Guardian

The emerging biofuel industry is casting the net wide to find solutions to two environmental problems: reducing waste and increasing fuel production
A worker drives an excavator next to mountains of used tyres on a dump in Spain. An Australian company has developed technology to produce oil from disused tyres. Photograph: Pablo Blazquez Dominguez/Getty Images
In a world of dwindling resources, waste is one thing in no danger of running out. Each Australian generates more than 2,000kg of waste per year, and around half of that ends up in landfill. But at least some of that waste could be turned into a resource that is both in demand and in decline: fuel.
The global waste-to-fuel industry is considering options as varied as agave, plastics and disused tyres to solve two environmental problems – reducing waste and increasing fuel production.
Landfill and agricultural wastes are already burned to generate heat and electricity, and methane is captured from landfill for the same purpose, but these technologies are both relatively low-hanging fruit.
A greater challenge is the production of liquid fuel that can be readily and reliably substituted for conventional petrol or diesel. The Queensland government’s recently appointed biofutures ambassador, Prof Ian O’Hara, says waste-to-fuel is a promising area.
“It is a new industry, so there are all the challenges associated with developing supply chains, building networks and developing technologies to convert products to fuels that meet quality standards and are cost-effective,” says O’Hara, also professor of biofuels and biorefining at Queensland University of Technology. “But fuel demand is growing in many industries and there is an opportunity to supply into that growing demand.”
There are three main categories of waste that have the potential to be converted to suitable fuels.
The first is crop wastes such as the fibrous sugar cane waste known as bagasse. Currently, bagasse is mostly burned to generate power, but it could be used to produce biofuel.
“The residues of existing crops offer a lot of opportunity because we’ve got very large-scale resources and the material is often already located at a facility which is operated maybe year-round,” O’Hara says.
Bagasse-based biofuel production could take place where the feedstock is found, which O’Hara says could be a significant contributor to regional and rural economies.
Recognising this, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency has just announced investment of $2.37m in an advanced biofuels laboratory being built near Gladstone in southern Queensland by Southern Oil Refining. The $16m pilot plant is scheduled to open next year and aims to transform bagasse and prickly acacia waste into one million litres of kerosene and diesel within three years.
The second category of waste-to-fuel isn’t so much about using waste as using wasteland to grow crops that can then be converted to biofuels. These tend to be crops that don’t have many other uses, but which are hardy enough to be grown on even the most marginal land.
One of these crops is agave – better known as the main ingredient in Mexican tequila. It’s a desert crop that can grow in low-rainfall conditions on land suitable for little else. University of Adelaide researchers have found it’s also energy-rich and could produce bioethanol at a rate that rivals existing bioethanol feedstocks such as sugar cane. And before tequila drinkers panic, this process would use the waste leaves of the plant, not the succulent core used to make the distilled liquor.
The third category of waste-to-fuel aims to make use of municipal and industrial waste – the stuff that clogs landfill sites.
Waste tyres are one environmental eyesore that the federal government recently targeted with its tyre product stewardship scheme, which promotes “the development of viable markets for end-of-life tyres”.
Australian startup Green Distillation Technologies has developed the means to produce around 3,000 litres of oil from a single seven-tonne mining truck tyre. Its recycling process involves heating the tyre rubber in a low-oxygen environment, which produces a vapour that is condensed into oil.
Prof Richard Brown, director of the QUT Biofuel Engine Research Facility, says tyres have a significant energy advantage over agricultural waste.
“Sugar cane waste or wheat stubble or what’s left over after cropping might have 10-15 megajoules per kilogram,” Brown says. “Tyres are probably double that, they’re quite high and so it’s much easier to make them into something like a diesel or petrol fuel.”
Tyre oil does have slightly less embedded energy than conventional diesel, but it also seems to have a better emissions profile, producing less nitrogen oxide and fine particulates. A single tyre processing plant is expected to deal with around 685,000 tyres per year and produce 7,360 tonnes of oil from those tyres, as well as 7,000 tonnes of carbon and 2,000 tonnes of steel.
Another global environment issue is waste plastic. Plastic bottles, wrappers, film and containers are an eyesore that blights every inhabited corner of the world, but they’re also a valuable feedstock.
“Wherever there’s people, there’s this plastic problem,” says Bevan Dooley, chief executive of Integrated Green Energy. “By converting it to fuel, we stop more oil being taken out of the ground.”
Integrated Green Energy has developed a method of processing all forms of waste plastic, excluding Teflon and PVC, to produce petrol and diesel that meets Australian and international fuel standards. The process itself isn’t unique – it involves heating the plastic to 400C in a low-oxygen environment – but Dooley says the innovation is in making a pure product that can be used in any engine.
“A lot of your engine manufacturers build their equipment based around certain fuel parameters and those fuel parameters are reflected in the diesel standard,” Dooley says. “The challenge we wanted to overcome was extraction of the minute amounts of impurities that means that we meet the standard all the time.”Having proven its technology in a demonstration facility in Berkley Vale, NSW, the company is now looking to build a full-scale commercial operation in Canberra. It is also partnering with a US company to build up to 10 commercial facilities in the United States.
A single plant is capable of processing around 50 tonnes of plastic per day and producing 50,000 litres of petrol and diesel combined. The waste plastic feedstock needs to be shredded and washed, but the plant is at least partly powered by the liquid petroleum gas that is a byproduct of the process. Dooley says with GST and excise added, the fuel would retail for slightly less than regular diesel, but he stresses this is without relying on any kind of government subsidies.
Brown says biofuels could be a valuable supplement to the existing petroleum industry and contribute to diversification of energy supply, but would benefit from government incentives and policies to encourage the nascent industry on the road to economic sustainability.
“We’ve had a petroleum industry for about 100 years and they’ve got an infrastructure, oil refineries, tankers – the whole thing is all set up so they are doing good on a large scale and their cost per unit of production is very low,” he says. “Biofuel companies are doing small volumes, and they have high overheads so it’s much harder to penetrate into the market.”

Links

What Role For The States On Climate And Energy Policy? NSW Enters The Fray

The ConversationAnna Bruce | Graham Mills Iain MacGill

Renewable energy targets were a controversial topic at a recent COAG meeting between the Prime Minister, State Premiers and Territory Chief Ministers. AAP Image/Lukas Coch
We’re currently having a national conversation about climate and energy, with reviews of climate policy and the National Electricity Market underway. Up for debate is how the states and federal government will share these responsibilities.
Following the recent statewide blackout in South Australia, the federal government pointed the finger at Labor states’ “aggressive”, “unrealistic” and “ideological” renewable energy targets.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews returned: “Rather than peddle mistruths, Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce should start providing some national leadership and focus on developing a renewable vision beyond 2020.”
It might seem to be yet another partisan, ideological stoush between a Liberal federal government and three Labor state governments.
However, the Liberal-led New South Wales government has now also entered the fray, with a 2050 emissions target that will almost certainly require complete decarbonisation of the electricity sector within the next 25 years.
And to achieve this, renewables will have a key, many would argue overwhelming, role to play.

What are the states already doing?
NSW released its climate policy framework in November, joining Victoria, South Australia and the ACT with an aspirational target to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.
While NSW didn’t announce a renewable target, the majority of states now have one. Queensland is seeking 50% renewable generation by 2030, Victoria 40% by 2025 and South Australia 50% by 2025.
Tasmania’s generation is already mostly renewable (albeit mostly conventional hydro generation). The Australian Capital Territory looks set to achieve 100% renewables by 2020 and the Northern Territory has announced a 50% target for 2030.
At present, the federal government has a renewable energy target of around 23.5% renewable electricity by 2020 and a 2030 target of 26-28% greenhouse emission reductions from 2005 levels. These ambitions fall way below those of the states.
And way below the almost complete electricity sector decarbonisation by 2040 that the International Energy Agency says is required globally to avoid dangerous global warming.

What does the law say?
Constitutionally, energy policy in Australia is a matter for state governments. The development and implementation of the National Electricity Market over the past two decades has been achieved through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), with harmonised legislation in each state.
State governments therefore have the constitutional scope to act both independently and in consort to achieve clean energy related goals.
Whether they should choose to do this, however, is another question. There is an obvious national context including Australia’s participation in international climate change processes such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
National policy coherence also has value in avoiding uncoordinated policies that can adversely impact investment incentives, increase compliance costs, and generally lead to less efficient outcomes.
While suitably ambitious, nationally consistent, legislation under federal government leadership may be ideal, it hardly seems realistic at present. The apparent divisions within the federal government seem likely to prevent useful progress, even with the two reviews.
It might well be a choice between state leadership or very little leadership over the next few years. And these years will be key to setting Australia on a clean energy path fit for the future.

New South Wales’ climate plan
The NSW climate change policy framework proposes to meet the net zero target through a number of policy “directions” to reduce emissions. It also proposes adaptation measures to cope with the warming that is already underway.
The emission reduction directions include: enhancing investment certainty for renewables; boosting energy productivity (energy efficiency); capturing other benefits of reducing emissions (such as improved health from reduced air pollution) and managing the risks; and growing new industries in NSW.
These are to be advanced through government policy, government operations, and advocacy. Specific initiatives are to be outlined in a set of action plans, including a climate change fund and an energy efficiency plan, which are currently under consultation.
A further advanced energy plan will be developed in 2017. This will include provisions for the future role of renewable energy. Clearly the government will not be able to achieve its aspirational emissions target in the absence of a transformation of the energy system, so how will renewable energy figure in the absence of a state target?
While we can’t preempt the plan, the policy framework defines advanced energy to not only cover renewable generation itself but also how it is integrated into industry structures and adopted by end users.
Given the importance of integration in transitioning the energy system, such a broad focus could usefully complement the activities of other states as well as NSW.
The policy also emphasises collaborating with the commonwealth and other states through COAG.

NSW: a climate advocate?
Combined state action has historically played a key role in federal climate policy. It was bottom up pressure from states that resulted in the Howard government’s initial emissions trading scheme (ETS) proposal in 2007.
The Garnaut review that formed the basis of Kevin Rudd’s ETS was originally commissioned by Labor state governments.
On this point SA Premier Jay Wetherill has taken the lead in calling for a national emissions trading scheme to be implemented through harmonised legislation at a state level.
While this seems unlikely to be a feature of NSW’s advocacy in 2017, continued failure by the federal government to advance climate and energy policy might require such types of coordinated state efforts.
In this light, state government efforts do not appear “ideological”. That would seem to better describe the federal government’s present opposition to even exploring promising emission reduction options.
And while it is too soon to know if NSW’s climate policy is fit for the future, it certainly represents welcome progress, and provides a basis that can be built upon.

Links