Friday, September 01, 2023

The Science Behind A Cleaner, Greener Pipeline System

  • The research team used nonlinear partial differential equations to model the transport of a mixture of hydrogen and natural gas through pipeline systems, considering variables like pressure and flow rates.

  • Their findings suggest that limiting the rate at which hydrogen is injected into natural gas pipelines can prevent sudden, large changes in pressure, thus enabling safe and predictable operations.

  • Despite the advantages of hydrogen as a clean fuel, the article points out challenges such as "hydrogen embrittlement," where hydrogen soaks into steel, making it brittle and potentially dangerous under high pressure.

Los Alamos National Laboratory researchers are reporting that mathematical modeling can show how to safely blend hydrogen with natural gas for transport in existing pipeline systems. A secure and reliable transition to hydrogen is one of the proposed solutions for the shift to a net-zero-carbon economy.

Anatoly Zlotnik, a co-author of a new paper on the modeling in the journal PRX Energy. Zlotnik, a mathematician at Los Alamos National Laboratory, has expertise in modeling, designing and controlling energy-transmission systems briefly explained, “Mixing hydrogen into a natural gas pipeline changes how the gases flow, which will create new conditions for operators. Our modeling shows that injecting hydrogen gradually into a natural gas pipeline network allows safe, predictable operations.”

According to the paper, Zlotnik and his Los Alamos colleagues used nonlinear partial differential equations to develop the model for transporting heterogeneous mixtures of natural gas and hydrogen through pipeline systems. The infrastructure modeling includes compressor and regulator units, supply stations that inject gas into the network at defined pressure and hydrogen blends, and flow stations that withdraw the mixture from the network.

Solving challenges to pipeline operation

 Transporting hydrogen in existing natural gas pipeline networks would enable operators to maximize the utility of these extensive and expensive facilities as part of a strategy to reduce carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Hydrogen is much lighter than natural gas, which is mostly methane, so blending them challenges pipeline operation in new ways.

The Los Alamos team’s mathematical modeling determined that limiting the rate of change of hydrogen injection into a natural gas pipeline will prevent large, rapid changes in pressures. The team’s methods for simulating a pipeline network could allow operators to develop standards on injection rates.

Hydrogen offers several advantages as a clean fuel that doesn’t emit carbon dioxide. In a fuel cell, hydrogen plus oxygen create electricity to power cars, trucks and facilities. Hydrogen can also be blended with natural gas for use in appliances such as household furnaces and dryers, or it can be burned to power manufacturing facilities or generate electricity.

***

Getting a method in hand to handle the pressure variances that occur when pumping the very light hydrogen into a heavier gas is a critical improvement. A mixed gas system seems to be a very good idea.

There remains the hydrogen embrittlement of steel problem. Its no small problem, either. Hydrogen under pressure in a simple steel vessel just soaks into the steel, like hydrogen seems to soak into about everything when contained under pressure. To get appreciable volumes the pressure needs to be quite high. Over time the hydrogen simply makes the steel a brittle hydrogen alloy and could become easily fragmented. High pressures in a fragmentable vessel offers a quite unpleasant possibility.

It would really be better to alloy the hydrogen to some carbon and cut or eliminate the pressure and the destruction of the storage vessels with the possible consequences.

Water Woes Cloud Green Hydrogen's Future In The Middle East

  • Green hydrogen, produced using renewable energy, is gaining traction as a clean fuel, but its production can be environmentally damaging in regions with water scarcity.

  • Countries like Saudi Arabia and Tunisia require large-scale desalination for green hydrogen production, which is a dirty, energy-intensive process with irreversible ecological impact.

  • The EU’s green transition plans depend heavily on green hydrogen produced in water-scarce regions, which undermines the fuel's clean image and puts pressure on low-income countries.

A host of energy companies and governments around the globe are backing green hydrogen as the next big renewable energy source. The fuel is highly popular as it can be used to decarbonise the transportation sector, which is notoriously hard to make clean. It could also be used in highly polluting industries. As 1kg of hydrogen contains around three times as much energy as 1kg of petrol, it is viewed by many as a super-fuel for the green transition. But despite much optimism around the energy source, some are now accusing companies of exaggerating the cleanness of green hydrogen when produced in certain settings. 

Green hydrogen is typically made using clean energy from surplus renewable energy sources, like wind or solar power, to split water into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis. It differs from grey hydrogen, which is derived from fossil fuels. By the end of 2021, around 1 percent of global hydrogen production was green. The reason this figure was so low was due to the high costs associated with green hydrogen production, compared to grey or brown hydrogen production. 

Following the recent COP climate summits, and the push from several governments around the world to move away from fossil fuels in support of a green transition, more and more companies are investing in green hydrogen projects. Energy firms are developing huge green hydrogen plants in various areas of the world, while governments and regional organisations are developing major transport corridors for the clean fuel.

While developing the green hydrogen industry sounds like a good way to cut carbon and produce clean energy, it is highly important to consider where this hydrogen is being made. Green hydrogen production requires vast amounts of water, which is fairly easy to supply in regions such as Europe and North America, but less so in areas of drought, such as the Middle East and parts of Africa. Producing green hydrogen in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Tunisia requires the large-scale desalination of seawater to provide water for the production process.

While Europe is currently leading in green hydrogen production, several countries in the Middle East hope to soon compete to become world leaders in clean hydrogen output. Meanwhile, energy companies are investing in projects in low-income countries, such as Tunisia, where they can produce the high-cost energy source for cheaper. This makes sense, apart from the fact that developing projects in arid countries may make the hydrogen less green. 

The EU views Tunisia, one of the driest countries in Africa, as key to producing green hydrogen for export to Europe. It is easy to produce the solar power needed for electrolysis from the abundant sun rays available in the country, but it is less easy to source the water needed for the process. To acquire the water needed for green hydrogen production, companies must use and desalinate water from the Mediterranean Sea. However, a 2022 report for the Heinrich Böll Foundation showed that this is typically a dirty, energy-intensive, water-guzzling process. In Tunisia, it is thought that the degradation of marine ecosystems from the toxic sludge produced by desalination facilities would be irreversible. Further, it once again shifts reliance to some of the world’s poorest countries to provide energy for high-income countries. 

At present, the EU’s green deal depends heavily on green hydrogen production in North Africa and Ukraine to deliver on its pledge to cut 55 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Companies are setting up projects in low-income countries due to the high costs associated with producing green hydrogen. Until the EU or state governments can offer major subsidies to European projects, like those being seen under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in the U.S., firms are unlikely to be willing to invest in home-grown hydrogen projects. 

While it is important to invest in renewable energy projects in low-income countries to help reduce reliance on fossil fuels, help develop their economies, and support a green transition, it is important to ensure that “green” projects promote strong ESG values and provide wholly clean energy. Calling a project green simply because it uses a green process to provide the end project when the earlier processes were polluting or detrimental to the environment or residents of a country, is a slippery slope to endorsing even more greenwashing in the energy industry.

To effectively develop the green hydrogen industry, governments across regions of the world with large freshwater sources must develop national policies that promote the development of the industry, as well as provide subsidies and favourable tax frameworks to encourage new green hydrogen projects. The rapid expansion of the sector and greater investment in innovative technologies will help drive down the high costs associated with green hydrogen, to ensure production is clean and make the clean fuel source more widely available. 

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Cartels Take Over As Ecuador's New Power Brokers

  • Ecuador has been swept into a drug-related violence crisis, exacerbated by its strategic location between the world's largest cocaine producers, Colombia and Peru.

  • The recent assassination of presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio and other politicians has intensified the country's already fraught political climate, leading to a state of emergency declaration by President Guillermo Lasso.

  • The upcoming presidential run-off in October 2023 between Luisa González and Daniel Noboa comes at a critical time for Ecuador, a country struggling to address its economic, political, and security issues amid skyrocketing cocaine trafficking.


Ecuador, once an island of peace in the strife-torn Northern Andean region of South America, is caught in the midst of drug-fueled violence, which is exacerbating a long-running political crisis. In an unprecedented event, presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio was shot down by a Colombian gunman when leaving an August 2023 campaign rally. That occurred after government officials and local politicians were attacked and even murdered over the last year by gangs battling to control Ecuador’s booming cocaine trade. A confluence of events, including being sandwiched between the world’s largest cocaine producers, Colombia and Peru, along with a deep political and economic crisis, saw Ecuador emerge as a crucial international transshipment point for the narcotic. There are indications of further instability and violence for the once peaceful Andean nation. 

Ecuador’s presidential election went ahead on Sunday, August 27, 2023, under tight security after rightwing President Guillermo Lasso declared a state of emergency in the wake of Villavicencio’s assassination. Rightwing pro-business Lasso, during his term, has struggled to enact any meaningful and urgently needed economic reforms, with the leftist-dominated National Assembly blocking any attempts to reduce spending and debt at every turn. The legislative body was dissolved by Lasso in May 2023 so as to avoid impeachment on accusations of embezzlement, triggering a general election. Leading leftist candidate and one-time lawmaker Luisa González, a protégé of former President Rafael Correa who was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for corruption in 2020, has emerged as the front runner. After a close vote, there will be an October 2023 run-off between González and center-right businessman Daniel Noboa to decide who will rule Ecuador until May 2025, which is the remaining part of Lasso’s four-year term. 

González is campaigning on a traditional leftist platform, mirroring that of her mentor Correa, with a focus on increased spending for social programs and public infrastructure to reduce poverty. That, in conjunction with a crackdown on corruption, forms the primary elements of her plans to resurrect Ecuador’s economy and tackle rising violence by reducing poverty. Noboa, on the other hand, plans to provide financial incentives, such as tax breaks, to attract greater business investment to restart a stalled economy and solve spiraling crime by deploying Ecuador’s military alongside the police, a strategy used in neighboring Colombia. The outcome of this election will be important for a country grappling with a weak economy and struggling to contain escalating violence driven by cocaine trafficking. Nevertheless, the victorious candidate will only have a short time to implement policies, a mere one and a half years, making it almost impossible to effect meaningful change that can effectively tackle Ecuador’s economic, political and security dilemmas.

There is considerable conjecturer as to how Ecuador emerged as a crucial staging point for cocaine shipments to the U.S. and Europe. Firstly, it is all about location, with Ecuador sandwiched between the world’s largest cocaine producers, Colombia, a lawless country locked in a decades-long multiparty low-level asymmetric conflict, and Peru. The Andean country’s ports and export-reliant economy, where petroleum, shrimp and banana are the top exports, provide a convenient method for shipping concealed loads of cocaine to key markets in North America, Europe and Oceania. Years of political crisis, which intensified after Correa left office, a flailing economy along with a weak, fiscally drained state, and endemic corruption all provided fertile ground for organized crime to gain a solid foothold in Ecuador

Another key reason is the 2017 demobilization of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC – Spanish initials). The leftist guerillas, up until the 2016 peace accord, controlled vast sections of Ecuador’s porous northern border, particularly in the northern provinces of Esmeraldas and Sucumbios, which are the primary entry points for coca paste, cocaine and other illicit goods. Indeed, a major trafficking route operates between Colombia’s Pacific port of Tumaco, a long coca-cultivating hotspot, and Ecuador’s remote northern town of San Lorenzo in Esmeraldas province. The FARC regulated much of the cocaine trafficking in Ecuador’s northern border region, which has long been a hotbed of conflict, illicit activity and smuggling. 

At times, various elements of the FARC, including senior leaders, sought refuge in northern Ecuador, which exasperated Colombia. Quito, for years, especially during Correa’s term in office from 2007 to 2017, maintained an uneasy but stable relationship with the leftist guerillas. That association allowed Ecuador to avoid direct conflict with the FARC, which, even during the 2010s, when their strength was waning and were incapable of securing a major battlefield victory, still had an estimated 14,000 armed combatants. This uneasy truce ended when the 2016 peace agreement was ratified by Colombia’s Congress on December 1, 2016, and the FARC started demobilizing, which was completed on August 15, 2017.

The FARC’s demobilization created a power vacuum in many parts of rural Colombia, particularly in the south along Ecuador’s northern border. This triggered a rush by smaller illegal bands to fill the void left by what had been the largest guerilla movement in South America. Competition for control of Colombia’s coca-cultivating hotspots in the southern departments of Nariño and Putumayo and lucrative smuggling routes along Ecuador’s northern border departments of Esmeraldas and Sucumbios saw a sharp rise in violence. 

There are frequent clashes in the region between bands of FARC dissidents, those guerrillas who refused to accept the 2016 peace treaty, paramilitary groups and the National Liberation Army (ELN – Spanish initials) as they scramble to gain control of coca fields, cocaine laboratories and smuggling routes. Those illegal groups finance their activities by participating in various parts of the cocaine supply chain, including processing coca leaves, converting coca paste into cocaine and smuggling the narcotic to key markets. 

Colombia and Peru’s soaring cocaine production, which hit another all-time high in 2021, and record interdictions by authorities are responsible for the massive surge in the volume of coca paste and cocaine flowing into Ecuador. In fact, the Andean country is now such an important transshipment point that it is believed more cocaine flows through Ecuador than any other country in the world. It is estimated up to 800 tons of the narcotic passes through the country annually for shipment to primarily the U.S. and Western Europe. 

Ecuador’s importance as a staging point for cocaine shipments to Europe, which is the second largest market for the narcotic globally, is underscored by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), claiming Ecuador is the largest exporter of cocaine to Europe. The agency’s director in February 2023 said: “Most of the cocaine shipped to Antwerp comes from Colombia, via the port of Guayaquil in Ecuador.” The agency’s statements are supported by a record August 2023 seizure in Spain of 9.5 tons of cocaine concealed in a banana shipment from Ecuador.

Ecuador’s considerable importance as a cocaine transshipment hub motivated various criminal organizations, including European crime groups and Mexican cartels, to establish a strategic position in the country. This was achieved by making alliances with local prisons and street gangs. This is further fueling the violence sweeping across Ecuador, with those criminal groups resorting to bribery, extortion and even the murder of public officials to conduct their illegal activities. Tragically, Ecuador’s homicide rate is spiraling out of control at a terrifying pace, soaring almost fivefold between 2018 and 2022 to 25.9 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. This ranks Ecuador as the third most violent country in South America, behind Colombia in second place with 26.1 homicides and Venezuela ranking first with 40.4 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. 

Government officials, including police and prosecutors, politicians and elected representatives, are being targeted by the gangs vying for control of Ecuador’s lucrative cocaine trade. This has not only led to heightened institutional corruption, which Villavicencio was known for rooting out, but also a litany of assassinations and attempted murders of public officials. These included the assassination of the Mayor of coastal resort town Manta, a state prosecutor in a town near Guayaquil, the city at the heart of the violence, and the organizer for presidential candidate González’s Citizens Revolution party.

Whoever wins the October 2023 presidential run-off is facing an extremely challenging term in office with little time to develop and implement effective policy. Ecuador is gripped by a deep political and economic crisis that shows no sign of easing any time soon. That predicament, coupled with the fallout from the 2020 pandemic, was responsible for weakening an already frail state to the point where organized crime not only established a solid foothold but is coopting and even challenging the government. Quito’s extreme indebtedness, coupled with strained finances, makes it near impossible for the next president to significantly bolster spending to tackle Ecuador’s security crisis. If the victorious candidate funds additional spending by slashing costly fuel and other subsidies, existing simmering civil dissent will likely flare into widespread anti-government protests once again.

How Colombia's Booming Cocaine Business Is Driving Rampant Oil Theft

  • Oil theft has soared in Colombia, partially fueled by increased coca cultivation, leading to a scandal involving Ecopetrol, the national oil company.

  • The oil stolen is often converted into a primitive form of gasoline, used in coca processing, contributing to both environmental degradation and the booming drug trade.

  • A network involving businessmen, government officials, and criminal bands has been uncovered, stealing oil worth at least $80 million and causing environmental and economic damage.

Surging petroleum theft is weighing on Colombia’s beaten-down oil industry, which is beset by geopolitical headwinds on all sides. While attacks on energy infrastructure in the strife-torn country have plunged over the last decade, the volume of oil being stolen in Colombia is soaring. In the past, petroleum theft has been blamed on the myriad illegal armed bands operating in Colombia with higher oil prices and soaring demand for gasoline to refine coca leaf, a key step in the manufacturing of cocaine, the key drivers. In a stunning development, a massive scandal concerning the theft of millions of dollars of petroleum from Colombia’s national oil company Ecopetrol, which is 88% state-controlled, was exposed. Petroleum theft is a pressing problem in Colombia, with the volume of crude oil and derivative products being stolen regularly surging to record annual highs over the last few years. 

The theft of crude oil and gasoline from Ecopetrol-controlled pipelines is a lucrative activity for Colombia’s illegal armed groups, especially after petroleum prices spiked in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The primary driver for this phenomenon is the surge in Colombia’s coca cultivation and cocaine production, which hit yet another record high in 2021. The United Nations Office On Drugs And Crime (UNODC) reported that the amount of land under coca cultivation soared by 43% compared to a year earlier to a record 504,000 acres. This, the UNODC asserted, saw a record 1.1 million metric tons of coca leaf cultivated, which had the potential to produce 1,400 metric tons of cocaine hydrochloride, a 14% increase compared to 2020.

It is estimated that up to 75 gallons of gasoline is required to turn 600 kilograms of coca leaf into one kilogram of cocaine. In order to produce 1,400 metric tons of cocaine hydrochloride, somewhere in the order of 110 billion gallons of gasoline is required. 

It was estimated that around a quarter of all gasoline sold in Colombia was destined for use in the processing of coca, but a crackdown by authorities on the sale of fuel for illicit purposes forced criminal bands to look for alternate supplies. This is another reason petroleum theft is spiraling ever higher. Data from the Colombian National Police, quoted by Reuters, shows that in 2022, at least 3,447 barrels of oil per day were stolen, more than double the 1,453 barrels recorded for 2019. A sizable portion of the oil stolen in Colombia is converted into a primitive form of gasoline, known as pategrillo or cricket foot, because of its off-green color in makeshift jungle refineries, which are responsible for considerable pollution and environmental degradation. The rudimentary gasoline is then used in remote jungle laboratories to process coca leaves and power the machinery employed in those facilities.

It is not only the surging demand for gasoline to process coca leaves that is driving the sharp increase in petroleum theft. Higher oil prices, with Brent soaring a whopping 68% in 2021, made petroleum theft a profitable activity that is less risky than cocaine trafficking, which can lead to U.S. extradition and harsh prison sentences. The stolen oil, obtained by applying illicit valves to Colombia’s pipelines, is blended with legitimately sourced petroleum, thereby allowing it to be sold onto international energy markets. This is also a popular strategy for selling U.S.-sanctioned Venezuelan oil typically smuggled into Colombia from Maracaibo. The main target for illegal armed groups is the 479-mile 251,000 barrel per day Caño Limon pipeline, which transports petroleum from oilfields in the department of Arauca to the Caribbean port of Coveñas. The 190-mile 85,000 barrel-per-day Transandino pipeline, connecting the Putumayo Basin to the Pacific port of Tumaco, is also frequently targeted. Both pipelines pass through remote regions, which are hotspots for coca cultivation and controlled by illegal armed groups

In a startling turn of events, Colombia’s police uncovered (Spanish) an organized syndicate comprised of wealthy businessmen, government officials, international shipping companies and criminal bands working in cooperation with the last leftist guerilla group the National Liberation Army (ELN – Spanish initials) to smuggle stolen oil. The guerillas siphoned the petroleum from the Caño Limon pipeline through illegally applied valves, with it then shipped to various storage facilities for blending with smuggled Venezuelan crude and legitimate Colombian oil. Documents were falsified to give the final product legal provenance, with some oil being resold to Ecopetrol while other quantities were shipped internationally for sale onto global energy markets. Colombia’s criminal investigation directorate estimates at least $80 million of oil was stolen from Ecopetrol. Authorities are investigating the complex networks that facilitated the theft and sale of the oil, which has seen them seize assets, including oil tankers, trucks, refineries, properties, cars, boats and cash valued at $329 million. 

Oil theft has emerged over the last decade as a genuine problem for Colombia. Soaring demand for gasoline to process coca leaves due to rising record cocaine production is the primary driver of the illegal activity. Significantly higher oil prices since the end of the pandemic and a crackdown by authorities on illicit sales of gasoline makes the theft of oil from Colombia’s extensive network of easily accessible pipelines a profitable low-risk undertaking. Petroleum theft is not only an essential means of obtaining the gasoline required to refine coca leaves but is a profitable enterprise that is far less risky than cocaine trafficking, which attracts violence, extradition to the U.S. and lengthy prison sentences. For those reasons, oil theft, which is responsible for considerable environmental damage, will continue growing and remain a pressing problem for Colombia’s oil industry.

By Matthew Smith for Oilprice.com

Bloomberg Predicts Peak Oil Demand In 2027

  • Bloomberg's analysis indicates that the demand for gasoline and diesel has already peaked in the U.S. and Europe, and is expected to peak in China by 2024, with India following in the 2030s.

  • Electric vehicles are expected to displace 20 million barrels per day in oil demand by 2040, up from the current 2 million barrels per day.

  • Despite optimistic forecasts about the EV revolution obliterating oil demand, estimates vary widely, ranging from a severe to a minimal impact on future oil consumption.

A couple of weeks ago, the International Energy Agency reported that global oil demand reached an all-time high of 103mn barrels a day in June. According to the global energy watchdog, robust demand was driven by better than expected economic growth in OECD countries, surging oil consumption in China, particularly for petrochemical production and strong summer air travel. The IEA has predicted that demand could hit another peak in August and remains on track to average 102.2mn b/d for the whole year, the highest ever annual level.

Well, it appears the oil bonanza’s days are numbered. Bloomberg has predicted that global demand for road fuel will continue to grow for only four more years, with demand peaking in 2027 at 49 million barrels per day before entering terminal decline. According to Bloomberg, electric vehicles, ever-improving fuel efficiency and shared mobility are the oil sector’s biggest nemesis, with EVs expected to displace a staggering 20 million barrels per day in oil demand by 2040, up from 2 million barrels per day currently.

Bloomberg reckons that demand for gasoline and diesel for road transport has already peaked in the U.S. and Europe, while demand in China is set to peak in 2024. Demand in other major consuming countries like India will go into a tailspin in the 2030s.

Implications For The Oil & Gas Industry

Last year, the electric vehicle sector crossed a global milestone, with one out of ten vehicles sold being electric for the first time ever. While that slice of the market might not seem like much in the grand scheme of things, another alarming trend for legacy ICE vehicle makers like Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F), Mercedes-Benz Group AG and BMW is that their total vehicle sales declined despite EV sales more than doubling.

Obviously, oil and gas investors are receiving these developments with a bit of trepidation. And, this is no longer all about Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) alone, with pundits saying stiff competition from the likes of General Motors (NYSE:GM) and Ford is coming its way.

GM is one of the legacy automakers with the biggest clean energy investments, particularly  in the EV sector. GM Ceo Mary Barra has revealed that the company plans to produce ~400,000 electric vehicles from 2022 through the first half of 2024, and that the company will  be capable of annual EV production of more than one million in North America in 2025. Indeed, GM could overtake Tesla in just two to three years: a "Car Wars" report has forecasts that GM and Ford Motors (NYSE:F) each will have roughly 15% EV market share in 2025 while Tesla’s will plummet from 70% to 11% with new products like the F-150 Lightning and Silverado EV electric pickups driving the robust growth. Tesla appears set to lose its dominant EV market share because both legacy automakers are expanding their portfolios and lineups at a much faster clip.

GM has found a new life as an ESG play. We do have a sustainability fund that owns it in part because of their commitment to electrification. Mary Barra has been pretty vocal about that obviously, and it looks like it’s for real,” Christopher Marangi, Gamco’s value co-chief investment officer, told Bloomberg TV’s Surveillance.

Implications On Oil Demand

Over the years, there’s been no shortage of blue-sky forecasts from EV enthusiasts who have predicted an apocalypse for the oil industry that will be dished out by the EV revolution. 

That includes Stanford University economist Tony Seba who has declared that EVs will obliterate the global oil industry by 2030 while Bloomberg News’ Akshat Rathi is on record claiming that ‘every F-150 Lightning destroys 50+ barrels of oil demand forever.’ The F-150 Lightning is Ford’s electric equivalent of the marquee Ford-150 truck. Meanwhile, back in 2016, Bloomberg itself predicted EVs will trigger a global oil crisis.

It’s not hard to see why these EV punters have been going ballistic with their predictions. The transportation sector is responsible for nearly 60% of global oil demand, with passenger vehicles and trucks guzzling the lion’s share. EV sales are surging thanks to a combination of new compelling models from automakers, improvements in battery technology, policy support and more charging infrastructure. Electrification is also beginning to spread to new segments of road transport.

While there’s no denying that rapid adoption of EVs is bad news for global oil demand, the reality is probably nowhere near as dire as analysts like Seba have claimed. BNEF estimates EVs are currently displacing 1.5 million barrels of oil demand per day, good for 3% of total road fuel demand. But projections of the EV growth trajectory are all over the place, making it difficult to estimate how much impact the sector will have on future oil demand.

According to BNEF, just over half of passenger cars sold in the U.S. will be electric vehicles by 2030. Forecasts for the penetration of EV to total passenger car sales by 2030 range from 11% at the low end to 63% at the high end while projections for 2050 range from 31% to nearly 100%. The lower end of these forecasts suggests minimal to gradual displacement of oil demand while the higher end suggests quite severe oil demand destruction. In carbon constrained forecasts, passenger vehicle oil demand is expected to fall from about 25 million barrels per day today to 3–6 million barrels per day by 2050. However, most other forecasts see passenger vehicle oil demand ranging from 10 million to 20 million barrels per day by 2050.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com

What's Wrong With Rystad Energy's Global Oil Reserve Estimate?

  • In a recent press release, energy consultancy Rystad Energy pegs the world's proved oil reserves at 285 billion barrels.

  • Rystad Energy’s proved oil reserves estimate is much lower than estimates of organizations such as the EIA, OPEC, BP etc.

  • There are very large quantities of non-conventional oils and other liquids that can be potentially exploited in the future, including those in Canada and Venezuela.

Rystad Energy in a June 29th press release reported that its most recent assessment of the true size of the world’s proved oil reserves stands at 285 billion barrels, a value only one-sixth of the widely accepted value of around 1700 billion barrels. Insiders have long known of this extraordinary discrepancy, but it may come as a surprise to many.

The widely accepted global proved oil reserves are those published by organisations such as the US EIA, OPEC, Oil and Gas JournalWorld Oil and BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy; and then copied into websites including Our World in DataWorldometer and Statista. These reserves data are those generally provided by the governments of the oil-producing countries concerned, and so are considered ‘official data’.

By contrast, Rystad Energy’s proved oil reserves estimate is very much lower for two main reasons: In the 1980s, the proved oil reserves declared by some OPEC producers became significantly overstated as they competed for production quotas based partly on the size proved reserves. More recently, large quantities of the non-conventional oils of Canada’s tar sands and Venezuela’s Orinoco oil have been counted as proved, even though Rystad states that most of this oil should not be classed as ‘proved’ under the standard oil industry definition.

Proved oil reserves are of course only a part of the total amount of oil that can be produced in the future. To proved oil reserves must be added probable reserves to arrive at the statistically most likely ‘proved-plus-probable’ value (which Rystad estimates at about 500 billion barrels), and more oil will be discovered, and recovery techniques will improve. Moreover, there are indeed very large quantities of non-conventional oils and other liquids that can be potentially exploited in the future, including those in Canada and Venezuela, and also by producing oil from kerogen in rock, from gas and coal, and synthetically. But nearly all these sources are significantly more difficult - and hence more expensive - to produce, and also have higher CO2 emissions. Given these difficulties, Rystad’s analysis suggests that the world needs to become more aware of the true size of its proved oil reserves.

Oilprice.com

Maui Fires: A Lesson For Utility Companies?

  • After the Maui fires, questions arose about whether the actions or inactions of the local electric company contributed to the disaster.

  • Property damage caused by the fire has been estimated in the $4-6 billion range.

  • The Maui suit might set a precedent as plaintiffs could claim, in future cases after grid failures, that utilities should have planned and prepared better.

In July, the big insurance companies raised prices roughly 50% on a worldwide basis, a reaction to the huge claims they had to pay recently. Not many people seemed to have noticed, at first. But insurance companies can’t operate without the backstop and off-loading of risk provided by the reinsurance companies. So expect the price of insurance policies to rise if not being canceled altogether.

In August, deadly wildfires spread over the Hawaiian island of Maui. More than 100 people died. Did the actions or inactions of the local electric company contribute to the disaster? Had it invested enough to protect the grid? Had its operators made the right decisions to de-energize fire spreading transmission lines during the fire? What would internal documents show? Hawaiian Electric’s stock tanked 70% ($3 billion of wealth erased) as analysts opined on how much the company might have to ultimately pay out in damages to fire victims and their next of kin. The County of Maui filed a case against the utility, arguing that it made serious operational errors that contributed to the disaster.  

Property damage caused by the fire has been estimated in the $4-6 billion range. One analyst said the total damages to the economy were  $14-16 billion. Hawaiian Electric’s enterprise value (the market value of its outstanding stock and bonds) at the end of 2022 was $8 billion but now is only $5 billion. If the courts find the utility responsible for damages, and the insurance carriers resist paying reimbursement,  and if the regulators do not permit the utility to pass on the cost of damages to its consumers—a successful lawsuit could wipe out the utility’s shareholders, likely triggering a chapter 11 filing for bankruptcy. A lot of ifs, you could say. From a financial and legal perspective it appears that investors are assuming a California type scenario where wildfire claims ultimately bankrupted Pacific Gas & Electric.

The Maui suit might set a precedent. Plaintiffs could claim, in future cases after grid failures, that utilities should have planned and prepared better, given that climate related disasters were first predicted two decades ago. And that utility managers should have operated differently considering the new circumstances. They had the information and they had plenty of time to adjust. In other words, they knew. Of course, taking preventive steps would cost money which would require regulatory approval. So what did the regulators know, and is that relevant in a lawsuit for damages? The discovery process in any lawsuit will, no doubt, provide answers to those questions and also indicate whether regulators were too cozy with the utilities or just plain asleep at the switch. Neither alternative should provide much comfort to investors or customers of the utility. 

Lawsuits against corporations, accompanied by evidence that the malefactors knew, led on the public, or just lied to them, have resulted in large financial settlements. U.S. tobacco companies several decades ago sponsored TV ads with actors in white coats, claiming that something like seven out of ten physicians recommended brand x cigarettes. The industry set up the Tobacco Institute, as a mouthpiece (smoking doesn’t cause cancer but people who like to smoke may be predisposed to cancer was one of its arguments) and evidence showed that the tobacco companies adjusted the nicotine content in cigarettes to encourage greater addiction. Ultimately, following multiple state lawsuits, the tobacco companies agreed to a $366 billion settlement to cover the damage they did to public health. 

More recently, producers of opiates, accused of pushing the drugs and encouraging addiction, agreed to a settlement in excess of $50 billion. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson is entangled in a lawsuit over the carcinogenic qualities of talcum powder that could lead to almost $9 billion of payments, while 3M Corporation has agreed to a $10 billion settlement for damages caused by the “forever“ chemicals it manufactured. Similarly, German drug company Bayer, has settled $11 billion worth of suits thus far involving harm caused by an agricultural chemical it manufactured. Our point here is that these settlement numbers are quite large and investors in the shares of Hawaiian Electric do not appear to be over-reacting in driving the stock price lower.

The numerous expected lawsuits targeting Hawaiian Electric may center on what the company did or did not do at the time of the fires—the immediate cause of the disaster. If we were in the fossil fuel business, we would be concerned that the next batch of lawsuits might look different. This time the public might seek compensation for harm due to climate change largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Now that the effects of global warming have arrived so dramatically it will be harder to claim with a straight face that the science is in doubt, especially since CO2’s role as a heat trapping gas has been known to science for over a century. Imagine what a group of state attorneys general might do if they thought a huge tobacco industry type settlement was possible. It would mean possibly hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into state coffers after winning such a lawsuit. That’s a powerful incentive to sue. Forget about AI or crypto. Environmental litigation looks like the growth industry of the future.

A while ago, we advocated that oil and gas companies pay out all the cash they can to investors in order to keep it out of the hands of the litigation lawyers who surely will show up, salivating at the possibility of multibillion dollar payouts. (Lawsuits of this type are already proceeding in Europe.) That would mean spending less on drilling and exploration and not making green investments either because even those assets might end up in the hands of the lawyers as well. 

We also pointed out that reinvestment in the oil business over the past decade yielded astonishingly bad returns for investors, anyway. Well, last year, the oil companies, according to Bloomberg, returned more money to investors (via stock buybacks and dividends) than they spent on capital expenditures. Oil companies, after all, don’t have to invest. They can draw capital out of the business through a combination of high shareholder payouts (dividends and stock buybacks) and low capital spending. For whatever reason, that’s what they did last year. 

Electric utilities, on the other hand, do not have spare cash that they can move out of the reach of litigants. For more than a decade they have had to raise outside capital to meet spending requirements and pay generous dividends. Given that electric utilities are smaller than oil companies, lack free cash flow, and usually serve one locality, they make less tempting targets for litigation. Or so we would have thought. Fewer states have an incentive to go after the utility, there’s less cash to grab, and lower likely damages per lawsuit.   

But when the utility’s transmission lines go down causing fires, or the grid is egregiously unprepared for weather conditions, and people incur large economic losses or even die, this question arises: in light of the decade or more of changed circumstances and warnings, should the utility have been better prepared and taken more comprehensive steps than it did? Up until now, most utility outages did not lead to significant penalties for the utility. “Act of God”, the regulators traditionally said and passed all the clean up and rebuild costs on to consumers. At some point, though, some plaintiffs will argue that the utility’s senior managers should have known about fire risk, should have been prepared better, and should have had operational procedures in place to meet the new evolving situation. And pointing to specific managerial steps taken or not taken to cope with specific threats might make an easier case than a global assault based on the causes and consequences of climate change.    

Equity investors who bought stock in the wholesome makers of the world’s favorite talcum powder or transparent tape never expected those potentially crippling lawsuits. Certainly, few investors at present think of their local electric company, with its protected regulatory status, as a likely target for lawsuits. They may be wrong. 

By Leonard Hyman and William Tilles for Oilprice.com