Friday, August 30, 2024

What is Natural Gas Flaring and What Can We Do About It?

By Michael Kern - Aug 30, 2024

Natural gas flaring is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental concerns.
Innovative ways to reduce natural gas flaring include the use of microturbines, GTL technology, pipelines, carbon capture technology, and bitcoin mining.
These solutions provide alternative uses for excess natural gas while promoting sustainable practices within the oil and gas industry.

In the heart of oil and gas operations lies a practice as old as the industry itself: Natural gas flaring. This process, which involves the controlled burning of excess natural gas produced during oil extraction, has been a mainstay for decades. While it might appear as an unavoidable byproduct of oil production, natural gas flaring casts a long shadow of environmental consequences that demand our attention.

From contributing to climate change through the release of potent greenhouse gases to impacting local air and water quality, the repercussions of flaring are far-reaching. It's a practice that not only squanders a valuable energy resource but also poses risks to human health and ecological balance. As the world grapples with the urgent need to transition towards cleaner energy sources and mitigate climate change, the spotlight on natural gas flaring intensifies. It begs the question: is it truly a necessary evil, or can we find sustainable alternatives?

What is Natural Gas Flaring?

Natural gas flaring is the deliberate combustion of natural gas that is deemed uneconomical or impractical to capture and utilize. This excess gas, often found alongside crude oil deposits, poses a challenge due to its gaseous state, making it difficult to store and transport compared to liquid oil. In the absence of adequate infrastructure or viable markets for this gas, flaring becomes the default solution.

The process typically involves igniting the gas at the wellhead, creating a towering flame that illuminates the night sky. While seemingly simple, this act releases a cocktail of pollutants into the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, and other harmful substances.

As we delve deeper into this complex issue, we'll explore the environmental and economic impacts of flaring, the ongoing efforts to reduce its prevalence, and the innovative solutions that offer a glimmer of hope for a cleaner energy future.

How Does Natural Gas Flaring Happen?

Natural gas is often found alongside crude oil deposits. When drilling for oil, natural gas is also extracted from the ground. However, unlike crude oil, which can be stored and transported easily, natural gas is more difficult to transport and store due to its gaseous state. This is where natural gas flaring comes in.

During oil drilling operations, natural gas that cannot be captured or transported is burned off at the well site. This process involves igniting the natural gas as it exits the wellhead, resulting in a bright flame that can be seen from miles away.

Environmental Impact of Natural Gas Flaring

Natural gas flaring has a significant environmental impact. The most obvious is the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas, significantly contributing to climate change. According to the World Bank, global gas flaring resulted in the emission of approximately 400 million tons of CO2 equivalent in 2022, contributing to global warming and climate change.

Flaring also impacts air and water quality. It releases pollutants such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, which can harm human health and the environment. Additionally, flaring can contribute to light and noise pollution, affecting wildlife and ecosystems in the surrounding areas.

Economic and Social Impacts

Besides the environmental concerns, gas flaring represents a substantial waste of valuable energy resources. The World Bank estimates that the value of gas flared annually is around $40 billion. This wasted gas could be used to generate electricity, provide heat, or be utilized as feedstock for various industries.

In developing countries where flaring is prevalent, the economic and social impacts can be particularly severe. The loss of potential revenue from gas utilization can hinder economic development, while the environmental pollution from flaring can disproportionately affect vulnerable communities.

Reducing Natural Gas Flaring

There are several solutions being implemented around the world aimed at reducing or eliminating natural gas flaring.

Build More Pipelines

One solution involves capturing and transporting excess natural gas instead of burning it off at the wellhead. This requires building new infrastructure, such as pipelines or liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants.

Use Microturbines To Produce Power

Another approach is the use of microturbines, which can generate electricity from excess natural gas that would otherwise be burned off. These small turbines are highly efficient and can provide power for various applications such as remote oil rigs or pipeline operations. This solution not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions but also provides a cost-effective way to produce electricity in areas where traditional grid connections may not be available.

Flare-gas-to-liquids (GTL) technology: This innovative technology presents a groundbreaking solution to mitigate gas flaring and foster a greener energy landscape. By transforming waste gases generated from flaring into valuable liquid fuels like diesel, gasoline, or jet fuel, GTL provides a practical and sustainable use for excess natural gas. This process not only significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions but also contributes to a circular economy by repurposing a previously wasted resource.

Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies

Some oil companies are using carbon capture technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas flaring and store them underground. This approach not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions but also promotes carbon sequestration, which can help mitigate climate change impacts.

Bitcoin Mining

Bitcoin mining has been a controversial topic due to its high energy consumption and potential environmental impact. However, some bitcoin miners are using their operations to help reduce natural gas flaring. These miners are taking advantage of the excess natural gas that is often burned off at oil drilling sites by using it to power their mining rigs.

By using this excess natural gas, bitcoin miners are not only reducing greenhouse gas emissions from flaring but also providing an alternative use for a resource that would otherwise go to waste. This practice has gained traction in areas where natural gas flaring is common such as Texas and North Dakota, where bitcoin miners have partnered with oil companies to access excess natural gas.

Success Stories

While the challenges posed by natural gas flaring are undeniable, success stories from around the world demonstrate that progress is possible. These examples highlight the power of innovation, collaboration, and effective policymaking in driving flaring reduction and promoting a more sustainable energy future.

Let's explore two such stories that illuminate the path towards a world with minimal gas flaring.

The United States: A Model of Progress

The United States stands as a testament to the potential for significant flaring reduction through concerted efforts. A combination of technological advancements, regulatory measures, and market-driven initiatives has spurred remarkable progress in curbing flaring, particularly in regions like the Permian Basin.

Historically, the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico was notorious for its high levels of flaring due to a lack of adequate infrastructure to capture and transport associated gas. However, recent years have witnessed a dramatic shift. The expansion of pipeline networks, coupled with the adoption of innovative technologies such as microturbines and mobile gas processing units, has enabled the capture and utilization of a greater proportion of associated gas, significantly reducing flaring intensity.

Regulatory measures have also played a crucial role. State-level regulations, coupled with voluntary industry initiatives, have incentivized companies to minimize flaring and invest in gas capture and utilization projects. This multi-pronged approach has yielded impressive results, showcasing the potential for substantial flaring reduction even in challenging operational environments.

Nigeria: Leading the Way in Africa

Nigeria, once plagued by rampant gas flaring, has emerged as a leader in flaring reduction efforts on the African continent. The Nigerian government has demonstrated a strong commitment to tackling this issue through a combination of regulatory measures, policy reforms, and collaborative initiatives with industry stakeholders.

The Gas Flare (Prevention of Waste and Pollution) Regulations 2018, a landmark piece of legislation, imposes stricter penalties for non-compliance and encourages companies to invest in gas utilization projects. Additionally, the government has fostered partnerships with international organizations and oil companies to develop infrastructure and facilitate gas utilization projects.

These efforts have translated into tangible progress. Nigeria has witnessed a significant decline in flaring volumes, contributing to improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and enhanced economic opportunities. The Nigerian experience serves as an inspiration for other countries grappling with flaring challenges, highlighting the importance of strong political will, effective regulatory frameworks, and collaborative partnerships in achieving sustainable solutions.

Conclusion

Natural gas flaring remains an issue for both industry stakeholders and environmentalists alike, given its negative impacts on climate change through GHG emissions, among others.

The good news, however, lies in global efforts towards reduction through innovations like micro-liquefaction technology while regulatory measures continue playing their role towards environmentally sustainable practices within this sector.

Many countries and companies are taking action to reduce flaring and implement sustainable practices. As technology continues to advance, we can expect even more innovative solutions. It's important that everyone plays their part in protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. With continued effort and collaboration, we can create a cleaner, greener future for generations to come.

By Michael Kern for Oilprice.com

UK

Can Green Tax Incentives Spur Sustainable Growth?

By City A.M - Aug 28, 2024

The UK faces a £22 billion fiscal gap, and environmental taxes could play a role in addressing this challenge.
While green taxes can be effective in driving positive behaviors, they can also disproportionately impact lower-income households.
The UK needs to develop a targeted and coherent green tax strategy that offers long-term certainty to investors in an increasingly complex global landscape.

With net zero a key plank of the new government’s agenda, what can we expect on environmental taxes in the Budget? Asks Sharon Baynham

We have a £22bn black hole in the public finances. Who knew! Well, anyone who dared to look according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The blame game has already started and recollections are sure to differ. But the bottom line is we can now expect a tax squeeze in the Chancellor’s first Budget on 30 October.

A ‘summer of speculation’ is upon us that is, unsurprisingly, focussing on what will happen to personal taxes. But I think there is another area that merits some attention: where do environmental taxes go from here, especially as the energy transition is a key plank of Labour policy?

Whether it be charging fuel duties, air passenger duty, plastics taxes, landfill taxes or Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms, countries, including our own, are good at taxing us into good behaviour.

Their use can be controversial, especially when the burden falls on lower income households. But they are certainly lucrative. In 2023 UK Environmental taxes raised £52.5bn, about 5.5 per cent of total tax revenues.

Governments can easily become dependent on such sources of income, but that raises ethical questions about the purpose of these behavioural taxes. Is their function to raise revenues or to drive a wider public good? Or do we sit in a confused intersection between the two?

Take fuel duty, for example, where annual increases have been on a 13-year hiatus and a 5p ‘temporary’ reduction introduced in 2022 has set up permanent residence in the system. From a net zero perspective this makes no sense.

Fuel duty contributes almost half of the UK’s tax take from environmental taxes. Increasing it in the Budget will be tempting. It won’t be popular, but it aligns with net zero and it would be profitable. The polls have over four years to recover if the government makes this move.

The bigger problem is that, as the country becomes more environmentally responsible, revenues like these will disappear. The country needs to be weaned off them. No wonder the treasury is agitating to move from a fuel duty to a pay-per-mile system.

That’s environmental tax policy as a ‘stick’ – but what about using it as a ‘carrot’ to incentivise investment in the energy transition?

The UK has a reasonable clutch of tax breaks, but few are specifically targeted on the green agenda. The previous government did not seem too enamoured of the idea: but Labour’s energy transition plans are more ambitious – and recognise the role the private sector has to play as a co-investor.

In 2020 the Climate Change Commission identified that the necessary increased investment could be offset by cost reductions by the late 2030s. So, if the this is a temporary funding gap, should the UK get more serious about green tax breaks?

Over in the US, President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) disrupted the global environment for green tech investment by offering US$369bn of subsidies including tax credits to unlock private investment.

It set a high bar but it’s not without its critics. It prioritises US products over more affordable imports and its success in getting projects off the ground has been hit by supply chain issues. The sheer size of the tax breaks offered will impact global trade, arguably making international co-operation on energy transition more difficult.

The IRA also departs from free market outcomes, re-introducing government as a key market player. With an election less than three months away, this highly interventionist approach raises questions about longevity under a Trump presidency – and that increases uncertainty for the investor.

The IRA has changed behaviours. Reuters recently reported that the US has seen over $350bn in private investment expected to create 300,000 new jobs. The numbers are impressive, but it will be many years before a proper assessment can be made, one which addresses the impact on other nations, especially the global south.

In the meantime, the UK needs to think smarter on green taxes. Put simply, nobody can afford to compete on the same scale as the US. But a good place to start would be a cross-party approach towards a targeted and coherent strategy that would be a viable alternative to the US – one which offers longer term certainty to investors in an increasingly interventionist, politically fractious and protectionist world.

By City AM

Kazakhstan's Nuclear Referendum Faces Growing Opposition

By RFE/RL staff - Aug 25, 2024

Kazakhstan is holding public hearings on a proposed nuclear power plant, but critics say the events are staged and pro-nuclear.
The government claims nuclear power is needed to address energy shortages, but opponents cite safety concerns and Russia's potential involvement.
Anti-nuclear activists have been detained and silenced, and a referendum on the issue is expected to be held soon.

The world's largest uranium producer is another step closer to building a nuclear power plant.

Last week, the Kazakh capital, Astana, hosted the last of 20 public hearings staged around the country ahead of a national referendum in the fall on whether to start producing nuclear power.

The format differed little from the discussions held in other cities.

Official presentations focused only on the perceived advantages of nuclear power, while those wishing to ask questions were allocated just two minutes to speak.

After that time had elapsed, the microphone was turned off and those who continued speaking were ushered away.

Some critics never even made it to the venue.

Antinuclear activist Meiirkhan Abdimanapov was fined 129,000 tenges ($270) after being detained in Almaty on August 19 ahead of his trip to Astana.

The official reason for the detention was his participation in an unsanctioned rally six months before.

But he argued that the real reason was to prevent him from repeating his performance at the public hearing in Kazakhstan's largest city on August 16, when he decried the exercise as "an advert for a nuclear power plant."

Then there was the struggle witnessed by journalists from RFE/RL's Kazakh Service inside the Radisson Hotel in Astana, where the August 20 hearing was held.

"What is it that you were saying about speaking freely while at the same time not letting people in?" complained activist Nagizhan Toleubaev as minders at the event tried to bar him from entering the event's main room.

"Didn't the president himself want the issue to be put to public discussion? How do you explain your actions?"

Despite these apparent attempts to manage attendance, the hearings that began last year on the shores of Lake Balkhash -- near the prospective nuclear facility's likely location -- have still witnessed plenty of emotional speeches.

Toleubaev, who was eventually admitted into the question-and-answer session, warned authorities that "future generations will damn you" if the nuclear power plant goes ahead. He was subsequently dragged from the mic by well-built men standing nearby.

And opposition will surely only grow louder as the referendum, which pro-nuclear President Qasym-Zhomart Toqaev has not yet set a date for, gets closer.

But why is his administration heading down this contentious path?

An apparently widening energy deficit is certainly one reason. But another might be nudging from its overbearing ally Russia, which many view as a shoo-in to build the plant.

Rosatom: First Among Equals?

As government-affiliated experts at the public hearings argued, nuclear power is a cleaner form of power generation than the coal-heated and often aging thermal power plants that most Kazakh cities still rely on.

Yet it is also more controversial, and not just because of renewed anxieties around nuclear power in general, after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011.

For four decades during the Soviet Union, the northeastern part of Kazakhstan hosted regular, Moscow-directed nuclear tests.

The human and environmental consequences of those tests can still be seen today.

Another source of anxiety, referenced by at least one speaker at the Astana event, is the danger posed by a nuclear power plant in a potential conflict scenario.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine saw Russian forces surround and occupy the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant -- Europe's largest -- in eastern Ukraine early in the war.

In this sense, the territorial threats issued regularly against Kazakhstan by Russian politicians and pundits after Astana failed to support Moscow's invasion have done little to make the idea of a Russian-built nuclear facility appealing.

"A country whose military illegally occupies the nuclear facilities of another sovereign state and creates unprecedented nuclear risks cannot be seen as a reliable partner in the nuclear field," nuclear politics expert Togzhan Kassenova told RFE/RL.

That along with the complications that Western sanctions against Russia could pose to a Russian-led nuclear project in Kazakhstan mean that its nuclear energy giant, Rosatom, "should be a nonstarter for political and practical reasons," argued Kassenova, who is the author of the book Atomic Steppe: How Kazakhstan Gave Up The Bomb.

Tet the government has suggested otherwise.

In 2023 -- before Toqaev said a referendum on the construction of a nuclear plant would be held – the Kazakh Energy Ministry said Rosatom was one of four contractors whose reactors were under consideration for the plant, with EDF of France, the China National Nuclear Corporation, and South Korea's Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power the other three.

In the past, Kazakh authorities have floated the rather hopeful idea of an international consortium to build the potential plant.

But skeptics of the idea that Russian leadership of the project is not inevitable don't have to look far.

In next-door Uzbekistan, then-Energy Minister Zhurabek Mirzamahmudov stated in November that Uzbek authorities were examining the "experience and technology" of other countries and not just Russia, with whom Uzbekistan had already held talks on building a nuclear power plant.

But Tashkent and Moscow subsequently reached an agreement for a Russian-built, small nuclear power plant (SMR) when Russian leader Vladimir Putin visited the Central Asian country for talks in May.

In Kazakhstan, Moscow and Astana are already cooperating in the nuclear realm in higher education.

Among the young supporters of nuclear power in Astana last week was a collective of students and graduates of the Almaty branch of the National Research Nuclear University (NRNU).

The NRNU opened an affiliate on the grounds of the Al-Farabi Kazakh National University in 2022 -- more than a year before Toqaev said the nuclear power plant plan would be put to a national vote.

'A Test Of Patriotism’

Few doubt that the Kazakh referendum will deliver a "yes," despite visible opposition.

The campaign in favor of nuclear power enjoys the resources of the state.

Naysayers, meanwhile, complain they have been repeatedly refused permission from city councils to hold protests against the proposed plant.

Yet for many citizens, there are some compelling arguments in favor of nuclear power.

In Ulken, where the first public hearing on the project was held in August 2023, some residents expressed enthusiasm for the plant's capacity to generate local jobs for a depressed region, even as Balkhash fishermen raised alarm over the future of their industry.

Nationally, and especially in the provinces, power shortages are a growing problem with high consumption in the densely populated south taking a heavy toll on the national grid.

Last year, Kazakhstan's state-run Samruk Energy company projected the national power deficit could double to reach 3 gigawatts by 2029.

Kazakhstan's future nuclear power plant is projected to be significantly larger in terms of capacity than Uzbekistan's in-progress 330-megawatt version -- a downsize on the plant that Tashkent had originally intended to build.

At an event held by antinuclear activists in Almaty in September, speakers acknowledged that villagers who suffer regular outages might be easily convinced of the benefits of nuclear power.

What the government has not done, they said, is present the population with viable and clean alternatives to the plant, such as ramping up of wind and solar production.

The referendum moved a step closer on August 27, when Energy Minister Almasadam Satkaliev issued a proposal for a presidential decree on holding a nationwide vote at a government meeting, which was backed unanimously.

Toqaev, who earlier promised that the referendum would be held in the fall, is expected to name a date imminently.

Blaming "independent bloggers" and media for stirring up criticism of the nuclear plans, Satkaliev said a Kazakh citizen's position on nuclear power was a "test" of "intellect…patriotism…decency," with opponents apparently failing on all three counts.

Nuclear power was needed for "the next frontier, for the development of the economy and science, so that the country reaches a new civilizational level of development," Satkaliev added.

By RFE/RL

Looming Atlantic Current Collapse Threatens Northern Europe's Climate

By Kurt Cobb - Aug 26, 2024

Two recent studies predict the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could collapse by mid-century due to climate change.
This collapse would drastically lower temperatures in Northern Europe, causing significant disruptions.
The primary cause is the influx of freshwater from Greenland's melting ice sheet, which disrupts the AMOC's flow.
Despite the urgency, current global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are insufficient to prevent this potential catastrophe.

In recent years scientists have been watching and measuring the flow of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, (AMOC), what Americans often refer to as the Gulf Stream though that flow is only part of this vast ocean current. For a long time the belief was that the AMOC—which transports heat from the tropics to Greenland, Iceland and northern Europe and makes them much warmer than they would otherwise be—would continue to flow with no discernible end date.

But two recent studies suggest that the current could not just slow, but stop altogether sometime around mid-century thereby lowering temperatures dramatically in northern Europe. The earlier study from 2023 suggests a collapse could occur sometime between 2025 and 2095, a wide interval, but actually the blink of an eye in geologic time. The more recent study released this year used a more sophisticated model and narrowed the window from 2037 to 2064. Both studies put the most likely date of collapse at mid-century (either 2050 or 2057).

Rising temperatures due to climate change are resulting in vastly increased meltwater coming from the the Greenland ice sheet—which on average is over one mile thick. This meltwater is being dumped into the North Atlantic where it reduces the salinity of the ocean water, thus making the water less dense. This reduced density appears to be slowing the current where it dives deep into the ocean, a dive that is essential for the current to continue to flow.

Meanwhile, business as usual continues in northern Europe and the rest of the world, too. Greenhouse gases are now accumulating in the atmosphere at a record pace. Far from addressing our climate crisis, we as a species are behaving as if it doesn't exist (even though in many places leaders give lip service to doing something while they do nothing commensurate with the danger we face).

Cheerleaders for the so-called energy transition love to talk about how carbon dioxide emissions have "decoupled" from economic growth. By this they generally mean that per capita emissions are declining compared to per capita economic growth. And, while some countries have shown actual declines in the RATE of emissions, that does NOT mean that they are at zero emissions. They continue to contribute to the stock of carbon in the atmosphere at prodigious rates. And, the world as a whole still needs to burn ever increasing amounts of carbon to grow.

That makes me believe that the deep freeze in the North Atlantic will more likely than not arrive on schedule. We have no plan to avert it and simply wearing warmer clothing is not going to address the myriad problems that societies unprepared for sudden climate change will suffer.

By Kurt Cobb via Resource Insights

Why Coal is Still a Cornerstone of the Global Energy Mix

By ZeroHedge - Aug 29, 2024

In 2023, global coal consumption reached a record 164 exajoules, driven primarily by the Asia Pacific region, where coal provides 83% of energy needs.
China alone consumed 56% of the world's coal, increasing its usage despite global efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Coal remains a significant player in the global energy mix, contributing 26% of the world's energy in 2023, more than all non-fossil fuel sources combined.

Despite many nations transitioning away from fossil fuels, in 2023, world coal consumption reached a staggering 164 exajoules (EJ) of energy, a record high for any year.

For this graphic, Visual Capitalist's Alan Kennedy has partnered with Range ETFs to explore the role coal plays in the global energy mix and determine which regions still consume large quantities of coal.

The Role of Coal in Global Energy

Coal is a significant player in the global energy mix, contributing 26% of the world’s energy in 2023, more than all non-fossil fuel sources combined. The only energy source that contributed more to the global energy mix was oil.

Here’s how that consumption breaks down by region:

Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. *Commonwealth of Independent States

Coal consumption has decreased in many regions. For example, both North America and Europe reduced their energy consumption from coal by 16% in 2023. However, a heavy reliance on coal in the Asia Pacific region has led to global coal consumption remaining essentially the same over the past 10 years.

In 2023, China increased its coal consumption from 88 EJ to nearly 92 EJ—totalling 56% of global coal consumption. This contributed significantly to Asia Pacific leading the world with a staggering 83% of global coal consumption.

The Importance of Coal

Easy access to existing infrastructure and reasonable prices have not only sustained global coal consumption over the last 10 years, but also paved the way for potential growth. Many developing nations are now expanding their coal consumption, presenting potential opportunities in the coal market.

For example, as per the Statistical Review of World Energy 2024, between 2022 and 2023, Bangladesh and Colombia saw double-digit percentage increases in year-over-year coal consumption: 41% and 53%, respectively.

Coal continues to play a critical role in the global energy mix, especially in the developing world, where its affordability makes it the current energy source of choice.

By Zerohedge.com

Why Brand Loyalty Takes a Backseat for American Car Buyers

By ZeroHedge - Aug 28, 2024

Nearly half of Americans are likely to change their car make on their next purchase, despite expressing high satisfaction with their current brand.
This trend suggests that Americans are more interested in trying new car types than remaining loyal to a specific carmaker.
Brand loyalty is stronger for banks, smartphones, and internet providers, with fewer consumers indicating a likelihood to switch.

In a recent survey by Statista Consumer Insights, almost half of Americans said that they were likely or very likely to change their car make on the next possible occasion. Consumers appeared more loyal to their primary bank, smartphone brand, mobile carrier, home and car insurance as well as internet provider, with only around 30 percent saying they were likely to make a switch when it was next possible. At 27 percent, the internet provider was the least likely to be changed.

You will find more infographics at Statista

As part of the same survey, 86 percent said they were actually satisfied or very satisfied with their car make, showing that switching up carmakers has less to do with dissatisfaction and more with trying new types of cars. 80 percent also said they were satisfied with their internet provider. Almost half of respondents said they wanted to purchase a new or used car in the 12 months after the survey. The most commonly owned brands in the United States were Chevrolet and Ford, followed by Toyota, BMW and Honda, according to the survey.