Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Gas Boom Is Over

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Natural gas storage tanks in the Marcellus shale fields. Photo credit: New York Times

By Peter Galuszka

The boom in shale natural gas is over, reports The New York Times.

The trend raises more questions about billions of dollars worth of gas-related projects in Virginia, including Dominion’s plans to build the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and other firms’ efforts to place two big generating stations near Charles City.

The boom in shale gas began a decade ago when hydraulic fracking methods went into wide use in fields such as Marcellus in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, Eagle Ford and Permian in Texas and Williston in North Dakota.

The results were profound as gas displaced coal as a major generator of electricity. A bump in exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) loomed, as Dominion converted its Cove Point LNG facility to handle exports.

Independent firms such as Chesapeake Energy in Oklahoma led the way. Big energy firms such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron bought up smaller firms and invested billions in shale gas operations. Numerous pipeline projects were announced, including the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Mountain Valley projects in Virginia.

The result? Too much gas and resulting price drops.

In 2008, the spot price for gas was about $10 per million British Thermal Unit. It’s now about $2.45 per million BTU.

The Times reports:

  • The number of rigs operating in Pennsylvania dropped from 47 to 24 in the past year as gas prices dropped by half.
  • The number of gas rigs nationwide has from from 184 to 132 in a year.
  • Energy giant Chevron will write down $10 billion to $11 billion in assets involving shale gas holdings in Appalachia and a Canadian LNG plant in Canada.
  • Exxon Mobile has written down $2.5 billion in gas assets.
  • Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Energy had been a pioneer in fracking. Its stock sold for $60 a share in 2008. Now it sells for less than a dollar.
  • Russia and Qatar are flooding global markets with gas. S&P Global Platts warns that European prices could slide in 2020, further depressing prices.

These are ominous signs for The Atlantic Coast Pipeline that would take fracked gas from West Virginia through Virginia and into North Carolina. The controversial project has been stalled in court.

The Mountain Valley project in southwestern Virginia likewise has been slowed by regulatory concerns.

The trends must have an impact on plans to build the Chickahominy Power Station proposed by Balico.

True, the market for natural gas, as with any energy source, is cyclical and it could come back. But the natural gas and utility industries are a lot like the defense department. They are building weapons to fight the last war.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

30 responses to “The Gas Boom Is Over”

  1. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, your post (and the NYTimes story upon which it is based) remind me of the classic Yogi Berra quote, “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”

    The gas boom is over — too much gas is being produced.

    It’s safe to say that the indiscriminate financing of new natural gas projects is over…. for now. That’s not to say that production is declining, or that demand is declining. Indeed, depressed gas prices are likely to stimulate the quantity demanded. You know, the old supply-and-demand thing — when prices fall, people buy more.

    Ironically, one reason for the glut cited by the Times is the fact that it has been difficult to build new pipelines: “Gas producers have struggled in part because New York and other Northeastern states have made it harder to build pipelines to transport the fuel.”

    So, when you question the economic justification for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, you’re creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy.

    There’s a glut of gas.
    Therefore, we don’t need the pipeline.
    The inability to build a pipeline to transport the gas to new markets perpetuates the glut of gas.

  2. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Speaking of self-fulfilling prophesies…. I thought it would be interesting to post this map from VEDP CEO Stephen Moret’s recent presentation to GO Virginia. Moret has not taken any public stand for or against the Atlantic Coast Pipeline that I’m aware of, and I’m not trying to drag him into that debate. This map was presented in the context of showing the need to upgrade the infrastructure of Virginia’s industrial sites.

    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/app/uploads/2019/12/natural-gas_constraint.jpg

    To be clear, this map shows “sites requiring more than 24 months to provide natural gas to a medium industrial user.” It does not tell us if building the ACP would eliminate the constraint. My point is that making low-cost natural gas accessible to industrial users would be a positive thing for Virginia economic development. As consumers, we should be cheering the gas glut.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      methinks this is a misleading chart because I think what they mean is no gas infrastructure at the site – rather than a shortage of natural gas.

      It’s the old users per mile of pipe argument similar to cable TV. Yes.. there are natural gas pipelines all through Virginia. And Yes.. when you get a few miles away from the main pipeline – it’s pretty expensive to put in tributary pipes and these days – it’s cheaper and easier to locate where there IS gas so many places will never have gas.

      and I have to say, I’m not following this: ” Ironically, one reason for the glut cited by the Times is the fact that it has been difficult to build new pipelines: “Gas producers have struggled in part because New York and other Northeastern states have made it harder to build pipelines to transport the fuel.”

      How do you get a GLUT if there is a shortage? come again?

      1. James A. Bacon Avatar
        James A. Bacon

        How do you get a GLUT if there is a shortage? come again?

        There is a glut of natural gas. There is a shortage of pipeline capacity. The shortage of pipeline capacity suppresses demand. Suppressed demand contributes to the glut.

        It’s not hard.

        1. djrippert Avatar
          djrippert

          Yeah it’s hard. If the gas can’t get through a pipeline to be sold then there would be a shortage in the eyes of the consumer. Consumers would bid up the price of the gas they could actually obtain. The producers might still overproduce while raising the utilization of existing pipelines but you’d quickly have an imbalance. Where do you store the excessive natural gas that’s can’t get through pipelines operating at full capacity? You don’t. You stop fracking.

          It seems to me that the price of gas should be rising if the pipelines have reached capacity. The price of gas may be broken up into two parts. The price of gas that comes out of the ground and the price of the gas a consumer pays for (presumably inflated by high prices of buying capacity on a full pipeline). Are natural gas prices paid by consumers going up? If not, those pipelines are not full.

        2. TomH Avatar
          TomH

          There is no shortage of pipeline capacity, especially in our region. Loads of publicly available information support that conclusion. There are some local and regional issues, but on the whole there is not a shortage of pipeline capacity, quite the contrary. That notion is a tribute to the success of the industry PR campaign.

          1. djrippert Avatar
            djrippert

            I am agreeing with you. If there were a widespread shortage of pipeline capacity the price of natural gas to the end consumer would rise rapidly. This would be disconnected from the economics of fracking. It’s irrelevant how much gas you can frack or how cheaply you can frack gas if you can’t get it to the end consumer. Supply and demand only really intersect in the pocketbook of the ultimate consumer. However, natural gas is a much cleaner alternative to coal. and renewables are making progress but are not economically viable for large scale energy production in Virginia. Therefore, if the trend is toward reaching pipeline capacity in the near to mid term more capacity should be added. My opinion anyway.

  3. CrazyJD Avatar
    CrazyJD

    What’s your point, Peter?

    Aren’t Jim’s points well taken?

  4. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim, the acp won’t serve many of the localities on your chart.
    Crazy jd, the point of energy firms pulling back in gas investments is obvious

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      In point of fact, the ACP would serve numerous localities on Virginia’s southern border and parts of Hampton Roads.

      1. TomH Avatar
        TomH

        The ACP would provide 155,000 Dth/d of capacity to Virginia Natural Gas which serves the Hampton Roads region. But there is no service to communities along Virginia’s southern border. The only takeoffs identified as part of the ACP in Virginia are the Brunswick and Greensville plants in Southside Virginia and the connection to VNG in Chesapeake.

        The ACP would considerably increase the price of delivered gas to Dominion’s two new power plants and Dominion has not reserved enough capacity to supply them both. Best to stick with Transco.

    2. CrazyJD Avatar
      CrazyJD

      Well, Peter, I’m just a plebeian when it comes to these things, and not afraid to admit it. Why don’t you clue me in?

  5. TBill Avatar
    TBill

    Growth of natural gas demand slowed globally several years ago, and I have previosuly mentioned it. I do not have time at the moment to review NYTimes to see if anything new here. Growing slowly which is good. Yes all the projections here of skyrocketing nat gas prices, I always felt that if people hate nat gas so much,well then the price will stay low. In the past Dems loved coal over nat gas, and now Dens love renewable over nat gas. Nat gas is the cheapest cleanest and most unloved power source. I always knew that. I am shocked nat gas finally made as much progress as it has.

  6. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim. Where? I agree with larry that any problem would be with the last mile. Otherwise, transco hits better geographically than the acp would.

  7. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
    Jane Twitmyer

    Thing is … the gas boom has been on the way out for years … There is nothing new about this information. It was originally put together years ago by David Hughes, a geoscientist and fellow specializing in shale gas and oil production at the Post Carbon Institute. Check out http://www.shalebubble.org to see his writings.

    Disaster was first warned in the national media 1½ years ago when the Wall Street Journal called shale investments a “fracking frenzy”, reporting that “energy companies [since 2007] have spent $280 billion more than they generated from operations on shale investments, according to advisory firm Evercore ISI.”
    They are now all facing a ‘wall of debt’.

    “As a whole, the American fracking experiment has been a financial disaster for many of its investors, who have been plagued by the industry’s heavy borrowing, low returns, and bankruptcies, and the path to becoming profitable is lined with significant potential hurdles. Up to this point, the industry has been drilling the “sweet spots”. ”
    Thing is those spots produce 70-90% of the wells capacity in the first 1-3 years.

    “But at the same time energy companies are borrowing more money to drill more wells, the sweet spots are drying up, creating a Catch-22 as more drilling drives more debt. ” ‘You have to keep drilling,’ says David Hughes, who noted that ‘with most of the sweet spots already drilled, producers are forced to move to less productive areas.’”

    In a BR comment awhile back I wrote …
    • The nature of shale reservoirs is that they decline quickly. Production from individual wells falls 70–90% in the first three years.
    • Continual investment in new drilling is required to avoid steep production declines as drilling moves to less productive areas.
    • Shale firms are on an unparalleled money-losing streak. About $11 billion was torched in the latest quarter, as capital expenditures exceeded cash flows. The cash-burn rate may well rise again this year.
    • EIA projections of production through 2050 are highly to extremely optimistic, and are therefore very unlikely to be realized, according to David Hughes’s analysis in SHALE REALITY CHECK. (shalebubble.org)
    • The smaller rate of growth projected by Platts and Range Resources will leave the projected pipeline capacity underutilized.
    • A false story of shale industry success is touted by Investors Business Daily and a free market-focused think tank funded in part by the oil and gas industry.

    I can only surmise that investors have such a short time frame that they simply didn’t pay attention. And Dominion and Duke liked the look of that guaranteed 14% ROI on the pipeline.

  8. TomH Avatar
    TomH

    Jim, you say:
    “It’s safe to say that the indiscriminate financing of new natural gas projects is over”

    You are exactly right. In aggregate, gas producers have lost several hundred billion dollars since the shale gas boom began. Money fled the meltdown of the mortgage securities market and went into producing oil and gas from shale plays. This began in earnest in 2009.

    Shale gas wells reach peak production in about 3 years, then decline rapidly, which was a big surprise for drillers accustomed to conventional gas wells. Producers had to keep drilling in order to pay the interest on their loans. This is been the primary cause of the supply glut.

    Currently, investors are no longer willing to keep pouring money into gas production companies. They want expenses to be paid out of free cash flow, not new debt. This is what has reduced the rig count nationwide, so production is stabilizing.

    Over 1000 new wells must be drilled in the Marcellus each year, just to maintain the same production. The new wells are less productive than the old ones.

    You suggest that low gas prices will stimulate demand.

    That is not what has been observed. Traditional uses of gas for residential and commercial use are stable or declining. Industrial uses of gas have remained strong with low gas prices because gas is used as a feedstock in many industries. But industry users have warned that attempts to increase our domestic gas prices but sending our cheap gas overseas could dampen industrial use as prices rise.

    We have not been operating on a normal supply and demand market for gas because of the Wall Street induced glut in supply. Normally, producers would cut back in supply in order to raise the price. This was tried and 200 producers went bankrupt.

    The greatest increase in gas usage has come from using it to produce electricity. S&P global wrote that since 2008 “a period of essentially flat demand, the U.S. added 120,498 MW of natural gas-fired capacity to its generation fleet.” Much of this came from the promotion of gas as a “clean fuel.” In my view, this was Wall Street’s plan to increase gas demand and raise its price so investors could get their money out.

    Even though 200 more gas-fired plants are planned in the U.S., The prospects don’t look so rosy. Competition from renewables and energy efficiency has made life tough on new gas-fired plants. S&P Global said 33,000 MW of combined cycle units less than 20 years old have capacity factors below 40%.

    Many observers claim that we will need more gas-fired plants as more renewables are added in order to deal with variations in their output and to serve the nighttime load. This isn’t the case.

    In 2023, PJM will have 35% more generating capacity than it needs to meet its peak demand. When units already planned are added, this surplus will rise to 60% greater than peak requirements by 2027. PJM needs only a 16% reserve in order to provide a reliable supply of electricity. The capacity glut is expected to exist through 2050. The existing gas-fired plants will be sufficient to cover prolonged periods of low sunshine or wind. No new ones are required. Dominion realized this and just canceled plans to add 1,500 MW of new gas-fired peaking units.

    You are correct that many new pipelines are being opposed. In the past few years, 25 new pipelines were added to take away gas produced in the Appalachian Basin to markets nationwide. We currently do not produce anywhere near enough gas to fill them all. Do we need more pipelines? Remember, in the past 20 years we have added new pipeline capacity that is twice as great as what we need to transport our peak national use. There is no shortage of pipeline capacity.

    Existing pipelines that serve Virginia and the Carolinas have recently expanded in capacity in an amount greater than what both the ACP and MVP would provide. Dominion told FERC that Transco has enough available capacity to serve all the utilities in North Carolina that signed on to use the ACP.

    http://www.virginiaplaces.org/transportation/graphics/pipedirect.png

    The map you presented has little to do with adequate capacity in gas transmission pipelines. As you can see, Virginia is well covered by major pipelines. We just lack the ability to connect potential industrial sites to the major pipelines. This is not a physical constraint. It is not difficult to build the necessary connection. It’s just not cost-effective to do so. Dominion has said that it would cost $5 – $8 million to tap the ACP and add the necessary measurement and pressure regulation facilities. The local gas company would then have to build a connector from the transmission pipeline to the industrial site. The gas company would have to be able to have enough customers, with enough gas demand to pay for this multi-million dollar project and still make a profit. We have an abundant supply of gas in Virginia. It just doesn’t pencil out to get it everywhere that people want it.

    The ACP makes the problem worse instead of better. Based on current cost estimates, the ACP would add over $30 billion in costs to the utilities that have signed on as shippers for the ACP, for just a 20-year capacity reservation.

    The utilities, and possibly their customers, would have to pay this amount in full regardless of how much of it is used. Eighty percent of the pipeline was intended for new gas-fired power plants. Those plants have been cancelled or significantly delayed. Dominion said it is not building any new gas-fired plants. Testimony to the SCC shows that Dominion has more than enough capacity under long-term contracts to meet all of the gas requirements for its power plants. Yet, it is still intending to pass through the cost of its $6 billion contract with the ACP, even though its customers would receive no benefit from it.

    The ACP would make delivered gas far more expensive than gas provided from existing pipelines. The cost of gas is about the same at the Dominion South supply zone compared to gas prices in Transco Zone 5, which includes Virginia and the Carolinas. The expected cost of transportation on the ACP is considerably more than the current price of the gas at Dominion South. Transportation on existing pipelines in Virginia is a fraction of the price of what the ACP would cost.

    Continued investments in gas infrastructure will only add to our energy costs without improving reliability.

  9. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Which was the pipeline Coal Man Steyer invested in?

    If demand has fallen, so will production & there will be bankruptcies. When demand picks up, the non-operating equipment will be purchased for pennies on the dollar and will start producing again.

    And the higher the left-leaning governments artificially push energy prices, the more demand for gas at the higher price. Wiseman Northam is helping the hydro-carbon industry in the long run. But what should we expect from a guy who has been lying daily about his past?

    I was watching the BBC news the other day. Europe has been patting itself on the back for reducing carbon emissions. The commentator said the reduction largely came from de-industrialization in Europe. The Continent now purchases much of what it used to make from China, which, of course, results in higher and higher carbon emissions. The world is more complex than the wisdom of a teenager would suggest.

    1. TomH Avatar
      TomH

      You are right TMT. A portion of the per capita decline in energy use in the U.S. has been due to moving much of our core manufacturing offshore. We have shifted to a service and intellectual property economy, while much of the manufacturing occurs elsewhere; often in countries with less environmental protection.

      I thought at first that the oil majors were hoping to drive many of the current gas producers into bankruptcy then swoop in and buy up the leases for dimes on the dollar. Once a few large producers controlled the industry they would cut back production and raise prices.

      With Chevron bailing out, I’m no longer sure if my guess was correct. We shall see.

      1. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
        Jane Twitmyer

        More Goodby Gas news … in addition to Chevron as the 4th oil major to slash its estimates for sector values, and to Mizuho Securities analysts urging Exxon’s chief executive, Darren Woods, to write down the full value of the company’s $30 billion acquisition of XTO Energy, the “California Energy Commission on Dec. 11 approved the premature decommissioning and demolition of General Electric’s 10-year-old, financially struggling natural gas-fired Inland Empire Energy Center. The $500 million generating facility in Riverside County was heralded as the future of the global power sector.”

        “Now a different future is unfolding — one in which a large-scale battery storage system is planned to replace the once roughly 800-MW, combined-cycle plant after GE dismantles it over the next year.” IEEFA

  10. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    This is a confusing thread – conflated from the get go.

    Just because some location in Virginia does not have easy access to gas does not mean there is a shortage of natural gas in general. It means that pipeline infrastructure is lacking at that location – not unlike other infrastructure like high voltage lines or water/sewer or roads.

    there are LOTS of places in Virginia that lack one or more of these things.

    It’s almost like saying that because in some rural area where a service station is 20 miles away has a gasoline “shortage”.

  11. J. Abbate Avatar
    J. Abbate

    Many of us who have studied the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline for the past 6 years, from FERC filings to current ACP problems with legal permits, have long ago realized their proof of demand for the ACP gas was simply bogus. Having subsidiaries of Duke and Dominion subscribe to the ACP clearly does not constitute domestic need. Simple research over domestic demand trends shows that domestic demand has slowed and will remain low or flat through 2030. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has been showing this for years. The US EIA states, “The United States becomes a net energy exporter in 2020 and remains so throughout the projection period as a result of large increases in crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas plant liquids (NGPL) production coupled with slow growth in U.S. energy consumption.” Additionally, they add, “Increasing energy efficiency across end-use sectors keeps U.S. energy consumption relatively flat, even as the U.S. economy continues to expand.” Both US EIA and the Dept. of Energy are clear about expecting gas demand to remain flat through 2030 or beyond. This trend analysis continues to under-predict the additional development of solar and wind energy that both Duke and Dominion are embracing and is occurring nationwide. Repeating the Dominion worn-out script about the ACP fulfilling some non-existent demand does not magically make it so. In fact, the areas that are domestic end targets for the ACP in Virginia and North Carolina are already relatively well supplied by the Transco pipeline, that is already paid for and provide much cheaper gas than the ACP would ever supply. Other areas in the region could gain gas supply from Transco with relatively smaller connections, not requiring an $8 billion dollar unneeded gas infrastructure project that profits Dominion and Duke stockholders with an absurd 14% ROI (about double the ROI of other utility projects) for just building the massive pipeline. This does not even account for the farms, communities, and businesses disrupted and property values lowered (some 10 to 30% lost in Union Hill, the proposed site of the ACP compressor station). For over 3 years, Dominion was asked for a safety plan and an evacuation plan for the thousands of residents in the potential blast zone of the pipeline and compression stations with no reply, ignoring the data from PHMSA showing that numerous gas pipelines and compression stations have dangerous leaks, explosions, and fires every month in the U.S., resulting in loss of life, property, livestock. Once this project was examined by independent researchers, it’s no wonder that Dominion finds itself held up in court and desperately seeking the U.S. Supreme Court to override the regulations and laws that they have violated in their search for profit. The awakened citizenry of VA taxpayers and energy ratepayers have now seen behind the curtain, understand the actual facts and data with this project, and have risen up to stand against it in every way that informed citizens, captive ratepayers, and threatened communities can with limited resources. The ACP is a bad deal and an unnecessary overbuild of natural gas infrastructure in our region. This stalled project is an example of how the gas boom is slowing at this time. Credit for new gas drilling/fracking projects is getting volatile and investors are getting wary of overbuilding. As a Total Quality Management consultant, I would say that when Dominion must state that the ACP is billions over budget and over 2 years over schedule, they are in trouble. This is simply not the performance expected from a Six Sigma quality company. As a ratepayer, I would rather see more investment in supply management innovation, battery storage, and grid stability, all of which are actually needed to strengthen our power supply into the future. Dominion and other major utilities have an important role to play in our energy future, but that does not mean that we should be rolled over by the search for corporate profit at the cost and harm of ratepayers and property owners.

  12. TBill Avatar
    TBill

    This really puts pressure on very expensive Off-Shore wind. If nat gas is so cheap, and it is, holy cow.

    Off-Shore wind is so, so expensive. The good things is we would have build big manufacturing plants to contruct the wind turbines, employee many people. Dollars will be flying everywhere. Just a huge undertaking, with a huge footprint of ocean space taken.

    You could build one nat gas plant on a postage stamp of land, and get more power for way less dollars. All in all I think it probably bodes well for West Virginia to be the nat gas power center, with Virginifornia going full blue.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: ” You could build one nat gas plant on a postage stamp of land”

      you would not count the land where the gas is extracted and the land that the pipeline occupies to supply it?

      I’m not an opponent of gas – I think it is a critical fuel we need to power the grid when wind/solar are not available especially at night.

      But I also think we need fair apple-to-apple comparisons on their footprints and costs.

      And finally, if we CAN “burn” solar and wind INSTEAD of fossil fuels of any kind, including gas, we should.

      Everything I’ve read says that solar/wind are competitive against gas and actually cheaper if you actually do apple-to-apple.

      The best types of gas plants are the kind called Hybrid Combined Cycle where they can be used in either a peak or baseload mode where the baseload mode is about twice as efficient. Baseload from gas at night when solar is not available has no other alternatives… it’s one of very few fuels that can spin up at night instead of running 24/7 like nukes and coals have to.

      For some reason, too many of us, keep saying that solar/wind are not good fuels… as if they have fatal flaws and thus should not be considered primary fuels. I just see them as fuels that are not available 24/7 but when they ARE, they are very competitive on cost and environmental footprint. They make perfect economic sense yet some still continue to have this “anti” attitude against them. It’s inexplicable to me.

  13. Jim Loving Avatar
    Jim Loving

    I don’t think it is clear that demand will increase. As Gail Tverberg has repeatedly pointed out, ““Demand” is what people, through their wages and debt, can afford. If the economy is to continue to operate, workers must receive high enough wages to purchase the goods and services the economy produces.”

    Prices need to remain high enough for producers to continue to drill and dig and build transport infrastructure.
    https://ourfiniteworld.com/2019/12/08/recession-ahead-an-overview-of-our-predicament/#more-44533

  14. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: demand.

    As technology goes forward – it brings more and more efficiency to things like energy use. Just LEDs and Smart thermostats alone have already had a significant impact on electricity use. The newest Toyota Hybrid – the midsized SUV Highlander will get 34 mpg whereas the prior year it got 30 mpg or so. That 4mpg may not sound like much but if you multiple it by thousands of units or millions for other brands – it makes a big enough difference that the gas tax that funds roads is affected negatively.

  15. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
    Jane Twitmyer

    DJ … you say … “natural gas is a much cleaner alternative to coal. and renewables are making progress but are not economically viable for large scale energy production in Virginia.”
    Right now utility scale solar and onshore wind are cheaper in VA than gas. Third party and onsite ownership is basically ruled out although rooftop solar with green loans is cash flow positive. NREL says VA can supply 25% of our demand with rooftop PV.

    McKinsey says … https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/the-decoupling-of-gdp-and-energy-growth-a-ceo-guide
    1. By 2020 the cost of building and running new renewable energy sources will cost less than running existing fossil-fuel generation in many locations.
    2. After a century of growth, (global) energy demand is likely to plateau around 2030,
    Their conclusion … “Energy intensity is decreasing, new sources of power are poised to ascend, and remarkable efficiencies are coming to bear. The changes will be foundational. “

    AND Jim L … Gail Tverberg has not understood the changing energy structure that McKinsey talks about. She says … “Many people are hoping that wind, solar, and hydroelectric will someday replace fossil fuels. I consider this highly unlikely because all three are made using fossil fuels. “

    I don’t understand that thinking but she has also not seen that the long-term link between economic growth and energy growth is in the process of decoupling. McKinsey sees that change in the correlation is breaking down due to “a marked increase in energy efficiency, the rise of electrification and the growing use of renewables.”

    If a recession is coming it is not energy caused. The transition is an economic opportunity and will save us money to spend on other ‘stuff’ in the long run.

  16. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    I just pulled my billing record for Dominion. For the last 13 months (meters read in December 2018 through December 2019), my average monthly bill, including all fees and taxes, was $127.98. It also excludes any credits.

    Assume I put solar on my roof (which might be challenging since my house faces south and there are no roof areas facing due south), what would be my payments and a breakdown of capital and carrying charges? What savings would I likely receive each month? When would I break even?

  17. hemcomm Avatar
    hemcomm

    It doesn’t sound like demand has fallen, but rather demand has not yet materialized — and part of that reason is the delay in building transmission pipelines to carry the gas to market. If the pipelines get built, I suspect we’ll see more coal-to-gas plant conversions, or new gas plants in general, and they will soak up the supply. It’s absurd to think the gas boom is over, unless we’ve decided to revert back to coal or go all in on nuclear. Because wind and solar aren’t going to meet demand anytime soon — especially with all the nimby fights and lack of infrastructure.

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      hemcomm says: “It’s absurd to think the gas boom is over, unless we’ve decided to revert back to coal or go all in on nuclear. Because wind and solar aren’t going to meet demand anytime soon — especially with all the nimby fights and lack of infrastructure.”

      In more normal times, this would be considered common knowledge by reason of common sense.

      However, given today’s collapse of both common sense and knowledge generally, I hereby nominate hemcomm for: The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2020

    2. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
      Jane Twitmyer

      Here you go …new news from “Oil and Gas Market” …

      “Chevron moves on from $11 billion write down, greenlights offshore project. Chevron (NYSE: CVX) announced that it would take an $11 billion impairment charge in the fourth quarter largely due to its shale gas business in Appalachia. The shale industry has struggled to prove it can consistently post positive cash flow, and gas-focused assets are under particular stress.”

      “Analysts say Chevron’s write down are indicative of a broader industry problem.”

Leave a Reply

Read More