Extreme Cold and Power Availability: The Texas Blackouts are Mainly Due to Lack of Winterization of Natural Gas Systems: The Problem With Electrifying Everything

 

Extreme Cold and Power Availability: The Texas Blackouts are Mainly Due to Lack of Winterization of Natural Gas Systems: The Problem with Electrifying Everything

I live in a secluded rural place with fully electric heat and power. A power outage means everything is out. Many people, especially in cities and towns have a similar situation. I have a small propane/LP gas heater for emergencies which I was about to turn on this morning when the power luckily came back on after being out for about 8 hours or so from the ice and snow storms. However, there is another possibly bigger round of ice and snow and single digit temps on the way in a day or two. I have been having weather anxiety. That’s me. Others in the central US have endured much colder temperatures and those further south in Texas and Louisiana have endured unusual snow to which they are not accustomed. Power operators in Texas and Oklahoma have instituted rolling blackouts due to unusually high power demand and to a large amount of power generators going offline. Generators of all kinds, fossil and renewable have gone offline, 34 gigawatts according to Texas regulator ERCOT. By Tuesday, a whopping 45 gigawatts of power tripped offline. This includes wind turbines freezing up, natural gas pipelines freezing up, and power plants tripping offline. Wind turbine freeze up is predictable and counted into power availability. According to power operators wind offline wind due to turbine freeze-up was actually less than predicted and on Monday added up to 4 GW compared to 26 GW of natural gas generation off-line. Another issue is that those generators in the south are not designed and maintained for cold weather since it is rarely necessary. The reason gas pipelines are freezing has to do with water vapor and hydrates in the lines freezing. Another issue has been frozen instrumentation at gas wells and processing plants and freezing cooling water at thermal power plants: natural gas, nuclear, and coal.

This simply shows that the infrastructure in Texas was not built for cold, to northern standards. Newer wind turbines can be outfitted with a thin layer of carbon fiber that can be heated. But it is expensive and can reduce turbine efficiency. Thus, ice on wind turbines can be minimized as it is in colder environments, but it costs and to be realistic that is not likely to be a recurring problem in Texas. Since wind is only a small part of winter supply in Texas the real problem is their natural gas delivery system.

Jim Robb, President and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation put it like this:

“It may not be an event that you plan for, but it has got to be an event that you are prepared for.”

Natural Gas Freeze-Off was the Main Issue in Texas

Texas has an isolated and deregulated power grid operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). They have abundant resources including solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear, and coal. Due to that isolation they can’t simply import power via transmission lines from neighboring grid systems like California and other places do. During peak demand in Texas it is natural gas that is relied on and demand for it shot up to very high levels. One issue is that ERCOT under-predicted peak demand of natural gas in a worst-case winter scenario. They predicted top natural gas demand at 67 gigawatts but in reality it was up to 69 gigawatts. According to their forecasts only 7% of winter demand was projected to come from wind. Another issue is not enough natural gas storage and pipeline capacity near power plants despite more than adequate gas supply. Texas does not have much gas storage. It is more of an on-demand system from wells. It works fine except under extreme cold. Wells, gathering lines, and distribution lines in Texas were nor designed for cold weather. Some gathering lines from wells are not even buried but above ground. Many Texas wells require electricity to lift gas through oil and that electricity was off-line. Another issue is that several natural gas power plants were offline due to maintenance which is routinely done in winter months since the high-demand season in Texas is fueled by summer heat not winter cold. Another vulnerability in extreme cold is that the homes and businesses that do have natural gas piped in for heat can rocket up demand quickly and overwhelm supply. The blackouts this summer in California were caused by resource inadequacy. The blackouts in Texas were caused by winterization inadequacy which led to resource inadequacy. In both cases peak demand was not adequately forecasted. Gas supply went down due to lack of winterization while gas demand skyrocketed. Gas from many Texas fields comes from wells that mostly or partly produce oil and heavier, wetter natural gas liquids. Water is mixed in as well and that water is what freezes. Water mixes with hydrocarbons to form hydrates. Higher BTU gas is more likely to form hydrates and freeze. The hydrates can freeze above the freezing point of water. This ice in the lines can damage instrumentation. The fluids are separated out at gas processing plants so much of the freeze-off occurs between wells and those processing plants. Glycol absorption systems can take water vapor out of the lines before they freeze. This is part of the gas dehydration system. In well tubing, gathering systems, and pipelines in colder areas methanol is injected into the system through pump or drip. It acts as an anti-freeze which lowers the freezing point of the water in the system. Heat can also be applied where pressure drops and where orifice sizes drop. Instrument filters can be used to keep instrumentation dry and less freezable. Equipment freeze-up at gas processing plants has also been a problem. Texas also makes more power from natural gas than it did previously which compounds the issue. Yet another issue is freezing water at facilities at natural gas, coal, and nuclear power plants. Freezing in pipelines is exacerbated when pressure drops in gas lines or where flow is restricted. Freezing due to pressure drop is called pressure differential. Once in a high-pressure gas well during drilling on a hot summer day I saw an 8-inch flow line become covered in ice as a high-pressure gas shot to the low-pressure surface.

A paper by Texas author Tom Fay titled Freeze Protection for Natural Gas Pipeline Systems and Measurement Instrumentation makes the following conclusions:

“Freezing is a major issue in any natural gas system. Being aware of the problem it can present and taking steps to prevent it are critical for the integrity of the system and operations. Proper planning, regular maintenance, and anticipating potential problems should be a priority. Attention to those preventative details will ensure a smooth operation. Failure to do so can lead to costly problems and affect a company’s bottom line.”

And I might add – it can affect the integrity of the pipeline system to such an extent that reliability of supply is endangered.

Detractors argue that designing a system at considerable added expense to withstand weather that only occurs in a handful of days in 20 years is impractical but millions of freezing people think otherwise. Texas governor Greg Abbott is holding ERCOT responsible.

Electrifying Everything is Fine but We Need Back-up Power and Better Reliability Too

Heat pumps are quite efficient, work great, and offer a good means to decarbonize. They are fantastic for A/C here in Ohio in both effect and cost. However, they are limited in extremely cold weather. Below about 14 deg F many systems lose efficiency and provide less heat. Electric space heaters or a properly vented propane/LP gas heater and fuel might be needed in those situations. People with wood heat or unvented propane or natural gas heaters (that combust very efficiently and don’t require venting) always have heat in a power outage. Home battery systems are also a possibility but at a high expense for something that may rarely be used. All-electric households are out of luck. Power outages are most often caused by weather: snowstorms, ice storms, and storms with strong winds that cause trees to break power lines and poles. Adequate preparation, winterization, and maintenance helps but is not foolproof. In winter the power is more likely to go out when you need it most for heat so that can create anxiety if you don’t have adequate back-up. I predict as more things become electrified that in the future the back-up systems too will become electrified as battery systems continue to get cheaper and better in performance. There are lithium battery systems now that can do much of it but something like a Tesla Powerwall is not cheap. Yeti has a very flexible portable system the size of a car battery for couple grand but it maxes out at 660 Watts which could potentially accommodate an electric space heater (of some types) on its lowest setting for a short time, maybe an hour or two, but that might be pushing it. Home battery systems will have to get better and cheaper before they can provide back-up heat but it seems likely that at some point they will.

Once again, Robert Bryce beat me to the punch in a pertinent Forbes article pointing out the perils of “electrifying everything.” He makes the interesting observation that concentrating all of our energy production onto our electric grid instead of keeping other power grids like the natural gas distribution piped into homes for heating would make things less reliable not more reliable. However, he doesn’t note that the excess demand on the natural gas heating side coupled with the excess demand on the electric side to favor the heating side. He notes rightly that we can store vast amounts of fuels like natural gas but only comparatively miniscule amounts of electricity for weather-related demand surges. He also suggests that some people, those that want to ban new natural gas hook-ups in states like New York, California, and Massachusetts are misguided. An all-of-the-above strategy is usually useful in demand surges. Diversification of energy supply is one way we help to ensure energy security. With talk about ecological anxiety or climate anxiety we tend to forget that weather anxiety related to immediate power availability is far greater, more warranted, and more immediately real than anxiety about some vaguely possible future problems.

References:

How Extreme Cold Turned Into a U.S. Energy Crisis – by Lynn Doan, in Bloomberg, Feb. 15, 2021.

Millions in Texas, Oklahoma without power as grid operators call for conservation – by Robert Walton, in Utility Dive, Feb. 16, 2021.

Severe weather, blackouts show the grid’s biggest problem is infrastructure, not renewables – by Jonathan Shieber, in Tech Crunch, Feb. 15, 2021.

Sweden Shows Texas How to Keep Turbines Spinning in Icy Weather – by Jesper Starn and Krystal Chia, in Bloomberg, Feb. 16, 2021.

Texas largely relies on natural gas for power. It wasn’t ready for the extreme cold – by Erin Douglas, in The Texas Tribune, Feb. 16, 2021.

Texas’ natural gas production just froze under pressure – by Justina Calma, in The Verge, Feb. 17, 2021.

Texas produces more power than any other state. Here’s why it went dark anyway – by Matt Egan, in CNN, Feb. 16, 2021.

Freeze protection for Natural Gas Pipeline Systems and Measurement Instrumentation – by Tim Fay, in asgmt.com

Goal Zero Yeti 1500X Portable Power Station – goalzero.com

Texas made few power reforms despite warnings. ‘An incredibly dangerous situation.’ – by Mark Dent, in Star-Telegram, Feb. 17, 2021.

This Blizzard Exposes the Perils of Attempting to Electrify Everything – by Robert Bryce, in Forbes, Feb. 15, 2021.

Lithium-Ion Power Tools and Lawn Equipment: Inexpensive, Effective, and Quite Convenient

 

Lithium-Ion Power Tools and Lawn Equipment: Inexpensive, Effective, and Quite Convenient

These days one can go to stores like WalMart and find an array of power tools that run on lithium-ion batteries. These include weedeaters, hedge trimmers, edgers, leaf blowers, portable vacuums, chain saws, circular saws, rototillers, snow blowers, pressure washers, push mowers, and even riding mowers. Power tools like circular saws, jigsaws, drills, and many others reduce the need to plug in and to have wires draped all over work sites. In several versions one can use the same battery for most of those tools, which can save costs. Indeed, as in most lithium-powered devices the battery is often the costliest component. Indeed, DC brushless motors have revolutionized several products and the quality of these products is bound to improve through time.

The earliest versions of these tools were lower in power due to cost and stifled by battery efficiency. Newer versions are more powerful and can be cost competitive with gas powered equipment. They can also be performance competitive with gas powered equipment.

Advantages of electrified tools include no need for cords and grid power when running, no need to buy and mix fuel, no combustion fumes, very low maintenance, and much reduced operational noise.

I believe that as battery tools improve in quality and efficiency, that they will in many cases largely replace gas-powered tools and corded tools. The trend is already underway.  

The lithium economy began with small devices powered by bulky and heavy lithium batteries. The early bag phones, camcorders, and other devices were heavy and more limited in utility. As battery tech improved the lithium-ion batteries got smaller and began to replace traditional batteries at a lower cost and longer life than traditional batteries. Smaller batteries and improvements with microprocessors allowed many devices to get smaller.

I have a 60V cordless chain saw. It is clearly not as powerful as my gas chain saw but the convenience makes it choice for small cuts. No mixing fuel but it still requires bar chain oil. No fumes. It’s quieter. The battery only lasts about half an hour though. There are 80V chainsaws now. Having to replace my push lawn mower this year after about 8 years with my gas mower I was going to buy another gas mower, but I saw the electric mowers were all on sale at very good discounts. I have a lot to mow. I ended up buying an 80V for about $130 more than the equivalent gas mower would have cost me. With savings on fuel, oil, filters, and spark plugs I should recoup all of that extra cost at some point. It is a Kobalt and so far, I am very happy with it. The battery lasts about 1 hour and 15 minutes. It also takes 1 hour and 15 minutes to charge, which is fine since after mowing for an hour and 15 minutes on a hot day I’m usually ready for a break. It is comparably quiet. It has no fumes. My previous gas mower had been giving off more fumes the last year. It also doesn’t give off as much heat (ICE engines give off heat, brushless electric motors do not). It doesn’t vibrate as much. It has a bit less power, but it cuts up twigs just fine. I like less power in some ways like kicking up less dust and I’m guessing if I hit something it won’t bend the blade as easily. It has one lever that raises or lowers all the wheels at once – quite convenient. None of the gas mowers I looked at had that feature, but I know some do now. No buying, transporting, storing, and spilling gasoline. No buying or changing oil, air filter, or spark plug. No pulling the rope and hoping for the best. I have a lithium weedeater that is ready for its 8th year in operation and the batteries still charge good. It is not a powerful one but does the job for me. It came with two 20V batteries that can be switched and last about 15 min each. There are much better ones out now. I must say I look forward to future quality cordless lithium powered tools and lawn equipment.

   

Biobutanol: A Viable Biofuel with Advantages Over Ethanol a a Gasoline Additive

Biobutanol: A Viable Biofuel with Advantages Over Ethanol as a Gasoline Additive 


Intro


Biobutanol is butanol, or butyl alcohol, derived from a biomass source. Butanol can also be made from hydrocarbons and that is known as petrobutanol. As a biofuel, butanol has some significant advantages over the most common biofuel, ethanol, or ethyl alcohol. As a C4 hydrocarbon biobutanol is more similar to gasoline than to ethanol. Butanol has a lower vapor pressure and a higher energy content than ethanol. Biomass feedstocks for biobutanol are similar to those for ethanol, grains like corn, sugar beets, sugar cane, and other biomass. There is also cellulosic butanol, like cellulosic ethanol, made from plant wastes. Biobutanol can also be enhanced by bacteria, yeast, or fungi, and made from algae as a feedstock with cyanobacteria. More specifically, genetically modified bacteria offer some future possibilities for biobutanol production. One challenge for biobutanol is that more bioethanol than biobutanol can be produced from a bushel of corn. Biobutanol has been in development as a modern biofuel for many years now and has fluctuated in value. More recently, there are biobutanol gasoline blends in use for road vehicles in parts of the U.S. 


Fermentation, Biosynthesis, Cyanobacteria, and Substrates

Biobutanol production relies on ABE fermentation - acetone-butanol-ethanol. One economic impediment to alcohol fuels like ethanol and butanol is that  they are limited by inefficient fermentation rates. Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria is useful in the commercial production of biobutanol since in a genetically engineered form it produces the highest yields of isobutanol of any microorganism. Isobutanol is a second-generation biofuel that has significant advantages over ethanol. E. coli is ideal as an isobutanol bio-synthesizer for other reasons as well: it has been studied extensively, it is very manipulatable with genetic engineering, and it has the ability to use lignocellulose (from agricultural waste) to make isobutanol. The process still faces economic hurdles though. Bioreactors are also susceptible to bacteriophages that may damage fermentation. Scientists are trying to genetically engineer that susceptibility out of new strains. 


Clostridia is another bacterium that can make isobutanol. It is very good at making isobutanol from cellulose. It was once used to make acetone form from starch. Acetone was made from corn starch and molasses in both World Wars in biobutanol plants through such fermentation. The acetone was used in the manufacture of smokeless gunpowder and rocket propellant, but butanol was still the main product. In the 1960’s it began to be more economic to make butanol from petroleum products. Other potential bio-synthesizers of isobutanol include the bacterium Bacillus subtilis, the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and the soil bacterium Ralstonia eutropha.


Genetically engineered cyanobacteria, a form of algae, are also a good feedstock for isobutanol. It does not require the use of plants. It grows faster than plants. It grows in water and sunlight and takes CO2 from the atmosphere, a climate plus. Drawbacks are a need for specific wavelengths of sunlight and a medium of precise salinity, two conditions which are difficult to control. Cyanobacteria bioreactors also require more energy to operate. These energy intensity, salinity, and sunlight requirements impact the economics of making isobutanol from cyanobacteria. 


Metabolic engineering is used to allow an organism to use a cheaper substrate. Fermentation requires sugars as a substrate so cheaper sugars, like glycerol instead of glucose, could make the process cheaper. Glycerol is cheap and abundant as a waste-product from biodiesel production. Other processes are being explored to recover butanol with higher efficiency. Enzymes are used to catalyze reactions. Fermentation chemistry and genetic engineering are two technologies used to make fermentation more efficient and the search is ongoing to find the most economic components for catalysis and for substrates. 

The Timeline of Microbial Biobutanol Production below is from the Ph.D. dissertation of Reyna Gomez-Flores at the University of Western Ontario, 2018

Projects


DuPont and BP have a joint venture to develop, produce, and market next-generation biofuels. Biobutanol is a big part of that. Swiss company Butalco is exploring biobutanol production that uses a fungi to convert organic waste into biobutanol. There are also plans for an E85B fuel mixture that is 85% ethanol and 15% butanol to be run in existing E85 engines. BP and DuPont claim that a 10% biobutanol blend with gasoline is possible with no engine modification. 


Th U.S. Coast Guard began a year-long engine test of 16.1 % biobutanol blended fuel for ships in 2012-2013. At the time the price of oil was high. They chose biobutanol over natural gas, ethanol blends, and biomass liquid fuels based on maturity, performance, safety, and logistics. Their supplier used metabolic engineering to develop yeast-based isobutanol. They were also doing engine tests where they were running engines on the biobutanol regularly for months then tearing the engines apart to analyze for corrosion and other issues. I don’t know the results of this project but I can make a guess that cost is still an issue relative to current oil and gasoline prices. 


Eastman Chemical Company also had a biobutanol project in the works in 2012, utilizing a genetically engineered Clostridium bacterium for biosynthesis. Bioacetone and biobutanol made by the process are used in coatings, molded plastics, and personal care products. 


Biobutanol is also promising as a biofuel for use as jet fuel. However, like some other biobutanol and other biofuel applications, there is still economics relative to fossil hydrocarbons, so significant subsidization is also required for profitability. Aviation biofuel does qualify as a non-CO2 emitting fuel but there has been difficulty in applying it to the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) at least as of 2016.


Two companies manufacturing biobutanol in the US, Butomax and Gevo, have had some patent disputes in the past. The companies also make by-products including solvents/coatings, plastics, and fibers. This helps them diversify. Both companies registered for “on-highway vehicle sales with EPA” by June 2018. Biobutanol blends are currently sold in select parts of the U.S. 

A more recent breakthrough in biobutanol production was recently announced in a new paper in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, This involves a new metal organic framework that can more efficiently separate or recover biobutanol from the fermented biomass broth. It removes a significant obstacle. Current focus is on scaling up the process.


Properties of Isobutanol that Favor it Over Ethanol


The energy density of isobutanol is 98% that of gasoline. It does not readily absorb water from air like ethanol and so prevents corrosion of engines and of pipelines. Ethanol that absorbs water can separate from the gasoline with which it is mixed. Butanols, especially n-butanol, or normal butanol, that has a slightly different chemical formula than its isomer, isobutanol, resist such separation. It can be mixed at any proportion with gasoline – ie. it can replace gasoline or be an additive to gasoline. Isobutanol has a high octane rating similar to ethanol and so, like ethanol, is suitable as an additive to boost octane rating. N-butanol has a lower octane rating and is not suitable for this purpose. It can be made from plant matter not connected to food supplies. Butanols are less damaging to engines than ethanol since they can be mixed in at higher ratios before retrofitting or modification would be required. This is because butanols have an air-fuel ratio and energy content more similar to gasoline than ethanol does. 


References:


Biobutanol, in U.S. Dept of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Fall 2018


Researchers Make Key Advance Toward Production of Important Biofuel – by Oregon State University, in Journal of the American Chemical Society, accessed in Phys.org


Butanol Fuel, entry in Wikipedia


Biobutanol: The Next Big Biofuel? – by Jessica Ebert, in Biomass Magazine, May 2008


Isobutanol to the Rescue: The U.S. Coast Guard is Testing Isobutanol Gasoline Blends in its Fuel Engines – by Chris Hanson, in Biomass Magazine, Oct. 25, 2013


The Business of Biobutanol: Acquisitions, Patent Infringement Disputes Continue – by Erin Voegele, in Biomass Magazine, Jan. 9, 2012


Promising Jet Fuel Market Looms for Upgraded Bioethanol, Butanol  - by Kapil Lokare,  in Ethanol Producer Magazine, Feb. 5. 2016 


Biobutanol Production from Cellulosic and Sugar-Based Feedstock from the Corn Plant – by Reyna Gomez-Flores. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario, in Electronic  Thesis and Dissertation Repository, April 24, 2018

Racism, Sexism, Harassment, and Unfairness in the Workplace

Racism, Sexism, Harassment, and Unfairness in the Workplace


With the current national focus on racism I thought I would write a bit about my own experiences. I’m a white male and below I relate some experiences I have had, a reckoning of sorts. I am being quite candid here in the spirit of providing accurate data through my own experiences. 


While most of my work is remote and has been for more than five years, at other times I have worked in offices, in the field, and attended conferences, meetings, field trips, and workshops. Before my career in the oil and gas industry I had worked many jobs, often working alongside African Americans, Latinos, and people who migrated from other countries. Sometimes they were co-workers and sometimes they were bosses. I had one job where I worked alongside ex-cons repairing and refurbishing cable TV converters, some black and some Latino. My supervisor was black and liked my work. I got called into the office to talk to the higher up boss, thinking that I was going to get my 15-cent per hour raise but instead I got fired. He said my work was lacking. My supervisor was aghast. It was a lie. As it turns out, since I got hired a few weeks before most of the crew I got fired before I had enough time in to collect unemployment. Most of them too got fired a few weeks later. At another job my boss was a very cool black biker. I don’t recall much racism in those jobs but there was likely some I missed. Where I grew up there were very few black families, but we were good friends with them. Two were classmates. However, racism was there, in jokes, in comments, in inequality of opportunities.


In college I went to a school with a big international population, so I had classmates from Africa, Indonesia, India, Europe, and all over the place. There were Muslims and Hindus. I knew an interracial couple there that had faced some backlash. One of my room mates had a black girlfriend.   

The oil and gas industry is perhaps notable, or at least it was, for having few minorities. In the field at least, there were few women as well. Drilling rigs had calendars up with naked or half-naked women. No one thought much about it. It was quite rare to see a black or Latino man in the oilfield in Appalachia. There were a few here and there. Some women would be much talked about after they came and went. Later in office work we would be educated about sexual harassment and policies around it and had to watch videos about it. This was a good thing. People did tell crude quasi-sexist jokes, once in a while. Consenting adults can do what they want to some extent I suppose, as long as long as no one objects. I don’t recall anyone complaining about that. I don’t recall much education about racism in the workplace though.  


Racism in the office was rare, but there were certain people who would make an occasional racist comment. After 9/11 I heard the word “towelhead” a lot and the n-word on occasion. In places I heard Martin Luther King Day referred to in derogatory language.


Most of the racist sentiments I encountered were in the field. After Obama was in office for a while, I heard a Texas directional driller say, “somebody ought to shoot that nigger.” There was a company man from Oklahoma who used the n-word quite frequently. Luckily, he wasn’t around long. There was one group of directional drillers and MWD guys that were openly racist in their conversations. It was sad to hear one guy adopt derogatory terms from them. In 2012 just after Obama was re-elected, I opened the door to a DD/MWD shack and an old directional driller from Louisiana barked at me, “Did you vote for that nigger?!” Interesting that they could feel so confident to say such a thing without consequence. He sort of apologized and tried to explain his use of the term but it was weak. He explained that once at a job a black man put him in danger insinuating that that gave him a right to use racist language.


Rig hands, aka “rough necks” were not known for political correctness. Some liked to mess with people and intimidate people. I worked with lots of them through the years. I actually faced what could be termed sexual harassment from some though I knew it was a ruse and tended to ignore them. A few guys took things to deep levels and would be willing to mess with anyone. Once when I got to a well site at a rig I had never worked with before I went to the doghouse and introduced myself and asked where I could plug in. Some rigs were very particular about where to plug in. A rig hand asked if I had ever worked at a drilling rig before, I said “well yeah.” He said. “then act like it,” and walked away. This was in northern Ohio. Another hand there saw my West Virginia plates and said “we don’t like people from West Virginia.” He said one guy just got out of prison. He said they were going to slash my tires and rape me. It was night. There was no one else around except them and me. I went about my work, ignoring them. Then one put a pistil up to my head and said he was going to blow my head off. I was writing down pipe tallies and just kept on writing trying to ignore him. He said some more vile things and I went off to my work trailer. I actually worked with that rig a few more times. The one guy really tried to intimidate people. It was a ruse, sure, but a cruel one. I confronted him about it and he said, “What are you a psychologist?” I was a mudlogger then. There were tool pushers that didn’t like us mudloggers. Later, as a wellsite geologist a Canadian tool pusher complained that I was going too fast coming into location. I was going maybe 10 mph, but they had a posted speed limit of 5 mph. Fair enough, but he didn’t have to threaten a sledgehammer through my windshield! I think that was just for emphasis, though.


In the oilfields and in other jobs like construction there is often a roughness around boss-employee relations. These jobs require people to know how to be safe and putting others in danger is not tolerated. One problem is people saying they know how to do something when they don’t know how to do it. One time a rig hand thought he knew about drilling and when the driller went off location for supplies. He decided to operate the rig controls and messed something up. He felt bad about it and walked off. We were in the mountains of West Virginia in the middle of nowhere. They found him hours later. I’ve heard tool pushers be abusive to rig hands, company men and drilling engineers be abusive to young geologists, and one tool pusher be abusive to his girlfriend. I saw one driller drunk as hell on location, but his co-workers were keeping watch on him. 


I have kept my hair long for the last thirty years. In some places men with long hair were/are discriminated against. Once I went to a place to inquire about a job and the owner of the company told me that if I cut my hair he might hire me but after subjecting me to religious proselytizing and accusing me of being a drug addict. I decided I didn’t want to work for such a fellow. One time on the way between two oilfield jobs I got pulled over for speeding. I drove a lot then and was a bit of a “leadfoot” as they say. The cop said he smelled marijuana, which is something I did not indulge in. Perhaps he smelled some hydrocarbon on my work jacket, drilling mud or diesel oil I don’t know. Another cop came. He said he smelled it too. They made me stand with both hands on the hood of my car while they searched it. It was humiliating. Then about 4 months later it happened again. The cop said he smelled marijuana. I got a little huffy and said a bit loudly, “No you don’t.” He put his hand on his gun and said, “You wanna get smart with me?” I said. “no sir.” Both times I’m pretty sure I was targeted due to having long hair. That is a kind of profiling. Even a few geologist colleagues had made jokes behind my back about my hair, one joking we should find him asleep and cut off his ponytail.


Another police encounter involved me sleeping in my truck. In those days we had a very small per diem and would rarely, if ever, get a hotel room. I worked a 12-hour night shift and would have to sleep during the day. We had no sleeping facilities then. You slept in your vehicle. However, in the middle of summer when it’s hot it is hard to sleep in a vehicle during the day whether the windows are down or not. On well locations there is no shade. One day I went off and found a shady pull-off place along a quiet and quite isolated gravel road and parked there for a bit. Obviously, many cars had parked there. I don’t think it was private property. I decided this would be a great place to sleep so I laid down in my truck seat there and went to sleep. I was in Amish country in north-central Ohio and I had heard a few Amish buggies go by. Later I was awakened by a bullhorn with the words, “step out of the vehicle with your hands up.” That is not a fun way to wake up! Again, it was the out-of-state plates that roused suspicion. The cop was quite rude to me and threatened to arrest me for vagrancy.


Once when walking down the street in a Midwestern city on a weekend night I was harassed. I had a t-shirt on that had a dragon and maybe a Chinese symbol. I was walking past a group of African American men. A very large one said, “My boy knows Egg Fu Yung” and pushed me hard enough to knock me down. Instead I got knocked into one of his friends who pushed me away and I stumbled on down the street. In the small town where I grew up there was one strange guy known as a neo-Nazi. After having once gotten beat up by a group of black men he unfortunately chose that avenue.

When I leave my house, I usually go by a neighboring farm that has Trump flags and signs and a confederate flag. One will see quite a few confederate flags in Ohio and West Virginia and even some in more northern states. Now, they may claim a veneration for southern heritage but that is a weaker argument for northern states. The popularity of the confederate flag directly correlates to moves to counter the civil rights movement.


I don’t recall ever encountering racism at an oil and gas meeting or conference. I do believe we are becoming a less racist and less sexist society as a whole despite the ubiquity of much direct smart phone evidence of bigotry. It is my guess and my hope that racism, sexism, and other harassment in the workplace will continue to decrease.


I have been fairly well compensated for my work over the years, but I did have one experience where I worked for a few months on a project without receiving any compensation. That would qualify as an experience of unfairness. I was recommended to a landowner who also owned a construction business to advise on drilling a well on his property. He is a well-known owner of property and businesses in the region. I agreed to do the work for a few hundred dollars and a small overriding royalty interest in the well. I advised that it was a longshot to make a good well but that it should make some gas. I did geologic mapping, researched nearby well records, advised on zones, did gas detection during drilling, picked perforation zones and attended the perforating, went over hydraulic fracture design and attended the nitrogen frac job and some of the flowback. I had written up a contact to be signed but it was never signed or returned to me. The well was in a low-pressure area and may not have been fully cleaned up and may have needed some compression. In any case, the well was either plugged back or co-produced in a zone a few hundred feet higher. I got no compensation at all and no explanation. I think he did pay for lunch once. My business was booming at the time, so I didn’t worry about it.    

Satellite Measurement of Methane Leakage and Flaring: Comparisons of Vented and Burned Methane: Oil Sector vs. Natural Gas Sector and Methane Mitigation Going Forward

Satellite Measurement of Methane Leakage and Flaring:  Comparisons of Vented and Burned Methane: Oil Sector vs. Natural Gas Sector and Methane Mitigation Going Forward


Atmospheric methane has been measured continuously from space since 2003, and new instruments have been put in orbit the last few years to get more detailed measurements of point sources and regional sources. Future satellite monitoring is expected to employ geostationary observations to get higher resolutions in specific regions and to better understand daily variations in methane output by natural sources like wetlands and manure. In order to get more accurate quantification these efforts require comparisons between top-down inverse analysis from satellite measurements and bottom-up construction of emission inventories. However, since the Trump administration’s EPA pulled its information request for companies to be required to develop their own methane emission inventories through leak detection, the bottom-up inventories will only be accurate for the companies that actually do it, which includes many of the oil and gas majors and some independent operators who are perhaps anticipating that the requirement will come back at some point.  


In 2019 flaring of natural gas from oil wells in the U.S. climbed to nearly 1.5 BCF/day, between 1.5 and 2% of all gas produced in the U.S. The bulk of the flaring came from two regions: the West Texas/Eastern New Mexico Permian Basin and the Bakken oil play in North Dakota. In addition to that, combined methane leakage from upstream and midstream sectors, ie. from gas wells, abandoned wells, pipelines, and facilities, is thought to be a similar amount. However, that methane is not burned so it is significantly more potent (in the short-term) than flared gas in climate effect. Downstream natural gas distribution systems also leak methane at about 0.5%, so the total leaked from the natural gas sector is a bit more than from the oil sector. At least that is what the bottom up studies – adding predicted total emissions together – suggest. Natural gas is dissolved in oil in varying amounts in different hydrocarbon plays and fairways. Thus, natural gas also leaks from oil tanks, condensate tanks, and other facilities. Quantifying how much leaks from each sector and comparing is no easy task and requires a significant leak detection effort. Flaring amounts are fairly well known in comparison. 


A new estimate of total methane leakage collected from satellite data over the Permian Basin indicates that actual leakage is more than double what it was thought to be. This is concerning for several reasons. Even though there is a bigger margin of error with satellite data, it is much less than the increase. First it suggests that leakage is not being measured adequately on the ground. Second it suggests that some companies could be venting more than they say. Third, it suggests that this situation is not sustainable in the long term. 

Highest Rates Ever Recorded Over a Hydrocarbon Field – Permian Basin


The newly estimated leakage rate from the Permian went from 1.2 teragrams to 2.7 teragrams. That would mean that 3.7% of total Permian gas produced is leaking into the atmosphere. The new estimates come from a study by Harvard atmospheric scientist Yuzhong Zhang as reported in the journal Science Advances, with data obtained from the Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument, on a European Space Agency satellite. Since flaring burns most of the methane (98-99.8% typically) the data indicates that this is just leaking methane. The same data over other hydrocarbon fields does not show high leakage rates. For example, in the Appalachian shale gas areas the methane (including all sources: wetlands, landfills, agriculture, and manure, etc.) is only elevated in a few small areas which suggests that the low methane leakage rates reported in the basin are close to accurate. 

Methane Mitigation Going Forward

The following information comes from the Hart Energy article referenced below:

In 2019 Kairos Aerospace investigated methane leakage at 28,000 active wells and 10,000 mile of pipelines covering most of the New Mexico part of the Permian Basin. What they found was that less than 3% of the sites were leaking 70-80% of the methane. That is good news for mitigation. When companies estimate methane emissions they are relying on emission factor of their equipment rather than direct measurement. That means that their estimates are always going to be lower than the actuals. Finding out the causes for the bigger leaks is leading to real reductions:

"As an example, a client from the 2019 survey realized that a significant number of its large emissions were coming from a particular type of thief hatch that was not sealing properly."

Replacement of those hatches is expected to show significant reductions in emissions when the area is resurveyed.

"For one client, Kairos's work identified the root cause for a large portion of emissions was that line pressure was frequently too high in one of its midstream partner's  gathering networks, causing venting (as intended) from the pressure relief valves on the tank batteries." 

This type of emissions from gathering lines is more difficult to mitigate but can be prevented by better gathering design that reduces bottlenecks leading to high line pressures. 

Another example involved a large crude oil gathering and processing facility where actual methane emissions were found to be much higher than estimated. Thus justified investing in a large vapor recovery system that will capture sellable product and allow the facility to stay within permitted emissions requirements. 

Below is a graph of methane emissions by source from the Kairos New Mexico study:

Here we see that in the oil-rich Permian Basin most of the methane emissions are coming from well pad tanks 40% and gathering lines 30%. Dry gas areas such as much of (but not all) Pennsylvania do not have such tanks so that limits a major source of emissions compared to the oil fields.


Another very good hot off the press article in the June issue of E&P magazine focuses on greenhouse gas emissions but mostly on methane emissions. It gives some insight into evaluation and management and some very interesting new technologies developed by service providers that are being adopted by oil majors and independents. Below is a summary:


Companies may categorize methane emissions into two types: operational – emissions that occur in accordance with equipment designs, and fugitive emissions – mostly unintended leaks. They may require merging of data to assess their own emissions sources effectively. Service providers specialize in such data management. Operational emissions can often be reduced by replacement of equipment with better equipment. Fugitive emissions most often must be detected and repaired. There can be some overlap of operation and fugitive emissions for example when a certain piece of equipment is leak-prone.


Another service provider specializes in developing a GIS-based platform for mapping data involved in methane emissions management. The company, Geosite, integrates different kinds of data like satellite imagery, sensor locations, and drone data through map layers. This can be valuable in a number of ways from characterizing emissions to aiding field ops in leak detection and repair (LDAR) activities.


Flaring mitigation is another area where service providers are offering different solutions. Flare mitigation often involves converting the burning gas to electricity via gas turbine technology. The problem then often arises that there are many point sources of power generation and no way to use the electricity, especially in fields that are far from grids and power users. One company offers a solution by using the flares to power high-usage data center servers and computing applications like blockchain that are power hungry. I’m not sure if they include the dubious and speculative blockchain usage of cryptocurrency mining. Their process also involves building a grid to connect the data centers together. Perhaps flares on several well pads could power an electric frac job or provide power for drilling operations. I wouldn’t be surprised if flares were adapted to charge batteries that could offer power regulation and peak shaving for local power grids or some other distributed energy application.


The Oil and Gas Climate Commission has a $1 billion fund to support greenhouse gas reduction technology development. Part of that fund was used to develop a technology to replace pneumatic controllers that run on compressed methane which is vented in the process with pneumatics that run on compressed air which is powered by burning natural gas or some other power source resulting in a significant net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The company estimate that pneumatic are responsible for 20% of methane emissions and that there are about 250,000 of such replaceable pneumatic devices in use in the U.S. which are responsible for 14 million tons of CO2 equivalent.

References:

Satellite Data Show ‘Highest Emissions Ever Measured’ from U.S. Oil and Gas Operations – Environmental Defense Fund, accessed in phys.org, April 23, 2020


A U.S. Oil-Producing Region is Leaking Twice as Much Methane as Once Thought – by Carolyn Gramling, in Science News, April 22, 2020


Methane Destruction Efficiency of Natural Gas Flares Associated with Shale Formation Wells – by Dan R. Caulton et al: Environmental Science and Technology, 2014


Satellite Observations of Atmospheric Methane and Their Value for Quantifying Methane Emissions – by Daniel J. Jacob et al., in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16, 14371-14396, 2016

E&P Operator Solutions: Methane Measurement Understanding the Big Picture - by Ken Branson, Kairos Aerospace, in Hart Energy, May 28, 2020

Keeping a Lid On GHG Emissions - by Brian Walzel, Senior Editor, E&P Mag, Vol 93, Issue 6, June 2020

Logistical, Safety, and Environmental Issues of Storing Excess Oil During This Oil Crash

Logistical, Safety, and Environmental Issues of Storing Excess Oil During This Oil Crash


With oil storage hubs nearly full and many more than usual full tankers docked or in open ocean, storage solutions are actively being sought. The main hubs such as the one at Cushing, Oklahoma are basically full. Plans to add about 77MM barrels of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will help but are not yet approved and it takes time to move that much oil there. The incentive for storage companies is to buy oil at rock bottom prices and sell later at a significant profit. But will there be costs to this storage overflow? Are these new and makeshift oil storage facilities being managed adequately? Will there be spills due to mismanagement? Will excess oil in storage above ground lead to more methane and VOC emissions?

The Texas Railroad Commission decided against mandatory production curtailments as many companies are implementing voluntary curtailments. As long as these makeshift storage facility owners are making storage available there will be incentive to sell for those who must sell to survive. Oilfield water storage tanks are being converted to store oil. Pipeline company Energy Transfer LP is planning to fill their available pipeline capacity to store oil.


The return of oil demand in the near future is unlikely and it could take a while before it moves much. Both road travel and air travel are expected to stay down for the time being, especially air travel. Refineries do not need it. In reality, the oil is safer in the wells but shutting in wells can cause problems with the wells and add expense especially when resuming production. There could even be reservoir damage.  The International Energy Agency estimates that global oil demand is down by a quarter. That also means that the announced OPEC-plus production cuts won’t have the intended effect on prices. With real uncertainty about re-openings of economies and planned gradual and careful re-openings, demand is not expected to go near pre-coronavirus levels any time soon. Storage overflow is expected to continue to be a problem even after some oil demand resumes. Prices could collapse again to ‘negative on paper’ territory if production is not slowed enough. The shortage in global storage guarantees it. A recovery in the oil sector is not really expected till 2022 but in the meantime the level and speed of demand return will dictate what happens.


Above ground and underground storage tanks, ASTs and USTs respectively, are regulated at federal, state, and local levels. Spill prevention, control, and countermeasure (SPCC) plans are required according to the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA and OSHA also have requirements for oil storage management. Tanks must be made to certain specs. Those who operate transfer and storage facilities also have training requirements dictated by regulators, usually individual states, under EPA guidance.  

References:


Wanted: Somewhere, Anywhere, to Store Lots of Cheap Oil – by Rebecca Elliott, in The Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2020


The Hunt for Oil Storage Space is On – Here’s How it Works and Why it Matters – by Sam Meredith, in CNBC, April 22, 2020


Breaking: Images of Fully Loaded Oil Tankers Stranded At Sea – in Sahel Standard Magazine, April 29, 2020


Storage Tank Regulations – by Kaela Martins, Retail Compliance Center, Retail Industry Leaders Association (rila.org), April 14, 2020


Oil Glut to Halve in May and Shrink to 6mbpd in June: Rystad – by Carla Sertin, in Oil and Gas 360 (oilandgas360.com), May 3, 2020

The Absurdity of Attribution Science: Arguments Against the Quantification of Blame

The Absurdity of Attribution Science: Arguments Against the Quantification of Blame


The headlines that say just 70, or 90, or however many companies, are responsible for all the carbon emissions and should be somehow punished show an ignorance and an anti-corporate bias. Of course, affordable and readily available energy is the cornerstone of a successful modern economy and society. That society demands affordable energy. Handicapping those who provide it will not work. It will simply make that energy less affordable. That is a good basic argument against large carbon taxation. The goal of carbon taxation is to entice consumers to use less fossil energy. It should not be a means to punish those who produce that energy. But it certainly can be. 


One might say that since the advent of fracking in the U.S. made electricity and gasoline significantly cheaper, then consumers should have used their savings to buy renewable energy – rooftop solar and electric vehicles. Some of us did but the overwhelming majority did not. Much of this is due to the high initial investments required. This shows that due to cost renewable energy will likely not be widely adopted without some sort of government requirement to decrease the affordability of fossil fuels. 


The attribution of blame for the carbon dioxide put in the atmosphere is another example, this one being used by the IPCC and the UN in attributing cost structure liabilities for different countries in the fight against climate change. If blame is assigned value, then why not improvement? The energy provided to cause those emissions triggered vast improvements in human well-being. Should those not have a value put on them as well? I’m not saying the whole valuation should be abandoned but that it should be reasonable and not overly punishing to high-emitting countries. Often, such attribution, is attribution of blame, and is used as a political tool. One reason the U.S. is not so gung ho about the Paris Climate Accord is that the U.S. is punished by having to pay a higher cost due both to its high historical emissions and its high per capita energy use. That makes it very easy to group it as yet another instance where a UN or world body requires the U.S. to pay proportionately more than the Europeans and others. We pay more in other groups like NATO due to our prosperity as payments often are set at % of GDP, while the Europeans more often than us do not even meet those criteria. If the UN wants to get the US back in the Paris Accord, then they should perhaps provide one clear incentive – a significant discount – since some is better than none.


The governor of New Jersey has stated that he would like to collect money from these flimsy bogus lawsuits against companies like Exxon for covering up climate science – mind you, in times when climate science was not even moderately well-established among actual climate scientists – and use it to further harm them. The lawsuits are patently ridiculous and should not even be heard. Several cities have stated that they would like to sue and use the proceeds to shore up climate change preparedness. Of course, cities and states are huge consumers of fossil fuels. Preparedness against weather events is a good idea but making others pay for it is not. 


Another issue is that of groups of youths being encouraged to file lawsuits against fossil fuel companies for possible future harm from their emissions. It is a waste of time and resources and mainly a political ploy to increase pressure. The future of such litigation probably rests on whether sympathetic judges can be found. Proponents of the suits like to compare them to litigation against tobacco companies for advertising and promoting smoking. But smoking is a choice and in contrast, use of energy is a basic necessity.


The problem with this attribution science is that it is not really science. It is rather a means of attributing punishment value and a means of economic redistribution. Fossil fuels are distributed unevenly around the world and those endowed with them should not be punished simply for developing what they have. 


Essentially, attribution science is like any risk assessment where risk is evaluated and quantified. Of course, quantification of risk is highly debatable and requires scientific experts to estimate accurately. In these litigation examples it is often the highly biased accusers doing the assessment, aided by sympathetic judges and some experts, usually outspoken and arguably biased ones. 


Overall, I think this so-called attribution science is a trend that is not sustainable, at least the way it is being done by bias and activism. It is unsustainable and not viable as it is tainted by ideology. Any true attribution or quantification of risk and harm would need to be as unbiased as possible, perhaps done via scientific council of diverse groups of well-respected authorities rather than ideological and biased groups with an agenda to punish. 


So far, sanity has been maintained, as most of theses climate lawsuits have been thrown out. Likely, they will continue to be dismissed but will some eventually get through with sympathetic judges and governments? Let’s hope not. There are better ways to address the issue. 


References:


Climate Change Lawsuits Collapsing Like Dominoes – by Curt Levey, in insidesources.com, March 5, 2020

Big Oil and Green Energy: A Long History of Collaboration, Recent Moves, and Allocating Capital as a Hedge Against Future Contraction in the Oil & Gas Industry

Big Oil and Green Energy: A Long History of Collaboration, Recent Moves, and Allocating Capital as a Hedge Against Future Contraction in the Oil & Gas Industry


Big Coal vs. Big Oil


The U.S. coal industry has been in a state of decline, a state of contraction, for several years now. Bankruptcies are common, coal use continues to decline, few new mines have been opened, and no new coal-burning power plants are likely to be built in the U.S. While there is some occasional export growth in metallurgical coal, thermal coal continues to stagnate and that is very unlikely to change. There is little upside potential for coal companies to transition into companies with cleaner portfolios. Aside from a few vague and thus far uneconomic opportunities to do things like deriving rare earth elements from coal mine tailings or coal ash or to use coal ash to make high-strength carbon materials there is little upside potential for company transitions. On the other hand, oil majors have long been investing in green tech and renewable energy. Such investment has waxed and waned through the years as company profits have risen and fallen. Exxon has been developing algae-derived biofuels for many years. Exxon was also instrumental in the development of the lithium battery, especially through the work of employee John Goodenough, who led the research and development of lithium battery technology.


The Long History of Big Oil and Green Energy Collaboration


In the recent book, The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Dueling Visions to Shape Tomorrow’s World, author Charles C. Mann notes that at one point in the 1970’s the two biggest developers and utilizers of photovoltaic solar panels were the Pentagon and Big Oil. The main uses were military satellites and powering offshore oil platforms. Indeed, 70% of all solar panels were bought and deployed to power those platforms. Thus, the collaboration between Big Oil and green energy goes back about half of a century. The following paragraph from the book is a good summary:


 “Realizing that solar had become essential to oil production, petroleum firms set up their own photovoltaic subsidiaries. Exxon became, in 1973, the first commercial manufacturer of solar panels; the second, a year later, was a joint venture with the oil giant Mobil. (Exxon and Mobil merged in 1999.) The Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), another oil colossus, ran the world’s biggest solar company until it was acquired by Royal Dutch Shell, the oil and gas multinational. Later the title of world’s biggest solar company passed to British Petroleum (now known as BP). By 1980 petroleum firms owned six of the ten biggest U.S. solar firms, representing most of the world’s photovoltaic manufacturing capacity.”


Much of the initial green energy investment by oil majors was prompted as well by notions common at the time that oil was likely to run out sooner rather than later. Peak oil production and resource depletion was a serious concern in those times. Investments went up and down with the latest reserve estimates as well as with the latest profits of the oil majors.


Revival of Green Energy Investment by Oil Majors, Particularly European Oil Majors


Several of the multinational oil majors, particularly the ones based in Europe, have indicated that they intend to move toward carbon neutral operations by 2050. That plan includes more investment in renewable energy companies as well as R & D. European oil and gas major in particular have made recent acquisitions in solar and offshore wind. France’s Total has controlling interest in major solar player SunPower and recently brought its renewable energy portfolio to 5.1 gigawatts. BP, Galp, Eni, Equinor, Repsol, and Shell also have large amounts of renewable assets. The biggest solar asset owner outside of China is NextEra Energy with about 4.6 gigawatts but Total is closing in with diverse solar assets spread across 15 countries. Total is apparently focusing on solar in its goal to get 20% of its revenue from low carbon businesses by 2040. Equinor is leading oil and gas sector investment in wind, expected to be 4.6 gigawatts by 2025 while Shell projects 1.8 gigawatts in wind investment by 2025. That would give Equinor and Shell about 6% of global installed wind capacity by 2025. Total has also been moving into offshore wind investment. Another collaboration is reviving the utilization of green energy from onshore or offshore to power offshore oil platforms.


One reason European oil and gas companies have been investing in renewables is shareholder pressure. Such pressure is less in the U.S. so far but could increase. Companies like Exxon and Conoco are thought to be readying for such a trend if it looks likely to happen. Aside from shareholder demands, some form of carbon taxes could make oil and gas less profitable and renewables more profitable so readiness could be important. Thus, in some ways it could be seen as a hedge against possible future contraction in the industry. With the coronavirus majorly impacting oil demand we can get a glimpse of what a drop in oil demand can do and already the prospects are not good. Oil majors may also hedge by focusing on downstream refining and petrochemical production. 


Big Oil and Renewable Energy R & D: New Projects Include Green Hydrogen Development


Aside from investment in utility-scale solar, (mostly) offshore wind, and associated infrastructure, there are a few other Big Oil R & D projects worth noting. One is Shell’s project in developing so-called Green Hydrogen. The project is only in feasibility phase but the plan is to develop 3-4 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity in the North Sea to power by 2030 to make hydrogen, with dynamic, quick-start/quick stop, electrolyzers along the coast of the Netherlands and offshore. Although less than 1% of hydrogen currently comes from renewable energy that percentage is expected to grow quite a bit this decade, eventually beginning to displace oil. If enough European renewable energy is curtailed due to peak generation and peak demand imbalance then prices for that excess drop. The dynamic electrolyzers could be set to quickly use excess renewable generation, take advantage of low dynamic pricing, and help wind and solar generators to sell excess at reduced rates rather than lose it. Hydrogen can be stored in large tanks for later use, for industrial applications, or to power fuel cells. However, in order for green hydrogen to be economic relative to hydrogen made from fossil fuel, usually natural gas, the cost of renewables relative to gas would have to drop by 2-3 times. That could happen by 2030 which would be the bet. If carbon taxes get ratcheted up by then that is a pad for the bet. Nonetheless, it is a risky endeavor at present. Even so, WoodMac notes that global green hydrogen deployment, currently as 252 megawatts, is expected to grow to 3205 megawatts by 2025. That is a big jump. Economics are expected to improve by 2030. 


References: 


The Solar Industry’s New Power Player: Oil Majors – by Jason Deign, in GreenTech Media, Feb. 26, 2020


Shell Exploring World’s Largest Green Hydrogen Project – by John Parnell, in GreenTech Media, Feb. 27, 2020


The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Dueling Visions to Shape Tomorrow’s World – by Charles C. Mann, (Alfred A. Knopf, 2018)


Could Green Hydrogen Become the New Oil? – by Stephen Lacy, in GreenTech Media, Jan. 23, 2020


Energy Transition: The Future for Green Hydrogen – by Wood Mackenzie, Oct. 25, 2019

Geographic Information Systems: Some History, Some Thoughts, and What's New

Geographic Information Systems: Some History, Some Thoughts, and What’s New


ESRI, which stands for Environmental Systems Research Institute, is the premier computer mapping and spatial analysis company that provides the industry standard software platform for GIS. Their website has a nice short history of GIS. Below is a quick summary:


They begin in 1960 with the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis which evolved with early computers. In 1963 Roger Tomlinson set out to develop the Canada Geographic Information System in order to inventory Canada’s natural resources and automate data processing and storage of that information. He also coined the term geographic information system. In 1965 the Harvard Laboratory for Computer Graphics developed software known as SYMAP. Geographers, planners, and computer scientists collaborated there to develop early GIS applications. In 1969, a member of that Harvard Lab, Jack Dangermond, and his wife Laura, founded Esri to help land use planners and resource managers. They developed software tools, formats, and work-flows, many still in use today. Esri went commercial in 1981 with ARC/INFO, making their software available to a wider public. 


It was around the mid-1980’s is when GIS began to be used more extensively in science applications. Geologists and cartographers mapping land surfaces, subsurface features, and mostly human-made above surface features, had long superimposed various “layers’ to see how they matched and how best to design various things. Archaeologists could overlay maps of settlements from different time periods to help discover how things changed spatially. Biologists could map plant and animal populations. Environmental scientists could map point-sites of pollution, how pollution disperses, and contamination plumes in groundwater and surface water. Geologists could compare subsurface features to surface features.


Because digitized layers were not available for all spatial data, some of us sometimes had to use a pre-computer technology: light tables, a surface with a light underneath, so that two paper maps of the same scale could be superimposed. One could also use ‘see-through’ tracing paper. I did this with coal seam structure maps and coal mine maps to predict depth to set gas well casing below the coal seam and to predict whether that seam was mined out and a void, possibly filled with water, would be encountered. Sometimes we had multiple coal seams and multiple mines to set multiple strings of casing through, so we had to be careful. We also had to overlay lease maps and topographic maps for spotting wells in suitable areas. With lease line distancing requirements this could be challenging. Often, I would spot wells for development plays, then the surveyor would go to the location and see if that was feasible. Sometimes he would call and suggest alternate locations based on topography and forest cover. 


With well-defined computer map layers in GIS programs like ESRI’s ArcGIS or ArcView the process is a bit easier nowadays and doesn’t require a big area to spread out maps. Spatial knowledge has come a long way in the past 35 years and helps to streamline many applications. Global positioning satellites set the stage for accurate location in three dimensional xyz space. With free GPS software on our smartphones the process of knowing where you are is simplified. When we are somewhere our coordinates can be read by others who can see where we are on a map just like we can see where we are when we’re driving. GIS has so many practical applications in so many fields and such accuracy that the methods of the pre-GIS past will simply fade away.


GIS is the basic technology for mapping spatial data. It is synonymous with mapping itself, just computerized, digitized into raster and vector data and packaged into map layers. Superimposition and what we can learn from that is often the goal. Interpreting spatial information is part of so many human endeavors. Newer technologies like drones, remote sensing, robotics, automated switching for energy production and manufacturing, and infrastructure monitoring, rely on it. Drones can be used for things like detection of oil and gas pipeline leaks by flying them along the routes with detectors embedded.

The dashboards mapping out the spread of coronavirus are an unfortunate but valuable new application for GIS. ESRI partners with the WHO, the CDC, and other public health bodies to put together geographic depictions of the data. GIS also aids the ‘contact tracing’ necessary to see where a carrier of the virus has been, although this can get into the realm of surveillance, more specifically AI surveillance by tracking our phone GPS history. 


Integrating GPS and GIS helps police and emergency medical personnel, natural disaster response, property assessment, mapping of underground utilities, wires, water pipes, gas pipes, etc. The list is pretty much endless and having accurate spatial data saves lives and makes lives easier. GIS can help farmers water and fertilize crops with great precision and less waste. ‘Call Before You Dig’ services help contractors avoid dangers by consulting detailed maps of underground features, which can be quite extensive in urban environments. GIS is often a primary feature of ‘Big Data’ which can be analyzed to find hidden trends. Political redistricting and the U.S. Census depend on GIS. Federal, state, county, and municipal governments rely on GIS. Knowledge often depends on databases and databases often include necessary spatial data so GIS is a key part of many databases. 


Some of us economic geologists like to stare at maps. It helps to get our exploration mind in perspective. Our own subsurface mapping programs have evolved in tandem with GIS and they work best with surface GIS layers superimposed.   


Esri is always improving their software and making it compatible with other software and formats so that we can zoom in to what we want to see or zoom out for a more global perspective. Although for many businesses, competition is useful, for something like GIS it is rather necessary that a single platform be standard. Esri has provided such a standard. A single platform standard will be desirable for other things too like switching dynamic energy buying and selling based on dynamic pricing. This is related to the Internet of Things and GIS is a key part of that as well. Knowing where things are on a map or within a system is geographic information and that knowledge is essential. Esri calls it the science of where.


References:


History of GIS, Esri website, (esri.com)


Dashboards Give Geographic Perspective to Coronavirus, in ArcNews Esri, Spring 2020, Vol.42 No. 2


ArcNews Esri, Spring 2020, Vol.42 No. 2