BP’s 67th Statistical Review – Fossil Fuels Still Going Strong
Oil and gas giant BP recently released its annual Statistical Review of World Energy–the 67th edition! (Full copy below.) A number of big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, as well as government agencies, publish similar reports that characterize current and future world energy trends. However, one analyst we read says BP’s report is the best: “I have relied upon the BP World Energy report for years. It is not a report to be viewed with a partisan eye, but as merely one of the best, if not the best, energy trend device available anywhere. In comparison to government agencies like the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) the global International Energy Association (IEA) or OPEC’s own World Oil Outlook, the BP report has proven itself to be far more valuable in finding investable trends. I would never recommend any oil sector without having the statistical evidence of the BP World Energy Report behind me.” This year’s report finds that oil and natural gas consumption increased significantly in 2017. It also finds the U.S. best-positioned to meet that increasing demand, thanks to the shale miracle. Below we have some of the key highlights from the report, followed by a full copy…
Read More “BP’s 67th Statistical Review – Fossil Fuels Still Going Strong”
Last December the Trump Dept. of Energy published a 45-page report called, “Natural Gas Liquids Primer: With a Focus on the Appalachian Region” (see 
Yet another wild, totally false “study” has been published by Duke University and University of Missouri researchers that finds when you pump rats full of chemicals, some of which may (or may not) be used in fracking, dosing the rats at many multiples of times more that any human would ever be exposed to, it makes the rats gain weight. And voila, a new meme in mainstream faux media is born: fracking makes you fat. How do “researchers” actually get jobs after publishing this kind of garbage? Who would hire them? Perhaps the Heniz Endowments or William Penn Foundation. This is the same “research” team that tried to connect shale drilling to impaired immune systems, low sperm counts, ovarian follicle problems and pre-cancerous mammary gland lesions, in previous fictional studies. More of the same with this study…
Another fake study is leading to a plethora of fake news stories–from the usual sources. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) used to be, once upon a time, at least somewhat reasonable. Out of the crop of environmentalist wackos, they were the best. People you could have a rational conversation with about fossil fuels. People you could carry on a civil debate with. No more. For the past few years the organization has taken a hard left turn and never looked back. Their latest annual “methane is leaking/the sky is falling” report is proof of that. Over the past six years the EDF has published study after study estimating methane leakage from gas drilling/pipelines/delivery systems somewhere between 1.2% and 1.5%. We all know that some methane leaks out–it’s inevitable. Gas companies are in the business of ensuring it doesn’t happen–it’s the commodity they sell! But sometimes it leaks–out of valves, or pipeline connections, etc. Methane is, as the false-but-popular meme goes, a “far more potent greenhouse gas” than carbon dioxide. Warmists say it so often to themselves, it’s like a mantra. “Methane is worse that CO2.” But the newest EDF “study,” which isn’t really new, pulls new numbers out of the air and now claims 2.3% of methane leaks out of the system. The EDF study is published in the so-called journal Science (which should be renamed Political Science), giving mainstream leftist news sources like the New York Times, Bloomberg and others permission to trumpet headlines that “methane leaks are far worse than the EPA, and we all, thought.” Even if we accept EDF’s new, much higher number of 2.3% leaking (which we don’t accept, but let’s pretend), even at that “high” number, EDF’s own warmist kindred admit extracting and burning natgas to generate electricity is STILL more beneficial for the climate than burning coal (Princeton University says the threshold is 3.2% leakage where natgas is no longer “good” for the climate). So while this is a big story in the leftist media echo chamber, it’s really no story at all…
Here’s a bold prediction: The Age of Natural Gas will replace the Age of Oil–within our lifetimes. That’s the thought running through our head as we read a new report from analytics/consulting powerhouse IHS Markit titled, “The Shale Gale Turns 10: A Powerful Wind at America’s Back.” IHS Markit expects natural gas production to rise by almost 8 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), more than 10%, in 2018 alone. Altogether, U.S. production is expected to grow by another 60% over the next 20 years, according to the report. Additionally, IHS Markit now estimates that approximately 1,250 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of U.S. supply is economic below $4 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf). That’s up from a previous estimate of 900 Tcf in 2010. “To say that the ‘Shale Gale’–as IHS Markit originally coined it in 2010–has been anything but a veritable revolution would be an understatement,” says Daniel Yergin, vice chairman, IHS Markit and co-author of the report. “It represents a dramatic and largely unanticipated turnaround that dramatically changed both markets and long-term thinking about energy.” Indeed. Here’s more about the report…
A newly published study by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) Foundation is raising eyebrows. The study, titled “North America Midstream Infrastructure through 2035” (full copy below), says the United States and Canada together will need to invest a total of $791 billion, or an average of $44 billion per year, from 2018 to 2035, to build new natural gas and oil pipelines (and associated infrastructure). That is some serious cash! The study makes certain assumptions, like this one: “Because production costs are relatively low in the Marcellus and Utica compared with production costs elsewhere, the study anticipates both production and infrastructure needs related to natural gas will be focused in the U.S. Northeast.” Meaning a lot of the money to build pipelines will go to our region. And this: “The study estimates about 25 billion cubic feet per day of new capacity to move Marcellus and Utica supplies to consumers and export facilities through 2035.” Whoa! According to the updated EIA Drilling Productivity Report issued on Monday, the Marcellus/Utica region will produce 28.9 Bcf/d of natural gas in July. Another 25 Bcf/d on top of that (essentially doubling current production) means by 2035 our region will produce over 50 Bcf/d of natgas. Incredible! No wonder we need more pipeline investment. Here’s an overview, along with a copy of the full study…
Here’s what happens when the Heinz Endowments, William Penn Foundation, National Resources Defense Council and other far-left “environmental” funders don’t fund a study: real science gets done. We’ve knocked Yale University in the past when so-called studies (junk science) were released about fracking in the Marcellus/Utica (example from March 2018: 
Yesterday our favorite government agency, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), issued our favorite monthly report, the Drilling Productivity Report (DPR). The DPR is the EIA’s best guess, based on expert data crunchers, as to how much each of the U.S.’s seven major shale plays will produce for both oil and natural gas in the coming month. Each month, as has been happening for months on end, the Marcellus/Utica region (called Appalachia in the report) continues to see production go through the roof. Last month (and the month before and the month before) EIA predicted M-U production would go up by more than 1/3 of a billion cubic feet (see 
How much American-extracted natural gas should get exported? That question is the focus of a newly published study, titled “Macroeconomic Outcomes of Market Determined Levels of U.S. LNG Exports” (full copy below). The study is the fifth in a series commissioned by the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE). The study/research, performed by NERA Economic Consulting (NERA), looks at the impacts on the U.S. for various export scenarios. Export a lot? A little? Somewhere in between? There are 21 proposed LNG export facilities in the pipeline right now, requesting permission to export to “non-FTA” (non-Free Trade Agreement) countries. DOE wants to make the right decisions about how many of them to approve. This study and its numbers will help guide their decision-making. The study is now available for public review and comment, until July 27…
The single biggest factor in whether or not gas drillers are willing to roll the dice and drill another well is….the price of natural gas. When prices are low, say below $3 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf), drillers are less willing to ramp up the rigs and drill new holes in the ground. When the price goes significantly above $3/Mcf, they’re much more likely to drill. Everyone keeps a close eye on the price. We’ve just come through a hard winter that drew down stocks of natural gas in reserve. Less supply with the same or increasing demand equals higher prices. However, if drillers produce more, a lot more, then supply will meet, or even exceed increased demand and the price will stay about the same, or even decrease. So what about the price for natural gas this summer? The Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) has just hauled out its crystal ball to predict what may happen with the price of natgas this summer. As our headline indicates, NGSA believes the price will remain about where it is now. From the report (full copy below): “Our expectation for flat price pressure is based on a forecast for tremendous growth in demand that is matched by even more impressive growth in production”…
