U.S. Chamber of Commerce link

Energy Blog

If there is an oracle on energy, Daniel Yergin is it. Yergin is the co-founder and chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), a leading energy research and information firm. He serves on the U.S. Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board and chaired the U.S. Department of Energy’s Task Force on Strategic Energy Research and Development.

Yergin is the author of the definitive history of the oil industry called The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, which won the 1992 Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction and was made into an eight-hour documentary. His new book, The Quest: Energy Security and the Remaking of the Modern World, surveys the modern energy industry, from oil to nuclear to renewable power, and the geopolitical and technological forces that are reshaping it.

Yergin recently sat down with Free Enterprise to discuss The Quest, the transition of the energy industry, environmental matters, and geopolitics. 

Free Enterprise.com: So what is The Quest all about?

Yergin: It starts with the fundamental point of how energy underpins our whole economy and how it is central for economic growth globally. We have a $65 trillion world economy today, and it could be $130 trillion in a couple decades.  So the critical questions are, Will we have the energy?  Where will it come from?  And what will the mix be?  That’s what The Quest is all about. It’s our quest for energy that is affordable, reliable, environmentally sound, and abundant.  And what The Quest tries to do is to give people a framework, a context, for seeing how all the energy pieces fit together, and do so in a narrative context with a lot of great characters.    

Free Enterprise.com: I asked one of my colleagues, “If you were going to talk to one of the foremost experts on energy, what would you want to ask him?” And they said, “I would want to know when my electric bill is going to go down and by how much.” 

Yergin: For consumers, it understandably always comes down to their electric bill and the price of gasoline at the pump.  Even more fundamental is ensuring that there is gasoline at the pump and that there is electricity. But what that question really points to is how important energy prices are to the economy. It’s not only the price that you pay as a consumer, it’s not only the price you pay as a motorist, but it’s that cost of energy that flows into everything else in our society.

Free Enterprise.com: Talk about the job-creating potential of energy.

Yergin: The combination of the economic downturn and major breakthroughs that have occurred in the North American energy supply have come together to emphasize the job creation potential of energy, which is something that had not been focused on much. People focus on the price; they focus on balance of payments. But we (IHS CERA and IHS Global Insight) did a study on shale gas, and it turns out that just the shale gas revolution of the last few years has created something like 600,000 jobs in our economy. That’s a really big number. Very few other industries have done that. 

Shale gas is the biggest innovation in energy in the last couple of decades.  And like many innovations, it kind of snuck up without people really seeing it coming. It was 25 years in development before it had this impact. One of the great stories in The Quest is how this revolution in shale gas came about and how the convictions of one man drove it. Now it’s huge. It’s changing the economics of the energy marketplace and changing the perception of America’s role in the world in terms of energy. The United States was on a track to be spending upwards of $100 billion a year importing liquefied natural gas. Now, we’re fully supplied domestically.

Free Enterprise.com: There seem to be a lot of questions about the environmental impact of shale gas production.

Yergin: Shale gas has gone from being very small, just 2% of our natural gas production a decade ago,  to more than a third of our production today and continuing to grow. Because it has grown so fast so quickly, there are all these questions surrounding it. Like any large, industrial enterprise, there are environmental issues to be managed that have to do with disposal of water, air quality, and community impact. 

I was part of a committee selected by the Secretary of Energy that did a report for the Obama administration on the environmental questions. We said in the study that these issues are highly manageable and can be pragmatically addressed. They involve best practices, appropriate regulation, and, most importantly, technological innovation. The tools are all there. The benefit of this is jobs.

The other thing that we’re seeing is that it means lower electricity prices, which is very good for our economy. It also gives a major competitive boost to U.S. industry because for the first time you’re seeing companies that had not invested or that were not going to invest anymore in the United States announcing multibillion dollar investments because the United States is competitive. And that means a lot more job creation.

Free Enterprise: What role does innovation play in this new energy development?

Yergin: One of the themes of The Quest is that innovation doesn’t end; technological progress doesn’t end.  If you look at the history of the energy industry, it’s really the story of one innovation after another, starting with Colonel Drake in oil and Thomas Edison with the light bulb, to shale gas today. That innovation is going to continue. Those who are pessimistic kind of assume that innovation is over. But people have been saying that for a long time. At the end of the 19th century, people talked about closing down the patent office because there was nothing more to invent. 

The Quest is an optimistic book. It says that there are plenty of risks and dangers, including what’s unfolding with Iran right in front of our eyes today, but it’s optimistic about innovation in our country and around the world and what that means for ensuring the energy supplies that we need.

Free Enterprise: Does the United States have the right energy policy?

Yergin: Well, we have a lot of energy policies, many of them contradictory. What we need is an ecumenical energy policy—a big tent that doesn’t try to pick particular winners or losers and that is realistic about where we are, how important energy is to our economy, and how complex this system is that supplies energy to a $65 trillion global economy.

The overall energy mix over the next couple of decades probably won’t be too different from what it is today—nuclear, renewable, oil and gas, coal.  There will certainly be more wind.  It’s possible that in 2050 our energy system will look quite different, and there might be many surprises. I think one of the subthemes of the book is the role of surprise. Just when everybody’s confident as to where things are going, things change.

Free Enterprise: Why do you think the Keystone XL pipeline has become such a major issue?

Yergin: The global energy balance is changing because of what’s happening in the Western Hemisphere—what’s happening in offshore Brazil, what’s happening with what’s called tight oil developed in the United States, and what’s happening with the oil sands in Canada, which until the late 1990s were seen as a fringe resource. The output of oil sands today is greater than the entire output of Libya before its civil war. 

It’s a major resource, and it’s the reason that Canada today supplies about 25% of our imports.  Keystone is really a symbol for the oil sands and the major argument against it—carbon emissions. The numbers, however, have been misconstrued. Basically, a barrel of petroleum made from oil sands oil adds only about 6% more CO2 to the atmosphere than the petroleum made from an “average barrel” of oil. But as it turns out, we in the United States use other oils that also add about the same amount of extra CO2 to the atmosphere.

There’s a very important energy security aspect to Canadian oil sands. The throughput, or the volumes that the pipeline will carry, is equivalent to a third of Iran’s total exports. So at a time when our policy is very directly aimed at squeezing Iran’s ability to earn money from oil exports, this pipeline, which could be built in a couple of years, would be a very important development. 

I hope one way or the other that this decision [to reject construction of the Keystone pipeline] will be reversed by the beginning of 2013, if not before then.

Free Enterprise: What do you say to critics who say that oil that comes into the United States from Canada U.S. is just going to be shipped to China, therefore doing little to lower prices here?

Yergin: The bulk of Canadian oil would be very well suited to our refinery system, and the main market for it would be the United States.  Does it make sense to import more oil from other parts of the world, and not import oil from Canada, where the economics are better, the logistics are better, and the distance is a lot closer? That doesn’t really make sense.

Watch video of Daniel Yergin discussing his new best seller at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy. 

 

     

Yeah, Ace of Spades is right: "Orwell wept."

It's all because White House spokesman Jay Carney had the audacity to say, "the President didn't turn down the Keystone pipeline" even though that's exactly what he did.

I wonder if Carney would've let a White House flack get away with that when he was writing for Time magazine? I know, trick question.

Carney turned a debate over energy security and job creation into the typical Washington, DC, partisan blame game when he said:

In terms of Keystone, as you all know, the history here is pretty clear. And the fact is because Republicans decided to play political with Keystone, their action essentially forced the administration to deny the permit process because they insisted on a time frame in which it was impossible to completely approve the pipeline.

Let me go into the not-so-way-back-machine to last November when Mark Green at Energy tomorrow laid out how much this administration has studied the Keystone XL pipeline:

The project has had three environmental assessments, each concluding that risk from the pipeline would be minimal. In addition, State held a series of public hearings across the country. This issue has had a full airing. Questions have been asked and answered, fears dispelled.

Facts and actual history obviously don't matter to Carney, but I'll lay out a few anyway just to humor myself:

But I'm sure Carney will toss all these down the memory hole.

     

Copyright 2012 Bloomberg. Katarzyna Klimasinska  

Feb. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Legislation that would force U.S. approval of TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline and open Atlantic waters to offshore drilling passed the House, a measure that the Senate doesn’t plan to consider.

The bill, approved 237-187 yesterday, would strip President Barack Obama’s authority to decide on TransCanada’s $7 billion project and give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 30 days to approve the pipeline after it’s deemed safe.

Obama rejected Keystone last month and asked the Calgary- based company to find a route that wouldn’t endanger a Nebraska aquifer.

“This legislation would create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs for American workers,” Representative Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said during a floor debate. “It’s time to secure our own future with American-made energy.”

The measure is part of the House Republicans’ three-bill plan to add jobs, lower energy imports and finance highways and mass-transit programs. A portion of the revenue would come from giving oil producers access to federal waters off the coasts of California, Florida and Virginia. The House plans to complete action on the measures after taking a recess next week.

The House and Senate are examining proposals for funding projects from non-transportation sources. The House will next consider a measure forcing federal employees to pay more toward their pensions. The Senate began debating a separate measure last week, which doesn’t include a Keystone provision.

Wildlife Refuge

The House bill passed yesterday would permit energy production in a part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil-shale deposits of Colorado.

“We all know these places are not going to be developed in the near term at all,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said during a hearing at the House’s natural resources panel this week. “They will not fund the transportation needs of the United States of America.”

The bill would raise $4.28 billion by 2022, less than 10 percent of the revenue needed to pay for transportation projects, Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, senior Democrat on the committee, said on Feb. 15.

Democrats and environmental groups said the beaches of California and Florida are too pristine to risk being spoiled by an oil spill, while oil-shale production may taint Colorado’s drinking water sources.

NRDC Opposition

Keystone XL is opposed by groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club, that say the crude to be carried is corrosive and air pollution will increase during production and refining.

The number of people needed to operate and maintain the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) pipeline may be as few as 20, according to the U.S. State Department, or as many as a few hundred, according to TransCanada.

Senate Republicans on Feb. 15 introduced legislation that would bar the Obama administration from using the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve unless Keystone XL pipeline is approved.

The bill is H.R. 3408. The other measures are H.R. 3813 and H.R. 7.

 

 

     

American businesses have what it takes to create jobs in the United States and restore American confidence and competitiveness, according to Jeff Immelt, GE chairman and CEO and chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

“There are companies and communities all across the country that are leading the way,” Immelt said during the kickoff of a four-day event in Washington, D.C., focused on manufacturing, innovation, and job creation in America. “We know that renewing American manufacturing works; affordable healthcare works; high-skill training works; investing in people works; supporting customers works; accessing global markets works,” said Immelt.

Immelt outlined 10 ideas or best practices that have worked for GE. 

  • Invest in technology—Research and development spending has stagnated among U.S. companies at around 2% to 3%, which Immelt said is a mistake when you consider that investments in technology and innovation have a 30% return on investment.
  • Renew the manufacturing sector—American manufacturing is becoming more competitive because of lower energy costs and because it offers companies like GE better control of its supply chains. GE has created 11,000 manufacturing jobs since 2009.
  • Pursue export markets—No country is off limits in terms of sales and growth. “Competing means selling in every corner of the world,” Immelt said, while pointing out that 60% of GE’s revenues come from overseas markets.
  • Partner to lower health care costs—GE relies on its’ GE Health Choice, an employee-directed health care plan launched in 2010 and a vigorous wellness program at all 620 of its work sites. As a result, GE’s healthcare costs for salaried employees were lower in 2010 than in 2009.
  • Go all-in on energy—The U.S. has a competitive advantage on energy, Immelt said, and needs to develop all of it, natural gas, renewables, clean coal and oil, and shale. 
  • Work with customers—GE Capital has been focusing on the 200,000 middle market companies with $10 million to $1 billion in revenues through its “Access GE” program, which helps these companies identify products or services that might be right for them.
  • Develop the industrial internet—GE is focusing on designing software that would make the idea of intelligent machines a reality. The company is opening a new global software center in Northern California, with plans to hire 400 software engineers to develop code for Internet-connected devices--such as GE household appliances or medical imaging equipment--to collect data and communicate maintenance needs before there is an equipment failure.
  • Encourage high-skills training—Immelt pointed to two successful programs recommended by the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. One program leverages community colleges to get employees trained and skills certified within six weeks in advanced manufacturing. The other program is focused on graduating more engineers.
  • Empowering teams—Giving employees accountability leads to results, Immelt said, noting that one of his work sites has 355 employees and only one manager.
  •  Build public-private partnerships—While the private sector drives job creation, government can be a catalyst, Immelt said. GE Aviation chose to build two manufacturing plants in Mississippi in part because of the entrepreneurial focus of former Gov. Haley Barbour, and training and infrastructure assistance from the Mississippi Development Authority.

Immelt announced that GE will launch several new programs throughout the year, including:

  • Hiring 5,000 U.S. veterans over the next five years and sponsoring a "Hire our Heroes" partnership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to help veterans integrate into the civilian workforce and match them to jobs.
  • Doubling the number of GE engineering interns to more than 5,000 as part of an initiative proposed by the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness to add 10,000 more engineering graduates a year in the U.S.

 

     

At CPAC, I spoke with Charles Drevna, president of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, about the need for the Keystone XL pipeline.

He said we'll miss out on "a shovel-ready project" that would "immediately provide 20,000 jobs with the prospects of another" 100,000 jobs by moving 700,000 barrels of Canadian oil per day to "feed multiple refineries in the Gulf Coast."

I asked him why not build refineries closer to oil. He answered, "In order to build a refinery closer to the source you'll still need to build a pipeline to get the product out." Also, to build a refinery closer to Canada's oil sands would cost $3 billion and take 10-15 years for permitting and construction. In contrast, Keystone XL could be started now generating jobs and improving America's energy security. "It makes perfect sense to get 20,000 people working immediately to get the pipeline in," said Drevna.

     

Pages