Category Archives: Oil industry subsidies

Bakken outlook: Oil industry faces hurdles in 2015

Repost from The Dickenson Press, Dickenson, ND

Bakken outlook: Oil industry faces hurdles in 2015

By Mike Nowatzki, Dec 26, 2014
Brothers Dusty, left, and K.C. Sutton of Nine Energy Service prepare to install a blow out preventer on a new well on July 7 south of Stanley that has been fracked and needs to be cleaned out before it produces oil. FNS Photo by Michael Vosburg

BISMARCK — With oil prices slipping to their lowest point in more than five years, new state regulations slated to take effect and lawmakers proposing major investments in oil country, 2015 is shaping up to be a critical year for the oil and gas industry in North Dakota.

Here’s a look at some of the top issues.

New rules resonate

Rules adopted by the North Dakota Industrial Commission in 2014 will continue to resonate in 2015.

Gas capture goals adopted in July will require operators to reduce the percentage of natural gas flared from oil wells to 23 percent by Jan. 1 and to 15 percent by 2016.

Statewide, operators already met the first goal of 26 percent by Oct. 1, beating it by 4 percentage points.

But eight individual operators didn’t meet the gas capture goal, and several postponed completion work on wells to achieve the goal, Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms said.

North Dakota Petroleum Council President Ron Ness said substantial amounts of gas are being “held hostage” in negotiations over pipeline easements. He estimated well over one-third of the flared gas is the result of three or four easement hang-ups on private, tribal and federal lands.

“Those few bottlenecks are holding up a substantial amount of connections,” he said.

Oil conditioning required

Starting April 1, oil conditioning rules adopted by the Industrial Commission this month will require operators to use equipment to separate butane, propane and other volatile gases from crude oil, and to run the equipment within certain temperatures and pressures to lower the oil’s vapor pressure to 13.7 pounds per square inch.

State officials say the rules will improve the safety of crude-by-rail shipments. Critics contend they’ll do little to prevent the kind of explosive train derailments that spurred their creation.

Ness said the Petroleum Council was amenable to safety standards based on science but “we adamantly objected to the micromanagement” maintained in the final order. Some companies will have to make substantial investments in well-site equipment and testing required by the rules, he said, noting one operator believes their cost could range from $10 million to $20 million.

Requiring the equipment to be installed during the winter months so it’s ready by April 1 also was “a significant misstep,” he said.

“Operators are already in the process of figuring out what they need to do on each of their facilities to come into compliance, but I think we’re pretty frustrated with the process,” he said.

Price uncertainty high

Continued lower oil prices will make some drilling activity less profitable in emerging and mature oil plays, but prices are expected to remain high enough in 2015 to support new drilling in the major shale areas in North Dakota and Texas, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in its short-term energy outlook Dec. 9.

The outlook forecasts average spot prices of $68 per barrel for Brent crude and $63 per barrel for West Texas Intermediate crude in 2015, with lower prices early in the year, the EIA said, citing “high uncertainty” in the price outlook.

Helms is optimistic prices will recover, calling the recent decline “a blip.”

Ness said the industry doesn’t see it that way, noting most analysts are predicting the price slump could last eight to 16 months or even one to two years as U.S. supply stays strong, global demand remains weak and OPEC continues to challenge U.S. production.

“We don’t know what the new normal for oil prices is going to be,” he said. “We’re in an energy war.”

North Dakota light sweet crude oil has dropped below $40 a barrel.

And while some barrels are hedged, “by and large, we’re probably taking $60 less a barrel than we were six months ago,” Ness said.

As a result, companies will deploy less capital and idle drilling rigs or move them from fringe areas to higher-producing areas, he said.

If low prices continue into February and March, “We’re going to see substantial reduction in exploration activity,” he said.

Helms said falling oil prices, oil conditioning and flaring reduction were factors in North Dakota’s drilling rig count dropping by 10 to 183 as of Dec. 12. He expects a 40- to 50-rig reduction by mid-2015 because of soft oil prices.

Oil tax reform?

Efforts to change North Dakota’s oil tax structure failed during the 2013 legislative session, and it remains to be seen whether similar proposals will surface when the Legislature convenes Jan. 6.

Sen. Dwight Cook, R-Mandan, chairman of the Senate Finance and Taxation Committee, introduced a bill last session that would have ended a series of 10 tax incentives designed to help draw oil companies to the state and keep them viable, while lowering the oil extraction tax from 6.5 percent to 4.5 percent for wells built after 2017. The bill failed in the House, as did an oil tax reform bill sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Streyle, R-Minot.

“I will not be introducing any similar legislation this session, and I haven’t heard of anybody else who has,” Cook said Tuesday. “But I guess I wouldn’t be surprised to see something.”

Trying to get rid of incentives – including reductions and exemptions to the extraction tax that take effect when the price of crude drops below a “trigger price” for five consecutive months – could be a tough sell with oil prices as low as they are, Cook said.

“You need to do that when there are high prices,” he said.

Ness said the Petroleum Council doesn’t plan to push any oil tax reform legislation.

“We fully expect that we’re going to sit back and utilize those incentives if they come,” he said.

Legislative proposals

Elected leaders have unveiled big spending proposals to address infrastructure, housing and other needs in oil-impacted areas of western North Dakota.

Chief among them is Gov. Jack Dalrymple’s budget recommendation to increase the share of oil production tax revenue being sent back to oil producing counties from 25 percent to 60 percent for the 2015-17 biennium, while lowering the state’s share from 75 percent to 40 percent. Senate Majority Leader Rich Wardner, R-Dickinson, is spearheading a similar proposal.

The adjusted formula would generate $1.7 billion for the counties and their political subdivisions, or $1 billion more than what the region is expected to receive this biennium, Dalrymple has said.

The governor also wants lawmakers to fast-track $873 million in “jump-start” funding so the state’s oil and gas region can get a head start on construction projects next spring. He’s also recommending $119 million in Energy Impact Grant funds.

Radioactive waste

Several illegal dumping incidents reported in 2014 focused attention on proper disposal of filter socks and other radioactive oilfield waste.

The North Dakota Department of Health has proposed rules that would increase the limit of radioactivity from 5 picocuries per gram to 50, allowing companies to dump the waste at special oilfield waste landfills and industrial waste landfills instead of having to haul it out of state. Companies also would be required to keep manifests to track the waste.

A public comment period is open until Jan. 31, and the approval process is expected to take several months. The Legislature’s Administrative Rules Committee must approve the rules.

“That’s going to get a lot of discussion,” Cook said.

 

Rich countries are subsidizing oil, gas and coal companies by $88 billion a year

Repost from The Guardian
[Editor: Hmmm… do you think maybe the anti-tax crowd will latch onto this one?  Not likely.  The Guardian story is an excellent summary of an incredibly important new study by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Oil Change International.  I highly recommend the original sources: a 4-page summary report and recommendations, the full 74 page report, and a 6-page report on the United States subsidies.  – RS]

Rich countries subsidising oil, gas and coal companies by $88bn a year

US, UK, Australia giving tax breaks to explore new reserves despite climate advice that fossil fuels should be left buried

Fossil fuel exploration subsidies – mapped

By John Vidal Monday 10 November 2014
The fossil fuel bailout - G20 subsidies for oil, gas and coal exploration
The fossil fuel bailout – G20 subsidies for oil, gas and coal exploration

Rich countries are subsidising oil, gas and coal companies by about $88bn (£55.4bn) a year to explore for new reserves, despite evidence that most fossil fuels must be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change.

The most detailed breakdown yet of global fossil fuel subsidies has found that the US government provided companies with $5.2bn for fossil fuel exploration in 2013, Australia spent $3.5bn, Russia $2.4bn and the UK $1.2bn. Most of the support was in the form of tax breaks for exploration in deep offshore fields.

The public money went to major multinationals as well as smaller ones who specialise in exploratory work, according to British thinktank the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Washington-based analysts Oil Change International.

Britain, says their report, proved to be one of the most generous countries. In the five year period to 2014 it gave tax breaks totalling over $4.5bn to French, US, Middle Eastern and north American companies to explore the North Sea for fast-declining oil and gas reserves. A breakdown of that figure showed over $1.2bn of British money went to two French companies, GDF-Suez and Total, $450m went to five US companies including Chevron, and $992m to five British companies.

Britain also spent public funds for foreign companies to explore in Azerbaijan, Brazil, Ghana, Guinea, India and Indonesia, as well as Russia, Uganda and Qatar, according to the report’s data, which is drawn from the OECD, government documents, company reports and institutions.

Oil and gas exploration expenditure in G20 countries (public and private)
Oil and gas exploration expenditure in G20 countries (public and private). Photograph: ODI/Rystad Energy

The figures, published ahead of this week’s G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, contains the first detailed breakdown of global fossil fuel exploration subsidies. It shows an extraordinary “merry-go-round” of countries supporting each others’ companies. The US spends $1.4bn a year for exploration in Columbia, Nigeria and Russia, while Russia is subsidising exploration in Venezuela and China, which in turn supports companies exploring Canada, Brazil and Mexico.

“The evidence points to a publicly financed bail-out for carbon-intensive companies, and support for uneconomic investments that could drive the planet far beyond the internationally agreed target of limiting global temperature increases to no more than 2C,” say the report’s authors.

“This is real money which could be put into schools or hospitals. It is simply not economic to invest like this. This is the insanity of the situation. They are diverting investment from economic low-carbon alternatives such as solar, wind and hydro-power and they are undermining the prospects for an ambitious UN climate deal in 2015,” said Kevin Watkins, director of the ODI.

The report is important because it shows how reforming fossil fuel subsidies is a critical issue for climate change.

“The IPCC [UN climate science panel] is quite clear about the need to leave the vast majority of already proven reserves in the ground, if we are to meet the 2C goal. The fact that despite this science, governments are spending billions of tax dollars each year to find more fossil fuels that we cannot ever afford to burn, reveals the extent of climate denial still ongoing within the G20,” said Oil Change International director Steve Kretzman.

The report further criticises the G20 countries for providing over $520m a year of indirect exploration subsidies via the World Bank group and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) to which they contribute funds.

The authors expressed surprise that about four times as much money was spent on fossil fuel exploration as on renewable energy development.

“In parallel with the rising costs of fossil-fuel exploration and production, the costs of renewable-energy technologies continue to fall rapidly, and the speed of growth in installed capacity of renewables has outperformed predictions since 2000,” said the report.

Oregon Approves Subsidy For Oil Transport, Not Coal

Repost from Northwest Public Radio

Oregon Approves Subsidy For Oil Transport, Not Coal

By Tony Schick, August 22, 2014

The Oregon Transportation Commission voted Friday to deny funding for controversial coal exports but approved subsidies that will allow more oil trains to travel along the Columbia River.

The Oregon Transportation Commission Friday voted to deny funding for controversial coal exports but approved subsidies that will allow more oil trains to travel along the Columbia River. Credit McD22 / Flickr
The subsidies were part of a $42 million package of transportation grants using money from the state’s lottery. Only one project was denied: $2 million for the Port of St. Helens to expand a dock for exporting coal.

The coal would have come by train from Wyoming to eastern Oregon, and from there it would have been barged down the Columbia. That project was denied a crucial permit this week, but the transportation commission did approve $5 million for projects that benefit oil by rail.

Regna Merritt of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility said she hoped concerns about oil train explosions would have swayed the commission.

“The health and safety issues were taken quite seriously by dozens of elected officials, and we wish that their concerns had been taken more seriously by the commission,” Merritt said.

One grant gives $3 million for improvements on a rail line through Rainier, making it safer and allowing for more oil trains. An additional $2 million will help expand a dock where the oil from North Dakota is transferred onto ships bound for West Coast refineries.

The port said the expansions have long-term benefits beyond shipping fossil fuels.