A ‘Real’ Energy Policy?

A new year offers the chance for new beginnings – and that’s what’s happening here this month in Washington, D.C., as the Senate and House of Representatives convene the 112th Congress.

Deficits, soaring debt and persistently high unemployment dominate the headlines. But as I talk to AAPG members the frustration I hear frequently is the absence of a national energy policy.

Make that statement to congressional lawmakers or their staff and you’ll get a blank look. Clearly you haven’t done your homework, they’ll say, because nearly every Congress passes energy legislation: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 runs over 500 pages; the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is more than 300 pages long.

How much more policy do you want?

As you read those pages, however, the problem quickly becomes apparent – the legislation is light on strategy and heavy on tactics.

While it may have a theme – such as energy independence and security – it is hard to discern from the constituent parts what the desired outcome looks like and how these programs get us there.

Many of the programs are designed to benefit a legislator’s constituents and home state. There is strong bipartisan support for biofuels, for example, because it benefits the American farmer. And passing legislation requires consensus. So what becomes law is not necessarily what is best, but what legislators can agree on.

Consequently, tough decisions are deferred and resulting policy isn’t comprehensive.


The process of developing a national energy policy is further complicated by the diverse and numerous participants in the U.S. energy sector – it is not a monolithic system. Instead, you have multinational corporations alongside mom-and-pop oil and gas producers, public utilities and start-up renewable energy producers all responding to supply/demand pressures in a highly regulated energy market.

Policymakers try to prompt desired behavior from energy producers and consumers through energy policy. But the intended policy outcome is frequently accompanied by unintended (and negative) consequences. You can’t expect simple stimulus-response behavior in a complex market, especially when you’re dealing with differing time horizons. As former Shell CEO John Hofmeister observed in “Why We Hate the Oil Companies,” “[T]here is a basic conflict between ‘energy time,’ which is defined by decades, and ‘political time,’ which is defined by two- and four-year cycles.”

Developing a coherent, far-sighted national energy policy is a major challenge – one further compounded by the partisanship that characterizes today’s political discourse, which is why I found the following paragraph so interesting:

“Today, few issues in American political life are as polarized as energy policy, with both left and right entrenched in old worldviews that no longer make sense. For the better part of two decades, much of the right has speculated darkly about global warming as a United Nations-inspired conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty, all while passing off chants of ‘drill, baby, drill’ as real energy policy. During the same period much of the left has oscillated incoherently between exhortations that avoiding the end of the world demands shared sacrifice, and contradictory assertions that today’s renewable energy and efficiency technologies can eliminate fossil fuels at no significant cost. All the while, America’s dependence on fossil fuels continues unabated and political gridlock deepens, preventing real progress toward a safer, cleaner, more secure energy system.”

The above is from the introduction to Post-Partisan Power – how a limited and direct approach to energy innovation can deliver clean, cheap energy, economic productivity and national prosperity.

The report, released last October, is a joint effort by the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution and Breakthrough Institute, a trio of think-tanks that spans the political spectrum. It is an effort to push beyond current thinking, and consider how to develop a strategy for our nation’s energy future.

Their proposal has four elements:

♦ Invest in energy science and education.

Creating our energy future requires a significant investment of resources to fund energy research, and a commitment to public energy education from kindergarten onward and to train the next generation energy work force.

♦ Overhaul the energy innovation system.

Harness the creative talents and entrepreneurial spirit needed to discover and commercialize energy technologies through “regional energy innovation institutes.” These institutes would foster public and private partnerships between companies, government and academia. Scale up the activities of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) to conduct high-risk, high-reward energy research. Look at dual-use energy technologies that also have military application.

♦ Reform energy subsidies and use military procurement and competitive deployment incentives to drive price declines.

Focus on cost and performance of new energy technologies and stop subsidizing business as usual. Use incentives to drive down costs until new technologies become competitive with current technologies, use the scope and scale of the military to further reduce costs – and don’t forget nuclear.

♦ Internalize the cost of energy modernization and ensure investments do not add to the deficit.

Scrap ineffective subsidies, redirect existing federal revenues and raise additional revenue to fund this innovation and make energy systems, such as the power grid, self-sustaining.

Are these four principles sufficient to create a new energy future? Probably not. But the focus on reducing costs so that alternative energy sources are commercially competitive without subsidy, and using military procurement to drive innovation and cost reduction are ideas worthy of consideration.

That such an ideologically diverse group could debate and agree on these principles suggests developing a national energy policy isn’t a hopeless cause.

In fact, it points to the real task ahead:

Another round of energy legislation isn’t the answer. Instead, we need a national dialogue that forges consensus on the energy future we are trying to build.

Then, and only then, will energy policy have any hope of getting us there.

Resources:

Comments (0)

 

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - David Curtiss

David Curtiss served as the Director of AAPG’s Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, D.C. from 2008-11.

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Creties Jenkins

Creties Jenkins is a past president of the EMD.

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Peter MacKenzie

 Peter MacKenzie is vice chair of the Governance Board. 

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Dan Smith

Dan Smith is chair of the Governance Board.

Policy Watch

Policy Watch is a monthly column of the EXPLORER written by the director of AAPG's  Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, D.C. *The first article appeared in February 2006 under the name "Washington Watch" and the column name was changed to "Policy Watch" in January 2013 to broaden the subject matter to a more global view.

View column archives

See Also: Book

Alternative Resources, Structure, Geochemistry and Basin Modeling, Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, Geophysics, Business and Economics, Engineering, Petrophysics and Well Logs, Environmental, Geomechanics and Fracture Analysis, Compressional Systems, Salt Tectonics, Tectonics (General), Extensional Systems, Fold and Thrust Belts, Structural Analysis (Other), Basin Modeling, Source Rock, Migration, Petroleum Systems, Thermal History, Oil Seeps, Oil and Gas Analysis, Maturation, Sequence Stratigraphy, Clastics, Carbonates, Evaporites, Seismic, Gravity, Magnetic, Direct Hydrocarbon Indicators, Resource Estimates, Reserve Estimation, Risk Analysis, Economics, Reservoir Characterization, Development and Operations, Production, Structural Traps, Oil Sands, Oil Shale, Shale Gas, Coalbed Methane, Deep Basin Gas, Diagenetic Traps, Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs, Stratigraphic Traps, Subsalt Traps, Tight Gas Sands, Gas Hydrates, Coal, Uranium (Nuclear), Geothermal, Renewable Energy, Eolian Sandstones, Sheet Sand Deposits, Estuarine Deposits, Fluvial Deltaic Systems, Deep Sea / Deepwater, Lacustrine Deposits, Marine, Regressive Deposits, Transgressive Deposits, Shelf Sand Deposits, Slope, High Stand Deposits, Incised Valley Deposits, Low Stand Deposits, Conventional Sandstones, Deepwater Turbidites, Dolostones, Carbonate Reefs, (Carbonate) Shelf Sand Deposits, Carbonate Platforms, Sebkha, Lacustrine Deposits, Salt, Conventional Drilling, Directional Drilling, Infill Drilling, Coring, Hydraulic Fracturing, Primary Recovery, Secondary Recovery, Water Flooding, Gas Injection, Tertiary Recovery, Chemical Flooding Processes, Thermal Recovery Processes, Miscible Recovery, Microbial Recovery, Drive Mechanisms, Depletion Drive, Water Drive, Ground Water, Hydrology, Reclamation, Remediation, Remote Sensing, Water Resources, Monitoring, Pollution, Natural Resources, Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Hydroelectric Energy, Bioenergy, Hydrogen Energy
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/book-s59-Carbon-Dioxide-Sequestration-in-Geological-Media.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 5827 Book

See Also: Bulletin Article

Prolific hydrocarbon discoveries in the subsalt, commonly known as the “presalt,” section of Brazil and the conjugate African margin have created a business imperative to predict reservoir quality in lacustrine carbonates. Geothermal convection is a style of groundwater flow known to occur in rift settings, which is capable of diagenetic modification of reservoir quality. We simulated variable density groundwater flow coupled with chemical reactions to evaluate the potential for diagenesis driven by convection in subsalt carbonates.

Rates of calcite diagenesis are critically controlled by temperature gradient and fluid flux following the principles of retrograde solubility. Simulations predict that convection could operate in rift carbonates prior to salt deposition, but with rates of dissolution in the reservoir interval only on the order of 0.01 vol. %/m.y., which is too low to significantly modify reservoir quality. The exception is around permeable fault zones and/or unconformities where flow is focused and dissolution rates are amplified to 1 to 10 vol. %/m.y. and could locally modify reservoir quality. After salt deposition, simulations also predict convection with a critical function for salt rugosity. The greatest potential for dissolution at rates of 0.1 to 1 vol. %/m.y. occurs where salt welds, overlying permeable carbonates thin to 500 m (1640 ft) or less. With tens of million years residence times feasible, convection under these conditions could locally result in reservoir sweet spots with porosity modification of 1% to 10% and potentially an order of magnitude or more in reservoir permeability. Integrating quantitative model–derived predictive diagenetic concepts with traditional subsurface data sets refines exploration to production scale risking of carbonate reservoir presence and quality.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/geothermal-convection-in-south-atlantic-subsalt.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 5682 Bulletin Article

See Also: Events Blog

The Arctic Technology Conference (ATC) awarded its 2015 Spotlight on Arctic Technology Awards at the Comwell Convention Center (Bella Center) in Copenhagen, Denmark to two companies that have made innovative contributions to Arctic exploration and production.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/atc2015-spotlight-winners.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 17122 Events Blog

See Also: Hedberg

This conference will provide an opportunity for attendees to share knowledge and identify differences in depositional processes, define how variability affects play elements, and define differences in stratigraphic models and sedimentary concepts.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/hero-latitudinal-controls-on-stratigraphic-models-and-sedimentary-concepts.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 8036 Hedberg

See Also: Short Course

This course assumes no logging knowledge and seeks to establish an understanding of basic petrophysical measurements and interpretation techniques which can be applied to routine tasks, and upon which more complex and advanced information and interpretive techniques can be built. It strives to provide a strong and coherent foundation for the understanding of other, specialized interpretation techniques involving well log data.


Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/sc-basic-well-log-analysis.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 1507 Short Course