Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Tinker, 2014 Environmental Stewardship in O&G Development September, 2014
Energy and the Environment Seeking the Radical Middle
Scott W. Tinker Bureau of Economic Geology
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin
Tinker, 2014
Outline
Energy Demand and Mix
Shale
Supply
Impacts and Options
The Radical Middle
Tinker, 2014
Global Population and Energy
http://www.eia.gov/iea/wecbtu.html QAe874
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2012
0
Po
pu
lati
on
(m
illi
on
s)
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Year
2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980
Source: US Census Bureau Int’l Database, June 2011
1.8%
1.1%
Global Population Growth Rate
0
100
200
300
400
500
Pri
ma
ry e
ne
rgy (
qu
ad
s)
Tinker, 2014
Global Population and Energy
Source: From the UN, as appeared in The Economist, August 23, 2014
4
10
12
8
6
2
0
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2100
Asia
Africa
Rest of World
Tinker, 2014
Population 2015 ~1 billion people per color
More people live
inside the circle
than outside…
Tinker, 2014
Energy Mix
1017
820
468
207 156 57
302
149 28
5
166
16
880
975
517
267
191 99
376
371
10 5
167
111
98
3 24 1
1389
562 2609
78 289 64
(MTOE)
Tinker, 2014
Energy Demand
1017
820
468
207 156 57
302
149
28 5
166
16
880
975
517
267
191 99
376
371
10
5
167
111
98
3
24
1
1389
562 2609
78 289
64
(MTOE)
Tinker, 2014
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
10
00
s B
Bls
/D
ay
Year
OECD Non-OECD
Global Oil Production
Source: BP Statistical Review 2012
Tinker, 2014
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
10
00
s B
bls
/D
ay
Year
OPEC Non-OPEC FSU
Global Oil Production
Source: BP Statistical Review 2012
Tinker, 2014
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
10
00
s B
bl
Da
y
Total North America Total S. & Cent. America Total Europe & Eurasia
Total Middle East Total Africa Total Asia Pacific
Global Oil Production
Source: BP Statistical Review 2012
30.5 BBY
Tinker, 2014
15
10
5
0
Year
Millio
n v
eh
icle
s
U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, RJ Estimates, China Association of Automobile Manufacturers
From Raymond James and Associates, Inc., August 2, 2010
CAAM, 2014
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
China
U.S. 20
25
QAd8173
Global Demand US and China Vehicle Sales
2012 2013
Tinker, 2014
Oil Consumption and Production
BP Statistical Review of World Energy, CIA World Factbook, Census Bureaus, Marc Faber Limited, RJ Estimates
From Raymond James and Associates, Inc., August 2, 2010 QAd8173
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
BO
PD
(1
00
0)
US Prod China Prod US Consump China Consump
Tinker, 2014
Oil Consumption and Production
BP Statistical Review of World Energy, CIA World Factbook, Census Bureaus, Marc Faber Limited, RJ Estimates
From Raymond James and Associates, Inc., August 2, 2010 QAd8173
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
BO
PD
(1
00
0)
US Prod China Prod US Consump China Consump
Tinker, 2014
The Future Transportation Mix
Millions of oil-equivalent barrels per day 25
20
15
5
10
0
ExxonMobil Corporation, 2013 The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040, page 20.
2000 2020 2040 2000 2020 2040 2000 2020 2040
Europe North
America
Gasoline
Other
Natural gas
Fuel oil Jet fuel
Biodiesel Diesel
Ethanol
Asia
Pacific
Tinker, 2014
Global Natural Gas Production
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
BcF/D
ay
Year
OECD Non-OECD
Source: BP Statistical Review 2012
Tinker, 2014
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
BC
F/D
ay
Total North America Total S. & Cent. America Total Europe & Eurasia
Total Middle East Total Africa Total Asia Pacific
Global Natural Gas Production
115 Tcfy
Source: BP Statistical Review 2012
Tinker, 2014
Electricity Generation by Fuel
North America
120
Europe
1980 2005 2030
100
80
60
0
20
40
Asia Pacific
1980 2005 2030
100
80
60
0
20
40
1980 2005 2030
100
80
60
0
20
40
120 120
Nuclear
Coal
Gas Oil
Renewables
Quadrillion BTUs
ExxonMobil Corporation, 2010, The outlook for energy: a view to 2030: ExxonMobil report, 53 p.
The Future Electricity Mix
Tinker, 2014
US Electricity Generation by Fuel, All Sectors
Source: US EIA Short Term Energy Outlook 2011.
14,000
12,000
10,000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Th
ou
san
d m
eg
aw
att
ho
urs
pe
r d
ay
Coal
Natural gas
Petroleum
Nuclear
Hydropower
Renewables
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Forecast
30.8% 30.1%17.9% 18.8% 20.1% 21.6% 21.4% 23.3% 24.8%23.9%
36.7% 36.8%49.8% 49.6% 49.0% 48.5% 48.2% 44.5% 42.2%44.8%
The Future Electricity Mix
Tinker, 2014
The Future Electricity Mix
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
02010200820062004200220001998199619941992 2012
Millio
n m
etr
ic t
on
s
Source: EIA QAe2823
U.S. First Quarter Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Tinker, 2014
Electricity Generation by Fuel
North America
120
Europe
1980 2005 2030
100
80
60
0
20
40
Asia Pacific
1980 2005 2030
100
80
60
0
20
40
1980 2005 2030
100
80
60
0
20
40
120 120
Nuclear
Coal
Gas Oil
Renewables
Quadrillion BTUs
ExxonMobil Corporation, 2010, The outlook for energy: a view to 2030: ExxonMobil report, 53 p.
The Future Electricity Mix
Tinker, 2014
50
40
30
20
10
0 0
100
200
300
400
500
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
ET
S
ca
rbo
n p
ric
e (E
UA
)
(Eu
ro p
er
ton
ne
)
Co
al c
on
su
mp
tio
n O
EC
D E
uro
pe
(millio
n t
on
nes
)
Thomson Reuters; IEA
The Future Electricity Mix
Tinker, 2014
Electricity Generation by Fuel
North America
120
Europe
1980 2005 2030
100
80
60
0
20
40
Asia Pacific
1980 2005 2030
100
80
60
0
20
40
1980 2005 2030
100
80
60
0
20
40
120 120
Nuclear
Coal
Gas Oil
Renewables
Quadrillion BTUs
ExxonMobil Corporation, 2010, The outlook for energy: a view to 2030: ExxonMobil report, 53 p.
The Future Electricity Mix
Tinker, 2014
US Electricity Generation by Fuel, All Sectors
Source: US EIA Short Term Energy Outlook 2011.
14,000
12,000
10,000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Th
ou
san
d m
eg
aw
att
ho
urs
pe
r d
ay
Coal
Natural gas
Petroleum
Nuclear
Hydropower
Renewables
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Forecast
30.8% 30.1%17.9% 18.8% 20.1% 21.6% 21.4% 23.3% 24.8%23.9%
36.7% 36.8%49.8% 49.6% 49.0% 48.5% 48.2% 44.5% 42.2%44.8%
The Future Electricity Mix
Sources: US DOE, The Wall Street Journal
Energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions by
geography, and net change since 2005
Country/area
China
India
Russia
Japan
Canada
UK
Germany
Europe
US
2011 emissions
8715 million metric tons
1726
1788
1181
553
497
748
4305
5491
Net change in annual emissions from2005 to 2011, million metric tons
544
201
-71
-86
-99
-370
-61
-509
3252
Tinker, 2014
50
40
30
20
10
0 0
100
200
300
400
500
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
ET
S
ca
rbo
n p
ric
e (E
UA
)
(Eu
ro p
er
ton
ne
)
Co
al c
on
su
mp
tio
n O
EC
D E
uro
pe
(millio
n t
on
nes)
Thomson Reuters; IEA
US Electricity Generation by Fuel, All Sectors
Source: US EIA Short Term Energy Outlook 2011.
14,000
12,000
10,000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Th
ou
san
d m
eg
aw
att
ho
urs
pe
r d
ay
Coal
Natural gas
Petroleum
Nuclear
Hydropower
Renewables
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Forecast
30.8% 30.1%17.9% 18.8% 20.1% 21.6% 21.4% 23.3% 24.8%23.9%
36.7% 36.8%49.8% 49.6% 49.0% 48.5% 48.2% 44.5% 42.2%44.8%
The Future Electricity Mix
Sources: US DOE, The Wall Street Journal
Energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions by
geography, and net change since 2005
Country/area
China
India
Russia
Japan
Canada
UK
Germany
Europe
US
2011 emissions
8715 million metric tons
1726
1788
1181
553
497
748
4305
5491
Net change in annual emissions from2005 to 2011, million metric tons
544
201
-71
-86
-99
-370
-61
-509
3252
50
40
30
20
10
0 Sp
ain
Germ
an
y
Au
stra
lia
Italy
Jap
an
UK
Fra
nce
Nig
eria
Bra
zil
US
A
Ru
ssia
S.A
frica
Can
ad
a
Mexic
o
Ch
ina
Ind
ia
Den
mark
Sources: IEA, EIA, national electricity boards, OANDA, shrinkthatfootprint.com
Average national electricity prices (in 2011 US cents/kWh)
41
35
30292826
20191817
121110101088
Data: average prices from 2011 converted at
mean exchange rate for that year
Tinker, 2014
Global Investment in Clean Energy
*Excludes corporate and government R&D
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, The Economist, April 26, 2014 QAe2822
New investment*, $bn 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
02010 11 12 13 14
Solar OtherBiofuelsWind
Tinker, 2014
A Look at the Global Future
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Petroleum Consumption
Coal Consumption
Natural Gas Consumption
Nuclear Electric Power Consumption
Hydroelectric Power Consumption
Biomass, Geothermal, Solar & Wind Consumption
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 20800.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Glo
ba
l C
on
su
mp
tio
n (
Q)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Glo
ba
l C
on
su
mp
tio
n (
Q)
Tinker’s 2009 Description of the Future
Tinker, 2014
Tinker Description of the Future, 2009
A Look at the Global Future
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Petroleum Consumption
Coal Consumption
Natural Gas Consumption
Nuclear Electric Power Consumption
Hydroelectric Power Consumption
Biomass, Geothermal, Solar & Wind Consumption
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 20800.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Glo
ba
l C
on
su
mp
tio
n (
Q)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Glo
ba
l C
on
su
mp
tio
n (
Q)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Glo
ba
l C
on
su
mp
tio
n (
Q)
40%
60%
200
70 300
450
70%
30%
Energy Transitions Take Time
Tinker, 2014
Tinker Description of the Future, 2009
A Look at the Global Future
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Petroleum Consumption
Coal Consumption
Natural Gas Consumption
Nuclear Electric Power Consumption
Hydroelectric Power Consumption
Biomass, Geothermal, Solar & Wind Consumption
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 20800.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Glo
ba
l C
on
su
mp
tio
n (
Q)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Glo
ba
l C
on
su
mp
tio
n (
Q)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Glo
ba
l C
on
su
mp
tio
n (
Q)
40%
60%
200
70 300
450
70%
30%
Energy Transitions Take Time
Tinker, 2014
Outline
Energy Demand and Mix
Shale
Supply
Impacts and Options
The Radical Middle
Tinker, 2014
Long-Term Oil Supply Resources and Cost
0 2000 4000 10,000 6000 8000
140
20
0
Resources (billion barrels)
Pro
du
cti
on
co
st
(2
00
8 $
)
Coal
to
liquids
Gas
to
liquids
Oil shales
Shale oil
Pro-
duced MENA
Other conventional
oil
Deepwater and
ultra-deepwater
40
60
80
100
120
Heavy
oil
&
bitumen
EOR
Arctic
CO2 EOR
Source: IEA World Energy Outlook (2009)
~1,300
Bbo
Global Consumption
31 Bby
Tinker, 2014
0 3,000 6,000 12,000 9,000 15,000 30,000 18,000 21,000 24,000 27,000
Resources (TcF)
Pro
du
cti
on
co
st
(2008 $
/Mb
tu)
LNG
Sour
Arc
tic
De
ep
Wate
r
Shale C
oal
Bed
M
eth
an
e
Pro
du
ced
Co
nven
tio
na
l
Tight
15
10
5
0
~5,600
Tcf
Global Natural Gas
Resources v. Cost
QAe980
Source: IEA World Energy Outlook (2009)
Global Consumption
115 Tcfy
Tinker, 2014
Unconventional Resource Plays
Modified from: EIA and National Geographic QAei2915
Utica
HilliardBaxterMancos-Niobrara
Cody
Heath Fm
Hermosa
Mancos
Lewis
Niobrara Fm
Mowry
Monterey- T emblor Pierre- Niobrara
Monterey
Manning Canyon
Kreyenhagen
Gothic-Hovenweep
Miocene
Miocene-Oligocene
Eocene
Cenozoic
Cretaceous
Jurassic
T rassic
Mesozoic
Permian
Pennsylvanian
Mississippian-Penn
Mississippian-Devonian
Devonian
Ordovician
Mississippian Cambrian
Paleozoic
T ight sands
Basins
Utica
Marcellus
Bakken
Cline
W oodford
Bend
W olfcamp
Eagle Ford
New Albany
Niobrara Fm
Excello-Mulky
Fayetteville
Niobrara- Mowry
Gammon
(Midland)
Pearsall
W oodford-Caney
Chattanooga
Utica- Collingwood
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
T uscaloosa
Haynesville
Floyd-Neal
Conasauga
Floyd-Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Barnett
A valon-Bone Spring W olfberry
W olfcamp (Delaware)
Barnett- W oodford
Tinker, 2014
Unconventional Resource Plays
Modified from: EIA and National Geographic QAei2915
Miocene
Miocene-Oligocene
Eocene
Cenozoic
Cretaceous
Jurassic
T rassic
Mesozoic
Permian
Pennsylvanian
Mississippian-Penn
Mississippian-Devonian
Devonian
Ordovician
Mississippian Cambrian
Paleozoic
T ight sands
Basins
Marcellus
Fayetteville
Haynesville
Barnett
Bakken
Eagle Ford
Permian
Basin
Tinker, 2014
Unconventional Resource Plays
Modified from: EIA and National Geographic QAei2915
Miocene
Miocene-Oligocene
Eocene
Cenozoic
Cretaceous
Jurassic
T rassic
Mesozoic
Permian
Pennsylvanian
Mississippian-Penn
Mississippian-Devonian
Devonian
Ordovician
Mississippian Cambrian
Paleozoic
T ight sands
Basins
Marcellus
Fayetteville
Haynesville
Barnett
Bakken
Eagle Ford
Permian
Basin
Tinker, 2014
Unconventional Resource Plays
Marcellus
Fayetteville
Haynesville
Barnett
Bakken
Eagle Ford
Permian
Basin
Middle
Devonian
From Blakey; http://cpgeosystems.com/paleomaps.html
Laurentia
&
Baltica
Bakken
Tinker, 2014
Monterey Woodford/Anadarko
Utica Barnett
Uinta Niobrara
Permian Midland
Permian Delaware Granite wash
Eagle Ford
Bakken
2010 U.S. SHALE LIQUIDS
PROJECTION
5
4
3
2
1
0
2010
U.S
sh
ale
liq
uid
s p
roje
cte
d g
row
th
(Mb
pd
)
2012 2014 2016 2018 2022 2020
After Morse et. al., 2012, Energy 2020: North America, the new Middle
East: Citi GPS: Global Perspectives & Solutions, figure 14, p. 17.
QAe465
~ 1.4 Bby from
shale by 2022
10% IRR: $44/bbl
10% IRR: $50/bbl
10% IRR: $68/bbl
10% IRR: $44/bbl
10% IRR: $50/bbl
10% IRR: $51/bbl
IRR Source: Rystad Energy
United States
Consumption
~ 7 Bby
Actual
Tinker, 2014
Annual US Oil Production
From: James D. Hamilton, Working Paper 17759, NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, 2012
Th
ou
san
d b
arr
els
/year U.S. Production
~ 3.1 Bby Today!
Tinker, 2014
0
30
35
2007 2009 Year
2011 2013
25
20
Billi
on
cu
bic
feet
per
day
10
5
15
10
TcF
/Year
5
Woodford (OK)
Bakken (ND) Eagle Ford (TX)
Rest of US
Fayetteville (AR)
Haynesville (LA and TX)
Barnett (TX) Antrim (MI, IM, and OH)
Marcellus (PA and WV)
2013 Dry Shale Gas Production
QAe2255 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
Fayetteville (AR)
Haynesville (LA and TX)
Barnett (TX)
Marcellus (PA and WV)
Tinker, 2014
Model: Rice University, Medlock, 2012
Shale Gas Forecast vs. Actual
B
F
H
M
Actual
Production
Tinker, 2014
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
He
nry
Hu
b P
rice
($
20
12
/M
MB
tu)
TC
F
Marcellus
Haynesville
Fayetteville
Barnett
HH $2012
Base Case ($4) Stacked Production
BEG Shale Reserves and Production Project
45 TcF
37 TcF 17 TcF
U.S. Consumption
~ 25 TcF/Year
Tinker, 2014
EIA Price Case Stacked Production
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
He
nry
Hu
b P
rice
($
20
12
/M
MB
tu)
TC
F
Marcellus
Haynesville
Fayetteville
Barnett
HH $2012
BEG Shale Reserves and Production Project
45 TcF
37 TcF 17 TcF
U.S. Consumption
~ 25 TcF/Year
Tinker, 2014
$6 Case Stacked Production
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
He
nry
Hu
b P
rice
($
20
12
/M
MB
tu)
TC
F
Marcellus
Haynesville
Fayetteville
Barnett
HH $2012
BEG Shale Reserves and Production Project
45 TcF
37 TcF 17 TcF
U.S. Consumption
~ 25 TcF/Year
Tinker, 2014
Model: Rice University, Medlock, 2012
EIA
BEG EIA price deck
Forecast vs. Actual
Tinker, 2014
Outline
Energy Demand and Mix
Shale
Supply
Impacts and Options
The Radical Middle
Tinker, 2014
3,000 to
10,000+ feet
3,000 – 10,000 feet
Shale
Hydraulic Fracturing
“Fracking” Water
Proppant
Friction Reducers: always (polyacrylmide)
Biocides: often (glutaraldehyde, chlorine)
Scale Inhibitors: sometimes (phosphonate)
Surfactants: sometimes (soaps and cleaners)
3 – 6 million gallons
Near Surface
Tinker, 2014 Environmental Impact
Not to Scale! After JP Nicot, Bureau of Economic Geology
Tinker, 2014 Environmental Impact
1000’s of Feet of Rock
Drawn to Scale
Tinker, 2014 Environmental Impact
Tinker, 2014
Environmental Issues Regulatory Considerations
after Rao, 2012
1. Mandatory baseline data
2. Cement all gas producing zones
3. Full disclosure of chemicals
4. Minimize fresh water use on the front end
5. Handle flowback and produced water
6. Manage potential induced seismicity
7. Minimize methane emissions and flaring
8. Minimize surface impact
Tinker, 2014
Environmental Issues Regulatory Considerations
after Rao, 2012
1. Mandatory baseline data
2. Cement all gas producing zones
3. Full disclosure of chemicals
4. Minimize fresh water use on the front end
5. Handle flowback and produced water
6. Manage potential induced seismicity
7. Minimize methane emissions and flaring
8. Minimize surface impact
Tinker, 2014
55%
30%
2% 2%
2011 water use for thermoelectricity: 0.41 maf
2010 water withdrawal for other sectors: 14 maf
Texas Water Use
Source: Scanlon et al., 2013
Tinker, 2014
55%
30%
8% 3% 2% 2%
2011 water use for thermoelectricity: 0.41 maf
2010 water withdrawal for other sectors: 14 maf
Texas Water Use
Source: Scanlon et al., 2013
Source: Nicot and Scanlon, 2012, ES&T
Tinker, 2014
Credit: NASA - NOAA
1994
Houston
San Antonio
Eagle Pass+
Laredo+
Corpus
The Valley
Tinker, 2014
Credit: NASA - NOAA
1994
Houston
San Antonio
Eagle Pass+
Laredo+
Corpus
The Valley
2012
Eagle Ford
Flaring and Rig Lights
Unconventional
Reservoirs
Tinker, 2014
Carrizo location – UT Arlington
Barnett drilling location
University of Texas at
Arlington From XTO annual report
Reducing Surface Disruption
Tinker, 2014
1 mile
Turnizontals
Tinker, 2014 Unconventional Summary
“Trade Offs” Environmental Risks and Impacts
Traffic/noise/light
Surface
Groundwater
Quakes
Health
Local and atmospheric emissions
Energy Security and Economic Benefits Available
Affordable
Reliable
Jobs and Taxes
Tinker, 2014 Unconventional Summary
“Trade Offs” Environmental Risks and Impacts
Traffic/noise/light
Surface
Groundwater
Quakes
Health
Local and atmospheric emissions
Energy Security and Economic Benefits Available
Affordable
Reliable
Jobs and Taxes
Environmental Risks and Impacts Traffic/noise/light
Surface
Groundwater
Quakes
Health
Local and atmospheric emissions
Energy Security and Economic Benefits Available
Affordable
Reliable
Jobs and Taxes
These are not mutually exclusive!
Tinker, 2014
Options to Natural Gas for Power I. Coal
o Available, affordable to generate, reliable
o Dirty, expensive to build
II. Nuclear
o Efficient, no emissions, affordable generation
o Expensive to build, waste, safety
III. Wind
o Simple, affordable, no emissions
o Intermittent, land and visual, transmission
IV. Solar
o Simple, no emissions, local
o Expensive, intermittent, land
V. Hydro
o Efficient, affordable to generate, no emissions
o Water, land, drought
VI. Geothermal
o Affordable where concentrated, no emissions
o Geology
Tinker, 2014
Outline
Energy Demand and Mix
Shale
Supply
Impacts and Options
The Radical Middle
Tinker, 2014
Affordable Cost
Price Volatility: stable or fluctuating
Infrastructure: Cost to build the plant
Available Access: substantial resources
Reliable Intermittent: source consistent or variable
Safe: natural/human causes
Sustainable Clean: air and atmospheric emissions
Dense: land footprint
Dry: fresh water use/risk
Energy Security
Tinker, 2014
Affordable Cost
Price Volatility: stable or fluctuating
Infrastructure: Cost to build the plant
Available Access: substantial resources
Reliable Intermittent: source consistent or variable
Safe: natural/human causes
Sustainable Clean: air and atmospheric emissions
Dense: land footprint
Dry: fresh water use/risk
Energy Security Energy Security
Affordable Cost
Price Volatility: stable or fluctuating
Infrastructure: Cost to build the plant
Available Access: substantial resources
Reliable Intermittent: source consistent or variable
Safe: natural/human causes
Sustainable Clean: air and atmospheric emissions
Dense: land footprint
Dry: fresh water use/risk
The Three Es
Economy
Environment
Tinker, 2014
The 4E Waltz
Energy Economy
Environment
Efficiency
Tinker, 2014
Efficiency
Challenges Incentivize producers to produce less
Expensive to install
Requires a cultural change
Benefits Save energy
Lower emissions
Less water
Less infrastructure
Less land
Save $
Tinker, 2014
The 5E Waltz
Energy Economy
Environment
Efficiency
Education
Tinker, 2014
The Radical Middle
Academia/NGO
Government
Industry
The
Radical
Middle
Tinker, 2014
Energy and the Economy
QAe963
Korea
Australia
Brazil
World
China
United States
0
TP
ER
pe
r cap
ita
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
GDP per capita
India
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
After: Rice World Gas Trade Model
Medlock, 2012
TPER = Total Primary Energy Requirement.
Energy needed to facilitate Total Final
Consumption (TFC does not include
conversion and transmission losses).
Japan
Tinker, 2014
Energy and the Economy
QAe963
Korea
Australia
Brazil
World
China
United States
0
TP
ER
pe
r cap
ita
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
GDP per capita
India
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
After: Rice World Gas Trade Model
Medlock, 2012
TPER = Total Primary Energy Requirement.
Energy needed to facilitate Total Final
Consumption (TFC does not include
conversion and transmission losses).
Japan
~3 billion
people
Tinker, 2014 Energy and the Economy
A Global Challenge
QAe963
Korea
Australia
Brazil
World
United States
0
TP
ER
pe
r cap
ita
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
GDP per capita
India
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
After: Rice World Gas Trade Model
Medlock, 2012
TPER = Total Primary Energy Requirement.
Energy needed to facilitate Total Final
Consumption (TFC does not include
conversion and transmission losses).
Japan
Developed Nations • Balance of Trade
Exports
Imports
• Regulation and Planning
Infrastructure
Resources
Permitting
• Emissions, Climate, Environment
• Energy Security
Developing Nations • Food
• Housing
• Clothing
• Education
• Healthcare
• Electricity
Tinker, 2014
1. Governments, industry and academe must work together; we all play a role in objective, balanced energy education.
2. The scale of energy demand is difficult to comprehend; energy transitions take many, many decades.
3. Energy security — affordable, available, reliable, sustainable — drives the energy mix and should be the goal of energy policy.
4. Energy efficiency is underappreciated; individuals matter!
5. Diverse energy portfolios are inevitable and healthy.
6. Renewables are growing but will remain regional supplements until major advances are made in energy storage.
7. Shale will play a global role in the energy future; “above ground” challenges are as important as “below ground.”
8. Natural gas and nuclear are the new foundational energies.
9. Oil and coal are abundant at the right price, and difficult to replace as transportation and electricity fuels.
10. Energy, the economy and the environment are linked.
Tinker’s Top Ten
