How Permian Innovations Propelled U.S. Crude Production To New Heights

Energy News Beat
US crude oil production hit a record in August with 13.05 million barrels per day, even as the number of rotary US oil rigs declined.
The Permian basin has been the focal point for US crude supply growth, with improvements in multi-well pad technology and increased lateral well lengths.
Goldman Sachs highlights the continued capital discipline of US producers, emphasizing moderate growth targets and reinvestment rates.

With core OPEC+ cartel members Russia and Saudi Arabia doing everything in their power to throttle oil output and push the price of oil higher, the US is again emerging as not only a thorn in OPEC’s side but as the marginal producer of world oil. According to EIA data, US crude oil production hit an all-time high in August, as production surpassed pre-covid levels.

US field production of crude oil reached 404.6 million barrels during the month of August, new EIA data showed, for an average of 13.05 million barrels per day, breaking the previous record US drillers set in July of 401.73 million barrels. Compared to this time last year, U.S. production is up by a total of 33 million barrels for the month. Remarkably production hit all time highs even as the number of rotary US oil rigs has slumped in the past year. How is this possible? We answer that question below.

Increases in production were seen in PADDs 1, 2, 3, and 4, with the largest percentage increase in production seen in PADD 4, which comprises Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. The largest actual increase was seen in PADD 2, which includes North Dakota, Illinois, and Kentucky, among other states.

Crude production in Texas in August – home to a large portion of the Permian Basin and where Exxon will soon be undisputed energy king after its merger with Pioneer closes –  rose from 173.775 million barrels to 174.562 million barrels.

Despite the record-breaking production levels seen in August, inventories of crude oil in the United States are estimated to be within 3 million barrels of where it began the year.

The new record in crude production in the United States comes shortly after U.S. supermajor ExxonMobil spent $60B on purchasing another Permian player, Pioneer Natural Resources, although most oil companies in the United States have chosen fiscal restraint resulting in a slow and steady increase in output versus the no holds barred investment strategies during previous boom cycles.

What is perhaps more remarkable is that in a recent report (available to pro subscribers) from Goldman commodity analyst Daan Dtruyven, the bank found that “the US has driven all the growth in global oil supply over the past decade and the past year, and the Permian basin has driven all growth in US crude supply since early 2020.”

US supply has also grown faster than expected. According to Goldman, US liquids supply is on track to exceed IEA expectations for the 13th consecutive year, except for 2016 and 2020. That said, the 2022 and 2023 forecast errors will likely be smaller than before the pandemic, and US total liquids supply has been roughly flat since June.

Furthermore, the US remains the key short-term marginal oil producer, where flexible short-cycle private producers sit high on the global cost curve.

So is the US falling in the overproduction trap that marked much of the 2010s and which led to the defaulting of dozens of junk debt-funded US energy producers, and sharply oil prices?

According to Goldman, the answer is no as crude output growth in the Permian has slowed from 1mb/d in 2019 to 0.5mb/d year-over-year in September given the drop in the rig count, and the stabilizing well productivity trend.

However, Permian output is still edging up because of rises in the number of drilled wells per rig and well length. In other words, the Permian new well output per rig is still trending higher because of:

A rise in the number of drilled wells per rig given progress in multi-well pad technology
A structural rise in the average lateral well length to 10,000 feet(Exhibit 9)
A boost to output per rig through a composition effect arising from the larger drop in less productive private rigs (“high grading”). The output per rig in 2022 was nearly 2.5 times greater for public rigs than for private rigs since public firms account for over 60% of production, but under 40% of rigs (Exhibit 10).

This is important because the lack of well productivity growth (which reflects an offset between deteriorating rock quality and improving technology) suggest that Permian output growth will slow further. In fact, the emergence of the Permian as the world’s key oil market variable may explain why Exxon recently purchased Pioneer: the new supergiant will have every opportunity to turn oil output in the US on (or off) as only it sees fit.

Finally, a question that Wall Street would love answered: are US producers still capital disciplined?

Goldman’s answer, “yes, three pieces of evidence show that the US upstream sector remains capital disciplined.”

First, US public independent firms are sticking to the moderate single digit growth targets they announced in 2020-2021. As Exhibit 11 shows, we expect crude production growth by the independent US E&Ps under GS coverage to slow from around 235kb/d (or 7%) in 2023 to 135kb/d (4%) in 2024, and just around 90kb/d (2.5%) in 2025. That companies continue to guide to slower growth despite the 2022H1 and the summer 2023 upswing in prices is the essence of capital discipline, and the main driver of the reduction in supply elasticity. These lower growth targets reflect investors’ scarring 2014-2020 experience when excessive growth depressed returns, and growing concerns about inventory quality.

Second, reinvestment rates—capex as a share of operating cash flow—of public producers remain in a 40-60% range, well below the historical average (Exhibit 12, left panel). The 2022-2023 pickup in capex reflects that the 2020-2021 levels were likely unsustainably low, and the boost to nominal capex measures from rapid cost inflation (Exhibit 12, right panel).
Third, broader capital allocation strategies of public E&Ps remain focused on limiting leverage and returning cash to shareholders (see Appendix Exhibit 18). To illustrate further, equity (rather than debt) is now typically used to fund acquisitions (as for ExxonMobil-Pioneer).

Source: Oilprice.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post How Permian Innovations Propelled U.S. Crude Production To New Heights appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Rally against wind farm generates major public support

Energy News Beat

Hundreds of surfers have paddled out into the turquoise seas off the NSW south coast to create a giant ring of solidarity in opposition to a wind farm the government wants to build 10 kilometres offshore.

Thousands more people covered the grassy surrounds of Wollongong Head Lighthouse at Flagstaff Point on Sunday to rally against the proposal some have dubbed an “environmental diaster waiting to happen”.

About 25,000 flyers promoting the rally were handed out by members of the Coalition Against Offshore Wind urging residents to support the cause.

The federal government wants to build a 1461 square kilometre site at least 10 km from the shore, out to 30 kilometres at Kiama, saying it will deliver jobs and clean energy for NSW.

Federal Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen says Australia has some of the best wind resources in the world, including at Wollongong but has no offshore wind farms.

“This presents a huge economic opportunity for the regions that help power Australia,” he said.

The government argues the site will generate up to 4.2 gigawatts of power, enough to supply as many as 3.4 million homes, but locals say the impact to ocean life would be devastating.

Concerns include the threat to migrating whales and sea birds, as well as unknown impacts on the seabed.

Another major complaint is how the turbines would change the look of the coal coast.

The public consultation period has recently been extended by 30 days until November 15

Signs with “Saving the planet does not mean destroying the ocean”, were held aloft, with the local member for Kiama, Gareth Ward, spotted among the crowd.

Source: Msn.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Rally against wind farm generates major public support appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

ENB #147 Dan Gualtieri, When energy security, and fiscal responsibility are concerned, tools are critical. How CEOs can save money and get investors.

Energy News Beat

Anyone who has listened to the Energy News Beat podcast for the last 3 years, knows that Michael and I have a passion for spreading the word about ending energy poverty. The only way to eliminate energy poverty is through low-cost, sustainable energy, with the least environmental impact.

In this episode, Dan Gualtieri, Executive Director Client Success at Inside Petroleum, Inc. and I cover a lot of critical issues in how oil and gas companies can keep their costs down, and even monitor their carbon footprint. You cannot fix what you don’t know is broken and ComboCarbon is a great way to track to get a baseline and improvements.

The time that oil and gas companies can save with having the right tools is just money to the bottom line for investors.

On a personal note, I have had the opportunity to work with CEOs and get data to accounting and out to the investors with the help of ComboCurve’s financial strength and modeling. Sandstone has not worked with ComboCurve but is gearing up to help get more reviews on that great topic.

The world is in a geopolitical nightmare, and we need our United States oil producers more now than at any time in history. Coupled with the financial markets, investors are moving to energy, specifically oil and gas investments.

Stay tuned for more updates on our extended series on oil and gas financial modeling and incorporating the ComboCarbon into the financial aspect.

Also, I would like to give a shout-out to John and the entire staff over at WellDatabase as a new sponsor to the podcast. We use their data for our well modeling and financial forecasting. They are critical in saving money when drilling. We are just getting rolling!

 

Follow Dan on his LinkedIn HERE:

Dan Gualtieri, Executive Director Client Success at Inside Petroleum, Inc. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dagualtieri/

More information on ComboCurve and ComboCarbon HERE:https://combocurve.com/

00:00 – Introduction

00:37 – Benefits of Combo Curve software for optimizing natural gas and oil prices

01:26 – Shared connection to Oklahoma State University and academic backgrounds

02:53 – Roles at Combo Curve

04:20 – Importance of conversational analytics in oil and gas industry amidst supply chain disruptions

09:13 – Combo Carbon and its significance in carbon capture and measurement

11:07 – The role of integrated data tools like Combo Curve in sustainable energy production

16:13 – Empowering reservoir engineers with Combo Curve for ESG modeling and sustainability

22:07 – Expansion plans for NPR operators like Exxon

24:25 – Importance of automated workflows and accurate data in asset evaluations

28:22 – Automation and data analysis in the M&A market

30:58 – Future plans for Combo Curve International

36:26 – Future plans for Dan Gualtieri

39:01 – Closing thoughts

40:23 – Outro

41:01 – RNCN Video

The post ENB #147 Dan Gualtieri, When energy security, and fiscal responsibility are concerned, tools are critical. How CEOs can save money and get investors. appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Exxon completes $4.9 billion Denbury acquisition

Energy News Beat

Oil Price

ExxonMobil said on Thursday it had completed the acquisition of carbon solutions provider Denbury in an all-stock transaction valued at $4.9 billion, which makes the U.S. supermajor the holder of the largest owned and operated CO2 pipeline network in the U.S.

Source: Reuters

The deal, first announced in July this year, obtained Denbury shareholder approval earlier this week.

The combination will further expand ExxonMobil’s ability to provide large-scale emission-reduction services to industrial customers, the company said in its Q3 results release at the end of last week.

Exxon will now have Denbury’s more than 1,300 miles of CO2 dedicated pipelines in the U.S., with operations include oil and gas development, as well as CO2 transportation and storage, including planned sites for future carbon sequestration.

“Acquiring Denbury strengthens our position to economically reduce emissions in hard-to-decarbonize industries, which today have limited practical options. We see the potential to drive strong returns with the capacity to reduce the nation’s carbon emissions by 100 million tons per year,” Exxon’s CEO Darren Woods said on the earnings call with analysts last week.

In the United States, the IRA increased credit values across the board, with the tax credit for carbon storage from carbon capture on industrial and power generation facilities rising from $50 to $85 per ton, and the tax incentives for storage from direct air capture (DAC) jumping from $50 to $180 per ton. The provisions also extend the construction window by seven years to January 1, 2033. This means that projects must begin physical work by then to qualify for the credit.

The significantly higher incentives in the IRA are giving impetus to projects.

“The CCS market has just taken off,” Nick Cooper, CEO at carbon capture and storage developer Storegga, told the Financial Times earlier this year.

“This feels a bit like the U.S. shale boom 15 years ago,” Cooper added.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

 

The post Exxon completes $4.9 billion Denbury acquisition appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

U.S. oil groups urge Biden administration to support energy security by removing offshore production barriers

Energy News Beat

World Oil

(WO) – The American Petroleum Institute (API) called on the Biden administration to help meet growing energy demand by allowing for consistent and predictable access to America’s vast energy resources offshore.

Source: World Oil

In comments submitted to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in response to the Call for Information and Nominations for 2024-2029 Gulf of Mexico Lease Sales, API joined with EnerGeo Alliance, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA) in reiterating its concern regarding the administration’s repeated attempts to restrict future offshore production and urged the agency to promptly finalize its five-year offshore leasing program without delay and hold each of the lease sales scheduled on a region-wide basis in the Gulf of Mexico.

“The U.S. Gulf of Mexico has been the backbone of U.S. energy production for years, providing more than one million barrels of oil equivalent per day for the last two decades,” API Vice President of Upstream Policy Holly Hopkins said. “The decisions made regarding future leasing will have short- and long-term implications for our nation’s energy and national security, job creation, and government revenue.”

In addition to submitting comments on the Call for Information, the associations joined with the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) and the Offshore Operators Committee (OOC) to submit comments in response to BOEM’s Notice of Intent to Prepare a Gulf of Mexico Regional Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

In both comment letters, the associations highlighted the Biden administration’s repeated attempts to restrict energy production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, including issuing an unlawful moratorium on oil and gas lease sales; cancelling offshore sales; allowing the five-year program for federal offshore leasing to expire; adding unjustified restrictions and removing acreage from a congressionally-mandated lease sale and issuing a final five-year program with the fewest lease sales in history. The associations urged Interior to end the bureaucratic delays, including additional NEPA reviews, and move forward with region-wide lease sales as soon as possible.

“Without the right implementation, the administration’s five-year program will become a mere paper exercise instead of an actionable vehicle for strengthening U.S. energy security,” Hopkins concluded.

 

The post U.S. oil groups urge Biden administration to support energy security by removing offshore production barriers appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

API: EPA’s proposed NAAQS revisions “jeopardize” American jobs, risk “substantial” economic harm

Energy News Beat

World Oil

(WO) — The American Petroleum Institute (API) joined with over 70 other trade groups representing diverse businesses across the economy in urging the Biden administration to maintain the existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Source: World Oil

In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, the organizations warned that moving forward with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed revisions would jeopardize American jobs and risk substantial economic harm.

The proposed revisions to the standard “would risk jobs and livelihoods by making it even more difficult to obtain permits for new factories, facilities, and infrastructure to power economic growth,” the groups wrote. “This proposal would also threaten successful implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the important clean energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. Our members have innovated and worked with regulators to significantly lower PM2.5 emissions and further progress is being made as part of the energy transition investments.”

The letter emphasized the effectiveness of the current standards which have led to a 42% decline in PM2.5 concentrations since 2000, according to government data. In fact, the EPA reaffirmed only two years ago that the current standards are protective of public health and the environment. Now, without significant new health information, the agency is proposing revisions that will have dramatic effects on the U.S. economy.

A recent Oxford Economic analysis commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers found that the proposed standard would reduce U.S. GDP by nearly $200 billion and cost as many as one million American jobs through 2031.

“Lowering the current standard so dramatically would create a perverse disincentive for American investment,” the letter reads. “EPA’s proposal could force investment in new facilities to foreign countries with less stringent air standards, thereby undermining the Administration’s economic and environmental goals. We urge you to ensure EPA maintains the existing fine particulate matter standards to ensure both continued environmental protection and economic growth.”

 

The post API: EPA’s proposed NAAQS revisions “jeopardize” American jobs, risk “substantial” economic harm appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Advocates fear N.H. clean energy proposal would pit nuclear against solar, wind

Energy News Beat

Climate and clean energy advocates in New Hampshire say a pending proposal to define nuclear power as clean energy could undercut solar and wind power in the state. 

Though the details are still in the works, state Rep. Michael Vose, chair of the legislature’s science, technology, and energy committee, is drafting a bill that would allow nuclear power generators, such as New Hampshire’s Seabrook Station, to receive payments for contributing clean energy to the grid. 

“The broad idea is that, long-term, we can hope and expect that that reliable source of baseload power will always be there,” Vose said. “It won’t be driven out of business by subsidized renewable power.” 

Some environmental advocates, however, worry that the proposal would provide unnecessary subsidies to nuclear power while making it harder for solar projects to attract investors. 

“It’s just another way to reduce support for solar,” said Meredith Hatfield, associate director for policy and government relations at the Nature Conservancy in New Hampshire. 

New Hampshire’s renewable portfolio standard — a binding requirement that specifies how much renewable power utilities must purchase — went into effect in 2008. To satisfy the requirement in that first year, utilities had to buy renewable energy certificates representing 4% of the total megawatt-hours they supplied that year. The number has steadily climbed, hitting 23.4% this year. 

New Hampshire was the second-to-last state in the region to create a binding standard — Vermont switched from a voluntary standard to a mandated one until 2015. New Hampshire’s standard tops out at 25.2% renewable energy in 2025, but the other New England states range from 35% to 100% and look further into the future. 

Vose, however, worries that even New Hampshire’s comparatively modest targets could put the reliability of the power supply at risk. 

“Until we can have affordable, scalable battery storage, the intermittency of renewables is going to guarantee that renewables are unreliable,” Vose said. “And if we add too many renewables to our grid, it makes the whole grid unreliable.”

That idea has been widely debunked. Grid experts say variable renewables may require different planning and system design but are not inherently less reliable than fossil fuel generation.

The details of Vose’s clean energy standard bill have not yet been finalized. A clean energy standard is broadly different from a renewable energy standard in that it includes nuclear power, which does not emit carbon dioxide, but which uses a nonrenewable fuel source. Those writing the legislation, however, will have to decide whether it will propose incorporating the new standard into the existing renewable portfolio standard or operating the two systems alongside each other.

Clean energy advocates say they are not necessarily opposed to a clean energy standard, but argue it is crucial that such a program not pit nuclear power and renewable energy against each other for the same pool of money. And they are concerned that that’s just what Vose’s bill will do. 

“While we would welcome a robust conversation about how to design a clean energy standard, I fear that’s not what this bill is,” said Sam Evans-Brown, executive director of nonprofit Clean Energy New Hampshire. 

If a clean energy standard is structured so both nuclear and renewables qualify to meet the requirements, clean energy certificates from nuclear power generators would flood the market, causing the price to plummet. Seabrook alone has a capacity of more than 1,250 megawatts, while the largest solar development in the state has a capacity of 3.3 megawatts. Revenue from renewable energy certificates is an important part of the financial model for many renewable energy projects, so falling prices would likely mean fewer solar developments could attract investors or turn a profit. 

At the same time, nuclear generators could sell certificates for low prices, as they already have functioning financial models that do not include this added revenue. Nuclear could, in effect, drive solar and other renewables out of the market almost entirely, clean energy advocates worry.

“The intention of the [renewable portfolio standard] has always been about creating fuel diversity by getting new generation built, and a proposal like that would do the opposite,” Evans-Brown said.

A single standard that combines nuclear and renewables could also hurt development of solar projects in another way, Hatfield said. When New Hampshire utilities do not purchase enough renewable energy credits to cover the requirements, they must make an alternative compliance payment. These payments are the only source of money for the state Renewable Energy Fund, which provides grants and rebates for residential solar installations and energy efficiency projects. 

“If you add in nukes and therefore there’s plentiful inexpensive certificates, then you basically have no alternative compliance payments,” Hatfield says. “It could potentially dry up the only real source we have in the state for clean energy rebates.”

Though Vose and the bill’s other authors have not yet released the details of the proposal, he has indicated that he would not like the new clean energy standard to significantly increase costs for New Hampshire’s ratepayers. The existing standard cost ratepayers $58 million in 2022, when utilities were required to buy certificates covering 15% of the power they supplied, according to a state report issued last month. 

The legislation may meet the same fate as last year’s effort, Vose acknowledged, but he is still eager to get people talking about the issue. 

“Even if we can’t get such a standard passed in this session,” he said, “we can at least begin a serious discussion about what a clean energy standard might look like.” 

 

The post Advocates fear N.H. clean energy proposal would pit nuclear against solar, wind appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Wyoming rate hike inspires slew of bills to scrutinize electric utilities

Energy News Beat

Lawmakers have advanced six draft bills intended to ensure Wyoming electricity customers pay only what’s necessary for utilities to provide reliable energy without lining executives’ pockets or footing the bill for other states’ demands for renewable energy.

The legislative efforts attempt to fill perceived regulatory gaps in a rapidly changing utility landscape, according to Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivision committee members who debated the bills Friday in Cheyenne. Though some measures were criticized as redundant of existing utility practices and Wyoming Public Service Commission authority, and for adding to the under-staffed commission’s workload, they’re also intended to send a message.

“A big part of what we’re doing is perception,” Rep. Jeremy Haroldson (R-Wheatland) said. “We’re having this conversation and [residents] want to know without a shadow of a doubt that when they pay their utility bill next month they’re not paying for another state’s decisions.”

All six bills will be sponsored by the committee. Bills sponsored by legislative panels are historically more likely to succeed than measures backed by individual lawmakers.

Despite the two-thirds vote threshold required to introduce non-budget bills in February’s budget session, committee members are hopeful the high-profile issue of soaring electric rates will win consideration for the slate of utility measures before the Legislature.

Lawmakers said they’re responding to rising utility costs, in general, and worry the industry’s ongoing shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources of electric generation will result in continually rising rates and less reliable power. 

Panel members repeatedly pointed to Rocky Mountain Power’s request to hike electric rates by nearly 30% — the largest hike Wyoming has seen in more than 10 years and a move lawmakers believe is, in large part, the result of anti-coal and natural gas policies in several West Coast states where the utility’s parent company, PacifiCorp, also operates.

PacifiCorp’s Gateway West transmission project will help boost new renewable energy projects in Wyoming. (PacifiCorp)

The company’s ongoing investments in new Wyoming wind farms and high-voltage transmission lines to send the power to customers in other western states is a primary example, Corporations Committee Co-Chairman Sen. Cale Case (R-Lander) said. Though it’s not a major factor in Rocky Mountain Power’s current rate hike requests, its parent company is investing $8 billion in interstate electric transmission lines, adding more future costs and risks for Wyoming customers without a proportional benefit, according to Case.

“Those lines, the commission is going to find that they’re [a just and reasonable expense],” Case said. “Do you think they’re useful for Wyoming? I don’t. I think we’re getting screwed.”

The committee, over the course of about eight hours, heard testimony from the Wyoming Public Service Commission, Rocky Mountain Power, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Black Hills Power, Wyoming Rural Electric Association, Wyoming Industrial Energy Consumers and several members of the public. The discussion often invoked the Rocky Mountain Power rate hike hearing taking place before the Public Service Commission just a couple blocks away from the Capitol, with some of the same parties in that case taking time to hash out their arguments in the legislative setting.

Sen. Case, for example, is participating in the rate case hearing as a citizen. Holland and Hart attorney Thor Nelson represents the Wyoming Industrial Energy Consumers coalition — also an intervening party in the rate case — and testified before the legislative committee in support of several bills the coalition offered and that the committee accepted.

Meantime, the Public Service Commission and Rocky Mountain Power sent staff members and representatives not directly participating in the rate hearing to testify before lawmakers.

The Public Service Commission is expected to rule on Rocky Mountain Power’s rate request before January, long before any potential new legislation might take effect — or even be debated by the full Legislature.

Wyoming Public Service Commission Chief Counsel John Burbridge and Chair Mary Throne testify before the Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions committee Sept. 20, 2023 in Cheyenne. (Dustin Bleizeffer/WyoFile)

Nearly all aspects of the draft measures exempt rural electric co-ops because the state has limited authority over their rates or facility investments. Rocky Mountain Power is the primary target for much of the draft legislation affecting all regulated electric utilities in the state because it is the largest in Wyoming, serving some 144,000 customers, according to statements by lawmakers.

Here is a summary of the six draft bills advanced by the committee. 

Public service commission – electricity reliability would direct the commission to establish standards for “adequate, dispatchable and reliable” electric generation and to impose penalties for outages and for not meeting the standards. The committee considered, but backed off from, increasing penalties to a potential maximum of $1 million per day for a major outage.

The new reliability standards would be applied only to electric generation facilities and not distribution systems, such as power lines. 

Utilities are already held to such standards and potential monetary penalties by both state and federal authorities, utility representatives testified. However, the new standards should compel utilities to be careful not to become over-reliant on renewable sources of electric generation, and should give the commission “more teeth” to disallow passing the cost of renewables to Wyoming ratepayers, Sen. Charles Scott (R-Casper) said.

Reclamation and decommissioning costs would direct the commission to hire a third party to study the cost of closing and remediating power plants. The bill includes an appropriation of $500,000, which would be recouped from power plant owners — an expense that committee members said should not be passed on to ratepayers.

However, both the commission and utilities already account for reclamation and decommission costs in rates, according to testimony from their representatives. The money is collected in pace with scheduled closures. Further, the measure would add to the workload of an already understaffed commission and potentially require another $1 million in staff support, according to an estimate by the agency’s Chief Counsel John Burbridge.

Despite existing laws and rules, several lawmakers still worry that divvying up power plant closing costs among ratepayers in multiple states might become more complicated than usual. For example, Wyoming might choose to support a coal-fired power plant long after states like Washington and Oregon have opted out. That scenario, too, according to critics of the draft bill, is already taken into account within the existing regulatory system. 

“Perhaps it’s a solution looking for a problem,” Burbridge told the committee.

Electricity rates for costs that do not benefit Wyoming would direct the commission to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of multi-state, systemwide facilities and disallow any costs that do not benefit Wyoming ratepayers. It attempts to address concerns such as the example that Case mentioned regarding PacifiCorp’s $8 billion investment in new interstate transmission expansions necessary to deliver power from expanding wind and solar energy facilities to out-of-state customers.

“We are not benefiting from that in any proportion to the cost that our ratepayers are being asked to [pay],” Case said.

PacifiCorp’s Seven Mile Hill wind farm in Carbon County generates 111 megawatts of electrical power. (Dustin Bleizeffer/WyoFile)

PacifiCorp’s $8 billion investment accounts for only a fraction of Rocky Mountain Power’s currently proposed rate hike, according to the utility. Just how much Wyoming ratepayers are being asked to cover, and how much is legally justified, is now being contested before the Public Service Commission.

The bill does appear duplicative of the commission’s core mandate to scrutinize the costs of multi-state, systemwide facilities and to only allow utilities to recover the portion that’s proven to serve Wyoming customers, Case acknowledged. But he and most of his colleagues on the committee are convinced the current level of regulatory scrutiny still leaves Wyoming customers vulnerable to paying more than their fair share. 

Also, Case said, the regulatory calculations don’t take into account the environmental, cultural and natural resource losses imposed on Wyoming by industrializing landscapes with wind farms and transmission lines.

“Those lines are being built for the major purpose of taking renewable energy out of the state of Wyoming,” Case said. “We don’t need that power. Our customers don’t need that power. Our growth doesn’t justify that power, and on and on and on.”

Only a small portion of a multi-state utility’s wind farms and interstate transmission lines might serve Wyoming customers. But they more broadly benefit them via economies of scale when it comes to geographically large, systemwide savings, according testimony from utility representatives. Though utilities didn’t oppose the measure, the bill merely adds another layer of work and expense for something the utilities and the commission already do, they said.

“It really doesn’t advance the ball very much because this is essentially what is done anyway,” said Bruce Asay, who represents Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.

Public service commission-integrated resource plans was brought to the committee by the Wyoming Industrial Energy Consumers coalition, and it has tentative support from the Sheridan-based landowner advocacy group Powder River Basin Resource Council.

The bill would direct state regulators to more closely review a utility’s long-range planning and provide guidance for how the utility can better meet Wyoming’s needs and policies.

Utilities routinely update what’s referred to as their integrated resource plan — a roadmap of sorts for how they will provide electrical service well into the future. Rocky Mountain Power, for example, filed its most recent 20-year integrated resource plan update in April, setting tentative retirement dates for several coal-fired power units in Wyoming and neighboring states as well as plans for major investments in new transmission lines, renewable energy and battery storage.

The internal utility-by-utility planning process tends to set an agenda and investment plan in motion ahead of deeper scrutiny by state-level authorities such as the Wyoming Public Service Commission and the broader public, proponents of the bill say.

“So it ends up having an elevated presence and less scrutiny, I argue, than if we had scrutinized it at the very front end,” Case said.

Utility representatives said the bill would result in additional layers of work for both them and the commission, but they did not oppose the measure.

“We do this in Utah. We do it in Oregon. We’re happy to do it in Wyoming,” Rocky Mountain Power Vice President and General Counsel of Government Affairs Richard Garlish said.

One particularly unpopular aspect of Rocky Mountain Power’s contested 21.6% (or $140.2 million) “general rate” increase proposal is another request couched within it. 

Currently, the utility operates under a “cost sharing band” — a regulatory mechanism that splits fuel cost overruns between the utility and its Wyoming customers. Ratepayers are tapped for 80% and the utility is responsible for 20%. The same 80/20 ratio applies when fuel costs come in lower than the amount fixed into rates, sometimes resulting in a rebate to customers.

That type of shared risk and benefit is a good “insurance” policy for ratepayers, and incentivizes the utility to do its best in forecasting prices for wholesale coal and natural gas to fuel power plants, as well as electrical power it sometimes purchases on the open market, according to the Wyoming Office of Consumer Advocate. 

Richard Garlish, foreground, who represents Rocky Mountain Power, and the utility’s President and CEO Gary Hoogeveen, attend a hearing of the Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions committee Sept. 20, 2023 in Cheyenne. (Dustin Bleizeffer/WyoFile)

But Rocky Mountain Power wants Wyoming authorities to shift that cost sharing band to 100/0 — requiring Wyoming ratepayers to accept all the risk and reward, depending on how well the utility has estimated future fuel costs. 

The Public utilities-net power cost sharing ratio draft bill would disallow a 100/0 ratio and mandate that the risk and reward be shared to some degree. Though many proponents of the measure support a permanent 70/30 split, the committee declined to establish a specific ratio — only that it could not be 100/0.

Rocky Mountain Power representatives strongly opposed the measure.

Lawmakers and large Rocky Mountain Power customers, particularly the Wyoming Industrial Energy Consumers coalition, worry that the utility’s process for inviting bids from contractors puts potential fossil fuel developers at a disadvantage.

Public utilities-energy resource procurement mimics existing laws in Utah and Oregon that call for an independent evaluator to judge whether a utility’s “requests for proposal” faithfully solicit a full range of technology options for new power generation facilities regardless of their primary energy resource.

Though the commission considers it redundant of current practices and authority, utilities did not oppose the measure. A Rocky Mountain Power representative noted the company already undergoes similar scrutiny in Utah and Oregon.

One measure, Third party electrical generation, which would have allowed groups of customers to generate and potentially sell their own electricity, failed to move forward. 

It’s a form of deregulation, according to critics, and an ongoing legislative effort that’s been defeated in the past. But it’s likely to reappear before the Legislature given strong support among Wyoming’s trona, natural gas and manufacturing industries, as well as bitcoin miners.

WyoFile is an independent nonprofit news organization focused on Wyoming people, places and policy.

 

The post Wyoming rate hike inspires slew of bills to scrutinize electric utilities appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Cureton Midstream announces sale to Williams

Energy News Beat

Oil and Gas 360

November 2, 2023 —Tailwater Capital LLC (“Tailwater”), an energy and growth infrastructure private equity firm, and a fund managed by the Private Equity Group of Ares Management (“Ares”), a leading global alternative investment manager, today announced that they have signed definitive agreements to sell Cureton Front Range LLC (“Cureton” or the “Company”) to Williams Field Services Group, LLC (“Williams”), a subsidiary of The Williams Companies, Inc. (NYSE: WMB), with an expected close in December 2023, subject to regulatory approvals.

“This transaction represents yet another step forward for our team and positions Cureton for its next chapter of growth while holding true to our commitment to deliver the highest quality of service to our customers and communities in which we operate,” said Charlie Beecherl, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cureton. “I want to express profound gratitude to our exceptional team, whose remarkable work ethic, shared values, and commitment to our company’s culture were pivotal in driving the successful sale of our business. We are also thankful for Tailwater’s and Ares’ steadfast support as we navigated a constantly evolving market landscape. As we look to the future, we are confident our assets remain in capable hands with Williams and are poised for an exciting trajectory of growth in combination with Williams’ existing asset base. Finally, I want to thank our customers who have been incredible partners these past six years, we appreciate your support.”

Tailwater and Ares initially invested in Cureton in 2017 to pursue an anchored greenfield midstream strategy in the DJ Basin in Colorado. Cureton’s initial project started with an acreage dedication from a single private producer and culminated in the successful development of a premier multi-customer midstream gathering and processing platform. Cureton’s asset base now consists of over 260 miles of low and high pressure pipelines, 109 MMcf/d of natural gas processing capacity, 64,000 horsepower of compression, and is underpinned by long-term contracts from blue-chip operators covering more than 200,000 dedicated acres and over two million acres of AMIs.

“We commend the Cureton team for the success they have demonstrated over the course of our partnership,” said Edward Herring, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Tailwater Capital. “Cureton has effectively expanded its presence in the oil-abundant rural landscape of the DJ Basin, emerging as a market leader thanks to its team’s substantial experience and strategic partnerships with oil and gas producers.”

“Cureton has continued to strategically enhance its operations, create a capital-efficient business, and demonstrate unwavering dedication to its customers, communities, and people,” said David Cecere, Partner of Tailwater Capital. “Given the continued need for scale in the midstream sector, we believe it is an optimal time to monetize the business and are excited to provide another strong return for our investors.”

“We are very proud of the many accomplishments that the Cureton team has achieved throughout our partnership,” said Robert Kimmel, Partner in the Ares Private Equity Group. “We believe that the company remains well positioned and we wish Williams every success in shepherding this next phase of Cureton’s growth.”

Evercore served as the exclusive financial advisor to Cureton in connection with the transaction. Kirkland & Ellis served as legal counsel. RBC Capital Markets served as financial advisor and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP served as legal advisor to Williams in connection with the transaction.

 

The post Cureton Midstream announces sale to Williams appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Is Zelensky done for? A new Time Magazine cover story indicates changing American attitudes to Ukrainian leader

Energy News Beat

The actor-turned-politician feels let down by the same Western powers that have been inflating his ego for close to two years

A recent, long article in Time Magazine presents itself as a deep dive into the world of and the state of mind of Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky. In reality, it is a backhanded, withering attack.

Readers learn that Zelensky feels he is being, and –worse– is being let down internationally, that close aides not only doubt him but tell foreign journalists about it, that his actor’s panache has given way to a brooding anger, and that his refusal to face facts blocks any attempts to even think about a negotiated way out of the catastrophic war. Vital US support is quickly diminishing. The reception during Zelensky’s recent visit to Washington was frosty, while especially the problem of Ukraine’s eternal and crippling corruption is being broached with renewed insistence. Meanwhile, military officers back home are receiving presidential orders so detached from reality that they cannot even try to execute them.

In short, we see a lonely leader who will not accept that he is losing and is ready to sacrifice ever more of his country and people to his obstinacy. Psychologically, Zelensky’s denial of reality is understandable (though not forgivable). He bears much of the responsibility for Ukraine’s course of extreme, one-sided dependency on the West. It is true that others have contributed to this fiasco of a proxy war, in Ukraine and in the US, NATO, and the EU. But in Kiev, Zelensky is the man most to blame, because he did have the agency to prevent or end this national debacle.

He could have kept the one clear electoral promise he made (before netting a historic landslide victory in 2019): to make peace by compromise with the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, which were breakaway regions of Ukraine at the time. He could have taken the 2015 Minsk 2 peace agreement seriously instead of systematically sabotaging it (with Western encouragement). He could have let go of the notion of entering NATO, especially as the Washington-led alliance feeds his country just enough false hope to die for but hasn’t offered even a concrete prospect of membership. At this year’s Vilnius summit, with its humiliatingly empty promises, this was demonstrated again. Zelensky could have stopped listening to the West when the latter stonewalled Russia’s late-2021 initiative to avoid the war by a grand bargain. He could have refused to obey when the US instructed Ukraine to forgo a quick peace in spring 2022. None of the above would have been easy or without risk. But if you want to have it easy, don’t run for president. Or resign.

Even now, Zelensky could pick up the phone any day and call if not Russian President Vladimir Putin, then, for instance Brazil’s Lula da Silva to ask for genuine mediation to begin substantial talks. Indeed, it would be his duty to finally overcome his inflated ego and serve his country, instead of the West. 

With so many good reasons for a bad conscience, Zelensky may never change. The personal failure he would have to acknowledge is too terrible. Instead, he keeps repeating the narcissistic mantra that the fate of the whole world depends on Ukraine (read: him), and that the war could go global if Ukraine does not win. Even once the war is officially lost, he may well spend his remaining days in exile blaming others and spinning stab-in-the-back legends. Indeed, the Time article shows that he has already started, singling out himself – and only himself – as the truest believer in Ukrainian victory and blaming the West for letting him down. In a sadly revealing metaphor, he describes his audiences outside Ukraine as losing interest in what they, he feels, perceive as a show that has run for too many seasons.

We cannot know what exactly is behind Time’s demolition of a figure it used to help exalt in a personality cult. Yet two things are obvious: The tone as well as the message have changed radically, and Time is not alone. Zelensky’s days as the darling of the West, toast of Hollywood, the embodiment of a fantasized hero hybrid concocted, Jurassic-Park-style, from the genes of Che Guevara and Winston Churchill, are over.

The reason for this shift is clear as well: The proxy war is failing and, in addition, Washington is now giving priority to helping Israel carry out its genocidal attack on the Palestinians and perhaps starting a larger war in the Middle East. Zelensky even confesses to what is, in effect, a form of “Israel envy.” For a man who believed he could learn from America’s favorite client state how to build a militarized, highly nationalist, and de facto authoritarian society, this as well must be bitter, if deserved.

In short, the Time take-down may be a sign of the US preparing the ground for moving against Zelensky. Like other proxy leaders before him, such as America’s former “miracle man” in (South) Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, the Ukrainian president may find himself dispensable and dispensed with, whether by a more-or-less open military coup, a manipulated election (or its aftermath), or other means. 

What has largely escaped Western attention, however, are Ukrainian reactions to the Time article. It has resonated in the media and among the political elite. The secretary of the powerful National Security and Defense Council, Aleksey Danilov, has unpersuasively dismissed the piece as factually misleading, while calling on the security services to identify the leakers contributing to it. That kind of damage control is no surprise.

Social media in Ukraine feature some voices blaming Russia. Political commentator Kostiantin Matvienko, for instance, speculates that the Time article is evidence of the West’s opponents’ (whom he calls, American neocon-style, the “axis of evil”) intention to take Zelensky down a peg because they, Matvienko wants to believe, fear his moral authority. How they got Time to do their bidding, Matvienko does not reveal. Bizarre as this reaction is, it illustrates the persistence, at least with some Ukrainian intellectuals, of an inflated image of Zelensky’s – and, with it, Ukraine’s international influence. National self-importance is by no means a uniquely Ukrainian issue. But, in the case of Ukraine, such illusions make ending the war harder.

At the same time, Ukrainian observers note the change in tone signaled by Time. For one journalist, Zelensky’s old image was that of a Tarot magician, a card associated with both powerful trickery and the ability to channel cosmic forces, while he now appears as a hermit figure, solitary and withdrawn. His “messianism” has given way to “fear of society.” Fanciful as it is, the imagery is striking: For some Ukrainians, at least, Time’s iconoclasm makes sense.  

Examples could be multiplied. Inevitably they will also remain anecdotal. But here is the key point: If Time’s attack on Zelensky had occurred a year ago, Ukraine would at least have appeared united in rejecting it with indignation. That, however, is not the case now. Doubts and frustration are growing not only abroad but at home, too.

It would be wrong to jump to conclusions. If the US is really seeking to weaken Zelensky now, what is the purpose of that maneuver? To threaten and make him pliable? To replace him with a leader who will accept a compromise peace, so that Washington can focus on the Middle East and Asia (while leaving Ukraine and the EU in a mess)? Or so that the war can be pursued further under different management?

If Zelensky feels beleaguered and angry, does that reflect mostly the increasing depression and perhaps paranoia of a politician who fears the consequences of his failures? Or is he exhibiting a well-founded sense of real danger, from within as well as from his “allies” abroad?

The one thing that is certain is that the former poster boy of the great struggle for “Western values” has lost his aura. For Zelensky, in whose rise and rule the management of image has played an outsized role even by contemporary standards, that in and of itself is bad news.  

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

 

The post Is Zelensky done for? A new Time Magazine cover story indicates changing American attitudes to Ukrainian leader appeared first on Energy News Beat.