US oil sector seeks flexibility on methane fee
The oil and gas sector is pressing President Joe Biden's administration to provide exceptions and flexibility on a first-time federal fee on methane waste that will begin to apply in 2024.
Large oil and gas facilities on 1 January 2024 will begin paying $900 for each metric tonne (t) of methane emitted above a minimum emissions intensity, under part of the Inflation Reduction Act that will start to impose a penalty on leaks of the greenhouse gas. The fee will be $1,200/t in 2025 and rise to $1,500/t in all subsequent years.
But it will fall to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to figure out exactly how to collect the "waste emission charge" through regulations it aims to propose by March. Oil industry officials ahead of that have raised questions into how the charge will work, while asking for changes such as not imposing a charge on methane that escapes unburned from flares.
The Inflation Reduction Act bases the methane charge off "Subpart W" emissions data that oil and gas facilities emitting at least 25,000 t/yr of greenhouse gasses have been required to report to EPA for the last decade. The nearly 2,400 oil and gas facilities covered by the program in 2021 collectively estimated releasing 2.8mn t of methane that year, according to federal data.
But rather than putting a fee on all methane emissions, the law carves out an exception for methane emissions equivalent to up to 0.2pc of natural gas "sent to sale" from each facility, alongside with a different exception for oil wells. The natural gas sales threshold has puzzled industry officials, who see a mismatch between the $900/t weight-based fee and how producers structure gas sales.
"Natural gas is sold by volume," the Independent Petroleum Association of America wrote to EPA this month. "To calculate the mass requires a density volume but it is not routinely determined."
Oil industry officials say EPA needs to provide clear guidance on how to calculate the emission thresholds — including any potential calculations on converting volume to weight — because they say ambiguity could be grounds for potential fines and audits by federal officials.
Experts say EPA may have difficulty coming up with a legally defensible way to calculate what qualifies for the fee exception, since the composition and density of natural gas can vary at different wells, and can even change throughout the day. A court reviewing EPA's rules might eventually find "it's a violation of some form of due process to pass a law that no one can comply with," said BakerHostetler attorney Poe Leggette, who has represented the oil industry in past litigation.
Other industry groups are seeking to change which emissions should count toward the methane fee. The American Petroleum Institute, in comments sent last week, asked EPA to revise Subpart W to omit methane released from incomplete combustion, which it says should not be considered waste. The American Exploration and Production Council asked EPA to develop an emissions threshold that accounts for wells with "varying combinations of natural gas and oil," rather calculating the threshold based either on natural gas sales or oil sales.
Environmental groups are pushing EPA to write rules to crack down on what they see as chronic under-reporting of greenhouse gas emissions by the oil industry. The Clean Air Task Force, in comments filed this month, said some operators are claiming high flaring combustion efficiency that is "clearly not possible," while others are reporting very low emissions from pneumatic controllers that leak constantly by claiming the equipment is only technically "operating" for 1pc of the year.
Oil companies have the potential to reduce or eliminate future methane fees if they cut their emissions below the 0.2pc threshold, a step some producers are taking. ExxonMobil said today it had eliminated all "routine" flaring in the Permian basin, and also reduced non-routine flaring, as part of company goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Related news posts
Tankers can take TMX crude mid-May: Trans Mountain
Tankers can take TMX crude mid-May: Trans Mountain
Calgary, 1 May (Argus) — Commercial operations for the 590,000 b/d Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) crude pipeline in western Canada have officially started today, but tankers will not be able to load crude from the line until later this month. Line fill activities, which began on 16 April, are still ongoing for the C$34bn ($25bn) project that stretches from Edmonton, Alberta, to the docks in Burnaby, British Columbia. About 70pc of the volumes needed are in the 1,181 kilometre (733 mile) line, Trans Mountain said on Wednesday. "As of today, all deliveries for shippers will be subject to the Expanded System tariff and tolls, and tankers will be able to receive oil from Line 2 by mid-May," Trans Mountain said. Aframax-size crude tankers started to take position on the west coast last month in anticipation of the new line. But the inability to deliver crude at Burnaby, while still having to pay full tolls, was a concern raised by several shippers on 23 April. "Trans Mountain must be able to receive, transport and deliver a shipper's contract volume," the shippers said in a letter to the CER. The ability to deliver the crude is "clearly central and fundamental qualities of firm service." The CER in November approved interim tolls for the system that will further connect Albertan oil sands producers to Pacific Rim markets. Shippers will, at least initially, pay C$11.46/bl to move crude from Edmonton, Alberta, to the Westridge terminal in Burnaby, British Columbia. The fixed portion accounts for C$10.88/bl of this and has nearly doubled from a C$5.76/bl estimate in 2017. The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) on 30 April gave Trans Mountain a green light to put TMX into service , ending years of uncertainty that the project would ever be completed. The expansion project, or Line 2, nearly triples the capacity of Canadian crude that can flow to the Pacific coast, complementing the original 300,000 b/d line, or Line 1, that has been operating since 1953. By Brett Holmes Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
G7 coal exit goal puts focus on Germany, Japan and US
G7 coal exit goal puts focus on Germany, Japan and US
London, 1 May (Argus) — A G7 countries commitment to phase out "unabated coal power generation" by 2035 focuses attention on Germany, Japan and the US for charting a concrete coal-exit path, but provides some flexibility on timelines. The G7 commitment does not mark a departure from the previous course and provides a caveat by stating the unabated coal exit will take place by 2035 or "in a timeline consistent with keeping a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach, in line with countries' net-zero pathways". The G7 countries are Italy — this year's host — Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the UK and the US. The EU is a non-enumerated member. The announcement calls for accelerating "efforts towards the phase-out of unabated coal power generation", but does not suggest policy action. It calls for reducing "as much as possible", providing room for manoeuvre to Germany, Japan and the US. Coal exports are not mentioned in the communique. Canada and the US are net coal exporters. France, which predominantly uses nuclear power in its generation mix is already scheduled to close its two remaining coal plants by the end of this year. The UK will shut its last coal-fired plant Ratcliffe in September . Italy has ended its emergency "coal maximisation plan" and has been less reliant on coal-fired generation, except in Sardinia . The country has 6GW of installed coal-fired power capacity, with state-controlled utility Enel operating 4.7GW of this. The operator said it wanted to shut all its coal-fired plants by 2027. Canada announced a coal exit by 2030 in 2016 and currently has 4.7GW of operational coal-fired capacity. In 2021-23, the country imported an average of 5.7mn t of coal each year, mainly from the US. Germany Germany has a legal obligation to shut down all its coal plants by 2038, but the country's nuclear fleet retirement in 2023, coupled with LNG shortages after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, led to an increase in coal use. Germany pushed for an informal target to phase out coal by 2030, but the grid regulator Bnetza's timeline still anticipates the last units going offline in 2038. The G7 agreement puts into questions how the country will treat its current reliance on coal as a backup fuel. The grid regulator requires "systematically relevant" coal plants to remain available as emergency power sources until the end of March 2031 . Germany generated 9.5TWh of electricity from hard-coal fired generation so far this year, according to European grid operator association Entso-E. Extending the current rate of generation, Germany's theoretical coal burn could reach about 8.8mn t. Japan Japan's operational coal capacity has increased since 2022, with over 3GW of new units connected to the grid, according to the latest analysis by Global Energy Monitor (GEM). Less than 5pc of Japan's operational coal fleet has a planned retirement year, and these comprise the oldest and least efficient plants. Coal capacity built in the last decade, following the Fukushima disaster, is unlikely to receive a retirement date without a country-wide policy that calls for a coal exit. Returning nuclear fleet capacity is curtailing any additional coal-fired generation in Japan , but it will have to build equivalent capacity to replace its 53GW of coal generation. And, according to IEA figures, Japan will only boost renewables up to 24pc until 2030. The US The US operates the third-largest coal-power generation fleet in the world, with 212GW operational capacity. Only 37pc of this capacity has a known retirement date before 2031. After 2031, the US will have to retire coal-fired capacity at a rate of 33GW/yr for four years to be able to meet the 2035 phase-out deadline. By Ashima Sharma Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Canada’s TMX pipeline ready to move crude: Update
Canada’s TMX pipeline ready to move crude: Update
Adds regulatory approvals received. Calgary, 30 April (Argus) — Canada's 590,000 b/d Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) crude pipeline can now start moving volumes to the Pacific coast after receiving final regulatory approvals today, more than a decade after the project was first conceived. The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) approved Trans Mountain's final applications on Tuesday, giving the midstream company a green light to put its C$34bn ($25bn) project into service. Trans Mountain had recently maintained its commitment to being ready by 1 May. The expansion nearly triples the existing 300,000 b/d Trans Mountain line that runs from Edmonton, Alberta, to Burnaby, British Columbia. Also expanded was the Westridge Marine Terminal from one dock to three, all capable of loading Aframax-sized vessels. The line will provide Canadian oil sands producers with a significant export outlet without having to first go through the US. Much of the new volume to flow on TMX is expected to be heavy sour crude. Federally-owned Trans Mountain had submitted applications as recent as 15 April for the final section of the pipeline about 140 kilometers (87 miles) east of the line's terminus in Burnaby. The final applications concerned piping, valves and other components at two pipeline inspection device traps and the mainline pipe between the two traps. The traps were added for safety assurance when the operator was allowed by CER to use a smaller diameter pipe as part of the Mountain 3 deviation. Mountain 3 was the last segment of the pipeline to be constructed because of delays relating to difficult terrain while tunneling. The "golden weld" marking the end of construction occurred on 11 April, according to Trans Mountain. A group of shippers last week expressed concern that TMX would not be ready for commercial service by 1 May. The pipeline had been marred by legal challenges and cost over-runs since it was first proposed in 2013 by its then-owner US midstream firm Kinder Morgan. The Canadian government took ownership of it in 2018. By Brett Holmes Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
New US rule may let some shippers swap railroads
New US rule may let some shippers swap railroads
Washington, 30 April (Argus) — US rail regulators today issued a final rule designed to help customers switch railroads in cases of poor rail service, but it is already drawing mixed reviews. Reciprocal switching, which allows freight shippers or receivers captive to a single railroad to access to an alternate carrier, has been allowed under US Surface Transportation Board (STB) rules. But shippers had not used existing STB rules to petition for reciprocal switching in 35 years, prompting regulators to revise rules to encourage shippers to pursue switching while helping resolve service problems. "The rule adopted today has broken new ground in the effort to provide competitive options in an extraordinarily consolidated rail industry," said outgoing STB chairman Martin Oberman. The five-person board unanimously approved a rule that would allow the board to order a reciprocal switching agreement if a facility's rail service falls below specified levels. Orders would be for 3-5 years. "Given the repeated episodes of severe service deterioration in recent years, and the continuing impediments to robust and consistent rail service despite the recent improvements accomplished by Class I carriers, the board has chosen to focus on making reciprocal switching available to shippers who have suffered service problems over an extended period of time," Oberman said today. STB commissioner Robert Primus voted to approve the rule, but also said it did not go far enough. The rule adopted today is "unlikely to accomplish what the board set out to do" since it does not cover freight moving under contract, he said. "I am voting for the final rule because something is better than nothing," Primus said. But he said the rule also does nothing to address competition in the rail industry. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) is reviewing the 154-page final rule, but carriers have been historically opposed to reciprocal switching proposals. "Railroads have been clear about the risks of expanded switching and the resulting slippery slope toward unjustified market intervention," AAR said. But the trade group was pleased that STB rejected "previous proposals that amounted to open access," which is a broad term for proposals that call for railroads to allow other carriers to operate over their tracks. The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association declined to comment but has indicated it does not expect the rule to have an appreciable impact on shortline traffic, service or operations. Today's rule has drawn mixed reactions from some shipper groups. The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), which filed its own reciprocal switching proposal in 2011, said it was encouraged by the collection of service metrics required under the rule. But "it is disheartened by its narrow scope as it does not appear to apply to the vast majority of freight rail traffic that moves under contracts or is subject to commodity exemptions," said NITL executive director Nancy O'Liddy, noting it was a departure from the group's original petition which sought switching as a way to facilitate railroad economic competitiveness. The Chlorine Institute said, in its initial analysis, that it does not "see significant benefit for our shipper members since it excludes contract traffic which covers the vast majority of chlorine and other relevant chemical shipments." By Abby Caplan Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Business intelligence reports
Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.
Learn more