Thursday, June 1, 2023

A Comparison of Environmental Drilling and Other Shallow Drilling Technologies: Fitness for Purpose and Project Considerations

 

     There are now several different technologies for environmental drilling, geotechnical drilling, water wells, and shallow geothermal wells, and each drilling method has strengths and weaknesses that make it suitable or unsuitable for different individual projects. Depending on the parameters and goals of the project there will likely be a preferred drilling tech to be employed. Environmental drilling includes the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, boring for soil and/or rock samples, and shallow drilling for soil vapor probing. Groundwater wells, geotechnical bores, and drilling wells for direct use or ground source heat pump geothermal are typically shallow – below about 700ft and usually much lower than that.


Solid Stem Auger

     Solid stem auger drilling uses a claw bit to break the ground and move the auger flights into the ground. The technique works best in clay soils. No circulation fluids are required which makes site cleanup simpler. No casing materials are required in stable formations. Sampling in formations with a semi-consolidated soil is easy. Depth range is down to 400ft or more in semi-consolidated soils. It is inefficient in loose, sandy soil. It does not perform well below the water table after there is water infiltration into the hole. Maximum bore diameter is 24 inches. Solid stem auger drilling is used for shallow soil vapor probes.


Hollow Stem Auger

     Hollow stem auger drilling is similar to solid stem, using a similar claw bit to cut new hole. The main difference is that the stem is hollow rather than solid. The hollow stem serves as a temporary casing. Quality samples can be obtained, including in unconsolidated soils. It can drill rapidly into soild with high clay content. It has problems with cobble stones and boulders. Water infiltration in sandy unconsolidated soils renders sampling difficult. In these cases, a split spoon sampler can be utilized where the casing is split into two halves that can be taken apart to reveal a core of the soil. Depth is limited to 150ft or less. 

  

Roto-Sonic

     Roto-Sonic, aka. Sonic drilling is expensive but is being used more and more. It is used for some water well drilling and increasingly for shallow geothermal drilling. It has a bigger footprint but generates very little waste so if its footprint can be accommodated it can be advantageous. It is very good for collecting quality samples. An article at Geo Drilling International’s website describes roto-sonic drilling:

Sonic is an advanced form of drilling which employs the use of high-frequency, resonant energy generated inside the Sonic head to advance a core barrel or casing into subsurface formations.

During drilling, the resonant energy is transferred down the drill string to the bit face at various sonic frequencies.

Simultaneously rotating the drill string evenly distributes the energy and impact at the bit face.”


Air-Rotary Casing Hammer

The air-rotary casing hammer (ARCH) drilling method combines air-rotary drilling with the pile driver technique where casing is hammered into the subsurface. There is no secondary waste stream generated by the drilling muds as in mud rotary drilling. This method is very suitable for alluvial formations of unconsolidated sediment. It is a cased-hole method so is good for sampling and hole integrity.


Air Percussion

     Air Percussion drilling, or air drilling, is a technique that uses compressed air instead of fluids to cool the bit and bring cuttings to the surface. It is extensively used in oil and gas drilling where there is not enough formation water to affect drilling. Variations include dust-drilling where holes are dry. Where there is some water mist-drilling may be used which employs water and soap to clean the hole. In foam-drilling the use of surfactants (soaps) is increased. The use of compressed air and fluid together is called aerating. Nitrogen can also be used as the compressed air. The method becomes unsuitable when sufficient formation water enters the hole. Rate of penetration (ROP) decreases as more fluid enters the hole.




Air Drilling Rate of Penetration (ROP). Source: PetroWiki


Mud Rotary

     Mud rotary drilling is preferred for “loose” formations and where wellbore integrity is problematic. The drilling mud can make a “mudcake” that coats the borehole. Thus, hole caving is minimized with this method. It is the preferred method for unconsolidated sediment. Mud rotary is used extensively in oil and gas drilling and in environmental drilling such as groundwater monitoring wells. Drawbacks of mud rotary drilling are cost and footprint. Additional space and cost is required to support vehicles bringing in drilling fluid (mud), storing it onsite, and collecting it after drilling.


 


References

Solid Stem Augers Vs. Hollow Stem Augers in Environmental Drilling. Talon LPE. March 20, 2014. Solid Stem Augers Vs. Hollow Stem Augers In Environmental Drilling (talonlpe.com)

What’s the Best Environmental Drilling Technology for my Project? Greg Cranham. Hargis + Associates. What’s the Best Environmental Drilling Technology for My Project? | Hargis + Associates, Inc.

How sonic drilling works. Sonic Drilling - An advanced form of drilling employing the use of high-frequency, resonant energy. Boart Longyear. March 19, 2019. GeoDrilling International. How sonic drilling works - GeoDrillingInternational

Drilling 103: An Introduction to Air Rotary Casing Hammer (ARCH) Drilling. Cascade Environmental. June 18, 2019. Drilling 103: An Introduction to Air Rotary Casing Hammer (ARCH) Drilling (cascade-env.com)

Air Drilling. PetroWiki. Air drilling - PetroWiki (spe.org)

Geotechnical Drilling Techniques. Central Geotech. Geotechnical Drilling TechniquesCentral Geotechnical Services

Friday, May 26, 2023

Some Geological and Soils Free Mobile App Reviews: Rockd, Soil Web, and Soil Explorer

 


Rockd

     This one is really great. Basically, it is a surficial geological map of the entire earth, both continental and maritime. It can be laid over a map layer with countries, states, and provinces and also a satellite map layer, both with on-off switches. Zooming in you can see individual faults. The detail is great. You can put a pin anywhere and it will give you the surface formation name and age in both geologic age and in years ago. You also get a stratigraphic name, description, comments, lithology, and references. The references are linked to scientific papers. Some are just abstracts but many are full papers. The dashboard is nice but only records data for your present location including formation name, age, lithology, lat/lon, and elevation. Tabs include a really neat paleogeography function where you can see your continental position on a paleo map of the continent and oceans as they were then. You can toggle it back from modern (which here is late Pleistocene showing glacial extent) to 750 mya well into the Precambrian. For more detail there is a pull-down menu which you can click on intervals of 5-10 my until you get into the Precambrian where there are only three choices covering 150 my. Three maps are given: one of the whole world, one of the continent, and the local scales at the time. Even paleo lat/lon coordinates are given so you can see where the plate(s)/continent was at the time. This would be fantastic for doing paleo-reconstruction, tectonic event sequencing, depositional, and erosional studies. Another tab shows minerals at your site, including metamorphic minerals and accessory minerals as well as a list of minerals groups. All have chemical formulas, type, color, descriptions, and references. A similar tab is there for fossils that shows name, phylum, class, order, extant, global occurrences, age range, localities, and nearby collections, distance from occurrences, nearby taxa, and stratigraphy, and links to more information. There is even a Brunton compass which utilizes your phone’s motion sensors! You can save your strike/dip and/or trend/plunge measurements with standard deviations. They do mention that the phone’s gyroscope requires calibration and that electrical currents, metals, and metallic minerals in rocks can introduce errors. In the tutorial it says you can tilt and rotate the map to get an oblique view of the landscape, which is new in version 3, although I haven’t figured out how to do that yet. Finally, you can check-in at different places, record your trips, set up a profile, and share and view others’ check-ins. This app is great fun for a geologist as well as anyone studying geology or just interested in geology. Fantastico! I believe the paleogeography part was developed by the developer of GPlates, another app, which I hope to review as well.



   

Rockd: Location-Specific Sample Info




Rocked: example along Allegheny Front in Central Pennsylvania showing geologic map and mapped faults. 

 

SoilWeb

     This app allows querying USDA-NRCS soil survey data. It was developed by the California Soil Resource Lab at UC Davis in collaboration with the USDA-NRCS. You can get soil data at your location with series and horizons within the series with color charts. Details for each series include map unit data and survey metadata. There is also a detailed description of each series and its horizons. Taxonomic class, typical pedon, and type locations are given for each series. Range in characteristics of the series and its horizons are detailed and competing series, geographic setting, geographically associated soils, drainage and saturated hydraulic conductivity, use and vegetation, distribution and extent, other data, and remarks are also given. Another tab gives soil taxonomy, soil properties on a graph for each property, land classification, hydraulic and erosion ratings, forest productivity, and soil suitability ratings. You can also link to UC Davis soil maps over ESRI map layers to see the series extent.

 


Soil Web: Site-Specific Example



Soil Explorer

     This is a great app for soil scientists. It is global but offers more detail in the U.S. where soils are well mapped. Detailed maps are loaded for 16 U.S. states. The global map includes color maps of soil order, soil moisture regimes, and soil temperature regimes. The soil orders tab gives information about a particular soil order when you click over a region. The global map: “is based on a reclassification of the FAO-UNESCO Soil Map of the World (FAO/UNESCO, 1972 - 1981) combined with a soil climate map. It is the same as the Global Soil Regions map published by the USDA/NRCS (Reich and Eswaren, 2005).” There is a map soil order and draft maps of duric-calcic-gypsic-salic horizons and deep sandy soils for the entire U.S. There are also detailed maps for Kenya and Peru. The detailed maps of 16 U.S. states include: Dominant Soil Parent Materials, Soil Orders, Natural Soil Drainage Classes, Aquic Conditions, Dark-Colored Surface Horizons, Clay-Enriched Subsoils, Leached Acid Subsoils, Calcic Horizons, Swelling Soils, Sodic Soils, Fragipans, Hillshade. Aerial Imagery (USGS) and Topography (USGS Topo) layers are included.




Soil Explorer: Example: Soil Orders Map of Southeastern Ohio


Links:

Rockd. rockd

Soil Web. SoilWeb: An Online Soil Survey Browser | California Soil Resource Lab (ucdavis.edu)

Soil Explorer. Soil Explorer

 

 

Wednesday, May 24, 2023

Grid-Scale Solar Underperformance is Significant: What are the Issues?

 

     Capex for utility-scale solar had been dropping steadily until 2022 when those costs rose for the first time in decades. In mid-2022 insurance provider kWh Analytics did a cost-analysis in that year’s Solar Risk Assessment report. They concluded that grid-scale solar remains plagued by underperformance issues. Performance remains below expectations. According to Liam Stoker of PV Tech, the assessment: “cites new research confirming that system degradation, inverter availability and overly-optimistic PV modelling have meant that the solar industry has “significantly overestimated” expectations of solar assets and, as a result, will need to “reckon the realities in the field with the assumptions we use on paper”. Along with those issues, other issues were analyzed that contribute to local and regional solar underperformance, including topography and uneven terrain (up to 6% performance losses) and extreme weather events such as hail and wildfire smoke. Wildfire smoke led to as much as 3% annual soil–related performance losses at solar PV sites in California between 2018 and 2020. Operational risks include inverter performance and inverter service support problems. Overall, the study identified by far the largest underperformance issue as financial modeling risk, which is routinely overly optimistic. kWh noted: “92% of lost EBITDA is due to underproduction, dwarfing all other sources of risk.”

    In the same report, Solargis, a solar resource data company, recently analyzed “annual global horizontal irradiation (“GHI”) compared to long-term averages, finding significant resource variability in North America over a period of 23 years from 1999 to 2021.” They concluded that annual solar irradiation is 10% below long-term averages in several U.S. regions.

     One problem with inverters contributing to operational risk is inverters abandoned by manufacturers who discontinue models and go out of business. Solar operation & maintenance company Solar Support noted in the same report that solar facilities with discontinued inverters from manufacturers no longer in business perform at an average of 85% technical availability whereas the industry standard goal is 97-99% power plant availability. Grid solar operator NovaSource, also in the same report, reported that inverters were underperforming compared to expectations during their 2-year warranty period. They concluded that inverters underperformed by 40% during the 2-year warranty period. NovaSource found average inverter failure incidences at about 1 per year per inverter (0.8-1.4 times /year). That is not a large problem by itself, but one must also calculate mean-time-to-repair (MTTR) in order to evaluate effects on technical availability. Again, and surprisingly, inverters under warranty performed worse and required more time to repair. Suggested strategies for improving the problems include better inverter testing before large deployment, developing an inventory of standardized parts and expertise to speed up repair times, and enabling O&M companies to perform some repairs to decrease down time.

     Underperformance from uneven terrain that increases shading can be addressed with more advanced tracking and better modeling. DNV calculated up to 6% of losses from uneven terrain, much of which can be reduced.  

     There are some other issues that lead to underperformance such as Balance of System anomalies associated mostly with large and complex systems. String anomalies were the most common, but inverter, combiner, module, and tracker anomalies also affect performance. Digital Analytics company Raptor Maps, in the same report, concluded that these types of anomalies led to 2.63% underperformance in 2021, up from 1.85% in 2020.

     Basic system degradation results in efficiency losses that the NREL calculates at an average of 0.75% per year. This is based on 4915 inverters being analyzed and with a total of more than 7.2 GW under observation monitoring for long-term performance.

     Manufacturing changes can affect system degradation. In solar module manufacturing, doping with gallium instead of boron has improved the problem of destabilization but has also led to faster degradation. This will require more research, says PV Evolution Labs, also part of the study.

     Current ongoing supply chain issues can also have negative effects on quality control/quality assurance. Better inspection, testing, and further QC/QA may be needed.

     Analytics company UL Solutions noted that the recent study concludes that solar underperformance compared to pre-construction estimates is at 6.3% on average and that 3-4% of that lost energy is recoverable as the problems that lead to it are addressable. UL Solutions provides monitoring, production key performance indicators (KPIs), analytics, and reporting.

     The kWh solar assessment report also showed that actual production vs. P50 estimates have been getting further apart in recent years despite improvements in module and system efficiencies through the years. A December 2022 article in PV Tech by Jonathan Touriño Jacobo notes: “… the underperformance trend remains a nationwide issue with average lifetime performance ranging from 5-10% below initial P50 estimates across the US, with the exception in 2021 of the Northwest and Southeast regions which improved by 1% and 2%, respectively.”


  U.S. Solar Installations: Source: Bloomberg NEF. Note: Capacity reported in direct current (DC) terms.

 

References:  

US solar remains beset by underperformance issues as capex costs on the rise. Liam Stoker. PV Tech. June 14, 2022. US solar remains beset by underperformance issues as capex costs on the rise - PV Tech (pv-tech.org)

Analytics and expertise to assess, optimize and report on operational performance. UL Solutions (website). 2023. Operational Performance Assessment For Solar Assets | UL Solutions

US solar assets ‘are not meeting performance expectations’, kWh Analytics says. Jonathan Touriño Jacobo. PV Tech. December 7, 2022. US solar assets ‘are not meeting performance expectations’, kWh Analytics says (pv-tech.org)

Solar Risk Assessment: 2022: Quantitative Insights from the Industry Experts. kWh Analytics. Solar Risk Assessment: 2022 Quantitative Insights from the Industry Experts (squarespace.com)

Thursday, May 18, 2023

New Natural Hydrogen Discovery Announced in The Lorraine Mining Basin in Eastern France

 

     French low carbon energy company FDE announced a new natural hydrogen discovery in the Lorraine mining basin in Eastern France. The presence of natural hydrogen was known in the basin but new measurements in an old test well in the basin have confirmed a high purity percentage of natural hydrogen at depth. I did a deep dive into natural hydrogen on this blog a few months ago which can be read here. The Lorraine Mining Basin has produced both iron ore and coal in the past.

     The natural hydrogen is dissolved in a Carboniferous aquifer. The new measurements at the  Folschviller well site were done in collaboration with the University of Lorraine and the CNRS, France’s National Center for Scientific Research. Researchers reported “a measured concentration of 15% at 1,093-meter depth and estimated at 98% at 3,000-meter depth.” The deeper high purity hydrogen is likely a significant find. There are several different mechanisms for H2 outgassing and many involve continuous natural production of the gas. FDE has submitted an application for an exclusive mining permit to explore for natural hydrogen that covers an area of 2,254 km², in the Grand-Est region. The prospective area is the hydrogen ecosystem of the Greater Region (Grand Est, Wallonia, Luxembourg, Sarre, and Rhineland-Palatinate). Thus, parts of Germany and Luxembourg are also prospective. A planned 100% H2 cross-border pipeline being commissioned to pass through the area can provide for transport of the gas. The next step in the project is to select a site for a pilot drilling project. 

     Some of those same researchers from the University of Lorraine and the CNRS in a paper in October 2016 proposed a new interpretation of the Lorraine-Saar Basin of France and Germany as “a thin-skinned asymmetrical parallelogram-shaped pull-apart basin.” Extensional basins have been associated with H2 outgassing but I am unsure of the H2 generation mechanism here. The basin is bounded on the north and west by the Metz fault which parallels the basin. There are also associated wrench faults which have influenced deposition after reactivation.

     



Structural Features and Sedimentation in the Lorraine-Saar Coal Basin France-Germany. Source: A NEW TECTONIC MODEL FOR THE LATE PALEOZOIC EVOLUTION OF THE LORRAINE-SAAR COAL-BEARING BASIN (FRANCE/GERMANY. Vitaliy Pryvalov, Jacques Pironon, Alain Izart, Raymond Michels, Olena Panova. October 2016. VitaliyPryvalov1.pdf


References

FDE Discovers Natural Hydrogen in Eastern France. Pipeline and Gas Journal. May 16, 2023. FDE Discovers Natural Hydrogen in Eastern France | Pipeline and Gas Journal (pgjonline.com)

Natural Hydrogen: Exploring for H2 Through the Drillbit: Reserves and Economic Estimations. Kent C. Stewart. Blue Dragon Energy Blog 2.0. March, 27, 2023. Blue Dragon Energy Blog 2.0: Natural Hydrogen: Exploring for H2 Through the Drillbit: Reserves and Economic Estimations (bdeb2.blogspot.com)

A NEW TECTONIC MODEL FOR THE LATE PALEOZOIC EVOLUTION OF THE LORRAINE-SAAR COAL-BEARING BASIN (FRANCE/GERMANY. Vitaliy Pryvalov, Jacques Pironon, Alain Izart, Raymond Michels, Olena Panova. October 2016. VitaliyPryvalov1.pdf

Tuesday, May 16, 2023

Climate Defiance: What is the Real Level of Support for Hardcore Climate Activism and What Motivates It?

 

     Outlandish anti-fossil fuel activism in Europe is an occasional thing and sometimes in bad taste like the recent vandalism of valuable works of art. In the U.S. we have development of “direct action” protests. They are touted as non-violent but can involve blockades. One group, Climate Defiance, for a planned blockade of the White House Correspondents Dinner had a stated goal of “aiming to blockade in such large numbers that arrests will be impossible.” I don’t know their metrics or level of active support, but I am quite skeptical of it being that high. On their website is the pledge to “Make support for any fossil fuels as unacceptable on the left as opposing abortion or gay marriage.” Apparently, their effort failed to attract enough media attention to make headlines afterward. They claim to have been part of the voting block that helped to elect Biden, who they now charge with ‘ecocide’ by approving the Willow Project to drill for oil in Alaska. Their main slogan seems to be End Fossil Fuels, not unlike the Keep It in the Ground Movement. In their protest they chanted “No more drilling!” But did such groups really add much to Biden’s victory? I doubt it. Do most Democrats support them? I doubt it. I would guess just a minority, 20% at most or hopefully and more likely much less. My guess is about 5-10%. However, even a vocal minority can be influential. As do other such groups, they try to equate climate justice with racial justice and economic justice. There is probably a little more support for hardcore activism in Europe where groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are active. Groups like Bill McKibben’s 350.org seem to be a little quieter than they have been in the past.

     With companies addressing ESG concerns and with likely permit reforms that will and should weaken the power of mainstream environmental groups to block energy and infrastructure projects, it might be interesting to see how the radical groups react. Such groups and their supporters no doubt had a hand in New York’s recent bans on natural gas in new buildings and in California which is also considering such bans. Biden has proved to be more pragmatic and more problematic for hardcore activist groups than they had hoped, although he still seems beholden to the views of some of those groups. His reckless rhetoric during his campaign about ending fossil fuels may have given them false hope but hopefully wiser and more moderate voices have toned down that tendency. The realities of the need for reliable and affordable energy in light of significant energy cost increases in 2022 no doubt caused a reassessment of priorities. Biden has repeated the often-repeated incorrect claim that solar and wind are the cheapest forms of energy.  

     The Climate Defiance group also held a protest of a Biden Campaign Fundraising Dinner in New York City. Speakers included Jane Fonda and Steven Donziger. Fonda spoke of the need to go further with activism, whatever that really means.

     A couple of newish terms suggest what motivates climate activists. One I’ve been seeing more and more is ‘climate crisis deniers.’ This extends the slight (originating from Holocaust deniers) from those who reject prevailing climate science and those who simply downplay the dangers. Many IPCC scientists would be included as climate crisis deniers or climate emergency deniers. The science of climate change is suggestive but not settled. Needed policy is even further from being clear cut. True believer fanatics attacking more moderate thinkers with slogans and provocative terms and phrases is common among radical groups. Climate apocalypticism is alive and well. In an important sense it functions similarly to a doomsday religious cult. Repent or perish! Another term I’ve been hearing about for a few years is ‘climate anxiety’ or ‘climate distress.’ I wrote about this in my first book, Sensible Decarbonization. More recently I heard a psychiatrist on NPR, who advised climate lawsuits filed by youths, talking about it. The assessment in my book is that it can be a real phenomenon but that it is primarily fueled by activists, those in academia in cahoots with activists, and by media amplification of the doomsday message. The psychiatrist talked about it being very bad among youth and that she herself had to be prescribed anti-anxiety medicines because of her climate anxiety! Really? I would say that such doomsday mental conditioning is more dangerous than climate change. How climate change will happen is not very predictable at present, just more likelihoods of potentially dangerous events. It is not the type of danger one can specifically prepare for with the very notable exception of vulnerable areas preparing for extreme weather events, that may be influenced by climate change. Risk perception is a major factor in how people react to threats and often there is a gap between perceived risk and real risk. This gap is influenced by many factors, including media amplification and the brain’s coping mechanisms.      

    

References:

Climate activists plan to 'blockade' White House Correspondents Dinner, accuse Biden of 'ecocide'. Adam Sabes. Fox News. April 29, 2023. Climate activists plan to 'blockade' White House Correspondents Dinner, accuse Biden of 'ecocide' (msn.com)

Climate Defiance (website). Climate Defiance

Climate Defiance Joined by Steven Donziger, Jane Fonda to Protest Biden Fundraising Dinner. Democracy Now. May 11, 2023. Climate Defiance Joined by Steven Donziger, Jane Fonda to Protest Biden Fundraising Dinner | Democracy Now!

Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Risk Perception. Kent Stewart. Blue Dragon Energy Blog 2.0. Blue Dragon Energy Blog 2.0: Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Risk Perception (bdeb2.blogspot.com)

Thursday, May 11, 2023

Upper Cretaceous Eagle Ford Shale and Austin Chalk Oil & Gas Plays in the Western Gulf Coast Basin in South Texas

 

Geology and Resource Assessments

     The Eagle Ford Shale Play in South Texas is one of the biggest U.S. shale plays. Just above the Eagle Ford is the Austin Chalk, a 100-600ft thick zone of chalk and marl (carbonate-rich mudstone). There are also multiple layers of volcanic ash from a series of submarine volcanoes that were active when the chalk was deposited. They are associated with the Laramide orogeny. Chalk is a type of soft, white, porous limestone composed mainly of calcite and originally formed deep under the sea by the compression of microscopic plankton that had settled to the sea floor. The Austin Chalk is primarily composed of microscopic shell fragments from floating sea organisms known as "coccolithophores" (the same organisms that contributed to the White Cliffs of Dover, on the south coast of England). The Austin Chalk is a tight argillaceous limestone, a brittle carbonate with vertical fracturing that allowed oil and gas to migrate up from its source in the Eagle Ford, which is the next formation below it. Sometimes it is recrystallized. It has been producing oil and gas for a hundred years, with several successful revitalizations as extraction technologies and geological understanding improved. The chalk is porous with matrix porosity ranging up to 10% but permeability is low. It is a brittle rock that tends to fracture. Early wells in the play, including early horizontal wells were not hydraulically fractured but produced from natural fractures. Some wells were phenomenally productive but were required to access fractures, later typically identified on seismic lines. According to a December 2021 paper in Marine and Petroleum Geology about matrix reservoir quality in the Austin Chalk by Robert Loucks and Sheng Peng: “The depositional environment of the chalk is interpreted to have been a deeper-water (below storm wave base) setting on a drowned shelf where bottom waters and sediments varied between oxic and anoxic.”




Upper Cretaceous Stratigraphy in South and East Texas


     According to an October 2018 article in American Oil & Gas Reporter: “According to a newly revised U.S. Geological Survey assessment, undiscovered and technically recoverable Eagle Ford resources are pegged at 8.5 billion barrels of oil, 66 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 1.9 billion barrels of natural gas liquids. It has been a while since USGS assessed the Austin Chalk, but it has estimated 900 million barrels of oil in only the Giddings Field, the play’s largest field, spanning parts of seven counties in South-Central Texas, which already has produced 526 million barrels of oil and 4.7 Tcf of gas.” No doubt, the Austin Chalk reserves will exceed the early USGS reserves assessment.

     The Eagle Ford can be thick where produced and wells can be drilled and spaced in the Upper Eagle Ford and Lower Eagle Ford. According to a 2014 EIA assessment: “The formation is divided into two units: an upper unit, characterized by interlayered light and dark gray calcareous mudrock deposited during a regressive interval (sea level falling), and a lower unit of mostly dark gray mudstone deposited during a transgressive interval (from rises in sea levels).” Depths to reach the Eagle Ford vary from about 6500 ft in Southwest Texas to over 11,000 ft in productive areas in Southeast Texas to over 17,000 ft further south into the basin where it is less likely to be developed due to those depths and leaking seals. Depths to the Austin Chalk are similar being just above the Eagle Ford but the chalk wells in Louisiana can be quite deep at over 14,000 ft. The Eagle Ford is one of the four big shale oil plays in the U.S. as well as a significant gas play. The continuous gas deposit in the Eagle Ford and Austin Chalk is downdip from the continuous oil deposit due to thermal maturity dynamics. The deeper gas window is favorably situated near U.S. LNG export terminals on the Southeast coast of Texas. The Eagle Ford and Austin Chalk trends no doubt extend into Mexico from Southwest Texas.




Eagle Ford Hydrocarbon Fairways


Eagle Ford-Austin Chalk Hydrocarbon System Play Concept



     A 2021 case study of the Lower Eagle Ford to determine key geological factors controlling estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of wells concluded that the four major factors are: reservoir capacity, resources, flow capacity, and fracability. Total porosity and hydrocarbon-bearing porosity directly determine reservoir storage capacity but total organic content (TOC) and vitrinite reflectance are indirect determinants. The resources of shale hydrocarbons are determined by hydrocarbon-bearing porosity and effective shale thickness. Flow capacity is controlled by effective permeability, crude oil density, gas-oil ratio, condensate oil-gas ratio, formation pressure gradient, and R0. Fracability is controlled directly by brittleness index and indirectly controlled by clay content in volume.




Geological Factors Affecting EURs, Source: Quantitative assessment of the sweet spot in marine shale oil and gas based on geology, engineering, and economics: A case study from the Eagle Ford Shale, USA. Energy Strategy Reviews. Volume 38, November 2021, 100713. Lianhua Hou, Caineng Zou, Zhichao Yu, Xia Luo, Songtao Wu, Zhongying Zhao, Senhu Lin, Zhi Yang, Lijun Zhang, Dingwei Wen, Jingwei Cui. Quantitative assessment of the sweet spot in marine shale oil and gas based on geology, engineering, and economics: A case study from the Eagle Ford Shale, USA - ScienceDirect




Eagle Ford Sweet Spot Reservoir Analysis. Source: 
Quantitative assessment of the sweet spot in marine shale oil and gas based on geology, engineering, and economics: A case study from the Eagle Ford Shale, USA. Energy Strategy Reviews. Volume 38, November 2021, 100713. Lianhua Hou, Caineng Zou, Zhichao Yu, Xia Luo, Songtao Wu, Zhongying Zhao, Senhu Lin, Zhi Yang, Lijun Zhang, Dingwei Wen, Jingwei Cui. Quantitative assessment of the sweet spot in marine shale oil and gas based on geology, engineering, and economics: A case study from the Eagle Ford Shale, USA - ScienceDirect 


     The Eagle Ford thins to the north and does not thicken into the East Texas Basin like the rocks below it. Its productive fairway and hydrocarbon windows are well established. The shale extends into northern Mexico and is very prospective there as is likely the Austin Chalk. Shale gas and oil reserves analysis suggests that Mexican shale gas (545 Tcf) is the 6th largest such gas resource in the world, most of which is in the Eagle Ford. The Burgos Basin in Mexico, a southern extension of the Western Gulf Basin of South Texas is a main area of prospectivity. Development has been slow in Mexico hampered by government issues and early poor results, but the hydrocarbons are there and should be comparable to the high reserves just across the border.

 

Gen 1: Austin Chalk Natural Fracture Porosity Play

     Traditionally, Austin Chalk wells were drilled to access gas and oil filled natural fractures. In the late 1980’s the Austin Chalk began to be explored more resulting in some large vertical wells although there were also many dry holes. It was hit or miss. Seismically identified fractures and small faults were the targets. The play reached from South Texas into South-Central Louisiana where it is deeper. With the advent of horizontal well drilling in the 1990’s it was postulated that these lateral wells could access more of these vertical fractures and thus more oil and gas reserves, and this turned out to be true. There were also fewer dry holes. The legacy fracture porosity drilling trend is generally just slightly up-dip from the more recent matrix porosity trend. The early active parts of the play were towards Central Texas. The Giddings Field there is the largest Austin Chalk fracture porosity field developed.  


 


Gen 2: Austin Chalk in Early Horizontal Drilling, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing, and Geosteering

     The Austin Chalk was one of the first widely successful horizontal gas plays and initial production in these wells often exceeded 50MMCF/day in-line. It was once thought that the source rock of Austin Chalk was the organic carbon in the chalk itself but later it was realized that the Eagle Ford shale was the source rock. The Austin Chalk horizontals led to a more integrated horizontal drilling industry with the development of logging-while-drilling (LWD) or measurement-while-drilling (MWD) with gamma ray logging tools and to geosteering wells with that gamma ray. By the mid-1990’s new companies like Horizontal Solutions International (HSI) emerged that were devoted to geosteering horizontal wells. The new horizontals in the chalk also spurred George Mitchell and Mitchell Energy to test the Barnett Shale with horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the 90’s which led to new shale gas plays like the Marcellus, Fayetteville, and Haynesville Shales which would be followed by new horizontal oil plays from shales in the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara, and in the Permian shales of West Texas. Other horizontal plays like the Bossier Limestone which sits above the Haynesville Shale were developed in Northeast Texas in the early 2000’s and are now being successfully revisited today. The wells targeting fractures only were not hydraulically fractured but produced naturally with some huge wells. This is a huge cost savings over wells that need to be fracked.

    

Gen 3: The Austin Chalk Matrix Porosity Play

     In the mid-2010’s some companies began exploring the Austin Chalk away from the highly fractured areas, instead targeting the higher matrix porosity zones in less fractured areas. The results were very good. Importantly, they were more repeatable than in the fractured play where results were often inconsistent. New 3D seismic data also showed more fractures that were untapped so that in some areas both matrix and fracture porosity can be targeted. This happened in the Giddings Field where there were multiple 20-30 BCF wells in the 1990’s that were produced naturally without fracs. Areas with over 6% matrix porosity are targeted to be fracked and have been showing very good results. The Giddings Field had been assumed to be depleted but new wells have shown strong results and good long-term performance targeting matrix porosity. Wells have responded well to increased proppant loading with the goal of producing from the induced fractures. Thus, results are more consistent than wells targeting natural fractures. Wells have responded very well to Eagle Ford style fracs. Clay-control chemicals have also been helpful in increasing connectivity and preventing the volcanic ash from sealing fractures. Operators have also noted that determining permeability and calculating water saturation in the play can be tricky. Determining storage capacity in a mixed lithology fractured limestone can also be tricky. Fortunately, results have often been better than predicted.





     Robert Loucks and Sheng Peng in 2021 identified five lithofacies in the Austin Chalk that positively affect reservoir quality. Here they mention the most important 4 of them: “Burrowed marly chalk (lithofacies 1) has the best reservoir quality, with a mean porosity of 6.2% and a geometric mean permeability of 351 nd. Burrowed chalky marl to marly chalk (lithofacies 2) has the second-best reservoir quality, with mean porosity being 5.5% and geometric mean permeability being 214 nd. Slightly burrowed laminated marly chalk (lithofacies 3) has a mean porosity of 4.5% and a geometric mean permeability of 101 nd. Well-laminated chalky marl to marly chalk (lithofacies 4) has the poorest reservoir quality, with a mean porosity of 3.5% and geometric mean permeability of 25 nd.”

  



Revival in Austin Chalk Production Beginning in mid-2010's. Source: Austin Chalk Revival: New Oil and Gas from an Old Trend. (2018?). Austin Chalk RevivalAustin Chalk Revival (austinchalkoilgas.com)

 


Troughs or Sub-Basins with Thick Rock Sections and High Reserves

     The Karnes Trough area has a thickened Lower Cretaceous section of dolomitic limestones which includes locally slightly thicker Austin Chalk and Eagle Ford. From 2015 Austin Chalk production increased from about 24 MBOPD and 200 MMCFGPD to about 75 MBOPD and 320 MMCFGPD by the end of 2017. This is mainly attributed to new chalk wells in the trough and platform/monocline areas of Karnes County, Texas. The Maverick Basin in Maverick and Dimmit Counties in South-Southwest Texas is another area of thickened Eagle Ford that is continuing development in Dimmit County. Here the drilling depths are shallower which helps with well costs. It is mainly the Austin Chalk and the Upper Eagle Ford that are thickened in the Maverick Basin. EOG’s Dorado discovery in nearby but deeper Webb County has been described as a sub-basin. Successful very high reserve wells have been drilled here over the last few years.

 

Austin Chalk, Eagle Ford, Buda Combo Plays

     The Eagle Ford prospective fairway is large, and the Austin Chalk prospective fairway overlaps it in many counties from East-Central Texas to South-Southwest Texas. The Buda Limestone, a dolomitic limestone, lies below the Eagle Ford. It is developed as a fractured carbonate reservoir in a few areas overlapping Austin Chalk and Eagle Ford. Other combo plays include formations just above the Austin Chalk, the San Miguel and the Olmos, to the west in the Rio Grande Embayment area. The Hearne area in the northern part of the play in Burleson, Milam, and Robertson Counties is prospective in the Austin Chalk, Eagle Ford, and Buda. This area is up on the platform where the production is oil. In that area some of the nearby older wells have also experienced increased production as a result of fracking of new wells.

 

EOG’s Dorado Discovery Area

     In November 2020 EOG Resources unveiled their Dorado discovery in Webb County, Texas in an area of thick Austin Chalk (~400ft) and thick Eagle Ford (~ 300ft) with high reserve potential. In their 163,000 net acres they estimated gas reserves of 21 TCF from 1250 potential net locations in both formations, 9.5 TCF in the Austin Chalk from 530 locations and 11.5 TCF in the Eagle Ford from 720 locations.  In the past few years, they have been drilling the area successfully but have recently in 2023 decided to temporarily defer completing 2023 wells due to low gas prices, leaving them as DUCs. EOG drilled 17 Austin Chalk wells in Dorado in 2019 then paused drilling in 2020 to evaluate production while analyzing the field with cores, petrophysical logs, and 3D seismic. According to EOG’s E.V.P. of Exploration and Production, Ken Boedeker from a February 2021 article in American Oil & Gas Reporter: “With a break-even cost of less than $1.25 per Mcf, we believe this play represents the lowest cost supply of natural gas in the United States. At Henry Hub prices of $2.50 per Mcf, Dorado competes directly with our premium oil plays. We are leveraging our proprietary knowledge built from prior plays to move quickly down the cost curve with our initial development. We currently estimate a finding cost of $0.39 per Mcf in the Austin Chalk and $0.41 per Mcf in the Eagle Ford.” Following a year of production, by early 2021, EOG became confident in their reservoir model and reserves estimates and I believe drilled another 15 wells in the field that year. The play also benefits from abundant infrastructure availability with access to LNG export terminals, pipelines selling to Mexico, and local sales points. It also gives EOG optionality when oil prices are low and gas prices are more favorable.


 




Austin Chalk Exploration Failures in East Louisiana and Mississippi: Deep, Expensive, and Often Wet

     The Austin Chalk has also had some success in Western Louisiana with some developed fields and several periods of waxing and waning interest there and to the east. EOG made a discovery further east in 2017 and drilled about 6 wells I believe but by Sept. 2019 decided to abandon the area due to increased water production. Another of the downsides is that it is deeper there. EOG, Marathon, Conoco Phillips, and others made a run for acreage and drilled test wells in Eastern Louisiana and Mississippi but poor results and water seem to be an insurmountable problem so most companies have pulled out. While the Eagle Ford Shale is below the Austin Chalk in Texas, another source rock, the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS) is below the chalk in Louisiana and Mississippi. Australian company Australis Oil and Gas drilled some very deep 15,000 -20,000 ft wells in the TMS in 2019 that were pretty good wells, but the TMS has been challenging as a whole with the play all but abandoned. The company does worry about rapid decline which they have seen in the Austin Chalk wells in the area, and which is known in the low permeability TMS.  

 

Drilling Issues in the Austin Chalk and Eagle Ford

     The presence of some small offsetting faults and fractures combined with high formation pressures and possible interference from nearby wells has led to some drilling issues in both formations. Lost circulation and mud loss can be issues. Managed pressure drilling, including drilling on mudcap with no cuttings returning to the surface is not uncommon in some areas. Differential sticking, when the drill string sticks to the side of the well bore can occur when pressures drop away from the wellbore due to intersecting open fractures. These South Texas plays are also deep, with high pressures and fairly high temperatures, which can contribute to variations in well bore integrity. The Eagle Ford drills fast like most shales. The Austin Chalk drills a little slower than the Eagle Ford but still pretty fast. Small faults can complicate geosteering in some areas. The volcanic ash layers can also be hazardous as they fall in and as they have a tendency to keep the bit in them if drilled horizontally close to formation dip. That also results in more ash in the cuttings and a higher potential for plugging fractures. Thus, wells may be steered away from the known ash layers.


 The Eaglebine: The Woodbine Sandstone and the Eagle Ford non-calcareous Mudstone Play in the East Texas Basin

     The Eaglebine is a name given to the combo play of Eagle Ford and Woodbine formations in the East Texas Basin. The north and east of the main Eagle Ford fairway in the Western Gulf Coast Basin is bounded by the San Marcos Arch. On the northeast side of the arch is the East Texas Basin where these rock formations again thicken but have different facies and lithologies. The Eagle Ford is mainly the upper Eagle Ford equivalent and is less calcareous than in the main producing area and less prospective. However, below the Eagle Ford is the Woodbine Sandstone which is a major oil and gas producer in the East Texas Basin at depths greater than 12,000 ft. The Woodbine is age equivalent to the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS) further East beyond the Sabin Uplift which bounds the East Texas Basin to its northeast. The Woodbine organic shale below the sands is also an important target at shallower depths The Lower Eagle Ford intertongues with the Maness Shale and the Pepper Shale that underlies the Eagle Ford in South Texas intertongues with the Woodbine Sandstone. The Woodbine facies include incised valley fills to the northeast and fluvial-deltaic sandstones to the southwest. These reservoirs as such can be more heterogenous and reservoir quality can be more difficult to predict and less consistent for horizontal drilling. Still, production has been very good in some of these zones, with EURs sometimes exceeding 30-40 BCF in vertical wells but with wells nearby having much lower production. The Woodbine is “highly stratified and diagenetically complex.” The history of cement diagenesis is thought to be a key factor in preserving porosity and corresponding high hydrocarbon production. These are monster wells but with drilling depths up to 15,000 ft they are also costly.



Eaglebine Play Regional Stratigraphy. Source:Stratigraphic and Depositional Context of the Eaglebine Play: Upper Cretaceous Woodbine and Eagle Ford Groups, Southwestern East Texas Basin. Tucker F. Hentz and William A. Ambrose. AAPG. Search and Discovery Article #51094. June 22, 2015. View PDF (searchanddiscovery.com)



Woodbine Reservoir and Diagenesis. Source: 
Woodbine Formation Sandstone Reservoir Prediction and Variability, Polk and Tyler Counties, Texas. Robert J. Bunge. AAPG. Search and Discovery Article #10331. June 25, 2011. Woodbine Formation Sandstone Reservoir Prediction and Variability, Polk and Tyler Counties, Texas; #10331 (2011) (searchanddiscovery.com)


References: 

Austin Chalk Revival: New Oil and Gas from an Old Trend. (2018?). Austin Chalk RevivalAustin Chalk Revival (austinchalkoilgas.com)

East Texas Chalk: It’s The Matrix. Nissa Darbonne. Oil and Gas Investor. Hart Energy. January 24, 2020. East Texas Chalk: It’s The Matrix | Hart Energy

Austin Chalk Revived: An Emerging Unconventional Play. Laurentian Research. March 7, 2019. Seeking Alpha. Austin Chalk Revived: An Emerging Unconventional Play | Seeking Alpha

The Eagle Ford and Austin Chalk: Better Operating Practices and New Approaches Keep South Texas Humming. Al Pickett. American Oil and Gas Reporter. October 2018. Better Operating Practices And New Approaches Keep South Texas Humming (aogr.com)

Matrix reservoir quality of the Upper Cretaceous Austin Chalk Group and evaluation of reservoir-quality analysis methods; northern onshore Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A. Robert G. Loucks and Sheng Peng. Marine and Petroleum Geology. Volume 134, December 2021. Matrix reservoir quality of the Upper Cretaceous Austin Chalk Group and evaluation of reservoir-quality analysis methods; northern onshore Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A. - ScienceDirect

Louisiana Austin Chalk: Hundreds of Millions Down the Drain? Matt Zbrowski. Journal of Petroleum Technology. September 29, 2019. Louisiana Austin Chalk: Hundreds of Millions Down the Drain? (spe.org)

Haynesville, TMS and the Austin Chalk: Louisiana’s place in the Lower 48 supply stack. Brandon Myers. Wood Mackenzie. January 2020. General template rules (planoweb.org)

Quiet for decades, Austin Chalk oil and gas play attracting new interest. Mark Passwaters. S&P Global Market Intelligence. June 8, 2018. Quiet for decades, Austin Chalk oil and gas play attracting new interest | S&P Global Market Intelligence (spglobal.com)

Key geological factors controlling the estimated ultimate recovery of shale oil and gas: A case study of the Eagle Ford shale, Gulf Coast Basin, USA. Lianhua Hou, Zhichao Yu, and Senhu Lin. June 2021. Petroleum Exploration and Development 48(3):762-774. (PDF) Key geological factors controlling the estimated ultimate recovery of shale oil and gas: A case study of the Eagle Ford shale, Gulf Coast Basin, USA (researchgate.net)

Quantitative assessment of the sweet spot in marine shale oil and gas based on geology, engineering, and economics: A case study from the Eagle Ford Shale, USA. Energy Strategy Reviews. Volume 38, November 2021, 100713. Lianhua Hou, Caineng Zou, Zhichao Yu, Xia Luo, Songtao Wu, Zhongying Zhao, Senhu Lin, Zhi Yang, Lijun Zhang, Dingwei Wen, Jingwei Cui. Quantitative assessment of the sweet spot in marine shale oil and gas based on geology, engineering, and economics: A case study from the Eagle Ford Shale, USA - ScienceDirect

Eagle Ford Shale play economics: U.S. versus Mexico. Ruud Weijermars, Nadav Sorek, Deepthi Sen, Walter B. Ayers. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering. Volume 38, February 2017, Pages 345-372. Eagle Ford Shale play economics: U.S. versus Mexico - ScienceDirect

Woodbine Formation Sandstone Reservoir Prediction and Variability, Polk and Tyler Counties, Texas. Robert J. Bunge. AAPG. Search and Discovery Article #10331. June 25, 2011. Woodbine Formation Sandstone Reservoir Prediction and Variability, Polk and Tyler Counties, Texas; #10331 (2011) (searchanddiscovery.com)

Stratigraphic and Depositional Context of the Eaglebine Play: Upper Cretaceous Woodbine and Eagle Ford Groups, Southwestern East Texas Basin. Tucker F. Hentz and William A. Ambrose. AAPG. Search and Discovery Article #51094. June 22, 2015. View PDF (searchanddiscovery.com)

 

Sunday, April 30, 2023

Climate Science Paradigm Development, Clean Energy Policy Development, and Clean Energy Technology Development, Simultaneous Timelines

 this post is Chapter 15 of my 2021 book Sensible Decarbonization

Climate Science Paradigm Development, Clean Energy Policy Development, and Clean Energy Technology Development, Simultaneous Timelines

     For perspective, I think these simultaneous timelines are important to review for several reasons: to show the evolution of climate science understanding and the changing in levels of certainty, to show what and how low-carbon technologies are developing and how fast, to show how clean energy policies are developing, and to show where we are, how far we have come, and how far we have to go. I have included the development of EV technology and Tesla’s development of both EV batteries and stationary storage. I have also included a few of my own clean energy buys to give perspective from a middle-class energy scientist who likes clean tech. Policy developments show where they have been effective, like the Australian solar boom and where they have not been effective. I trace the development of the “pause” or “hiatus” in warming seen in John Christy and Roy Spencer’s NASA satellite temperature data. I also include a timeline of climate skepticism.

1970’s

Aerosols from human activity shown to be increasing in atmosphere and to have a cooling effect. Next Ice Age is a concern for some scientists, but warming is more of a concern for others. Concerns over warming prevail late in decade.

Climate research ramped up with creation of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in US.   

Methane, CFCs, and ozone shown to contribute to global warming.

Solar variation shown to affect climate.

Deforestation shown to affect climate.

1979

U.S. National Academy of Sciences predicts climate sensitivity: doubling of CO2 makes average global temperature warm between 1.5 and 4.5 deg C. That is still the general range given today, over four decades later.

1982

Greenland ice cores show that climate can change fast.

1985

Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 levels and temperature changes were simultaneous. Still unclear which one forced the other.

1988

Climate scientist James Hansen speaks to Congress, warning of the dangers of global warming. He says that it is affecting heat waves and droughts.

Governments begin to consider the dangers of global warming.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is established.

1990

1st IPCC report notes warming has been happening and more is likely to come.

1991

Mt. Pinatubo erupts. Hansen and others predict cooling due to the aerosols which is confirmed.

Global warming skeptics suggest warming is due to solar variation. Data from following decades refute that assertion.

Denmark deploys first offshore wind project to take advantage of stronger offshore winds.

1992

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created in Rio de Janeiro.

1995

2nd IPCC report highlights “signal” of human-caused global warming and says increased likelihood of significant future warming.[1]

Satellite-derived atmospheric temperature measurements by John Christy and Roy Spencer at NASA show no warming. Their methodologies using microwaves to measure temperatures at different altitudes are criticized by others as having a high margin of error.

1996

GM builds and releases limited amount of EV1 fully electric vehicles.

1997

Kyoto Protocol sets up targets for developed nations to reduce carbon emissions.

1998

Remote Sensing Systems shows that Christy and Spencer’s satellite readings are off due to an error, which they acknowledge, then re-adjust their readings to show slight warming. 

Alarmist climate scientist James Hansen debates skeptical climate scientist Richard Lindzen, who thinks climate sensitivity is at the low end or lower than IPCC estimates.

1999-2000’s

More pushback against climate action by some developed countries and fossil fuel industries.

2000

Toyota releases Prius worldwide with hybrid electric engine.

2001

3rd IPCC report states that level of certainty about future warming is increasing and that impacts could be severe. Scientists show a general “paradigm shift” towards regarding global warming as a very serious concern.

Ocean warming observed, confirmed, and found to generally match atmospheric warming in models.

2000’s

State renewable energy mandates adopted by many US states in different forms. Now estimated to be responsible for about half of renewables generation in the US. By 2020 29 states have mandates.[2]

Calculating and comparing carbon footprints becomes popular. Sustainability movement takes off.

Germany begins its Energiewende with generous feed-in tariffs. It wouldn’t be until 2018 that renewables overtake coal in Germany, since coal got a temporary revival in 2011 with the phasing out of nuclear plants after Fukushima. In 2019 Coal plant phase out by 2038 announced but could be speeded up. 2020 phase-out of feed-in tariffs has some generators worried about future profitability.

2003

Heat waves in Europe cause many deaths. Since then, more vulnerable people there have access to air conditioning and urban cooling.

Largest electricity blackout in US history on a hot day in August in the Northeast and Midwest.

2004

Christy and Spencer adjusted their satellite readings further based on errors found by others.

Europe initiates the world’s first carbon trading scheme.

2006

Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” movie convinces many of the dangers of global warming but also creates more political polarization about the subject.

China passes US as world’s biggest emitter of CO2.

I bought a Toyota Prius on the first day of 2006. Battery replaced in 2017. It ran nearly 400,000 miles. The savings in gasoline costs vs. my previous vehicle exceeded the price of the car – keep in mind high gas prices in the late 2000’s and early 2010’s. Ironically the gas engine needs replaced. May sell.

2007

4th IPCC report states it would be cheaper to reduce emissions than deal with damaging effects of global warming.

Christy acknowledges warming but at a lesser rate than ground temperatures show. By this time the satellite “pause” in warming and Christy and Spencer’s data begin to be routinely touted by global warming skeptics as they still are today.

Some US energy, utility, and chemical company CEOs formed the Climate Change Initiative which advocated for action on climate change.[3]

Electricity consumption begins to plateau in EU and US.

UK overtakes Germany in relative decarbonization of the electricity sector.

2008

Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) formed to counter IPCC, which they regard as politically motivated. Its precursor organization is S. Fred Singer’s Science and Environmental Policy Project founded in 1990 with views that disputed established scientific views of global warming, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke. They were also sponsored by the conservative Heartland Institute and in 2009 by The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change led by climate scientists Craig and Sherwood Idso who argue for the benefits of CO2 and dispute scientific consensus on climate change. The NIPCC with their sponsors produced the Climate Change Reconsidered series with several book volumes from 2009 through 2015. I read Idso, Carter, and Singer’s 2015 book Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus, where they made a very good argument that the scientific consensus on climate change was less solid than depicted, certainly nowhere near 97%. In 2017 Heartland Institute sent 300,000 of these books to schools and colleges across the country, presumably to counter the prevailing consensus narrative. I don’t recall the book being overly biased, though certainly a minority view.[4] [5]

Al Gore promotes his movie, book, and slideshow with an advertising blitz. Competitive Enterprise Institute and its leader Myron Ebell downplay the dangers of global warming with their own media blitz.   

Consistently high natural gas prices from about 2005 through 2008 lead to more experimentation with new extraction techniques that are seeing more success. Shale gas fracking is underway. The financial downturn lowered demand, so prices were able to drop.

2009

Incoming Obama administration economic stimulus package in response to the global economic downturn includes $90 billion for clean energy technology. Results are mixed with some $ lost during bad market timing for US solar component manufacturing exemplified by the Solyndra bankruptcy. Battery and EV research yield favorable results.

2010

Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill cancelled in US Congress.

It becomes apparent that “fracking” for shale gas with horizontal drilling and high volume multi-staged hydraulic fracturing can produce large quantities of natural gas and quickly increase supply enough to keep prices low. Increasing oil supply would follow. Shale gas and oil resources are shown to be continuous and predictable. As fracking grows public backlash against it also grows, especially in areas without previous oil and gas development. A decade later natural gas is consistently oversupplied, a third of coal-fired generation has been replaced by natural gas and to a much lesser extent renewables, and the decarbonization goals of cap-and-trade are exceeded.    

Late 2000’s to mid – 2010’s

Corporate social responsibility touted on company websites but often vaguely defined and detailed by companies. Expected in public relations but no real detail required.

Less frequency of hurricanes after Katrina and Rita in 2005 suggests climate change does not spur more of them even if there is more moisture in the atmosphere and oceans are warmer. That would hold generally true until 2020 when there was a record number of hurricanes and tropical storms in the Atlantic, although a few of those were added by new threshold of what constitutes a storm. Activist media immediately re-cites link between hurricane frequency and climate change. There is good evidence, however, for warmer oceans and a warmer wetter atmosphere to lead to stronger storms.

2009

Copenhagen conference. No binding agreements.

Australia’s rooftop solar boom begins, aided by state incentives, high electricity prices, and a good solar resource. Rooftop solar deployment increases ten-fold in Australia from 2009-2011, with most of the growth in South Australia.

2010’s

Most oil majors accept the basic tenets of global warming/climate change and some, then more, accept that a carbon price at some point is inevitable.

Competition, low-priced Chinese solar panels, and other improvements make solar cheaper, and it begins to boom in US. Solar and wind, with its Production Tax Credit, continue to benefit from subsidization in US. Both solar and wind continue to get cheaper. Late in the decade there is some parity with fossil energy sources.

Cities make low-carbon pledges in the US.

The slow but steady pace of ocean warming, and other factors show that more warming is likely even if we stopped emitting carbon due to delay in cycling through the ocean to the atmosphere. Thus, there is said to be global warming “in the pipeline.” 

More consideration of the influence of climate change on extreme weather events. Much debate.

US leads the world in CO2 emissions reductions due to fracking which allows cheap natural gas to replace coal (about 40%), major energy efficiency improvements in fossil fuel and electricity sectors and among end-users with new tech like LED lighting (about 40%), and new wind and solar generation (about 20%).

Cryptocurrency mining exposed as a totally unnecessary waste of power. However, the blockchain encryption technology that requires the computer power, does have uses in energy and cybersecurity.

Tech companies move closer to net-zero with big investments in wind and solar to power facilities and power-hungry data centers.

It becomes clear that summer sea ice melt in the Arctic and glacial melt in Greenland are accelerating. Temperatures in the north are consistently far above normal. One conclusion is that global warming is happening faster in the Arctic, as models predicted.

Global LNG trade grows by 4 times from 2000 to 2020.  

2011

Fukushima nuclear disaster helps prevent nuclear power from becoming one of the stronger solutions to climate change. Japan shuts in other nuclear plants. Germany announces nuclear phase-out.

Arctic amplification, the tendency of the North polar area to warm faster than the global average, due to multiple causes, most notably changes in summer sea ice extent, is confirmed by observational data, and accepted as indisputable. The tendency is fed by positive feedbacks.

Nissan releases Leaf EV (December 2010). Begins building them in Tennessee in 2013.

2013

Oceans and regional oscillations that produced El ninos and La ninas considered to be main reason for so-called global warming pause or hiatus in satellite data. Still debatable?

5th IPCC report shows greater confidence level in anthropogenic warming and models, and potential impacts, especially of higher warming scenarios. Global climate models continue to be refined and adjusted. Predicted range of climate sensitivity remains 1.5 deg C – 4.5 deg C, as it was in 1979. The IPCC avg. for estimated climate sensitivity is at 3.2 deg C.  

Australia’s rooftop solar boom begins to penetrate the commercial sector, 2013-2017.

2014

Tesla begins building first Gigafactory in Nevada.

I had a 4.3 kW solar array installed on south facing roof with a 12-13-year payout. It’s been 6.5 years so I’m halfway there. No noticeable loss of efficiency in that time. Zero maintenance. Fairly predictable monthly and annual output. Payout slightly longer due to Ohio changes in SREC market value.  

2015

December – The COP 21 Paris Agreement signed onto by almost every nation in the world. Commitments non-binding but most countries gather data and organize plans of some sort.

Global average temperature now 1 deg C above pre-industrial levels.

A few colder sections of winters in the US from Arctic polar vortexes characterized by big dips in the jet stream thought to be related to climate change.

Tesla announces the Tesla Powerwall, a new home lithium battery storage product.

CO2 Coalition formed as a science-based group skeptical of mainstream climate science.

Natural gas overtakes coal in US power generation.

2016

US under Trump officially announces it is exiting Paris agreement, the only country to do so.

2018

Christy and Spencer, lamenting lack of funding, get a $1.5 million grant from Trump administration. Christy notes that their satellite data could potentially be used to refute Obama climate actions.

Hurricane Harvey along the Gulf Coast produces record rain and flooding from a large slow-moving storm that may have been enhanced by climate change.

Solar accounts for over 5% of electricity in Australia (compared to 1% in US).

Tesla’s Nevada Gigafactory becomes highest-volume battery manufacturing plant in the world. Economies of scale in manufacturing help reduce battery costs.

An IPCC report considers the benefits of holding warming to 1.5 deg C. IPCC concludes that it would be preferable. The timeline for keeping warming that low according to the models suggest that swifter action is needed. Activists interpret that to mean we only have a few years till it’s too late and we are beyond safe levels. Media amplifies those concerns. There are calls for stronger mandates. (October)

GE Renewable Energy releases 12MW wind turbines for offshore deployment.

2019

ESG movement takes off in the corporate world, including the carbon-heavy energy sector. Emissions and climate assessments and risk plans expected.

John Christy appointed to EPA science advisory board by Trump administration.[6]

Wildfires and extreme weather events stir more climate activism.

Deployments of microgrids continue to grow in US and globally.

Australia experiences dispatchable energy shortages and blackouts due to heat wave, plants off-line, and over-reliance on solar.

I bought a plug-in hybrid vehicle. Installed a Level 2 charger. Enjoyed the car and the savings until early 2020 when I crashed into a deer and totaled it. Then the pandemic happened and I got laid off, so I wasn’t able to replace it.

According to the International Energy Agency US led the world in decarbonization over the past decade mostly due to fracking, efficiency improvements, and to a lesser extent, renewables.    

2020

UK’s Boris Johnson says he thinks all UK homes can be powered by offshore wind by 2030. “Homes” represent about a third of UK energy. UK expected to continue leading the world in offshore wind.

Heatwaves, wildfires, and hurricanes stir more activism and media alarmism.

Coronavirus strikes. Lockdowns reduce energy demand. Consideration of peak oil demand.

Countries, states, cities, companies, and utilities plan net-zero pledges and consider potential paths.

China says it will become net-zero by 2060.[7]

Australia’s rooftop solar boom is deemed successful and continues, with huge increases from 2017-2020.  

Petro Nova CCUS project in Texas deemed an operational success with consistent >90% capture rate and very little downtime. Project shut down temporarily due to low oil prices – CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery.

California experiences dispatchable energy shortages and rolling brownouts due to heat wave, low wind conditions, plants off-line, closing natural gas plants and over-reliance on solar.  

Arctic amplification further confirmed by data that shows clearly that the Arctic has warmed at roughly twice the rate as the rest of the world.[8]

More US utilities announce decarbonization plans and make net-zero pledges.

Electricity aggregation, including green electricity aggregation to increase renewables and meet state RPSs, grows among US municipalities.

Biden elected president in US with stated goal of ambitious climate policy action, including a pledge to make US electricity sector carbon neutral by 2035. This becomes more likely with a new Democratic Senate.

State of West Virginia still makes over 92% of its electricity with coal, despite decarbonization trends and ready access to cheap natural gas. Planned natural gas plants still facing obstacles.

Coal and oil still make up 80% of electricity generation in the state of Hawaii.

Siemens Gamesa releases wind turbines for offshore deployment that can reach 15MW with power boost. Deployment a couple of years away.

Coronavirus results in an unexpected drop in global carbon emissions. Expected to increase in 2021 as vaccine herd immunity develops.


Beyond 2020

2021

Post-pandemic economic recovery stimulus expected to increase government spending on clean energy projects. Private spending expected to increase as well.

Biden brings US back into Paris agreement. Biden suspends oil and gas leasing on federal lands and cancels approval for Keystone XL pipeline.

GM announces plan to not sell gasoline and diesel engines for all light-duty vehicles by 2035.[9]

2022

EVs expected to be 15% of European auto market share.

First commercial deployment of a 300MW Allam Cycle natural gas plant in US expected.

2023

Elon Musk predicts battery cost will be half of what it was in 2020. {not looking likely Elon}

GM expects to have 20 EV models for sale.

NextEra Energy’s green hydrogen pilot project in Florida expected to come online.

2025

China expects 20% of vehicles sold to be New Energy Vehicles (NEVs), mostly EVs.

WoodMac predicts E-trucks in the US to grow by 27 times from 2019, from 2,000 to 54,000 on the road.

EV parity with ICE vehicles possible considering cheaper fuel and maintenance costs for an EV vs ICE vehicle.

2030

EVs predicted to reach economic purchase parity with ICE vehicles. Lithium-iron-phosphate batteries predicted to overtake lithium-manganese-cobalt-oxide batteries in market share.

Deloitte predicts EVs to be 32% of US auto market share by 2030.

Global Wind Energy Council market analysis thinks as much as 22.6 GW off offshore wind could be built in the US by 2030.

GE and Siemens expect their hydrogen co-fired turbines that can burn higher blends of hydrogen with natural gas to be available for installation 2030-2035.

EU has a target of 40-gigawatts of electrolyzers by 2030.

Global fossil fuel consumption expected to peak 2030-2035. It may happen sooner rather than later.

 

2050

 

Ground zero for Net-zero 2050.

 

2060

 

Ground zero for China Net-zero.


 



[1] Weart, Spencer R. The Discovery of Global Warming. Website. Accessed October/November 2020. Note: The timeline from this site was used as a general reference in my timeline, particularly for the early parts of it. https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

 

[3] Pooley, Eric, 2010. The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth. Hyperion.

[4] Wikipedia – entries ‘Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ and ‘Science and Environmental Policy Project.’ Accessed November 2020.

[5] Idso, Craig D., Carter, Robert M., and Singer, S. Fred, 2015. Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus. Heartland Institute.

 

[6] Lavelle, Marianne and Pillion, Dennis, November 2, 2020. When Trump’s EPA Needed a Climate Scientist, They Called John Christy. Inside Climate News. (Note: this article was used for much of the timeline of Christy and Spencer’s satellite data.) https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30102020/john-christy-alabama-climate-contrarian

 

[7] Regan, Helen, September 23, 2020. China will become carbon neutral by 2060, Xi Jinping says. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/china/xi-jinping-carbon-neutral-2060-intl-hnk/index.html

 

[8] National Snow & Ice Data Center. Climate Change in the Arctic. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html

 

[9] Beggin, Riley, Jan. 28, 2021. GM’s bet on carbon neutrality rides green wave in Washington. The Detroit News. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2021/01/28/general-motors-bet-carbon-neutrality-rides-green-wave-washington/4291686001/

 

 

 

  As the title of this post points out, the U.S., China, and the EU countries make up about two-thirds of UN funding in a normal year. The...