And now, I bring you a public service announcement to pre-but the arguments that seem to be gaining traction suggesting (falsely) that current gas price volatility is caused by renewables. Buckle up... Thread:
1/ First, the case being made by the fossil shills: Intermittent renewables (read: wind and solar) need balancing capacity on the grid. Only quick ramping, inefficient gas plants can provide that so as Rs are deployed, gas demand goes up and increases price.
2/ That is a real thing and not without it's merits. If that were driving demand, it would be pretty easy to spot in the data, because we'd see rising gas demand. Trouble is, we don't. eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n…
3/ For the 7 months that ended July 2021, total US gas use was 17,862 billion cubic feet. Same 7 months of 2020 total us gas use was 17,696 BCF. e.g., Demand in 2021 is 114 BCF lower than it was at this time last year. There goes that argument.
4/ So if it's not a demand side pressure, what about supply? In the 7 months ending July 2021 the US has produced 20,297 BCF of gas. Same period in 2020 total production was 23,792 BCF. e.g., US natural gas producers produced more than 3,000 FEWER BCF this year than last.
5/ Since both are down, there's a much stronger case to be made that declining production is driving market tightness rather than declining demand. Only the former is consistent with the laws of supply and demand after all.
6/ It makes sense BTW that demand would be down. Remember all those gas companies that were writing down losses over the last couple years? That tends to dry up capital for new field development. And there has been a decline in operating wells. eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n…
7/ As an aside, my dad used to have a paper-weight of an oil barrel on his desk. On one side it said "relax, the price will go down". On the other it said "relax, the price will go up." Such is the nature of capital investment cycles in the O&G sector... But I digress.
8/ But that's not the whole story. Gas storage in the US exists to absorb swings between demand and supply. Changes in storage levels also have to factor in. Turns out that's also down, year-on-year:
9/ As of July 2021, we had 7,188 BCF in storage. That's down 6% (495 BCF) from July 2020. Maybe not totally surprising. Supply has fallen faster than demand (which has also fallen) so the buffer in the system is tighter. That would lead to upward price pressure too.
10/ Now to be sure, there is actually a big renewable driven upward pressure on gas supply going on, in spite of the falling overall demand. Hydro-electric capacity is WAY down. Thanks to climate change, it should be noted. Less snowpack = lower reservoirs = less hydro.
11/ Through July 2020, hydro-electric dams had produced a little over 184,000 billion watt-hours. That's down over 13% to just under 160,000. On the margin, you'd expect that to lead to more natural gas generation. eia.gov/electricity/mo…
12/ My rough back of the envelope is that if all that lost hydro was replaced by 13,000 Btu/kWh gas engines that would account for an additional ~323 BCF of natural gas use this year. Probably not quite that high, but in any event total demand is down.
13/ Worth watching that trend though, because burning more natural gas = more reduction in hydro capacity = more demand for gas peakers. We should try to get out of that doom loop. Just sayin'.
14/ But now here's the real kicker: look at what's happened to LNG demand. This is gas that we produce in the US, then export to other countries. eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n…
15/ We've exported over 2,000 BCF through July 2021 vs. 1,318 through July 2020. And it's increasingly rapidly. That increase is almost 2x the decline in storage. If we weren't exporting that NG, we'd see surging storage volumes (or less production.)
16/ Moreover, as producers gain more and more access to foreign gas markets, US consumers get more and more exposure to foreign gas market volatility.
17/ So there you have it. Gas producers have successfully found markets to sell US resources to higher priced foreign markets, causing prices to US consumers to rise. Also, they aren't producing as much as they used to. And climate change is making it worse.
18/ The solution to that is to invest in zero-carbon generation technology that doesn't have exposure to volatile fossil markets and stops the planet from warming.
19/ And as for those folks telling you that those investments are in fact the problem? Well, they would. After all, they've got a rooting interest in making your gas more expensive. You don't though. Pay them no mind.
20/ You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming. And because I forgot to say this earlier: #energytwitter rocks! /fin

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sean Casten

Sean Casten Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SeanCasten

17 Oct
Appalachian politicos never really cared about the miners. The proof? Name one who ever complained about the investments in mining productivity. Longwall mining, mountaintop removal all slashed labor requirements/mined ton.
To be clear, rising labor productivity is good to the extent it allows us to create more wealth per labor hour (and subject to making sure that wealth is shared). But you can't celebrate rising productivity in the coal sector and lament it in the larger energy sector.
Coal is a uniquely labor-intensive fuel. The industry has worked hard to cut their labor needs, first through automation, then through bankrupting miner's pensions. But all pushes to lower cost, less labor-intensive energy eventually squeeze out coal as a fuel.
Read 4 tweets
16 Oct
If you care about the planet. If you care about US leadership. If you care about our children. If you care about affordable energy. If you care about our democracy. Then it's time to mobilize. So, so much is at stake. Thread: nytimes.com/2021/10/15/cli…
1/ The CEPP is the most impactful part of the Build Back Better Act from a climate perspective. It puts our electric sector on a path to zero emissions. To take it out is to decide that climate change isn't a problem.
2/ It's also MASSIVE for job creation. Meeting those goals require the construction of ~1000 GW of new power generation in the next decade. That is as much as we already have. Millions of good jobs and economic growth. To take out the CEPP is to give labor the middle finger.
Read 21 tweets
13 Oct
Very thoughtful analysis here on one of the drivers of current natural gas volatility (namely, the increasingly global nature of nat gas markets). A few comments for those who don't want to read the full article.. naturalgasintel.com/lng-growth-sai…
1/ For those who know nothing about natural gas markets other than your monthly bill imagine that you're a cucumber farmer. You can sell cukes for $2/lb at the farmers market in Wheaton or $3/lb at the farmers market in Glen Ellyn. Where do you go?
2/ Not a trick question. Obviously Glen Ellyn. Now imagine that you're a natural gas producer and gas sells for $3/MMBtu at the Henry Hub in Louisiana or $8 at a hub in France. Where would you sell?
Read 10 tweets
8 Oct
Good news from today's report is the unemployment rate is down to 4.8%. Bad news is workforce participation is still stuck at 61.6%, and still substantially limited by access to childcare. We fix this with the Build Back Better Act, childcare tax credits and 2 yrs of free pre-K
Three charts to see this. First, total employment. Workforce participation rate highlighted. bls.gov/news.release/e…
Second, same data but only for men of child-producing age. 70% workforce participation and rising. Pretty good!
Read 12 tweets
7 Oct
Safe to say you can count @ewarren and I among the 94% who are confident that climate risk is not fully priced into our equity markets. finance.yahoo.com/news/financial…
50% of all the CO2 we have ever emitted AS A SPECIES has been released since 1991. The rate of change to our climate system is accelerating. This past summer of wildfires and flooding is not the new normal. The rate of change is the new normal.
Markets are bad at pricing in non-linear rates of change for the same reason our brains are bad at non-linear rates of change. Say 2, 4, and our brain instinctively expects 6, not 8.
Read 11 tweets
6 Oct
To my Senate colleagues trying to whittle down the BBB and specifically to weaken the climate provisions. This is the time for leadership. The world needs the US to lead. All eyes are on Congress. If leadership is too hard for you, get out of the way.
1/ When I was in Madrid for COP-25, a European parliamentarian pulled me aside to say "when the US doesn't lead, bad things happen." They need us. We need to go to Glasgow in a position to lead.
2/ Those Europeans knew that Kyoto didn't pass because Bill Clinton couldn't get the US Senate on board.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(