DOCSLIB.ORG

Table 1 Points of Entry/Exit Pipeline Points of Entry/Exit Canada U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table 1 Points of Entry/Exit Pipeline Points of Entry/Exit Canada U.S Table 1 Points of Entry/Exit Pipeline Points of Entry/Exit Canada U.S. Point of Entry/Exit Corresponding Canadian Point of Entry/Exit U.S. Transporter Foreign Transporter Babb, Montana Cardston, Alberta (Carway) EnCana Pipelines Ltd Canadian-Montana Pipeline Company Baudette, Minnesota Rainy River, Ontario Centra Minnesota Pipelines Centra Transmission, Inc. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Canada Calais, Maine St. Stephen, New Brunswick Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline U.S. Brunswick Pipeline Champlain, New York Napierville, Quebec North Country Gas Pipeline TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Crosby, North Dakota Estevan, Saskatchewan Oneoke Rockies Midstream Bakken Hunter LLC Detroit, Michigan Windsor, Ontario (Ojibway) Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Union Gas Limited TransCanada Pipelines Alberta Natural Gas Eastport, Idaho Kingsgate, British Columbia PG&E Gas Transmission Northwest Foothills Westcoast Energy Inc. Pipeline Grand Island, New York Chippawa, Ontario Empire State Pipeline TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Havre, Montana Loomis, Saskatchewan (Willow Creek) Havre Pipeline Many Islands Pipe Line Company Highgate Springs, Vermont Phillipsburg, Quebec Vermont Gas Systems TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. International Falls, Minnesota Fort Frances, Ontario Centra Minnesota Pipelines Centra Transmission, Inc. Marysville, Michigan Sarnia, Ontario Bluewater Pipeline Union Gas Limited Massena, New York Cornwall, Ontario St. Lawrence Gas Company Niagara Gas Transmission Tennessee Gas Pipeline Niagara Falls, New York Niagara Falls, Ontario TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company Noyes, Minnesota Emerson, Manitoba TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Viking Gas Transmission Company Pittsburg, New Hampshire East Hereford, Quebec Portland Natural Gas Transmission TransQuebec & Maritimes Pipeline Port of Del Bonita, Montana Del Bonita, Alberta (Reagan Field) Omimex Resources Inc Canadian-Montana Pipeline Company Port of Morgan, Montana Monchy, Saskatchewan Northern Border Pipeline Foothills Pipe Lines, Ltd. Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. WBI Canadian Pipelines, Ltd./TransGas Limited Portal, North Dakota North Portal, Saskatchewan Interenergy Sheffield Pipeline Interenergy Sheffield Processing Company Portal Municipal Gas SaskEnergy Inc.'s Pipeline Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Sherwood, North Dakota Elmore, Saskatchewan Alliance Pipeline U.S. Alliance Pipeline Canada Corunna, Ontario ANR ANR - Link Pipeline Courtright, Ontario Vector U.S. Vector Canada St. Clair, Michigan Sarnia, Ontario Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. St. Clair, Ontario Michigan Consolidated Union Gas Limited Northwest Pipeline Sumas Pipeline U.S.A. Sumas, Washington Huntingdon, British Columbia Sumas International Pipeline Westcoast Energy Inc. Pipeline Sumas-Cascade Pipeline Ferndale Pipeline Sweetgrass, Montana Sierra, Alberta Sierra Pipeline Knappen Border Pipeline Waddington, New York Iroquois, Ontario Iroquois Gas Transmission TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Warroad, Minnesota Sprague, Manitoba Centra Minnesota Pipelines Centra Transmission, Inc. Whitlash, Montana Aden, Alberta EnCana Pipelines Ltd Canadian-Montana Pipeline Company Mexico U.S. Point of Entry/Exit Corresponding Mexican Point of Entry/Exit U.S. Transporter Foreign Transporter Alamo, Texas Reynosa, Tamaulipas Tennessee Gas Pipeline PEMEX Pipeline Calexico, California Mexicali, Baja California SoCalGas DGN Pipeline Clint, Texas Ciudad Juarez, Coahuila Samalayuca Pipeline PEMEX Pipeline Del Rio, Texas Acuña, Coahuila West Texas Gas, Inc. PEMEX Pipeline Douglas, Arizona Naco, Sonora El Paso Natural Gas Company PEMEX Pipeline West Texas Gas, Inc. Eagle Pass, Texas Piedras Negras, Coahuila PEMEX Pipeline Reef International Pipeline El Paso, Texas Ciudad Juarez, Coahuila Norteno Pipeline PEMEX Pipeline Galvan Ranch, Texas Coahuila, Mexico Encinal Gathering, Ltd. PEMEX Pipeline Hidalgo, Texas Reynosa, Tamaulipas Texas Eastern Pipeline PEMEX Pipeline McAllen, Texas Reynosa, Tamaulipas Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline PEMEX Pipeline Nogales, Arizona Nogales, Mexico El Paso Natural Gas Company PEMEX Pipeline Ogilby, California Algodones, Baja California North Baja Pipeline Gasaducto Bajanorte San Diego Gas & Electric Sempra Energy International Otay Mesa, California Rosarito, Baja California Southern California Gas Company Transportadora de Gas Natural de Baja California Penitas, Texas Arguelles, Tamaulipas El Paso Natural Gas Company PEMEX Pipeline Sasabe, Arizona Sasabe, Sonora El Paso Natural Gas Company Gasoducto de Aguaprieta Rio Bravo, Texas Rio Bravo, Tamaulipas Tennessee Gas Pipeline Gasoducto Del Rio Rio Grande City, Texas Ciudad Camargo, Nuevo Leon NET Mexico Pipeline, LP Las Ramones Pipeline Roma, Texas Monterrey, Nuevo Leon Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline PEMEX Pipeline Yucca Power Plant Algodones, Baja California North Baja Pipeline Gasaducto Bajanorte Truck Points of Entry/Exit* (LNG or CNG) Calais, Maine Highgate Springs, Vermont Houlton, Maine Nogales, Arizona Otay Mesa, California Port Huron, Michigan Sweetgrass, Montana * These are points where import and/or export by truck has occurred. For new imports or export movements at different border points, reporters should indicate the U.S. location where trucks make a border crossing. DOE/FE will then add a new point. LNG Vessel Terminals Terminal Location Cove Point Lusby, Maryland Cameron Cameron, Louisiana Elba Island Elba Island, Georgia Everett Everett, Massachusetts Freeport Freeport, Texas Golden Pass Sabine Pass, Texas Gulf LNG Pascagoula, Mississippi ConocoPhillips Kenai, Alaska Lake Charles Lake Charles, Louisiana Neptune Deepwater Port offshore Gloucester, Massachusetts Northeast Gateway offshore Gloucester, Massachusetts Penuelas Guayanilla Bay (near Ponce, Puerto Rico) Sabine Pass Sabine Pass, Louisiana.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • El Paso Energy Corporation (“El Paso”) and PG&E Corporation (“PG&E”) (Collectively The
    ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER TO AID PUBLIC COMMENT I. Introduction The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted for public comment from the El Paso Energy Corporation (“El Paso”) and PG&E Corporation (“PG&E”) (collectively the “Proposed Respondents”) an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“the Proposed Consent Order”). The Proposed Consent Order remedies the likely anticompetitive effects in the natural gas transportation markets in the Permian Basin production area, the San Antonio – Austin area, and the Matagorda offshore production area. El Paso has also reviewed a proposed draft of complaint (the “Proposed Complaint”) that the Commission contemplates issuing. The Proposed Consent Order is designed to remedy the likely competitive effects arising from the El Paso acquisition of all of the outstanding voting shares of PG&E Gas Transmission Teco, Inc., and PG&E Gas Transmission Texas Corporation, from PG&E (the “Acquisition”). II. Description of the Parties and the Proposed Acquisition El Paso Energy Corporation is an integrated energy company producing, transporting, gathering, processing, and treating natural gas. With over $21 billion in assets, El Paso Energy Corporation is one of the largest integrated natural gas-to-power companies in the world. El Paso Energy not only owns North America's largest natural gas pipeline system, but also has growing operations in merchant energy services, power generation, international project development, gas gathering and processing, and gas and oil production. El Paso has an interest in five pipeline systems in Texas: the Oasis pipeline, running from west Texas, through the San Antonio and Austin areas, to the Katy natural gas trading area (near Houston, Texas); the Channel Pipeline, extending from south Texas to the Houston Ship Channel; the Shoreline and Tomcat gathering systems, carrying gas from the Texas Gulf Coast to other larger transmission pipelines, and the Gulf States Pipeline, which runs from the Texas border to Ruston, Louisiana.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 EPA Natural Gas STAR Program Accomplishments
    EPA Natural Gas STAR Program Accomplishments Introduction stablished in 1993, the Natural Gas STAR Program is a flexible, voluntary partnership that encourages oil and natural gas companies—both domestically and internationally—to adopt proven, cost-effective technologies and practices that Eimprove operational efficiency and reduce methane emissions. Given that methane is the primary component of natural gas and is a potent greenhouse gas—23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2) in trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period—reducing these emissions can result in environmental, economic, and operational benefits. Natural Gas STAR industry partners have operations in all of the major industry sectors—production, gathering and processing, transmission, and distribution—and represent 60 percent of the natural gas industry in the United States, including 19 of the top 25 natural gas production companies. Also, with the launch of Natural Gas STAR International in 2006, the Program expanded to include companies world- wide, significantly increasing opportunities to reduce methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations. Today, the Program has more than 130 partner compa- nies and is endorsed by 20 major industry trade associations. This document highlights the methane emissions reductions Natural Gas STAR partners have achieved to date under this important voluntary partnership program. It also highlights a variety of technologies and practices implemented by partners to reduce methane emissions. The following diagram
    [Show full text]
  • Oil Refining in Mexico and Prospects for the Energy Reform
    Articles Oil refining in Mexico and prospects for the Energy Reform Daniel Romo1 1National Polytechnic Institute, Mexico. E-mail address: [email protected] Abstract: This paper analyzes the conditions facing the oil refining industry in Mexico and the factors that shaped its overhaul in the context of the 2013 Energy Reform. To do so, the paper examines the main challenges that refining companies must tackle to stay in the market, evaluating the specific cases of the United States and Canada. Similarly, it offers a diagnosis of refining in Mexico, identifying its principal determinants in order to, finally, analyze its prospects, considering the role of private initiatives in the open market, as well as Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), as a placeholder in those areas where private enterprises do not participate. Key Words: Oil, refining, Energy Reform, global market, energy consumption, investment Date received: February 26, 2016 Date accepted: July 11, 2016 INTRODUCTION At the end of 2013, the refining market was one of stark contrasts. On the one hand, the supply of heavy products in the domestic market proved adequate, with excessive volumes of fuel oil. On the other, the gas and diesel oil demand could not be met with production by Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex). The possibility to expand the infrastructure was jeopardized, as the new refinery project in Tula, Hidalgo was put on hold and the plan was made to retrofit the units in Tula, Salamanca, and Salina Cruz. This situation constrained Pemex's supply capacity in subsequent years and made the country reliant on imports to supply the domestic market.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate and Energy Benchmark in Oil and Gas Insights Report
    Climate and Energy Benchmark in Oil and Gas Insights Report Partners XxxxContents Introduction 3 Five key findings 5 Key finding 1: Staying within 1.5°C means companies must 6 keep oil and gas in the ground Key finding 2: Smoke and mirrors: companies are deflecting 8 attention from their inaction and ineffective climate strategies Key finding 3: Greatest contributors to climate change show 11 limited recognition of emissions responsibility through targets and planning Key finding 4: Empty promises: companies’ capital 12 expenditure in low-carbon technologies not nearly enough Key finding 5:National oil companies: big emissions, 16 little transparency, virtually no accountability Ranking 19 Module Summaries 25 Module 1: Targets 25 Module 2: Material Investment 28 Module 3: Intangible Investment 31 Module 4: Sold Products 32 Module 5: Management 34 Module 6: Supplier Engagement 37 Module 7: Client Engagement 39 Module 8: Policy Engagement 41 Module 9: Business Model 43 CLIMATE AND ENERGY BENCHMARK IN OIL AND GAS - INSIGHTS REPORT 2 Introduction Our world needs a major decarbonisation and energy transformation to WBA’s Climate and Energy Benchmark measures and ranks the world’s prevent the climate crisis we’re facing and meet the Paris Agreement goal 100 most influential oil and gas companies on their low-carbon transition. of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Without urgent climate action, we will The Oil and Gas Benchmark is the first comprehensive assessment experience more extreme weather events, rising sea levels and immense of companies in the oil and gas sector using the International Energy negative impacts on ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Into Our Strategy
    INTEGRATING CLIMATE INTO OUR STRATEGY • 03 MAY 2017 Integrating Climate Into Our Strategy INTEGRATING CLIMATE INTO OUR STRATEGY • 03 CONTENTS Foreword by Patrick Pouyanné, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Total 05 Three Questions for Patricia Barbizet, Lead Independent Director of Total 09 _____________ SHAPING TOMORROW’S ENERGY Interview with Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency 11 The 2°C Objective: Challenges Ahead for Every Form of Energy 12 Carbon Pricing, the Key to Achieving the 2°C Scenario 14 Interview with Erik Solheim, Executive Director of UN Environment 15 Oil and Gas Companies Join Forces 16 Interview with Bill Gates, Breakthrough Energy Ventures 18 _____________ TAKING ACTION TODAY Integrating Climate into Our Strategy 20 An Ambition Consistent with the 2°C Scenario 22 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Down 23% Since 2010 23 Natural Gas, the Key Energy Resource for Fast Climate Action 24 Switching to Natural Gas from Coal for Power Generation 26 Investigating and Strictly Limiting Methane Emissions 27 Providing Affordable Natural Gas 28 CCUS, Critical to Carbon Neutrality 29 A Resilient Portfolio 30 Low-Carbon Businesses to Become the Responsible Energy Major 32 Acquisitions That Exemplify Our Low-Carbon Strategy 33 Accelerating the Solar Energy Transition 34 Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy 35 Saft, Offering Industrial Solutions to the Climate Change Challenge 36 The La Mède Biorefinery, a Responsible Transformation 37 Energy Efficiency: Optimizing Energy Consumption 38 _____________ FOCUS ON TRANSPORTATION Offering a Balanced Response to New Challenges 40 Our Initiatives 42 ______________ OUR FIGURES 45 04 • INTEGRATING CLIMATE INTO OUR STRATEGY Total at a Glance More than 98,109 4 million employees customers served in our at January 31, 2017 service stations each day after the sale of Atotech A Global Energy Leader No.
    [Show full text]
  • 171 Ferc ¶ 61,243 United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    171 FERC ¶ 61,243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Neil Chatterjee, Chairman; Richard Glick, Bernard L. McNamee, and James P. Danly. Betelgeuse Energy, LLC Docket No. RP20-521-000 v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. ORDER ON COMPLAINT (Issued June 18, 2020) On February 13, 2020, Betelgeuse Energy, LLC (Betelgeuse) filed a Complaint objecting to El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.’s (El Paso) rejection of Betelgeuse’s non-conforming bids in two open seasons for capacity under expiring contracts subject to a right of first refusal (ROFR).1 As discussed further below, we deny the Complaint. Background Betelgeuse states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Spica Energy Holdings, LLC, with its principal place of business in Gainesville, Florida. According to Betelgeuse, it is a newly established entity that was formed “to focus on the development 1 In Order No. 636, the Commission amended its regulations to permit pre-granted abandonment of transportation contracts but permitted customers taking service for one year or more at the maximum rate to continue to receive the historical service upon which they had relied by conditioning such pre-granted abandonment on a ROFR for the existing shipper. Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to Regulations Governing Self-Implementing Transportation; and Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial Wellhead Decontrol, Order No. 636, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,939 (1992) (cross-referenced at 59 FERC ¶ 61,030); 18 C.F.R. § 284.221(d) (2019). A pipeline may also offer a ROFR to its customers separately on a non-discriminatory basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Shell QRA Q2 2021
    ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC 2ND QUARTER 2021 AND HALF YEAR UNAUDITED RESULTS SUMMARY OF UNAUDITED RESULTS Quarters $ million Half year Q2 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2020 %¹ Reference 2021 2020 % 3,428 5,660 (18,131) -39 Income/(loss) attributable to shareholders 9,087 (18,155) +150 2,634 4,345 (18,377) -39 CCS earnings attributable to shareholders Note 2 6,980 (15,620) +145 5,534 3,234 638 +71 Adjusted Earnings² A 8,768 3,498 +151 13,507 11,490 8,491 Adjusted EBITDA (CCS basis) A 24,997 20,031 12,617 8,294 2,563 +52 Cash flow from operating activities 20,910 17,415 +20 (2,946) (590) (2,320) Cash flow from investing activities (3,535) (5,039) 9,671 7,704 243 Free cash flow G 17,375 12,376 4,383 3,974 3,617 Cash capital expenditure C 8,357 8,587 8,470 9,436 8,423 -10 Operating expenses F 17,905 17,042 +5 8,505 8,724 7,504 -3 Underlying operating expenses F 17,228 16,105 +7 3.2% (4.7)% (2.9)% ROACE (Net income basis) D 3.2% (2.9)% ROACE on an Adjusted Earnings plus Non- 4.9% 3.0% 5.3% controlling interest (NCI) basis D 4.9% 5.3% 65,735 71,252 77,843 Net debt E 65,735 77,843 27.7% 29.9% 32.7% Gearing E 27.7% 32.7% Total production available for sale (thousand 3,254 3,489 3,379 -7 boe/d) 3,371 3,549 -5 0.44 0.73 (2.33) -40 Basic earnings per share ($) 1.17 (2.33) +150 0.71 0.42 0.08 +69 Adjusted Earnings per share ($) B 1.13 0.45 +151 0.24 0.1735 0.16 +38 Dividend per share ($) 0.4135 0.32 +29 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Statoil Business Update
    Statoil US Onshore Jefferies Global Energy Conference, November 2014 Torstein Hole, Senior Vice President US Onshore competitively positioned 2013 Eagle Ford Operator 2012 Marcellus Operator Williston Bakken 2011 Stamford Bakken Operator Marcellus 2010 Eagle Ford Austin Eagle Ford Houston 2008 Marcellus 1987 Oil trading, New York Statoil Office Statoil Asset 2 Premium portfolio in core plays Bakken • ~ 275 000 net acres, Light tight oil • Concentrated liquids drilling • Production ~ 55 kboepd Eagle Ford • ~ 60 000 net acres, Liquids rich • Liquids ramp-up • Production ~34 koepd Marcellus • ~ 600 000 net acres, Gas • Production ~130 kboepd 3 Shale revolution: just the end of the beginning • Entering mature phase – companies with sustainable, responsible development approach will be the winners • Statoil is taking long term view. Portfolio robust under current and forecast price assumptions. • Continuous, purposeful improvement is key − Technology/engineering − Constant attention to costs 4 Statoil taking operations to the next level • Ensuring our operating model is fit for Onshore Operations • Doing our part to maintain the company’s capex commitments • Leading the way to reduce flaring in Bakken • Not just reducing costs – increasing free cash flow 5 The application of technology Continuous focus on cost, Fast-track identification, Prioritised development of efficiency and optimisation of development & implementation of potential game-changing operations short-term technology upsides technologies SHORT TERM – MEDIUM – LONG TERM • Stage
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas Issues in California
    FYI: Natural Gas Issues in California April 2001 Limits in pipeline and storage capacity threaten to impose an effective ceiling on the amount of natural gas that can get into California, which relies heavily on imported supplies of this energy source to fuel the creation of electricity. Deliberate market manipulation also has been accused of squeezing supplies in the face of rising demand. This paper explores reasons for the wave of price jumps and outlines issues that hinge on the capacity of thousands of miles of pipeline to transport crucial supplies. It also notes other factors, such as patterns in well-drilling, that have played a role in shaping today’s natural gas market. Regional impacts created by these chains of events also are highlighted. We conclude the paper with a series of policy options for addressing these issues. Methods of Delivery and the Rising Use of Natural Gas The way natural gas is delivered to a customer depends on the size of the customer. The largest users of natural gas, called non-core customers by the industry, make their purchases directly from suppliers, marketers and brokers. Some non-core customers take deliveries directly from high-pressure interstate pipelines, bypassing the utility companies that supply other users. Smaller customers – whether residential, commercial, or small industrial users – have the option of procuring natural gas from the utility companies that serve their areas or from suppliers, marketers or brokers. These customers are the core users. Three large and two small investor-owned natural gas utilities do business in California. The big three are Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E).
    [Show full text]
  • Gas Debit/Credit Calculations for Fy 2013
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER GAS DEBIT/CREDIT CALCULATIONS FOR FY 2013 Act Program Cost: 59,361,000 Adj Tot Dtherms: 41,925,103,355 Adj Chg Factor: 0.0014158820 Original Adjusted Company Annual Annual 2013 Company Name Total Charge Charge Debit/Credit Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (310) 598,453,571 854,467 847,340 -7,127 Alliance Pipeline L.P. (493) 653,476,488 933,028 925,246 -7,782 American Midstream (AlaTenn) LLC (199) 16,875,224 24,094 23,893 -201 American Midstream (Midla) LLC (12451) 44,515,010 63,558 63,028 -530 ANR Pipeline Company (12442) 1,522,401,449 2,173,672 2,155,541 -18,131 ANR Storage Company (36155) 14,861,983 21,220 21,043 -177 Arlington Storage Company, LLC (604) 28,843,723 41,183 40,839 -344 Bear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C. (1332) 28,358,133 40,489 40,152 -337 Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC (002443) 34,577,588 49,370 48,958 -412 Bison Pipeline LLC (302) 12,527,770 17,887 17,738 -149 Black Marlin Pipeline Company (1772) 7,508,118 10,720 10,631 -89 Blue Lake Gas Storage Company (1901) 20,868,502 29,796 29,547 -249 Bluewater Gas Storage, LLC (001154) 45,867,865 65,490 64,943 -547 Boardwalk Storage Company, LLC (14444) 9,048,660 12,920 12,812 -108 Bobcat Gas Storage (11144) 37,108,701 52,983 52,542 -441 Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C. (726) 5,501,232 7,855 7,789 -66 Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC (740) 4,357,002 6,221 6,169 -52 Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation (187) 121,925,357 174,084 172,632 -1,452 Centra Pipelines Minnesota Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Oil for As Long As Most Americans Can Remember, Gasoline Has Been the Only Fuel They Buy to Fill up the Cars They Drive
    Fueling a Clean Transportation Future Chapter 2: Gasoline and Oil For as long as most Americans can remember, gasoline has been the only fuel they buy to fill up the cars they drive. However, hidden from view behind the pump, the sources of gasoline have been changing dramatically. Gasoline is produced from crude oil, and over the last two de- cades the sources of this crude have gotten increasingly di- verse, including materials that are as dissimilar as nail polish remover and window putty. These changes have brought rising global warming emissions, but not from car tailpipes. Indeed, tailpipe emissions per mile are falling as cars get more efficient. Rather, it is the extraction and refining of oil that are getting dirtier over time. The easiest-to-extract sources of oil are dwindling, and the oil industry has increasingly shifted its focus to resources that require more energy-intensive extraction or refining methods, resources that were previously too expensive and risky to be developed. These more challenging oils also result Yeulet © iStock.com/Cathy in higher emissions when used to produce gasoline (Gordon 2012). The most obvious way for the United States to reduce the problems caused by oil use is to steadily reduce oil con- sumption through improved efficiency and by shifting to cleaner fuels. But these strategies will take time to fully im- plement. In the meantime, the vast scale of ongoing oil use Heat-trapping emissions from producing transportation fuels such as gasoline are on the rise, particularly emissions released during extracting and refining means that increases in emissions from extracting and refin- processes that occur out of sight, before we even get in the car.
    [Show full text]
  • Mexico's Deep Water Success
    Energy Alert February 1, 2018 Key Points Round 2.4 exceeded expectations by awarding 18 of 29 (62 percent) of available contract areas Biggest winners were Royal Dutch Shell, with nine contract areas, and PC Carigali, with seven contract areas Investments over $100 billion in Mexico’s energy sector expected in the upcoming years Mexico’s Energy Industry Round 2.4: Mexico’s Deep Water Success On January 31, 2018, the Comisión Nacional de Hidrocarburos (“CNH”) completed the Presentation and Opening of Bid Proposals for the Fourth Tender of Round Two (“Round 2.4”), which was first announced on July 20, 2017. Round 2.4 attracted 29 oil and gas companies from around the world including Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Pemex, Lukoil, Qatar Petroleum, Mitsui, Repsol, Statoil and Total, among others. Round 2.4 included 60% of all acreage to be offered by Mexico under the current Five Year Plan. Blocks included 29 deep water contract areas (shown in the adjacent map) with an estimated 4.23 billion Barrel of Oil Equivalent (BOE) of crude oil, wet gas and dry gas located in the Perdido Fold Belt Area, Salinas Basin and Mexican Ridges. The blocks were offered under a license contract, similar to the deep water form used by the CNH in Round 1.4. After witnessing the success that companies like ENI, Talos Energy, Inc., Sierra and Premier have had in Mexico over the last several years, Round 2.4 was the biggest opportunity yet for the industry. Some of these deep water contract areas were particularly appealing because they share geological characteristics with some of the projects in the U.S.
    [Show full text]