-

State-owned oil and natural gas companies, such as Saudi Aramco, Petróleos de Venezuela and China National Petroleum Corp., own 73 percent of the world's oil reserves and 68 percent of its natural gas. They bankroll governments across the globe. Although national oil companies superficially resemble private-sector companies, they often behave in very different ways.

Oil and Governance: State-Owned Enterprises and the World Energy Supply (Cambridge University Press, 2012), a new book commissioned by Stanford University's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, explains the variation in performance and strategy for such state-owned enterprises. The book, which Mark Thurber co-edited and contributed to, also provides fresh insights into the future of the oil industry and the politics of the oil-rich countries where national oil companies dominate.

Though national oil companies have often been the subject of case studies, for the first time multiple case studies followed a common research design, which aided the relative ranking of performance and the evaluation of hypotheses about such companies' performance. Interestingly, some of the worst performing of these operations belong to countries quite unfriendly to the United States. Mark will also discuss the industrial structure of the oil industry, and the politics and administration of national oil companies. One result of the dominance of this structure for oil markets is that high prices often lead to lower supplies and low prices lead to increased production -- the opposite response of private companies.

To view seminar video, click here.

This is apart of the Weekly Energy Seminar series managed by the Precourt Institute for Energy and the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford.

NVIDIA Auditorium, Jen-Hsun Huang Engineering Center

Program on Energy and Sustainable Development
616 Jane Stanford Way
Encina Hall East, Rm E412
Stanford, CA 94305

(650) 724-9709 (650) 724-1717
0
new_mct_headshot_from_jeremy_cropped2.jpg
PhD

Mark C. Thurber is Associate Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development (PESD) at Stanford University, where he studies and teaches about energy and environmental markets and policy. Dr. Thurber has written and edited books and articles on topics including global fossil fuel markets, climate policy, integration of renewable energy into electricity markets, and provision of energy services to low-income populations.

Dr. Thurber co-edited and contributed to Oil and Governance: State-owned Enterprises and the World Energy Supply  (Cambridge University Press, 2012) and The Global Coal Market: Supplying the Major Fuel for Emerging Economies (Cambridge University Press, 2015). He is the author of Coal (Polity Press, 2019) about why coal has thus far remained the preeminent fuel for electricity generation around the world despite its negative impacts on local air quality and the global climate.

Dr. Thurber teaches a course on energy markets and policy at Stanford, in which he runs a game-based simulation of electricity, carbon, and renewable energy markets. With Dr. Frank Wolak, he also conducts game-based workshops for policymakers and regulators. These workshops explore timely policy topics including how to ensure resource adequacy in a world with very high shares of renewable energy generation.

Dr. Thurber has previous experience working in high-tech industry. From 2003-2005, he was an engineering manager at a plant in Guadalajara, México that manufactured hard disk drive heads. He holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University and a B.S.E. from Princeton University.

Associate Director for Research at PESD
Social Science Research Scholar
Mark C. Thurber Speaker
Seminars

Assistant Professor at Carnegie Mellon University

Hamburg Hall Office 3016
H. John Heinz III College
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

412-268-4693
0
Faculty Affiliate at PESD
ajha_photo.jpg
PhD

Akshaya Jha joined PESD in the summer of 2010 and left PESD in the summer of 2015. He is currently an assistant professor of economics and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. His current fields of interest include Energy/Environmental Economics and Industrial Organization, with Econometric theory as a secondary field.


At PESD, Akshaya performed economic analysis regarding the determinants of market interaction in bid-based electricity markets using data from a variety of settings. He is currently examining the effects of output price regulation on input fuel procurement for U.S. electricity generation. In other work with Frank Wolak, he is also quantifying the impacts of financial traders on California's wholesale electricity markets.

He received his Bachelors of Science from Carnegie Mellon University in Economics and Statistics in 2009.

Program on Energy and Sustainable Development
616 Jane Stanford Way
Encina Hall East, 4th Floor
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

0
Social Science Research Scholar
Trevor portrait square 9.18.23.JPG
Ph.D

Trevor L Davis is a Social Science Research Scholar in the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development and the Department of Economics at Stanford University. His research interests include studying the influence of market design on electricity market outcomes. Before coming to Stanford he worked in a macroeconomic forecasting section at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and earned a BA in economics and statistics from the University of Chicago and a MS in statistics from George Washington University.

-

On behalf of PESD, Stanford co-hosts PIE, TomKat, and SIEPR, and external sponsors Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and the Kauffman Foundation, convened an all-day conference on September 15 on “Transmission Policies to Unlock America’s Renewable Energy Resources”   
   
The traditional transmission paradigm was well-adapted to fossil fuel plants built near cities and operated by vertically-integrated utilities.  We need a whole new transmission paradigm to realize the potential of intermittent wind and solar generation in today’s wholesale markets.  
   
The conference sessions (see Agenda) focused on different aspects of what this new paradigm will have to look like, focusing on the Western region.  How can markets for renewable energy credits help drive transmission policy?  Who will pay for new transmission that straddles state lines and service areas?  How can environmental impacts be weighed without bogging down transmission planning?  
   
Our distinguished speakers and discussants have many years of experience working on precisely these issues from the academic, industry, nonprofit, and government perspectives.  This event brought new insights into how to move forward on transmission in the West, and we thank everyone who participated.

 

For conference photos, click here

Opening remarks by Frank Wolak, Director, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development

 

Session 1: The Paradigm Shift in the Role of the Transmission Network

Speaker—Lorenzo Kristov, Principle, Market and Infrastructure Policy, California Independent System Operator (ISO)

Discussants: James Bushnell, Associate Professor, UC Davis Department of Economics and Udi Helman, Director, Economic and Pricing Analysis, BrightSource Energy

 

Session 2: Policy Tools for Meeting Renewable Energy Goals

Speaker—Harry Singh, Vice President, Goldman Sachs

Discussants: Sydney Berwager, Director, Strategy Integration, Bonneville Power Administration and Julie Fitch, Director, Energy Division, California Public Utilities Commission

 

Session 3: Developing a Regional Transmission Planning Process

Speaker—Brad Nickell, Director of Transportation Expansion Planning Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Discussants: Scott Cauchois, Transmission Expansion Planning Policy committee Chair, Western Electricity Coordinating Counsil and Rebecca Wagner, Commissioner, Nevada Public Utilities Commission

 

Session 4: Paying for Transmission

Speaker—Douglas Kimmelman, Senior Partner, Energy Capital Partners and Perry Cole, Managing Director, Energy Captial Partners

Discussants: Michael Hindus, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and Darrel Thorson, VP, Business Development North America, BP Wind Energy

 

Session 5: Environmental Impacts of Transmission Siting

Speaker—Sean Gallagher, Managing Director, Government and Regulatory Affairs, K Road Power

Discussants: Julia Souder, Project Development Manager, Clean Line Energy Partners and Carl Zichella, Director of Western Transmission, Natural Resources Defense Council

 

Session 6: Lessons for Transmission Planning and Pricing   
from Other Jurisdictions

Speaker—Benjamin Hobbs, Director, Environment, Energy, Sustainability,  
and Health Institute, Johns Hopkins University

Discussants: Cristian Munoz, Engineer, AES Gener, Santiago, Chile and  
Alex Papalexopoulos, President and CEO, ECCO International, Inc.

 

Koret-Taube Conference Center
366 Galvez Street
Stanford University

Conferences
Authors
Frank Wolak
Frank Wolak
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

Any mention of climate policy was noticeably missing from President Obama's recent state of the union address. This is unfortunate because every day of inaction on climate policy by the United States government is another day that American consumers must pay substantially higher prices for products derived from crude oil, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. Moreover, a substantial fraction of the revenues from these higher prices goes to governments of countries that the US would prefer not to support.

So, what is the cost of a single day of delay? US crude oil consumption is approximately 20m barrels per day and roughly 12m barrels per day are imported. An oil price that, because of climate policy uncertainty, is $20 a barrel higher than it would otherwise have been implies that US consumers pay $400m per day more, of which $240m per day is paid to foreign oil producers. Dividing these figures by the United States population implies that every US citizen is paying about $1 per day more for oil - and more than half of that may be going to an unfriendly foreign government.

Why does this climate policy price premium exist? It is not due to a dearth of readily available technologies for producing substitutes for conventional oil. A number currently exist that are economic at oil prices significantly below current world prices of $80-90 per barrel. Several even have the potential to scale up to replace a large fraction of US oil consumption.

Tar sands and heavy oils, gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids are all available to produce substantial amounts of conventional oil substitutes at average costs at or below $60 per barrel. If these technologies were currently in place throughout the US, the world price of oil would not exceed that price, because any attempt by conventional oil suppliers to raise prices beyond that level would immediately be met by additional supply from producers of oil substitutes.

But if these technologies are financially viable at current world oil prices, then why don't they exist in the US? That's because they require massive up-front expenditures to construct the necessary production facilities. These fixed costs, plus the variable costs of production, must be recovered from sales over the lifetime of the project - and future climate policy can substantially increase the variable costs of these technologies.

Climate policy uncertainty impacts of the economic viability of these technologies because of the increased carbon intensity of the gasoline and diesel fuel substitutes they produce. Almost double the greenhouse gas emissions result per unit of useful energy produced and consumed relative to conventional oil. Therefore, if the US decided to set a significant price for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at some future date, either through a cap-and-trade mechanism or carbon fee, investors in these technologies would immediately realise a massive loss - because they would have to pay the price fixed for all of the CO2 emissions that result from producing and consuming these oil substitutes.

To understand this point, suppose that a technology exists to convert coal to an oil substitute that is financially viable at an oil price of $60 per barrel and that this technology produces double the CO2 per unit of useful energy relative to oil. At a $90 per barrel oil price, this technology could be unprofitable for a modest price of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions because of its substantially higher carbon intensity. For instance, at a $100 per ton price of CO2 emissions - which is roughly twice the highest price observed in the European Union's emissions permit trading scheme - the total cost per barrel of oil equivalent, including the cost of the additional emissions, could easily exceed $90 per barrel.

A solution to this investment impasse is a stable, predictable price of carbon into the distant future. Although there is currently a regional cap and trade mechanism for CO2 emissions in the Northeast US, permit prices in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) have been extremely modest - less than $5 per ton of CO2. California also plans to implement a cap-and-trade mechanism in 2012. No significant coal-mining activity takes place in the participating RGGI states or in California. But such regional cap-and-trade programmes are unlikely to set prices for CO2 emissions for a long enough time and with sufficient certainty to encourage investment in facilities to produce conventional oil substitutes. In other words, despite regional experiments with cap-and-trade, it is the national climate policy uncertainty that remains the major factor in preventing these investments.

If prospective investors in the major fossil fuel-producing regions of the US knew the cost of the CO2 emissions associated with these alternative technologies over the lifetime of each alternative fuel project, they would be able to decide which projects are likely to be financially viable at that carbon price. Particularly for coal-to-liquids, much of this investment would take place in the US because of the massive amount of available domestic coal reserves. This investment would also provide much-needed new domestic high-wage jobs.

New sources of supply of conventional oil substitutes would reduce oil prices, create new jobs in the United States and reduce the amount of money sent to governments, whose interests are counter to the US. Finally, this price of carbon would raise much-needed revenues for the US government and stimulate investment in lower carbon energy sources, such as wind, solar and biofuels. A modest, yet stable long-term price of carbon might even stimulate so much investment in conventional oil substitutes and low-carbon energy sources that the long-term net effect of this carbon price could be lower average energy prices across all sources.

The investments in these technologies need not result in higher aggregate CO2 emissions. For example, coal-to-liquids produces a concentrated CO2 emissions stream that is ideally suited to the deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. Consequently, a carbon price high enough to make CCS financially viable, yet reasonable enough to make this technology competitive with conventional oil, would address both concerns.

If there are concerns that committing to a modest carbon price may be insufficient to address climate concerns, this commitment could be stipulated only for investment projects initiated within a certain time window. The US government could reserve the right to increase this CO2 emissions price for projects initiated after that period. This logic has not escaped the Chinese government, where General Electric and Shenhua, a major Chinese coal producer, recently announced a joint coal gasification project, which is financially viable because the Chinese government can provide the necessary climate policy certainty.

The choice is stark: either we can continue to wait to implement the perfect climate policy, and in the meantime pay higher prices for oil, and watch countries like China that are able to provide climate policy certainty to investors move forward with this new industrial development; or we could commit to a modest climate policy and so unleash the new technologies and new jobs made possible by this more favourable investment environment.

All News button
1
Subscribe to United States