Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth. Michael J. Economides, PhD Professor, University of Houston and Philip E. Lewis, P.E.

Transcription

1 Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Michael J. Economides, PhD Professor, University of Houston and Philip E. Lewis, P.E. Consultant March 26, 2012

2 Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth March 2012 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary Data and Interpretation Texas Power Generation Environmental Advantages of Natural Gas Impact of Natural Gas Products and Liquids on Texas Conclusion Appendix: References Figures Figure 1. Sources of U.S. power generation...2 Figure 2. Sources of Texas power generation compared to national trends...3 Figure 3. Criteria pollutant emissions: coal vs. natural gas...7 Figure 4. Mercury emissions: coal vs. natural gas...7 Figure 5. CO 2 emissions: coal vs. natural gas...8 Figure 6. Water consumption and discharge: coal vs. natural gas...9 Figure 7. Value of final products produced from natural gas Figure 8. Value of final products plus associated liquids produced from natural gas Tables Table 1. Direct cost of energy imports to Texas...4 Table 2. Total impact on Texas economy...4 Table 3. Increase in out-of-state coal imports...4 Table 4. Contribution of natural gas production tax to Texas state tax revenue, 2011,...5 Table 5. Value of In-state natural gas to Texas school districts...5 Table 6. Annual emissions and water consumption of a 550 MW power plant...8 Table 7. Annual water consumption of a 550 MW power plant...9 Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page i

3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Texas is the nation s top producer of natural gas an industry that provides nearly 1.3 million jobs and $60 billion in labor income to our economy annually. In spite of this tremendous resource and the economic benefits derived from local resources, Texas use of natural gas in power generation has been decreasing slowly, but steadily, displaced by coal imported from out-of-state. Given how tightly integrated natural gas producing and natural gas consuming industries are to the Texas economy, this decrease in natural gas use translates to significant losses of revenue for the state across both private and public sectors. The decreased reliance on natural gas for Texas electric power generation is counter to national trends. During the past two decades, natural gas has increasingly become the preferred fuel for electric power generation in the United States and concurrently, the U.S. has seen a significant reduction in coal use as an electric power generation fuel source. Until 2005, both national and Texas trends were in step, both showing increased use of natural gas. The divergence between national and Texas natural gas usage trends during the period results in exceedingly large volumes of natural gas remaining in the ground which could have been deployed in the Texas electric generation market. Since virtually all natural gas used to generate electricity in Texas would be produced in state, the divergence between actual usage in Texas and the national trend represents a loss of more than $7.7 billion in potential revenue for the state between 2005 and In 2011 alone, the annual loss was $2.5 billion. The annual loss has been growing each year and will continue to accelerate in future years unless current trends are reversed. The fiscal loss is further compounded considering the additional loss of probable reinvestment into further development of Texas abundant natural gas resources and associated infrastructure. The vast majority of funds expended on exploration, drilling, production, treatment, and transportation of Texas natural gas will be expended within Texas, generating jobs and ancillary economic activities. This includes leasehold improvements (such as roads), production royalties (to mineral owners), severance taxes (to state and local governments), sales taxes, local property taxes, exploration expenses, drilling and well service activities, operations and maintenance and return on investment, all of which are largely expended in Texas and to the benefit of Texans. Unfortunately, other fuels used to produce electricity in Texas provide little added benefits to the state as a tax base, economic development engine, or job creator. The goal of this article is to compare the economic benefits of electric power generation fuels on both state and local levels. This paper will also examine the additional value created from gas natural gas products that produce wealth for Texas far beyond the natural gas wellhead value. The following natural gas products are considered: 1) As chemical feedstock, 2) As fuel for electric power generation, 3) As export to other jurisdictions either by pipeline or as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and 4) In its traditional role as in-state commercial and residential space and water heating fuel. Finally, the value of natural gas liquids is also considered, which on average approaches the wellhead value of gas itself, providing yet another source of Texas wealth from natural gas production. Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 1

4 Percentage of Mix: Generation 2. DATA AND INTERPRETATION This paper compares three power generation energy sources: coal, natural gas, and wind. 1 Natural gas and coal have been included because they are the largest two sources of fuel used for electric generation. Wind has been included because of its mandated preference and increased use in the Texas marketplace. All three fuels can currently make an impact by generating large amounts of electricity in both the short and medium term. Figure 1 2, shows each fuel s contribution to the power generation mix. Note that nuclear has been excluded based on its very long lead times for new power generation, prohibitive capital requirements, and regulatory uncertainties. Nuclear cannot make a significant contribution to meet increased power generation demands over the short and medium term. This is the only major fuel not conconsidered in this study. These remaining fuels are small contributors to the power mix, and therefore, are not reviewed here: Petroleum liquids, based on high perunit energy cost and presumed preference as transportation fuels and chemical feedstocks only Hydroelectric power, based on its maturity and limited opportunity for expansion throughout the Texas. Solar and other sources, which simply begin from too small of a base to make a significant impact in the short and medium term The data demonstrate that in the national trend, natural gas gained about 1.3 points of market share per year compared to the mix of coal and renewables. Figure 1. Sources of U.S. power generation 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Coal Natural Gas Coal losing 1.8 mix share points per year Wind Gas gaining 1.3 mix share points per year Wind gaining 0.6 mix share points per year 0% Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 2

5 Percentage of Mix: Generation 3. TEXAS POWER GENERATION Texas and the United States saw a moderate increase in natural gas-fueled power generation during Since then, the national trend has continued, while the state s trend began to diverge (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Since 2005, Texas has seen flat to declining market share for natural gas-fueled power generation. Figure 2 also shows the relationship between the national trend and the Texas fuel mix. The figure shows a substantial reduction (over 1 Tcf as indicated by Table 1) in the volume of Texas natural gas used for electric power generation compared to what would have been consumed had Texas followed the national trend. Table 1 and Table 2 respectively show the direct and total impacts of the natural gas loss to Texas and the divergence between actual natural gas used versus the national trend, based on several conservative estimates. This total loss to Texas was more than $7.7 billion to the Texas economy for the period and $2.5 billion for 2011 alone. The loss can be expected to grow larger each year unless current trends are reversed. Wages lost in 2011 were $530 million and $1.65 billion over the period Most importantly, 8600 long-term Texas jobs in the natural gas industry have been forfeited to coal imported from out-of-state. Figure 2. Sources of Texas power generation compared to national trends 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Natural Gas Coal Wind National Trends 0% Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 3

6 The total (i.e., both direct and indirect) lost economic activity may be estimated by economic multipliers estimated for the Texas oil & gas industry by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Table 1. Direct cost of energy imports to Texas Total lost gas-fired generation Assumed gas-fired efficiency Gas volume required Assumed gas price Direct lost revenue ( ) Annual direct lost revenue (2011) 157 TW-hr 45% % 1191 Bcf 3.50 $/Mcf 4.17 $ billion 1.34 $billion/yr As shown in Table 3, the majority of coal used in Texas for power generation is imported from other states. While the mining of coal certainly provides economic development in those states, importing it as a substitute for Texas natural gas does little for economic development or job creation in Texas. Texas employment will continue to suffer to the benefit of coal-exporting states if it continues on its current divergent trend. Further, Table 3 shows an increasing reliance on out-of-state coal rising from 54 to 64% over the period This increased use of out-of-state coal as an electric power generation fuel also impacts Texas coal jobs. In fact, Texas jobs in the coalmining sector continue to decline each year as total coal imports increase and shift employment to coal exporting states. Table 2. Total impact on Texas economy Multiplier 3 Lost Annual, 2011 Total, Revenue, $B Wages, $B per $M Employment 8,602 Table 3. Increase in out-of-state coal imports 4 Year Total Consumption for Power Generation (million tons) Texas Total Annual Production (million tons) 5 Imported from Out-of- State (million tons) Out-of-State Portion (%) % % % % % % Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 4

7 Table 4. Contribution of natural gas production tax to Texas state tax revenue, 2011, 6 Tax Collections By Major Tax Amount Percent of Total Percent Change from 2010 Natural Gas Production Tax 1,109,718, Table 5. Value of In-state natural gas to Texas school districts 7, 8 Natural Gas & Oil Total ISDs 9 ISDs with Leases Median Market Value Added to ISDs Average Market Value Added to ISDs Median Taxes Paid to Local ISDs 10 Average Taxes Paid to Local ISDs $16,642,610 $110,412,549 $201,376 $1,356,365 Hard Minerals (Includes: Lignite, Industrial Minerals [limestone, gravel, sulfur, etc.] & Uranium) Total ISDs9 ISDs with Properties Median Market Value Added to ISDs Average Market Value Added to ISDs Median Taxes Paid to Local ISDs Average Taxes Paid to Local ISDs $778,150 $2,294,787 $9,416 $28,190 In addition to the impact in the private sector, fuel choice for power generation has a major impact on government revenues and services. Table 4 shows the importance of the natural gas production tax, contributing over one billion dollars and nearly 3% of state tax revenues in In addition to revenues lost to the state budget, reducing the amount of Texas natural gas used for electric power generation also has local impacts. Community hospitals, emergency services districts, and Independent School Districts (ISDs), all receive benefits from Texas natural gas. Specifically, of the 1014 ISDs across Texas, more than 75% receive ad valorem revenue from the production of natural gas. The average overall value added to local taxing entities from the operations of gas and oil is greater than $1.35 million per ISD. See Table 5 for more detailed information. In comparison, the average tax base added to local entities from Texas hard minerals (such as coal) is about $28 thousand per ISD, 1/50 th of the contribution of natural gas. Information about property tax valuation for wind generation projects is limited. Most of the wind projects developed in Texas have received property tax abatements from local governments and school districts. These special property tax deals usually last for 10 years, so it is likely that the local benefits of these facilities will begin to improve as property tax breaks eventually expire. Until then, however, the wind projects will have minimal positive impact on local tax collections. However, increasing use of wind power may well have a negative impact on government revenues. High voltage lines known as Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) lines will run from far West Texas through the Hill Country and Big Country to bring power to the ERCOT system. The lines will condemn hundreds of miles of land and have transmission right-of-way as wide as one hundred yards in some areas. As these lines are built, thousands of temporary Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 5

8 construction jobs will be created by the industry. However, local employment opportunities will be minimal as regional and national scale contractors and construction firms are likely to receive contracts to develop the infrastructure. Nevertheless, local communities will see a shortterm increase in local sales and lodging taxes and local business activity at shops and restaurants. Unfortunately, the development of CREZ lines will likely prove to be a net negative on local valuations for property tax purposes. These lines will be public/private partnerships and exempt from local property collections. Local governments and school districts will see hundreds of acres removed from their tax valuation roles. Further, the value of the adjoining land in the scenic hill country or historic cattle ranching areas of Texas will likely decline as the transmission lines cut through the various properties. Losses to the local school districts will probably have to be offset through increased state funds or result in a lower amount of local funds being transferred to the state for offsets in other districts. Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 6

9 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVANTAGES OF NATURAL GAS Figure 3 through Figure 5 and Table 6 show that the environmental benefits of natural gas far outweigh other fossil fuels. Of the criteria pollutants, a natural gas combined cycle plant ( NGCC ) emits virtually zero sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and particulates, while nitrogen oxides (NO x ) emissions are about 1/10 that of current technology coal-fired power plants ( Subcritical and Supercritical PC [pulverized coal] (see Figure 3). Figure 4 shows that mercury (Hg) emissions are practically zero for NGCC. Figure 4. Mercury emissions: coal vs. natural gas 11 Figure 3. Criteria pollutant emissions: coal vs. natural gas 11 Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 7

10 Figure 5 shows that CO 2 emission for NGCC a less than half that of pulverized coal power plants. Figure 5. CO2 emissions: coal vs. natural gas 11 Table 6. Annual emissions of a 550 MW power plant Emission / Consumption Subcritical PC Supercritical PC NGCC SO2, lb/yr 3,422,000 3,204, ,000 NOx, lb/yr 2,818,000 2,639, ,900 Particulates, lb/yr 523, ,000 - Hg, lb/yr CO2, lb/yr 8,192,000,000 7,672,000,000 3,520,000,000 Table 6 was calculated from data provided in reference 11. Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 8

11 Figure 6and Table 7 show that water consumption for the latest generation coal-fired power plant technology is more than twice as much as that for a natural gas-fired generation plant. The amount of water used by Texas older, less efficient fleet of plants can be more than three times the amount of water used by a natural gas plant. Figure 6. Water consumption and discharge: coal vs. natural gas 11 Table 7. Annual water consumption of a 550 MW power plant Emission / Consumption Subcritical PC Supercritical PC NGCC Raw water withdrawal, gal/yr 3,095,000,000 2,806,000,000 1,255,000,000 Process discharge, gal/yr 578,600, ,600, ,700,000 Raw water consumption, gal/yr 2,459,000,000 2,227,000, ,300,000 Table 6 was calculated from data provided in reference 11 Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 9

12 $/mcf 5. IMPACT OF NATURAL GAS PRODUCTS AND LIQUIDS ON TEXAS Unlike coal and wind energy sources, natural gas provides substantial benefits to the Texas economy beyond power generation. Natural gas has four primary applications, namely: 1) As chemical feedstock, 2) As fuel for electric power generation, 3) As export to other jurisdictions either by pipeline or as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and 4) Its traditional role as in-state commercial and residential space and water heating fuel. The value added by these sectors of the Texas economy has been estimated using a calculation basis of 1 Mcf. The values ascribed to these different applications are straightforward and are given in Figure 7. For every million cubic feet of Texas dry gas brought to market about 53 barrels of lease condensate plus natural gas liquids are also sold. These liquids tend to track crude oil prices and can be expected to sell at similar prices. Assuming $100/bbl for the liquids price, Texas gas production comes with an average bonus of $5.33 / Mcf at current pricing. Figure 8 shows the impact of associated liquids production on the total value of the products produced from natural gas. Figure 7. Value of final products produced from natural gas $14.93 $12.32 $7.36 $7.53 Electricity value is taken from the 2010 retail electricity prices in Texas 12 ($0.0934/kw-hr) assuming 45% conversion efficiency. Chemical feedstock value is taken from current methanol prices 13 LNG value is taken from average 2010 Texas industrial price for natural gas ($4.61/Mcf) 14, plus estimated cost of liquefaction ($2.50/Mcf). Natural gas fuel charge taken from residential Centerpoint Houston bill December 2011 bill. Chemical Feedstock Electricity LNG Heating Economic multipliers as shown for the wellhead value of natural gas in Table 2 applied to natural gas based electrical generation and chemical production would generate truly astonishing returns for the state of Texas and its residents. Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 10

13 $/mcf Figure 8. Value of final products plus associated liquids produced from natural gas $20.26 $17.65 Value of Associated Natural Gas Liquids $12.69 $12.86 Chemical Feedstock Electricity LNG Heating Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 11

14 6. CONCLUSION The natural gas industry in Texas is far more important than the mere wellhead value of the commodity. Messing with natural gas as a power generating fuel has a far larger impact than the mere replacement cost by other fuels. The foregoing analysis has shown that the displacement of natural gas by wind and coal has cost the Texas economy over $7.7 billion over recent years. Coal and wind provide the only competition to natural gas for new electric power generation in the state of Texas. The only current and foreseeable applications for coal and wind are for power only; the potential for these fuels to be applied to the multiple uses of natural gas is minimal. Natural gas produced in Texas generates a substantially higher added value than either coal or wind in a number of important sectors. These include fuel for electric power generation, in both steam and gas turbines in combined cycle power plants, as a chemical feedstock, as export to other jurisdictions either by pipeline or as liquefied natural gas and in-state commercial and residential space and water heating. The associated hydrocarbon liquids produced along with natural gas are as valuable as the gas itself. All of these sectors generate very large capital expenditures and especially jobs, not only in the oil and gas extraction, but also throughout the Texas economy. This is hardly surprising since only about $4 of each $12 value of electricity generated in Texas is spent at the wellhead; the remainder is largely for capital and operations of the conversion facility and return on investment, all largely remaining in Texas. Natural gas supports nearly 1.3 million jobs and provides $60 billion in Texas labor income annually 15. The energy source produces significantly lower emissions and uses much less water than coal in power generation. The economic and environmental benefits derived from this abundant local resource are not being fully realized in Texas, and in fact, utilization of natural gas in power generation has diminished. Given natural gas-producing and consuming industries pivotal contributions to the Texas state economy, continued reduction in the use of natural gas will come at the state s economic and environmental peril. Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 12

15 7. APPENDIX: REFERENCES data from 2010 Electric Power Annual, State Data Tables; 2011 data estimated from January 2012 Electric Power Monthly, Energy Information Administration 2 Energy Information Administration 3 Regional Input-Output Modeling System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Energy Information Administration 5 As reported to the Texas Railroad Commission 6 Texas Comptroller s Office, 7 Values do not include ISDs without Natural Gas & Oil or Hard Mineral Leases or Property 8 Texas Comptroller s Office 9 This total does not include various state schools such as the Giddings State School and the Texas School for the Deaf 10 Median ISD property tax is $1.21 per $100 valuation. Average ISD property tax is $1.23 per $100 valuation 11 Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity Revision 2, November 2010, DOE/NETL-2010/ EIA: 13 Methanex: 14 EIA: I H S Global Insight The Contributions of the Natural Gas Industry to the U.S. National and State Economies. Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth Page 13