Saturday, April 28, 2018

How Oman's Rocks Could Help Save the Planet By Henry Fountain

IBRA, Oman — In the arid vastness of this corner of the Arabian Peninsula, out where goats and the occasional camel roam, rocks form the backdrop practically every way you look.

But the stark outcrops and craggy ridges are more than just scenery. Some of these rocks are hard at work, naturally reacting with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turning it into stone.

Veins of white carbonate minerals run through slabs of dark rock like fat marbling a steak. Carbonate surrounds pebbles and cobbles, turning ordinary gravel into natural mosaics.

Even pooled spring water that has bubbled up through the rocks reacts with CO2 to produce an ice-like crust of carbonate that, if broken, re-forms within days.

Scientists say that if this natural process, called carbon mineralization, could be harnessed, accelerated and applied inexpensively on a huge scale — admittedly some very big “ifs” — it could help fight climate change. Rocks could remove some of the billions of tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide that humans have pumped into the air since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

And by turning that CO2 into stone, the rocks in Oman — or in a number of other places around the world that have similar geological formations — would ensure that the gas stayed out of the atmosphere forever.

“Solid carbonate minerals aren’t going anyplace,” said Peter B. Kelemen, a geologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who has been studying the rocks here for more than two decades.

Capturing and storing carbon dioxide is drawing increased interest. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that deploying such technology is essential to efforts to rein in global warming. But the idea has barely caught on: There are fewer than 20 large-scale projects in operation around the world, and they remove CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels at power plants or from other industrial processes and store it as gas underground.

What Dr. Kelemen and others have in mind is removing carbon dioxide that is already in the air, to halt or reverse the gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Direct-air capture, as it is known, is sometimes described as a form of geoengineering — deliberate manipulation of the climate — although that term is more often reserved for the idea of reducing warming by reflecting more sunlight away from the earth.

Although many researchers dismiss direct-air capture as logistically or economically impractical, especially given the billions of tons of gas that would have to be removed to have an impact, some say it may have to be considered if other efforts to counter global warming are ineffective.

A few researchers and companies have built machines that can pull CO2 out of the air, in relatively small quantities, but adapting and enhancing natural capture processes using rocks is less developed.
“This one still feels like the most nascent piece of the conversation,” said Noah Deich, executive director of the Center for Carbon Removal, a research organization in Berkeley, Calif. “You see these sparks, but I don’t see anything catching fire yet.”


Dr. Kelemen is one of a relative handful of researchers around the world who are studying the idea. At a geothermal power plant in Iceland, after several years of experimentation, an energy company is currently injecting modest amounts of carbon dioxide into volcanic rock, where it becomes mineralized. Dutch researchers have suggested spreading a kind of crushed rock along coastlines to capture CO2. And scientists in Canada and South Africa are studying ways to use mine wastes, called tailings, to do the same thing.

“It’s clear that we’re going to have to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,” said Roger Aines, who leads the development of carbon management technologies at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and has worked with Dr. Kelemen and others. “And we’re going to have to do it on a gigaton scale.”

If billions of tons of CO2 are to be turned to stone, there are few places in the world more suitable than Oman, a sultanate with a population of 4 million and an economy based on oil and, increasingly, tourism.

The carbon-capturing formations here, consisting largely of a rock called peridotite, are in a slice of oceanic crust and the mantle layer below it that was thrust up on land by tectonic forces nearly 100 million years ago. Erosion has resulted in a patchy zone about 200 miles long, up to 25 miles wide and several miles thick in the northern part of the country, including here in the outskirts of Ibra, a dusty inland city of 50,000. Even the bustling capital, Muscat, on the Gulf of Oman, has a pocket of peridotite practically overlooking Sultan Qaboos bin Said’s palace.

Peridotite normally is miles below the earth’s surface. When the rocks are exposed to air or water as they are here, Dr. Kelemen said, they are like a giant battery with a lot of chemical potential. “They’re really, really far from equilibrium with the atmosphere and surface water,” he said.


The rocks are so extensive, Dr. Kelemen said, that if it was somehow possible to fully use them they could store hundreds of years of CO2 emissions. More realistically, he said, Oman could store at least a billion tons of CO2 annually. (Current yearly worldwide emissions are close to 40 billion tons.)
While the formations here are special, they are not unique. Similar though smaller ones are found in Northern California, Papua New Guinea and Albania, among other places.

Dr. Kelemen first came to Oman in the 1990s, as the thrust-up rocks were one of the best sites in the world to study what was then his area of research, the formation and structure of the earth’s crust. He’d noticed the carbonate veins but thought they must be millions of years old.

“There was a feeling that carbon mineralization was really slow and not worth thinking about,” he said.

But in 2007, he had some of the carbonate dated. Almost all of it was less than 50,000 years old, suggesting that the mineralization process was actually much faster.

“So then I said, O.K., this is pretty cool,” Dr. Kelemen said.

 Since then, in addition to continuing his crust research, he has spent much time studying the prospects for harnessing the mineralization process — among other things, learning about the water chemistry, which changes as it flows through the rocks, and measuring the actual uptake of CO2 from the air in certain spots.

For much of this decade he has also led a multinational effort to drill boreholes in the rock, a $4 million project that is only partly related to carbon capture. In March the drilling was nearing completion, with scientists and technicians sending instruments down the holes, which are up to 1,300 feet deep, to better characterize the rock layers.

The rocks here may be capable of capturing a lot of carbon dioxide, but the challenge is doing it much faster than nature, in huge amounts and at low enough cost to make it more than a pipe dream. Dr. Kelemen and his colleagues, including Juerg Matter, a researcher from the University of Southampton in England who was involved in the Icelandic project, have some ideas.

One possibility, Dr. Kelemen said, would be to drill pairs of wells and pump water with dissolved CO2 into one of them. As the water traveled through the rock formation carbonate would form; when it reached the other well the water, now depleted of CO2, would be pumped out. The process could be repeated over and over.

There is a lot that is unknown about such an approach, however. For one thing, while pumping water deep into the earth, where temperatures and pressures are higher, could make the process of mineralization go tens of thousands of times faster, so much carbonate might form that the water flow would stop. “You might clog everything up, and it would all come to a screeching halt,” Dr. Kelemen said.

Experiments and eventually pilot projects are needed to better understand and optimize this process and others, Dr. Kelemen said, but so far Omani officials have been reluctant to grant the necessary permits. The researchers may need to go elsewhere, like California, where the rocks are less accessible but the state government has set ambitious targets for reducing emissions and is open to new ways to meet them.

Dr. Kelemen and Dr. Aines have had preliminary discussions with California officials about the possibility of experimenting there. “We would certainly be a willing and eager partner to help them with it,” said David Bunn, director of the State Department of Conservation.

Perhaps the simplest way to use rocks to capture carbon dioxide would be to quarry large amounts of them, grind them into fine particles and spread them out to expose them to the air. The material could be turned over from time to time to expose fresh surfaces, or perhaps air with a higher CO2 concentration could be pumped into it to speed up the process.

But a quarrying and grinding operation of the scale required would be hugely expensive, scar the landscape and produce enormous CO2 emissions of its own. So a few researchers are asking, Why not use rocks that have already been quarried and ground up for other purposes?


Such rocks are found in large amounts at mines around the world, as waste tailings. Platinum, nickel and diamonds, in particular, are mined from rock that has a lot of carbon-mineralization potential.

Gregory Dipple, a researcher at the University of British Columbia who has been studying mine tailings for more than a decade, said early on he found evidence that waste rock was forming carbonate without any human intervention. “It was clear it was taking CO2 from the air,” he said.

Dr. Dipple is now working with several mining companies and studying ways to improve upon the natural process. The goal would be to capture at least enough CO2 to fully offset a mine’s carbon emissions, which typically come from trucks and on-site power generation.

Evelyn Mervine, who has worked with Dr. Dipple and Dr. Kelemen and now works for De Beers, the world’s largest diamond company, is studying a similar approach and hopes by next year to conduct trials at one or more of the company’s mines.

“We don’t think from a scientific perspective it would be that difficult or expensive — we can be carbon-neutral,” she said. “And in the mining industry that is extraordinary.”

“Relative to the global problem, it’s really just a drop in the bucket,” Dr. Mervine said. “But it sets a really good precedent.”


Correction April 27, 2018
An earlier version of this article described incorrectly the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. While it accounts for four-fifths of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, it is not the most prevalent heat-trapping gas. Water vapor is more abundant.

 NYT




Friday, April 27, 2018

Hints of Human Evolution in Chimpanzees That Endure a Savanna’s Heat

Nine years later, Erin Wessling can still remember the first time she visited Fongoli, a savanna in southeast Senegal.

“You feel like you walk into an oven,” she said.

Temperatures at Fongoli can reach 110 degrees Fahrenheit or more. During every dry season, brush fires sweep across the parched landscape, leaving behind leafless trees and baked, orange soil.
“It’s really nuts,” said Ms. Wessling, now a graduate student at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Yet Ms. Wessling and her colleagues keep coming back to Fongoli, despite the harsh conditions. That’s because it’s home to some remarkable residents: chimpanzees.

Continue reading the main story


To study them, scientists have mostly traveled to African rain forests and woodlands, where the apes live in dense groups. The sparse populations of chimpanzees that live on savannas in western and central Africa are far less understood.

Ms. Wessling and her colleagues think there are important lessons to be learned from chimps like the ones at Fongoli.

Because they are our closest living relatives, they may even tell us something about our own deep history. Millions of years ago, our apelike ancestors gradually moved from woodlands to savannas and began walking upright at some point. The Fongoli chimpanzees demonstrate just how difficult that transition would have been — and how that challenge may have driven some major changes in our evolution, from evolving sweat glands to losing fur and walking upright.

Photo
The Fongoli chimpanzees offer evidence of how stressful it can be to cope with the intense heat of a savanna, rather than the forest. They don’t roam far from water sources and shift some of their hunts for food to nighttime. Credit Frans Lanting/lanting.com
The savanna became the subject of long-term research in 2000, when Ms. Wessling’s undergraduate adviser at Iowa State University, Jill D. Pruetz, first paid a visit.

Surveying Fongoli, Dr. Pruetz decided it would be a good place to observe the differences between chimpanzee life on a savanna compared to forests. In forests, for example, chimpanzees typically thrive on a diet of ripe fruit. That’s a rare treat on a savanna.
But Dr. Pruetz could not simply settle down right away and watch the chimpanzees. At first, the sight of her frightened them off. So Dr. Pruetz and her colleagues let the apes grow accustomed to their company. That alone took four years.

At last, in 2004, Dr. Pruetz and her colleagues could follow the chimpanzees from dawn to dusk. “You just have to drink water all day,” said Dr. Pruetz, now a professor at Texas State University.

The team gradually built up a catalog of strange behaviors — ones rarely if ever seen in others. Forest chimpanzees get enough water from the fruit in their diet so they need less drinking water and can wander in search of food. The Fongoli chimps, by contrast, required daily drinking water and anchored themselves to reliable water sources in the arid landscape.

And while forest chimpanzees are active throughout the day, Dr. Pruetz found that the savanna chimpanzees rest for five to seven hours. Dr. Pruetz could often find them lurking in small caves in the dry season, and when the rainy season arrived, the chimpanzees would slip into newly formed ponds and bob there for hours.

Forest chimpanzees typically spend all night in nests they build in trees. But at Fongoli, the research team noticed that the chimpanzees often made a late-night racket.

Staying up all night to watch them, Dr. Pruetz discovered that they spent hours after sundown searching for food. “It might as well have been a daytime scene,” she said.

Photo
Erin Wessling with a Fongoli chimp. By gathering chimpanzee urine, she and her colleagues were able to determine how difficult the chimpanzees’ lives were by measuring the levels of cortisol, a stress hormone, and other compounds. Credit Erin Wessling

All these odd behaviors suggested that the chimps were struggling to cope with Fongoli’s harsh conditions. But all Dr. Pruetz’s observations couldn’t reveal what was happening inside their bodies. 

“I didn’t know how stressed they were,” she said.

In 2014, Ms. Wessling set out to get an answer — by collecting chimpanzee urine.

Like humans, chimpanzees have molecules in their urine that reflect their physical condition. When they feel stress, for example, they make the hormone cortisol. The pancreas produces a substance called c-peptide in response to food. Its levels can reflect whether chimpanzees are getting enough energy. If a chimpanzee gets dehydrated, the protein creatinine builds up in its urine.

Scientists regularly gather urine from forest chimpanzees, but there, they need only go under a tall tree and hold out a leaf. On the savanna, Ms. Wessling would have to wait until a chimpanzee ambled away from where it had urinated. By the time she reached the spot, the urine might have already seeped into the ground or evaporated. “You basically watch your sample disappear,” Ms. Wessling said.
From 20 chimps, Ms. Wessling gathered 368 urine samples that were taken back to Germany for analysis.

The chimps’ c-peptide levels showed they ate a decent amount of food, and possibly termites to get additional calories.

While that was an indicator of a healthy diet, analyses of the two other compounds told another story. Many of the chimps had produced high levels of cortisol, indicating that life on the savanna could be very stressful. And their creatinine levels were also high, evidence that the heat of the savanna caused them to become dehydrated.

For all the ways that the Fongoli chimps tried to protect themselves from the heat, it still punished them.

“These chimps are sort of right at the edge of what they can do,” Dr. Pruetz said. “This really gives you the biological basis of it.”

Photo
Early hominins might have used some of the strategies documented in Fongoli chipmanzees, like staying near water. Humans have skin glands that let us sweat much more than chimpanzees, and the origin of our upright posture might have been an adaptation to stay cooler. Credit Frans Lanting/lanting.com

The research was published earlier this month in the Journal of Human Evolution.

To scientists who study human evolution, the Fongoli chimpanzees offer some intriguing parallels to our ancestors millions of years ago. Studies of DNA indicate that our two evolutionary branches split roughly seven million years ago.

The earliest members of our branch (known as hominins) may have been chimp-like in some respects, growing fur and walking through forests on their knuckles.

Over millions of years, Africa’s rain forests retreated into patchworks, as savannas expanded. In eastern and southern Arica, hominins moved into open habitats, eventually reaching arid grasslands — places as daunting for survival as Fongoli.
“How and when hominins got better at coping with heat is a fascinating, unsolved problem,” said Daniel E. Lieberman, a paleoanthropologist at Harvard.

The results from Fongoli suggest that a chimpanzee-like ancestor might have eked out an existence on an east African savanna. Food might not pose the biggest challenge. Instead, they would be hard-pressed by the heat.

Early hominins might have used some of the strategies documented in Fongoli, like staying near water and shifting a lot of activity from day to night. But even so, early hominins would have still suffered stress.

That stress might have only been overcome when hominins evolved new physical adaptations. Humans have skin glands that let us sweat much more than chimpanzees, for example. The origin of our upright posture might also be intertwined with our struggle with heat.

Some researchers have proposed that early hominins began standing to aid in reaching fruit hanging from trees. Peter Wheeler, of Liverpool John Moores University, has suggested that an upright posture would have helped hominins stay cool in an arid environment. On the savanna, walking tall might mean walking cool.

Dr. Pruetz suspects Dr. Wheeler may be right, and she hopes to study the Fongoli chimpanzees more to test his idea. The chimpanzees may shift their posture — as far as they can with an ape anatomy — in order to cope with the high temperatures. It’s now possible to get close enough to measure the heat flowing from the chimpanzees with a thermal imaging camera.

“We really haven’t had that opportunity before,” she said. “There’s a lot of fun stuff we can do.”


NYT

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Trump’s War on the Poor




Image
President Trump and his administration lack empathy for the poor.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times

America hasn’t always, or even usually, been governed by the best and the brightest; over the years, presidents have employed plenty of knaves and fools. But I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything like the collection of petty grifters and miscreants surrounding Donald Trump. Price, Pruitt, Zinke, Carson and now Ronny Jackson: At this point, our default assumption should be that there’s something seriously wrong with anyone this president wants on his team.

Still, we need to keep our eye on the ball. The perks many Trump officials demand — the gratuitous first-class travel, the double super-secret soundproof phone booths, and so on — are outrageous, and they tell you a lot about the kind of people they are. But what really matters are their policy decisions. Ben Carson’s insistence on spending taxpayer funds on a $31,000 dining set is ridiculous; his proposal to sharply raise housing costs for hundreds of thousands of needy American families, tripling rents for some of the poorest households, is vicious.

And this viciousness is part of a broader pattern. Last year, Trump and his allies in Congress devoted most of their efforts to coddling the rich; this was obviously true of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but even the assault on Obamacare was largely about securing hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the wealthy. This year, however, the G.O.P.’s main priority seems to be making war on the poor.

That war is being fought on multiple fronts. The move to slash housing subsidies follows moves to sharply increase work requirements for those seeking food stamps. Meanwhile, the administration has been granting Republican-controlled states waivers allowing them to impose onerous new work requirements for recipients of Medicaid — requirements whose main effect would probably be not more work, but simply fewer people getting essential health care.






Even the administration’s de facto financial deregulation — its systematic gutting of consumer financial protection — should be seen largely as an attack on the least well off, since poor families and less educated workers are the most likely victims of exploitative bankers.

The interesting question is not whether Trump and friends are trying to make the lives of the poor nastier, more brutal and shorter. They are. The question, instead, is why.

Is it about saving money? Conservatives do complain about the cost of safety net programs, but it’s hard to take those complaints seriously coming from people who just voted to explode the budget deficit with huge tax cuts. Moreover, there’s good evidence that some of the programs under attack actually do what tax cuts don’t: eventually pay back a significant part of their upfront costs by promoting better economic performance.

For example, the creation of the food stamp program didn’t just make the lives of recipients a bit easier. It also had major positive impacts on the long-term health of children from poor families, which made them more productive as adults — more likely to pay taxes, less likely to need further public assistance.
The same goes for Medicaid, where new studies suggest that more than half of each dollar spent on health care for children eventually comes back as higher tax receipts from healthier adults.


What about the idea that anti-poverty programs create a “poverty trap,” reducing the incentive for people to work their way to a better life? That’s a very popular notion on the right. But the reality is that there are very few Americans getting food stamps or Medicaid who could and should be working but aren’t.

It’s true that some calculations indicate that means-tested programs — programs available only to those with sufficiently low incomes — can create disincentives for working and earning. But the evidence suggests that while safety net programs have some adverse effect on incentives, it’s a much smaller effect than many policymakers believe.

Furthermore, we could reduce those disincentives by making programs more generous, not less — providing more aid to the near-poor rather than less aid to the poor. Somehow, conservatives never seem to consider that option.

So what’s really behind the war on the poor? Pretty clearly, the pain this war will inflict is a feature, not a bug. Trump and his friends aren’t punishing the poor reluctantly, out of the belief that they must be cruel to be kind. They just want to be cruel.

Glenn Thrush of The New York Times reported, “Mr. Trump, aides said, refers to nearly every program that provides benefits to poor people as welfare, a term he regards as derogatory.” And I guess you can see where that comes from. After all, he’s a self-made man who can’t attribute any of his own success to, say, inherited wealth. Oh, wait.

Seriously, a lot of people both in this administration and in Congress simply feel no empathy for the poor. Some of that lack of empathy surely reflects racial animus. But while the war on the poor will disproportionately hurt minority groups, it will also hurt a lot of low-income whites — in fact, it will surely end up hurting a lot of people who voted for Trump. Will they notice?






David Brooks is off today.
Follow me on Twitter (@PaulKrugman) and Facebook.

NYT

Robert Redford: The biggest Scott Pruitt scandal is the one right in front of us


Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)
Robert Redford is an actor, director, producer and trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council.


President Trump should follow the suggestion of many — including some within his own party, and reportedly even his chief of staff — and replace Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt.
Pruitt’s conduct as head of the EPA is beyond disappointing; it’s disgraceful. The list of indefensible actions grows each week: from sweetheart condo deals with the wife of an energy lobbyist, to unfair raises for favored appointees and apparent punishments for those who defy him, to a $43,000 soundproof phone booth.
These seemingly daily revelations dominate the headlines. But Pruitt’s failings in ethics and judgment are only part of a much larger problem: Pruitt has failed at the core responsibility of his job.
He’s not protecting the environment. Pruitt has become a one-man public-health risk to the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. From day one, he has worked to gut the EPA and hamstring its ability to protect the environment and public health. He works on behalf of the fossil-fuel industry and other industrial polluters, not the American people. That’s the greatest scandal — and the reason, first and foremost, he’s got to go.
And he actively promotes one of the gravest threats to our future — misinformation. To hear Pruitt tell it, the rising seas, widening deserts and raging wildfires Americans are experiencing are reasons to debate the science on climate change, not take action against it.
Pruitt led Trump’s charge to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris climate accord. I was in Paris when that agreement was reached. It was a triumph of American leadership. We were doing what was best for our country: cutting carbon pollution today so our kids would have a more predictable climate and a better future. The Trump administration has broken our promise to the world by announcing that we will back out of the Paris accords.
Unfortunately, that’s not all. Pruitt has been working to weaken standards designed to clean up dirty power plants and to walk back fuel standards for cars. He has put a hold on vital safeguards that would limit the amount of mercury, arsenic, lead and other toxic chemicals that industry can spew into the air or dump into our rivers. Speaking of water, he’s working to repeal the clean water rule that ensures protection for wetlands, rivers and streams that provide drinking water to a third of all Americans.
Meanwhile, he has ignored research from scientists at the agency and refused to ban dangerous chemicals, such as the pesticide chlorpyrifos. Instead, he hired a lobbyist connected with one of the manufacturers of the chemical and then reduced fines levied against the company for violating regulations.
He also attacked science itself, proposing policies in the guise of transparency that would limit the research that the agency could use to make decisions.
2:13
Robert Redford: 45 years after Watergate, the truth is again in danger
The checks and balances the Constitution was designed to create functioned when put to their biggest test. Would they still?
Americans deserve better. The EPA was established to protect the environment and public health for everyone. It’s something America got right, and it is up to us to defend it.
Pruitt should be replaced by a principled leader who will do what the EPA was intended to do: protect America from men such as Pruitt.

WP

Mexican Election Could End the Welcome for U.S. Oil Giants

HOUSTON — As President Trump moves to recast trade and border relations with Mexico, American oil companies are worried that the prospective winner of Mexico’s presidential election will play his own nationalist card.

The leading candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, wants to reverse policies that have tied a knot between Mexico and the United States in recent years in energy production and consumption. And he has promised to make sure that oil never falls “back into the hands of foreigners.”

In addition to threatening refinery profits in the United States, his proposals could slow down oil production in Texas and impede deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico by international oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. They would also jeopardize the United States energy trade surplus with Mexico, which reached roughly $15 billion last year.

Mr. López Obrador a former mayor of Mexico City with leftist leanings, has a comfortable lead in the polls ahead of the July 1 vote. He has moderated his tone since losing the presidential race six years ago, but he has proposed a sweeping reorientation of the nation’s energy policy with an emphasis on independence from the United States.

He has pledged to end oil exports, nearly all of which go to the United States, by 2022, and to instead spend $6 billion on building two refineries that would process crude for domestic consumption. That would sharply reduce American exports of gasoline to Mexico.

Mr. López Obrador and his top energy adviser, Rocío Nahle, a former legislator who is in line to become energy minister, have called for a freeze on future deepwater drilling auctions and a review of contracts with international oil companies.

“We cannot irresponsibly deliver our oil reserves to the transnational companies,” Ms. Nahle, who was trained as a chemical engineer, wrote on Twitter this month, summing up her message to a gathering of oil workers in the Mexican oil town of Poza Rica. “This July 1, this town will end the looting of Mexico.”

Ms. Nahle has said she wants the government to slash the price of electricity and gasoline, and to reduce Mexico’s dependence on natural-gas imports from the United States by investing more in hydroelectric power. Any reduction in sales to the No. 1 foreign customer for gas from the United States would increase a glut that has depressed prices in America over the past four years.


Trading With Neighbors

As production elsewhere has slumped or been limited by pipeline constraints, Mexico has become a more important source of American oil imports. At the same time, it has grown increasingly dependent on natural-gas imports from the United States.



Canada
3,420
Saudi Arabia
940
Venezuela
620
Mexico
610
Iraq
600
U.S. crude oil
imports in 2017
Colombia
330
Nigeria
310
Thousands of
barrels a day
Ecuador
210
Brazil
200
Kuwait
140
Angola
130
All others
400
Total
7,910
1.6
1.4
To Mexico
U.S. natural
gas exports
1.2
1.0
To Canada
Annual totals,
in trillions of
cubic feet
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
’80
’90
’10
’10
’17


1.6
Canada
3,420
To Mexico
Saudi Arabia
940
1.4
Venezuela
620
1.2
U.S. natural
gas exports
U.S. crude oil
imports in 2017
Mexico
610
Iraq
600
1.0
Annual totals,
in trillions of
cubic feet
Thousands of
barrels a day
Colombia
330
To Canada
0.8
Nigeria
310
Ecuador
210
0.6
Brazil
200
0.4
Kuwait
140
Angola
130
0.2
All others
400
0
Total
7,910
’80
’90
’10
’10
’17


1.6
Canada
3,420
Saudi Arabia
940
1.4
Venezuela
620
To Mexico
1.2
U.S. natural
gas exports
U.S. crude oil
imports in 2017
Mexico
610
Iraq
600
1.0
Annual totals,
in trillions of
cubic feet
Thousands of
barrels a day
Colombia
330
To Canada
0.8
Nigeria
310
Ecuador
210
0.6
Brazil
200
0.4
Kuwait
140
Angola
130
0.2
All others
400
0
Total
7,910
’80
’90
’10
’10
’17
Such positions hark back to the 1930s, when Mexico nationalized its oil industry. Under the current government, a constitutional change enacted in 2014 let foreign companies invest in exploration, drilling, pipelines and even gas stations, and to team up on projects with the state oil company, Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex. The move allowed companies like Exxon Mobil to invest billions of dollars to develop vast fields offshore.

Mr. López Obrador’s nationalistic policies are resonating in Mexico as the Trump administration vows to curtail Mexican immigration into the United States and threatens to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The election outlook has caused concern among American oil executives.

“Mexico is very critical as an energy partner of the United States, so a retreat from current policies would be a tragedy for both countries,” said Scott D. Sheffield, chairman of Pioneer Natural Resources, a major Texas oil and gas producer. “It’s going to hurt Mexico long term and the United States long term.”

Mr. Sheffield and other Texas oil executives are particularly worried that Mexico could slow its importing of American gas.

About 20 pipelines carry 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to Mexico, and more are being built or planned.

The gas sales to Mexico are an important source of revenue for American oil and pipeline companies, and they relieve a bulge of gas that is bubbling up with oil from the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico, the nation’s most prolific shale field. California is switching from natural gas to renewable energy sources, while a shortage of pipelines and export terminals for liquefied natural gas means that if sales to Mexico dwindle, there will be excess gas with nowhere to go.

That gas will have to be flared, or oil drilling and production will need to decrease, a choice between increasing climate-warming carbon-dioxide emissions or decreasing profits.

American refineries also face problems. Before the boom in shale oil production, refineries along the Gulf of Mexico were designed to process heavy oil grades from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Imports from Canada continue to increase, but they are limited by scarce pipeline capacity.

Production in Venezuela is plummeting, and an expected ratcheting up of sanctions by the Trump administration could further hamper imports.



Photo
The presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador at a rally near Monterrey. He wants to reverse policies that have tied a knot between Mexico and the United States in energy production and consumption. Credit Daniel Becerril/Reuters

That makes Mexico, which accounts for about 8 percent of American crude-oil imports, an even more critical source. American refineries can process lighter grades of oil but much less efficiently, or they can undertake expensive overhauls of their equipment. Either way, profits would slump.

Mexico, for its part, has been importing higher-quality transportation fuels from the United States, in an effort to clean up its cities’ air. Last year, Mexico bought more than one million barrels of American petroleum products a day, providing $23 billion in revenue to American energy companies.

Ms. Nahle, Mr. López Obrador’s energy adviser, has said Mexico’s own refineries can be retooled to handle a changeover from American gasoline and diesel.

Mexican oil officials, expecting at least a slowdown of their policies, are holding offshore auctions as fast as they can to lure investment before President Enrique Peña Nieto, who is barred by law from seeking a second term, leaves office in December. More than 100 development contracts have already been awarded. The nation’s oil production remains in decline, but officials hope they can reverse the trend as international companies begin to produce large amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico over the next two years.
Independent energy analysts have viewed Mexico’s moves as a model for economic development, and some worry about a reversal. “To make a U-turn from the current reforms would be detrimental to the Mexican economy,” said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency.

Some oil executives and energy experts say they are not overly worried that the new contracts will be overturned. They note that Mr. López Obrador will almost certainly not have the congressional support to entirely rescind the constitutional energy change. Campaign oratory could give way to the realities of governing, especially when the oil industry offers financing for more social services. The government has earned signing bonuses of $525 million from investors so far this year as a result of its efforts.

“Mexico needs this change more than anybody else,” said Ali Moshiri, who retired last year as Chevron’s top executive in Latin America and is forming his own oil company to seek international opportunities. “Pemex has been a disaster, so they have to continue with the reform, though they could slow things down.”

If necessary, international companies could focus less on Mexico and more on other Latin American countries, like Brazil, which also has huge offshore potential, or Colombia, which has significant potential for shale drilling. Both countries also have elections this year in which major candidates have expressed either opposition to giving foreign companies control over natural resources or environmental concerns about developing fossil fuels at all.

“That creates a lot of uncertainties for energy policy,” said Lisa Viscidi, an energy expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington think tank. “Around Latin America, there are serious contenders who want to make big changes in the oil sector and want to reverse previous reforms. López Obrador particularly represents a lot of direct threats.”

NYT

Twitter Updates

Search This Blog

Total Pageviews