Resource Rich Colorado (Full Report)

C L R D ’N T N L N G O A P S INI T E
O O A OS AI A A D L B L O IO N H
O T
E EG E O O |HR E IO , E E E 21
N R Y C N MY T ID DT N D C MBR 01
I

Resource Rich Colorado, Third Edition Figures

Figures Natural Resources
1 Natural Gas: Reserves and Production
2 Natural Gas Production
3 Lower 48 States Shale Plays
4 Shale Gas Production
5 Wind: Installed Capacity and Net Generation
6 Solar: Installed Capacity and Generation
7 Coal: Reserves and Production
8 Coal Production
9 Crude Oil: Reserves and Production
10 Crude Oil Production
11 Rotary Rig Counts
12 Drilling Leases on Public Lands: Number of Leases
13 Drilling Leases on Public Lands: Acres Leased
14 Natural Gas Prices
15 Coal Prices
16 Crude Oil Prices
17 Overnight Capital Cost Estimates for Electric Generation Plants
18 Severance Tax Revenues
19 Net Generation by Resource
20 Average Capacity Factor by Energy Source
21 Energy Consumption per Capita
22 Energy Consumption/Real Dollar of GDP
23 Emissions per Capita (CO2, SOx, and NOx)
24 Residential Avg. Retail Electric Price
25 Commercial Avg. Retail Electric Price
26 Industrial Avg. Retail Electric Price

Energy Policies and Programs
27 Energy Efficiency Policies
28 Renewable Energy Standards
29 Demand Side Management Policies
Narrative: Incentives, Regulatory Policies, and Taxes

Intellectual Resources
30    Highest ACT and SAT Scores per 1,000 High School Graduates
31 Population 25+ with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
32   Science and Engineering Doctorate Holders as a Percentage of the  Workforce
33 Science and Engineering Graduate Students per 1,000 Individuals 25‐34 Years Old

Employment
34   Cleantech Employment Concentration: Number of Firms
35 Cleantech Employment Concentration: Number of Employees

36 Fossil Fuel Employment Concentration: Number of Firms
37 Fossil Fuel Employment Concentration: Number of Employees

Innovation
38   State Innovation Index
39    Entrepreneurial Activity Index
40 Venture Capital Investments/$1,000 of State GDP
41   Small Business Innovation Research Grants
42   Total R&D Spending at Academic Institutions per Capita
43   Number of Patents Granted to Colleges and Universities
44   State Technology and Science Index
45 High‐Tech Employment per 1,000 Workers
46 Clean Energy Leadership Index

The Global Energy Economy
47 Natural Gas Producers
48 Net Exporters of Natural Gas
49 Net Importers of Natural Gas
50 Coal Producers
51 Net Exporters of Coal
52 Net Importers of Coal
53 Crude Oil Producers
54 Net Exporters of Crude Oil
55 Net Importers of Crude Oil
56 Electricity Generated by Resource
57 Power Consumption per Capita
58 CO2 Emissions per Capita
59 Retail Gas Prices for Unleaded Premium

Res
source Rich C
Colorad
do
Third Editio Decemb 2011
T on, ber

Acknow
A wledgem
ments

Competitive Analy
C ysis Comm
mittee Me
embers
John Armstron Enserca L
ng, LLC, Chair
Beth Chaacon, Xcel En
nergy
Chris Hansen, IHS
s S
Rich Rinehar Bentek Ene
rt, ergy LLC

Metro Denver Ec
D conomic Developm
D ment Cor
rporation Staff

Ma Jeffreys
ary
Tom Clark
T
Janet Fritz
J
Jill Altenhofen
Ki Zeschin
im

Res
source Rich C
Colorad
do
Third Edition December 2011
n,

Meth
hodolog
gy
Resource Rich Colorad is a compa
e do anion report to the seventh edition of To
o h oward a More Competitive
e e
Colorado, published by the Metro Denver Economic Developm
, y ment Corpora ation in Novem
mber 2011.
Toward a More Compe etitive Colorad is an annu study of Co
do ual olorado’s com
mpetitive posi
ition among th 50
he
states. It evaluates a host of econom rankings to describe C
e mic t Colorado’s oveerall competit
tive position in
n
economic vitality, innov
c vation, busine costs, tax
ess xes, livability, K-12 educatio higher education, health,
on,
and infrasstructure.

The third edition of Ressource Rich Colorado inclu
C udes data fro m a variety of public and p
f private source In
es.
all cases, the data inclu
uded in this publication is the most rece public info
p t ent ormation availlable as of
Decembe 2011. Wher
er rever possible data is benchmarked to 2007, the firs year for which the Colora
e, st ado
Energy Co oalition began collecting data.
n

Select cha from the seventh editio of Toward a More Com
arts on d mpetitive Colorrado are inclu
uded in this
publication as well. The charts ha been mod
ese ave dified to displa the top 10 states and C
ay Colorado, from the
m
original fo
ormat that com
mpared Colorrado to the top five and bot
p ttom five state In most ca
es. ases, Resour rce
Rich Colo orado charts are based on raw data such as actual pr
a roduction num mbers, or rota rig counts. The
ary
charts from Toward a More Compet
M titive Colorado utilize data that has been analyzed to identify the
o n o
states’ ran from one to 50.
nk o

Resource Rich Colorad evaluates Colorado’s co
e do ompetitive poosition among the 49 other states in natural
g r
resources energy polic
s, cies and prog
grams, and inttellectual reso
ources for the energy indu
e ustry. All 50 st
tates
are evaluaated for each data point, excluding Was shington D.C. and U.S. ter
. rritories. Each graph in this
h s
section co
overs the top 10 ranked sta ates and Colo
orado, and is accompanied by a table th provides t
d hat the
underlying data for all 50 states, where available.
g 5

For the fir time, Reso
rst ource Rich Co olorado also evaluates the United States’ competitive position for
e e
energy in the global ennergy econom This sectio not only co
my. on ompares the U United States to the large
s
energy ec conomies, it evaluates the United States vis-à-vis its top trading partners—Braz Canada,
e s zil,
China, Ge ermany, India, Japan, Mex orea, and the United Kingd
xico, South Ko dom—and to t Russian
the
Federation due to its position as a major produce and exporte of natural g
m er er gas, crude oil and coal. Th
l, his
section coompares coun ntries in terms of productio exports, im
s on, mports, generration by reso
ource, emissioons,
and pricin Each grap in this secti compares the United S
ng. ph ion s States to othe countries, a is
er and
accompan nied by a table that provide the underly
es ying data.

Graphs an tables in Resource Rich Colorado ra states and countries by metrics kno
nd R h ank d y own to the ene
ergy
industry such as barrel cubic feet, short tons fo production; and megawa and kilow hours for
s ls, or atts watt
generation. Wherever possible, international met trics were con
nverted to mo familiar U. metrics (e.g.
ore .S.
long tons converted to short tons).

Re
esource Rich Colora
e ado
Third Editio Decem
T on, mber 2011

Execut
E tive Summary
y
The Colorado Energy Coalition (CEC), an aff
C filiate of the M
Metro Denver Economic De evelopment
Corpo
oration (Metro Denver EDC published the first editio of Resourc Rich Color
o C), on ce rado (RRC) in
n
2009, as its annual analysis of Colorado’s co
C ompetitive pos sition in the n
national energ economy.
gy

In the third edition of RRC, we can report tha Colorado’s energy econo
e c at omy is among the strongest in
g
the United States. Colorado con nsistently rank in the top 1 or higher in terms of na
ks 10 atural resource
reservves, productio of fossil fue installed capacity, and generation o renewable resources. W
on els, d of While
many states are either consider “fossil” or “cleantech” s
y red states, Colora is a leade among the
ado er
states that have em
s mbraced a baalanced energ philosophy
gy y.

Colorado’s resourc mix include
ce es:

• The Niobra Shale, a complex geolo
ara c ogical format ion that stretc
ches across sseveral Weste
ern
states and is thought to contain massive reserves of natural ga and oil.
o s as
• The Piceance Basin, a tight-shale fie with estim ated reserves of 1.5 trillion barrels of oi
eld s n il.
• Reserves of supercomp
o pliant coal with the lowest s
sulfur, mercury, and ash c content, which is
h
mixed with coal from other regions, allowing those regions to m
h a e meet air qualit standards.
ty
• Excellent solar resource in south-ce
s es entral Coloraddo.
• Excellent wind resource along Colo
w es orado’s easter border.
rn

Colorado’s energy industry bene efits from many competitiv advantages that attract major job gro
ve s owth
nvestment to Colorado. Ve
and in estas located its first North American fac ctory in Color
rado in 2008.
Since that time, Ve
e estas has con nstructed three additional m manufacturing plants in Co
g olorado, inves
sted
$1 billion, and crea
ated more tha 2,000 jobs. Most recentlly, GE Energy acquired a C
an . y Colorado-groown
company, PrimeSt Solar, in 20 and anno
tar 011 ounced its de ecision to loca a new thin
ate n-film
manufacturing plan in Aurora. Set to open in 2012, GE ex
nt S n xpects to crea 355 new, advanced-
ate
technology jobs at this facility in the next thre to five year
n ee rs.

Among Colorado’s strongest assets in the energy industry is its climate of innovation and
entrepreneurship, which are enhanced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and
Colorado’s top-ranked research universities. NREL is the only U.S. Department of Energy laboratory
dedicated to the research, development, commercialization, and deployment of renewable energy
and energy efficiency technologies. Proximity to NREL provides partnership and subcontractor
opportunities for companies on research and development projects, as well as access to NREL
research facilities. NREL also engages in research partnerships with the Colorado School of Mines,
the University of Colorado Boulder, and Colorado State University through the Colorado Renewable
Energy Collaboratory and through a network of partnerships between the universities and private
industry.

Colorado’s low taxes, moderate business costs, and progressive industry policies also help attract
and retain businesses in the energy industry. Nearly 70 energy-related pieces of legislation have
been adopted in Colorado since 2007. The state’s 30 percent Renewable Energy Standard is one of
the most aggressive in the United States. Also, the Colorado Bioscience and Clean Technology
Reinvestment Act was passed in 2011 to provide a dedicated source of grant funds for cleantech and
bioscience.

In spite of its many competitive advantages, Colorado’s energy companies do face regulatory and
political uncertainties at the federal level that could slow business investment and new job creation.

The federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for renewable energy projects is scheduled to expire at the
end of 2011, and the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) is set to expire for wind projects at the end
of 2012. The pending expiration of the PTC for wind, in particular, has resulted in the delay or
abandonment of projects, and the resulting loss of investment and job creation in this sector. Whether
these credits will be extended is not known at the time of this report’s publication. At the same time,
Congress is debating whether to eliminate certain long-standing tax credits for the oil and gas
industry. The questions being raised are whether the nascent cleantech industry needs tax credits to
grow, and whether the oil and gas industry should continue to be granted subsidies since the industry
is well established. Before any of these tax credits are eliminated, a cost-benefit analysis across all
energy-related tax credits is required to strike the right balance and support job growth and
investment in both fossil fuels and cleantech.

Regulations being proposed at the federal level also impact how natural resources are developed.
Hydraulic fracturing is a good example of federal ydraulic fracturing is a process that stimulates the
flow of oil and natural gas to the wellhead. In hydraulic fracturing, water, mixed with sand and
chemicals, is pumped down the wellbore at high pressure to break apart tight formations and free
trapped oil and gas. While it has been an accepted practice for more than 40 years, hydraulic
fracturing has recently come under fire from environmental interests due to potential contamination of
drinking water aquifers. In response, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of
Energy, and the Department of the Interior have proposed new regulations. This practice has
traditionally been regulated at the state level. Some states, including Colorado and Texas, are
enacting new, stricter rules on hydraulic fracturing to pre-empt federal oversight. Colorado adopted
new rules in December 2011, that require oil and gas operators to publicly disclose all chemicals
used in the hydraulic fracturing of wells, while still recognizing and protecting trade secrets. The new
rules are endorsed by industry and environmental groups and were approved by the nine-member
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. State oversight of hydraulic fracturing is appropriate

and should be supported based on local regulators’ understanding of local regulatory and geological
realities.

Additional issues being debated at the federal level without a clear resolution include:

• Proposed rules on emissions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would
apply to oil and gas productions sites, power plants, and oil refineries.
• Constrained access to federal lands and waters for drilling by the U.S. Department of the
Interior and the Bureau of Land Management.
• Delayed review of the application for the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring oil from
Canadian tar sands through the United States to Gulf Coast refineries.

Volatile commodity prices also pose a challenge to industry. Natural gas prices in the last decade
have fluctuated wildly, with record-low prices reining in industry growth for the last two years. With
more interest in natural gas as a bridge fuel, the market may drive prices up, but potentially at the
expense of coal production rates and commodity prices. Crude oil prices are also volatile, plummeting
in 2009 in part due to the global recession, but also due to competition from imports and constraints
on domestic drilling.

The incentives Colorado offers to lure companies are based on tax credits with almost no cash
incentives. Tax credits may be appealing to companies that are well established, but they are
meaningless to early-stage, pre-profit—and pre-tax—companies. The recent expansion of the
Colorado Bioscience and Clean Technology Innovation Reinvestment Act is a step in the right
direction. It is a cash incentive that provides up to $2 million per year (for 10 years) in grant funding
for cleantech. Nonetheless, Colorado’s competitive advantage is diminished compared to other states
that have begun to offer more cash incentives in lieu of tax credits. Finding more cash for incentives
in Colorado requires a critical review—cost-benefit analysis of current incentive programs, evaluation
of other states’ incentive programs, and the political will to change the state’s incentive structure.

Colorado is highly regarded for its skilled workforce. It is ranked second-highest among the 50 states
for residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher, eighth-highest in Ph.Ds, and 14th-highest in science
and engineering graduate students. Partnerships among the state’s research universities and NREL
are creating new centers of excellence and offering intellectual property to generate new companies.
The fact remains that many of Colorado’s skilled workers come here from other states. In recent
years, Colorado’s public education system has borne significant funding cuts as the state seeks to
balance its budget. The conflicting resolutions of three constitutional provisions in Colorado’s
constitution— TABOR, Amendment 23, and the Gallagher Amendment—create an intractable
problem in resolving budgetary issues and the potential for more cuts to public education.
Discussions must continue to either amend or eliminate these three provisions.

In this report, we added a new section that compares the United States to select countries. These
include other global energy economies and the United States’ top trading partners—Brazil, Canada,
China, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and the United Kingdom—and the Russian
Federation.

The United States continues to be a top global producer and consumer of natural resources. It is a
major producer and net importer of natural gas and crude oil. The United States is also a major

producer and exporter of coal, exporting 3.6 percent of its coal to countries in Asia and Europe.
Domestic power consumption per capita is the second highest among countries in this study.

Power generation globally includes a varied mix of resources. Every country in the study utilizes a
broad mix of resources, in different proportions, to generate electricity. The United States uses coal,
natural gas, and nuclear energy as its primary sources of power generation, while slowly building its
renewable power base through the addition of wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric resources. The
emerging economies of China and India are primarily fueled by coal, but China in particular is
attempting to expand its renewable resource base to offset climate impacts from coal. Brazil and
Canada rely heavily on hydroelectricity.

One surprise finding is that U.S. gasoline prices are among the lowest in the world because the
federal tax on gasoline is among the lowest compared to other countries in the study at 18.4 cents
per gallon.

The third edition of RRC demonstrates that Colorado’s energy economy is strong in spite of the
state’s fiscal constraints and challenges from outside influences. The energy economies of Colorado
and the United States could be strengthened by clear and consistent domestic policies. Finally, the
United States needs to improve its competitive advantage in the global energy economy through
sound policymaking that supports growth in domestic resource exploitation in order to reduce imports
and increase exports.

Natural Gas: Reserves and Production (2009)
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration
90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000
Billion Cubic Feet

50,000
3rd
40,000
Highest
Reserves
30,000

20,000

10,000

0
TX WY CO OK LA NM AR AL UT KS
Proved Reserves Production
Proved natural gas reserves are the estimated quantities that can be recovered with
reasonable certainty from known reservoirs. With the application of horizontal drilling and Fig. 1
hydraulic fracturing, recoverable reserves have increased in many states. Reserves for
Texas and Louisiana include offshore reserves.

Natural Gas: Reserves and Production (2009)

Proved Production
Reserves Production as a % of
(BCF) (BCF) Reserves
Texas* 80,424 7,624 9.48%
Wyoming 35,283 2,240 6.35%
Colorado 23,058 1,409 7.03%
Oklahoma 22,769 1,621 6.37%
Louisiana* 20,688 1,450 0.00%
New Mexico* 15,598 1,371 8.79%
Arkansas 10859 681 6.27%
Alaska 9,101 397 4.36%
Utah 7,257 390 5.37%
Pennsylvania 6,985 274 3.92%
West Virginia 5,946 264 4.44%
Kansas 3,279 356 10.86%
Virginia 3,091 141 4.56%
Alabama* 2,871 226 7.87%
Kentucky 2,782 113 4.06%
California* 2,773 242 8.73%
Michigan 2,763 159 5.75%
North Dakota 1,079 59 5.47%
Montana 976 294 30.12%
Mississippi 917 97 10.58%
Ohio 896 89 9.93%
New York 196 45 22.96%
Florida 7 0 4.29%
*Includes offshore reserves and production.

Natural Gas Production (2007-2009)
8,000,000

7,000,000

6,000,000
Million Cubic Feet

5,000,000
2007
4,000,000 2008
2009
3,000,000 5th
Highest

2,000,000

1,000,000

0
TX WY OK LA CO NM AR AK KS MT

Shale discoveries in the Haynesville (TX, LA), the Marcellus (NY, PA), and the
Fig. 2
Niobrara (CO, WY) have impacted both United States reserves and regional resource
development.

Natural Gas Production (2007-2009)

State 2007 2008 2009
Texas 6,454,249 7,483,842 7,623,747
Wyoming 1,916,238 2,116,818 2,239,778
Oklahoma 1,589,871 1,765,988 1,621,316
Louisiana 1,275,806 1,292,478 1,449,809
Colorado 1,280,638 1,436,203 1,409,172
New Mexico 1,495,615 895,675 1,370,727
Arkansas 269,886 446,551 680,613
Alaska 368,344 337,359 397,077
Kansas 366,859 375,314 355,675
Montana 110,942 802,619 293,941
California 268,016 263,107 241,916
Alabama 259,062 246,747 225,666
Michigan N/A 153,130 159,400
Mississippi 73,460 96,641 97,258
Ohio 88,095 84,858 88,824
North Dakota 54,745 52,469 59,369
New York 54,942 50,320 44,849
Tennessee 3,942 4,700 5,478
Indiana 3,606 4,701 4,927
Nebraska 1,555 3,082 2,908
Oregon 390 751 751
Arizona 634 503 695
Kentucky 95,437 114,116 N/A
South Dakota 422 1,099 N/A
U.S. Total Production 15,938,902 17,915,864 18,375,905

Shale Gas Production (2007-2011)
IHS Wellhead Data
20,000
18,000
Marcellus
16,000
Eagle Ford
14,000
MMcf per Day

12,000 Haynesville
10,000
8,000 Fayetteville
6,000 Woodford

4,000
Barnett
2,000
-
Jan-07

Jan-08

Jan-09

Jan-10

Jan-11
Apr-07

Jul-07

Oct-07

Apr-08

Jul-08

Oct-08

Apr-09

Jul-09

Oct-09

Apr-10

Jul-10

Oct-10

Apr-11
Increased application of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have opened up
Fig. 4
tight shale plays for natural gas production. Recoverable reserves in the Niobrara
Shale, an emerging play in Colorado and Wyoming, are being evaluated through test
wells.

Shale Gas Production (2007-2011)
MMcf per Day
IHS Cera, Wellhead data

Barnett Woodford Fayetteville Haynesville Eagle Ford Marcellus
Date Shale (TX) (OK) (AR) (LA, TX) (TX) (PA, NY) Total
Jan-07 2,331 136 99 86 4 0 2,657
Mar-07 2,577 173 139 85 4 0 2,977
May-07 2,828 179 171 84 4 0 3,266
Jul-07 3,062 218 227 82 4 0 3,593
Sep-07 3,362 268 288 85 5 0 4,009
Nov-07 3,628 306 377 86 6 0 4,403
Jan-08 3,835 354 437 88 5 0 4,719
Mar-08 4,042 413 565 88 4 40 5,152
May-08 4,285 495 634 107 4 67 5,592
Jul-08 4,478 568 738 113 4 83 5,984
Sep-08 4,659 619 875 156 7 79 6,395
Nov-08 4,901 691 954 263 8 82 6,900
Jan-09 5,001 784 1,110 431 10 104 7,440
Mar-09 5,147 845 1,198 631 15 161 7,997
May-09 5,006 855 1,345 959 24 191 8,379
Jul-09 4,877 889 1,385 1,289 40 225 8,704
Sep-09 4,736 852 1,141 1,723 65 295 8,811
Nov-09 4,748 875 1,775 2,313 131 395 10,237
Jan-10 4,806 914 1,813 2,610 142 622 10,908
Mar-10 4,959 939 1,900 3,210 161 837 12,005
May-10 5,087 942 2,031 3,537 223 1,028 12,848
Jul-10 5,195 937 2,143 4,227 292 1,335 14,129
Sep-10 5,434 937 2,262 4,687 374 1,630 15,325
Nov-10 5,500 938 2,319 5,147 443 1,800 16,147
Jan-11 5,419 940 2,384 5,597 589 1,935 16,865
Mar-11 5,482 940 2,400 6,006 634 2,048 17,510

Wind: Installed Capacity & Net Generation (2010)
American Wind Energy Association; SNL
12,000 40%
Installed Capacity: Megawattes

35%
10,000
30%
8,000

Capacity Factor
25%

6,000 20%

15%
4,000 12th
Highest
10%
2,000
5%

0 0%
TX IA CA MN WA OR IL OK ND WY CO

Installed Capacity (MW) Capacity Factor
Of the 50 states, 36 have developed wind projects. Colorado currently has 1,246 MW of wind
online with an additional 501 MW under construction and 16,602 MW in planned wind projects.
Fig. 5

Wind: Installed Capacity & Net Generation
(2010)
American Wind Energy Association; SNL

Installed
Capacity Generation Capacity
State (MW) (GWh) Factor
Texas 10,085 26,132 30%
Iowa 3,675 8,800 27%
California 3,177 6,614 24%
Minnesota 2,192 5,231 27%
Washington 2,104 4,652 25%
Oregon 2,104 3,919 21%
Illinois 2,046 4,492 25%
Oklahoma 1,482 3,701 29%
North Dakota 1,424 4,175 33%
Wyoming 1,412 3,197 28%
Indiana 1,339 2,930 25%
Colorado 1,299 3,430 30%
New York 1,275 2,750 25%
Kansas 1,074 3,456 37%
Pennsylvania 748 1,846 28%
South Dakota 709 849 14%
New Mexico 700 1,826 30%
Wisconsin 469 1,093 27%
Missouri 457 927 23%
West Virginia 431 939 25%
Montana 386 935 28%
Idaho 353 485 16%
Maine 266 486 21%
Utah 223 453 23%
Nebraska 213 432 23%
Michigan 164 352 25%
Arizona 128 119 11%
Maryland 70 1 0%
Hawaii 63 239 43%
Tennessee 29 41 16%
New Hampshire 26 63 28%
Massachusetts 18 18 11%
Ohio 11 15 16%
Alaska 9 13 16%
New Jersey 8 21 30%
Vermont 6 14 27%
Delaware 2 2 11%
Rhode Island 2 N/A N/A

Solar: Installed Capacity & Net Generation (2010)
SNL

500 30%
450
Installed Capacity: Megawatts

25%
400
350
20%

Capacity Factor
300
250 15%
200
10%
150 4th
Highest
100 Capacity
5%
50
0 0%
CA NV FL CO NM NJ AZ TX OH NC
Installed Capacity (MW) Capacity Factor
Of the 50 states, only 14 have developed utility-scale solar energy projects. Colorado has
excellent solar resources, particularly in the San Luis Valley. Through 2011, Colorado has 58.8
MW of installed solar, with an additional 60 MW planned in 2011—placing it among the top four Fig. 6
states for installed capacity.

Solar: Installed Capacity & Net Generation
(2010)
SNL

Installed
Capacity Generation Capacity
State (MW) (gWh) Factor
California 466 977 24%
Nevada 137 218 18%
Florida 51 80 18%
Colorado 35 41 13%
New Mexico 30 9 3%
New Jersey 19 20 12%
Arizona 16 17 12%
Texas 14 8 7%
Ohio 13 12 11%
North Carolina 10 10 11%
Illinois 9 14 18%
Pennsylvania 6 7 13%
Hawaii 1 2 23%
Washington 1 0.4 5%

Coal: Reserves & Production (2009)
8,000,000

7,000,000
Thousand Short Tons

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000
10th
2,000,000 Highest
Reserves
1,000,000

0
WY WV KY IL ND MT TX PA IN NM CO
Reserves Production
Coal from the North Fork region of Colorado is "super-compliant" coal as defined by the
Fig.7
federal 2005 Energy Policy Act. Colorado's coal is valued highly because of its ability to
blend well with other coals to meet environmental standards.

Coal: Reserves and Production (2009)

Reserves Production Production
(Million (Million as a % of
State Short Tons) Short Tons) Reserves
Wyoming 6,917,000 431,107 16.04%
West Virginia 1,738,000 137,127 12.67%
Kentucky 1,303,000 107,338 12.14%
Illinois 1,244,000 33,748 36.86%
North Dakota 1,208,000 29,945 40.34%
Montana 855,000 39,486 21.65%
Texas 775,000 35,093 22.08%
Pennsylvania 553,000 57,979 9.54%
Indiana 403,000 35,655 11.30%
New Mexico 380,000 25,124 15.12%
Colorado 314,000 28,267 11.11%
Virginia 294,000 21,019 13.99%
Ohio 291,000 27,501 10.58%
Alabama 286,000 18,796 15.22%
Utah 201,000 21,718 9.25%
Oklahoma 94,000 956 98.33%
Maryland 20,000 2,305 8.68%
Tennessee 13,000 1,996 6.51%
Alaska W 1,860 N/A
Arizona W 7,474 N/A
Arkansas - 5 N/A
Mississippi W 3,440 N/A
Missouri W 452 N/A
Washington - - N/A
Kansas W 185 N/A
Louisiana W 3,657 N/A

W: Data withheld to avoid disclosure.
-: No data reported.

Coal Production (2007-2009)

500,000

450,000

400,000
Thousand Short Tons

350,000

300,000
2007
250,000 2008
200,000 2009

150,000
10th
Highest
100,000

50,000

0
WY KY PA MT IN TX IL ND CO

Coal production is relatively flat and is beginning to decline based on proposed emissions
Fig. 8
regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and the emergence of natural gas as a
“bridge” fuel. Coal exports to countries in Asia and Europe are increasing.

Coal Production (2007-2009)

Thousand Short Tons
State 2007 2008 2009
Wyoming 453,568 467,644 431,107
West Virginia 153,480 157,778 136,971
Kentucky 115,280 120,323 107,338
Pennsylvania 65,048 65,414 57,979
Montana 43,390 44,786 39,486
Indiana 35,003 35,893 35,655
Texas 41,948 39,017 35,093
Illinois 32,445 32,918 33,748
North Dakota 29,606 29,627 29,945
Colorado 36,384 32,028 28,267
Ohio 22,575 26,251 27,501
New Mexico 24,451 25,645 25,124
Utah 24,307 24,365 21,718
Virginia 25,346 24,712 21,175
Alabama 19,327 20,611 18,796
Arizona 7,983 8,025 7,474
Louisiana 3,127 3,843 3,657
Mississippi 3,545 2,842 3,440
Maryland 2,301 2,860 2,305
Tennessee 2,654 2,333 1,996
Alaska 1,324 1,477 1,860
Oklahoma 1,648 1,463 956
Missouri 236 247 452
Kansas 420 229 185
Arkansas 83 69 5
U.S. Total Production 1,147,486 1,172,408 1,074,242

Crude Oil: Reserves & Production (2009)
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA)
6,000,000

5,000,000
Thousand Barrels

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000 11th
Highest
Reserves
1,000,000

0
TX* AK* CA* ND NM OK WY UT LA* MT CO
Reserves Production
Proved crude oil reserves are the estimated quantities of oil that are reasonably certain to be
recovered from known reservoirs. The EIA does not include Colorado’s crude oil reserves in the Fig. 9
Piceance Basin, which are estimated at 1.5 trillion barrels, nor recent discoveries in the Niobrara.

Crude Oil: Reserves & Production (2009)

Reserves Production Production
(Thousand (Thousand as a % of
State Barrels) Barrels) Reserves
Texas* 5,006,000 417,555 12.0%
Alaska* 3,566,000 467,440 7.6%
California* 2,835,000 216,858 13.1%
North Dakota 1,046,000 111,998 9.3%
New Mexico 700,000 62,250 11.2%
Oklahoma 622,000 68,044 9.1%
Wyoming 583,000 51,700 11.3%
Utah 398,000 24,404 16.3%
Louisiana* 370,000 73,582 5.0%
Montana 343,000 23,703 14.5%
Colorado 279,000 26,060 10.7%
Kansas 259,000 40,420 6.4%
Mississippi 244,000 23,637 10.3%
Illinois 66,000 8,975 7.4%
Ohio 38,000 5,796 6.6%
Alabama 37,000 6,972 5.3%
Michigan 33,000 6,506 5.1%
Arkansas 28,000 5,735 4.9%
Kentucky 20,000 2,519 7.9%
West Virginia 19,000 1,967 9.7%
Pennsylvania 10,000 3,475 2.9%
Florida 9,000 1,780 5.1%
Nebraska 9,000 2,192 4.1%
Indiana 8,000 1,835 4.4%
Arizona N/A 40 N/A
Missouri N/A 105 N/A
Nevada N/A 433 N/A
New York N/A 377 N/A
South Dakota N/A 1,601 N/A
Tennessee N/A 266 N/A
Virginia N/A 6 N/A


Crude Oil Production (2007-2009)

400,000

350,000

300,000
Thousand Barrels

250,000
2007
200,000 2008
2009
150,000
10th
Highest
100,000

50,000

0
AK* CA* ND LA* OK NM WY KS CO
Uneven crude oil production is related to price volatility and regulatory uncertainty. Drilling on
federal lands or waters--and in environmentally sensitive areas—results in a more complex Fig. 10
permitting processes nationwide.

*Includes offshore production.

Crude Oil Production (2007-2009)

2007 2008 2009
(Million (Million (Million
State Bbls.) Bbls.) Bbls.)
Texas* 397,433 398,624 404,694
Alaska* 355,419 333,080 259,270
California* 230,278 227,044 220,434
North Dakota 45,058 62,776 79,736
Louisiana* 84,718 79,233 74,545
Oklahoma 60,952 64,065 67,018
New Mexico 58,831 59,403 61,146
Wyoming 54,130 52,943 51,333
Kansas 36,490 39,582 39,464
Colorado 23,237 24,054 28,324
Montana 34,829 31,545 27,692
Mississippi 20,396 22,102 23,232
Utah 19,520 21,998 22,927
Illinois 9,609 9,423 9,099
Alabama 7,173 7,546 7,189
Michigan 5,201 6,223 5,900
Ohio 5,455 5,715 5,834
Arkansas 6,031 6,079 5,781
Pennsylvania 3,653 3,611 3,541
Kentucky 2,666 2,645 2,609
Nebraska 2,334 2,394 2,239
West Virginia 1,574 1,593 1,864
Indiana 1,727 1,858 1,804
South Dakota 1,665 1,697 1,658
Florida 2,078 1,956 696
Nevada 408 436 455
New York 380 386 339
Tennessee 264 344 268
Missouri 80 99 94
Arizona 43 52 46
Virginia 8 7 14
Total U.S. Production 1,848,450 1,881,817 1,956,596
*Includes offshore production.

Rotary Rig Counts (2007-2010)
November average year over year
Baker Hughes
900

800

700

600
Number of Rigs

2007
500
2008
400 2009
2010
300 7th
Highest
200

100

0
TX LA ND OK PA NM CO WY AR CA
Drilling rig counts are an important business barometer for the oil and gas industry and its suppliers.
Fig. 11
The active rig count acts as a leading indicator of demand for products used in drilling, completing,
producing, and processing hydrocarbons. Drilling rig efficiencies, such as drilling multiple wells from
a single pad, are changing this traditional relationship.

Rotary Rig Counts (2007-2010)
November Average Year Over Year
Baker Hughes

State 2007 2008 2009 2010
Texas 860 899 433 734
Louisiana 165 188 169 180
North Dakota 49 89 56 139
Oklahoma 198 188 80 139
Pennsylvania 18 28 62 101
New Mexico 71 79 48 70
Colorado 113 123 38 68
Wyoming 72 77 39 44
Arkansas 49 58 40 36
California 40 44 24 36
Utah 41 44 19 29
Kansas 15 10 20 25
West Virginia 32 26 21 22
Montana 10 7 6 9
Ohio 14 12 8 8
Alabama 5 4 4 7
Alaska 10 11 8 7
Mississippi 8 16 6 6
Nevada 3 7 2 6
Kentucky 7 10 11 5
Nebraska 0 0 1 3
Virginia 3 5 3 3
Illinois 0 1 1 2
Indiana 2 2 3 2
New York 5 5 3 2
Florida 0 1 0 1
South Dakota 0 1 0 1
Georgia 0 0 0 0
Hawaii 0 0 1 0
Maryland 1 0 0 0
Michigan 1 1 0 0
Oregon 0 1 1 0
Tennessee 6 2 1 0
Washington 0 1 0 0

Drilling Leases on Public Lands (2007-2009)
Bureau of Land Management, Public Lands Statistics

20,000

18,000
Total No. of Leases in Effect

16,000

14,000

12,000
3rd 2007
10,000 Highest 2008
8,000 2009

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
WY NM CO UT MT NV ND OK AR MS
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fig. 12
manages lease sales on federal lands, as well as overseeing drilling operations. More than one-
third of Colorado’s land area is publicly owned, including the resource-rich Piceance Basin.

Total Number of Leases in Effect

Total Number of Leases in Effect
State 2007 2008 2009
Wyoming 16,479 18,961 17,854
New Mexico 7,647 8,951 8,954
Colorado 5,397 6,179 5,910
Utah 3,818 4,300 4,271
Montana 3,750 4,185 4,093
Nevada 2,126 2,176 2,157
North Dakota 1,510 1,565 1,772
Arkansas 1,439 1,521 1,486
Oklahoma 1,193 1,268 1,298
Mississippi 1,092 1,154 916
California 687 778 756
Texas 658 658 731
Kansas 458 485 494
Louisiana 407 531 441
Alaska 378 371 352
Washington 446 416 342
West Virginia 268 283 273
Ohio 215 238 237
Alabama 172 204 201
Oregon 200 191 188
South Dakota 155 167 181
Michigan 113 147 172
Arizona 98 86 86
Kentucky 76 83 76
Pennsylvania 70 69 68
Virginia 22 46 42
Nebraska 28 29 28
Indiana 0 2 15
Idaho 6 16 13
Illinois 11 11 11
New York 5 5 5
Maryland 3 4 4
Florida 3 3 2
Tennessee 3 2 2


14,000,000

12,000,000
Total No. of Acres Leased

10,000,000

4th
8,000,000
Highest FY 2007
FY 2008
6,000,000 FY 2009

4,000,000

2,000,000

0
WY NM UT CO NV MT AK AR ND TX
Public lands are available for oil and gas leasing based on the BLM’s multiple-use planning
Fig. 13
process. If drilling operations create a conflict with protection or management of other
resources or public land uses, mitigating measures are identified and may become part of
the lease as either stipulations or restrictions.

Total Acres Leased

Total Acres Leased
State FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Wyoming 12,580,651 13,708,523 12,732,957
New Mexico 4,759,364 5,432,045 5,468,058
Utah 4,681,529 4,988,903 4,995,479
Colorado 4,819,654 5,241,707 4,920,123
Nevada 4,452,856 4,345,439 4,245,630
Montana 4,020,480 4,318,778 3,975,577
Alaska 3,344,519 3,147,183 3,113,795
Arkansas 1,157,654 1,202,479 1,135,809
North Dakota 799,816 830,605 962,998
Texas 420,347 439,939 489,344
Washington 650,665 579,163 483,693
California 380,987 439,430 422,750
Mississippi 547,825 553,448 410,687
Arizona 384,848 358,673 358,319
Oklahoma 296,443 328,085 350,548
Oregon 303,021 289,093 278,693
Louisiana 160,587 221,119 166,637
South Dakota 134,284 135,483 150,086
West Virginia 136,207 142,640 141,866
Alabama 122,078 148,893 137,723
Kansas 113,441 126,828 133,642
Michigan 60,899 80,061 101,785
Ohio 43,768 47,323 47,721
Kentucky 38,834 42,049 37,117
Virginia 21,840 35,721 32,401
Idaho 9,149 26,660 22,154
Indiana 0 68 21,937
Nebraska 15,400 11,047 9,767
Illinois 6,592 6,592 6,592
Pennsylvania 6,944 6,474 4,827
Maryland 1,829 2,637 2,637
Florida 3,488 3,488 1,720
New York 1,183 1,183 1,183
Tennessee 2,296 736 736

Natural Gas Prices (2000-2010)

$8.00

$7.00

$6.00
$/Thousand Cubic Feet

$5.00

$4.00

$3.00

$2.00

$1.00

$0.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
With the emergence of natural gas as a potential bridge fuel, the direct connection between price
and production has weakened somewhat. In spite of lower commodity prices, U.S. natural gas Fig. 14
production has increased each of the last three years due in part to declining drilling and
completion costs.

Natural Gas Prices (2000-2010)

$/Thousand
Year Cubic Feet
2000 $3.68
2001 $4.00
2002 $2.95
2003 $4.88
2004 $5.46
2005 $7.33
2006 $6.39
2007 $6.25
2008 $7.97
2009 $3.67
2010 $4.16

Coal Prices (2000-2010)

$35.00

$30.00

$25.00
$/Short Ton

$20.00

$15.00

$10.00

$5.00

$0.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
In spite of increased competition from natural gas and renewable resources for power
generation, coal prices have increased steadily over time due to increased exports of coal,
Fig. 15
which grew by 49.5 percent from 2010 through March of 2011. Little changed during that time
in reserves.

Coal Prices (2000-2010)

$/Short
Year Ton
2000 $18.93
2001 $19.17
2002 $19.52
2003 $18.97
2004 $20.60
2005 $23.59
2006 $24.37
2007 $24.65
2008 $28.77
2009 $30.32
2010 $32.20

Crude Oil Prices (2000-2010)

$100.00

$90.00

$80.00

$70.00

$60.00
$/Barrel

$50.00

$40.00

$30.00

$20.00

$10.00

$0.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Crude oil price volatility has historically had a direct impact on exploration and production. Since
Fig. 16
the beginning of the 2008 recession, the link between price and production was weakened as
consumption declined.

Crude Oil Prices (2000-2010)

Year $/Barrel
2000 $26.72
2001 $21.84
2002 $22.51
2003 $27.56
2004 $36.77
2005 $50.28
2006 $59.69
2007 $66.52
2008 $94.04
2009 $56.35
2010 $74.71

Levelized Cost Estimates for Electric
Generation Plants (2010)
SNL, 2010 Historic Data

$350.00
Dollars/Megawatt Hour Installed

$300.00

$250.00

$200.00

$150.00

$100.00

$50.00

$0.00
Coal Nat. Gas Wind Solar
Overnight Capital Cost Fuel Total O&M
The Levelized cost to build an electric generation plant includes “overnight cost” (the cost at which a
plant could be built assuming that the entire process could be accomplished in a single day), operations
and maintenance, and fuel costs. For this analysis: 1) the cost of capital assumption is 9 percent; 2)
Fig. 17
wind and solar plants do not require fuel as a component of the cost; and 3) the PTC and ITC for wind
and solar, respectively, are not included in the cost estimates. The solar costs include both small scale
(distributed generation) and large scale solar.

Levelized Cost Estimates for Electric
Generation Plants (2010)
SNL, 2010 Historic Data

Overnight
Nominal Capital Total
Capacity Heat Rate Cost Fuel O&M
(kW) (Btu/kWh) ($/mWh) ($/mWh) ($/mWh)
Coal: Dual Unit Advanced PC 1,300,000 8,800 $35.50 $26.67 $34.36
Natural Gas: Advanced NGCC 400,000 6,430 $22.30 $41.18 $45.47
Wind: Onshore 100,000 N/A $87.10 $0.00 $7.37
Solar: Large Photovoltaic 150,000 N/A $297.30 $0.00 $5.00

Severance Tax Revenues (2010)
U.S. Census Bureau

$3,500,000

$3,000,000
Revenues Collected

$2,500,000

$2,000,000

$1,500,000

$1,000,000 16th
Highest

$500,000

$0
AK TX ND LA OK WY NM WV KY MT CO
There are 14 states in the U.S. that do not collect a severance tax on extracted
Fig. 18
resources. Colorado’s severance tax is among the lowest in the country for states that
do collect severance tax.

Severance Tax Revenues (2010)
U.S. Census Bureau

Severance
Tax (in
State thousands)
Alaska $3,355,049
Texas $1,737,136
North Dakota $1,136,553
Louisiana $758,469
Oklahoma $743,686
Wyoming $721,002
New Mexico $654,752
West Virginia $417,230
Kentucky $317,146
Montana $253,649
Nevada $182,752
Kansas $102,878
Mississippi $90,832
Alabama $90,538
Utah $89,162
Colorado $71,436
Florida $71,000
Arkansas $65,147
Michigan $57,424
Arizona $33,372
California $24,409
Minnesota $23,290
Washington $20,905
Oregon $12,742
Ohio $10,550
South Dakota $8,410
Idaho $6,730
Wisconsin $5,004
Nebraska $3,473
Tennessee $2,251
Virginia $1,882
North Carolina $1,464
Indiana $1,426
Connecticut $61
Missouri $2
Illinois $0
US Total $11,071,812
*Of the 50 states, 36 collect severance taxes on natural resource extraction.

Net Generation by Resource (2000-2010)

3,500,000
Percentage Generated by Resource

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Coal Natural Gas Other Renewables
Coal’s dominant position as a power source is beginning to decline with the increased use of
natural gas and renewable resources. The United States is just beginning to tap into the Fig. 19
potential of renewable resources, which is expected to further reduce the use of coal.

Net Generation by Resource (2000-2010)

Natural Other
Coal Gas Renewables
2000 1,966,265 601,038 80,906
2001 1,903,956 639,129 70,769
2002 1,933,130 691,006 79,109
2003 1,973,737 649,908 79,487
2004 1,978,301 710,100 83,067
2005 2,012,873 760,960 87,329
2006 1,990,511 816,441 96,525
2007 2,016,456 896,590 105,238
2008 1,985,801 882,981 126,101
2009 1,755,904 920,979 144,279
2010 1,850,750 981,815 168,144

Average Capacity Factor by Energy Source
(2007-2009)

100%

90%

80%

70%
Percentage

60% 2007
50% 2008

40% 2009

30%

20%

10%

0%
Coal N.Gas/CC N.Gas/Other Nuclear Hydro Other Renew
Capacity Factor is the ratio of energy generation in a year to the maximum energy possible if the
plant ran at full capacity for the full year. Coal and nuclear plants typically run as baseload units, thus
high capacity factors. In contrast, renewables run only when wind or solar resources are Fig. 20
available. Natural gas plants typically run as peaking or intermediate units and help to balance the
system. Oil represents only 1.2 percent of total power generation and is not included in this chart.

Average Capacity Factor by Energy Source
(2007-2009)

Resource 2007 2008 2009
Coal 74% 72% 64%
N.Gas/CC 42% 41% 42%
N.Gas/Other 11% 11% 10%
Nuclear 92% 91% 90%
Hydro 36% 37% 40%
Other Renew 40% 37% 34%

Energy Consumption per Capita (2009)

1000

900

800

700
Thousand Btu

600
19th
Lowest
500

400

300

200

100

0
WY AK LA ND TX SD KY NE MT IA CO
Increased energy use is linked to population growth through increases in housing, commercial
space, transportation, and goods and services. However, Colorado’s energy consumption is Fig. 21
lower than many, less-populous states based on an innovative culture that supports initiatives
such as SmartGrid City and Fort ZED.

Energy Consumption per Capita (2009)

Thousand
State Btu
Wyoming 956
Alaska 908
Louisiana 750
North Dakota 661
Texas 456
South Dakota 444
Kentucky 435
Nebraska 423
Montana 422
Iowa 418
Indiana 409
Alabama 405
Oklahoma 404
West Virginia 393
Mississippi 386
Kansas 385
Arkansas 365
Minnesota 354
South Carolina 347
Tennessee 340
New Mexico 334
Idaho 330
Maine 327
Ohio 315
Wisconsin 309
Washington 305
Missouri 304
Virginia 303
Georgia 301
Illinois 296
Pennsylvania 290
Colorado 290
Delaware 288
Oregon 279
New Jersey 275
North Carolina 272
Utah 271
Michigan 271
Nevada 268
Vermont 255
Maryland 251
Florida 232
New Hampshire 229
Connecticut 224
Arizona 221
California 217
Massachusetts 216
Hawaii 210
Rhode Island 207
New York 196

Energy Consumption/Real Dollar of GDP (2009)

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0
Thousand Btu

10.0 12th
Lowest
8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
LA ND WY AK KY MS WV MT AL AR CO
Energy intensity (Btu of energy use per dollar of real Gross Domestic Product) falls as a
result of structural changes to the economy and efficiency improvements. Colorado’s Fig. 22
public/private partnerships with utilities have increased energy efficiency in the state.

Resource Rich Colorado (Full Report)

Resource Rich Colorado (Full Report)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais de Ports-To-Plains Blog

Mais de Ports-To-Plains Blog (20)

Último

Último (20)

Resource Rich Colorado (Full Report)