Earlier Oil Articles

It could use anti ship missiles fired from Qeshm or Larak islands.
It could use airplanes from nearby airbases, such as at Bandar Abbas.
It could deploy mines across the strait that would detonate whenever a ship passed over a mine.

Use of any of these methods would violate international treaties.

The United States has the air power to prevent missile launches from Qeshm or Larak islands and has the ability to prevent the Iranian air force from attacking ships.

The United States does not, however, have the ability to clear mines from the strait if Iran made even the slightest effort to interfere with minesweeping efforts.

Some have said Iran could not lay mines without being interdicted by U.S. warships and that mines were, therefore, not a threat.

What follows is a passage from an unpublished novel¹.

The Aegis Destroyer in the Gulf stationed off Oman, close to the Strait of Hormuz, monitored the flight. The change in altitude and speed were seen by the officer on duty in CIC.

He was about to send his report noting the difference in altitude and speed when the planes wheeled to their left over Qeshm Island, formed a line across the Strait and headed on a course of 118 degrees. This flight path took them straight toward the shipping lanes of the Strait of Hormuz.

Team Bravo on Qeshm Island saw them as they roared overhead.

The shipping lanes were two-miles wide with a two-mile separation. The eastern or northern lane was for inbound traffic while the southern or western lane was for outbound traffic. Water depths were actually deep enough outside these lanes for safe passage by most ships, but the lanes maintained an orderly flow of shipping and minimized the danger of collisions or groundings. Super tankers, or VLCC’s, had a draft of 60 or more feet, while the depths at the Strait were over 300 feet.

The Aegis immediately sent a message to COMFIFTHFLT and CENTCOM and the Pentagon. This was a major change in routine by the eight C-130’s, and everyone needed to get the message.

“When in doubt, run in circles scream and shout” was an old navy saying. The Captain had no orders to take any action unless his ship was being attacked so he wanted instructions.

In eight minutes, the planes had passed over Qeshm Island and were over the Strait.

They flew side by side with three miles separating each plane. In this formation they cut a swath 21 miles wide as they headed for the shipping lanes.

Each C-130 was equipped with rails on each side of the plane’s cargo floor leading to the rear ramp and door. Mines were placed vertically on dollies that rolled along the rails with 10 mines on each side of the plane. When the rear door was opened, the mines could be rolled out the C-130. As the mines were released from the plane, a cord attached to the plane would pull out the arming plug so the mines were armed as they left the plane.

Each bottom mine weighed 2000 pounds, and the load of 20 mines was just within the carrying capacity of the C-130 aircraft.

The crews of these planes practiced for the past three months over the interior of Iran. Using dummy mines, they had flown about one hundred feet over the ground and become proficient at releasing the mines at one- to two-minute intervals. Flying at slightly over 100 knots, they would lay a mine every two to three miles.

Now they headed over the Strait of Hormuz to perform the mission for which they had trained.

When the lead, eastern most plane in the formation was five miles from the shore of Qeshm, the C-130’s started to lay their mines. As each mine fell from a plane, a small drogue chute opened to help slow the mine so as to minimize any damage that might occur as the mine entered the water.

In 35 minutes, all 160 mines were laid in the Strait of Hormuz and shipping was completely blocked.

The planes banked to the left and started toward land, heading toward Sirik, Iran. Upon reaching Sirik, they turned left again and headed toward their base at Bandar Abbas.

The operation, after starting to drop their-mines until reaching Sirik, took less than an hour.

Mining the strait could be accomplished quickly.

Twenty to twenty-five percent of the world’s oil supply would be cut off for a lengthy period of time: Several months if Iran didn’t interfere with mine clearing operations and indefinitely unless the United States took military action against Iran.

Novel: Terror by any Name, by Dears

TSAugust

June 7, 2009

Threatening America

Efforts by overzealous environmental groups and individuals continue to harm America’s economy and threaten American jobs.

The use of unconventional oil, such as tar sands and oil shale, is being threatened by these groups.

A typical example is where the US Conference of Mayors passed a resolution submitted by Mayor Kitty Piercy of Eugene, Oregon, encouraging mayors to stop buying unconventional fuels that emit more CO2 than conventional fuels.

Another example is Section 526 of the 2008 Energy Bill that could prevent the use of oil produced from Canadian Tar Sands.

The Canadian government sent a letter to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy deploring the possibility that Section 526 could prevent the use of oil from Tar Sands. Section 526 restricts the use of unconventional fuels that emit larger amounts of CO2 than oil produced from conventional sources.

Oil and pipeline companies have indicated they will invest as much as $31 billion in new refineries and pipelines to process Canadian oil produced from Tar Sands.

These investments and the jobs accompanying them are threatened by this legislation, especially if the new Obama administration enforces a strict interpretation of the law.

Oil shale development is likewise threatened by this legislation. Oil shale could potentially make the United States independent of foreign sources of oil.

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, has pointed to Tar Sands as a bad investment because of its CO2 emissions.

Steven Kallick, director of The Pew Environment Group's boreal conservation project made similar comments.

This law is another example of how environmental groups are tightening the energy noose around America’s neck. These groups oppose oil and gas exploration and drilling in the United States and in the U. S. Continental Shelf, supposedly because of CO2 emissions, yet they also consistently oppose nuclear power that emits zero CO2.

Meanwhile environmental groups support alternatives such as wind and solar power, alternatives that cannot replace gasoline or produce enough electricity to provide for America’s projected growth in electricity demand, let alone replace any existing demand for electricity.

TSAugust

January 25, 2009

Natural Gas for Cars

There has been a concerted effort by a few people to encourage the use of natural gas (NG) in automobiles so as to drastically cut the amount of oil we import.

There are three key issues that should be examined before adopting such a proposal.

Is there sufficient natural gas available in the United States to power all or a large number of our vehicles?
Can the necessary infrastructure be developed?
Can NG cars be built or retrofitted in sufficient quantity to have a substantial effect on the oil we import?

The first issue is the most important and is critical to any decision to undertake a national program for using NG in vehicles.

We know that wind energy cannot replace NG for generating electricity. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_W4_bv4c9w )

In fact, more natural gas may be needed for generating electricity if coal fired power plants can’t be built.

If it’s not possible to free-up NG from generating electricity, the issue is very simple; can we produce enough additional NG to power our vehicles?

Unless there is enough additional supply, the use of natural gas in vehicles will drive up the price of natural gas. Higher prices will hurt consumers who heat their homes with natural gas and will cause a loss of jobs in those industries who rely on natural gas.

A cursory look at natural gas reserves and production would seem to indicate that the new drilling technologies used in shale formations might be able to supply the needed additional natural gas. There are also huge reserves of natural gas in the outer continental shelf that would be available if Congress lifts the ban on drilling.

The new Alaskan natural gas pipeline will also bring more natural gas to market in the lower 48. On the other side of the coin, Canadian production of natural gas for export may be declining.

It could very well be that there will be a glut of natural gas, but this needs to be examined carefully.

TSAugust plans on producing a new video on this subject for You Tube in the next several weeks.

TSAugust

September 28, 2008

ANWR Oil

There is a renewed debate about opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling for oil. The debate has serious implications for Americans because of our dependence on foreign oil.

ANWR is nearly the size of South Carolina, while the area required for drilling platforms is equal to the size of the Charleston SC airport.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) determined there were 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable crude using mid 1990’s technology in ANWR. The USGS estimated that in total there were between 15.6 and 42.3 billion barrels of oil in place, with a mean value of 27.8 billion barrels; of which 10.4 billion were currently technically recoverable. At current oil prices all of this oil is commercially recoverable.

ANWR Pic

They also said that oil imports would decline barrel for barrel with ANWR production.

The report established ranges for potential oil production based on a range of “resource cases.” The daily production for these cases, range from 1 million barrels of oil per day (mb/d) to 1.8 mb/d.

The report also said our balance of payments will be improved annually, by $11 billion for the low resource case, to $27 billion for the high resource case during the 12 year production period covered by the report.

On the negative side, the report estimates that it could take 8 or more years before production can begin.

The report also mentions the threat of lawsuits, presumably by environmentalists, that could significantly delay production.

Source: Energy Information Administration, May 8 2008 report, Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

TSAugust

September 21, 2008

Energy Videos

A series of videos have been put on You Tube by TSAugust to address serious energy issues.

The latest video “Energy Clarity Wind” is one of a series produced by TSAugust to provide factual information about energy issues. It also identifies a flaw in the Pickens Plan.

It can be seen at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_W4_bv4c9w

The two earlier “Energy Clarity” videos were

on “Oil and Electricity” and “Biofuels”.

They can be viewed at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnTlb3SwN1o

And

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YqL3unqURI

The next video will be on plug-in Hybrid Electric vehicles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCNV6rTQvZA

TSAugust

September 7, 2008

Bear Hug

The Russian bear is hugging Europe, and Europe doesn’t know how to extricate itself.

Russia’s strategy is to make Europe politically neutral, by controlling Europe’s energy supply. With the possible exception of the UK, Western European countries are falling in line; but Eastern European countries who suffered under Russian control, are resisting.

The attack on Georgia was as much about control of the pipelines supplying Europe with natural gas, as it was about two irrelevant breakaway provinces.

Russia threatens the pipeline from Baku to Turkey that runs through Georgia.

Here are the facts.

Russia has the largest supply of natural gas in the world, and has the eighth largest oil reserves.
Europe gets nearly half its natural gas from Russia. It gets most of the rest from Algeria and Libya.
o control the natural gas from North Africa, Gazprom offered to buy all of Algeria’s and Libya’s exports. Fortunately for Europe, this didn’t happen. (Medvedev, Russia’s President, was formerly head of Gazprom.)
Russia has cut off Europe’s supply of natural gas in the past, by cutting off the Ukraine. Recently it cut off supplies to the Czech Republic.
The proposed Nabucco pipeline in Georgia, scheduled for construction beginning in 2010, was to take natural gas to Austria and provide an end run around Russian controlled gas. The attack on Georgia has made this pipeline a high risk investment, probably causing its cancellation.
Europe’s supply of natural gas from the North Sea is declining, so it will become ever more dependent on Russia for natural gas.
Europe has very small amounts of oil, so will have to buy oil on the open market, a market that provides Russia with huge amounts of cash.

Europe, even more than the United States, needs an energy policy that would make it less dependent on foreign oil and natural gas; specifically from Russia.

Europe’s investment in wind doesn’t provide it with oil or natural gas: wind generates electricity and doesn’t produce oil or natural gas.

Europe’s fixation on controlling CO2 emissions is preventing it from developing a policy that could use its coal reserves to produce diesel fuel (coal to liquids) or to convert coal to natural gas.

While the Soviet Union failed to control Europe by using the might of the Soviet army, Russia is now accomplishing by using its strangle hold on natural gas and oil.

TSAugust

August 31, 2008

Coal Remains King

The world’s largest reserves of oil are in the Middle East, yet some of these countries are building coal fired power plants.

The rational is simple: Oil can produce huge revenues so why use it to generate electricity when coal can do the job more economically.

Abu Dhabi has announced it will switch to coal fired power plants. Dubai is building four coal fired plants, with a combined rating of 4,000 MW. Egypt also plans on building a coal fired power plant.

The Kyoto protocol classifies these as developing countries, so they are under no obligation to control CO2 emissions.

This is also true of China which is building one or two new, coal fired power plants weekly. According to Cambridge Energy Research Associates, China built more coal fired power plants in 2007 than the UK did throughout its entire history.

China is also constructing a large Coal to Liquids (CTL) plant in Inner Mongolia. This CTL plant will produce twice as much CO2 as will a conventional coal fired power plant.

Russia and Poland are using their coal rather than exporting it.

Columbia and Australia are large exporters of coal, and demand for coal is booming. Columbia’s exports of coal, for example, are ten times what they were six years ago.

It would appear that the world is voting for coal and cheap electricity, rather than for restrictions on the use of coal; such as would be the case with the proposed EPA regulations or Cap & Trade legislation.

TSAugust

August 24, 2008

EXCLUSIVE Shell Abandoning U.S. Shale

It has been learned, unofficially, that Shell Oil Company will abandon its development of oil shale extraction in the United States.

This follows a rejection by the Senate Appropriations Committee to end a moratorium on oil shale development. The vote was along party lines with Democrat’s unanimously rejecting Senator Allard's request to end the moratorium.

Shell oil Company’s abandonment of its work to extract oil in an environmentally safe process is a stunning blow to America’s energy needs.

The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations that would allow oil companies to develop oil-shale in Colorado and Utah.

The moratorium was established when the House passed Interior appropriations Bill, HR 2643 introduced by Rep. Norman Dicks (D-WA) that prohibited the Interior Department form issuing regulations permitting the development of oil shale.

Shell Oil Company has been developing its Freezewall technology that allows for the safe extraction of oil from shale by heating the shale in-situ within a development site surrounded by a frozen wall of water that prevents the loss of oil or the spread of materials from the development site.

TSAugust

August 3, 2008

Plug-ins Needed Now.

New oil discoveries lessen the fear that the world is running out of oil.

But, the discoveries tend to be outside the U.S. And if the U.S continues to avoid developing oil in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. will be ever more dependent on foreign oil.

Brazil is the latest country to discover huge oil reserves. The Tupi field off Brazil’s coast could turn Brazil into one of the world’s largest oil producers. (It’s ironic that Brazilian oil could undermine Brazil’s ethanol program.)

With oil hovering around $100 per barrel the discovery could bring new wealth to Brazil.

It is the transfer of wealth that should cause Americans alarm even if national security issues weren’t dangerous enough.

Russia is becoming prosperous because of the transfer of wealth from the West. It is allowing Russia to become belligerent and able to support military adventures.

The transfer of wealth is supporting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

By one estimate $700 billion are flowing annually to oil producing countries.

Oil imports are a major portion of America’s trade imbalance.

Just as General Motors built tanks during WWII that helped the U.S. win WWII, GM could help rescue America from its dependence on foreign oil by accelerating its efforts to produce Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles.

November 25, 2007

TSAugust.

PHEV; Front and Center

Three years ago a small group of experimenters at CalCars modified a Prius by adding a second battery and special controls so the modified Prius could obtain over 100 mpg of gasoline by plugging the battery into a standard 120 volt outlet, nightly.

In January 2006, TSAugust proposed leasing the battery so as to make PHEV’s affordable, (Affordable PHEV’s --Now)

All were virtually ignored by the main stream media.

TSAugust saw that PHEV’s had the potential to significantly reduce America's consumption of foreign oil.

In January, 2007, GM announced its intentions to build the Chevrolet Volt and the Saturn Vue, plug in hybrids of slightly different designs.

But aficionados of the Electric Vehicle derided GM because they believed GM had killed the original EV1 and couldn’t be relied on to actually produce the Volt or the Vue.

In April 2007, TSAugust wrote to A123Systems to encourage the leasing of their batteries.

Now there is a rush by automobile manufacturers to announce their version of a PHEV.

Toyota announces a PHEV pilot program in Japan; OPEL announces the Flextreme and Volvo the Recharge concept car. Can other manufacturers be far behind?

GM insists the Volt will be offered for sale to the public in 2010.

The PHEV has great potential and it appears as though manufacturers are taking it seriously.

GM has voiced its support of leasing the battery.

Nick Reilly, the President of General Motors Asia Pacific, said that GM is looking at leasing batteries for the Volt to customers, rather than asking them to pay a prohibitive price for the new technology.

"People won't buy a full car. They will buy a car and rent or lease the battery and the cost of leasing the battery will be the same as, or less than, the cost they're paying today for petrol. So the motoring costs of an electric vehicle don't necessarily have to be much higher than the cost of today's vehicles," he said.

September 16, 2007

TSAugust

Note:

The difference between the Prius PHEV and the Volt is that one uses the gasoline engine to power the car when not using battery power, while the other limits the gasoline engine to merely recharging the battery

The Prius uses the battery for its power until it exceeds a specified speed or the battery is discharged at which point the gasoline engine powers the car.
The Volt uses the small gasoline engine to recharge the battery but never uses it to power the car directly. The Volt has been referred to as a series PHEV.

All PHEV’s can plug the car into a 120 volt outlet to recharge the battery while parked, usually at night.

OPEC Achieving Strategy.

In the 1990’s OPEC had a problem; falling demand and falling prices. OPEC couldn’t cut output enough to increase market prices. In fact, demand was so weak that prices were falling to very low levels and OPEC revenues were disastrously low. Any cut in output would cause a further reduction in revenues

Today, conditions are different.

Demand is increasing worldwide so that when oil supplies decrease, market prices increase. A recent study commissioned by Congress predicts global oil demand will increase to 120 million barrels per day by 2030 from 86 million barrels per day this year.

This is allowing some OPEC countries to embark on a perverse strategy that cuts output while demand increases, thereby decreasing supply and forcing prices higher.

This strategy allows countries, like Venezuela, to cut output while maintaining revenues at levels acceptable to them. (Lower output at a sufficiently high price, maintains revenue.)

Under current conditions where demand is increasing worldwide, OPEC may have finally achieved the strategic advantage their cartel originally envisioned.

Rising demand comes as OPEC has little spare capacity, so that prices are destined to increase unless demand falters.

Under these conditions, a new strategy that further decreases supply, may force prices even higher.

The U.S. is caught in the grip of OPEC and countries such as Venezuela because the U.S. has no coherent energy strategy and won’t access the oil available to it in the Outer Continental Shelf.

The strategy proposed by TSAugust describes the issues and alternatives. See Strategy For Achieving Independence From Foreign Oil: A Plan for America.

July 29,2007

TSAugust

The Promise of LED’s

Light Emitting Diodes can replace incandescent and fluorescent bulbs and save large amounts of energy.

Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL’s) use about one quarter of the electricity used by an incandescent bulb. A 100 watt incandescent bulb uses 100 watts while a 100 watt Compact fluorescent uses only 23 watts. The Lumen output in modern CFL’s are about the same as incandescent bulbs.

Comparable LED (see note) bulbs are likely to use 90% less energy than incandescent bulbs.

Until recently LED’s were used primarily in traffic lights and in automobiles because white light was difficult to produce while red light was bright and useful in these applications.

Unfortunately, LED bulbs are expensive and the average consumer is likely not to pay the high first cost. Commercial and industrial users will do an analysis and buy LED bulbs if their lifetime savings offset the higher initial cost.

Lighting Science www.lsgc.com is producing LED bulbs along with other companies large and small, so LED bulbs are now available in certain sizes. Phillips Electronics has produced certain types of LED bulbs and is investing $80 million in an LED factory in Singapore.

Reportedly, Nick Holonyak Jr., a General Electric Company engineer built the first LED in 1962 and GE patented the discovery.

A major drawback to compact fluorescent bulbs is that it is very difficult to make them in special shapes, such as flickering candles used in chandeliers. Small R30 spot lights may also be an unsuitable configuration for CFL’s. This would pose a major problem to consumers if Congress outlaws incandescent bulbs. (Australia and other countries are in the process of outlawing incandescent bulbs.)

If Congress outlaws incandescent bulbs, LED lighting will be able to provide the special shapes formerly provided by specialty incandescent bulbs; but at a higher price.

Price wise, it appears as though LED bulbs are about where compact fluorescent bulbs were 15 years ago. In 1992, CFL’s cost around $19 which is about what special LED bulbs cost today.

Note:

LEDs, or light-emitting diodes, are essentially semiconductor chips that emit light when they come in contact with electricity.

July 8, 2007

TSAugust

Oil Independence Report.

The report A Strategy for Achieving Independence from Foreign Oil has been reissued with the latest information on key energy components.

The report:

Includes the latest information on Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV’s) and Coal to Liquid (CTL) as well as the economics of CTL and the Fischer-Tropsch method
Re-emphasizes that storage of hydrogen onboard vehicles is currently the major obstacle to using hydrogen for powering vehicles.
Establishes the need for large amounts of new electric generating capacity essential to achieving independence from foreign oil. It outlines why wind and other renewable sources are not capable of producing the huge amounts of needed electricity.
Describes how increases in population growth complicates achieving oil independence. (Population growth by 2050 will equal the total U.S. population in WWII.)
Describes the limits of Ethanol and Butanol.

Reemphasized is a fact often overlooked in discussions on energy independence: Achieving oil independence will significantly improve the nation’s balance of trade by reducing payments to foreign countries for oil.

June 17, 2007

TSAugust

Is Ethanol The Answer?

Can Ethanol break America’s addiction to foreign oil?

Or, will Ethanol cause high food prices, including high prices for meat, and eliminate income from the export of corn while doing little to cut America’s dependence on foreign oil?

Is it ethical to transform food into fuel?

Or, can Cellulosic Ethanol resolve these issues?

While Ethanol currently enjoys wide political support, these questions will loom large in the future.

If we are limited to using corn to produce Ethanol, Ethanol will prove to be an unsatisfactory interim solution that can not displace large quantities of foreign oil.

The math proves this point.

The U.S. consumed 134 billion gallons of gasoline in 2003. It would take more than 546 million acres of U.S. farmland to produce enough Ethanol from corn to replace all 134 billion gallons of gasoline.

There are only 30 million acres of underused cropland in the U.S.

Forests could be cleared, but this is counterproductive and transforms valuable forests into sub-prime cropland. “Corn is grown on the best land while forests grow on the worst."

Importing Ethanol is another alternative. Brazilian Ethanol made from sugar cane could add to our meager production of Ethanol from corn. Theoretically Brazil might be able to add 225 acres to sugar cane production to produce Ethanol. This could result in a large increase in Ethanol available on the world market. Currently, the United States 54 cent per gallon import tariff on Ethanol discourages any large increase in imported Ethanol.

While Brazil could theoretically produce large additional quantities of Ethanol, importing large quantities of Ethanol would replace one foreign source of energy for another; and Brazil is just as likely to sell its Ethanol to China and India as to the United States.

Cellulosic Ethanol can be produced from corn stalks, grasses and wood. Novozymes, Iogen and others are developing enzymes to break down the cellulose so it can be used to make Ethanol. Theoretically, Cellulosic Ethanol could increase the amount of Ethanol available in the U.S.

By our calculations, it may be possible to produce around 10 billion gallons of Ethanol from corn stalks by 2025, or considerably less than 10% of the gasoline the country will consume in 2025. (See A Strategy for Achieving Independence from Foreign Oil.”) Cellulosic Ethanol made from Switchgrass and wood might produce another 10 billion gallons of Ethanol, but this is strictly conjecture. (See notes.)

Ethanol is currently popular in Washington D.C., but it can not solve America’s addiction to foreign oil.

Sources ;

Various TSAugust reports.

Biofuels, Food or Wildlife? The Massive Land Costs of U.S. Ethanol; by Dennis Avery.

May 13, 2007

Notes:

Ethanol has 85% of the energy content of gasoline, so one gallon of Ethanol displaces .85 gallons of gasoline.
The U.S. produces over 200,000,000 tons of Corn Stover annually, but more than half must be left on the ground to conserve moisture etc. The above calculation assumes 100,000,000 tons can be gathered economically for producing Ethanol.
The U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture estimates that biomass might be able to displace 30% of U.S. petroleum consumption; however their report makes several very favorable assumptions.

Possible Energy Breakthrough.

A123 Systems Inc. has announced plans, in combination with Hymotion (see note) to produce battery modules that will allow Hybrid vehicles to be retrofitted with a Lithium-ion battery pack that converts the Hybrid to a Plug-in vehicle (PHEV), where the Li-ion battery can be recharged at night from a standard 120 volt outlet.

PHEV’s can operate for 40 miles on the Li-ion battery without using gasoline. Most commutes are less than 30 miles so PHEV’s could revolutionize gasoline consumption. It has been estimated that PHEV’s can achieve gasoline mileage of 100 to 150 miles per gallon in normal usage including trips longer than 40 miles.

A123 Systems sayscertified mechanics will be able to install a module in 2 hours with minimum changes to the existing Hybrid vehicle. “All components and safety features are incorporated in the module."

The cost of installing the module is estimated at $10,000. A123 Systems has encouraged Congress to allow a $3,500 tax credit which would lower the cost to $6,500. A123 Systems estimates a payback pf 5.5 years for the average consumer, though it is difficult to replicate their estimate and the payback period could be longer.

The high first cost is likely to deter broad acceptance by the public of PHEV conversions. Consumers have traditionally avoided upfront investments with the expectation of long term paybacks. The compact fluorescent lamp is a perfect example of consumers hesitating to buy a product based on long term savings. Fleet operators are more likely to accept investments of this nature.

Leasing Li-ion battery modules by electric utilities would make considerable sense with a monthly lease rate of around $85 which would be roughly equal to gasoline savings. (See TSAugust paper: “Affordable PHEV’s—Now.”) Electric utilities have a great deal to gain from PHEV’s as battery recharging will be done during off-peak hours and represent a revenue stream without additional capital investment

Note: A123 Systems announced on May 3, 2007 that it had acquired Hymotion.

May 6, 2007

Energy Independence and Oil.

The catch phrase Energy Independence is so all-inclusive that it distorts, rather than clarifies any discussion about oil independence.

America has many sources of energy, including; coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, geothermal and ocean waves.

Coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and geothermal have historically (i.e., at least in the last half of the twentieth century) been used to generate electricity.

Today very little electricity is generated using oil, (i.e., less than 4% of U.S. electricity generation and this, primarily in Hawaii.)

Natural gas and oil also have a special relationship in the U.S. They are used in large quantities by industry for feedstock (e.g., natural gas to produce chemical products such as fertilizer) and for other applications. In addition, natural gas has been a major source of home heating, while oil has also been used for home heating, primarily in the North East.

Oil is unique in that it has been the primary source of energy in the transportation sector.

This distinguishes oil from other energy sources when discussing energy independence.

Natural gas is also unique in that it must be produced in North America. Under any scenario, imported liquid natural gas (LNG) will remain a negligible source of natural gas in the U.S.

It can be seen that energy independence comes in several flavors.

Technically, the U.S. is already energy independent when it comes to generating electricity. The U. S. has sufficient coal to generate electricity far into the future. Wind power, which can only be used to generate electricity, merely augments or displaces coal in the generation of electricity.
Natural gas independence can only be achieved by drilling for natural gas in North America where it can be transported by pipeline to users.
Oil independence can only be achieved by addressing the energy source for cars and trucks, and possibly by developing oil shale. [See note]

Essentially, all of America’s oil imports are used in the transportation sector, (i.e., for gasoline and diesel fuel). Segmented in this manner (foreign versus domestic sources), oil produced in the U.S. is primarily used by industry, and to a lesser extent for jet fuel and for heating and to an even lesser extent for other miscellaneous uses such as lubricants.

Energy Independence is therefore a meaningless catch phrase.

The real issues are:

Independence from foreign oil, and,
Natural gas independence.

January 7, 2007

Note: It is technically possible to produce diesel fuel from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch method. Some of America’s need for transportation fuel could be produced using this method.

Panzer’s Ran on Coal.

Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) has emerged as an important process for the 21st century.

Historically it produced diesel fuel from coal for Nazi Germany’s armies. It also allowed South Africa to produce diesel oil from coal when it couldn’t import oil or gasoline due to the embargo placed against it.

The diesel fuel produced from F-T is excellent and can be used directly or as a blend with diesel fuel derived from oil.

In the 21st century the F-T process will be important for converting stranded natural gas to diesel oil. (Stranded natural gas is defined as natural gas located where it can not be used locally and must be shipped long distances to customers.)

F-T is already being used in a major way to produce liquid fuels from natural gas (GTL or Gas to Liquid) as an alternative to shipping liquefied (cryogenic) natural gas. Exxon Mobil Corp, Royal Dutch/Shell Group and ChevronTexaco Corp., have committed $20 billion to build GTL facilities in Qatar using that country’s huge natural gas reserves. Qatar has the second largest reserves of natural gas in the world.

A debate has emerged over whether to use the F-T process to convert natural gas in Alaska to liquids for transportation by tanker to the West Coast of America. Though it may be cheaper to transport liquids (diesel fuel) than natural gas, America’s shortage of natural gas infers that America may be better served by moving the natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 states by building a pipeline. This issue is further complicated by the rules against drilling in America’s outer continental shelf where there are huge reserves of natural gas.

To make liquid fuels from coal requires that coal first be converted to a gas. A few demonstration or research plants have been established in the United States to produce liquid fuels from coal. By one source it requires 2.8 million tons of coal for each 10,000 barrels of liquid fuel.

A major drawback to using coal to make diesel fuel is that converting coal to a gas for use in the F-T process emits large quantities of CO2. CO2 has become a huge negative for those concerned about global warming.

Diesel fuel made from coal using the F-T process is also currently more expensive than producing gasoline or diesel fuel from tar sands and potentially from oil-shale, so there is a question as to whether “oil from coal” can be competitive as an alternative source of diesel fuel.

America’s huge coal reserves are why investors are interested in the F-T process for producing oil from coal.

Syntroleum Corporation has produced jet fuel for use by the air force on an experimental basis. Rentech Corporation is pursuing the production of oil from coal using the F-T process.

Note: For those interested in researching the history of Fischer-Tropsch going back to the 1920’s, an archive of historic documents can be found at www.fischer-tropsch.org

November 5, 2006

Where Does Oil Money Go?

Which OPEC countries get the money the world spends on oil? And what about non-OPEC countries?

Finally, how much does the United States spend for its oil imports? And how does that affect the U.S. balance of payments?

The following tables show the oil revenues for OPEC and non-OPEC countries in $ Billions. (Forecast)

OPEC	2006F
Saudi Arabia	$162.0
UAE	$53.0
Nigeria	$52.7
Iran	$50.1
Kuwait	$44.1
Algeria	$41.6
Venezuela	$39.4
Libya	$31.2
Iraq	$24.9
Qatar	$23.3
Indonesia	($0.6)

The following table shows the oil revenues for non-OPEC countries in $ Billions. (Note that Russia’s oil revenues are nearly as great as those of Saudi Arabia.)

Non OPEC	2006F
Russia	$134.9
Norway	$56.0
Mexico	$30.5
Angola	$25.7
Kazakhstan	$20.2
Canada	$17.9
Oman	$13.2
Azerbaijan	$9.4
Malaysia	$7.5
Yeman	$6.2
Sudan	$5.9
Colombia	$5.4
Chad	$5.1
Syria	$2.5
Egypt	$1.7
UK	($1.6)

The United States spent an estimated $226 Billion in 2005 for oil. This represented approximately 32% of the U.S. balance of payments deficit.

These amounts will change with changes in the price of oil. For example in 1998 the United States only spent $44 Billion for its oil imports.

Sources: EIA www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/OPEC_Revenues/OPEC.html and BEA www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2006/trans206.xls

October 1, 2006

Oil and National Security.

A recent article in a major publication said that oil independence was not a national security issue and that we should import oil from Iran as Iran might then treat us as a customer rather than an adversary.

The following are facts that would suggest that oil is a national security issue.

Money Issues:

A frequent argument claims that oil is a national security issue because we are financing governments who are our enemies or support our enemies.

Unfortunately, this argument doesn’t hold up under closer scrutiny. If we do not buy oil from these countries others will buy their oil. In effect, the rest of the world will be supporting our enemies. Iran received around $50 billion last year for its oil, none from the United States.

But money flows are important and do affect U.S. national security.

The balance of payment would be greatly improved if the oil we used came from the United States. Rather than paying royalties to other countries we would be paying royalties to our federal and state governments. Improving our balance of payments would help strengthen the dollar.

Furthermore, royalties paid to the federal and state governments would help reduce our national and state debts. More money would be available for other purposes … including tax reductions. Money from domestic oil would make our economy stronger.

War for Oil.

Our economy is at the mercy of interruptions to our oil supply.

Two examples make the point of how we could be forced to fight a war for oil.

Saudi Arabia supplies around 10% of the world’s oil. If the Saudi government was overthrown, the new government could decide to stop producing oil; or to severely cut back on oil production. Such an event would cause a large increase in the price of oil.

If Iran was to block the Strait of Hormuz it would cut off nearly 25% of the world’s oil supply which would devastate our economy.

People will argue that either action would hurt Iran and Saudi Arabia as much as it would hurt us. That may be true, but it requires us to rely on our enemies being rational.

The mere threat of cutting off a major portion of the world’s oil supply gives our adversaries an advantage and forces us to be prepared to fight a war in the Mideast.

Price of Oil.

While the price of oil is set by global market supply and demand, the price is keyed to the dollar. Iran has attempted to set the price of oil based on the Euro, but Iran represents such a small part of the world’s oil supply that the price remains based on the dollar.

If Saudi Arabia or OPEC decided to base the price of oil on the Euro it could result in an increase in the price of oil since the Euro is currently a stronger currency. Countries will need Euro’s, not dollars to pay for their oil and this could undermine the strength of the dollar.

If the United States found alternative technologies that reduced oil consumption it might reduce the demand for oil sufficiently to place some downward pressure on the world’s price of oil.

Oil Independence.

Some claim that it is impossible to achieve independence from foreign oil.

The report A Strategy for Achieving Independence from Foreign Oil shows it is possible to achieve this objective.

September 24, 2006

Oil on the Beach.

Much attention is given to oil spills, while natural oil seepage is largely ignored in discussions about drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.

It is not unusual for someone walking along the beach to find oil or tar on their feet. The typical inclination is to curse the oil industry for spilling oil into the ocean when in fact the oil probably came from natural seepage and not from an oil spill.

Total seepage in the Gulf of Mexico is about 140,000 tonnes per year. Add to this the average seepage from other North American waters (i.e., California etc.) of 20,000 tonnes and the total North American seepage is 160,000 tonnes per year.

Total oil spills from oil and gas production facilities and pipelines in North American waters averaged 1,836 tonnes over the same ten year period.

Therefore, 87 times more oil seeps naturally into North American waters than comes from all the spills from pipelines and oil/gas production facilities combined.

Looked at differently, there is a 99% chance that the oil on the hikers feet came from natural sources and not from an oil spill.

(For reference:

160,000 tonnes = 1,120,000 barrels,

1,836 tonnes = 12,852 barrels.

A VLCC tanker carries around 2 million barrels of oil.)

Source:

Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates and Effects. Published by the National Academies Press. Web site http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309084385/html

August 20, 2006

Fertilizer Independence.

Is there a new independence issue in addition to oil?

The high cost of natural gas, which is used to make ammonia fertilizer, has caused the U.S. to shut down many of its ammonia fertilizer plants. As a result, 60% of ammonia based fertilizer is now imported.

Countries now making ammonia fertilizer formerly made by the U.S., are Venezuela, Trinidad, Russia and countries in the Middle East.

Ammonia based fertilizer is used to grow the corn we are turning into Ethanol. Ethanol, is therefore indirectly dependent on many of the same countries from whom America imports its oil.

Another victim of high natural gas prices has been the chemical industry. Of the 72 new chemical plants being built around the world, none are being built in the U.S.

By one count, 100,0000 American jobs have been lost since 2000 due to the shortage, and resulting high price of natural gas.

America has vast amounts of natural gas in its outer continental shelf, which has been off limits to drilling.

July 30, 2006

Oil Independence Update

TSAugust has published the latest update to its report, “A Strategy for Achieving Independence from Foreign Oil."

The three major additions to the report are:

How oil from the Gulf of Mexico and other domestic sources of oil can help bridge the gap from where we are today to where we should be by 2050.
That oil independence improves America’s economic security by removing the threat of interruptions to the oil supply and by significantly improving the nation’s balance of trade.
That eliminating oil for powering vehicles could, by one estimate, reduce the nation’s emission of CO2 by 20%.

The core components of the strategy that remain unchanged are:

Accelerating the transition to hydrogen for transpiration.
Accelerating the development of Hybrid Plug-in vehicles.
Promoting the development of oil shale

The report describes the actions required for each of these core components of the strategy as well as for addressing additional supporting components.

The President of TSAugust said: “To our knowledge, this is the only comprehensive strategy for achieving independence from foreign oil that has been published anywhere."

March 5, 2006

Oil Shale Project Moves Ahead.

Shell will proceed with a football field size development of its freezewall technology for extracting oil from shale.

If successful, this step could lead to commercial development of oil shale in the U.S. within this decade.

A recent Rand study estimated that there were between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion bbls of recoverable oil in the Green River geological formation, covering parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. “The mid-point of the RAND estimate - 800 billion barrels - is three times the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves” according to RAND.

Shell has received the necessary approvals from Rio Blanco County, Colorado and federal officials to proceed with its $50 million study that will take up to four years to complete.

The freezewall technology uses refrigerants that are circulated through underground pipes to freeze the groundwater: This establishes a barrier wall in the earth to keep groundwater out of the oil-shale formation and to keep heated oil within the walled in area.

Once the freezewall is established, heaters are lowered through bore holes into the shale formation to release the oil from the shale. The liquid or vaporized oil is then pumped out of the ground.

Shell’s representative said: “We’ve tested the process in a circular pattern and this will be a football field-shaped rectangle in an area more like where commercial production could happen".

Development of this area will require establishment of a gravel road as well as a treatment plant and waste storage areas to clean up any contaminated water and fluids. Shell is also storing top soil so as to be able to fully reclaim the site.

If successful, this method of extracting oil from shale will avoid the serious environmental issues that are associated with the retort method of mining, crushing and cooking oil from shale.

See www.rand.org for RAND news.

September 25, 2005

Is Oil Really Fungible?

Common wisdom has said that oil is fungible: Price is established by market forces and it makes no difference where oil originates or where it goes.

For this reason, an embargo by one country (i.e., country X) may not affect oil delivered to the U. S. Country X’s oil might be delivered to the EU rather than the U.S., while oil originally destined for the EU would be redirected toward the U.S.

There were some shortages during the first oil embargo initiated by Saudi Arabia and the market was distorted for a several months, but oil worked itself through the system.

Now, over 60% of oil is owned by governments and governments are trying to increase the amount of oil they own and control. For example, government owned companies from India and China are trying to buy oil rights from Canada, Brazil and South East Asia.

Major privately owned oil companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell control less and less of the world’s oil.

How will countries such as China and India react when there is a major disruption in oil supply? Will they allow the oil they control to find its way into the world’s supply system or will they gather it for their own use?

China expects that its demand for oil will increase by 7 million barrels per day by 2012: Supplying China with oil means finding another Saudi Arabia over the next few years. India has similar needs.

What happens during this period of rising demand if there is a major disruption in supply? Supply interruptions are easy to imagine.

Foremost is the threat of Iran blocking the Straits of Hormuz cutting off 25% of the world’s supply of oil.

Sabotage or missile strikes of Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia would cripple Saudi oil production: Or militants could finally overthrow the Saudi government.

Nigeria is unstable and its oil production could be shut down.

China and Japan are afraid the 621 mile long Straits of Malacca, separating Indonesia and Malaysia and only 1.5 miles wide at one point, might be blocked. Blocking the Straits of Malacca would require tankers to travel an extra 1000 miles to reach Japan or China. When America offered to deploy its Navy to the straits to protect against terrorist threats, Indonesia, Malaysia and China all voiced strong objections.

While blocking the Straits of Malacca would interrupt oil deliveries for a few days other events such as blocking the Straits of Hormuz could interrupt supplies for several years, not several months.

If China and India gathered the oil they control for their use during an interruption in oil supply, where would it leave America.

September 11, 2005

Oil Security and You.

Oil is a national security issue. America’s oil supply is at risk. The refinery and terminal at Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia is vulnerable to sabotage and rocket attack. Blocking the Straits of Hormuz would cut off most of Saudi oil from world markets. Either of these events could cause massive disruption in oil supplies for several years; not several months.

How would America react if Iran used its version of cruise missiles to destroy Ras Tanura and block the Straits of Hormuz?

How would the world react if 25% of the world’s oil supply was suddenly cut off?

America imports 60% of its oil and relies on foreign oil for its transportation system and industry.

Today, TSAugust has published “A Strategy for Achieving Independence from Foreign Oil”. This is a comprehensive, integrated strategy that can insulate America from the type of disastrous oil shock outlined above. It is a follow-on to an earlier paper that focused on a single technology.

Today’s paper incorporates two technologies, hydrogen and Hybrid Plug-in vehicles; coupled with oil from shale, improved domestic oil production from traditional sources and production of ethanol.

This paper presents the facts every American needs to have about America’s dependence on foreign oil and the only options for ending this dependence.

It explains why several alternatives popularized by the media are not capable of ending America’s dependence on foreign oil.

You can help by telling others about this paper: It is free to everyone from TSAugust.org.

Email your friends and family, as well as your elected federal and state officials asking them to read this report.

This paper raises issues such as;

Is oil really fungible?
How long will it take to achieve independence from foreign oil?
What about wind and solar?
Why not rely on Canada?

America’s future is at stake. America needs an energy policy that will achieve independence from foreign oil. This strategy can be the basis for such a policy.

August 28, 2005

Oil Supply Going Up.

The latest analysis by a prestigious research organization shows that oil supplies will increase over the next several years. This contradicts the fear, popularized by the media, that the world is running out of oil.

Oil production capacity should increase by 20% and grow by 16 million bbls per day from 85 to 101 million bbls per day between 2004 and 2010. Much of this new supply is already under development.

What is now considered unconventional oil, such as the Canadian Tar Sands, will be viewed as conventional in the near future.

In addition, Gas to Liquid (GTL) technologies will allow the production of Diesel fuels from natural gas. This natural gas is currently stranded in areas having large reserves of natural gas that are far removed from markets for natural gas. These liquids are transportable by tanker, just as oil is today.

While the world is not running out of oil, the United States finds itself dependent on foreign sources for 60% of its oil. This will not change unless new fuels are found for the transportation sector that used over 13 million bbls of oil per day in 2002

Hydrogen or Hybrid Plug-In vehicles provide the best opportunity for weaning America from foreign oil. Oil from domestic oil shale could help in the transition.

Source for oil supply projections is Daniel Yergin, Chairman Cambridge Energy Research Associates from his OpEd in the Washington Post.

July 31 2005

Oil Shale Option.

The 1973 oil embargo precipitated large investments in oil shale production. The industry went bust when oil prices collapsed in the 1980’s: Around $5 billion were lost before the last of the companies gave up in 1992.

Once again the question is whether to develop oil shale as a national strategy for achieving oil independence: Once again Congress is conducting hearings on this issue.

Total U.S. oil shale resources are estimated to be 1.8 trillion barrels; concentrated in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. Over 50% of the world’s recoverable oil shale deposits are located in this area: 80% of these resources are on Federal lands.

By one estimate 300 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from these shale deposits.

The surface retort method for extracting oil from shale is the only proven technology. It involves mining the shale and then heating the shale to extract the oil. Environmentalists have hated this method as it uses large amounts of water, produces air emissions where there currently are none and leaves large areas of finely broken shale and water residue behind. Producing a million barrels of oil requires disposing of more than a million tons of byproducts. Greenpeace lobbied hard to have Australia’s single oil shale plant shut down.

A second method, being developed by Shell, heats the shale underground and then extracts the liquefied oil. This method is less costly and may have less environmental impact. The Shell process can recover around 60% of the entrapped oil compared with 30% for the surface retort method. Shell is about five years from deciding whether to commercialize the process.

The major impediment to developing oil shale is the large investment required. Memories of the 1980’s collapse in oil prices are a major impediment in this regard.

The Alberta Energy Research Institute estimates that it requires an investment of $US 3.3 billion to produce 100,000 barrels per day (b/d) of crude oil from Canadian Tar Sands. Lacking industry estimates for oil shale investment, the Tar Sands may represent a surrogate for oil shale investment requirements. If so, an investment of over $US 30 billion would be required to produce 1 million b/d of oil from oil shale.

The U.S. currently imports over 10 million b/d of oil.

Another factor to consider is that it may require a decade before an investment actually begins to produce oil in significant quantities

Sources:

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, June 30, 2005.

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE OUTLOOK for Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources by Dr. Eddy Isaacs and Dr. Duke du Plessis, Alberta Energy Research Institute.

July 17 & 24, 2005

Independence From Foreign Oil.

TSAugust has published the paper "A Strategy For Achieving Independence from Foreign Oil" (see above.)

The following press release has been sent to editors, reporters and others who have an interest in this vitally important topic.

PRESS RELEASE

TSAugust

March 15, 2005

Adoption of a hydrogen strategy can achieve independence from foreign oil in around fifty years, according to a study released today by the public policy organization TSAugust. The technology is available today to implement this strategy.

The strategy emphasizes a transition to hydrogen for passenger vehicles using conventional internal combustion engines adapted for burning hydrogen, rather than fuel cells. It identifies hydrogen fueling stations, using either electrolysis or the reforming of natural gas in local fueling stations or, alternatively, producing hydrogen centrally and transporting it as a liquid to local fueling stations, as the component that can most easily jump start the hydrogen initiative through government-private partnerships.

Other elements of the strategy include; (1) developing oil reserves at the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) and other domestic locations to ensure a domestic oil supply for industrial purposes to protect domestic jobs; (2) Promoting the development of the next generation of nuclear power plants using high temperature gas reactors; (3) Accelerating the development of cellulosic ethanol and corn based ethanol; (4) Accelerating the development of fuel cells; and (5) Continuing development of coal to liquids using Fischer-Tropsch technology.

It will take time to achieve independence from foreign oil: time that world events may not accommodate. Achieving independence from foreign oil means that Americans must recognize the need to phase out the use of gasoline and diesel fuels to propel passenger vehicles and trucks.

Doubling gasoline mileage by adopting hybrids and other technologies or with Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards will have only a modest effect on reducing foreign oil consumption. Hybrids and ethanol can assist in the transition: Ethanol may have a role to play later depending on market forces.

Long term, market forces can determine the best ways to produce and distribute hydrogen. Similarly market forces will determine when and if fuel cells replace the internal combustion engine in passenger vehicles and light trucks.

While this paper’s focus is on hydrogen, it also examines alternatives and briefly describes their limitations: Wind and most other proposed alternatives are alternative ways for generating electricity and do not displace oil in any significant quantity.

The report concludes that the proposed strategy is the only strategy using known technologies that can achieve independence from foreign oil within this century.

The full report, including spread sheet summaries, can be downloaded from www.tsaugust.org.

TSAugust is a 501 (c) 3 non profit dedicated to providing factual information about environmental and energy issues.

-30-

Note: Subsequently a section was added to the report to cover Hybrid Plug-In vehicles that may have the potential to achieve independence from foreign oil. Additionally the potential of Oil Shale was added which together with Hydrogen and Hybrid Plug-in vehicles form the core of the strategy.

March 13, 2005

ANWR and Oil.

Debate is heating up about whether to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling for oil. This debate has serious implications for Americans; and relevant information is often hard to find.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) determined that there were 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable crude using mid 1990’s technology in ANWR. The USGS estimated that in total there were between 15.6 and 42.3 billion barrels of oil in place, with a mean value of 27.8 billion barrels; of which 10.4 billion were currently technically recoverable. At current oil prices all of this oil is also commercially recoverable. (A few years ago, when oil prices were below $18 per barrel, only 60% would have been commercially recoverable and some used this data to cast doubt about opening ANWR.)

In addition, newer drilling technologies will likely result in greater recoverable oil than the estimated 10.4 billion barrels.

Bottom line, the average daily production from ANWR would be approximately 1.4 million barrels per day. Production at this rate would last for around 30 years.

Without ANWR the Energy Information Agency (EIA) forecasts that domestic production will decline 700,000 barrels per day by 2025. For reference purposes, the U.S. imports about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day from Saudi Arabia. (Oil is fungible so actual imports can come from any source depending on price etc. Total imports in 2000 were 10.4 million barrels per day.)

ANWR is nearly the size of South Carolina while the area required for drilling platforms is equal to the size of the Charleston SC airport.

Directional drilling techniques allows reaching oil over six miles away from the drilling platform so that the area disturbed by drilling is extremely small, in this case 2000acres.

Total oil usage for cars and light trucks in 2002 was 7.9 million barrels per day. Other transportation needs (heavy trucks, planes etc.) used 5.3 million barrels per day. The rest of U.S. consumption in 2002, or around 6.3 million barrels per day, was primarily for industrial purposes.

Much has been said about threats to Caribou. Experience at the existing North Slope production facilities, only 80 miles West of ANWR, have seen the central artic Caribou herds increase in size from 3000 in 1970 before oil production, to nearly 32,000 today.

Sources:

Artic Power; www.anwr.org.

Office of Oil and Gas, EIA, DOE “Potential production from the coastal plain of the ANWR, updated assessment, May 2000".

U.S. House Resources Committee: ANWR and the Strictest Environmental Standards.

March 6, 2005

World Has Ample Oil.

Alarmists have said the world is running out of oil: Some saying that we are on the back side of the production curve with only 10 or 20 years left before there are shortages. This is not what the USGS found when it studied the impact of new extraction technologies that have increased the proven reserves and when it examined the world for undiscovered reserves.

The USGS survey in 2000 indicated that there are about 2120 billion gallons of proven and undiscovered reserves of oil outside the United States . This compares with the 539 Billion barrels of oil produced outside the US over the past 100 years.

This is relevant now, as the ready availability of oil will (other than in times of world tension) keep the price of oil down and continue to make it difficult for alternatives, such as hydrogen fuel cells, to be economically competitive. It also emphasizes the importance of drilling and exploring to find the oil we know is there.

Source: USGS world Petroleum Assessment 2000. See USGS Fact Sheet FS-070-00 April 2000.

Sunday: March 2, 2003

To Top of Page