EIN News says, "As Days of Easy Oil Fade in Middle East, Firms Turn to Newer Techniques. The days of easy oil for the Middle East are not yet over, but energy companies in the region have recently started testing newer, costlier techniques to enhance oil recovery, as fields show signs of aging. (nytimes.com)."
Easy oil is over about everywhere. We have tapped the oozing oil of California and the shallow-drilled oil of Pennsylvania and Texas. However, technology has significantly improved, and what was previously considered difficult drilling is now considered easy. The major difficulty that the drilling companies are facing is governmental restriction, particularly in the US.
Saudi Arabian oil from present wells will ultimately be mostly exhausted, just as was oil from California, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and the Saudis will find it still profitable to produce some oil through secondary recovery even though more expensive. However, there are new opportunities for primary oil production in Siberia and deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Brazil. We have recently proven the existence of gusher oil in the Gulf through the unfortunate incident of the BP oil spill. However that should not detract from the fact that we have made a major discovery and should allow drilling companies to develop technological improvements for greater safety to the environment, as we harvest this oil.
The US Department of Energy under Ken Salazar doesn't see it this way. He likes the current conservative approach. Take no risks. Unfortunately, this automatically leads to no success. We sorely need domestic oil and need to give drilling companies opportunities to develop their techniques in the US, which with continued technological improvement will not be as costly as is now predicted. The highest cost is to be restrictive and be dependent upon foreign suppliers for our domestic needs and unfortunately our military needs.
Lets kick out Ken Salazar and get somebody into our Department of Energy who can see this improved picture.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Catch 22 on Oli Drilling in the Gulf
Open Letter to Rep. Neugebauer:
EIN News says, "Rigs in Gulf Ready to Drill, But There's Little Work. Although the ban on drilling in the Gulf was officially lifted weeks ago, the top regulator for offshore drilling acknowledged that permits have been slower in coming as the government stiffened safety requirements and intensified its reviews. (nytimes.com)".
Middle East suppliers are not stupid. When they see things like this, they naturally take advantage of a marketing opportunity. My gasoline price just increased 20 cents a gallon in the last several days. We sorely need domestic oil production, but the Administration continues to deny it to the voting public. Let's hope for more turnaround in the next election.
For a better explanation to the casual observer, drilling companies are allowed to drill for oil in the Gulf, but they can't drill without permits, which they can't get. This is a typical government Catch 22. Catch-22s are often spoken with regard to rules, regulations, procedures, or situations in which one has knowledge of being or becoming a victim but has no control over it occurring.
I guess the basic question is why do you and other members of Congress allow this stupid situation to exist?
EIN News says, "Rigs in Gulf Ready to Drill, But There's Little Work. Although the ban on drilling in the Gulf was officially lifted weeks ago, the top regulator for offshore drilling acknowledged that permits have been slower in coming as the government stiffened safety requirements and intensified its reviews. (nytimes.com)".
Middle East suppliers are not stupid. When they see things like this, they naturally take advantage of a marketing opportunity. My gasoline price just increased 20 cents a gallon in the last several days. We sorely need domestic oil production, but the Administration continues to deny it to the voting public. Let's hope for more turnaround in the next election.
For a better explanation to the casual observer, drilling companies are allowed to drill for oil in the Gulf, but they can't drill without permits, which they can't get. This is a typical government Catch 22. Catch-22s are often spoken with regard to rules, regulations, procedures, or situations in which one has knowledge of being or becoming a victim but has no control over it occurring.
I guess the basic question is why do you and other members of Congress allow this stupid situation to exist?
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Kill Wind and Solar Subsidies
Senator Baucus has introduced a bill, which would extend subsidies for solar, wind, etc. energy production. In addition, he has included $2.5 billion to cover a 30% investment tax credit.
I don't now know what the cost of extending the present subsidies would be, but let's guess it would be a couple of billion dollars. Is this a time we should be spending $5 billion on a will-o'-the-wisp, which is what solar and wind energy are, compared to standard coal burning electricity plants?
I suggest the House and Senate fight to the death to kill this bill and any others concerning subsidies for wind and solar, which are known losers. Coal and oil drilling should continue to be promoted.
If there is a political need for something new, Congress should start to push small-scale hydroelectric power generation. We have a lot of rivers and streams that could be damned, and the subsequent falling water used also to generate electricity. General Electric will supply the turbines. We have available lots of large earth moving equipment. However, the dams and subsequently formed lakes must be small to avoid displacement of families from flooded land. Small lakes will be environmentally attractive for summer cottages etc.
Note also that we haven't done anything significant in flood control since the Tennessee Valley Authority multi-years ago. We are still plagued with heartbreaking accounts of flood victims, especially this past spring and summer. The TVA was a combination of flood control and electricity production. Let's do it again, with the modifications necessary to be consistent with present needs and technology now available.
I don't now know what the cost of extending the present subsidies would be, but let's guess it would be a couple of billion dollars. Is this a time we should be spending $5 billion on a will-o'-the-wisp, which is what solar and wind energy are, compared to standard coal burning electricity plants?
I suggest the House and Senate fight to the death to kill this bill and any others concerning subsidies for wind and solar, which are known losers. Coal and oil drilling should continue to be promoted.
If there is a political need for something new, Congress should start to push small-scale hydroelectric power generation. We have a lot of rivers and streams that could be damned, and the subsequent falling water used also to generate electricity. General Electric will supply the turbines. We have available lots of large earth moving equipment. However, the dams and subsequently formed lakes must be small to avoid displacement of families from flooded land. Small lakes will be environmentally attractive for summer cottages etc.
Note also that we haven't done anything significant in flood control since the Tennessee Valley Authority multi-years ago. We are still plagued with heartbreaking accounts of flood victims, especially this past spring and summer. The TVA was a combination of flood control and electricity production. Let's do it again, with the modifications necessary to be consistent with present needs and technology now available.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Another Ban on Oil Drilling
EIN News says, "U.S. Won't Allow Drilling in Eastern Gulf. The Obama administration reversed course and said it wouldn't allow drilling off the Atlantic coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida, citing safety concerns after the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. (wsj.com)".
This is ridiculous. We are crying for independent energy, of which the most easily available is crude oil and yet we will not allow ourselves to harvest it.
Granted, there is some environmental risk in oil drilling. However, there is always risk in about everything we do. Even the mandatory restriction on Gulf and Atlantic drilling near Florida risks continued dependence on Middle Eastern oil, with it's obvious disadvantages.
What do the people of Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi say? Are they willing to take a low-level risk of possible environmental damage with the upside possibility of improving their economy. Don't these people have any rights or is this just another federal government mandate with no consideration of the desires of the people involved?
I doubt that President Obama came up with this idea all by himself. It probably came from Ken Salazar of the Energy Department, who I previously suggested a few times be removed from his job.
I realize that Congress is fairly well tied up with unemployment benefits, budget balancing and tax increases, but there ought to be a little room for Congress to also pay attention to these other aspects of the Administration which continue to reinforce the collapse of US economic power.
This is ridiculous. We are crying for independent energy, of which the most easily available is crude oil and yet we will not allow ourselves to harvest it.
Granted, there is some environmental risk in oil drilling. However, there is always risk in about everything we do. Even the mandatory restriction on Gulf and Atlantic drilling near Florida risks continued dependence on Middle Eastern oil, with it's obvious disadvantages.
What do the people of Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi say? Are they willing to take a low-level risk of possible environmental damage with the upside possibility of improving their economy. Don't these people have any rights or is this just another federal government mandate with no consideration of the desires of the people involved?
I doubt that President Obama came up with this idea all by himself. It probably came from Ken Salazar of the Energy Department, who I previously suggested a few times be removed from his job.
I realize that Congress is fairly well tied up with unemployment benefits, budget balancing and tax increases, but there ought to be a little room for Congress to also pay attention to these other aspects of the Administration which continue to reinforce the collapse of US economic power.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Secretary Chu's Misleading Energy Address
Yesterday, Energy Secretary Chu spoke at the National Press Club, and reiterated a message that’s quite common from his speeches over the past two years. But, he said there’s a new sense of urgency now that empowered Republicans have vowed to dramatically cut federal spending.
I say that the only sense of urgency is for the federal government to get on with dramatic federal spending cuts, and especially in the energy R&D area.
In his talk, “Is the Energy Race Our New ‘Sputnik’ Moment?,” Chu said countries such as China have replaced Russia as the biggest threats to U.S. dominance in science. These countries are gaining economic and political clout rapidly on the international stage because of their willingness to invest heavily in scientific research and to do so with long-term policies in place.
I say, is Chu talking about energy or is he talking about scientific research in general? If he is talking about both, I agree completely that they are worthy of consideration. However, this is not an area for government. It is private education and private industry that are responsible for our continued development in energy technology and science in general.
Chu says, “I think time is running out. We shouldn’t lose sight of this, and federal support for science R&D will be critical for our economic competitiveness.”
I say, "Baloney!" Federal support for R&D is not critical to our economic competitiveness. Economic competitiveness lies in the hands of private industry. Government should keep out of it, other than to see that there is fairness on the international playing field. Government can assure this by use of the "Import Duty" card.
Chu spoke on the day when the White House’s Office of Science and Technology issued a report recommending an annual spending of $16 billion in energy research and development, which would be a big boost from the current annual average spending of $5 billion.
The federal government has spent billions of dollars over the past two years to support research as well as demonstration and even commercial projects in a variety of energy-related industries, including renewable power, electric grid upgrades, electric cars and their batteries, biofuels and a host of technologies to reduce energy use in office buildings and homes. The largess came from the stimulus package that aimed to rescue the ailing economy, and its various programs are coming to an end.
This previous spending has been money down a rat hole. The economic leadership of energy for the US is efficiency. This comes about through use of coal and oil, without the furthering a way of R&D and production funds for wind and solar. Periodically our government officials hold China as an example for development of renewable energy, when in fact the amount of money spent by China on renewable energy is picqueune. Look at the actual Chinese funding numbers for development of coal and oil. You will see that funding for Chinese renewable energy is window dressing.
I previously proposed that Secretary Chu be fired from his job. I maintain that position. He not only is not doing his job but is actually doing damage to the country.
I say that the only sense of urgency is for the federal government to get on with dramatic federal spending cuts, and especially in the energy R&D area.
In his talk, “Is the Energy Race Our New ‘Sputnik’ Moment?,” Chu said countries such as China have replaced Russia as the biggest threats to U.S. dominance in science. These countries are gaining economic and political clout rapidly on the international stage because of their willingness to invest heavily in scientific research and to do so with long-term policies in place.
I say, is Chu talking about energy or is he talking about scientific research in general? If he is talking about both, I agree completely that they are worthy of consideration. However, this is not an area for government. It is private education and private industry that are responsible for our continued development in energy technology and science in general.
Chu says, “I think time is running out. We shouldn’t lose sight of this, and federal support for science R&D will be critical for our economic competitiveness.”
I say, "Baloney!" Federal support for R&D is not critical to our economic competitiveness. Economic competitiveness lies in the hands of private industry. Government should keep out of it, other than to see that there is fairness on the international playing field. Government can assure this by use of the "Import Duty" card.
Chu spoke on the day when the White House’s Office of Science and Technology issued a report recommending an annual spending of $16 billion in energy research and development, which would be a big boost from the current annual average spending of $5 billion.
The federal government has spent billions of dollars over the past two years to support research as well as demonstration and even commercial projects in a variety of energy-related industries, including renewable power, electric grid upgrades, electric cars and their batteries, biofuels and a host of technologies to reduce energy use in office buildings and homes. The largess came from the stimulus package that aimed to rescue the ailing economy, and its various programs are coming to an end.
This previous spending has been money down a rat hole. The economic leadership of energy for the US is efficiency. This comes about through use of coal and oil, without the furthering a way of R&D and production funds for wind and solar. Periodically our government officials hold China as an example for development of renewable energy, when in fact the amount of money spent by China on renewable energy is picqueune. Look at the actual Chinese funding numbers for development of coal and oil. You will see that funding for Chinese renewable energy is window dressing.
I previously proposed that Secretary Chu be fired from his job. I maintain that position. He not only is not doing his job but is actually doing damage to the country.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Executive Order on Polar Bears Restricts Domestic Oil and Gas Production
The International Business Times US reports that more than 187,000 square miles of on-shore barrier islands in Alaska have been designated a 'critical habitat' for polar bears.
This is an area larger than each of the 50 states, except Texas and all of Alaska. The area reportedly includes Chukchi and Beaufort seas, both sites for oil and gas explorations. The special status could mean additional restrictions over the companies applying for permits to operate in the region.
The imposition of probable restrictions on oil and gas drilling was done by Executive Order through Tom Strickland, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
I have nothing against polar bears other than the fact that I don't want to get close to them, since I know that the one thing they have in mind is to have me for lunch. However, this country is in dire need of domestic oil and gas production and any limitation, such as the above, continues to damage our economic position. The simple question is why do we keep shooting ourselves in the foot?
Is it because we don't have a realistic understanding of environmentalism, or is it a continuation of President Obama's program to equalize wealth on a worldwide basis, through restricting economic growth in the US?
It seems to me that this is another example of the executive branch of government controlling all government activities, while Congress sits idly by and watches destruction of our economy and increased vulnerability to physical destruction by foreign powers because of our energy weakness.
This is an area larger than each of the 50 states, except Texas and all of Alaska. The area reportedly includes Chukchi and Beaufort seas, both sites for oil and gas explorations. The special status could mean additional restrictions over the companies applying for permits to operate in the region.
The imposition of probable restrictions on oil and gas drilling was done by Executive Order through Tom Strickland, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
I have nothing against polar bears other than the fact that I don't want to get close to them, since I know that the one thing they have in mind is to have me for lunch. However, this country is in dire need of domestic oil and gas production and any limitation, such as the above, continues to damage our economic position. The simple question is why do we keep shooting ourselves in the foot?
Is it because we don't have a realistic understanding of environmentalism, or is it a continuation of President Obama's program to equalize wealth on a worldwide basis, through restricting economic growth in the US?
It seems to me that this is another example of the executive branch of government controlling all government activities, while Congress sits idly by and watches destruction of our economy and increased vulnerability to physical destruction by foreign powers because of our energy weakness.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Domestic Oil and Gas Production Is a Must
Open letter to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) Texas:
Dear Senator Hutchison,
I have read your. Letter concerning your position on a national energy policy, and am sorry to see that you are not applying proper logic to the problem.
For example, you say that you support a comprehensive energy strategy that combines conservation, the development of alternative sources of energy, and the use of domestic oil and gas production. Of the three items you mention, the only logical one is "use of domestic oil and gas production". Consideration of the other two only tends to dilute and waste our energies in an unproductive manner.
Conservation should be a standard procedure in all of operations, not only in energy usage. Excessive consideration of conservation tends to give an unbalanced approach, since it is obvious that conservation alone can do little to supply us with the increased energy we need for continued economic development.
Even more significant as an item of interference is consideration of alternative sources of energy. The alternative sources are generally listed as wind, solar, and nuclear. Of these only nuclear has the potential to be economically competitive with the burning of fossil fuels, which includes coal, oil, and natural gas. I have said previously that government subsidies for all forms of energy should be immediately terminated, and particularly those for wind and solar, which is taxpayer money down a rat hole.
While I appreciate your attempt to be unbiased and consider energy in all forms, you must go further by sorting out the ridiculous. Immediately eliminate all subsidies and reduce restrictions on oil and gas drilling to encourage local production.
Do not fall into the traps of considering "sustainability", and the crying of environmentalist extremists. No one really knows the extent of oil and gas reserves. We continue to find "gushers", such as in the BP Gulf oil spill. If we ever run short in your lifetime and even that of your grandchildren, you can depend upon American ingenuity to come up with the necessary alternatives. Government's best position is to stay out of the way and not fritter away taxpayer money.
Dear Senator Hutchison,
I have read your. Letter concerning your position on a national energy policy, and am sorry to see that you are not applying proper logic to the problem.
For example, you say that you support a comprehensive energy strategy that combines conservation, the development of alternative sources of energy, and the use of domestic oil and gas production. Of the three items you mention, the only logical one is "use of domestic oil and gas production". Consideration of the other two only tends to dilute and waste our energies in an unproductive manner.
Conservation should be a standard procedure in all of operations, not only in energy usage. Excessive consideration of conservation tends to give an unbalanced approach, since it is obvious that conservation alone can do little to supply us with the increased energy we need for continued economic development.
Even more significant as an item of interference is consideration of alternative sources of energy. The alternative sources are generally listed as wind, solar, and nuclear. Of these only nuclear has the potential to be economically competitive with the burning of fossil fuels, which includes coal, oil, and natural gas. I have said previously that government subsidies for all forms of energy should be immediately terminated, and particularly those for wind and solar, which is taxpayer money down a rat hole.
While I appreciate your attempt to be unbiased and consider energy in all forms, you must go further by sorting out the ridiculous. Immediately eliminate all subsidies and reduce restrictions on oil and gas drilling to encourage local production.
Do not fall into the traps of considering "sustainability", and the crying of environmentalist extremists. No one really knows the extent of oil and gas reserves. We continue to find "gushers", such as in the BP Gulf oil spill. If we ever run short in your lifetime and even that of your grandchildren, you can depend upon American ingenuity to come up with the necessary alternatives. Government's best position is to stay out of the way and not fritter away taxpayer money.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Alternate Energy Subsidies Are Money down a Rat Hole
EIN News says, "Walter Energy Bids $3.3 Billion for Western Coal. Walter Energy Inc. is launching a $3.3-billion takeover proposal for Canadian miner Western Coal Corp., as fast-rising demand from a rapidly industrializing China spurs global competition to secure coal assets. (theglobeandmail.com)"
If alternate forms of energy, such as wind and solar, are such a great idea, why is there such great activity in Petrobras Brazil willing to spend big bucks for oil reserves, and now Walter energy doing the same thing on coal?
Answer: Wind and solar are uneconomical compared to oil and coal, without government (read taxpayer) subsidies.
Let's get the US government out of the energy business and let private industry do the job it was originally set up to do. Start by eliminating all subsidies for energy in any form; solar, wind, oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. We cannot afford any obtuse considerations on energy. We are broke. Foreign governments will no longer buy our bonds to monetize our budget deficit. We are forced to buy our own bonds in a left-hand selling to the right-hand fraudulent process, which only leads to inflation. Stop this foolishness. You can't create money that has value from thin air.
If alternate forms of energy, such as wind and solar, are such a great idea, why is there such great activity in Petrobras Brazil willing to spend big bucks for oil reserves, and now Walter energy doing the same thing on coal?
Answer: Wind and solar are uneconomical compared to oil and coal, without government (read taxpayer) subsidies.
Let's get the US government out of the energy business and let private industry do the job it was originally set up to do. Start by eliminating all subsidies for energy in any form; solar, wind, oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. We cannot afford any obtuse considerations on energy. We are broke. Foreign governments will no longer buy our bonds to monetize our budget deficit. We are forced to buy our own bonds in a left-hand selling to the right-hand fraudulent process, which only leads to inflation. Stop this foolishness. You can't create money that has value from thin air.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Death of Ethanol As Fuel in Brazil
EIN News says, "Petrobras Aspires to Be World's Biggest Oil Producer. Petrobras will invest $224 billion over next five years with a target to produce 5.4 million barrels of oil and gas a day over the next decade, the most produced by any publicly quoted company in the world. (guardian.co.uk)".
Here's your answer to the futility of subsidizing alternate forms of energy. Our subsidization of ethanol production from corn was based on the Brazilian model of ethanol from sugarcane. Petrobras is the Brazilian government's oil company (socialistic). From the Petrobras announcement with respect to oil, it is apparent that they have no belief in the economics of ethanol as a fuel, in spite of the fact that they have large amounts of sugarcane, which is equivalent to corn as a basic raw material for ethanol production.
The obvious lead for us is to eliminate subsidies for ethanol production and DRILL, DRILL, DRILL for oil.
Some will cry that elimination of ethanol production will increase unemployment, but that is not necessarily so. More people will be employed in drilling and processing oil. Continued production of ethanol for fuel use is equivalent to the process of digging and filling in holes. Lots of work but no real progress.
Here's your answer to the futility of subsidizing alternate forms of energy. Our subsidization of ethanol production from corn was based on the Brazilian model of ethanol from sugarcane. Petrobras is the Brazilian government's oil company (socialistic). From the Petrobras announcement with respect to oil, it is apparent that they have no belief in the economics of ethanol as a fuel, in spite of the fact that they have large amounts of sugarcane, which is equivalent to corn as a basic raw material for ethanol production.
The obvious lead for us is to eliminate subsidies for ethanol production and DRILL, DRILL, DRILL for oil.
Some will cry that elimination of ethanol production will increase unemployment, but that is not necessarily so. More people will be employed in drilling and processing oil. Continued production of ethanol for fuel use is equivalent to the process of digging and filling in holes. Lots of work but no real progress.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Legal Suits by Environmental Groups
EIN News says, "3 Environmental Groups Sue BP Over Gulf Oil Spill. The suit alleges that the Deepwater Horizon rig disaster caused an oil spill that harmed and killed both endangered and threatened species, which may continue to feel the effects long after the cleanup. (latimes.com)".
Government should absolutely stay out of this one. Private enterprise takes a risk of profit/loss in their operations, and contending with such suits is part of the cost of doing business. If they lose these types of cases, two things happen. Company profits are reduced and much of the loss is also passed along to the consumers. However, the consumers are made up of juries, which are representative of the consuming public and whose decisions make up that aspect of the financial picture. This is market forces at work and government should have no part in it.
Government should absolutely stay out of this one. Private enterprise takes a risk of profit/loss in their operations, and contending with such suits is part of the cost of doing business. If they lose these types of cases, two things happen. Company profits are reduced and much of the loss is also passed along to the consumers. However, the consumers are made up of juries, which are representative of the consuming public and whose decisions make up that aspect of the financial picture. This is market forces at work and government should have no part in it.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Oil Drilling Moratorium and Uncertainty
e-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I just read your recent newsletter.
You brought up a good point on the termination of the moratorium for oil and gas drilling in the Gulf, I guess I'm kind of gullible. I thought that the Administration's removal of the restrictive drilling moratorium would quickly open up more drilling. You have pointed out that lifting the moratorium is merely a word game. Nothing is accomplished, because the Administration has now loaded the system with other drilling restrictions, including permit limitations. "Sure you can drill for oil but you need a permit, which I won't give you."
Again I say, what are you doing about it?
Your second point is that the economy is slowed by uncertainty. I said before that there is no uncertainty. The Administration has clearly demonstrated their antibusiness approach through higher taxes, global redistribution of wealth, nonenforcement of immigration laws to obtain Democratic/socialistic votes through giveaway programs, and many others. The correction of this is to create certainty in the other direction, and your action must be to do something to make it happen.
I did not bother to answer your question of the week concerning the recent order of a federal judge to end enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the U.S. military. The reason I did not is because this sort of trivia in the face of other tremendous economic and national issues only distracts from working on the much more important issues.
I just read your recent newsletter.
You brought up a good point on the termination of the moratorium for oil and gas drilling in the Gulf, I guess I'm kind of gullible. I thought that the Administration's removal of the restrictive drilling moratorium would quickly open up more drilling. You have pointed out that lifting the moratorium is merely a word game. Nothing is accomplished, because the Administration has now loaded the system with other drilling restrictions, including permit limitations. "Sure you can drill for oil but you need a permit, which I won't give you."
Again I say, what are you doing about it?
Your second point is that the economy is slowed by uncertainty. I said before that there is no uncertainty. The Administration has clearly demonstrated their antibusiness approach through higher taxes, global redistribution of wealth, nonenforcement of immigration laws to obtain Democratic/socialistic votes through giveaway programs, and many others. The correction of this is to create certainty in the other direction, and your action must be to do something to make it happen.
I did not bother to answer your question of the week concerning the recent order of a federal judge to end enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the U.S. military. The reason I did not is because this sort of trivia in the face of other tremendous economic and national issues only distracts from working on the much more important issues.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Trojan Horse on DOE's Battery Technology Program?
EIN News says, "U.S. Department of Energy Sponsored Portal Will Bring New Advanced Energy Storage Technology to U.S."
This is a good move on the part of the DOE. It is basically promoting licensing opportunities for research and development technology on batteries through the Internet.
We must also keep in mind that this program essentially promotes the development of electrically powered automotive vehicles, which has some controversial aspects. The obvious advantage of an electrical vehicle is that it reduces the consumption of gasoline and diesel fuels made from crude oil. This reduction will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but let us also remember that much of our dependence on foreign oil is because the US Government has imposed various restrictions on development of our own national resources. We should not let this new DOE program take away our continued efforts to force government to open more opportunities for national oil and gas drilling.
In addition, the increased use of electrically powered automotive vehicles will require significant increases in electricity production and distribution. Most of our electricity production now comes from coal-burning generating plants, which government now abhors, because of the simultaneous emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. I have several times reported that carbon dioxide emissions from any sources, whether they be coal-fired electricity generating plants or gasoline/diesel burning automotive vehicles, has no significant effect on global warming. However, the Obama administration continues to push for carbon dioxide control through use of Cap & Trade, which is really the Administration's mechanism for increasing US taxes and redistributing wealth on a global basis.
However, carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere will not be significantly changed, whether the basic energy sources are burning coal or burning products from crude oil. We still must be wary of the Obama Administration's overall program on Cap & Trade.
Remember that Communists/Socialists/New-Form Democrats never give up on their ideologies and will continue to force their self-serving form of government, with its aspects detrimental to the American public.
This is a good move on the part of the DOE. It is basically promoting licensing opportunities for research and development technology on batteries through the Internet.
We must also keep in mind that this program essentially promotes the development of electrically powered automotive vehicles, which has some controversial aspects. The obvious advantage of an electrical vehicle is that it reduces the consumption of gasoline and diesel fuels made from crude oil. This reduction will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but let us also remember that much of our dependence on foreign oil is because the US Government has imposed various restrictions on development of our own national resources. We should not let this new DOE program take away our continued efforts to force government to open more opportunities for national oil and gas drilling.
In addition, the increased use of electrically powered automotive vehicles will require significant increases in electricity production and distribution. Most of our electricity production now comes from coal-burning generating plants, which government now abhors, because of the simultaneous emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. I have several times reported that carbon dioxide emissions from any sources, whether they be coal-fired electricity generating plants or gasoline/diesel burning automotive vehicles, has no significant effect on global warming. However, the Obama administration continues to push for carbon dioxide control through use of Cap & Trade, which is really the Administration's mechanism for increasing US taxes and redistributing wealth on a global basis.
However, carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere will not be significantly changed, whether the basic energy sources are burning coal or burning products from crude oil. We still must be wary of the Obama Administration's overall program on Cap & Trade.
Remember that Communists/Socialists/New-Form Democrats never give up on their ideologies and will continue to force their self-serving form of government, with its aspects detrimental to the American public.
Friday, October 15, 2010
China Versuis the US on Alternate Energy
Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN) is the magazine of the American Chemical Society (ACS). The ACS is a professional organization and almost all people who call themselves chemists belong to the ACS. C&EN publishes weekly and Rudy Baum is the Editor-in-Chief. He generally includes an editorial by himself in each weekly issue. He also commands the political tone under which each reporter writes his story. Having read his editorials for many years, I tentatively concluded that Rudy is a Commie. His latest editorial in the 10/4/10 Issue has caused me to reconsider partially his political leanings.
The 10/4/10 Issue contains an article entitled, "Chemistry Energizes China ", written by Jean-Françoise Tremblay. The Table of Contents of the Issue changed the name to "Alternative Energy in China". Rudy devoted his complete editorial to that article and entitled his editorial "China Ascendant". Notice the three different titles involving the same subject. Commies usually use word games for political innuendo.
In spite of my negativity, the statement by Rudy, which caused me partially to change my mind, is in his last paragraph. He said, "China's intense focus on developing alternative energy sources presents excellent business opportunities for global chemical firms, but it is profoundly depressing to this US citizen". He apparently still has the welfare of the US at heart, but he still may feel the US would be better off under Communism.
However, let's look at some of the data in Jean-Françoise's article. Jean includes a data table entitled, "Upstart". From that table, the bad news for the US is that in the next 28 years China will increase its total electricity generation by 1687%, the World by 58%, and the US by 22%. This essentially confirms previous claims that the US is declining as a world power of economic significance. It has previously been recognized that a nation's standard of living for its inhabitants is directly related to its per capita usage of non-human energy.
In the year 2035, China's production of electricity from wind and solar will be 0.05% of its total energy production. The US will have the same figure. Notice the similarity of the Chinese and US figures and notice also the very low order of magnitude. In the year 2035, electricity generation from combined wind and solar will be insignificant. This is in direct contrast to Jean's and Rudy's writings which accent the great forward thinking of the Chinese with respect to alternate energy. The facts show that the Chinese understand that coal-fired power plants are significantly more efficient in energy generation than wind turbines or solar panels.
What is then the basis for Jean's and Rudy's interpretation? It is likely true that the Chinese are engaging in high volume manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels, and that in so doing, they need to import or obtain from local production the products of worldwide chemical companies, until such time as they can produce their own. However, I believe from the above data that the Chinese have little intention of using significant numbers of wind turbines and solar panels themselves. China concentrates on exports. That is the basis for their total grand economic growth in the last several years, while the US has taken a second rate position by becoming a purchaser, rather than an exporter.
A fundamental aspect of how the situation has developed is primarily government attitude. The Chinese government encourages local manufacture for export. The US government does the reverse by applying high taxes and various labor and environmental restrictions to manufacturing companies.
The 10/4/10 Issue contains an article entitled, "Chemistry Energizes China ", written by Jean-Françoise Tremblay. The Table of Contents of the Issue changed the name to "Alternative Energy in China". Rudy devoted his complete editorial to that article and entitled his editorial "China Ascendant". Notice the three different titles involving the same subject. Commies usually use word games for political innuendo.
In spite of my negativity, the statement by Rudy, which caused me partially to change my mind, is in his last paragraph. He said, "China's intense focus on developing alternative energy sources presents excellent business opportunities for global chemical firms, but it is profoundly depressing to this US citizen". He apparently still has the welfare of the US at heart, but he still may feel the US would be better off under Communism.
However, let's look at some of the data in Jean-Françoise's article. Jean includes a data table entitled, "Upstart". From that table, the bad news for the US is that in the next 28 years China will increase its total electricity generation by 1687%, the World by 58%, and the US by 22%. This essentially confirms previous claims that the US is declining as a world power of economic significance. It has previously been recognized that a nation's standard of living for its inhabitants is directly related to its per capita usage of non-human energy.
In the year 2035, China's production of electricity from wind and solar will be 0.05% of its total energy production. The US will have the same figure. Notice the similarity of the Chinese and US figures and notice also the very low order of magnitude. In the year 2035, electricity generation from combined wind and solar will be insignificant. This is in direct contrast to Jean's and Rudy's writings which accent the great forward thinking of the Chinese with respect to alternate energy. The facts show that the Chinese understand that coal-fired power plants are significantly more efficient in energy generation than wind turbines or solar panels.
What is then the basis for Jean's and Rudy's interpretation? It is likely true that the Chinese are engaging in high volume manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels, and that in so doing, they need to import or obtain from local production the products of worldwide chemical companies, until such time as they can produce their own. However, I believe from the above data that the Chinese have little intention of using significant numbers of wind turbines and solar panels themselves. China concentrates on exports. That is the basis for their total grand economic growth in the last several years, while the US has taken a second rate position by becoming a purchaser, rather than an exporter.
A fundamental aspect of how the situation has developed is primarily government attitude. The Chinese government encourages local manufacture for export. The US government does the reverse by applying high taxes and various labor and environmental restrictions to manufacturing companies.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
California Going Faster Down the Economic Tube
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "California Alternative Energy Legislation Gets Broad Backing. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is spurring California legislators and conflicting interest groups to settle past differences and adopt the nation's toughest renewable energy law to reduce the state's dependence on oil and serve as a model for other states. (latimes.com)".
This will further assure the decline of California as a productive, non-bankrupt state.
Other than coal, oil is the cheapest source of available energy. Solar and wind energy will not satisfy their energy requirements. They will import oil from other states or abroad, and will not have the money from other income sources to pay for it.
I suspect that other states will be smarter than to follow the California lead.
EIN News says, "California Alternative Energy Legislation Gets Broad Backing. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is spurring California legislators and conflicting interest groups to settle past differences and adopt the nation's toughest renewable energy law to reduce the state's dependence on oil and serve as a model for other states. (latimes.com)".
This will further assure the decline of California as a productive, non-bankrupt state.
Other than coal, oil is the cheapest source of available energy. Solar and wind energy will not satisfy their energy requirements. They will import oil from other states or abroad, and will not have the money from other income sources to pay for it.
I suspect that other states will be smarter than to follow the California lead.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Beware of Energy Reform Involving Cap & Trade
E-Mail the Congress:
EIN News says, "White House to Hold Bipartisan Talks With Senators on Energy Reform. In a strategy similar to the endgame on health care reform, President Barack Obama will convene top senators from both parties at the White House on Wednesday to try to reach a deal on an energy reform bill. (cnn.com)."
Presumably this Energy Reform Bill is a disguised form involving Global Warming and Cap & Trade, in which case you could lose your shirt in these negotiations.
EIN News says, "White House to Hold Bipartisan Talks With Senators on Energy Reform. In a strategy similar to the endgame on health care reform, President Barack Obama will convene top senators from both parties at the White House on Wednesday to try to reach a deal on an energy reform bill. (cnn.com)."
Presumably this Energy Reform Bill is a disguised form involving Global Warming and Cap & Trade, in which case you could lose your shirt in these negotiations.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
We Will Vote Against Anybody Advocating Cap & Trade
E-Mail the Congress:
I just heard Sen. Lieberman on Fox News. He was pushing solar and wind energy. To do this, he wants to handicap our major sources of energy, which are fossil fuels, by applying taxes. This is another case of handicapping a winner in order to level the playing field.
Many years ago there were hundreds of windmills in Holland, using energy to perform energy demanding tasks, such as grinding grain. Eastern Long Island also had many windmills and most of the West had windmills to pump water for cattle. These uses of wind energy have mostly been replaced by electrically driven motors. In effect, fossil fuels to produce electricity has generally taken over to become the major sources of energy. This is happening, because electricity is cheap and most convenient, when compared to the labor-intensive requirements of using wind energy and its general unreliability, when the wind is not blowing.
Why would we knowingly revert to using the decadent technology of wind energy, when fossil fuels do the job better and cheaper? Carbon dioxide emission significantly contributing to global warming is a myth. We have controlled emissions of sulfur dioxide which had contributed to acid rain, and I will grant that a little more tweaking on process improvement may be helpful. But, to desert an effective technology on the basis of hearsay or political desire to improve revenues for an increase in government, size is ridiculous.
If we want to embark on reinstituting decadent technologies, why not reinstitute bleeding for health improvement, reinstitute lighthouses to replace GPS, bring back the horse and carriage, use candles instead of electric lights, etc.
I just heard Sen. Lieberman on Fox News. He was pushing solar and wind energy. To do this, he wants to handicap our major sources of energy, which are fossil fuels, by applying taxes. This is another case of handicapping a winner in order to level the playing field.
Many years ago there were hundreds of windmills in Holland, using energy to perform energy demanding tasks, such as grinding grain. Eastern Long Island also had many windmills and most of the West had windmills to pump water for cattle. These uses of wind energy have mostly been replaced by electrically driven motors. In effect, fossil fuels to produce electricity has generally taken over to become the major sources of energy. This is happening, because electricity is cheap and most convenient, when compared to the labor-intensive requirements of using wind energy and its general unreliability, when the wind is not blowing.
Why would we knowingly revert to using the decadent technology of wind energy, when fossil fuels do the job better and cheaper? Carbon dioxide emission significantly contributing to global warming is a myth. We have controlled emissions of sulfur dioxide which had contributed to acid rain, and I will grant that a little more tweaking on process improvement may be helpful. But, to desert an effective technology on the basis of hearsay or political desire to improve revenues for an increase in government, size is ridiculous.
If we want to embark on reinstituting decadent technologies, why not reinstitute bleeding for health improvement, reinstitute lighthouses to replace GPS, bring back the horse and carriage, use candles instead of electric lights, etc.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Government Must Maintain Good Relations with Oil Drillers
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Gulf Oil Spill Puts Industry-friendly Republicans in Tight Spot. Who says there's no such thing as loyalty in politics? Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.), who has received more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from the oil industry during this election cycle, revealed Thursday that he may be the only person in America who believes that BP deserves an apology for the way it has been treated during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. (washingtonpost.com)".
Why should Republicans be in a tight spot because they are friendly to oil drillers? Oil drillers keep our economy rolling by supplying a product, which we desperately need to keep our economy rolling through use of our automotive fleet.
It is the responsibility of Democrat/Republican Representatives and Senators to maintain good relations with oil drillers and assist them in doing their job for the American public.
Simultaneously, oil drillers are in business to make a profit through the unusual risks involved in oil drilling. They need as much help as they can get from government. When they see a Representative or Senator, who is favorable to their cause, it is only logical that they would financially support that representative for reelection.
The converse of this system would be to have an antagonistic attitude on the part of Representatives, Senators, and the Administration to oil drillers, such that the drillers will take their business elsewhere, and then we would be more dependent on foreign oil.
EIN News says, "Gulf Oil Spill Puts Industry-friendly Republicans in Tight Spot. Who says there's no such thing as loyalty in politics? Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.), who has received more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from the oil industry during this election cycle, revealed Thursday that he may be the only person in America who believes that BP deserves an apology for the way it has been treated during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. (washingtonpost.com)".
Why should Republicans be in a tight spot because they are friendly to oil drillers? Oil drillers keep our economy rolling by supplying a product, which we desperately need to keep our economy rolling through use of our automotive fleet.
It is the responsibility of Democrat/Republican Representatives and Senators to maintain good relations with oil drillers and assist them in doing their job for the American public.
Simultaneously, oil drillers are in business to make a profit through the unusual risks involved in oil drilling. They need as much help as they can get from government. When they see a Representative or Senator, who is favorable to their cause, it is only logical that they would financially support that representative for reelection.
The converse of this system would be to have an antagonistic attitude on the part of Representatives, Senators, and the Administration to oil drillers, such that the drillers will take their business elsewhere, and then we would be more dependent on foreign oil.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Unjust Criticism of BP for Cost Savings
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Documents Show BP Crew Focused on Costs. BP PLC engineers made a series of cost-conscious decisions that ran counter to the advice of key contractors in the days leading up to the April 20 Deepwater Horizon rig explosion, according to documents released by a congressional panel. (wsj.com)"
What's wrong with focusing on costs? I do it all the time. If I didn't, I'd be up to my neck in debt, like the federal government. Any private company must focus on costs if it's going to stay in business. The statement that the cost decisions "ran counter to the advice of key contractors" is too nebulous for my book. Sub-contractors traditionally try to sell something unnecessary in order to make an additional profit. It's the job of the main contractor or owner to weed out the excesses and get the job done. In the above statement, nothing was mentioned about sacrificing safety and the proper culmination of the project, because of cost savings. One can always assume the worst, but unless I see data to support a negative contention, I'll give the benefit of doubt to the operator.
Oil drilling and many other operations are risky businesses. Operators do not knowingly sacrifice completion of a project for saving a few bucks. BP engineers and financial managers used their best judgment in operating the way they did. Unfortunately, they did not properly police the operation to be sure that things were working. Government routinely has the same problem. We complain about it but do not castigate government for it. Why castigate BP. They at least supply us with oil. Government supplies us with questionable benefits, which are better handled by ourselves.
EIN News says, "Documents Show BP Crew Focused on Costs. BP PLC engineers made a series of cost-conscious decisions that ran counter to the advice of key contractors in the days leading up to the April 20 Deepwater Horizon rig explosion, according to documents released by a congressional panel. (wsj.com)"
What's wrong with focusing on costs? I do it all the time. If I didn't, I'd be up to my neck in debt, like the federal government. Any private company must focus on costs if it's going to stay in business. The statement that the cost decisions "ran counter to the advice of key contractors" is too nebulous for my book. Sub-contractors traditionally try to sell something unnecessary in order to make an additional profit. It's the job of the main contractor or owner to weed out the excesses and get the job done. In the above statement, nothing was mentioned about sacrificing safety and the proper culmination of the project, because of cost savings. One can always assume the worst, but unless I see data to support a negative contention, I'll give the benefit of doubt to the operator.
Oil drilling and many other operations are risky businesses. Operators do not knowingly sacrifice completion of a project for saving a few bucks. BP engineers and financial managers used their best judgment in operating the way they did. Unfortunately, they did not properly police the operation to be sure that things were working. Government routinely has the same problem. We complain about it but do not castigate government for it. Why castigate BP. They at least supply us with oil. Government supplies us with questionable benefits, which are better handled by ourselves.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Mistake to Deny BP Oil Leases and Contracts
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "BP May Lose U.S. Oil Leases, Contracts After Spill, Analysts Say."
Are we going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, because we have to clean up some poop now and then?
EIN News says, "BP May Lose U.S. Oil Leases, Contracts After Spill, Analysts Say."
Are we going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, because we have to clean up some poop now and then?
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Bill Gates and the Maine Gov. Inadvisedly Pushing Nonfossil Energy Sources
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "US must invest in clean energy research: Bill Gates 13 Jun 2010 - 10:28. Maine governor touts offshore wind energy 13 Jun 2010 - 10:10."
Bill Gates has proved his expertise in developing a huge software company with products operating efficiently on the Internet. Chances are very high that he knows little about energy, with respect to production of energy sources, refining, product delivery, and application to various uses. In addition, it is unlikely that he really understands any of the economics involved.
The Maine Governor is likely the traditional politician, who is an expert at political organizing, running for office, and supervising people. Chances are very high that his knowledge of the energy industry and its economics is about on a par with that of Bill Gates.
Both Gates and the Governor have likely fallen for the myth that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel has a significant effect on global warming. I will put their combined scientific/economic knowledge on the subject in the same category as that of Al Gore. Gates is probably not after the money. The other three probably see a great opportunity to fleece the American public.
EIN News says, "US must invest in clean energy research: Bill Gates 13 Jun 2010 - 10:28. Maine governor touts offshore wind energy 13 Jun 2010 - 10:10."
Bill Gates has proved his expertise in developing a huge software company with products operating efficiently on the Internet. Chances are very high that he knows little about energy, with respect to production of energy sources, refining, product delivery, and application to various uses. In addition, it is unlikely that he really understands any of the economics involved.
The Maine Governor is likely the traditional politician, who is an expert at political organizing, running for office, and supervising people. Chances are very high that his knowledge of the energy industry and its economics is about on a par with that of Bill Gates.
Both Gates and the Governor have likely fallen for the myth that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel has a significant effect on global warming. I will put their combined scientific/economic knowledge on the subject in the same category as that of Al Gore. Gates is probably not after the money. The other three probably see a great opportunity to fleece the American public.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Two New Energy Supplies
E-Mail to Congress:
There is excellent double news on the energy front!
You are already aware of the first one, but we have to get that into perspective. It involves the "oil spill" in the Gulf of Mexico. Up to now, we have been concentrating on the negative environmental impact. However, let's take a look at the more positive availability of oil, as we get the supply under control for our use.
We have a gusher 5000 feet below the surface of the Gulf. At that depth, the water pressure is 260 pounds per square inch. Since oil is pouring out of that pipe, the oil pressure is above 260 pounds per square inch. In comparison, air pressure at land surface is 14.7 pounds per square inch, and a gusher on land only needs to exceed that pressure. The pressure of the Gulf supply is in the neighborhood of 18 times that of an equivalent oil gusher on land. The pressure of an oil supply is not always related to its volume and the Gulf gusher could cease at any time. However, experience with land gushers has shown that there is usually significant volume. This indication is already confirmed in the Gulf gusher by the amount of oil lost in a relatively short time.
The second item, which has generally gone unnoticed, involves natural gas. It has been known for some time that there is a significant quantity of natural gas trapped in shale at many locations in the continental US. However, this natural gas source has previously been considered unattainable. Within the past few years, a number of companies have been developing a hydraulic fracturing technique. This technique basically involves pumping a liquid at high pressure into the shale deposit. This fractures the shale to release the natural gas. Sand is also injected to keep the fractured segments apart and maintain the gas flow.
With this new technique making shale natural gas available, it is estimated that we now have a 100-year supply of natural gas at current usage rates.
We also have very extensive coal deposits which are used as the workhorse in generating most of our electricity. However, an electricity generating plant based on coal requires a very substantial investment, with a longtime return on that investment. In spite of that, it is our cheapest source of electricity. Wind, solar, and natural gas turbines are unable to compete on a cost basis. The previous cost disadvantage of natural gas turbines has been the high-cost and supply variability of natural gas. With hydraulic fracturing, those deficiencies can be eliminated. In addition, the production of electricity by natural gas turbines has a significantly lower capital investment than a coal burning plant. Up to now, natural gas turbines have been used for quick add-on electrical supply. General Electric is a major producer of these gas turbines. The technology is already available and the company is likely able to significantly increase production capacity, now that the economics is changing.
Environmentalist groups have started to raise a ruckus about hydraulic fracturing, with the contention that the hydraulic fracturing fluids could contaminate local water supplies. This is obviously true, but reasonable preventive measures can be taken to avoid this difficulty. The first remedy is to avoid hydraulic fracturing in those areas where local water supplies are obtained from wells. The second remedy is to convert local water supplies to collection of surface water in reservoirs and avoid use of wells. For example, New York City draws its water supply from lakes in the Catskills. You also have noticed that this past spring has seen a preponderance of flooding in various sections of the US. We have had in the USA a continuing program of flood control, starting with the TVA many years ago. For some unknown reason, that program has been dropped and there has been no recent significant increase in flood control that I know of. Reinstituting such action to create lakes would have the dual purpose of flood control and local water supplies independent of wells. Consider also the availability of new construction jobs.
I encourage you in several ways to be involved in these programs. Do not pay attention to the specific requests of environmentalist groups, but concede that they have a legitimate general concern. Do not impose on hydraulic fracturing companies, through the EPA or any other agency, a multitude of restrictions which would make developing this natural gas supply impractical. Reinstitute a government program to further increase flood control through construction of dams, which will develop lakes for use in local water supply.
There is excellent double news on the energy front!
You are already aware of the first one, but we have to get that into perspective. It involves the "oil spill" in the Gulf of Mexico. Up to now, we have been concentrating on the negative environmental impact. However, let's take a look at the more positive availability of oil, as we get the supply under control for our use.
We have a gusher 5000 feet below the surface of the Gulf. At that depth, the water pressure is 260 pounds per square inch. Since oil is pouring out of that pipe, the oil pressure is above 260 pounds per square inch. In comparison, air pressure at land surface is 14.7 pounds per square inch, and a gusher on land only needs to exceed that pressure. The pressure of the Gulf supply is in the neighborhood of 18 times that of an equivalent oil gusher on land. The pressure of an oil supply is not always related to its volume and the Gulf gusher could cease at any time. However, experience with land gushers has shown that there is usually significant volume. This indication is already confirmed in the Gulf gusher by the amount of oil lost in a relatively short time.
The second item, which has generally gone unnoticed, involves natural gas. It has been known for some time that there is a significant quantity of natural gas trapped in shale at many locations in the continental US. However, this natural gas source has previously been considered unattainable. Within the past few years, a number of companies have been developing a hydraulic fracturing technique. This technique basically involves pumping a liquid at high pressure into the shale deposit. This fractures the shale to release the natural gas. Sand is also injected to keep the fractured segments apart and maintain the gas flow.
With this new technique making shale natural gas available, it is estimated that we now have a 100-year supply of natural gas at current usage rates.
We also have very extensive coal deposits which are used as the workhorse in generating most of our electricity. However, an electricity generating plant based on coal requires a very substantial investment, with a longtime return on that investment. In spite of that, it is our cheapest source of electricity. Wind, solar, and natural gas turbines are unable to compete on a cost basis. The previous cost disadvantage of natural gas turbines has been the high-cost and supply variability of natural gas. With hydraulic fracturing, those deficiencies can be eliminated. In addition, the production of electricity by natural gas turbines has a significantly lower capital investment than a coal burning plant. Up to now, natural gas turbines have been used for quick add-on electrical supply. General Electric is a major producer of these gas turbines. The technology is already available and the company is likely able to significantly increase production capacity, now that the economics is changing.
Environmentalist groups have started to raise a ruckus about hydraulic fracturing, with the contention that the hydraulic fracturing fluids could contaminate local water supplies. This is obviously true, but reasonable preventive measures can be taken to avoid this difficulty. The first remedy is to avoid hydraulic fracturing in those areas where local water supplies are obtained from wells. The second remedy is to convert local water supplies to collection of surface water in reservoirs and avoid use of wells. For example, New York City draws its water supply from lakes in the Catskills. You also have noticed that this past spring has seen a preponderance of flooding in various sections of the US. We have had in the USA a continuing program of flood control, starting with the TVA many years ago. For some unknown reason, that program has been dropped and there has been no recent significant increase in flood control that I know of. Reinstituting such action to create lakes would have the dual purpose of flood control and local water supplies independent of wells. Consider also the availability of new construction jobs.
I encourage you in several ways to be involved in these programs. Do not pay attention to the specific requests of environmentalist groups, but concede that they have a legitimate general concern. Do not impose on hydraulic fracturing companies, through the EPA or any other agency, a multitude of restrictions which would make developing this natural gas supply impractical. Reinstitute a government program to further increase flood control through construction of dams, which will develop lakes for use in local water supply.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Reduce Controls & Penalties on Domestic Oil Drllers
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Offshore Accidents Bring Few Penalties From the Feds. In the five years before the Deepwater Horizon exploded, federal investigators documented nearly 200 safety and environmental violations in accidents on platforms and rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, describing a stunning array of hazards that resulted in few penalties. (chron.com)"
Nothing wrong with this. The flip side is that if you sock the drillers with a multitude of controls and penalties, they will take their business elsewhere.
Would you rather let the courts handle civil suits against oil drillers or would you rather purchase foreign oil? If the latter, where will you get the money to buy the foreign oil. Print it and increase inflation, because of an unfavorable balance of payments?
EIN News says, "Offshore Accidents Bring Few Penalties From the Feds. In the five years before the Deepwater Horizon exploded, federal investigators documented nearly 200 safety and environmental violations in accidents on platforms and rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, describing a stunning array of hazards that resulted in few penalties. (chron.com)"
Nothing wrong with this. The flip side is that if you sock the drillers with a multitude of controls and penalties, they will take their business elsewhere.
Would you rather let the courts handle civil suits against oil drillers or would you rather purchase foreign oil? If the latter, where will you get the money to buy the foreign oil. Print it and increase inflation, because of an unfavorable balance of payments?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Nuclear Blast to Seal off Gulf Oil Spill
E-Mail the Congress:
EIN News says, "Nuclear Option on Gulf Oil Spill? No Way, U.S. Says. The chatter began weeks ago as armchair engineers brainstormed for ways to stop the torrent of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico: What about nuking the well? (nytimes.com)".
I agree. Too risky. We have already stumbled into an unanticipated event, with the gusher we already have. A nuclear blast might solidify the geologic formation, but it might not. It could also do other unanticipated damage, such as create a tsunami.
We also don't want to solidify the geologic formation. We want to capture the oil it contains. Not make it unavailable in this generation.
The Russians are known to be big risk takers. Many times beyond common sense. Remember the case of nuclear missiles in Cuba and the first Russian astronaut.
EIN News says, "Nuclear Option on Gulf Oil Spill? No Way, U.S. Says. The chatter began weeks ago as armchair engineers brainstormed for ways to stop the torrent of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico: What about nuking the well? (nytimes.com)".
I agree. Too risky. We have already stumbled into an unanticipated event, with the gusher we already have. A nuclear blast might solidify the geologic formation, but it might not. It could also do other unanticipated damage, such as create a tsunami.
We also don't want to solidify the geologic formation. We want to capture the oil it contains. Not make it unavailable in this generation.
The Russians are known to be big risk takers. Many times beyond common sense. Remember the case of nuclear missiles in Cuba and the first Russian astronaut.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Root Causes of Gulf Oil Disaster
E-Mail to Congress:
Chemical and Engineering News says Congress wants to get to the root cause of the Gulf oil spill disaster. (C&EN, May 17, 2010, page 9).
I can save Congress some time. Here are the several root causes, including comments and suggestions:
1. We need oil to continually operate our automotive and truck fleet. Without oil, our economy will grind to a halt.
2. We can produce our own oil or purchase it from foreign countries. Our economic balance of payments requires that we produce our own.
3. To produce oil, we must drill for it.
4. Only drilling companies are capable of drilling and producing new oil. We have need to encourage those companies, rather than discourage them by applying unnecessary and picayune controls.
5. One of the controls, which is not picayune, was to force drilling into one-mile deep water. Environmental organizations forced this requirement and the Federal government (Congress and the Administration) bought it. Notice here the first responsibility leading to apparent negative results.
6. Drilling companies have been accommodating to the deep-water requirement, with use of new technology. Use of new technology inherently involves risks. Those risks are generally unknown or unanticipated aspects combined with subsequent faults of equipment and personnel.
7. The unanticipated aspect of the Gulf oil spill was the tremendous pressure and volume of the discovered oil. The bad news is that this has caused ecological damage. The good news is that there is a tremendous amount of new oil which needs to be capped and used.
8. The non-operation of the blowout valve, and the explosion on the rig, with subsequent sinking, were faults of equipment and personnel. These faults resulted from lack of judgment and shoddy work. This was likely non-intentional, since it was the un-questionable objective of BP to bring to the surface usable oil. Every discovery operation has inherent risks, many of which will lead to disaster. Recall the Apollo 9 disaster. In all such cases, Monday morning quarterbacks can ask, "What if.....?", which leads to subsequent improvement.
9. Congress should not be attempting to place blame. It should be considering how it can best help to produce oil with a minimum of damage. Notice that there will always be damage. It can be minimized, but it should always be recognized in the context that we need oil. A pundit has said we should be looking for other sources of energy. Why? We have just found a tremendous supply of oil in the Gulf. We need only to cap it as expeditiously as possible. It is likely that Congress cannot help in that endeavor, in which case it is best to stay out of the way.
Chemical and Engineering News says Congress wants to get to the root cause of the Gulf oil spill disaster. (C&EN, May 17, 2010, page 9).
I can save Congress some time. Here are the several root causes, including comments and suggestions:
1. We need oil to continually operate our automotive and truck fleet. Without oil, our economy will grind to a halt.
2. We can produce our own oil or purchase it from foreign countries. Our economic balance of payments requires that we produce our own.
3. To produce oil, we must drill for it.
4. Only drilling companies are capable of drilling and producing new oil. We have need to encourage those companies, rather than discourage them by applying unnecessary and picayune controls.
5. One of the controls, which is not picayune, was to force drilling into one-mile deep water. Environmental organizations forced this requirement and the Federal government (Congress and the Administration) bought it. Notice here the first responsibility leading to apparent negative results.
6. Drilling companies have been accommodating to the deep-water requirement, with use of new technology. Use of new technology inherently involves risks. Those risks are generally unknown or unanticipated aspects combined with subsequent faults of equipment and personnel.
7. The unanticipated aspect of the Gulf oil spill was the tremendous pressure and volume of the discovered oil. The bad news is that this has caused ecological damage. The good news is that there is a tremendous amount of new oil which needs to be capped and used.
8. The non-operation of the blowout valve, and the explosion on the rig, with subsequent sinking, were faults of equipment and personnel. These faults resulted from lack of judgment and shoddy work. This was likely non-intentional, since it was the un-questionable objective of BP to bring to the surface usable oil. Every discovery operation has inherent risks, many of which will lead to disaster. Recall the Apollo 9 disaster. In all such cases, Monday morning quarterbacks can ask, "What if.....?", which leads to subsequent improvement.
9. Congress should not be attempting to place blame. It should be considering how it can best help to produce oil with a minimum of damage. Notice that there will always be damage. It can be minimized, but it should always be recognized in the context that we need oil. A pundit has said we should be looking for other sources of energy. Why? We have just found a tremendous supply of oil in the Gulf. We need only to cap it as expeditiously as possible. It is likely that Congress cannot help in that endeavor, in which case it is best to stay out of the way.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Congress Must Reverse the President's Decision on Halting Oil Drilling
E- Mail to Congress"
EIN News says, "Halt in Offshore Drilling Cuts Funds for Virginia's Transportation Projects. There will be no offshore rigs, no new oil industry jobs and no additional money for road and rail projects in Virginia after President Obama's announcement Thursday to halt offshore drilling plans. The decision has left Gov. Robert F. McDonnell scrambling to find another source for transportation funding and jobs during one of the worst economic downturns in decades. (washingtonpost.com)".
Here we have the first signs of another stupid decision on the part of the President. We have been working for years with self-imposed energy limitations, which have had a strong part in the economic decline of the U.S. This new decision will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I don't know what you can do about it, but you better think of something, unless you belong to that group which considers the U.S. a loser and want an international playing field.
EIN News says, "Halt in Offshore Drilling Cuts Funds for Virginia's Transportation Projects. There will be no offshore rigs, no new oil industry jobs and no additional money for road and rail projects in Virginia after President Obama's announcement Thursday to halt offshore drilling plans. The decision has left Gov. Robert F. McDonnell scrambling to find another source for transportation funding and jobs during one of the worst economic downturns in decades. (washingtonpost.com)".
Here we have the first signs of another stupid decision on the part of the President. We have been working for years with self-imposed energy limitations, which have had a strong part in the economic decline of the U.S. This new decision will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I don't know what you can do about it, but you better think of something, unless you belong to that group which considers the U.S. a loser and want an international playing field.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Cooperate with Oil Companies in Deep Water Drilling
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Obama to Extend Ban on Drilling New Deepwater Oil Wells. President Obama on Thursday will announce a six-month ban on drilling new deepwater oil wells, the White House said, and cancel plans for exploratory drilling and new lease sales off the coast of Alaska, as well as a proposed lease sale off the Virginia coast. (washingtonpost.com)".
Another ridiculous control imposed on the US economy by a socialistic Federal Administration!
The fact is that BP has discovered a tremendous supply of oil in the form of the gusher, which is operable under the pressure of 5000 feet of water. We should be drilling deepwater oil wells, because we have now proven that that's where the oil is.
I have been listening this morning to the President's Press Conference. A large number of questions from the press involved the oil well leakage in the Gulf. It was clear from the nature of most of the Press questions, that the group was composed of obsessively wild environmentalists. Even if these people lived in log cabins and cut their own firewood, they would be tempted to freeze to death so that they would not be destroying trees. I am what I call a reasonable environmentalist, with a position as Director of Environmental Compliance for University. My experience has clearly developed the perspective that one must always look at environmentalism from a total perspective, including needs of mankind. This does not exclude the need for energy.
I agree with the President's statement that we should be looking down the road to other renewable sources of energy and technology not yet discovered, with present use of oil and other fossil fuels as stopgap measures. However that takes time. If we deprive ourselves of fossil fuel energy in the short-term, the collapse of our economy will obviate the necessity for sources of renewable energy.
Bottom line. Allow oil drilling companies to keep drilling in the deep water, because that's where the oil is, and we need it. Allow these exploratory drilling companies as much leeway as possible, by helping them to obtain the best technical expertise available. Allow them to take the risk of accidents with no government bailout and to pay corporate-wise and personally for errors and accidents. Allow them significant profits for taking these risks, when they are successful. This will, all be to the advantage of the general public and it would be ridiculous to follow up with later talk of excess profits tax.
EIN News says, "Obama to Extend Ban on Drilling New Deepwater Oil Wells. President Obama on Thursday will announce a six-month ban on drilling new deepwater oil wells, the White House said, and cancel plans for exploratory drilling and new lease sales off the coast of Alaska, as well as a proposed lease sale off the Virginia coast. (washingtonpost.com)".
Another ridiculous control imposed on the US economy by a socialistic Federal Administration!
The fact is that BP has discovered a tremendous supply of oil in the form of the gusher, which is operable under the pressure of 5000 feet of water. We should be drilling deepwater oil wells, because we have now proven that that's where the oil is.
I have been listening this morning to the President's Press Conference. A large number of questions from the press involved the oil well leakage in the Gulf. It was clear from the nature of most of the Press questions, that the group was composed of obsessively wild environmentalists. Even if these people lived in log cabins and cut their own firewood, they would be tempted to freeze to death so that they would not be destroying trees. I am what I call a reasonable environmentalist, with a position as Director of Environmental Compliance for University. My experience has clearly developed the perspective that one must always look at environmentalism from a total perspective, including needs of mankind. This does not exclude the need for energy.
I agree with the President's statement that we should be looking down the road to other renewable sources of energy and technology not yet discovered, with present use of oil and other fossil fuels as stopgap measures. However that takes time. If we deprive ourselves of fossil fuel energy in the short-term, the collapse of our economy will obviate the necessity for sources of renewable energy.
Bottom line. Allow oil drilling companies to keep drilling in the deep water, because that's where the oil is, and we need it. Allow these exploratory drilling companies as much leeway as possible, by helping them to obtain the best technical expertise available. Allow them to take the risk of accidents with no government bailout and to pay corporate-wise and personally for errors and accidents. Allow them significant profits for taking these risks, when they are successful. This will, all be to the advantage of the general public and it would be ridiculous to follow up with later talk of excess profits tax.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
End Government Liability Caps for Oil Spills
E-Mail the Congress:
EIN New says, "Congress Urged to End Liability Caps for Spills. A top Obama administration lawyer asked Congress to get rid of all federal liability caps that protect energy companies such as BP against huge damage payments to fishermen, hotel owners and others affected by oil spills. (chron.com)".
You need to see that this suggestion develops into a Bill and strongly support it. The Obama Administration is a danger to the country because of their misplaced ideology, but a person in the Administration may occasionally have a good idea, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
A federal liability cap is nothing more than another bailout, which we abhor.
This must be a country of free enterprise, where government will not interfere with private research, development, and production of goods. That is a function that must be left to private industry. Private industry must be left to gain potential profit and also be subject to loss through incorrect judgments and actions in the marketplace. That is not to say that there should not be some government oversight to avoid unnecessary risk to the public at large.
In the case of the recent Gulf oil leak, the Oil Drilling Regulatory Section of the Administration did not do its job, in spite of the fact that they were warned by nongovernmental experts. Similarly, we don't want private industry to be working with atomic weapons and lethal disease organisms without some government oversight. The key point in all of these is that such oversight must not be picayune. It must be objective, without political influence, and concentrate on the likelihood of major disasters.
EIN New says, "Congress Urged to End Liability Caps for Spills. A top Obama administration lawyer asked Congress to get rid of all federal liability caps that protect energy companies such as BP against huge damage payments to fishermen, hotel owners and others affected by oil spills. (chron.com)".
You need to see that this suggestion develops into a Bill and strongly support it. The Obama Administration is a danger to the country because of their misplaced ideology, but a person in the Administration may occasionally have a good idea, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
A federal liability cap is nothing more than another bailout, which we abhor.
This must be a country of free enterprise, where government will not interfere with private research, development, and production of goods. That is a function that must be left to private industry. Private industry must be left to gain potential profit and also be subject to loss through incorrect judgments and actions in the marketplace. That is not to say that there should not be some government oversight to avoid unnecessary risk to the public at large.
In the case of the recent Gulf oil leak, the Oil Drilling Regulatory Section of the Administration did not do its job, in spite of the fact that they were warned by nongovernmental experts. Similarly, we don't want private industry to be working with atomic weapons and lethal disease organisms without some government oversight. The key point in all of these is that such oversight must not be picayune. It must be objective, without political influence, and concentrate on the likelihood of major disasters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
