EIN News says, "China Eyes Canada's Oil Sands In the northern reaches of Alberta lies a vast reserve of oil that the U.S. views as a pillar of its future energy needs. China, with a growing appetite for oil that may one day surpass that of the U.S., is ready to spend the dollars for a big piece of it. (huffingtonpost.com)".
China is now the fifth largest oil producer in the world, among 114 countries. It produces 4 million barrels per day, and is ahead of Canada and Mexico.
China obviously realizes the importance of oil as an energy source, even though they are now fifth in world production.
Notice that in spite of a little talk on solar and wind energy, the major concentration is on oil and coal.
Notice also that China has great ability to purchase foreign oil sources, with US dollars obtained from our purchase of their manufactured goods.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
House Of Representatives Addresses Oil and Gas Drilling Permit Problems
EIN News says, "Oil Drilling Approvals by EPA Expedited Under House-Passed Bill The Environmental Protection Agency would have to issue or deny air permits for offshore oil drilling within six months under legislation passed by the U.S. House. (bloomberg.com)".
Unfortunately, EIN News has this wrong. An EarthJustice website probably has it correct. http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2011/house-passes-bill-that-would-rush-oil-drilling-permits.
According to EarthJustice, which is apparently an environmental organization, the House-passed bill H.R. 1229 requires the Department of Interior to decide whether to approve a drilling permit within 30 days after receiving an application and allows only two 15-day extensions of this deadline. Notice that it is the Department of the Interior and not the EPA.
While the EPA is a significant danger to the economy, it appears not to have anything to do with oil drilling. The big problem with the EPA is establishing regulations to control emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants, which will significantly increase the cost of electricity through carbon capture and will also allow the development of a carbon tax, which will again increase the cost of electricity.
Sec. Salazar of the Department of the Interior has been the main instrument to deter oil and gas drilling by denying drilling permits. He works for Pres. Obama, whose objective is to foster the development of wind and solar energy, even at the total expense of reducing the economic capacity of the US.
I am pleased to see that the House has taken this action, and hopefully will have the support of the Senate. There is likelihood that Obama may veto it, but he has a strong incentive to be reelected in 2012, and if he feels that there is strong public support for the bill, he may sign it.
Unfortunately, EIN News has this wrong. An EarthJustice website probably has it correct. http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2011/house-passes-bill-that-would-rush-oil-drilling-permits.
According to EarthJustice, which is apparently an environmental organization, the House-passed bill H.R. 1229 requires the Department of Interior to decide whether to approve a drilling permit within 30 days after receiving an application and allows only two 15-day extensions of this deadline. Notice that it is the Department of the Interior and not the EPA.
While the EPA is a significant danger to the economy, it appears not to have anything to do with oil drilling. The big problem with the EPA is establishing regulations to control emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants, which will significantly increase the cost of electricity through carbon capture and will also allow the development of a carbon tax, which will again increase the cost of electricity.
Sec. Salazar of the Department of the Interior has been the main instrument to deter oil and gas drilling by denying drilling permits. He works for Pres. Obama, whose objective is to foster the development of wind and solar energy, even at the total expense of reducing the economic capacity of the US.
I am pleased to see that the House has taken this action, and hopefully will have the support of the Senate. There is likelihood that Obama may veto it, but he has a strong incentive to be reelected in 2012, and if he feels that there is strong public support for the bill, he may sign it.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Capturing Carbon Dioxide?
A second article in the May 30th issue of C&E News is by Rajendrani Mukhopadhyay and is entitled, "Capturing Carbon Dioxide".
He starts the article by saying "Researchers and lawmakers alike are looking always to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, because of its contribution to global climate change". Notice that he apparently embraces the hypothesis that CO2 in the atmosphere has such an effect on climate change, as to warrant control of CO2 emissions. I normally don't continue with such articles that start out with a writer's bias, which is either false or questionable.
I make an exception in this case to discuss two Congressional bills, which the Senate Energy & Natural Resource Committee is considering. Both bills involve carbon capture and sequestration, also known as CCS.
S.699 is an amendment to the Energy Policy of 2005 and would allow the Department Of Energy to provide technical and financial help to commercial scale projects on integrated CSS systems. In other words, citizen money would likely be spent to various emission sources, probably including coal-burning electrical utilities, to subsidize the capture of CO2. In other words, another indirect tax to the American public.
The second bill, S.757 drew less attention, but it seems to me equally dangerous. It provides incentives (public money) to encourage development and input implementation of technology to capture CO2 from dilute sources, such as air. A ridiculous notion, especially since there is no reason to reduce the concentration of CO2 in air, nor would it be justifiable to harvest the CO2 for use as a raw material.
Unfortunately, the Senators concentrated on the wrong aspects of the S.699. Instead of considering whether there was any justification for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, they chose to discuss costs of storage, etc. Oil and gas industry executives were complaining of having difficulty in obtaining CO2 to use for enhanced oil recovery. This may have been instrumental in sidetracking the Senators, but the obvious answer to the oil and gas executives is that they should make their own arrangements with CO2 emitters. It's not government's responsibility to arrange marketing situations. One government executive explained that CCS is "prohibitively expensive". Is that a reason why it should be done public expense rather than by industry? The discussion broadened to consider various ways to capture and use the resulting captured CO2, with no consideration of the main point, which is, "Why do it?"
The only person who seemed to make a little sense in the discussion was a Senator Manchin. He asked whether carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) would affect the nation's competitiveness by increasing the price of energy. If it would, he this could give countries like India and China a competitive advantage with cheaper energy. He then asked, "why would we lose more jobs because of our high cost of manufacturing when we don't have the proven technology and why should we put money into research to develop the technology that will make the US less competitive? No one had a response
He starts the article by saying "Researchers and lawmakers alike are looking always to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, because of its contribution to global climate change". Notice that he apparently embraces the hypothesis that CO2 in the atmosphere has such an effect on climate change, as to warrant control of CO2 emissions. I normally don't continue with such articles that start out with a writer's bias, which is either false or questionable.
I make an exception in this case to discuss two Congressional bills, which the Senate Energy & Natural Resource Committee is considering. Both bills involve carbon capture and sequestration, also known as CCS.
S.699 is an amendment to the Energy Policy of 2005 and would allow the Department Of Energy to provide technical and financial help to commercial scale projects on integrated CSS systems. In other words, citizen money would likely be spent to various emission sources, probably including coal-burning electrical utilities, to subsidize the capture of CO2. In other words, another indirect tax to the American public.
The second bill, S.757 drew less attention, but it seems to me equally dangerous. It provides incentives (public money) to encourage development and input implementation of technology to capture CO2 from dilute sources, such as air. A ridiculous notion, especially since there is no reason to reduce the concentration of CO2 in air, nor would it be justifiable to harvest the CO2 for use as a raw material.
Unfortunately, the Senators concentrated on the wrong aspects of the S.699. Instead of considering whether there was any justification for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, they chose to discuss costs of storage, etc. Oil and gas industry executives were complaining of having difficulty in obtaining CO2 to use for enhanced oil recovery. This may have been instrumental in sidetracking the Senators, but the obvious answer to the oil and gas executives is that they should make their own arrangements with CO2 emitters. It's not government's responsibility to arrange marketing situations. One government executive explained that CCS is "prohibitively expensive". Is that a reason why it should be done public expense rather than by industry? The discussion broadened to consider various ways to capture and use the resulting captured CO2, with no consideration of the main point, which is, "Why do it?"
The only person who seemed to make a little sense in the discussion was a Senator Manchin. He asked whether carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) would affect the nation's competitiveness by increasing the price of energy. If it would, he this could give countries like India and China a competitive advantage with cheaper energy. He then asked, "why would we lose more jobs because of our high cost of manufacturing when we don't have the proven technology and why should we put money into research to develop the technology that will make the US less competitive? No one had a response
Friday, June 17, 2011
Enforcing Capitalism
EIN News says, "Greenpeace Chief Arrested on Greenland Oil Rig in Deepwater Drilling Protest The head of Greenpeace and another activist were arrested after they climbed an oil rig off Greenland's west coast in an attempt to stop a Scottish oil company from deepwater drilling in Arctic waters, Danish police said. (washingtonpost.com)".
Hooray for the Danish police!
Greenpeace is now an organization infiltrated by communists dedicated to the overthrow of world capitalistic enterprises and the subsequent establishment of authoritarian communism
Hooray for the Danish police!
Greenpeace is now an organization infiltrated by communists dedicated to the overthrow of world capitalistic enterprises and the subsequent establishment of authoritarian communism
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Americas Dominant in Oil Production?
EIN News says, "World Will Increasingly Turn to Americas for Oil, IEA Says Over the next few years, world consumers are going to become more dependent on North and South America to satisfy their growing thirst for crude oil, according to a forecast to be released by the International Energy Agency. (nytimes.com)".
This is a real surprise to me. I checked the IEA website. There's nothing on this yet.
If anybody knows anything more about this, I would be very glad to hear it.
This is a real surprise to me. I checked the IEA website. There's nothing on this yet.
If anybody knows anything more about this, I would be very glad to hear it.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The International Energy Agency 's Basis for Existence
EIN News says, "IEA Watching Oil Markets Closely The International Energy Agency is ready to take action if more oil is needed on the global energy market, the agency's director said from Paris. (upi.com)".
The above statement is an implication that the IEA has the power to affect oil supplies. Let's see if that's true.
The IEA is a voluntary organization of member countries. There are 28 members. Only two of these have significant production of oil. They are Canada and the US. Other than those two, countries producing more than 2 million barrels per day are Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Mexico, Emerates, Brazil, Kuwait, Venezuela, Iraq, Norway, Nigeria, and Algeria. Notice that except for Canada and the US, no oil producing countries are members of the IEA.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see that the IEA has any power at all, and no reason for its existence. Its member countries are primarily consumers of oil. Does the IEA presume that it will be able to convince its member countries to boycott oil use? Ridiculous!
The above statement is an implication that the IEA has the power to affect oil supplies. Let's see if that's true.
The IEA is a voluntary organization of member countries. There are 28 members. Only two of these have significant production of oil. They are Canada and the US. Other than those two, countries producing more than 2 million barrels per day are Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Mexico, Emerates, Brazil, Kuwait, Venezuela, Iraq, Norway, Nigeria, and Algeria. Notice that except for Canada and the US, no oil producing countries are members of the IEA.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see that the IEA has any power at all, and no reason for its existence. Its member countries are primarily consumers of oil. Does the IEA presume that it will be able to convince its member countries to boycott oil use? Ridiculous!
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
More Federal Oil and Gas Drilling Inspectors Will Inhibit Production
EIN News says, "U.S. Regulators Shake Up Offshore Drilling Inspections Government inspections of thousands of offshore oil and gas facilities now will involve teams of federal workers rather than just a single auditor under a plan announced. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement said the move was made possible by the agency's recent hires of new inspectors and the promise of more to come. (chron.com)".
From an employment point of view, this is good news. More jobs!
During his presidential campaigning, Pres. Obama promised "change". He didn't really specify the nature of the change, nor does he do so now. However, in his third year of office, we have accumulated enough circumstantial evidence, including some of his specific comments, to know that his change always intended to be a complete revision of the United States economy and social system. In effect, he wanted to establish a socialistic society, and we have every reason to believe that is his continued goal.
In a socialistic society everybody works for the government. There is NO unemployment. From that point of view, Pres. Obama is right on track with this program.
In my many decades life, I have seen slow conversion of Americans to a more socialistic philosophy. I personally don't think that's a proper direction, but I could be wrong. Perhaps the Soviets, Cubans, and North Koreans just didn't do it right.
But rather than speak in generalities, let's confine the discussion to the EIN News statement. More federal inspectors of offshore oil and gas drillers. Since the Back are now talking about teams versus single inspectors, this means a doubling or tripling of the inspector workforce, "with the promise of more to come".
While it's nice to see more people employed, the question is what they will be doing. We know from past experience that committees not only operate much less efficiently than single individuals, in government such committees are actually inhibitors of progress. Whereas a single inspector can discuss with the operator a safety drilling question and probably come to a resolution, the likelihood of such resolution with a committee discussion is more remote. One fine example of this committee operation is our jury system of 12 people tried and true. That system was initiated because, in the form of a committee, it is very difficult for a defendant to be found guilty by all persons of the committee. This has the advantage that there must be an absolute certainty of guilt, and this preserves our individual liberties.
As the federal drilling committees inhibit further drilling through various restrictions and lack of approvals and permits, etc., the American public will suffer through reduced production of oil and gas. Is increased government employment worth this?
From an employment point of view, this is good news. More jobs!
During his presidential campaigning, Pres. Obama promised "change". He didn't really specify the nature of the change, nor does he do so now. However, in his third year of office, we have accumulated enough circumstantial evidence, including some of his specific comments, to know that his change always intended to be a complete revision of the United States economy and social system. In effect, he wanted to establish a socialistic society, and we have every reason to believe that is his continued goal.
In a socialistic society everybody works for the government. There is NO unemployment. From that point of view, Pres. Obama is right on track with this program.
In my many decades life, I have seen slow conversion of Americans to a more socialistic philosophy. I personally don't think that's a proper direction, but I could be wrong. Perhaps the Soviets, Cubans, and North Koreans just didn't do it right.
But rather than speak in generalities, let's confine the discussion to the EIN News statement. More federal inspectors of offshore oil and gas drillers. Since the Back are now talking about teams versus single inspectors, this means a doubling or tripling of the inspector workforce, "with the promise of more to come".
While it's nice to see more people employed, the question is what they will be doing. We know from past experience that committees not only operate much less efficiently than single individuals, in government such committees are actually inhibitors of progress. Whereas a single inspector can discuss with the operator a safety drilling question and probably come to a resolution, the likelihood of such resolution with a committee discussion is more remote. One fine example of this committee operation is our jury system of 12 people tried and true. That system was initiated because, in the form of a committee, it is very difficult for a defendant to be found guilty by all persons of the committee. This has the advantage that there must be an absolute certainty of guilt, and this preserves our individual liberties.
As the federal drilling committees inhibit further drilling through various restrictions and lack of approvals and permits, etc., the American public will suffer through reduced production of oil and gas. Is increased government employment worth this?
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Amazing! A Concession to Capitalism by the Obama Administration
EIN News says, "Obama Administration to Extend Deep-water Leases Expiring Before 2015 The Obama administration will give oil and gas companies an extra year to develop their deep-water leases to make up for delays caused by last year's Gulf spill and the subsequent moratorium on some offshore drilling. (chron.com)".
Finally, a concession by the Obama Administration to a capitalistic enterprise?
Pres. Obama wants to be reelected so badly that he can taste it. His socialistic programs are not going well in the third year of his Administration. He is likely starting to worry about the 2012 election.
Perhaps with a little concession to capitalism here and there, he might be able to improve the economy slightly or at least give the appearance he is trying to help. This might get him some votes.
Somewhat as a side issue, I heard in the last two days of a proposal to put a 1 $ tax at the consumer level on each gallon of gasoline purchased. The stated justification is that such tax will discourage use of fossil fuel vehicles and accelerate the switch to electric powered vehicles. This is crazy! Why would anybody want to switch to an inefficient electrically powered vehicle, when the present gasoline powered vehicle does a very acceptable job? Perhaps the answer lies in another misconception. That is, we lose money on each item, but make it up on volume.
There's no question that we have for many years been victims of OPEC on availability and price of crude oil. It is also agreed by all that this is an unsatisfactory situation, and we should make every effort to change it. The Obama Administration had previously decided that we needed alternate forms of energy, particularly wind and solar. The problem with that is wind and solar are unable to compete economically with crude oil, even at prices controlled by OPEC.
In addition, the situation has changed radically on a worldwide basis, OPEC no longer has a continued lock on petroleum production. Crude oil is now available from many other countries other than the Middle East, and more importantly major oil companies have found within the continental US additional large reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and West Texas. The technology of handling tar sands has also improved radically, which gives another convenient source of crude. Lastly, the fracturing process in Montana and North Dakota has promise of giving very large quantities of natural gas, which further adds to the US energy reserves, without further development of inefficient wind and solar energy.
The only remaining problem is how to get the Obama Administration on a turnaround to recognize these new conditions and give up their now silly program of alternate energy sources.
Finally, a concession by the Obama Administration to a capitalistic enterprise?
Pres. Obama wants to be reelected so badly that he can taste it. His socialistic programs are not going well in the third year of his Administration. He is likely starting to worry about the 2012 election.
Perhaps with a little concession to capitalism here and there, he might be able to improve the economy slightly or at least give the appearance he is trying to help. This might get him some votes.
Somewhat as a side issue, I heard in the last two days of a proposal to put a 1 $ tax at the consumer level on each gallon of gasoline purchased. The stated justification is that such tax will discourage use of fossil fuel vehicles and accelerate the switch to electric powered vehicles. This is crazy! Why would anybody want to switch to an inefficient electrically powered vehicle, when the present gasoline powered vehicle does a very acceptable job? Perhaps the answer lies in another misconception. That is, we lose money on each item, but make it up on volume.
There's no question that we have for many years been victims of OPEC on availability and price of crude oil. It is also agreed by all that this is an unsatisfactory situation, and we should make every effort to change it. The Obama Administration had previously decided that we needed alternate forms of energy, particularly wind and solar. The problem with that is wind and solar are unable to compete economically with crude oil, even at prices controlled by OPEC.
In addition, the situation has changed radically on a worldwide basis, OPEC no longer has a continued lock on petroleum production. Crude oil is now available from many other countries other than the Middle East, and more importantly major oil companies have found within the continental US additional large reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and West Texas. The technology of handling tar sands has also improved radically, which gives another convenient source of crude. Lastly, the fracturing process in Montana and North Dakota has promise of giving very large quantities of natural gas, which further adds to the US energy reserves, without further development of inefficient wind and solar energy.
The only remaining problem is how to get the Obama Administration on a turnaround to recognize these new conditions and give up their now silly program of alternate energy sources.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Congress Needs to Force Development of the New Oil Discovery in the Gulf
EIN News says, "Exxon Makes Major Oil Discovery in Gulf of Mexico Exxon Mobil said it has discovered an estimated 700 million barrels of oil equivalent at a deepwater well off the Louisiana coast, a major find that a top House Republican argued should push the administration to speed up offshore permitting. (foxnews.com)".
This is a prime example of how technology can change the economic picture. The difficulty is in the timing. A mere discovery of this large oil deposit unfortunately does not bring immediate relief to the American public in the form of lower fuel prices. It takes time to install equipment to bring the oil to the service, transport it to refineries, and refine it to gasoline. However, it bodes well for the future.
As indicated in the announcement, government restriction can also be a completely limiting factor. It is not clear whether the discovery has been made through drilling, which requires a federal permit or whether it came about through other means. In either event, the Obama Administration has the power to make this find unavailable to the American public. This is a distinct possibility, because from previous Administration actions, we know that every effort will continue to be employed in order to promote the alternate energy forms of wind and solar.
Congratulations to the "top House Republican" for his push to speed up offshore permitting. Too that we don't have his name so that we can give him proper credit. Even so, it will be necessary for the whole Congress to press the Administration so that the American public can benefit from the new discovery.
This is a prime example of how technology can change the economic picture. The difficulty is in the timing. A mere discovery of this large oil deposit unfortunately does not bring immediate relief to the American public in the form of lower fuel prices. It takes time to install equipment to bring the oil to the service, transport it to refineries, and refine it to gasoline. However, it bodes well for the future.
As indicated in the announcement, government restriction can also be a completely limiting factor. It is not clear whether the discovery has been made through drilling, which requires a federal permit or whether it came about through other means. In either event, the Obama Administration has the power to make this find unavailable to the American public. This is a distinct possibility, because from previous Administration actions, we know that every effort will continue to be employed in order to promote the alternate energy forms of wind and solar.
Congratulations to the "top House Republican" for his push to speed up offshore permitting. Too that we don't have his name so that we can give him proper credit. Even so, it will be necessary for the whole Congress to press the Administration so that the American public can benefit from the new discovery.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Alpha Natural Resources Puts its Money on Coal
EIN News says, "Massey, Alpha Investors Approve $7.1 Billion Deal Shareholders have approved coal producer Alpha Natural Resources' $7.1 billion takeover of struggling rival Massey Energy Co. (businessweek.com)".
Yahoo says, "Alpha is the nation's leading supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal used in the steel-making process and is a major supplier of thermal coal to electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the country".
Sources of energy consumed in the US in '09 are:
Coal - 24% (91% of it is used for electric power generation)
Renewables - 7% (a breakdown is for hydro and biomass/ethanol, 3% each, wind 0.3%
and 0.07% solar).
It is silly to think that wind and solar could make any significant contribution to the total in the near future. There is a bare but unlikely possibility that biomass could be a player, but it can't compete on a price basis without taxpayer subsidy. Only unrealistic government dreamers could come up with the idea that wind and solar could be seriously involved.
The Alpha Officers, Board of Directors, and Stockholders know that the heavy energy lifting is done by coal and will continue for the foreseeable future, even if the Obama Administration does not.
Yahoo says, "Alpha is the nation's leading supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal used in the steel-making process and is a major supplier of thermal coal to electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the country".
Sources of energy consumed in the US in '09 are:
Coal - 24% (91% of it is used for electric power generation)
Renewables - 7% (a breakdown is for hydro and biomass/ethanol, 3% each, wind 0.3%
and 0.07% solar).
It is silly to think that wind and solar could make any significant contribution to the total in the near future. There is a bare but unlikely possibility that biomass could be a player, but it can't compete on a price basis without taxpayer subsidy. Only unrealistic government dreamers could come up with the idea that wind and solar could be seriously involved.
The Alpha Officers, Board of Directors, and Stockholders know that the heavy energy lifting is done by coal and will continue for the foreseeable future, even if the Obama Administration does not.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Hooray for the Danish Navy
EIN News says, "Greenpeace Clashes With Danish Navy After Activists Board Oil-Drilling Ship A confrontation between Greenpeace protesters and the Danish navy has escalated sharply after the campaigners occupied a drilling ship off Greenland. (guardian.co.uk)".
Hooray for the Danish Navy! Not only for their action against pirates occupying an oil drilling ship, but hopefully for their recognition that Greenpeace is now a subversive organization, which has been captured by the anti-capitalists/socialist movement, which is intent to destroy economic and cultural conditions in the US and worldwide.
Putting that theory aside, any takeover of a vessel by an external person or organization is an act of piracy. It behooves the Danish Navy to protect private property. In this case, the ancillary benefit is that the drilling ship has a program to discover oil, which would be to the benefit not only of Danish citizens but worldwide.
Hooray for the Danish Navy! Not only for their action against pirates occupying an oil drilling ship, but hopefully for their recognition that Greenpeace is now a subversive organization, which has been captured by the anti-capitalists/socialist movement, which is intent to destroy economic and cultural conditions in the US and worldwide.
Putting that theory aside, any takeover of a vessel by an external person or organization is an act of piracy. It behooves the Danish Navy to protect private property. In this case, the ancillary benefit is that the drilling ship has a program to discover oil, which would be to the benefit not only of Danish citizens but worldwide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
