Tar Sands Oil

To our Political Advisers:

     One of our Political Associates sent me an apparently widely distributed article by the Sierra Club. In the article, the Sierra Club implies a requested boycott of Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, and Dr Pepper by asking customers to write those companies asking that they cease use of DIRTY tar sands oil in their hundred thousand vehicles.
   
    I replied to our Associate as follows:

    This article by the Sierra Club is completely misleading.
    For a more complete understanding of what tar sands are, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands.    However, I will give you a short description to put things into the proper perspective.
    We run our automotive fleets with gasoline and Diesel. The federal government has spent billions of taxpayer dollars on subsidies to convert the fleet to electric power, which would be generated by wind or solar source. The federal program has so far been ineffective, primarily because wind and solar power sources are considerably more expensive than the use of gasoline and Diesel.

    The cheapest source of petroleum is from extensive pools belowground. I'm sure you have seen some of the old movies showing oil drilling and subsequent gushers of oil. These gushers involved striking a pool. After the initial pressure is past and the well is no longer a gusher, oil still still can be pumped from the pool in significant quantities at low cost. This is happening with many wells in the US and most of the Middle East. New exploration and drilling techniques have also been developed to find and produce oil from new pools.
    However, pool oil is not the only available source. Oil is also mixed with shale and with sand and when the oil is extracted from the shale or sand, it is respectively called shale oil and sand tar. Petroleum oil from pools is not uniform. The chemical composition of the material varies from light hydrocarbons to heavy molecular weight hydrocarbons. Tar from sands is the high molecular weight type, which does not flow, and which is similar to tar which is used in roofing or mixed with crushed stone to form road asphalt.
    The separation of oil or tar from shale or sand is more expensive than merely pumping oil from an underground pool,, but under certain conditions it can be economical.
    Whether the hydrocarbons are from an oil pool, shale, or sand, they have no use in the crude form. They must be refined, for which reason we have oil refineries to produce usable products, such as gasoline, jet fuel, Diesel, lubricating oils, etc., from the crude. Refineries operate on the basis of distillation and cracking. Distillation is merely a separation technique to obtain the lighter fractions for direct use as fuels. The heavier components are changed chemically to a lighter fuel fraction by a cracking process. The heavier the hydrocarbon, such as in sand tar, the more cracking must be involved to obtain the fuel components. But, in the final analysis there is always a residue, which cannot be economically converted to fuel, and which is then used for road asphalt.
    With that description of materials and process, perhaps you can now tell me what is dirty about the automotive fuels made from sands, as claimed by the Sierra Club.
    Employees of the Sierra Club know well the information which I have given above. However, their intention is to develop within you an emotional reaction such that you and others will combine to boycott the identified soft drink companies to force a shut down of sand tar mining . This position is consistent with that already held by the Administration. The question is really why do they take this position? Do they want to preserve sand tar for possible future use? Are they concerned that the mining will disrupt the environment? Note that they do not say.
    My own opinion is that US environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, have been infiltrated by Communists, who have the intention of destroying capitalism in the US and reducing the US to the economic capacity of a third world power.

Eliminate Mandates and Subsidies for Ethanol & Biodiesel

Open email to Rep. Fred Upton (MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce:

Dear Rep. Upton,
    This concerns gasoline and ethanol.
    I emailed you yesterday on this subject and included a message concerning gasoline pricing from one of my Associates. That same associate has come back with additional information as follows:  

 

    "A couple of days ago, I commented on the perverse forces driving up the price of gasoline.  It turns out that these same misguided federal policies are significantly affecting food prices as well.  Phil Nye reports that the price of farm land in Illinois has reached $15,000 per tillable acre - an all time high.  At the same time, corn and soy bean prices are at all time highs. The relationship of crop prices to farm land prices should be obvious.  That  apparently is not the case with Obama and this Congress who continue the destructive renewable fuel policies - ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soy bean oil.  At the same time, we are watching crude oil and natural gas production continue to grow.  Simply ask yourself the question:  why do we need renewable fuels subsidized with tax dollars when crude oil and natural gas production is rising rapidly?  The only answer is wrongheaded energy policies.

     Of course, the other consequence is the escalation of food prices.  Food crop and energy prices are the foundation of food prices.  According to Obama and the Federal Reserve, price inflation is modest.  Anyone who shops for food knows that prices have risen substantially.  This morning I stopped at MacDonalds to buy breakfast.  Less than a year ago my usual breakfast cost about $6.  This morning it was about $10.  Whom do you believe: the Federal Government or your pocketbook? " 

 

    Rep. Upton, please eliminate mandates for use of ethanol and biodiesel and eliminate all subsidies for production and use of same. Those promotions are not needed with respect to the present automotive fuel supply, and they are doing damage to the general economy, particularly in higher food prices and exaggerated farmland prices.

High Motor Fuel Prices through Ethanoll

Open email to Rep. Fred Upton (MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce:

Dear Rep. Upton,    The following concerning gasoline is from one of my Associates:
" You may or may not have noticed that gasoline prices are going up.  Normally, gasoline prices follow the price of crude oil because of the accounting rules that refiners use for valuing inventory. (That's another story)  However, the price of crude oil has been fairly stable.  What's going on?

    It turns out we are being victimized by the federal government. Are you surprised? The problem is the federal mandate for ethanol in gasoline. The Congress in its wisdom has decreed increased volume of ethanol for motor fuel at a time that the volume of gasoline is fairly stable.  That means that the percentage of ethanol in gasoline would have to increase beyond the current levels of about 10%. However, automotive automobile companies have warned that such a move might damage some engines and refiners are reluctant to expose themselves to lawsuits for engine damage.

    Therefore, they use another provision of the mandate to buy an exemption from the EPA rule.  But the price of those exemptions keeps rising because the demand exceeds the supply. (Econ 101).  Therefore, the refiners simply pass that increasing cost along to their customers.

    The use of ethanol in gasoline back in the 1980s had a marginal positive effect on unburned hydrocarbons from gasoline engines.  That problem was eliminated when catalytic converters were added to engine exhausts.  At this time there is absolutely no need for ethanol, and the price of gasoline would fall if its use were eliminated.

    Unfortunately, the federal government under Obama is not driven by economics but by catering to the farm states; the ethanol lobby and the environmentalists.  There is some fantasy that ethanol reduces carbon dioxide emissions.  It is a total fantasy.            

    However, it fits their narrative that ethanol in gasoline reduces the rate of global warming.

    Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?"

    I say additionally:

    New oil discoveries in the US, improved drilling techniques, and the recently improved process of oil recovery from shale have contributed considerably to Continental US oil reserves. Those oil reserves can now be developed for public use to significantly decrease and perhaps eliminate importation of crude oil. Conservationists say that because the quantity of oil reserves has a reasonably definite life, it should be conserved. With your help, the Obama Administration seems to be following that philosophy by denying permits for drilling and even prohibiting construction of a pipeline from Canada for more than a year. This latter is not a US conservation matter, but rather a method to deny crude oil availability in order to promote wind and solar energy at great public expense, through subsidies.
    Some years ago, when we were especially vulnerable to the variability of Middle East oil imports, Congress established a program of mandating ethanol usage in gasoline in order to extend the automotive fuel supply. This was also associated with subsidies to producers of ethanol from corn and an anticipation that ethanol would ultimately be produced from cellulosic biomass.
    Representative Upton, the energy world has changed. Crude oil is now available on a worldwide basis at higher production than ever before, and as I said previously, US reserves have increased tremendously. We no longer need ethanol to augment our automotive fuel supply. We have the oil reserves and private industry only needs permission to drill and produce from the vast holdings of federal land. The mandate requiring any ethanol addition to build a fuels, either from corn or cellulosic biomass, should be eliminated and subsidies for production of ethanol by those roots should be immediately discontinued. If ethanol can compete cost-wise with gasoline, without its various subsidies and mandates, and private industry wishes to add it to gasoline, I have no objection.
    While we are on the general subject of energy, I again request that the Congress eliminate the Department of Energy, which has probably done more damage to the United States economy and its development than any other agency.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Not a Danger

Open email to US Sec. of Energy Earnest Moniz:

Dear Dr. Moniz,
    I have previously recommended the elimination of the US Department of Energy, on the basis that it has done almost irreparable harm to the country and will continue to do so. While it may be political suicide to start a letter to a person recommending that his job be eliminated, that is the basic fact of the situation.. Meanwhile, as long as the Department of Energy exists, we the public need to deal with it.
    There is a one-page article in the June 24 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, which touts the advantages of natural gas over coal. You are quoted in the article as being appreciative of the boom in natural gas, which for an equivalent amount of energy produced has a lesser emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. You go on to say that natural gas will serve as a bridge to the eventual use of what is called sustainable energy, meaning no diminution of supply. Those examples are wind and solar energy.
    I suppose, like a good soldier, you are required to continue to promote the program consistent with that of the Obama Administration. However, I feel it's my duty to bring forth the logic of the situation.
    The fact is that the use of carbon materials gives cheaper usable energy to the general public than does wind or solar. It is true that the carbon resources may eventually run out, but it is our duty to use those materials available, as long as they exist. When we have no more carbon materials as a source of energy, we can then concentrate on solar, wind, nuclear or other. However, we don't know when that will be or whether it ever will be.
    In addition, I must again point out that you and many others are on the wrong track with respect to your viewpoint on carbon dioxide emission from carbon sources. It may be nice to consider the fact that only half as much carbon dioxide is produced in the burning of natural gas as compared to coal, but that is completely irrelevant. That consideration is based on the feeling that carbon dioxide is a contaminant to our environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Natural ecological processes have handled carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for many millennia to retain the balance between excessive amounts and the amount required for normal production of plant life.
    I strongly suggest that you and your administrative superiors in the Obama Administration eliminate from your consideration any attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. You need to look at how we can get the cheapest energy to the American public, whether by coal, oil, natural gas or the so-called sustainable methods.

Sincerely,
Arthur C Sucsy, PhD

Natural Gas Fracking

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Thank you for your form letter on natural gas and the fracking process by which it is now being produced.
    You are for the fracking process, for which I congratulate you. You also have environmental concerns regarding the toxicity of fracking chemicals, so that any accidental release of those materials to drinking water supplies would not be catastrophic.
    You are opposed to involving the EPA in any control of fracking, for which I again congratulate you, because the less government control we have, the more productive will be the operation.
    However the EPA does have a responsibility to control the environment, within reasonable limits, and someone needs to be checking the various drilling operations to see that toxic chemicals are not being used. It seems to me that this is an EPA function. There are various state environmental agencies, which also should be working with the EPA on this matter.
    With respect to total government control, everybody else should be "hands-off". We do not need further involvement of Congress, and various other agencies involvement should be eliminated. This would include the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Commerce. Any involvement by Congress should be to eliminate the involvement of those agencies. We can make a partial exception to the Department of Interior, to the extent that they must be encouraged to allow permits for drilling/fracking on federal lands.

Energy Policy

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Thank you for your form letter on energy. I'm pleased to see that you and I are on the same wavelength.
    I much appreciate the fact that you did not mention carbon dioxide emissions with respect to climate change. I hate to bring it up myself, because it is an unnecessary and confusing distraction.
    The only addition that I could make to your letter would be that you will need to continue to fight hard for appropriate legislation. The Communist//Socialist Environmental Groups are strongly opposed to your position, since it is contrary to their desire to reduce US power by a reduction in the US economy. With the availability of considerable funding, they have been able to buy Democratic support, which will make very difficult your efforts to garner the necessary votes. In addition, you will face the program of overriding Pres. Obama's veto. While this is a considerable challenge, it is not an impossible undertaking, and I strongly encourage you to use your best efforts for the benefit of the US and its people.

Congress on Shale Gas Exports

The relatively new process of fracking has given the US the possibility of being a low-cost world supplier of natural gas.
US producers of shale origin natural gas desire to export it in liquefied form. Chemical manufacturers are strongly opposed to exportation, which they say will increase the domestic price and increase their costs for production of petrochemicals. Both sides try to involve Congress in this dispute for a resolution favorable to its side.
I have said previously that the owners of the natural gas have the right to dispose of it in any manner they wish, including exports, and Congress should not be involved.
The original controversy was based on an assumption that with fracking only the US would be a possible supplier of low-cost gas. That seems to have changed. Chemical and Engineering News in its April 8 issue notes that there are other foreign countries which are significant producers or potential producers of natural gas. Saudi Arabia continues to be a significant supplier. Argentina has the third largest shale gas reserves and British Petroleum is already arranging production by the fracking process. In addition, China produces light olefins from coal and intends to add 20 million metric tons of capacity by 2020. 
All of these will obviously increase natural gas availability in foreign markets and reduce foreign prices. This automatically decreases the incentive to export from the US. Again, market forces are at work
Therefore, I again strongly suggest to Congress that it should have no part in controlling export of US produced shale gas.