The October 3 issue of Chemical & Engineering News has an article by Jeff Johnson entitled, "DOE Plans Shift in R&D Direction".
The US Department of Energy has an annual budget of $26 billion. My comment is that the Department of Energy has accomplished nothing with its previous annual budgets and the Department of Energy should be disbanded.
However, looking at the details of Jeff Johnson's article, the present annual budget for research at the Department of Energy is $3 billion. About 50% is for development of clean electricity sources, 19% for improving building and industrial efficiency, 5% for improving the electric grid, and 26% for supporting transportation. Note that the $3 billion does nothing to actually improve these items. The expenditure is only for studies.
Obama has now appointed a select committee of "scientists", which recommends that the research budget should be increased from the present $3 billion, which is a little over 10% of the total DOE budget to 20%. Obama's "scientific" committee recommends more attention (money) to improve vehicle efficiency, electrification of automobiles, deployment of alternative fuels, enhanced building and industrial efficiency, modernization of the electrical grid, and increased deployment of clean energy sources.
This committee is obviously following the Obama party line of ignoring our great potential for continued and increased use of gas and oil, while it fritters away our tax assets on "pie in the sky studies" followed by real losses, such as Solyndra and a larger one yet to come.
My recommendation is to eliminate the Department of Energy, which will eliminate not only its $3-6 billion "studies" budget but also the larger $30 billion annual expenditure of the whole agency. I have written separately on how this can be done.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
House Committee Hearings on Continuance of the Department of Energy
Open E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
I would like you to set up House Committee hearings concerning continuance of the Department of Energy.
Start with the fact that the present annual budget of the DOE is $27 billion. $11 billion each go to Nuclear Security and Energy & Environment. The other $5 billion goes mostly to "Science".
Congress established the DOE in 1977. It was primarily based on the oil crisis of 1973 from the Arab oil embargo. The intent of the DOE was to establish an energy plan, which would make the US less vulnerable to variable oil supply from Arab countries.
The questions that the Committee should now be asking Sec. Chu are:
1. Is our economy now less vulnerable to variable supply from the Arab countries than it was 34 years ago?
2. If it is, what part did the DOE play in the change? Did the improved drilling technology of private companies have a more significant effect? Did and does the DOE help those private companies in any way? If so, how?
3. If our economy is still significantly vulnerable to variable oil supply from Arab countries, what is the DOE now doing about it?
4. The average DOE budget was $20 billion per year over the past 34 years, which totals $680 billion. What did the American public get for its $680 billion?
I'm sure there are other questions that the Committee will develop. Chu will try to defend his position by the use of gobbledygook, meaning pie-in-the-sky predictions of the great things yet to come.
The fact remains that we should be closing down the Department of Energy as a basic money waster. It has accomplished nothing significant in the past, and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future. I believe we are now less dependent on Arab oil than we were in 1973, but that is the result of positive action on the part of private drilling companies, in spite of DOE regulations to minimize that production particularly through permit control. I will only mention the Splendora and other solar energy fiascos.
We obviously need to maintain Nuclear Security. That responsibility should be transferred to the Department of Defense, where it belonged in the first place. The DOD can the have the responsibility to see that the program is being operated efficiently.
Will we eventually run out of gas and oil? Obviously we will, but exploration even with DOE interferences has continued to increase our reserves. Private industry has all the incentives it needs to supply energy, and we can depend on it to utilize all technology necessary for continued supply in one form or another.
Randy,
I would like you to set up House Committee hearings concerning continuance of the Department of Energy.
Start with the fact that the present annual budget of the DOE is $27 billion. $11 billion each go to Nuclear Security and Energy & Environment. The other $5 billion goes mostly to "Science".
Congress established the DOE in 1977. It was primarily based on the oil crisis of 1973 from the Arab oil embargo. The intent of the DOE was to establish an energy plan, which would make the US less vulnerable to variable oil supply from Arab countries.
The questions that the Committee should now be asking Sec. Chu are:
1. Is our economy now less vulnerable to variable supply from the Arab countries than it was 34 years ago?
2. If it is, what part did the DOE play in the change? Did the improved drilling technology of private companies have a more significant effect? Did and does the DOE help those private companies in any way? If so, how?
3. If our economy is still significantly vulnerable to variable oil supply from Arab countries, what is the DOE now doing about it?
4. The average DOE budget was $20 billion per year over the past 34 years, which totals $680 billion. What did the American public get for its $680 billion?
I'm sure there are other questions that the Committee will develop. Chu will try to defend his position by the use of gobbledygook, meaning pie-in-the-sky predictions of the great things yet to come.
The fact remains that we should be closing down the Department of Energy as a basic money waster. It has accomplished nothing significant in the past, and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future. I believe we are now less dependent on Arab oil than we were in 1973, but that is the result of positive action on the part of private drilling companies, in spite of DOE regulations to minimize that production particularly through permit control. I will only mention the Splendora and other solar energy fiascos.
We obviously need to maintain Nuclear Security. That responsibility should be transferred to the Department of Defense, where it belonged in the first place. The DOD can the have the responsibility to see that the program is being operated efficiently.
Will we eventually run out of gas and oil? Obviously we will, but exploration even with DOE interferences has continued to increase our reserves. Private industry has all the incentives it needs to supply energy, and we can depend on it to utilize all technology necessary for continued supply in one form or another.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Fire DOE Sec. Chu
EIN News says, "Chu Takes Responsibility for a Loan Deal That Put More Taxpayer Money at Risk in Solyndra Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged making the final decision to allow a struggling solar company to continue receiving taxpayer money after it had technically defaulted on a $535 million federal loan guaranteed by his agency. (washingtonpost.com)".
I'm amazed that anybody in the Obama administration will take responsibility for anything.
Now that Chu has taken this step, let's build on it. This latest half billion dollar mistake is on top of all of the other errors he has committed as head of the Department of Energy. Fire him!
We plan to shut down the whole department anyhow. It has contributed materially to our 4 1/2 trillion dollar debt and every day continues to make it worse.
I'm amazed that anybody in the Obama administration will take responsibility for anything.
Now that Chu has taken this step, let's build on it. This latest half billion dollar mistake is on top of all of the other errors he has committed as head of the Department of Energy. Fire him!
We plan to shut down the whole department anyhow. It has contributed materially to our 4 1/2 trillion dollar debt and every day continues to make it worse.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Oil Production Looking Good for the US
EIN News says, "North American Oil Output Could Top 40-Year-Old Peak North America appears headed for an oil renaissance, with crude production expected to hit an all-time high by 2016, given the current pace of drilling in the U.S. and Canada, according to a study released by an energy research firm this week. (chron.com)".
This is wonderful news, especially since Obama has used his best efforts to thwart it
This is wonderful news, especially since Obama has used his best efforts to thwart it
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Turkish Political Conflict Is Based on Need for Oil
EIN News says, "Off Cyprus, the Hunt for Oil and Gas Threatens to Rekindle an Old Conflict Turkey has upped the ante in its dispute with Israel by sending an exploration team into disputed waters south of Cyprus in search of oil and gas. The move sharply escalates Ankara's conflict with its neighbors over energy rights in the eastern Mediterranean. (theglobeandmail.com)".
In 2009, Turkey used 600,000 barrels of oil per day, and produced only 50,000 barrels of oil per day. It probably hasn't changed much in the last two years. The key point is that they have been forced to import 550,000 barrels of oil per day.
Is it a mystery as to why Turkey would be pressing for new oil resources?
In 2009, Turkey used 600,000 barrels of oil per day, and produced only 50,000 barrels of oil per day. It probably hasn't changed much in the last two years. The key point is that they have been forced to import 550,000 barrels of oil per day.
Is it a mystery as to why Turkey would be pressing for new oil resources?
Monday, September 26, 2011
Good News for World Oil Production
EIN News says, "In Colombia, Violent Protests Threaten an Oil Boom At first, Pacific Rubiales Energy had the magic touch in Colombia. Forty-two of its first 48 exploratory wells struck oil รข€” an almost unheard of success rate. The Toronto-based firm, whose Colombian operations are run by exiled Venezuelan oilmen, now pumps nearly one-quarter of the country's present crude production of 953,000 barrels per day, and it's the main driver behind a boom that may well see the country reach 1 million barrels per day by the end of the year. (time.com)".
Good news for the world oil supply. It's especially important, because it reduces the economic power of the Middle East.
Good news for the world oil supply. It's especially important, because it reduces the economic power of the Middle East.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Fracking for Increased Natural Gas Supply Is a Great Development
EIN News says, "European Gas Giant Backs French Fear of Fracking Europe's largest natural gas firm, the Paris-based GDF Suez, agrees with the French government that hydraulic fracturing must be made safer for the environment before it is used to develop natural gas from shale resources in Europe. (forbes.com)".
GDF Suez
Let's first take a look at the relative size of GDF Suez, by using some production figures from its website http://www.gdfsuez.com/en/activities/our-businesses/natural-gas-exploration-and-production/natural-gas-exploration-and-production/. It reports its production in BOE. One BOE is equivalent to 164 cubic meters of gas. GDF suez produces 0.006 trillion cubic meters of natural gas per year. The supply comes from Germany, Netherlands, Norway, and the UK. It also has reserves of 0.1 trillion cubic meters.
For comparison, the total Euopean Union produces 0.2 trillion cubic meters (33 times more than GDF Suez). The EU also has conventional reserves of 2.3 trillion cubic meters (23 times that of GDF Suez).
Other country reserves of conventional gas are:
Russia 47.6 trillion cubic meters
Iran 29.6
Qatar 25.5
Turkmenistan 7.5
Saudi Arabia 7.5
US 6.9
Therefore, GDF Suez can be considered a minor supplier, with small reserves.
Fracking is estimated to increase the EU reserves by another 3.5 trillion, The likelihood that the fracking areas will fall in the areas where GDF Suez has existing conventional reserves is remote. Therefore, GDF Suez takes the position of opposing fracking, in order to preserve its existing business.
Environmental Considerations
One of the major objections to obtaining increased quantities of natural gas by fracking is a claim of environmental contamination put forth by environmental organizations.
I have said previously that environmental organizations have been taken over by leftists who really have little interest in the environment per se but are using it to reestablish world order and particularly place the United States in a position of what is presently considered a Third World country. Some of the political controversy is well documented in http://e360.yale.edu/feature/fracking_comes_to_europe_sparking_rising_controversy/2374/.
The best way to determine whether environmental contamination is a significant factor is to look at the detail.
Contamination
Let's first look at contamination in perspective. A volcano explodes and throws millions of tons of poisonous gases and particles into the air. Nature has its own way of handling that contamination. When we drive our automobiles, we generate poisonous carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. We handle that with catalytic converters. Each day we contaminate the environment with millions of tons of trash from food wrappings and waste food. We control that with landfill. Each day we personally contaminate the environment with urine and feces. We control that with sewage treatment.
On the input side, our food is contaminated with insects and microorganisms. We control that with cleanliness to reduce the concentration of contaminants and cooking to kill microorganisms. Our water in Lubbock is contaminated with calcium. We control that with water softeners. Water is used by the general public for flushing toilets, washing, lawn watering, cooking, and drinking. Only a very small portion is used for drinking, but cities and major towns have water treatment plants to treat water for all uses. Treatment plants treat the water to specifications. That means they take out most of the bad stuff. But treated water still has small concentrations of various minerals and, in some cases chemicals, such as pesticides and medicines, which leak into the supply from sewage treatment plants. Is this a source of concern? Yes, but the objective of water treatment plants is to keep the concentrations at low enough levels so that they are not health hazards.
Basic water supplies come from wells and reservoirs, such as lakes. Well water is generally contaminated with small concentrations of minerals through which the groundwater runs. Lake water comes from rain flowing across ground surfaces as rivers and streams, from which it takes up less mineral matter but more debris. As a side issue, New York City water comes from lakes in the Catskill Mountains. It is not subjected to contamination by fracking, which is an underground operation. It is silly to ban fracking in New York State, on the basis of protecting New York City water.
Methane
Methane is a major component of natural gas. Natural gas also contains some ethane and carbon dioxide. Note that these substances are not poisonous, and have no odor or taste. Natural gas from franking is piped from a level deeper than that of groundwater. Therefore in most cases, groundwater is not exposed to natural gas. There are exceptions and burnable well water has been observed. This can occur when natural gas dissolves in water water at high pressures. Subsequent release of pressure at ground level also allows the natural gas to come out of solution and be lighted. If the gas also contains higher hydrocarbons, it likely will have a taste and odor. However as indicated above, this can only occur with well water, which for cities and towns goes to a water treatment plant, where the taste and odor can be removed. Persons with private wells have more of a problem, but control is available, the cost of which can be borne by the value of the recovered gas.
Drilling/Fracking Contaminants
In the drilling operations and subsequent underground pressure fracturing of rock to release the natural gas, some chemical additives are generally used at low concentrations. These may occasionally find their way into well water but can be removed by water treatment techniques that would normally present no more of a problem than removal of trace amounts of pesticides and other chemicals from surface water in a water treatment plant.
Other Contaminants
As one Googles fracking, the only contaminants associated with well water are the methane and related hydrocarbons plus casual mention of drilling/fracking chemicals. Other than that, nothing is mentioned. This is not to say that some additional specific contaminants will not be discovered, but if they are, it is likely they could be easily controlled by standard water treatment techniques.
Conclusion
The new technology of increasing availability of natural gas by fracking from porous rock is a great development to increase our practical energy resources. Like anything else, there is a cost to obtaining it in the drilling and recovery process, and there are also environmental considerations. However those environmental considerations can easily be handled as minor costs within the gains of the energy itself.
GDF Suez
Let's first take a look at the relative size of GDF Suez, by using some production figures from its website http://www.gdfsuez.com/en/activities/our-businesses/natural-gas-exploration-and-production/natural-gas-exploration-and-production/. It reports its production in BOE. One BOE is equivalent to 164 cubic meters of gas. GDF suez produces 0.006 trillion cubic meters of natural gas per year. The supply comes from Germany, Netherlands, Norway, and the UK. It also has reserves of 0.1 trillion cubic meters.
For comparison, the total Euopean Union produces 0.2 trillion cubic meters (33 times more than GDF Suez). The EU also has conventional reserves of 2.3 trillion cubic meters (23 times that of GDF Suez).
Other country reserves of conventional gas are:
Russia 47.6 trillion cubic meters
Iran 29.6
Qatar 25.5
Turkmenistan 7.5
Saudi Arabia 7.5
US 6.9
Therefore, GDF Suez can be considered a minor supplier, with small reserves.
Fracking is estimated to increase the EU reserves by another 3.5 trillion, The likelihood that the fracking areas will fall in the areas where GDF Suez has existing conventional reserves is remote. Therefore, GDF Suez takes the position of opposing fracking, in order to preserve its existing business.
Environmental Considerations
One of the major objections to obtaining increased quantities of natural gas by fracking is a claim of environmental contamination put forth by environmental organizations.
I have said previously that environmental organizations have been taken over by leftists who really have little interest in the environment per se but are using it to reestablish world order and particularly place the United States in a position of what is presently considered a Third World country. Some of the political controversy is well documented in http://e360.yale.edu/feature/fracking_comes_to_europe_sparking_rising_controversy/2374/.
The best way to determine whether environmental contamination is a significant factor is to look at the detail.
Contamination
Let's first look at contamination in perspective. A volcano explodes and throws millions of tons of poisonous gases and particles into the air. Nature has its own way of handling that contamination. When we drive our automobiles, we generate poisonous carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. We handle that with catalytic converters. Each day we contaminate the environment with millions of tons of trash from food wrappings and waste food. We control that with landfill. Each day we personally contaminate the environment with urine and feces. We control that with sewage treatment.
On the input side, our food is contaminated with insects and microorganisms. We control that with cleanliness to reduce the concentration of contaminants and cooking to kill microorganisms. Our water in Lubbock is contaminated with calcium. We control that with water softeners. Water is used by the general public for flushing toilets, washing, lawn watering, cooking, and drinking. Only a very small portion is used for drinking, but cities and major towns have water treatment plants to treat water for all uses. Treatment plants treat the water to specifications. That means they take out most of the bad stuff. But treated water still has small concentrations of various minerals and, in some cases chemicals, such as pesticides and medicines, which leak into the supply from sewage treatment plants. Is this a source of concern? Yes, but the objective of water treatment plants is to keep the concentrations at low enough levels so that they are not health hazards.
Basic water supplies come from wells and reservoirs, such as lakes. Well water is generally contaminated with small concentrations of minerals through which the groundwater runs. Lake water comes from rain flowing across ground surfaces as rivers and streams, from which it takes up less mineral matter but more debris. As a side issue, New York City water comes from lakes in the Catskill Mountains. It is not subjected to contamination by fracking, which is an underground operation. It is silly to ban fracking in New York State, on the basis of protecting New York City water.
Methane
Methane is a major component of natural gas. Natural gas also contains some ethane and carbon dioxide. Note that these substances are not poisonous, and have no odor or taste. Natural gas from franking is piped from a level deeper than that of groundwater. Therefore in most cases, groundwater is not exposed to natural gas. There are exceptions and burnable well water has been observed. This can occur when natural gas dissolves in water water at high pressures. Subsequent release of pressure at ground level also allows the natural gas to come out of solution and be lighted. If the gas also contains higher hydrocarbons, it likely will have a taste and odor. However as indicated above, this can only occur with well water, which for cities and towns goes to a water treatment plant, where the taste and odor can be removed. Persons with private wells have more of a problem, but control is available, the cost of which can be borne by the value of the recovered gas.
Drilling/Fracking Contaminants
In the drilling operations and subsequent underground pressure fracturing of rock to release the natural gas, some chemical additives are generally used at low concentrations. These may occasionally find their way into well water but can be removed by water treatment techniques that would normally present no more of a problem than removal of trace amounts of pesticides and other chemicals from surface water in a water treatment plant.
Other Contaminants
As one Googles fracking, the only contaminants associated with well water are the methane and related hydrocarbons plus casual mention of drilling/fracking chemicals. Other than that, nothing is mentioned. This is not to say that some additional specific contaminants will not be discovered, but if they are, it is likely they could be easily controlled by standard water treatment techniques.
Conclusion
The new technology of increasing availability of natural gas by fracking from porous rock is a great development to increase our practical energy resources. Like anything else, there is a cost to obtaining it in the drilling and recovery process, and there are also environmental considerations. However those environmental considerations can easily be handled as minor costs within the gains of the energy itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
