Green Car Congress: Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production; Coal-Derived Fuel Mandate

« Tokyo Gas, Mitsubishi Heavy Improve Hydrogen Separation Membrane Reformer | Main | Thermoelectrics’ Potential for Material Impact on Climate Crisis Questioned, Even in Vehicle Waste Heat Recovery »

Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production; Coal-Derived Fuel Mandate

4 May 2008

US Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced the American Energy Production Act of 2008 (S.2958) to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas and to fund the development of oil shale and coal-to-liquids technology. Eighteen other senators co-sponsored. Included in the bill is language for a coal-derived fuels mandate.

The bill would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as well as the Atlantic and Pacific regions of the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration and production; and lift the one-year moratorium on developing oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

Specific provisions of the bill include:

Outer Continental Shelf. The bill allows petitions for leasing activities in the Atlantic and Pacific regions of the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill allows the Governors of coastal states to submit a petition for a lifting of the moratorium within their state boundaries. The bill creates a revenue sharing agreement for participating states in which 37.5% of revenues will go to new producing states, 12.5% to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 50% to the Federal Treasury.
ANWR. The bill establishes a competitive oil and gas leasing program for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain under the Mineral Leasing Act. It provides for a 50/50 share of ANWR revenues between the Federal Government and the State of Alaska. Directs that $35 million of the State share be deposited annually into a “Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance Fund” for Alaska communities.
Permitting. Repeals the $4,000 fee for new applications for permits to drill that was established in last year’s Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
Refineries. Grants the EPA authority to accept consolidated applications for permits required to construct and operate refineries, and authorizes financial assistance to states and Indian tribes for the hiring of personnel to process permits. Establishes a 360-day deadline for the approval or disapproval of consolidated permit applications for new refineries and a 120-day deadline for applications to expand existing refineries.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Suspends filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 180 days.
Renewable Fuel and Advanced Energy Technology. Amends the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to strike the definition of renewable biomass and replace it with the Senate-passed definition.
Establishes a program of direct loans and grants to accelerate the production of advanced batteries in the United States.
Establishes a research program to determine infrastructure needs for the transport of renewable fuel blends, and directs the Secretary of Energy to consider the compatibility of existing infrastructure with intermediate blends of renewable and petroleum based fuels.
Studies the environmental and efficiency attributes of diesel-fueled vehicles.
Coal-Derived Fuels. Mandates that 6 billion gallons of coal-derived fuels be produced by 2022, starting at 750 million gallons in 2015 and ramping up by that same amount annually. Requires that CTL fuels produced result in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions not greater than those associated with gasoline and provides waiver authority based on economic or environmental harm.
Oil shale. Repeals the one year moratorium on funds to complete final regulations for the commercial leasing of oil shale established in last year’s Omnibus.
Increases the current allowable contract duration of five years to 25 years for procurement of synthetic fuels by the Department of Defense.
Repeals Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which prohibits federal agencies from procuring alternative fuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions greater than those associated with conventional fuels that they replace.

Domenici and thirteen other Senators have asked the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) to analyze the impact the legislation will have on America’s reliance on foreign oil and energy prices as compared to forecasts the agency made in its Annual Energy Outlook 2008.

The EIA has assessed the impact of drilling in ANWR before. In March of 2004, the Energy Information Administration, at the request of Representative Richard W. Pombo, then Chairman of the US House Committee on Resources, published a report using government figures and analyzing the projected effect of drilling in ANWR. The report lays out three scenarios: one for low-oil resources, one the mean case, the other for high oil resources.

Some of the report’s findings:

The mean-case estimate is that there are 10.4 billion technically recoverable barrels of oil in ANWR, divided into many discrete fields. This estimate includes oil resources in Native lands and State waters out to a 3-mile boundary within the coastal plain area. The mean estimated size of oil resources in the Federal portion of the ANWR coastal plain is 7.7 billion barrels.
It will take approximately 10 years to bring the first field on-line (comparable to other Arctic drilling).
Assuming sequential development of the fields, rank ordered by size, ANWR production would peak, in the mean case scenario, in 2024 at 870,000 barrels of oil per day.
Assuming that every barrel of ANWR oil is consumed domestically, it would reduce imports on a barrel-for-barrel basis.

Co-sponsors of S.2958 include Senators Allard (R-CO); Barrasso (R-WY); Bennett (R-UT); Bond (R-MO); Bunning (R-KY); Chambliss (R-GA); Cornyn (R-TX); Enzi (R-WY); Hutchinson (R-TX); Inhofe (R-OK); Isakson (R-GA); McConnell (R-KY); Murkowski (R-AK); Sessions (R-AL); Stevens (R-AK); Thune (R-SD); Voinovich (R-OH); and Wicker (R-MS).

Resources

American Energy Production Act of 2008 (S.2958)

May 4, 2008 in Coal, Coal-to-Liquids (CTL), Natural Gas, Oil | Permalink | Comments (84) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/28741598

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production; Coal-Derived Fuel Mandate:

Comments

I wish we could get it out of the ground quicker, by 2024 no-one will want to buy oil..

Posted by: Herm | May 4, 2008 6:12:12 AM

Nice... This bill has every appearance to have been entirely written by oil & coal lobbyists who paid to have these senators lend their name to it.

Ugh.

Posted by: rob | May 4, 2008 6:53:30 AM

Note that all of the sponsoring senators are Republicans. They've been playing a waiting game, figuring when gas prices get high enough the public will support opening up ANWR. The Democrats will probably block the bill, but with gas at $4/gal that may cost them politically.

I'd rather they work out a compromise. How about increasing CAFE to 50 MPG by 2030 along with the increased drilling, and implement a flexible gas tax beginning in 2010 that would prevent a large decrease in gas prices?

Posted by: JamesEE | May 4, 2008 7:07:52 AM

rob;

If your assumption is correct, there would be a fearful similarity with the late Roman Empire Senators of the third and fourth centuries AD.

Is history repeating itself?

Have no fear. USA's Senators are democratically elected and can be replaced by 'we, the people'.

Posted by: Harvey D | May 4, 2008 7:18:27 AM

JamesEE:

What would happen if 100+ million existing recent front wheel vehicles were converted to 4WD PHEV with MIRA modular kits? With a 60% to 64% reduction if fuel consumption, a lot less oil would be required.

Posted by: Harvey D | May 4, 2008 7:23:32 AM

Harvey D.,

Personally, I'm not interested in converting anything. I want a factory-made car with a factory warranty, like my Prius. And I believe that's the mainstream view.

But to the extent we increase mileage via new cars or conversions we humans will just drive more miles. Only by increasing fuel taxes, like Europe and Japan, can we increase fuel costs without increasing incentives to find and produce more oil.

Posted by: JamesEE | May 4, 2008 7:36:58 AM

JamesEE

One would not have to stop the other. The transition could go much quicker if we do both.

People with a good 3 or 4 year old car may find it cheaper to convert it than buying a new PHEV.

At least, the retrofitting of existing ICE into 4WD PHEVs would be done locally. The thousands laid off by the Big-3 could find new jobs for the next 10+ years.

Posted by: Harvey D | May 4, 2008 8:23:50 AM

what would happen if we had a bunch of conversions suddenly or even in the next 10 years?.. oil prices would collapse to unsustainable levels.. another catastrophe for the industry like in the late 80s. The only people that would make money selling oil would be the Arabs and Iraq, they can produce oil at about $2.50 a barrel.

Battery tech will advance so quickly that this will eventually happen, long 300 mile range, quick 10 minute recharges and no maintenance.. who would want to buy an ICE car?.. a lot of garages and mechanics will not survive either

Posted by: Herm | May 4, 2008 8:36:47 AM

This bill will go nowhere.

Even when the Dems were the minority they were able to block drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Dems have the majority now, and are poised to expand that majority. How many Democratic Senators are vulnerable now? According to polls, only Landreiu (D-LA) who would vote to drill anyway. How many Republicans are up for election and vulnerable in places where environmentalism is more popular? Gordon Smith (R-OR), Susan Collins (R-ME), Coleman (R-MN). All three have shown the "ability" to cross the aisle and join Democrats on sensitive issues, and I could imagine this would be one of them.

So, if you throw in HI Dems who vote in unison with AK's Senators "+2 rights!", it will come very close to a 50-50 vote. But, there won't be a vote -- the Dems would require the Republicans get 60 votes to even get it on the floor, and it ain't happening.

As for Pete Domenici (R-NM), the sponsor of the bill, he's retiring with the 2008 term and the Democratic challenger Tom Udall is heavily favored to win that Senate seat.

To recap:

1. This bill will go nowhere.
2. This bill will not endanger Democratic Senators in 2008, and the public will have forgotten by 2010.
3. The bill's sponsor is a Senatorial lame duck.

Posted by: stomv | May 4, 2008 8:41:46 AM

A rear-wheel retrofit for a FWD car doesn't eliminate the need for the engine to run to provide power steering and brakes, or cut the slippage losses in the torque converter. If you get into things like electric accessory drives and replacing the TC with an alternator (to recover the slippage power), you're talking some serious labor costs.

We only have so much money to spend, and these fixes will always be cheapest when they come from the factory. Our goal should be to push that as fast as possible; vehicles cover half their lifetime mileage in their first 6 years, so a 60% reduction in demand from the new fleet would cut aggregate demand by a whopping 5%/year.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 4, 2008 8:47:24 AM

Herm:

The same happened when horses and buggies were replaced with automobiles; when stenos and typewritters were replaced by computers; when horses and mules were replaced by tractors, etc.

The world adapted and did not collapsed.

You can rest assured that the world will quickly adapt to clean electrified vehicles. It may provoke the arrival of a new economy, (with less GHG and diseases), based on clean electricity instead of oil. The first countries to adapt may benefit the most.

Posted by: Harvey D | May 4, 2008 8:52:58 AM

E-P:

What would be the total impact if you introduce 10 million new (100 mpg) PHEVs + 10 million coverted (60 mpg) ICE/4WD PHEVs a year for the next 10 years?

You would effectively replace 20 million (20 mpg) ICE with 20 Milion (80 mpg) PHEVs every year.

I bet you could stop or curtail corn/grain ethanol production within a few years and reduce oil imports significantly within 10 years.

Posted by: Harvey D | May 4, 2008 9:08:50 AM

Domenici has turned into the heart of darkness in recent years. Look at all the usual suspects that signed with him. Sure we are going to need production and we will make deals when they are coupled to consumption goals. Let's see how much we can save first. If it looks like we are not hitting targets, they we will talk. The biofuels has them upset. They want things to remain oil and only oil for as long as they can. Exxon said that they were not investing in biofuels because they would not have a significant impact. Well, if you don't invest in them, then I guess they will not have a significant impact. We will see.

Posted by: sjc | May 4, 2008 9:15:23 AM

Harvey

This is the optmistic view of the problem: stone age ended before shortage of stone, wood age stoped before the shortage of wood (not totally tru by the way), coal age ended before shortage of coal, well here stop the analogy. The coal consumption stopped to decrease in the late 80s abd have steadily increased these 20 past years. The problem to day is that we need oil, hydro, coal, natural gaz, nuclear to run our energy hungry 6 billions people industrial crazy moden world. The shortage of oil will by domino effect put a pressure on coal supply then to natural gaz and uranium resource.

US swallow 20 millions barrel of oil every single day and the alternative that can scale to offset is not yet identified, don't bet me wrong I am a fan of PHEV, it is formidable technical challenge but I least a see a hope (contrary to hydrogen where I see no hope) that it can scale significantly over, let say, the next 30 years to offset some of our oil addiction (means ~ 20-30% of the fleeet as PHEV). But in the same time we should be careful not to rely to much on the "miracle of the technology" to maintain the "happy motoring" that we are enjoying right now. Even in the most optimistic view we will have to reduce our reliance on cars, the technology will no fill the gap if we face tomorrow a continuous decrease in oil production due to peaking. Sure battery will progress and their cost will drop, but very slowly, batteries have a long history of unkept promises despite decades of R&D and potential of huge market. Look at solar cell are slow the progresses are despite all the hype about it, double digit growth in sales but still not even 1% of electricity produced this way, and more than 10 000K$ to install one Kwh of pannel on your roof. I don't think the progress on bateries will be much faster than what we see on the solar today.

Posted by: treehugger | May 4, 2008 9:28:27 AM

treehugger:

I appreciate your comments but I'm much more of an optimist.

The oil squease + GHG + increasing oil price will provoke more investments in improved batteries mass production. Batteries price will drop rapidly, PHEVs and BEVs will become affordable and common place within a few years.

Low cost solar may not be for tomorrow. However, wind power and nuclear power could supply all the extra energy for future PHEVs and BEVs.

Meanwhile, we should not give up on solar power. It is by far the cleanest most abundant energy source. We will soon learn how to better convert it to electricity for future generations.

Posted by: Harvey D | May 4, 2008 9:48:10 AM

Just look at the replacement figures and you will see the problem. For every barrel they pump out, the should discover reserves to replace that barrel. They have fallen behind in that for years. Some oil companies will not even post projections any more. If you are not finding replacement reserves and the world is using more every day, the math gets pretty clear.

Posted by: SJC | May 4, 2008 10:09:04 AM

Even if this bill passed, somehow, we simply do not have the reserves to have energy independence over the longer term. I'm convinced more and more that PHEVs and BEVs are the way to go. To that end, we need cheap, high-density batteries that recharge in reasonable length of time. A123 is moving in that direction. But we must go faster.

Posted by: Cervus | May 4, 2008 10:13:12 AM

One of the statements they made about the 70s and 80s when we made fuel economy gains and before the Saudis flooded the market is, conservation got there first. We doubled the mileage of cars and the world oil price went down. It was both efficiency and the Saudis, but it shows efficiency works.

Posted by: SJC | May 4, 2008 10:14:45 AM

Progressive but agressive electrification of the world's personnal, commercial and industrial vehicles may be the best sustainable way to go.

The transition has barely started. It could take as long as 5 decades if market forces do it (alone) but we could reduce the transistion to 3 decades with more direct and indirect government involvement.

Had USA and Canada invested, half the $20 billion a year they have given to Oil Cos, for battery development and automated production, we would be producing at least 10 million affordable battery packs a year by now.

Priorities have to be changed. At $120/barrel, Oil Cos do not need government handouts. They should pay back some of the $ billions they got during the last 10 years thru special higher taxes on their huge profits.

Posted by: Harvey D | May 4, 2008 11:25:54 AM

Harvey:

I agree with removing the tax breaks they got in the late 90s when oil prices dipped near $15/barrel. However, a "windfall" profits tax is precisely the wrong thing to do. It's a disincentive for domestic oil production. It raises their production costs at a time when oil exploration is becoming more and more expensive. A barrel that cost $10 to produce just six years ago now costs $16 to produce.

If this really is peak oil, it isn't a windfall at all. The market price of oil will naturally rise as supplies shrink.

Posted by: Cervus | May 4, 2008 11:36:45 AM

If you want to encourage domestic production perhaps an oil import fee is better. We want to import less oil and one of the classic ways to discourage something is to tax it. An oil import fee would be a tariff and if it were on automobiles it might cause a trade war, but what kind of trade war would an oil import fee cause? The Saudi decide to buy few U.S. products?

More than 5 years ago, the oil companies started to sell off their refineries because they said it was not the profitable part of the business. Another way of looking at it is that they knew the price of oil was going up and they were going to concentrate on production and leave the thin margin parts to someone else.

An oil import fee might anger the Saudis and I do not think politicians want that. The Saudis have been the voice of moderation in OPEC so far, but this could change. OPEC has said that if we start to use the petroleum reserve as a market price control they would retaliate. This is the kind of predicament that we are in today.

The dollar used to be worth one Euro, if the value of the dollar had not fallen to $1.50 per Euro a barrel of oil might cost $60 dollars today. Since we run such large budget and trade deficits we have this problem. The main reason the dollar is starting to rebound just a bit is the world is slowing just a bit too. It is a relative situation.

Posted by: sjc | May 4, 2008 12:30:52 PM

The problem you didnt see is the end of oil is the end of cratopia.

Money in the form of taxes and fees and all that. Oil pays for entire state governments... for the entire road system doe wntire school systems and in various ways its everywhere in a vast sea of revenues.

Bev cant replace that. And its so big the impact will shrink gov and everything it does by a massive amount.

Abd the crats are worried... very worried.

This isnt the storm this is just a cloudy day the real storm hits when peak oil turns to the downslope and the rise in gas and oil prices no longer makes up for the drop in production... and the all mighty oil teet runs dry and every state and every city goes deep into the red.

Posted by: wintermane | May 4, 2008 1:04:56 PM

SJC:

A strong currency is a blessing and a curse. It makes imports cheaper, but makes our labor comparatively more expensive. This puts more and more factories off shore. The only way to correct a trade deficit is for the value of our currency to fall far enough that manufacturing becomes cheap enough here that the offshoring trend starts to reverse itself. That's starting to happen--look at our export/import numbers again. Our trade deficit actually fell about 5.7% in 2007.

China didn't help by pegging their currency at a fixed level until 2005, when they finally relented under international pressure to let it float. It's starting to appreciate fast enough now that opening new factories in China is much more expensive than it used to be.

Posted by: Cervus | May 4, 2008 1:06:00 PM

Where do I sign to oppose this bill?

Posted by: Lulu | May 4, 2008 2:35:51 PM

I've grown tired of the Republicans protecting big oil - Louisiana Democrats do it too though. I like a strong military, limited government, judges that don't legislate from the bench, & a judeo-christian political orientation, so I can't vote for democrats either. However, we have got to rid ourselves of this menacing addiction to oil.....more drilling is not the answer you idiots!! I hope the democrats filibuster & block the hell out this pathetic legislation.

Posted by: Sick Of It | May 4, 2008 2:38:16 PM

You could devalue the U.S. dollar to 10 cents and it would not bring back much manufacturing. You can not compete with one dollar an hour labor unless house prices fall to $10,000 each.

There are lots of ways that you can deal with a trade imbalance rather than devalue your currency. Devalued currency will just make T bills have to yield more, because you are paying them back with funny money. That increases the debt, as if we did not have enough already.

Posted by: sjc | May 4, 2008 4:05:13 PM

Harvey: How many man-years of labor would it take to design, manufacture and install all those retrofits? Would we be better off making new hybrid Fits or Apteras? I suspect that we would.

Treehugger:

Look at solar cell are slow the progresses are despite all the hype about it, double digit growth in sales but still not even 1% of electricity produced this way

Quite true, but production can increase radically from such small beginnings (see 1988 to 1989) and exponential growth can change things in a huge way after what looks like very little going on.

100,000 tons of a bulk material is a rather small amount for international commerce, but if we made 100,000 tons/year of 100-micron thick cells using Evergreen Solar's process it would make about 77 peak gigawatts of PV. For comparison, the US consumes an average of about 460 GW of electricity. Once we get the process moving, these things could make enormous changes in just a few years.

I don't think the progress on bateries will be much faster than what we see on the solar today.

Look at Firefly Energy and A123Systems and tell me if you still think so.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 4, 2008 5:05:03 PM

Engineer-Poet

Keep in mind that even in the best time the oil industru didn't grow faster thatn 10% neither anay other energy did, so I don't believe solar cell will do it because it is far harder to scale up than oil.

Firefly and A123Systems ? they have products technically speaking but they haven't proven yet that they can manufacture it in large quantity at 200$/Kwh, did they ?

Posted by: treehugger | May 4, 2008 6:30:22 PM

E-P:

Most of the retrofit modular PHEV design man-hours have been accounted for already. I agree that many more man-hours and $$$ are required to establish highly automated factories to mass produce the retrofit kits. That is where our governments have to interfere. Many components are common to retrofit and new PHEVs and could be produced in the same automated factories.

Basically, more efforts and resourses have to be directed towards improved batteries and PHEVs/BEVs.

America has to be part of the future electrified economy. The oil and ICE economy is passé. We have to listen to Warren Buffett. Change our ways or disappear.

Posted by: Harvey D | May 4, 2008 7:52:44 PM

Solar has been growing at 15%+ for years now. Lately, it's more like 30%. Wind is similar. I'd like to see CSP growing at a rate like that. Probably will in the near future.

Posted by: | May 4, 2008 8:07:16 PM

A grand total of 30% of installed new electricity generation last year was wind. That's rather a lot. And this year will be even bigger.

Posted by: Cervus | May 4, 2008 8:46:53 PM

EIA information for ANWR reserves: 10 billion barrels (a 500 day supply, for off coast California: 441 million barrels (a 20 day supply) and for the Gulf: 3.5 billion barrels with production decreasing about 15% from the 2003 peak to 2006.

World oil production is close to peak if not past. We are spending about $1 million/minute on imported oil, an unsustainable transfer of wealth out of our country.

The switch to plug-in hybrids is not a sufficient response to the severity of our problems. Certainly any new car purchased should be as efficient as possible but investments in electrified mass transit and bicycles is a more effective use of capital. Flying as well as personal automobile use will be much reduced in the future.

Posted by: glenn | May 4, 2008 9:11:35 PM

The growth of the solar and wind energy is certainly not 30% you can have a look at the link of Enginer-Poet in his message above (though there is something strange in the Solar column). The growth can be more than 10% when the industry is small but it is not sustainable as soon as the industry reach a certain size. So in clear if the renewable energy grows at an optimistic pace of 10% (very unlikely for wind) the overall share of wind + solar will reach 15% of the total energy mix by 2030. AND THAT's AN OPTIMITIC FIGURE (don't forget that wind and solar only produce about a quarter of their peak capacity due to intermitency of the sun and wind energy, all the numbers you can read in the media about the growth of the solar are the peak capacity not the effective capacity). if you want a faster growth you need a Marshall type of plan, which is possible if it is confirmed that we oil peak in the next decade, but that is still to be seen.

Posted by: Treehugger | May 4, 2008 9:18:00 PM

Treehugger:

30% of the electric power generation capacity installed in 2007, according to the AWEA, was in wind. In 2002 this was 1%.

Posted by: Cervus | May 4, 2008 9:27:25 PM

Just some basic history facts: Henry Ford set out too destroy the railroad industry. The trolleys that were so preminant in early citys across the nation Henry laughed as one by one the were bought out by sometimes even auto dealers just too scrap them. There are even early American pictures showing scoffing roadway signs depicting the limitations of rail and God forbid sit bext too a stranger! You can't even begin too understand what mass transit saves in lives / energy and even time! You bundle nuclear / mass transit / wind / solar / water power where possible and viable trains mandated by FEDERAL LAW as a national security directive by the president to move all (were as possibleas the most prudent of ways to move large supplies to newly designed and built depo's.If you do these with the technoligy that even just GE changing how they do the old yard locomotives is amazing!They actually take OUT the big desiel engines replace them with rechargable lead acid batterys that are recharged by engines comparable too a Ford F-250 truck! The massive weight is a benifit as it makes up for the loss of the engine and theres no more spewing of desiel engine noise etc. This is already happening right now! California shipyards are doing this at this time right now!Sorry too tractor trailer drivers but you all know as well as I do that many of you have make / made runs for years with trucks sometimes more than half empty! This could through computer networking have every space used and cutdown in much waste! A depo wouldn;t care they would be just filling the space then when full the train leaves FULL to capacity!!

Posted by: Tundraman | May 4, 2008 9:43:53 PM

[The bill establishes a competitive oil and gas leasing program for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain]

Destroying the last refuge of wildlife will keep the world in oil for an extra week. Other than making some rich SOB even richer, it does little to change the real situation.

The problem
1 ) We are seeing the end of a limited resource
2 ) Using oil is very harmful to the environment and jeopardizes our ultimate survival in a great number of ways.

Our real solution is to find a future without fossil oil (and preferably without any fossil fuels, they will all eventually show the same problems as oil).

The obvious way to go is wind and solar and we see this beginning to happen.
We also need to see several mega-projects like solar-thermal generation using dessert land, geo-thermal using the huge Yellowstone mega-volcano, extensive wave generation that double as seaport protectors, Electrical capacity storage systems (like batteries or hydro) and an extra efficient mega-grid tying these all together.

The USA must do more. It must also find, develop, build, and export energy sources to other countries, not wait for China to show up with PV cells and Lithium Batteries, and India to send over the Tata Nano.

Posted by: John Taylor | May 5, 2008 5:07:57 AM

Destroying the last refuge of wildlife will keep the world in oil for an extra week.

Yes, because all the other areas in Alaska where they've drilled for oil are barren of wildlife now, right?

I wish people would spend just five minutes thinking about the nonsense the hippies spout out before accepting it as gospel truth. Wildlife in Alaska is fine, even where they've been producing oil for 40 years.

Oklahoma, where they've been producing oil for over 100 years, is perfectly lovely. And most of that oil was produced before anyone had ever heard of environmental protection.

Open your eyes and look around, people.

Posted by: Matthew | May 5, 2008 6:13:16 AM

What they are saying is that you do not have to drill, there are other alternatives. Leave it in the ground and change the way we do things. We can have a modern prosperous economy without drilling like mad people. This is all they are saying. They are trying to get people out of their obsessive compulsive rut. Drilling is just a way of making oil companies yet more billions of dollars.

Posted by: SJC | May 5, 2008 7:56:27 AM

What they are saying is that you do not have to drill, there are other alternatives.

That may be what they think, but what they say is largely lies to sucker the gullible in. We should be suspicious of anyone who has to lie to advance their agenda, shouldn't we?

A rational policy would be to drill *and* do things differently. If electric/hydrogen/moonbeam cars pan out, great, the need for oil will decline and drilling will fade out on its own. If these technologies don't come to fruition in the near term, we'll still have the oil we need to keep going until we do. Everybody wins.

Except those who make a living by lying, of course.

Posted by: Matthew | May 5, 2008 8:18:18 AM

The reality is that our usage of oil has such huge momentum that we have to reduce slowly or we risk economic whiplash. But, we do have to hold energy prices down or we risk economic choking.

The minimal damage to the economy would come from our present energy providers (oil companies and utilities) to become our future energy providers. Unfortunately, oil companies have been extremely short-sighted in this area.

Now they may be seeing the writing on the wall and want to buy time to play catch-up. The price will be paid by us in the form of further environmental risk and a bumpier economic transition.

Posted by: John | May 5, 2008 8:22:41 AM

All those alternatives are kept from happening by the big oil addiction. California was suppose to have green power to replace fossil power plants. There was no investment, because the money people knew that there was no way you could compete with the likes of Enron. If that free market stuff worked, by 2000 the state would have been awash in huge amounts of green power and building fossil plants would have been a thing of the past.

Posted by: SJC | May 5, 2008 8:36:12 AM

@Matthew

We should be suspicious of anyone who has to lie to advance their agenda

Drilling for oil is also on someones agenda. They further that agenda with we-simply-have-no choice-but-to-drill-otherwise-its-back-to-the-stone-age doomsday thinking.

We will be just fine with the Alaskan oil kept below the surface. (And the wildlife will be fine if we pump it up.)

Posted by: Anne | May 5, 2008 9:26:35 AM

We are going to need both production and conservation through behavior and technology. Oil only comes out of the ground just so fast. So ANWR could provide a few percent of our needs for decades. That is better than nothing I guess. I would hate to see them drill off of the California coast. We had our disasters with Santa Barbara spills and blow outs. I would definitely oppose it if we have alternatives and we DO have lots of alternatives.

Posted by: SJC | May 5, 2008 10:00:19 AM

"investments in electrified mass transit and bicycles is a more effective use of capital. "

Yes to mass transit but the bicycle and pedestrian path is proving to be a complete bust in North America. Due to the refusal of government, insurers and law enforcement to protect this class of individuals. Insurers across the board are reacting to rapidly rising costs of medical treatment for bicyclists and pedestrians hit by motor vehicles. Drivers' display total disregard for sharing roadways with peds and bikes knowing that there are greater penalties for DUI than actually running down pedestrians.

For every driver who tentatively gets out of their vehicle to bike or walk to school, work or errands - it has taken MASSIVE investment to get them there. These investments are totally lost once the ped or cyclist is hit, or threatened by irresponsible drivers. Pedestrian and cyclist accidents are increasing at a rate 30% per year across North America and accident insurance claims are skyrocketing.

The environment movement needs to get realistic about its goals. If you want people to stop driving do more biking, walking, mass transit - legislating the safety of these alternatives MUST be a part of the program. Else, billions of climate change, behavioral modification dollars will go down the toilet as tentative drivers climb back into cars for safety and peace of mind. These two items will ALWAYS win out regardless of cost. Sustainable living INCLUDES individual security.

Posted by: atela | May 5, 2008 11:05:51 AM

While it seems dumb to keep drilling for costly oil we should take notice of the fodder the oil industry has at their disposal. Given the backlash against biofuels and - a cogent view of big oil's playbook is helpful. Big oil will not release their stranglehold on energy easily. They will continue to milk the "peak" strategy to generate windfall profits until combined alternatives approach 20% market share. Then we will see a clever reversal to "no peak" oil and increased output driving down petroleum prices to compete with electrification. "No peak" will be supported by reasonable science (abiogenic oil(1.), new "finds" - and scare tactics about biofuel food riots.

The green car congress needs to counter these claims and stand solidly behind the transition from first generation biofuels to second gen biofuels (esp waste to fuel.) Support for alternatives in a broad portfolio of R&D and commercial scaling is needed. Solar and wind expansion must be strongly supported and kudos to old industries (Detroit) doing the right thing (PHEVs) will encourage faster transition to electrification.

Oil will dabble in the new energy models but not undermine their massive investments in exploration and infrastructure. New fields will be "discovered" (Bakken) and non-fossil explanations for vast resources will abound (2.) Support for biofuels, electrification, lifestyle change and responsible markets are the counter. Renewable energy leads to sustainable living and these transitional technologies must be supported with a united effort. The alternative is the non-alternative, same old players.

1.)http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0405_020405_TVgases.html)
2.)http://www.geotimes.org/oct05/feature_abiogenicoil.html

Posted by: sulleny | May 5, 2008 12:08:08 PM

A couple of observations to those who are looking toward some miraculous changes...

1) The median age of an automobile in the USA is 9.5 years (note that's median not average - average is much older)... after the useful life in the US most of these cars end up in poorer countries like Mexico and China (ever wonder what they ship back in all those millions of containers of crap Walmart buys from China?)... so the average age of vehicles in the world is now substantially greater than 10 years.

2) Despite all the gripes about "things aren't made like they used to be", a car made in 2008 is more likely to last into 2028 than a car made in 1988 was to last until today... in other words, cars on the street are getting older every year.

3) Based on the above figures, assuming the whole world woke up and "saw the light" all at the same time in 2015, and increased CAFE standards by 100% (btw - totally unrealistic), AND, despite all of the economic growth in the third world, there remains the exact same amount of cars on the road that there are today (sorry all of you Chinese who were hoping that you would one day be able to trade in your rickshaw for a taxicab)... by the year 2028 the world will STILL be using more that 75% the amount of oil that it is using today...

4) Looking at alternatives... there is an abundant (some say near-unlimited) supply of coal in the US. There is an abundant (not quite unlimited, but damn-near close enough) supply of oil shale in the US. These resources, though not cheap to tap, converted into liquid fuels for SUBSTANTIALLY less that the current market price of $120 per barrel. Industry estimates put the number at close to $30 per barrel.

5) What are the problems with using these resources? Using Coal and/or oil shale releases as much as four times as much CO2 as using crude oil.

6) IMPORTANT - What is that worth in dollars and cents? According to industry analysts, not much. Estimates range in terms of what it would cost to capture and store the excess CO2, but mid range numbers hover around $10-$15 per barrel. That would make the total cost of Coal to Liquid fuels approximately $40-$45 per barrel while emitting LESS GHGs THAN CRUDE OIL.

7) What should we learn from all this? Capitalism and the free market is a much more efficient tool than greenies think. Al Gore would agree... everyone has heard about his lavish carbon rich lifestyle and the fact that he offsets his GHGs through credits. Some find this disturbing... I think they missed the boat. In a truly free market economy, where the only limitations were a simple cap and trade or carbon tax, we would all be driving coal powered vehicles... simply because it is significantly cheaper to use the "dirty" energy source, and clean up after yourself, than to use the "clean" source of energy from the get go.

8) In conclusion, don't be visceral... think things through. I agree that this bill will never make it through the Senate, but that is not because it is wrong (note that the bill requires "CTL fuels produced result in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions not greater than those associated with gasoline"), but because the average American will not spend the time to educate themselves about the facts, and the Democrats in the Senate are too politically motivate to give a damn about the environment. So despite the fact that in the long-run a strong CTL program will be enormously beneficial to the economic, strategic, and environmental welfare of the US, the political landscape will be entirely dictated by the political pandering of the Democratic majority, and the reliance on the broad ignorance of the general populace. It is remnant of the Hillary quote on the stupid "gas tax holiday" idea (no kudos McCain) of "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists"... in other words "I'm going to rely on the stupidity of the masses and pretend this is beneficial even though I also know it's crap".

9) Post Script - I would love to see a viable clean car get off the ground. Unlike most of you, I was at the Tesla Motors opening event of their first store in Los Angeles. I applaud them, and I hope good things happen with their technology (as an aside, I think they are making some very poor investments in locking into their battery infrastructure...), but realistically, we are going to be stuck with oil/oil equivalents for 20-30 years at current supply rates, and likely significantly longer than that as well. However, from a GHG perspective, that is not necessarily the end of the world. The fact is that cleaning up vehicles is by far the most difficult and expensive way to lower our GHGs. We concentrate on vehicle emissions because of how visible it is (no offense GreenGarCongress), but in reality, total transportation - including automobiles, airplanes, trains, and heavy trucks - only makes up 14% of world wide anthropogenic GHGs. Instead of spending huge amounts of money cleaning up individual automobiles, it would be exponentially more beneficial to clean up the significantly larger emitters ie. power generation by even a small amount... Don't make the mistake of spending the nations resources on the more visible transportation sector at the expense of focus on the real problem. In the end, it would be a reasonable forecast that a Coal to Liquids mandate with a carbon capture requirement would not only make the transportation sector much cleaner from a GHG standpoint, but the creation of an economically viable carbon capture industry (without subsidies) would also likely have a spillover effect on the power generation industry, where the real GHGs are emitted, when the more mature carbon capture technology is viable for transfer. Comparatively speaking, we use 3.4 billion barrels of gasoline each year at a current "crude oil only" cost of somewhere north of $700 billion. At the same time, we use approximately 1 billion tonnes of coal each year, at a cost of around $35 per ton rate of approximately 1 MW per ton, almost exclusively on power generation costing $35 billion (one twentieth of what we spend on crude oil). Think about how foolish the suggestions to significantly increasing the cost of transportation for the sake of the environment are when compared to the comparatively cheap and centrally localized methods of reducing the nation’s carbon footprint in power generation.
I'm not saying that at some point in the distant future there won't come a time when we need to focus on the transportation sector emissions substantive source of GHG emissions, but until the "low hanging fruit" get picked, it is "penny wise - pound foolish" to focus on anything else. BTW - According to the IPCC, the increased cost of carbon capture for coal power plants would be 30-60%... peanuts compared to even a 5% increase in the costs of transportation fuels.

Posted by: David | May 5, 2008 3:30:44 PM

Quoth Matthew:

What they are saying is that you do not have to drill, there are other alternatives.
That may be what they think, but what they say is largely lies to sucker the gullible in. We should be suspicious of anyone who has to lie to advance their agenda, shouldn't we?

It's only worthy of suspicion if it's false or a partial truth.

If we assume that the 900,000 bbl/day maximum production from ANWR would yield 50% gasoline, it would take only a 5% cut in US demand to achieve the same cut in imports. Instead of costing money, it would almost certainly save money. And instead of taking 10 years to come on-line, we could do it almost immediately.

The remaining oil out there is subject to diminishing returns on investment; efficiency has barely been touched. Drilling should almost certainly be our next-to-last priority, not our first.

Coal-to-liquids should be the last priority. IIRC, a barrel/day of tar sands costs about $100,000 in equipment; CTL costs more. We should save the coal for our remaining electric power needs (including PHEVs) instead of wasting half of it to make liquids.

Quoth David:

there is an abundant (some say near-unlimited) supply of coal in the US.

No there isn't (and everyone should know better than to believe claims of "unlimited" anything).

The USA has nearly exhausted its anthracite and is going down the energy scale to lignite; coal tonnage increases, but energy is going down. We do not have the luxury of massive CTL.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 5, 2008 8:43:59 PM

Coal is one of those items politicians point to and say see, why worry? They have to blow the tops off of whole mountains now to get at the coal cost effectively to keep it the cheapest source of fuel for power plants. It is not an endless supply. It gets harder to get, just like oil and just like oil the estimates are questionable.

Like I have said, if we are smart we will use as much renewable energy as possible now and into the future. Save the fossil fuels for later if we need them. That course of action will not make billions of dollars for those in the fossil fuel industries however.

Posted by: SJC | May 5, 2008 8:55:40 PM

Lowering the highway speed limit to 55 mph (as was done by President Carter I believe) would reduce highway gasoline consumption by about 10%. We don't even seem to be willing to do that much to save on fuel.

Posted by: Jerome Bigge | May 5, 2008 9:51:59 PM

Uh, guys, where is all the new electricity going to come from? Nuclear? How many new power plants would it take? Physics says it takes so much energy to move so much mass. So exactly how does electric cars help?

Posted by: jch | May 5, 2008 10:29:08 PM

Anet eill open up the only question is when and how gently.

Both coasts will open up abd again how brutal it is is the only thing at question.

Coal and shale will be used coal based ethanol will flood the gas market. Ctl plants will spring yp like weeds.

How do we ease the burden?

1 Convert all carpool lanes into carpool AND commuter lanes so little put put commuter cars can avoid waltzing with big rigs.

2 Forxe all light vehicles under a certain mpg to run on a different fuel from the rest. I would suggest clean.. as in truely clean hydrogen'/

3 The worse a driver you are the lighter a car you must drive.. would force half the country into ckiwn cars within 4 years...

4 If congress fails to meet goals... they must commute via moped. Thus it would either get them to move thier ass cut thier own use or DIE.

5 Mandatory 4 day work week monday renambled sleep day.

6 All lawters must drive fuel cell cars... do we realy care about lawyers afyer all'/

7 a 300% vat tax on plastiv surgey... onw pweaona buttocks shall fund 3 others new prius.

Finaly all advertizing must also pay 50% into a genweal save our kiester fund.

Posted by: wintermane | May 5, 2008 11:15:36 PM

A few responses to the discussion here:

1. Oil is expensive, dirty, dangerous, and depleting.
a. Expensive -- because new oil is much more difficult to reach than old oil, the costs of drilling keep going up and up while the energy return is spirally downward. Oil in the US is rapidly moving to a point where it takes nearly as much energy to extract the oil as the energy content of the oil in the ground.
b. Dirty -- oil pollutes, and oil extraction, especially oil shales or tar sands, cause major environmental degradation.
c. Dangerous -- CO2 emissions from oil are changing the climate and risk runaway global warming.
d. Depleting -- Economically extractable oil (oil with a net energy gain) is at or past peak. Our reliance on oil right now is causing the current energy crisis. Depletion means that the rate at which oil flows out of the ground will, increasingly, taper off. For proof just look at world oil production which has hit a plateau since 2005 regardless of record price and incentive to extract every ounce of the stuff.

2. The remaining untapped reserves in the United States are in no way going to allow us to become energy independent. Even if we went full out to produce ever last drop, we would still have an energy crisis.

3. Solar and wind energy with storage along with nuclear power can supply the grid while the grid supplies the energy for transportation.

4. Transitioning away from oil will take at least 10-20 years on a crash basis. In all, the Republicans are moving in the wrong direction -- toward greater investment and dependence upon oil. Instead, we need a national energy policy that focuses on renewable sources, increased efficiency, hybrid, plug in hybrid, and electric vehicles, and husbanding what oil resources we have for use as raw materials (plastics, chemicals, etc).

5. Peak Oil is happening now. Whether you believe it or not, we are in a crisis. Peak Oil is not oil industry propaganda. It is a geological fact. The quicker we realize we are in the age of Peak Oil and the more rapidly we attempt to transition to alternative energy sources and efficiencies, the more likely civilization is to survive this crisis. If, on the other hand, we deepen our reliance on oil at this critical time, we may lose forever this window of opportunity for sustaining our civilization and making safe to world for our children.

Anyone who thinks drilling in ANWAR can solve this problem is wrong. Anyone who thinks the US can ever be oil independent again is horribly incorrect. Anyone who believes this crisis will just evaporate is whistling past the graveyard.

The practical solutions to Peak Oil -- alternative energy and related efficiencies -- have been available to us for decades now. Empowering these new technologies would set the US on a path toward peace, energy independence and a possible prosperous future. Continuing reliance on oil is a path toward massive resource wars, economic ruin, and potential runaway global warming.

For anyone with a mind and a conscience, the correct choice is rather obvious. For those who believe in magical solutions like the free market Santa Claus and divination rod predicted abiotic oil are living in fantasy world of wishful thinking and willful self-delusion. The time has long passed for coddling such soft-minded self deception.

The world has handed us two spades --

Peak Oil
Global Warming and associated climate change

Both are related. Both are solved by moving away from reliance on oil as an energy source. Unfortunately, conservative thinkers are too weak-willed, too greedy, too wholly taken in -- hook, line and sinker, by non-existent magical ideals and oil industry doublespeak to make the needed changes. So we must stand up, lift our voices, and loudly proclaim them wrong, wrong, wrong.

And then get on with the good work of keeping civilization safe despite all their efforts to the contrary.

Posted by: Robert Marston | May 5, 2008 11:29:16 PM

Yor first mistake was assuming oil wants anwr and the voasts ctl or shale... Its far better for big oil if we dont tap those till alot later. Its just a nice vlamestorm. It simply trmrinds the puvkuc that oil has asked before and that if we had moved already gas would be cheaper and food would be cheaper and food riots would not be spreading.

It simply nails the public to the wall and makes it clear.. it is and always was your choice.

Posted by: wintermane | May 6, 2008 5:12:26 AM

Here's a crazy idea...why not do both?

We've already upped the CAFE requirements, which (while not the panacea some people seem to think it is) will help on the efficiency side. Now let's get ANWR and the offshore areas going, and improve the situation that much more.

And instead of taking 10 years to come on-line, we could do it almost immediately.

Of course, if we hadn't spent the last 10+ years letting nutters dictate where we can and can't drill, this oil would be flowing today. 2018 is going to come whether we drill or not, but we'll be better off if we drill.

Posted by: Matthew | May 6, 2008 7:12:33 AM

Matthew:

Wouldn't a 5% per year liquid fuel consumption reduction be easier to apply and more profitable to everybody?

Accellerated introduction of improved Hybrids, PHEVs and BEVs could do it.

A PHEV retrofit program would also help to reach that objective while making use of the existing inventory.

Both could be expedited with a gas-fuel-carbon tax and short mid-term incentive program.

Posted by: Harvey D | May 6, 2008 8:06:24 AM

The people claiming that Oil drilling in a nature reserve is ok and has no real adverse effects on the animals are only fooling themselves. There is harm. The oil spills, and to get oil, you need to make roads and then people enter ...

More, a few extra barrels will not change the world situation. (1) We are running out of easy oil. (2) Oil use causes a large variety of environmental problems.

There are better solutions available. (1) Electric battery operated cars BEV & PHEV. (2) More use of renewable electric power (wind, solar) (3) mega 'green' projects like solar thermal from the desert, and geothermal from Yellowstone and other hot-spots. (4) An extra-efficient grid to tie these together.

Investing lots of money into destroying the arctic wilderness will not make a path to a sustainable future. Making the same size investment in truly sustainable renewable resources will have a payback hugely greater.

Posted by: John Taylor | May 6, 2008 8:53:57 AM

Just a little observation on peak oil most don't bother to examine... Based on the "sky is falling - we won't have any oil tommorow" assumption, we have a much smaller global warming problem than the IPCC seems to think we do... they seem to believe (and their models are based on projections that) we will be driving gasoline based cars and flying petrolium based airplanes for the next 100 years.
I personally do not believe in the peak oil theory. Those that point to record prices this year and ask why more oil is not being pumped out of the ground are being disingenuous or naive. Oil, as has been repeatedly pointed out above, is a very capital intensive product with extremely long lead times. Even the oil in ANWR that we all know exists could not be touched for another 10 years if we started work today... does anyone here remember what the price of oil was 10 years ago? Refresher: oil was less than $20 a barrel six years ago, and less than $15 per barrel eight years ago... There is no question that the raw material resources exist in non-conventional oil at the right price, but at $15 per barrel it would be irrational to extract it. It is economically viable to extract it today, but it takes time to set up the massive infrastructure that is required to extract it. On top of that, the environmental burdens - especially in the United States - make those lead times all the greater. There is also a real risk to those that invest in the most capital intensive investments (such as shale) that prices can come back down to $35 a barrel, at which point it will be uneconomical to extract. Unfortunately the long-term futures markets to do not have the liquidity to allow for significant long-term price hedging on the massive scale that would make it less risky. So the investors are cautious, but getting less so.

Posted by: David | May 6, 2008 10:32:12 AM

Mega solar in the desert or anywhere else, is very polluting, despite the nonsense you hear that solar is pollution free. Altering the Albedo should only be done with careful consideration.

Anthropogenic Thermal Pollution is dangerous when you are doing it ostensibly, to fight Anthropogenic Global Warming.

But then Thermal Pollution is apparently allright.

The significant IPCC Nobel prize winners, just published a scientific paper May 1, in "Nature" that says in effect:

"Oops. We made a mistake. Global Warming is called off for about an other decade, while the temperature of the world continues to cool..."

Lets see, that 30 years down; (hysteria over Ice ages) 20 years up, (hysteria over Global Warming)and for the past 10 years sideways/down. (Exagerated hysteria over Global Warming)

And now a prediction from the global warmists priesthood themselves, that the Earth will continue to cool for another ten years or so,while admitting that the Earth has been in stasis or slightly cooling, for a decade.

In summary: 30 years down, 20 years up, and now 20 years down. And the world is ending because the world is relentlessly warming. OK sure...

The exagerations and hysteria of AGW is dying before our eyes. CO2 is a GHG, but all GHGs collectively, have been overated as a power to alter the climate by at least 100 times. Thankfully the calibration needed is taking place. All GHGs, except CO2, are in control, and declining in the atmosphere, and CO2 seems to alter the temperature only an insignificant few hundreths of a single degree per century while doubling.

Posted by: stas peterson | May 6, 2008 4:08:42 PM

Here's a crazy idea...why not do both?

Because ANWR is literally our last gasp on the conventional petroleum side, and we've got too much low-hanging fruit on the efficiency side, a fair amount on the electric-substitution side, and perhaps some on the biomass-derived fuels side. Just converting our coal-fired powerplants to IGCC (a good idea just for pollution control) and injecting captured CO2 to revive old oil fields would be better than ANWR. We need to save ANWR for when we really need it.

Of course, if we hadn't spent the last 10+ years letting nutters dictate where we can and can't drill, this oil would be flowing today.

And we would have shot our wad before drawing a bead on the enemy.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 6, 2008 9:57:41 PM

EP,

You got it, but that makes too much sense :)

Posted by: SJC | May 6, 2008 10:19:01 PM

This has got to be the worst grammar I have ever seen in a post. If you can't spell, why should I take you seriously?

In any case, oil companies want desperately to tap ANWAR because that 10 billion barrels of oil in the ground represents 1.2 trillion dollars and climbing. Plus this oil would arrive on the market starting a few years from now when oil prices are likely to range even higher -- in the $200 to $300 per barrel set. So yes, they would love to tap this oil and they know its sustained price is a certain thing in the face of depleting resources and raging demand in China and India. In a few years, if nothing changes, something will have to give on the world stage. The resource wars of the near future may be quite desperate if not vicious.

In an increasingly nationalized world oil system, the prospects for oil company survival are growing a little slim beyond a 10-15 year horizon. Just look at the reserves figures if you want proof. Exxon Mobile, for example, is pumping less oil than it was a year ago. If the oil companies can't transition away from oil and other fossil fuels they'll end up becoming dinosaurs just like the automakers who fail to produce non oil based cars.

Posted by: | May 6, 2008 10:21:46 PM

here is also a real risk to those that invest in the most capital intensive investments (such as shale) that prices can come back down to $35 a barrel, at which point it will be uneconomical to extract. Unfortunately the long-term futures markets to do not have the liquidity to allow for significant long-term price hedging on the massive scale that would make it less risky. So the investors are cautious, but getting less so.

The problem with oil shale is energy return on energy invested and slow flow rates. There may be billions of barrels in the ground, but shale is essentially rock that you have to bake in place or break out of the soil. Oil shale will never be the quality resource conventional oil is today. We will be very fortunate to reach a couple million barrels per day within the next 20 years.

You would be better off spending the money on solar and wind energy infrastructure as well as mass-producing batteries for automobiles. Solar and wind are both modular builds and don't require fixed investments. They scale rapidly and, in many cases, use non-exotic materials.

We can't fix a problem of depleting oil supply by continuing to rely on oil. So we need new energy.

Posted by: | May 6, 2008 10:32:20 PM

Oil companies have to consider the real possibility that somebody will figure out how to get the shale oil out of the ground much more quickly and cheaply. [Think microbes.] That would cause prices to fall, so they have to be cautious about committing new investments. Go ahead and scoff, but it's happened before.

We really should think about a new gas tax that only kicks in when the oil price falls below $100, or even $70. Nobody pays the tax unless the price falls. Maybe it would be easier to pass now, since most believe it can't happen.

Posted by: JamesEE | May 7, 2008 7:16:27 AM

This entire thing has become such a mess. We all know that oil is not the solution but we are now stuck because the present and past administrations have burried their heads in the sand allowing Big Oil to have it's way. Well, now we are stuck and they will also be stuck soon. State owned oil companies are sucking up or taking back the resources so what is going to happen to Big Oil. This is the key. They will have to signify the switch and ask for all sorts of cash to do it. The technology is fast approaching but until Big oil doesn't have a choice, it is not going to happen. Drilling is a bandaid, not a cure.

Posted by: Paul | May 7, 2008 7:58:39 AM

Stuck is the key word. Carter had a synthetic fuels program in the 70s. It was scoffed at and called a boondoggle and still is called that, but I have not heard a good alternative by those calling it names. I kind of wish the name callers would grow up. That tactic went out at the 3rd grade playground anyway.

Every president since has done nothing about this. They have sent war ships to the gulf, invaded Kuwait, invaded Iraq, but not one has come up with a solution even remotely as good as Carter's. Maybe some of the details needed to be tuned, but 30 years later, we are still...stuck.

Posted by: SJC | May 7, 2008 9:06:02 AM

Observation on the future cost of oil... By definition, the value of oil in 5 years from now is not expected to be more that the current spot price of oil + interest at the risk free rate for that cost + the cost of storage. To all those of you who are so sure that the cost of oil is going to reach $300 a barrel by the end of the year, there is a very liquid market which would allow you to put your money where your mouth is... The fact is that the experts (and by experts I mean the combined knowledge of the entire market) believe that at any given time, the the expected value of oil is no greater than the formula ilisted above.

If there is anyone in this forum who is would like to place bets that the price of oil at the end of the year will be greater than that, I would be happy to take them... If anyone wants to bet that the price of oil will be significantly greater than the current price, I would be happy to offer odds... any takers?

Posted by: David | May 7, 2008 10:53:40 AM

They have 5BBO in the Williston Basin in North Dakota
and Montana. They just found out the Bakke formation is loaded. Start there.

Posted by: swen | May 7, 2008 2:41:46 PM

Nice to see one party concerned about the cost of energy and its impact on our economy and security.

Always remember than in EVERY instance the dems did all they could to offshore our energy needs.

How would Chavez, Putin or a Saudi Prince vote on this if they could?

Posted by: Sandy | May 7, 2008 5:37:27 PM

5 billion barrels of oil is ~250 days of US consumption. You'd have to find a new one every 8 and a fraction months to keep up with our usage.

Oil discovery hasn't kept pace with consumption since 1985. Oil discovery peaked more than 40 years ago! Get a clue.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 7, 2008 9:06:31 PM

How would Chavez, Putin or a Saudi Prince vote on this if they could?

They voted to cancel PNGV, or Bush would never have signed the bill getting rid of it.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 7, 2008 9:08:02 PM

If I'm not mistaken, the Geological Survey estimated somewhere between 300/400 bbo in South Dakota and SE Montana, but only 30/40 bbo is recoverable with existing technology.

Posted by: shigley | May 8, 2008 10:06:53 AM

This is a sensible program to address the short term need for petroleum until the substitutes:

a) come on line, PHEVs, EREVs and BEVs and HEVs
b) the substitutes achieve a substantial market penetration and installed base. (another decade to a decade and a half).

Unfortunately, all the already achieved stalling by the Watermelon Greens for the past twenty years has insured these short-term helps won't be available in the short term.

The cartoon that says:

1988 "...It will take ten years to bring these online, so don't bother...";

1998 "...It will take ten years to being these on-line so don't bother...';

and 2008 "...It will take ten year to bring these on-line, so don't bother..." is all too true.

In ten years petroleum demand will be falling through the floor, and no one will give a ruddy damn while the Oil Sheiks and the Oil Commissars offer Oil at any price without takers.

Then the Watermelon Greens will be yelling its all a conspiracy to destroy the wonderful People's Democracy in Venezuela, where mass famines are occurring, all fro the good of the masses. While Chavez adds another Swiss bank account just like Fidel did...

Posted by: stas peterson | May 8, 2008 5:21:01 PM

What a bunch of losers...the rest of the world drills for oil where it is known to exist....here we only allow drilling where we know it can't exist.

Posted by: glenroy | May 9, 2008 8:53:07 PM

I hope that all the green-minded people out there have already become Vegetarian. Because what could be more hypocritical than preaching about CO2 emissions, global warming, developing-nations-to-blame etc., while chomping down on a hamburger !

The huge herds of beef cattle emit CO2 on the same scales as the automobiles in the world.
So, by becoming vegetarian, you no longer support the evil beef industry, their ruthless factory farming methods, and the huge amounts of CO2 emitted by the beef cattle. And while you're going off beef, why not go all the way, do the humane thing and become Vegetarian ?
Moreover, the amount of CO2 emitted per person (i.e. the per-capita-CO2 emissions) in the US, Canada and Australia are about 25 times as high as the per-capita CO2 emissions in India and the developing countries. So, for the US to not sign the Kyoto Protocol, and instead blame India and China for global warming is nothing short of criminal behaviour. It's a case of the fox guarding the hen-house.

Posted by: Chris | May 10, 2008 10:23:26 AM

Not just the CO2 benefits, but for physical and mental health of us humans and the animals, too.
I could spend all day in a wheat field and come home feeling happy and relaxed. On the other hand, if I even lasted so much as an hour in a beef or chicken slaughterhouse, I would come home puking and be mentally tormented for the rest of my life. Going Veg seems to be a no-brainer.

Posted by: Atul | May 10, 2008 10:31:30 AM

"Chris" is a spammer/troll. He's repeated the same off-topic comment here, word for word.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 10, 2008 11:53:51 AM

"Chris" China apologist... Livestock expels methane. And yes, eating less meat lowers energy consumption.

Posted by: | May 10, 2008 1:16:22 PM

Engineer-Poet, try and **add* value to the discussion, if you can.

Posted by: Chris | May 11, 2008 7:52:22 AM

Admonishments from trolls and thread hijackers are purest hypocrisy. Let's see you practice what you suddenly started preaching.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 11, 2008 8:51:52 AM

Why not mass produce air driven vehicles?

(1) Provide a tax-payer backed trillion dollar subsidy for the big 3 automakers (Ford, GM, Chrysler) to mass produce an air piston driven engine.

(2) Then have Ford, GM and Chrysler install that same engine in a light weight chassis. The air piston engine is capable of propelling an Air Car up to 70mph. We don't have to go much faster than that on the freeway. Log in to your computer and type in your browser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4 or http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/659/ This proves these cars exist.

(3) The Air Car has a proven range of 125 miles per compressed air charge. India and France are already mass-producing air driven vehicles and Germany and other nations are signing on to the mass production of these vehicles.

(4) For the trillion dollar subsidy provided to the big 3, US automakers must sign a legal agreement. In that legal agreement Ford, GM and Chrysler must build the vehicle in its entirety in the United States of America. Other contingencies:

a. US automakers must reopen closed plants and put Americans back to work.

b. US automakers must enlarge their work force to pre-oil embargo levels. Technology will not be allowed to replace US workers.

c. US automakers must pay their workers a minimum of $25 dollars an hour to build these air cars.

d. Only those US workers who can prove they are Americans would be hired to build the vehicle.

e. Those individuals (i.e. auto mechanics, oil workers and any other American who loses their job by this decision to massively produce the air driven vehicle must be given first hiring rights to work at the plant). Older Americans displaced and unable to work any longer would be given supervisory roles.

f. Make it illegal for any part of this car to be shipped off-shore for production. Any materials that would be used to build this car must be manufactured and produced by Americans in the U.S.

g. Overall goal of this program: In 10 years all fossil fueled driven vehicles would be replaced by air piston driven vehicles. Recycle the aluminum and other material of existing fossil fuel vehicles.

h. Benefits: In 12 months, the big 3 (Ford, GM, Chrysler) could dramatically alter the need for the fossil fuel driven engine. Mass production would see to that.

(1) Negre's Development Motors International in 2009 will start mass producing these vehicles. And this company believes a reasonable profit margin is realized for a cost of $18,000 per vehicle.

(2) A US company Zero Pollution Motors is already invested into the production of this vehicle. If Ford, GM and Chrysler don't want to mass produce it, have Zero Pollution Motors mass produce it.

i. Funding for Americans who purchase the vehicle would be done by a government backed 6 TRILLION DOLLAR loan program.

(1) Repayment Plan: Basis for US Consumers to pay back their government backed loan would primarily depend on an American's monthly SPENDABLE income.

(2) Some impoverished Americans only have a SPENDABLE income of $10 a month after they pay for their living expenses. Living expenses being defined as groceries being bought at Mal-Mart, water bill, car payment, house payment, rent, electric bill (not some rich person thinking he needs another yacht, or BMW).

(3) Homeless veterans would at least have a place to sleep at night. They won't be able to drive the car (because they have been treated so damn fairly that they don't have the money to purchase car insurance, but at least it provides them shelter).

j. Overcome the objection of the US taxpayer "SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS are you kidding me?" Remind them that we have already paid that much in US tax payer dollars in protecting US oil interests. And, there is no end to that abyss. This at least ends our dependence on oil and stimulates our economy.

k. Provide all U.S. oil CEOs a guaranteed multi-million dollar pension. In addition to this pension, provide the US Oil CEOs a 10% TAX-FREE cut for backing this massive overnight production of compressed air technology and its various applications. This provides the incentive for "US Oil Companies and US Automakers" to jump at the chance to help Americans.

l. For providing the 10% TAX-FREE windfall to the US Oil Company CEOs must reimburse out of their oil profits the current diesel fuel costs spent by US truckers transporting U.S. food and other material. US truckers could then deliver food to our tables and transport other materials without having to pay for the diesel fuel. This would drop cost of food and mass transit of material and people overnight.

Important Note: This reimbursement must not EXTEND to the truckers who travel our state and interstate roads from other nations (i.e. drivers who are from Mexico, Canada who just happen to transport their goods from Mexico and Canada into the United States would still have to pay for their own diesel fuel).

m. Also have GM, Ford and Chrysler mass-produce Farm equipment that utilizes compress air technology. Farmers could cultivate food without the cost of fossil fuel. Ethanol would be a thing of the past. Corn could be used again to feed chickens, cows and other farm animals instead of putting our agricultural food in our tanks. Or if farmers want to they could continue fueling their farm equipment with ethanol, but the rest of the United States would not need to purchase it. As the air car is strictly powered by Air. Business, Residential, warehouses could all have external high pressurized tanks that could provide free energy to run a house, business or warehouse.

n. This car's nasty exhaust: ICE COLD air might even solve global warming and result in global cooling.

o. On a final note it would be simple to alter the Air Car's range from 125 miles to infinity. To do this US automakers could install an on-board air compressor with sensors that are hooked up to a cadmium or other hi-tech battery. Each time the electric on-board compressor switches on it depletes the cadmium battery. To recharge the cadmium battery a sensor sends a signal to the solar panel collectors that are "affixed to the roof of the vehicle" which begin drawing "free energy" stored and collected from the sun. This energy would then be used to recharge the cadmium battery.

p. Am I wrong in thinking this would produce an Economic Explosion? Americans would be put back to work and in 10 years we could bring all of our veterans home.

I tend to think Americans who right now (myself included) who can't afford to feed their families might at least want to try this experiment. I am not in any way shape or form associated with any of the air car manufacturers. I am a disabled veteran that is sick and tired of Americans having to buy oil from nations that use that money to purchase weapons. And then use these weapons against our my friends now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oil money funds the terrorists war machine and the quicker we get every nation on earth building these vehicles the faster we can win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

//Signed//
BRYAN D. VEGH
Iraqi Freedom/Desert Storm Veteran

Posted by: Zolton | May 16, 2008 6:47:58 PM

This bill is long overdue. It should have been enacted 30 years ago after an Arab oil embargo resulted in gas rationing. We would have been reaping the results by now, just as Brazil is with its ethanol/flex-fuel conversion. How about mandating that all new vehicles be flex fuel, as Zubrin suggests in his book, Energy Victory, and producing more methanol and butanol as well as ethanol? Our energy supplies at the mercy of Islamic radicals is an critical national security threat, something that is more easily reversible than global warming. Energy is the most abundant thing in the universe, and a lot of people have a lot of good ideas for harnassing it. Let's give them all a try instead of badmouthing anybody who has an idea and dithering about until time runs out. Unfortunately we have huge pool of wiseguys in this country producing enough wind to propel thousands of compressed air vehicles. Do something constructive.

Posted by: Eric Retzlaff | May 18, 2008 1:32:49 PM

If biofuel production concentrated on butynol, then flex-fuel vehicles wouldn't be necessary as butynol can be run up to 100% as a gasoline replacement in a gasoline engine. Because one can get the same number of gallons per raw plant stock with butynol verses ethanol but butynol contains 115,000 btu/gal verses 85,000 for ethanol, butynol should be the alcohol of choice for fuel. However, it requires a two-step fermentation process which is more complicated but the additional energy production makes it worthwhile.

Posted by: Robert Dinse | May 25, 2008 1:41:09 PM

Thats if we can get this legislation through the brain dead Democrats in Congress. The only way to thwart the efforts of OPEC and the speculators is by increasing our domestic oil and natural gas capabilities. We also might consider switching to burning natural gas in our vehicles. The car or truck conversion is quite pricey but the reward is that this country produces 95% of the natural gas it uses. And we're loaded with potential gas fields off both coasts. When methane hydrates found on our ocean floors can be economically harvested, we may find our supply to be almost infinite.
I'm still trying to get all the costs for the vehicle conversion from using gasoline to natural gas. Without taking into account the federal and local tax credits, one study showed the Honda Civic GX costing over $6500. That has to be reduced. At present, most of the activity has been with municipal vehicles.

Posted by: Jack Birch | Jun 7, 2008 1:31:25 PM

Energy policy must be focused on the long term. At 10.4 billion barrels, ANWR will supply a little over a year's worth of oil. Then what? I say it is a waste of time, and not worth the danger to wildlife. Lets try something sustainable for a change like in San Antonio, where they will be producing 1.5 million cubic feet of natural gas (biogas) from sewage that would otherwise not be used for anything.

Posted by: Andy | Sep 13, 2008 11:20:46 PM