Technological Optimism

I'm a big fan of technology. I buy into the Julian Simon view that any "limits to growth" are wrong-headed because it ignores the fact that the ultimate resource is human ingenuity.

Here are some bits out of Paul Krugman's latest NY Times op-ed looking at the upcoming future for solar energy:

For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore’s Law — in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 18 months — has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to Facebook.

Our mastery of the material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same as they were a generation ago.

But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power. That’s right, solar power.

...

These days, mention solar power and you’ll probably hear cries of “Solyndra!” Republicans have tried to make the failed solar panel company both a symbol of government waste — although claims of a major scandal are nonsense — and a stick with which to beat renewable energy.

But Solyndra’s failure was actually caused by technological success: the price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn’t keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.

This has already led to rapid growth in solar installations, but even more change may be just around the corner. If the downward trend continues — and if anything it seems to be accelerating — we’re just a few years from the point at which electricity from solar panels becomes cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal.

And if we priced coal-fired power right, taking into account the huge health and other costs it imposes, it’s likely that we would already have passed that tipping point.

But will our political system delay the energy transformation now within reach?

Let’s face it: a large part of our political class, including essentially the entire G.O.P., is deeply invested in an energy sector dominated by fossil fuels, and actively hostile to alternatives. This political class will do everything it can to ensure subsidies for the extraction and use of fossil fuels, directly with taxpayers’ money and indirectly by letting the industry off the hook for environmental costs, while ridiculing technologies like solar.

Krugman is making the point that the upcoming 2012 elections are going to be important for many reasons. A big one is that they will decide whether the political right gets to continue blocking technological advance in the energy area. The sad fact is that China is quickly becoming a leader in this area (along with Germany) and the US, which used to lead the world, will soon be a "has been" and utterly negligible. All thanks to the Neanderthal thinking of the Republican party that favours the rich and corruption over the American people and a better future.

Peak Oil has Peaked

Here is an interview of Daniel Yergin author of "The Quest: Energy Security and the Remaking of the Modern World"

In 1991 Yergin published "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power". He is an expert in oil. I trust his views and not the doom-and-gloom crowd who sell "peak oil". Sure oil is a finite resource, but it will last a lot longer than any of the fanatics who want to close down industry and go back to a romantic image of 1820s pastoralism realize. Read the book:

The Missing US Energy Policy

I remember teaching high school social studies classes from materials stating that "the end of oil" was at hand. I had to tell them that they would have to give up the idea of owning cars and heating their homes.

Needless to say, that doom-and-gloom scenario never came true. Instead I discovered that my father in the 1930s had been told about "the end of oil" while he was in school. Oh, and over the last 20 or 30 years the idea of "peak oil" has been very popular.

Here is a bit from an article in the Wall Street Journal pointing out that the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana puts America back into the same league as Saudia Arabia with oil reserves:

Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma-based founder and CEO of Continental Resources, the 14th-largest oil company in America, is a man who thinks big. He came to Washington last month to spread a needed message of economic optimism: With the right set of national energy policies, the United States could be "completely energy independent by the end of the decade. We can be the Saudi Arabia of oil and natural gas in the 21st century."

"President Obama is riding the wrong horse on energy," he adds. We can't come anywhere near the scale of energy production to achieve energy independence by pouring tax dollars into "green energy" sources like wind and solar, he argues. It has to come from oil and gas.

You'd expect an oilman to make the "drill, baby, drill" pitch. But since 2005 America truly has been in the midst of a revolution in oil and natural gas, which is the nation's fastest-growing manufacturing sector. No one is more responsible for that resurgence than Mr. Hamm. He was the original discoverer of the gigantic and prolific Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota that have already helped move the U.S. into third place among world oil producers.

How much oil does Bakken have? The official estimate of the U.S. Geological Survey a few years ago was between four and five billion barrels. Mr. Hamm disagrees: "No way. We estimate that the entire field, fully developed, in Bakken is 24 billion barrels."

If he's right, that'll double America's proven oil reserves. "Bakken is almost twice as big as the oil reserve in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska," he continues. According to Department of Energy data, North Dakota is on pace to surpass California in oil production in the next few years. Mr. Hamm explains over lunch in Washington, D.C., that the more his company drills, the more oil it finds. Continental Resources has seen its "proved reserves" of oil and natural gas (mostly in North Dakota) skyrocket to 421 million barrels this summer from 118 million barrels in 2006.

"We expect our reserves and production to triple over the next five years." And for those who think this oil find is only making Mr. Hamm rich, he notes that today in America "there are 10 million royalty owners across the country" who receive payments for the oil drilled on their land. "The wealth is being widely shared."

The actual estimating of "reserves" is tricky. The lesson I learned is that governments don't estimate oil reserves. They rely on oil companies. And oil companies have no incentive to find oil for more than a 20 year window into the future, so they will always be predicting the "coming end of oil". Here's the Wikipedia estimate of oil reserves.

Another fundamental lesson to learn from the ridiculous history of decade after decade "end of oil" proclamations: modeling is hard. The conclusions follow very closely from your assumptions. The infamous Club of Rome made ridiculous assumption that "most of the exploitable oil has already been found" and that "energy use will rise exponentially". Both of these are wrong. The amount of reserves is a function of need and ingenuity. The use of energy is tied to technological innovation. Cars today normally get three times and could easily get five times the mileage of cars 50 years ago. As a society matures, infrastructure expenditures fall relative to other consumption, so energy use falls. Oil use has been declining for over a decade in the US. It isn't growing exponentially.

Peak Oil

For the doomsday crowd that follows regular predictions of gloom-and-doom, the "peak oil" story has been a good one.

The typical "picture of doom" is something like this from Wikipedia:

Click to Enlarge
That picture is pretty convincing. We are on the slide to perdition. Only a bleak and hopeless future awaits us...

But wait a second. Here is a more recent graph from an article in the Houston Chronicle:

Click to Enlarge
The article goes on to report a "new peak" in production:

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.

U.S. oil production in areas including West Texas' Permian Basin, South Texas' Eagle Ford shale, and North Dakota's Bakken shale will record a rise of a little over 2 million barrels per day from 2010 to 2016, according to data compiled by Bentek Energy, a Colorado firm that tracks energy infrastructure and production projects.

Canadian crude production is expected to grow by 971,000 barrels per day during the same period, with much of the oil headed for the U.S.

Combined, the U.S. and Canadian oil output will top 11.5 million barrels per day, which is even more than their combined peak in 1972.

Goldman Sachs has estimated the U.S. could move from being the No. 3 oil producer behind Saudi Arabia and Russia to the No. 1 spot by 2017.

It's a reversal of the steady downward production trend that started after 1971, when U.S. oil production peaked around 9.5 million barrels per day.

I know this is a shock and disappointment to the end-of-days crowd. But this is an old story. If you followed the Club of Rome with its best seller in the early 1970s, the book "Limits to Growth" you've seen this tale before. It is so convincing. The end is nigh! Repent!

But human ingenuity keeps foiling that tale of gloom and despair. It is so seductive to believe that there is no hope and we must give up our sinful "modern ways" and go back to our pastoral past when we were disease ravaged and lived an average of 34 years. But those pesky scientists and technologists keep ruining out return to a "golden age" by creating new techniques or helping us conserve or producing a new substitute. This story is older than civilization. But the siren call of "repent! the end is nigh!" keeps winning because it appeals to our dark side that expects us to be punished for "having it too good".

The Club of Rome pessimists are still in business and no doubt still selling their siren song of "the end is nigh!". But you are better off reading "The Ultimate Resource" by Julian Simon. Unlike the Club of Rome, Simon has been right more than wrong. But unlike the Club of Rome, Simon is ignored by the press. It is so much easier to sell papers with the story of doom-and-gloom. Nobody wants to hear that we will "muddle through" or that we can count on "human ingenuity". We want morality plays. We want punishment for sinful ways, the excesses of the past. Nobody wants dull fact, reasoned judgement, and a scientific attitude. It doesn't sell.

Oil and Technology Opening the Door to Energy Self-Sufficiency for the US

Here is a bit from a press release by the American Chemical Society:

New technology that combines production of electricity with capture of carbon dioxide could make billions of barrels of oil shale — now regarded as off-limits because of the huge amounts of carbon dioxide released in its production — available as an energy source. That’s the topic of the latest episode in the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) award-winning “Global Challenges/Chemistry Solutions” podcast series.

Adam Brandt, Ph.D., notes in the podcast that almost 3 trillion barrels of oil are trapped in the world’s deposits of oil-shale, a dark-colored rock laden with petroleum-like material. Brandt and colleague Hiren Mulchandani are at Stanford University.

The United States has by far the world’s largest deposits in the Green River Formation, which covers parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The domestic oil shale resource could provide 1.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels. But concerns over the large amounts of greenhouse gases — mainly carbon dioxide — released by current methods prevent many companies from trying to extract oil from shale.

Brandt’s answer is EPICC — a self-fueled method that generates electricity, as well as the heat needed to produce that electricity from shale. The report, which appears in ACS’ journal Energy & Fuels, describes how EPICC could generate large amounts of electricity without releasing into the atmosphere carbon dioxide from burning the shale. That carbon would be captured and stored underground as part of the production process.

The new podcast is available without charge at iTunes and from www.acs.org/globalchallenges.

The gloom & doom crowd is going to be seriously disappointed. It reminds me of those in the 15th century gnashing their teeth about the disappearance of old oak forest just as Britain was rising to be the world's sea power. Or those doom & gloomsters who have been rushing about for the last 50 years warning about "peak oil". It is always very popular to linearly extrapolate from the past and discover doom awaits us. But their requires a steadfast ignorance about human ingenuity and technological change. The doom & gloom crowd always ignore "the ultimate resource" as they weave their tales of resource shortages and the doom that awaits us.

Going Green and the Hand Wringing Apologists

There is a lot of brow-beating of people in the developed world about their "guilt". Guilt for a "colonial" past. Guilt about outrageously self-indulgent lifestyles. Guilt about greedily seizing resources and living the underdeveloped world desperate and without.

Well... I was never a colonialist. I don't live an indulgent lifestyle. And I've never hogged resources. Sure, colonialism was rampant 300 years ago. But if you go back 2000 years you find Romans, Chinese, Persians, Indians, etc. as the great colonialists. Why don't be beat Iranians, Chinese, Indians, etc. about the ears for having "empires". My ancestors were running around half naked in the northern fringe woodlands 2000 years ago.

As for using an "unfair" share of resources:

Click to Enlarge
The above graph is from a post on energy by Ed Yardini in his blog Dr. Ed's Blog.

As the graph makes clear, the rising standard of living in China and India (and more generally in southeast Asia) means that resource consumption there has rapidly surpassed the "developed" world. Sure, the per-capita resource use is still low, but the graph shows the trend. In 30-50 years the overwhelming about of resource consumption will be with the billion+ populations of China and India.

Oil consumption is falling in the "developed" world while it is strongly rising in the "undeveloped" world. But all the anti-technology, "green", guilt-ridden propaganda used to make people in the developed world feel guilty is out-dated. It doesn't reflect the world we now live in. But it always takes time for people to throw off out-dated mental shackles.

The Role of Oil Speculation in US Markets

Here is a report from McClatchy newspapers:



More detail can be found here on the McClatchy site:

But in the cables, Saudi officials explain that they have two primary concerns about artificially high crude prices: that they'll dampen the long-term demand for oil and that the wide price swings typical of commodity speculation make it difficult for them to plan future oil field development. After that $147 a barrel peak in 2008, for example, prices plunged to $33 a barrel as the global financial crisis rocked the world. That was a stunning change in less than half a year.

One cable recounts how Dr. Majid al Moneef, Saudi Arabia's OPEC governor, explained what he thought was the full impact of speculation to U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who in July 2009 was in Saudi Arabia for the first time.

According to the cable, Moneef said Saudi Arabia suspected that "speculation represented approximately $40 of the overall oil price when it was at its height."

Asked how to curb such speculation, Moneef suggested "improving transparency" — a reference to the fact that most oil trading is conducted outside regulated markets — and better communication among the world's commodity markets so that oil speculators can't hide the full extent of their trading positions.

Moneef also suggested that the U.S. consider "position limits" — restrictions on how much of the oil market a company can control — something the CFTC is considering. But the proposal to prevent any single trader from accumulating more than 10 percent of the oil contracts being traded hasn't received final approval, and the CFTC also has yet to define what it considers excessive speculation.

Saudi concerns also came up during a May 2008 meeting in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, between U.S. officials and Prince Abdulazziz bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, the assistant petroleum minister.

Prince Abdulazziz was "extremely worried" that high prices would destroy the demand for oil, according to the May 7, 2008, account of his meeting with embassy officials.

"Aramco is trying to sell more, but frankly there are no buyers," the cable quoted him as saying, referring to the Saudi state oil company. "We are discounting crudes."

These Wikileaks make it pretty clear that the US government has been fully informed about speculation but has chosen to pretend that its hands are tied. In short, the US government is aiding and abetting the speculators. I could understand that under the Bush administration, but it appears to have happening early in 2011 under the Obama administration. And the key figure behind the speculation? Goldman Sachs, the recipient of over $40 billion of taxpayer money when it was going backrupt in late 2008. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

How Do We Know that High Oil Prices are Speculation?

Here is a bit from a post by Matt Taibbi on his Rolling Stone blog that provides the secret decoder ring to help us spot speculative hoarding. Notice the bit about "finding it hard to find buyers of oil"? Strange. If oil prices are driven up by excessive demand, there should be lots of buyers out there demanding more. But that's not what the Saudis reported in 2008:

When oil prices surged to a ridiculous $147 a barrel in the summer of 2008, conventional wisdom held that normal supply and demand issues were the cause. Both the Bush administration (in the form of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission) and most of Wall Street (through both media figures and market analysts) blamed such factors as increases in oil demand from the Chinese industrial machine, and the failure of Americans to conserve, for the surge in crude prices.

Goldman Sachs, while outrageously predicting a "super spike" that might cause oil to reach as high as $200 a barrel, blamed piggish American consumers and preached conservation as a bulwark against oil supply disruptions. The bank's "Oracle of Oil," Arjun Murti, even broadcast the fact that he owned two hybrid cars.

Well, thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that when the Bush administration reached out to the Saudis in the summer of '08 to ask them to increase oil production to lower prices, the Saudis responded by saying they were having a hard time finding buyers for their oil as it was, and instead asked the Bush administration to rein in Wall Street speculators.

Matt Taibbi goes on to provide more details. Read the whole article.

I'm guessing the current price spike is just another "manipulation of the market". The good news is that the US has anti-trust laws that stop this illegal manipulation of the market. So don't hold your breath. I'm sure that Obama will sick the Justice Department out there to investigate all those Wall Street firms (think Goldman Sachs) that are milking the market. I'm sure the feds are eager to put the squeeze on Obama's main political backers, you know, the ones who provide lots of campaign "donations". Obama is just as eager as the Republicans before him to stop this illegal behaviour because the politicians in Washington hold their duty to the American citizen as their highest duty, their solemn obligation, way up there... almost as high as their obligation to keep their business buddies who provide the soft funds and under the table money happy.

The wonderful thing is that America has finally rid itself of the ugly side of democracy, where you have to go out and meet & greet people, make promises to the electorate, and actually serve as a "representative". They've streamlined this into a one-stop shopping service for the ultra-rich who simply buy and sell politicians. No fuss, no worry.

Alternate Energy Source for Jet Fuel

I found this bit of a post by Geoffrey Styles at the Energy Outlook blog to be interesting:

The government of Ontario Province just awarded Rentech, Inc., a company with long expertise in gasification and fuel synthesis, a 1.3 million ton-per-year supply of forest waste and other biomass from Canada's Crown Forests, specifically for the production of renewable jet fuel. The proposed facility would produce around 22 million gallons per year of biojet, along with another 11 million gallons of non-jet products. That equates to roughly 1% of Canada's current jet fuel consumption. Canada might have enough forest biomass available to produce a sizable fraction of its jet fuel needs from such sources, but other countries don't, so it's fortunate that alternative jet fuel can be made through so many different pathways.

The doomsday crowd wants to mandate all kinds of crazy things to "fix" what they see as impending doom with "global warming". I don't expect the earth to burn to a crisp because (a) I think the danger is far over hyped and (b) I believe that man's innovative technology will "save" us far before we start to smoke and burst into flames from runaway global warming.

I do believe that we have exploited all the cheap oil reserves and as the price of oil rises inexorably over the next century, alternatives will keep heaving into view and I expect a lot of them will be "green". So I think any "global warming" will be like the doomsday scenario that England faced in the 17th century of a doomsday of "no more trees to support the building of the fleet". England discovered lots of trees in North America, then it decided to build it ships from steel. So the ever-feared "end of times" scenario of no trees left to build a ship passed quietly without the apprehended disaster raising its head.

The Latest Entrant into the Renewable Energy Armory

Would you believe that petroleum and natural gas are now thought to be "renewable energy sources"? Here's a bit from a post on Geoffrey Styles' Energy Outlook blog:

However, there's another, more controversial theory of the origins of at least some oil and gas, suggesting that they were formed by chemical or biological activity much deeper in the earth, and then migrated long distances before being trapped. If correct, that would mean that not only aren't these fuels truly fossils--and thus essentially static and finite--but that they might actually be continuously regenerated by natural processes in much shorter time spans. A number of academics appear to hold this view, and it was a common theory of petroleum origin among Soviet scientists. Much of this is explored in a lengthy white paper on the Deep Carbon Observatory site, including the shortcomings of current analytical techniques in determining definitively whether a given sample of methane originated from organic material in sedimentary rock or from some other source.

Finding gas or oil in deposits much deeper than those we already know about, or in places that aren't consistent with our present understanding of petroleum geology, would represent an even bigger potential energy revolution than the one begun by the recent development of the means of unlocking shale gas resources. It would also shift our perspective on the nature and required speed of the energy transition on which we've embarked. If oil and gas weren't finite--at least in human terms--it might alter the urgency of deploying some of the alternative energy technologies now in our repertoire. At the same time, it would have enormous implications for climate change, by greatly increasing the ultimate quantity of carbon we could eventually emit to the atmosphere.

I enjoy stories like this because they show that all the "sure thing" thinking that most people have never acknowledges how little we really know and how much science can revolutionize our thinking.

Oil's Future

Here are some bits from a WSJ interview with the CEO of Chevron:

The Chevron CEO is a rare breed these days: an unapologetic oil man. For decades—going back to Jimmy Carter—politicians have been peddling an America free of fossil fuels. Mr. Obama has taken that to an unprecedented level, closing off more acreage to drilling, pouring money into green energy, pushing new oil company taxes, instituting anticarbon regulations. America is going backward on affordable energy, even as oil hits $110 a barrel.

Enter the tall, bespectacled Mr. Watson, who a little more than a year ago stepped into the shoes of longtime CEO David O'Reilly. An economist by training, soft-spoken by nature, the 53-year-old Mr. Watson is hardly some swaggering wildcatter. Yet in a year of speeches, he has emerged as one of the industry's foremost energy realists. No "Beyond Petroleum" (BP) for him. On energy, he says, America "has a lot to learn."

Starting with the argument—so popular among greens and Democrats—that we are running out of oil. "Peak oil"—the theory that global oil production will soon hit maximum levels and begin to decline—is a favorite among this crowd, and it is one basis for their call for more biofuels and solar power. Mr. Watson doesn't dismiss the idea but explains why it remains largely irrelevant.

In theory, he says, "we've been running out of oil and gas for a long time," yet technology creates new opportunities. Mr. Watson cites a Chevron field long in decline down the road in Bakersfield—to the point that for every 100 barrels of oil "in place," the company was extracting only 10 or 20. But thanks to a new technology called steam flooding, Chevron is now getting 70 to 80 barrels. "Price creates incentive, and energy will be developed if there's demand for it at the price you can develop it," Mr. Watson says. In that sense, "oil and gas are plentiful."

Don't believe it? Over the past 30 years, even as "peak oil" was a trendy theme, the world's proven reserves of oil and natural gas increased 130%, to 2.5 trillion barrels.

Or consider America's latest energy innovation: hydrofracking for abundant and cheap natural gas. This advance, says Mr. Watson, took even the industry "by surprise"—as evidenced by the many U.S. ports to import liquid natural gas that are now "sitting idle." Chevron last year paid $3.2 billion to buy natural-gas producer Atlas Energy as its foray into this new market.

Mr. Watson has little time for the Beltway fiction that America will soon be able to do without, or nearly without, fossil fuels. Yes, "we need all forms of energy." But the world consumes 250 million barrels of energy equivalent today, only a "tiny fraction of which" is wind and solar—and even those "are not affordable at scale," he says.

As for biofuels, "we would need to consume land the size of states" to hit the country's current ethanol targets. Chevron is investigating biofuels, but Mr. Watson says the "economics aren't there" yet. Unlike many CEOs, Mr. Watson insists on products that can prosper without federal subsidies, which he believes are costly and lacking in transparency when "consumer pockets are tight, government pockets are tight."

Bottom line: "We're going to need oil and gas and coal for a long time if America wants to keep the lights on."

...

But what about the BP Gulf spill? Mr. Watson blames the "cultural aspects and behavioral aspects" of the particular drilling rig that exploded. He roundly disagrees with the finding of Mr. Obama's spill commission that the "root causes" of the spill were "systemic" to the industry.

"There is no evidence to support that. I don't know how that conclusion was reached. I know the industry has drilled 14,000 deep water wells without having this sort of problem." As for the moratorium, "I can understand taking a pause. I can't understand shutting down a whole industry for a better part of a year."

Chevron has three deep water rigs in the Gulf, so the ban cost it millions of dollars in idle rigs and lost jobs. For the country, says Mr. Watson, it means "less oil." Offshore drilling takes years of lead time. Mr. Watson cites Chevron's Gulf "Tahiti" project, which started producing about 18 months ago. It has taken "the better part of a decade to do the seismic work, drill the exploratory wells, evaluate those wells, drill other development wells, to delineate it, to build the facilities and to place the oil wells online," he explains.

The endless moratorium has already meant that "if you go out to the middle of the decade, there are already 200,000 to 300,000 barrels a day of oil that aren't going to be produced that year. . . . That won't be retrieved." And the lost production number is getting larger, since the new Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management is still dallying on permits—and those primarily for backlogged projects, not new leases.

Democrats are now arguing, as Mr. Obama did in his speech, that the oil industry already "holds tens of millions of acres of leases where it's not producing a drop." Some are advocating "use it or lose it," calling for the government to strip oil companies of their leases if they don't immediately start producing.

Mr. Watson explains why this is bogus. Only one-third of Chevron's offshore leases are classified as "producing" oil and gas today. The other two-thirds either are "unsuccessful" (they don't hold viable oil or gas) or "are in varying stages of development—seismic work, drilling wells, constructing facilities." Mr. Watson says companies would be crazy to sit on productive lands, since leases require costly bonus payments and annual rental payments to the government.

If Washington institutes Mr. Obama's "use it or lose it" policy, Mr. Watson says, it will mean less U.S. oil production. And how does this help Mr. Obama with his goal of reducing imported oil?

As for soaring oil prices, Mr. Watson blames growing demand, tighter supply, Mideast uncertainty and inflation. He doesn't predict future price trends, though during a recent analyst call he warned that the drilling moratorium would only make them higher. Lost production in the Gulf is "going to represent a sizable chunk of the spare capacity that the industry expects to see. And that will impact prices, and that will retard economic growth."

The economy is also why Mr. Watson won't pay the usual energy CEO lip service to new carbon regulations. The cap-and-trade bill the House passed in 2009 was "poorly conceived and it collapsed under its own weight for good reason," he notes.

The EPA move to regulate carbon is no better: "It's not why the Clean Air Act was put in place, and it doesn't seem to be the right way to attack concerns about greenhouse gas emissions," he says. The EPA is "placing huge new regulatory burdens on industries that are import sensitive." The regulations will place burdens on refineries, putting "their competitiveness at risk, and ultimately we'll produce less gasoline here and end up importing it from refineries that are less energy efficient overseas."

There is more material in the WSJ article. Go read the whole thing.

I got a chuckle out of my father who during the 1970s "oil shortage" told me that when he was a kid in the 1920s the schools taught him that America would "soon run out of oil". It will. But not in my lifetime and probably not during the 21st century. Definitely by the early 22nd century oil will be mostly gone, but there will still be lots of coal and lots of methane clathrate waiting to be "produced" and used as an energy source. The CEO of Chevron said there was 2.5 trillion of known oil reserves. I think he is undercounting. Canada alone has over 1 trillion barrels of oil sands. The far north of Canada has not been explored and the Russians are getting very nationalistic and aggressive in the Arctic ocean because there will probably be several trillion barrels of oil there waiting to be produced.

Since I think the "dangers" of global warming are based on bad models that over-estimate the greenhouse effect of CO2 and under-estimate the other feedback loops in dynamic weather, I'm not as concerned as most with the exploitation of all this oil. But it if does prove to be a problem, within a decade a crash program could shift 80% of energy over to nuclear reactors with all personal transportation shifted to electricity and not fossil fuel (saving the fossil fuel for long haul transportation).

I'm a pessimistic optimist. I think technology holds lots of promise. But I'm realistic enough to know that humans will mostly try to dodge the tough choices as long and hard as possible and create all kinds of crises before the every "solve" the energy crisis or get on top of "global warming". It is like democracy. Democracy is well understood to be the worst possible form of government, except that all the other choices are in fact far worse. Humanity will muddle through. That's my pessimistic optimism speaking.

Oil Speculation

If you want to know why gasoline prices are rising at the pumps, here's the reason:

Israel: The New Saudi Arabia of Fossil Fuel?

Here's a surprising story that will change power relations in the Middle East. From an article in the Jerusalem Post:

How Israel could revolutionize the global energy sector

By DORE GOLD
03/11/2011 17:04

New data suggests Israel may not only have much larger gas resources than believed, but also the 3rd largest deposit of oil shale in the world.

... The implications for Israel of the West’s growing dependence on Middle Eastern oil are troubling, for obvious reasons. Yet there are two new developments in our energy sector that could well offset these trends and eventually alter our standing in the world, especially with respect to Europe.

First, the gas discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean, which began to produce commercial quantities of natural gas in 2004, are generally well-known. The Tamar field, which should begin production in 2013, is expected to supply all of Israel’s domestic requirements for at least 20 years. The Economist suggested in November 2010 that the recently discovered Leviathan field, which has twice the gas of Tamar, could be completely devoted to exports.

All the undersea gas fields together have about 25 trillion cubic feet of gas, but the potential for further discoveries is considerably greater, given that the US Geological Survey estimates that there are 122 trillion cubic feet of gas in the whole Levant Basin, most of which is within Israel’s jurisdiction.

After the Leviathan discovery these numbers could go up further. Perhaps for that reason, Greece has been talking to Israel about creating a transportation hub for distributing gas throughout Europe from the Eastern Mediterranean that will come from undersea pipelines.

What is less well-known, but even more dramatic, is the work being done on this country’s oil shale. The British-based World Energy Council reported in November 2010 that Israel had oil shale from which it is possible to extract the equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil. Yet these numbers are currently undergoing a major revision internationally.

A new assessment was released late last year by Dr. Yuval Bartov, chief geologist for Israel Energy Initiatives, at the yearly symposium of the prestigious Colorado School of Mines. He presented data that our oil shale reserves are actually the equivalent of 250 billion barrels (that compares with 260 billion barrels in the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia). ...

There is more, go read the whole article.

I love surprises! Life is always blindsiding you. Anybody who thinks they can linearly extrapolate the present into the future has his head in the sand.

I always enjoy thinking about the fact that for over 80 years experts have been warning that there is less than 20 years supply of fossil fuel. The favourite theory is "peak oil". A theory first propounded in 1956 to warn people to prepare for the coming "end of oil".

I remember teaching a social studies class in the mid-1970s using material telling those kids that they needed to accept that cars would not be in the future. There just wouldn't be the oil there to allow them the luxury of driving.

But if you look at this Wikipedia page you can see that the major producing areas all have "proven reserves" big enough to supply oil at current rates for more than 50 years.

Notice how that page lists the biggest reserve as a puny 267 billion barrels of oil. But if you look at this page from the Government of Alberta Canada, you can see that just this tar sands of Alberta makes Saudia Arabia look like a piker:

Alberta’s oil sands underlie 140,200 square kilometres (km2) (54,132 square miles) of land in the Athabasca, Cold Lake and Peace River areas in northern Alberta. Together these oil sands areas contain an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels (initial volume in place) of crude bitumen. About 10% of this volume (169.9 billion barrels) is recoverable using current technology and is considered to be a proven reserve.

Other information on Alberta oil sands can be found here.

I think everybody should welcome Israel to the oil barons of today! Lots of energy for many, many years.

Obama, the Great White Hope

Obama was elected under the guise of "change you can believe in" and the idea that a smart guy like him would have the serious leadership skills that were so sadly missing in George Bush (or as Molly Ivins referred to him, Shrub). The reality is that Obama is "no leader". He is a bright guy, he is a powerful orator, he claims to have liberal political beliefs, but he has no skills as a leader.

Here's a bit from a post by Geoffrey Styles of the blog Energy Outlook. I've bolded the key bit:

After listening to the energy portions of the presidential press conference last Friday, I found myself confused about the administration's approach to energy. Although I heard the President defending certain US energy policies, they weren't mainly those of his administration, nor were many of the outcomes he highlighted the result of actions he has taken. What's odd about that is that this administration has pursued as clear a set of energy policies, explicit and implicit, as any administration in recent memory; they just happen to be focused on a very different set of goals than attempting "to boost domestic production of oil and gas". And while I haven't agreed with all of them, his administration's actual policies concerning energy are certainly defensible in the context of putting the highest national priority on concerns about climate change. Before looking at this in more detail...

This confused energy "policy" reflects on Obama's unwillingness to focus on the task at hand as well as his appointment of an academic, Stephen Chu, to a position that requires administrative and policy skills.

As for Obama, Styles points out that he has declared one policy but seems unable to stick with it or explain the inconsistencies in policy:

The President also supported comprehensive energy legislation, the explicit purpose of which was to make energy derived from fossil fuels--especially oil--more expensive. Although I have disagreed with many of these measures because I thought they took too little cognizance of the realities of the energy sector that supports our economy and the length of time a transition to cleaner energy entails, there was at least an admirable--and defensible--consistency to them. I would not have expected the President to tack away from defending these policies the first time oil and gasoline prices seriously spiked since his inauguration.

Obama is a smart guy but he doesn't appear to understand that academic smarts is no substitute for real experience:

The President's statement about undeveloped oil leases is a further reflection of how short his administration is on staff with industry experience. Companies don't lease these tracts with the intention of letting them sit idle. Instead, they continually prioritize their drilling prospects and pursue the best ones first, adding new leases to their inventory when they appear to have higher potential than those in their backlog.

And while he shows some adeptness as a "quick learner", it is difficult to put up with "learning on the job" when you are responsible for the world's largest economy:

President Obama isn't the first politician to take credit for the results of actions taken in another administration. Considering the blame presidents often receive for events over which they likewise had little control or responsibility, it might even be understandable. Still, I can't help being surprised when the leader of an administration that has focused 90% of its energy efforts on resources and technologies that account for about 5% of our energy consumption and treated oil and gas as a legacy of a previous, less enlightened era suddenly embraces rising oil output. Whatever the reason, the change is welcome.

The above is a criticism, but it shouldn't be taken as exclusively directed at Obama. The real horror is that the candidates that the Republicans put forward for the presidency are even more incompetent, unprepared, and ideologically inflexible. They are a truly scary bunch. I much prefer Obama to them. But the sad fact is that Obama has fallen far short of what he promised the American people.

Obama, the tongue-in-cheek Great White Hope, has shown a serious inability to lead. This is a tragedy for the US and for the whole world since we live in a highly integrated world economy.

Food Crisis 2011

The 2008 food crisis is back because of the Russian heat wave in 2010 and the floods in Australia. Here's a bit from an article in the Washington Post:

Each year, the world demands more grain, and this year the world's farms will not produce it. World food prices have surged above the food crisis levels of 2008. Millions more people will be malnourished, and hundreds of millions who are already hungry will eat less or give up other necessities. Food riots have started again.

Nearly all assessments of the 2008 food crisis assigned biofuels a meaningful role, but much of academia and the media ultimately agreed that the scale of the crisis resulted from a "perfect storm" of causes. Yet this "perfect storm" has re-formed not three years later. We should recognize the ways in which biofuels are driving it.

...

A broad misunderstanding has also arisen from economic models predicting price increases from biofuels that are still far lower than those of the past decade. In fact, these models do not estimate biofuel effects on prices today but those in a future market "equilibrium," which will exist only after farmers have ample time to increase production to match demand. Today, the market is out of equilibrium. Biofuels have grown rapidly, from consuming 2 percent of world grain and virtually no vegetable oil in 2004 to more than 6.5 percent of grain and 8 percent of vegetable oil last year. Governments worldwide seek to triple production of biofuels by 2020, and that implies more moderately high prices after good growing years and soaring prices after bad ones.

And here is a relevant bit from a post by Geoffrey Styles on his Energy Outlook blog:

As long as US harvests were increasing at a rate that kept pace with the growth of ethanol output, thanks to increased cultivation and better yields, that wasn't a zero sum game. Until recently, the corn that went into making ethanol was corn that might not otherwise have been grown. But in a year like this one, when annual ethanol consumption is set to rise by another billion gallons while the corn harvest is 5% smaller than the previous year's, something has to give. In fact, the US Department of Agriculture expects that ethanol plants will take 40% of this season's crop, compared to just 23% in the 2007-8 "market year." That exerts a lot more pressure on corn prices, which are pushing $7 per bushel for the first time since 2008.

If anything, the conclusion of Mr. Searchinger's op-ed downplayed the risks ahead. With output from the nascent cellulosic ethanol industry still minuscule, the EPA will be under tremendous pressure to allow corn ethanol to continue to expand beyond its current 15 billion gallon per year limit under the RFS. That's one reason the industry was pushing so hard to increase the maximum allowable percentage of ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 15%; it needs that headroom to continue expanding output beyond last year's 13 billion gallons. At 20 billion gallons per year--a quantity that I heard one USDA expert suggest several years ago was achievable--ethanol would require the equivalent of 55% of 2009-10's record US corn crop. It's hard to envision that happening without concerns about food vs. fuel rising to a much higher pitch.

The diversion of food to energy production has got to stop. It was an idiotic policy and is now positively deadly in its consequences because of current food shortages. Millions will starve so that the anti-CO2 enthusiasts and the ethanol lobby can go to bed happy each night. But blood will be on their hands. They are murders because they are pushing food prices beyond the ability of the world's poor to pay!

Thoughts on The Limits to Growth and Doom & Gloomsters

I was teaching a high school social studies class in the mid-1970s and we had materials on the "oil crisis". Most of the material was gloomy and predicted that oil would soon run out and that it would be so expensive that the only choice was to cut down our expectations of the future. This was completely in tune with the Club of Rome which published an infamous book called The Limits to Growth. I passed on the sad news to the students because that was the teaching material I had. I hadn't yet realized that doomsters have always been around and they are constantly thinking up new worries that get lots of attention (and big bucks) for them.

The end of oil, the so-called Hubbert's peak oil theory, has been trotted out over the years to sell more gloom and doom. Only when my father pointed out to me that when in was in high school in the early 1930s he was being told that there was only 20 years of oil left did it ding on me... it will always be the case that we will soon run out of any given resource because governments don't go out and find resources, they rely on resource companies to tell them what kind of reserves they know about. And it doesn't pay a resource company to go and find resources that won't be used within a reasonable period of time. So there will always be a problem of "running out of resources in about 20 years".

I've grown much more cynical over time. And I've been convinced by the arguments of Julian Simon and his book The Ultimate Resource. Humanity has always been running out of resources, but we will always find ways around the problem. Sure if you multiplied the current population 5 fold we would be at each other's throats fighting over food. But the Zero Population Growth people who wanted forcible sterilzation and predicted tens of millions if not hundreds of millions would stave in the 1980s were proved wrong by the Green Revolution. Norman Borlaug has been the greatest humanitarian the world has ever seen. He didn't sell "limits to growth" or "population explosion" or "global warming". Nope. He rolled his sleeves up and did research to expand the food supply. Of course the doom & gloom crowd has labeled all this "frankenfood" and spend their effort trying to convince people to not eat the food!

The doom & gloom crowd never look for a silver lining in a cloud. They take a paradise an worry themselves silly trying to find flaws in it, turn up potentially, hypothetically possible future problems with paradise.

As for running out of oil. We haven't hit "peak oil" yet as it continues to be slid out into the indefinite future. I'm sure it will happen some day. But in the meantime, we have a sufeit of riches. Here's a news story about how recent technological advances mean we now have 250 years supply of natural gas!

Supplies of natural gas could last more than 250 years if Asian and European economies follow the U.S. unconventional reserves, the IEA said.

The abundance of shale gas and other forms of so-called unconventional gas discovered in the United States prompted a global rush to explore for the new resource.

The International Energy Agency said Australia is taking the lead in the push toward unconventional gas, though China, India and Indonesia are close behind. European companies are taking preliminary steps to unlock unconventional gas as are other regions.

"Production of 'unconventional' gas in the U.S. has rocketed in the past few years, going beyond even the most optimistic forecasts," said Anne-Sophie Corbeau, a gas analyst at the IEA. "It is no wonder that its success has sparked such international interest."

Shale gas production in the United States is booming and the IEA estimates that unconventional gas makes up around 12 percent of the global supply.

Global supplies of natural gas could last for another 130 years at current consumption rates. That time frame could double with unconventional gas, the IEA said.

I guess the doom & gloom crowd can run around wailing and gnashing their teeth telling us that there is "only" 250 years supply so we need to cut back consumption now because it will all run out far too soon! They will find some way to use this to tell us we can't live a happy life. They will find a way to tell us that this means we have to abandon industrial society and go back to walking behind ox carts. They will only be happy when we get back to the "truly good old days" when 95% of th population was illiterate, most were starving, and pretty well everybody died in the early 40s. Yep... those "good old days"!

The reality is that technology changes the landscape under our feet. Here is a nice graph from a BP study "BP Energy Outlook 2030" that shows how various countries have shifted in the dependence on energy for GDP growth:

Click to Enlarge

And, as you can see, this report predicts that US dependence of imported oil & gas will fall:

Click to Enlarge

A New Energy Future?

Here's a bit from a post by Robert X. Cringely that is very optimistic about solar energy:

My work on this past summer’s Startup Tour introduced me to a number of energy startups with technologies that will actually make a difference in this age-old pattern of supply and demand. Because for the first time the supplies that are being created are renewable — they generally won’t be depleted. There is no new well involved to come online then peak and then die. There is just slow and steady energy production growth for 25 years or so from the same facility to which is added over time another and another and another machine.

We have one solar startup that is moving slowly and inexorably toward a target of making electricity from sunlight for $0.50 per watt. They are about three years from reaching their goal, at which point they will bring online a manufacturing capacity greater than the world has ever seen — all without spending a cent to develop that capacity (cue spooky music).

Electricity from coal usually costs $2.00 per watt to produce, so $0.50 per watt is amazing. What if this is hype and they are off by a factor of 10? Electricity at $5.00 per watt is still competitive with everything except coal and hydro. It’s still amazing.

I love the positive feeling that Cringely exudes. I sure hope he's right. He sure sounds like this is the real deal:

That low price per watt scares the crap out of BP and will change the geopolitical balance in the world within a decade, making the Middle East maybe a little less important.

Passing the Baton

In an article by Michael T. Klare about China in TomDispatch.com the passing of an interesting milestone is noted.

On July 20th, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, told the Wall Street Journal that China had overtaken the United States to become the world’s number one energy consumer. One can read this development in many ways: as evidence of China’s continuing industrial prowess, of the lingering recession in the United States, of the growing popularity of automobiles in China, even of America’s superior energy efficiency as compared to that of China. All of these observations are valid, but all miss the main point: by becoming the world’s leading energy consumer, China will also become an ever more dominant international actor and so set the pace in shaping our global future.

In the introduction to that article, a slightly different significant event is marked:

For a whopping $60 billion -- yes, Virginia, that is “billion” -- the Saudis, according to Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service, have agreed to buy 84 F-15s and 175 helicopters as part of the largest arms deal in U.S. history. In addition, the sale, soon to be presented to Congress for approval by the White House, could end up involving a supplemental $30 billion deal “to upgrade the Saudi kingdom’s naval forces and yet another for new missile-defense systems.” (You didn’t even know that Saudi Arabia had a navy, did you?) This, Lobe writes, will “by itself exceed the value of all conventional arms transfer agreements signed worldwide by developing and developed countries alike in 2009 -- $57.5 billion.” And there’s even an added bonus for U.S. arms makers. Though this sale is theoretically aimed at Iran, the Saudi military, for all its weaponry, has shown little urge to fight, or to fight effectively. This will, however, surely mean billions more in compensatory U.S. weaponry flowing to Israel.

As regards "reputation", I would rather be known as a leader energy producer than as a major arms seller. But the US has decided to specialize in weaponry and destruction rather than in energy and construction. Odd choice.

The article points out a simple calculation of world political strategy:

According to the most recent projections from the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), Chinese energy consumption will grow by 133% between 2007 and 2035 -- from, that is, 78 to 182 quadrillion British thermal units (BTUs). Think about it this way: the 104 quadrillion BTUs that China will somehow have to add to its energy supply over the next quarter-century equals the total energy consumption of Europe and the Middle East in 2007. Finding and funneling so much oil, natural gas, and other fuels to China is undoubtedly going to be the single greatest economic and industrial challenge facing Beijing -- and in that challenge lays the possibility of real friction and conflict.

The handwriting is already on the wall for a strategic battle over petroleum:

As recently as 1995, China only consumed about 3.4 million barrels of oil per day -- one-fifth the amount used by the United States, the world’s top consumer, and two-thirds of the amount burned by Japan, then number two. Since China pumped 2.9 million barrels per day from its domestic fields that year, its import burden was a mere 500,000 barrels per day at a time when the U.S. imported 9.4 million barrels and Japan 5.3 million barrels.

By 2009, China was in the number-two spot at 8.6 million barrels per day, which still fell far below America’s 18.7 million barrels. At 3.8 million barrels per day, however, domestic production wasn’t keeping pace -- the very problem the U.S. had faced in the Cold War era. China was already importing 4.8 million barrels per day, far more than Japan (which had actually reduced its reliance on oil) and nearly half as much as the United States. In the decades to come, these numbers are guaranteed only to get worse.

According to the DoE, China will overtake the U.S. as the world’s leading oil importer, at an estimated 10.6 million barrels per day, sometime around 2030. (Some experts believe this shift could occur far sooner.)

...

Especially striking has been the way Beijing has sought to undercut U.S. influence in Saudi Arabia and with other crucial Persian Gulf oil producers. In 2009, China imported more Saudi oil than the U.S. for the first time, a geopolitical shift of great significance, given the history of U.S.-Saudi relations. Although not competing with Washington when it comes to military aid, Beijing has been dispatching its top leaders to woo Riyadh, promising to support Saudi aspirations without employing the human rights or pro-democracy rhetoric usually associated with American foreign policy.

Imported Oil & Energy Costs

From the recently published US Annual Energy Review:

Click to Enlarge
Notice that Canada leads as oil supplier to the US at 2.5 million barrels/day. All the other suppliers are shrinking while supply from Canada is stable. The funny thing is that when you say "oil" most Americans think of Saudia Arabia and the Middle East. They don't think "great white north, land of igloos and polar bears".

The report is full of graphs and tables to delight any fact fanatic. One thing I enjoy is the graphs showing "peak production". Lots of peaks have been passed. But no crisis. No collapse. That's the funny thing about fear mongers. They can sell an idea but it doesn't mean that facts conform to the doomsday scenarios painted by the fanatics.

The following graph of real, constant dollar electricity prices demonstrate that the doomsters who claim that we are coming up against the limits of everything aren't reflected in the prices:

Click to Enlarge
What the graph demonstrates is that in "times of trouble" prices rise. The 1970s show a price rise and the early 2000s show a price rise. This says more about the psychology and politics of a society than it does of its underlying technology or the state of natural resources.

If you look at figure 56 in the report, you will discover that despite all the chest thumping about "renewable energy", it is a mere blip. The growth in use of renewable energy is tiny and mostly confined to transportation. What isn't stated is that billions of dollars in subsidies is buying a place for ethanol in America's fuel tanks (at the expense of a growth in world hunger and rising costs to American consumers for food on their table).

Meanwhile, those who gloat over "peak oil" and the soon-to-be disappearance of oil have to contend with this graphic. What it shows is that the "proven reserves" have a very nasty tendency to stay like a carrot on a stick, just out in front, always looking like the reserves will soon be exhausted, but puzzlingly never quite running out:

Click to Enlarge
In fact, it isn't profitable to discover reserves until they will soon be needed. That's why it always appears that within 10-20 years the reserves will be exhausted and "all the oil will be gone". It will go, but not that soon. Probably within this century, but by then other energy sources will have replaced it. So those worries about "peak oil" have been a big waste of time.

The Cost of Conversion from Oil to Natural Gas for Transportation

Here is a well thought out and detailed analysis of the T. Boone Pickens plan for getting the US off imported oil and stop the funding of terrorism. This analysis is done by Geoffrey Styles on his Energy Outlook blog:

I just finished reading the interview with Mr. Pickens in The American Spectator, published yesterday. The big shift in the Pickens Plan since the first time I examined it in detail is that he has switched his emphasis from using wind to free up natural gas to replace gasoline in cars, to using the abundant natural gas from our enormous shale gas reserves, which are already transforming the US gas and power markets, to replace diesel fuel in big-rig trucks. He is also in the process of lining up the legislative support to nudge this along much faster than market forces alone would. But does it make as much sense as he suggests when he talks about using $4.50 worth of natural gas to replace 7 gallons of diesel fuel at $3 per gallon?

Strictly in energy terms, that 7 gallons might even be a bit low. A million BTUs of gas (roughly 1,000 cubic feet or one MCF) would deliver as much energy to a truck as 7.8 gallons of diesel. And fundamentally, he's right that the recent price relationship between natural gas and crude oil makes gas a tremendous bargain, BTU for BTU. However, the prices he mentions in the Spectator interview constitute an apples vs. oranges comparison from both sides. Even if natural gas remained at a steady $4.50/MCF at the wellhead for the next 20 years, which seems unlikely despite the bounties of shale, that's not what you'd pay at the natural gas pump.

Start with the fact that it costs something to transport gas from the wellhead, wherever that might be, to market. Based on current pricing relationships, if gas starts out at $4.50, then by the time it's sold to a commercial account, which is probably how filling stations would be classified, it could cost as much as $9. And someone has to invest in the equipment to compress it to 3,000 or 3,600 psi and pump it into an 18-wheeler's tanks. Even with tax credits to help, a station owner will need to make a return on that investment, and some profit, too. Add another buck an MCF to cover that, and we're up to $10/MCF, which equates to $1.28/gal. of diesel. For a reality check on this, I took a look at cngprices.com, which shows the locations and pricing for stations selling compressed natural gas (CNG) for vehicles around the country, expressed in dollars per gasoline-equivalent-gallon (GGE). Prices range from roughly $1.25 to around $2, with a few outliers over $3. Since a GGE contains about 10% less energy than a gallon of diesel, you'd have to bump these prices up by about 10% to get the equivalent for a fair comparison.

Under $2 is still pretty cheap, but you shouldn't compare that to the $2.90/gal average retail price of diesel this week. The latter includes federal excise tax of $0.244/gal. and state excise and sales taxes that range from $0.08-0.49/gal. and average $0.281/gal. As best I can tell, CNG is taxed at the federal gasoline rate of $0.183/gal., while states seem to tax it to a much lesser extent than gasoline and diesel, as for example the $0.085/gal rate in Utah, compared to their state fuels tax of $0.245/gal. However, this is only viable as long as demand for CNG is tiny, relative to other fuels. If Mr. Pickens succeeds in displacing large quantities of diesel with CNG, then it will either need to carry a similar tax burden, or the lost revenues must be collected in some other fashion. If you strip out the taxes to get to an apples-to-apples price to compare diesel to CNG, it works out to around $2.50, give or take a dime or two, depending on location. So while CNG is still clearly cheaper than diesel, it's rarely $1/gal. cheaper on a truly comparable basis. This, together with conversion costs as high as the $65,000 per truck that Mr. Pickens cited, might explain why market forces alone haven't led to a rapid switch to CNG-fueled transport.

I've looked at the House bill containing the natural gas vehicle tax credits mentioned in the interview. It would cover as much as 80% of the incremental cost (over the diesel version) of a truck that can only burn CNG or LNG, up to $80,000, depending on weight. It would also extend the $0.50/GGE tax credit for CNG and LNG through 2027. These changes would drastically shorten the payout of an investment in a natural gas-powered truck, even if the per-gallon advantage of CNG appears to be somewhat less than Mr. Pickens suggests. That could move CNG into the truck-fuel market pretty quickly.

The remaining question is what the $7 billion investment Mr. Pickens wants the government to make in this proposition would buy us. He believes that converting the US heavy truck fleet to CNG would save 2.5 million bbl/day of diesel, or about two-thirds of the diesel and heating oil now sold in the US. That would have a much bigger impact on our oil imports than ethanol, although it's hardly an either/or proposition. I'm surprised that Mr. Pickens didn't go on to suggest that this benefit could be leveraged further by utilizing the resulting surplus diesel in diesel automobiles. Given their approximately 30% improvement in fuel economy vs. comparable gasoline vehicles, that could save an additional 750,000 bbl/day of gasoline, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions on those cars by about 20%. If you play all this out, then just under 5 trillion cubic feet per year of natural gas, or less than a quarter of current gas production, could save more than 3 million bbl/day of gasoline and diesel, or nearly a third of our net petroleum imports.

That sounds like a pretty good deal for $7 billion, though it could be made even better if the vehicle tax credits involved were converted into low-interest loans and loan guarantees, instead. If the main impediment to switching to gas is the up-front cost of natural gas conversions and the time involved in recouping that cost, then let's make it much easier for truckers to borrow the money for this purpose, and for banks to lend to them. Giving everyone taxpayer money to induce them to do what we want makes a lot more sense when the government has plenty of money to spend. With the US running large deficits and the private sector holding lots of cash earning next to nothing, we should use our tax dollars as efficiently as possible to achieve the same outcome. Otherwise, Mr. Pickens seems to be on to a sensible idea, and I wish him luck selling it.

This is an excellent example of why you need to pause when somebody is "selling" you an idea. The unscrupulous sell you a pig in a poke. T. Boone Pickens is fairly honest -- but he has a financial stake in convincing the government to go with his plan -- and what Styles has shown is that the "facts" need careful analysis because they aren't exactly how Pickens presents them.

The wonderful thing about the Internet is that if you search dilligently enough you can usually find some useful analysis. On the other hand, there is an awful lot of dreck and misleading "information" on the Internet. You have to have a fairly good nose for truth before you can usefully use it to check facts. The problem is there is no real authoritative knowledge clearly labeled on the Internet. You have to check facts against what you know and what you can otherwise find out and check credentials of those posting opinions (and even there, since there is no authentication of "credentials" you can't necessarily trust that somebody posing as an expert is in fact an expert).