Alternative “Sustainable” Energy: Corruption and Unfulfilled Promises

Category : Energy Issues, Environmental Issues, Politics, Solar

The black liquor fiasco provided an example to those of us in the pulp and paper industries of just how blatantly corrupt the current Congress is, with the support of the President. (If you are new to the Blog, see Less Than Free Enterprise for a fascinating story that was missed by the mainstream media.)

Jim McTague wrote an insightful story in Barron’s over the week-end that demonstrated the failure of solar energy to earn its own way. Even with hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and loan guarantees, some companies will still not be viable.  

McTague also pointed out that the recipients of these huge solar energy grants were “connected” to (not the Mafia but to its more dangerous counterpart)  Congress and the President. Passages from Our Tough Luck President follow. Continue Reading

The Supply/Demand Balance Rules in Oil, Just Like in Paper – Much Higher Prices Are Inevitable

Category : Economic Issues, Energy Issues, Fossil Fuels, Global Warming, Nuclear

President Obama’s policies are designed to discourage the development of “climate changing” fossil fuels. The President would rather send our tax dollars to producers of solar, wind, and ethanol (to keep them economically competitive with fossil fuels) rather than earn tax income from the development of oil, coal, and natural gas. Well, the good news is that those government subsidies may not be necessary in the years ahead. When oil prices rise to $150-$200 barrel, and never see double digits again – maybe wind and solar will be able to compete without government handouts. Of course, it will be many decades (if ever) before these alternative energies satisfy a substantial percentage of U.S. energy needs. Continue Reading

De-development Won’t Save the U.S from Increasing Levels of Energy Dependence

Category : Energy Issues, Environmental Issues, Fossil Fuels, Weekly Feature

The Jon Stewart clip we posted two days ago reminded us that the last eight U.S. presidents promised energy independence. (If you have not watched it yet, don’t miss Jon Stewart on “Energy Independence” ).  The promises went unfulfilled, however, as we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil over the last 40 years.

Why have we failed to accomplish this objective? Unfortunately, oil supplies are finite and our energy wants seem infinite. U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, but U.S. demand for oil continues to grow rapidly. Our economic growth and prosperity over the last century have allowed us to build an energy intensive society that runs on fossil fuels – primarily oil. Meanwhile, we have not allowed the development of energy sources that would reduce this dependence.

The point Jon Stewart makes is that it is time to face the truth. We are dependent on foreign oil, and we are going to be dependent on foreign oil long into the future.

However, what Stewart does not address is that political decisions made in the past determined our present – and political decisions that will be made during Obama’s term as president will determine our future – at least for a time. We can either choose to reduce energy dependence or to increase it. It is up to us.

How can this imbalance be resolved? There are only two ways. Increase the supply of energy, or reduce the demand.

President Obama makes “energy independence” speeches like the previous seven presidents, but his approach is dramatically different. Each of the other seven presidents did what they felt was prudent in setting aside funds for developing alternative sources of energy, and encouraging conservation.

The last seven presidents, however, understood the supply side of the equation. They knew that we needed to encourage the development of as much U.S. based fossil fuel energy as possible. Their philosophies differed on coal, nuclear, offshore, etc. but they all recognized that fossil fuel supply was as crucial as demand.

Obama, however, has a simplistic and dangerously naïve view. He sees fossil fuels as evil. He speaks out against the oil sands in Canada. The offshore drilling ban will significantly reduce U.S. supplies. The president hopes to place a carbon tax on coal. A cap and trade system would also greatly increase energy costs, create a gigantic government bureaucracy, and make energy development in the U.S. less competitive.

Around the time Obama was voted into office the enormous potential of natural gas shale deposits was becoming evident – and yet nothing is being done (politically) to encourage the use of this new energy source in automobiles. This is a clean-energy windfall of gigantic proportion and yet the President ignores it, simply because it is a fossil fuel.

The fact that his policies will dramatically reduce supply and increase energy costs doesn’t faze the President. The President’s supply answer is wind, solar, ethanol, and wood. But that is not the whole story. The President also has a plan for the demand side of the equation. Obama is intent on changing the way we live. In order to wean us from our dependence on fossil fuels, he is very willing to use economic weakness to get us there. In fact, a forced redistribution of economic resources, along with “de-development”, is the objective.Obama’s new science tsar John Holdren has similar beliefs; that is why he was chosen for this post. Holdren describes it this way.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

(I looked up photos to see what I could find under “de-development”  and I found this photo of  Ted Kaczynski, the Harvard trained Unibomber. He was ahead of his time – a man committed to de-development.)

To claim that the President intends to de-develop the economy seems extreme, I suppose, but how else can we explain the President’s actions. Costly and subsidized alternative energy is not going to grow rapidly enough to fill the energy void – that is a fact. If Obama’s energy policies are enacted – energy costs are going to soar! That is a certainty.

The economy is resilient, but it can be killed. All travel businesses, auto sales, etc will be directly damaged. Businesses will raise prices to recover higher energy costs. Individuals will then have less income to spend on more expensive products. High energy and health care costs will send the economy into another severe depression.

De-development may sound innocuous, but it is frightening. Obama and Holdren have no idea of the problems they are about to unleash.

For those of us who prefer growth, rather than decline, we can hope that sanity returns – that neither the cap and trade nor the carbon tax is passed. New natural gas supplies will continue to grow and that could ultimately save us. Nuclear energy must be revived, but this is not a short term solution. We live in perilous economic times.

Governing by Hope… and Deception

Category : Economic Issues, Energy Issues, Environmental Issues, Politics

We have elected a  President who never learned that actions have consequences. He sets policy by how he wants the world to be and not by how it is.

President Obama governs by hope, just as he promised he would. He apparently does not realize that post – modern philosophy is just an inside joke. It’s an intellectual exercise. No one really believes that truth is whatever each of us wants it to be. Wishing doesn’t really make anything happen. And if you expects your hopes to come true, they had better be based on a realistic appraisal of the world…or else “hope” is just a campaign slogan.  Continue Reading

Prominent Environmentalist Rethinks His World View

Category : Energy Issues, Environmental Issues, Fossil Fuels, Nuclear, Weekly Feature

We have an excellent report for you. The environmentalist alluded to in the title is Stewart Brand, who recently published a new book, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. The book is excellently reviewed by Peter Huber and can be found here. Don’t miss this one.

Brand, in his new book, offers a mature example of what real environmentalism should be. His views have changed over the years. He is open to what he acknowledges were errors of the past. He is now pro-nuclear, in favor of genetically engineered crops, concerned with the precautionary principle, etc. I disagree with him on some issues, but respect his approach.  A few interesting passages follow.

Consider Stewart Brand’s meaty, well-informed, and mostly sensible new book, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. The man who used to be so California Hip that in 1968 he made a cameo appearance in Tom Wolfe’s The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test now presents himself as a “hacker (lazy engineer) at heart,” ready to promote realistic responses to the great eco-existential crisis of our time—climate change. How can Greens fulfill their new mission, which is to save not only birds and trees but all humanity? The man who founded and then edited the Whole Earth Catalog for 16 years—a magazine guided by “biological understanding” and enamored with the planet-saving power of organic farming, solar, wind, insulation, bicycles, and handmade houses—now concludes: “Cities are Green. Nuclear energy is Green. Genetic engineering is Green.”…

The question I ask myself now,” Brand tells us when he gets to nuclear power, is: “What took me so long? I could have looked into the realities of nuclear power many years earlier, if I weren’t so lazy.” When he got over his nuclear sloth, here’s what Brand learned. (Most of the words quoted here are Brand’s own, but some are Brand quoting others approvingly.) “Fear of radiation is a far more important health threat than radiation itself.” “Reactor safety is a problem already solved,” and the new reactors are even safer than the old. Waste isn’t a problem; we need the $10 billion Yucca mountain disposal site “about as much as we need a facility for imprisoning dangerous extraterrestrials.” Nuclear power isn’t just the cheapest practical carbon-free option around, but the cheapest, period, when not snarled up in green tape. Scientists “invariably poll high in support of nuclear.” The people so pragmatic that they actually keep the lights lit, he might have added, have polled that way for 40 years, on the strength of reams of data and analyses, as well as the operating experience of our nuclear navy and a wide range of commercial reactors scattered across the planet.

Other Greens, Brand reports, have experienced similar nuclear epiphanies as age moved them closer to a place hotter than tropical. Among them is Gwyneth Cravens, a novelist, former New Yorker editor, and activist who in her salad days “helped frighten the American nuclear industry to a standstill” by successfully crusading to kill a brand-new nuclear power plant in Shoreham, Long Island. And James Hansen, a NASA climatologist and the most outspoken American advocate of drastic reductions in carbon emissions. And founders and former high officials of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and “a surprising number of [other] prominent environmentalists.” Canada, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, England, and other countries that not long ago either froze new construction or resolved to shut down their nukes have flipped from red-hot aversion to tepid embrace.

But tepid may not suffice. “One of the greatest dangers the world faces is the possibility that a vocal minority of antinuclear activists could prevent phase-out of coal emissions,” Brand writes, quoting Hansen. It’s an indubitable historical fact that the developed world was poised to break free from a carbon-centered energy economy 30 years ago. Greens locked us back into it. By demonizing nukes so effectively, they boosted U.S. coal consumption by about 400 million tons per year. We would instantly cut our coal consumption in half if we could simply conjure back into existence the 100-plus nuclear plants that were in the pipeline three decades ago. If global warming is a problem, Brand and his ex-friends own it…

Offshore Drilling in 1995 vs 2010

Category : Energy Issues, Fossil Fuels

A report published in the Oil and Gas Journal reviews two studies carried out on the impact of legislation passed  in 1995 that opened up new areas for deep ocean drilling.  By the way, the jobs created and the billions of dollars generated  in commerce did not require government subsidies – as high cost, job killing, ”green” energy initiatives do. Continue Reading

Awash in Natural Gas, Part one

Category : Energy Issues, Weekly Feature

U.S. oil and natural gas production peaked in the early ‘70s. Oil production in the lower 48 states has subsequently plunged by about 65%.  Additional supply from Alaska and offshore Gulf of Mexico has come on stream since the peak, and this has reduced the overall drop in U.S. oil production to around 50%. U.S. natural gas production has held up much better, down from the peak by only 10% or so. (See the following graphs)

Oil has long been an international commodity, but natural gas was a local commodity. If the U.S. or any country consumed more oil than it produced, it was available internationally, and could be delivered by oil tankers. There was, however, no offshore back-up for natural gas. The U.S. could only consume what we (and our Canadian suppliers) could produce and transport via the extensive North American pipeline and storage system.

In recent years liquified natural gas (LNG) technology has been perfected. Natural gas can now be liquified and transported via tankers. Vast pools of natural gas in the Middle East and Russia now have an international market. Natural gas is no longer just a “local” commodity.

There are significant problems with LNG, however. Costs to transport LNG are very high. These costs must allow for the building costs of the specially made tankers, the LNG shipping terminals designed to liquify natural gas, and the receiving terminals needed to process the LNG back into a gas state. 

Inflexibility is another issue. A limited number of LNG vessels have been built. At the present time nearly all of these vessels have contracts in place that will  keep them busy for a while.  Other LNG tankers will be constructed, of course, but probably not without firm contracts between buyers, sellers, and shippers. The costs are too great to be building LNG tankers and terminals on spec, especially while the natural gas market is undergoing dramatic changes with uncertain consequences.

Natural gas is no longer a local commodity, but it is still semi-local – at least for the next decade or so.

Natural Gas Crisis – It was just five years ago that the U.S. was rapidly approaching a supply crisis. Most of the large pools of natural gas were winding down, or already empty. It took more and more drilling rigs to find the remaining smaller fields of natural gas, and keep production more-or-less flat. (Compare the increase in producing wells from 1995 through 2004  in the graph below with the previous graph showing flat production).

It appeared that the U.S. would be required to rely on expensive LNG imports to supplement North American production. There was even a legitimate concern that North American natural gas production would fall so quickly that new supplies of LNG  might not come on-line soon enough to keep up with U.S. demand.

Our Greatest Hope – What the U.S. needed in 2005 was a new domestic source of energy that could reduce our dependence on Russia and the Middle East. This new energy source would be, under ideal circumstances, enormous, long-lasting, affordable, and have a minimal environmental impact.

The Technological Breakthrough – The large multi-national energy companies said it could not be done; obtaining commercial quantities of natural gas from shale basins was not possible. They had the money, but not the courage. And, as it turned out, they were wrong. Thanks to the entrepreneurial drive of a few small U.S. natural gas companies, we have that new energy source.

The natural gas-from-shale effort did not begin in 2005, it started many years earlier. It was around this time, however, that a significant volume of natural gas began to flow from the first of the major shale plays.

It was not a government program that accomplished this miracle. No government funds were needed. It was the much maligned profit-motive that made it happen. Profits paid for the research. The enticement of much higher profits in the future was also a requirement. Future profit potential had to be substantial to warrant the significant  investment risks. 

By the way, important breakthroughs never occur in government run energy companies. Major advances in technology always come from profit oriented businesses.

The Magnitude of This New Opportunity- The first big shale play in natural gas was the Barnett Shale, in and around the Fort Worth Texas area. About 10% of U.S. onshore natural gas production already comes from this location. The second big play was the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas. Then the big monsters were located – the Hanesville Shale in Northwestern Louisiana/Eastern Texas, and the Marcellus Shale which covers hundreds of miles of the central Appalachian area. These are the Big Four. New reserves of natural gas, from shale deposits, are so huge that our current consumption levels are covered for the next 100 years.

This is not, however, the end of the game for shale-type natural gas discoveries. There are at least another six significant shale-sand plays under development – the big four will likely grow to a higher number over the next few years. It does not end there either. There will be more discoveries both in North America and around the world in the years to come.

The environmental issues do not appear to be game changers. If that continues to be the case, then we are awash in natural gas. In another 10-20 years, we will have a 200 to 300 year supply – based on current consumption.

What Do We Do With All This Natural Gas? – The obvious point here is that we have so much natural gas available, we should be looking for opportunities to use more of it. The most logical new use is as a replacement for gasoline. Rather than becoming increasingly more dependent on oil imports, we will be able to gradually reduce our need for offshore oil. Cars and trucks run well on natural gas. The technology is in use today in a number of places.

The wrong thing to do would be to replace coal with natural gas in electricity generation. That would reduce CO2 emissions, but the bigger issue is ending our energy reliance on unfriendly governments.

This is a huge opportunity for us.

Natural GasPricing – Pricing will continue to cycle. In fact, natural gas prices have been lower over the last year than average pricing is likely to be in the future. In addition, production disruptions due to hurricanes, other extreme weather, periods of very low prices, etc. could result in short periods of time in which demand outstrips supply, and prices spike up 50% or so above the mean. Prices will always, however, revert back to the mean. Assuming no environmental limitations, there is no risk of prices escalating rapidly and remaining at high levels in the foreseeable future.

The market for natural gas will remain over-supplied. Government policies will have the greatest impact on natural gas prices. The price trend for natural gas will relate to state, local, and national policies on taxes, environmental regulations, and other regulations. Prices will also be influenced by normal inflationary pressures. On the positive side, however, natural gas-from-shale production efficiencies will continue to improve for many years, and new low-cost discoveries of shale-type deposits could keep pressure on prices. A more detailed price forecast is planned for part two of this report.

Emissions and Environmental Issues – Natural gas is, as the commercial suggests, “a clean burning” fuel. Carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas are about 45% less than coal and 25-30% lower than oil. The table below also demonstrates that natural gas usage results in fewer emissions of “other” pollutants as well.

Natural gas from shale is not an energy panacea. Problems remain. It is interesting that the global warming true believers tend to be natural gas skeptics – in regard to both potential reserves and currently unknown but potential environmental risks.  Their skepticism will, I am confident, turn out to be invalid. But it is fair, I suppose, to caution that a six-year history is insufficient to claim complete confidence that all environmental issues will remain well under control. Nevertheless, the Department of Energy (April 2009) expressed no skepticism regarding either issue. See Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer. For those interested, a summary of the environmental remarks from this report follow.

Summary [Environmental Considerations: The primary differences between modern shale gas development and conventional natural gas development are the extensive use of horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing. Horizontal drilling allows an area to be developed with substantially fewer wells than would be needed if vertical wells were used. The overall process of horizontal drilling varies little from conventional drilling, with casing and cementing being used to protect fresh and treatable groundwater. The use of horizontal drilling has not introduced new environmental concerns. On the contrary, the reduced number of horizontal wells needed, coupled with multiple wells drilled from a single pad, has significantly reduced surface disturbances and the associated impacts to wildlife and impacts from dust, noise, and traffic. Where shale gas development has intersected with urban and industrial settings, regulators and industry have developed special practices to help reduce community impacts, impacts to sensitive environmental resources, and interference with existing businesses.

Hydraulic fracturing has been a key technology in making shale gas an affordable addition to the Nation’s energy supply, and the technology has proven to be a safe and effective stimulation technique. Ground water is protected during the shale gas fracturing process by a combination of the casing and cement that is installed when the well is drilled and the thousands of feet of rock between the fracture zone and any fresh or treatable aquifers. The multi-stage hydraulic fracture operations used in horizontal wells may require 3 to 4 million gallons of water. Since it is a relatively new use in these areas, withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing must be balanced with existing water demands. Once the fracture treatment is completed, most of the fracture water comes back to the surface and must be managed in a way that conserves and protects water resources. While challenges continue to exist with water availability and water management, innovative regional solutions are emerging that allow shale gas development to continue while ensuring that the water needs of other users can be met and that surface and ground water quality is protected.

An additional consideration in shale gas development is the potential for low levels of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) to be brought to the surface. While NORM may be encountered in shale gas operations, there is negligible exposure risk for the general public and there are well established regulatory programs that ensure public and worker safety.

In part two we will look at the political response to this good news, offer a natural gas pricing forecast, and touch on future prospects for oil and oil prices.

After a Good Nights Sleep, Bed Bath and Beyond Has a Change of Heart

Category : Canadian Oil Sands, Energy Issues, Global Warming

On February 10th we posted, Bed, Bath, and Beyond Reason . We suggested that environmental organizations and corporations that reject oil from the Canadian oil sands are missing the big picture. It is absurd to campaign against friendly oil from Canada knowing that this will increase our dependence on Chavez, Russia, and the Middle East. I don’t believe carbon emissions are a serious problem, but even for those who disagree, carbon emissions should not be a priority that trumps all other issues, in every situation.

After thinking about it overnight, Bed, Bath and Beyond was persuaded by our argument.  Well, that wasn’t it. What caused Bed, Bath, and Beyond to change its mind was an immediate outpouring of anger from normally mild-mannered Canadians. The company could see that this pandering to ForestEthics and other extreme environmental groups was not going to be good for business – and that, after all, was the whole point.  

This proves one of my working theories, by the way.  For the global warming faithful, reducing carbon emissions is more important than any organization, or even life itself – as long as it is someone else’s life and someone else’s loss.  For Bed, Bath, and Beyond, saving its business in Canada was more important than saving the world. (See   Bed, Bath & Beyond Backs Away From Boycott, and also read some of the comments from Canada.)

Bed, Bath, and Beyond Reason

Category : Energy Issues, Environmental Issues

ForestEthics has raised enough money in the recycling business that it been able to expanded into oil and gas. Their campaigns against Whole Foods and Bed, Bath, and Beyond have resulted in both companies washing their hands of oil from the Canadian tar sands. Of all U.S. oil imports, 20% come from the tar sands in Canada, a more-or-less friendly nation. This is according to a story you can access here in the Toronto Star.

There is so much oil in the tar sands that Canadians could eventually end up in the same social circle as the sheiks in Dubai. But alas, that is not to be.  The Canadian government never feels comfortable with companies earning profits, so they have raised taxes in the oil sands dramatically. This had discouraged new development. In addition, both Canadian and U.S. environmental organizations have set their sights on this region. That won’t help either.

Obviously, good environmental stewardship is crucial. No one should dispute that. The question is always defining “good environmental stewardship”.  The absolute truth is that Greenpeace and ForestEthics are not trying to work with industry in the oil sands to limit the environmental footprint. Their ongoing goals are to limit industrial development.

Whole Foods and Bed, Bath, and Beyond will still buy oil from overseas and ship it over to the U.S. on giant energy-eating oil tankers. They will buy from Russia, who is not our friend, or Iran, or Chavez, or the region that spawned Bin Laden. I wonder what their customers will think of this policy.