I don’t usually go for political articles, but this one deserves mention for the wholesale idiocy about energy on display.
Don Monfort writes: Submitted on 2011/10/01 at 10:24 am
Sorry to stray off topic, but I was flabbergasted by something I just read:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576602524023932438.html
The most flabbergasting part; our energy policy is based on fantasy:
When it was Mr. Hamm’s turn to talk briefly with President Obama, “I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this.”
The president’s reaction? “He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’” Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, “Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing.”
America is still going to use oil in 5 years, but I’d rather it be domestic than foreign, wouldn’t you? Alternate technology takes time to develop and there’s zero chance we’ll all be driving electric vehicles in 5 years.
Obama said this when he was running for office:
Obama pledges to end oil dependency
Friday, August 29, 2008 (KGO ABC7 Television)
“I will set a clear goal as president: in ten years we will finally end our dependence on oil in the Middle East,” said Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama.
…
“If he means what it sounds like it means, it’s impossible,” said Stanford University Professor James Sweeney.
I guess we know what he meant by that now.
When the presidential limo becomes an electric vehicle, I’ll take his pledge seriously.
The vehicle fuel consumption is about 8 miles per gallon which on metric system corresponds to around 30 litres/100 km – source specs
Why? What does it matter if it’s a US based multinational corporation or one based in some other country?
I never cease to be amazed at claims of peak oil calamity-to-come. While it”s always possible history will prove me wrong, given it’s been ‘peak oil’ since at least 1919 I’m not too worried. http://www.chemcases.com/fuels/fuels-07.htm#_ednref1 “…According to a 1919 article in Scientific American, the automotive industry could not ignore the fact that only 20 years worth of oil was left in America…” It’s particularly amazing to me when USA production rates are used as some sort of evidence of peak oil concerns. USA, and world-wide production rates are a function of how much exploration is occurring based on the current and near term expected price of oil, and politics – not a representation of how much oil actually exists. This would seem pretty clear to me, considering all of the limits on continental drilling, gulf drilling now also, Alaska drilling, etc.
Estimates on Canadian tar sands alsone are massive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHD4U2q_p4c Stossel on 20/20 in 2008 from various experts: “175-315 Billion barrels of oil are recoverable at $15 a barrel in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada. With a remaining potential of 1.7-2.5 Trillion barrels using advanced recovery techniques. Who knows what they’ll discover tomorrow, but we know today, that in Canada’s oil sands alone, the supplies will last over 100 years.”
What it seems so many folks don’t realize, is that the USA is extimated to have two trillion barrels in oil shale resources. A significant amount of that is thought to be not only recoverable, but competitive at approx. present day prices. See the 2004 national report: Strategic Significance of America’s Oil Shale Resource (link below). It’s been a long time since I’ve read it, but IIRC, it was estimated that we have enough oil to cover 100 years of USA oil needs at 2003 levels. The only thing stopping us from not only freeing ourselves from foreign oil, but gaining all the associated jobs and revenue, is politics and a gross lack of understanding on the part of the general public.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffossil.energy.gov%2Fprograms%2Freserves%2Fnpr%2Fpublications%2Fnpr_strategic_significancev1.pdf&rct=j&q=strategic%20significance%20of%20americas%20oil%20shale%20resource&ei=1vGHTvmsG8aftgezzs0u&usg=AFQjCNHfiEL4TrV0XUVM1p9QX0ePX5mJVQ&cad=rja
Just hope you guys are aware of the latest media tricks. Ignoring Ron Paul and Santorum. Minimizing Herman Cain’s momentum and maximizing the push for Chris Christie. [Christie is a firm CAGW believer and supporter of gun control. Imagine that.] The media is also playing up Romney and Perry as faulty zillionaires. And…
Gov’t backs 4 more solar loans as deadline looms
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110930/D9Q355EO0.html
40 years of USA Presidents call for independence from foreign oil during State of the Union Addresses… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50gJcZnExmE
“Juice says:
October 1, 2011 at 10:21 pm
America is still going to use oil in 5 years, but I’d rather it be domestic than foreign, wouldn’t you?
Why? What does it matter if it’s a US based multinational corporation or one based in some other
country?”
Dumbest post so far, Juicy. Have you heard of things such as jobs? trade imbalances? balance of payments deficits? national security?
I should have said, MAXIMIZING the push for Chris Christie.
JamesD says:
October 1, 2011 at 4:10 pm
“Check out Eagle Ford shale oil”
James, here’s the link to Eagle Ford production from the Texas RRC for you to check out :
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/eagleford/eagleford-oilproduction.pdf
If you calculate the daily rate for 2011, it works out to about 19,000 BOPD or 0.4% of our OPEC imports. So you will need to increase production by 250x to cancel out OPEC. Sorry but the Eagle Ford is a proverbial drop in the bucket.
Smokey says:
October 1, 2011 at 10:14 pm
“To those that have shall be given and to those that have not, even that which they have shall be taken away.”
Name that quote!
===============================================================
Mine has a slightly different translation, but that’s Matthew 13:12
“For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” (KJV)
As to Chu’s competence – I lost all respect for him when a couple of weeks after his appointment, after he gave a speech to a group of utility regulators, and with a major OPEC meeting coming up, reporters asked him if OPEC should cut production. Chu replied that the issue was “not in my domain.” How can anyone who’s worked for years in energy related areas, even the ivory towers such as BNL theoretical physics, not realize that dealing with oil issues is one of the primary responsibilities of the Sect. of Energy? How can anyone accept appoinment to a position of that magnitude, without bothering to first conduct the most basic due diligence with regard to what the position entails?? How do they wind up giving speeches to utility groups while still that clueless? Not to mention, what sort of President appoints someone who is so ignorant to that sort of position? (well, ok, I know – the answer is probably far too many of them, but Obama seems to have a real penchant for it). See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123508025907226643.html
I do give Chu a few bonus points for having the honesty to quickly publically admit to his error and naivete – but those bennies weren’t nearly enough to make up for the hole he’d dug himself into with this one.
I should have added, there are many interpretations as to what that means.
A consideration……… possessing something doesn’t necessarily mean possessing money or something of monetary value. For instance, I am rich, but have little money.
re:
As the Chinese have done and are doing with rare earths now. Well, I’ve no idea if they’re playing the future’s too, but would be surprised if they weren’t. The boost the Western push for ‘alternative energy’ has probably made them estatic all the way around. Limit the rare earths necessary, build all the parts, scoop up Western real estate (or at least USA real estate) with all the profits!
Thank you, James Sexton. I am not a Mormon [or anything else, although I have my personal and sincere beliefs], but the quote I gave above was from the Book of Mormon. Mathew 13:12 gives essentially the same message. I believe both are instructive. The rich UN is taking from the world’s poor… despite their mendacious claims to the contrary.
Nominated for the WUWT ig-nobel quote of the week:
A large majority of vehicles could easily be converted to run on natural gas (CNG).
Here in Perth every petrol station has one or two natural gas bowsers and filling a car with NG takes not much longer than filling a petrol car.
NG is also safer as a fuel and produces fewer harmful emissions.
It is a scandal that billions are being wasted on electric car nonsense, but no vehicle manufacturer anywhere has volume production of NG cars for developed world markets, although Honda is close.
Developing countries are far ahead; Worldwide, there were 12.7 million natural gas vehicles by 2010, led by Pakistan with 2.7 million, Iran (1.95 million), Argentina (1.9 million), Brazil (1.7 million), and India (1.1 million).[1] The Asia-Pacific region leads the world with 6.8 million NGVs, followed by Latin America with 4.2 million vehicles.[1]
Forrest says:
October 1, 2011 at 6:00 pm
“Regardless lets take the 4 – 5 Billion… ”
FYI, Prudhoe Bay had an initial reserve of 15 Billion – 3x your number, so we better hair cut Bakken Peak production by 3x , to be fair. Peak production from Prudhoe was 2 million BOPD so peak production for the Bakken , given your reserve # would be ~ 0.667 million BOPD – you are still short by over 4.2 MMBOPD or by a factor of 6.3. … but that’s assuming similar reservoir quality, which is a bad assumption because the Bakken is a crappy reservoir compared to the Ivishak reservoir at Prudhoe.
So what’s the Bakken doing now ? See this link from the state of North Dakota :
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/newsletter/nlsummer2010/The%20Oil%20Potential%20of%20the%20Bakken%20Source%20System.pdf
Check out the graph on p2 & convert it to a daily # : that’s 0.190 MMBOPD – or a factor of 3.5 lower than the number listed above. Not surprising given the poor quality of the Bakken reservoir compared to the high quality Ivishak reservoir at Prudhoe.
So, now all you have to do is get the other 4.7 MMBOPD to replace OPEC – or increase Bakken production by a factor of 25x…. sorry, but again, the Bakken is but a drop in the proverbial bucket.
Rational Debate says:
October 1, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Nominated for the WUWT ig-nobel quote of the week:
Juice says: October 1, 2011 at 10:21 pm
America is still going to use oil in 5 years, but I’d rather it be domestic than foreign, wouldn’t you?
Why? What does it matter if it’s a US based multinational corporation or one based in some other country?
=========================================================
Don’t be too hard on him……. he has a point. Wrong thinking, but he has a point.
Juice, if the oil is produced in the U.S., then odds are people in the U.S. are going to work the fields. That’s not a tricky concept. This would do much for our people. Further, the impetus would be to sell such oil here. In that the cost to transport it would be prohibitive to a point.(depending upon the supply/demand elsewhere)
As to your point about multinational corporations, you’re spot on. It is past time that we quit allowing the parasites to reap the benefits this nation offers only to off-shore our money. If they want to enjoy the protections of this nation, then it is only fitting we benefit from the protections. Land right enforcement, patents, foreign trade agreements, etc………… this comes with a caveat. WE COME FIRST! If they can’t do that, then I suggest we find someone that can. With a little boost, I imagine that there would be a line of people and entities just waiting for the exclusive opportunity to sell the U.S. their wares.
Mr Chu, Mr Chu, Mr Chu. Over here Mr Chu. Have I gotta a deal for you Mr Chu. You want a battery? I’ve gotta battery like you’ve never seen before Mr Chu.
The EESU® (Electrical Energy Storage Unit) is a supercapacitor with the ability to store far more electrical energy in a given space, and at a far lower cost, than is possible with any current technology. Although the EESU® is not yet being sold, EEStor, Inc. claims to be ramping up to mass produce them Mr Chu.
Theoretically, the EESU® is a “disruptive technology” which will make stored electric power easily available anywhere. Among other uses, it could replace batteries, make electric cars practical and affordable, and make night-time storage of solar power practical and affordable. If it truly is a disruptive technology, it will affect everyday life in ways we cannot yet imagine Mr Chu.
A capacitor, also called an accumulator or (confusingly) condensor, is a device which stores electricity efficiently. It differs from a battery in that it does not generate electricity, but can be charged and discharged very quickly. And unlike a rechargeable battery it can be used over and over without wearing out, thousands or millions of times. A supercapacitor, also known as an ultracapacitor, is simply a capacitor which can store a great deal of electricity. More on capacitors can be found at the WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Good eh Mr Chu? Trust me Mr Chu, only half a billion dollars to you Mr Chu. Trust me Mr Chu, Would I lie to you Mr Chu? C’mon Mr Chu, it’s a steal. Read the website below Mr Chu. What have you got to lose Mr Chu?
http://www.freewebs.com/eestorfaq/
Philip Bradley says:
October 1, 2011 at 11:16 pm
A large majority of vehicles could easily be converted to run on natural gas (CNG).
Here in Perth every petrol station has one or two natural gas bowsers ………
===============================================================
Yes….but Phillip, I’d ask you to understand the scope that would be necessary for the U.S. Further, what you use for fueling your vehicle, you must understand that you’re losing for your heating and cooking. Natural gas is a wonderful thing. But, like oil, there are limitations as to how much one can take out of the ground for a given time. I suggest, that NG be used for heating and cooking. It is easily used for such ventures. But, using it of other machinations, while being sufficient, only causes the cost to increase on the heating and cooking. It comes in pretty handy for peak electric usage, as well.
Mind you, I’m not a peak freak in that I believe we’ve met our limit on using such thing, its just that I believe there are things best put to use in one manner over the the other. NG does well when you just put a match to it.
Mark says:
October 1, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Mark,
Thanks for that!
MtK
James Sexton,
NG prices in the USA have fallen 70% in the last 5 or so years.
Huge amounts are flared ever day from N Dakota oilfields, because low prices make it uneconomic to bring it to market.
http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/2011_1002natural_gas_pains
Its fair to say there is a NG glut in the USA.
There is clearly sufficient supply to run millions of vehicles on CNG.
The problem vehicle manufacturers not making them and post factory conversions are needed, and distribution infrastructure.
The latter happens surprisingly fast. Here it took only 5 or 6 years to go from hardly any service stations selling CNG to most service services stations having a CNG pump.
And I’ll note all without a single cent in subsidies.
Even more reality (Norwegian type):
Statoil med gigantisk oljefunn
Beskrives som det største funnet på ti år.
http://www.na24.no/article3122749.ece
In English: The Norwegian state oil company StatOil has made a ‘gigantic’ oil discovery, the biggest in 10 years.
Google translation to English
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.na24.no%2Farticle3122749.ece&sl=no&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
What’s with the Saudi oil? We get over half our imported oil from our northern cousins – why? Because the Canadian socialist experiment joined other past socialist experiments in failure so the current conservative government gained influence resulting in Canadian and U.S. oil salvation and Canadian economic stability.
The U.S. has similar resources, and more. Although we may have to survive until 2013 to follow Canada’s recent lead we must continue to formulate a successful strategy for U.S. energy resurgence that is not based upon only a few sources, but all as they may suit the situation.
Suffice it to say that we have enough energy resources to thrive, let alone survive. Batteries, of any form, are not energy sources. Solar and wind sources are not reliable, sustainable or sufficient by any means. Algae and other sources may help while oil, gas, coal and nuclear have been, and are, the basis for our evolutionary success and will continue to be as we proceed to the imagined and the unimagined.
The created toxicity of CO2 has been, and is being, misused worldwide to “save the planet”, undermine the greedy big energy exploiting capitalists, to again attempt a socialist, maoist, marxist, jihadist, fascist or whatever other anti-democratic, anti-representative, anti-constitutional anti-republic that can be dreamed up, and/or for whatever other reason. This must not happen.
I believe the skeptics/realists who participate at WUWT, etc. will not allow the above to result. Science, liberty, individualism and earned respect must be preserved. Enjoy the challenge, and good luck.
Similar article in today’s Sunday Telegraph by Christopher Booker about our Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne MP who, states Mr. Booker, is into climate change but is completely clueless about energy.
David L. Hagen says:
October 1, 2011 at 2:31 pm
“For a dose of hard reality:
US 48 states oil production peaked in 1970. , UK about 2000, Norway in 2005.”
And Norway still exist on the map. Not removed in the famous Atlas yet. No Doom, no Gloom.
As Margaret Thatcher told the Soviet Central Commitee;
If you stop worrying of the price of eggs, you could find time for the foreign policy.
Same with “Peak Oil”. The Stone age didnt end because of Peak Stone. And there was no Central Comittee in the Stone Age either. I hope.
Leave it to Free Enterprice.
300 mpg from a diesel / electric hybrid is on the road from Volkswagen.
Batteries in cars will serve as a transition technology to improve efficiency and recover energy from braking. Formula 1 cars are set to allow a ten fold increase in the use of KERS where a car can recover energy from braking and reuse it to accelerate again.
Volkswagen have a concept car that uses this technology to deliver (in practise) over 300 mpg from a diesel hybrid.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/255101/
Technologies such as this are a far more practical way forward than idiotmills (windmills), and will allow time for fuel cell technology to develop and take us to the next level of efficiency.