A Senate Tax Bill Energy Trifecta: Opening ANWR, Killing EV’s and Energy Dominance!

Well… Maybe not killing EV’s… Just leveling the playing field a bit.

Guest gloating by David Middleton

Senate Republicans approve plan to allow drilling in Arctic refuge with tax legislation

Senate Republicans passed legislation early Saturday allowing oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a tax reform package, moving closer to fulfilling a long-time GOP goal.

The passage of the bill marked a significant achievement for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, the chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who has introduced legislation to open a portion of the Alaskan refuge to drilling every term she has served in the chamber, only to be blocked by Democrats.

A change to the GOP tax bill would be a huge boost to energy companies

A new change in the Republican tax bill would allow energy companies classified as publicly traded partnerships to take the pass-through business deduction.

Senate tax measure helps President Trump pivot away from clean energy and back to fossil fuels

The Trump administration’s campaign for “American energy dominance,” which focuses on elevating the nation’s fossil fuel production, received a potential big boost from Republican senators early Saturday.

The tax measure they approved proposes to open the Arctic to oil and gas development, weaken investment incentives for solar and wind production, and end a big tax credit for new electric vehicles.

“End a big tax credit for new electric vehicles”… ¡Hasta la vista Elon!

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell actually deserves a lot of credit for this.  Late last week, the Senate had a truly awful tax bill and the GOP was at least five votes short of being able to pass it.  Last minute “sausage making” actually improved the bill.

With its narrow majority in the Senate, the Republicans will have to steer the Conference Committee toward the Senate version rather than the House version of tax “reform.”  While the final product will be far from Reaganesque, on the business side, it appears to be pretty good… Particularly on the energy business side.

The “big win” of the energy trifecta is clearly ANWR.

Opening less than 3% of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska for responsible energy production could create thousands of jobs, generate billions in new revenue and help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

Small Area = Big Energy Potential

  • The North Slope of ANWR, known as “Area 1002”, was specifically set aside by Congress and President Carter in 1980 for oil and natural development. This area is not designated as Wilderness.
  • A plan developing 500,000 acres—less than three percent of ANWR’s acreage—would provide access to the majority of ANWR’s resources.

Supplying America’s Families and Businesses with American Energy

  • According to U.S. Geological Survey estimates, the North Slope contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil.
    • This is more than the known oil reserves of entire countries that the U.S. currently imports oil from, including: Mexico, Angola, Azerbaijan, Norway, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, Australia and New Zealand, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
  • At peak production, ANWR could supply up to 1.45 million barrels of oil per day.
    • This is more than the U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia every day.
    • Alternatively, 1.45 million barrels of oil per day is over one quarter of what the U.S. imports from OPEC countries each year.

Reducing the Debt, Generating New Federal Revenue

  • Developing ANWR’s resources could generate approximately $150 billion to $296 billion in new federal revenue – a substantial amount that would help pay down our Nation’s debt.
  • Total government revenue, including leases, royalties, and state local and federal taxes for the life of ANWR field production, could be as much as $440 billion.

Creating American Jobs, Growing the Economy

  • Opening a small portion of ANWR to energy production would create tens of thousands of American jobs and contribute to significant economic growth.
  • Studies have shown ANWR job creation ranging from 55,000 to 130,000 jobs.

Increasing Our National Security

  • Responsibly developing our own American energy resources in ANWR will help reduce our dependence on oil from hostile countries and lower foreign imports.
  • According to the Energy Information Administration, crude oil imports will decline by one barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production.


U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources

The failure to open ANWR-1002 would soon force the premature shutdown and dismantling of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).

A premature end to TAPS would strand about 30 billion barrels of oil and 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under Alaska and its OCS (outer continental shelf).

• The Trans Alaska Pipeline System’s (TAPS) minimum flow rate of about 300,000 barrels of oil per day will be reached in 2025, absent new developments or reserves growth beyond the forecasted technically remaining reserves. An Alaska gas pipeline and gas sales from the Point Thomson field and the associated oil and condensate would provide another boost to oil production and extend the life ofTAPS for about one year to 2026. A shut down of TAPS would potentially strand about 1 billion barrels of oil reserves from the fields analyzed.

Page ix

• For the complete study interval from 2005 to 2050, the forecasts of economically recoverable oil and gas additions, including reserves growth in known fields, is 35 to 36 billion barrels of oil and 137 trillion cubic feet of gas. These optimistic estimates assume continued high oil and gas prices, stable fiscal policies, and all areas open for exploration and development. For this optimistic scenario, the productive life of the Alaska North Slope would be extended well beyond 2050 and could potentially result in the need to refurbish TAPS and add capacity to the gas pipeline.

• The forecasts become increasingly pessimistic if the assumptions are not met as illustrated by the following scenarios.

1. If the ANWR 1002 area is removed from consideration, the estimated economically recoverable oil is 29 to 30 billion barrels of oil and 135 trillion cubic feet of gas.

2. Removal of ANWR 1002 and the Chukchi Sea OCS results in a further reduction to 19 to 20 billion barrels of oil and 85 trillion cubic feet of gas.

3. Removal of ANWR 1002, Chukchi Sea OCS, and the Beaufort Sea OCS results in a reduction to 15 to 16 billion barrels of oil and 65 trillion cubic feet of gas.

4. Scenario 3 and no gas pipeline reduces the estimate to 9 to 10 billion barrels of oil (any gas discovered will likely remain stranded).

Some combination of these hypothetical scenarios is more likely to occur than the optimistic estimates.

Page viii

NETL, 2009

Figure 1. “Map of northern Alaska and nearby parts of Canada showing locations of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the 1002 area, and the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska (NPRA). Locations of known petroleum accumulations and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) are shown, as well as summaries of known petroleum volumes in northern Alaska and the Mackenzie River delta of Canada. BBO, billion barrels of oil (includes cumulative production plus recoverable resources); TCFG, trillion cubic feet of gas recoverable resources.” USGS Fact Sheet
Figure 2. “Map of the ANWR 1002 area. Dashed line labeled Marsh Creek anticline marks approximate boundary between undeformed area (where rocks are generally horizontal) and deformed area (where rocks are folded and faulted). Boundary is defined by Marsh Creek anticline along western half of dashed line and by other geologic elements along eastern half of dashed line. Exploration wells are coded to show whether information from them was available for the 1987 USGS assessment of in-place petroleum resources. Dashed red line shows the offshore extent of the entire assessment area.” USGS Fact Sheet

Recent large discoveries on the North Slope can only be developed if TAPS remains operational.   The opening of ANWR Area 1002, is the fast track to keeping TAPS operational for the next 30-50 years.

Recent North Slope Highlights

Figure 3. Caelus Energy Smith Bay 2016 Discovery, 6-10 billion barrels of oil in place. ADN
Figure 4. ConocoPhillips Greater Mooses Tooth Unit 2016,  300 million bbl of recoverable oil. Seeking Alpha

BOEM Approves Eni Beaufort Sea Exploration Plan

Producer Plans to Drill into a Federal OCS Reservoir from Pre-existing Gravel Island

07-12-2017 ANCHORAGE, Alaska

Contacts: John Callahan


After a comprehensive review and consideration of comments received from the public, stakeholders, and Federal and state partner agencies and tribes, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management today conditionally approved a Beaufort Sea exploration plan (EP) it received from Eni US Operating Co. Inc.

Eni US is a subsidiary of Italian multinational oil and gas company Eni S.p.A. In its plan, Eni describes its intent to drill four exploration wells into the federal submerged lands of the Beaufort Sea from its Spy Island Drillsite, a pre-existing facility located in Alaska state waters. Drilling will be conducted during the winter months only. The drilling is scheduled to begin in December 2017.

Over the past 30 days BOEM has been carefully evaluating the EP in accordance with federal law and regulations. This evaluation included a site-specific Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed exploration activities pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA concluded with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

“Eni brought to us a solid, well-considered plan,” said BOEM’s acting director, Walter Cruickshank. “We know there are vast oil and gas resources under the Beaufort Sea, and we look forward to working with Eni in their efforts to tap into this energy potential.”

The evaluation also included two separate public comment periods: one to give the public the opportunity to provide information on issues that should be examined in the Environmental Assessment; and one to comment on the EP itself. This input was carefully considered throughout the process.

“I’d like to thank our Alaska Native stakeholder organizations, environmental groups, members of industry and everyone else who took the time to submit substantive comments,” said James Kendall, director of BOEM’s Alaska OCS Region. “Our staff worked very diligently to analyze every one we received, and incorporate that input into our review.”

The EP and supporting documents, and links for viewing the public comments, are available at: www.boem.gov/eni-ep-2017.

An EP describes all exploration activities planned by the operator for a specific lease or leases, including the timing of these activities, information concerning drilling processes, the surface location of each planned well, and actions to be taken to meet important safety and environmental standards and to protect access to subsistence resources. An EP does not allow an operator to produce oil if any is found; for that, an operator is required to obtain approval of a Development and Production Plan (DPP).

Among the conditions of approval is the requirement that Eni must also procure all appropriate permits from other state and federal agencies, including permits to drill from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. A list of the permits Eni intends to apply for is located in Table A-1 of the EP. A full list of conditions of approval can be found in the approval letter at the link above.

Spy Island is one of four oil- and gas-producing artificial islands in the waters of the Beaufort Sea. The others are Northstar Island, Endicott Island, and Oooguruk Island. The construction of a fifth island, as proposed in a DPP submitted to BOEM by Hilcorp Alaska LLC, is under review by federal agencies.


The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) promotes energy independence, environmental protection and economic development through responsible, science-based management of offshore conventional and renewable energy resources.

Figure 5. Eni Nikaitchuq North Project. BOEM permit approved 2017. Arctic Energy Center

Team America Energy Dominance… Frack Yeah!

American Energy Dominance courtesy of WhiteHouse.gov

About the Author

David Middleton works for the evil oil industry.  He has 36 years of experience as a geologist/geophysicist working for “Little Oil” (as opposed to Big Oil).  He is a member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Houston Geological Society (HGS).


North Slope 1
North Slope oil fields have produced 64% more oil than initial EOR estimates. DOE/NETL-2009/1385
North Slope 2
Historical North Slope production plus for currently producing, known undeveloped and undiscovered fields. DOE/NETL-2009/1385


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 4, 2017 6:35 am

“150 billion in new federal revenue” could be used to “help pay down the national debt”. Sorry, I won’t be holding my breath on that one.

Reply to  barryjo
December 4, 2017 7:12 am

Yes, if the socialists get back in, it will be wasted by bureaucrats.

Mary Catherine Sears
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 4, 2017 5:41 pm

It may anyway. I have read that for every dollar in new revenue Congress spends $1.50.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 5, 2017 8:49 am

The chances of Green civil servants in the UK allowing this country to become energy-independent are zilch. They don’t want this country to prosper.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 5, 2017 12:16 pm

There is ZERO chance the drilling in ANWR 1002 results in anywhere near $150 Billion in federal revenue.


updated because lots of exploratory wells showed only NG – not oil.

95% confidence economically recoverable oil is only 2.5 Billion barrels — total retail price is $150 Billion, the feds would get a few Tens of billions.

All for a paltry 3 months of oil.

If you want to argue the mean is more representative — ok 6 months of oil for the 5 billion barrels

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 5, 2017 1:26 pm

@ David

Then why did USGS down revise their numbers?

Also, do you think the cost of investment and damage to the environment (not to mention unknown disruption of caribou) — are worth 3 months of oil?

Reply to  barryjo
December 4, 2017 7:43 am

Obama slung that much from the podium in any random week of pledges and promotional tours.

Reply to  barryjo
December 4, 2017 10:36 am

50% of ALL land west of the Mississippi is ‘owned’ by government.

george e. smith
Reply to  Wally
December 4, 2017 12:44 pm

a Jan 2008 Cover story in SciAm was a serious proposal to build a large PV array free clean green renewable energy plant if the “desert waste lands” of Southern California.
It was a full scale facility; not one of these pocket power plants.

30,000 square miles of solar panels. A second smaller; only 16,000 su miles of thermal solar production was also planned.

I seem to recall that CA Sens Dianne Feinstein and Barbara (check bouncing) Boxer fought to protect those “desert wastelands” for the good of the desert tortoise, and gila monster.

Now 30,000 squ miles is a fairly large chunk of land, but at least everything would be in the same region.

That’s 19.2 million acres, which is the exact size of the whole of ANWR.

And for scale comparison, the State of Rhode Island can fit into 20 non-overlapping places in ANWR, and the State of Delaware fits in 12 different non-overlapping sied in ANWR.

So these guys were talking about some serious scale operations.

Dr Fred Singer’s comment was succinct: “Who wants to clean 30,000 square miles of solar panels ?? ”

Let the drilling begin.


Reply to  Wally
December 4, 2017 2:06 pm

Since solar power is so virtuous, it doesn’t need cleaning.

Reply to  Wally
December 4, 2017 3:28 pm

solar power doesn’t need to be cleaned, it is already “clean energy”.

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  barryjo
December 5, 2017 4:18 am

Yikes – we only need 20,000 billion$.

Reply to  barryjo
December 5, 2017 12:12 pm

There is only 2.5 Billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in ANWR 1002 per the USGS


At current retain that is 150 Billion total (mostly to oil companies)– not federal revenue

And it would last us 3 months at current consumption.

The US would be better served if the oil companies and feds spent the 50 billion (at least) it will cost to build the infrastructure and drill — on PV and electric vehicles, instead of on a sip of oil

3 Months

Reply to  Karl
December 5, 2017 12:40 pm


To echo Dave, I assume that those who have to spend their money on developing the fields will be in the best position to determine if there is a reasonable payback. Furthermore, we could play the same game as you’re doing with your “3 months” comment, with every source of energy. It doesn’t really add any serious information to discussion.

Finally, I’ve been led to believe (not having ever bothered to look into this extensively) that oil fields are quite friendly to the local ecology once they’re established. That is, we’re not denuding the land and stripping it like, for example, cobalt mines: http://africanbusinessmagazine.com/sectors/commodities/congolese-mining-sector-beset-uncertainty/


Reply to  Karl
December 5, 2017 1:29 pm

@ David

USGS says 2.5 Billion economically recoverable

Figure 4 in my link above

Why do you state 10 Billion — when that is the mean for TECHNICALLY RECOVERABLE OIL — not subject to cost??

USGS also states 750,000 barrels a day max dropping to 710,000


December 4, 2017 6:37 am

Waiting on a valid commentary on the removal of the tax credit for electric vehicles…

Reply to  prjindigo
December 4, 2017 7:54 am
Mike Jonas
Reply to  prjindigo
December 4, 2017 4:02 pm

Let’s just have a level playing field. If Tesla then thrives, that’s great. I have no wish to see Tesla fail, I just don’t want it to drain others’ money.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 5, 2017 12:13 pm

Then get rid of the subsidies for Nuclear (generation tax credit), fuel subsidy, loan guarantees.

December 4, 2017 6:38 am

Apparently the claim that the elimination of the EV tax credit will doom Tesla and Elon Musk
was made by one not familiar with the situation. Elon Musk has actually been campaigning to get the tax break eliminated. The reason? Because the continuation of the tax break would not benefit Tesla , since when it produces its 200,000th vehicle (early next year), their tax credit get halved, then after two quarters, halved again and then two quarters later halved again and then disappears, WHILE most of the other automakers (excluding GM and Nissan) would have their entire 200,000
vehicle exception – that would mean a $7500 price advantage over any Tesla vehicle, and the Tesla
vehicle that is most important to Tesla is the “$35,000” Model 3, and it would be severely impacted when competing against the more than a hundred EVs that the world’s automakers have announced as available within the next 3 years. That would destroy Tesla, whose upper-optioned Model 3 is priced at $60,000 (ouch!!) . Tesla is producing no base ($35,000) Model 3 vehicles
in its initial run, and few have been ordered : customers report an average price of $45,000 for their cars on order.
Elon Musk will probably be dancing in the street after the tax credit gets eliminated.

Reply to  David Middleton
December 4, 2017 7:09 am

But Tesla did manage to roll out a roadster and semi with claimed ranges that are – physically impossible.

Range Claims For Tesla Semi And Roadster Are Physically Impossible

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  David Middleton
December 4, 2017 8:44 am

David, err you mean 345 Mod 3’s in November

Reply to  David Middleton
December 4, 2017 8:44 am

Elon: :How did the stock do after my announcement?
Mini-me: “It dropped. I think they’re on to you”
Elon: “Quick! Bring me my hat. I’m going to have to pull another wabbit out. If this doesn’t work, we may have to get the escape pod ready.”

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  David Middleton
December 4, 2017 9:07 am

At what point do these announcements get investigated for securities fraud?

Reply to  David Middleton
December 4, 2017 10:28 am

Any time the government has to pay you to buy something, you know it’s going to suck. Bigly.

george e. smith
Reply to  David Middleton
December 4, 2017 1:16 pm

Every time, I read of the Tesla’s technological edges, I recall, that a few months back I suggested that my modes two liter Subaru Impreza, with its 14 gallon fuel tank had a range of 700 miles.

I don’t recall how I arrived at that number; but I recently had reason to re-evaluate that.

Last Monday, I set out from Sunnyvale CA to drive to Elk Grove CA, a suburb of Sacramento, for a family emergency.
AS I set off I noticed that my Car was telling me I only had 130 miles to reach the next gas pump. I realized that was not going to make the trip, so I hauled into the closest gas station and filled it up. I did top it off with around a half gallon after it auto shut-off.
So as I got onto my journey, I noticed that my car now said I had a driving range of 350 miles to the next pump.

OOoops !! I guess I mis over estimated my range after all. I immediately reset all my trip indicators, and GPS settings, and set off for Sacramento with my new 350 mile driving range.
I was quickly onto the freeway system, and settled down to a 60MPH cruise controlled journey. Now wondrous things started to happen. My 350 mile range suddenly popped up to 360 miles, and then to 370 miles.

Well I guess that original 350 estimate was based on my average driving around Si Valley at 17 MPH.

So on the trip, I kept myself awake watching my cruising range increase 10 miles at a step, while my trip indicator and GPS accumulated real actual road miles. Well my GPS speaks SI so it accumulates km.

Well I never did get my driving range up to over 590 miles. It stayed at 590 for the final 45 miles of the trip, and it never did go to 600 or down again to 580, so I guess I was cruising at my maximum MPG capability at 60 MPH.

MY GPS said it was 198 km from that Sunnyvale gas station to my Son’s house, in Elk Grove.
So when I returned home on Friday afternoon, I had only added less than ten miles of driving around Elk grove. As I pulled into my driveway, after spending an hour in Friday evening backwards commute Si Valley traffic, I noticed my Subaru’s new residual driving range; 350 miles !

So 200km is about 120 miles I actually drove one way, and the car said I was good for another 590.

So I guess my 700 mile guesstimate was pretty good.

So there you are TESLA, try and compete with that for energy efficiency, and I can stop for gas almost everywhere; well here in America.


Roger Knights
Reply to  David Middleton
December 4, 2017 11:55 pm

“they managed to build 345 Model 3’s in December…”

You meant November.

Reply to  David Middleton
December 6, 2017 11:57 am

@ George

To be accurate, you should have filled back up — noted the gallons filled and divided the 240 mile round trip by the refill (plus .5 gallon top off)

Fuel computers are notoriously crap when calculating gas mileage.

Reply to  arthur4563
December 4, 2017 12:12 pm

Campaigning to have someone else’s subsidy removed is proof that the subsidy is no longer needed.

December 4, 2017 6:41 am

EVs – an electric motor and a battery. Not too complicated. The main reason that they are not ubiquitous is that battery technology sucks. It might suck less than lead acid technology, but it still sucks for the application.

Reply to  icisil
December 4, 2017 7:33 am

Those EV electric motor(s) with their processors, sensors and electronics eliminate any claims for “not complicated”.

EV companies are extremely unlikely to rigorously diagnose electronic faults on circuit boards. Instead, they’ll likely take the “replace the whole board” approach till the fault diagnostic goes away.
Repairs with such procedures will never be cheap.

They’ll then sell failed circuit boards to some third party who’ll use cheap piece work labor to find/repair the boards for resale. As similar electronic board repair services are readily available for all electronics. Only, piece work repair persons rarely spend a lot of time repairing all of a board’s failed components or broken connections.

The same thing happens with EV motors. They are not simple electric motors.
Replacing EV motors, just like replacing aged/defective advanced batteries, seriously impairs affordability.

Reply to  ATheoK
December 4, 2017 8:04 am

Good points,
I also wonder how all those delicate circuit boards in EV’s will handle a lightening strike.
I apparently live in a location that is prone to electronics failure due to lightening strikes and have spent a fortune replacing electronics in newer Refrigerators, washers, Wi fi systems, garage door openers etc.
I recently installed a new electric panel in the house with protection for lightening and voltage spikes. I even had a light switch that caught fire before the circuit breaker tripped.
My former employer had a VAX computer dedicated to our section to handle high end computing with Finite Element Calculations that now can be performed on a laptop. Once there was a problem they would replace circuit boards with refurbished boards rather than new. This led to a continuum of subsequent failures because the replacement boards were old and additional failures were only a matter of time.
There is nothing simple about a complicated electronic system when failures occur.

Reply to  ATheoK
December 4, 2017 8:10 am

At some point the computer boards and other related components will become the most reliable part of the vehicle, and will very rarely fail. The mechanical parts will remain the most susceptible to wear and failure, due to heat, vibration, stress, and exposure to the elements.

Roger Knights
Reply to  ATheoK
December 4, 2017 11:57 pm

“Those EV electric motor(s) with their processors, sensors and electronics eliminate any claims for “not complicated”.”

Dnt forget tt cooling system (of tt batteries).

Reply to  ATheoK
December 5, 2017 11:52 am

EV motors last longer than most IC motors, require less maintenance, are 3 times as efficient, and provide better torque.

An IC gasoline motor usually starts to give up the ghost without major overhaul somewhere around 120,000 – 150,000 miles. The electric motor and batteries in my daughter’s 2012 prius have over 120k miles and the batteries still provide the same range at full as they did when purchased.

My neighbor has a 2006 prius – original battery and electric motor with over 150k miles.

Reply to  ATheoK
December 6, 2017 10:26 am

“Karl December 5, 2017 at 11:52 am
EV motors last longer than most IC motors, require less maintenance, are 3 times as efficient, and provide better torque.

An IC gasoline motor usually starts to give up the ghost without major overhaul somewhere around 120,000 – 150,000 miles. The electric motor and batteries in my daughter’s 2012 prius have over 120k miles and the batteries still provide the same range at full as they did when purchased.

My neighbor has a 2006 prius – original battery and electric motor with over 150k miles.”

Your claim(s) are not supported by reality or technology.’
Batteries lose capacity, even if unused.

Modern IC motors easily pass the 200,000 mile mark with major engine rebuilds; so long as basic maintenance is performed.

Many of the smaller capacity IC motors, especially those running small cars use a fiber/composite timing belt. All timing belts stretch and wear, with the fiber/composite belts stretching fastest. These engine often require that belt be replaced between 120,000 – 160,000 miles for best/safest performance.

While replacing that belt is not trivial, it is rather easy to accomplish and allows one to replace/repair engine critical infrastructure; e.g. engine balancer & water pump.

Larger IC motors use metal chains for timing belts and while engine efficiency can be returned to near new performance, there is not a requirement to replace the belt.

Allowing modern IC engines to easily achieve several hundred thousand miles with major engine overhauls.

It is very odd, that people, I know who bought efficiency cars are on to their 3rd or 4th vehicle now because of plummeting ranges.

Nor does it match with Toyota’s admission that they keep a team of Japanese engineers on hand to deal with EV problems in Mongolia; where old Priuses are sent and sold very cheaply.

2006 Prius:


The Steering Intermediate Shaft May Wear Resulting in Loss of Steering
November 11, 2012
The affected vehicles have a steering intermediate extension shaft manufactured with metal splines that may have an insufficient hardness. Over time, the splines may wear and eventually fail resulting in a loss of steering ability, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash. Toyota dealers will inspect the extension shaft and replace if necessary.

The Water Pump May Fail
November 11, 2012
During manufacturing, a scratch may have occurred inside of the electrically driven water (coolant) pump at the coil wire, resulting in corrosion. The corroded wire may break and the water pump could stop. The corroded coil wire could cause a short circuit in the pump resulting in a blown fuse, creating a stall-like condition of the hybrid system while the vehicle is being driven. This may increase the risk of a vehicle crash. Dealers will replace the electric water pump to correct this concern.

Toyota Recalls 2004–2010 Vehicles Due to Stuck-Open Accelerator Pedal
December 12, 2009
Toyota is recalling 2004–2010 models for an accelerator pedal that can get stuck in the wide open position due to problems with the floor mat. This may cause high vehicle speeds that make it difficult to stop the vehicle, which can result in a crash. In order to correct the problem, dealers will replace the pedals, alter the shape of the floor, and/or replace the floor mats. Toyota will also modify software on certain models to ensure that the brake overrides the accelerator in the event that both are applied.

Intermediate Steering Shaft May Crack
June 6, 2006
The intermediate steering shaft and slip yoke may crack when large forces are applied and the connection may separate. This could result in a loss of steering control. Dealers will replace the intermediate steering shaft and inspect and replace the sliding yoke if needed. The recall began June 9, 2006. The Toyota recall number is 60C.

Certain Airbags May Not Deploy as Expected
April 4, 2006
On 133 vehicles, certain airbag inflators were assembled with an insufficient amount of the heating agents necessary for proper airbag deployment. In the event of a crash, if the airbag does not deploy as expected, the risk of injury will increase. Dealers will replace only the suspect airbags to correct this concern. The Toyota recall number is 60B. The Lexus recall number is 6LB.”

Other Prius build years include recalls for batteries and motors.

2012 Prius, Courtesy Consumer Reports:

“Getting the Prius Plug-in version includes a bigger battery that can be charged from any wall outlet, allowing the car to drive more on electricity and less on gas. A full charge gives an electric range of about 12 miles. While the battery was charged, we measured 67 mpg overall in combined city and highway driving.

When the battery runs out of juice, the car begins running like any other Prius, meaning the gas engine becomes the primary power source. Then its gas mileage drops to 43 mpg, one less than a standard Prius—because it has to haul around the extra weight of the larger and now-depleted battery pack.

Unlike other plug-in hybrid models, however, the Prius never completely eschews gasoline. In fact, it doesn’t even come close. Even with the battery fully charged, electric operation is frequently disrupted by the gas engine as it kicks in unexpectedly. With only 134 combined horsepower from the gas engine and the electric motor, the car often needs all the power it can get. True gas-free driving is limited to those who live in flat areas, drive gently, have very short commutes, and can charge frequently.”

2006 Prius, courtesy Consumer Reports:

“It drives much like a normal car, except the engine shuts down at stops to conserve fuel, then automatically restarts when needed. The car can also be lightly driven under electric power only. There is only a faint driveline whine as it comes to a stop.

The CVT (continuously variable transmission) is a very smooth performer with stepless operation. An unorthodox shift lever and park button, mounted in the middle of the dash, are easy to get used to.

While somewhat improved over its predecessor, this iteration of the Prius still lacks agility. There is some body roll, steering is too light and it’s short on feedback. This detracts from handling confidence. Taken to its handling limits on our track, the Prius didn’t shine, but proved predictable and forgiving. The car plows readily and rather early, then adjusts its cornering line when the driver lifts off of the throttle. Speed through the avoidance maneuver was respectable and the Prius was quite controllable.

It needed 143 feet to stop from 60 mph on a dry track and stopped straight on our wet/dry split-mu surface. Brake pedal feel is improved over the first-generation Prius, but it still doesn’t feel completely normal as the first part of pedal travel initiates the regeneration function to produce electricity for the battery pack.”

Both model years require an Internal Combustions engine for main power; thus are susceptible to all problems IC motors are subject to, plus all of the electronic and electric motor problems electrics incur.

Reply to  ATheoK
December 6, 2017 10:28 am

“Modern IC motors easily pass the 200,000 mile mark with major engine rebuilds; so long as basic maintenance is performed”

Should read:

“Modern IC motors easily pass the 200,000 mile mark without major engine rebuilds; so long as basic maintenance is performed”

Chris Wright
Reply to  icisil
December 5, 2017 3:12 am

I recently watched a program about robot cars. At the end the presenter (a racing driver among other things) spent considerable time with a group developing an electric robot racing car. Although it was all very high-tech, it turned out they were a bunch of amateurs. Apparently it was only after the presenter had found a serious problem after testing, that they realised that the handling of the car changed dramatically according to the temperature of the air in the tyres. This almost caused the car to crash after the air in the tyres had cooled.
In a shot of the dashboard you could see the charge ticking down. It could probably run at high speed for only a few minutes. It turned out that it needed 90 minutes to recharge.
There is a big problem with electric cars. Batteries only have one aim in life and that’s to go flat.

December 4, 2017 6:50 am

It’s 3 percent of ANWR which is about the same percentage share that sanity wins against stupid on rare occasions like now.

george e. smith
Reply to  Resourceguy
December 4, 2017 1:22 pm

3% of ANWR is bigger than the State of Rhode and Delaware put together.


Reply to  george e. smith
December 4, 2017 8:06 pm

So is my Borough (county) so? The Feds own 97% of our Borough and we get to collect property tax on 1/2% of the land. What is your point. The vast lands of Alaska are hard to imagine, comparing them to the lower 48. If the feds owned the same percentage of land that they do in Rhode island and Delaware. All of federal land i in Alaska would fit inside the city of Juneau.

Reply to  Resourceguy
December 5, 2017 12:07 pm

It’s 1.5 Million Acres of ANWR -ANWR is approximately 20 Million acres, — so it’s actually 8%, not 3%

Regardless, it is stupid pandering and posturing.

Infrastructure to actually start getting oil out of the ground and to the pipeline won’t be in place for 3-5 years, due to the issues with climate (cold).

The Technically Recoverable oil at F95 confidence is only 4.2 Billion barrels — this is not economically recoverable — simply technically recoverable without regard to cost.

The economically recoverable oil estimated at about half — see figure 4 of the USGS report linked below


To put it in perspective, even if we could get all the economically recoverable oil of 2.5 Billion barrels between now and 2022 (five years starting in 2018) — it would last the US approximately 3 months

We use 20 Million barrels a day — That is 7.3 Billion Barrels a year

Wasting years of infrastructure development, and destroying a nature preserve for 3 months of oil is insane.

Reply to  Karl
December 5, 2017 1:30 pm

@ david,

tell that to the caribou that foal there

Reply to  Karl
December 5, 2017 1:35 pm

@ David,

It’s not idiotic, when you take into account what the money to develop the infrastructure could otherwise be used for, instead of a sip of oil in maybe 3-5 years and massive environmental damage.

Reply to  Karl
December 6, 2017 12:01 pm

3 million barrels — in what bizzaro world? $250 per barrel oil.

Get real, the entirety of oil produced in Alaska is only 17 Billion Barrels to date — and max production was 2 million BPD in 1988.

Plays are getting smaller and smaller, and more expensive to exploit.

This is a trend that will continue.

The Saudis pump more seawater into Ghawhar than oil the pump out.

December 4, 2017 6:50 am

Those Eskimos are going to be happy campers!

Reply to  pochas94
December 4, 2017 7:03 am

Just like the TAT indians were on the Fort Berthold reservation due to the Bakken. The Standing Rock reservation south of there wasn’t so happy because they got 0% of the windfall. So they went the social justice route for attention and maybe a piece of the pie.

Reply to  icisil
December 4, 2017 8:29 am

That’s a rather specious vague claim, icisil.


Standing Rock members were involved in protesting a pipeline that did not cross Standing Rock Reservation land.

“If you haven’t heard of the Dakota Access pipeline protest across the North Dakota border, now’s the time to pay attention.

The project, a 30-inch-diameter pipeline owned by Energy Transfer Partners that would move up to 570,000 barrels per day from the Bakken oil fields to Patoka, Illinois, was scheduled to be operational by the end of the year. The pipeline operator purchased voluntary easement agreements on 100% of the properties along the route in North Dakota and 99% of the properties across the entire four-state route. All permits, including approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in July, have also been obtained by the company; however, protests have stopped construction in its tracks.

Yesterday, two decisions marked a precedent setting action by the federal government, with respect to land use and lawful development. Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court denied the South Dakota Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s lawsuit to block pipeline construction, siting a lack of evidence that building the pipeline would harm the Tribe.

The Departments of Justice, the Interior and the Army then immediately announced an indefinite suspension of pipeline construction to reassess cultural impacts to what the Tribe calls “sacred ground”. The pipeline route does not cross the Standing Rock reservation, however, the Tribe fears harm to Lake Oahe on the Missouri River in North and South Dakota.”

Professional protestors and green activists convincing tribal members to protest/refuse profiting from deep mineral sources does not do the tribe any favors.
Interesting that people like you, somehow fault the oil/gas industry. Most likely from green activist press releases, publications and news outlets.

“In a 91-page decision, Judge James Boasberg wrote, “the Court agrees that [the Corps] did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial.” The Court did not determine whether pipeline operations should be shut off and has requested additional briefing on the subject and a status conference next week.

“This is a major victory for the Tribe and we commend the courts for upholding the law and doing the right thing,” said Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II in a recent statement. “The previous administration painstakingly considered the impacts of this pipeline, and President Trump hastily dismissed these careful environmental considerations in favor of political and personal interests. We applaud the courts for protecting our laws and regulations from undue political influence and will ask the Court to shut down pipeline operations immediately.”

The Tribe’s inspiring and courageous fight has attracted international attention and drawn the support of hundreds of tribes around the nation.

The Tribe is represented by the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice, which filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for issuing a permit for the pipeline construction in violation of several environmental laws.”

Tribal leaders and their communities are free to choose whether to profit or not from deep mineral resources; but the decision is their choice. Anti-fossil fuel activists are direct causes to these choices. Choices that are likely to be revisited in the future.

“BISMARCK, N.D. — Tribal officials on North Dakota’s oil-rich Fort Berthold Reservation said Thursday they won’t sign off on a revenue sharing agreement with the state because of a new law that shaves the overall oil tax rate following the fall in crude prices.

The Legislature in April passed the measure, which also abolishes some price-based incentives. Three Affiliated Tribes officials said they’re not happy with the tax cut because more money is needed to pay for oversight, road repairs and other consequences of oil development.

Tribal leaders have threatened since the law was passed to pull out of the oil tax revenue-sharing agreement that has raised more than $1.5 billion for the state and the tribes since 2008.”

“BISMARCK, N.D. — Tribal leaders from a prolific portion of North Dakota’s oil-rich Fort Berthold Reservation are scaling back proposed drilling regulations that industry officials warned could slow crude production.

Leaders of a section of the reservation that produces the most oil recently formed the West Segment Regulatory Commission, based in Mandaree, to impose its own regulations on oil drilling activity in its region. The idea was not well received by industry officials, existing regulators or overall leadership of the Three Affiliated Tribes, which represents the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara people on the million-acre reservation in western North Dakota.”


““Indians are millionaires and they just don’t know it.” – Roger Birdbear

Few have escaped being affected by the Bakken boom on some level. The sprawling shale play spans across the western half of the state, covering 17 counties and millions of acres. Among this expanse of land is the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, home to Roger Birdbear. Birdbear is a member of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, often referred to as the Three Affiliated Tribes. A University of North Dakota graduate who went on to get his degree in law from the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law, Birdbear has a substantial work history in the oil and gas industry. He even received his Certificate in Petroleum Engineering and Management after being appointed to the Native American Energy and Mineral Institute’s summer program by the Secretary of the Interior when he was younger.”

Tribes can decide their own futures, no fault to energy companies; though substantial fault can be placed upon the green activists. Activists that are likely financed by Democrat billionaires.

Though whether a court order allowing Standing Rock Reservation members to block a pipeline that does not cross their land stands, is doubtful.

Though involved fossil fuel companies will likely seek “right of way” leases elsewhere just to avoid the hassle. It would not be surprising if/when Standing Rock Reservation decides to tap their mineral fuel reserves, that pipeline operators will refuse access to the pipeline.

Forcing the tribe to transport tapped reserves via trucks and tankers, which has proven so clean and safe over poor condition roads in other states.

Reply to  icisil
December 4, 2017 9:07 am

tldr. but from the first two paragraphs I think maybe you misunderstood my comment. The TAT are doing well because of the Bakken, and I’m glad for them. Standing Rock got nothing because they have no oil. I have read that there was some sort of agreement among the tribes in that region that resource wealth would be shared amongst all, but TAT backed out when they struck it rich; and that the DAPL pipeline was planned to cross the Standing Rock reservation, but the tribe council got too greedy and wanted more money, so the pipeline company changed plans and routed it north of the reservation. I haven’t been able to verify either story, but nevertheless, Standing Rock remains a reservation mired in alcoholism and welfare while their brothers to the north are living large. Then environmental lawyers came along and said, “Have we got a deal for you.” The rest is history and Standing Rock lost bigly. I have no sympathy for Standing Rock for the damage they did to the pipeline company, N Dakota, and US taxpayers, who eventually will pay for the law enforcement and other costs.

Reply to  icisil
December 4, 2017 9:25 am

“Professional protestors and green activists convincing tribal members to protest/refuse profiting from deep mineral sources does not do the tribe any favors.”

I agree. It’s not very well known, but SR lost a huge amount of money when traffic to their casino died after a bridge was closed because the green terrorists damaged it with fire. SR were the losers and ultimate suckers in that whole fiasco.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  pochas94
December 4, 2017 11:46 am

They are Inupiak, not Eskimo. And probably Gwich’in too. They have been wanting Anwr to be “exploited” for decades. As you said they are going to be very happy.

December 4, 2017 6:57 am

Is it still schadenfreude if the misfortune of others you are happy about is that they can no longer pick your pocket?

Poor poor Elon. Well, getting poorer.


Bruce Cobb
Reply to  schitzree
December 4, 2017 7:14 am

Indeed, the best part of all this will be the temper tantrum whinge-fest schist storm from the Climatists. Not tired of winning yet.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 4, 2017 7:56 am

yeah, but after 7 more years of it, it will start to grate…

Reply to  schitzree
December 4, 2017 8:26 am

I really don’t get the attitude of wishing ill-fortune on people who have the guts and drive to attempt to build new industry(s). Failures always occur with high-tech R&D, but the response to failure is to figure out what went wrong – fix it – and continue on. SpaceX has become a crown jewel of success with a bright future ahead of it. What this world has too many of are nay-sayers.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  pyeatte
December 4, 2017 12:02 pm

If we weren’t subsidizing every car Musk sells (cars I can’t afford btw) then your point would be valid. Taking money from poor people and giving it to insanely wealthy people is wrong. Besides that, electric cars are still useless to most people.

Reply to  pyeatte
December 4, 2017 12:16 pm

I have a lot more respect for people who seek to build a new industry, if they do it on their own dime.

Reply to  pyeatte
December 5, 2017 1:36 pm

@ squiggy

we aren’t — the US Government is using Treasury $$ to fund it

Taxes are not your money nor mine — they are the property of the US treasury.

December 4, 2017 7:12 am

” a substantial amount that would help pay down our Nation’s debt.”

LMAO. No amount of income will ever pay down the debt as long as they spend more than they bring in. Simply not going to happen. They will just spend it on more pork barrel projects.

Reply to  TRM
December 4, 2017 7:32 am

Free enterprise, even with a constitutional republic, still results in votes for sale, both in DC and at the local ballot box. Term limits seem to be the only real remedy. Corporate money, union money and all the special interest money along with voters who all want free shit and the beat goes on.

Reply to  JimG1
December 4, 2017 7:50 am

Term limits could worsen the situation. Politicians who are not concerned about keeping the voters happy can do what (s)he wants without restraint. No magic bullet.

Reply to  JimG1
December 4, 2017 7:54 am

Unlikely. Follow the money usually tells you what will happen.

Tom Halla
Reply to  JimG1
December 4, 2017 8:52 am

California has term limits for state offices. How well has that worked out?/sarc

Reply to  JimG1
December 4, 2017 9:25 am

I have liked the term limits idea for a lot of reasons. Mostly to get a lot of the establishment politicians out that have been the reasons the government is sp bad now. All of those elites being like authoritarian monarchs over the masses…because they know what’s best and us little people don’t know what we want that is good for us. So no matter how old you are, they are like parents telling you they know better.

The problem with term limits is when you feel strongly for a representative that is more aligned to your ideologies. Will have to leave, when you want them fighting for you.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  JimG1
December 4, 2017 9:46 am

Instead of term limits we need to repeal the 17th Amendment.
The Constitution originally had Senators appointed by their State legislatures for the purpose of representing their State as a whole in the national government, as opposed to the direct election of the House members who represent the people individualy in the national government. A second reason for appointment of Senators was that the Founding Fathers feared a direct election of the entire Congress, both House and Senate, could allow any one group to control both houses. The 17th Amendment changed that to a direct election of Senators by the people. Since then Senators have been beholding to special interests, large donators and outside influences and not to their State. We have been worse off ever since.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 4, 2017 10:24 am

Absolutely agree Tom. The 17 Amendment was a bad idea for every point you made.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 4, 2017 10:54 am

I would also point out that the 26th Amendment that nullified the 14th Amendment was a bad idea.

The 14th Amendment was a voting age of 21 and when it was established the youth of that time had experienced a lot more in their lives of what was important. The hardships they usually delt with on a daily bases made them adults fast.

In the late 1960s with the Draft to fight in VN at 18 year’s old was what brought the 26th Amendment voting age of 18 year’s old. Instead of raising the Draft age to 21 they lowered the voting age. Kids of 18 year’s old in the 1960’s and to now do not experience nearly as much of life to base their opinions on to vote in elections at state or federal elections of representatives. In these day’s where 18 year’s old live soft lives mostly at home. In the 1800’s to early 1900’s getting married and starting families was a fast way to learning what life is all about.

We have moved very fast towards children voting for our representatives. Along with the now adults that were voting at 18 for 5 decades. That combination with our institutions of indoctrination towards socialism has been changing the USA more towards socialism and anti-capitalism.

Reply to  JimG1
December 4, 2017 12:18 pm

icisil, none of them care what the voters want now.
Regardless, the only solution to corruption is keep the power out of Washington in the first place.
To quote P.J. O’Rouke, “As long as buying and selling is controlled by politicians, the first thing bought and sold will be politicians.”

Reply to  JimG1
December 4, 2017 12:20 pm

johchi, I would also like to raise the age of eligibility for elected office, at the national level it is currently 25 for the House, 35 for the Senate, and 45 for president.
I would like to see it more like 45/55/65.

Reply to  JimG1
December 4, 2017 12:20 pm

Live a full life, then go into politics.
The idea that you can jump directly from grad school to the House is obscene.

Reply to  JimG1
December 5, 2017 1:40 pm

@ joichi

The 14th didn’t actually set the age at 21.

It simply provided that population count for number of representatives in Congress would be reduced by the number of 21 year old otherwise eligible male voters.

The States were free to set the voting age at any age they wished.

December 4, 2017 7:29 am

Saving the pipeline is a big deal but they don’t care about such things on Rodeo Drive.

Jeff L
December 4, 2017 7:51 am

You forgot the most important recent discovery – the Nanushuk discovery by Armstrong & Repsol :


And CPAI’s Willow discovery:


Those 2 alone will be enough to keep the pipeline going for some time … and they are close to infrastructure , so easy to tie in.

Reply to  Jeff L
December 4, 2017 8:13 am


Jeff L
December 4, 2017 8:02 am

For those who don’t know geology or North Slope geology specifically, the 1002 region is a completely different petroleum system than what is currently being produced on the North Slope. This is an important detail because it does mean the USGS assessment of potential has a wide range of error bars, both to the high side & the low side.

The only advantage the USGS may have is I believe they may have access to the 1 relevant well drilled in area 1002 – the Chevron KIK well – this is probably the tightest held data of any well ever drilled so the rest of industry is just speculating what that well did or did not find.

Between the Armstrong Nanushuk discovery & the CPAI Willow, those 2 discoveries alone were bigger than the entire USGS play assessment for that zone prior to those wells being drilled. And that play is just getting started.Needless to say, they were way off on their assessment. That assessment is now being re-done in light of the new wells.

Just saying that the USGS track record on assessment of lightly explored or unexplored areas is pretty poor. Something the politicians & the greenies probably don’t appreciate (not that it matters to them – they just want to fight each other).

Access & drilling will be great so that we can actually figure out the potential of this hydrocarbon system.

Reply to  David Middleton
December 4, 2017 9:54 am

Maybe that’s because the USGS is 99.99 percent dependent on industry information when it becomes available with a lag. It’s not like they have huge exploration budgets at USGS to generate independent data sets.

Reply to  Jeff L
December 5, 2017 1:45 pm

When Nanushuk actually produces 120,000 barrels a day….

It’s laughable.

December 4, 2017 8:07 am

When any new energy technology emerges from the lab, if it is a true advancement, the free market will naturally adopt it and thus it will displace existing technologies in a peaceful and orderly manner. Its value will become obvious to potential users, They will adopt it without the need to take money from some perfect stranger or to add a single dollar to the national debt.

Our society transitioned peacefully from burning whale oil to illuminate our homes to burning oil made from coal and then oil made from crude oil. The cost of illumination dropped in the process. There was no government involvement. Now you cannot purchase whale oil. Even if government had not outlawed whale hunting, the market would reject it. Nobody would buy it.

How many billions in direct and indirect government subsidies and grants were dissipated in the rush to impose compact fluorescent light bulbs on us? Yet now at Walmart I see LED bulbs on sale that are a far better value, have far better light, have far longer service lifetimes and are not nearly the health hazard as CFLs. LEDs now own the market and would have eventually done so without a penny in government money.

This beautiful aspect of liberty is lost on far too many people who are in a hurry to see utopia arrive before their time on earth has passed. Only those people who hate their idea of utopia would support the free market and resist government intervention, subsidies and regulatory compulsion. Why do you hate utopia? H8R!

December 4, 2017 8:09 am

We have a basket full of energy products and we know how to use them to optimal effect. Green blight, included, where viable.

Bob Turner
December 4, 2017 8:57 am

Quote from above: “Senate tax measure helps President Trump pivot away from clean energy and back to fossil fuels”.
Intriguing! It’s not often that you see such a clear admission that fossil fuels are dirty.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Bob Turner
December 4, 2017 10:24 am

clean energy” is a phrase much like “dam* Yankee” – – and to those that use “clean energy”, well bless your little hearts.
Translation for Bob T.: Clean energy isn’t clean.

December 4, 2017 9:03 am

The time to develop the North Slope is now, it’s now or never. The world is thirsty for oil, the demand will be surpassing the 100,000,000 bbl per day mark this time next year if no major economic disruptions occur.

December 4, 2017 9:16 am

Anyone who thinks that electric vehicles are not going to replace internal combustion engine cars needs to spend some time with someone who has and uses a modern EV — Tesla X, Tesla S, Chevy Bolt.

For the kind of driving that most people do a quoted range of 295 miles (Tesla X), 205 miles (Tesla S), or 238 miles (Bolt) are plenty. In Tesla’s target geographies (US West Coast) they have charging sites that allow long-distance highway trips without range anxiety. While times to completely charge any of these sound long, in reality charging to 80% is much quicker and is enough for most users.

Once you’ve driven a modern electric car you will wonder what we saw in noisy dirty internal combustion engines.

It’s only going to bet better. No government support required.

Ian W
Reply to  rovingbroker
December 4, 2017 10:00 am

And then the power goes out over a very wide area – for 3 days and that followed on the last day with a requirement to evacuate – say from the Florida Keys to Georgia (note that this is an actual case). The interstates would be blocked by EV bricks with no power. All of a sudden those noisy dirty internal combustion engines with 600 miles range and the ability to carry spare high energy density in the back of the vehicle have a great advantage over electric vehicles for virtue signalling townies.

Reply to  Ian W
December 4, 2017 11:22 am

Ian W …

Gasoline stations run on electricity and often run out of gasoline when people fill-up in a panic as storms near.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Ian W
December 4, 2017 11:53 am

carry spare high energy density in the back of the vehicle

Darwin award?

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Ian W
December 4, 2017 12:20 pm

rovingbroker on December 4, 2017 at 11:22 am
Ian W …

Gasoline stations run on electricity and often run out of gasoline when people fill-up in a panic as storms near

Yes. Still far more reliable than electric cars. I can carry extra gas cans if necessary. You can fill the trunk with a few hundred boxes of D cells but it won’t help.

Reply to  Ian W
December 5, 2017 1:46 pm

BS — you have days of warning to keep your car charged fully and most people never need to evacuate farther than 100 miles.

You are talking a 100+ year event.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  rovingbroker
December 4, 2017 10:01 am

“No government support required.” I’ll believe it when I see it. In any case, all anyone has ever asked is that the market be allowed to decide what sells.

Reply to  rovingbroker
December 4, 2017 10:08 am

Does that include a promise of no government support for Tesla when it needs a bailout within the next three years? We are more likely to have EVs from China with lower labor and battery costs and more volume. Until then I’ll stick with a used Toyota that’s paid for, no debt, and no government support. Synthetic engine oil goes a long long way, probably three battery packs worth in the case of Toyota. I’m not sure it would make it through a full eight years of an overreach style President though who bans the sale of combustion engines like the ban on incandescent light bulbs. Loss of freedom to choose would carry a high cost for the poor and prudent saver types.

Reply to  rovingbroker
December 4, 2017 10:29 am

Good. Let’s get rid of the government support tout de suite. You really should check out videos of EV drivers who document their road trips, starting with an exuberance that segues into range anxiety, and then a severe form of range anxiety triggered by a towing charge and motel bill. btw, what type of 2-cycle jalopy do you drive? My internal combustion engine car is extremely quite and clean. EVs are so quiet that there are laws in various places requiring them to have noise generators to warn pedestrians. And your EV just shifts the pollution somewhere else.

Reply to  rovingbroker
December 4, 2017 12:24 pm

That’s only true for people who can afford multiple cars, each car for a different purpose.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  rovingbroker
December 4, 2017 12:34 pm

OK then. Let’s eliminate the federal and state tax credits for new EV purchase, and repeal regulatory “targets” for EV percentages.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 6, 2017 12:02 pm

Lets do the same for Nuclear Power

December 4, 2017 9:50 am

The American focus on Alaska and ANWR rarely ever includes map info and discussion of all the Canadian oil development and infrastructure just east of the Alaskan border on the North Slope. We don’t have to always copy the methods those message managers with blinders on.

Reply to  David Middleton
December 4, 2017 10:36 am

Thanks David.

Reply to  David Middleton
December 4, 2017 12:26 pm

Perhaps offering them the use of the pipeline once it’s been extended to ANWR?

December 4, 2017 10:00 am

Energy security is kind of a moot point. The net imports of petroleum and products from countries not named Canada is ~1M bpd so far this year. This means the SPR is good for replacing all non-Canadian sources for 2 years. A small to moderate improvement in vehicle efficiency and conversion from oil to Nat Gas propulsion would fully offset the remaining. Or we could drill ANWR or we could increase fracking or we could reduce exports. At this point security is a non-issue. On top of that the cost of oil is actually pretty low right now (and since it is almost entirely internal is a net contributor to GDP rather than a drain), so the economics are a non-issue as well.
That leaves pollution. As we all know lead has been removed and catalytic converters remove almost every other harmful pollutant from the exhaust pipe. Generally Congress should probably chalk oil (at least for now) in the “stop screwing around with stuff that works” category.

Reply to  chadb
December 5, 2017 1:53 pm

@ Chad

your math is off

Crude oil Exports are 1.44 Million Barrels a day (44 Million/month)


Imports are 7.3 Million a day


That’s net imports of Crude = 5 Million/day

Clay Sanborn
December 4, 2017 10:07 am

Thank you David, and the oil industry at large, for your contributions to America’s, and where appropriate the world’s, highest living standards of today, the successful WWII win and subsequent freedoms, and great future prospects for the world. The oil and gas, and coal industries deserve a parade for saving so many lives.

December 4, 2017 11:10 am

“Well… Maybe not killing EV’s… ”


Anything less than 1% of the market is for all intense purposes dead.

It is an engineering thing.

0.999999999 = 1
0.000000001 = 0

In fifty years, Griff will be explaining to a new generation why solar PV and BEV are a bad idea and therefore will remain dead.

It is called experience. Futuristic things look good on paper. In real life, take that vanilla 2007 Corolla (our last new) and put it beside my first car. It will not rust out in a few years, does not need tuneups twice a year or even twice a decade, and run almost forever.

The future is better than predicted.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 4, 2017 1:12 pm

Sorry but you’re wrong about solar PV….and it’s engineering do it.

Reply to  Resourceguy
December 4, 2017 2:56 pm

How am I wrong?

My premise is that if something sounded like a good idea when I was in high school but has failed to penetrate the market in 50 years, maybe there is a reason. That reason is that generally it is bad idea.

What engineers do is they pick pick from the good choices for an application. However, it the customer who decides. Politician are trying to induce customers to buy BEV and PV.

Here is the problem with customers who make bad choices rather than just a poor one. When the poor choice stops working they do not fix it.

Reply to  Resourceguy
December 5, 2017 12:35 pm

Here are REAL FACTS that show how you are wrong Retired Kit:

Solar PV accounted for more new installed generating capacity for electricity WORLDWIDE in 2016 than any other source of electrical generation. (75 GW)

Worldwide growth of photovoltaics is extremely dynamic and varies strongly by country. By the end of 2016, cumulative photovoltaic capacity increased by more than 75 gigawatt (GW) and reached at least 303 GW, sufficient to supply 1.8 percent of the world’s total electricity consumption.


Now for 2017: (100 GW)

Global solar installations to top 100 GW despite U.S. slowdown, says EnergyTrend

“With the thriving solar PV market in China, global PV demand is estimated at 100.4 GW this year, an unprecedented high, due to the rapid and sustained development of the market in China. The U.S. remains in second place with its annual demand reaching 12.5 GW for 2017, followed by strong market performance in India, which has overtaken the Japanese market to claim third place in global installation capacity for the year.”


So, that is EXPONENTIAL growth, and with the addition of the 100 GW in 2017, SOLAR PV will provide ~2% of world electrical consumption.

“Solar power generation enjoyed another year of very rapid growth in 2016, with a 29.6% increase. Its overall share of global power generation remains low (1.3%), but that share has more doubled in just three years. Solar is starting to have a noticeable impact in terms of sources of power generation growth, contributing more than 20% of the growth of global power in 2016.”


Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 5, 2017 12:38 pm

@ Kit


Volvo will only produce hybrid and ALL ELECTRIC vehicles by 2020

John MacDonald
December 4, 2017 1:15 pm

Thanks David for another excellent production (pun intended) on the energy games. A timely article appeared today from FEE (Foundation for Economic Education) about ANWR. It asks the pertinent question: “Why is a federal government ban on productive economic activity the status quo?”


I am pretty sure the 258 residents of Kaktovik Village would relish some well-paying jobs:

“Notably, Kaktovik residents have offered longstanding support for development. In testimony submitted to the Senate at a hearing earlier this month, tribal administrator Matthew Rexford offered pointed criticism of the effort to prevent resource development: “We do not approve of efforts to turn our homeland into one giant national park, which literally guarantees us a fate with no economy, no jobs, reduced subsistence and no hope for the future of our people.”

I am looking forward to finally finding out the results of the KIK #1 well, which was drilled soon after I joined Chevron in Calgary, and which was the talk of the town. Such talk was never satisfied since the well was and still is a tight hole.

December 4, 2017 2:48 pm

Remember that the best part is taking away the tax deduction for state and local taxes in NY, MA, VT, IL, CA, and OR. Let the squealing begin and bring on the moving trucks.

December 4, 2017 6:37 pm

MarkW it is 35 to run for POTUS

Tom Halla
Reply to  housepainter
December 4, 2017 7:21 pm

The Constitution is a bit vague on that. It seems that the requirement is being 35 when one takes the office of President, not when one runs for the office

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 5, 2017 1:59 pm

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Eligible is commonly equated as eligible to be on the ticket, although it is not explicitly stated.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Karl
December 5, 2017 2:04 pm

My read is that the age requirement applies to age when taking office, not at the election.

Milton Suarez
December 4, 2017 8:34 pm

No tiene futuro,va a ser un fracaso. El próximo año sale un nuevo sistema para generar ENERGÍA LIMPIA abundante y barata que va a “revolucionar “todo.

December 5, 2017 5:17 pm

“Solar PV accounted for more new installed generating capacity for electricity WORLDWIDE …”

I want to thank Karl for providing the ‘real facts’. The measure of electrical generation is ACTUAL kwh produced not expected generation based on the amount cheap junk sold.

The reason I am skeptical is the number of times actual solar PV = 0 would lead me to believe solar PV stops working.

I heard an interesting fact yesterday. There are almost 30 million RVs on the road in the US. RVs outsell BEV. They also keep working and are in active use.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights