Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    May 2024
    S M T W T F S
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘oil’

Oil in abundance

Posted by Richard on July 26, 2008

On Wednesday, the U.S. Geological Survey released a petroleum resource appraisal for the Arctic region that estimated it contains 90 billion barrels of recoverable oil, 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids (PDF factsheet). At least a third of the oil is under U.S. territory (Arctic Alaska).

Investor's Business Daily put this study into perspective by noting that:

the U.S. "official" estimate for total oil reserves is 21 billion barrels. So by putting our Arctic resources into play, we would more than double our reserves overnight.

What's more, there could be more oil up there — much more — according to Donald Gautier, who wrote the report.

"Most of the Arctic, especially offshore, is essentially unexplored with respect to petroleum," Gautier said. "The extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth."

That phrase stuck in our mind — "essentially unexplored." How much of the rest of the U.S., including the oil we have offshore, is likewise "essentially unexplored"? And this study only counted oil that could be retrieved using current technologies. So Arctic reserves may ultimately prove to be much larger.

IIRC, at Prudhoe Bay we've already pumped several times as much oil as the original estimate. 

Let's put this in perspective. That 90 billion barrels of Arctic crude is enough to run the entire world economy for three years. And it could fuel the U.S. alone for 12 years.

Using a conservative estimate, let's say we pump 3 million barrels a day after developing these Arctic resources. That would boost total U.S. crude output of 8 million barrels a day by 38%. It would shrink the trade deficit, saving us roughly $137 billion a year in money we now send to Mideast and South American oil potentates, some of whom use the money to train and equip terrorists.

This latest report, by the way, means there are now about 938 billion barrels of oil available for us to take from the Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska and shale-rock formations in the West, based on current technologies and prices of less than $100 a barrel.

That's a century's worth of oil. But the Democrats won't let us drill. And Al Gore wants to leave it in the ground forever, destroying our economy in order to abandon fossil fuels in a decade (an utter pipe dream). 

In a rare instance of unanimity and cojones, on Friday Senate Republicans (sans Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, who understandably have no cojones) blocked Harry Reid's attempt to push through an "energy bill" that does nothing to increase energy supplies. Now the question is: will Congress take meaningful action before their August vacation?

Keep the pressure on — sign those petitions and send those faxes (I chose the $50 fax option, so I'm not asking you to do anything I haven't done).

Drill here, drill now. Let us drill, dammit! 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dems feeling heat over energy bill

Posted by Richard on July 24, 2008

Judging by Harry Reid's hissy fit today, Democrats are beginning to buckle under the pressure to do something useful about oil and gas prices — like let us drill here and drill now. Have you helped apply that pressure by signing the petitions I posted about last week, or by contacting your senators and representative directly?

Here's another step you can take: for $15, Grassfire.org will fax your personal message to Harry Reid, key House and Senate leaders, and your senators and representative. For larger donations, they'll send your fax to additional senators who need to feel the heat.

Tell them you're not impressed by Democratic efforts to shift the blame to "speculators" when those "speculators" have just spent the last week bidding down the price of oil. Tell them you're not impressed by grandstanding about the two or three days' worth of oil in the strategic reserve, you want long-term solutions. 

Tell them to stop locking up our vast domestic oil supplies at the behest of environmental extremists. Tell them to pass the Gas Price Reduction Act (S.3202).

Tell them that you're mad about the Democratic convention committee getting cheap, tax-free gas for the last four months, and the least they can do is enact McCain's gas tax moratorium so that you get a bit of a price break, too.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Demand an end to the OCS drilling ban

Posted by Richard on July 19, 2008

After President Bush lifted his daddy's executive order banning off-shore drilling, the price of crude oil dropped three days in a row. On Thursday, it closed below $130, an 11% decline. Some people quickly suggested a causal connection, but I thought that was premature.

For one thing, Nigerian production went back up about the same time (or a day or two earlier). Nigeria is the #5 source of U.S. oil imports, and its output has been reduced significantly by attacks on pipelines and other infrastructure. So maybe the good news from Nigeria triggered the declines?

Well, it may have been a factor. But on Thursday, a new pipeline attack further disrupted Nigeria's output, and today the price only rose about 1%. 

I'm thinking that Bush's action, although theoretically only symbolic until Congress acts, really did affect traders' views of the long-term outlook. It — together with recent polls and other signs of increasing pressure on Congress — made future domestic supply increases much more likely, and that exerted downward pressure on the current price. 

Now is the time to increase pressure on Congress further and try to get a vote on drilling in the outer continental shelf before the August recess. Did you sign that Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less petition I wrote about last month? Did you donate $10 or more to get the bumper sticker? It's not too late. The first 1.3 million signatures have been delivered to Congress, but they're still collecting more. 

Don't stop there, though. Freedom's Watch has a petition to Congress, too. It'll take you only a few seconds to sign it here.

Then there's the Grassfire.org emergency petition to Congress, which lets you choose up to five calls to action to include (ANWR, oil shale, etc.).

Finally, on a different but related matter, GreenWatchAmerica is petitioning John McCain to reconsider his position on global warming.

Sign them all, please.

(Yeah, you'll get some email from the sponsoring organizations, but they're all pretty reputable, don't sell your address to spammers, and provide an unsubscribe link on their emails. So you can opt out of each as soon as you get the first email, if you want.) 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dems oppose increasing Iraq’s oil output, too

Posted by Richard on July 2, 2008

Democrats in Congress, who seem to believe they can wave a magic wand and convert the country to solar planes and trains and wind-powered cars and trucks, don't just oppose more domestic oil production. And they don't just want to micromanage and regulate every aspect of the U.S. energy industry. Democrats in Congress are now working to limit Iraq's oil output and dictate Iraq's energy policies! From Investor's Business Daily:

Baghdad has invited foreign oil firms to bid on contracts to increase production in eight lagging oil fields.

Thanks to our liberation of that country, which cost the U.S. and Iraq so much in lives and resources, Baghdad is now able to begin to make full use of its oil reserves of as much as 112.5 billion barrels — after Saudi Arabia, the largest petroleum deposit in the world.

But Iraq needs private companies because they have the kind of know-how and resources the country needs to rebuild its energy infrastructure and revive oil production after suffering under Saddam Hussein for so long. Baghdad's goal is to improve output from the current 2.5 million barrels a day to 4.5 million barrels by 2013.

Last week, Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calling on her to get the Iraqi government "to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies" because Iraq "currently does not have in place a revenue sharing law" to divide the proceeds between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

According to the three Senate Democrats, allowing the Iraqi government to enlist foreign help to maximize its oil production "would simply add more fuel to Iraq's civil war."

Of course, there is no civil war in Iraq today because President Bush refused to listen to the likes of Schumer, Kerry and McCaskill, who wanted the U.S. to resign itself to what some called "defeat with dignity."

The three also complained of it being uncertain that oil revenue-funded "reconstruction efforts would be targeted equitably to all the major ethnic groups in Iraq." What do these liberal Democrats want, an Iraqi version of their own failed affirmative action laws?

How wondrous to behold: High-ranking Democratic senators, who on so many occasions have condemned the president for interfering in Iraq, now insisting that Washington dictate to a freely elected government what its policy will be regarding its people's most valuable domestic resource. Apparently, Democrats aren't satisfied trying to wreck the U.S. energy industry; they want to wreck Iraq's, too.

Most senators and representatives are spending this Independence Day week in their home states and districts, meeting constituents, attending parades, etc. If you get the chance to meet your Congresscritter, ask him or her to support increased oil production in both the U.S. and Iraq (signing Rep. Lynn Westmoreland's pledge would be a good start). Or call their local office and convey the "Drill Here, Drill Now" message to the staff there. 

And speaking of "Drill Here, Drill Now," over 1.2 million people have signed the petition. Have you? Sign up at AmericanSolutions.com, and contribute $10 or more to get this cool bumper sticker: 

 Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.

Resolve to do something this holiday weekend to push for a more rational energy policy that will allow additional supplies to be brought to market. To help you get motivated, here's Newt Gingrich's 3½-minute YouTube video, "3 Ways to Lower Gas Prices," which over 1.4 million people have already watched:

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Failed policies of the past

Posted by Richard on June 21, 2008

Republican and right-wing pundits are beside themselves because Sen. Obama broke his earlier promise to accept federal matching funds and abide by the campaign spending limits that go with them. I applaud him for rejecting the failed policies of the past: government funding of candidates and campaign finance restrictions.

It's a shame he doesn't reject more of the failed policies of the past.

Like the failed policy of treating Islamofascist terrorism as a law enforcement problem — which, contrary to Obama's attempt to rewrite history, convinced our enemies (according to bin Laden himself) that we were weak and could be destroyed, and led to a series of ever bolder attacks culminating in 9/11.

Like the failed policy of pouring billions in subsidies down "alternative energy" ratholes, while prohibiting drilling in ANWR, prohibiting drilling in the outer continental shelf, prohibiting drilling on 85% of federal lands, and erecting a mountain of regulatory barriers — enough to make a New Delhi bureaucrat blush — that prevented the building of even a single new refinery for the past 31 years.

Like the failed policy of socialism, which more and more Obama supporters are now embracing openly, and which appears to be the ideology embraced by every person who has had a significant intellectual influence on Obama, starting with his father and mother.

Regarding the Democrats' recent clamor for nationalizing the oil industry, Stop the ACLU had the best comment I've seen: "It’s starting to feel like I’m in an Ayn Rand novel for real!" Does that mean if Obama's elected, we should just shrug?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

McCain rethinks offshore drilling

Posted by Richard on June 18, 2008

Sen. John McCain has kinda, sorta, maybe decided that drilling in the outer continental shelf (OCS) just might be OK:

Sen. John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months.

The move is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that "we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

Let's be clear about what we're talking about. The "vast stretches" of "coastline" in question are the OCS areas 50 to 200 miles off the Atlantic, Pacific, and Florida Gulf coasts — well beyond the horizon, so no one on a beach anywhere will have the slightest inkling that there are drilling rigs out there.

Oil spills? There were exactly none among the many platforms off Louisiana and Texas that were destroyed during the devastating 2005 hurricane season. The risk of spills from tankers bringing foreign oil to our ports is far higher than the risk from offshore drilling.

And the untapped reserves in the OCS are probably more than five times what McCain stated.

Nonetheless, McCain wants to leave it up to the states. I thought he was really fond of international law. The states have no jurisdiction beyond the 12-mile territorial limit. Under the international law of the sea, the federal government can control this kind of development out to the 200 mile "economic zone" limit. The only reason the states are involved in the OCS issue at all is because Congress chose to give them this power.  

Oh, well, at least McCain's taken a step in the right direction. What could have precipitated his change of heart? Maybe it was polls like this one (emphasis added):

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey-conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue–finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose). [46-37 is evenly divided? – Ed.]

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don't believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.

According to the new survey, 85% of Republicans are in favor of offshore drilling as opposed to 57% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters. Those who call themselves conservatives favor such drilling 84% to 46% of liberals and 59% of self-designated moderates.

African-American voters are less supportive of such drilling than whites – 58% to 71%.

Let's see — two-thirds of all voters favor off-shore drilling (and I suspect that's without the pollsters explaining how far off-shore such drilling would actually be), and fewer than one in five are opposed. Republicans, conservatives, and moderates all strongly support drilling. A clear majority of Democrats and African-Americans are in favor. Even a plurality of self-described liberals support the idea!

McCain isn't exactly taking a big risk by changing his stance. In fact, I have to wonder what Obama and the leading Democrats are thinking when they continue toeing the enviro-whacko line on this issue. 

Clearly, most Americans agree with the nearly 900,000 who've signed Newt Gingrich's petition to drill here, drill now, pay less. Have you signed? Have you contributed $10 or more so that you'll get a bumper sticker?

What about your Congresscritter? Has he or she signed Rep. Lynn Westmoreland's pledge to support more land-based drilling, more offshore drilling, and more refineries? The list of signers is here. If your representative isn't on it, call or email their office and ask them to sign. If your representative is on the list, extend your thanks.

 Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Posted by Richard on June 11, 2008

Democrats claim to be concerned about the high price of gasoline. And it looks like they realize there's a supply problem — after all, they stopped the diversion of crude oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and they tried to pressure Saudi Arabia into increasing its output.

But those measures were mere posturing. In reality, the Democrats like high prices and short supplies. They want to force us to abandon our cars and shiver in the dark in order to "save the planet."

Since 1994, they've blocked access to at least 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on environmental grounds. The ANWR contains almost 20,000,000 acres — bigger than Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware combined. The "footprint" of the proposed drilling operation would be 2,000 acres — one-sixth the size of Washington's Dulles airport. And this 0.1% of ANWR that would be impacted is on the barren coastal plain, not in the scenic mountains and wilderness area they're always showing you pictures of.

Last month, Senate Democrats killed a bill to suspend Sen. Ken Salazar's (D-CO) moratorium blocking oil shale development on federal lands. According to Sen. Orrin Hatch, the oil shale deposits in just Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming contain as much oil as the rest of the world combined.

Last week, Senate Democrats tried to pass the Warner-Lieberman-Boxer "cap and trade" bill, AKA "ration and tax and spend" — which would raise prices of all energy supplies significantly. And then they tried to enact a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies — which we know from the bitter experience of the Carter years will lead to both shortages and higher prices. Thank goodness (and Mitch McConnell) they failed in both those attempts.

Today, House Democrats rejected a proposal by Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) to permit drilling in deep off-shore waters:

A House subcommittee has rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.

With record oil prices and gas prices projected to hover around the $4 mark for the rest of the summer, Republicans have ratcheted up their efforts to open up oil exploration along U.S. coastline. But the long-sought change has so far been unsuccessful.

Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.

The U.S. imports about 10 million barrels of oil a day. The outer continental shelf, according to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, has at least 86 billion barrels. That, plus the 10+ billion barrels in ANWR, would replace half our current annual oil imports for more than 50 years.

And that's not even considering the 20 billion or so barrels of conventional on-shore oil that are off-limits, the increasingly promising Bakken Formation, which may contain more oil than Saudi Arabia, and the vast quantities of shale oil.

The opponents to "drilling our way out of the problem" argue that (a) it would be years before new supplies were available, and (b) they wouldn't "solve" the problem for good. That's like arguing against going grocery shopping because (a) it won't immediately satisfy your hunger, and (b) eventually you'll get hungry again anyway. 

We should have started developing these oil resources years ago, but the same people who say now is too late prevented it then. Starting now is better than starting later — or never. And you think it won't impact today's price? Let shale oil development restart, and watch how soon OPEC pushes the price of oil down low enough to make shale oil uneconomical again.

If you're sick of the skyrocketing gas price, if you're sick of the sanctimonious demands that we suck it up and make do with less, if you're sick of human needs being subordinated to every insect, rodent, and fish on the planet, it's time to let Washington know.

Newt Gingrich's American Solutions movement has already gathered well over half a million signatures on a petition to Congress to authorize access to domestic energy reserves. They hope to deliver 3 million signatures to both major parties at their national conventions. Sign the petition, donate a few bucks, and get the bumper sticker:

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Then tell your friends to do the same. Before we all end up freezing in the dark. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Congress says don’t drill, sue

Posted by Richard on May 22, 2008

Just a week ago (for the umpteenth time in the last 25 years), Democrats thwarted efforts to increase domestic oil and gas production by blocking access to vast supplies in ANWR and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We can't "drill our way to lower prices," Sen. Durbin said.

This week, Democrats passed (with the support of countless craven Republicans) an alternative solution cleverly entitled the "Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act." It says that instead of producing more oil, we should just sue OPEC and force them to produce more for us. (Robert Bryce suggested we also sue the Dutch to make them produce more Heineken.)

And today (also for the umpteenth time), Democrats are lambasting oil company executives. Besides the usual demagoguery against "obscene" profits, senators criticized the oil firms for not investing enough in exploration and refineries.

But wait! I thought burning more oil was evil — that we had to give up our "addiction to oil" in order to save the polar bears and prevent the seas from boiling. I thought we all had to accept the fact that, as Sen. Obama chided us, "[w]e can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times …"

So why do our brilliant Congressional leaders want to force the OPEC countries and oil companies to produce more oil?

Maybe it's so that they and their Hollywood friends can continue to jet off to "save the planet" events around the globe in their private Gulfstreams. (And then condemn wealth and profits, of course.)

Or maybe it's all just posturing and pandering and jockeying for more power. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A manufactured crisis

Posted by Richard on November 9, 2007

John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel:

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

 As oil climbed toward $100 per barrel, Investor's Business Daily noted that: 

By falsely demonizing oil in the debate over global warming, we assure an energy-impoverished future.

The real problem behind soaring oil prices — a lack of supply — hasn't been addressed at all. Today we have what economists call a "demand shock." It's a result of the greatest global economic boom in history — a result of more poor people in more countries being pulled out of poverty than ever, thanks to fast-growing economies and free trade.

As Weather Channel founder John Coleman said this week, global warming is "the greatest scam in history." Literally thousands of reputable climatologists agree with this.

Yet fear of warming is giving rise to all kinds of bad ideas that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and deliver very questionable benefits. These ideas include "carbon" taxes on all of us and "windfall" profit taxes on oil companies, bans on drilling for new oil in Alaska and off our coasts, and expensive new mandates — such as higher fuel economy for cars — to reduce "carbon footprints."

Crude mismatchAs the chart shows, our failure to replace our depleted domestic oil reserves has left us with a serious mismatch of supply and demand. We use more oil each year, but supply less of it ourselves.

That makes us vulnerable. We send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas each year to the Middle East, Africa and South America, helping fund terrorism and prop up some nasty regimes.

As Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, notes, if we had started drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1995 — when President Clinton nixed the idea — we'd be pumping millions more barrels today. Ditto if we had more vigorously pursued our offshore reserves.

But would that matter? According to the American Petroleum Institute, we have at least 131 billion barrels of oil and more than 1,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that we can get at now, with current technology. It's just waiting for us to find and pump it. But Americans — cowed into submission by aggressive global warming propaganda — are afraid to do so.

This is where Congress could be of help. Right now, we have an oil-based economy. We can't escape it — we need more oil.

If lawmakers stopped dithering and acted, we could turn our energy future around — feeding our need for oil in the short term, while spinning out new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells, clean coal and modern nuclear power plants over the long term.

That, however, would take vision and courage — two traits that today's leaders in Washington conspicuously lack.

So what else is new? Sigh.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Econ 101 and Iran

Posted by Richard on March 22, 2007

The Watcher of Weasels chose Big Lizards to fill the last vacancy on the Watcher's Council, and it looks like a fine choice. Check out, for example, The Contranomics of Global Jihad, nominated by the Council as one of this week's most link-worthy pieces of writing. Dafydd's excellent post argues that Iran is in the process of being defeated in the same way that the Soviet Union was defeated — by economics, not military force (emphasis in original):

Force projection is dreadfully expensive, even if you call it global jihadism: Iran is supporting Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon, the Qods Force in Iraq, a war against Israel a few months ago, assassins all over the world, and Shiite revolutionary movements from Malaysia to Venezuela. But at the same time, the drain on their resources from trying to develop a nuclear "Qods bomb" and buy a delivery system from North Korea, Russia, or Red China has caused Iran to stop investing in its oil infrastructure.

Totalitarian, anti-capitalist societies, Dafydd points out, simply can't afford the technological development and force projection that Iran is trying to pursue. Only free, open societies that grasp Econ 101 can do that.

Read the whole thing. And browse some of his other stuff, too — it's a good blog, once you get past the blinding banner!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Oil from Israel

Posted by Richard on November 22, 2006

Israel isn’t sitting on top of large pools of oil, like most of its Arab neighbors, but they do have about 15 billion tons of oil shale. A couple of weeks ago (yeah, I got the news a bit late), an Israeli company announced it was going ahead with plans for a shale oil processing plant in the Negev. The plant will be the first commercial application of the company’s unique, patented process for creating a light synthetic crude oil from the shale:

A.F.S.K. Hom Tov presented its oil shale processing method on Tuesday, outside Haifa and just down the street from one of the country’s two oil refinery facilities.

"Because the patents for this process belong to (the company), Israel is the most advanced in the world in the effort to create energy from oil shale," Moshe Shahal, a Hom Tov legal representative and a former Israeli energy minister, told United Press International.

Shahal estimated that the company’s Negev Desert facility would begin full-scale production in three to four years, while other countries with oil shale deposits will need five to six years to reach production.

The company said its process is much more environmentally friendly than previous shale extraction processes and costs only $17 per barrel. By comparison, I believe the typical high-temperature, high-pressure shale extraction methods (called retorting) cost about $50 per barrel and have significant environmental problems.

A process that’s that cheap and that doesn’t have the toxic waste or water usage problems of retorting is nothing short of revolutionary. If Hom Tov isn’t just blowing smoke, then people from Colorado, Australia, and Eastern Europe are probably already lined up at their door — not to mention neighboring Jordan, which is in the same boat, oil-resource-wise, as Israel:

Israel has 15 billion tons of oil shale reserves. Jordan, on the other hand, has about 25 billion tons, and the oil shale in Jordan is of higher quality. Shahal met with Jordanian Energy Minister Azmi Khreisat earlier this year, to discuss setting up a plant there.

Sounds like the prospect of a new energy source and large profits can motivate at least some Arabs to cooperate with Israelis.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Gas getting cheap again

Posted by Richard on November 3, 2006

I filled up my irresponsible, planet-destroying SUV for $2.009 per gallon. Woo-hoooo!

Thank you, Karl Rove!

(That’s a joke, moonbats.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

What’s gas for the Gulf is oil for the ANWR

Posted by Richard on June 28, 2006

The Washington Post has editorialized in favor of a bill to relax the federal ban on offshore drilling, due to come to a vote on Thursday:

FOR THE PAST quarter of a century, the federal government has banned oil and gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters. Efforts to relax the ban have been repelled on environmental grounds, but it is time to revisit this policy. Canada and Norway, two countries that care about the environment, have allowed offshore drilling for years and do not regret it. Offshore oil rigs in the western Gulf of Mexico, one of the exceptions to the ban imposed by Congress, endured Hurricane Katrina without spills. The industry’s safety record is impressive, and it’s even possible that the drilling ban increases the danger of oil spills in coastal waters: Less local drilling means more incoming traffic from oil tankers, which by some reckonings are riskier. Although balancing energy needs with the environment is always hard, the prohibition on offshore extraction cannot be justified. 

Wow, that’s so eminently sensible, reasonable, and grounded in reality — I can’t believe it’s a WaPo opinion on an environmental issue!

Is it too soon — or pushing our luck — to ask the WaPo to reconsider their opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? After all, the same arguments apply: The industry’s safety record is impressive. Other arctic drilling hasn’t harmed the environment. The caribou have thrived around the North Shore oil fields and pipeline. If it’s time to allow more offshore drilling, then it’s time to allow more drilling in Alaska, too.

Well, I won’t hold my breath waiting for the WaPo to endorse drilling in ANWR.

In fact, news reports from California and Florida, two states where offshore drilling is a hot-button issue, suggest that even this modest relaxation of the ban faces tough sledding. Environmental groups and MoveOn.org have been organizing demonstrations and mobilizing opposition nationwide. In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger opposed the bill. Florida’s Sen. Ben Nelson vowed to filibuster if the bill makes it to the Senate, and his Republican counterpart, Sen. Mel Martinez may join him in the effort.

Are Sens. Nelson and Martinez, and the many Florida congressmen who are also opposed, just posturing and pandering, or do they really not know that drilling in the Gulf is going to continue regardless of what happens to this bill? Cuba is contracting with China, Canada, and anyone else they can find to expand drilling in their waters:

Leonard Gropper, a retiree who makes occasional boating excursions to Cuba from his homes in Fort Lauderdale and Marathon, said he was amazed to see rigs dotting the island’s north coast.

"They’ve got new wells coming in all over the place, pumping away," Gropper said. "People have been worried about drilling over in the Gulf, but I saw all kinds of wells with Chinese writing on them just south of the Keys. If there is a spill, it will flow into the Gulf Stream and go all the way up the East Coast."

Mexico’s state-owned Pemex already has lots of offshore wells in the western Gulf, and it’s expanding into deeper and deeper waters:

Mexican President Vicente Fox announced the discovery of a potentially world-class oil discovery in the deep waters about 60 miles off the coast of Veracruz. The Noxal 1 well was drilled by the Diamond Offshore semisubmersible Ocean Worker, which went on location at the end of November 2005. The well was drilled in approximately 3,000 feet of water to a depth of over 13,000 feet.

Pemex has announced that it will spend US$37.5 billion over the next 20 years to develop the 18 billion barrel Chicontepec reservoir in southern Veracruz. The field currently produces only 26,000 bpd. but Pemex hopes to raise that to 1 million bpd within 8 to 10 years.

Call me chauvinistic, but I suspect that Chinese drilling operations are more environmentally risky than American drilling operations. Why aren’t MoveOn.org, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Environmental Defense Fund organizing opposition to offshore drilling by Cuba and Mexico? Why aren’t they holding rallies and protests in Mexico City and Havana?

Oh, wait — I just remembered why they aren’t holding protests in Havana. It’s the friggin’ police state, not Bush’s Amerika!
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Blame Chavez

Posted by Richard on May 16, 2006

BizzyBlog observed that Venezuelan oil production has dropped 45% under the progressive leadership of Hugo Chavez, and noted that this supply decline is probably a significant factor in recent oil price increases:

Since oil is an inelastic product (meaning that, for example, a 10% price hike leads to less than a 10% reduction in demand, in oil’s case a lot less than 10%), shortfalls in Venezuelan production have directly contributed to at least a portion of the worldwide runup in oil prices.

Why is this happening? That’s simple and so predictable — Chavez has abandoned capitalism. He had the state-run oil company fire half its workers after a two-month 2003 strike. Yet he expects the oil production infrastructure to run itself after placing less competent cronies in key positions and spending money that should be put into infrastructure investment into “social programs.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the 60 Minutes or Dateline story revealing how socialism is to blame for $3 gas.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Granholm’s grandstanding

Posted by Richard on April 29, 2006

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who’s apparently facing a tough reelection battle, came up with her own twist on the current fervor for gas price demagoguery. Her particular bit of grandstanding consists of an online petition at the governor’s official website calling for a cap on oil company profits.

Who would that hurt? Well, according to the Detroit News, Michigan’s teachers and civil servants, for starters:

ExxonMobil Corp. is the largest stock held by the Michigan State Employees’ Retirement System and the Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System. At the end of 2005, the state pension funds owned more than 13 million shares of the oil company’s stock with a market value of more than $846 million.

Since January, the value of Michigan’s ExxonMobil portfolio has increased more than $79 million. In dividend income alone, Michigan earned more than $15 million last year from its Exxon stock, which has helped fund the benefits the state’s public school teachers, other state employees and their beneficiaries enjoy.

But that’s of little concern to Granholm, who would apparently rather grab headlines in an election year than protect the pensions of state employees. There are more than 570,000 people (retirees, beneficiaries and active and inactive vested members) who are affected by the two state funds, according to the state’s annual financial reports of the systems.

Of course, Michigan public sector employees aren’t the only ones. The odds are that if you’re participating in any pension or retirement plan, you too are a beneficiary of those "record profits" in the oil industry (it would be hard to find a pension fund or broadbased equity mutual fund that had no direct or indirect investment in the oil and gas industry). If you’re not, why not?

You know, for the price of that flat-screen TV you’ve been eyeing, you can buy 50 or more shares of ExxonMobil. Then, when they pay their next quarterly dividend, you can smile. Or maybe complain about how high ExxonMobil’s taxes are and worry about their shrinking profit margin (see my Thursday post).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »