Dodging Crucial Energy Choices

You know the adage, "Follow the money." When looking at energy issues, we like to pay attention to what the money people are saying--specifically the investment types. Their insights provide an interesting view into America’s energy situation.

Our favorite energy investment advisor is Byron King whose work is published in the Whiskey and Gunpowder Newsletter and the subscription newsletter he edits, Outstanding Investments. (If you have not read any of his previous postings here, we encourage you to check them out too.) For our purposes here, we have edited out all of Byron’s investment advice as we have no business offering such information. However, we do believe you will find his review of history and energy to be very helpful to your understanding of today’s energy situation.

This posting is a bit longer than what we typically post here. You may need to print it out to read at your leisure. Whether you read it here or on paper, we do hope you’ll post your responses. Do you agree with Byron’s assessments? Is his history correct? We always enjoy Byron’s input. We hope you do too!

Will Americans have to read by candlelight and bike to work?
We will if the country dodges crucial energy choices--and time is running out
Remember how President Obama bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? That was bad enough. This is worse: Abdullah is playing Obama for a fool.

That bow Obama made to Abdullah at a summit in London says everything about how the Saudis have made us their oil slaves. Think about it, the American president, bowing and scraping to a foreign monarch--the king of a country where women can’t drive and criminals are beheaded in public. Worse, we’re becoming more dependent on the Saudis for energy, because Obama wants to close off even more of the USA to oil exploration.

If some well-informed experts are right, Saudi Arabia's oil reserves are a fraction of what they've been telling us. Why does it matter? Because everyone has believed for decades that Saudi Arabia's oil supply is virtually unlimited. That's what the Saudis have said over and over again for more than 30 years. If an oil shortage threatens to cause a recession or a market crash, we can count on the Saudis to come through. So people think. But one of America's top oil experts warned that the Saudis don't have anything near the oil reserves they claim. They already pump less oil than most "experts" think. Here's the real kicker, Saudi oil production is about to drop sharply. And it will keep going down for good. Other experts have analyzed the numbers and come to the same conclusions. If the charges are true--and I believe they are--we could be facing oil at $150 per barrel and gasoline at $6 a gallon or more. The oil is running out. It's as simple as that.

That's not what you hear from so-called experts. If you ask government officials, our intelligence agencies and even powerful Wall Street financiers, they tell you the opposite.
They say the Saudis could quickly double their oil production from the current level if they wanted to. And given a few years, they think the Saudis could produce four times as much oil as they do now.

The intelligence agencies and the conventional "experts" are dead wrong. The oil isn't there. The oil and gas shortages we've seen lately are nothing compared with what's on the way.
When the truth comes out, it will send shock waves through the world economy. Everyone will find out too late--when gasoline soars to $5 or $6 or more per gallon.

Americans used to run Aramco, the huge oil company that manages the Saudi fields. But in 1979, the Saudis booted us out and took over. And then a funny thing happened, The Saudis started keeping everything a secret. No one knows for sure how much oil they've got in the ground, or how much they produce each year or how much they could produce if they wanted to push it to the max. It's all secret. Experts try to figure out how much oil the Saudis sell by monitoring tanker traffic in and out of the world's ports. That's how little we know for sure.

After the Saudis took over, their figures for proven reserves kept going up and up and up--even though they didn't find any major new oil fields! In 1979, the Saudis adjusted proven reserves upward by 50 billion barrels. Then eight years after that, their proven reserves magically grew by another 100 billion barrels. Their estimated reserves increased by 150% in nine years--to a total of 260 billion barrels. And they didn't find a single major new oil field!

For 16 years, from 1979 through 2005, they've claimed they own 260 billion barrels of proven oil in the ground. The figure never goes down, even though they pumped out 46 billion barrels during that period. Let me see...260 minus 46 equals 260. Saudi math!

Based on these bogus figures, the Saudis claim they can produce as much oil as the world wants for the next 50 years. As recently as 2004, they claimed their reserve estimates are actually conservative. That's why most of the world's governments and intelligence services believe the Saudis could pump 20 million barrels of oil a day if they wanted to. Trouble is, we've got no proof except their say-so. If it were true, we wouldn't have a thing to worry about. But it's not.

Before Aramco's American owners were shown the door in 1979, they told Congress that Saudi Arabia had proven reserves of 110 billion barrels. There have been no major new discoveries, so 110 billion barrels was probably about right. And since then, about half of that has been used up. So why do the Saudis insist everything is just fine and they have 260 billion barrels of reserves? One reason is they wanted to discourage non-OPEC nations from looking for more oil or switching to alternatives. It was a devious plan, and it worked perfectly.

But that wasn't the only reason the Saudis lied about their reserves. They did it because everyone does it! Everyone in OPEC, that is. In the 1980s, OPEC's claim of total reserves magically leaped from 353 to 643 billion barrels without a single major discovery. Industry experts call it the quota war. You see, OPEC had to limit how much oil each member could sell, because prices were too low. The quotas were based on... each member's oil reserves!

That's right: The amount of oil OPEC would let a member pump depended on how much that member had in the ground. So it paid for OPEC members to claim the biggest reserves they could. And that's what they did.

The Saudis alone jacked up their estimate by about 100 billion. Kuwait added 50% to its reserves in one year, 1985. Venezuela doubled its reserves in 1987. Iraq and Iran doubled their estimates, too. What's more, OPEC members did like the Saudis and kept their reserve estimates the same year after year, as if no oil were being pumped out and sold. Everyone claimed to have a bottomless well.

Now, if you're like me, you believe America should base its energy decisions on the real world, not on a fantasy.

Let's Look at how Much Oil There Really Is
In the 1970s, when Western managers were still in charge, they believed for a time that Saudi output could reach 20 million barrels a day. But by the time the Americans lost control in 1979, they figured the peak would be 12 million. They also predicted that peak production would last only 15–20 years. 1979 plus 20 is 1999. We're past the peak, if these men were right. But we already know they were too optimistic. The truth is that Saudi production never got to 12 million. "In all probability, output peaked in 1981 at an unsustainable level of about 10.5 million barrels per day," according to Matthew R. Simmons, a leading oil industry authority.

In 2004, Saudi officials claimed they boosted production to 9.5 million barrels per day and maintained that level for five months. It's almost sure they were lying. The International Energy Agency is the group that keeps an eye on these things for the developed, oil-importing countries. The IEA could find no sign the Saudis were selling more oil. As far as anyone can tell, they pump only around five million barrels a day, and that's all they've pumped for years.

In spite of being lied to at least once, the IEA, the US Department of Energy and other forecasters believe the Saudi claims. ALL their projections of our energy future ALWAYS assume the Saudis could produce 15–20 million barrels a day.

The lies have worked. Not only do Western politicians believe them, but so do many oil industry experts and investors with huge amounts of money at stake. They've been had.

Our whole economy is at risk. America was so prosperous the last couple of decades, a lot of people forget what the energy crisis of the '70s was like. Let me remind you: The price of a barrel of oil shot up 400%. Long lines formed at gas stations practically overnight. Folks had to pay four times as much for a gallon of gas, and there came a week when one out of every five gas stations in the United States had no gas to sell at any price. The US had three major recessions within 10 years after the first oil crisis in 1973. And those recessions were deep, with double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation. Think 10–12% unemployment. Think 15–18% mortgage rates. Got the picture? That was the ‘70s. Not fun.

My take is that a similar crisis will rock the nation before we solve our problem with clean coal, liquefied natural gas, oil from tar sands, high-mileage cars and safe nuclear plants. More than likely, the politicians will quarrel for years before they do what has to be done.

The Great Coal Rush
While the oil runs out, there's still plenty of coal. The world has enough coal to last for 300 years at current rates. Coal already accounts for more than half of our electricity. But coal is dirty, right? And there's no way it can power cars, right? Wrong, and wrong again. Coal can be cleaned up AND it can power your SUV. However, it's not cheap to do. It's only worthwhile when a barrel of oil costs more than $30.

The US and China both have a growing problem with the price of oil and with the unstable countries they have to buy it from. Meanwhile, the US and China both have HUGE reserves of coal. Add in Australia and Canada and you've got four countries that you could call the OPEC of coal. They own just about all the coal there is.

The US alone has 254 billion tons of proven coal reserves, or about 25% of the world total. Compare that to Saudi Arabia, with 24% of the world's oil (if you believe it).
Meanwhile, the Chinese economy is doubling every 10 years and has a lion's appetite for electricity. The Chinese will have to give up that growth rate or build hundreds of new power plants, one or the other. They have no choice.

Electricity could be China's biggest roadblock to growth. Already, blackouts and brownouts happen every day all over the country. Factories by the thousand are forced to shut down from time to time. Many are allowed to operate only during off-peak hours. Children in some cities do their homework by candlelight. With an economy that grows 8% or 9% every year, and electric usage soaring at the same rate, the Chinese have no choice but to build hundreds of new power plants. And most of those plants are going to run on coal.

In the United States, we have a power crisis of our own. We're at the limit of our generating capacity. We have our own brownouts during peak-demand times. We, too, need to build hundreds of new power plants. Yet the public still doesn't want nuclear power.

You do the math: We face a crude oil shortage, nuclear power gives people the willies, we've got plenty of coal in the ground, we've got a choice between more power plants or deep recession and unemployment. Everything points to coal.

How Oil Could Go Beyond $150 in 24 Hours
If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend Saudi Arabia has plenty of oil, be my guest. However, very shred of evidence points to no Saudi buffer for world oil markets. And that's a real problem because oil consumption soared from 52 million barrels a day to 82 million in the last 19 years, and it's expected to grow to 120 million in the next 20--if the oil can be found. Very doubtful.

There are three ways oil could race past $150 a barrel: It may get there gradually, or on a faster pace of a year or two, or overnight, literally within 24 hours. Pick any one of the three. No matter how you look at it, it's a sure thing the days of cheap oil are over. We're never going to see $30 oil again, and we may never even see $50 oil. Soon oil in the $100s may very well return to stay.

"You never really run out of oil," says a Houston energy consultant named Henry Groppe. "But many years ago we ran out of $2 a barrel oil, then we ran out of $25 oil, and now we're running out of $40 oil."

Saudi production could fall over a cliff almost overnight. There could be a deep, sharp reduction in Saudi oil production literally any day. It's guesswork, but energy expert Matthew Simmons says, "It will take energy forecasters and policymakers by total surprise. Not a single serious energy plan devised in the past three decades has envisioned such a scenario." He's told interviewers that Saudi output could drop 30–40% from the already low level of just 5 million barrels. Simmons doesn't claim to know for sure, but I believe he's right.

In the big oil crisis of 1973, oil went to $100 in current dollars. Back then, the problem was just political. Angered by US support for Israel, the Arab oil producers cut our supply. After things calmed down, there was plenty of oil. This time the problem is real and there's no quick fix. There's a sword hanging over our heads, and most people don't even know.

I've spotted three trends to watch that could crash markets and cause a recession.

Hurricanes
You already know that the 2005 hurricane season was the worst on record, and the one before that was almost as bad. In 2005, there were 27 tropical storms. Weather experts could hardly believe it, but the last one formed in December, a month after the "end" of the hurricane season. It's not as weird as a blizzard in July. But it's close. Worse, the storms are more powerful than ever before. It seems that a tropical storm is more likely now to become a deadly Category 4 or Category 5 hurricane.

Two reasons for the monster storms: The first reason is there's a normal cycle of low hurricane activity followed by a period of high hurricane activity. Each phase can last for several decades. Clearly, we're in the high phase, and it will probably go on for years. That's bad enough, but it's normal. But now you have to add the danger of climate change.

Bear in mind that climate change can be caused by either human activity or natural causes. And either way, the jury is still out. Despite what you may hear from the mainstream media, the case for global warming is far from closed. But global warming believers are already blaming the monster hurricanes on climate change. They may be right. The level of hurricane activity we're seeing has no precedent in the hundred years or so that scientists have been counting and categorizing storms. Meanwhile, a big chunk of our energy industry is located in the worst possible place.

Americans have largely banned oil and gas drilling and liquefied natural gas ports from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. They don't like oil refineries, either. Plus, it's well known that the Gulf of Mexico is energy rich. So America ended up with a huge part of its energy infrastructure located on the Gulf Coast. A lot of it was knocked out by Katrina and Rita. As I write this, the Gulf coast energy industry is still not back to normal.

If there is a hurricane season like 2005, it could be the end of some 20% of America's oil and gas industry. And it could all happen in 24 hours.

It's hard to picture that oil companies are going to keep on investing in a region where they get knocked out every year. And the onshore plants can't be moved to Boston and San Francisco, where they're not wanted anyway. We could be staring at a permanent loss of a large part of our energy industry.

War and Revolution at the Chokepoints
World oil supplies are so tight the price could go through the roof if we lose just a couple of million barrels of daily production out of the world total of 82 million. Production is running full tilt and consumers snap up every barrel that comes out of the ground. There's no buffer (despite what the Saudis claim). A sudden leap to $150 a barrel, not to mention $150+, could tip us over the edge--and into a deeper recession. The immediate cause could be war or revolution in an oil-producing country.

Toss in another bad hurricane season at the same time and it could be the end of our way of life.

Saudi Arabia itself is a prime candidate for revolution. You might think al-Qaida's main target is the United States, but in fact the main target all along has been control of Saudi Arabia. The World Trade Center was just a stop on the road to Riyadh, as al-Qaida sees it.
But my own pick for disaster is Nigeria. This African country is the world's No. 12 oil producer, and a big supplier to the United States.

Nigeria is seething with revolution. The government--if you want to call it a government--admits that thieves steal as much as 200,000 barrels of oil a day and sell it on the black market. Off the record, experts put the bootleg oil as high as 650,000 barrels a day. That kind of oil generates huge sums of cash, and a lot of the money is plowed into arms for the rebels. There's no shortage of poor, hopeless young men willing to use the weapons. Three Nigerians out of five live in poverty.

Caught in the middle of all this are big oil companies like Shell and Chevron. In some parts of the country their facilities have been shut down and they've been kicked out. If you want to get punched in Nigeria, just tell a native you work for Shell.

Terrorism
You won't be surprised to learn terrorism is the third wild card that could create an instant crisis. In fact, a former CIA director recently joined some former oil executives and government experts in a risk-analysis exercise. They forecast three very likely events that could bring the roof down on our heads. One of them was civil war in Nigeria. The other two were both terror incidents.

Intelligence agencies know the terrorists have especially targeted oil facilities and infrastructure. It's an international game of cat and mouse in which the terrorists are looking for a weak point day and night, high and low, while we try to find them and stop them in time. It's only a matter of time until they succeed. It's like a thief checking every door in the neighborhood every night. One night, he'll find a door that's not locked.

Are you getting the picture? The good scenario is that the oil price will merely hover around $150 over the next few years. The worst scenario is that it will go there--then much higher--next week, or next month or next year.

The Natural Gas Bottleneck
When oil started getting pricey during the 1970s, America switched to natural gas in a big way. Natural gas now supplies about 24% of our total energy needs, including a big chunk of our electricity. The move made sense. We had plenty of natural gas, and what's more, it's a clean-burning fuel that cuts down on pollution. But like any kind of fossil fuel, there's only so much of it. Now we're running out.

After the big hurricanes of 2005, everyone can see the US is vulnerable. We didn't have the gas supplies we needed when we needed them. That was a cold, expensive winter for a lot of Americans.

America has placed vast areas off limits to drilling. Not only millions of acres of federal lands, but also most of the offshore areas on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. These gas-rich regions are off-limits even though natural gas doesn't create spills. If there's an accident, it just escapes into the air. And drilling rigs are mostly out of sight of the resort properties on the beach. The regulations have left only the Gulf of Mexico, aka hurricane alley, for offshore drilling and natural gas production.

If you saw your heating bills shoot up this winter, you'll be frustrated to learn there's plenty of gas worldwide. It's a byproduct of oil wells, and if an oil field isn't close to a big population center or a pipeline, the gas is just flared off. The rest of the world burns off as much as 2.5 trillion cubic feet of what is called "stranded" natural gas. That's equivalent to 1.7 billion barrels of oil totally wasted every year! The problem is that gas, unlike oil, is hard to transport. You can't build pipelines across oceans. And big oceans separate North America from the cheap gas that's now going to waste.

Because of the bottleneck problem, the price of natural gas is much higher in North America than in the countries that are swimming in the stuff.

There's an easy solution to our natural gas shortage, and it's been around for years. It's called liquefied natural gas, or LNG. If you turn natural gas into a liquid by supercooling it, you can transport 600 times as much gas in the same space. One LNG tanker can carry as much as 600 ships hauling natural gas in vapor form. And despite what you may have heard, LNG is safe. With 40,000 LNG tanker voyages spanning the last 45 years and crossing 60 million miles of ocean, there hasn't been a single major accident. Not one. No explosions, no fireballs, no gruesome casualties. Sorry, Hollywood.

As things stand now, the US gets only 1.5% of its natural gas in the form of LNG, but with the energy crunch, things are going to change. The government's Energy Information Administration believes LNG will provide about 17% of our total gas supply by 2030. That means a 11-fold increase in LNG. Better yet, that's going to be a higher percentage of a bigger market, too. The EIA projects total gas consumption — LNG and vapor combined — will boom 30% in the next 10 years. And meanwhile, a fierce bidding war has broken out among Europe, Asia and the US for every available ounce of LNG.

The boom was actually under way before the current energy crunch hit. LNG trade soared 55% in the 10 years ending in 2004. This little market is growing like crazy. Some analysts even predict LNG will surpass King Crude to dominate the world's energy markets. The CEO of Shell says within 10 years, gas will be a bigger part of the company's business than oil. Natural gas is quickly becoming the energy of choice internationally. Natural gas demand will also become a cheaper and more viable energy source.

The Worldwide Boom in Nuclear Power
After a couple of freak accidents several decades ago, Americans decided they wanted nothing to do with nuclear power ever, anywhere. The accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island killed nuclear power in the United States. We're just about the only people with that attitude. The rest of the world took a look at the safety problems, solved them and forged ahead. France now gets 77% of its electric power from nuclear plants. Japan and South Korea get 39%--and the two of them have more than 20 new plants on the way.

Belgium, Sweden, Finland--they've all gone nuclear. It seems like everyone but us is building nukes.

China plans to boost its nuclear power capacity by 500%. In fact, for the past 40 years, nuclear has been the fastest-growing power source in the world. And now it's really taking off. What's more, all the hundreds of plants worldwide have logged thousands of reactor years without a single accident. You see, Asians and Europeans have discovered something Americans refuse to see: Nuclear power is safer, cheaper and cleaner.

The Chinese are charging ahead with a new type of nuclear power plant. I predict utilities will build hundreds, and maybe thousands, of these new plants all over the globe. Electricity will become super-cheap. And eventually we'll see an economic boom worldwide like we've never seen before:
*The new plants will be walk-away safe. A meltdown is not just unlikely, it's impossible.
*There's no danger of radioactivity venting into air or water.
*There's no chain reaction involved.
*No need for huge cooling towers or water. No billion-dollar pressure dome.
*Almost no waste, and what waste there is can be stored safely on the premises.
*No need to fear a terrorist attack.

The technology uses an alternative way to harvest the energy of the atom--a way that Americans discovered and then rejected decades ago. The Chinese plan to mass-produce the reactors. The plants will be modular and factory made, built to last 40 years, ready to ship anywhere in the world and assembled like Legos. A Chinese scientist boasts, "Eventually these new reactors will compete strategically, and in the end, they will win. When that happens, it will leave traditional nuclear power in ruins." The man has reason to be cocky. They've already tested the prototype by turning off the coolant and letting the plant cool down by itself. That would be totally unthinkable with a conventional reactor.

Byron King earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, graduated cum laude from Harvard University, served on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations, and is a regulator contributor to the Whiskey and Gunpowder investment newsletter.

A Chill Hits Wind Power

Would you like to save money? Of course you would! If you live in a house or rent an apartment then you probably consume electricity and have to pay an electrical bill at the end of the month. In this spirit of saving money, CARE has decided to take a realistic look at the cost-effectiveness of a popular renewable energy source; wind power.

CARE is not against wind power or renewables in general, but our friend Dennis T. Avery, an environmental economist and senior fellow for the Hudson Institute, has brought some sobering facts to our attention that we would like to share with you. One such fact is that "General Electric has just announced a big wind project: 338 turbines, rated at 845 MW. GE claims it will power for 235,000 homes, and is applying for appropriate federal subsidies." This is troublesome because GE could only realistically provide power for 21,000 households while costing taxpayers money at a time when America is drowning in red ink. This trend isn't limited to America; it's affecting countries that are seen as leaders in wind power such as Denmark and Germany. The British are even being forced to become more dependent on Vladimir Putin's Russia because they overinvested in wind power and... well we better stop there so you have a reason to read the whole article!

A Chill Hits Wind Power
CHURCHVILLE, VA—As I write, a strong wind is blowing across the Alleghany Mountains onto my house. It’s bringing an "Arctic Clipper" that will drop my temperatures this weekend to a frigid and unusual 6 degrees F. Why can’t I get some good from this chill wind—with a wind turbine to harvest the "free" energy?

Out in Oregon, General Electric has just announced a big wind project: 338 turbines, rated at 845 MW. GE claims it will power for 235,000 homes, and is applying for the appropriate federal subsidies.

Will the wind turbines power 235,000 homes? Don’t bet on it. My friend Donald Hertzmark—an energy economist—warns the power deliveries from this wind project are likely to average only 25 percent of its rated capacity. That would serve only 58,000 homes, not 235,000.

But Hertzmark says even this is too high because the wind is highly variable. The Texas power grid’s experience is to rely on no more than 9 percent of the wind farm’s rated capacity. That would reduce GE’s real subsidy claim to about 21,000 households.

It gets worse.

Most of Oregon’s power comes from dams, and the lean period for hydropower is winter. That’s when heating demand peaks—but also when the dams have to restrict their water flow to protect fish, control flooding, and save up irrigation water for the next summer.
How likely is it that wind turbines can add to Oregon’s generating capacity in the midst of the winter electricity demand surge, and offset the hydroelectric generating restrictions? Not very, says Hertzmark.

This January, Britain’s wind turbines (6 percent of total generating capacity after many billions of dollars invested) supplied virtually no power on most days. The wind tends not to blow when and where it’s already very cold.

The stars of the British winter power demand were natural gas turbines, which are 34 percent of capacity and supplied 40 percent of the power during the winter wind lull. But Britain’s North Sea natural gas is running out; the only likely new source would be natural gas piped from Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Ouch.

"Wind cannot be relied upon to provide firm generation at full capacity coincident with peak demand." warns Hertzmark. "Wind might be capable of contributing to the peak demand requirements at some times. However, this will rarely happen—and when it does, it will be for brief periods. For significant periods of time, no households will be served by the wind farms."

Nor have either of the worlds "wind leaders"—Denmark and Germany—decommissioned any fossil fuel plants. The fossil generators are kept in "spinning reserve"—burning fossil fuels—to keep the lights on in the schools, factories, and hospitals when the wind dies.

Why build wind turbines at all? Well, wind and solar were the only energy sources the Greens would endorse, probably because they’re so expensive and erratic that there’s no danger of anybody getting hooked on cheap power again. Denmark was also selling wind turbines to other countries, so they had to be demonstrated at home. Now China is making cheaper turbines. Who will buy?

The cost of the "free wind"? Projections are about 17 cents per kwh—far higher than other energy sources. One of my neighbors has just invested $100,000 in a wind turbine. I think he’s wasted his money—and some of yours.

DENNIS T. AVERY is an environmental economist, and a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net

Climategate's Lesson: Science Hasn’t Failed, Government Has

The recent revelations of the "Climategate" scandal raises concerns about the integirty of government and science in energy-related matters, so CARE decided to enlist the aid of Patrick Cox, a transformative technologies expert associated with the Whiskey and Gunpowder investment newsletter. He builds the case that even though some scientists intentionally concealed the Medieval Warm Period, manipulated data, attempted to redefine the peer-review process, and steamrolled over those that questioned the data; Climategate ultimately stands as a testament to the integrity of science and the failure of government. He points out that good men and women revealed the truth and are reevaluating the data at the CRU while the climatological-industrial complex is acting like Climategate never happened. Cap and trade is still being pushed and the Environmental Protection Agency is determined to put its recent declaration that greenhouse gases threaten human health and welfare into force of law. The chess pieces are set, they are moving across the international board, and the recent course of action shows us that Climategate stands as a testament to the failure of government rather than science. CARE is confident that this article will help change your understanding of whom is truly at fault here.

Climategate Update: Science Hasn’t Failed, Government Has
What a fascinating week. The leaked e-mails and computer code from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit have become the greatest scientific scandal of our age. The head of the CRU has been forced to step down. Scientists who cooperated with the CRU in other locations, including the United States and New Zealand, are now under investigation.

I’ve been warned, incidentally, that any discussion of global warming will elicit complaints from one side or the other, so I would be better off not bringing it up. The notion that climatology is unacceptable in polite conversation is a huge problem. I’ve been following this debate for over 15 years and have worked with some of the important scientists who have advocated openness and more debate in climate research. Real scientists consider this a legitimate scientific issue, not a partisan one.

Moreover, the CRU scandal is enormously relevant to many investor issues. I’d rather lose readers who are offended than fail to keep the rest of you informed. If you’re getting your news from the mainstream media, you may not know yet how damaging this event has been to the credibility of the U.N. and those in the administration who support CO2 controls. (The Canadian press, however, is doing a far better job of covering the story.)

I told subscribers to my newsletter Breakthrough Technology Alert about a year ago, by the way, not to invest in so-called green technologies that rely on subsidies and regulatory interventions. That advice stands now more than ever. Polls show that about three-quarters of Americans consider the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming false or even fraudulent. Given growing anger over deficits and terrible unemployment statistics, harmful environmental measures passed now are likely to be overturned or blocked after the 2010 election cycle.

I saw this coming for several reasons. One is that the lack of scientific ethics exposed by the CRU whistle-blower is not really news. It has been obvious to those of us who were paying attention for a very long time. The leaked documents make it clear, however, to those who don’t understand the mathematical subtleties of regression analysis or program in Fortran.

For the first time, the general public is learning that the CRU climate model, which the U.N. relies on, purposely hid the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). This obfuscation was necessary because the MWP was not just warmer than it is now; it had a generally positive impact on humans. The University of East Anglia now admits, in fact, that the CRU has no real evidence that the climate is warming and says it will take at least three years to recompile and analyze the data.

The climatological-industrial complex, however, is forging ahead as if nothing has happened. Supporters of an incredibly expensive cap-and-trade scheme, in the middle of the worst economic downturn in modern history, are undeterred. Even without the invention of Enron, cap and trade, the EPA is dead set on treating and regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

You know that stuff you exhale in high concentrations: CO2? The EPA apparently thinks pollution results even with miniscule increases in the 0.038% trace levels of CO2 found in the atmosphere. Obviously, slightly elevated CO2 levels have never resulted in cataclysm before. So why does it say so now?

Its theory is that the planet’s ability to absorb CO2 is maxed out. Additional CO2, it says, will therefore result in skyrocketing CO2 levels. This theory, however, is completely unsupported by evidence. Dr. Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol just published as study in Geophysical Research Letters showing that the portion of the atmospheric CO2 absorbed by plant life, mostly in the oceans, has remained stable since 1850.

In fact, it is the failure of the CRU model to properly address the role of the oceans that convinced me long ago that it’s fundamentally missed the boat. Only about 10% of the Earth’s heat storage is atmospheric. About 90% of the Earth’s energy storage takes place in the waters of the oceans. Water, after all, stores far more energy than air.

Furthermore, ocean temperatures are far easier to measure accurately. Many land-based temperature stations have been compromised due to changes in local conditions, mostly increased urbanization. This is not the case with oceans. NASA has more than 3,000 robotic buoys that dive and surface continually all over the world collecting ocean temperature data at different depths. This information has been transmitted via satellite to NASA since 2003. Compiled, it shows clearly that ocean temperatures are falling.

If the oceans were bleeding heat into the atmosphere, we would see higher air temperatures. The Climategate e-mail leak shows, however, that even CRU knows that atmospheric temperatures have fallen since the late ‘90s. This means, I believe, that we are in an extended period of global cooling, not a temporary turnaround. University of Rochester physicists have published recently data showing the historic and central role ocean temperatures play in climate and climate change.

The fact that the U.N.’s climate gurus have destroyed data, hid inconvenient truths and subverted the peer-review process is not, by the way, proof that anthropogenic global warming could not possibly occur. Nor does it prove we are not in a natural period of cooling caused by solar cycles. The only thing it does prove is that models are junk and that the most powerful government-anointed climate scientists have no idea what’s going on — as the leaked e-mails stated over and over again.

This is the big lesson. It isn’t science that has failed. Science isn’t dying, as Daniel Henninger said recently in The Wall Street Journal. Real science is a process of discovering the truth through transparency, experimentation and verification. Look around you. You can see the fruits of real science in the increased length and quality of life that we all enjoy. Science is alive and well in the private sector.

Climategate is a failure of politicians and bureaucrats involving over $90 billion in tax-funded research grants. It is complicated by passionately cheerleading environmentalists who have turned their movement into a kind of religion.

The corruption of scientists by government monies is by no means new. It won’t be the last time, either. Nevertheless, the courage of the CRU whistle-blower demonstrates the robustness of science. The truth has come out.

It remains to be seen if the political drive to control human activities and profit from political wealth transfers will prove more powerful, in the short run, than the truth contained in the leaked e-mails and computer code. In the long run, however, I have no doubt that those who embrace fraud will be outed, if not punished.

My focus is on identifying those transformational technologies with the greatest potential for profit and growth. Those opportunities will not go away even if the fraud inherent in the CRU’s sham models are used to hobble the American economy with destructive cap-and-trade taxation or onerous EPA regulation of CO2. India, Russia, China and many other countries have made it clear they will never adopt such economy-killing measures — especially during a period of economic downturn and high unemployment. They stand more than willing to host the revolutionary disruptive industries that are coming onto the scene today. Many of our top scientists and small caps are already being wooed to relocate elsewhere.

Fortunately, polls show that nearly three-quarters of the American people are extremely angry with the government right now. The old media, which are lobbying for some sort of bailout, will continue trying to cover it up. Having not only endorsed the concept of anthropogenic global warming, but attacked skeptics as subhuman, it is impossible for many to admit they were wrong. Science and technology, though, have already provided alternate avenues of information dissemination. The unwillingness of the old media to report one of the most important stories of this young century is evidence they deserve to fail.

The reversal on cap and trade by Australia, along with a likely change in the government, in large part because of Climategate, ought to act as a warning to the administration. If not, then the people will grow angrier yet and we’ll see another iteration of the revolution next year at the ballot boxes. Science cannot be stopped or even perverted for long.

Patrick Cox is a transformative technologies expert associated with the Whiskey and Gunpowder investment newsletter.

Climategate; This Changes Everything

The airwaves have been abuzz and the internet has been on fire with emails and forwarded articles addressing what could turn out to be the biggest scandal since Watergate: the hacking or insider release of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia—which has been dubbed Climategate. Even youtube videos have been popping up! While those of us who work with global warming issues have been deeply immersed in this game-changer, many have heard nothing about it or have only heard a snippet and wonder what all the noise is about.

The news is still relatively new—just few days old—and we will surely have many more postings about this, but this one offers a great summary of the issue and the potential consequences. Here Michael Fox, a regular contributor to CARE’s Blog, shows why this news should change everything in the climate change debate and end the push for cap and trade.

Read on. Learn what all the noise is about. Pass this on to everyone you know. It is big news. What do you think? Add your comments.

The Collapse of the Global Warming Myth
If this scandal of November 20, 2009 continues in the horrendous path it’s taken, it should be the end of the man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis. Beyond the warmers inability to prove their simple hypothesis after more than 20 years and $80 billion dollars, has been their collective bullying behavior patterns. This bullying has been so outrageous and out of character of honest scientists, that it is as offensive as it is noticeable. This behavior suggested to me that this group of people were being less than honorable in their conduct of their work.

In a speech last Spring in New York by John Sununu I was reminded that the climate warming leaders were high paid bullies who determined who got funded (the recipients of those $89 Billion), and who didn't, who got published and who didn't, and who got the acclaim, and who didn't. Much of this is now confirmed in the released emails from Hadley/CRU.

The release of 62 Mbytes of the climate research data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in computer files has been momentous, almost unique in human history (http://tinyurl.com/yha4lxn). During the 24 hours following the release of these 62 Mbytes of documents, emails, letters, and reports, all became public knowledge around the world and thousands are pouring over the contents.

While still in the beginning stages of analyses, gleaned information has been showing horrendous levels of corruption, suborning subterfuge and deceptions, and controlling the science journals in limiting publications of research which do not support the AGW hypothesis. I have never ever seen anything like this, so high level, so unethical, and so evil.

I say evil since the unproven AGW hypothesis promoted by these insiders, is the basis for the trillion dollar Cap and Trade legislation and the redistribution of trillions from the US to the rest of the world. It is the basis for the Copenhagen meeting coming up in December which is designed how best to cripple the economics of the west through increased energy costs and energy rationing. It is the basis for the EU and the UN asking the US to pay trillions in reparations to all of those 3rd world nations which have been "damaged" by global warming.

These nation members walk the halls of the UN promoting "justifications” for reparations for their "damages" and their need for our wealth. It is the basis for demanding green energy sources to be installed with trillions of our dollars all over the 3rd world. Green energy sources already installed in the 3rd world, are not working well either. This debate has profound global implications and I find it contemptible that adults, Ph.D.s or not, would works so fanatically to achieve these destructive goals.

I also point out the thousands of media, academics, environmentalists, legislators, and movie elites who have taken strong and powerful positions in this debate, as if the AGW hypothesis has been validated. It hasn't. All of them have failed to ask the simple question "Show us the evidence that man-made CO2 causes global warming." That such people, presumed to be Americans, could promote and defend such a dangerous policy for our nation, is stunning.

Many of the global warming supporters seem to think that a photo of a polar bear on an ice floe is evidence that man-made CO2 is the cause!! The implied message is that this has never happened before, that man is causing it, that it is dangerous, which is all nonsense. They also seem to think that a photo-shopped video of a tidal wave roaring through downtown Manhattan is evidence of sea level rise, or that an iceberg calving from a glacier is evidence. We might also add that consensus is not evidence either, nor are appeals from high authority, nor are computer model predictions. If it weren’t for faulty computer models there would be no controversy at all, since real world measured evidence is still unreported.

Too few seem to have the wits to ask for a thermometer or ask for real Temp data, or sea level data, or hurricane data, or polar ice data. Also missing from the discussions is the large program needed to achieve high quality of all of the data, and how that is sustained. I have never seen a word of a Quality Assessment/Quality Control programs being used within the climate science realm. Then there is the entire issue of pathetically poor quality of the climate computer modeling programs. Anthony Watts at www.whatsupwiththat.com has undertaken to examine the low quality of the temperature stations and the low grade erratic temperature data they produce. His findings also show low grade station and data management as practiced by our climate agencies.

The British seem now to have realized the damage to all of science which has been done by the AGW crowd at the Climate Research Unit (CRU). In response to recent revelations contained in leaked e-mails originating from the CRU at the University of East Anglia, Lord Lawson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), has called for a rigorous and independent inquiry into the matter. While reserving judgment on the contents of the e-mails, Lord Lawson said these are very serious issues and allegations that reach to the heart of scientific integrity and credibility:

"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."

"There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."

People in the media, academics, legislators, movie elites, and environmentalist group have been quite sympathetic to the AGW promoters, and with apologies to Sherlock Holmes they have been the “The Dogs Which Didn't Bark”. They knew or should have known that these climate crimes were being committed and they knew or should have known who was committing them. They not only did nothing to stop them, they attacked, insulted, and dismissed those who objected. These are actions of dangerous people, too, and are unforgivable.

Michael Fox, Ph.D., is a nuclear scientist and a science and energy resource for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows.

Pent Up Demand For Drilling

One of the goals of CARE’s Blog (Comments About Responsible Energy) is to provide a variety of pro-energy viewpoints, gathered from diverse sources—especially sources CARE Members and the average person is not likely to encounter every day. This is one of the reasons we have been so pleased to be able to include the insight from Byron King here. (Byron was recently also the CARE Conference Call guest.)

Coming from an energy investment perspective, he always sheds a unique light on America’s energy situation.

Like the Cash for Clunkers program highlighted the pent-up demand for automobiles, Byron points out the pent up demand for drilling. Whether or not you take his investment advice is totally up to you, but we believe you will find his prediction of increased drilling to be of interest. Be sure to check out the charts.

Prepare for the Rebound in Drilling
Do you remember this time last year? As spring turned to summer, energy prices were moving upward. By mid-July 2008, oil prices peaked at $147 per barrel. But as with Gen. Pickett and his famous charge at Gettysburg, that lofty level of $147 was the high-water mark for oil prices.

By August of last year, the price of oil was retreating, and it was a hard slog on the way down. By midwinter, in December 2008 and January 2009, oil prices were in the $30s per barrel--a drop of over 75% within six months. It was a wild ride.

Natural gas had a similar rise and fall last year. In July 2008, the NYMEX price for natural gas was around $13 per mcf (thousand cubic feet). By October 2008, that price was cut in half. In fact, natural gas prices trended down throughout the chilly winter of 2008-2009.

The current economic pullback--our Great Recession--means that many industries, as well as the electric power sector, are using less natural gas. Think of the mills, plants, factories and other industrial and commercial sites that have scaled back or closed. They don’t need nearly as much natural gas or electric power.

Thus, energy demand has tumbled in North America. The price of natural gas has fallen, and hard. For a while this spring, gas prices couldn’t find a bottom. It’s only been in the past two months or so that the price of natural gas leveled off at around $4 per mcf.

Right now with natural gas prices under $4 we have an extraordinary opportunity! $4 natural gas is the equivalent of $30 oil--it just won’t last. Better yet, I’ve got the perfect way to play this trend--a company that could hand you as much as 340%.

But before we get to the company I’m talking about, let’s take a look at what happened to natural gas drilling…


Drilling Activity Dropped Off a Cliff
Along with the price collapse for oil and natural gas, there was a dramatic worldwide drop in the count of drilling rigs. Drilling activity scaled back precipitously, in a tumble reminiscent of the previous hard times in the oil patch back in 1981 and 1982. Here’s a comparison between then and now.


If you want more exact details, here are the most recent rig count numbers from Baker Hughes, the world’s preeminent drill bit manufacturer.


Look at that change from last year! In North America--the U.S. and Canada combined--the rig count just plain fell through the floor to a recent level below 1,000. (It has crept up to 1,065 in the past couple of weeks.)

With low oil prices, there was less drilling in the U.S. and Canada, of course. But look at the international rig count. It’s interesting that the international count didn’t drop off all that much over the past year--only about 10% or so, as opposed to a drop of almost 60% in North America.
Why the difference between North America and internationally? The big pullback in North American activity was in rigs drilling for natural gas. That is, over half the drilling activity in North America is for gas. It’s different in the international arena, where most rigs are drilling for oil.

The bottom line is this…

The low prices for North American natural gas didn’t support drilling, hence the massive North American rig pullback. Also, much of the North American gas drill-out of recent years was financed with borrowed money. And the credit crunch froze almost all of the funds that were going into the North American gas-drilling sector.

So less demand led to lower natural gas prices. Lower prices could not support the financing model for the North American gas-drilling business. The easy money for gas wells dried up. And the rig count plummeted. Now what?


The Rig Count Has Found a Bottom
It looks like the worldwide rig count has found its bottom in recent weeks. In fact, the numbers are creeping up a bit, according to Baker Hughes. What’s going on?

Since February, the price of oil has steadily crept back to the $70 range per barrel. That’s up 100% from the midwinter low. The oil price increase clearly supports more drilling.

Why are oil prices up? Here are a few reasons. Cheap oil last winter led directly to lower fuel prices worldwide. Hence, overall world demand for oil stabilized, and in some areas, fuel demand has actually strengthened. Meanwhile, OPEC has cut oil output by about five million barrels per day. There’s less supply hitting the markets. Also, China has been filling its strategic petroleum reserve. And Chinese demand is up, year over year. The Chinese are not only buying new cars, they’re driving them.

As for North American natural gas, the price has stabilized at about $4 per mcf. That’s a low number. In fact, it’s barely enough to keep the industry alive in the short term. Some people call it a “gas glut.” It depends on our time frame. Long term? At $4 per mcf, natural gas is barely on life-support. This situation can’t last and it’s our opportunity to get into the KEY ENABLING TECHNOLOGY of the natural gas market, and do it with very limited risk!

Depletion Still Matters
At the same time, old Mr. Depletion is working his efforts. Hydrocarbons are, of course, depleting substances. Every barrel of oil lifted to the surface is one barrel less down in the hole. Every mcf of natural gas that blows out of the formation is one less mcf down there.

So each day of hydrocarbon production brings every well one day closer to the end of its useful life. And with most modern wells, the output curves are falling off pretty steeply in the first year or two. It’s counter to what a lot of people think, but it’s reality.

Wells don’t just produce large volumes of oil and gas year after year. Indeed, it’s a rare well (at least in North America, which has been drilled like a pincushion) that produces strongly after even one year. Most wells just plain slack off and output drops after the first few months or so. Sure, a well eventually will settle in at some level of output. And that level might last for many years. But in almost EVERY case, it’s a much lower level than in the first few months of the well’s existence.

We Need to Drill Wells
The only way around depletion is to drill more wells. In a broad sense, you have to look at well drilling as a long-term industrial process. The energy industry needs a pipeline (so to speak) of thousands of drilling prospects that get drilled on a regular basis. Break the process--with wild swings in the pricing mechanism, for example--and you’ve got trouble. We just plain need to drill wells.

But with the rig counts way down in the past year, a lot of those wells we need to drill have not been drilled. Thus, the energy process is derailed. The future is NOT now. In fact, the energy future is now moving out of our immediate control. The U.S. could be looking at serious depletion-induced natural gas shortages within a year to 18 months. So the drilling cycle needs to kick back into gear.

The bottom line is that the drilling industry is poised for a comeback. If I were you, I’d start looking at investments in this arena.

Prior to joining Whiskey and Gunpowder, Byron received his Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, was a cum laude graduate of Harvard University, served on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations and as a field historian with the Navy. Our resident energy and oil expert, Byron is the editor of Outstanding Investments and Energy and Scarcity Investor.

Technology and the Peak Oil Myth

What a treat it was to read this piece by Byron King. His comments about the advancements in technology echo some of those made by CARE’s Executive Director Marita Noon at the Mount Taylor hearing May 15th in Santa Fe. But Byron’s comments are based on his fresh experience examining the new technology at the Offshore Technology Conference. It is exciting to hear about the new technology that is available to add hydrocarbon resources to the ever-increasing demand. That, too, is something we’ve been saying here at CARE regarding those who argue that we are going to run out of oil. Yes, the low hanging fruit has been picked. But through advances in technology, more and more keeps be found and being more easily recoverable.

Additionally, Byron artfully addresses America’s political climate and how old fears are allowing other countries to take the lead that used to be America’s.

As Robert Bradley addressed in his CARE Conference Call in December, the more of us that draw attention to these issues, the higher the likelihood of being heard. He called it the echo effect. Thanks to Byron King for shouting from a different roof-top, the roof-top of energy investments. Maybe he will reach a different audience.

Don’t forget, Byron is the CARE Conference Call guest this week: May 27, 2009--11:00 AM ET, 10:00 AM CT, 9:00 AM MT, 8:00 AM PT. E-mail info@responsiblenergy.org to participate.

Oil Don’t Come Easy
I was in Houston this month, attending the Offshore Technology Conference. I have to confess that I’m humbled. Really, for as much as I think I know about the energy biz after a mere 30-plus years… a walk (a LONG walk, to be sure) around the packed floor of the immense Reliant Center AND the massive Reliant Stadium reveals how much I have left to learn.

In previous years, I’ve attended the OTC on my own, or as a representative of Agora Financial. This year, the American Petroleum Institute paid for my trip to Houston and to the OTC. I extend my thanks to the API. I am, of course, free to report on anything that I believe is of interest. API has NO editorial control over what I report to you. As always, I observe, follow the facts and draw my own conclusions.

Wrapping Your Brain Around the OTC
Sometimes when 70,000 people head to Reliant Stadium, it’s to watch the Houston Texans play football. The spectators understand what’s going on down on the field. In true Texas fashion, they know the rules of football. There are 22 players moving back and forth, with the rest of the two teams and coaching staffs on the sidelines. It’s something around which you can wrap your brain.

But the OTC? How do you wrap your brain around the OTC, its several thousand exhibitors and many dozens of speakers?

Do you want to know how to do seismic work on the other side of the world? How to build work ships the size of aircraft carriers? How to anchor a 75,000-ton rig in swift-moving water, while dangling a 20,000-ton riser-string that’s nearly two miles deep? How to drill oil wells 250 miles out at sea? In 9,000 feet of water? Through 14,000 feet of rock? Through 8,000 feet of salt? Into fluids with pressures of 25,000 pounds per square inch? (By comparison, your household water pressure might be about 40 psi.) Into super-heated oil filled with poisonous gases? How to move that super-heated oil to the seabed from beneath four miles of the earth’s crust? Then how to move that oil across hundreds of miles of ocean bottom, and do it in the freezing waters of the deep ocean, even at the equator and, of course up in the Arctic? Do you know how to do that?

Where does the technology come from? Who builds the equipment? How do you pay for it? Where is the work force to accomplish these tasks? What about the government policies that influence it, for better and worse? How do you make 25- and 50-year plans — yeah, it takes THAT long — in a world where prices and policies change by the month? How about the national cultures that nurture (or suppress) the whole process?

Which Battle? Which War?
Let’s look at things from the standpoint of national cultures. When I attended the Naval War College a few years ago, going through a course for senior officers, one professor said something that stuck with me: “Your job is not to fight the last battle of the last war. It’s to fight the first battle of the next war.”

“The first battle of the next war?” Damn right. Sure, you’re going to study history. Sure, you’re going to read about the last war and its last battles. But you have to understand that things change. You have to realize that everybody else is studying the last battle of the last war. So you probably have no real advantage going into the next great effort. The other guy has read the same book.

Thus, if you want to succeed, you have to get ahead of the future. You have to write a new book. It’s YOUR book. Indeed, you have to invent that future. You have to decide what you want to do, and then acquire the people and equipment to get it done.

Brazil — Gearing up for the First Battle of the Next War
Where am I going with this? Let’s look at Brazil, for example. The Brazilians are gearing up for the first battle of the next war, so to speak. They intend to survive as a prosperous, industrialized country in the 21st century, despite intense future competition across the world for energy fuels and other natural resources.

Down in Brazil, they’re in something like national rapture at the prospect of drilling up the deep pre-salt hydrocarbon plays in the offshore basins. The estimates are that the deep basins off Brazil hold between 20-100 billion barrels of oil. Maybe more.

The entire nation of Brazil, apparently, revels in the prospect of investing over $120 billion in offshore development in just the next eight years. They have a plan. It’s their moonshot. The Brazilians believe that the offshore environment will bring their industries firmly into the modern era. Brazil wants to be a world power in the 21st century. And the oil? Well, of course they have plans for that oil.

As a nation, Brazil cannot wait to move ahead into its offshore realm. Just Petrobras, the national oil company, wants 40 new drilling rigs, each over 60,000 tons; and 32 new production units, each near 100,000 tons; and about 130 large supply vessels, each over 100,000 tons.

Petrobras has plans to emplace HUNDREDS of subsea systems on the deep ocean bottom to bring that oil into production. The Brazilians will lay thousands of miles of underwater pipeline, with all the associated ship-support and other equipment that entails.

The Brazilians are not living in the frozen past. They’re not hostage to paralyzing myths. The Brazilians envision a future for their nation, and they’re acting on it. They see hundreds of deep-water oil wells pulling petroleum out of the crust from many miles down and piping it ashore to their refineries and industries. Indeed, Brazil plans to win that first battle of the next war. And it’s cutting the steel with which to do it.

Meanwhile, Back in the US of A…
Meanwhile in the U.S., the policy battles rage endlessly over offshore development. Authorize? Don’t authorize. Explore? Don’t explore. Lease? Don’t lease. Drill? Don’t drill. Produce? Don’t produce.

Whenever the proponents of offshore development score a win, the opponents take it all to federal court for years on end. Years later, some judge makes a decision. Then comes the inevitable appeal. And then everyone goes back to litigate some more after the appeal. There’s no end. I’ve spent my adult life watching this ping-pong match play out.

What’s at the heart of the issue? A broken political process. Or you might call it a political “process” that works too well. Really, it seems that much of the U.S. energy mind-set is stuck firmly in the past. In essence, the debate is over how to fight the last battle of the last war.

Living in a 40-Year-Old Past
For example, again and again, the opponents of offshore development in the U.S. summon up their favorite bete noir — the images of the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969. An event from four decades ago — before most Americans now living were even born — has become the iconic reason not to develop, say, offshore California. And this is despite the fact that the exploration, drilling and environmental technology of today is far advanced from what existed 40 years ago.

Think about it. Do you have a better computer today than 40 years ago — if you even used computers back then? A better television? A better car? Are there better airliners? Better heart transplants? You get the idea. But some people learn something and never let it go.

Along those lines, the other day, I visited the facilities of Cameron Intl., here in Houston. Cameron makes blowout preventers for deep-sea drilling, and a large host of other drilling-related equipment. Having been around the oil industry for over 30 years now, I can say that the new technology for safe drilling is beyond astonishing. Just the quality control alone is awesome. For example, EVERY HEAT of steel that goes into certain of Cameron’s subsea products goes through a rigorous quality-assurance check. Every heat.

Meanwhile, it’s not just California where the offshore is off-limits. Most of the rest of the U.S. offshore is locked up as well, except the western Gulf of Mexico and (grudgingly) some of northern Alaska. As one wag has put it, when it comes to offshore development, much of the U.S. political class is living in “The No Zone.”


The Future Is Right Now
But the last battle of the last war — the Battle of Santa Barbara — is over. The images of oil on the beaches led the U.S. to shut down much of its offshore drilling effort, and for many decades. Meanwhile, the mess got cleaned up. It’s history. The energy industry figured out what happened and fixed a lot of problems. Now where do we go? Because you have to go somewhere, sometime. You can’t live in the past — at least not for too long. Or can you? Well, you can try to live in the Good Old Days, but eventually, the future will overtake you. And in the world of energy, the future is right now.

Welcome to the Future
A year ago, the price of oil was $120 per barrel and rising. Indeed, by last July, the price was $147 per barrel. And when that happened, you might recall that the world economy didn’t work very well. It was oil prices; it was bad banks; it was a lot of things that went wrong. And then the economy cratered. That took down the oil price. So now the price of oil is in the $50s.

Look back. How did oil ever reach $147 per barrel? Was there really not enough to go around? That’s what some people thought. But then why did the price suddenly tumble, if not just plain drop off a cliff? Did people anticipate a demand crash? Again, that’s what other people thought.

Now we have oil in the $50s. What does that mean? With oil in the $50s, does it mean that the world has “too much” oil? Or not enough? Well, what’s your time frame? A day? A week? A month? A year? Five years? Fifteen years?

With oil in the $50s, yes there will probably be adequate supplies for the next few months. You can calm down. The oil you’ll burn in September is being loaded onboard distant tankers right now.

But with oil in the $50s, will there be adequate oil supplies in, say, 2012, if not 2020? I doubt it. At least not for the U.S. Because with oil in the $50s, some of that 2012 oil — and much of that 2020 oil — won’t see the light of day. There’s just not enough cash flow for the energy business to do its thing — like drill enough wells. Hey, the future is now.

Future oil production requires current exploration and development. Except we’re not drilling. We’re not developing. So welcome to the future. With oil in the $50s, it’s a no-brainer to predict future shortages.

For Now, Keep Drilling
One thing is certain. If the energy industry does not stay focused and capitalized, we’re in a lot of trouble — and I mean sooner, rather than later. That’s why a big trade show like the OTC is so important. The OTC embodies the new developments in offshore technology. It gets right into your face.

Almost every booth at OTC has some item on display that’s better than what used to be on display. Yesterday, for example, I saw a remarkable new invention from FMC Technologies that dramatically improves the safety and efficiency of the “fracturing” process (“frac-ing”) by opening up shale beds to yield natural gas. It’s what the late efficiency guru Edward Deming would have called an “incremental improvement” to an existing process. But it’s brilliant and elegant. And when this new equipment goes into widespread use, it will offer a dramatic improvement.

Ideas and improvements like this from FMC Technologies — and countless more on display at the OTC — will allow the energy industry to keep providing hydrocarbon molecules to us earthlings for as long as we want to burn them. (Burn them? That’s another story entirely.)

The OTC shows off what the U.S. has at its disposal, if it chooses to develop its offshore energy resources. Here are the tools with which to fight the first battle of the next war.

And the OTC also shines a light on how many U.S. policymakers and opinion leaders are living in the past, patting themselves on the back as they fight that last battle of the last war. Meanwhile the energy clock is running down, and other nations and cultures are shopping their wares.

Prior to joining Whiskey and Gunpowder, Byron received his Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, was a cum laude graduate of Harvard University, served on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations and as a field historian with the Navy. Our resident energy and oil expert, Byron is the editor of Outstanding Investments and Energy and Scarcity Investor.

Climate Change and Policy Direction

Yesterday, after just hanging up from a successful and stimulating conference call with Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com during which the topic of climate change and energy policy was the theme, an e-mail popped in. It was the latest commentary from Byron King, the energy editor of the Whiskey and Gunpowder investment newsletter. CARE’s executive director Marita Noon had closed the conference call with the announcement that Byron King would be the conference call guest for May. How fortuitous that he sent this piece to CARE within minutes of the mention of his name.

This posting is a great follow up to the April conference call and a wonderful introduction for the May conference call. Byron picks up on the climate change discussion. He mentions several of the issues that CARE has been addressing—including hatred” of carbon-based fuels (see op-ed on this topic), algae to liquid fuels (as was the topic of one of the student speeches in CARE’s Student Speech Competition at New Mexico State University last week) and geothermal energy (see op-ed on this topic).

How we wish we could afford to have Byron on staff at CARE—but we are grateful he is a friend and is willing to share his insights!

The Direction of Energy Policy
The other day I had lunch with a “brain trust,” of sorts. Participants included a retired executive from an aerospace company. This guy helped design and build many of the reconnaissance satellites that the U.S. has launched. There was a senior executive from a large steel company. There was a venture capitalist who made his first $500 million in the software industry, and who now has much of that wealth spread around in biotech and nanotech startups. There was a former senior political appointee who worked in the Treasury Department. And then there was me.

“Climate Change” Driving Policy Now
According to the satellite builder, the dominant elements of the political and media culture are “completely in the tank” when it comes to believing in the dangers of “climate change.” It’s not as if climate change is demonstrably true, he pointed out. There are valid scientific data from both sides of the climate change issue, and many valid data points in between. But according to the aerospace executive — some of whose satellites were built to track climate change — “For at least ten years, if you have not been promoting the dangers of climate change then you have not been receiving government grants. So the research community is following the money.”

Thus the research literature is coming out strongly in favor of “doing something” about climate change. And policy-makers are using this research literature to justify doing what they’ve wanted all along, which is change the world as we know it. As a class, the activists want to change the world into something else.

“Pathological Hatred” of Carbon-Based Fuels
According to the steel executive, the climate change issue has spurred what amounts to “a pathological hatred” of carbon-based energy systems. “It doesn’t have to make practical sense,” says this source. “It doesn’t even have to work with economics. It just has to support a policy to utterly transform the nation’s energy system. The people making policy now have a crusader’s mentality. ‘The past is trash,’ is how many of the new policy makers view our world. So the new policy makers want to promote radical change in energy policy. They’re going to jam it down the throat of the economy.”

According to the steel executive, the steel industry expects to see inflation-adjusted, baseline energy prices triple or quadruple within ten years. “Whether the government taxes carbon-based energy at the source, or whether they pass ‘cap-and-trade’ legislation, it’s going to cost us. So we’ll pay. Of course, we’ll pass along the new costs to the steel buyers. If demand goes down, we’ll close facilities. Then the TV cameras will show up at the plant gates to watch us shut the doors and click the padlocks. And we’ll get called bad names by the people who never much liked us in the first place.”

Can the Economy Support What the Government Wants to Do?
The former Treasury official added that a new “policy paradigm” has yet to form in Washington DC. “It’s like during the Cold War, there was a bi-partisan consensus to confront and contain the Soviet Union. It was expensive, but we agreed to do it. We made the national sacrifice. Well, that foreign policy consensus ended when the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR came down.” The groupthink in the early 1990s was that another kind of broad consensus had to take the place of the confrontation with the Soviets. And by its very nature, that consensus was fragile.

“Let me back up,” said the former Treasury official. “Confronting the Soviet Union gave the U.S. an excuse to continue with Franklin Roosevelt’s Depression Era, New Deal, big government for 45 years after World War II. But after the USSR fell? Why did we still need big government? To run a modern welfare state? That was the justification.

Remember the talk about that ‘Peace Dividend?’ People were drooling over the idea of cutting the military budget and paying for more and better social welfare through more big government.”

“So what happened?” asked the Treasury guy. “Some people thought they were going to run a big government welfare state using modern monetary theory. They convinced themselves that we could do that. They didn’t understand the long term problem.”

What was the long-term problem? “The welfare state was never going to last. Especially because the nation collectively wanted it to support a rank, consumerist culture that could not earn its keep within the world economy. We imported, imported, imported. And we paid for it with cheap dollars. After the U.S. left the gold standard in 1971, the fundamentals of the American productive economy could never support what the nation was trying to do. We’ll look back eventually and realize it was delusional policy-making. All we did was run down the economy for a couple of generations. It finally collapsed in 2008.”

Whatever “post-USSR consensus” existed in the U.S. in the 1990s shattered during the 2000s. “People went nuts because of the Bush Administration,” said the Treasury official. “The white-bread explanation — call it ‘Decline and Fall for Dummies’ — was that it was all about the evil George Bush and his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, Bush and the wars were visible, so that’s what people blamed. The real problem for the U.S. was that the whole foundation for post-war American society, economy and governance was caving in under our feet. The timbers were rotten.”

The Barn Burned Down — Did Anyone Notice?
According to the Treasury man, the U.S. economy is now confronted by “block obsolescence” of many of the economic and political assumptions with which we’ve lived for decades, since World War II. “Chrysler isn’t the only big institution that’s bankrupt. We ought to burn down a few universities, while we’re at it,” he added.

And he noted that Republicans and Democrats both fed at the trough while the going was good. “But while the politicians had their heads buried in the trough for all those years,” he said, “they didn’t notice that the barn was burning down around them.”

The Treasury-man continued: “Look at the destruction of former industrial titans like General Motors, and with GM the annihilation of much of the rest of the automobile industry. Who’s going to invent whatever will take its place? We used to say that 40% of the U.S. economy was based on the auto industry, directly or indirectly. Are we ever going to see 40% of the U.S. economy based on putting solar panels on roofs, or tuning the gearboxes of windmills?”

“Free-Traded” to the Poorhouse — We’re at the Edge of the End
The former Treasury official looked at the ongoing economic crash. He placed it within the context of the long-term decline in U.S. manufacturing. “As a society,” he said, “we’ve made a lot of very bad choices of both moral philosophy and economic policy. Those bad choices have brought us to the edge of the end. We’ve spent, borrowed and ‘free-traded’ ourselves to the poorhouse. Now the Chinese own us.”

Helping Embryonic Industry — Creating a Success Story
The venture capitalist chimed in with some thoughts. “If the feds are going to spend billions on stimulus, then they ought to direct some of that money to help fund promising research. How about some money to pay for every fossil-fuel power plant in the country to siphon off some of its CO2? Then run the CO2 through a facility to grow algae to make biofuels.”

“We’d be killing about four birds with one stone,” explained the venture capitalist. “We’d be taking down CO2 emissions. Not much, maybe, but some. We’d be helping an embryonic industry that can be competitive in coming years. Heck, turning algae into fuel is easy. The basic part is just high school chemistry. So we’d be creating a new supply source for the liquid fuels industry. And we’d be able to point to at least one success story where people can agree that we all did something right.”

Then the venture capitalist added that one of his startups is “working on coal-eating bugs.” He explained that “There’s a lot of coal buried so deep, or under other conditions that we can’t mine it. That coal will never get out. So why not put bugs down in the deep seams, and let them eat the coal? Then we can harvest the gases that come out the back end of the bugs, and use that as feedstock for other things.”

“Well, What Do YOU Think?”
At one point, one of the lunch participants turned to the silent person at the table, who was busy taking it all in and making a few discrete notes. Then came the dreaded question, “Well Byron, what do YOU think?”

I focused my comments on geothermal development. I pointed out that for all the anti-carbon sentiment out there, the most under-appreciated, “clean and green” energy source is geothermal. There appears to be strong support for geothermal development via tax incentives and other, policy-based standards. Combine this with the growing social focus on clean, renewable energy sources.

Right now, 24 states have renewable portfolio standards (RPS) for electricity production. And Congress is leaning towards setting a national standard of 20% to 25% RPS power production by 2025. We’re at the point where a utility like California’s Pacific Gas and Electric is so desperate for “clean” energy that they’re contracting with a privately-owned company to build a satellite to harvest solar energy from space, and “beam” it back to earth.

The companies that are out there now are in relatively advanced stages of developments. The big problem is that the follow-on pipeline is almost empty. The problem has been lack of access to capital for the past year or so. In other words, lack of capital is the strongest headwind to progress. If the funding delays can break down, then we’ll see decreased complexity for funding, and project schedules moving ahead.

Byron received his Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, was a cum laude graduate of Harvard University, served on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations and as a field historian with the Navy. Our resident energy and oil expert, Byron is the editor of Outstanding Investments and Energy and Scarcity Investor.

Trust us, We’re Experts from the Government

Not often enough, we feature a posting from Byron King, the resident energy and oil expert for the invest newsletter Whiskey and Gunpowder. His light-hearted approach to a serious subject makes his writing enjoyable reading. Different from our other contributors, Bryon emphasizes energy investments. In this posting, he postulates that the current trend of bailouts and consumer economy is unsustainable. He recommends investments in gold and energy plays. Read on as he explains why.

We at CARE picked up on this posting from Byron King because of his comments about the “government knows best.” If you read our monthly newsletter, the PowerLine, you read Marita Noon’s commentary on Energy Socialism. While their expertise differs, clearly they are coming to some of the same conclusions.

Please note: Byron King is scheduled to be the featured guest on CARE’s monthly Conference Call in May. The exact time and date is yet to be determined. If you subscribe to CARE’s e-newsletter, you will get the invitation to Byron King’s Conference Call.



Unsustainable
Can you believe that winter is officially over? Wow, it was a cold couple of months. Makes you want to say, “So much for global warming.”

Except it’s not global warming anymore. Now it’s called “climate change.” Y’see, the cold winter wasn’t a sign of warming. It was a sign of global climate change. Got that? Mankind is burning too much fossil fuel, goes the thesis. So the cold gets colder. The hot gets hotter. The wet gets wetter. The dry gets dryer. And the confusion gets what? More confusing?

So is this game rigged? No matter what the evidence is, goes the argument, just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. It’s all climate change. And that, of course, means that the government knows best. Especially when a certain class of people--with the right policy credentials--are running the government. As in the expression, “Trust us. We’re experts from the government. We’re going to help you.” Or as the narrator used to say at the beginning of the show The Outer Limits, “There is nothing wrong with your television set.” Or as the cops say as you drive past a crash scene today, “Move along, folks. There’s nothing to see here.” Yep. No looky-loo. Just climb aboard the Climate Change Railway Express. No peeking while we raise your taxes.

Decades of Malinvestment Become Apparent
Meanwhile, over the past winter, the economy was in the tank. The deep troubles got deeper. It makes me recall many of those hard times stories I used to hear from family and friends about the Great Depression. It makes me glad I listened.

This past winter, it seemed like all those decades of what the Austrian economists call malinvestment finally found a place in the light of day. But it’s not as if the whole tale were some sort of state secret, like the Venona files at the National Security Agency or something. Really, the nation’s industrial and productive decline was fairly clear all along if you knew what you were seeing. The problem has been hiding in plain sight since August 1971, when President Nixon killed any semblance of a gold-backed dollar.

Or it’s kind of like Peak Oil. M. King Hubbert drew the fundamental Peak Oil graph back in the 1950s. Heck, I heard Hubbert give his speech in fall 1977. I saw Peak Oil in action back when I was working at Gulf Oil Co. in the late 1970s. It was no shock to me, at least, when the world’s crude oil output curve finally maxed out in 2006.

What? Nobody told you that the crude curve maxed out? Hey, the world’s marginal oil output is now mostly natural gas liquids. It means that we’re blowing down the gas caps.

It’s why I like resource and energy companies, companies that bring real stuff to the surface. It’s why I’ll keep writing about energy and resources in a publication like ESI.

Obama’s Economic Policy
I try to avoid getting too “political” in these pages, aside from my rants about issues affecting energy policy, resource policy and the like. So today I’m just going to quote my friend James Howard Kunstler, a longtime Democrat and supporter of Barack Obama in the recent election.

Kunstler just published his comments on the Obama appearance on the CBS News show 60 Minutes on Sunday, March 22. According to Kunstler, Obama “may perfectly represent the majority who elected him…because he also appears to be in full-commanding denial of the realities overtaking our American experience. Those realities include the fact that we can't possibly return to the easy-credit and no-money-down ‘consumer’ economy, no matter how many nominal dollars get shoveled into the fiery furnaces of banks too big to fail.”

After describing the economic policies coming out of Congress and the new presidential administration, Kunstler continues: “Lending on the scale that became normal over the last decade is, for sure, the one thing that we will not recover. We turn around in 2009 to find ourselves a much poorer nation than we thought we were a year ago, especially among that broad range of formerly middle-class wage-earners who lived so luxuriously until yesterday. The public can't process this reality, and the president, for all his relaxed charm, is either not ready to articulate it, or can't process it himself.”

Kunstler describes the process of the Fed releasing new currency--created out of thin air--to buy up Treasury debt. He comments: “It would be sententious to explain how this destroys currencies, but wherever ‘monetizing debt’ has been tried before in history, that is the outcome. The result would be ruinous at every level and would lead straight to the second terrible force: social upheaval brought on by the conversion of economic problems into political turbulence.”

In my view, Jim Kunstler is exactly on target with his comments. I’m watching the shenanigans in Washington with something approaching utter fear. It’s why I’m recommending investments in gold and energy plays.

Spend, Borrow, Tax, Inflate
I’m truly worried about our future. The things that are going on in the U.S. economy are not sustainable, and I don’t just mean “happy motoring” into the Peak Oil future. The whole economy is on the edge. I don’t see anything on the political or policy horizon that offers any semblance of hope. Nothing. It’s just spend, spend, spend. Borrow, borrow, borrow. And tax, tax, tax.

What’s in all of this for you? What’s in it for me? A lot of inflation, most likely. That’s why you need to buy gold with 5-10% of your portfolio. And have more of your portfolio in good, solid mining firms.

Building on Kunstler’s comments just a bit more, the Obama economic policy assumes that someone out there will still buy U.S. Treasury paper. But will that happen? The best customers for U.S. debt are distinctly unenthusiastic about adding to their holdings.

The Chinese already own a trillion dollars or so in Treasury bills that are depreciating in value. Besides, China needs a continent full of new infrastructure, plus social spending for 1.3 billion people. And don’t forget the new navy China is planning, with which to police its interests from Africa to the central Pacific Ocean and onto South America. All of this will sop up funds China once used to buy U.S. securities.

Another large traditional customer for U.S. debt is Japan. But Japan is running a current account deficit. It lacks the large numbers of dollars to recycle.

In the Middle East, the petro states are no longer receiving a flood of dollars from high-priced oil ($147 per barrel last July). Don’t count on them to buy up U.S. Treasuries.

The bottom line is I don’t know--and I don’t know anyone else who knows--where the buyers will come from to absorb all the new debt that the Obama and congressional spending plans are going to generate. Something has to give. It’s going to be the long-term value of the dollar. I expect to see a lot of fuel poured onto the fires of inflation.

Byron received his Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, was a cum laude graduate of Harvard University, served on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations and as a field historian with the Navy. Our resident energy and oil expert, Byron is the editor of Outstanding Investments and Energy and Scarcity Investor.