Has Mexican Oil Peaked?

We always enjoy featuring the insights of Byron King and have benefitted from his expertise on CARE’s Monthly Conference Call. This piece caught our attention because of the title. Of course the word ‘oil” was a trigger, but “crashing” was more the hook.

The debate about so-called “peak oil” is ongoing and we’ve generally taken the side of “Yes, the low hanging fruit is gone, but there are so many new discoveries and resource expansion that we have enough oil for a hundred years at least.” So, “crashing” definitely got our attention--hopefully yours too!

Fortunately, this piece didn’t change our view, but unfortunately for America, who uses a great deal of the Mexican resource, they have not managed their industry well. Byron writes for an investment newsletter called Whiskey and Gunpowder and while we do not even pretend to give investment advice, we always find his perspective worthy of note.

Mexico’s Crashing Oil Industry
Mexico is a critical oil supplier to the United States. But Mexico’s ‘s oil industry is in crisis. Indeed the grim numbers come from no less a source than the Mexican Energy Ministry. Production statistics make it clear that Mexico’s overall oil output is declining rapidly--with the word “crashing” coming to mind as one views the chart.

One particular oil field is central to the problem. It’s called Cantarell. It’s a super-giant, offshore oil field that was discovered in 1976--based on a natural oil seep under about 150 feet of water, by the way.

After decades of production, Cantarell is getting long in the tooth. Oil output from Cantarell, is declining rapidly. Cantarell is depleting at an astonishing rate. Meanwhile, the yield from new Mexican oil fields is simply not making up the difference.

The Mexican government obtains about 40% of its national receipts from oil-related revenues. Yet due to falling oil output, especially from offshore, Mexico will likely cease being an oil exporting nation by 2015. This looming problem holds dire implications for the national balance sheet of Mexico, as well as--by implication--for U.S. energy and national security.

One obvious question is, Can Mexico rebuild its oil industry? Right now, there’s not nearly enough internal Mexican investment in exploration and new oil development. It’s quite evident that Mexico has under-funded what’s called “maintenance capital,” the funds necessary just to keep the day-to-day operations and equipment working.

Another problem is Mexico’s lack of success in discovering and developing new oil resources, despite its national jurisdiction over a large slice of the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico.

One major element of this lack of exploration success is that Mexico’s constitution severely restricts foreign participation in Mexico’s energy development. That is, foreign oil companies are banned from exploring for and drilling for oil in Mexico. Considering Mexico’s crashing oil output, it’s fair to ask if Mexico should change its approach to development.

Recently, I discussed these important issues with Ali Moshiri, President of Chevron Africa and Latin America Exploration and Production Company.

Here’s what I asked Mr. Moshiri about Mexican oil development, followed by his reply.

BWK: In the U.S. we’re seeing remarkable discoveries in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Could you share your views about what’s happening across the GOM, down in Mexico? Is there hope for deepwater oil helping Mexico reverse it’s decline rate for oil production?

AM: With Mexico, the new government reforms are in a positive direction. The fundamentals have to be decided by the Mexican government, which has to decide how they want to risk exploring their basin.

The Mexican government has to decide if they want to risk future exploration via Pemex (Petroleos Mexicanos, the Mexican national oil company--NOC), or via the private sector. They need to recognize that if the private sector is going to get involved, it has to be via a meaningful way. A meaningful way would be via sharing the risk and the upside.

BWK: Do you think we’ll ever see large, new discoveries in the Mexican GOM areas?

AM: I personally believe that Mexico is under-explored. They’re lagging behind on exploration offshore, and they underestimate the complexity and what is required. It all needs to be reassessed.
If you look at the U.S. deepwater GOM, there was a long era (to get to) where we are today. And you cannot look at today, and say you are going to take the U.S. GOM and image it into the Mexican area.

BWK: So what do you think it will take for Mexico to accomplish the exploration, and find the potential resources that are out there?

AM: Number one is that (Mexico needs to allow) the flexibility that is required for private sector, for IOCs (international oil companies). It’s IOCs that are the ones who really know how to go from phased exploration into development.

Yes, you can find companies that can explore. But when you explore, and then you find hydrocarbons in 8,000 feet of water, the next step is how you can develop it. How much money do you need? You can say, well, you need X-millions of dollars (to) develop it. But how do I finance it?

It gets into capital efficiency. Capital efficiency would be, how do I go ahead and finance this project? By production sharing? Finance it by myself? Some other way? How do you finance the development? Those are things that we think need to be addressed in Mexico.

BWK: What about contractors? Do you think Mexico could accomplish its energy goals by hiring, say, service companies, or using large oil companies as contractors, to do the exploration, the seismic, the drilling and such?

AM: The IOC has to be perceived as a partner. You cannot perceive the IOC as a contractor. This is my personal opinion.

Working with the IOC as purely a contractor will slow down the process. You have to look at the IOC as a partner, and a partner meaning sharing the risks as well as the rewards.

If Mexico gets this concept, and understands it, I think the progress and the basin is good enough to do things in the right way, and (Mexico) can be able to catch up the U.S. GOM and the U.S. sector.

So according to Chevron’s Ali Moshiri, there’s hope the Mexican energy sector. If Mexico opens up to foreign risk-sharing, and makes a good use of the expertise of international oil firms, then the nation can increase its future oil output.

But Mexico needs to permit outside, independent oil companies to participate as partners in exploration and development. That means to share the risk and rewards. In other words, Mexico should leverage foreign capital and technology, while sharing the eventual oil production in an equitable manner.

Even then, if everything goes right, it’s going to be a multi-year project to restore Mexico’s oil output to what we’ve seen in previous years. From where things are now, it won’t be easy.

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.

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.

Debunking Myths To Lower Prices, Trim Emissions And Sustain Access To Energy

A new extensive report has just been released by one of our Blog Contributors: Tom Tanton. This report titled Top Ten Energy Myths offers insight into and facts on the myths that are permeated upon the public by the mainstream media. As an energy supporter, this report will give you valuable information to back up conversations you may have.

Why should you know about, understand and debunk the myths? Because, as these comments for the report's conclusion state, "Myths have consequences. Energy policy based on myths could easily curtail our energy supply, drive up prices, and even increase pollution, all without any increase in energy security. On the other hand, energy policy based on facts stands the best chance of increasing our supply, lowering prices, trimming emissions, and boosting our overall energy security. If that is their goal, policy makers, the media, and the public should reject energy myths and stick to the path of facts and reality. That way alone leads to energy abundance and security for America."

This posting is different from most of our Blog contributions in that what you see below is the press release copy that provides an overview of the study. Typically our Blog postings are shorter commentaries from noted energy experts—such as Tom Tanton. However, this report is 19 pages—a bit lengthily for this forum. We believe that once you read the overview, you’ll want to connect to the full report. The colorful document is full of charts, graphs and maps for quick reference. Print it out and pass it around!

Top Ten Energy Myths
The Pacific Research Institute, a free market think tank based in San Francisco, released a new report debunking the common myths about energy in America. Top Ten Energy Myths, by Thomas Tanton, senior fellow in Energy Studies, confronts ten popular myths about America’s energy sources, uses, and risks.

The report challenges conventional discourse about energy propagated by politicians, celebrities, and the media. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Energy Information Administration, Top Ten Energy Myths clearly outlines the types of fuel most used in the U.S.—where they come from, the risks involved, and the potential for alternative technologies.

"Contrary to common belief, new technology has greatly reduced the environmental risk of oil extraction, and renewable energies such as solar and wind will not increase our energy security," said Mr. Tanton. "There is a plethora of unexplored options for securing energy in America through domestic sources, but misled confidence in renewable technologies and increased efficiency are hampering common-sense energy policy."

The list of top ten myths in the report are:
1. Myth: Most of our energy comes from oil.
Reality: Oil represents less than 40 percent of our energy use.

2. Myth: Most of our oil comes from the Middle East.
Reality: Two-thirds of our oil comes from North America.

3. Myth: We have no choice but to import vast quantities of oil and natural gas.
Reality: The U.S. could significantly reduce imports by expanding domestic production.

4. Myth: Offshore oil production poses environmental risks.
Reality: New technology has greatly reduced the risk of oil spills. Reducing oil reservoir pressure through extraction of petroleum will decrease the amount of oil pollution from natural seepage.

5. Myth: Reducing our petroleum use through alternative energies will increase U.S. energy security.
Reality: Reducing petroleum use will first reduce domestic production, not production in unstable regions. Renewable technologies are subject to import and price security concerns as well.

6. Myth: Energy companies will not invest in clean reliable energy so we need government programs to do so.
Reality: Energy companies are investing huge sums of money to develop cleaner and more reliable sources of energy.

7. Myth: Renewable energies will soon replace most conventional energy sources.
Reality: While growing fast in percentage terms, renewable energies are a very small fraction of our energy mix and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

8. Myth: The U.S. consumes large amounts of energy and thus emits a disproportionate amount of the world’s greenhouse gases.
Reality: The U.S. uses energy and emits a large portion of the world’s emissions because it produces a large portion of the world’s goods and services.

9. Myth: Federal mandates for higher-mileage cars means less energy consumption.
Reality: Increased energy efficiency leads to increased energy use.

10. Myth: Forcing drivers to use alternative fuels will help solve global warming.
Reality: Alternative fuels do not necessarily result in lower greenhouse gas emissions.

"Energy policy must be based on facts, not myths," said Mr. Tanton. "If based on myths, energy policy could easily curtail our energy supply, drive up prices, and even increase pollution, all without an increase in energy security."

"If our goal is to lower prices, trim emissions and sustain access to energy, then policy makers, the media, and the public should reject energy myths and stick to the path of facts and reality," concluded Mr. Tanton.

Tom Tanton is a Senior Fellow with the Pacific Research Institute as well as the Principal of T2 & Associates, a firm providing consulting services to the energy and technology industries. Mr. Tanton has over 35 years experience in the energy, economy, and environmental fields.

Barrel of Oil Cost to Increase by End of 2009

With uncertainty in the air about the future cost of a barrel of oil, CARE contacted our good friend Michael J. Economides, a nationally energy analyst, to provide us with some foresight. As a regular contributor to national TV and radio programs and PhD petroleum engineer that has performed technical and managerial work in more than 70 countries; Dr. Economides has both the credibility and expertise to predict how much a barrel of oil will cost in months ahead. With both international political calculations and oil-producing nation's economic policies guiding the future price for a barrel of oil, things can get confusing sometimes and it takes an expert to provide clarity. Below is Dr. Economies's case that the cost of a barrel of oil will soon increase from $80 per barrel to $100 per barrel.

$80 oil on the way to $100 by the end of 2009
Oil has been flirting with $80 per barrel and from the start of this year I have been predicting $100 oil before the end of the year. Almost all other analysts were predicting $40 to $60 oil. I am not quite ready to declare that I was exactly right and they were wrong but it looks like increasingly so.

There are obvious and real underlying reasons for the escalating oil prices which we will expound upon below but news headlines have ruled the price of oil since at least 2004. There was no real rational economic reason for almost $150 oil (which for people with short memories may seem to have happened last century – it happened a year ago, July) nor was there any reason for below $40 oil, which happened right after the late last year "crises" such as the economic crisis, the credit crunch crisis etc. In fact had it not been for those events delegating oil announcements to the seventeenth page of newspapers, a report by the International Energy Agency in Paris last November, which showed that world oil production from operating wells has been declining by 9.1 percent per year, the largest ever, would have shot the oil price to over $200. In fact, even now, there is a lingering possibility that a strike by Israel on Iran may close the Straits of Hormuz and will shoot the price overnight to the stratosphere.

The headlines started in 2004 and included the Abu Ghraib photographs, which increased enormously the fear factor in the Middle East, the re-Sovietization of Russia’s oil industry following the assault on Yukos by then President Vladimir Putin and the re-nationalization of Venezuela’s oil industry by the Hugo Chavez government. That perfect storm of headlines created one of the most telling and repeatable events from 2004 to last year’s economic collapse. With escalating energy and energy product prices, every quarter ExxonMobil, the largest multinational oil company, would announce the biggest profits of any company in the history of the world and "Big Oil" would be in the mouth of many politicians in many countries as the devil-incarnate himself. And yet that very same day, mystifying to many people, their stock would plunge because in smaller letters they would announce that their oil production and reserves were declining. Shut out of reserves in some of the most prolific oil provinces of the world, such as Russia and Venezuela, international Big Oil was, and is, in trouble.

Recent hints of economic recovery and the price of the dollar are offered now as the reason for the oil price escalation. They are real reasons but they hide others. There should be no mistake: oil producing countries love $100 oil and they have little incentive to shoot themselves in the foot by increasing production. Neither the price escalation of the previous four years nor the oncoming one have anything to do with "peak oil". This will eventually happen but not for decades. Physically but not necessarily politically, the world can produce 130 million barrels of oil per day, compared to the current 85 million, but with proper investment and management and will.

Many of the oil producing and exporting nations are run by regimes that want the oil revenue not for technological and even business re-investment and long-term resource management but to affect other internal political and geopolitical aims.

Let’s look first at Russia. From 1998 and the admittedly imperfect privatizations that involved Yukos and Sibneft when the country produced 6 million barrels per day to 2005 when production escalated to more than 9.5 million barrels per day (almost 10% increase per year) Russia was the brightest spot in the international oil business. There was talk of increasing production to 12 million barrels per day which some Yukos executives touted as very realistic. Since then Russia has vegetated to about the same production and the tax regime and government control of the oil business can mean only one thing: imminent declining production and no incentive to do any of the spectacular things that Yukos and Sibneft became legendary for.

Venezuela is an even bigger factor, considering its oil dominance in the Western hemisphere. Before Hugo Chavez took office in 1999 Venezuela was producing 3.4 million barrels per day and there were concrete plans to increase that production by now to 6 million. Instead, after the massive firing of practically all petroleum professionals and the re-nationalization and expulsion of international oil companies, Venezuela is producing 2.6 million barrels per day, the lowest volume since the first nationalization in the 1970’s.

And of course Iraq, with a demonstrable ability to escalate its oil production to 6 million barrels per day has been languishing at 2 million. It may have been quieted down a bit but the sectarian violence is barely beneath the surface and the risks are still great. In a recent auction for oil blocks the interest by international oil companies was abjectly disappointing.

Saudi Arabia is the only country with excess production capacity, estimated at 2.5 million barrels per day, and this is a role that the country found itself once more, in the 1980s, when at the prompting of then US President Reagan it overproduced. The ensuing oil price collapse contributed greatly to the demise of the Soviet Union which depended on oil for almost all its foreign revenues. Russia today depends pretty much at the same level on oil and gas and Saudi Arabia has the capability, if it chooses, to bring enormous hardship on that and other oil producing countries. There is no evidence they will do so, considering it will bring huge hardship on them as well.

Finally, the signs of imminent Chinese exploding oil demand are already here. After phenomenal economic growth in the first seven years of this decade, oil demand was growing by annual double digits. A short-lived slowdown lasted for a few months after the dire headlines of last year’s economic crisis. But Chinese economic growth has bounced back to more than 8 percent. So did oil demand which just came in with vengeance. Last January and February, Chinese oil imports stood at 3.1 million barrels per day, compared to an average of 3.87 million barrels per day in 2008. But from March to June oil imports averaged over 4 million barrels per day and in July they jumped to an unprecedented 4.6 million barrels per day, close to a 20% increase over the average of 2008. (Source: China Customs, August 2009.) This level of imports inch towards the two-thirds of total demand that the United States has been experiencing.

All signs point that oil is on its way to $100 very soon and it will not stop there.

Prof. Michael J. Economides, University of Houston and also Editor-in-Chief Energy Tribune Houston, TX.

Will America Run Out of Oil?

Most Americans live hectic lives and don’t have time in their day to pay attention to news reports about “peak oil”. But would more people pay attention to the supply of oil if the price for a gallon of gas at the pump skyrocketed in the near future? You bet!

Is there an oncoming energy crisis to be caused by peak oil production? Will global oil production become stagnant due to international political strife? Will humanity experience a global oil shock by the year 2012? Our CARE blog contributor and former conference call guest Byron King from the Whiskey and Gunpowder (an investment newsletter) thinks so. While we at CARE don’t necessarily agree, or disagree, with Byron King’s viewpoint on "peak oil," he offers a noteworthy perspective on the situation. You’ll want to note that he writes from an investment perspective.

Peak at 85 Million Barrels of Oil a Day
Eighty-five million barrels a day. That’s the most that can be produced. So when recession causes a temporary decrease in world consumption, it can seem like those 85 million barrels are enough. But consumption is bound to resume its upward climb, while those 85 million barrels a day are all we get. The day of reckoning has just been delayed for a little bit.

"Can’t we get more than 85 million barrels?" some folks are bound to wonder. Let’s look into that.

Those Stubborn "Peak" Curves
This week I was in Denver, attending the 2009 conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas (ASPO). Despite all the happy talk in the Big Media about how the oil situation is under control, I assure you that the oil situation is NOT under control.

The market meltdown and world recession of the past year has bought some time, or stolen some time may be a better way of saying it. All the "peak" curves are still out there, but are merely adjusted a bit to the right on the timelines.

As Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant R. Lee Ermey likes to say on the television show Mail Call, "Wipe that smile off your face." We’re staring at an energy problem that’s coming down the tracks like a runaway freight train. It’s just astonishing that more people don’t appreciate the looming impact of Peak Oil.

Meanwhile, the politicians are fooling around with the health care issue. Hmmm... I have some news for them. If you screw up energy, health care isn’t going to matter very much.

Oil Output Not Increasing
It might be a comforting thought to believe that world oil output can increase. Indeed, many policymakers in the U.S. and Europe apparently dream themselves to sleep at night pondering how the current oil volume of about 85 million barrels per day could move upward to, say, 95 million barrels per day — "if only the world oil industry were more efficient."

Yeah, right. Except the global oil industry is not that model of dreamland efficiency. Sure, there are some bright spots. The big internationals like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, etc. are good. There are some really good state oil firms like Brazil’s Petrobras and Norway’s StatoilHydro. Saudi Aramco is outstanding. These guys are all doing great work to keep the world’s pipelines and tankers filled.

But much of the rest of the world’s oil industry lacks the knack for capital discipline and crisp project execution. Venezuela’s oil industry is a basket case, what with the Chavez-led nationalizations and mass firings of recent years. Output is falling in Venezuela, and this from a nation with among the largest hydrocarbon reserves anywhere in the world.

Mexico’s national firm, Pemex, is nothing but a piggy bank for the politicians, who suck most of the investment capital away from the oil patch and into their own boondoggles. Thus is Pemex walking off a cliff of underinvestment, depletion and decline. According to Matt Simmons, Pemex may not be exporting any oil at all to the U.S. within 18-24 months.

Iran’s oil industry is in a slow death spiral, despite the occasional report of Chinese assistance with field development. Apparently, there’s a "Twitter Revolution" going on in Iran that includes people at the grass roots impeding the oil industry. Well, it worked to depose the Shah back in 1979. Perhaps the Iranians can rid themselves of their mullahs in a similar way.

Next door in Iraq, chaos reigns. According to Matt Simmons, the Iraqis "are in the dark about how to run their oil industry." The Iraqi oil legislation is so burdensome that almost all players within the international energy industry are spurning Iraq, including the Chinese. Wow. When the Chinese won’t invest in your oil fields, there MUST be something wrong.

And so it goes. The bottom line is that we should expect a global oil shock by 2012, or earlier if global economic activity kicks into high gear. It should go without saying that despite any calamities that may come from such a thing, you would be very happy if you’d taken advantage of lower oil prices to stock up.

Byron King--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.

Rare Earth Elements: Vital to Strengthening America’s Economy/Security

Following the publication of the commentary “Happy Talk on Green Jobs” and in conversations surrounding the topic, CARE’s executive director, Marita Noon, is often asked a question, “What are rare earths?” Rare earth elements such as lanthanum, cerium, and many others of are of great importance to the energy sector of our economy and are vital to preserving America’s national security interests. The green energy revolution that environmentalists advocate is impossible to achieve without a secure supply of rare earth elements. REEs are used in the construction of wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, and emerging energy technologies. REEs are also vital to our national security, such as in the construction of jet fighter engines, missile guidance systems, underwater mine detectors, space-based satellite power plants, and military communication systems. And here’s the scary part--China controls 95% of the world’s REE production and environmental extremists are repeatedly blocking American companies from mining efforts that would allow reaching the REEs that we need to keep America free and prosperous. This is an energy issue and a national security issue. Found in one of our favorite sources, Whiskey and Gunpower (an investment newsletter) we discovered a good overview of Rare Earths and the current situation. Most of our posting from Whiskey and Gunpowder come from their Energy Editor Byron King, but this posting introduces a new writer: Doug Hornig.

Why All the Fuss Over Rare Earths?
Rare earth elements (REEs) have been the mystery metals of the mining world for years. Now, suddenly, everyone’s heard about them.

Before we delve into the reasons behind all the publicity, here’s the basic skinny on REEs: One, they are rare, at least sort of. Two, they are indispensable to modern technology. Three, the number of active, dedicated producers is tiny, with more than 90% of the world’s supply coming from China.

If you took high school chemistry, you probably remember the periodic table of the elements. But if you’re like most of us, even if you pulled a 95 on the chem final, you may not recall many of the details today. And there’s a better than even chance you never bothered to memorize the names of the REEs. It’s time to get reacquainted.

They’re generally clustered in a separate grouping at the bottom of the table, are known collectively as the lanthanoids, and these are their names, in order of atomic number (57-70): lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, and ytterbium. Yttrium (39) and lutetium (71) are also sometimes included.

Need to Know, Point 1: Rarity
Fact is, we begin with something of a misnomer. These elements are not, strictly speaking, rare. Earth’s crust is full of them. True, they’re not as common as iron, carbon, or silicon, but are about on a par with nickel, copper, and zinc. Even the scarcest is way more abundant than gold, platinum, or palladium.

What is rare about them is that they’re widely dispersed. Very seldom are they found in economically exploitable deposits. Complicating matters further is that there are so many of them, and they clump together. They have to be separated first from the ore and then from each other.

Thus REE production comes primarily from other mines’ byproducts. The miner strips off the metal he’s really after, then sends the REE clusters to a specialty refiner.

Need to Know, Point 2: Applications
It’s safe to say that life as we know it would be very different without the REEs. The more our technological accomplishments pile atop one another, the more crucial these metals become. Because of their unique properties, there are generally no substitutes for them.

Of all the REEs, the one people may have heard of is neodymium. Alloys containing it have revolutionized permanent magnet technology, allowing miniaturization of all sorts of electronic components in appliances, A/V equipment, computers, communication systems, and military gear. Your hard drive probably has neodymium in it. So does your DVD player.

Liquid crystal displays depend on europium. Fiber-optic cables can’t function without erbium. Virtually all specialty glass products, from mirrors to precision lenses, are polished with cerium oxide. Several REEs are essential constituents of both petroleum fluid cracking catalysts and auto emissions-control catalytic converters. Half a dozen REEs go into the manufacture of the energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs that will soon be mandatory. Lanthanum-nickel-hydride rechargeable batteries are replacing older ones based on lead or cadmium. And no REEs, no electric cars. Nor next-generation wind turbines.

That’s only a partial list. But what makes REEs an increasingly sensitive topic is their role in national defense. Here are a few small items that have become dependent on them: jet fighter engines, missile guidance systems, underwater mine detectors, range finders, space-based satellite power plants, and military communications systems.

Think the Pentagon is very, very interested in maintaining a steady REE supply?

Need to Know, Point 3: Supply
95% of the world’s REE production originates in China. If you’re looking for reasons why we’re so nice to the premier Communist power left standing, this is a biggie.

We weren’t always so dependent. Not long ago, mines such as Mountain Pass in California made us nearly self-sufficient in REEs. But in the early ‘90s, China flooded the market with cheaper product, until it had driven all of its competitors out of business.

Today, Mountain Pass is being revived, but the start-up of an old mine is a lengthy and costly process. There are also some from-scratch REE development projects under way in the U.S., as well as Canada and Australia. But for the moment, China holds the hand with all of the high cards in it.

Forget your hard drive. Forget 11th-grade chemistry experiments. This is a national security issue. The American government cannot afford to lose that supply source, period. Maybe someday, but not now.And that’s what’s behind the recent furor over these obscure elements. Because China threatened just that, a cutoff. The one thing that really gets Washington’s knickers in a twist. In August, the story broke in the mainstream press. Sources in China leaked news of a draft copy of a report from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. It allegedly calls for a total export ban on five of the rare earths, with the rest restricted to a combined export quota of 35,000 metric tons a year, far below annual global consumption of 125,000 tons, and rising fast.

This doesn’t look like a move they’d follow through on, if only because of the lost trade revenues. And it’s only a recommendation; final approval rests with China’s State Council. But consider it an opening shot across our bow, if you wish. Or perhaps they’re telling us they need their REEs for the domestic economy, and we’d best go find our own supplies. Either way, the scramble is on to find alternatives.

That could backfire. REE prices and demand were already dropping last fall as the recession deepened, and China maintains a decided competitive advantage beyond control of supply: lax environmental standards (many REEs are highly toxic). Thus the new companies could spend the fortunes required to come on line, only to find themselves victims of yet another market glut engineered by the Chinese. Still, these metals are so important, it wouldn’t surprise us if the U.S. government subsidized domestic production, rather than risk a squeeze.

The Market
The market took due notice of the China story, driving the stocks of Western REE producers, and would-be producers, nearly straight up. Since late August, Avalon Rare Metals has gained 120%, Arafura Resources is up 75%, Rare Element Resources has added 72%, and Lynas Corp. is 50% higher (China, ever the master strategist, exploited the credit crisis to grab 25% of Arafura and more than 50% of Lynas). Lurking in the background is Molycorp, the private company redeveloping Mountain Pass. It’s planning an IPO that may well come out of the gate red hot.

With market action this frantic, the sector is on the frothy side at the moment. The heady market caps being awarded to these companies are obviously not based on fundamentals, and a savvy investor takes care not to get caught on the wrong side of a bubble.

Even though the Chinese export ban may never materialize, the ever-growing need for REEs is dead serious. And while the current bubble may pop any day, the long-term prospects for successful miners are outstanding.

Doug Hornig--A former Edgar Award nominee, finalist for the Virginia Prize in both fiction and poetry, and a past winner of the Virginia Governor’s Screenwriting competition, Doug Hornig lives on 30 mountainous acres in a county that just got its first stop light. He is an admitted political junkie, but hates all political parties. Doug has authored 10 books and has written articles for BusinessWeek and other renowned publications. In addition he produces original analysis for Casey Research.

An Informed Voter's Opinions on Cap and Trade

Typically here at Comments About Responsible Energy, we feature opinions, current energy news, and have made available a cadre of experts who willingly share their insights with us. Upon reading, you are invited to add you comments or questions.

In the CARE Newsletter, The PowerLine, we frequently post questions from the “audience”—either an audience member from one of Marita’s speaking engagements or something that comes in via e-mail in response to the newsletter. We solicit the answer from an appropriate expert and post both the question and answer there.

But this posting is different. It is from a CARE Newsletter Reader and it does have questions. And we are inviting our various experts to comment on it. But we’ve chosen to post this piece here in the Blog because we think the author’s comments and questions may reflect some of what you are thinking. We invite you—expert or not—to respond to the thoughts and questions posted here. Tell Criss where she is right—or where she is off base. If you know the answers to her questions, please offer your insights.

My feelings on cap and trade can best be expressed by the following:
The root purpose of the Cap and Trade bill appears to me to be reducing greenhouse emissions and steer the U.S. away from fossil fuel dependency; the ultimate goal being reducing the emissions by 20% by the year 2020. It accomplishes this via various taxes, surcharges, fines and the like and then distributing these funds to the development and deployment of “renewable” energy sources.

When I look at gas, oil and coal I realize that they give us electrical energy, transportation/shipping fuel and a ton of by-products like: plastic, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, more than 50% of all our composite materials, including fabrics, air and water filters and even pencils. Until recently these fossil fuels have been the most cost effective sources of these energy needs. We humans have known, consciously, as a whole, that these fuels put poisons into our air, water and soil. We have also been aware that they kill humans since at least the 1800’s. No government taxes in any country developed or made available these fuels and all their various uses to the masses, rather free enterprise did that. Governments did not really get involved until it was admitted just how deadly these poisons from burning these fuels can be. IE: There were thousands of deaths from these poisons. Also all three of these fuel sources are an earth resource. They are finite as far as we humans are concerned because it takes the earth millions if not billions of years to produce them. Worldwide consumption rates to these fuels are increasing each year. This means eventually they will become consumed to extinction. We humans currently, nor in the near future, have a way to make our own version of these fuels, en mass, quickly and cost efficiently.

I do not want to put any more poisons into our air, water and soil. So any replacement energy source will need to be cleaner than our existing ones. Nor do I want to rely on another finite earth resource for energy as eventually that too will be consumed to extinction. So they should be as renewable as possible. Nor do I want to have the new energy source to be more dangerous than any existing fuel source to harvest, refine, distribute and burn or utilize and dispose of in any way. Nor do I want to be charged to develop these new energy sources or to put these new sources into production. I believe that the private enterprise sector should do that. And the new sources must be at least as cost effective as the existing energy sources.

The existing alternatives to gas, coal and oil are hydro, solar, wind, geo-thermal and nuclear.

I rule nuclear out because it is based on another finite earth resource--uranium, which is rarer than gas, oil or coal. Rarer than diamonds. Plus it has some safety and security issues that have yet to be resolved. The large plants are almost as cost effective as existing gas, coal and oil, but the cost of safety and security make it uneconomical. Then there is the fact that it only addresses, on a large scale, just one energy need--electrical. It does not address transportation, other than large sea vessels, nor does it address all the by-products. Its safety and security issues also means that additional poisons can and have been, released into either or our air, water or soil. And radiation poison scares me as much as any other natural or man-made disaster or poison, if not more so.

I rule out solar and wind because again they only address electrical energy and do not address transportation or by-product. Yes there is some research to use electrical airplanes, but the successful ones so far are for one or two people and not mass transit or cargo. And yes we do have some electrical vehicles, but they too are not ready for economical en mass deployment (being small they are a safety risk to occupants up against say a dump truck, nor do they have the oomph to plow thru a snow drift). When implemented for large scale electrical production there are some environmental issues and they are not as cost effective as gas, coal and oil production plants in our current business economic model (mega bucks, mega profits, mega quickly). Although, these are very good and cost effective on a small non-commercial production scale, so much so that the energy companies are doing everything in their power to push the price up and they must perceive this as a threat to their mega bucks.

I rule out hydro energy as again this is mostly electrical energy and has some safety and security issues of its own to be resolved. Mainly concerning the dams themselves. They disrupt the natural flow and ecosystems of the river they are implemented on and there is the risk of dam failure which could result in deaths from flooding. Nor does hydro address all the by-products. They are however almost as cost effective as gas, coal and oil without the poisons.

I rule out geo-thermal as they only address electrical and are not quite as cost effective as our existing gas, coal and oil, very close but not quite. Nor do they address transportation and by-products.

My research also indicates that if the U.S. achieved its Cap and Trade Bill goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, the actual result worldwide would be barely over 1%. If all the other countries of the world did the same and reduced by 20% by 2020 the overall worldwide lowering of greenhouse gases in the air would still be in the single percentage points, almost double digit, but single.

Then there is my opinion that physiologically it does not induce or entice people to reduce and conserve their existing fossil fuel usage. Yes it does tax and fine or surcharge if we do not lower our consumption but it does so in a very negative way and not a positive way. Philologists have long been proponents of the quickest and longest lasting behavior changes occur thru positive reinforcement and not negative. IE: Give people a tax break if they lower their consumption (individual or company), taxes stay the same if they stay at the same level as today and then taxes go to a higher percentage rate if they increase consumption over today.

When I compare this research information against the bill, the bill does not address my requirements or priorities. It charges (taxes, fines, surcharges) me to make drastic changes to the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions but does not result in an overall reduction worldwide that is beneficial to humans, et al verses the cost of doing so. Nor does it address finding, developing and deploying en mass cost effective replacements to the electrical, transportation and by-product needs to get off coal, gas and oil. Nor does it address the issue of how to use our existing energy sources more effectively and cost efficiently. And last but not least it does not address the energy infrastructure which is over 50 years old, is falling down around our feet and looses approximately 20-30% of the energy we currently produce via transmission and conversion from AC to DC and DC to AC losses. We need a suite of replacements and no one alternative available today accomplishes enough to charge me to death for their deployment.

I am against the cap and trade bill as it exists today because it basically accomplishes nothing but charges the crap out of me.

My "debate" questions are really asking why everyone seems to be debating the disputed facts concerning greenhouse gas emissions and not zeroing in on the real issues:

Oil, Coal, Gas and Uranium are finite earth resources and will eventually become extinct. Doesn't really matter when they get used up, they will be used up and the longer we take to reduce or eliminate our use of them the faster they will be used up.

Other than people with a suicide wish--I doubt there is anyone who wants more poisons in our air, water or land. So cutting greenhouse gases is not really the issue--cutting all poison emissions is the real issue.

Our energy infrastructure or GRID is so old it is falling down around us. Just putting a computer program on it to re-route surges and drops does not fix this aspect. We need a new, more efficient and cost effective TRUE SMART GRID. We need to stop loosing energy we currently produce to transmission and energy type conversion as well as the physical aspects of the power lines being just too old and tired to keep up with today’s demands.

We need replacements for our electrical energy needs, our transportation (personal and bulk) energy needs and we need replacements for all the by-products that existing fossil fuels, particularly oil and coal, now give us.

Our current US Business Economic Model for Mega Bucks, Mega Profits, Mega Quickly (instead of just bucks, profits and quick) are killing research, development and deployment of any true changes to our existing mass energy systems and enterprises that can get us off these dang blasted finite earth resource fuels.

Our current US Government and energy businesses seem to think that we the American Citizens should pay for this development and deployment of new sources and fixes through taxes, fines, surcharges and debasement of our dollars. Sorry but they created the problem, it was not just us citizens, this needs to be free enterprise.

There seems to be an avoidance of the fact that NONE of the existing alternatives to coal, gas and oil will FIX our true energy issues or the environmental ones either and no one wants to go broke via any means to pay for the fix either. So why do we keep debating all this other crap instead of really brain storming for ideas to fix this mess?

Criss--An Independent, Informed Voter

How many Americans Will Follow Obama’s Leadership On Climate Change?

We here at CARE noticed (perhaps you did too) that President Obama repeatedly states, “Few challenges facing America—and the world—are more urgent than combating climate change,” and that “We will make it clear that America is ready to lead."

Building upon the work of CARE Blog contributor Paul Driessen, we’ve decided to raise some questions: How many Americans will support a 1400-page energy and climate bill that will create a trillion-dollar cap-trade-and-tax industry? How many Americans will follow the leadership of a man who is working hard to ensure that energy and food costs “necessarily skyrocket,” killing jobs, and imposing an all-intrusive Green Nanny State? How many Americans are willing to point an economic gun to the heads of their neighbors and to pull the trigger during this economic downturn?

These questions have serious implications and we encourage our readers to delve further into the issue with our friend Paul Driessen.

Leader of None
"Few challenges facing America--and the world--are more urgent than combating climate change," President Obama has asserted. "We will make it clear that America is ready to lead."

The President and Al Gore are certainly ready to lead. But how many will follow?

Even in America, and certainly on the world stage, the two increasingly look like Don Quixote and his faithful squire, Sancho Panza. As they tilt for windmills, and against a "monstrous giant of infamous repute"--climate disasters conjured up by computer models and Hollywood special effects masters--their erstwhile followers are making politically correct noises, but running for the hills.

The House of Representatives passed a 1400-page energy and climate bill - by a razor-thin margin, and only after Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman packed it with enough last-minute deals to protect favored congressional districts, buy votes, and curry favor with assorted special interests. Not one legislator actually read the bill--which would create a trillion-dollar cap-trade-and-tax industry, ensure that energy and food costs "necessarily skyrocket," kill jobs, and impose an all-intrusive Green Nanny State.

Republicans want to control what people do in their bedrooms, insists the old canard. Democrats, it appears, want to dictate what we do everywhere outside of our bedrooms. And Sancho Gore wants to become the world's first global warming billionaire, by selling climate indulgences, aka carbon offsets.

The reaction has been predictable--by anyone except House and White House czars and czarinas.

Citizens are livid over yet another attempt to use a purported crisis to justify further expanding the government and spending billions more tax dollars for alarmist research, activism and propaganda, just ahead of the Copenhagen climate conference. Global warming continues to rank dead-last in Pew Research and other polls that actually list it as an issue. Rasmussen puts the President's approval ratings at 46% and falling. Zogby reports that 57% of Americans oppose cap-and-trade bills.

Manufacturing states, which get 60-98% of their electricity from coal, worry that the only thing they'll export in ten years will be jobs. Democrat senators from those states worry that the energy and climate issue will be "toxic for them during midterm elections," says Politico magazine.

Even companies that had eagerly sought seats at the negotiating table are now gagging. ConocoPhillips, Caterpillar and others finally realize that cap-and-tax will severely penalize them and their customers.

Not even the climate is cooperating. Outside of Dallas, 2009 has brought some of coldest summer days on record across the US. Near freezing temperatures nipped at crops, and gas heaters were sine qua non at an August 29 outdoor wedding in Wisconsin. The Farmers Almanac predicts a brutal 2009-2010 winter.

In Europe, every longitude has a platitude about saving the planet. But EU countries that agreed to slash greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels are well above their Kyoto Protocol targets - Austria by 30% and Spain by 37% as of 2008. And despite new commitments to cut emissions 40 years from now, you don't need tarot cards or entrails to predict the more probable EU emissions future.

Germany plans to build 27 coal-fired electrical generating plants by 2020. Italy plans to double its reliance on coal in just five years. Europe as a whole will have 40 new coal-fired power plants by 2015, columnist Alan Caruba reports. The Polish Academy of Sciences has publicly challenged manmade global warming disaster hypotheses. And only 11% of Czech citizens believe rising carbon dioxide emissions caused global temperatures to climb 1975-1998--and also caused them to rise 1915-1940, fall 1940-1975, then stabilize and decline again 1998-2009.
Australia just voted down punitive global warming legislation. New Zealand has put its emissions-bashing program in a deep freeze.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's top economic aid bluntly dismissed any talk of following President Obama's quixotic lead. "We won't sacrifice economic growth for the sake of emission reduction," he told reporters at the July 2009 G8 meeting.

Chinese and Indian leaders are equally adamant. China is playing a smart hand in this high-stakes climate poker game, drawing up plans to combat global warming sometime in the future, and gradually improve its energy efficiency and pollution control. However, it is building a new coal-fired power plant every week and putting millions of new cars on its growing network of highways.

So is India, which will double its coal-based electricity generation and produce millions of Tata and other affordable cars by 2020. "India will not accept any binding emission-reduction target, period," Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has stated. "This is a non-negotiable stand."

India and China have a "complete convergence" of views on these matters, Ramesh added. No wonder: 400 million Indians still do not have electricity; 500 million Chinese still do not.

No electricity means no refrigeration, to keep food and medicines from spoiling. It means no water purification, to reduce baby-killing intestinal diseases. No modern heating and air conditioning, to reduce hypothermia in winter, heat stroke in summer, and lung disease year-round. It means no lights or computers, no modern offices, factories, schools, shops, clinics or hospitals.

Fossil fuels are "gradually eliminating poverty in the Third world," observes UCLA economist Deepak Lal. Any call to curb carbon emissions would "condemn billions to continued poverty. While numerous Western do-gooders shed crocodile tears about the Third World's poor, they are willing to prevent them from taking the only feasible current route out from this abject state" - oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric energy development. The situation is intolerable, unsustainable, lethal and immoral.

The only way India and China would agree to cut their emissions is if the United States cut its emissions 40% by 2020, says Ramesh - back to 1959 levels and pre-JFK living standards, when the US population was 179 million (versus 306 million today). No way will that happen. So Asian energy and economic development will continue apace. And rightly so, to foster human rights and environmental justice.

All is not bleak, however, for Canute Obama's impossible dream of controlling global temperatures.

British politicians remain committed to slashing CO2 emissions and replacing hydrocarbons with wind power. Unfortunately, the biggest UK wind projects have been abandoned or put on indefinite hold--and a growing demand/supply imbalance portends still higher energy prices, widespread power cuts, rolling blackouts and energy rationing, the Daily Telegraph reported on August 31. Brits may soon trade their stiff upper lips for contentious town hall meetings and ballot-box revolution.

The Democratic Party of Japan's landslide victory in the August 30 election will likely create a new coalition government tilted strongly to the left. The DJP has pledged to cut carbon dioxide gas emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 - though this will likely strangle economic growth and job creation, especially if one coalition partner's opposition to nuclear power becomes DJP policy.

Then there is Africa, where leaders appear ready to support curbs on energy use--in exchange for up to $300 billion per year in additional foreign aid, "to cushion the impact of global warming." That will be nice for their private bank accounts, but less so for Africa's 750 million people who still don't have electricity. Those people will simply be sacrificed, to prevent natural or fictitious climate disasters.

Of course, the real goal was never to control the climate. It was always to control energy use, lives, jobs, economies, transportation and housing--and usher in a new era of high tax global governance. The American people are increasingly saying they're not ready to grant that power to Obama Gore & Company.


Paul Driessen is author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ∙ Black death (http://www.eco-imperialism.com/) and senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, whose new book (Freezing in the Dark) reveals how environmental pressure groups raise money and promote policies that restrict energy development and hurt poor families.

Wind Energy, Green Jobs “Sustainable” ?

Here at CARE, our primary role is public education on energy issues. We believe that all sources of energy—both green and traditional—will be needed to support America’s ever-growing energy needs. Because we also believe that energy is what makes America great, we do not want to sacrifice when it comes to energy; we do not want to take America back to the dark ages.

We as a country are in the process of potentially making major changes in energy production and delivery. So that we as citizens can make responsible choices we need to know the facts—not just feel good. We need to know the energy reality. (This was also addressed in CARE’s most recent op-ed which has been widely published throughout New Mexico.) It may seem that the choice is out of our hands as many of the elected officials in Washington DC appear to be bent on doing things the way want, not what their constituents want. But they’ll be home for “August recess;” they’ll be holding town-hall meetings. If you care about energy (no pun intended), go to the meetings and ask the hard questions.

Here from one of our Energy Counsel Members, Paul Driessen, are some “facts” to add into the “feel good.” We believe that if American citizens had straight talk instead of happy talk, they will make the right decisions for America.

Forests of concrete and steel
Boone Pickens, Nacel Energy, Vestas Iberia and others have been issuing statements and running ads, extolling the virtues of wind as an affordable, sustainable energy resource. Renewable energy reality is slowly taking hold, however.

Spain did increase its installed wind power capacity to 10% of its total electricity, although actual energy output is 10-30% of this, or 1-3% of total electricity, because the wind is intermittent and unreliable. However, Spain spent $3.7 billion on the program in 2007 alone, King Juan Carlos University economics professor Gabriel Calzada determined.

It created 50,000 jobs, mostly installing wind turbines, at $73,000 in annual subsidies per job – and 10,000 of these jobs have already been terminated. The subsidies have been slashed, due to Spain’s growing economic problems, putting the remaining 40,000 jobs at risk.

Meanwhile, the cost of subsidized wind energy and carbon dioxide emission permits sent electricity prices soaring for other businesses – causing 2.2 jobs to be lost for every “green” job created, says Calzada. Spain’s unemployment rate is now 17% and rising. That’s hardly the “success” story so often cited by Congress and the Obama Administration.

Across the Channel, Britain’s biggest wind-energy projects are in trouble. Just as the UK government announced its goal of creating 400,000 eco-jobs by 2015, major green energy employer Vestas UK is ending production. All 7,000 turbines that Downing Street just committed to installing over the next decade will be manufactured – not in Britain, but in Germany, Denmark and China.

For businesses, existing global warming policies have added 21% to industrial electricity bills since 2001, and this will rise to 55% by 2020, the UK government admits. Its latest renewable energy strategy will add another 15% – meaning the total impact on British industry will likely be a prohibitive 70% cost increase over two decades. This is the result of the government’s plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions 34% below 1990 levels by 2020, and increase the share of renewables, especially wind, from 6% to 31% of Britain’s electricity.

These cost hikes could make British manufacturers uncompetitive, and send thousands more jobs overseas, the Energy Intensive Users Group reports. English steel mills could become “unable to compete globally, even at current domestic energy prices,” says British journalist Dominic Lawson; “but deliberately to make them uncompetitive is industrial vandalism – and even madness … a futile gesture ... and immoral.”

On this side of the pond, President Obama and anti-hydrocarbon members of Congress are promoting “green” energy and jobs, via new mandates, standards, tax breaks and subsidies. However, the United States would need 180,000 1.5-megawatt wind turbines by 2020, just to generate the 600 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity that compliance with the narrowly passed Waxman-Markey global warming bill would necessitate, retired energy and nuclear engineering professor James Rust calculates.

This would require millions of acres of scenic, habitat and agricultural lands, and 126 million tons of concrete, steel, fiberglass and “rare earth” minerals for the turbines, at 700 tons per turbine; prodigious quantities of concrete, steel, copper and land for new transmission lines; and still more land, fuel and raw materials for backup gas-fired generators. America’s new national forests will apparently be made of concrete and steel.

Those miners and drillers would likely be reclassified as “green” workers, based on the intended purpose of their output. However, the raw materials will probably not be produced in the States, because so many lands, prospects and deposits are off limits – and NIMBY litigation will further hamper resource extraction.

Air quality laws and skyrocketing energy costs (due to carbon taxes and expensive renewable energy mandates) will make wind turbine (and solar panel) manufacturing in the USA equally improbable. Thus, manufacturing could well be in China or India, and most “green” jobs could be for installers, as Spain and Britain discovered.

Posturing has already collided with reality in Texas, the nation’s wind energy capital. Austin’s GreenChoice program cannot find buyers for electricity generated entirely from wind and solar power. Its latest sales scheme has been a massive flop: after seven months, 99% of its recent electricity offering remains unsold.

Austin officials admit that “times have changed,” and the recession and falling energy prices may make it impossible for the city to meet its lofty goals. The company’s renewable electricity now costs almost three times more than standard electricity, and even eco-conscious consumers care more about the color of their money than the hue of their purported ideology.

Even worse for global warming alarmists and renewable energy advocates and rent seekers, global warming patterns have reversed during the past decade. Satellite data reveal that the planet is cooling, despite steadily rising carbon dioxide levels, and summertime low temperature records are being broken all over the United States.

“You'd better hope global warming is caused by manmade CO2 if you're investing in [renewable] sectors,” says Daniel Rice, the past decade’s best-performing US equity fund manager (BlackRock Energy and Resources Fund). But evidence for manmade catastrophic global warming is dissipating faster than carbon dioxide from an open soda bottle on a hot summer day.

The crucial fact remains: wind and solar are simply not economical without major government subsidies or monstrous carbon taxes. Moreover, cap-and-tax legislation currently being promoted in the House and Senate is “not enough to do anything” about supposed global warming disasters notes Rice.

“All it does is provide Obama a pass to Copenhagen,” where the UN will host a climate change conference in December, Rice says. And those subsidies and taxes would drive energy prices still higher, killing jobs and skyrocketing the cost of everything we eat, drive, heat, cool, grow, make and do.

Congress and the Administration are dragging their feet on nuclear power, closing off access to more resource-rich lands, and imposing layers of new regulations on oil, gas and coal energy – denying Americans these vast stores of energy and hundreds of billions in revenue that developing them would generate. Meanwhile, slick wind turbine ad campaigns promote expensive, heavily subsidized, unreliable technologies that only climate activists and company lobbyists would describe as sustainable, affordable, eco-friendly or socially responsible.

The ads and lobbyists seek more mandates, tax breaks and subsidies. Wind promoters want to quiet opponents long enough to get energy and climate legislation enacted – before Americans realize how it would drive the price of energy still higher, kill jobs, curtail living standards and liberties, and raise the cost of everything we eat, drive, heat, cool, grow, make and do.


Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – black death.

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.