Why Foreign Oil? Ask the Dems.

[Hobbit]

In today's Wall Street Journal, there's quite an interesting column about how the Democratic politicians have done everything within their power to ensure that we remain dependant on foreing energy supplies.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008528

 

[theHawk]

Short answer is because liberals are the biggest fucking hyprocrits in the world.
I have yet to here any liberal stand up and explain why they won't let our energy companies use our own resources when all they do is bitch about our dependancy on arab oil.

 

[Huckleburry]

The concept of foreign oil is a myth. Oil is a fungible good and traded on a truly global market. Delivery contracts are sold on a few futures exchanges months before the oil is actually drilled. Therefore, the origin of oil is irrelevant. Oil drilled in Venezuela is exactly the same as oil drilled in Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia. Moreover, because the world consumes so much oil it is nearly impossible to control which oil goes where. If OPEC ceases shipments to the US, Venezuela and Russia will pick up the slack as futures prices soar on American exchanges. The increase in price in US will cause all non OPEC member contracts to be purchased by Americans, resulting in a crowd out effect in other markets. Countries other than the US will then move to OPEC oil because the futures price will, initially, be lower. Over time futures prices will reach a new equilibrium and the trade will continue. While it is politically convenient to yap about our dependence on foreign oil, logically, it makes no sense. Goods traded on a global exchange have no home, hence the label: fungible good.
Drilling for oil will increase our GNP. However, it will not reduce our dependence on oil, foreign or otherwise. Oil contracts will still be sold on futures exchanges and still purchased by the highest bidder.

The Way Forward:

The problem is our dependence on oil and the answer cannot be to simply drill more. Drilling more passes the problem on to the next generation and, unlike the generation before me, I believe it is time we stop being pussies and tackle the problem head on. Kicking our oil addiction means finding a replacement. At the moment, there is no substance on earth that can completely replace oil. Therefore the solution must be multi dimensional.

Ethanol is beginning to show promise as an alternative. Yes it is subsidized but so is oil, moreover the technology behind ethanol is being developed and produced in the United States giving our economy a bit of a boost.

Nuclear energy is useful but problematic. Spent fuel is a serious security and environmental threat and we must balance our need for energy against these security and environmental problems. I am not saying that we should not develop nuclear energy but I do think that we need to continue to research the area and begin developing meaningful solutions to the waste problem.

Wind power needs to be developed further. Minor amounts of research have yielded huge gains in turbine efficiency and demonstrated the technology’s potential to a be a huge source of potential energy.

Solar, I know nothing about.

Conservation is a dirty word in our society and its time we change that. The key to reducing our oil dependence is learning how to live with out it. Hybrid cars are a step in the right direction but more needs to be done. Office buildings consume huge amounts of energy and we have the technology and know how to dramatically reduce their energy consumption. It is time we do so. Ultimately, our dependence on oil will be reduced when we begin measuring our happiness by something other than consumption. When we de-link the connection between our material well being and our well being then we will begin to reduce our dependence on oil. Until then we will continue to suckle from the oil tit until it runs dry.

Huck

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Ethanol is way too expensive and impractical. It's too corrosive for existing pipelines, and it would require practically all arable land to be converted to growing corn or whatever. Then you have to remember that it requires vast amounts of water, petroleum fertilizer, and heat to process. Plus it has a significantly lower energy content, which means worse mileage; and cars have to be specially built for it, or retrofitted. It's a boondoggle and an ecological nightmare foisted upon us by Archer-Daniels Midland and the corn lobby.

Hydrogen is also a joke. It requires vast amounts of electricity, super expensive fuel cells which use exotic metals like Palladium and Platinum, and storage is bulky and difficult. Like ethanol, it cannot be run through existing pipelines, and it is much more expensive per mile than gasoline or diesel.

Batteries are actually going to be our best bet...long term. There are a number of companies which are currently developing fast-charging (5 minutes or so!) superbatteries. EEStor in Austin has one that will charge up in five minutes, creates little heat, is environmentally friendly, lasts nearly forever, has great range, and works well in temperature extremes. But this will take a good while to get into mass production.

So what can we do in 10 years or less? We can make synthetic gas and diesel out of coal. Yes, coal. It's cheaper per mile than all these (except batteries, eventually), it can be made to burn cleaner than existing fuels, and it can run in existing cars. Best of all, North America is pretty much the Saudi Arabia of coal. And we already have a well-known, established manufacturing process for making it.

http://www.isecureonline.com/Reports/TPH/WTPHG606/

In a vial, it's as clear as water. It has no smell.

Yet it packs enough punch to fuel every single truck, car and diesel engine train in America for the next 811 years.

And I believe the company that makes it could very well be the best energy stock for you to own, now and for the next 10 years.

This company is no overnight startup. It's a major player, a recognized giant of industry, a blue chip that's bigger than some, but deserves to be even bigger.

Even BusinessWeek says this company "is not a household name, but maybe it should be."

I'd call that the understatement of the century.

What this company does is make fuel. A special kind of "designer fuel" that's, molecule for molecule, just as good as conventional gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, even jet fuel.

You can burn it in any car or other vehicle. This company can make it at about half the cost of conventional oil. And here's the only big difference: It burns much cleaner than either conventional fuel or even ethanol.

The company I'm telling you about isn't making this up. It sells it already, on the open market. In fact, last year, it made a net profit of over $2 billion...just selling this stuff and its valuable chemical byproducts.

The "alternate fuel" we're talking about isn't something quirky. It really is normal gasoline. And normal diesel fuel, jet fuel or real crude oil, too. But acquired in a very unconventional way. Without dropping a single well or kissing up to a single Saudi sheik.

How? I'm sure you've heard of tar sands, oil shale and even biofuels. Well this isn't any of those. In fact, it's much cheaper than each of these alternatives. And easier to come by too...and about half the cost of today's barrels of conventional oil! Shell, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Marathon, and Chevron have already pitched major deals at this company, in exchange for its patented fuel-making technology. China, India, Europe, South Africa...they're all moving in.

Biofuels look good at about $80 a barrel. Oil shale around $55. Ethanol can work with oil at $50, sometimes. And tar sands with oil as low as $40. But only this very accessible fuel substitute can make sense when oil sells for half of what it does right now.

Elsewhere, like in Europe, gas already sells for more than $7 a gallon. That's the price in Amsterdam. Here's something else you might not know.

Alternative fuels like the one I've been telling you about already thrive in areas that have no easy access to cheaper gas. In fact, in one of the world's most successful economies, hundreds of thousands of cars already run on this alternate fuel.

But maybe it's time to let the cat out of the bag.

This secret fuel is, if you haven't guessed it yet, coal.

See, the Middle East might have all the oil. But it has virtually zero coal. Meanwhile, China, Australia, India and South Africa are all filthy rich with coal reserves. Even Poland is loaded with coal. But nobody has more than the U.S. - with better than 26% of the world's total coal reserves.

Imagine.

If we tap this liquid coal technology I'm telling you about, we could very quickly have more than 12 times the fuel energy than the entire oil holdings of Saudi Arabia! All we need is the know-how to make it happen. And that's what this company I'm telling you about can provide.

As you read this, the coal-rich states of Wyoming, Montana, Alaska and Illinois are all competing to win a contract on $5 billion worth of investments to bring in this company's technology...build the plants that can do this...and start converting their vast coal reserves into this baggage-free, lucrative liquid fuel.

First, you've got to understand, ethanol isn't fuel like gasoline. It's alcohol. Literally 200 proof moonshine. Yes, it burns. But anywhere from 20-30% less efficiently than real gasoline, says Motor Trend magazine.

And that's only the first "hidden hurdle."

See, to get ethanol, you also need heat to convert the corn. Or the sugar cane. Or whatever plant it is that you're using. That takes water, gallons of it. It also takes heat, using already precious fossil fuels.

One researcher, from Cornell University, claims it actually costs you more energy to MAKE ethanol than you actually get back from the product. As much as 29% more with corn...and as much as 50% net energy loss when making ethanol from saw grass.

Imagine paying back your boss all of your salary plus 50% more, just to keep your job. Imagine walking backward 50% more often than you walk forward and expecting to get where you want to go. Not a good strategy.

Of course, the ethanol industry wouldn't even exist without government subsidies to the corn industry. Over $37.3 billion, just in the last eight years. It's like gasoline on welfare.

Out of 187,097 retail gas stations in America, only about 500 can even safely SELL ethanol. The other 186,597 aren't equipped. To get there, we would need to spend as much as $60,000 per station.

You can't keep these hidden costs away from the pump forever.

Even if we were to forget all of that...let's suppose we STILL managed to double our ethanol use by 2010 as a nation. That's the Bush projection in his 2005 energy bill. That would put us at 8 billion gallons of ethanol per year. It might sound like a lot. But it's barely a whiff of fumes on the air, compared with the conventional gas we'd still need to get by. At those levels, our total oil dependency would only drop by 5%.

Just to give you some idea, there's another coal-to-liquid company, Rentech (RTK:AMEX), here in the U.S. Being local, Wall Street picked up on one of its press releases last year...and Rentech quickly saw its shares skyrocket 286%.

Even without producing a drop of liquid coal.

Meanwhile, this company's technology is far superior. And already productive. It currently churns out over 160,000 barrels of this "designer fuel" per day...feeding an amazing 30% of the gasoline and oil needs of one of the world's most successful economies...with facilities under development to churn out another 540,000 barrels daily.

 

[Hobbit]

Ethanol is way too expensive and impractical. It's too corrosive for existing pipelines, and it would require practically all arable land to be converted to growing corn or whatever. Then you have to remember that it requires vast amounts of water, petroleum fertilizer, and heat to process. Plus it has a significantly lower energy content, which means worse mileage; and cars have to be specially built for it, or retrofitted. It's a boondoggle and an ecological nightmare foisted upon us by Archer-Daniels Midland and the corn lobby.

Hydrogen is also a joke. It requires vast amounts of electricity, super expensive fuel cells which use exotic metals like Palladium and Platinum, and storage is bulky and difficult. Like ethanol, it cannot be run through existing pipelines, and it is much more expensive per mile than gasoline or diesel.

Batteries are actually going to be our best bet...long term. There are a number of companies which are currently developing fast-charging (5 minutes or so!) superbatteries. EEStor in Austin has one that will charge up in five minutes, creates little heat, is environmentally friendly, lasts nearly forever, has great range, and works well in temperature extremes. But this will take a good while to get into mass production.

So what can we do in 10 years or less? We can make synthetic gas and diesel out of coal. Yes, coal. It's cheaper per mile than all these (except batteries, eventually), it can be made to burn cleaner than existing fuels, and it can run in existing cars. Best of all, North America is pretty much the Saudi Arabia of coal. And we already have a well-known, established manufacturing process for making it.

http://www.isecureonline.com/Reports/TPH/WTPHG606/

BUT COAL IS TEH EVIL AND STRPMINES AND RAPING OF MOTHER EARTH AND IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT CAUSE HE'S IN BED WITH BIG COAL AND I'M A HIPPIE!!!

 

[CSM]

Liquid coal is interesting:

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/1organic/coal.html

The technology has been around for quite some time.

I suspect that the answer will be a combination of alternative fuels and methods. Ironically, as the cost of oil goes up it makes these methods and technoligies not only viable but cost effective.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Liquid coal is interesting:

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/1organic/coal.html

The technology has been around for quite some time.

I suspect that the answer will be a combination of alternative fuels and methods. Ironically, as the cost of oil goes up it makes these methods and technoligies not only viable but cost effective.

Exactly. That's what I find so amusing about the ranting and raving and panicking amongst the left. When gas was under a dollar a gallon (not so long ago!), they wanted massive taxes to encourage alternative fuels. Well, now the cost of gas is pretty high, just like they wanted. And just as common sense would predict, alternatives are being heavily researched by private concerns. Do people really think that capitalists are going to sit around watching Exxon rake in legendary profits, without coming up with ways to get a piece of that? Sure, the transition is going to be costly and slow. And government is going to change that? No, government is the epitome of costly and slow.

And another thing. Government funding of alternative energy is actually detrimental to getting new sources of energy, clean or otherwise. The more our government funds pie-in-the-sky rubbish like hydrogen or ethanol, the less attractive it is to develop realistic private alternatives. Why should I invest in coal-to-gas, when their competition is heavily subsidized? If government subsidized pizza, then we'd have fewer places selling burgers. Government funding is based on politics, and private funding is based on practical reality. Hydrogen, ethanol, etc. are expensive for a reason--they use more resources than the alternatives.

If there is any role for government, it is in reducing the "tradgedy of the commons", ie air pollution. The best way to do that would be a yearly tax based on the number of polluting molecules emitted per mile for a given vehicle in areas that have pollution problems. That would be relatively simple and avoid micromanagement, which is a sure recipe for bad results.

 

[Mr. P]

Cold fusion. Get er done.

I know, I know..