Biofuels Lead To Food Crisis

This is unfortunately so predictable.  It has been said here by me, and others all along, that using food crops to make fuel is insanity.  What is worse is it being done in the name of "stopping global warming" (now they call it climate change) by using less of those evil fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal).  And these people call this being "green".....and call themselves "Progressives".  They're not progressive in any way.  To put it politely, they are regressive.  They would have us living in the stone age, or using horses and buggies, if that.

It is becoming painfully clear that solar power and wind power and geothermal energy can not meet the demand either.  Thank goodness we've discovered what can be done with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling to increase the production of oil and gas, the only fuels that can meet the world's demand.  See here for more information on oil and gas: http://geopetesview.blogspot.com/
Peter

The Biofuels Disaster: ‘Green’ Politicians Cause Another Food Crisis

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF | July 20 2012

A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity. The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger. The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels. It was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. --Grant Ferrett, BBC News, 27 October 2007
The world is running short of corn. That is the message being delivered by the market, where on Thursday prices pushed above $8 a bushel for the first time. With no obvious abundance of international suppliers to make up for the drought-ravaged US corn crop and stocks close to record lows, traders and analysts believe demand must be pegged back.The biggest potential for a reduction in corn demand comes from the ethanol industry, which is using roughly 5bn bushels of corn, or nearly 40 per cent of the US corn crop, each year to make fuel for cars and animal feed. -- Financial Times, 19 July 2012

read the remainder of the article here:

Thank You Very Much Global Warming Alarmists --- More Job Losses, More Human Suffering

Yes it is a long hot summer, but not as uncomfortable as it is becoming in Britain where energy costs are rising and availability is shrinking. There is one major group to blame: those promoting the myth of man-caused global warming. They say: "stop the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) they cry; save the planet from all that global warming carbon dioxide! And if we can't get people to voluntarily comply then these fuels must be taxed into non-existence." The global warming alarmists (some of them) actually believe this will be a good thing. If people have to suffer, they insist, it is for their own good.

If only this were some kind of academic game. Unfortunately this is deadly serious business and real people are already beginning to suffer. At the top of my list of utter idiots and hypocritical scoundrels are the infamous, discredited embarrassments to humanity Al Gore and John Kerry. Do a search of this blog for those two alone. Their dirty laundry list is appalling.
Peter

Ta Ta, Tata (source)

The UK may be waving goodbye to Tata Steel and some other large industrial concerns as the government piles on more green costs, making it almost impossible for global businesses based there to compete.

Companies including Tata Steel Ltd. and GrowHow U.K. Ltd. may leave the U.K. as climate-protection policies boost electricity and natural-gas costs.

Factories will pay 18 percent to 141 percent more for gas, electricity and carbon-reduction programs by 2020, adding about 7 million pounds ($11 million) to the bill for a typical large energy consumer, the London-based Energy-Intensive Users Group and Britain’s Trades Union Congress said in a report on the impact of climate policy released today.

“The combined impact of the government’s climate change policies is imposing significant costs on the U.K.’s energy- intensive industries, and without urgent review could see some companies leaving the U.K. for good,” according to the report.

…

It’s the second report this month suggesting potential job losses in Britain because of climate policy.

the future, not so bright green after all

Large industrial concerns are likely to quit Britain not just because of direct cost increases, but also because soon there just won’t be enough power available to them, thanks to a completely clueless Energy Minister:

…in the real world, the £100 billion-plus energy question that confronts us all in Britain today is how we are going to fill that massive, fast-looming gap in our electricity supplies when the antiquated power stations which currently supply us with two-fifths of the power needed to keep our economy running are forced to close.

The headline answer given by Mr Huhne is that we must build thousands more giant wind turbines.

As a 24-carat green ideologue, he is viscerally opposed to replacing the ageing nuclear and coal-fired plants which currently provide us with more than half our electricity.

Like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown before him, he dreams we can somehow fill that gap by erecting 6,000 wind turbines in the seas around Britain’s shores, and thousands more across many of the most beautiful parts of our countryside.

What is truly terrifying about Mr Huhne as our energy minister is that he seems so astonishingly ignorant about even the most basic principles of how electricity is produced.

He boasts about how the 3,000 wind turbines we have already built have the ‘capacity’ to generate 4.5 gigawatts of electricity.

Capacity is the crucial word here. As he could see from figures on his own department’s website, thanks to the fact that the wind blows only intermittently, the amount of power these windmills actually produce is barely a quarter of that.

In other words, the amount of electricity generated by all those turbines put together, at a cost of billions of pounds, is no more than that provided by a single medium-size conventional power station – equivalent to a mere two per cent of the electricity we need.

Good luck Britain, you’re going to need it.

An Excellent Review Of Flawed Obama Energy Policy

The following comes from an excellent blog titled Skeptic's Corner. It summarizes the absurdity and impracticality of even thinking we can substitute so-called "renewables" for our existing oil, gas, and coal resources in the reasonably near future. We have been investing Billions of dollars in alternative forms of energy for decades. We have not much to show for this; at best just a few percent of our total demand.

We need to look at our energy situation very carefully and with as little political bias as possible. This is very serious so I've taken the liberty to reproduce this essay in total.
Peter

Obama and the Alternative Energy Fiasco
The president is wrong to block oil and gas production.


It's only a matter of time before President Barack Obama's vast popularity runs aground on his energy policies. In the name of saving the planet from global warming, he has delayed new oil drilling, an action that will have major political repercussions once the world economy recovers. Instead of using some the stimulus billions to produce more gas and oil, Obama's wild-eyed supporters dream of "renewable" energy derived from corn, wind, sunshine, and even grass.

With the appointment of extremists like climate czar Carol Browner and science adviser John Holdren, Obama has placed his administration's environmental policy in the hands of radicals. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar proposes replacing oil and coal with windmills. Yet Barron's recently reported that America would need to build 500,000 giant offshore windmills and transmission lines to produce Salazar's specified 1,900 gigawatts of electricity. In contrast, oil and gas drilling could provide hundreds of thousands of solid, well-paying blue-collar jobs. Washington Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson explains this in "The Bias Against Oil & Gas," describing how alternative energy job creation is miniscule compared to what an expansion of oil production would create. Meanwhile, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have proposed legislation giving legal standing to allow Americans to sue any company that produces "greenhouse" gasses.

All of these things are happening at a time when natural gas is abundant and cheap.Hide
The new technology of horizontal fraccing has made it economically feasible to drill into vast shale deposits in many states, even famously difficult ones like Michigan and New York. Many cars could run on natural gas, much like many buses do already. On a recent trip to Peru, I learned that most taxicabs have been converted to natural gas for a cost of about $1,000 each. New technologies continually revive old oil and gas fields and make new ones economically viable. So it's little more than socialist Malthusianism to argue that the world is running out of cheap energy. Science will always find and harness new sources. Even the liberal New Republic recently admitted that, "Utopian environmentalism has, to some extent, always promised to heal the alienation wrought by modernity... it is a form of escapism and disengagement from reality." The extremists scoff at science and would apparently prefer scarcity so that bureaucratic rationing will enforce a change in American lifestyles.

Instead of producing more of the cheap, abundant energy that fueled America's dynamic growth, the extremists who support and surround Obama dream of drastically cutting American consumption. Many of them would like to see the government force General Motors to make flimsy little cars that run on electricity (or alternative energy) at the cost of billions. Meanwhile, the Sierra Club magazine recently boasted of helping to block construction of 96 coal-fired power plants and helping to impose a de facto moratorium on all new plants.

Currently, half of the drilling rigs in America are shutdown because of low oil and gas prices. Most smaller oil companies have suffered severe damage or even gone bankrupt by their inability to renew loans or gain credit. Likewise, the majors have few safe options in foreign countries but would invest heavily in offshore American exploration, if it were permitted.

So what about the so-called green alternatives? Forbes recently detailed the problems with windmills. First, they depend upon a two-cent-per-kilowatt taxpayer subsidy to remain competitive. They also require backup gas generators (in case the wind isn't blowing when needed) and new transmission lines running from windy places to population centers. And while new technologies to store wind-generated electricity are in the works, they have so far proven uneconomical. Nor does this even begin to consider the years of legal delays that would likely result from litigious neighbors opposed to new transmission towers. Solar power is even more expensive and would also require additional billions for backup generators and new transmission lines. Compare those unseen costs to the clear benefits of coal and gas plants where transmission lines are already built.

New oil and gas technologies could also help the U.S. from importing so much oil. But the Obama administration is stalling and trying to stop the offshore drilling approved by the previous Congress. The White House has also shut down previously permitted onshore drilling and burdened drillers with costly new restrictions. Meanwhile, $80 billion in stimulus spending has been earmarked for "renewable" energy. The plan is to give a 30 percent tax credit for the associated costs.

Americans will soon again feel the sting of gasoline costing $3.00 or $4.00 per gallon and then come to recognize how we've wasted years of opportunity to produce more energy domestically. For instance, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there are 85 billion barrels of offshore oil. (And that is an old number. It is almost certain to increase once new exploration and testing are permitted.) New supplies in continental America, not to mention the billions of barrels now accessible in Alaska, could transform our trade deficit by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in imports. This would help rescue the value of the dollar, alleviate the cost of maintaining armies and navies in the Middle East, and help save free trade from the latest round of restrictions.

It's also essential to remember that so-called renewable energy cannot replace oil and natural gas in any significant way. For example, corn-based ethanol production "costs" nearly as much to produce as it saves in oil and can only exist with the help of costly and unending subsidies. Government, in other words, gets what it pays for. If it offers subsidies to alleviate global warming or make gasoline from grass, it will find promoters who will gladly accept that money and deliver scant results.

With the Republicans no longer handicapped by leaders like George W. Bush and John McCain, both of who caved before environmental extremists, Obama's energy policies might be a strong issue for conservatives and libertarians to rally around, and perhaps change their political fortunes. Remember that McCain famously opposed drilling in ANWR, while Bush promised the country that a gasoline substitute could be produced from switch grass.

One day the alternative energy fiasco will be studied as a vast example of waste and fraud that contributed to the collapse of the dollar and to lower living standards for most Americans. Let's hope that day comes sooner rather than later.

Oil Companies Wisely Steer Clear Of Most "Renewable" Sources Of Energy

The major oil companies are not known for being stupid, or they would not still be in business. Why would (or should) they invest in technology beyond their areas of expertise and in ways they consider un-economic? They are not in the business of drilling dry holes.

Unless of course they are owned by the government, like General Motors (GM) perhaps. Then the government can force them to waste their talent and resources. If the government imposes this insane "cap and trade" tax and other punitive measures on the oil and gas industry, America is in bigger trouble than we can imagine.
Peter

Oil Giants Loath to Follow Obama’s Green Lead
By JAD MOUAWAD (source)
The Obama administration wants to reduce oil consumption, increase renewable energy supplies and cut carbon dioxide emissions in the most ambitious transformation of energy policy in a generation.

But the world’s oil giants are not convinced that it will work. Even as Washington goes into a frenzy over energy, many of the oil companies are staying on the sidelines, balking at investing in new technologies favored by the president, or even straying from commitments they had already made.

Royal Dutch Shell said last month that it would freeze its research and investments in wind, solar and hydrogen power, and focus its alternative energy efforts on biofuels. The company had already sold much of its solar business and pulled out of a project last year to build the largest offshore wind farm, near London.

BP, a company that has spent nine years saying it was moving “beyond petroleum,” has been getting back to petroleum since 2007, paring back its renewable program. And American oil companies, which all along have been more skeptical of alternative energy than their European counterparts, are studiously ignoring the new messages coming from Washington.
“In my view, nothing has really changed,” Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, said after the election of President Obama.

“We don’t oppose alternative energy sources and the development of those. But to hang the future of the country’s energy on those alternatives alone belies reality of their size and scale.”

The administration wants to spend $150 billion over the next decade to create what it calls “a clean energy future.” Its plan would aim to diversify the nation’s energy sources by encouraging more renewables, and it would reduce oil consumption and cut carbon emissions from fossil fuels.

The oil companies have frequently run advertisements expressing their interest in new forms of energy, but their actual investments have belied the marketing claims. The great bulk of their investments goes to traditional petroleum resources, including carbon-intensive energy sources like tar sands and natural gas from shale, while alternative investments account for a tiny fraction of their spending. So far, that has changed little under the Obama administration.

“The scale of their alternative investments is so mind-numbingly small that it’s hard to find them,” said Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “These companies don’t feel they have to be on the leading edge of this stuff.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, most investments in alternative sources of energy are coming from pockets other than those of the oil companies.

In the last 15 years, the top five oil companies have spent around $5 billion to develop sources of renewable energy, according to Michael Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, an industry trade group. This represents only 10 percent of the roughly $50 billion funneled into the clean-energy sector by venture capital funds and corporate investors during that period, he said.

“Big Oil does not consider renewable energy to be a mainstream business,” Mr. Eckhart said. “It’s a side business for them.”
Shell, for example, said it spent $1.7 billion since 2004 on alternative projects. That amount is dwarfed by the $87 billion it spent over the same period on its oil and gas projects around the world. This year, the company’s overall capital spending is set at $31 billion, most of it for the development of fossil fuels.

Industry executives contend that comparing investments in oil and gas projects with their research efforts in the renewable field is misleading. They say that while renewable fuels are needed, they are still at an early stage of development, and petroleum will remain the dominant source of energy for decades.

In its long-term forecast, Exxon says that by 2050, hydrocarbons — including oil, gas, and coal — will account for 80 percent of the world’s energy supplies, about the same as today.

“Renewable energy is very real,” David J. O’Reilly, the chief executive of Chevron, said in a speech in New York last November. “We need it. It will be an essential part of the future I envision. But it’s not realistic to suppose we can replace conventional energy in a timeframe that some suggest.”

Chevron has spent about $3.2 billion since 2002 on “renewable and alternative energy and energy efficiency services,” according to Alexander Yelland, a spokesman. It plans to spend $2.7 billion in the three years through 2011 on a variety of projects, including a business that helps improve energy efficiency for companies and government agencies, he said.

Despite Washington’s newfound green enthusiasm, industry executives argue that replacing any significant part of the fossil fuel business will take decades, at best. Just to keep up with growth in demand for conventional sources of energy, producers will need to invest more than $1 trillion each year from now to 2030, according to the International Energy Agency.

“Many of these companies see the world is changing,” said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and a historian of the industry. “But the challenge for a very large company is to get critical scale. People tend to forget the scale of the energy business.”

The world consumes about 85 million barrels of oil a day. The United States alone would require six times its arable land — and 75 percent of the world’s cultivated land — to supply its needs with ethanol made from corn, according to calculations by Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba.

More realistic, and modest, targets are proving tough to reach. Congress’s ethanol mandate, which requires oil companies to use 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2020, cannot be achieved, experts say, without major technological advances that are still years away.
To increase supplies, most companies are looking to tar sands in Canada or converting coal or natural gas into liquid fuels, technologies that emit far more carbon dioxide than conventional oil does.

Shell, a major investor in Alberta in Canada, says that traditional oil supplies will not be enough to meet the growth in the world’s energy needs over the next half-century. In 2007, BP invested in Canadian tar sands, prompting criticism that it was “recarbonizing” itself.
John M. Deutch, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former director of central intelligence, said there was little point in criticizing oil companies without first establishing federal rules that set a price on carbon dioxide emissions. Once that happens, he said, companies will adapt their strategies.

“What role will oil companies play in the future in alternatives to conventional hydrocarbon? The correct answer is nobody knows,” Mr. Deutch said. “The important thing is for the government to establish a carbon policy. You can be absolutely confident that oil companies will pursue that, as will any other companies.”

One area where companies are increasingly focused is the development of liquid fuels from plants. BP said it would soon build a demonstration plant in Florida for a type of ethanol made from plant material; Shell has worked with several firms since 2002 to develop ethanol from nonfood crops. Last year, it signed agreements with six companies, including one in Brazil, and decided to drop its other renewable efforts to focus solely on biofuels.

“Biofuels feels closest to our core business,” said Darci Sinclair, a company spokeswoman.
Other areas also hold significant promise for the industry, like technologies to capture carbon dioxide emissions and store them underground, and energy-efficiency programs, especially in the transportation sector. Exxon, long the most skeptical of the oil companies toward alternative energy investments, is working on long-term programs to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions.

In the end, many analysts say they believe that oil companies are waiting for a winning technology to emerge. Alan Shaw, the chief executive of Codexis, a biotechnology company in Silicon Valley that works with Shell, said oil companies were not blind to the new political reality but they were also in the business of making a profit.

“Don’t lose heart with Big Oil,” Mr. Shaw said. “They aren’t at a point where they are ready to invest yet, but they are getting there. I think in the next 10 years, they will invest hundreds of times more than they have in the past 10 years.”

Economic Suicide By Believing In The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

Is this where America is headed? It looks like it, if we follow the lead of our new socialist leaders in Washington D.C., liberal Democrats, and global warming fear-mongers like James Hansen and Al Gore. (Remember, you can do a search on this blog for key people, subjects, and ideas and find much more information.)

It is insane to increase taxes on conventional energy sources (coal, oil, and gas), destroy existing industries, with vast established infrastructures, (pipelines, refineries, power plants, etc.), put millions more people out of work from skilled jobs, and remove Billions of dollars of royalties and taxes that those industries currently give to local, state, and Federal treasuries.

To destroy industries that have taken a century and a half to build and try to replace these with economically unproven alternatives such as solar and wind power is insanity. Yet that is what people are proposing. I am worried about the economic future of America if we continue down this road.......all in the name of saving the Planet Earth from an imaginary danger.......man-caused global warming. We must stop the insanity such as described in the following article.
Peter

Government Should Compel Consumers to Use Alternative Energy, Congressman SaysFriday,
March 27, 2009By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer (source)

(CNSNews.com) - Government policy should be crafted to raise the price of carbon-emitting energy sources so consumers are compelled to choose alternative energy, House Democratic Conference Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday. Larson agreed that such a policy would likely result in higher electricity prices for consumers but said this is needed to protect the environment from the possible “catastrophic results” of not implementing a pro-green energy policy.

Some Republicans who spoke with CNSNews.com at the Capitol agreed that electricity prices would go up, and they dismissed President Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade plan as little more than a large tax on energy producers, the cost of which is passed onto consumers. With cap and trade, the amount of carbon an energy company can emit is capped. If it exceeds that limit, the company can purchase credits (“trade”) that would go towards investment in green or alternative energy firms. “I think the government should serve as an impetus to do so, because as I said at the outset, not doing anything -- the catastrophic results that can come from that – are what drives this issue,” Larson told CNSNews.com when asked if boosting electricity prices through government policy to drive consumers to green energy was a good idea.

“We ought to do it in a way that both enhances our economy and our economic opportunity and also preserves the universe and the earth,” said Larson. At a press conference Tuesday, Obama told reporters that a good cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions should be designed to “protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices.” "I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that's being sent into the atmosphere,” Obama said. (Mr. Obama, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a harmless gas, produced every time you exhale. Peter)

"The way it's structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through," he added. But in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle back on Jan. 17, 2008, then-candidate Obama said his plan for cap and trade would tax every unit of carbon emitted, which would in turn create an expanded market for new technologies.

Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) (Photo courtesy of Voinovich's Web site)
“I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter,” said Obama. “That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.” Eventually, these taxes would ruin the U.S. coal industry, added Obama. “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” said Obama. “It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”

Republicans said that Obama’s plan to cap and trade carbon emissions would result in a massive tax hike on the companies and American consumers who have to pay for energy to heat and light their homes, and drive their cars, and to run myriad aspects of their daily lives. “Of course” Obama’s plan will drive up energy costs, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told CNSNews.com. “The president’s proposal is unacceptable, because it’s just being used as a source of revenue.”

Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) told CNSNews.com: “Of course the cost is going to rise. When people think of cap and trade, they are going to think of a giant tax increase.” Larson also said he is concerned about “what happens down the food chain.” “My concern specifically is what happens down the food chain, so to speak, to the consumer who ultimately bears the cost,” he said. “I think that no matter what we do, I have to be in favor of a carbon-tax approach, because I think that it just levels with people right from the outset. But I believe completely in passing the savings back down the stream to have an impact on the consumer.”

Obama's Energy Policy: The Blind Leading The Blind

The picture could not be any more clear than it is. Our dependence on foreign oil can not be eliminated by producing more ethanol, or building more windmills, or installing more solar panels. The magnitude of our energy needs makes these solutions just a literal drop in the bucket. It does not take a PhD. Economist to see this. The numbers are there for everyone to see. I'm afraid I agree with what the following writer (and many others) is saying. The U.S. is setting the stage for higher energy prices, more dependence on foreign energy supplies, and more economic hardship. GP

March 13, 2009
Obama's energy policy will increase dependence on foreign oil
By Seldon B. Graham, Jr. (source)
President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Yet, the alarms are not sounding and the red lights are not flashing.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not warning Obama that his oil policy will increase our dependence on foreign oil.

Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Administration, is not alerting the President that his oil policy will increase carbon dioxide emissions.

National Security Advisor James L. Jones is not cautioning the President that his biofuel and oil policy increases the US vulnerability to a Second Arab Oil Embargo.

Christina Roner of the Council of Economic Advisors is not counseling Obama that his biofuel policy continues a 30-year-old blunder wasting taxpayers multiple billions of dollars annually.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is not warning the President that his biofuel policy is doomed to failure because of the impossibility of providing sufficient bio products.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is not advising Obama that his tax on oil will destroy proven US oil reserves.

Why aren’t the alarms sounding and the red lights flashing? It is probably because of the lack of knowledge and experience on these specific subjects by the new appointees. All must be given benefit of any doubt that their duty and loyalty lies with the United States of America instead of their political party or its head.

President Obama’s energy policy is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil imports by eliminating oil and replacing oil with alternative renewable “clean” biofuel. That sounds good in speeches. It is quite impressive to all those who know little about oil or biofuels, which includes the majority of the public. The devil, of course, is in the details which no one seems to have investigated.

Ethanol subsidies began in 1979. Ethanol has had 30 years of taxpayer-assisted experience. Ethanol is the only “feasible” alternative renewable biofuel in the competition. All other biofuels lack the production potential that ethanol has.

According to the latest data from the Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol production is currently averaging 0.60 million barrels per day. At the subsidy of 51¢ per gallon, this amount of ethanol production costs taxpayers over $4 Billion in 2008.

The ethanol future looks much worse. The “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” required maximum ethanol production of 2.35 million barrels per day by 2022. But, this amount of ethanol production will require the entire corn crop in the US, every kernel of corn.
According to Professor Chris Hurt of Purdue, in 2006 the US had about 79 million acres of corn. Professor Richard Meilan of Purdue estimates that one acre of corn will produce 450 gallons which is 10.7 barrels of ethanol. Using all of the corn crop land in the US for ethanol — no movie popcorn, no corn syrup sweetener, no bourbon, no tortillas, no grits, no corn to eat at all — ethanol production can reach only 845 million barrels in 2022, or 2.31 million barrels per day.
Department of Energy data shows that the US is producing 4.95 million barrels of oil per day and importing 9.00 million barrels of foreign oil per day. Including the 0.60 million barrels of ethanol per day, our current oil demand is 14.55 million barrels per day.

US oil production has been declining since 1985. This decline is almost ruler straight. By 2022, it is estimated that US oil production would be approximately 3 million barrels per day. Therefore, in year 2022, ethanol production is expected to be 2.3 million barrels per day and US oil production is expected to be 3.0 million barrels per day, for a combined total of 5.3 million barrels per day. That leaves a shortfall of 9.25 million barrels of oil per day from our current oil demand — to be filled by foreign oil imports. Even assuming there is no increase in demand in the next 13 years, foreign oil imports will be greater in 2022 than they are now. Attention Secretary Chu!

A Department of Energy study made by Decision Analysis Corporation shows that ethanol emits 28.7 grams more carbon dioxide per mile driven than gasoline. Ethanol is not the “clean” biofuel that President Obama thinks it is. The Department of Transportation estimates that 2,656 billion vehicle miles were traveled in the US last year. Ethanol would put millions of tons more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as compared to gasoline. Attention Administrator Jackson!

In 1972, foreign oil imports were 811 million barrels, 19% of demand, the year before the devastating Arab Oil Embargo. Currently, foreign oil imports are at a rate of 3.3 billion barrels annually, 62% of current demand, and are expected to increase in the future. Attention General Jones!

Ethanol subsidies of 51¢ a gallon are $21.42 per barrel. In 2022, when ethanol production is expected to reach its maximum of 845 million barrels annually, the taxpayers would pay over $18 billion dollars for this 15.8% of the current oil demand. Clearly, taxpayers would not be getting a reasonable bang for the buck. Attention Economist Roner!

The United States just has so much crop land. It is a finite number of acres. In 2006, Professor Hurt estimated that it was 79 million acres for corn. Encroachment from development and improvements may have eaten away at some of this. There is an absolute limit on the maximum production of an annual crop such as corn which is determined by acreage. This limit, of course, can be reduced by flood or drought. Removing corn from the food supply by reaching maximum ethanol production is an extremely serious related issue. Attention Secretary Vilsack!

All oil wells decrease in production. Each oil well has an “economic limit” defined as the number of barrels of oil per day which is required to keep the well from losing money. This economic limit determines the life of the well and the proven oil reserves for the well. The equation for the economic limit of an oil well is the daily operating cost divided by one minus the tax times one minus the royalty times the oil price. The economic limit of an oil well is determined by entering the daily operating cost, tax, royalty, and oil price into the equation. A higher tax on oil raises the economic limit, decreasing the life of the well, resulting in decreased proven oil reserves. With an equivalent loss occurring in each of the half million oil wells in the United States, the loss in proven oil reserves to the United States from an increase in tax on oil can be in the billions of barrels. Attention Secretary Salazar and Economist Roner!

Why isn’t there outrage, if not rioting in the street, over this oil and biofuel policy of the Obama administration? Is it because the domestic oil industry -- what little is left after Jimmy Carter -- is cowering in the corner in fear, waiting for the coup de grace?

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the only national organization representing the domestic oil industry. Jack Gerard, the President and CEO, has never worked in the oil industry. He came to the API from the American Chemistry Council last year. He has been in Washington since 1981. The API runs expensive television advertisements telling the public that everything will be fine in the future.

Everything is not going to be fine in the future under President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy. President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Among a great many other critical problems, it will cause an increase in our dependence on foreign oil.

Seldon B. Graham, Jr. is Associate Editor, US of Energy Tribune. Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_energy_policy_will_incr.html at March 16, 2009 - 11:55:22 AM EDT





Turbo Tax - File for Free
Prepare, Print, & File Taxes Online Easily: TurboTax Free Federal Edition
http://www.TurboTax.com

Japanese Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Myth

Three prominent Japanese scientists, working independently, are now openly rejecting the myth of man-caused global warming. They also say many of their colleagues think the same way but have been reluctant to speak out and risk being politically incorrect and creating a threat to their continued funding. This sounds just like what has been going on in American universities and undoubtedly around the world.

The Japanese are also expressing regret for having created and signed the Kyoto Treaty, forced them to spend Billions buying offsets for creating carbon dioxide emissions when that can not possible stop global warming or climate change. Hopefully American politicians are listening and follow the Japanese lead, before it is too late.
Peter

Japanese scientists cool on theories
Peter Alford, Tokyo correspondent March 14, 2009
Article from: The Australian

THREE senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

"I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate," Kanya Kusano told The Weekend Australian.
It could take 10 to 20 years more research to prove or disprove the theory of anthropogenic climate change, said Dr Kusano, a research group leader with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science's Earth Simulator project.

"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth," writes Shunichi Akasofu, founding director of the University of Alaska's International Arctic Research Centre.

Dr Kusano, Dr Akasofu and Tokyo Institute of Technology geology professor Shigenori Maruyama are highly critical of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's acceptance that hazardous global warming results mainly from man-made gas emissions.
On the scientific evidence so far, according to Dr Kusano, the IPCC assertion that atmospheric temperatures are likely to increase continuously and steadily "should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis".

Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report".
Dr Maruyama studies the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change, and he thinks the large influences on global climate over time may be global cosmic rays and solar activity.

Like Dr Akasofu, Dr Maruyama believes the earth has moved into a cooling period, and while Japan is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on carbon credits to hedge against global warming, the country's greatest looming problem is energy shortage, particularly oil.

"Our nation must pay huge amounts of money to buy carbon discharge rights," he said. "This is not reasonable, but meaningless if global cooling will come soon -- scientists will lose trust."
Dr Maruyama said he was uncomfortable, given the scientific uncertainty of man-made climate-change theory, that Japan had taken a leading position in the crusade for global greenhouse emission targets.

The scientists and two others -- Seita Emori, of the National Institute of Environmental Studies, and Kiminori Ito, of Yokahama National University -- contributed to a paper titled "The scientific truth of global warming" that was published in January by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources.

Professor Emori is a firm supporter of man-made climate-change theory and Dr Ito is generally for it, although with reservations about the scientific rigour of the IPCC approach.
The doubters, particularly Dr Kusano and Dr Akasofu, are being widely cited by greenhouse-sceptic websites, after their sections of the paper were translated by The Register, a London-based online publisher.

However, the paper's co-ordinator said the JSER's position on anthropogenic global warming was neutral.
"This paper represents the views of the individuals and not of the society," said Hideo Yoshida, of Kyoto University. "The purpose is to stimulate debate among scholars and readers, and let them form their own judgment."
The Japan Society of Energy and Resources is an academic group that promotes co-operation between industry, academic research and government.

Dr Maruyama said many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he said was leading society in the wrong direction.

It Is Important To Know The Truth About Renewable Energy

People who have dealt with the realities of worldwide energy use for their entire working lives, (like geologists) understand the absurdity of thinking that the so-called renewable sources of energy can or are going to replace oil, gas, and coal in the near future. The following article published in "The Wall Street Journal" explains the reasons for this absurdity very clearly.

The Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress do not seem to understand this. The science, math, and economics are very clear and simple. It makes one wonder what their real objectives are. They are out to control energy, meaning the oil, coal, and gas industry with their proposed taxes and cap and trade scheme. However, think about it. If we shut down the oil, gas, and coal industry, where is the government going to get the money to finance all their other grand projects? To shut down fossil fuels in the name of stopping global warming is a particularly vile and cruel lie. This is becoming more clear on a daily basis.
Peter



MARCH 4, 2009, 11:18 P.M. ET
Let's Get Real About Renewable Energy
We can double the output of solar and wind, and double it again. We'll still depend on hydrocarbons.

By ROBERT BRYCE (source)
During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, "We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."
While that statement -- along with his pledge to impose a "cap on carbon pollution" -- drew applause, let's slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country's energy future. Consider two factors that are too-often overlooked: George W. Bush's record on renewables, and the problem of scale.

By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that's right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.

Mr. Bush's record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world's energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is the same issue that dogs every alternative energy idea: scale.
Let's start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of "renewable" energy. If he's including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America's total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.

If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush's effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America's overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.

Here's why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That's the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption.

Of course, you might respond that renewables need to start somewhere. True enough -- and to be clear, I'm not opposed to renewables. ( And neither am I, Peter) I have solar panels on the roof of my house here in Texas that generate 3,200 watts. And those panels (which were heavily subsidized by Austin Energy, the city-owned utility) provide about one-third of the electricity my family of five consumes. Better still, solar panel producers like First Solar Inc. are lowering the cost of solar cells. On the day of Mr. Obama's speech, the company announced that it is now producing solar cells for $0.98 per watt, thereby breaking the important $1-per-watt price barrier.

And yet, while price reductions are important, the wind is intermittent, and so are sunny days. That means they cannot provide the baseload power, i.e., the amount of electricity required to meet minimum demand, that Americans want.

That issue aside, the scale problem persists. For the sake of convenience, let's convert the energy produced by U.S. wind and solar installations into oil equivalents.

The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.

Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America's total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share -- we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.

Here's another way to consider the 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day that come from solar and wind: It's approximately equal to the raw energy output of one average-sized coal mine.
During his address to Congress, Mr. Obama did not mention coal -- the fuel that provides nearly a quarter of total primary energy and about half of America's electricity -- except to say that the U.S. should develop "clean coal."

He didn't mention nuclear power, only "nuclear proliferation," even though nuclear power is likely the best long-term solution to policy makers' desire to cut U.S. carbon emissions.

He didn't mention natural gas, even though it provides about 25% of America's total primary energy needs. Furthermore, the U.S. has huge quantities of gas, and it's the only fuel source that can provide the stand-by generation capacity needed for wind and solar installations. Finally, he didn't mention oil, the backbone fuel of the world transportation sector, except to say that the U.S. imports too much of it.

Perhaps the president's omissions are understandable. America has an intense love-hate relationship with hydrocarbons in general, and with coal and oil in particular. And with increasing political pressure to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, that love-hate relationship has only gotten more complicated. (Carbon dioxide emissions being related to the global warming scare. Peter)

But the problem of scale means that these hydrocarbons just won't go away. Sure, Mr. Obama can double the output from solar and wind. And then double it again. And again. And again. But getting from 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to something close to the 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day needed to keep the U.S. economy running is going to take a long, long time. It would be refreshing if the president or perhaps a few of the Democrats on Capitol Hill would admit that fact.

Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'"(Public Affairs, 2008).

How To Restore Health To The American Economy: Produce More Oil and Gas

How can we restore the health of the American economy? A good place to begin would be producing more oil and gas here in the United States. This would create jobs, keep our dollars here in America rather than sending them to foreign countries, and generate much-needed revenue for Federal, State and local governments. It can be done.
Peter


Why We Need to Add to Production

(source)
In an energy interdependent world, we need common sense energy policies that provide access to conventional energy supplies, encourage energy efficiency, and promote continued development of new energy technologies. Common sense dictates that increasing our ability to produce energy from American resources – including crude oil and natural gas -- must be part of the mix. If energy companies are prevented from exploring for and producing oil and natural gas here at home in the United States, they face stiff competition overseas from national oil companies for untapped resources.

We currently import more than 60 percent of the crude oil and petroleum products we use. U.S. oil and natural gas companies don’t set crude oil prices -- the world market does. While we should not expect to be able to generate all the energy we need from within our own borders, each unit of energy we produce here at home is one we do not have to import. In particular, as long as demand for clean burning natural gas continues to increase, we will need access to new supplies of natural gas. We are fortunate to have considerable natural gas resources in the United States and elsewhere in North America. Federal lands are estimated to hold an estimated 656 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, enough to heat 60 million homes for 160 years (60 million homes in the United States are heated by natural gas).

If we stopped drilling new wells, U.S. production would fall rapidly and likely cease altogether within 20-25 years. As old wells reach the point where they are no longer economic to produce, they have to be replaced by new ones. This makes it important that we continue to explore for oil and gas, adding new production sources to those that are already on their inevitable decline. Without new wells adding to U.S. supplies, our volume of imports will have to continue to increase to make up the shortfall.

A report prepared in July 2000 by the Energy Information Administration titled Accelerated Depletion: Assessing Its Impacts on Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Prices and Production remains very relevant today. This report explains why we have to work harder just to stay even when it comes to oil and gas production:
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) report was designed to examine the trend of accelerated depletion and its impacts. Accelerated depletion means that resources found today tend to have much steeper (rapid) decline curves than those found 20 years ago. After a detailed analysis of various alternative scenarios, EIA underscored the importance and interplay of two factors: technology and access to resources on government lands. The EIA report indicates that, for at least the next two decades, the potential negative effects from the accelerated depletion of existing reserves could be offset by an increase in the rate at which new technologies are introduced in the oil and gas industry and by a relaxation of restrictions on drilling on federal [government] lands.


Federal restrictions -- including the decades-old Outer Continental Shelf leasing moratoria lifted Oct. 1, 2008 - have kept significant volumes of our oil and natural gas resources off-limits. These are vital resources that Americans rely upon for our economy and our way of life. Even where leases are granted, restrictions on how those leases are developed essentially preclude development of the resources. We can no longer afford to place off-limits access to vast federal oil and natural gas resources.

Although “energy independence” may not be possible, “energy interdependence” is a reality, and producing more oil and natural gas resources within our borders will be the key to enabling us to maintain a healthy economy in an interdependent world.

Oil And Gas Exploration In The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The Real Story

This was sent to me by friend. This is not the kind of information about drilling for oil in ANWR you will find in the mainstream media. He included the following pictures and text about ANWR.

"Pete, You know all about the oil business. What's your scope on
all of this? When will Saudi Arabia run out of oil?" Jim

This is my reply:

Jim,
The information and photos in this message about ANWR is all basically true. I studied and explored for oil and gas in all of Northern Alaska, from the Mackenzie Delta in Canada on the east to Pt. Barrow and the Chukchi Sea on the west. The area is bounded by the Brooks Range and the Sadlerochit Mountains on the south. Oil and gas is rarely found in mountains that have been uplifted, folded, faulted metamorphosed, and eroded. This general rule applies all over the world.

Traversing northward in Alaska from the mountain ranges, you would cross a geologic feature called the Colville River Basin, named after the dominant river in northern Alaska that flows northward and empties into the Beaufort Sea. This basin was first formed during the Jurassic Period, about 100 million (?) years ago and filled with sediments, primarily sand, silt, clay and mud rich in organic matter. In the deepest part of this huge basin, (think of the Gulf Of Mexico) these sediments may be as much as 30,000 feet thick. They contain a lot of oil, gas and coal. The western half of northern Alaska is owned by the Federal Government and was established as the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, (NPRA) in the 1920's. Geologists have known for a long time about the oil, gas and coal there. It is a forbidding environment and until fairly recently it has never been economically viable to do much exploration up there. But that is what I did for almost ten years. Of course the largest oil and gas field ever found in North America is there, and called the Prudhoe Bay Field. It was initially thought to contain 10 Billion barrels of oil, and I think it will eventually produce more than that.

So geologists pretty much know where the oil and gas is, or is likely to be. Only a very small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has oil and gas potential. Yes it is a fragile environment; yes it is easy to damage the delicate tundra, especially in the wet, soft, boggy summer. However, it has been demonstrated that oil exploration and production can be conducted in the Arctic with minimal environmental damage. The question is, is 5 to 10 Billion barrels of oil worth going after? I think it is, and of course nobody will know until someone actually drills some wells.

Good information, I'm saving it. Thanks,
Peter

FIRST… do you know what ANWR is?

ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


Now… A comparison

And some perspective…

NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS…
(it’s in the “ANWR Coastal Plain”)

THIS IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS AND “GREENS” SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR
…and they are right… these ARE photographs of ANWR

ISN’T ANWR BEAUTIFUL? WHY SHOULD WE DRILL HERE (AND DESTROY) THIS BEAUTIFUL PLACE?

WELL… THAT’S NOT EXACTLY THE TRUTH


Do you remember the map?

The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain

Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you?


WHAT’S GOING ON HERE?

THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE…

THAT IS NOT WHERE THEY ARE WANTING TO DRILL!

THIS IS WHAT THE PROPOSED EXPLORATION AREA ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IN THE WINTER

AND THIS IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IN THE SUMMER
HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE AREA WHERE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT DRILLING IS A BARREN WASTELAND.

OH… AND THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECT ON THE LOCAL WILDLIFE…

HERE IS A PHOTO (SHOT DURING THE SUMMER) OF THE“DEPLETED WILDLIFE” SITUATION CREATED BY DRILLING AROUND PRUDHOE BAY*…DON’T YOU THINK THAT THE CARIBOU REALLY HATE THAT DRILLING?


HERE’S THAT SAME SPOT DURING THE WINTER.

HEY, THIS BEAR SEEMS TO REALLY HATE THE PIPELINE NEAR PRUDHOE BAY*…
*The Prudhoe bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production


NOW, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE LYING ABOUT ANWR?

REMEMBER WHEN AL GORE SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD WORK TO ARTIFICIALLY RAISE GAS PRICES TO $5.00 A GALLON?

WELL…
AL GORE AND HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATS HAVE ALMOST REACHED THEIR GOAL!

NOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN LYING,WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

YOU CAN START BY FORWARDING THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW…SO THAT THEY WILL KNOW THE TRUTH.

Good News For American Oil Independence

This is one excellent example of how innovative thinking and new technology can help solve America's energy problems. Let's have more of it! I'll bet the people in North Dakota aren't too worried about carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. Anyone wanting to know more, do a search of this blog on the Bakken Formation and the Barnett Shale of North Texas.
Peter
source

Oil Is Making Millionaires in North Dakota
By James MacPherson, Associated Press CNSNews.com June 30, 2008 Beulah, N.D. (AP) -

Oscar Stohler was raised in a sod house in western North Dakota and ranched there for nearly seven decades. He never gave much thought to what lay below the grass that fattened his cattle.When oilmen wanted to drill there last year, Stohler, 83, doubted oil would be found two miles underground on his property. He even joked about it."I told them if they hit oil, I was going to buy a Cadillac convertible and put those big horns on the front and wear a 10-gallon hat," Stohler recalled.He still drives his old pickup and wears a mesh farm cap -- but it's by choice.In less than a year, Stohler and his wife, Lorene, 82, have become millionaires from the production of one well on their land near Dunn Center, a mile or so from the sod home where Oscar grew up. A second well has begun producing on their property and another is being drilled -- all aimed at the Bakken shale formation, a rich deposit that the U.S. Geological Survey calls the largest continuous oil accumulation it has ever assessed.

Landowners in western North Dakota have a much better chance of striking it rich from oil than they do playing the lottery, say the Stohlers. Some of their neighbors in the town of about 120, from bar tenders to Tupperware salespeople, have become "overnight millionaires" from oil royalty payments."It's the easiest money we've ever made," said Lorene Stohler, who worked for decades as a sales clerk at a small department store.

State and industry officials say North Dakota is on pace to set a state oil-production record this year, surpassing the 52.6 million barrels produced in 1984. A record number of drill rigs are piercing the prairie and North Dakota has nearly 4,000 active oil wells. The drilling frenzy has led companies to search for oil using horizontal drilling beneath Parshall, a town of about 980 in Mountrail County, and under Lake Sakakawea, 180-mile-long reservoir on the Missouri River."I have heard, anecdotally, that there is a millionaire a day being created in North Dakota," said Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council. Kathy Strombeck, a state Tax Department analyst, said the number of "income millionaires" in North Dakota is rising. The number of taxpayers reporting adjusted gross income of more than $1 million in North Dakota rose from 266 in 2005 to 388 in 2006, Strombeck said. The 2007 numbers won't be known until October, she said.

Bruce Gjovig, director of the University of North Dakota's Center for Innovation, said his informal survey estimates the number of new millionaires in Mountrail County, one of the biggest drilling areas of the Bakken, may be as many as 2,000 -- or nearly a third of the county's population -- in the next three to five years. North Dakota's per capita income in 2007 was $36,846, ranking the state 30th in the nation and up from 42nd in 1997, said Richard Rathge, the state Data Center director and North Dakota demographer. "The two main drivers are energy and agriculture income," Rathge said. The increasing wealth in the state from oil should push the average annual wage in North Dakota, he said.

The oil boom has spurred several "Jed Clampett-like" tales of ordinary folks getting rich, said Tom Rolfstad, the economic development director for the city of Williston. Rolfstad said he hasn't spotted any Ferraris or Rolls Royces in town, though several people can afford them now."I'm seeing a lot more big, shiny gas-guzzling pickups," he said. Several homes that cost more than a million dollars also are being built in Williston, he said. The community of about 12,500 people is perhaps best known as the hometown of NBA coach Phil Jackson. Most people "don't want people to know how much money they got and they don't want to be tagged with being wealthy -- they want to be themselves," Rolfstad said.

Oscar and Lorene Stohler said their newly found wealth hasn't changed them."We still know what tough times are," Oscar said. "We grew up in the Dirty '30s.""We put our kids through college without that oil money," Lorene said. The couple moved a few miles east to Beulah and paid cash for their new home, the first one they have owned. They have established trust accounts for their four children. Lorene said the only thriftless purchase was an automatic sprinkler system for her flowers that surround the couple's new home. And Oscar bought a $1,000 ring for his wife to celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary."We got enough now to buy new stuff," Lorene said, "but we like our old stuff."

The Bakken Formation of Montana and North Dakota: Is It The Answer To Our Energy Needs?

It sounds to me as if the amount of oil recoverable from the Bakken has been greatly exagerated. Based on some knowledge of technology, geology, the oil industry, the USGS, and the kind of hype by people selling investment "advice", especially on the internet, I tend to believe the basic premise of this report. There is a lot of oil in the Bakken Formation, and some of it is economically recoverable with relatively new horizontal drilling and rock fracturing technology. Any oil, anywhere, is very attractive at today's $130 per barrel price. Even if the USGS "estimates" are correct, and you can be sure that is what they are, a best guess, 4 Billion barrels of recoverable oil is very significant. It is 40% of what was initially thought to be recoverable from the Prudhoe Bay Field on Alaska's North Slope, which is the largest oil field ever found in North America. Of course the Bakken Formation is not one simple oil field. It is primarily a layer of shale rock spread over a huge area, with many, many wells needed to produce that much oil. The Bakken Formation is not going to be a panacea for our energy crisis. There is one other article on this blog dealing with the Bakken Formation, see here Peak Oil? An Example Of How Technology "Discovers" More Oil
Peter


U.S. Says 400-Billion Barrel Bakken Oil Field a 'Myth'
By Keriann Hopkins CNSNews.com Correspondent June 18, 2008 (CNSNews.com) - source

Reports circulating on the Internet tell of an oil field spanning parts of western North Dakota and eastern Montana where 400 billion barrels of oil supposedly are just waiting to be tapped. However, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tells Cybercast News Service that those huge estimates are "a myth."A USGS report issued in April estimates that there are between 3 billion to 4.3 billion barrels of oil in what is referred to as "the Bakken Formation" -- well below the 400 billion barrels discussed on the Web, but up from the previous estimate of 151 million barrels made in 1995.

Richard Pollastro, Bakken Formation task leader at the USGS, said the myth stems from a 1999 draft report -- never published -- by a now-deceased USGS employee, Leigh Price. Price estimated that the Bakken Formation holds up to 400 billion barrels of oil. To put that in perspective, Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has about 260 billion barrels of known oil reserves. Price, however, died in 2000, before his study could be peer-reviewed and published, and the Bakken Formation became the fool's gold of the oil industry. "Unfortunately, in many instances, we are still trying to explain and defend our assessment versus the inappropriate and irresponsible posting of Dr. Price's 'draft report,'" Pollastro told Cybercast News Service.

According to Jonathon Kolak, a USGS scientist and information specialist, the discrepancy between Price's 1999 estimates and the agency's 2008 findings arises from the fact that Price was trying to assess the "oil generation potential" of the oil found in the pores of rocks and shale in the Bakken field, as well as the total content of how much oil might be pooling up - or "oil in place.""What Dr. Price was looking at was 'oil generation potential,' and then, from that, trying to make an estimate of 'oil in place,'" said Kolak. "Those terms are very distinct from 'undiscovered technically recoverable resources.'" The latest study, which was commissioned by U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), is an estimate of how much "technically recoverable" oil and gas is available -- i.e, how much oil can actually be recovered using today's technology.

Kolas also explained that the 25-fold increase between the 1995 estimates and the 2008 assessment is due to two factors: an improved understanding of the geology and advances in drilling technology. "Our understanding of the geology improved significantly because of the time difference between the studies," he said. "There has been some drilling since then, there has been a lot more information that has come out, other people have conducted studies, and also USGS researchers have conducted studies. "Moreover, drillers are utilizing directional drilling in the Bakken fields, a way of drilling at an angle to tap previously unrecoverable reservoirs.

"If you've been out to western North Dakota, you don't need a USGS report to know that there's oil there because you can see from all the drilling activity that there's a lot of energy development going on in western North Dakota," Dorgan spokesman Justin Kitch told Cybercast News Service . Kitch admits that comparing Price's 1999 study to the April USGS study is like comparing "apples and oranges. "But certainly it's nice to have an up-to-date assessment of the amount of oil that's technically recoverable in the Bakken," he said.

In 2006, Marathon Oil bought 200,000 acres in the Bakken to drill over 300 wells. This past May, after the report was released, Texas-based XTO Energy bought 352,000 net acres in the Bakken Shale for $1.9 billion. The federal government, meanwhile, said only a small proportion of the oil available with today's technology is economically viable for recovery. "If you're drilling the Bakken, it's pretty easy to drill somewhere in there and at least see some oil, but the question is: Is there enough there to get out and actually be economically recoverable?" Kolak asked. At the end of 2007, about 105 million barrels of oil had been produced from the Bakken Formation. The USGS, meanwhile, considers any release or dissemination of Price's unpublished report to be "inappropriate and irresponsible."