What Liberals Won't Tell You About Artic Drilling
The Bandit
Washington - Even though it is noon, the landscape is pitch black.
The wind chill stands at 70 below zero. A lone man drives across a vast
frozen plain on a road made of ice. He sits atop a large, bug-like
machine with enormous wheels. He is heading for a spot on the tundra
pinpointed by satellite imagery to explore for oil. When the spring
thaw comes and the road melts, any evidence that a man or a machine
ever crossed there will be gone.
This is the world of Arctic energy exploration in the 21st century. It
is as different from what oil exploration used to be as the compact
supercomputers of today are different from the huge vacuum tube
computers of the 1950s. Through the use of advanced technology, we have
learned not only to get access to oil and gas reserves in Arctic
environments but also to protect their ecosystems and wildlife.
Technological advances in oil exploration are at the heart of a debate
over America's energy future. Congress will soon decide whether to open
up a sliver of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - called the 1002
area - to energy development. Opponents will pretend that new, less
invasive technology doesn't exist. It is important for Americans to
understand that it does, and that it works.
In past decades, Arctic oil development involved huge amounts of
equipment that had to be moved over gravel roads and laid upon large
gravel pads. The machines that transported this equipment often scarred
the land, especially in spring and summer.
American ingenuity has tackled this problem. Today, oil exploration in
the Arctic occurs only in the frozen winter. Workers build roads and
platforms of ice to protect the soil and vegetation. Trucks with huge
tires called rolligons distribute load weights over large areas of snow
to minimize the impact on the tundra below.
Meanwhile, innovations in platform development and directional drilling
mean that we need fewer and smaller pads to tap into oil and gas
reserves. From a single platform, we can explore an underground area
nearly the size of the District of Columbia.
Likewise, satellite infrared imaging helps energy companies to avoid
key wildlife habitat and environmentally sensitive areas while 3-D
seismic data imaging improves the chances of drilling a successful well
by 50 percent, meaning fewer wells.
In 1980, when Congress created the refuge, it set aside the 1002 area
for possible future energy development. To date, Congress has not
approved this development because of environmental concerns. In the
meantime, America's domestic production of energy has declined and we
have become more and more dependent on imported oil.
As part of a comprehensive energy strategy of promoting conservation
and reducing dependence on foreign oil, we must increase our energy
production here at home. The 1002 area is potentially the largest
untapped source of oil and gas on American soil. While we cannot
promise that there will be no impact on the wildlife and habitat of the
1002 area, we can promise no significant impact.
In fact, legislation to open up the area passed last year by the House
of Representatives laid down the strictest environmental standards ever
applied to energy development and flatly stated that development must
"result in no significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their
habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment."
We can meet this standard because of the extraordinary advances in oil
field technology. If approved by Congress, the overall "footprint" of
the equipment and facilities needed to develop the 1002 area would be
restricted to 2,000 acres, an area about the size of a regional airport
in a refuge the size of South Carolina.
With this advanced technology and the strict requirements of the
legislation, the American people will have access to much needed energy
to heat our homes and run our businesses while being assured that the
Arctic environment and its wildlife will be protected.
Gale A. Norton is secretary of the interior.
rightw...@hotmail.com
in Alaska....
but they want their SUVs...home heating...and electric power plants...
love
hank
........................................
Mitchell Holman
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> With this advanced technology and the strict requirements of the
> legislation, the American people will have access to much needed energy
> to heat our homes and run our businesses while being assured that the
> Arctic environment and its wildlife will be protected.
Remember when this same snake oil was being
peddled about that OTHER Alaska drilling adventure?
Do the words Exxon Valdez ring a bell?
Mitchell Holman
"We've got an energy crisis in America that we have
to deal with in a commonsense way".
George Bush, pushing for oil drilling in Alaska
vs.....
"I'm going to work with your governor on offshore
drilling here in Florida. We're both against it."
George Bush, opposing oil drilling in Florida, October 2000
The Bandit
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> "The Bandit" <no-r...@idexer.com> wrote in
news:1110933071.862899.139560
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > With this advanced technology and the strict requirements of the
> > legislation, the American people will have access to much needed
energy
> > to heat our homes and run our businesses while being assured that
the
> > Arctic environment and its wildlife will be protected.
>
>
> Remember when this same snake oil was being
> peddled about that OTHER Alaska drilling adventure?
> Do the words Exxon Valdez ring a bell?
Oil spills, Volcanos, tidal waves, earthquakes, fires, floods.....you
cannot eliminate diasters completely. You can reduce man-made
disasters, but never completely no more then natures. Uncontrolled
population expansion and environmental correctness are not mutually
compatable.
Mitchell Holman
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Why are we going all the way to Alaska to
find oil when there is plenty of it in Florida?
"I'm going to work with your governor on offshore
drilling here in Florida. We're both against it."
George Bush, opposing oil drilling in Florida, October 2000
"I would work with Gov. Jeb Bush to support an offshore
drilling ban in Florida."
George Bush, August 1999
The Napalm Cafe
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNo*Em...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AE27A...@216.196.97.131...
The Gulf of Mexico caps their wells when the price is low.
Join The Napalm Cafe now:
http://tinyurl.com/4r4g8
or
http://snipurl.com/dfsd
Barney Lyon
by Pamela A. Miller
Arctic Connections
Pollution
There is about a spill a day at Prudhoe Bay. The Prudhoe Bay oil fields
and Trans-Alaska Pipeline have caused an average of 409 spills annually
on the North Slope since 1996 (Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation spill database 1996-1999). Roughly 40 different substances
from acid to waste oil are spilled during routine operations. Over 1.3
million gallons spilled between 1996 and 1999, most commonly diesel and
crude oil. Diesel fuel is acutely toxic to plant life.
A study of diesel spills in Alaska's arctic found that 28 years later
there were still substantial hydrocarbons in the soil and little
vegetation recovery. The Exxon Valdez studies show petroleum
hydrocarbons pose higher risks to fish and wildlife than previously
known and that there is long-lasting ecological damage. Prudhoe Bay is
a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The oil
industry on Alaska's North Slope annual emits approximately 56,427 tons
of oxides of nitrogen, which contributes to smog and acid rain. This is
more than twice the amount emitted by Washington, DC (EPA National Air
Pollutant Emissions Trends1900-1998, 2000). North Slope oil facilities
release roughly 24,000-114,000 tons of methane, a greenhouse gas.
Substances associated with Prudhoe Bay drilling operations, natural gas
facilities, and incinerators were detected in accumulated snow in the
area. Despite improvements in drilling waste disposal techniques over
the years, problems remain: During horizontal drilling of the Colville
River pipeline crossing for Arco's Alpine field, 2.3 million gallons of
drilling muds disappeared under the river in 1998. It is unknown where
they ended up and if they will ultimately pollute Alaska's largest
arctic river. At Endicott, contractors for British Petroleum illegally
disposed of hazardous drilling wastes containing benzene and other
toxics for at least three years until a whistleblower came forward.
Some of the waste reached the surface and workers were exposed to
hazardous fumes. In February 2000, BP was ordered to pay $15.5 million
in criminal fines and to implement a new environmental management
program, and to serve 5-years probation for its failure in reporting
the dumping. BP also paid $6.5 million in civil penalties. Its
contractor pled guilty to 15 counts of violating the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 and paid a $3 million fine. A huge cleanup job remains across
the North Slope.
For example: Hundreds of old exploratory and production drilling waste
pits have yet to be closed out and the sites restored. More than 55
contaminated sites associated with the oil industry exist on the North
Slope (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). Many gravel
pads are contaminated by chronic spills. Oil companies will not re-use
gravel from many abandoned sites due to concerns about contamination.
Although there have been some pilot studies of rehabilitation
techniques for gravel pads in the arctic oil fields, the technical or
economic feasibility of restoring the tens of thousands of acres of
roads and drilling sites has yet to be proven.
Industrial Sprawl
Proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge point to the Prudhoe Bay
oil fields as an example that development would not harm the
environment. Consider these facts:
Since the Prudhoe Bay oil discovery in 1968, the oil industry has
dramatically transformed a vast arctic wilderness. Prudhoe Bay and 18
other producing oil fields sprawl over more than 1,000 square miles of
America's Arctic-- an area the size of Rhode Island. Today the North
Slope oil fields include 3,893 exploratory and producing wells, 170
production and exploratory drill pads, 500 miles of roads, 1,100 miles
of trunk and feeder pipelines, 2 refineries, many airports, many camps
with living quarters for hundreds of workers, 5 docks and gravel
causeways, and a total of 25 production plants, gas processing
facilities, seawater treatment plants, and power plants. Many impacts
exceed the Interior Department's predictions in a 1972 Trans-Alaska
Pipeline EIS. Gravel mines extracted 400% more gravel. Oil companies
drilled five times more wells. Road mileage was double. Gravel pads for
drilling and oil facilities were predicted to cover 2,155 acres, but
such infrastructure fills three times the area. Drilling proponents say
that impacts will be small due to technological improvements. Despite
advancements, there are unavoidable impacts from the latest North Slope
oil development.
The industrial network continues to expand across the landscape each
year with new drilling pads, roads, pipelines, processing plants, and
other facilities and operations that add to the cumulative impact.
Technological advances have reduced the size of individual drilling
pads and some roads, but oil development unavoidably involves
construction of many permanent industrial facilities and noisy
operations spread across vast expanses of the landscape. No matter how
well done, oil development would industrialize a unique, wild area that
is the biological heart of the Arctic Refuge. Industry focuses
attention on the direct "footprint" where facilities will be built but
ignores the secondary and cumulative impacts of the industrial network
on wildlife habitats.
For example: Roughly 22,000 acres of tundra wetlands, floodplains, and
other habitats have been directly lost due to the oil fields and
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. But the impacts to wildlife and their
tundra habitats extend well beyond the sites of constructed facilities.
A study of major landscape impacts due to the Prudhoe Bay oil fields in
Science found that secondary effects such as hydrological changes to
wetlands lagged behind construction and the total area eventually
disturbed greatly exceeded direct impacts. "The extent of disturbance
greatly exceeds the physical "footprint" of an oil-field complex,"
according to caribou biologists Nellemann and Cameron (1998). Many
studies recorded decreased caribou densities within 4-km of pipelines
and roads and regional changes in calving distribution for the Central
Arctic Herd at Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay air emissions have been
detected nearly 200 miles away in Barrow, Alaska.
Barney Lyon
Parks, Forests & Wildlands: Wilderness Preservation: In Brief: Fact
Sheet
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Oil Development Damages Air, Water and Wildlife
Life on the Coastal Plain | Damage Caused by Oil Development | The
Argument for Oil Efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This document is also available as a PDF file that includes charts and
pictures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic spills and air pollution from permanent, year-round operations
are destroying Alaska's fragile North Slope.
Once part of the largest intact wilderness area in the United States,
Alaska's North Slope now hosts one of the world's largest industrial
complexes, spanning some 1,000 square miles of once-pristine Arctic
tundra. Prudhoe Bay and 26 other oilfields include the following:
* 28 oil production plants, gas processing facilities, and seawater
treatment and power plants
* 38 gravel mines
* 223 production and exploratory gravel drill pads
* 500 miles of roads
* 1,800 miles of pipelines
* 4,800 exploration and production wells
All of this activity is taking place in an exceptionally fragile
region. Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold
at other times of the year, and nutrient-poor soils and permafrost,
vegetation grows very slowly in the North Slope. Any physical
disturbance -- bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration, spills of oil
and other toxic substances -- can scar the land for decades. The
National Academy of Sciences concluded it is unlikely that the most
disturbed habitat will ever be restored and the damage to more than
9,000 acres by oilfield roads and gravel pads is likely to remain for
centuries.
A close look at how four decades of this sprawling oil development has
destroyed Prudhoe Bay dispels the myth that drilling can take place in
the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain without
permanently damaging the landscape and the wildlife that depends on it.
A toxic spill every day
Each year, the oil industry spills tens of thousands of gallons of
crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope. In fact,
every day there is on average at least one spill either in the oil
fields or at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. From 1996 to 2004, there were
some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil,
acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid and other materials. In
the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more severe and
lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel, for instance
-- the most frequently spilled substance on the North Slope -- is
acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed, tundra
vegetation has been unable to recover from diesel spills.
Oil operations pollute the air with tons of emissions
Each year, oil operations on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 70,000
tons of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain.
(That's three times more than Washington, D.C.'s annual NOx emissions,
according to the Environmental Protection Agency.) Plumes of pollution
from Prudhoe Bay have been detected in Barrow, Alaska, nearly 200 miles
away. And pollutants from drilling operations, natural gas facilities
and incinerators also have been detected in snow in the Prudhoe Bay
area.
Although the overall impact of these air pollutants on Arctic
ecosystems remains largely unknown, some Arctic species are known to be
especially sensitive to air pollutants at levels below national air
quality standards. North Slope oil facilities also release greenhouse
gases, which are a major contributor to global climate change. Each
year, they emit 7 million to 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
and 24,000 to 114,000 metric tons of methane. Emissions climb even
higher as North Slope oil is transported by tanker, refined, and
eventually burned in engines or power plants.
Hazardous waste contaminates water and wetlands
For years, old reserve pits holding millions of gallons of drilling and
other wastes pocked the North Slope. The pits typically contained a
variety of toxic metals, as well as petroleum hydrocarbons and other
harmful substances. Thanks partly to litigation by the Natural
Resources Defense Council, handling methods for the waste in these
reserve pits have improved.
While the oil industry has closed many of the pits, more than 100
remain to be cleaned. And, despite advances in disposal methods -- in
which most drilling wastes are ground up and re-injected into wells --
problems remain. In 2000, for instance, British Petroleum (BP) was
ordered to pay $22 million in civil and criminal fines and establish a
new environmental management program because its contractors had
illegally disposed of hazardous wastes containing benzene and other
toxic chemicals. These crimes only came to light because a
whistle-blower reported them to the EPA.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation still lists more
than 100 contaminated sites associated with oil industry operations on
the North Slope. These sites contain a variety of toxic materials,
including acids, lead, pesticides, solvents, diesel fuel, caustics,
corrosives and petroleum hydrocarbons. Leakage from some sites has
contaminated the surrounding tundra wetlands and waterways, which
likely will be ruined for decades.
Barney Lyon
traveler
The LIberal treehuggers still dont care what you say....no oil drilling
in Alaska....
but they want their SUVs...home heating...and electric power plants...
love
hank
I hate that expression -- "treehuggers." You don't have to be a
liberal to respect the land and object to the destructive actions of
those who clearly do not. Anyone who has lived in a area where oil
exploration is a fact of life quickly learns to be very skeptical about
all the promises of the oil boys. Sure, they can do it cleanly, if
they want getting at it and pumping it out of the ground to cost a lot
more than it has to. To take at face value what the Secretary of the
Interior says when the Bush Administration clearly wants that oil field
developed NOW is being pretty naive. If what they claim is true, and
they are forced to stick to it, then perhaps we will be able to proceed
one day, but I wouldn't lay odds on it. They are putting out a
best-case scenario with all these predictions of a high tech,
environmentally clean exploration effort.
Last I heard, the arctic oil is high in sulfer and not very good
for anything but making asphalt. The Japanese, supposedly, will buy
most of it from us. Whether or not that is really true, I don't know.
I do know that we should be very careful about setting precedents that
put our wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and national parks in
danger of being exploited for short-term profit by global corporations
with horrible environmental records. I like President Bush, but let's
face it. He's got Oil written all over his family money. People
definitely should not be driving those big fat SUVs everywhere they go
nor does everyone and his mother need a one-ton pickup just to drive
around town.
David Moffitt
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNo*Em...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AE27A...@216.196.97.131...
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >> "The Bandit" <no-r...@idexer.com> wrote in
> > news:1110933071.862899.139560
> >> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > With this advanced technology and the strict requirements of the
> >> > legislation, the American people will have access to much needed
> > energy
> >> > to heat our homes and run our businesses while being assured that
> > the
> >> > Arctic environment and its wildlife will be protected.
> >>
> >>
> >> Remember when this same snake oil was being
> >> peddled about that OTHER Alaska drilling adventure?
> >> Do the words Exxon Valdez ring a bell?
> >
> > Oil spills, Volcanos, tidal waves, earthquakes, fires, floods.....you
> > cannot eliminate diasters completely. You can reduce man-made
> > disasters, but never completely no more then natures. Uncontrolled
> > population expansion and environmental correctness are not mutually
> > compatable.
>
>
> Why are we going all the way to Alaska to
> find oil when there is plenty of it in Florida?
%%%% More oil is there and you don't see the oil rigs in your sunset view.
:o)
Jim E
"traveler" <Vall...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110950232....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> rightwingh...@hotmail.com wrote
>
> The LIberal treehuggers still dont care what you say....no oil drilling
>
> in Alaska....
> but they want their SUVs...home heating...and electric power plants...
>
> love
> hank
>
> I hate that expression -- "treehuggers."
How about liberal, star gazing, cave dwelling,
crystal rubbing, grub eating, knuckle dragging,
tree hugging socialist.
That better ??
Jim E
Jim E
"David Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:oAPZd.5572$qf2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Plus if you screw up and make a mess, nobody cares.
The place might as well be on the moon.
Jim E
George
<rightw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110935586.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I say we take their SUV's (and their econo-boxes, too), their furnaces and
air conditioning units, and cut their electricity. Let the libby-dem pigs
walk (or take the bus), freeze or swelter seasonally, and light their homes
with candles. We'll leave them their phones so we can call them nightly
and ask them "howyadoing in the dark?"
George
> "The Bandit" <no-r...@idexer.com> wrote in news:1110933071.862899.139560
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > With this advanced technology and the strict requirements of the
> > legislation, the American people will have access to much needed energy
> > to heat our homes and run our businesses while being assured that the
> > Arctic environment and its wildlife will be protected.
>
>
> Remember when this same snake oil was being
> peddled about that OTHER Alaska drilling adventure?
> Do the words Exxon Valdez ring a bell?
Do the words libby-dem lying moron ring a bell?
Mitchell Holman
@fe07.lga:
In that case the Bushs don't need to
ban drilling in Florida even as they push
for it in Alaska. Do explain.
Mitchell Holman
David Moffitt
"Jim E" <FatboyPlonker@ FU.gov> wrote in message
news:39q063F...@individual.net...
%%%% At 50 below zero you can chip the crude oil globs off of the ice. It is
not a spill it is more of a clunk.
>
>
> Jim E
>
>
rightw...@hotmail.com
car? do you use electricity?
do you heat your home? Do you use any products made using oil or gas
(which is everything)?
Do you use solar energy for everything? Guess not...
Unless you do not....then YOU are part of the problem...
You are just as guilty as us.
love ya...ya tree hugging liberal abortion loving lesbian freak...
hank
.............................................
John Black
re...@idexer.com says...
By opposing nuclear power and ANWR drilling, democrats are intent on
keeping us dependent on foreign oil. They would rather buy oil from
Saudi Arabia than to drill an *extremely small* area in Alaska that is
usually -40F and resembles the surface of the moon. By the way, John
Kerry does not own any SUV's. His wife, family and his campaign had
several but not him.
John Black
Jim E
No stupid, Not In ANYBODY'S Back Yard.
Can you tell the difference ?????
Jim E
Jim E
Great, now the environazis have to pass laws against " Oil Clunks".
Jim E
Barney Lyon
> Pamela A. Miller Arctic Connections ......say Pam....do you drive a
> car? do you use electricity?
> do you heat your home? Do you use any products made using oil or
gas
> (which is everything)?
> Do you use solar energy for everything? Guess not...
> Unless you do not....then YOU are part of the problem...
> You are just as guilty as us.
You have just exposed the shortcomings of the free market system, why
it doesn't exist in its' purest expression. It's also why capitalism
only succeeds (and thrives) when it is regulated.
It's also why Republicans have no idea what real leadership means.
George W. Bush and the Republican party don't represent the interests
of the American people. Bush and the Republican party promote the
interests of big business and the rich. The uber rich. Bush and the
Republican party are no better than pimps. Their only interest is
making money for their sponsors.
"We'll use up all of the oil, cut down all of the trees, dump toxic
waste into our water supply, with no thought at all to what it will
mean for life on the planet for human beings when there is no more oil,
clean air, water, non-toxic food. Let's make money now; the future
will take care of itself."
Real leaders, GREAT leaders, anticipate future problems and work to
head them off. Our energy problems aren't going to be solved by
staying on the same path, using up what limited oil supplies there are
in the world.
Smart energy policy really is a matter of leadership. Bush is an
inept, weak human being, with no capacity for vision and greatness.
The American people are clamoring for products that are energy smart.
Bush and Republicans are not listening, because that's not where their
money comes from. Are American consumers to cobble together their own
energy-smart, energy-efficient inventions? WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP?
NOT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!
Online Forum: Editors on the Future of Energy
Updated: 8:54 p.m. ET Sept. 21, 2004
Experts generally agree that our current reliance on fossil fuels is
unsustainable. Clean energy sources like wind and solar power-not to
mention still-unproven hydrogen technology-are gaining popularity,
especially in Western Europe. But even as prices approach $50 a barrel,
the alternatives don't yet make enough economic sense to replace oil.
Will that change? What are the most promising innovations to use
alternative energy sources? And what about hybrid options like
`green' gizmos and the popular Toyota Prius? You wrote to us with
queries about the future of energy. Here are the responses to some of
those questions from NEWSWEEK Middle East regional editor Christopher
Dickey and Forbes.Com editor Paul Maidment.
Tacoma, WA: Will the move to alternate energy sources destroy the
economies of the Middle East oil exporters? How might they respond?
Paul Maidment: Probably not in our lifetimes; and I say that without
knowing how young you might be. The world will be using fossil fuels
for many a year to come. Crude oil is not just used for making gasoline
that goes in cars. It is used in the petrochemicals industry, for
heating oil and aviation fuel, and to power electricity generation. And
we really don't know how much oil there really is in the Middle East.
Much of the region's reserves are still unexplored. Some experts say
there is actually twice the known level of reserves in the Middle East.
The alternatives are mostly offshore fields in deep water, from which
it is expensive to extract the crude. Political instability in the
Middle East is a far bigger threat to the existing regimes than
alternative energy sources.
Christopher Dickey: The most likely response of the Middle East oil
exporters will be to invest more money to increase their production
capacities, and thus bring prices down to the point where alternatives
aren't competitive. They've done this several times before. But
such structural investment takes a long time to achieve results, it has
been slow getting under way, and if high prices endure for several more
years, alternatives could become increasingly attractive, even
unstoppable. A major shift away from fossil fuels would wreak havoc on
the economies of Middle Eastern producers. But it's more likely
we're going to see a declining demand in developing countries,
matched by a booming demand in China and the developing world, which
will keep Earth addicted to gas and oil for the foreseeable future.
Bothell, WA: Why is the United States lagging behind other countries
in these endeavors (switching to automobiles fueled by alternative
energy sources)? How about a hydrogen economy?
Maidment: The U.S. automobile market is very driven by what consumers
want-and Americans haven't shown much demand for non-gasoline-engined
vehicles or much desire to trade their cars for public transport. (In
Europe, for example, many city and regional governments do push to use
buses and light rail systems powered by alternative energy sources,
thus creating a market for vehicles using them). Most American
motorists don't see any benefit in making the switch. Gas is so cheap
in the U.S. compared to other rich countries, that they don't see much
in potential fuel savings. Until those things change, Detroit won't
rush to mass market anything but what it knows will sell today.
On hydrogen fuel cells, they have the potential to solve several
economic and environmental challenges: America's dependence on
petroleum imports, poor air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. But
they are a long way from being in everyday use. They are far more
expensive than gasoline at the moment, there are still technical
problems to solve to make them be more durable and dependable, and
there are storage problems to overcome. Hydrogen takes up a lot of
space for the energy it generates. It is difficult to make a tank that
would contain enough hydrogen usefully to run a fuel cell that would
fit in a car. High pressure storage tanks are one of the things the
automakers are working on.
Dickey: The United States has just about the cheapest gasoline in the
industrialized world. In Japan and most Western European countries the
price at the pump is three times higher or more. That's largely due
to government taxes that are intended to limit consumption-and they
do. Outside the USA the public has a much greater incentive to demand
better gas mileage, and is more likely to buy the cars that deliver it.
That said, in Europe and Japan as well as the United States, the
practical emphasis of research and development is likely to remain on
improving the efficiency of conventional fuels rather than switching to
entirely new ones. Those who emphasize hydrogen over, say, hybrids
tend to be dreaming about a distant future at the expense of concrete
solutions today.
Omaha, NE: Do you think that Ford and GM are stonewalling on the
hybrid car? Why are these U.S. automakers not making them if Toyota
has a big waiting list for the Prius?
Dickey: They're not stonewalling, just cautious. Ford and GM only began
investing in hybrid cars when the U.S. Department of Energy began to
offer them money to do so. Also, insofar as the U.S. market is
concerned, Toyota is gambling that energy prices-and the political
uncertainties of the Middle East-will stay high. But at least since
1973, sporadic American passions for conservation prompted by surges in
Mideast violence and related jumps in oil prices, have proved very
short lived. Remember "compact cars"? Remember the 55-mile-an-hour
speed limit? Car manufacturers who bet on those trends were left with a
lot of little runabouts nobody wanted when gas prices went down again.
American cars came back bigger, bolder and just about as thirsty as
ever. In the USA today, the SUV culture makes the tailfin era of the
1950s look positively green. So Toyota's Prius may or may not succeed
over the long term in the American market, which is key to Ford or GM.
But in other countries with higher gas prices, it will continue to hold
great promise.
Maidment: I think Ford and GM are moving at a pace they think
appropriate for the American market. They don't see a mass demand for
hybrid cars yet, but are positioning them selves for when it arrives.
GM is building hybrid versions of its Chevrolet Silverado and GMC
Sierra trucks, using a stripped down version of technology it currently
runs in its Allison buses that you can see on transit routes in some
dozen U.S. cities. And it has more hybrids planned for the future.
Remember, hybrids are more expensive for car makers to build. They
require two motors; an electric one along with a conventional gasoline
one. That additional cost gets passed onto car buyers. The Prius is
fairly expensive for its size and comfort level. Just look around at
auto dealers' advertisements to see what sells all but luxury cars in
the U.S. It's price.
It is true that sales in the U.S. of Toyota's redesigned Prius,
introduced last year, have been brisk, though the original model
introduced in 2000 got off to a slow start. Toyota is raising its Prius
production capacity from 120,000 to 180,000 (all built in Japan) and
much of that increase is likely to find its way to the U.S. to help
reduce those long waiting lists you mention. But even if Toyota sold
them all here, that would still be barely 1 percent of the total
market. Toyota is also looking into building hybrids in North America,
either the Prius or one of its coming hybrid SUVs, the Highlander or
the Lexus RX400h. If that happens, I think you will see Detroit respond
more assertively.
Upland, Calif.: What is the latest on the "strong" hybrids that can
be switched to run on electricity or fuel? I hear these class of
hybrids would be able to run around town at speeds of say 35 to 40 mph
on electricity and not go to fuel unless it had to run at higher
speeds for a long distance trip. Are these going to be made any
time soon?
Maidment: They are coming to market. GM has slated for 2007 "strong
hybrid" versions of its Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon SUVs, again
based on the hybrid technology used in Allison buses, but a fuller
version than it is using in the Silverado and Sierra, so they should
both have more power and better fuel economy. GM is likely to be beaten
to market by DaimlerChrysler, which may have strong hybrid Dodge Ram on
sale as early as next year. Ditto Ford with its Escape, whose fuel
economy, the company says, will range from 35 to 40 mpg in the city.
Dickey: By 2007, there should be 22 hybrid car options in the U.S., and
some of these will have the strong hybrid qualities. The Toyota Prius,
available now, also counts as a strong hybrid.
New York, NY: How likely do you think it is that gas will overtake
oil as the world's top fuel of choice by 2025? With oil companies like
Shell and Exxon Mobil behind the move to natural gas, I'd imagine we
could reach that milestone even earlier. How does natural gas
consumption compare to oil consumption in the U.S. now?
Dickey: Projections by Shell and other companies suggest oil and gas
will be running neck and neck by 2025, but most of the growth in the
natural gas market will be coming from electrical power generation and
industrial plants. Use of compressed natural gas or gas converted to
liquid fuel to run cars and trucks is likely to be much more limited.
Maidment: I don't know that gas will necessarily overtake oil as the
world's most used fuel by 2025, but it will probably close the gap,
particularly as electricity generation moves away from oil to gas, coal
and alternative fuels. Use of both gas and oil will increase over that
time, so the question is which will increase the faster. In the U.S.
now, three units of energy come from gas for every five from oil. One
thing that is holding back the greater use of liquefied natural gas is
the opposition from local communities to building new terminals and
storage facilities.
Boston, Mass.: Critics say that wind power is unlikely to account
for more than one percent or so of the world's energy anytime soon.
Why is that? Why aren't the United States and other countries putting
more resources into developing this environmentally friendly source of
energy?
Maidment: Theoretically, there is enough wind in the U.S. to generate
all the electricity the country uses twice over. Yet, as you, say, it
accounts for a tiny percentage of actual power generation. Reasons? It
is currently cheaper to generate power from natural gas. You can't be
sure the wind will blow steadily, constantly and strongly-which is a
problem for utilities who need a reliable supply of power. The windiest
places are often far from where the power is needed, or even
transmission lines to connect to. Wind energy projects tend to have
high initial capital costs-which makes the power generated expensive.
Local communities and environmentalists often don't want banks of giant
wind turbines towering over the landscape. The good news though is that
the cost of wind-generating equipment is falling and performance
improving. A good example of somewhere wind power is working is
Denmark. There, farms band together cooperatively to generate power,
pulling off the grid when they need to and selling back into it when
they generate excess power. It is common to see just three or four
windmills in groups there. And in the capital, Copenhagen, there is a
large offshore wind farm. Along with Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands,
Spain, India and China are the countries most investing in wind
power.
Dickey: [However] in Holland and other countries with steady winds, the
enormous lines of hi-tech turbines erected near the sea have presented
some environmental as well as technical difficulties. These are not
quaint structures for people in wooden shoes, they're huge propellers
rotating at high speed, and, like so many other sources of energy, both
conventional and alternative, many people don't want them in their
back yard.
Flower Mound, TX: Do you think that fossil fuels will continue to
generate the bulk of electricity in the United States and other
western countries for the foreseeable future? And, if so, do you think
most will come from nuclear plants-or from gas and oil? Why haven't
alternative sources like solar and wind power gained more support?
Dickey: I do think fossil fuels will continue to be the world's
primary source of energy for at least the next half-century. Nuclear
energy may make some inroads. In France, it accounts for some 80
percent of electric power generation. But public opposition is so high,
it's doubtful to expand rapidly. Solar and wind power, when put to
the test, can supplement energy needs, but they cannot replace fossil
fuels without also changing the energy-wasting way almost all of us
live.
Maidment: I agree that fossil fuels will remain the predominant source
of power in the industrialized and industrializing world for the
foreseeable future. Countries like the U.S. and China need vast
quantities of power to keep their economies going. Today, they can
generate that power more cheaply from oil, gas and coal than they can
from wind, wave or solar power. If technology can make alternative
fuels cheaper, more reliable and abundant sources of power, then those
will displace fossil fuels. But that day isn't to hand yet.
Nuclear fuel is an interesting question. On an operating basis, it is a
cheap way to generate electric power, and is much used in countries
such as France and Japan. A true accounting-including the cost of
building and decommissioning a nuclear power plant-changes that. But
more important for the nuclear power industry are the safety and
proliferation issues. Nuclear plants are cleaner and safer than
conventional fuel plants-until they go wrong, when they go wrong
catastrophically. And the closeness of nuclear power generation to
weapons programs in some countries casts a whole different layer of
issues over the industry.
Bangor, North Wales (United Kingdom): It should be pointed out that
unlike wind and solar, hydrogen does not generate clean energy. At
best it is a (possibly clean) battery, which can be used to transport
energy from another source. Although, for cars, one would have to
solve a myriad of problems, not least the problem of its volume.
George Bush is either very clever or very stupid. Stupid because by
investing in hydrogen he hasn't realized this. Clever because he knows
this detracts people from investing in options that would yield
results much quicker, such as improving car efficiency, hybrid
engines, smaller cars, better public or mass transport as well as
wind and solar power. Thus assuring we need oil for a long time to
come. Your comments please.
Maidment: I shall let you be the judge of whether George Bush is either
very clever or very stupid. All I will say is this: There is clearly a
large and vested interest in the U.S. in oil. But markets have a way of
breaking oligopolies. When technology makes other sources of power
economically competitive, and when consumers demand them, voting for
more fuel efficient cars, more public transport or more energy
efficient products with their pocket books, then things will change.
Oil can't fuel all the people all the time.
Dickey: Few politicians think far beyond their next election campaign,
and, as we've seen, no major American candidate has been willing
seriously to impose the taxes and regulations that could force the
public to change its wasteful consumption habits. So it's
politically smart to tell folks the theoretical future is bright-but
sometime after the end of the second term-while doing as little as
possible to rock the boat in the meantime.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6064719/site/newsweek/
Fuel-efficient upsize vehicles in short supply
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-hybrid2mar12,0,6764135.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines
High gas prices spark interest in hybrid vehicles
By Denise Allabaugh
Soaring gasoline prices are causing some people to look for alternative
transportation.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14099455&BRD=2259&PAG=461&dept_id=455154&rfi=6
Demand For Hybrid Cars Rising Again - even in Iowa!
http://www.mixedpower.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=364
Hybrid Sales Hot
Eau Claire
Mar 14, 2005
Jean Lee drives home her new hybrid car after months of waiting.You may
want to trade in your car for one with better gas mileage, like a
hybrid. The problem: hybrids are hot on the market. At least two Eau
Claire dealerships say they cannot keep up with demand.
"Because of the demand of the vehicle and the fact that they're all
pre-sold when they arrive, we don't have a demonstrator on the lot,"
says Markquart Toyota Sales Consultant Jay Bouley.
In fact, it is hard to find display models anywhere in the state.
"Wisconsin is probably the lower of the priorities as they distribute
these vehices," says Eau Claire Ford Sales Manager Bob Olson. Olson
says more cars are being shipped to the coasts to combat smog
problems. They are selling quickly in California and New York. That
is why there is a six to eight-month waiting list for a Ford Escape.
Jean Lee of Black River Falls is one of the lucky ones. Her new
Toyota Prius just arrived Monday. "I do a lot of driving back and
forth to the cities, put a lot of miles on the car," says Lee. "I'm
spending an incredible amount of money on gas."
While hybrids can save you money over time, don't forget: you will have
to dish out more money to start. Hybrids cost an extra $2,000-$3,000
more than their gas-only counterparts. Another added cost: Ford says
the Escape's battery is guaranteed for eight years or 100,000 miles.
After that, it could cost at least $2,000-$3,000 dollars to replace.
Toyota says demand for its cars should come down. It doubled
production of its Prius, cutting the wait to three or four months.
Toyota also says it plans to come out with hybrid versions of about
half of its 17 models in the next two or three years.
http://www.wqow.com/news/articles/article_3183.shtml
Status of U.S. Federal Tax Policy Encouraging BioEnergy Projects
http://bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/bcota/abstracts/14/z175.pdf
The Napalm Cafe
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNo*Em...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AE27A...@216.196.97.131...
The Gulf of Mexico caps their wells when the price is low.
Join The Napalm Cafe now:
George
"John Black" <jbl...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca220694...@news.chi.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <1110933071.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, no-
> re...@idexer.com says...
> > Call of the Mild
> >
>
> By opposing nuclear power and ANWR drilling, democrats are intent on
> keeping us dependent on foreign oil. They would rather buy oil from
> Saudi Arabia than to drill an *extremely small* area in Alaska that is
> usually -40F and resembles the surface of the moon. By the way, John
> Kerry does not own any SUV's. His wife, family and his campaign had
> several but not him.
And did you also know that Traitor Johnny served inside Vietnam (for 4
months) and also invaded Cambodia all by himself -- when Nixon was President
on Christmas Eve, 1968?
ilove...@yahoo.com
drilling in Alaska to building new refineries on the West Coast, or at
least make a deal with Mexico to do so. And we should build a couple
of refineries that are not subject to storms on the West Coast during
El-nino years such as in the Arizona desert, or some other wilderness
area, etc, probably within the vicinity of existing or planned
pipelines to the US.
Otherwise the oil will simply go to China and Asia to lower market
prices in theory. OF course if demand continues to grow that theory is
bunk. Also if you wanted to rekindle the manufactoring industry in the
US, you need a source of petroleum stock to create plastics. So you
can send oil to China on the cheap thinking you will get a bunch of
plastic in return.
It's not a bad idea, but I think we can create more jobs by building
new refineries in the US because they have many manufactoring jobs
attached to them when they are built, and after they are built. While
current leaders in their infinite wisdom think that they can move
prices into the stratosphere with no ill effects, it is short sited?
IF and when you ever want to recycle all of this plastic, or go to
renewable fuels such as corn, you may not be able to do so because the
cost of moving the material (raw corn, recycled plastic) will be so
prohibitive that you won't be able to do so? The people that will
suffer will be the rich parent's children, and no amount of drugs will
alleviate their bent minds?
The price of gas is not just linked to how many barrels of oil are
available, but how we can process it. I don't think our grandfathers
would put up with people in charge of things that charge energy prices
the size of mortgages. Of course they didn't have air conditioning
back then, but there should be some sort of mitigating factors in
there.....
Many people are spending today in fuel, what our grandfathers did to
provide a home for their families. So instead of paying for college
educations, we are looking to government to borrow the money? That
doesn't sound like we are using our educations very wisely.
Hü©klëßë®®ÿ Hö§hïmötö
Unfortunately, it will take TEN YEARS before the first drop of oil shows up
as gas at the pumps;
and then it will only offset the American oil demand by 2% - 3%.
So why bother?!
Jim E
"Hü©klëßë®®ÿ Hö§hïmötö" <huck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wlI%d.1288$H06...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Typical,
"So why bother"
Faced with a challenge, first response is to
give up, cast your fate to the wind.
Oh just why bother.
That is a LOSER response.
Jim E
George Grapman
Qnc...@netscape.net
it's not all just BP hooey,
it would add significant reserves to the ones
within the USA, like Teapot Dome and
the one that Gore sold to Occidental for a dime on the dollar
(formerly *both* part of that emergency whatever,
the one in Louisiana).
but you have to account
for the industry "paradigm" of Fossilized Fuel (tm) --
some thing about dinosaurs?
--Chairman George and Strep Throat, back in print!
http://larouchepub.com
http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm
Jim E
<Qnc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1111447626....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> why bother?... because, if
> it's not all just BP hooey,
> it would add significant reserves to the ones
> within the USA, like Teapot Dome and
> the one that Gore sold to Occidental for a dime on the dollar
> (formerly *both* part of that emergency whatever,
> the one in Louisiana).
>
> but you have to account
> for the industry "paradigm" of Fossilized Fuel (tm) --
> some thing about dinosaurs?
>
> --Chairman George and Strep Throat, back in print!
Search out an interpreter.
George Grapman
> "George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
> news:rKI%d.62$zl...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> Here are the guarantees that this oil remains in the U.S.:
>>
>
>
>
> Do you understand the concept ?
>
>
>
Sure, bet you think it will lower prices here.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
Jim E
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:rKI%d.62$zl...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>