May 10, 2011 | 83 comments
The president has talked up natural gas — yet he remains silent about the bipartisan NAT GAS Act.
On March 31, speaking at Georgetown University, President Obama said, “Now, in terms of new sources of energy, we have a few different options. The first is natural gas. Recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves — perhaps a century’s worth of reserves, a hundred years worth of reserves — in the shale under our feet.”
Indeed, recent technological breakthroughs have opened up recoverable reserves sufficient to supply America with natural gas probably for closer to 200 years, even at increased use levels. These breakthroughs create exciting new opportunities to reduce the use of oil-based fuel for personal transportation, replacing it with the now bountiful, American-produced natural gas instead. This change would provide the added benefit of dramatically reducing CO2 emissions.
The technology for using natural gas as a vehicle fuel is already perfected. The energy contained in Nat Gas is more than sufficient to power modern vehicles. The primary infrastructure to deliver the supply to consumers already exists.
Countries the world over have already embarked on this path. But you would be making a false presumption if you believe that the Obama administration is actually developing an all inclusive energy policy with natural gas as its cornerstone.
There are good reasons for this conversion. Domestic oil production had increased every year for the past 6 years, but that stopped in April of last year. President Obama made claims of increased domestic oil production in 2010, Yet, from April forward domestic production declined because the President shut down production in the Gulf, violated court orders to resume issuing permits, and imposed undefined regulatory impediments on the issuance of new drilling permits.
In fact, since April 20, 2010, and the Gulf oil spill, domestic production has declined by more than 500,000 barrels per day. This may not seem like much considering that we as a nation consume more than 19 million barrels per day. But consider that a reduction in worldwide supply of little more than 2 million barrels per day in 2008 resulted in a wholesale price increase of almost 100%.
Until April 2010, our imports from the Middle East had declined to less than 18% of total oil imports. Unlike 1973, until April, we could lose access to Middle Eastern oil without having our supply channels disrupted for more than a month or so. Today with the reduction in supply and the stalled permitting process, we are increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern imports. This affects the cost at the pump and could negatively impact the United States economy if Middle East supplies are disrupted.
While I am a firm believer in drilling domestic oil as much and as rapidly as possible, this is only a small part of the answer. In fact it truly isn’t the long-term answer. Trying to drill our way out of the problem, while necessary for the short term, won’t solve the long-term energy use issue.
Timing and cost are the real issues. Gone are the days of pumping from the large underground reservoirs in places like Pennsylvania, Texas, California, or Alaska. Recovering oil from the Bakken fields requires deep horizontal drilling and fracking. Offshore recovery requires setting up drill sites under vast amounts of water. Recovering oil from the tar sands of Canada or Colorado requires huge inputs of energy. All are very expensive operations that push the cost of oil higher.
Short-sightedness and political expedience has left us with inadequate infrastructure to pipe domestically produced oil out of the fields. Pipelines from the Canadian and Colorado tar sand fields and the Bakken fields don’t exist. Existing pipelines from Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico refineries are full.
Also, oil must be refined for use as fuel. America has prohibited the construction of new oil refineries since the mid 1970s. Even if we issue permits and begin pumping to capacity, our ability to convert the increased domestic production into gasoline or diesel fuel is minimal. We need updated infrastructure and additional refineries to continue using oil as a transportation fuel.
Trying to increase our supply with ethanol is also folly. Corn, sugar, cellulosic, and grain-based ethanol is not economically viable. The yield is minimal and the industry only survives when receiving government subsidies. Mandating that a significant percentage of the nation’s corn crop be diverted to the production of ethanol is counterproductive and raises the price of all corn crops. Algae-based bio fuels actually make sense due to the yield, but have development problems that are as yet inhibiting commercialization. Additionally, their chemical properties make them more feasible as a jet fuel than an auto fuel.
Electric cars are at best a novelty. They have the dual problem of limited range and long recharge times. Their use is very limited and will not go mainstream unless and until there is a paradigm shift in battery technology. Current technology, such as Lithium Ion and Lithium polymer cells, do not provide sufficient storage for the range requirements of most Americans and the four plus hour average charge times further limit their acceptance. Even if they become successful, deployment will still require huge increases in grid-based electricity generation to charge the batteries. Of our current crop of electric cars, Prius and Volt are short range and still use gas as a primary fuel. Tesla and Fiskars are an option, but not ready for the mainstream and much too expensive. Electric cars are, in my estimation, 5 to 15 years away from legitimacy.
THE ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER to bridge the conversion from oil based fuels to paradigm alternatives lies in the conversion of personal transportation to the use of natural gas. Consider the following reasons:
• Daily demand for oil in the U.S. is between 19 and 20 million barrels per day. Of this demand, approximately 12 MM BPD of oil is used to fuel our motor vehicles.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?