The Oil War

                                      The Oil War



Lost in the Coronavirus explosion is the oil war. A month ago, Brent crude was trading at $57.67 per barrel. It had dropped to $34.36 by Monday, March 9. Trump’s announcement that the government would buy oil for the Strategic Oil Reserve propped up the price to $35.44, but since then prices have collapsed further. Tuesday, Brent crude fell to $30.41, and on Wednesday it was trading near $26. And West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude, which usually goes for less than Brent, is hovering around $20.

The Russians wouldn’t agree to limit oil production and prop up oil prices because they want to put American shale producers out of business, and the Saudis at the end of the day decided to join the Russians. These are guys we have supported countless times in their squabbles and support now and they are partnering with sworn enemies of this country. They might sound like they’re feuding, but both of them, as well as Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, the National Iranian Oil Company, Petrobras, and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, ultimately want exactly the same thing, which is to get rid of as many American producers as possible. 

These will be challenging times, but clarifying. Both liberal and conservative philosophies will be compromised. Things will change. But, in the oil problem, an old adage may still apply: A competitor is an opponent who competes by the same rules, an opponent who competes with different rules is an enemy.

Rare Elements and Rare Logic

I don't have the passion. I'll follow the gorilla.--the fabulous Laura Linney in "Congo"


Chris gave a  presentation to the big bosses yesterday.
Mom could not get out of Charlottesville and stayed overnight. She'll get in today.
Murphy got in a fight yesterday with another Glen, a lady.
Watching GoT reruns.
Liz picked Va in her office pool.

“Some on Mueller's Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed.” This was a headline in the NYT. So someone anonymously leaks the second-hand rumor of “damaging” information, which in a court of law was not proof of criminality. And the NYT prints that second-hand rumor in a headline.

"Do racists care whether someone black is married or unmarried? If not, then why do married blacks escape poverty so much more often than other blacks, if racism is the main reason for black poverty?"--Sowell

Alan Turing, the British mathematician best known for his work on code-breaking and artificial intelligence, wanted to understand the underlying mechanism that produces natural patterns. He proposed that patterns such as spots form as a result of the interactions between two chemicals that spread throughout a system much like gas atoms in a box do, with one crucial difference. Instead of diffusing evenly like a gas, the chemicals, which Turing called “morphogens,” diffuse at different rates. One serves as an activator to express a unique characteristic, like a tiger’s stripe, and the other acts as an inhibitor, kicking in periodically to shut down the activator’s expression. This idea is making a comeback.


This was the most visited older post this last week:
http://steeleydock.blogspot.com/2012/05/first-line-of-iliad.html



On this day in 1865 Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered his 28,000 troops to Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox.


                                       Rare Elements and Rare Logic


The Japanese call rare earth elements “the seeds of technology.”  The U.S. Department of Energy calls them “technology metals.”  They are integral to everything from the miniaturization of electronics, to the enabling of green energy and medical technologies, to supporting a myriad of essential telecommunications and defense systems.  They have become irreplaceable to our world of technology owing to their unique magnetic, phosphorescent, and catalytic properties.

Rare earth elements are a set of seventeen chemical elements in the periodic table, specifically the fifteen lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium. Scandium and yttrium are considered rare earth elements since they tend to occur in the same ore deposits as the lanthanides and exhibit similar chemical properties. 
  



While named rare earths, they are relatively abundant in the Earth's crust.  What is unusual--and difficult--is to find them in quantities significant enough to support economic mineral development.  

By 2000, China accounted for more than 95% of world rare earth production. 




According to the 2013 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the National Intelligence Office, rare earths are “essential to civilian and military technologies and to the 21st-century global economy, including green technologies (e.g., wind turbines and advanced battery systems) and advanced defense systems.”  


"Green technologies." 


So our efforts to move from fossil fuel, which we have so much of that we export it, to alternative energies would mean switching us from energy independence to complete dependence upon a nation and culture that sees us as their philosophical and economic enemy.


Does that sound reasonable to anyone?

Colllusion

An American Spectator magazine story, “Russian funding of U.S. environmental groups shows how collusion is done,” points to the kind of Russian collusion and domestic meddling that some approve.

A 2014 U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report identified that the San Francisco-based Sea Change Foundation receives funding from a Bermuda-based shell company known as Klein Ltd. The company was created by attorneys from Wakefield Quin, a law firm that has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The IRS requires nonprofit organizations to file 990 forms that report their activities. Those 990s show that Klein Ltd. contributed $23 million to the Sea Change Foundation in 2010 and again in 2011. The forms show that the foundation distributed more than $20 million in grants in 2010 and 2011 to environmental organizations, including the leftist Natural Resources Defense Council, The Sierra Club Foundation, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, the Tides Foundation, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the World Wildlife Fund.

In return for the grant money, those leftist environmentalists were “to promote awareness of climate change,” “reduce reliance on high carbon energy,” “educate the public about climate and clean energy” and “promote climate and clean energy communications.” A U.S. House Science, Space and Technology Committee report, titled “Russian Attempts to Influence U.S. Domestic Energy Markets by Exploiting Social Media,” details that the environmental groups used the Russian money to protest the process of fracking and fight the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. If environmentalists can thwart U.S. oil production, Russia stands to gain greater economic and political power.

It is gratifying to see Russia's concern for our environment--and interesting how influence abuts free speech. And how complex the job of monitoring is, even for the most vigilant.

Electric

Electricity from the Electric Tree


Some discussion over the weekend on the G20 Paris Accord talk, which has come up again. Electric is seen as a solution but, of course, electric power comes from somewhere.
Here are some numbers on generation of electric power in the U.S. from the U.S. Energy Information Administration from 2016:

Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation: 

Natural gas = 33.8%

Coal = 30.4%

Nuclear = 19.7%

Renewables (total) = 14.9%

• Hydropower = 6.5%
• Wind = 5.6%
• Biomass = 1.5%
• Solar  = 0.9%
• Geothermal = 0.4%

Petroleum = 0.6%

Other gases = 0.3%

Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%

So 64% of electricity now comes from carbon. And will the people of the U.S. embrace nuclear power? So at least 64% and maybe 84% of electrical sources will have to be replaced?
How?

The Bakken Multiplier

Money is often viewed as a limited resource, often controlled by some out of proportion to others. That is why so many want to redistribute it. But money can be viral. Like success.

Take the Bakken area, a rock formation in North Dakota, Montana and Saskatchewan. A research paper by Dow initially projected the formation as a potential oil source. Leigh Price, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) geologist, wrote a paper declaring the shale site had  petroleum  reserves that ranged from 271 billion to 503 billion barrels. Estimates have changed (up and down) and there has always been the concern over the accessibility of the oil; it is technically challenging. However, recently the USGS released a report estimating the amount of technically recoverable, undiscovered oil in the Bakken formation at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels.

This is a huge find and companies have moved in with division strength. Ports have been refitted to allow the exporting of petroleum where they used to be dedicated for importing. It is estimated that ports like McAllen, Texas will be exporting in 3 to 4 years. And the market is huge as well. Gas costs between $3.50 to $4.00 in the U.S.; in Japan it is over $15 and in Europe it is in double digits. (Interestingly, the Russians, Europe's largest gas source, has professional writers that follow American debates over gas drilling and write "reporting pieces" for the European press trying to discourage drilling in Europe to maintain their monopoly.)

The impact is more than local, although it is locally impressive. Unemployment in the Bakken region is 1%. Pay in a fast food restaurant is $10-15 an hour. The oil rigs pay up to $350,000 a year to the guy who runs it (no college degree required) and starting salary on the rig is $120,000 a year, with no experience. These areas are remote, dangerous and uncomfortable to work in but that means they also need trucks to bring the petroleum to shipping sites; salary for oil-truck drivers is $150-175,000 a year.

Shale gas will add about 0.5% to the growth of US GDP next year, in a year when we will be lucky to get 2%. But there is more. The Financial Times wrote recently, "Europeans are already complaining that cheap US gas is encouraging a flight of energy intensive businesses [to the US]. How can, say Europe's chemical producers – buying expensive Russian gas – compete with US rivals guaranteed access to cut-price feedstock?”

Success grows. Like money.

A Truth That Must Not Be Spoken

World production of CO2 reached 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011, the highest ever. But the IEA report also notes that American CO2 production is down, way down.

The carbon footprint of a typical American is back to 1964 levels and US emissions are falling faster than necessary to meet the Copenhagen Accord goal of 17% reduction by 2020. The IEA reports that the U.S. has decreased 430 million tonnes of CO2,  equal to all CO2 from all Canadians outside Alberta.

Now one would think that everyone would be thrilled with this progress. But the American press is strangely silent. The Green movement is strangely silent. Why is that?

One explanation might be that the fall in emissions is due to the adoption of natural gas. That is still a carbon producer and, like any religion, the environmental movement has no sliding scale for mortal sins.

Gas and Hot Air

While Pennsylvania has historically been a reliable gas producer in the country, it has never been in the top 10 states in production. But in 2011 it produced 1.3 trillion cubic feet, rising to number 6 in the country. For the first 4 months it was number 4, behind Texas, Wyoming, and Louisiana.

This huge increase in production of natural gas is a direct result of the Marcellus find and expansion, a technological revolution that has gone unnoticed by government who think they, and not natural gas, are responsible for the decline in the the national use of coal fire plants.

Expanding natural gas to big trucks and heavy two axles would be a shovel-ready, economy expanding and liberating project that government could at least facilitate. Not one word from our moral leaders.

Perhaps these people are better at moral pronouncements and taking the high ground and less good at hard decisions and real leadership. Maybe after elections our moral leaders should be "installed" like a bishop or cardinal rather than take an oath of office.

The Religeous Left

Obama's new ad about Romney's venture fund resulting in a failure looks like an honest ad: These politicians honestly do not understand anything about business. They think that businesses have an ulterior motive of making money, their major function is to employ people and pay taxes. So if a business fails to do either or both, skullduggery must be involved. They do not see the process of growth and replacement, of what is now called "creative destruction." Instead, like the creationist, the left believes there is no evolution, no damage, in business. Every business is born into an Eden and can live forever to employ and pay taxes.

Or perhaps it is a problem with "process." The left clearly struggles with energy; they want alternative energy by fiat. They can not see the development of alternatives. Natural gas is a wonderful step towards everything they want, cheaper energy, domestically produced energy, less polluting energy. But it is not exactly what they want. It does produce carbon. It is against the dogma. So rather than see it as a step towards their desires, they see it as another carbon producer and ignore the progress of the process. They would rather midwife the premature delivery of a deformed new product than nurse the work--the hard work--of developing it. Then again, maybe it is the hard work involved. Wishing is so much easier.

It could be worse. They haven't found any witches to blame. But they do turn up the occasional heretic.

Natural Gas Leadership Test

Natural gas is plentiful and cheap. We are now able to recover gas from areas previously unapproachable. The availability has suppressed prices and, recently, has discouraged new drilling.

This circumstance is a surprise. Four years ago the biggest find was Haynesville, Louisiana which was sizable but is now dwarfed by Marcellus, Utica and Bakkan. It is slowly replacing coal fire plants and has application to transportation, our biggest demand problem. Gas is very clean and manageable but requires some special handling. Its storage requirements makes it a better candidate for big units like trucks than smaller cars. But a build-out of service facilities is the obvious next step.
The nation's ability to retire coal fire plants economically is directly a result of the rise in the availability of gas. Not to say the looney ideologues in Washington needed natural gas; they were going to do it anyway even if "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket." Gas accidentally came to the rescue.


A chart on pollutants:
Fossil Fuel Emission Levels- Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input

Pollutant: Natural Gas -- Oil -- Coal

Carbon Dioxide: 117,000 -- 164,000 -- 208,000
Carbon Monoxide: 40 -- 33 -- 208
Nitrogen Oxides: 92 -- 448 -- 457
Sulfur Dioxide: 1 -- 1,122 -- 2,591
Particulates: 7 -- 84 -- 2,744
Mercury: 0.000 -- 0.007 -- 0.016
Source: EIA - Natural Gas Issues and Trends 1998

Now the test. Substitution of this fuel would clearly be a boon to the United States. It is domestic, free of Middle East political and religious conflict, vastly cheaper, much cleaner, available for the next century at least and maybe two, and would allow a job creating boom the likes of the steel industry in the 1900's as we drilled and outfitted the country for it. More, it would take the pressure off the alternative market which is being induced into premature labor to provide a solution. In short it is economical, a great advance, a job creator and ours. OURS. So one would think it would be embraced. A national effort to exploit and use natural gas, especially in the transportation industry, would mobilize a workforce with "shovel-ready jobs" and make us energy independent at the same time--like Eisenhower's interstate road system project. So far, silence from our leaders and opinion-makers, except for an almost anti-scientific position from the NYT. Because it is a surprise, perhaps our mandarin leaders need some time to digest it.

There is , of course, another scenario. The same political purity that is willing to allow "the price of electricity..( to).. necessarily skyrocket," that would raise the taxes on capital gains even if it resulted in less taxes, that purity might see the abundance of natural gas as an impediment to their unstated aims. Then arguments against the use of natural gas will emerge. And our mandarins will have revealed themselves again.

The Middle Ground Between Frick and Frack

For several years there has been a peculiar debate over Marcellus Shale drilling. So many opinions, intense opinions. Then, at an Allegheny College seminar April 2, 2012, a reporter recorded this exchange after one of the panelists lamented the lack of a "middle ground" in the discussion: "Lustgarten ..(a reporter)..agreed, noting that concern about the environmental impacts of Marcellus drilling has escalated into hyperbole and almost-hysteria — and he’s not sure why. “Any middle ground has been lost,” he said. “It’s dissolved into a false choice between frack and not frack, while attempts to educate the public has turned into panic.” "(Mary Spicer Meadville Tribune on Allegheny College conference)

The solution lies in the characterization of the conflict: This is not a "discussion." Indeed, how could one explain the press' reporting of the Dunkard Creek fish-kill, the radionuclide scare from Rolling Stone, the movie Gasland? It certainly is not a "discussion." The obvious answer is bias, a deep-seated judgment delivered before the evidence is in. Another is more pernicious: a visionary distortion, the belief that a certain outcome is desirable even if it is contradicted by facts or reality--a solution that exists only in the arrogant mind of its superior creator. As John Hanger wonderfully said, "Gas is compared implicitly to a mythical perfect alternative that none of us use." So the cure for cancer is likely in alternative medicine, education could be improved using the techniques of the Vulcans in "Star Trek," potency is improved by the powder made from a unicorn horn. A third is worse, these people do not have a good grasp on these topics and are unteachable--not because they are obdurate or enthusiastic but because they have no scientific or technical ability. They are out of their depth.

There is no "middle ground" for the bigot, the enthusiast or the stupid.

One cringes on hearing a politician use phrases like "Darwinism." The jury is in; these politicians, lawyers and other humanities graduates should accept that they are not qualified for any such topic. Most science students do not expect to understand quantum mechanics; these soft course students should abstain from commenting on science entirely.

Zombies and Their Discontent

The March 8, 2012 issue of NYT Book Review has a review by Bill McKibben on fracking and western Pennsylvania gas drilling. It is remarkably disappointing as it is filled with the usual canards about the influence of Cheney and Halliburton, Imhofe and the global warming cat-fights and now "Gasland" and its misrepresentations. The problem is that these innuendos and lies are never revealed, never corrected but blindly stumble on, somehow ingrained in reporting if not the national mind. It is perhaps more significant that there is an upsurge in movies and shows about zombies.

The problem starts with the sources. He relies upon "Gasland" and the New York Times Drilling Down Series that the Times Public Editor twice rebuked as misleading and inaccurate. He repeats the Drilling Down claim that Pennsylvania's waters were contaminated with radionuclides, this in spite of the studies by the Pa. Dept. of Environmental Protection and almost a score of private bottlers that showed there was no radionuclide contamination in Pa. streams and drinking water. None. The Pittsburgh Water and Sewage Authority monthly publishes the same thing.

Then there is the Dunkard Creek fish kill of 2009. According to McKibben, as reported from "Gasland," this is attributed to gas drilling discharges despite the conclusion by the EPA, Pa. Fish and Boat Commission and the Pa. Dept. of Environmental Protection that the fish kill was caused by a coal mine discharge which resulted in algae growth that killed the fish. There was even a consent agreement with the coal company, to the tune of $70 million, to build a plant to treat the discharges upstream to prevent future such events.

It is only a matter of time before people start wondering if such inaccuracy is accidental.

Unadulturated Natural Gas, Adulterated Republican

As much as I hate government "good ideas", this conference, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy held in Oxton Hill, Md., was very interesting, with the Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy particularly exciting. $30 million dollars will be made available for high energy density tanks for CNG and low cost home refueling. 2500 people were there for an event that hopes to generate thought and action for energy technology breakthroughs. Now, this is not much money when compared with the government's bio-fuel and solar panel adventures but it is at least something and may imply an understanding of the area's importance, if not the degree.

We are awash in natural gas. If you do a search before 2008 for natural gas discovery stories, the only one was Haynesville in Louisiana. All the talk was about building new importing facilities.The Bakken, the Marcellus, Utica all, miraculously, came to be realistic gas sources within the last four years. They are now planning to reverse those port facilities and make the gas importing sites exporting. We might be saved.

Storage of the fuel is more complex than conversion but we have a lot of this fuel, should use it and perhaps this is an early good sign. That said, it is difficult to understand the thinking of any lawmaker, but especially the Republicans, who voted against New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (NAT GAS) this week, a bill aimed at encouraging the adaptation of natural gas as a transportation fuel. This bill, known as the Pickens Bill, has some annoying qualities and certainly subsidizes some businesses, especially Pickens' . But denying that this kind of thing is routine in Washington is simply insincere purism and all of the bill's opponents should suffer for it.

Natural Gas and Hot Air

The March 8, 2012 issue of NYT Book Review has a review by Bill McKibben on fracking and western Pennsylvania gas drilling. It is remarkably disappointing as it is filled with the usual canards about the influence of Cheney and Halliburton, Imhofe and the global warming cat-fights and now Gasland and its misrepresentations. The problem is that these innuendos and lies are never unmasked, never corrected but blindly stumble on, somehow ingrained in reporting if not the national mind. It is perhaps more significant that there is an upsurge in movies and shows about zombies.

The problem starts with the sources. He relies upon Gasland and the NYT Drilling Down Series that the NYT Public Editor twice rebuked as misleading and inaccurate. He repeats the Drilling Down claim that Pennsylvania's waters were contaminated with radionuclides, this in spite of the studies by the Pa. Dept. of Environmental Protection and almost a score of private bottlers that showed there was no, zero, radionuclide contamination in Pa. streams and drinking water. The Pittsburgh Water and Sewage Authority monthly publishes the same thing.

Then there is the Dunkard Creek fish kill of 2009. According to McKibben, from Gasland, this is attributed to gas drilling discharges despite the conclusion by the EPA, Pa. Fish and Boat Commission and the Pa. Dept. of Environmental Protection that the fish kill was caused by a coal mine discharge which resulted in algae growth that killed the fish. There was even a consent agreement with the coal company, to the tune of $70 million, to build a plant to treat the discharges upstream to prevent future such events.

It is only a matter of time before people start wondering if such inaccuracy is accidental.

Coal, Gas and Hot Air

While on the topic of inexplicable influences on the culture and society we can not overlook the strange open-mindedness we have for totally discredited people and opinions. These are especially common in science which the public cannot seem to understand despite all the information conceivable. The overwhelming difficulty seems to be in understanding the limits of studies, how evaluations cannot be perfect and how conclusions are often only extrapolations, not decisions. So otherwise reasonable people deprive their children of vaccines on the advice of an exposed scoundrel.

The debate over gas exploration supplies another example.
"Natural gas has been widely touted as a clean energy source that will help the U.S. transition to renewable energy options while lowering greenhouse gas emissions relative to other fossil fuels. While it is true that end-use combustion of natural gas emits markedly less carbon dioxide (CO2) than other fossil energy sources, methane (CH4) losses during modern gas exploration and development, as well as processing, transmission and distribution may fully negate these CO2 savings. A full accounting of modern gas development indicates that natural gas may actually exacerbate, rather than mitigate, global climate change." This is an overview of a paper by Professors Howarth and Ingraffea that analyze and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of coal versus gas energy. But six recent studies have criticized this paper and have dismissed it: Carnegie Mellon University study financed by the Sierra Club, the WorldWatch Institute study, the National Energy Technology Laboratory Study, the University of Maryland, other researchers at Cornell University itself, and CERA. Yet despite these papers Howarth continues to be quoted and lionized, recently by Robert Kennedy, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Journal.


Everyone has an agenda, everyone their own ax to grind. No one wants to surrender any ground. This type of behavior is a hallmark of non-science. Science is where truth is the only agenda. But in non-science opinions will lurk forever in the background, like vampires, long after they are dead and buried.

The Slide from Fixing to Complaining

Lawrenceville, Pa. residents had a meeting chaired by a Pittsburgh city councilman last night. The topic was the Marcellus Shale Formation. A member of the Marcellus Shale Council, which is a body of oil and gas drillers, was present as well. There were a number of concerns voiced, the prominent one the potential poisoning of water by the drilling. The consensus was that the community was opposed to drilling even though the drilling representative stated there were no plans for any driller to drill in the Lawrenceville area and it was unlikely anyone would.

The process of drilling in shale formations includes "fracing" where a liquid, usually water, is fired into the shale area after the area has been approached with conventional drilling. The theoretical problem is contamination of water sources by the fracing liquid. The depth of the drilling is usually away from groundwater sources; drilling usually is at several thousand feet at least. While this possible contamination is a real concern, the examples of contamination are usually not active drilling or fracing but rather abandoned and collapsed wells. Indeed a recent report from the EPA paraphrased in a journal stated: "Although thousands of wells are fractured annually, the EPA did not find a single incident of the contamination of drinking water wells by hydraulic fracturing fluid injection. Effective state regulation has made hydraulic fracturing a safe and environmentally-sound way to maximize and conserve our nation's natural resources." (See http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/hydraulic-fracturing).

Southwestern Pennsylvania has been a hotbed of shale drilling recently. The Marcellus Shale has promise of being a huge, productive natural gas source for many years. In a nation with acute energy concerns one would think such a find would be applauded, its aspects analyzed and plans for maximum benefit for all made. In an area with a devastated economic base one would think that dancing in the streets might be the order of the day. (It has been said the natural gas industry in western Pennsylvania has potential to be larger than steel at its zenith.) Yet what do we see? We see a community organizing to stop an economic venture that has no intention of going there. It reminds one of the old vaudeville joke of the man who is found in Central Park cutting newspaper into small pieces and scattering them around. When asked the reason for this behavior he says: "To keep away the elephants." When he is told incredulously that there are no elephants in New York he replies, "See, it's really working."

There is a need for us to intervene in our history, to be an active participant in what is happening to us. Action, like responsibility, can be taught. It can be made part of the community ethos. Necessity might hurry it. The first step might be to attempt not to look ridiculous.