Oil Forever!

By Alan Caruba

I suspect that most people think the Earth is running out of oil or that the U.S. and the rest of the world are “addicted” to its use.

Both beliefs are wrong, but in different ways. First because the Earth produces oil in abundance deep within its mantel in ways that have nothing to do with dead dinosaurs and gives no indication of ever stopping this natural process and, second, because the use of oil for fuel and for thousands of other applications, not the least of which is plastics, is one of the great blessings of modern technology and life.

All this is made dazzlingly clear in Dr. Jerome R. Corsi’s new book, “The Great Oil Conspiracy” ($22.95, Skyhorse Publishing). By way of explaining why there is so much oil within the planet Dr. Corsi tells the story of the Nazi regimes development of synthetic oil after German scientists “cracked the code God built into the heart of chemistry to form hydrocarbons in the first place.” Known as the “Fischer-Tropsch” process, it permitted the Nazis to pursue war even though Germany had no oil fields of its own.

The widespread use of the term “fossil fuels” is a deception created by anti-energy propagandists and earlier theorists to make people believe that oil is the result of countless dead dinosaurs and decaying vegetation. Oil, however, is “abiotic”, a term that means it is a natural product of the earth itself “manufactured at deep levels where there never were any plants or animals.”

Corsi writes of Thomas Gold, a professor of astronomy who taught at Cornell University. In 1998 he published a controversial book entitled “The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels” in which he applied his knowledge of the solar system, noting that carbon is the fourth more abundant element in the universe, right after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. Gold pointed out that “carbon is found mostly in compounds with hydrogen—hydrocarbons—which, at different temperatures and pressures, may be gaseous, liquid, or solid.”

Gold, who passed away in 2004, was way ahead of most other scientists with his assertion that the earth produces oil at very deep levels. While telling the story of how the U.S. went to great lengths to acquire the data regarding synthetic oil production as our military overran Germany and then took care not to let the public know about. It was, after all, our own oil industry that had provided the fuel that aided the war effort in both theatres.

Correspondingly, the oil industry had no reason to develop “relatively expensive synthetic oil when billions of dollars in profits could be made annually bringing to market naturally produced and reasonably priced hydrocarbon fuels, including crude oil and natural gas.”

This mirrors the efforts of “renewable” energy producers, wind, solar, and biofuels like ethanol, to profit at the cost of billions of dollars in subsidies and loan guarantees paid for by taxpayers along with higher electricity and gasoline bills paid for by consumers; all of which are mandated by the federal government. It is pure crony capitalism to enrich a few at the expense of all the rest of us. None of these alternative forms of power could exist or even compete without such government mandated support.

As Dr. Corsi points out, “Eliminating the fear that the world is running out of oil eliminates an urgency to experiment with or to implement alternative fuels including biofuels, wind energy, and solar energy as long as these energies remain less energy-efficient, less reliable, and more costly than using oil and natural gas.”

There are, in fact, “more proven petroleum reserves than ever before, despite the increasing rate at which we are consuming petroleum products worldwide” says Dr. Corsi, noting that the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, in on record that “there are more proven crude oil reserves worldwide than ever in recorded history, despite the fact that worldwide consumption of crude oil has doubled since the 1970s.”

So tell me why, since the Obama administration took over, have gas prices per gallon risen from $1.84 to $3.80 now, a rise of 105%? The American Energy Alliance compared costs between 2009 and 2012, publishing them to reveal that we are all paying more for energy. The average monthly residential electricity bill has increased 6% and annual household energy expenses have increased 31%.

At the same time, the Obama Department of Energy increased new rules whose implementation cost more than $100 million each 141%! The Environmental Protection Agency increase of such regulations increased 40%, the Department of the Interior, 13%.

Total regulatory costs (all sectors) went from $1,172 trillion in 2009 to $1,752 trillion today! If you were trying to bankrupt the energy sector and its consumers, this is a great way to do it.

You can access the AEA chart at:  Click Here

The Obama administration came into office declaring a war on coal, further restricting oil and natural gas exploration on federal lands and offshore, and wasting billions on solar, wind, and biofuel companies. That in itself would be reason enough to turn them out of office.

The Earth is not running out of oil and likely never will.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Source

Related articles

• Corsi to explain ‘Great Oil Conspiracy’ (wnd.com)
• Oil Forever! (canadafreepress.com)
• U.S. getting closer to energy independence (kansascity.com)

Study: Biofuels mandate could increase EU CO2 emissions

Published 17 September 2012

European biofuel mandates are unlikely to deliver a significant reduction and could even increase greenhouse gas emissions unless land use factors are considered, says a study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).

The ICCT report suggests that Brussels is on the right track with its new biofuels rules, leaked last week, in which the EU executive backtracked on its policy goal of a 5.75% share for biofuels in the transport sector’s renewable energy targets.

The ICCT paper claims that, if not revised to address indirect land-use change (ILUC) the renewable energy directive could be expected to deliver a carbon saving of only 4% compared to fossil fuels, with a 30% chance actually of causing a net emissions increase.

The implementation of indirect land use change factors is likely to significantly increase carbon savings from biofuel policy, it says.

Such factors would also allow Europe to meet the directive’s target for a minimum 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels compared to fossil fuels.

All of the carbon savings from the policy are likely to come from use of bioethanol, since its main source – sugarcane – uses less land than biodiesels made from palm and vegetable oils.

Biodiesel from non-waste vegetable oil, the study says, is “likely to have a worse carbon footprint that fossil diesel“.

No basis for biodiesel

“Given that biodiesel production is also expected to be worse for a range of other environmental indicators (e.g. acidification, eutrophication, biodiversity) … than fossil diesel, there is no environmental basis for the EU to continue to support the supply of biodiesel … from non-waste vegetable oil.”

Under the leaked EU proposal, the EU executive will end all subsidies for crop-based biofuels after the current legislation expires in 2020, a major blow to a sector worth an estimated €17 billion a year in Europe alone.

Angela Corbalan, EU media and communications officer for Oxfam, said her organisation viewed the leaked Commission proposal as a “step in the right direction.”

“If adopted”, she said in emailed comments, “it will send a strong signal that the Commission eventually wants to stop promoting the use of food for fuel and climate change damaging biofuels.”

A ‘crystal ball’ exercise

Rob Vierhout, secretary-general of ePure, a trade group representing the bioethanol industry, said he doubted the significance of ILUC factors in contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.

“I don’t trust this science”, he said, adding that at this particular point in time no clear methodology exists: “It’s a crystal ball exercise. No one can give hard numbers on iLUC.”

Vierhout also condemned the Commission policy u-turn as “inconsistent policymaking”.

“We’ve invested billions of euros”, he said. “Now the Commission says they’re going to change the game.” ePure would put up a strong fight against the proposed law, he vowed.

The criticism echoes many others in a biofuel industry which argues that current modelling, such as that used in the ICCT study, is not robust enough for use in policymaking.

Food prices vs CO2 emissions

Nusa Urbancic, clean fuels campaigner for the Transport & Environment NGO, said that despite the Commission proposing to cut the use of crop-based biofuels, the bioethanol industry could benefit from the new law.

European demand for biodiesel exceeds bioethanol, as more European cars run on diesel but, while the proposed law would hit all crop-based fuels – including ethanol made from sugar cane – the market for fuels better in iLUC factors could increase.

“It will still be good for them because there will be an incentive to move towards biofuels with lower factors”, Urbancic said.

Land used to power European cars with biofuels for one year could produce enough wheat and  maize to feed 127 million people, said a study released by Oxfam ahead of the EU Energy Ministers’ meeting today (17 September).

“With the world’s poorest at greater risk of hunger as a result of spiralling food prices, the international agency is calling on the EU to rethink its dangerous love affair with biofuels”, read a statement accompanying the study.

Positions:

“Biofuels are wreaking havoc on tight food markets and our forests, increasing hunger and accelerating climate change just so Europe can fuel its cars,” said Robbie Blake, the biofuels campaigner for Friends of the Earth.

“The EU needs to comprehensively close the carbon accounting loophole [from ILUC], otherwise biofuels will continue to expand agriculture for fuel at the expense of forests and natural habitats, and increase carbon emissions.” He continued: “After months of delay, the Commission has come up with a messy compromise that acknowledges that ILUC is extremely serious, but then fails to address it in all pieces of legislation. This proposal would see an increase in Europe’s biofuels made from food, when what we need at this time of food crisis is to stop burning them altogether.”

“Europe has helped spark a global rush for biofuels that is forcing poor families from their homes, while big business piles up the profits. Biofuels were meant to make transport greener, but European governments are pouring consumers’ money down the drain, whilst depriving millions of people of food, land and water,” said Natalia Alonso, Head of Oxfam’s EU Office.

Study: Biofuels mandate could increase EU CO2 emissions | EurActiv.

Related articles

• EU to Limit Use of Crop-Based Biofuels
• Biofuel fails EU sustainability test, German researchers claim
• EPA to America: You will use more biofuels, and you will like it
• EU May Eliminate Subsidies For Crop Based Biofuels
• Argentina, Indonesia Threatened With EU Biodiesel Tariffs – Bloomberg

Mandating the impossible: The EPA and cellulosic ethanol

January 3, 2012 | Posted by Ken Cohen

Here’s a New Year’s resolution worth making: Let’s not mandate the impossible.

Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency did just that last week, setting new quotas for 2012 that will require the nation’s refiners to add 8.65 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol to America’s fuel supplies.

The only catch: America doesn’t have the cellulosic ethanol to meet that standard.

Cellulosic ethanol is intended to be an advanced alternative to corn-based ethanol. By deriving it from inedible plant matter such as switchgrass, wood chips, and wheat straw, the hope is that cellulosic ethanol could supplement our transportation fuels in a way that is more efficient and has fewer harmful impacts on the environment and food prices than corn-based ethanol.
In practical terms, cellulosic ethanol still faces significant challenges. The scientific community and American industry have yet to find a way to make the fuel cost competitive.

As the National Research Council stated last month in a lengthy study on biofuels, “Currently, no commercially viable biorefineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel.”

This technological fact hasn’t stopped the EPA from setting impossible standards in the past. It mandated cellulosic ethanol quotas in 2010 and 2011, which failed abysmally, according to the EPA’s own data. (See chart.) In other words, the EPA’s decision makers should know better by now – and choose a new course of action.

Congress gave the EPA discretionary power to set what is called the Renewable Fuel Standard to take into account the state of investment, innovation, and capabilities of the biofuels sector. When lawmakers passed the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007, they set lofty goals that many throughout the broader economy knew were impossible to meet.

Congress set a goal of producing 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by the year 2022. Of that 36 billion gallons, nearly half (16 billion gallons) was supposed to come from yet-to-be-discovered breakthroughs in non-corn based ethanol.

That’s why the EPA was given flexibility. So, who will be paying for the impossible-to-reach EPA standards in 2012? The American economy and the American consumer.

Under the current law, refiners (and, indirectly, consumers) have to pay a fee for failing to blend cellulosic ethanol into existing fuel supplies. Meanwhile, because there is no alternative but to pay the fee, it has quietly turned into a revenue-raising device that contributes nothing to energy, growth, or jobs.

What should EPA and Washington do? It’s easy. Stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace – and let industry compete and do what we do best, which is to invest and innovate to bring real and affordable energy to consumers in a safe, secure, and environmentally responsible way.

As the president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association said, “Instead of imposing an unreasonable biofuels mandate, which would raise energy costs and impact fuel supplies, government should allow consumer choice and the free market to determine the mix of energy sources to best meet our nation’s needs.”

Rather than mandating the impossible, lawmakers and regulators should instead resolve to let markets work.

Source

Related articles

• Failure: Cellulosic Ethanol (junkscience.com)
• New Biofuels Fail to Meet Government-mandated Quantities (CDXS, AMYR, GEVO, SZYM, KIOR, ADM, VLO, PEIX) (247wallst.com)
• Ethanol Fight Moves to Renewable Fuels Standard (news.firedoglake.com)
• How the Government Failed in Energy Policy in 2011 (usnews.com)
• EPA boosts production goal for advanced, cellulosic biofuels by more than a third (green.autoblog.com)
• The Cellulosic Ethanol Debacle (tarpon.wordpress.com)

Letter: What good is altruism?

April 23, 2011 – 12:34am

Does it really make sense to descend into mediocrity by embracing the idealism of environmental altruism?

I too believe we should seek and develop energy sources that don’t propagate malignant parasites that eat away at the host.

We are technologically tied to fossil fuels. We pay billions of taxpayer dollars to Petrobras – in Brazil – to drill in the same Gulf of Mexico waters while the federal government is disallowing American companies to explore for that fuel.

That seems to be irresponsible at best; at worst it is economic malfeasance.

To think that ethanol is the answer is ludicrous: David Pimental of Cornell University postulates that “70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it.”

And economist Ed Yardeni said: “because the U.S. provides more than half of global corn exports and 40 percent soybean exports … our ethanol policy is exacerbating the global food fight.”

We must wake up to the realization that the sophistry being spread by some benevolent environmentalist politicians may indeed be nefarious subterfuge in an attempt to undermine our very way of life.

Allow exploration and refining while seeking “viable” energy sources.

Rick Allsup

Amarillo

Original Article