• IN THIS SECTION

May 27, 2008

Exclusive: Oil, Oil, Oil and Global Warming: Part One of Two: Oil

Sandra Carney

I often ask myself, "Is there a hidden agenda of the radical environmentalists, other collectivists and their supporters in Congress?" Capitalism has been under attack for decades but never more apparent as it is today with the price of gasoline climbing at an alarming rate.

The U.S. is confronted with a fuel problem, the blame for which can be squarely placed on the shoulders of the activists, couched under the misnomer of "environmentalists." Lack of leadership on the part of our politicians has allowed them to interfere with the workings of the free market.

Demand has outstripped the supply of oil and its derivatives, which are of great importance to the U.S. economy.

We have not developed offshore oil deposits or the known Alaska deposits for over 30 years. Because of this the U.S. now imports 60% of its oil. At $120 per barrel, oil imports will cost us $560 billion per year, with approximately 10-15% going to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

In addition to the diversion of these financial resources there are military expenditures to defend these oil resources. As China and India and other developing countries continue to grow, their demand for oil will grow rapidly, putting additional pressure on the oil market.

We have the potential of becoming oil independent in a relatively short period of time, but only if we develop the vast energy resources of oil in Alaska and off-shore or use shale and/or coal. Shale and coal can be converted to gasoline, diesel and other liquid fuels and oil byproducts.

As far as Alaska is concerned, we are talking about an area two and a half the times the size of Texas, and the drilling area about the size of the football stadium in Dallas.

Estimates from those evil, money hungry oil executives are that oil from ANWR will start flowing in about four years, not ten years as the agenda driven RINOS, Democrats and watermelons (green on the outside and red on the inside) are claiming.

Those dastardly oil companies who are just wallowing in their wind fall profits, are projecting on their T.V. advertisements, that product that has not been tapped could provide us with oil for 60 million cars ... yes folks, we could drive in what ever vehicle we please, with cheap "new" oil for the next 60 to 100 years. And this is a very conservative estimate.

A Department of Energy assessment concludes that a large volume of oil, (400 billion barrels) remains stranded (unrecovered) in already discovered domestic oil fields. This is because traditional oil recovery technology recovers only about one-third of the oil originally in place. The application state of the art EOR (enhanced oil recovery) technologies can recover a substantial portion of this "stranded oil."

Of these 400 billion barrels, at least half can be profitably recovered with oil prices around $40 per barrel (2005 dollars).

Converting this technically recoverable resource into increased annual domestic oil production would substantially contribute to national energy goals to reduce dependence on imported oil. Moreover, using industrial CO2 as the injection fluid for EOR would result in significant geologic sequestration of CO2, reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations and contributing to national goals for reducing the carbon intensity of the U.S. economy. This should satisfy the environmentalists and their liberal supporters, but it won't because they have a different agenda.

If America embarks on a national program, we can lower oil prices and reduce oil price volatility; facilitate a renewed U.S. industrial boom; establish a reliable domestic energy base that sustains the global competitiveness of U.S. industries; reduce national security risks; free up U.S. military resources now devoted to protecting foreign oil supplies; create millions of quality jobs; foster new technology development; and help eliminate trade and budget deficits! But again, this would not satisfy those with an agenda to bring down the U.S.

There is a grand total of OVER 4 TRILLION BARRELS of liquid fuel that can be recovered (Information from Energy Information Agency of the U.S. government). At today's rate of oil consumption, this will give the U.S. 548 years of supply.

The technologies to convert coal and shale to liquid fuels are not something from last night's dream. Coal can be liquefied into diesel and Gasoline ...the South African company Sasol, has been producing oil from Coal for the last 30 years in an environmentally friendly way to satisfy the S. African Government.

The technology Sasol perfected is known as the "Fisher-Tropsh Conversion" ... Coal to Gas was developed in the 1920s and was used by the Germans in WWII. One has to wonder if the senators have any sense to history to know that with the loss of the Ploesti Oil fields in Rumania, Hitler powered his war machine by converting coal to oil.

The granddaddy of natural resource hiding under the U.S. is SHALE. In addition to the largest coal deposits in the world, the U.S. has about 75% of the world shale deposits. Shale is a hydrocarbon- bearing rock form which fuels and byproducts can be produced. The conventional method which has been developed over the past 60 years is to bring shale to the surface by mining, heating it to produce liquid called kerogen oil and then processing the kerogen oil to produce gasoline, diesel and other byproducts.

Of course the not-so-friendly to earth watermelons are insisting that the scenic beauty of a small uninhabited desert in southwest Colorado and Utah would be ruined.

But we are already one step ahead of the collectivists. Another technology has been developed over the last 30 years called "In-Situ" which eliminates the need to bring shale to the surface. The shale is heated in place and the kerogen oil is pumped to the surface by Oil wells.

The conventional method of producing fuels and by products should be economic and yield a minimum 15% rate of return if average oil prices were sustained between $44 and $54 per barrel (2005 dollars). The In-Situ process would be economic at sustained average prices above $30 per barrel.

Sounds good doesn't it? Not according to the agenda determined greens, who are concerned with the pollution of the aquifers (underground water deposits).

Not daunted by their threats, Shell Oil has developed a method by which it can freeze a wall around the Shale field being developed, thus preventing any leakage. It is estimated that this would add to the cost. However even with this additional cost, Shell believes it can produce fuel at a competitive $30 a barrel price. Shell Oil is not the only company developing In Situ, but other companies with similar methods of development have been very secretive.

Shale Oil was highly touted by Jimmy Carter, who appeared in his woolen sweater on National T.V. and suggested that Americans lower their thermostats to 50 degrees at night. Jimmy himself was pushing the benefits of Shale and all the liberals at the time applauded the President's idea.

On a final note, Estonia's Shale fields have been using Shale in their electric generator plants, burning it directly as fuel and also converting it into diesel, gasoline and other liquids. So unlike the days when President Jimmy Carter was calling for Shale exploration, today there is 30 years of experience in the use of shale.

What would be required from the U.S. government, under whoever is to be president of the three ill informed senators, would be to shield the nasty money hungry investors during the conversion from coal to oil for a period of time. There is a risk of the Middle Eastern Oil cartel manipulating the price of their oil below the price required for these alternative sources of fuel to be profitable.

This could quite easily be achieved without any subsidies to those dirty capital investors by simply imposing a gradual tax, increased annually to say $10.00 a barrel to begin with, on oil imported from outside North America. This additional duty on Oil imported from outside N. America could be made revenue neutral.

The oil companies have been demonized by the Collectivists ... Hillary Clinton has been shouting "Tax them, Tax them" ... but where were the watermelons when Exxon and other oil companies having invested billions into the development of shale fields after Jimmy Carter's call, had to write off the billions of dollars they had invested, when the Arab cartel dropped the price of Oil?

To top it all off we have Sen. McCain singing the same tune as the Democrats on global warming. Sen. Obama wants to "change" the greatest country on earth and Sen. "Clinton" ... well, who knows what she wants? ... oh I know, she wants to be president!

"Oil, Oil, Oil & Global Warming" to be continued in Part Two "Global Warming."

Print This E-mail This

Share It: