Senate group unveils oil-saving plan - BusinessWeek
Efforts to stem America's appetite for oil, nearly two-thirds of it imported, is getting new attention in Congress with a push from an unusual coalition of environmentalists, evangelical Christians and conservatives.
The diverse groups are putting pressure on lawmakers to find ways to curtail oil use, especially in transportation, and to promote alternative fuels and new technologies less dependent on fossil fuels.
Environmentalists view reduced oil use as a way to curtail pollution and lower the risk of climate change. A number of conservatives and others argue the dependence on oil imports poses a security threat.
Both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans in Congress are listening.
A bipartisan group of senators unveiled legislation Wednesday they said would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day within a decade and 10 million barrels a day by 2031. The country now uses a little over 20 million barrels of oil a day, most of for transportation.
"Failure to act, we fear, will make America like a pitiful giant, tied down and subject to the whims of small (oil-producing) countries," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., calling U.S. dependence on foreign oil a national security risk.
The legislation would include tax breaks, as much as 35 percent, and loan guarantees to get automakers to switch from producing gas guzzlers to gas-electric hybrids, advanced diesel or other alternative technologies.
It also includes new tax breaks for those who buy such vehicles for car fleets, and incentives for developing alternative fuels such as ethanol from cellulosic biomass, research into use of lightweight material in cars, and the promotion of mass transit corridors.
"We must find a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil so America is prepared for the future," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., one of the bill's co-sponsors.
Among those joining Lieberman and Bayh as co-sponsors were Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., and GOP Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.
"This is a bipartisan effort," Brownback said in an interview. "This is just good common sense. This is where the public wants us to go. They want us to not be so dependent on foreign oil."
While lawmakers largely rejected proposals to curtail oil use in transportation in crafting energy legislation earlier this year, Brownback predicted political support for the new proposals. "There was a mental sea change in America when gas hit $3 a gallon," he said.
Earlier this year, Democrats tried to include a provision in a broad energy bill that later was signed into law by President Bush, which called on the president to develop programs that would cut oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day. It was opposed by the GOP majority and defeated.
"That was seen as a mandate," said Brownback, who opposed the measure. The new approach is based on incentives to reduce oil consumption, he said.
Among those supporting the new Senate initiative are environmentalists such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor and environmental groups.
But they have been joined by mix of neo-conservatives and members of the Christian right who view the country's continued dependence on foreign oil -- especially from volatile areas such as the Middle East -- as a threat to the nation's security, and in the view of some, American values.
Among those arguing forcefully that the country's dependence on foreign oil poses a security risk are former CIA Director James Woolsey and Robert McFarlane, former national security adviser to President Reagan.
A number of conservatives have formed a coalition called Set America Free which advocates a diversification of motor fuels, development of more fuel efficient cars and trucks especially hybrids, and increased research into the development of ethanol from cellulosic biomass.
Among the group's members are Gary Bauer, president of American Values; Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and Gal Luft, director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.
Click here
to read more
Contents
|
|
The U.S. Senate's Oil Spill - Forbes
Last week at the joint hearing of the U.S. Senate Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and
Commerce, Science and Transportation, one side was arguing the forest, the other the trees.
On one side, five "big oil" company executives gave global perspectives on high oil prices and
defended their corporate profitability. On the other, a handful of outraged state attorneys
general fumed and sued over price gouging by local gasoline stations.
Taking sides in the debate is easy. Stepping back and proactively dealing with the seriousness of
the nation's long-term energy issues is much more difficult and even harrowing when one considers
the full picture.
At such a critical juncture in the world's energy balance, the antagonism being created between
big oil and the public serves little purpose in America. Whether or not you agree with how much
profit big oil companies are making, beating them up is not a formula for solving the world's
oil-supply issues, mitigating U.S. dependency on foreign supplies, and bringing down domestic
gasoline prices.
And if you believe these issues have been solved in the past few weeks just because hurricane
season is over and a few more people have chosen to buy hybrid cars instead of SUVs, think again.
The truth is, we are in a transitional period in the history of the world’s energy evolution,
which encompasses relentlessly rising demand, tightening supplies, simmering geopolitics,
troubling environmental issues and growing intolerance to new infrastructure, among the many
forces that are stressing our vast petroleum complex.
At last week's joint hearing, politicians and the media zeroed in on third-quarter mega-profits
posted by mammoth, publicly traded oil companies--collectively, tens of billions of dollars in
three short months. Surprisingly, this has to be one of the few occasions in a capitalist,
free-market democracy where stellar corporate performance was not accompanied by cheers and
backslapping. Just the contrary: Egged on by the public, there was a chorus of charges accusing
these oil companies of profiteering and price gouging at the expense of the public. All the more
galling was the fact that it was happening at a time of national distress caused by the wrath of
the recent hurricanes.
Beyond dealing with localized price gouging, which is understandable, a few government officials
are blowing the horn and looking for Robin Hood to come out and take money from the rich oil
companies in the form of a windfall profit tax, and give it to those who can’t afford to heat
their homes and start their cars.
Sounds good on paper, but isn’t that what President Hugo Chavez does through state control of
Venezuela’s oil industry? There are also calls out to force oil companies to reinvest their
profits into badly needed supply infrastructure like refineries. Yet it sounds suspiciously
similar to the way that state-run oil companies in Russia and China make their investment
decisions. Does the U.S. really want to head toward nationalization of oil? Once upon a time,
back in May 1920, U.S. Sen. James Phelan of California tried to form what was to be an American
state-owned oil company called the United States Oil Corp. The resolution was defeated when the
free market trumped state control.
Defending their case at the hearing were five oil company executives. Four of them--ExxonMobil ,
Shell, BP and Chevron --trace their pedigree back to the storied "Seven Sisters," the oil giants
that helped shape the global oil industry into what it is today. And it was the American-based
Sisters that historically carried the torch for U.S. national interests and economic power by
scrambling around the globe, challenging global powers like the British Empire and securing
coveted oil reserves.
Times have changed. Today, the Sisters are aging grandmothers competing against big, strong,
aggressive, state-controlled oil companies from many more countries--China, India, Japan and
Russia--to name a few. When CEO Lee Raymond said last week that ExxonMobil has 86,000 employees
and a market capitalization of $350 billion, it sounded impressive enough, but on a global scale
the company he leads doesn't even rank in the top ten oil companies in the world when it comes to
petroleum reserves.
All the players, large and small, are jockeying for the last of the lucrative oil concessions on
this planet. One unspoken reason why those big oil company profits are not being reinvested back
into the ground is because it has become exceptionally competitive and costly in the world arena
today. Often now, the big oil defendants at last week's hearings are no longer dominant in their
ability to acquire new oil reserves and production as they used to in the glory days of the past.
Take a look at the statistics: American-based oil companies produced 45% of foreign oil in the
1950s, but that share has dropped to about 10% today. American dependence on imports has grown
from 10% in 1970 to 65% by the end of 2004. At the current rate of unchecked import growth,
Americans will be 70% to 75% reliant on foreign oil by the middle of the next decade. In short,
the U.S. is now more dependent on oil, and less secure in its supply, than at any time in the
145-year history of oil consumption.
Let's put things into perspective: No one condones localized price gouging (and frankly the oil
executives' testimony last week was mostly insensitive to that problem). But we must all
understand that much larger dynamics are at play around the world and ask ourselves if this is
really the issue that should be forcing front-page debate in the nation.
An important but narrow argument at the hearings came from Terry Goddard, attorney general from
Arizona. Alarmed by the lack of strategic reinvestment by oil companies, he told the panel that
in the U.S. "the entire oil industry has moved to a just-in-time delivery system…. The effect is
a constant and precarious supply/demand balancing act...very harmful to consumers as supply
vulnerability sets the stage for price spikes."
Unfortunately, this is the reality in the world of oil today, no matter where you are on the
planet. As we all collectively drain the equivalent of an Olympic sized swimming pool full of oil
every 15 seconds, just-in-time oil is a theme that spans all nations, not just the U.S.
At the hearings, politicians and government officials were at the sidelines taking notes, asking
questions, doing everything to indicate they are mad as hell. But really, does making a spectacle
of this debate solve the much bigger issues at hand?
Politicians are going to have their hands full in the coming years trying to give the public
cheap, clean and secure energy that seems to be in endless demand. People are insisting that the
energy infrastructure be discreet too, and "not in my backyard."
To overcome these nearly insurmountable challenges, the government should move away from creating
an ugly spiral of finger-pointing that takes us further away from what we all need most, and move
instead toward creating proactive solutions for cheaper, cleaner and more secure energy.
Lee Raymond summed up it up the best: "We need to have better communication and work more closely
in a transparent way with key stakeholders--governments and consumers." Indeed, it is time for
all parties to realize that the forest and the trees are one and the same.
Click
here to read more
Contents
|
Oil fields could help cut Co2 emissions - ABCNews
A technology for capturing carbon dioxide in oil fields could have the same impact on the
environment as removing millions of cars from roads, U.S. energy officials said on Tuesday.
Five million tons of Co2, a gas linked to global warming, was successfully stored in a Canadian
oilfield while doubling the field's crude oil recovery rate, the Energy Department said.
The promising technology in the multi-national project could be used to capture and store carbon
dioxide in geologic formations, U.S. officials said.
"By applying this technique to the oil fields of Western Canada, we would see billions of
additional barrels of oil and a reduction in Co2 emissions equivalent to pulling more than 200
million cars off the road for a year," U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said in a statement.
The project injected carbon dioxide into the Weyburn oilfield in Saskatchewan, increasing
underground pressure to boost crude oil production by 10,000 barrels per day. The technique,
known as enhanced oil recovery, is used by many oil companies to keep aging fields productive but
typically uses more costly carbon dioxide from naturally occurring reservoirs.
Carbon dioxide used at Weyburn was piped from the Great Plains Synfuels Plant near Beulah, North
Dakota. The carbon is a byproduct of the plant's coal gasification process and would otherwise be
released into the atmosphere, the Energy Department said.
The United States is the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, one of several greenhouse gases
blamed for melting glaciers and rising sea levels. Legislation to require cuts in U.S. emissions
have repeatedly failed in Congress.
Primary oil recovery uses natural underground pressure to bring oil to the surface but typically
produces only 10 percent of a field's potential. Secondary recovery techniques inject water to
flood a field and force the oil upward, increasing recovery by 20-40 percent.
Enhanced oil recovery, the technique used at Weyburn, has the potential to increase a field's oil
recovery up to 60 percent, the Energy Department said.
The Weyburn project is led by Canada's Petroleum Technology Research Center in Regina and also
involves EnCana Corp, Japan and the European Commission. It is part of an international climate
change initiative trying to find ways to capture and store carbon dioxide.
Click here to read more
Contents
|
|
The race for oil - Business Standard - India
India and China seem to be in a race to acquire foreign oil and gas reserves through their state-owned oil companies. This was dramatically exhibited in their competition to acquire a Kazakh oil company. Though the Indian petroleum minister castigated the bidding procedure in which India’s state-owned oil company lost to one from China, could this have been a blessing in disguise? This is the central question I want to explore in this column.
The first point to be made is that if a private Indian oil company was competing with one from China, there would be no need to discuss their respective commercial judgments. But instead, both India and China seem to be keen to use their burgeoning foreign exchange reserves to promote the acquisition of foreign oil assets by their state-owned oil companies in the name of energy security. Linking this to national security, as oil and natural gas remain the essential fuel for their burgeoning economies, suggests that merely economic considerations are unimportant in these strategic national decisions. Acquiring these foreign energy assets and the means of their transportation (through pipelines) will provide assured and stable supplies of energy in the future. But is this valid?
In the 19th century liberal international economic order, one could reasonably expect that, if a state or its citizens owned foreign assets, then through the web of treaties the British had negotiated during their imperium, backed by the threat of “gunboats and Gurkhas”, these international property rights would be fairly secure. But that world has long gone. Starting with the Mexican and Russian revolutions and Attaturks’ nationalist revolution in Turkey, most countries have abrogated international property rights to subserve the national weal. Nowhere is this more apparent than for foreign-owned oil and gas fields. Beginning with Mossadeq’s nationalisation of Western oil companies in Iran, most of the oil-producing countries nationalised foreign oil companies, while the US opposition to the Anglo-French Suez expedition to protect their international property rights finally put an end to any military means of protecting international property. This implies that it is an illusion to believe that, if you own a foreign oil field, it belongs to you in the same way as one within your own territory. If, as is all too likely, a future Kazakh government was to nationalise the company owning oil in their territory in which foreign state-owned companies have a share, would the Indians and Chinese be willing to send in their troops to assert their property rights? This could involve not merely putting the “Gurkhas” on the oil field, but in essentially taking over the country. If even the sole remaining superpower is incapable of doing this, it is absurd to believe that the aspiring superpowers of India and China would be able to do so. In fact, acquiring these foreign oil fields with national public resources would be giving an immense hostage to fortune.
But, it may be argued, even given this uncertainty about property rights, would the acquisition of foreign oil reserves not enable the domestic price of oil to be stabilised, and be kept lower than the projected rising world price for oil? This mistakes what is the true opportunity cost of oil used in the Indian economy. Even if one owns a foreign oil field, the opportunity cost of using its oil is still given by the world price. For, if not used domestically, the oil could be sold elsewhere for the world price.
Perhaps, there is another advantage in our state-owned oil companies owning foreign oil fields, through the implicit profit (given by the difference between the rising oil price and the costs of production) accruing to the Indian state company rather than a foreign company? But this implies it is a commercial venture and not a strategic one, in which it may be worthwhile investing public funds if the foreign investment offers a higher rate of return than other alternatives. If this investment decision was being made by a private company, one would have more confidence in its judgment than the proposed acquisition by a state company, for well- known reasons concerning incentives and soft budget constraints of public enterprises. If these foreign investments are to be made on a commercial basis by an Indian oil company, it would be best to privatise the state-owned companies and let them then decide whether such investments are in their commercial interest.
The same argument applies to the proposed pipelines from Iran and Myannmar. Public investment in these international infrastructure projects would be justified if they yielded a higher social rate of return than alternative uses of public funds, like investing in domestic infrastructure. Given the well-known limitations of the latter, such foreign investment is also of dubious economic value. Of course, it may be a viable private investment project and the Indian government could justifiably use its diplomatic clout to help it fructify.
The final reason often given for this race to acquire foreign energy resources is to ensure security of supplies of a vital resource input. But this fails to recognise that since the second oil shock of the late 1970s, oil has become just another commodity, being traded on NYMEX just like gold or iron ore (see D Yergin, The Prize, for an excellent history of the oil industry). Buying futures in this “deep” market will ensure security of supply. With the diversification of world sources of supply, most recently from the Caspian Sea, and prospectively from the Canadian oil shales, there is no longer the geographic concentration of future supplies in the Middle East, which gave strategic planners such headaches. This commodification of oil has also reduced the power of OPEC, and the likelihood of a future oil cartel holding consumers to ransom.
Nor does India have to worry about being alone in keeping the worldwide channels of transport for this vital resource open. For, its new “strategic partner”—the US—has an even greater interest, and above all the military means to ensure that these channels are not blocked for political reasons. There is no economic or strategic reason, therefore, for India to be in this race to acquire foreign energy resources by using its foreign exchange reserves, representing its people’s savings, merely to allow megalomaniac politicians and bureaucrats to imitate the Sheikhs of the Arab world.
Click
here to read more
Contents
|
|
US confident OPEC will decide on 'sufficient' oil supply for world mkts - AFX
Visiting US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said he is confident OPEC will decide to provide
'sufficient' crude oil to the world markets at its meeting due to be held next month in Kuwait.
'I expect that they (OPEC) will do that and I have no doubt that that will be the outcome of the
OPEC meeting,' in Kuwait on December 12, Bodman told reporters at Kuwait airport before leaving
for neighbouring Qatar.
Bodman said he was confident as Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates -- which he visited over the
weekend -- 'have been giving indications of being very responsive and wanting to provide
sufficient crude oil to the world markets.'
Bodman had urged OPEC on Saturday in Abu Dhabi to take measures to increase production at its
next meeting, expressing hope Gulf countries would work hard to expand their output capacity.
He also praised the UAE for taking steps towards increasing capacity, revealing that UAE leaders
had briefed him about new plans for raising production.
At its last meeting, OPEC maintained its official production quota at 28 mln barrels per day. The
UAE is currently OPEC's fifth largest producer, with output of just under 2.4 mln bpd.
Bodman is also expected to visit Saudi Arabia as part of his regional tour.
Click here to read more
Contents
|
|
Experts say it unfair to blame China on oil price soaring - Xinhua
Experts attending the China-Montreux Energy Roundtable 2005 said here Sunday that there are a dozen of factors contributing to the current surging oil price and it is unfair to blame China solely.
Professor Subroto, Chairman of the Foundation of Indonesian Institute for Energy Economics, said that different from the oil crisis occurred in last century that were caused by disruption of supply, the current soaring oil price are caused by demand increase with increasing economic activity worldwide.
Moreover, the small excess capacity of major oil producers and political factors are also important factors contributing to the current soaring oil price, he said.
However, Subroto believed that the oil price will somewhat fall with more investment in the industry and more supply.
But it could be definitely say that the era of 25 US dollars per barrel will not come back, he said.
Ali Al-Muhareb, Vice President, Corporate Planning of Saudi Aramco, said that there is no physical shortage of oil even when the oil price has been hovering at some 60 US dollars per barrel.
The current supply shortage was caused by lack of investment in refining industry and infrastructures such as distribution and transportation when the oil price was relatively low a few years ago, he said.
Richard Mckean, President and Founder of Montreux Energy said the expectation of the financial market for the supply and demand tension of the oil market is another reason attributing to the current high price.
It is not right to say that one single reason leading to the current high oil price as a dozen of factors finally attributed to
the current situation, said William C. Ramsay, Deputy Executive Director of the International Energy Agency.
However, as the cost for producing a barrel of oil is only 11 to 12 US dollars, it is still unreasonable to see the price rise to a high level of about 60 US dollars per barrel, he said.
Since the international oil price began to surge in 2004, China's rising demand has been blamed as the major factor for lifting the price.It is unfair to blame China, a developing country that is experiencing its economic development and seeing its normal growthof energy demand, said Subroto.
What the world should also see is that China is trying its bestto produce more oil and natural gas to reduce its dependency on import, to improve its energy consumption structure by using more renewable and new energies and to enhance its energy efficiency, he said.
As a world-famous high-level international energy forum, Montreux Energy Roundtable saw it first forum held in China in 2004.
Nearly 200 professionals in the energy circle from both home and overseas attended the China-Montreux Energy Roundtable 2005 to
discuss topics on energy sustainability: efficiency and reliability.
Click here to read more
Contents
|