The True Cost of Oil: $65 Trillion a Year?

June 29, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

In this week’s article for Energy and Capital, I review some of the studies that have tried to assign a value to all the externalities and hidden subsidies of the oil business, to show that oil really isn’t cheaper than renewables (not by a long shot, as it turns out). I hope you find this enlightening!

–C

The True Cost of Oil: $65 Trillion a Year?

2007-06-29

By Chris Nelder

Quick: What’s the most common criticism of renewable energy?

Right: That it’s not economical. Too expensive compared to cheap oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

And that’s true, if you have a calculator that can only add, and you don’t count a bunch of stuff.

But that’s not the way we do math around here. We like to figure out the real cost of things. It’s the only intelligent way to invest!

Let’s try adding up everything for once, leaving nothing out, with no "externalities."

Crude Cost: $69 a Barrel

Neal Dikeman, partner at energy investment banking firm Jane Capital, adds up the production cost of oil this way:

Finding cost: $7.5/bbl (JS Herold 3 year avg costs for global integrated oil companies).

Lifting, production, and transportation cost: $6.5/bbl (JS Herold 3 year avg costs for global integrated oil companies).

Refining cost: <$5/bbl (10Ks from US independent refiners 2004-2005; the majors are lower).

So for a typical major oil company like Exxon, with its vertically integrated business from the wellhead all the way to the consumer, the average actual production cost is $14 to $19/bbl, depending on a lot of variables.

But of course two thirds of our oil is imported, and for that we pay at the delivery point: West Texas Intermediate is $68.97 today, NYMEX crude future is $69.12; call it $69/bbl in round numbers.

Counted in terms of transfer of wealth, at current prices, the U.S. sends about $313 million each day to OPEC for crude oil. That’s $114 billion per year, just to OPEC countries . . . countries that are mostly dictatorships and oligarchies hostile to us.

If all of our 21 Mbpd consumption of crude oil were bought at the market price, it would cost the economy $1.5 billion per day, or $529 billion per year.

It is such direct fuel costs, as they contribute to the price of grid electricity, that are compared to renewable energy to show that the latter is too expensive. But have we really counted the cost of oil? Not even close.

Cost of Dependence: $233 Billion a Year

According to a 2000 study for the Department of Energy, there is a significant cost attached to the mere fact of our dependence. Supply disruptions, price hikes, and loss of wealth suffered through the oil market upheavals have cost the U.S. economy around $7 trillion (1998 dollars) over the 30 years from 1970 to 2000.

The study focused on three primary factors: macroeconomic adjustment costs, the potential loss of GDP, and wealth transfer. Still, the study notes, "These cost estimates do not include military, strategic or political costs associated with U.S. and world dependence on oil imports." (We’ll get to that.)

All Economic Costs: $480 a Barrel

Milton Copulus, the head of the National Defense Council Foundation, has a different view. And as the former principal energy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a 12-year member of the National Petroleum Council, a Reagan White House alum, and an advisor to half a dozen U.S. Energy Secretaries, various Secretaries of Defense, and two directors of the CIA, he knows his stuff.

After taking into account the direct and indirect costs of oil, the economic costs of oil supply disruption, and military expenditures, he estimates the true cost of oil at a stunning $480 a barrel.

That would make the "real" cost of filling up a family sedan about $220, and filling up a large SUV about $325 (when oil was $10 a barrel cheaper than it is now!).

Due to the enormous military cost of protecting Persian Gulf imports, the hidden cost of oil from that region amounts to $7.41 per gallon of gasoline. The cheapest gas out in my part of the Bay Area is $3.11 a gallon for regular. Add them together, and the true cost of my gas is probably around $10.52 a gallon.

We use 21 million barrels a day of oil. At $480 a barrel, that’s $10 trillion a year draining from the national coffers.

And we haven’t even tried to count the blood.

But we’re not done yet.

Government Subsidies

Ah, everyone’s favorite, the government subsidies.

It’s a surprisingly difficult thing to put a boundary around, because there are so many direct and indirect ways in which the government supports the oil industry, and every study has its own list of things to leave in and things to leave out.

For example, none of the studies I found included the hidden subsidy of leasing public lands to oil companies for next to nothing, which in essence assigns zero value to the oil extracted from the ground, paying the public nothing for the loss of its natural capital.

One 1998 study by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) looked at petroleum industry subsidies, including the percentage depletion allowance and tax-funded programs that directly subsidize oil production and consumption, among other things.

It assessed up to $17.8 billion per year in tax subsidies, plus government program subsidies (such as vehicle R&D programs, highway construction, and environmental cleanup) of between $38 billion and $114.6 billion per year.

They pegged health and social costs at an additional $231.7 billion to $942.9 billion per year, counting factors such as health issues due to pollution, loss of crop yields, and so on.

As for related costs, such as the direct and indirect costs of traffic delays, traffic accidents, subsidized parking and the like, they counted another $191.4 billion to $474.1 billion per year.

Adjusting the estimates to 2006 dollars and rounding, that makes a total of between $68 and $161 billion in government subsidies, between $283 billion and $1,152 billion in health and social costs, and between $233 billion and $579 billion in related costs.

All told, $584 billion on the low side, $1.9 trillion on the high side.

Environmental Costs

Burning fossil fuels has serious environmental costs, from water and soil pollution, to loss of species, to loss of ecosystem services such as cleaning the water and air. And yet nobody ever pays those costs directly. They are "externalized" onto the environment: you and me, and everything that lives around us.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed some studies on this subject in a 1995 article citing several estimates: "Delucchi (1995) estimates the total cost in 1991 of environmental externalities to be $54 billion to $232 billion. Human mortality and morbidity due to air pollution accounts for over three quarters of the total environmental cost and could be as high as $182 billion annually. For the Los Angeles area, Hall et al. (1992) estimates the annual health-based cost from ozone and particulate exposure alone to be almost $10 billion."

Taking the upper estimate (because there’s no way their list of factors was comprehensive), and adjusting for inflation, call it a total cost of $345 billion per year.

Climate Change Cost

Then there is the cost of climate change owing to the production of CO2 from burning oil and gas.

A 2006 study by the U.K.’s New Economics Foundation looked at these costs company by company and concluded that the climate change costs far outweighed the oil companies’ profits.

Using a government estimate that put the cost of environmental damage at $35 per ton of carbon dioxide, they calculated the cost of emissions from BP’s oil business from production all the way through to burning the fuel. They came up with a damage bill of $51 billion a year. But BP’s profit was only $19 billion, putting the entire enterprise $31 billion in the red!

The same calculation put Shell $23 billion in the red.

Once you take into account the externalized costs, the oil business isn’t even worth doing.

Somewhere up there, Sitting Bull is saying "Duh!"

Given the U.S.’s emissions of some 1,614 million metric tons, and using the $35/ton figure, that gives us a CO2 bill of about $56 trillion a year.

Summing It Up

To be honest, I have no idea how one could sum up these estimates. There are too many different boundaries for the costs that are counted and a lot of troublesome math that wouldn’t yield a terribly significant number anyway.

But, just for fun, let’s add up the above numbers.

All economic costs: $10 trillion.

Cost of dependence: $233 billion.

Government subsidies, health and social costs, and related costs: $1.9 trillion.

Environmental costs: $345 billion.

Climate change costs: $56 trillion.

Total: About $68.5 trillion a year.

And our GDP is about $13 trillion a year.

OK, undoubtedly some of the costs are being counted more than once.

But however you add it up, it’s clear that we’re running up an enormous tab with Mother Nature, even if "nobody" is paying for it.

Which makes it incredibly obvious why renewable energy is the answer. Almost all of those costs go away with renewables, and we could probably replace our entire energy generation system for that kind of cash.

No wonder $71 billion of new capital was poured into the renewables sector last year.

And you’d better believe Green Chip Stocks members are getting a piece of this action too!

Until next time,

Chris signature

–Chris

Canary in a Data Mine

June 22, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

This week I did a “big picture” summary report about the current data on peak oil. I encourage you to look this over carefully and pass it around because I think it’s important to educate people about where we really stand in terms of energy supply with all the hokum and wild assertions being thrown around in the media.

It has charts and stuff so it was produced as a PDF. You can download it from GRL or from Green Chip Stocks.

Please feel free to shoot me any questions or comments, and hey, invite a friend to sign up for this email newsletter…haven’t had any new subscribers in a while.

Cheers,

–C

Life Through Time

June 21, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

Happy summer solstice!

You simply must check out this presentation. It’s “a stunning photographic journey through time and the history of life on Earth,” one of the fruits of a 7-year project by photographer Frans Lanting.

http://www.lifethroughtime.com

As the forwarder commented: “This is more than just photography, but a life’s work that requires knowledge of various fields of science, an eye for beauty and synchronicity, journalism, aesthetics, computer interface (very well done!), and remarkable vision.”

Take a little timeout from the hardcore content of GRL to enjoy this visual romp through the history of the planet. Make sure you click around and explore the timeline and the controls and the “learn more” links. Really a nice piece of work. Kudos to you, Frans Lanting, whoever you are.

–C

Future Shock: End of the Oil Age

June 21, 2007 at 11:40 am
Contributed by:

Folks,

A new peak oil documentary is out, and it’s quite good. It was done for Ireland’s national broadcaster, RTÉ , so it’s focused on Ireland, but the similarities between their dependency on oil and the U.S.’s are quite striking.

For example:


  • Ireland imports 87% of its energy requirement and consumes about 180k barrels of oil per day (population 4.2m) making it one of the highest per capita oil consumers in Europe.
  • The U.S. imports 67% of its oil and consumes about 21 million barrels per day (population 300 million) making it the biggest consumer of oil on Earth.

Plus, you get to see Colin Campbell interviewed in his home environment! It’s about an hour long so get yourself a cuppa or something.

Check it out: Future Shock: End of the Oil Age

–C

The Peak Oil Crisis: Approaching The Cliff

June 21, 2007 at 7:56 am
Contributed by:

This column from Tom Whipple was so good, I decided to repost the whole thing. For those of you who don’t know Tom’s work, he regularly writes a column on peak oil for The Falls Church News-Press of Virgina and is one of the most astute observers of peak oil data around. He’s one of the best and I have cribbed liberally from his work. Add ‘em to your Google Reader!

–C
The Peak Oil Crisis: Approaching The Cliff

By Tom Whipple

The Falls Church News-Press

Thursday, 21 June 2007

Last weekend across southern South Dakota the pumps
went dry. Gas terminals from Sioux Falls to Yankton to Sioux City were
empty. “There is simply not enough fuel coming down the pipeline into the
delivery system” said a BP station owner. Eventually the tankers were sent
to Nebraska to find gas. A minor glitch in the distribution? Possibly, but
more likely a harbinger of more serious problems to come.


Meanwhile, I would like to tell you that Congress,
which has been debating energy bills for the last two weeks, is getting
ready to pass legislation that will make our lives easier during the
troubled years ahead. Sadly, I cannot. From their public pronouncements
and posturing, it is unlikely more than a dozen members of Congress have
the slightest idea of what 2007 energy legislation should be trying to
accomplish in an urgent manner.


Many of the just-barely-in-the-majority Democrats,
especially in the Senate, are on the right track, with proposals to
improve average gasoline consumption, and to increase the use of renewable
energy. Scattered here and there are conservation measures and R&D
money for more efficient something or others, but from the perspective of
imminent oil depletion, the proposals are too little, too late. Setting
efficiency goals for 10 or 15 years from now is absurd when the problems
to solve may be upon us in 15 or 20 months, or, if the real alarmists are
right, in 15 or 20 weeks.


However inadequate the Democrats’ proposals may be,
they pale in comparison to the absurdity of the opposition to energy
legislation forming on Capitol Hill. Detroit, in conspiracy with the coal
and electric industries, is mounting a full court press to see that little
gets through this Congress to upset the status quo – mild efficiency
standards, no greenhouse gas regulation, no renewable energy mandates.
From the opposition’s point of view, if Congress wants to do anything,
then it might be OK for them to bankroll the R&D so we can convert
good old American coal into our gasoline; don’t even think about taxing
energy, but a few more subsidies might be nice.


With crucial Senate votes scheduled for later this
week, it is still too early to judge what the final legislation will look
like, but it is starting to look as if we are going to arrive at the
precipice of oil depletion without Congress having done much of anything
to mitigate the situation. The American automobile industry is clearly on
its way to committing suicide; the coal industry does not seem to realize
its days are numbered; and the electric industry seems to have no notion
that, within a lifetime, fossil fuels and perhaps even some forms of
nuclear energy are going to have to be replaced.


As a civilization, we are all to blame. Most Americans
are showing little inclination to cut back on driving. In study after
study we tell interviewers we are willing to spend our last nickel,
mortgage the farm, and deprive our grandchildren before we will give up
driving. We are all heading towards the cliff together.


Not much happened in the last week to tell us just how
close we are to the cliff. There is a general strike going on in Nigeria
that so far does not seem to be affecting oil production. Nigerian strikes
are usually settled quickly, but there is a new president in charge so
there could be surprises in store. In the Niger Delta, the insurgency
bubbles along, despite the nominal ceasefire, with still more oil being
shut-in by the insurgents during the past week.


From the perspective of oil production, Iraq continues
to hold its own. OPEC is still refusing to consider production increases
and the Chinese imports of crude oil continue to increase.


This week’s U.S. oil status report was a strange one.
U.S. refinery utilization plunged to what should be an abysmally low 87.6
percent, but at the same time the refineries managed to produce the same
amount of gasoline as the week before. Unless there is something wrong
with the numbers, this confirms that improvements made to our refineries
in recent years are now allowing them to squeeze considerably more
gasoline out of each barrel of crude — a definite plus. Imports increased
a bit, resulting in U.S. gasoline stockpiles growing by 1.8 million
barrels last week. There are still major shortages along the East Coast
and the summer driving season is almost here. There seem to be some
unusually large anomalies in this week’s report, however, so there may be
revisions ahead.


In general, the gasoline stockpiles situation now can
be categorized as serious rather than dire. We seem to be getting the
gasoline we need without our refineries working too well and so far we
seem to be able to find enough gasoline to import. From here through Labor
Day it depends on how much we all drive and of course the hurricanes. None
are yet in sight.

The Yes Men Prank the National Petroleum Council

June 19, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

I have been wondering what the 600th GetRealList article would turn out to be. How appropriate that it would be this, a bit of real-life satire about oil and global warming.

If was a great prank: nobody got hurt (well, maybe a few egos); it was a trenchant critique; they totally fell for it. I think Abbie Hoffman would be proud.

Think their prank was far-fetched? Well then consider this sardonic quip from Prof. Tad Patzek of UC Berkeley, on the excessively optimistic numbers quoted by the DOE/USDA on the crop yield potential for biofuels: “To utilize all residues, I suggest to also process fresh corpses into biofuels.”

If you don’t know who the Yes Men are (or even if you do) check out their Web site and some of their projects. What they do is just the antidote for the mass-media controlled hallucination that passes for reality in these crazy times.

On a related note, a friend called me this afternoon and said that he saw a banner hung over the road in Pacifica, CA saying “My country invaded Iraq and all I got was this expensive gas.”

Sounds like another entry for the Freeway Blogger:

http://www.freewayblogger.com/archive.htm


http://www.freewayblogger.com/legal.htm



http://www.freewayblogger.com/howto.htm

Nothing like a little harmless civil disobedience to shake people out of that hallucination. And boy, do we have one going now. The more the reality of peak oil and global warming and what we’re doing (and not doing) comes into focus, the more amazed I am at how wide a reality gap–no, a reality gulf–there is between the things we’re doing today and the reality that’s just around the next bend. It’s enough to make you feel a little schizo.

–C

June 14, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

EXXON PROPOSES BURNING HUMANITY FOR FUEL IF CLIMATE CALAMITY HITS

Conference organizer fails to have Yes Men arrested

   Text of speech, photos, video: http://www.vivoleum.com/…

   GO-EXPO statement: http://newswire.ca/…

   Press conference before this event, Friday, Calgary: http://arusha.org/…

   Contact: mailto:fuel@theyesmen.org

   More links at end of release.

Imposters posing as ExxonMobil and National Petroleum Council (NPC)

representatives delivered an outrageous keynote speech to 300 oilmen

at GO-EXPO, Canada’s largest oil conference, held at Stampede Park in

Calgary, Alberta, today.

The speech was billed beforehand by the GO-EXPO organizers as the

major highlight of this year’s conference, which had 20,000

attendees. In it, the “NPC rep” was expected to deliver the long-awaited

conclusions of a study commissioned by US Energy Secretary

Samuel Bodman. The NPC is headed by former ExxonMobil CEO Lee

Raymond, who is also the chair of the study. (See link at end.)

In the actual speech, the “NPC rep” announced that current U.S. and

Canadian energy policies (notably the massive, carbon-intensive

exploitation of Alberta’s oil sands, and the development of liquid

coal) are increasing the chances of huge global calamities. But he

reassured the audience that in the worst case scenario, the oil

industry could “keep fuel flowing” by transforming the billions of

people who die into oil.

“We need something like whales, but infinitely more abundant,” said

“NPC rep” “Shepard Wolff” (actually Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men),

before describing the technology used to render human flesh into a

new Exxon oil product called Vivoleum. 3-D animations of the process

brought it to life.

“Vivoleum works in perfect synergy with the continued expansion of

fossil fuel production,” noted “Exxon rep” “Florian Osenberg” (Yes

Man Mike Bonanno). “With more fossil fuels comes a greater chance of

disaster, but that means more feedstock for Vivoleum. Fuel will

continue to flow for those of us left.”

The oilmen listened to the lecture with attention, and then lit

“commemorative candles” supposedly made of Vivoleum obtained from the

flesh of an “Exxon janitor” who died as a result of cleaning up a

toxic spill. The audience only reacted when the janitor, in a video

tribute, announced that he wished to be transformed into candles

after his death, and all became crystal-clear.

At that point, Simon Mellor, Commercial & Business Development

Director for the company putting on the event, strode up and

physically forced the Yes Men from the stage. As Mellor escorted

Bonanno out the door, a dozen journalists surrounded Bichlbaum, who,

still in character as “Shepard Wolff,” explained to them the

rationale for Vivoleum.

“We’ve got to get ready. After all, fossil fuel development like that

of my company is increasing the chances of catastrophic climate

change, which could lead to massive calamities, causing migration and

conflicts that would likely disable the pipelines and oil wells.

Without oil we could no longer produce or transport food, and most of

humanity would starve. That would be a tragedy, but at least all

those bodies could be turned into fuel for the rest of us.”

“We’re not talking about killing anyone,” added the “NPC rep.” “We’re

talking about using them after nature has done the hard work. After

all, 150,000 people already die from climate-change related effects

every year. That’s only going to go up - maybe way, way up. Will it

all go to waste? That would be cruel.”

Security guards then dragged Bichlbaum away from the reporters, and

he and Bonanno were detained until Calgary Police Service officers

could arrive. The policemen, determining that no major infractions

had been committed, permitted the Yes Men to leave.

Canada’s oil sands, along with “liquid coal,” are keystones of Bush’s

Energy Security plan. Mining the oil sands is one of the dirtiest

forms of oil production and has turned Canada into one of the world’s

worst carbon emitters. The production of “liquid coal” has twice the

carbon footprint as that of ordinary gasoline. Such technologies

increase the likelihood of massive climate catastrophes that will

condemn to death untold millions of people, mainly poor.

“If our idea of energy security is to increase the chances of climate

calamity, we have a very funny sense of what security really is,”

Bonanno said. “While ExxonMobil continues to post record profits,

they use their money to persuade governments to do nothing about

climate change. This is a crime against humanity.”

“Putting the former Exxon CEO in charge of the NPC, and soliciting

his advice on our energy future, is like putting the wolf in charge

of the flock,” said “Shepard Wolff” (Bichlbaum). “Exxon has done more

damage to the environment and to our chances of survival than any

other company on earth. Why should we let them determine our future?”

   About the NPC and ExxonMobil: About the NPC and Exon Mobil

   About the Alberta oil sands: About Alberta oil sands

   About liquid coal: Sierra club on liquid coal



Protestors Spring Big Hoax on Oil Expo Audience





CALGARY, Alberta - By the time candles supposedly made from remains of a deceased ExxonMobil janitor named Reggie Watts were handed out, an audience of oil and gas professionals attending a keynote luncheon at Calgary’s Gas and Oil Exposition realized they’d been had.

A man named “S.K. Wolff,” claiming to be an analyst for the Washington-based National Petroleum Council, and co-speaker “Florian Osenberg,” said to represent ExxonMobil, were getting ready to show a memorial video made by Watts when security officers forcibly ushered the two men from the stage.

Wolff is really Andy Bichlbaum and Osenberg is Mike Bonanno — or so they say.

As the Yes Men, the pair have travelled the world with an anti-globalization agenda perpetrating hoaxes on groups ranging from the World Trade Organization to the BBC.

In Calgary, ostensibly to promote their book and a documentary they filmed three years ago at the Plaza Theatre tonight, the activists said they couldn’t resist taking a shot at the oil and gas trade show, held over three days this week at Stampede Park.

“This was a great opportunity for us, like the holy grail, really,” said Bichlbaum. “We’ve never had an audience like this. These people are wrecking the Earth and they’re quite conscious of it.”

The premise of the presentation, which included a PowerPoint lecture by “S.K. Wolff,” was that as humans begin to die as a result of calamities caused by climate change, their remains could be harvested for an alternative fuel source called “vivoleum” that would eventually replace oil.

Osenberg, supposedly the director of human resources with the vivoleum program, took the stage carrying a lit candle while volunteers handed out candles to the audience.

The approximately 250 assembled guests were told the vivoleum for the candles had been “sourced” from an ExxonMobil maintenance worker who donated it before dying of cancer.

The candles were actually made of wax and human hair gathered from barbershops.

Organizers of GO-Expo were not impressed with the stunt.

Officials from dmg world media, the company that runs GO-Expo, apologized profusely for the incident.

Police were called in, but no charges were laid and no investigation will be launched, said a spokesman.

Bichlbaum and Bonanno said they were each issued a $287 fine for trespassing.

“The organizers were furious,” said Bichlbaum. “They thought we should be charged with crimes against humanity or something. The police were great. They were just going to let us go, but the organizers insisted we be charged with criminal trespass.”

The Yes Men started their unique form of protesting when they created a fake WTO website to protest the Seattle summit in 1999. When conferences began inviting them to speak, thinking they were actual representatives of the WTO, they began accepting.

Bichlbaum said he was invited to the GO-Expo event by organizers who saw the vivoleum website the duo concocted.

The Yes Men are appearing at the Plaza Theatre tonight to present a multimedia show of their past hoaxes.

With files from Ashok Dutta and Gina Teel, Calgary Herald

smyers@theherald.canwest.com

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive




Exxon Proposes Burning Humanity For Fuel if Climate Calamity Hits
Conference Organizer Fails to Have ‘Yes Men’ Arrested


 


WASHINGTON - JUNE 15 -

Text of speech, photos, video: http://www.vivoleum.com/event/
GO-EXPO statement: http://newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2007/14/c5086.html
Press conference before this event, Friday, Calgary: http://arusha.org/event/7214

More links at end of release.


Imposters posing as ExxonMobil and National Petroleum Council (NPC) representatives delivered an outrageous keynote speech to 300 oilmen at GO-EXPO, Canada’s largest oil conference, held at Stampede Park in Calgary, Alberta, today.

The speech was billed beforehand by the GO-EXPO organizers as the major highlight of this year’s conference, which had 20,000 attendees. In it, the “NPC rep” was expected to deliver the long-awaited conclusions of a study commissioned by US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. The NPC is headed by former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond, who is also the chair of the study. (See link at end.)

In the actual speech, the “NPC rep” announced that current U.S. and Canadian energy policies (notably the massive, carbon-intensive exploitation of Alberta’s oil sands, and the development of liquid coal) are increasing the chances of huge global calamities. But he reassured the audience that in the worst case scenario, the oil industry could “keep fuel flowing” by transforming the billions of people who die into oil.

“We need something like whales, but infinitely more abundant,” said “NPC rep” “Shepard Wolff” (actually Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men), before describing the technology used to render human flesh into a new Exxon oil product called Vivoleum. 3-D animations of the process brought it to life.

“Vivoleum works in perfect synergy with the continued expansion of fossil fuel production,” noted “Exxon rep” “Florian Osenberg” (Yes Man Mike Bonanno). “With more fossil fuels comes a greater chance of disaster, but that means more feedstock for Vivoleum. Fuel will continue to flow for those of us left.”

The oilmen listened to the lecture with attention, and then lit “commemorative candles” supposedly made of Vivoleum obtained from the flesh of an “Exxon janitor” who died as a result of cleaning up a toxic spill. The audience only reacted when the janitor, in a video tribute, announced that he wished to be transformed into candles after his death, and all became crystal-clear.

At that point, Simon Mellor, Commercial & Business Development Director for the company putting on the event, strode up and physically forced the Yes Men from the stage. As Mellor escorted Bonanno out the door, a dozen journalists surrounded Bichlbaum, who, still in character as “Shepard Wolff,” explained to them the rationale for Vivoleum.

“We’ve got to get ready. After all, fossil fuel development like that of my company is increasing the chances of catastrophic climate change, which could lead to massive calamities, causing migration and conflicts that would likely disable the pipelines and oil wells. Without oil we could no longer produce or transport food, and most of humanity would starve. That would be a tragedy, but at least all those bodies could be turned into fuel for the rest of us.”

“We’re not talking about killing anyone,” added the “NPC rep.” “We’re talking about using them after nature has done the hard work. After all, 150,000 people already die from climate-change related effects every year. That’s only going to go up - maybe way, way up. Will it all go to waste? That would be cruel.”

Security guards then dragged Bichlbaum away from the reporters, and he and Bonanno were detained until Calgary Police Service officers could arrive. The policemen, determining that no major infractions had been committed, permitted the Yes Men to leave.

Canada’s oil sands, along with “liquid coal,” are keystones of Bush’s Energy Security plan. Mining the oil sands is one of the dirtiest forms of oil production and has turned Canada into one of the world’s worst carbon emitters. The production of “liquid coal” has twice the carbon footprint as that of ordinary gasoline. Such technologies increase the likelihood of massive climate catastrophes that will condemn to death untold millions of people, mainly poor.

“If our idea of energy security is to increase the chances of climate calamity, we have a very funny sense of what security really is,” Bonanno said. “While ExxonMobil continues to post record profits, they use their money to persuade governments to do nothing about climate change. This is a crime against humanity.”

“Putting the former Exxon CEO in charge of the NPC, and soliciting his advice on our energy future, is like putting the wolf in charge of the flock,” said “Shepard Wolff” (Bichlbaum). “Exxon has done more damage to the environment and to our chances of survival than any other company on earth. Why should we let them determine our future?”

About the NPC and ExxonMobil: http://ga3.org/campaign/lee_raymond/explanation
About the Alberta oil sands: http://www.sierraclub.ca/prairie/tarnation.htm
About liquid coal: http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/liquidcoal/

A Most Profitable Farce

June 15, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

In this week’s article for Energy and Capital I review the tangled web of energy legislation currently making its way through Congress, and consider the profit opportunities thereof.

By the way, apologies to those of you who tried to catch my radio interiview on Thursday; it was pre-empted at the last minute. Hey, that’s the biz!

But if you are so inclined, a couple of new interviews were booked today for Monday and Wednesday of next week:


  • Mon June 18th 7:20-7:40 am PST

    Biz Radio Network The Economic Contrarian w/ Michael Norman Houston, TX

    Topic: EPA and Ethanol

    Listen Live: www.bizradionetwork.net

  • Wed June 20th 9:10-9:20 am PST

    KFNN Business for Breakfast w/ Ken Morgan Phoenix, AZ

    Topic: EPA Guarantees Market for Ethanol

    Listen Live: www.kfnn.com

Hope you all are enjoying some nice summer weather; it certainly has been beautiful on the Left Coast. Have a good weekend!

–C

A Most Profitable Farce

2007-06-15

By Chris Nelder

I hope you’re watching the debate right now over the sprawling S.1419/H.R.6,12 ball of energy legislation in Congress, because if you aren’t, you’re missing some real comedy.

You can almost figure out which state a Congressman is from just by reading what he or she is saying.

Bashing wind power? Clearly from a coal state. Probably Illinois or West Virginia.

Bashing coal? Clearly from a solar state. Probably California or Nevada.

And so on. Those bills are already encumbered by some 20 amendments, and the debate only started Tuesday. It’s real-life comedy in earnest.

We’ll get to the “profit” part in a minute. But first we need “broad satire and improbable situations” to make it a true farce.

We don’t have to look too hard for that.

Take the battle over CAFE standards. They haven’t been updated since 1983, leaving America still grinding away with 210 million inefficient guzzlers. We set standards of 27.5 mpg for cars and 24 mpg for light trucks, and wound up with a fleet that gets about 20.4 mpg on average, while European cars are getting an average 40+ mpg and Japanese cars 45 mpg.

So the Democratic leadership in the Senate has brought forth a bill that would raise the automobile fuel economy standard to 35 mpg by 2020–approximately a 40% increase, but still lower than the current average enjoyed by Europeans.

Naturally, the auto industry quickly came crying to Carl Levin (D-MI), saying that they didn’t think that target was achievable. We must assume that the Europeans and the Japanese have some secret magic that eludes the Big Three.

Levin proposed an alternative, mandating 36 mpg for cars by 2022 and 30 mpg for trucks by 2025, for an average 33 mpg for cars and trucks. That’s 2 mpg and five years short of the proposed CAFE standard.

And yet the auto industry claims that the slightly higher proposed standard would “destroy the domestic auto industry.” Clearly we’re not talking about technical possibilities here. We’re talking about the automakers’ will to drag their feet on improving fuel economy.

Then there is the renewable fuel standard, which would essentially quintuple the amount of renewable motor fuels we produce, to 36 billion gallons per year by 2020.

Sounds like a good idea at first, right? After all, we’d all like to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, which accounts for two thirds of our consumption.

But guess who’s opposed to that? Beef producers, and the food and beverage industry!

“[I]f our country produces anything short of a record corn crop, the changes proposed in [the bill] could deal a detrimental blow to livestock producers,” said a letter from 15 food and drink producers, including Heinz, Kellogg and Coca-Cola, noting that food prices rose by 7.3% in the first three months of the year.

I’ve been watching the corn ethanol vs. food issue for a while now, and it’s a thorny one. We will use about 27% of this year’s corn crop to make about 5.9 billion gallons of ethanol, which will account for just 4% of the 145.2 billion gallons of fuel we will consume this year.

Let’s see now . . . if that scales linearly, and we continue to produce almost all of the ethanol from corn, as we do now, then we would need 162% of this year’s corn crop to meet that 36-billion-gallon-per-year target, which would offset only one quarter of our current gasoline usage. And we would have less than nothing to eat. Not a very likely scenario.

And just to highlight for a moment the fuzziness of the numbers that are being thrown around, a recent Iowa State University study projected that producing 30 billion gallons by 2012 would consume more than half of U.S. corn, wheat and coarse grains. And the GAO just issued a warning that producing 11.2 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012 would require about 30% of the corn crop. I can’t imagine how either one arrived at their calculations.

But the GAO agreed with the food producers, saying “Using more corn for energy production will likely exert additional upward pressure on corn prices, potentially influencing livestock feed markets and meat prices.”

In any case, the Senators pushing for the radical upscaling of ethanol production must be either very optimistic about future advances in corn-growing productivity, or very optimistic about large-scale cellulosic ethanol becoming a reality soon.

In the meantime, I suspect we’ll be hearing more from the food and beverage lobby, not to mention consumers who want to know why food and beverage costs are going up so fast.

Moving on, there is Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) amendment, which would set a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for utilities, requiring them to produce at least 15% of their electricity from renewables by 2020.

Again, it sounds like a great idea. Since about half the states in the nation have their own RPS now, it points up the need for a federal standard.

Bingaman’s approach is well and good for New Mexico, where wind and solar are easily done, but opposed by utilities such as Southern Company, one of the largest producers of electricity in the United States. In their territory of the Southeast, the RPS would raise utility rates, which are now nice and low because most of their power comes from dirty coal-burning plants.

Or maybe it isn’t about locality so much as loyalty. Bingaman’s amendment will be countered by Senator Pete Domenici, also from New Mexico but a Republican, who is submitting an amendment defining coal and nuclear as clean energy, making them eligible for renewable credits. (I just love that one.)

As I have written previously, coal ain’t clean by any stretch of the imagination, and coal-to-liquids is a greenhouse gas nightmare. This is purely a sleight-of-hand maneuver to appear to be supportive of clean energy while doing essentially nothing more than promising that “clean coal” technology will eventually materialize. But, having seen Domenici’s shepherding of the Energy Act of 2005, we should all be quite familiar with his disingenuousness by now.

On a related note, a newly approved amendment offered by Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) would require the president to establish policies to cut petroleum use by 10 million barrels a day by 2031.

Sounds good, right? Make that ol’ president start working on real solutions to our oil dependence, instead of just talking about it.

But then you realize that Bayh is from Indiana, a top coal-producing state, and is undoubtedly offering this amendment in order to ensure a market for their coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels, once the massive federal subsidies are in place along with the new “clean” label.

Then there is Senator Maria Cantwell’s (D-WA) provision that would enable the FTC to investigate allegations of price-gouging in the oil markets. I can understand how she would want to stand up for her constituents that way. But the fact is, the oil industry has been investigated many, many times for price fixing and gouging, and no wrongdoing was ever found. I have to agree with Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) on that one, who called the provision “a feel-good vote” that wouldn’t bring prices down one bit.

May I suggest that Sen. Cantwell might be more helpful by telling the folks back home to reduce their consumption instead?

Nah, she’d never go for that. Nor would anybody else in Congress. They remember all too well what happened to Jimmy Carter for having the temerity to suggest voluntary cutbacks. I guess we’ll have to let them learn about supply and demand in the school of hard knocks.

But my personal favorite remains the battle between the EPA and California over who should have the authority to limit CO2 emissions. To be precise, California, along with a coalition of eleven other states, is waiting for the EPA to grant it a waiver that would permit the state to set its own CO2 regulations. The EPA has stalled it for 18 months, and now California Governor Schwarzenegger has indicated that he will sue EPA for the waiver in October, after a required 180-day waiting period.

On one side of the debate are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), governors and other supporters from the eleven-state coalition.

On the other side are John D. Dingell (D-MI) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) and the auto industry, saying they are worried about a proliferation of standards.

“How many different regulators are we going to be confronted with?” Dingell asked. He said multiple regulations would create “vast gridlock.”

“This industry cannot survive with 50 different standards or a dozen different standards or five different standards,” said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “The United States needs a consistent national policy that avoids the marketplace chaos that would surely arise from a patchwork quilt of conflicting state fuel economy/carbon dioxide mandates.”

Except that Dingell, Boucher, and McCurdy all know that’s a canard.

If the EPA were to grant California a waiver, there would be two standards, not 50. There would be the federal standard and the California standard, with the other eleven states following the latter.

What is Boucher’s solution? He submitted a bill that would explicitly prohibit the EPA from granting a waiver to a state for the purpose of controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

In response, the Governator and the governors of seven other states issued a letter asserting “Congress must not deny states the right to pursue solutions in the absence of federal policy.”

The argument that it’s a states’ rights versus federal rights issue is patently silly anyway: Boucher and Dingell are essentially arguing that it’s more important to ensure that America’s vehicles befoul the air consistently than it is to make automakers improve their products.

After all, it’s unthinkable that vehicles clean enough to protect the asthmatic children of California might also be welcome in other parts of the country.

Or maybe it’s just because the auto and coal industries have been whispering in Dingell and Boucher’s ears.

What’s hardly ever mentioned in this debate is that California has always led the way in air quality standards for the nation, and the EPA merely followed in its footsteps. More than 40 times in the last 30 years, the EPA has granted California a federal waiver to set its own, more stringent emissions regulations, so there is clearly ample legal precedent. But now the EPA has essentially become a tool in the White House’s resistance against greenhouse gas controls, using technical arguments to stymie California’s effort.

I’m sure all the children who can’t breathe due to auto exhaust are impressed with EPA’s diligence in protecting its legal stature. Now all we need is an agency to actually protect air quality. Oh . . . right.

What’s worse, Heideh Shahmoradi, the special assistant for governmental affairs at the Department of Transportation, has apparently been making calls to Congressional staffers urging them to drum up support for Boucher’s resolution. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has launched an investigation, saying the calls were “highly inappropriate and would be considered by some to be illegal.”

At the same time, auto industry representatives have taken their case directly to the Vice President’s office, looking to gain support from the White House.

Watching energy policy being crafted is, as the old saw goes, not unlike watching sausage being made. It’s unfortunate that our elected representatives can’t just concentrate on what’s good for the health of the country and support energy technologies that make sense in each locale without having to squelch them elsewhere. But lobbying money remains the prime mover.

The debate over the energy bills is expected to take several weeks, but that’s probably very optimistic, considering that it took four years to develop the Energy Policy Act of 2005. One suspects that at least some of the proposed amendments in these bills are cynically put there to guarantee a presidential veto.

At the very least, I’m sure the ensuing energy debates will continue to provide us with mirth and merriment. The “NOPEC” bill is still alive, and that’s always good for a belly-laugh.

In the meantime, the profit opportunities in this farce are clear: all kinds of renewable energy technologies, to be sure, but also coal-to-liquids technology, ethanol producers, carbon credit traders, “clean coal” technologies and every kind of efficiency technology–all of which we regularly cover in Green Chip Stocks.

Until next time,

–Chris

Tune in to my radio interview today (Wed June 13)

June 12, 2007 at 6:48 am
Contributed by:

Folks,

If you have nothing better to do, you can catch me on a 10-minute radio interview segment tomorrow talking about oil. Here are the details:


Station: Biz Radio Network (Houston 1320 AM, DFW 1360 AM)

Show: Market Buzz w/ Tom Busby

Time: 5:20 PST, 8:20 EST

Listen live at: www.bizradionetwork.net

And if you’re really a glutton for punishment, you can check out another upcoming radio interview with me on gas prices:

Show: Traders Nation w/ Kurt Schemers

Time: Fri June 22nd 11:20-11:40 am EST (8:20-8:40 am PST)

Listen live at: www.tradersnation.com

–C

A Tale of Two Charlies

June 8, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

For this week’s Energy and Capital story, I compare and contrast two of the biggest companies in America–GM and GE–and highlight how embracing the future is much more profitable than clinging to the past.

–C

A Tale of Two Charlies

2007-06-08

By Chris Nelder

"What’s good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa."
–Charles Erwin Wilson, President of General Motors, 1941-1953

OK, so it doesn’t pack quite the same punch as the misquote "What’s good for General Motors is good for the country," but I’m kind of a stickler for accuracy.

The oft-repeated misquote came from Wilson’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in January 1953, before he was approved as the Secretary of Defense under President Eisenhower. He had been asked if he could make a decision in his new role that was adverse to GM, since he still held $2.5 million worth of their stock at the time. He said "I cannot conceive of one because for years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."

By the time he made that statement, GM had succeeded–with the help of other auto industry players–in destroying America’s streetcar system. And GM later spent decades and untold millions resisting every public attempt to control tailpipe emissions.

Yet, while the misquote was taken as a sign of GM’s arrogance and dominance at the time, it was also true in many ways. As head of GM during World War II, Wilson had overseen the most amazing transformation of plowshares into swords in history, and helped America win the war.

He was clearly an astute and prophetic businessman as well. In 1944, as the director of the War Production Board, he told the Army Ordinance Board that in order to prevent a return to the Great Depression, the United States needed "a permanent war economy." This permanent war economy would evolve into the modern military-industrial complex.

Yes, the same military-industrial complex that the man who hired him, Eisenhower, would later famously warn us about.

Eisenhower had an abiding passion for road-building and automotive transport, and saw it as a key element of national defense. He even made rebuilding the nation’s network of roads an element of his presidential campaign.

So Charles Erwin Wilson was a natural ally for Eisenhower in that effort.

But there was another Charles E. Wilson who was also often in the press at the time: the former CEO of General Electric, who had served as head of the Office of Defense Mobilization under Eisenhower’s predecessor, President Truman.

To distinguish the two Charles E. Wilsons, the GM CEO was nicknamed "Engine Charlie" and the GE CEO was named "Electric Charlie."

Fast-forward fifty-some-odd years.

Engine Charlie’s company is now the very emblem of what’s wrong with the country, just starting to pull out of the worst slump in its history, at war with its shareholders over emissions, lagging behind a market becoming increasingly concerned with fuel economy and emissions, losing market share every year, and desperately trying to turn itself around to refocus on the vehicles of the future.

And his legacy is an albatross around our collective necks: A nation of 210 million cars, desperately hooked on oil, with ever crowded roads, stressed out drivers, befouled air, a fuel supply in decline, an unsustainable topology of communities, and few good options for transition to something else.

Not to mention a permanent military industrial complex that eats half of the country’s budget every year . . . in large part, to protect the fuel supply for all those cars.

Electric Charlie, How Do You Do?

Meanwhile, Electric Charlie’s legacy is helping to lead the way to a future of renewable energy.

That’s because Jeffrey Immelt, GE’s current CEO, has been inspired by the concepts of the green revolution such as those discussed in Paul Hawken’s Natural Capitalism. He knows that the "triple bottom line"–profit, people, and planet–is the name of the game going forward.

Since launching his "ecoimagination" initiative two years ago, he has transformed one of the world’s largest and most successful corporations–indeed, one that still earns the wrath of environmentalists for some of its previous endeavors–into a powerhouse of renewable energy and energy saving devices.

"We’re at a tipping point where energy efficiency and emissions reduction also equal profitability," he says.

It’s just that simple.

No wonder, then, that GE has had the pleasure of watching its sales of environmentally friendly products roughly double every two years.

According to GE, sales of environmentally friendly products, such as wind turbines, water-purification systems and energy-efficient appliances rose from $6 billion in 2004 to $12 billion in 2006, and it expects to sell $20 billion by 2010.

Now, green energy is still a relatively small part of the behemoth’s business, which raked in $163 billion last year.

But the green part of the business doubled in two years, while the rest of GE’s business grew only 20% over the same period.

The green energy group already has $50 billion worth of new projects in the pipeline.

That ain’t no chump change.

Immelt recently announced that he’s bumping up the share of the company’s $3.7 billion R&D budget devoted to green projects from $900 million today to $1.5 billion by the end of the decade.

And GE just introduced a prototype for its first diesel-electric hybrid locomotive–a bold move by North America’s largest maker of locomotives.

So, how’s that ecoimagination thing working for them?

Well, the profit picture is obviously excellent. We may presume that GE’s people–and stakeholders–are pleased to be part of the green enterprise. So what of the planet?

GE reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by four per cent in 2006, ahead of its target of lowering them by one per cent before 2012. Even as GM–along with its knuckle-dragging auto industry brethren–is pouring millions into a propaganda campaign to convince the public that they don’t want better fuel economy.

It takes vision to do what Immelt has done, vision and the courage to go your own way if that’s what it takes to embrace the future. He’s not waiting for Washington.

"I think the idea has traction now. As a business, you have got to be willing to have your own strategy [on climate change]," Mr Immelt told the Financial Times two weeks ago.

And he certainly has. He inherited an old, stodgy, highly industrial, low-growth business, and in a few short years has begun to reshape it into a world leader in the most profitable sector of the future: green energy and climate change mitigation.

Perhaps those in the driver’s seat of Engine Charlie’s business should take a few pointers from the man at the helm of Electric Charlie’s.

Because what’s good for GE is truly good for the country.

Until next time,

chris

–Chris

Rep. Bartlett’s Peak Oil Presentation to Congress

June 5, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

After bashing Congress in my last piece (”Gump Rules“) for their lack of comprehension of energy, I thought it appropriate to give a little air time to the one person in Congress who really does seem to understand energy (presumably because he was a scientist before he became a Congressman), Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD).

His presentation to Congress back in January about peak oil, and our real energy options going forward, is about as good as it gets. He’s got good data, a sensible read of the big picture, and a plainspoken way of explaining it all. I highly recommend reading the transcript of his remarks, check it out:

Rep. Bartlett’s Peak Oil Presentation to Congress

–C


Page 1 of 212»


Copyright © 2008 GetRealList
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
FAIR USE NOTICE