Let's talk about oil as a strategic resource

[Roguish Lawyer]

Some topics:

1. To what extent are we dependent on oil from the Middle East?

2. If the Saudi government falls and SA goes the way of Iran, can we replace our imports of Saudi oil? How? At what cost?

3. Was the invasion of Iraq calculated to give us a long-term alternative to Saudi Arabia as a supplier of oil? Can it? Will it?

4. What about Venezuela? Mexico?

5. Is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve big enough to do anything for us? Should we be expanding it?

6. Anyone opposed to drilling in the ANWAR?

Or whatever else you want to discuss, of course . . .

:munchin

[brownapple]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Some topics:

1. To what extent are we dependent on oil from the Middle East?
We aren't. Other sources are available.
2. If the Saudi government falls and SA goes the way of Iran, can we replace our imports of Saudi oil? How? At what cost?Russia, SE Asia, Venezuala, Canada... there are other sources. Cost? Definitely some.3. Was the invasion of Iraq calculated to give us a long-term alternative to Saudi Arabia as a supplier of oil?No. Can it? Maybe Will it? Maybe4. What about Venezuela? Mexico? My understanding is that Venezuala is one of our largest suppliers currently. 5. Is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve big enough to do anything for us? It's enough for a few days of armor warfare.
Should we be expanding it?Yes.6. Anyone opposed to drilling in the ANWAR?Not me.

[Airbornelawyer]

Regarding question #1, who is "we"? Assuming the US, do you mean personally dependent? If so, so far for 2004, our top 10 sources of petroleum are:

Canada - 2.117 million barrels per day
Mexico - 1.6 million barrels per day
Venezuela - 1.543 million barrels per day
Saudi Arabia - 1.458 million barrels per day
Nigeria - 1.148 million barrels per day
Iraq - 614 thousand barrels per day
Algeria - 407 thousand barrels per day
United Kingdom - 343 thousand barrels per day
Angola - 300 thousand barrels per day
Norway - 260 thousand barrels per day

Of course, we are part of a global economy, so our dependence is tied to Europe and Asia's dependence as well.

And, of course, given the power of the cartel and the relative ease of extraction in certain Persian Gulf countries, the Arab-dominated OPEC has a great deal of power over the world market price of oil, even when the actual oil doesn't come from the region.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Is oil a strategic problem for the US? If so, how?

[Airbornelawyer]

I also echo all of GH's replies, except to note that the impact of the fall of Saudi Arabia wouldn't be on our actual sources of oil, but on the Kingdom's ability to set the world market price.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Is supply from Venezuela stable and reliable?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
Regarding question #1, who is "we"?

You lawyers . . . :D

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Is oil a strategic problem for the US? If so, how?

We have an oil based economy, it is a strategic requirement and fits into the area of a vital national interest. That means we will commit troops to protect/secure it. Saudi supply is but one of the problems. You really have to look at this on a world wide scale not only from the standpoint of production but reserve, demands, and supply. One critical area for oil flow is the Straits of Malacca thru which a great deal of the worlds shipping and a lot of SWA oil flows and is subjected to piracy. These routes also pass by the Spratley Islands which not only have oil but are contested by, if my memory serves me, Vietnam, China, Brunai, Phillipeans, Malaysia to name the principles. China is now sucking down a great deal of oil and is looking for other sources and from what I seem to recall , are trying to get a pipeline up and running to draw oil from the area of the Caspian Sea. They are now, as are the other emerging industrializing countries, serious competitors with us for oil. You can also draw similar senarios for other parts of globe but I am sure no one is interesting in following the ramblings of an aging warrior who is just pulling this off the top of his head. I realize that this is a gross oversimplification, but IMHO, the long and the short of it is that oil is a strategic requirement and only becomes a strategic problem if we let it become so.

Jack Moroney-heat with oil but also have two wood stoves and several cords of wood in strategic reserve:D

[Roguish Lawyer]

GH and AL:

Are you guys suggesting we don't need to worry about oil?

[brownapple]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
GH and AL:

Are you guys suggesting we don't need to worry about oil?

If I thought we didn't have to worry about it, I wouldn't favor expanding the reserve, now would I?

Just don't see Saudi Arabia as as significant a player as they were during the Carter administration. Their significance is declining, no rising.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Maybe we need a new rule: AL and GH can't post until the rest of the class gets a chance to answer the question? LOL

Are we really done with this topic?

NDD: What is the risk that our supply of Venezuelan oil will be cut off?

[Radar Rider]

And the reality is...

We concern ourselves with the middle east so that we can drain ALL of their oil. Once that's gone, they have NO leverage and can go back to killing each other and trying to survive (which, quite frankly, I don't give a shit about). After that, we'll be supplied by the rest of the world. When that runs out, we'll finally tap into ANWAR (a natural strategic reserve, if you will). Once all of the dead dinosaurs (oil) are used up, we'll move on to other sources of energy/vehicle power. All of this might sound a bit callous, BUT, you can do that when you are the Superpower on the planet.

[Bill Harsey]

Ok, new question- How dependant is Saudi Arabia on the United States market to buy their oil? I realize China is changing this equation as we speak.

[QRQ 30]

Say what we want, but resources are limited on this planet -- period. Sooner or later we will run out. We could have done things 40-50- years ago to slow things down but "Nuclear Paranoia" was rampant. Nuclear power would have done a lot to slow the loss of resources. Forget about gasoline and other fuel. The vast majority of our world is dependent on plastics, synthetics or whatever you call them. They are made from oil.

[Bill Harsey]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
Say what we want, but resources are limited on this planet -- period. Sooner or later we will run out. We could have done things 40-50- years ago to slow things down but "Nuclear Paranoia" was rampant. Nuclear power would have done a lot to slow the loss of resources. Forget about gasoline and other fuel. The vast majority of our world is dependent on plastics, synthetics or whatever you call them. They are made from oil. For this reason, over the years, I've dedicated a number of tools in the shop to being able to make knives using no eletricity or purchased fuels. I can forge very well with Doug Fir bark, even weld steel in that fire. My 100 lb. treadle hammer is human powered so I have fantastic force available for forming steel. I can hot cut steel in the forge using no torch at all. I've forged steel to a cutting edge with no grinding or filing. It's not pretty but it can be done. All work would have to be done during daylight hours but at least the wall for the forge area rolls back for total daylight and fresh air. Not a survivalist, just prepared.

[hoot72]

Another area that is quite hot is the spartyl islands in the south china sea.

Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Philippines and Brunei are laying claim to the group of atolls out there...apparently alot of oil down there but the ASEAN council is looking into a solution to avoid a confrontation, as was the case in the past between Vietnamese and Chinese forces.

Lives were lost in those gun battles out at sea.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Another area that is quite hot is the spartyl islands in the south china sea..

Oil is only part of the challenge with the Spratly Islands. Disruption of the SLOCs in that are would have a huge impact on the worlds shipping and freight movement and has been considered a critical choke point for many years.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF_98/forum98.html

[incommin]

This isn't about oil....oil is energy. Light crude is cheap energy. Americans like cheap energy. THIS IS ABOUT ENERGY; CHEAP ENERGY.

When I was in high school..... (in 1961 or 2) the talk was that we would run out of oil in 30 to 50 years....... didn't happen. Last week I read a report that the latest analysis is there is 3X the oil reserve everyone thought was available a year ago. If and when we run out of light crude, there will be heavy crude to extract and oil shale from which to obtain ENERGY.

Nuclear power or energy is cheaper than fighting wars to insure supplies of light crude. When the pact was made with the Saudis (we will protect you for a lasting supply of light crude) the use of nuclear power wasn't available.

I think that what I am slowly getting to is that with a mixed supply of energy resources (light crude and shale oil from our own continental shelf, nuclear power, wind power, and solar power) supplies of crude from around the world becomes much less important and loses is strategic importance. And we could tell the rest of the world to go pound sand.


Jim

[Surf n Turf]

This isn't about oil....oil is energy. Light crude is cheap energy. Americans like cheap energy. THIS IS ABOUT ENERGY; CHEAP ENERGY.

I think that what I am slowly getting to is that with a mixed supply of energy resources (light crude and shale oil from our own continental shelf, nuclear power, wind power, and solar power) supplies of crude from around the world becomes much less important and loses is strategic importance. And we could tell the rest of the world to go pound sand.


Jim


incommin,

Agree that this is about ENERGY ---- But not the shortage of energy --it is about politics, money, politics, the environment, politics, power, --- and POLITICS.

The United States currently has about 250 years of coal reserves (High / Low Sulpher) --- Can't mine the coal --- can’t burn the coal – it would irritate the environmental movement.

The United States currently has a +/- billion barrel “identified” oil field reserves off of the coast of Florida, Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of California, and much of Alaska (beyond ANWAR) --- can’t drill them, even to find out just how big they are -- it would irritate the environmental movement.

(Note – China is drilling off the coast of Cuba, 50 miles from Key West)

The United States has the Nuclear Technology (starting in the 1970’s) to use “Breeder Reactors” that produce enough fuel to fuel new reactors – (sort of Perpetual motion on the fuel side) ---- Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, Foster Wheeler, Deutsche Babcock, etc – went broke fighting to produce these Reactors – can’t build them --- Nuclear power is bad, and it would irritate the environmental movement.

So, until we get serious – or the public gets mad – We are going to buy Foreign (including ME) oil, and continue in a state of semi-blackmail.
SnT

[soldierdoc_2005]

incommin,

Agree that this is about ENERGY ---- But not the shortage of energy --it is about politics, money, politics, the environment, politics, power, --- and POLITICS.

The United States currently has about 250 years of coal reserves (High / Low Sulpher) --- Can't mine the coal --- can’t burn the coal – it would irritate the environmental movement.

The United States currently has a +/- billion barrel “identified” oil field reserves off of the coast of Florida, Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of California, and much of Alaska (beyond ANWAR) --- can’t drill them, even to find out just how big they are -- it would irritate the environmental movement.

(Note – China is drilling off the coast of Cuba, 50 miles from Key West)

The United States has the Nuclear Technology (starting in the 1970’s) to use “Breeder Reactors” that produce enough fuel to fuel new reactors – (sort of Perpetual motion on the fuel side) ---- Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, Foster Wheeler, Deutsche Babcock, etc – went broke fighting to produce these Reactors – can’t build them --- Nuclear power is bad, and it would irritate the environmental movement.

So, until we get serious – or the public gets mad – We are going to buy Foreign (including ME) oil, and continue in a state of semi-blackmail.
SnT

Well put!

It always drives me nuts to hear greenie-weenie LLib's rant on about "oil independence..."

My standard reply is, "Great! I agree. Now, let's start drilling in ANWAR and the Gulf tomorrow."

Usually, this is greeted with, "Oh no! That's bad for the environment!"

Pick your poison Green Peace, et al,...and singing "Cumbayah" around a camp fire ISN'T an option :-)

~Eric
:cool:

[tk27]

Well put!

It always drives me nuts to hear greenie-weenie LLib's rant on about "oil independence..."

My standard reply is, "Great! I agree. Now, let's start drilling in ANWAR and the Gulf tomorrow."

Usually, this is greeted with, "Oh no! That's bad for the environment!"

Pick your poison Green Peace, et al,...and singing "Cumbayah" around a camp fire ISN'T an option :-)

~Eric
:cool:
You ain't gotta be a tree-hugger to be against drilling in ANWR, the economics ain't there. There's a reason why BP, Conoco-Phillips and Chevron-Texaco have all pulled there lobbying efforts from ANWR.

Nor do you have to be a progressive-lib to call for energy independence, former DCI Woolsey (by no means a lib) and his wife both drive hybrids. And is on the board of The Set America Free Coalition (http://www.setamericafree.org/) with a number of prominent conservatives and liberals.

[x SF med]

You ain't gotta be a tree-hugger to be against drilling in ANWR, the economics ain't there. There's a reason why BP, Conoco-Phillips and Chevron-Texaco have all pulled there lobbying efforts from ANWR.

Nor do you have to be a progressive-lib to call for energy independence, former DCI Woolsey (by no means a lib) and his wife both drive hybrids. And is on the board of The Set America Free Coalition (http://www.setamericafree.org/) with a number of prominent conservatives and liberals.

tk-
Don't get me started on hybrids - long term they'll do more damage to the environment than straight fossil fuel vehicles - how are you going to dispose of the 8 batteries at a time without huge damage to the environment? Biofuels are a better answer - no sulfur, and fully renewable. I drive a diesel car and would love to have better availability of biodiesel. Plus it can be produced from rapeseed, soy, and a few other nuts and legumes. Hydrogen Technologies are another decent 'future' energy source, as are solar, wind and geothermal.

[tk27]

X-SF,
I don't disagree. I was trying to make a point that it is not just libs who are into energy independence. Fair enough?
Biofuels have great promise.
What do you think about methanols potential?

[x SF med]

for Methanol, engine technology has to change - it is destructive to current auto parts, and gums badly, plus the thermal efficiency is very low in octane based combustion, especially alcohol burn with extremely low flash points - cetane based (compression/combustion) fuels, esp. biofuels are more thermally efficient, a 90 hp/165 ftlb diesel engine is not uncommon - most diesel engines produce close to 2:1 torque/hp ratios, where gasoline/octane (spark/combustion) engines are more likely to produce about 1:1 torque/hp. You may buy hp - because it's sexy, but you drive torque 90% of the time. I am a diesel driver for a lot of reasons - thermal efficiency, lower emissions (in well designed engines - like mine, it got wanded and passed for a Tier II bin 1 vehicle - LEV levels - off the lot and 3 yrs old at the time - the guy could not believe it was a diesel), and ease of production of biofuels for them. Plus, at 80 mph, I still get 44 mpg turning about 2500 rpms - at 125 mph, I get about 35 mpg turning about 3800 rpm and can stay there all day, even uphill, with room to kick it up, and no speed loss uphill even up the mountains on I26 from Tn into NC). My range is about 700 miles/tank, and I could squeeze a little more out of it if I needed to.

***diesel rant over for now***

[incommin]

"There's a reason why BP, Conoco-Phillips and Chevron-Texaco have all pulled there lobbying efforts from ANWR."

What reasons????????

Got to agree with x_sf........diesel is the way to go. We can produce lots of bio-diesel. Save the crude for making plastic toys.....

Jim

[Karl.Masters]

Plus, at 80 mph, I still get 44 mpg turning about 2500 rpms - at 125 mph, I get about 35 mpg turning about 3800 rpm and can stay there all day, even uphill, with room to kick it up, and no speed loss uphill even up the mountains on I26 from Tn into NC). My range is about 700 miles/tank, and I could squeeze a little more out of it if I needed to.

***diesel rant over for now***

x_sf_med,

What kind of ride is this? Those numbers on 45 Cetane? Turbo or intercooler on this diesel? Proliferation of this kind of efficiency could change the demand numbers/economics....

Karl

[x SF med]

Karl-
Those numbers are on an average of about 41 cetane LSD/ULSD, genrous use of Diesel Kleen (4-6 oz /tank, more if It feels dirty) 4cyl, injected, VNT 17 turbo, intercooler, auto trany (could get 50+ w/ manual), fuel cooler for the recirc (maintains about 80*C). I've done better when I can get 45 cetane, but that's rare around here, I usually get it in VA when I travel through.

It's a 2002 VW Golf TDI, 1.9l - ALH engine, not the Pumpe-Duse or Common Rail, built on the Audi A4 frame, suspension is all Bilstein, handles like a dream on michelin MX4+ 165/90 R15 H82s @40#. Oh, yeah, I've been offered more than what I paid for it, ain't gonna happen. Oil/filter changes every 10K w/ 505.00 full syn 5-40, air filter every 35-40k, fuel filter every 20-30k. Easy to work on, and quiet. I go 0-60 pretty quickly, never timed it, but from a toll booth to the lane compression I'm usually at 60 or 70.

No shit about changing the demand numbers - look at Europe, 53% of all passenger vehicles sold are diesel - from the 2 or 3 cyl Skoda/Peugeot/VW/Audi/MB city cars (up to 85 mpg - not fast, not sexy, but good cars) all the way up to the V-10 VW Taureg (30+ mpg, 350 hp, 550 ftlb torque - full time awd), and everything in between. Audi has racing diesels that are smoking (pun intended) gassers on 1/4 mi and long distance racing.

What's killing diesels in the states is the old 70's idea of the American diesels - slow, smelly, noisy, no pickup, and CARB rules. CARB should be less of an issue with the new Urea catalytic scrubbers that decrease the NO and particulates.

Damn, brother, you got me started again on the diesel rant. Ask TS about my car, he's ridden in it - didn't get to do any AT-Eva driving, but he was surprised it was a diesel, very surprised.

***end diesel rant part deux***

[tk27]

What reasons????????
The money ain't there to be made. Chevron and BP had the only exploratory well drilled in the refuge from the '80's. The results from it is a closely held secret and was not even shared with the govt. Had the results been encouraging they would have continued political lobbying.
They could drill wells in Central Park for all I care, but I think the case of ANWR is more a political lightingrod than anything else. The greens concentrating all their political capital in one polarizing case and industry (Exxon-Mobil) fighting back for fear that successful opposition here will lead to successful opposition to other domestic exploration.


x_sf_med, feel free to share your diesel rants with me anytime. They are informative.

[Broadsword2004]

Interesting conversation, I love diesels, but I love diesel trucks.

x_sf_med, are you sure biofuels, hydrogen, wind, and solar are viable energy alternatives though? I am no expert on the subject, but from what I have read on the subject (which I admit is not a lot), wind, solar, and hydrogen have all been ruled out as energy alternatives to oil.

Here is one thing I read on Ethanol; it's a bit of a long read but interesting:

[b]With the spiralling cost of fuel prices brought on by George Bush's "War On Terror", people are looking at everything to get cheaper fuel, and one of the silver bullets seems to be E85 Ethanol-blend gasoline. I say 'seems to be' because once you do some research, which is what you're doing right here by reading this, you'll learn it's not quite the magic solution everyone would have you believe.
E85 is a blend of regular unleaded petrol with between 70% and 83% ethanol depending on the geographic location and time of year. (If you must know, Google for ASTM D 5798-99). Simply blending ethanol and petrol normally results in a product with too low a vapor pressure, especially in the winter, which is why it is a process best left to people in white labcoats in refineries.
It's designed for so-called Flexible Fuel vehicles, and as such has been classified by the US Department of Energy as an alternative fuel. The facts on E85 are a little hard to come by, so I've tried to collect together and put as many as I can right here so that you, dear reader, can try to cut to the chase. So what is a flexible fuel vehicle (FFV)? Well, it's a vehicle with an engine and emissions system designed to be able to run on a blend of unleaded petrol and ethanol up to a maximum of 85% ethanol. If E85 isn't available, you can run them on just plain old petrol though. If you read all the hoopla surrounding E85, you'll see this statement crop up time and time again: "It is a renewable source of energy and reduces the crude oil imports needed to fuel Americas transportation system. Ethanol is a clean, environmentally friendly fuel.". Weeeeelllllll yes. But more specifically, "sort of". It's true that it is partly based on a renewable source of energy - ethanol is basically distilled corn oil (or wheat, barley, or potatoes. Brazil, the world's largest ethanol producer, makes the fuel from sugarcane), and yes, it's a cleaner and slightly more environmentally friendly fuel. There's a couple of 'buts' to go with all this, and they're a big 'buts' - of Jennifer Lopez proportions. First, there isn't enough farmland to grow enough corn to produce enough ethanol to meet gasoline demands, and it wouldn't be a good use of it even if there was. And second, in bold because it's the important part of this paragraph. E85 Ethanol-blend fuel has horrible gas mileage.
What does this mean to you? Well it means you'll need a lot more of it for a start. Sure it may be cheaper than regular petrol, but there's a reason - it's a terrible way to run a vehicle. Even the governments own figures back that statement up. Check out one of their lists of flexible-fueled vehicles for yourself. On average, putting E85 in a flexible fuel vehicle will return a nauseating 25% worse gas mileage. E85 doesn't burn as efficiently as regular petrol because it contains less energy per volume - 75,760btu per gallon as oppose to 115,400btu per gallon for plain old petrol. This accounts for the 30% increase in the amount of fuel required in the fuel-air mix during combustion, and the corresponding drop in gas mileage. All this comes with an average drop of only 10% in greenhouse gas emissions. If you go by historical precedent, and assume we all move to FFV's, the income from regular petrol will drop so the oil companies will simply increase the cost of E85. At that point, you're getting terrible gas mileage but paying what you used to for just plain vanilla unleaded petrol. Remember - nothing is free. Of course this doesn't need to be the case. E85's higher octane can allow the use of higher compression, more efficient engines (if optimized for use on it). Look at the race car teams - a lot of racing engines run on pure ethanol. And when engineered to take advantage of it, high-compression, high-efficiency engines can reduce the gas-mileage deficit to about 10% less than their petrol counterparts, which is much closer. But for ethanol to be successful it must be priced below petrol so that the cents per mile cost is favorable taking into account the drop in economy.

But what about Brazil?
For a while now, Brazil (the country, not the Terry Gilliam film) has managed to be largely independent of the world's fluctuating oil prices. By law, all Brazillian petrol must be at least 25% ethanol - E25 - created from sugar-cane-fed biorefineries. By 2007, almost all cars available in Brazil ought to be able to run on 100% ethanol. (It's worth noting that Ethanol-only cars were sold in Brazil in significant numbers between 1980 and 1995). No longer dictated-to by Big Oil, the price of their E100 is relatively low and thus it offsets the lower gas-mileage quite nicely. One argument put forth in America is that using E85 will reduce the reliance on foreign imports - specifically oil. But you need to look at the whole picture. E85 comes from corn, currently a crop used to feed people. Assuming that America has enough spare capacity to farm corn for E85 for the current demand, what happens when more people start using it? You can't increase farmland, or drop production of corn for food, so the next alternative is importing it. At which point, even using E85, you become dependent on foreign imports again. Brazil doesn't have this problem because their system is in balance and so they supply themselves with enough surplus to export their product. Most likely to America.

Clean exhaust - it depends on your definition of the word "clean".

Something that isn't widely publicised is the difference in emissions between corn-based ethanol, as used in America, and sugar-based ethanol, as used in Brazil. We're all told that ethanol blend fuels produce cleaner exhaust and with sugar-based ethanol, that's absolutely true. Even with corn-based ethanol, the gasses measured at an emissions check are lower (about 25% less CO2), which still looks good. But there is something an ethanol E85 vehicle will produce through the exhaust that might surprise you. The exhaust gas contains acetaldehyde (CH3CHO) and lots of it, especially if the fuel source or combustion process is contaminated with water (like cold-start condensation). Acetaldehyde is a known carcinogen and suspected neurotoxin, and when exposed to its vapors, you or I would likely develop irritation of the eyes, skin and the respiratory tract. In fact, Acetaldehyde is ranked as one of the most hazardous compounds (worst 10%) to ecosystems and human health. It's obvious why this isn't widely publicised, but then you might ask the question "why don't we see this in the emissions test?". Simple. The emissions test doesn't look for it. You can't detect and measure something you're not looking for.
But wait - it gets better. The corn-based ethanol production process consumes more fossil fuel energy than ethanol's actual calorific value. In other words, to produce a gallon of ethanol to be used in E85, it takes more fossil fuel energy than you could simply get by putting a gallon of refined non-blend petrol in your car. And as you know, regular petrol also gives better economy.

cont'd...

[Broadsword2004]

E85 in non-flexible fuel vehicles
Two words : rotting seals. And I'm not talking about dead sealife. E85 is pretty acidic, and stuffing it in your regular petrol-engined car will do no end of damage to it. Apart from the spark timing and the fuel-air ratio being totally different, E85 has a whopping 105 octane rating to deal with the pre-igntion problems of having 30% more fuel in the fuel-air mix during combustion. The seals and gaskets in FFVs are designed to withstand the acidic deposits that E85 generates during combustion. Generally speaking, FFVs are manufactured to eliminate all bare aluminium, rubber and magnesium parts - all items which E85 is known to rot, and all items which a normal engine has by the bucketload. Another problem with E85 is that it's electrically conductive. Regular petrol fuel pumps aren't really designed to work with a conductive fuel, so using E85 with one could result in a fuel fire where the petrol is not only the fuel for the fire, but the electrical path for the spark. FFV fuel lines aren't made of rubber, but typically stainless steel lined with plastic.
So you may get cheaper petrol but you'll get worse gas-mileage and a broken car, with the possible bonus of a raging E85-fueled inferno to boot. However, there is a fly in the ointment here, and it is E10. Because of petrol company practices (see below), most fuel-injected engines designed and built since 1988 are already somewhat adapted to using ethanol, just not in the percentage you find in E85.

E10: you're using it right now
It's not widely known but a lot of petrol companies now blend up to 10% ethanol into their petrol products without really admitting to it, much less advertising the fact. If you've noticed your car runs somewhat less than the advertised gas mileage, that's part of the reason. Most of the gasoline in California is currently 5.7% ethanol (2% oxygen). Ethanol is blended into petrol for a variety of reasons including as an oxygenate to reduce CO and HC emissions an octane booster to provide volume in place of MTBE There's nothing wrong or underhanded about this, it's just a cost effective means to legitimate ends. So if the EPA tells you you should be getting 20mpg city and you're only getting 18mpg, even driving with a feather right foot, it's not you, it's the petrol companies. 10% ethanol blend will rob you of about 5% gas mileage, and EPA figures assume a pure non-ethanol petrol. Apart from the emissions regulations, money is a factor in ethanol blending - more product that is cheaper to produce but sold for the same price. You can bet your bottom dollar (or euro) that the European refineries are doing exactly the same thing.

Tax credits, subsidies and tariffs - the real story behind E85.
So given the (obscured) facts about corn-based ethanol, why the big push in America to go to E85? Simple. Money. The government is offering tax credits to the big car manufacturers to produce FFVs, even if none of them ever run on E85. Similarly, tax credits are now offered to the big oil companies to product E85 ethanol blend, even if they don't actually sell it. And when they do sell it, it will make the more money because you and I will need more of it to go the same distance. Finally, corn growers receive federal subsidies for growing corn for ethanol production. Couple that with the 54¢ per gallon tariff that is currently levied on Brazillian imports, and it shows how the corn-based ethanol has cornered the American market and is keeping the cheaper, cleaner, sugar-cane ethanol at bay.

What's that you say? You want fuel efficiency and less cost?
Well that's the conundrum isn't it? The oil and car companies aren't going to give stuff away free. So you have to choose. Do you want less cost at the point where you're putting the petrol into your car, or less cost-of-ownership? It's like comparing financial planning. If you get a flexible fuel vehicle, your immediate cost is much less - you could be spending 30% less per fill-up. But the long-term costs become negligible because of the bad gas mileage. On the other hand, if you take the long term investment point of view, you should be looking at vehicles like the VW Polo Bluemotion. It's a three-cylinder turbodiesel, which means at the point of filling it up, you'll actually be spending more than a regular petrol vehicle. But it returns 70mpg (max), so you'll be visiting the petrol station a lot less frequently. Don't understand the maths? Ok, lets lay it out.
I'm going to assume plain fuel costs here, so I'm not factoring in insurance, wear and tear, initial cost of the vehicle etc. Ready? Okay, we're going to compare two vehicles. Each drives 15,000 miles a year and each has a 16 gallon fuel tank. The owners of these vehicles are Barbie and Ken, and to be suitably sexist, Barbie has a pink VW Polo and Ken has a blue Ford Crown Victoria. They both fill up when the tank gets to 3 gallons left, so they drive 13 gallons at a time.
Ken
15,000 miles = 1250 gallons at 12mpg on E85.
1250 gallons = about $2300 assuming about $1.85 a gallon.
Ken stops and fills up every 156 miles.

Barbie
15,000 miles = 225 gallons at 66.5mpg (split the values of 60mpg and 73mpg for city and highway) on diesel.
225 gallons = about $787 assuming about $3.50 a gallon.
Barbie stops and fills up every 864 miles.

So whilst Ken pays much less each time he fills up, he's filling up nearly 6 times as often, and at the end of the year, he's spent a whopping $1500 more in fuel costs on this nice, 'clean, environmentally-friendly' E85 ethanol. Now I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the pollution from 225 gallons of diesel is going to be a whole hell of a lot less than the pollution from 1250 gallons of E85.
Obviously this example is extreme, but it does use real-world facts and figures from real-world vehicles you can buy right now. I did it to illustrate how being in posession of the facts can help clear up the doublespeak and misinformation. So if you're considering an E85-fuelled vehicle, you might want to do some more homework first, because it most certainly is not the silver bullet we're all being led to believe.
For more information / propaganda, go to the official E85 fuel site.

Gas-mileage, mpg and why American cars can never match the EPA estimates.
Gas-mileage is the quickest indicator of how efficient a car is in terms of fuel used for distance driven. Engine size and power, driving conditions, weather (wind especially) and vehicle weight all affect mpg. Measuring gas-mileage is really easy but it's surprising how many people don't know how to do it. Basically, zero your trip counter next time you fill up, then drive as normal. When you fill up again, let the petrol pump fill to the auto-cutoff point and then make a note of the trip meter reading. Gas mileage is the number of miles on your trip meter divided by the number of gallons the petrol pump put into your tank. You'd be surprised the number of people who use the manufacturer figure for the size of the tank in that calculation instead of the amount of petrol actually put in.
In England and Europe, pumps deliver in litres, so in the UK it's miles-per-litre, although most advertising still uses miles per gallon. It's worth noting that an English gallon is 1.2 US gallons. So when you see a car in England that advertises 40mpg, it's the equivalent of 33mpg in the US.
In the rest of Europe it's normally advertised as litres per 100 km. So for example, 28mpg (UK) is about 10litres/100km. Often this is short-handed to 1-in-10, meaning 1 litre used in 10km of driving.

cont'd...

[Broadsword2004]

The EPA
The American EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) rates all cars sold in America with gas-mileage figures, advertised as EPA-rated mpg figures on the new car sticker. It's one of the things car manufacturers rely on to sell their vehicle, especially with today's high fuel prices. Not many people understand this, so I'm here to take some of that confusion away and tell you what the EPA figures really mean.
First of all, there's the sticker you'll see in every new car in an American showroom, an example of which is seen on the right. There's a load of technical blurb on there to advertise the vehicle, but the two big numbers are the EPA-certified fuel information figures. In this case 20mpg city and 28mpg highway. So you see these figures and you get into your head a rough idea of how often you'll be filling up. The problem is that these are very rough estimates. If you read the small print, it says this:
"Actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and vehicle condition. Results reported to EPA indicate that the majority of vehicle with these estimates will achieve between 17 and 23mpg in the city and between 23 and 33mpg on the highway."
Okay so it's pretty obvious that driving habits, conditions and vehicle options (like a bloody big roof rack) will affect your mpg, but what's less obvious is the "between" figures. It's basically a get-out clause. In this example, the vehicle is more likely to get 17mpg in the city and 23mpg on the motorway - the low end of the "between" figures.
In the 1980s, the EPA conducted a study on their results vs. the real world, and discovered most drivers got significantly lower mpg figures than the EPA predicted. As a result, EPA estimates on the new car labels were dropped by 10% for city and 22% for highway from their actual results. In 2006 they dropped another 8% from those figures again to try to make the numbers match more closely.
Even that isn't the end of the story though. What you really need to know is how the EPA come up with the figures in the first place. Before you carry on, you might want to put down any drinks or breakables because I know what your reaction will be at the end of this. Ready?
Congress and car company lobbyists require the EPA to measure mpg figures using the following simulated real world conditions in a lab. That's right - EPA testing happens on a dyno in a lab, not on the open road.

Average highway speed : 49mph
Maximum highway speed : 60mph
Temperature : 75°F
No rapid acceleration
No air conditioning
No passengers
No rough roads
No hills
No wind
No low tyre pressures
No ethanol in gas
Well the first problem is the last point : no ethanol in gas. In America, you can't buy zero-ethanol petrol - it's all E-10 (see above) so you're already going to be down 5% on the EPA figures even if you could meet all the other requirements. And for the love of God, who drives like this? 49mph on the motorway? Maximum speed 60mph? Perhaps when the model-T Ford was the Big Thing, these were valid speeds, but nowadays (and by 'nowadays' I mean 'in the last 6 decades') motorway speeds are typically 70mph maxing out at 90mph (if you're in Europe anyway). What about the rest of it - no hills, no passengers, no rough roads? Have the EPA actually driven a vehicle in the real world recently?
As a rough benchmark, driving at 65mph instead of 49mph will decrease mpg by 20%. Driving at 75mph will take another 25% off that. In short, you should pay very little attention to the EPA estimates because they are, for the most part, completely meaningless.
Muddying the waters even further
Remember above I said that the city and highway figures were "between" figures, or the average of the high and low EPA tests? Well I'll give you one guess which figure the car manufacturers use in their print and media advertising. That's right - the high-end of the range. In the example above, the low highway figure was 23mpg and the high was 33mpg. In this case, the advertising will always publicise the 33mpg figure. You will likely get not much more than the low city figure - 17mpg.
Trying to give you a concise answer.
They say a picture speaks a thousand words. I don't have a picture for you but I do have a table. This is a quick reference for you to show all the various figures that go into the EPA estimates, the advertising and what you should expect in the real world. It's based on the Mercedes CLK320 sticker shown above. The blue row shows what you'll see on the EPA sticker in the window of the car. The red shows the figure you'll see on TV and the green row shows what you should expect when you drive this car in the real world.

City Low City High City Avg. Highway Low Highway High Highway Avg. Combined Avg.
EPA LAB TEST 21.6 26.3 23.9 26.3 42.1 34.2 29
-15% (1980 correction) 18.4 25 21.7 25 35.8 30.4 26
-8% (2006 correction) 17 23 20 23 33 28 25.5
-5% (you're using E-10 petrol) 16.1 21.8 19 21.8 31.3 26.6 25.1
What you should expect 15 20 17.5 20 30 25 21.2

If you're curious about what others are getting in the real world, there's two websites that will help you out:
fueleconomy.gov is the US government's own website where people like you and I contribute to their real-world mileage database.
GreenHybrid.com which is based more on hybrid vehicles, but there are a lot of non-hybrid vehicles in there. My Honda Element is one of them. The following graphic is continuously updated based on my account. Compare my actual mileage to the claimed 21/24 that the EPA advertises for my vehicle. If you're interested in nauseating detail, clicking the graphic will take you to a tank-by-tank breakdown:

So the EPA numbers are essentially useless then?
Yes, apart from for one thing. Too many people try to perpetuate the myth that the EPA values are intended to suggest what a driver could expect to get in the real world. As I've shown in mind-numbing detail above, this is simply not the case. Instead, they are best used as a comparison between one vehicle and another, ie if one vehicle is EPA-rated at 20mpg and another is EPA-rated at 25mpg, then you can pretty safely conclude that the latter gets 25% better mileage than the former, and nothing else. For a good read on this subject see the Patrick Bedard column in the Feb 2006 issue of Car and Driver magazine.[/b]

Regarding wind and solar power, from my limited understanding, they just would be kind of pointless to utilize, considering that as is, they would need to manufacture an enormous number of solar panels and wind generators. Considering that America's energy needs are increasing and this just isn't a good alternative. Plus the wind generators kill birds that fly into the spinning blades.

I don't remember what it was with hydrogen; I think, regarding hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles, it was recently ruled out that hydrogen wasn't a viable alternative for autos.

I could be wrong on all that though, just offering what I have read on the subject thus far.

[vsvo]

I am also with x_, diesels are the way to go. Gasoline-electric hybrids are a fad. The technology is unproven, and if you run the numbers comparing the fuel savings against the price premium, economically they don't make sense. Besides, the simple fact that millionaire Hollywood actors love to haughtily drive their Toyata Priuses around is reason enough not to buy the damn things.

Ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) is here. Technology exists to make diesels 50 state legal, even under Tier II Bin 5. The EPA will soon release guidelines for urea injection, which the Euros are using in BlueTec. Honda has announced it will release within three years a clean diesel that will not depend on urea injection. Toyota just paid almost $400 million for an almost 6% stake in Isuzu, a pittance for a company generating billions in cash. Toyota figured it was better (faster) to buy diesel technology than further develop it itself - this from a leading manufacturer of hybrids.

I don't understand why folks aren't rushing to embrace modern diesels. Diesels will allow Americans to resume their love affair with large SUV's and pickup trucks without having to take a big hit to the wallet. Perhaps this is where the manufacturers need to push the technology to the consumer. I can easily find E85 in my area. I tried to use it often in my Tahoe, but the mileage penalty was crippling. I look forward to getting back into a diesel.

[tk27]

X-SF,
What do you think about biodiesel production from algae feedstock? I like the yields I'm looking at there.

[x SF med]

Broadsword-
My thought is that hydogen would be used for the coal/gas/oil fired electric generating plants - not autos. Solar the same way, I use a solar panel to keep the battery on my boat charged.

tk-
I've read a little about it - I've got a friend who's really into biodiesel, he probably knows a lot more - he actually is part of a biodiesel co-op, and they're making their own. I think they're using saponified WVO not distilling directly from rapeseed or soy.

[brownapple]

A few notes:

Vehicle fuel is not a particulary large problem. The infrastructure to support the replacement is.

Bio-fuel (bio-diesel) has some issues in temperate and cold climates. It crystalizes when it gets cold.

The two areas that the energy companies make the largest profits on are lubricants and synthetics. In both of those areas, there is no sign of a viable replacement for oil. The energy companies would like to be able to use other products to fulfil the fuel needs because it would increase their profits.

[pegasus]

First algae bio-diesel test : link (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0612/S00039.htm)

[tk27]

First algae bio-diesel test : link (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0612/S00039.htm)
Thanks, very cool. An unclassified JASON report (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/micro.pdf) for the DoE just got made public, it said there is potential for using microorganisms to produce fuels. Also related to this thread a group called the Energy Security Leadership Council (http://www.secureenergy.org/reports.php) chaired by Fred Smith (CEO of FEDEX, former Marine aviator) and Gen. P. X. Kelley (former commandant of the Marines) have called on congress and the White House to reduce the importance of foreign oil this week.

[vsvo]

For better or worse, looks like BMW is putting some hydrogen-powered 7 Series (http://www.bmwusa.com/news/news.htm?article=306) on the street next year. Check out the refueling apparatus for that thing. Every time I see that, it reminds me of the picture of the Team Sergeant and his pet snake (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=91136&postcount=22).

[tk27]

Blow for beer as biofuels clean out barley, Financial Times, February 25 2007 (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7f533724-c507-11db-b110-000b5df10621.html)
Secondary: We'll run out of beer before we run out of oil (http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2318)
I feared this as an unintended consequence of ramping up ethanol.

Just saw this today:

T Boone Pickens (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/4592240.html) said he believes we are at or near the worldwide daily production capacity peak of oil.
And found this graphic representation showing the awesomness of oil:
Joules, BTUs, Quads—Let's Call the Whole Thing Off, IEEE Spectrum, January 2007 (http://spectrum.ieee.org/jan07/4820/ncmo01)
Secondary: That cubic mile, The Oil Drum
(http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2320#more)

Also related to this thread: This is an interesting article about MEND (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/02/junger200702) in Nigeria by Sebastian Junger. As production capacity nears peak, security is becoming more and more important to the buisiness model. I saw where Triple Canopy has set up an office in Lagos.

[nmap]

1. To what extent are we dependent on oil from the Middle East?

We exist in a global marketplace for oil. Since the Middle East is presently a major exporter, and the U.S. a substantial importer - and since our economy is highly dependent upon abundant cheap energy - we are quite dependent.

2. If the Saudi government falls and SA goes the way of Iran, can we replace our imports of Saudi oil? How? At what cost?

If the new Saudi government were to choose not to sell oil, a lower supply of oil would be offered to the world. The price would increase such that enough demand was destroyed to bring supply and demand into balance. However, oil shows remarkably little elasticity of demand with respect to price. This implies a wrenching increase in price. It seems unlikely that the U.S. could avoid a deep recession along with real economic distress under this scenario.

That said, the KSA has a rapidly growing population, and the oil revenues must support that population to some degree. So an incoming government would need to get revenue somehow; I suspect that means they would keep selling into the global market. The price would be high, and might be denominated in Euros, implying negative economic consequences for the U.S.

3. Was the invasion of Iraq calculated to give us a long-term alternative to Saudi Arabia as a supplier of oil? Can it? Will it?

I don't know, of course. But my suspicion is that the U.S. perceived a need to stabilize the region. Whether that will come to pass is indeterminate; however, given the political trends and the apparent trend of public opinion, I must question whether stabilization will be accomplished.

4. What about Venezuela? Mexico?

Venezuela produces heavy, sour crude not suitable for most refineries. Worse, they are in decline. Still worse, the Chavez government will probably drive competent oil companies out. I would not count on substantially increased production from Venezuela.

As for Mexico...I think it is a tragedy in the making. Cantarell is in decline - rapid decline, actually. PEMEX doesn't have the technical skills needed to improve production, but the political situation precludes bringing in outside expertise. Add in that the government of Mexico gets about 36% of its revenue from PEMEX, and that revenue is down (and likely to continue lower) and one can perceive the possibility of a crises in the next few years.

A less stable Mexico has implications, social, political, and economic for the U.S. However, a massive migration of Mexican citizens northward may, likewise, be problematic.

5. Is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve big enough to do anything for us? Should we be expanding it?

One might ask whether it was worthwhile to have a couple weeks of food stored, just in case. The SPR might soften some shocks - it is not a solution for long term supply issues.

If one believes the world is likely to become more volatile, expansion of the SPR seems wise.

6. Anyone opposed to drilling in the ANWAR?

Drill it like a swiss cheese - but there isn't enough to long satisfy global demand. If we kept it all for the U.S. it would last longer - whether that would be diplomatically viable, I do not know. I suspect not.

Or whatever else you want to discuss, of course . . .

I found an interesting report from the Army Corps of Engineers. Pages 5-13 same to address the issue. The document is in PDF format.

LINK (http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A440265&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

[incarcerated]

In a blog entry dated October 27, 2009
http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/could-crude-oil-prices-reach-100-102/
"....Energy industry analysts cited in the article say that oil’s recent climb above the $80 mark is unsustainable because it’s not supported by supply and demand. Demand has yet to pick up due to the ongoing recession and worldwide supplies of oils are at record levels. Inventories of crude oil are over 27 percent higher than they were a year ago. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is larger than it has been at any time over the past 27 years. And OPEC says that an estimated 125 million barrels of oil are being stored in oil tankers around the world, a figure that is quite incredible since, in normal circumstances, this number is closer to zero...."

This is echoed here:
http://www.123jump.com/economy-story/September-Crude-Inventories-Rise/35042/
September Crude Inventories Rise
Last Update: 3:46 AM ET October 28 2009
"Crude oil inventories at the end of last week increased 0.8 million barrels to 339.9 million barrels. Motor Gasoline inventories increased 1.7 million barrels last week end and inventories of finished gasoline decreased and distillate inventories decreased by 2.1 million barrels."

In the past two weeks, the President has made two conciliatory gestures towards the somewhat politically hostile (insofar as it doesn't vote Democrat) American military, traveling to Dover AFB for an early morning photo op
http://www.daylife.com/photo/0glsg1c8BDddJ?q=dover+obama
http://www.daylife.com/photo/027E1Gu7ISh08?q=dover+obama
and granting honors to an 11th ACR Troop for action in Vietnam.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-alpha-troop25-2009oct25,0,3522913.story
I'll be looking for more of these gestures. He strikes me as a man who wants something of the military and is priming them for it.


Yesterday, Sec State HRC told Iran that ""Patience does have finally its limits and it is time for Iran to fulfill its obligations and responsibilities to the international community...."
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSJER002074
(I can clearly remember President Carter telling them the same thing in January and February of 1980, prior to his rescue attempt).

In a story about Obama signing legislation to punish Iran, Forbes reports that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will be topped off by January:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/10/28/2009-10-28T205221Z_01_N28317852_RTRIDST_0_OBAMA-IRAN-SANCTIONS.html

On one level, it's all saber rattling. When these noises stop, that's when I'll begin thinking that we are going to have a problem soon.

[GratefulCitizen]

China is going silent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssOilGasExplorationProduction/idUSPEK16809420091103

Maybe they are trying to hide a faltering economy.
Maybe they are getting ready for some other move...



The Saudis seem to be tiring of the games played in US financial markets.
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Business_News&subsection=market+news&month=November2009&file=Business_News2009110383712.xml

A key point not often mentioned in the oil debate:

The refineries have also moved towards heavier crudes, which contributed to 75 percent of US oil imports last year, up from 60 percent in 1985.

If oil becomes less of a hedge against a weak dollar, what's next? Gold?

[nmap]

If oil becomes less of a hedge against a weak dollar, what's next? Gold?

Looks like gold is heading up a lot... :cool:

[The Reaper]

Looks like gold is heading up a lot... :cool:

That is the dollar coming down, and heavy buying by both nations and scared investors.

TR

[GratefulCitizen]

Hmmm...
A weak president, economic problems, etc.

I was pretty young during the late '70s.
Gold made quite a move then, too.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Gold/Gold_inflation_chart.htm

What, exactly, is scaring investors? :munchin

[nmap]

That is the dollar coming down, and heavy buying by both nations and scared investors.
TR

Absolutely true...

What, exactly, is scaring investors? :munchin

Bondzilla.

Let's say that the dollar goes down just 5% per year. That means that one needs a return of 5% to stay even. And if we lose our reserve status, 5% might be modest.

Can the U.S. pay the interest on such debt? In just 10 years or so, given current projections, we'll owe about 20 trillion. So 5% means 1 trillion a year in debt service.

There is a risk that no one will want our bonds at a reasonable rate, whatever that might be. That means that we either cut our spending by about 50%, raise our taxes some large percentage, or print. Printing takes us down the same path as Zimbabwe. That's bondzilla.

By the way - quite aside from my favorite subject of peak oil - if the dollar declines, we could easily see $5 gasoline again. That should help the economic recovery.

Scared yet? I am.... :eek: