EMPOWERING AMERICANS FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
July 27, 2008
Oil and investment mogul and tycoon T. Boone Pickens has been telling Americans that they “have no control over the price of gasoline and diesel” and “cannot drill their way out of an oil crisis.” While Pickens is correct to point out that the US has become too dependent on foreign oil, his statements are misleading and very incorrect.
America does have the ability to produce enough oil from drilling and from coal, tar sands and shale to not only control, lower and stabilize gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices but to make the US independent of ALL foreign energy sources for over a hundred years even before the US would need to turn to significant numbers of nuclear fission and/or fusion electricity generating power plants.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Senator Harry Reed (D-Nevada) and Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington State) say they want to maintain high gas prices ($5 /gal or more) to “wean Americans” off using hydrocarbon fuels. One way they propose doing this is to BLOCK proposals in Congress not only that would allow more drilling for oil but also permit the production of from oil wells already on US lands.
Senate Majority leader Harry Reed has been telling Americans that they should not even try to drill their way out of an energy crises nor should they look to using coal because Reed claims “coal sickens people.” Reed is totally and deliberately ignoring environmentally sound processes developed by major US companies including but not limited to Exxon/Mobile, Syntroleum (Tulsa, OK), and Tennessee Eastman that are economically and technically viable to produce liquid and gaseous fuels from coal with greatly reduced and controlled low carbon dioxide emissions.
Furthermore, carbon dioxide from coal gasification and liquefaction processes can be used in “enhanced oil recovery” to extract more “new” oil from old oil fields by carbon dioxide injection into the fields. Carbon dioxide from these coal processes can also be converted via algae and biomass conversion processes to produce more liquid hydrocarbon fuels. These technologies are already being tested and funded on a large scale by the DOD. Two of the many companies working on this effort include Texas Clean Fuels (Dallas) and Bell BioFuels (Tifton, Georgia).
During the Climate Change Control bill (S. 2191 and S. 3036) debate last month Senate Democrats, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reed, Gore, Obama, McCain, GW Bush, Lieberman and Warner falsely told Americans that burning hydrocarbon fuels is significantly leading to disastrous levels of global warming. Their scare tactics are used as propaganda to stampede the public and Congress into accepting an evil solution that would raise more US taxes and impose a global tax to finance a world government regime to monitor and minimize the exploration for, the production of and the use of hydrocarbon fuels. They argue that this is necessary because the burning of hydrocarbon fuels produce carbon dioxide gas at levels they falsely claim greatly contributes to global warming. These men have a dishonest agenda designed to destroy US sovereignty and have the US subsumed into a world government.
Physics and Society, a prestigious scientific journal of the American Physical Society, has recently published scientific work, Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, that proves three variables used by the man-made global warming globalists and communists were not only incorrect but deliberately rigged to yield grossly exaggerated effects of man-made carbon dioxide emissions on global warming. The correct values for these variables yields results that show the effects of carbon dioxide from man-made sources are minimal if not negligible, especially compared to other naturally occurring sources such as cows, volcanoes and ocean vents
And yet the Climate Change Control bill proponents still want to spend trillions of taxpayers’ dollars to track and sequester carbon dioxide rather that use it for enhanced oil recovery or for conversion to liquid hydrocarbon fuels via biomass because they do not want more hydrocarbon fuels and because they want to foster an energy crisis as another reason to implement world government.
Although more nuclear power plants can and need to be built, liquid hydrocarbon fuels are still needed to fly airplanes and will be needed to fuel tanks, trains, cars and trucks for at least ten more years. Even if practical, safe, and affordably priced hydrogen fueled and electric vehicles can be built on a large scale within ten years, hydrogen and/or electricity for batteries must be produced from hydrocarbon fuels or from electricity produced by nuclear plants or hydrocarbon fueled electrical generating plants The overall energy efficiency going this route compared to direct combustion of hydrocarbon fuels in engines is not as great as one would expect due to energy losses in transmission lines and in burning fuels to generate electricity. Also hydrogen fuel station infrastructure is expensive and dangerous.
The time for a viable and successful US synthetic fuels industry in the US has arrived to contribute long term to US energy independence.
The technology for building a synthetic fuels (gas and liquid) industry in the US using coal, tar sands, shale, natural gas etc has been fully demonstrated by pilot plants to be economically and environmentally doable immediately. This technology has been demonstrated by many companies and is known to the DOE and DOD. These companies include but are not limited to Tennessee Eastman, Syntroleum, Texaco, Shell, and Exxon/Mobile.
The only obstacle that remains for building this industry is for Congress to legislate loan guarantees and other possible incentives to build at least one large scale facility due to timidity (either intentional or risk based) by bankers to finance the facility. Congress would also have to be watched so as not to put undue regulatory burdens on the industry that go beyond reasonable objectives for environmental safeguards.
Although there are several coal liquefaction bills in Congress (House bill 2208 for example), they have been languishing there blocked by Democrats and some Republicans. They also lack adequate loan guarantees of the type and size to build a large-scale synthetic fuel facility. The cost is estimated to be $1 to $5 billion approaching in magnitude the cost of a nuclear power plant.
Implementation of a facility would require a sponsor, an overall contractor to oversee the acquisition of solid fuels, to arrange the financing, to license the various technologies needed, to acquire land, to design and construct the facilities.
Additional facilities would need to be build to adequately supplement liquid fuels in the US and this effort can be considered the establishment of a synthetic fuels industry in the US. Scaling up the industry and building the extra facilities would likely require increasing the industrial, manufacturing capabilities of the US to produce the equipment used in the facilities that would in turn increase good paying jobs in the US. The effort would have many similarities to the effort needed to build more oil refinery equipment (pressure vessels, tanks, pumps, etc), more pipes for pipelines etc. Capital would need to be raised to build these manufacturing plants providing the equipment for a large-scale synthetic fuels industry.
Another interesting facet of this situation is that I have learned of two examples of where a synthetic fuels industry is being built in countries outside the US using US company technologies. Marathon Oil has a $5 billion contract proposal pending with Qatar to build a facility to convert natural gas to liquid fuels (the same plant could be built in the US to convert gas from coal to liquid fuels). The government of India has offered mineral rights for blocks of coal as an incentive for companies to come in and build synthetic fuel plants.
An effort should be made immediately to build a strong and aggressive coalition of Republicans, Democrats (if any?), the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, and industry leaders and financiers to create a synthetic fuels industry inside the US to help make the US energy independent.
Accordingly, I have made calls today to the offices of House and Senate Republican leaders urging them to sponsor specific legislation to help establish a synthetic fuels industry in the US for energy independence using coal, tar sands, shale, and natural gas.
I have made my specific recommendations to OK Senator Inhofe's and Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell's legislative assistants for energy. Mitch McConnell is the Senate minority leader for the Republicans.
My recommendations were relayed to and discussed with Republican staff on the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee (EPW). Senator Inhofe is the ranking member of EPW and Senator McConnell also has staff assigned to the committee. See epw.senate.gov.
I have made my specific recommendations to Congressman John Boehner's legislative assistant for energy. Boehner is the House minority leader for the Republicans.
I also made my recommendations to OK Congresswoman Mary Fallin’s legislative assistant for energy. Mrs. Fallin is a member of a group of House Republicans who recently co-sponsored new legislation, the American Energy Act (HR 6566), for producing more energy in the US. I asked that Mrs. Fallin use my recommendations to either sponsor new legislation in the House of Representative or amend the American Energy Act she co-sponsors. Also see gop.gov/energy/.
I took the actions described above in an attempt to have my recommendations included NOW in legislation and debates being actively held in Congress. If these leaders falter, they will not be able to say they have not been given an opportunity and the knowledge to adequately respond now while there is still time. If conditions worsen, they still may decide to join a non-partisan effort to take more steps to build a synthetic fuels industry. Even if they still do not the American people and industry ultimately can get it done even without Congress or in spite of inadequate leadership by any of the political parties.
I urge that the above information be injected immediately into the public, national and Congressional debate to make the public more fully aware as the media and Congress have not yet adequately informed the public or formulated the legislation needed to make the US energy independent. The public needs to be unleashed to solve the energy crisis by giving them confidence and by empowering them with information and proposals- that it can be done, how it can be done, and the funding and environmental obstacles that can be overcome by publicly identifying them. Armed with this information and confidence to believe in themselves, the public can be encouraged and led to continue to press for a more complete, comprehensive energy production program needed for America’s survival. The public also needs to be inspired to solve America’s energy problems on their own, even without government, if need be.
If Americans have to, they could build many very small synthetic fuel facilities to survive in event large facilities are not built. The American taxpayer has paid for the R&D that developed these technologies via companies and federal funding and grants from DOE. If large facilities are not built the public should be encouraged to have these technologies made publicly available (since they paid for much of it) so the public can build small facilities on their own, on their farms, etc., if need be, to survive.
© 2008 Patrick Briley - All Rights Reserved