Oil

Home

Fri - June 30, 2006

They're not doing enough (duh)

A new bill is being introduced to the senate right now that attempts to address our fuel economy issues in the United States. Here's some info about it. Not surprisingly, the bill is not enough. Why? Three major reasons:

1. The Goal is not ambitious enough when you look at the long-term. Chances are, without any legislation, most consumer vehicles will surpass 35mpg by that time. Good fuel economy is starting to sell and our oil acquisition problems are not going to get easier in the conceivable future, so demand for higher fuel economy vehicles is going to increase. Consumers will be wanting vehicles that get way better than 35mpg by 2025. Reducing our oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day sounds like a big number, but it's not very significant in the end. 2.5 million barrels is about 12% of the 2005 daily oil consumption rate. If trends continue, 2.5mb/d will probably be an even smaller percent of 2025 oil consumption. Why wouldn't new fuel economy standards make a larger effect on overall consumption? The average age of cars in the U.S. is going up- meaning people are keeping their cars longer-- which means that any increase in fuel economy is going to effect a very small percentage of vehicles. The only way of increasing the effect of fuel standards on new vehicles is to force older cars out of service (which hurts the poor) or raise the standards (which hurts people who spend their money on new cars).

2. It's not a progressive plan. If we are going to change fuel economy standards for the future, we need to assume that over the next 100 years, the average miles-per-gallon consumption of a new vehicle will approach infinity. In other words, stop using oil, stupids (SUOS.. hmm... not quite the slogan I'm looking for). Not only is it likely that oil will cost considerably more in 2025 and after, but we might not have enough oil to supply our needs at any price. If we lower consumption faster and plan on continually using less oil (in other words, plan on adding 1.5-2mpg to the standard per year), we can push back the day when we run out. It might end up costing the consumer less if we make a progressing standard, too-- car companies are likely to moan and complain when we have to up fuel economy standards *again* in 2015 or sooner- if we plan to increase now, they can plan to deal with these standards changes in their long-term business plans.

3. This is the most important one. If the government changes their target number for fuel economy, who cares? The current passenger car standard is essentially ignored by the industry because there aren't significant fines or relevant consumer information to back up these standards. We need three different kinds of laws to make fuel economy standards actually count: taxes that charge car manufacturers (lots) for producing sub-standard vehicles (per-car produced), fines that come with a vehicle sticker price to make consumers actually notice they are buying a sub-standard vehicle, and annual taxes for people who buy sub-standard vehicles and increase our fuel demand in the process. I guess this makes me a tax-and-spend liberal. There is absolutely no excuse for the blatant disregard for standards in the current car market, and if we don't change anything, the industry will not get in line. Who cares about setting new standards when the current ones are already ignored? The current system doesn't properly assign cars to their "use type" which determines which cars are subjected to which standards . Cars like the H3 are exempt from current fuel economy standards and classified as "special use vehicles"-- yet there are no restrictions on who can purchase these vehicles. The industry doesn't care- they don't have to pay when they make an inefficient SUV, they make a profit if the make the car, so why get responsible?

Consumer vehicles need to be regulated heavily, and vehicles that are designated as "special use" need to be actually designed for something more important than hauling 72 ounces of soda from your local convenience store to the mall and back home again. And honestly, with the size of the H3 and similar vehicles, we really should be requiring a different class of driver's license to own and operate something so large and powerful. If my next door neighbor buys a gas guzzler, they should be well aware they are raising gas prices for everyone. The more we consume nationally, the more we pay per barrel-- it's basic supply and demand.

Why Should I Care?
In the end, consumer vehicles account for about 44% of annual oil consumption in the United States. That makes it the largest most accessible market in which we can lower national oil consumption- one set of federal laws can effect millions of cars and change the pace of our oil consumption single-handedly. Choosing to gently *suggest* we increase our efficiency *a little bit* is not taking full advantage of the huge chunk of consumption that consumer vehicles represent. Consumer vehicle consumption is the bulk of oil consumption in the United States- there is no other area in which we can decrease our barrels per day without hurting businesses considerably... and I know you wouldn't want that to happen.

In short, the bill makes it sound like our senators are doing something responsible, but in the end it's merely a tip of the hat to the industry. I mean, come on- if Joe Lieberman is behind it, the bill can't be too progressive, can it?

Posted at 06:33 PM

Sat - February 25, 2006

New Ideas

So I've been thinking about oil and cars too much lately, for various reasons, and I've created a new statistic (that is getting worked into a paper for my oil class)... here it is

That is (estimated based on actual US Government numbers) the Miles/Gallon rate of fuel economy for all road transportation in the United States since 1960. Unfortunately the latest data is from 2004, so unfortunately the latest numbers aren't there. You will notice though, that we haven't met 20 MPG yet, and according to a linear regression, won't make it there by 2010. Is this acceptable? Heck no.

I think that statistic could be particularly useful in terms of analyzing actual progress in changing our pollution as a nation- who cares if SULEV cars are being sold- if we don't stop guzzling gas, we're just as in trouble. I just wanted to post this because, well, I'm proud of myself for managing to get the data together to form something coherent.

Sources (yes, I really do have to put them in ASA format because I'm a dork):

United States. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2005. "Table 1-32: U.S. Vehicle-Miles" in National Transportation Statistics. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/html/table_01_32.html

United States. Energy Information Administration. 2005. "Table 5.8: Petroleum Input and Output, 1949-2004" in Annual Energy Review 2004. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/petro.html

Last post for today, I swear. Oh, and in case it wasn't clear before now based on the copyright at the bottom of this page, no it's not okay with me if you copy this data without permission.

Posted at 07:39 PM

Sat - February 18, 2006

Here we go again...

So, everyone remember that headline, "America is Addicted to Oil", coming from President Bush's mouth during the state of the union. Yeah, I fell asleep during it too, which is why I asked if you remembered the headline. As with any politician, the question is... okay, you said it, now what will you say in three weeks, and, what will actually happen? Well, here's what is actually happening:

http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70248-0.html?tw=rss.technology

(waits for you to read)

Bush proposed a number of different things, including large amounts of money to develop hydrogen fuel cell and other alternative energy sources. Like zero emission coal and nuclear. As the cynical liberal I am, well, I knew all we would hear down the road is the second sentence. Guess what? Looks like I might have been right. For the sake of the world, I would much rather have to deal with George Bush actually turning into an environmentalist and helping the world, but it is still a little soothing that I am right about his essentially lying on this one, so far.

So you notice in the article they mention the potential for terrorists to get ahold of plutonium separated out in this process of recycling spent radioactive fuel, and Bush mentions how "safe" the new plan would be, since it does not involve any output of plutonium that would then have to be shipped and could potentially end up in the hands of terrorists. And then he proposes the utopian idea of sending radioactive fuel to "developing nations" in order for them to use it in nuclear reactors, and for them to ship it back in order for us recycle it and send them more.

Did I miss something here? I know uranium isn't as dangerous as plutonium but... it's dangerous enough. Terrorists could make dirty bombs, easily. Where do they live? Oh yeah, in developing nations. And what was that he was just saying about being able to refine plutonium from uranium? Haven't we been talking about North Korea and Iran working on that? And furthermore where are these developing nations that have a current need for nuclear energy?

Suffice to say the plan doesn't make sense. Is this the new plan? Knock over a nation we don't like, so as to make them "developing", then hire Bechtel, GE and Halliburton to deck the place out with a brand new power-plant or 30, sell them some recycled radioactive fuel, and call it a day? With all these shipments of radioactive fuel going back and forth, it's going to end up in someone's soup and salad special, if the terrorists have anything to say. Unlike the United States, terrorists do not require that their weapons be the newest, most accurate, and most expensive. Quite on the contrary, they seem to prefer stolen, cheap, and as simplistic as possible.

So, the real question, in the end is, why worry about this complex completely undeveloped technology in recycling spent radioactive fuel when the number of nuclear reactors in the nation has gone down not up, and there are other forms of renewable energy that don't involve the possibility of a catastrophic loss of life, or need 13 billion dollars per year in investments to get off the ground? Nuclear energy is not safe. If all goes well, it is, but let us not forget 3 mile island and Chernobyl, and again, the potential of dirty bombs and everything else. Holy crap, let's just get $13 billion per year in solar panels and wind generators! What would Bush be backing if we managed to talk the oil-industry fueling technology firms to start putting their R&D heart in non-nuclear renewables? Are we just going to have to wait until this generation of white-haired texas-drawling CEO's croaks for the "wonderful" age of destroying the environment in the name of power ends?

Posted at 02:56 PM

Mon - February 6, 2006

Why Oil Boycotts Don't Work

Anyone remember that whole "don't buy gas on Friday" thing, or any other recent attempts at creating nationwide (or even local) protests about oil prices and the oil industry via not buying gas from specific companies, etc.? I always thought they were dumb, but now I know for sure, thanks to Paul Clementi (J.D.), who's teaching the class on Oil I'm currently taking. This comment is taken from the heart of one of this lectures, so any kudos are his.

Here's the plain and simple truth: They don't care. The worlwide oil market is so huge, consisting of so many different profit making markets, that first of all, any boycott at the pump (at least one that is feasibly successful) won't be felt. In fact, most of the money in oil (including ExxonMobil's current giganto profits) is not in selling gasoline to joe shmoe-- the big bucks come from the production of crude, and its sale on the commodities market. Oil companies are profit making bodies- which means that they make money on everything they can. Everything from shipping crude and the refining process to producing plastics products and chemicals consist of potential profits-- compartmentalized from the rest of the company. So what happens if NO ONE bought oil from Exxon's gas stations? They would sell it to a different distributor, let go of their network of company owned, leased, and franchised gas stations-- and keep raking in the profits (you might notice that they aready have chosen to sell off a considerable amount of their stations). If everyone did a boycott on Exxon worldwide, they could still sell the crude they produce on the commodities market, and make a killing thanks to OPEC's price fixing. Sucking oil out of the ground makes too much money for us to stop them from a mere boycott. Not to mention, we can't afford a boycott. (see also: we need oil way too much).

I used the example from class not just because Exxon is particularly sucky (or because this was the example lectured on in class (: )-- but because of the point it makes about reliance on oil. Exxon isn't really foreign oil. A large amount of its production is in the U.S., and it's not associated with OPEC. In other words, this is the non-foreign oil we've been *dreaming* of. And we still have no control over prices, the environmental impact, or corporate responsibility.

Now why is that again? Oh yeah. What are those socially legitimized norms that we write on paper and are supposed to be enforced called? Laws! That's it. What if we did things like... enforced environmental restrictions properly... and spend significant amounts of government money on using anything but oil? How about this: a government program that promises all new US Government cars and trucks would utilize alternative fuel technology of some sort (ie hybrid for vehicles that must make random trips, fuel cell for standard vehicles like mail trucks that have usual routes) and government filling stations that include hydrogen as an option to support these cars. It would hurt us now, but if the government were to put its money where George W.'s mouth wondered last week, maybe something could change. We are indeed, addicted to oil. I'll skip over the conversation where I ask why it took us to hear it from G. Dubb. to believe it on a national level, in the interest of time.

So what should you do? Threaten your congressmen and senators with a No Solution, No Vote program. They don't vote for solutions, or create them, you don't vote for them of give them campaign contributions. Buy a car that is efficient! And most importantly, flip off Exxon tanker truck drivers when you see them on the highway. That'll do us a lot of good, and will certainly lower the price of gas.

Posted at 02:02 PM

Wed - October 19, 2005

Coming Soon, and Here Already: Oil

So... I went to a discussion this evening at Villanova, at which two people from two different African nations came to talk about the effect that the oil business has had on their national situation. I've known about this whole deal for a long time, but it was a rough wake-up call. So why a new category? Well, I'm going to be taking an issue-based class from a man who worked for Exxon-Mobil for 10 years next semester... and my guess is I'll have a lot to say.

So most of you probably already know about this. But the term "raping the earth" is one that could be applied to how oil companies generally operate. We spent a lot of time in the last 6 years or so trying to prevent drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (and failed)- and in developing technology to prevent as much harm to the local environment as possible should drilling happen. So... what if the habitat in danger is human, and the lives in danger are also human? The basic situation, without statistics (because I'm feeling lazy now, I'll be dropping them later) is this: Oil companies like to make money. Cleanup and responsibility cost money. Land also costs money. So, they prefer not cleaning up, not being responsible, and getting land to drill on and operate on for free. Governments with agricultural-based economies, or ones in which a large number of mainly subsistence-based citizens tend to not have a lot of money. Politicians like money. As it turns out, politicians like money in almost any quantity that oil companies tend to offer... the cost of buying a politician is a whole lot lower than being responsible, cleaning up, or paying for land. So the oil companies take land, write contracts about how they're going to "help the local economy" by creating jobs and industry, hire cheap outside labor, have to government acquire the land they want to work on, and spray oil all over the place, ruining the habitat. So people who want just live can't. This is not a good thing. Oil companies have picked people off, enslaved them, tortured them for trying to rise up against the government and defend their right to land. They really don't like opposition. Why? Because it's all about shareholders, and making enough to wow them. Every quarter has to be new and exciting in order for them to stay on top- and this means raping the land more productively and in more areas every quarter. This situation is not good for human rights, to say the least.

So we all agree this is bad. I hope. If you think this is an acceptable evil on the cause of the common good, I would request that you make good on your philosophy of individual cost vs. worldly benefit, and donate a few of your vital organs to patients needing transplants at your local hospital. As for the rest of us... what do we do? What sort of occurrence would make the corporations feel the need to stop working this way? Hippies screaming has yet to do anything significant. The government is important, too. Can we do anything other than NOT vote for halliburton next election? Do we yell at congress-people? Blow stuff up? (if you choose this route, please avoid using petroleum based products in your explosive materials, that'd really be hypocritical) Here's a quote from one of the speakers this evening that I found pretty worthwhile (unfortunately I can't remember the exact wording, I think I have it right) "Laws do not build relationships." That seems to be a key problem in the whole issue- the legal systems involved are not creating caring corporations, especially when they're not enforced. Anyone know oil company shareholders we can yell at? That'd be fun.

Just for the heck of it, I checked out Hallburton's website, mid rant. Here's the image that splashed on the top of my screen as the page finished loading: