An Alternative to America’s Gasoline Crisis
Last week saw the price of crude oil inch closer to $140/ BBL. Some economists believe the price rise is mainly due to the world oil supply shortfall of about 4 million barrels per day [MBPD]. Proof of the shortage can be seen in the production numbers of the largest US multi-national oil companies ExxonMobil (XOM) and ConocoPhillips (COP), which fell 11% in Q1 2008. Last week Saudi Arabia agreed to increase crude oil production by 500,000 BPD to offset world shortfalls. So critical is the shortfall and the sensitivity of the gasoline price, that last week the US Senate defeated the Climate Change bill. Experts predict a crisis in 10 years when Iran curtails exports due to depleting crude oil production rates.
The US consumes about 21 MBPD of crude oil of which 5,102,000 BPD of crude oil is produced domestically. A typical refinery produces about 44% gasoline, 22% diesel distillates, 9% Jet fuel, 4% heavy fuel oil, 4% liquefied petroleum gas (LPG’s) and 17% other products. In 2008 US gasoline consumption is expected to be about 9,308,000 BPD of which 9,100,000 BPD is produced domestically.
The price of gasoline, currently hovering around $4.00 / gal, can be reduced by lowering demand in three ways. First, we can be drive less often and car pool. Second, we can seek alternate modes of transportation, such as public transit. Third, we can use another motor fuel as an alternative to gasoline, one that is not produced from crude oil.
The alternatives to gasoline motor fuel include diesel, propane, ethanol, methanol, CNG (compressed natural gas) and hydrogen.
To be acceptable as a replacement for gasoline motor fuel, the alternative must be;
a) Competitively priced compared to gasoline.
b) Produced by non crude oil refining multi-nationals.
c) Available in existing reserves for a minimum of 10 years at current rates of consumption.
d) Available in sufficient quantities to displace 25% of current annual gasoline volumes of consumption.
e) Available from countries of low political risk and low risk of supply disruption.
f) Available from multiple sources.
g) Currently in a surplus status.
h) Currently available at existing fueling stations nation wide.
i) Ideally available at fueling stations not owned by multi-nationals with crude oil refining interests.
j) Compatible with existing motor vehicles with minimal conversion cost.
k) Environmentally friendlier than gasoline.
l) Cheaper than gasoline on a BTU basis.
m) Equally efficient on an energy conversion basis.
n) Safe to use.
o) Possess state and federal regulatory approvals for motor vehicle fuel usage.
The motor vehicle fuel that meets the criteria above is CNG (compressed natural gas).
The historic BTU ratio of natural gas to crude oil is 6 MCF to 1 BBL crude oil. At today’s natural gas prices, this equates to a price of about $72 / BBL. With crude oil priced at $140 / BBL, CNG is selling at a discount of about 50%.
The cost of CNG in Utah is about $0.74/ gal and about $2.50 /gal in California compared to $4.00 / gal gasoline. World locations and prices are available on the web site CNG Prices.com
Natural gas is found underground sometimes in the presence of crude oil, sometimes in the presence of LPG liquids and sometimes alone. Exploration and drilling companies currently engaged in natural gas exploration and production include Encana Corp (ECA), Enerplus Resources (ERF), Talisman Energy (TLM) and Forest Oil (FST). Natural Gas is also found in coal deposits known as Coal Bed Methane (CBM). Exploration, drilling and coal companies currently engaged in CBM development include Consol Energy (CNX), CNX Gas Corp (CXG), EOG Resources (EOG), Duvernay Oil [DDV], Nexen (NXY) and Ember Resources [EBR].
In 2004, natural-gas-fired plants accounted for less than 20 percent of electricity generation in the United States, while coal-fired plants accounted for about 50 percent. The natural gas share of generation is projected to rise to 22 percent in 2015. After 2015, higher natural gas prices, along with tax incentives for clean coal technologies, are expected to discourage the construction of new natural-gas-fired plants in favor of coal-fired plants, leading to a decline in the natural gas share to 16 percent and an increase in the coal share to 57 percent in 2030. U.S. natural gas consumption for electricity generation is projected to peak in 2020 at 7.2 trillion cubic feet, followed by a decline to 5.9 trillion cubic feet in 2030. This will make more CNG available for motor vehicle use in the future.
To displace 25% of today’s rate of US gasoline production with CNG and not affect current consumption, requires an annual increase in natural gas production of 5 TCF.
The US conventional natural gas reserves increased by 12 TCF in 2007 over 2006. The untapped US / Canadian Utica Shale Gas reserves are reported to hold 24 TCF of recoverable natural gas. The untapped US Marcellus Shale Gas reserves are reported to hold168 TCF of recoverable natural gas. The proven reserves of the Alaska fields are estimated to hold 35 TCF and the Arctic Mackenzie Delta are estimated to hold 9 TCF.
From the years 2005-2007 the US consumed 22,010,596, 21,653,086 and 23,057,969 MMCF per year, respectively.
From the years 2005-2007 the US production increased 18,927,095, 19,381,895 and 20,151,218 MMCF per year, respectively. From the years 2005-2007 the US imported 4,341,034, 4,186,281 and 4,602,035 MMCF per year, respectively.
Current US reserves of CBM are estimated to be 700 TCF (trillion cubic feet) of which 100 TCF is recoverable. Canadian reserves are currently estimated to be 528 TCF and assuming 75 TCF is recoverable. At a consumption rate of 4.98 TCF per year, there are adequate CBM resources available to displace 25% of the US gasoline requirements for about 85 years.
98% of all US natural gas imports in 2007 came from the politically stable countries of Canada, Mexico, Qatar, Equatorial Guinea, Algeria and Trinidad (93% from Canada, Mexico and Trinidad).
Of 181 million US registered cars, trucks, and buses, only 0.017% or 30,000 vehicles are fuelled with CNG. To convert an existing gasoline fuelled vehicle to CNG, it takes only a few hours. The cost of a conversion kit and tank is about $3,500. The state of Utah offers a tax credit of $3,000 per new or used vehicle converted to CNG. Questar (STR) not only supplies CNG but it is provides storage and dispensing facilities at existing service centres in Utah and Wyoming. Every state in the US provides an internet listing of CNG dispensing locations. Environmentally, when compared to gasoline vehicles, CNG vehicles reduce:
- Carbon monoxide [CO] by about 70 percent
- Non-methane organic gas [NMOG] by about 87 percent
- Nitrogen oxides (NOx) by about 87 percent
- Carbon dioxide (CO2) by about 20 percent
All Federal, provincial and state government agencies allow CNG powered vehicles.
CNG, which is 90 percent methane, has a much higher octane rating than gasoline, allowing for higher compression ratios and therefore greater efficiency in the engines that use it.
By lowering the demand for gasoline by 25% the price at the pump should drop significantly. Also, displacing 25% of the US refining capacity of gasoline production, it will force multi-nationals to reformulate their crude oil intake to produce more diesel motor fuels from less costly crude types, thereby in theory lowering the price of diesel as well.
Will America take up the challenge of switching to CNG vehicles?
Disclosure: I have shares in ECA, ERF-UN, TLM, EOG, DDV, and EBR.
Related Articles
|
This article has 44 comments:
- john s. gordon
- 512 Comments
Jun 22 08:53 AM2. every natural-gas fired combined-cycle electric generating plant operating today can be switched (when NG prices get too high) to coal gas by taxiing up a coal gasifier (there are lots of processes available, just select one) with gas purification system.
> jack
- ART005
- 41 Comments
Jun 22 10:20 AM- sharksm
- 39 Comments
My Website
Jun 22 10:27 AM- nakedjaybird
- 379 Comments
Jun 22 12:09 PMWhere do we get the electric? Continue expanding nuclear. Have a Manhattan Project or Moon Shot Program emphasis on solar and wind primarily, and other renewables.
Second, as for the diesel trucks on all the interstates, turn them into biodiesel, while and until we electrify the interstate hiways/biways/beltways with new electrical infrastruture supplied by the solar and wind and nuclear generated electricy. Then use the biodiesel for the tugs and barges and ships. We don't need to use our coal for electricy either as we replace them with more efficienct and free solar. We are really stupid. Maybe we can develop and new Government Program to develop prospectors to discover the source of solar. I suggest a sun shot program and put all the lousy politicians, Houston oil and Detroit auto execs in the sun lander capsule.
Third, push hybrids and electrics, etc.
Fourth, push electrified ferries along the interstates for both goods and people.
Seventy percent of our crude demand is for shipping goods and people around the country. Stop doing it that way. Use electricity, free from solar and wind, clean, no cleanup, basically no drilling and processing (must get the silicon and glass: both from sand...... duh!!!). Like Europe? This is not a new thought folks.
And in 30 years, we'll need less than 5 BBL/D crude, period.
Do the above as if we reallly meant it, like building an operating nuclear reactor in the Hanford desert from scratch within 18 months using 1940's technology and methods, or going to the moon, and be at 5 BBl/D in 10 years, or so.
Yup, get that determined with good leadership and we'll be at 5 BB/D in 10 years.
LEADERSHIP is the key.
- nakedjaybird
- 379 Comments
Jun 22 12:14 PM- nakedjaybird
- 379 Comments
Jun 22 12:16 PM- Observationist
- 4 Comments
Jun 22 12:19 PMAs a homeowner in an area that is not served with natural gas, and no CNG fuel stations for 25 miles or more, there is little practical incentive to convert my car or buy one made for CNG. Electricity, on the other hand, is available to everyone, and it comes from a variety of sources, though notably foreign crude oil is not one of them. If electric vehicles do take off, I can imagine a lot more solar panels will be installed to supply "fuel" to those vehicles. After the installation costs have been recovered, those people will be driving their vehicles essentially for free (not including maintenance, etc.), and the US would become less dependent on foreign oil.
The idea that drilling for more oil will somehow result in lower prices for crude oil anytime soon is a pipe dream, and it is backward looking rather than forward. People will change their habits and purchasing decisions as prices go up. The primary motivation for most people to act is when their wallets are being emptied.
- paulk8756
- 880 Comments
Jun 22 12:33 PMAll that said, however, there would be a lot of work to do to have CNG become a viable alternative to gasoline. We would need to build a nationwide network of CNG filling stations, convert millions of vehicles to its use, find a way to replace natural gas as a preferred fuel on our nation's electric grid, and have this whole idea blessed by the Greens and their supporters in Congress.
Indeed, the major oil companies looked at this idea seriously over twenty years ago, but abandoned it due to its impracticability. They often find large quantities of natural gas along with oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, it is doubtful the environmental lobby would ever support CNG, due to their vehement opposition to anything that could benefit what they derisively refer to as "Big Oil."
Times have changed, however, along with the cost of gasoline. Oil billionaire Boone Pickens is operating trash trucks in San Diego as a CNG demonstration project, and looking to build massive wind farms in Texas to free up enough natural gas from the electric grid to make CNG a viable alternative to gasoline. In effect, he is trying to build a bridge between the Greens and supplying our energy needs.
It would make alot of sense for those on both sides of the energy debate to embrace natural gas and CNG as part of a comprehensive national energy policy to wean us off foreign oil. As of this writing, though, it appears like this very viable idea is still a long way from reality.
- Loup-Garou
- 21 Comments
Jun 22 01:22 PMThe perfect is always the enemy of the good.
Mr. Gorski has done an excellent job outlining many of the alternatives that are good, that would work.
America lacks the political will to pick one of the many solutions and see it throughto reality. Leaders come up with the solutions, explain them to the citizens, and thereby develop the national will.
Weep for America.
- CaptainJJack
- 15 Comments
Jun 22 02:00 PMThe problem is NOT a supply problem, it is a DEMAND problem. The price of oil did not DOUBLE in the last year because production dropped, it doubled because the markets started to figure out that in 20 years, China alone will need what the world produces today.
And the answer isn't ANWR or Offshore drilling.
The world uses 1 billion barrels of oil EVERY 12 DAYS!! ANWR is 10 billion barrels and proven reserves on ALL Federal land is only 19 billion barrels.
The answer lies in reducing demand worldwide. We can do this in two ways. First, we keep the price of oil high. Commodity brokers are fond of saying, nothing fixes high commodity prices like high commodity prices.
Secondly, we invest in alternatives, especially methanol. Methanol is the only viable answer, because it is the only transportation alternative ( It was used exclusively at the Indy 500 for 20 years until the politicians pressured them to switch to ethanol this year)that can actually fill the enormous requirement at a reasonable cost (roughly $2.5 per 2 gallons, the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline), using existing technology(Fisher-Trop...
While the current process uses Coal to Liquid (CTL), there is no reason why the exact same technology can't be used for converting solid waste to methanol, and this is currently being done with wood waste, although not on anywhere near the scale it could be.
Finally, if we look long term, methanol can be made from combining Hydrogen and Carbon Dioxide (3H2 + CO2->H3COH + H2O) making Carbon Dioxide an efficient delivery system for Hydrogen(i.e. methanol delivered in pipelines instead of ethanol).
- sbhot5
- 1 Comment
Jun 22 02:30 PMCBM = Coal Bed Methane
- nakedjaybird
- 379 Comments
Jun 22 02:35 PMThe second choice is to put the leadership in place in our local, state and federal governments to make that happen, OR NOT.
So, change transportation habits/means and LEADERSHIP, or not......
I'm a conservative and basically Republican (smaller government, fewer taxes, less welfare/more work, power/choice to the people in education/guns/spendin... our own money instead of the government [except where it takes the necessity of a real government role, and they are way over-funded to do that already],etc.,, AND I VOTE, ........... but I have to tell you that I'm about to vote to make things worse since voting to make things better has not worked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... That way, maybe we can hasten our trip to learn our hard lessons and correct them before even that is absolutely impossible.
It's obvious that a lot has not worked for four (4) decades by our leadership which has certainly been funded and directed by the wishes of the people to do differently.............. yes, I know, we DID listen to some of the people......... YUP! AND, IF WE LISTENED TO MOST CHILDREN AND DID WHAT THEY WANTED, WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY KIDS IN SCHOOL.
- User 112196
- 4 Comments
Jun 22 03:19 PMlfratti@msn.com
- maxbid
- 42 Comments
Jun 22 04:48 PMHowever, why is there no mention of the Barnett and Haynesville shale nat gas fields and companies such as Chesapeake (CHK)?
- howsie
- 9 Comments
Jun 22 05:59 PM- CaptainJJack
- 15 Comments
Jun 22 06:50 PMThey are making syngas using the Fisher-Tropish Method. It is the same method as the CTL method as i point out, above.
The method was developed by the Germans in WWI because they were fighting a war and they didn't have oil. There are a number of companies that are using some derivative of the F-T method, and it is the method that the Chinese have announced that they will pursue as the CTL alternative.
- ggbbppl
- 37 Comments
Jun 22 07:59 PM- Erin Young
- 10 Comments
Jun 22 08:15 PM- Blair
- 26 Comments
Jun 22 08:15 PMThe big advantage of diesel is its high energy density -- you don't need to drag around of big tanks of LNG for mobile applications. The list does not address the transportation and conversion costs. All of the so called alternative energy sources fail on this critical item. LNG is applicable to stationary energy consumption -- not mobile uses. (Electric trains??? how much will it cost to instal appropriate overhead lines, etc.)
So, what do we do?
1. Apply solar energy for hot water generation. This is a low tech application. With this, you could cut energy consumption by 10 - 15% without any problem.
2. Enhance mobile energy use efficiency. Possibly save 15 - 20 %
3. Drop the long distance trucking of goods -- use rail to terminal points then go to trucks. Here is another 10 - 15% energy consumption reduction.
4. Reduce household energy consumption - another 10-15% reduction.
One can go on -- the major point is that significant energy savings can be achieved by getting 10 - 15% point item reduction. All of this without major pain - both economic and convenience.
Long term, there is no reason for not expecting 50 - 60 % energy consumption reduction.
With the energy cost going up, I think that the items listed above will occur on a 'natural' level. You don't need any government to get involved with their elite-o-crats telling you how to do things.
- ART005
- 41 Comments
Jun 22 09:11 PMVery good list of suggestions. People need to realize that solar heat as in hot water is very viable with an annual return of +10% to 15%. Wallstreet can't promise you that! Solar electric on the other hand is still around 0% annual return depending on how you account for subsidies. I have 1 m^2 per person solar water heater. I'd suggest 1.2 m^2 per person for people that like things a little more luxurious. Saves me $25/month. I have no summer hot water bill.
Your comment on the importance and value of energy density is right on. But you missed that different lifestyles require different energy densities in addition to energy quantities. Electricity to battery, or compressed air are two common low density energy options. Currently people driving less than 25 miles/day can utilize low density energy at 25% the cost of high density energy. For some people low density energy will be a windfall i.e. plug in Prius. Those that can't need to look for other improvements.
The world is so big that any viable energy source/utilization can find a market. Everyone maximizing their utility will benefit each other. Don't loose sight that there are many angles to the solution. Similar to your additional list of various improvements.
Everyone should check their solar water heater options and help spread the word!!
- phillips49
- 49 Comments
Jun 22 11:27 PMCNG is a high pressure gas. Infrastructure does not exist to make it a practicle alternative even in the medium term. There are not stations on every block. It is also dangerous. Aside from being highly flammable, it is stored under high pressure and is subject to catastrophic failure and leakage.
The same problem exists with hydrogen. Cleaner but more flammable.
Electrical is also an infrastructure problem. Imagine what would happen to the grid when everybody got home at 5:30 and plugged in their car. A big fuse is going to blow someplace. And then there is the matter of battery disposal. They are hazardous. There would be alot of them. They don't last the life of a car. And there not convenient receptacles along the way for recharge. Not that you would want to wait 4 hours to get back home again.
Bio fuel, as we are finding out, is subject to weather. You cannot depend on its availability.
Our best shot is to use what we have, oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar and conserve. That and a national effort to develop an economically available 100 mpg car.
- Texrat
- 33 Comments
My Website
Jun 23 10:01 AMThat's a short-term stopgap at best. We just don't have enough domestic reserves to make a difference. By the time they are ready, it will be far too late anyway. In summary: too little, too late.
Blaming the fuel crisis on democrats and "greens" is idiotic. For one, "greens" warned of this eventuality years ago and were ignored. In general, they have been the only ones looking out for the interests of our environment and our important material needs (I am excluding Luddites and other extremists since they constitute a shrill minority with a voice disproportionate to actual influence).
Were it not for "greens", we'd be choking on air pollution and wondering where all the fish had gone. Their efforts at least made us aware of the need to incorporate sustaining efforts into our pell-mell consumerism. Your ire would be better directed at the presidents and congresses who have refused to push and implement a forward-thinking, robust energy policy. Need a hint who? Jimmy Carter was the last president under whom we had such policy. Reagan dismantled Carter's program and NOTHING close has been implemented since.
We need leadership on this issue, not rhetoric. We need an energy "Manhattan project". Where are the leaders to invoke such a necessary event? I don't see any in the ranks of republicans or democrats.
- biomedlives
- 41 Comments
Jun 23 12:17 PM- Scott Benson
- 37 Comments
Jun 23 12:25 PM- Clif
- 7 Comments
Jun 23 12:47 PM- nakedjaybird
- 379 Comments
Jun 23 02:07 PMIn the early 1970's we concluded it was going to take hybrid electric vehicles for anything beyond the basic 40-50 mile daily commuter using fully electric cars, when and if he was ready to switch from huge gas guzzlers (we knew this because we built and tested electric vehicles! And, there is a market for both types of vehicles). The shackles have been off for the private sector for 40 years.
We were also growing silicon ribbon and producing solar volataic panels in the 70's. The shackles have been off for the private sector for 40 years.
We have used windmills for long before many of you folks existed. Seems like we know how to make and use all of the components. The shackles have been off the private sector for a long time.
One of the major problems is the selfish consumer. His shackles have been off - he's had some free choices.
Another major problems is we have permitted our Government give our tax dollars to big oil thru tax breaks (research, investestment credits, depleption allowances, and on and on).
WE HAVE NOT DONE THE RIGHT THINGS;
NOT EVEN THE THINGS WE WERE/ARE CAPABLE OF DOING. BUT........... THAT ..........
Didn't stop France from going 80% nuclear.
Didn't stop Germany from going 40% solar.
Didn't stop Brazil from going 60% biofuel.
Didn't stop Switzerland (and many other European countries) from going electrified rails for people and goods, and even electric ferries (they put rubber tired hiway diesel busses on electrified rail cars for certain legs of their journeys).
Didn't stop Europe from building and using small economical cars, nor electric delivery vehicles, etc.
So where has the US been??
I guarantee you, without LEADERSHIP, we will not get there....................
We have had the techonologies; we've had the money; we've had the resoures; we've had our heads somewhere, like where the sun doesn't shine.
AND FOR THAT, THERE IS JUST TOO MUCH EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
- Scott Benson
- 37 Comments
Jun 23 02:18 PM- nakedjaybird
- 379 Comments
Jun 23 03:50 PMAnd, continue to be the selfish greedy American's we really are; and, admit it.
- jamie4419
- 4 Comments
Jun 23 04:43 PMNuclear also should be used more. Europe has a massive amount of its power derived from it. Don't believe the fear mongerers. Believe the science.
- robc935
- 14 Comments
Jun 23 06:45 PM- groovypete
- 1 Comment
Jun 23 06:46 PMBack then in 1978, in the middle of the second oil crisis we were tasked by NASA/DOE to come up with vehicles that would break our dependence on imported fuel and if possible reduce emissions as well. By 1979, in cooperation with Socal Gas we had a number of dual fuel CNG/Gasoline ICE cars on the road. All of them used stock cars with minor modifications added. Our next project was more ambitous, a CNG fuelled plug in-extended range hybrid. The conversion of a VW stock Rabbit to electric and installation of the CNG fuelled charger (30 kW at 15000 RPM) were completed in 1981. The prototype had a range of over 400 miles at 49mpg (equivalent) under standard driving conditions, used an abundant domestic fuel selling compressed at about 1/3 the price of gasoline and had less than 10% emissions and more power than the new catalytic converter equipped ICE model used for comparison.
But all of a sudden in 1981 it was "morning in america" and with the new dawn came the cancellation of all contracts, the prototypes disappeared, the teams were disbanded and we were back to the old ways.
For those of us who worked in this field, energy independence for motorized personal transportation has neither been a technical nor economic problem since early 1980 and not even then were there any major technical hurdles to overcome.
It was and will be for the forseeable future a political problem. Unless the grip of the legacy industries on political and financial power is broken by economic calamities, or the adoption of available technologies by other countries leaves the US transportation industry in the dust, it will be business as usual even if that means a marked decline in the standard of living for the majority.
- Peter Sterling
- 19 Comments
My Website
Jun 23 07:55 PMThe benefits of developing our own oil and gas include an estimated $600-$700 billion per year in oil payments, currently going overseas, which would all stay inside America creating millions of new jobs and prosperity, here, not there.
Do we have enough domestic energy? The answer is yes we do!
In 2003, MMS estimated that there was 406.1 Tcf of remaining undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas and 76 billion barrels of oil in U.S. offshore regions. A precise inventory with modern equipment has not been conducted in over two decades due to the uncertainty created by federal moratoria.
These MMS estimates for available recoverable reserves are too low.
1) There’s more reserves than the entire continental shelf estimates in the Blake Ridge gas deposit alone, than the MMS estimates for the entire US OCS moratorium area.
2) The Bering Sea Abyssal probably contains 20 billion barrels OEL in natural gas alone.
3) The Gulf of Mexico Deeps probably contains at least 150 billion barrels.
4) The Chukchi Sea probably contains 50 - 100 billion barrels OEL.
5) The Beufort Sea probably contains 50 billion barrels.
6) The part of the Arctic Ocean Commons area adjacent to Alaska and Canada’s EEZ probably contains 400 billion barrels.
7) The mean estimate of technically recoverable oil in ANWR is 10.4 billion barrels – all of which is now economically recoverable. That’s more than twice the proven oil reserves in all of Texas . That’s almost half of the total U.S. proven reserve of 21 billion barrels. That represents a possible 50 percent increase in total U.S. proven reserves.
8) The Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force has estimated that 800 billion barrels of oil equivalent could be recoverable from oil shale resources in the Green River Basin depending on technology and economics - enough to replace the amount of oil we currently import for more than 160 years. And 576 of the 800 billion barrels of oil are on Federal resources.
These amounts of oil and gas could easily last America hundreds of years!
I propose the following measures to bring about the transformation of American energy industry and indeed the entire US economy within ten years.
This would include;
1) Cancel the Moratorium on drilling on the US Continental Shelf.
2) Cancel the Moratorium on drilling on the ANWAR 10-02 area.
3) Support the three international waters resources rights Claims made by American Companies to adjacent oil and gas reserves that could be developed without any regulatory lags.
4) Put aside most of the permitting requirements for urgent projects as listed here, “in the national interest” by creating a fast-track office to evaluate and approve any leases within 90 days.
5) Enlarge new OCS post-moratorium lease block sizes from the paltry 5 mile by 5 mile area to a more realistic size or perhaps 100 miles by 100 miles in frontier regions.
6) Provide strong financial incentives to get oil flowing sooner, i.e., Offer a ten year tax and impost holiday on strategic new oil and gas development projects. Offer matching funds for seismic and EM surveys, to be repaid from eventual production.
7) Provide low-cost loan guarantees for development of urgently required new oil and gas project infrastructure.
8) Provide low-cost Government guarantees or loans for offshore oil-gas ships and vessels built to work in the US for the next 5 years.
9) Temporarily exempt Oil-gas projects from the US Cabotage laws so that projects can more quickly secure production equipment from overseas shipyards.
10) Set Aside Regulatory Delays. Make regulatory bodies set up departments to “fast-track” approval of energy projects to clear hurdles within 3-6 months.
11) Eliminate Frivolous Lawsuit Delays; Create a special court to hear energy related cases with a mandate to adjudicate on cases within 7 days.
12) Provide 200,000 grants for students to pay for college for petroleum engineers and geologists and for technical petroleum production job training programs.
All of the above measures will create a massive stampede of exploration and oil-gas production infrastructure to blossom on the US continental shelf areas, creating near immediate increases in oil and gas production, hence rapidly lowering consumer energy prices.
Much of the new offshore energy production would be in the form of Low C02 natural gas, which when used to make electricity reduces C02 emissions significantly.
any questions?