Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots Believe Them

In a move that should surprise no-one, the whining cry-baby rich-boys at Big Oil are butt-hurt over the latest federal court ruling that upholds the EPA's E15 mandate. In a legal brief filed with the US Supreme Court, the American Petroleum Institute - a powerful, well-funded lobbyist group that represents more than 500 oil and natural gas companies - insisted that transportation fuels containing 15 percent ethanol (E15) could damage cars and trucks.

Should we believe them?

Obviously, the answer is a resounding "Haha! F**k no we should not!"

Let's get one thing clear: the oil industry does not give one fat rat's ass about the health, safety, future, or security of you, me, or anyone else. The horrible people involved in the oil industry have proven, again and again - from Washington DC to Canada to Saudi Arabia to the Mississippi Gulf - that lining their own pockets with cash is more important to them than the your continued health or your children's clean drinking water. Still, that hasn't stopped them from faking a concern for your safety.

That's right kids, Big Oil would now have you believe that E15 is downright dangerous! Bob Greco, API's director of downstream and industry operations said that a switch to E15 "could also put motorists in harm's way when vehicles break down in the middle of a busy highway. We are asking the Supreme Court to step in and protect consumers by striking down EPA's dangerous E15 mandate before it's too late."

Too late? Too late for what? OMG ... they mean we might die! This scare-tactics-scumbag Bob "Greasy Pete" Greco is actually implying that switching to E15 is more likely to get you killed than toxic drinking water.

The worst part of all this is that there's a bunch of 70-80s out there who probably believe this nonsense ... and at least one or two of those idiots are already on the Supreme Court. *ahem* Thomas and Scalia *cough-cough*

Big Oil, in the guise of the API and GOP puppet groups like the AAPS, is spending untold millions and billions to fabricate whatever evidence they can to keep them from having to compete with any other fuels. They're clearly running scared, since - even with petroleum's massive government subsidies, many times more than ethanol - they're not exactly winning the hearts and minds of young Americans.

Op-ed: Everyone working with the API in their bid to block ethanol fuels should die a scandalous, camel-driven, bestiality-related death somewhat sooner than later.

For those of you interested in reading things on your own and forming your own conclusions, I've included a number of links throughout this article, and the original text of the story is quoted, below. Enjoy!

The U.S. oil and gas industry on Tuesday bolstered its argument for the Supreme Court to strike down the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to allow a higher blend of ethanol in newer automobiles.

In a legal brief filed with the high court, the American Petroleum Institute, which represents 500 oil and natural gas companies, insisted that transportation fuels containing 15 percent ethanol could damage cars and trucks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled last August that trade groups representing the automobile, food and other industries did not have sufficient grounds to challenge the use of the new blend known as E15. In response, API appealed to the Supreme Court in February. The high court could make a decision about whether to hear the case soon.

"E15 could leave millions of consumers with broken-down cars and high repair bills," said Bob Greco, API's director of downstream and industry operations. "It could also put motorists in harm's way when vehicles break down in the middle of a busy highway. We are asking the Supreme Court to step in and protect consumers by striking down EPA's dangerous E15 mandate before it's too late."

API's brief was filed as a response to assertions by ethanol backers who have asked the Supreme Court to let the previous ruling stand.

The EPA, which approved the new blend in January 2011, gave the OK for it to go on sale last June. The blend, which has been approved for use in cars and light trucks built since 2000 but is banned from older vehicles and light equipment, has been slow to get off the ground. Only a few stations in the Midwest, including a half dozen in Iowa, have sold the E15 blend.

Ethanol groups said appeal to the Supreme Court was the latest sign of desperation by the oil and gas industry.

"API is basically presenting evidence to prove they will do whatever they can to keep from having to compete with any other fuels," said Ron Lamberty, senior vice president for the American Coalition for Ethanol. "Big Oil will take any approach available to delay E15 implementation while continuing its public smear campaign against it."

Source: DesMoines Register
The post Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots Believe Them appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/06/11/op-ed-big-oil-tells-more-lies-about-ethanol

Methane Leaks Could Negate Climate Benefits of US Natural Gas Boom: Report

Reduction in carbon emissions triggered by America's shift from coal to gas is being offset by a sharp rise in methane.

wcn247/Flickr

Methane leaks could undo the climate change benefits of America's natural gas boom, a new report said on Tuesday.

The report, produced by the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), said America's shift from coal to gas had produced important climate gains.

Carbon dioxide emissions fell last year to their lowest point since 1994, according to the Department of Energy. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were 12% below 2005 levels.

But the report said those reductions were not enough, on their own, to escape the most catastrophic consequences of climate change.

To keep reading, click here.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/06/methane-leaks-could-negate-climate-bene

Gulf Oil Wells Have Been Leaking Since 2004 Hurricane

Why isn't anything being done about it?

NASA Goddard Photo and Video/Flickr

Oil has been gushing from a group of wells south of New Orleans since a platform at the site was wiped out by Hurricane Ivan in 2004, and it appears that nothing is being done to staunch or control the leaking.

Efforts to cap the ruptures appear to have been abandoned in 2011. Instead of working to clean up or stop the spill, driller Taylor Energy Company is now providing the government with daily updates about the resultant slick.

Even those updates appear to be half-baked. A long ribbon of oil can clearly be seen spilling out from the site, but Taylor Energy claims its much smaller than does NOAA.

To keep reading, click here.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/06/gulf-oil-wells-have-been-leaking-since-

Carbon Bubble Will Plunge the World Into Another Financial Crisis - Report

Trillions of dollars at risk as stock markets inflate value of fossil fuels that may have to remain buried forever, experts warn.

ezioman/Flickr

The world could be heading for a major economic crisis as stock markets inflate an investment bubble in fossil fuels to the tune of trillions of dollars, according to leading economists.

"The financial crisis has shown what happens when risks accumulate unnoticed," said Lord (Nicholas) Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics. He said the risk was "very big indeed" and that almost all investors and regulators were failing to address it.

The so-called "carbon bubble" is the result of an over-valuation of oil, coal and gas reserves held by fossil fuel companies. According to a report published on Friday, at least two-thirds of these reserves will have to remain underground if the world is to meet existing internationally agreed targets to avoid the threshold for "dangerous" climate change. If the agreements hold, these reserves will be in effect unburnable and so worthless - leading to massive market losses. But the stock markets are betting on countries' inaction on climate change.

To keep reading, click here.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/04/carbon-bubble-will-plunge-the-world-int

"SuperTruck" Achieves 54% Fuel Efficiency Enhancement

A truck called the "SuperTruck" has achieved fuel efficiency 54% greater than that of average long-haul trucks. The SuperTruck achieved 9.9 MPG under real-world driving conditions, while typical long-haul trucks achieve 5.5 MPG to 6.5 MPG. Doesn't sound like much, but this improvement is actually huge.

The SuperTruck was created out of a partnership with Cummins and Peterbilt Motors. It was estimated that this fuel economy improvement would save drivers $25,000 annually based on today's average diesel prices, if they drive 120,000 miles per year. These vehicles also exhibited an even higher freight efficiency improvement of 61% compared to a baseline truck driving the same route. Both fuel efficiency increases exceeded the U.S Department of Energy's goal of 50%.

The efficiency improvements were achieved using a more efficient engine, a waste heat recovery system, electronics that choose the most efficient routes for drivers, low-rolling-resistance tires, weight reductions, and a more aerodynamic chassis. Sometimes people marginalize the inefficiency of large trucks such as trailers used to transport garbage, food, and other items in large quantities. But everytime gas costs go up, so does the cost of shipping products. These fuel economy improvements can keep shipping costs in check.

Source: Autoblog

The post "SuperTruck" Achieves 54% Fuel Efficiency Enhancement appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/03/26/supertruck-achieves-54-fuel-efficiency-enha

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies

In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.

cclark395/Flickr

When Saudi Arabia's longtime oil minister, Ali Al-Naimi, opens his mouth, the world listens. Yesterday, during a speech in Hong Kong, he delivered a message that U.S. policy makers in particular would do well to take note of. The days of $100-a-barrel crude, he told the crowd, are here "for the foreseeable future."

If he's right, one thing that shouldn't be around for the foreseeable future are the outdated tax credits that protect oil and gas companies, which will be plenty profitable in a world of $100-a-barrel oil. If Democrats and Republicans are looking for safe ground to set up camp for the budget negotiations, let's start with these $7 billion-a-year subsidies.

To keep reading, click here.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/03/americas-most-obvious-tax-reform-idea-k

After Nebraska Setback, Greens Regroup on Keystone XL

Will Nebraska become a real-life example of losing a battle to win the war?

Duffernutter/Flickr

Environmentalists waging an ongoing fight against the Keystone XL pipeline were dealt a major setback this week when Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signed off on the pipe's route through his state. Now all that stands between TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline, and broken ground is a signature from the State Department, the final decision about which is expected this spring.

Between now and then, the sprawling unofficial coalition of green individuals and groups that have bonded in the last two years over opposition to the pipeline is gearing up for a final push. It's certain to be an uphill battle: Yesterday a letter signed by 53 senators put renewed pressure on Obama to say yes, and other than the rare rhetorical nod to climate action there are few clues that he'll approve the project. So the rhetoric of the next couple months could make or break the pipeline.

Opposition to the Keystone XL has tended to coalesce around two different arguments, the tools in the anti-Keystone toolbelt: The first is that the pipe could deal a deadly blow to the global climate by raising the floodgates for oil from Canada's tar sands, believed by scientists to be one of Earth's dirtiest fuel sources; the second is that the pipe could pose a slew of localized threats on its path from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, from potential leaks contaminating groundwater to careless work crews plowing through fragile dinosaur fossil beds. Governor Heineman's decision seems to close the book on the state-level fight and steal some thunder from the localized argument, but leading Nebraska activist Jane Kleeb says local landowners aren't ready to cede their home turf quite yet.

"Oh yeah, it's far from over. We have landowners asking us to train them in civil disobedience," Kleeb said. "These folks are not joking around. They homesteaded this land. They don't trust this company. And they don't want [the pipeline]. So they're going to do everything they can to keep it from crossing their lines."

Nebraska DEQ; Tim McDonnell

Kleeb says although she's made the global climate case to Nebraskans, in her experience the strongest battle strategy focuses on localized issues. She still has one ace in that hole: a lawsuit in Nebraska Supreme Court brought by a trio of landowners against Gov. Heineman, challenging the constitutionality of the state law that allows him to green-light the pipeline. So far the suit hasn't slowed the governor down, but Kleeb is hopeful that if the case falls in her favor it could throw a wrench in the works, regardless of the State Dept.'s decision. And she continues to trumpet the risk the pipeline poses to water and ecological resources in her state, arguing that the state's official map of the pipeline route misrepresents the size of the Sand Hills, a delicate Nebraska ecosystem that the pipe's original route cut straight through but that the approved route purports to make a point of avoiding (see map).

But David Loope, a geologist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, says perceived threats to the Sand Hills and Nebraska's Ogallala Aquifer, which the pipe is still plotted to cut across, are overblown.

"I'm conflicted," he says. "I think the pipeline is a terrible idea for global reasons. But the hew and cry coming from Nebraska is pure NIMBYism."

Loope says the global climate change argument against the pipeline is far more honest, and he hopes to see that prevail as the leading opposition rallying cry in Washington, DC. There's a good chance it will: Bill McKibben, the environmentalist who's become the Keystone XL's most public opponent, said in an email that while he'd love to help save Nebraska, putting climate front and center is the best way to save the rest of the world, too: "The fight has always been about whether the president actually means what he says about about fighting climate change. We'll find out."

http://climatedesk.org/2013/01/after-nebraska-setback-greens-regroup-o

Sierra Club Turns to Civil Disobedience to Stop Keystone Pipeline

Director Michael Brune on his historic decision for the enviro group.

Rainforest Action Network/Flickr

Earlier this week, the Sierra Club announced that it is lifting its long-standing institutional prohibition on civil disobedience so that it can protest the development of the tar sands. The club's board of directors approved the change, which executive director Michael Brune made public on Tuesday. While staff and board members have previously participated in acts of civil disobedience in a personal capacity, this is the first time that the organization will take part.

The group has been mum on exactly what sort of civil disobedience it is planning. It is cosponsoring an anti-Keystone XL rally on the National Mall on February 17 with 350.org and the Hip-Hop Caucus, but says that the civil disobedience will be a separate event.

I caught up with Brune on Thursday to talk about what this means for the 120-year-old environmental organization.

Mother Jones: So is this only allowing civil disobedience related to the tar sands, or does it open it up the possibility to use it for other issues as well?

Michael Brune: Right now the board has authorized us to do this singular action on tar sands and climate. It will have a broad frame of wanting the president to be as muscular in his approach to fighting climate change as he can, with a particular focus on the tar sands pipeline.

To keep reading, click here.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/01/sierra-club-turns-to-civil-disobedience

How To Make Gasoline from Tar Sands

In six simple steps.

gazzat/Flickr

Ever wonder about the future of energy? Will it be wind? Solar? Geothermal? No wait, I got it, tar sands! (Let's try that again - tar sands!) They've got everything oil does, but they're harder to get, crappier when you get them, and leave a much bigger mark on the climate. Sounds like a winner. Let's look a little closer, shall we?

First off, what are tar sands? Tar sands are deposits of about 90 percent sand or sandstone, water, and clay mixed with only about 10 percent high-sulfur bitumen, a viscous black petroleum sludge rich in hydrocarbons, also known as "natural asphalt."

To keep reading, click here.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/01/how-to-make-gasoline-from-tar-sands

VIDEO: Hiking the 1,700-Mile Keystone Pipeline "Trail"

Ken Ilgunas wanted to learn more about the controversial pipeline. So he strapped on a pair of hiking boots and hit the trail.

"I live a pretty unconventional life," Ken Ilgunas tells me, speaking over Skype from a community library in Marion, Kansas. It's a typical understatement for Ilgunas, who has the kind of ultra-low-key demeanor one acquires after many nights in the backcountry by oneself. In September, after a year of minimalist living in his van, Ilgunas, 29, was on the hunt for a new adventure. He'd been following the controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline, heard stories of the landscapes it could jeopardize, and decided the best thing to do would be to go see the thing first-hand. So in September, he found a State Department map, strapped on a pair of good hiking boots, hitchhiked to Canada, and started walking the 1,700-mile route the pipe, if built, will take from the tar sands to ports in the Gulf of Mexico. He expects to finish his journey mid-February; along the way he's encountered frigid cold, charging moose, cows (lots of cows), and plenty of folks who want to keep the pipe out of their backyards.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/01/video-hiking-the-1700-mile-keystone-pip

What Economists Missed: Why World Coal Consumption Keeps Rising

A primary reason why coal consumption is rising is because of increased international trade, starting when the World Trade Organization was formed in 1995, and greatly ramping up when China was added in December 2001. Figure 1 shows world fossil fuel extraction for the three fossil fuels. A person can see a sharp "bend" in the coal line, immediately after China was added to the World Trade Organization.
http://theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/162771/why-world-coal-con

Peak Oil is about Price AND Supply

The Globe and Mail has run a piece by Jeff Rubin talking about how "the oil industry’s never ending ability to develop new extraction technologies and discover new sources of supply" has repeatedly confounded the Peak Oil community's ability to forecast the peak.  He goes on to suggest that the apparent peak of oil production is a matter of economics rather than actual fossil oil supply.  The article reads as if he's slamming the Peak Oil community, but I think he'd find most knowledgable Peak Oil people in agreement with what he suggests.  Additionally I think they'd say that it's a question of price AND supply, rather than simply a question of price.

As he says, the U.S. oil production (lower 48 states) peaked as predicted by M. King Hubbert in 1971ish.  One might suppose Hubbert made a lucky prediction, or one might suppose his theories were spot-on accurate.  I don't know enough to pronounce either way.  Rubin goes on to say

new sources of supply have been found in Alaska and under the Gulf of Mexico. And now oil sand production from Alberta and oil from the Bakken shale deposits may soon replace conventional oil in the mix of North American fuel.

Going further he references how the U.S. Energy Information Administration (and other energy information agencies) have stopped referring to fossil oil and instead have invented a new phrase, Energy Liquids, which

includes all kinds of energy sources we would not have previously called oil such as natural gas liquids, liquefied refinery gases, and even corn-based ethanol.

There are some slippery definitions here so let's be careful.

The phrase "Peak Oil" is generally defined in terms of fossil oil production.  As he points out there are various other sources of liquid fuels that are being developed.  We could have a peak of fossil oil production, and still have plenty of liquid fuels if there is development of enough production infrastructure for these other resources.

I've long felt the peak oil community was overly focused on fossil oil.  There's obviously a fixed size amount of fossil oil and of course there will be a peak of production from fossil oil resources.  When the doom and gloom end of the peak oil community declares that the peak of fossil production means "GAME OVER" and "IT'S MAD MAX TIME" they're saying they think other liquid fuel resources will not be able to replace the fossil oil resources we're accustomed to.

There's potential to replace fossil oil with other liquid fuel resources, but can we afford to do so?

To replace fossil oil production, new sources of liquid fuels must be developed.  That means infrastructure to extract fuels from various places.  Rubin mentions tar sands, shale oil, natural gas liquids, liquified methane, ethanol, and there are other potential sources.

Each requires investments of money and energy to extract liquid fuel.   An important concept is Energy Return on Investment - EROI - which is the energy content of a fuel, versus the energy content used to generate that fuel.  What was so attractive about fossil oil was that in its early days the EROI was 100:1, meaning 100 barrels of energy for each barrel of energy consumed in extracting that fuel.  The EROI on fossil oil has dropped considerably since the gusher days.  The closer EROI gets to 1:1 the less useful the energy resource is.

There's also the question of whether the money is available to pay for the machines and pipelines and whatnot that will be required to process, refine, extract, transport etc the fuels from these new resources.  As liquid fuels they might likely be transportable through oil pipelines, but other steps in the process require wholly new machines and factories to be built.  Where will the money come from in a time of global financial fracturing?

There's also the question of land use policies.  Some of the resources like ethanol or other biofuels will require land devoted to growing fuel crops rather than food crops.  Can we afford this?

For an interesting youtube presentation along these lines see: http://energy.7gen.com/2011/10/peak-oil-101-presentation-by-chris.html

 

Peak oil is about price, not supply

According to Jeremy Rifkin The 'Democratization Of Energy' Will Change Everything

American economist Jeremy Rifkin has a new book out, The Third Industrial Revolution, in which he argues that the current economic woes are a symptom of a deep problem rooted in the dependence on fossil fuels.  Of course that's true and to me it's shocking that it's such an under-recognized problem.  Rather than being symptoms of a temporary economic malaise, the unemployment, rising food prices, rising debt and more are signs that the current world order -- long infused with and defined by fossil fuels -- is collapsing around us.  To understand one should study up on the role of fossil fuels in creating the marvels of our age, and then turn to studying peak oil and the collapsing supply of fossil fuels.

Ask yourself: What does Economics 101 say about "supply and demand".  When demand for some product outstrips supply, the price of that product goes up.  Yes?  Simple economics theory.  What about if that product is a fundamental requirement to keep "the economy" moving?  What if the supply of that product starts diminishing and can never again be increased?  What if a large part of the political leadership is either ignorant of the diminished supply, or in outright denial, and instead of proposing rational solutions continue to promote continued dependance on the fuel whose supply can never be increased?

That's where Peak Oil is leading us.  In Rifkin's book there have been two industrial revolutions, and that a third one is underway as we speak right now.  The third industrial revolution will lead to a grand new era of collaborative business that's more about creative play, peer-to-peer interactivity, social capital, participation in open commons and access to global networks.

The Third Industrial Revolution is the last stage of the great industrial saga and the first stage of the emerging collaborative era rolled together.  Implementation will be forced by diminishing supply of fossil fuel, and enabled by the "democratizing" influence of distributed power generation.  Distributed power generation doesn't require the top down domineering of industrialized power systems.  Somehow Rifkin believes that "we" will automatically implement democratized power as if the powers-that-be will allow it to happen.

The industrial revolutions were powered and enabled into existence by fossil fuels.  It wasn't purely intellectual genius freed from religious domination that created the industrial revolutions.  It was the harnessing of fossil fuels and the huge energy resources stored within them.  Fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas are reservoirs of sequestered carbon and solar energy captured millions of years ago by plants and animals.  Their dead bodies piled up and became trapped underground where natural forces converted their tissues into fossil fuels.

In the 1700's-1800's engineers and industrialists made the first steps to developing technology to mine those fuels, prepare them for industrial use, and use the energy to build vast industrial empires.  It's been a great ride, hasn't it?  However 300 years later and we're now at the mid-point of the fossil fuel resources the planet captured for us.  It's all downhill from here.  That is, the energy available from fossil fuels can only decline from here out.  And the politicians who suggest otherwise ("Drill Baby Drill") are deluded or insane or something.

Rifkin sees this third industrial revolution as a transitionary phase from industriousness to collaborativeness.  Industrial ages are characterized by "values of rigid discipline and hard work, the top-down flow of authority, the importance of financial capital, the workings of the marketplace and private property relations".  This was required by fossil fuels because of the centralized nature of fossil fuel resources.  But as fossil fuel becomes scarcer it's going to force us into a new mode of society.

Rifkin suggests the shift will rely on renewable energy resources (Solar, Wind, Biomass, etc) all of which are available "anywhere".  We won't be reliant on centralized energy resources but distributed ones.

He says "The democratization of energy has profound implications for how we orchestrate the entirety of human life in the coming century."  It means an era of distributed capitalism because energy resources are available everywhere.  He suggests the dispersed energy resources will be collected from everywhere and bundled and shared with others over a distributed "energy internet".

The distributed nature of distributed energy generation supposedly forces lateral power structures rather than the top down domineering ones of the industrial revolutions.

However - as compelling as the vision is, I wonder if the powers-that-be will allow it to take shape that way.  The powers in charge have rarely acted in the interests of individuals, and always acted in the interests of keeping those in power still in power.  Is some of the denialism about energy resource problems due to those in power trying desparately to keep the game going so they can remain in power?

It seems there's a huge interest in undermining the green tech/jobs revolution the Obama Administration wants/ed to unleash.  At the current moment we have another budget showdown in Washington DC and the government grants/loans programs for advanced green transportation technology has a gun held to its head with the Republicans saying we need to stop funding such programs in order to balance the budget.  Developing this kind of technology will act to undermine the old order of fossil fuel dependence.  Electric vehicles participate in the democratized energy system because a home owner can have enough solar panels on their house to fuel their electric car with electricity, and not have to pay anybody a dime for fuel.  Is the threats against electric vehicle technology programs meant to keep us captured by fossil fuel interests for transportation fuel?

 

FUEL - the movie

URL: 

FUEL

Description: 

Most Americans know we’ve got a problem: an addiction to oil that taxes the environment, entangles us in costly foreign policies, and threatens the nation’s long-term stability. But few are informed or empowered enough to do much about it.

extvideo: 

FUEL - the movie

URL: 

FUEL

Description: 

Most Americans know we’ve got a problem: an addiction to oil that taxes the environment, entangles us in costly foreign policies, and threatens the nation’s long-term stability. But few are informed or empowered enough to do much about it.

extvideo: