Breaking the Oil Chain

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: Where do you get the idea that congress is going to pass "climate change" legislation? As near as I can tell..the last time they checked, they only had 12 votes for it [img]smile.gif[/img] not likely to pass unless it gets a helluva lot more votes.

Here's how (*prognostication mode*):

I didn't say the Feds, first of all. Under the Clean Air Act, California, and only California, may pass more restrictive laws than the Clean Air Act itself. (Why? -- because their law was already in place when the Clean Air Act came along.) CA has proposed an act that would bring fuel efficiency and Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. They are still hammering it out.

Now, once CA has a more strict law on the books, the Federal CAA allows other states to adopt the "California Rule." Most Northeastern states have announced an intention to do this, with NY's Attorney General Spitzer at the helm (nice guy -- spoke at my swearing in in Albany).

Now, 2-4 years from now, here is your position if you are Ford or Shell or another multinational:
- GHG regulation of one type in the "CA Rule" states in the US.
- GHG regulation (or lack of) in the other US states.
- GHG rules in all your international relations (Kyoto to enter into effect shortly after Russia ratifies).

These companies will bring it all back to roost in D.C. and tell Congress/President "Enough Already!!! Give us one set of rules!!! And, please quit giving companies that don't have to compete internationally an unfair advantage!!!!"

That, in a nutshell, is how. You can argue my reasoning if you like, but I didn't dream it all up on my own -- it's what we know to be the case in the industry. Just wait around a year or two -- and see if I called it right.

I just had lunch today with a guy from the Chicago Climate Exchange ("CCX"), where companies like AEP, Ford, Motorolla have already signed up to reduce their emissions and participate in carbon trading, in anticipation of needing to be on the "high side" of compliance once the hammers start to fall. These companies aren't spending money on this just because they want to feel good. The have read the tea leaves -- and they know it is coming no matter what we do or don't want in D.C.

Hmmm thats an interesting prognostication [img]smile.gif[/img] Will be interestingto see if it works...except you forget...many of the places where Detroit does business won't be using those standards and won't be able to afford them any way ...shall be interesting to watch.

[Micah Foehammer]

Backtracking a bit, here is a summary from the USGS circa 1999 detailing the estimated recoverable volume of oil and associated natural gas from the ANWAR region.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...l/preface.html

Pay PARTICULAR ATTENTION to the method by which the in place hydrocarbons are calculated. This is an ENTIRELY statistical method and at best represents an educated guess. How do I know? Because I do this for a living! The USGS figures for in-place hydrocarbon are done without any true hard data. As MagiK so correctly points out, you need to be actually explore the area to find out what the truth is. So far, government restrictions have prevented gathering of seismic data or drilling of COST tests (stratigraphic tests of the subsufrace) to truly evaluate the exact potential or lack of it.

Other articles worth reading:

http://www.geotimes.org/may01/anwr.html

http://www.carlist.com/autonews/opec.html

And a quick note here - the US government has some of the most FAVORABLE royalty treatment for oil companies in the world. The US government takes a small percentage of all oil found as a "royalty" tax from oil companies. The royalty rate is roughly 12.5% and recent discoveries which fall below a certain size threshold are totally exempt from all royalty until their production excedes the threshold. Compare that with countries where the government skims a massive 85+ % off the top.

Greater potential exists in the Athabasca oil sands than in the ANWAR. Read this:

http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2003/May3.htm

*whew* now that was a data dump .....

[Micah Foehammer]

Here's another article that lists WAY more information than you probably need or want:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html

It covers everything from refining capacity to production rates.

[Sir Kenyth]

Our biggest technological limitation is energy storage. Currently, batteries are inefficient, expensive, environmentally hazardous, heavy, their performance degrades significantly over time, etc. I could go on for a long time about it.

Storage capacitors have some advantages over chemical batteries as far as durability, but they lose power quickly and produce dangerous, unregulated voltages at useful wattage. They are only good in low power applications.

We have a lot of power to tap if only we could store the energy produced. Likewise, our machines are fairly wasteful of energy. Mother nature has designed ways to be frugal. IIRC, a gallon of gasoline is well over 30,000 calories! That's enough energy to keep an active average male human going for twenty days! A 175 lb person on a bicycle going 15 mph gets about 912 miles per gallon.

[Azred]

Oh, only a Lexus SUV. By all means, let me get my checkbook. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Sir K, mother nature didn't make gasoline consumable, so I fail to see your point.

Azred, if you checked my links, you'd also see Ford, Toyota, and Honda hybrids. I pointed out the Lexus because it is such an extremely popular model, and because the hybrid looks the same on the outside as the non.

[Azred]

I did check out the links; very informative. I was simply pointing out the Lexus as an example and making the joke that my vast sums of normally liquid capital are tied up in portfolio shifts right now. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Regarding the CA Law:

November 2, 2004
Peering at the Sticker on a Cleaner Car
By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT, Nov. 1 - How much will it cost Californians to buy cooler cars?

The Golden State's roads are known for vintage T-birds, customized muscle cars and the Bentleys in Beverly Hills. But the state's regulators have a different kind of cool in mind - cars that emit significantly lower amounts of the gases that have been linked to global warming.

When California adopted the nation's first automotive greenhouse gas regulation in September, the auto industry and state regulators disagreed over how much it would all cost. The new regulation would require a 30 percent reduction, on average, in automotive greenhouse gas emissions - carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane - by the 2016 model year.

The regulation, though directed at greenhouse gases, would probably demand an improvement in fuel economy of more than 40 percent. While smog-forming pollutants have been regulated for decades, catalytic converters can neutralize those emissions. But no filtration technology exists for greenhouse gas emissions, so cutting those emissions would have to come almost entirely from better fuel economy, though a modest amount could be cut by overhauling a car's air-conditioner.

The staff of the California Air Resources Board says the new regulation will add about $1,000 to the cost of an average vehicle, but they said they believed that cost could be made up in five years in savings at the gasoline pump. The industry, by contrast, said it would add $3,000, a cost that would never fully be made up by fuel savings.

If the regulation survives a legal challenge from the auto industry, New York has indicated it wants to follow California's lead. Several other Northeastern states that hew closely to California's air quality standards may also follow suit.

So how would cars and trucks have to change?

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading environmental group lobbying for the regulation, recently issued a report on how six specific vehicles could be modified to reduce global warming emissions by 40 percent or more, exceeding the California standards.

The group projected that, for a cost of $1,960 per vehicle, the 2003 model Ford Explorer XLT, with a V-6 engine, could be modified to reduce its greenhouse gas production by 43 percent, a change that would improve fuel economy by more than 70 percent. (California's standards require that emissions from vehicles in the Explorer's weight class be reduced by 24.5 percent by 2016.) The report contends that buyers could make up that added cost in a little over three years by spending less on gasoline.

Thomas C. Austin, the consultant employed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry lobbying group, to argue against the California regulation, conducted an analysis of the environmental group's projections. (The Ford Motor Company declined to offer its own analysis, referring questions to the alliance.)

Mr. Austin said that according to his analysis it would cost $4,361 a vehicle to make the modifications proposed by the environmental group, and that some changes were not feasible. He also projected a somewhat lower reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The two sides disagreed about almost every aspect of cost projections because of different methodologies and sources.

"They look for what's been published to support the case to encourage government agencies to further regulate," Mr. Austin said of the Union of Concerned Scientists, noting that to make its case, the group used "the most optimistic projections of fuel economy improvements and the most optimistic projections of cost."

Environmentalists and California regulators argue that the industry's recalcitrance is no surprise, citing its history of opposing everything from safety belts to small increases in fuel economy standards.

"The industry has a long track record of underestimating potential and overestimating cost," said Louise Bedsworth, the senior vehicles analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who wrote the report. "We've seen it on many safety regulations; we continually see this pattern of pushing back, but in most areas we've seen them come through and succeed in the end."

Here are major modifications that Ms. Bedsworth would make to an Explorer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and Mr. Austin's comments on those proposals.

Aerodynamics

For starters, the Explorer, a sport utility vehicle, would need to be a lot rounder. Ms. Bedsworth said automakers could modestly reduce emissions by improving aerodynamics because cars and trucks that are less wind resistant are more fuel efficient.

"The Explorer is a pretty boxy S.U.V.," she said, a shape that makes it less aerodynamic.

Two current S.U.V.'s, Honda's Acura MDX and the Volvo XC90, made by Ford, are significantly more aerodynamic than the Explorer because of more rounded styling. The company could also cover the underside with paneling to smooth over nooks that hinder wind flow.

Mr. Austin said that Ms. Bedsworth's proposals would make the Explorer an ugly duckling. Some of the most iconic vehicles of the day are characterized by boxiness, from the Hummer to the Chrysler 300C.

"It's been decades since the auto industry showed you could produce vehicles that had half the drag coefficient than vehicles do today," he said. "But look at them. To most people, they're not the kind of cars they want to drive."

Ms. Bedsworth said Ford could also extend the Explorer's steel body over the tops of the tires to improve wind resistance, the way Honda designed the body of its tiny hybrid electric car, the Insight. But Mr. Austin said "most people think the Honda Insight is an ugly car."

Tweaking the Tires

Some new tires improve fuel efficiency with designs and materials that lessen the force needed to propel them down the road. Ms. Bedsworth says she believes further improvements are possible, but Mr. Austin said new federal tire pressure regulations might induce automakers to use larger tires that would impede efficiency gains.

Mike Wischhusen, the director of industry standards and government regulations at Michelin, said changing tire size would not necessarily change fuel economy performance by itself. His company's chief executive, Eduoard Michelin, recently outlined a goal of improving tire performance, as it relates to fuel economy, by 50 percent by 2020.

Under the Hood

Ms. Bedsworth said a variety of technologies could be combined to improve efficiency under the hood. A 42-volt starter generator, a mild form of hybrid technology, would allow the Explorer to shut down at stoplights.

The modified Explorer's engine would also combine three technologies that are in use today, though not all in one vehicle. The altered S.U.V. would have a diesel-like direct-injection gasoline engine that puts air and fuel directly into the engine cylinders rather than into precombustion chambers. The engine would also employ variable valve timing, a technology that ensures that the engine valves open and close in the most efficient manner, and cylinder deactivation, which shuts down one-half of the engine if it's not needed.

Mr. Austin said the last two technologies "don't make engineering sense" when packaged together because they were so similar in nature that using them jointly would not be worthwhile.

Ms. Bedsworth said Honda employed both technologies in its Odyssey minivans, but only one technology - variable valve timing or cylinder deactivation - was used in each minivan, depending on the version.

Ms. Bedsworth said there would still be some added benefit to using both. "The package still comes out to be cost effective," she said.

Increased engine efficiency would slightly increase, to 230 from 210, the horsepower of the 2003 model Explorer used in the study.

Improved Air-Conditioning

The industry is almost certain to argue in its legal challenge that the California regulation is pre-empted by Washington's authority to regulate fuel economy. But environmentalists point out that tweaking a vehicle's air-conditioning system is one way to get modest emissions reductions independent of fuel economy improvements.

The refrigerant used in automobile air-conditioners, known as HFC-134a, is a heat-trapping gas that is even more damaging than carbon dioxide. An improved air-conditioner could contain the gas better, or alternatively, a different type of refrigerant could be used.

Weight Loss?

Mr. Austin said to achieve the kind of emissions reductions proposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, or the lesser reductions required by the California regulation, the Explorer would have to be significantly lighter. "Our analysis indicates that weight reduction is a more cost-effective way to improve fuel economy than some of the other measures that would otherwise be required," Mr. Austin said.

The use of lightweight materials like aluminum, and the cost of redesign, would add more than $1,000 to the vehicle cost, he said. But Ms. Bedsworth disagreed, saying that the Explorer's weight would not have to change to meet the emissions standards.

Savings at the Gas Pump

Mr. Austin disagreed with projections used by California regulators to gauge how many miles the average vehicle in the state is in service. Those projections are critical to making a cost-benefit analysis of the new standard. He also disputed the discount rate the Union of Concerned Scientists used to calculate the current value of future fuel savings.

Ms. Bedsworth said her projections were conservative, pointing to the $1.68-a-gallon gas price used in her analysis. Gasoline costs $2.39 a gallon, on average, in California, according to the most recent estimate from the Energy Information Administration.