Author: admin

Posted on

Dulles & Frankfurt: Good Beer Makes it Okay

Dulles & Frankfurt exert gravitational pull on my life.  Dulles has been the jumping off point and Frankfurt the landing spot for most of my overseas adventures.  In spite of dozens of stops in Frankfurt, I have left the airport only twice: during my first international travel in 1979 (when I hitchhiked down the road, promptly got lost and spent the night on a park bench in Heidelberg) and last year when I made some local appointments.  Frankfurt is an interesting place, but most of us see only the transit airport.  We arrive tired, dirty, cranky and eager to go someplace else.  We leave with a bad impression.  Too bad.

The State Department generously gave me business class because my travel time is well over 14 hours, so I got some rest on the flight over.  Now I have the 8+ hour wait before I leave for Amman to await milair to Baghdad. 

I am sitting in the Business Lounge in FRK.  Snacks and Coca Cola are free.  I can plug in my computer.  Other than that the place has little to recommend it.  I arrived to a rows of unattractive grey chairs, crowded with unattractive grey people surrounded by dour grey and blue walls.  Sadly, this is the place where I belong.  We all tend to see FRK through grey filters.

However, things are looking up.  After a little while, most of those crowds moved along to their final destinations (what an ominous phrase) leaving the place quiet for us happy few long-term residents.  It is not so bad w/o the tumult.  I managed to sleep a little and although I have the stiff neck to prove I can sleep sitting straight up, I feel refreshed and in a much better mood than when I walked through the door a couple of hours ago.

I have also found another thing that discerning travelers appreciate about Germany – beer.  They have a splendid little machine that dispenses Beck’s beer the German way – with the proper amount of foam in the proper type of glass.  It may be mere psychology, but the stuff we get in the bottles back home just is not the same.  The properly tapped beer is an art form, with froth just above the rim, so that you enjoy the visual beauty, feel and smell the flavor before you taste it.  Some people appreciate fine wine.  That’s nothing but grape juice in old bottles to an old Milwaukee boy like me who prefers beer.  Since I will not be seeing much of the golden liquid grain in Iraq, I do not mind drinking it here.  The grey surroundings have brightened.  They are even some big pretzels and what looks like goulash soup.

Es gibt kein schoneres leben, even if it is only an airport and only for a moment.  On the road to Iraq, I take it when I can, because when I am gone from here, everybody else will be drinking all the beer.  FRK is not all that bad, once you get to know it.

Posted on

Tying Up Loose Ends

I am finishing up my old job this week.  I fly out on Friday and I still have lots of things to do.  I hope to write more on the blog on Sunday or Monday with my first impressions of Iraq.   I will then delay my postings so that I cannot inadvertently reveal anything I should not.

Here are a few things I found mentioning my upcoming tour, background until I can write again.

Provincial Reconstruction Teams Are Improving Lives in Iraq
State Department Cajoles Young Diplomats Into Iraq Service – This one has me near the end.  The title is misleading, IMO.  Of course clearly “young diplomats” does not mean me.

Posted on

2007 Tree Farmer of the Year

This is my 2007 tree farmer of the year article from Virginia Forest Fall 2007 issue.

Mike T. Jones and his family were selected by the Virginia Tree Farm Committee as outstanding Tree Farmers of 2007. Mike’s Springview Farm spreads across 335 acres on a beautiful stretch of rapids in the Nottoway River at the northern edge of Greensville County, Virgnia, near the community of Purdy. The Nottoway River is a big part of Mike’s life and story. He loves the river and works hard to protect its natural beauty, clean water and abundant wildlife. Herons, eagles and osprey patrol his one and a half miles of river frontage. A variety of fish, including the endangered Roanoke Logperch, thrive in the clear flowing stream. Mike has created various wildlife infrastructure such as nesting platforms for osprey, woodduck and tree swallow boxes. He uses discarded Christmas trees for fish structure in the three ponds. His personal “Hole-In-The-Woods” project involves placing nest boxes throughout the farm that will invariably be utilized by many wildlife species (e.g. flying squirrels, gray squirrels, Great-Crested Flycatchers, owls, etc.)

Mike has constructed and maintains over three miles of fences to exclude livestock from timberland, sensitive wetlands and stream corridors (alternate livestock water sources are provided); he is conscientious when using herbicides for brush control, timber management and wildlife enhancement; his roads are properly constructed with water bars to avoid erosion; and he maintains wildlife friendly buffers around all pastures, crop fields and other open areas. Soft edges between forests and fields are the norm here.

Forestry is a family affair for Mike Jones. It was his grandfather, Millard M. Jones, who originally established the Tree Farm on portions of this land and was publicly recognized by the governor of Virginia as our state’s first Tree Farmer in 1947. Mike’s four  children still work around the farm and are carrying on the family tradition. Springview Farm is the perfect example of sustainable forestry. The picture of Mike’s grandfather standing next to his Tree Farm sign, in front of a healthy stand of loblolly pine, could be reenacted today. Despite two generations of harvests, the forest of today looks similar to 1947.

Springview Farm is outstanding proof that our land can produce wood, clean water, recreation and wildlife at the same time. However, doing this correctly requires diligence and an astute understanding of forestry and wildlife management concepts. Mike, who manages his land in harmony with natural principles, is an excellent steward of all our natural resources.Virginia’s forest evolved with fire. Native Americans used fire as a  management tool to encourage game species. Preventing all fires in the forest can encourage pests, alter the fundamental nature of the forest, and create volatile conditions that can lead to disastrous situations.

However, since fire is a natural and necessary component of our forest ecology, it is also a potential friend. Mike Jones is a certified prescribed burning manager who knows how to use fire as the environmentally friendly tool it is. He burns the pine understory and warm-season grass fields on a
regular schedule to release nutrients, significantly improve wildlife values, control understory habitat and improve growth potential. This wise use of the practice on forestland is producing a beautiful savanna pine forest similar to what likely existed in 1607. 

Mike is also experimenting with longleaf pine. The longleaf was once common in southeastern Virginia, but years of development and diligent fire suppression (the longleaf ecology depends on fire) have reduced it to mere remnants. Mike’s farm is located on the northern edge of the Longleaf’s natural range and he has dedicated a site to improved longleaf pine seedlings, which are still in the “grass stage.”

Wildlife thrives. Deer and wild turkey are common sights on Springview Farm. Although bear and bobcat are seen less often, they are often watching you. Mike ensures that necessary forestry operations leave no long-term scars. After a recent harvest, for example, he ripped the compressed soil at his log decks and planted them with forages, allowing them to quickly recover and become wildlife feeding plots. Mike also assures that the forest edge flows into the field with a soft boundary that protects wildlife and provides an additional habitat type.  A beautiful riparian buffer of mature hardwood trees borders this entire one and a half mile stretch of the Nottoway River.

That old philosophical conundrum —whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if nobody is there to hear it—has particular meaning to forest owners. We are dealing with an increasingly urban population, remote from the rhythms of the country and the cycles of nature. They often do not understand the principles of good forestry and may be suspicious of those who utilize and harvest the products of the forest. After all, the forester’s years of good work are often literally hidden in the woods, while some of the less attractive aspects of harvests, and especially the period immediately following harvests, may attract attention.

This is where Mike Jones is performing a valuable service to every forester and the 384,000 private forest landowners in Virginia. In many ways he has opened Springview Farm to the public and this has allowed many people to learn about the stewardship aspect of forestry. He hosts the annual Virginia Tech soils tour of the state, as well as an ornithology class from Longwood University. The Boy Scouts are regular visitors to his farm. His segment of the Nottoway River is a macro-invertebrate study area used to monitor water quality. Mike leads wildflower field trips, in this respect doing double duty by showing the wildflowers themselves and defining their dependence on good forestry practices such as prescribed burning. Last fall Mike hosted the Southside Virginia Forestry and WildlifeTour. It was on a Virginia Tech Extension Southside forest tour in October 2006 that Georgia-Pacific forester Scott Detar met Mike. After a tour of his Tree Farm, Scott knew that Mike was a very special landowner doing great things on his land. It was then that Scott decided to nominate him for Outstanding Virginia Tree Farmer of the Year.
Scott was right. Mike Jones is an extraordinary landowner. He and his family have introduced hundreds of people to the beauty, bounty and diversity of a well-managed Tree Farm. Their efforts are an inspiration to all on how the many principles of natural resource management, stewardship and tree farming can be blended successfully.
VFA and the Virginia Tree Farm Committee heartily congratulate Mike and his family. They are making us all look good.

Posted on

A Car Sick & Melancholy Resident of the Twilight Zone

September 20, 2007
Today was the kind of day I will look back on with some fondness, but it was not a good day.  I can liken this experience to going to the amusement park and getting to ride the roller coaster – ALL DAY.  I am in W. Virginia for evasive driving training.  It was good at first.  We did some driving on slick surfaces.  It was fun to skid around and not too hard for me.  Next was also fun, driving around the racetrack dodging orange plastic cones.  I did that well too.  But then one of my car mates got sick and threw up out the window.  I figured that if he was sick, there might be a reason. After that I felt sick myself for the rest of the day.

Of the 28 people in my class, about half of us got sick.  It was very jarring.  We had to avoid objects and break rapidly.  It did not like the smell of exhaust and burning rubber.  Hardest for me was driving backwards.  I have never been good at backing up and doing it at high speeds is scary for me.  Suffice to say, I drove over a few cones.  We also had to crash into other cars and ram them out of the way.   This was interesting.  It is not something you get to do very often w/o pushing up your insurance rates.  Tomorrow the bad guys will attack us and we will have to respond by evading driving out of danger.  Like so many things relating to Iraq, it will be good to HAVE done, but not good to be gonna do.  I think this will become my catch phrase.

September 21/22
It was more fun today.  I did not get sick.  We had to evade and escape. I did that okay.   I enjoy it a lot more when I am not sick, but I am really glad it is over. 

At the end of the day, the instructor blew some things up, including an old car, to show us how the different explosions look, sound and smell.  That was cool.  It is interesting how you can feel the shock waves.  Once again my joy in seeing such strange things was mitigated by the knowledge that such things may no longer be so strange in my future life.

Going to these courses makes you a little paranoid.  Security guys take some pride in their ability to stimulate unease. They kind of look down on us ordinary guys who do not find the world so immediately threatening.  I understand that the situation in Iraq is dangerous and I admit that there are times for vigilance even in America.   But I am glad that most Americans can live most of their lives in a state of general unpreparedness.  Isn’t this what we want from security?  It is a great advantage to be able to walk down the streets of home lost in our own mundane thoughts.  I hope that we can help the Iraqis get that back soon and we have to make sure Americans do not lose it – the right to be distracted, the right not to pay attention, or maybe just freedom from fear. I also called to confirm my milair flight from Amman to Baghdad.  They are efficient there.  I am on.  They said they will inform me of the “show time” when the time gets closer.

I am in that funny twilight zone right now between my former and future lives.  I still have to do a few things for IIP/S and I still am the director.  People are asking me for decisions and I still have authority.  But there is not much left .  I will be in Iraq by the end of next weekend. 
Now I am going through all the “lasts” at least for a long time.  Mariza came down for her last visit before I leave.  I went to Arthur Treacher with CJ for the last time this morning.  Tomorrow I plan to run for the last time along the upper bike trail.  On Monday, I will ride for the last time to work on my bike.  Unfortunately, I will not have the time to go down to my forest.  I think it will be a lot bigger when I get back.  Those tree grow really fast.  It is a melancholy time.  The feeling has nothing to do with Iraq.  This is always the case before a PCS move.   I think of all the things I have become accustomed to doing that I will not do for a long time to come, maybe for years, maybe forever.  Iraq will be quite an experience no matter what.  It will be good to have done it.

Posted on

Exploring My No Skill Zone

Usually I like training.  Not this time.  Some things are cool.  I thought the body armor and helmets were interesting.  But then I started to remember WHY we need to wear such things all the time in Iraq.  They are also heavy.  It will be good exercise to walk around with the things on.   I used to have a weight coat when I was young and more vigorous.  I never thought I would get another one.

I really didn’t like the first aid course.  I am squeamish about such things and some of the things were were “squeam inducing”.

I learned what a flailed chest is and how to do preliminary treatment on a sucking chest wound.  At least I know in theory and I have a wallet sized card re the proper order of things, but still have little confidence in my abilities.  They tell us that we are unlikely to be the only people available to to help.  We will play at best a supporting role.  One of the marines said that maybe I could help carry the stretcher.  In fact, they say, one of the reasons they give us this course is to let us know that we are not super heroes.  It worked.  Even in the training sessions I feel clumsy. 

This afternoon we went up to West Virginia to train with guns and learn how to drive cars as if the bad guys were chasing.  Very macho. They assured us that we would probably not have to really do these things either.  Diplomats do not generally get the opportunity to drive or shoot in Iraq.   This is a good thing.  A man has gotta know his limitations.

I am a reasonably good shot with the pistols, but I really am no threat to the enemy with an AK or M-4.  I suppose if a couple hundred stood in a line like the Redcoats during he revolution, I could hit one or two.  I just cannot shoot.  We did identify a possible reason for my extraordinarily poor aim, however.  I am right handed, but evidently my left eye is dominant.  I just do not look down the barrel properly.  I could probably learn to do a little better, but never would be Davy Crockett.  Fortunately, this also is not one of my core activities.

I am good at talking and not bad at writing or understanding what I read.  That is how I got into the FS.  I like to think up all sorts of permutations and scenarios for organizations and management.  Sometimes they work.  That is how I can add value.  People tell me that I can be persuasive and even charming.  That is why people cut me some slack.  Lucky for me.  I probably could not earn much of a living if I actually had to make physical things on my own.  If I lived in the cave man times, or even in practically any age before our own, I would not survive long unless I could find work as either a the local soothsayer or the village idiot.  I am happy that I live in a society that values and rewards the things that come in my skill cluster. 

Tomorrow we have to do the defensive driving section.  I didn’t own a car until I was 28 years old.  Neither of my parents even had a driver’s license.  I bike to work or take the Metro.  Suffice to say, I just don’t know from cars.  I suppose I will enjoy crashing them – one time. 

I will be glad when this week is over.  I do have to mention, however, that this area is really nice.  Lots of horse farms and restored old houses.  I should not complain so much.   One of my colleagues commented, “Getting paid to drive cars and shoot.  It don’t get no better than that.” I am not sure I agree entirely, but it is more fun than getting poked in the eye with a pointy stick (oh yeah, we learned about that injury too).

Posted on

Iraq from the Bottom Up

I wrote this essay for another blog.  I am really proud that I will be a PRT leader, but for this entry I did not want to call particular attention to myself, so it is a little detached.  I include it here because it sums up a lot of what I think about Iraq (or what I think I know about Iraq.) 

All Americans – and of course Iraqis – have a stake in a successful Iraq. Past Iraqi policies of centralization resulted in terrible suffering and if we look in this same place for achievement we will be disappointed, as we have been so far. However, the ongoing turmoil and violence mask significant potential and progress if you look away from the middle.
The more I study the modern history of Iraq, the more profound my sense of tragedy. Although Iraq was cobbled together from Ottoman provinces and had no particular history as a country in its current form, the region has a long history, which I need not repeat. Just a few highlights: this is where they invented the wheel, the place where Hamurabi wrote his law code, the center of golden age of Islamic civilization. Modern Iraq sits on cultural and economic crossroads. It is/was blessed with good agricultural potential, a sophisticated and skilled population and – perhaps a dubious benefit – oil.

Until around 1970, Iraq was one of the most promising states of the Middle East, but it was infected with Baathism – which sought its models in totalitarian communism and Nazism – and then a ruthless dictator, Saddam Hussein.

Under Saddam Hussein, power was centralized, or more correctly any power that could compete with the central authorities was crushed. The Baathists had learned from Soviet communist experience that the way for the party to stay in power was to tie all local institutions to the state. They systematically destroyed or co-opted what NGOs existed. Any strong private businesses were similarly liquidated. Opponents were killed. We recognize the pattern. It has little to do with Iraq or Islam. It is the classic totalitarian power consolidation. Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Castro would understand the method.

All this would be bad enough, but Iraq has also been in a state of nearly perpetual war since 1980. In those years, the wealth of Iraq went into weapons, waste and corruption. It got even worse during the 1990s. Saddam created roadblocks to allow him and his cronies to steal money that should have gone for food or medicine. The younger generation of Iraqis is significantly less well educated and less skilled than their parents and a country that could be rich lies in ruins. Sorry for the digression, but I think it is important to remember that Iraq had a history BEFORE the U.S. got involved.

After the overthrow of Saddam, the coalition inherited this mess and exacerbated it by attempting to reestablish a centralized, top-down system. In all fairness, many Iraqis were used to top-down and uncomfortable with freedom and taking the initiative, which they had learned to fear during the long night of the Baathist. It is time for a new paradigm.
Iraq is a rich country even now. The Central government is sitting on a yearly budget of around $40 billion w/o a real capacity to spend it. It is something we rarely consider, but it takes functioning institutions to properly use money. Institutions are like pitchers. You cannot pour more into them than they can hold. Maybe the central government can better share it out a bit to the parts of Iraq that need it and can use it.

As with the successful transition of former communist countries of Eastern Europe, the key to success is decentralized power and institutions. Micro loans can help set up business that are not dependent on state corruptions – sorry – I mean corporations. Decentralized power generation can begin to bring prosperity to the countryside. NGOs can take up much of the jobs that corrupt bureaucrats do not very well. Iraqis can learn to take the initiative in their lives and regions. Americans can help, as we did in Eastern Europe, but also as in Eastern Europe, the local people must – in the end – do the job.

Americans ARE helping, however. Working with local leaders was one of the keys to the dramatic turnaround in Al Anbar province.  We have deployed provincial reconstruction teams around the country. These are led by senior State Department officers and include people experienced in AID, agriculture, business development and municipal management.  In January, President Bush announced that he was doubling the number of teams and beefing up their staffing and he is keeping his word. This is the building part of the surge. 

I still do not know if we will succeed in Iraq, although I am much more hopeful today than I was six months ago. I still consider success in Iraq crucial to our future and worth taking the risks. 

Posted on

John Matel Goes to Iraq

I am going to Iraq to be a provincial reconstruction team leader in Al Anbar province.  I am starting this blog to keep track of my experience.  Maybe it will be interesting to people who know me.

This is John Negroponte and me at a meeting of PRT personnel.  I am the bald guy (among bald guys) in the lighter colored suit.

Follow this link for the NPR story with one of my comments.

Why I Volunteered to Go to Iraq
In thinking about why I decided to go to Iraq, I decided first to eliminate things that were NOT key factors.  I do not feel pushed to go to Iraq.  On the contrary, I am happy with my life in Virginia.  My family is great.  I have a job I love, probably the best job I have ever held.  I own a home, a forest & just about everything I really need or want.  Money is not a problem for me anymore.  My retirement is reasonably secure.  The State Department did not push me to go.  On the contrary, I got to my current job for the next two years and one of my biggest regrets has been that I am leaving bosses and colleagues who want me to stay. 

So what is pulling me to Iraq? 

Patriotism is my biggest pull.  I feel a little embarrassed to put this front and center.  Our ironic age tends to dismiss these sorts of things.  It is not the patriotism of the Sousa music and the grand parades.  Perhaps more a call of duty.   It is something I should do.  Others are doing their part; it is time for me to do mine.  I supported an aggressive policy in Iraq back in 2003.  It did not play out as I hoped, but I think there is still a good chance for success.  Beyond that, the consequences of failure are terrible.  My contribution to this success will be small, but we all need to make our small contributions to make big things happen.

Professional growth is my second reason.  The PRT job description sounds exciting.  Leading a multifunctional team like this is what my experience prepared me to do and it is the kind of opportunity you cannot get anywhere else.  A person should do what he does well.  My FS career has been good, but it is almost over.  I doubt I would ever have another opportunity to lead an operation overseas, certainly doing nothing as complex or important as the PRT leader.  

I do not see this as an opportunity for career success IN the FS.  I cannot think of many jobs in the FS that I still want.  Unlike most of my colleagues, I have not made the big deal for the follow on dream job.  In fact, I have not even bid at all on any positions at State after Iraq.   I plan to retire at the end of 2008.  I do hope that this experience will help me with a post FS life.  However, it will be indirect.  

I cannot leave out the money I will make.  State Department gives significant financial incentives for service in Iraq.   But money is not a motivator.  I am not doing this for the money, but I think that w/o the money I would feel like some kind of chump.  It is what organization behavior people call a “hygiene factor”, something you need to have to go forward, but not something that causes the action.  I will try to save almost all the additional money for retirement (Chrissy will be able to put her TSP to the maximum.   Mine is already there @ 10%) or forestry.  For example, I am already getting some wildlife plots put onto my land.   W/o the Iraq money I could not afford to do that.

In summary, my reasons are complex.  I am not sure myself why I am doing it.  I suppose that I will have lots of time to think about these things in Iraq.  Frankly, that is also one of the draws – time to think.  My predecessor tells me that the job consists of periods of intense and sometimes scary activity punctuated by periods of profound boredom.   My quarters are a 9×17 shipping container (w/o a bathroom) in the middle of a desert.  I figure this will create some forced introspection.  In the past, whenever I have been in these lonely and/or disrupted situations, I have come up with some new ideas that have worked out.
I am not very worried about being killed or seriously wounded.  I understand the danger and am aware of the risks, but I also can figure the odds.  I could be wrong.  If that does happen, I will have led a good life and gone out when things were still good. 

That is the story so far.  My year in Iraq is about to start; let’s see how it ends.  

Posted on

Energy too Good to Be True?

Reposting article from an old blog. Oil shale.

We have more of it than anybody else; much of the rest lies under friendly places like Canada & Brazil. With new innovations it to be produced @$25/barrel w/o a big surface footprint AND it is extracted by injecting CO2 into sequestration right back where the oil came from. How elegant, efficient & perfectly balanced AND it is American. We have found the Tao of energy.   

I am not an engineer, so those who know better please write me back and curb my enthusiasm, but let me summarize. Please listen to the whole thing and make your comments. The Q&A cleared up many of my doubts.

Oil shale is an old resource and extracting it is an old technology. Pioneers heading crossing the vast expanses of the west used the oil for axle grease and we all recall the oil shale related debacles such as Tea Pot Dome in the 1920s and the synfuels program of the late 1970s. Back in those days, there was no way to make the oil shale into useable fuel w/o an unacceptable ecological and economic cost. In 1980, they had to literally dig the shale out of the ground, release the oil with lots of water, then dump the slag all over the previously verdant hills and the dirtywater into the heretofore pristine rivers of the Rocky Mountains. We can all be grateful that synfuels crashed and nothing burned.

Why have we not used oil shale before?

We tried. We did. It used to cost too much and make too much of a mess, but new technologies allow the liquefaction of the oil below ground, producing no slag and requiring no water, AND it requires the injection of CO2. The CO2 stays down there were the oil was. It is more environmentally benign than almost any other extraction method because it not only extracts cleanly, but it also sequesters CO2. Maybe we could even sink more than we bring up.

The other big problem was/is price. Price volatility has always been a problem in an industry where investments must be made based on price estimates 5-7+ years from today. Middle Eastern oil is almost free. There was (and remains) no way that oil shale can compete with oil from the Middle East when they are pumping flat out. There is still the danger that the sheiks, despots, potentates and dictators who control so much of the world’s exportable oil will open the pumps to kill innovations in oil shale before it gets off the ground. Oil shale needs minimum prices about $25/barrel. Big oil producers with lots of fixed cost capacity can undercut that anytime they want. It would not be the first time and the dirty business actually wins them accolades from consumers.

How can we avoid this fate? Keeping the price of oil artificially high is nearly impossible over any long periods of time (and imagine the political problem is high prices became U.S. policy) and it takes only a short time for low prices to destroy alternative investments. It happened in the 1990s and it can happen again. The author suggests a simple expedient. President Bush wants to fill the strategic oil reserve. Why not commit to fill it with oil produced from oil shale. This will provide a market floor to the shale and insure that investments made are not too risky. Once the infrastructure is in place, we can tell those foreign potentates to go to hell, as shale oil can free us from foreign oil for a generation – long enough for us to develop viable alternatives to hydrocarbons.

Here is some more background on oil shale from Rand and a CRS report on oil shale. The Rand report is mildly critical. The author addressed some of the concerns, BTW. Some general industry background on oil shale is here.
Posted by Jack at March 9, 2007 5:30 PM
CommentsComment #211249

Jack, I’ve mentioned this before but I’ve heard an extremely interesting lecture given by a professor Albert Bartlett about energy use and the coming crisis. It is relevant to issues like oil shale development and ethynol production. Neither one is viable from what I have heard, (although I will read the links you have provided). Canada produces @ a million barrels a day from oil shale but it is economical only because they are using on-site natural gas in the process, gas that would otherwise go to waste. It costs energy to produce energy. This equation has nothing to do with the price we pay retail, even if we were able and willing to pay $10 a gallon for fuel produced from shale, if it costs 1.1 units of energy to extract 1 unit net, it’s going to stay in the ground.
Also, estimates in number of years of supply from a given source invariably assumes no growth in demand; very unrealistic.Posted by: charles Ross at March 9, 2007 6:33 PMComment #211253

Charles

I think if we do not subsidize it (but give it that floor to protect from wild swings) the market will sort out whether or not it is viable re inputs.

I really do not know. It seemed too good to be true and such things often are. Listen to the lecture. He updates some of the info in the articles. He is talking about a new developing technologies.Posted by: Jack at March 9, 2007 6:41 PMComment #211263

More good reason for a tariff on imported oil to keep the price at about 60$ a barrel. I think it would be a politically viable plan as energy independance is important for geopolitical reasons.
I would rater see the SPR used like the Federal Reservedoes to control inflation. They buy heavily when prices fall and sell heavily when prices inflate.Stability is the key to any alternate industry capitalization. The Saudis have already said they are willing to drop oil prices to fend off alternatives. Our friends.
PS Denmark is getting half their power now from offshore wind. Tidal pumping is getting big in Scotland etc. .Posted by: BillS at March 9, 2007 7:59 PMComment #211394

If we can get enough of our own oil out of the ground to tell the Arabs to shove theirs where the sun don’t shine I’m all for it.
But wouldn’t $25 a barrel compared to $65 a barrel lower gas prices? And sense your for high gas prices why are you for this?Posted by: Ron Brown at March 10, 2007 8:09 PMComment #211402

Oil shale? call me ignorant but that is rock right? Well I guess if you can get it through the hose, y’know..(Second thought, call me beligerant)

self serve shovels? Shale gas station?

Maybe the future is firewood—we got all these damn trees, right? Call Rand about all these freakin’ trees we found.Posted by: Servitudinal at March 10, 2007 9:16 PMComment #211404

Why do republicans hate the bio-deisel idea so much?—is it the messenger (dems)? Or the influential big-oil dinars that flow so rapidly into the RNC warchest that gears you off in such directions? Thine own holy-cow partyline are thine own nemesis.

A year or so back there were a group of highschool kids that created a GTO that ran on refined soy fuel I recall reading. It can be done.Posted by: Servitudinal at March 10, 2007 9:27 PMComment #211406

Another idea—genetically modify insects to give off highly flamable bug-sh*t. Let’s face it thirty years from now we’re friggin’ Amish with the way the two parties are going, I don’t see any avenues of greater advent in the way of motor or energy resource technology.Posted by: Trident at March 10, 2007 9:48 PMComment #211424

Generally, you have to strip mine shale so I’m not sure how viable this will be. Virginia has plenty of shale, Jack. Perhaps you’d like to donate your wooded estate for a good cause. 🙂

Seriously, I’d rather use the natural gas to provide relatively clean power than to extract carbon-rich (i.e. – dirty) petroleum.Posted by: American Pundit at March 11, 2007 12:04 AMComment #211428

AP

Listen to the talk. That is the big innovation. Back in 1980 you had to bring the shale to the surface. That is what made the big mess. The new system extracts the oil underground AND injects CO2, which sequesters it right when the oil came from. That is what is so interesting.

Presumably if there was oil shale under my working forest, they could extract it w/o significant damage and I could make more money than Jed Clampet. That is not my business, however. My land grows trees and provides wood, clean water, fresh air and wildlife habitat. People really should appreciate tree farmers more.Posted by: Jack at March 11, 2007 12:34 AMComment #211484

Jack,
your story about the Alberta oil shale and sands is appropriate and timely. As you state correctly, making crude out of shale is nothing new but the economics of the process have always been very unattractive in competition with the exploitation of conventional till recently.
Although I have an engineering background one does not have to be a petroleum engineer to understand the basics of the shale oil or oil sands process to appreciate the industry’s challenges.
It’s my understanding that CO2 has been used in the past as a pressurizing agent to bring oil to the surface, but it’s not the only one. But sequestration is a different issue entirely, as I understand it, because it either needs to bind itself, chemically to some subterranean substance, or it gets stored far below the surface in a salt dome or similar cavity.
These are expensive operations and together with water treatment and waste treatment adds major costs to the process.
But I think you are on the money with a price of $25-30/barrel of crude as a bottom cost to make shale and sand oil economic.
My view about the projected crude oil cost/barrel is that the demand for oil will continue to increase at a good rate, mostly due to China and India growing so rapidly. And since economic development is critically coupled to the cost and availability of energy I see no reason that the cost of oil will drop by anything more than 20 or 25% and then only if we have a serious depression.
The world has enormous remaining reserves of oil but they will not do anybody any good if they cannot be developed because of overly strict or ill conceived environmental constraints. It is really time for the USA to develop the ANWAR deposits more aggressively together with multiple continental shelf options available right now.
FredPosted by: Fred Engel at March 11, 2007 4:32 PMComment #211539

Oil shale — it is too good to be true.

One, the CO2 used does not counterbalance the carbon removed. If the literature is correct, the replacement occurs at around a 1:2 ratio.

Two, Engel brings up the more serious problem (presuming one is interested in reducing atmospheric carbon)—sequestration. The CO2 will slowly rise to ground surface and be released into the atmosphere.

Three, the costs (including energy consumption) required for the industrial production, transportation, and use of CO2 are quite sizeable.

Four, the costs of making oil shale extraction financially viable from a business perspective are not small and would be better invested in the development of non-fossil fuels technologies which can produce more efficient fuels with fewer negative consequences for the atmosphere.


I installed solar panels on my home 4-1/2 years ago. They provide 100% of the electrical power for my all-electric home (with a heat pump for heating & cooling). I broke even at the 3-1/2 year point even though living in Chicago which is not known for an over abundance of sunlight. Of the many benefits, not getting a monthly electric bill is my favorite.Posted by: Allen at March 12, 2007 10:53 AMComment #211717

The CEO of JetBlue has asked that government place a floor on oil, at which point a subsidy would kick in to prevent OPEC from undercutting coal and driving it out of business, as they did once before. That makes more sense that subsidizing farmers to grow corn and grass to inefficiently make ethanol. We have enough coal reserves to satisfy our needs. Why not?Posted by: Clay Barham at March 13, 2007 12:49 PMComment #211942

Clay,
I certainly agree with you that we should encourage the use of more coal, clean coal that is, slurry and hi-temp combustion, but more importantly we should take the clamps off drilling for more oil in North America, anywhere, and go all out on natural gas and nuclear energy plants. That would transfer a large part of our energy use to electric from particularly oil. What will it take for the country to start doing that very soon? More clear thinking, strong character politicians?
FredPosted by: Fred Engel at March 14, 2007 1:31 PMComment #211964

Fred,

The environmental impact of oil exploration for extremely narrow returns is why not.

jack,

I read up on the shale oil / syncrude plan. It looks like a push by Shell to get corporate welfare to pony up on some far off scheme with a questionable 10+ year ROI. Since big oil and Bush Co has the credibility of Tommy Flanagan, I’ll wait a few years until a truly unbiased and respectable opinion develops.Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 14, 2007 3:40 PMComment #212066

Jack,
I can’t quite see it your way and do not consider our modern oil companies as willfully polluting the environment. Some foreign firms is a different kettle of fish. As a matter of fact, the upstream part of the industry is very localized (for instance, at ANWAR they want the equivalent of 2 acres out of 1500 for their drilling and storage activities with everybody looking over rtheir shoulders)but pipelines are vulnerable and downstream refineries occasionally have accidents. Which industry doesn’t have bad days? Furthermore, looking over their annual reports, they are neither undercapitalized nor typically marginal players. Returns are good. What they cannot control is market process, that’s another organization’s privilege.In my view there is no good reason to go slow on the production and use of oil as long as it can we made a readily available. After all, can you think of any other energy source as practical as a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel?
I am all for growing parallel energy sources and products but carbohydrates will be hard to beat for a long time.
FredPosted by: Fred at March 15, 2007 9:06 AMComment #212089

Fred,

Sorry for not being thorough. I was not talking profit when I said returns. I meant that my current understanding is the maximum ANWR extraction rate would be pretty small in terms of our overall usage and the environmental impact would huge (e.g Prudhoe had an average reported spill rate of more than one spill a day and the required seismic testing just to verify 10+ year old studies is permanently damaging to the tundra by itself). Saying “bad days” for disasters that impact local conditions for years is unbecoming.Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 15, 2007 1:04 PMComment #212328

Dave, thanks for your response.
I looked over my own notes and some relevant references (the latest from 2005) and came up with the following:
Alaska produced 315 million barrels of crude that year, or about 860,000 gallons per day. The USA used approximately 20 million gallons per day in toto,two third of which is imported from all kinds of places and total domestic production was about 5 million barrels including Alaska. Hence today, Alaska produces about 4% of our national requirements. But opening the ANWR area judiciously would raise that amount to about 8%, so it’s certainly very worthwhile.

The big stumbling block about ANWR is the concern by environmentalists that the whole ANWR area would be affected. That is patently just not so. The total ANWR area is about, 1,500,000 acres. The oil companies have asked permission for operations in a very small area of 2000 acres, that is the equivalent of 2 acres out of 1500. I do not see that as a problem but some people just don’t want any oil drilling at all. But they do expect somebody to find enough oil to keep their local pumps supplied. Oil, like evrything else that isn’t fruits or nuts, doesn’t grow on trees.
One has to find it and drill holes.

I am sympathetic with anyone’s concern about the environment but people do make a mistake now and then, usually not deliberately either. Sometimes they even lose their lives, like 40,000 people annually lose their lives in car accidents, certainly not deliberately. That’s why I always have a problem with self righteous people immediately claiming conspiracies, malicious intent, careless behavior etc. etc. Nevertheless, none of that should stand in the way of utilizing the earth’s resources in a responsible manner to support our and any other country and its people in a long term attempt to try to see if we can live more humanely together and more so than other societies in the past. But I’m getting off the subject.

As far as oil spills are concerned, I am aware of 3 substantial ones over the past 15 years as far as Alaska is concerned, of which the Exxon Valdez of course was by far the largest. Two of these accidents had nothing to do with oil exploration or processing, or Alaska as far as I remember. The third one was a leak in a pipeline that wasn’t noticed for 5 days. Now that upsets me, because as a former engineer that shows a failure in maintenance procedures and for that a head should roll. But even that is no reason to condemn the use of carbohydrates.

I do not know where one spill/day at Prudhoe Bay comes from but if a gasket is changed in a pipeline or a valve is replaced at a tank and spills 30 or 40 gallons of crude in the process I would call that maintenance and certainly not an oil spill in the same category as accidents. Any more than you would call dropping some gasoline from the hose when you fill your tank is an ecological disaster. In my opinion it is necessary for us to maintain our common sense about things.

But whether we like it or not, we do need more oil and lots of it while it will give us the time to develop better and even more ecologically responsible, energy sources. If we lose the energy supply race our whole country will go down the tubes and not just the USA.
Posted by: Fred at March 16, 2007 2:38 PM

Posted on

Notes on Energy

From some old files

January 11, 2006

Raise Taxes

Government interventions usually crash on the concept of price. Prices are not accidental. They not only regulate supply and demand, but also contain information about scarcities and expectations that allow everyone to make sound decisions. Governments cannot permanently lower prices without creating shortages. But they can create inefficiencies and scarcities that push prices higher. Sometimes this might be an appropriate use of government power.

In today’s WSJ an article called “The Upside of the Oil Curse” talked about the benefits of high oil prices. Our experience with the first energy crisis shows how well prices work. For all the talk about conservation and alternatives energy intensity improved by little before the 1973 price spikes. In the 1970s and early 1980s, energy efficiency improved remarkably (2.7% a year). Progress slowed after prices fell, dropping to 1.6% a year from 1986-2002. We just saw progress again when prices rose recently. SUVs sat on the lots; hybrids sold in hours. Prices work.High prices encourage conservation and alternatives like nothing else. In fact, the oil barons and OPEC potentates fear high prices for this very reason. The problem is that oil prices will drop again and will be low about the same time investments in new energy sources could be expected to pay off, so smart money is slower to make such investments.

I know that many of you are saying that prices will never come down. A brief look at the history of oil prices shows why this is not true. In the early 1980s, nobody thought the price would ever come down, yet by 1998 oil was only about $10 a barrel. So what can we do to prevent this happening again? We should provide a floor to oil prices. When oil drops to around $45 or $50 a barrel (in today’s dollars), and it will, we should tax it back up. (We might have a chance to pass such a tax now, since it seems so impossible that lower prices would ever happen.) This tax would have the advantage of being counter cyclical. It is one of the few times when government can influence prices for good. Maybe a good tax is not always an oxymoron.

August 11, 2006  

Higher Gas Prices Doing Their Good Thing

I am in favor of higher gas prices even if it means raising taxes. As I wrote in the linked sources, price is the surest and fastest way to alternative energy sources and conservation. A recent Pew Study shows how this works. There is some time lag, but it is quick.

We missed a big opportunity in the 1990s. Gas prices were at an all time low (real dollars) in 1998. We should have taxed gas then to reduce demand. Instead, we convinced ourselves that $1 a gallon gas was normal and bought SUVs.We will never run out of oil, but the cost in environmental and geopolitical terms may become too high. Why do we continue to use oil? Because it is cheap. Even at today’s prices, gas is cheap. We are still paying less for gas than our grandfathers did in the 1930s.

I apologize to all of you who have heard this from me before (I have linked to some of the other posts), but it must be repeated all the time. If you want conservation and alternative energy, you have to tolerate higher energy prices. You do not get a free lunch. But the good news is that with the proper conservation and energy efficiency, your total bill can be reduced. You just gotta do it because you are responsible for energy use.My fear is that many people prefer fixing blame to finding solutions. I heard an interesting program on NPR. It was Lester Brown, Founder of Earth Policy Institute, fretting about a surge in ethanol production. He advocated ethanol when it was not really practical. Now he has second thoughts. Maybe it is a kind of market phobia. Brown prefers wind power. Good idea. I agree, but we know that wind power has limits and its enemies. The best bet for our energy future is nuclear power, which emits no greenhouse gases. Of course, nuclear power has its detractors. This is the truth and everything else a lie: all forms of energy come with costs. Cheaper forms of energy often come with significant external costs. “Clean” energy requires large capital investment. Often our favorite form of energy is difficult to get. We have to make choices among options, none of which will produce an ideal outcome. One thing is certain, you cannot have energy that is cheap, plentiful, clean and trouble free all at the same time. So make your choices and be realistic.

October 30, 2006

Oil Getting Too Cheap (again)

The price of crude oil tumbled 3.9% today. This is good news for the economy but it presents both a challenge and an opportunity. We need higher fuel prices to encourage conservation and the development of alternatives. I have advocated this many times.  As the price approaches $55 a barrel, it is time to think of ways to keep the price of fuel from falling. I advocate a tax on oil to keep the prices up. The big oil companies obviously are not up to the job. Where is price gouging when you need it? You can see why I can never run for elected office. I suppose we could tax only foreign oil. It is always popular to stick it to someone else.Seriously, anyone who cares about a cleaner environment, getting out from under the influence of foreign despots and improving our long-term economic prospects should appreciate this point of view. Unfortunately, driving cheap trumps these concerns for many.

November 15, 2006

Energy Independence Too – Alternatives

We have been here before. Harry Truman started the first big alternative fuels project. President Carter promised that the U.S. would never again import as much foreign oil as it did in 1977. Twenty-nine years later, President Bush warned about our addiction to oil (BTW more than in 1977). What did we learn? Cheap oil trumps policy promises and alternatives. Sowaddawedo?First, we need to recognize that the problem is political, social and economic, but not really technical. This is important, because we keep on trying to apply the technical solutions and they never work. We use oil because it is cheap. We use foreign oil because it is even cheaper. We want to continue to use oil because it supports the lifestyles we enjoy at a price we accept. Unless we change part of that equation, we will always come up with the same answer – more oil.

Before going on, let me break the problem down into two parts. The one part is oil as an environmental problem. The second part is FOREIGN oil as an economic and geopolitical problem. They are separable. You could solve one and not the other. For example, foreign oil can be replaced by American oil from ANWAR, oil shale from Utah, Colorado & Wyoming or from oil sand from Alberta (yes a foreign country but nearby and generally stable). This oil will cost a little more in terms of dollars and a lot more in terms of environment, but we can achieve reasonable energy independence in this way. This is not the way to go, IMO.Oil use as an environmental threat is the bigger challenge. Remember why we use oil, but then figure in the external costs. This makes oil less of a good deal.

Rand Corporation has recently released a study indicating that falling costs of ethanol, wind power and other forms of renewable energy could allow them to supply 25% of U.S. energy by 2025 at little or no additional expense. (Renewables currently account for only 6% of our energy, and about half of that comes from hydroelectric dams.) This assumes that the price of oil does not decline by very much. Low cost oil (reaching its lowest point in 1998) has destroyed hopes for alternatives before. So let’s make sure the prices do not drop very much.Once they get started, renewables have a big constituency, especially in farm states. The most promising, IMO, is ethanol from wood chips. I admit a personal interest in that. Also interesting are various ways to make methane from manure and other wastes. Read more about these things here.

Promising as all this is, read the number very carefully – 25%. That is the optimistic scenario. That still means 75% has to come from someplace else. We will still be using oil, coal and gas for a long time. The most promising large scale clean alternative is nuclear (the French get 78% of the electric power from nukes; we get about 20%). We might be able to squeeze a little more out of energy conservation. If we just build smarter we can save money, be comfortable and help the environment at the same time. A sustainable resource house, BTW, need not be built out of straw or sticks and it can be very attractive and comfortable.

So let’s address the energy problem, but let’s address the right one in the right way. Recognize that we have the energy mix we have today because it is what we chose and what we continue to choose. We need not blame others or talk about the stupidity of past generations. We chose what we have and that means we have the choice to choose alternatives too.

September 03, 2005

We can never run out of oil

Katrina hit our oil infrastructure hard. Coming at a time of already tight supply, this will mean higher prices and talks of the end of oil. But this too will pass and if we don’t repeat the price control debacles of the 1970s it will pass quickly.

We almost ran on of oil on many occasions. The first time was just after WWI; Many of us remember the last time in the 1970s. Of course we never ran out of oil. We never run out of anything. What we really mean is that we don’t have a particular resource at a price we are willing to pay. By the time we reach this price with oil, we will have moved to different energy sources.The long term is too uncertain to predict, but we have a good handle on the short and medium runs. In the near term prices will rise. In the medium term, we can expect a drop in oil prices. Why? During the low prices of the 1980s and 1990s, we invested less in energy. It takes many years for an investment to begin to produce results. Much of the capacity that will be available very soon was planned and begun back in 2001 or 2002. What is being started now will be ready in 2008 or 2010. This supply will be supplemented by the development of alternatives and conservation provoked by today’s high prices.

Cheap gas will be upon us by 2008.

The prospect of cheap oil is not something I eagerly anticipate. The longer the price stays high, the faster we will develop alternatives. I would like nothing more than to reduce the grip of oil on our country. Each price spike makes us less dependent, but the subsequent drop takes off the edge. A higher tax at the pump is one of the few taxes I approve, especially if it replaces other taxes. As the price comes back down we should offset at least some with a higher gas tax. But we won’t have to think about that for a couple of years.

Posted on

Energy Independence Too – Alternatives

We have been here before. Harry Truman started the first big alternative fuels project. President Carter promised that the U.S. would never again import as much foreign oil as it did in 1977. Twenty-nine years later, President Bush warned about our addiction to oil (BTW more than in 1977). What did we learn? Cheap oil trumps policy promises and alternatives. Sowaddawedo?

First, we need to recognize that the problem is political, social and economic, but not really technical. This is important, because we keep on trying to apply the technical solutions and they never work. We use oil because it is cheap. We use foreign oil because it is even cheaper. We want to continue to use oil because it supports the lifestyles we enjoy at a price we accept. Unless we change part of that equation, we will always come up with the same answer – more oil.

Before going on, let me break the problem down into two parts. The one part is oil as an environmental problem. The second part is FOREIGN oil as an economic and geopolitical problem. They are separable. You could solve one and not the other. For example, foreign oil can be replaced by American oil from ANWAR, oil shale from Utah, Colorado & Wyoming or from oil sand from Alberta (yes a foreign country but nearby and generally stable). This oil will cost a little more in terms of dollars and a lot more in terms of environment, but we can achieve reasonable energy independence in this way. This is not the way to go, IMO.

Oil use as an environmental threat is the bigger challenge. Remember why we use oil, but then figure in the external costs. This makes oil less of a good deal.

Rand Corporation has recently released a study indicating that falling costs of ethanol, wind power and other forms of renewable energy could allow them to supply 25% of U.S. energy by 2025 at little or no additional expense. (Renewables currently account for only 6% of our energy, and about half of that comes from hydroelectric dams.) This assumes that the price of oil does not decline by very much. Low cost oil (reaching its lowest point in 1998) has destroyed hopes for alternatives before. So let’s make sure the prices do not drop very much.

Once they get started, renewables have a big constituency, especially in farm states. The most promising, IMO, is ethanol from wood chips. I admit a personal interest in that. Also interesting are various ways to make methane from manure and other wastes. Read more about these things here.

Promising as all this is, read the number very carefully – 25%. That is the optimistic scenario. That still means 75% has to come from someplace else. We will still be using oil, coal and gas for a long time. The most promising large scale clean alternative is nuclear (the French get 78% of the electric power from nukes; we get about 20%). We might be able to squeeze a little more out of energy conservation. If we just build smarter we can save money, be comfortable and help the environment at the same time. A sustainable resource house, BTW, need not be built out of straw or sticks and it can be very attractive and comfortable.

So let’s address the energy problem, but let’s address the right one in the right way. Recognize that we have the energy mix we have today because it is what we chose and what we continue to choose. We need not blame others or talk about the stupidity of past generations. We chose what we have and that means we have the choice to choose alternatives too.