Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (79901)	9/22/2006 8:18:17 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361248

May 2006) Follow-up to the Hirsch Report. Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Options (PDF) Bezdek, Wendling and Hirsch; MISI and SAIC for The National Energy Technology Laboratory misi-net.com The world is consuming more oil than it is finding, and at some point within the next decade or two, world production of conventional oil will likely peak. In addition to peaking, there are widespread concerns about the growing U.S. dependence on oil imports from both an energy security and a balance of payments standpoint. This study considered four options that the U.S. could implement for the massive physical mitigation1 of its dependence on imported oil: Vehicle fuel efficiency (VFE) Coal liquefaction (coal to liquids or CTL) Oil shale Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) Our objective was to better elucidate the implications of the mitigation programs, e.g., the time required to save and produce significant quantities of liquid fuel, related costs, and economic, fiscal, and jobs impacts. We studied crash program implementation of all options simultaneously because the results provide an upper limit on what might be accomplished under the best of circumstances. No one knows if and when such a program might be undertaken, so our calculations were based on an unspecified starting date, designated as t0. This study builds on one completed by the authors in 2005 which addressed the issue of world oil peaking.2 The current study deals exclusively with physical mitigation options for the U.S. The options analyzed in both studies are consistent and are shown in Table EX-1. Our analysis showed that the mitigation options that we considered can contribute significantly to the saving and production of U.S. liquid fuels, although decades will be needed for significant impact (Figure EX-1) and related costs will be in the trillions of dollar range. The cumulative 20 year impacts of such a massive crash program would be: Savings and production of 44 billion barrels of liquid fuels Requirement for over $2.6 trillion of investment Over 10 million employment years of jobs created Total industry sales of over $3 trillion Over $125 billion of industry profits Over $500 billion in federal government tax revenues Nearly $300 billion in state and local government tax revenues ============================================== Roger Bezdek on the Hirsch followup (text) Jason Brenno, Global Public Media Roger Bezdek, president of Management Information Services Inc. (MISI) and coauthor of Peaking Of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management (the Hirsch report) talks with GPM correspondent Jason Brenno about the followup to the Hirsch report: Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Options. JB- What is the purpose for the second report and why was the second report a necessity? RB- Well, the first report that we completed last year looked at the implications of oil peaking and the necessary mitigation options required and their implications basically for the world. The second report focused more narrowly on the situation in the US and was much more detailed looking at more options and the impact by industry, by employment GDP, implications for occupational and skill requirements and so forth. So, the second report is a much more detailed focused analysis of the costs and benefits. JB- What is the reasoning behind why this report was requested? Who requested it and why was it requested ? RB- As we completed work last year for the world situation, the obvious logical question arose, what implications are there for the US? What are the costs and benefits? What are the possibilities? And we talked with various people at DOE at the National Energy Technology Laboratory. It was universally decided that the second report would be useful and necessary. JB- Do you feel that we have primarily a liquid fuels problem or will this problem also encompass or contribute to an electricity problem and heating problem essentially an energy crisis? RB- The near-term problem that we are facing is indeed a liquid fuels rather than a quote energy crisis in general. How we react and deal with this near-term liquid fuels problem will determine how we resolve our energy problems in the longer term. But for the next decade or two at least, the primary problem is the demand for liquid fuel which is simply outstripping the supply at available prices. But, of course, what is happening prices are increasing very rapidly and least of all price volatility has been increasing. So, yes what we face immediately and for the next decade or two at least is a serious liquid fuels problem. (14 May 2006, but just posted on GPM) energybulletin.net