Gas Prices on The Huffington Post

BLM Oil And Gas Auction Is Third Smallest Since 1970

2009-11-13T14:55:48Z

DENVER — Federal officials have sold oil and gas leases on a total of about 6,000 acres in Colorado for $112,969.

The highest per-acre price in the auction Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was $215 for an 81-acre parcel in Rio Blanco County sold to Exxon Mobil Corp.

Raymond J. Learsy: Thank You, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, For Educating Us On Oil Prices

2009-11-13T11:08:49Z

The oil patch mumbo jumbo continues unabated. Today, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of the nation's largest oil company, Exxon, took a minute or two to instruct us about the reasons for the current price of oil. This is the same personage who, a while back informed us, his customers, that "ethanol is moonshine."

This time around, according to Tillerson, "Inventory levels are at historic high levels--especially in the U.S." he then provides us with his particular self-serving oil patch rationalization for high oil prices.

You see, it is not the machination of OPEC of which Exxon and its peers are the primary beneficiaries, nor the speculation of oil traders and bank holding companies, nor the possibility that the producers, with their enormous cash reserves, might be gaming the price of oil on the exchanges. No, in the spirit of that great American philosopher Alfred E. Neuman, Mr. Tillerson has come up with a causation that is outside the perceived responsibility of the oil industry. Who, him worry? You see, it mostly rests with the currency effect of a weak dollar.

According to Tillerson some $20/25 per barrel is due to the erosion of the dollar. Really? Since February of this year the price of oil has increased some 250% from $33/bbl to reaching $80/bbl Just a few days ago. This while the value of the dollar has eroded some 15% only. A relationship between the price of oil and the erosion of the dollar on a percentage basis should bring the price of oil to approximately $38/bbl. Certainly not the near $80 we are transferring to Exxon and their comrades in arms.

Far be it for the industry to play it straight, to simply state that price as currently constituted has nothing to do with market dynamics of supply and demand. Something far more sinister is afoot and it is long past due that our oversight agencies such as the CFTC take a very serious look at how our commodity exchanges are contributing to these distortions.

But then again, within the confines of the oil industry Grimm's Fairy Tale narrative, Mr. Tillerson's imaginative turns of phrase are always welcome.

Jackson Williams: Bush Oil Buddies Divvy Up Iraqi Oil, Now Joined By "Liberal Scion" Peter Galbraith

2009-11-13T10:48:15Z

The ongoing saga of the Iraqi oil patch pie adds a new chapter, courtesy of the Thursday New York Times, and its above-the-fold front pager, "American Adviser to Kurds Stands to Reap Oil Profits."

In today's installment, we learn that Peter Galbraith, former ambassador, foreign policy expert to Joe Biden and John Kerry, and son of the famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith, is in line to reap $100 million dollars -- maybe more -- from contracts between a Norwegian oil company and the autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq. As an advisor to DNO, Galbraith and a partner received a 10% stake in a large Kurdish oil field back in 2004.

What's more, Galbraith has long championed the idea of partitioning Iraq, presumably into three regions that roughly encompass the country's three stakeholder groups (Shiite, Sunni and Kurd).

Why does this matter?

For one thing, the American-created central government in Baghdad has long insisted that it has sole constitutional authority over all of Iraq's oil. For another, giving the central government time to devise an equitable oil agreement between the stakeholders was the main goal President Bush touted when he announced "the surge" in January 2007.

Later that same year, in September, Hunt Oil of Dallas announced an oil production-sharing agreement with the grand poobahs of the Kurdistan region. At the time, Bush briefly feigned concern:

"I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously I'm - if it undermines that, I'm concerned."

Nine months later, in June 2008, Ray Hunt himself crowed about it at a dinner in his honor. D Magazine's online blog "Front Burner," in a piece titled "Oilman Hunt Sees A 'Soft Partition' For Iraq," quoted the longtime Bush crony parroting the Galbraith line:

"I think that, in the end, you'll end up with a soft partition of Iraq, a very decentralized government, with authority granted to three provinces. The Kurds I think will end up being an example...American democracy is not one-size-fits-all, but, as an example of what freedom can do, it's remarkable that this can happen."

Freedom's just another word for "I'm gettin' mine, boys!" Galbraith apparently figured that out years earlier.

Remarkably, the latest story in the Times states that "Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry, who have been influenced by Mr. Galbraith's thinking but do not advocate such a partitioning of the country, were not aware of Mr. Galbraith's oil dealings in Iraq, aides to both politicians say." Come again?

Vice President Biden may not favor partition now (he's not in charge of foreign policy), yet he certainly advocated it for years. In fact, he co-wrote a 2006 op-ed promoting it -- in the Times, no less! -- and often hyped it as one of his great ideas on cable chat shows. Partition may or may not be a great idea. Still, how does the germane fact of Joe's historic support not make it into the paper's story today?

Alan Greenspan noted in his 2007 memoir The Age of Turbulence, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Since I've previously blogged about this at Huffington Post, I'll just say it again:

Desert Storm in 1990 was also about oil, but Bush the Elder tacitly signaled that the motivation was to protect Kuwait's oil fields, which is why much of the world (including Arab neighbors) approved of the limited military action. "No-fly" zones over Iraq, continued by Bill Clinton for eight years, ultimately turned Baghdad's Bully into the mother of all empty suits.

Ah, but the son also rises.

Immediately after 9/11, Bush the Lesser held a megaphone at Ground Zero, promising that "the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." That should have meant al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden, but it morphed, at least publicly, into Saddam's mythical mushroom clouds and WMDs. Then it became freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny, and finally it arrived at the fantastical notion of remaking the Middle East, at all cost and with our blood.

Remaking it for whom, exactly? Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon-Mobil, our Chevron shining bright?

Damien Hoffman: World Renowned Investor Jim Rogers: Gold Will Go to $2,000 an Ounce

2009-11-10T21:55:19Z

Jim Rogers is one of the most respected investors in the world. I had a chance to chat with him the other morning to get more details about some of his recent comments in the media ...

Damien Hoffman: Jim, you were in the media a few times last week and I want to follow up on a few points you made. You said on Bloomberg that Nouriel Roubini did not do his homework regarding the asset bubbles about which he is now warning. Can you explain what homework he did not do?

Jim: All of it. How can you talk about a bubble when assets such as silver are 70% below their all-time high? Same for coffee, sugar, cotton, natural gas, and many more. I have a problem talking about a bubble when assets are this depressed from their all-time highs.

A bubble is when assets are screaming to new highs everyday, everyone is talking about them, and everyone owns them. Right now, virtually no one owns commodities. So for Mr. Roubini to talk about a bubble in commodities defies comprehension. It proves he does not understand markets.

I am flabbergasted at Mr. Roubini's comment about bubbles because there is not a single market in the world making all-time highs except Gold, US Government Bonds, Cocoa, and the Sri Lankan stock market. That's hardly reason to call for a bubble. So, I am most perplexed about this alleged bubble which is out there.

If an asset rises 100% in one year, that's a great year, but not necessarily a bubble. Look at oil. It's up huge off the bottom but nowhere near it's old highs. Look at Citigroup. The stock is up 3 or so times off the bottom ...

Damien: ... and I doubt long term shareholders feel like they are in a bubble.

Jim: Exactly. And since Mr. Roubini thought oil would stay below $40 a barrel for all of 2009, I would love for him to tell me and the rest of the world exactly where are all the oil supplies because the International Energy Agency (IEA) -- which has the best global data set on energy supplies -- has no idea where is the oil. Mr. Roubini should tell us where this price suppressing oil supply is hidden. All the oil possessing countries in the world have declining reserves. All the oil companies have declining reserves. So Mr. Roubini must know something the rest of is don't.

Damien: On another note, Gold has been reaching new all-time highs, although not inflation adjusted. You said Gold may reach $2,000 an ounce over the next decade. Can you explain what variables will push Gold to $2,000?

Jim: First, I hope you will keep Mr. Roubini's statement where he said Gold going to $2,000 an ounce by 2019 is "utter nonsense." I think you're going to get a chance to call him before 2019 to ask him what he thinks of Gold at $2,000 and why he thought it was "utter nonsense."

Regarding variables, it's very clear there is huge suspicion about paper money around the world. This suspicion is gathering steam. Governments are printing huge amounts of money. This has always led to higher prices. Maybe I am wrong and it's different this time. But I doubt it.

Additionally, no new large gold mines have been opened in decades. Some of those mines are over 100-years old. They are all depleting. On the other hand, central banks have huge Gold reserves above ground -- and they are less interested in selling than in the past.

If you adjust Gold for inflation and go back to it's former all-time high in 1980, Gold should be over $2,000 an ounce right now if you want to say it's reaching new inflation adjusted all-time highs. That does not mean Gold has to get back to a true all-time high. Nothing has to. However, I suspect that given all the money printing in the world, we will see much higher prices for hard assets.

Despite Gold's potential, I think I will make more money in other commodities such as silver, cotton, or coffee -- all of which are terribly depressed.

Damien: Speaking of other assets, as an outsider living abroad, what is your opinion on US Equities?

Jim: This is one of the few times in my life I have not had shorts anywhere in the world. I have also not had a lot of longs in the stock market because I've chosen longs in commodities and currencies. I have kept away from shorts because there is a gigantic amount of money being printed and it has to go somewhere. I thought some of it would end up in the stock market, and it has.

How much higher can the equity markets go? I don't know. There are a lot of problems in the economy, but I don't know when those problems will cause a downdraft in the stock market. All we've done is paper over the problem, so I expect we'll have to deal with those issues in the future. Printing and spending money we don't have simply prolongs the problems and makes them worse in the long run.

If the world economy improves, commodities will lead the way due to demand and shortages. If the world economy does not get better, commodities are still a great place to be because governments are printing so much money. And, if the world economy doesn't get better, they will print even more money!

Damien: Jim, thank you for taking the time to share your outlook and opinions. I greatly appreciate it.

Jim: You are very welcome. Your site is very impressive. I look forward to staying in touch.

Daphne Zuniga: People Versus Chevron

2009-11-10T10:25:51Z

Co-authored by Bill Gallegos

Atchison Village would seem like a great place to live. It's a pleasant-looking neighborhood in Richmond, California on the east shore of San Francisco Bay. The residents are diverse. Some have lived there since the village was built in 1941. Others have discovered the neighborhood more recently. It's an ethnically diverse neighborhood with a comfortable feel, barbecues on the weekend and neighbors who know each others' names, with home prices far more affordable than most places in the Bay Area.

But there's a downside: Atchison Village has a bad neighbor. You know the kind we're talking about, right? The kind of neighbor that seems not to care about property values, or endangering the welfare of the people around them. The kind of neighbor that lets their garbage blow into other people's yards. The kind of neighbor that makes messes and refuses to admit it or clean them up.

In most places, behavior like that might get a person run out of town on a rail. But Atchison Village's bad neighbor has some clout: it's the third-largest corporation in the world.

The Chevron Corporation has run a gigantic oil refinery just west of Atchison Village since 1902. Ever since the city of Richmond was built, its residents have been breathing in the poison that comes out of the refinery stacks, or escapes from its miles of pipes. People in Atchison Village and other nearby neighborhoods report much higher levels of diseases from asthma to cancer. Kids living in Atchison Village are much more likely to be hospitalized for asthma than kids in other neighborhoods. Tests have found high levels of toxic substances like sulfur and heavy metals inside Atchison Village residents' homes, which are pollutants known to be emitted by oil refineries.

Some days Chevron's a worse neighbor than usual. There was a day in March 1999 for instance, when an explosion at Chevron's refinery -- and the resulting thick cloud of toxic smoke that settled on the city of Richmond -- sent hundreds of neighbors to local emergency rooms complaining of lung pain, burning eyes, and other problems.

But even on a good day, stuff comes out of that refinery that no one should have to breathe. Stuff like hydrogen sulfide. Toxic particulate matter. Sulfur dioxide. Cancer-causing solvents like benzene and toluene. Dioxin, and -- to name a toxic chemical with which Daphne has had more personal experience than she likes -- mercury.

This would be bad enough already, but for the past couple of years Chevron has been trying to "upgrade" their refinery so that they can refine even dirtier crude oil than before.

Which could expose the people of Atchison Village, and a couple dozen other neighborhoods just like it, to even more pollution. And that could make Chevron's neighbors even sicker.

We have some great news, though: there's a hitch in Chevron's plan. Three environmental justice groups and their talented attorneys have stopped the world's third-largest corporation in its tracks, at least for a little while. After failing to get Chevron to agree not to refine dirtier crude in Richmond, the groups Communities for a Better Environment, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and the West County Toxics Coalition, represented by attorneys from Earthjustice, went to court to challenge the environmental impact report for the refinery project. In June the judge ruled that the report was inadequate, partly because it didn't inform the public about whether the project would allow Chevron to process heavier oil.

Chevron has appealed the ruling. A decision on the appeal is due soon. The fight isn't over, and these environmental justice groups definitely need your support. But there's also a lesson here: a few people, with the truth on their side, can bring even the biggest Goliath down. We can stop Chevron in its tracks if we work together.

A. Siegel: Guardian Asserts Conspiracy to Hide the Peak

2009-11-10T08:53:23Z

The global economy's life-blood (even if it has been on life support) truly doesn't flow through bankers' desks or Wall Street, but is pumped from the ground and into our chemical plants, manufacturing processes, and transportation. We should, as a global society, be working to "keep the grease in the ground" for a variety of reasons (from maintaining a supply of this valuable mix for future uses rather than profligate burning today to issues of overloading the global CO2 cycle to our detriment), but this is a necessary process of weaning off dependency, not a reckless nose-dive of suddenly going cold Turkey.

One of the nightmarish realities that we should face is how resource limitations intersect. Our carbon cycle limitations (e.g., Global Warming, Acidification of the Oceans) could partially be reduced when we hit the wall of oil limits, Peak Oil. On the other hand, hitting resource limitation walls running at 'full speed' is a recipe for disasters. When it comes to these, rather than hitting walls and dealing with crises (massive and multiple crises), we (as individuals, nations, global economy) would be much better off if we make reasoned and thoughtful plans of action based on sound knowledge to reduce our abuse of the resource and move toward sustainable resource use before we hit walls and suffer calamitous consequences.

When it comes to tackling climate change, there are legions of active disinformers, seeking to confuse the discussion and delay (if not defeat) action to mitigate catastrophic climate change. (They act from reasons ranging from mercurial financial greed to religious extremism to ideological blinders to dogmatic contrarianism.)

When it comes to Peak Oil, the general political discussion is not nearly as intense or broad, even as 'experts' debate over what might really be happening. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has long been toward the upper side of optimism about Peak Oil, having numbers about likely "Peak" production seeming to match likely demand growth rather than production possibilities. When it came to the 2007 World Energy Outlook,

what a magnificent resource -- a tremendous amount of data that anyone interested in energy issues will be citing.

Their rearward look -- what's happened already -- invaluable.

Their forward look -- what will happen -- would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

Optimistic estimates from authoritative institutions enable planners (business, government, etc ...) to push solutions to the right, as those estimates 'prove' that there really isn't a serious problem that requires near-term addressing.

The globe uses, roughly, 80 million barrels of day (mbd) of oil which is over 90 percent of global production capacity. Earlier this decade, IEA asserted that production capacity would grow to about 130 mbd with demand growing to about 125 mbd. See, no problem.

Last year, IEA changed this to a peak production of about 105-110 mbd. Hmmm ... okay. Real problem, but still some breathing space. We need to slow growth of demand, but not crisis.

However, others focused on this issue have questioned whether the 84 mbd range represents just about the peak level of production capacity. Even more importantly, Peak Oil highlights that there is roughly a mountain to describe the oil production path: once you've climbed to the peak of production, you will inexorable face a decline -- and you (as individual, community, nation, globe) will be far (FAR) better off if your demand curve trajectory is a more rapid decline than production potential rather than assuming continued growing ability to produce (and therefore burn) more and more oil.

Whether for climate change or Peak Oil, good information enables to better decision-making. We know that, when it comes to climate change, there are cabals recklessly endangering humanity by seeking to confuse the debate and hinder progress forward.

Today, the Guardian reported about potential efforts to distort the discussion about Peak Oil in what might be termed 'reckless endangerment of global economic prosperity'. (Note that this risk from getting Peak Oil wrong is even greater than the disasters caused by the financial improprieties and insanities behind our current woes.) Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower reports that a "top EIA official" is asserting that there have been deliberate inflation of oil production estimates.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

"The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this."

What is driving the effort to distort what the IEA internal experts think? Concerns over near term market fluctuations evidently trump the necessity for good information to plan for tomorrow.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. "

Now, what is "American" in terms of influencing IEA? Is this, likely, still from Bush Administration policies and appointees? Possibly. But, the Guardian article does not provide a conclusive case that American governmental pressure has been driving IEA's extreme optimism as to the global peak oil production potential.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad."

Whether driven by 'conspiracy' to distort the conclusions or not, the IEA has consistently been on the high side of estimates as to peak oil production potential. And, as the authoritative global source for energy information, IEA's optimistic assessments have enabled planners to push off focusing on oil dependency challenges and the need for ever more efficient resource use because 'there will always be more tomorrow' according to the IEA.

There have been, for a long time, real reasons to question IEA. The Guardian article, however, raises the question: has there been a conspiracy (driven by America or otherwise) to inflate IEA numbers and thus distort the global conversation about our energy challenges?

Wade Norris: "Failure Is Not an Option..."

2009-11-09T12:53:25Z

That's the phrase that's missing from the current climate change legislation in our Senate and worldwide in global climate talks.

What if we approached global warming the way we approached confronting the Nazis in World War II or the way NASA approached Apollo 13?

"Failure is not an option."

Why are the leaders of Industrial countries so slow to act on climate change?

The real question is about power. Not the power for running our world, but who owns the rights to energy, and to what lengths are people willing to go to hold on to that power and the profits they represent?

One way we are all responsible for climate change is our personal auto use. But how do we change that our transportation habits, if industries like GM or oil companies are conspiring to keep these electric cars out of the market? Instead of patting ourselves on the back for fuel efficiency for cars of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, how about a target for zero emissions for cars by 2016?

Instead of a "Cash for Clunkers" program, what if we had a "Cash for Conversion" program that would pay people incentive money to convert their gas engines to electric? Or couldn't the President tell GM to mass produce the Tesla Roadster's engine for every new GM vehicle?
Don't tell me the cost of a Tesla engine would not be much more affordable if every engine in every new GM car or truck was the Tesla engine? If Barack Obama can tell the CEO of GM to resign, couldn't he do this too?

The fact is that there is an abundance of clean energy sources, but as the Center for Public Integrity reports, Fossil fuel industries are lobbying against clean energy efforts worldwide and blocking meaningful climate legislation.

Here in the United States, the debates on climate legislation are filled with industry talking points: Both Republican and Democratic Senators are making statements limiting what the US will commit to, such as:

"If China and India won't commit to 'x' then the United States won't either"

Who has been polluting for 150 years with coal and 100 years with oil?

The United States leads the world in pollution, morally we must lead the world towards ending that pollution, not waiting for other countries.

And it starts with your own Senator and Representatives. In my own state, my two 'environmentally friendly' Democratic Senators say they are for clean energy, but at the same time are signing letters of support for natural gas and nuclear energy.

Why promote nuclear energy when it drinks up huge amounts of water? And why promote natural gas in Colorado when we already have people with flammable drinking water?

These fuel sources are being touted as 'cleaner than coal', but that does not make them clean or safe.

But the real problem is that while the public is given the 'bait and switch' routine on clean energy, we are missing the big picture.

The so called 'good' plans and models being presented in the US Senate and globally at the UN and at Copenhagen have 'target dates' for countries such as '450 ppm' carbon emissions by 2050 or 2070 by the Industrialized countries.

The truth is, having target dates like 2050 and 2070 for limiting carbon emissions is heartless and immoral. If the scientific community told you that the United States would no longer exist by 2030, would you be comforted by models for change based on targets for 2050?

That's what its like for the tens of thousands of islanders right now whose islands will be gone by 2030 and who will be the world's environmental refugees. For our political leaders, not leading with a plan for zero emissions as soon as possible is like admitting that we are okay with repeating the moral lapses of the slave trade, colonialism, and the genocide of Native Americans.

Our energy targets for the future dates should not have statements about how many parts per million are acceptable, we need to have target dates for when we will reach zero emissions.

"Not possible" the industry will reply - maybe not possible for the industry to remain profitable, but it is possible.

In talking with activists in the clean energy field and from the NREL, I learned that if Colorado - just one state, built the windmills and solar panels to capacity - Colorado alone would have 40 times the electricity it needs, enough to power the entire Midwest.

And if several Midwestern states committed to building the same number of windmills and solar arrays, there would enough surplus electricity to power our nation, run an entire electric car fleet - and give us the ability to decommission the coal and natural gas plants currently running.

Colorado currently uses 12 Gigawatts of Electricity...
Colorado has 96 gigawatts of wind energy.
In terms of Solar energy, Colorado has 200 gigawatts of energy.
(me) enough to power the Midwest...?
Yes more than enough.

But you will invariably hear people say "the wind doesn't always blow and the sun does not always shine" - yes, but the battery technology we have can store energy much better than before, all we need to do is divert subsidies from fossil fuel industries like the billions in Waxman-Markey for coal and invest those funds into mass improving the grid, transmission lines, and battery production.

If we could pave 41,000 miles of Highway in a two decades under Eisenhower's Federal Highway Act, couldn't we build hundreds of solar arrays and thousands of wave energy turbines as well as numerous wind farms under a Federal Clean Energy Act? Not only would this put tens of thousands of people back to work, but in two decades we could go from the world's largest polluter, to the first Industrial power to achieve zero emissions.

Why must this be the goal?
Because:

"If you can not save the Maldives today, you will not be able to save New York, London or Mumbai tomorrow"

Environmental refugees are last on the list of concerns of those in the industry who want to water down any significant legislation or binding international treaties. The industry does not want their plight to be of concern to you and me, because if we equate energy use/abuse with human rights, we might change our minds on how we power our country. For their sakes, and ours, we the people of the Industrialized countries must demand a change from our leaders on our energy sources.

Take a second to sign this petition to President Barack Obama and Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon on the behalf of the environmental refugees that are already going to lose their island nations.

Failure is the course we are charting for hundreds of millions of people.

We must radically change our energy sources and our targets to zero emissions.

Failure is not an option.

Patrick Takahashi: Biofuels from Microalgae (Part 1)

2009-11-09T11:05:35Z

The United Nations Environment Programme recently published its first Biofuels Assessment Report ever. Much of this assessment dealt with conventional biomass, and mostly, the report did a fine job saying some bio systems are good, some are not so, and much depends on how you do it. Global warming remediation and economics were dominant parameters, although water, state of the technology and other factors were considered.

Let me focus on what many think might be the most promising ultimate bio option. I've been surveying colleagues for several years now on biofuels from algae, and the speculations on potential cost are all over the map. But the potential is exciting, for it is said that you can grow several times (factor of two to ten, you pick a number) more biomass from an aqueous environment than on land. Mind you, this point remains debatable.

Part of the reason given is that terrestrial plants need to pass nutrients only through thin roots, defying gravity, while aquatic micro and macro species can use the total surface area. Plus, genetic engineering can more readily be applied for a micro system, which has an effective doubling time of hours, not weeks, months or years.

For this analysis, which comes in two parts, I will focus on microalgae grown in saline water on land. A follow-up article will review prospects for macroalgae (such as kelp), the form pioneered in the open ocean by Howard Wilcox as early as 1968, and now, mostly being investigated today by the Japanese. This early work mostly led to methane by fermentation and as feed for animals. Recent interest adds ethanol to the product mix. A fourth posting will blue-sky the prospects for actually attempting to utilize the effluent from ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) plantships to manage algal farms at sea.

My speculation is that terrestrial microalgal and marine macroalgal biofuels/feed systems are a decade away from commercialization if the price of oil by then exceeds $125/barrel. The combination of our sun, the ocean, microalgae, OTEC, and genetic engineering for sustainable marine biofuels (hydrogen, alcohols, biodiesel, etc.) is probably a generation or two away. This would be an element of the Blue Revolution. Thus, ultimately, there will be four postings.

I begun to be involved with growing algae in raceways a third of a century ago, and from then until now, have observed that federal funding was spotty and mostly non-existent. There was never a truly orchestrated national program and sporadic attempts at organization were thwarted by the fickle price of oil. There remain today too many unknowns and uncertainties, for the due diligence and science have not yet been performed. The fundamental engineering was never initiated, and remains a knowledge gap, for this work should proceed in parallel to someday mesh with the science. The National Science Foundation for the past few decades has tended to avoid funding energy projects, mostly a jurisdictional attitude in favor of the Department of Energy, but is finally beginning to recognize this deficiency and has initiated steps to take a more active role.

So let's get to the heart of the matter regarding terrestrial microalgal biofuels production: the eventual cost of production. In general, the price of crude oil is a good an indicator as any of what biofuels from algae facilities must meet to be competitive. Let us look at the numbers. Crude oil today costs $80/barrel, or $1.90/gallon. The current USA average is $2.73/gallon for regular gas. The ratio is 1.43, that is, gasoline costs 43% more than crude oil. This ratio was 1.64 in 2008, 1.85 in 2007 and 1.92 in 2006. The differential accounts for profits, taxes, marketing, etc., and will drop as the price of crude oil rises, unless, of course, there are added taxes.

One way of looking at this is if the best industry can do is produce biofuels for $5/gallon, then oil needs to go up to $220/barrel. If the production cost can be reduced to $3/gallon, then, oil would only need to rise to $126/barrel. My gut feeling is that $3/gallon will only be attained with considerable R&D over a period of 10 years or more, and maybe never.

However, there are various mechanisms to foster the earlier coming of biofuels from algae. One is to link the project to pollution control. The added value factor is worthy of consideration. A second, more ethereal, potential introduces the matter of life cycle costing, for if the financing can proceed with the confidence that oil will rise beyond $150/barrel, with the added attraction of government incentives, these operations might well attain prominence relatively soon, even if oil might only be in the range of $100/barrel.

(Part 2 will provide details on the above, and add biojet fuel to the discussion.)

Gas Prices By State: The Highest And Lowest Costs (MAP)

2009-11-09T09:41:59Z

Planning on traveling for the holidays? In the U.S., where you go will affect how expensive a trip by car may be. Here's a look at where you'll pay the most for a gallon of gas in the U.S. and the places where it's cheap in comparison.

Peter Bosshard: China in Africa: 10 Bits of Food for Thought

2009-11-08T20:45:15Z

This past weekend, the foreign ministers of China and Africa met for the fourth summit of the Forum on China Africa Co-operation (FOCAC) in Sharm-El Sheikh, Egypt. The Chinese government announced that it would double aid flows to Africa in the next three years. Many Western observers criticize that China is only interested in exploiting Africa’s resources, at the cost of the environment and human rights. So what about China’s role in Africa? Here is some food for thought.

1.   Africa’s rapidly growing exports to China are indeed dominated by oil and minerals. This mirrors African exports to the West. According to the IMF, China took up 25% of Africa’s oil exports and 16% of the continent’s other raw material exports in 2005. (Other sources give lower figures.) The bulk of African oil still goes to the US, and of other raw materials, to Europe.

2.   While the US oil imports are mainly used for private transport, most of the Chinese imports are used by industry. China has become the world’s factory. A lot of the raw materials which China exploits in Africa end up in the furniture and television sets in our living rooms.

3.   China has often propped up undemocratic regimes. It sold arms to Zimbabwe after Robert Mugabe squashed the opposition in last year’s election. And it protected the Sudanese government from UN sanctions until it started to put pressure on it in 2007. While this is scandalous, Western policy in Africa is again not very different. The West still props up unsavory regimes in oil-rich African countries (let alone the Middle East). And it financed the governments of the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda while they sponsored militias in a war in Eastern Congo that claimed hundred thousands of lives.

4.   As late-comers to the international markets, Chinese companies often invest in regions which have been shunned by Western companies because they are remote or politically unstable. This creates political and environmental risks. Instead of pushing the boundaries of oil and mineral exploration China companies could of course buy raw materials on the world market. This would push up gas and other prices (which from an environmental perspective would not be a bad thing).

5.   Even though Chinese companies invest in environmentally sensitive sectors and regions, they have so far not followed strict social and environmental standards. Chinese government agencies and financiers have in recent years begun to bridge this gap. Yet on the ground, not much has changed. A Chinese hydropower company recently expressed interest in developing the massive Gibe 4 Dam in Ethiopia’s Omo Valley, which would impoverish hundreds of thousands of people along the Omo River and around Kenya’s Lake Turkana. Again, Western-dominated actors are doing the same. The World Bank is currently considering support for the nearby Gibe 3 Dam, which would have similar impacts.

6.   As is the case for the West, China’s relations with Africa cannot be reduced to mineral exploitation. Chinese companies and government agencies have built roads, railway lines, health centers and schools in Africa for five decades. Being a poor developing country, China offers experiences and products – such as its cheap but effective malaria drugs – which can be more relevant for Africa than Western luxury goods. At the recent FOCAC summit, China – the world leader in renewable energy – offered to build 100 renewable energy projects in Africa, which is a good thing.

7.   There is a lot of concern about Chinese (and Middle Eastern) land grabs in Africa. I don’t know this sector, and think we need to look more closely: If China helps to kick out small farmers from their lands to develop them for export production, it will increase poverty and hunger. If it provides technical assistance to increase the productivity of African farmers to the level of China’s agriculture, it will help fight hunger in Africa.

8.   Western governments have made a lot of positive noise about democracy, human rights and poverty reduction in Africa. Their actions have often not lived up to their rhetoric, and they have failed to deliver the aid which they promised as their part of the deal. In contrast, the Chinese government has followed up on the generous aid promises which it made at the last FOCAC summit three years ago, and has just offered another $10 billion in support. It appears more credible in the eyes of many African observers.

9.   Chinese companies and government agencies should start listening to civil society in Africa. The FOCAC process has been opened to the business sector, but not to civil society. Involving African non-governmental organizations will bring the issues of community rights, corruption and the environment onto the FOCAC agenda.

10.   While China has a policy on Africa, African governments don’t have a coordinated policy on China. They will lose out if they continue to deal with China bilaterally, at FOCAC and through other avenues.

In short, a lot of concerns about the impacts of Chinese investments in Africa are justified. But we should be aware that China’s policies on the environment, corruption and human rights in in its overseas investments are slowly changing. And while we point out the numerous splinters in China’s eye, we should not forget to remove the beam in our own.

Read more: Oil, China, Africa, International Rivers, Green News

Raymond J. Learsy: The Price of Oil and the Massacre at Fort Hood

2009-11-08T12:40:16Z

The relationship between the price of oil and the slaughter that took place at Fort Hood is hardly as far-fetched as it would appear. In an instructive article that was reprinted as an Op-ed in the NY Post on Saturday Nov 7, one Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, Executive Director of the Center of Islamic Pluralism, talks about the influences that apparently formed Major Nidal Hassan's murderous hatred.

This in striking contrast to the New York Times' "see no evil" editorial of the same date, which pontificates, "But until investigations are complete, no one can begin to imagine what could possibly have motivated the latest appalling carnage." Really?! The Times, undeterred, continues with an article on today's front page, "A Military Therapist's World: Long Hours, Filled With Pain" replete with the sad song of twisted rationalizations, instructing us that this horrendous act was attributable to professional traumatic stress or, as brightly cited in the Times, "Thursday's rampage has put a spotlight on the srtains of their profession and the patients they treat."

Then, in an adjoining article on the same NY Times front page, "Preliminary Fort Hood Inquiry Turns Up No Link To Terrorist Plot," the NY Times is quick to advise us, "But, so far, investigators have unearthed no evidence that he was directed or steered into violence." Then, perhaps in some deference to journalistic objectivity, mentioned almost in passing, it says that findings were preliminary and that investigators viewed the investigation as fluid.

No such mealy mouthed hesitancy in the Schwartz Op-ed. Here we are informed that Hasan regularly attended prayer services at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, MD, where the main prayer leader, Iman Faizul Khan, was a friend of Hasan's as well as holding board membership on the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The ISNA, according to Schwartz, is the main Wahhabi lobby group in the United States and has a long and disgraceful record of promoting radical Islam. He goes on to advise that it is a group understood to have been established by Saudi Arabia to impose extremism on American Muslims.

He continues, telling us that "from a ghastly act, to a Saudi-backed fundamentalist Iman, to a Saudi run designated terror financing charity is not a long trail. That is but a small coil of associations that exist in too many US mosques." He rightfully concludes that American Muslims must drive these elements out of their community. "The problem is not traumatic stress, much less Islam. It's the ideology, the money and and the interests of the Saudi hardliners."

And almost needless to add, the funding comes from the avalanche of money flowing into the coffers of such as Saudi Arabia through the insidious and duplicitous manipulation of oil prices by the cartel producers, with Saudi Arabia as the dominant player and prime beneficiary. This at the cost of hundreds of billions to American consumers in dollars and cents alone, without even beginning to fathom the cost and danger to our society, safety and well-being impacted by the radicalization of a segment of our society through Wahhabi dogma while our government and its agencies look the other way, rarely if ever holding the Saudis to account.

Perhaps, just perhaps, in tribute and memory to those who were gunned down at Fort Hood, this could be a wake-up call to the nation.

10 Shocking Products Full Of Petroleum

2009-11-06T11:24:08Z

About one quarter of the oil consumed in this country is used for industrial purposes. Plastic production is the most obvious example, as awareness grows of the harm plastic does to the earth and people shun the material when they can.

But oil has permeated more of our lives than most people realize. Here, the most surprising places you'll find oil, in some form, as a key ingredient:

Gillian Caldwell: The Good, Bad, and Ugly: A Look Back at the Drama Over the EPW Bill

2009-11-05T11:14:50Z

This morning brings good news on the climate change front: In spite of the ongoing Republican boycott of the hearings, Senate Democrats in the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) passed the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009 out of committee by a vote of 10-1, with 8 votes not reported. The lone holdout was Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who argued that the 20 percent target for carbon emission cuts by 2020 was too high. Two key provisions that the 1Sky network has lobbied to keep -- 20 percent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and keeping Clean Air Act responsibility for shutting down dirty coal plants -- remain in the bill, which is a major victory for everyone who wants to see real action against climate change and the creation of millions of career-track clean energy jobs.

In the past week, a drama unfolded around the Senate EPW Committee hearings for the new Senate bill on climate and clean energy jobs. Declarations! Boycott threats! Power plays! It's left a lot of people in the climate movement perplexed, frustrated, and even more committed to push for a strong and comprehensive bill now.

You'd hope that passing a strong climate bill through Senate committees would have been easier, especially coming off what has to be among the most inspirational days the climate movement has ever experienced -- the Oct 24 International Day of action coordinated by 350.org. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered at more than 5,000 events in 180 countries worldwide to tell the world that climate change must be addressed now. 1Sky coordinated more than 220 events in 47 states nationwide here in the U.S.

You'd hope that our global show of force would have kick started the EPW hearings and helped lawmakers understand what's at stake, with the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S1733) (PDF) and Copenhagen on the horizon; the world is watching to see what the United States will do.

And as they watched, the EPW Committee chair Senator Barbara Boxer got the cold shoulder from a few Republicans and dirty energy special interests that wanted to stall the bill and boycotted her hearings.

But, there were some bright moments along this route to passing the bill out of committee --from the stronger than expected initial draft introduced by Kerry and Boxer to the bi-partisan New York Times op-ed from Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) that called for a real carbon cuts in a Senate bill (though it admittedly had some very worrying nods toward nuclear power and offshore drilling) to comments made in hearings last week by strong climate champions like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

So, some quick takes on the good, bad, and ugly from the last week in Congress:

The Good: Real Champions

The EPW Committee hearings featured a few inspirational moments from champions who provided the urgency and leadership needed to push this bill over the finish line. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said a 20% cut in CO2 by 2020 is not "an overly aggressive goal" and that in fact, "this bill is not moving fast enough." Senator Whitehouse called out the dirty energy lobby, stating: "Corporate lobbyists have won against our children's lungs, and I for one am fed up with it!" Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) cried, "Wake up America - your kids are in danger!" These were more than sound bites; They were rallying cries to deliver the strongest bill possible in the face of a looming planetary crisis and the economic opportunity of a clean energy future.

Additionally, climate champ Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) composed an open letter for sign on by his colleagues that asks Majority Leader Reid to keep Clean Air Act authority in the bill. The Clean Air Act is a key tool for regulating dirty coal plants that use outdated technology and spew global warming pollution into our environment. 1Sky is working with many allies nationwide including the Sierra Club, Environment America and MoveOn in urging our supporters to press their senators to sign the Menendez letter.

Looking ahead, 1Sky is rallying our base to reach President Obama and Senate leaders with a call-in campaign to senators, a petition and art creation drive for delivery to President Obama in early December of the eve of the Copenhagen debates. 1Sky activists throughout the country will gather to create art that depicts how urgent the threat from climate change is and why we need bold action now.

The Bad: Big Oil and Dirty Coal's Talking Points

The movement must continue to press on senators and the administration to keep what's strong in this bill and to use the billions of dollars generated by a cap on carbon for public benefit: to maximize the investments in clean energy jobs, worker training, international adaptation, and clean energy technology partnerships. We must also fight against giveaways to dirty coal plants and oil companies who have been reaping record profits in recent years.

These special interests are working hard to gut the bill on many fronts, including notably reducing targets from 20% by 2020 and stripping the Clean Air Act of its authority to regulate dirty coal plants.

Worse, several key swing senators began mimicking these talking points in their comments. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) was one such senator who spoke out against these two bill provisions. The Committee needs to hear from clean energy champions in the Senate and from grasstops and grassroots groups to keep these two provisions strong (i.e. the Menendez letter is one example of a show of strength).

The Ugly: Stalling/Trying to Postpone the Markup

Bipartisanship must also not come at the cost of appeasing the Republicans in the EPW committee who behaved like spoiled children in boycotting committee hearings to move the bill forward.

Last week, Chairman Barbara Boxer held three days of hearings on her revised version of the bill. She told the Republicans on her Committee that she would not begin hearings until there was an EPA economic analysis of the legislation. She fulfilled this pledge when the EPA released a 38-page economic analysis of the draft. This analysis said that this bill was so similar to the Waxman-Markey bill that they didn't feel the need to do a lengthy analysis of the bill.

So, the threat of a markup boycott by a few Republican senators (now moot) was appeased and Majority Leader Reid has announced that he will ask the EPA to complete a full, five-week analysis of the bill when his version is ready for floor consideration.

Next month, I'll be in Copenhagen along with many U.S. and international groups urging global leaders to commit to a fair, ambitious and binding global treaty to tackle climate change. We had hoped for a bill in hand to show our country's commitment to a global deal. Now, we have to push for a promissory note for passage of a bill that is routinely bombarded with boycott threats and special interest meddling.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking not only for a strong Senate bill or a global accord on climate change, but to turn back the damage we've done and chart a new future for our economic recovery, our health, our national security, our planet, and our people, before its too late.

Kerry Kennedy: Chevron and Cultural Genocide in Ecuador

2009-11-04T18:39:12Z

Traces of paradise are still visible. From the air, the rainforest
region in northern Ecuador--known as the Oriente--appears as silvery
mist and swaths of verdant green.

But beneath the cloud cover and canopy, the jungle is a tangle of oil
slicks, festering sludge, and rusted pipeline. Smokestacks sprout
from the ground, spewing throat-burning fumes into the air.
Wastewater from unlined pits seeps into the groundwater and flows into
the rivers and streams.

This nightmarish landscape is the legacy of Texaco. Between 1964 and
1990, Texaco (which was acquired by Chevron in 2001) drilled roughly
350 wells across 2,700 square miles of Amazon rainforest. It extracted
some $30 billion in profits while deliberately dumping 18 billion
gallons of toxic soup, known as production water--a mixture of oil,
sulpheric acid, and other carcinogens--into the streams and rivers
where people collect drinking water, fish, bathe, and swim.

In the process, Texaco constructed over 900 oil sludge pits, many the
size of Olympic swimming pools. Unlike swimming pools, these pits were
unlined punctures in the earth. With no concrete to protect the
surrounding soil, poison seeped into the ground water.

I had heard about what has been called "Chevron's Chernobyl in the
Amazon" for years. But nothing could prepare me for the horror I
witnessed this week in Ecuador.

I held a dragonfly covered in oil in my hands, desperately and
hopelessly trying to flutter its wings. I saw pig footprints in the
mud next to the oily gunk, where it had eaten contaminated grass, and
will soon be contaminating the children, women, and men, who in turn
feed on Chevron's waste.

I met a man who told me his two children died after swimming in
contaminated water. One died within 24 hours. The other writhed in
agony for six months before his poor body gave way.

I met another man whose home is just a few hundred yards from one of
the pits. He has 10 children. All of them have become sick, some
covered with sores. His chickens and pigs have died. Nothing grows
near his home.

I saw a poisonous pit abandoned by Texaco in 1974 and never used by
any other company. The pipes leading from that pit have clear liquid
running from them. When I put the liquid to my nose, it smelled like
gasoline. It runs directly into an adjoining stream, which is the main
source of drinking water for people who live along its banks.

We heard terrifying stories of mistreatment by Texaco workers: women
raped; shamans taken by helicopter to far mountain ranges to see if
they could find their way back; Indians told that rubbing oil on their
bald scalps would make their hair grow long and thick; and Texaco
trucks that dumped oil waste on roads where people walked and suffered
the burns of sticky tar in hot sun.

This is not a matter of misty-eyed nostalgia. This is an issue of
human rights - clear violations of the indigenous Ecuadoreans' rights
to life, security, and self-determination.

When Texaco oilmen descended from helicopters into the jungle in the
early 1960s, they gifted the locals with bread, cheese, plates, and
spoons. To this day, this is the only compensation any of the
indigenous groups have ever received.

Never were they asked for their permission before Texaco executives
negotiated a contract with Ecuadorean government officials.

Texaco knew people would die because of what they were doing, and they
ignored it. At last count, 1,400 children, women, and men have died
of illnesses directly attributed to Texaco's contamination. Cancer
rates in communities affected by oil activity are 30 times higher than
anywhere else in the country. Other medical teams have documented
elevated rates of birth defects, miscarriages, skin disease, and nerve
damage.

Two nomadic groups that once inhabited the region, the Tetetes and the
Sansahuari, have been wiped out. What Texaco did arguably amounts to
criminally negligent homicide.

Now, the remaining indigenous peoples of the Oriente - the Cofán,
Siona, Secoya, Kichwa, and the Huaorani people - have taken the fight
to Chevron. Organized by a grassroots organization called the Frente
de Defensa de la Amazonia--the Amazon Defense Coalition--they are simply
demanding through an unprecedented class action lawsuit that Chevron
clean up its mess.

The case is now in its 16th year. Chevron (whose human rights
statement reads, "We value and respect the cultures and traditions of
the many communities in which we work") has tossed up one delay after another.

Yet, the evidence of Texaco's wrongdoing is plain for all to see.
Last year, an unnamed Chevron lobbyist was quoted as saying the lesson
of Ecuador is that "We can't let little countries screw around with
big companies like this--companies that have made big investments
around the world."

But as an American, I am appalled that a corporation from our country
would treat innocent people with such disdain. We--consumers
investors, elected officials, journalists, activists, and
citizens--must hold Chevron accountable for its actions, and see that
justice is done.

Here in the Oriente, 45 years after Texaco first bore into the
ground--16 years after the Ecuadoreans began their fight for
justice--traces of paradise are still visible. We must not allow them
to vanish.

Antonia Juhasz: Chevron Gets Fixed

2009-11-03T21:45:54Z

On Sunday, Chevron became the first oil company to come under a Yes Men Audience Attack.

(See Video, Photos, and Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum's Blog of event)

Chevron was chosen because Chevron is different from other oil companies.

It is bigger than all but three (only ExxonMobil, BP and Shell are larger). It is facing the largest potential corporate liability in history ($27 billion) for causing the world's largest oil spill in the Ecuadorian rainforest. It is the only major U.S. Corporation still operating in Burma and, with its partner Total Oil Corp., is the single largest financial contributor to the Burmese government. It is the dominant private oil producer in both Angola and Kazakhstan, with operations in both countries mired in human rights and environmental abuses. It is the only major oil company to be tried in a U.S. court on charges of mass human rights abuse, including summary execution and torture (for its operations in Nigeria).

It is the only oil company to hire one of the Bush Administration's "torture memo" lawyers (William J. Haynes). It is the largest and most powerful corporation in California, where it is currently being sued for conspiring to fix gasoline prices. It has led the fight to keep California as the only major oil producing state that does not tax oil when it is pumped from the ground, thereby denying the state an extra $1.5 billion annually. It is the largest industrial polluter in the Bay Area and is among the largest single corporate contributors to climate change on the planet.

Chevron is also the focus of one of the world's most unique and well-organized corporate resistance campaigns.

That campaign got a jolt of energy when Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum came to San Francisco on Halloween weekend for a special screening of The Yes Men Fix the World.

Global Exchange and I teamed up with Andy (the movie's co-writer, director, and producer) and a host of the Bay Areas most creative activists, to lead an entire movie audience out of the theater, into the streets, and in protest of Chevron.

We spread the word early, far, and wide: The Yes Men are coming! The Yes Men are coming! They will not only fix the world, they will fix Chevron too!

Larry Bogad, a Yes Man co-hort and professor of Guerilla Theater, helped concoct a masterful street theater scenario. A crack team of protest and street theater organizers was compiled, including David Solnit of the Mobilization for Climate Justice and Rae Abileah of Code Pink. Rock The Bike signed on and the word kept spreading.

On Sunday, the Roxie Theater in San Francisco's Mission District was filled beyond capacity with an audience that came ready to protest. They laughed, clapped, booed, and cheered along with the film. When the movie ended, Andy answered questions, I talked about Chevron, and Larry laid out the protest scenario.

Three Chevron executives, protected from the early ravages of climate change in SurvivaBalls, were dragged up the street by dozens of Chevron minions with nothing but haz-mat suits to protect them. Those unable to afford any protection (i.e. The Dead) followed close behind. Next came resistance: the Chevron street sweepers, actively cleaning up Chevron's messes who were followed by the protesters, ready to change the story.

We didn't have a permit, but we took a lane of traffic on 16th street anyway. The police first tried to intervene, then they "joined in," blocking traffic on our way to Market and Castro.

As we marched and the music blared, people literally came out of their houses and off of the streets to join in. Passersby eagerly took postcards detailing Chevron's corporate crimes.

Once we arrived at the gas station, I welcomed everyone and explained that we were at an independent Chevron (as opposed to corporate) station, whose owner (whom I'd been speaking with regularly) had his own list of grievances with his corporate boss. The particular station was not our target of protest, but rather, the Chevron Corporation itself.

Larry and Andy than led the entire crowd in a series of Tableaux Morts. The Chevron executives in their SurvivaBalls drained the lifeblood from the masses. The people began to rebel, forcing the SurvivaBalls into the "turtle" position to fend off the attacks. Ultimately, the separate groups saw their common purpose in resisting Chevron's abuses. The dead rose, the Chevron minions rebelled, and the sweepers and protesters joined together. They all chased the Chevron executives off into the distance, and then danced in the streets, rejoicing in their shared victory!

The Chevron Program I direct at Global Exchange seeks to unite Chevron affected communities across the United States and around the world. By uniting these communities, we build strength from each other, and become a movement. By expanding, strengthening, and highlighting this movement, we bring in more allies and create a powerful advocacy base for real policy change. Those changes will reign in Chevron, and by extension, the entire oil industry. And, by raising the voices of those hardest hit by the true cost of oil and exposing how we all ultimately pay the price, we help move the world more rapidly away from oil as an energy resource altogether.

Raymond J. Learsy: Oil's Massive Price Distortion Militates the Reconvening of the 1970s Federal Oil Price Task Force

2009-11-03T09:16:53Z

Steven Chu, our Secretary of Energy in his October 30 post on the Huffington Post "Weatherization: Saving Money by Saving Energy" focuses on the savings that can accrue to those conscious of how to reduce energy/electricity in their homes; insulation, programmable thermostats, efficient windows and the like. "I have always been an energy efficiency nut", he tells us.

He then goes on to inform about the various programs instituted by the Department of Energy to assist homeowners to weatherize homes and encourage home energy efficiency. Well and good, and as it should be.

But the Department of Energy has other mandates, and here its actions have been totaling lacking, other than continuing, in a Bush like trance, to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve irrespective of price nor consideration that it already holds some 750 million barrels of oil (more than Iran's total annual oil export loadings). The Department seems oblivious to the fact that in the nine months of the Obama presidency the price of oil has skyrocketed by nearly 250%, from $33/barrel in February to touching $80/barrel late in October. In the world of commodity trading, given the massive oversupply of oil on the market today with storage overflowing, and scores of tankers anchored at sea with hundreds of millions of barrels of oil with no place to discharge, a price for oil shading $80 a barrel can be nothing more than a willfully contrived aberration. Clearly something is amiss. (Please see "Chairman of Gazprom Predicts $100 Oil Because of Speculation. Speculation, Really?" 09.08.09)

Added to this effrontery, is a market inured by a brain washed public, helped along by a somnolent press, comatose analysts, oil industry flaks and an oil lobbyist conflated government presenting these prices as a fair reflection of a free market. Then, to add the icing on this poisoned cake is the ongoing OPEC babble by such as its President, Jose Botelho de Vasconcelos, who in an epiphany of altruistic concern was reported by Reuters/CNBC announcing that the oil ministers of OPEC will raise output "to protect the global economic recovery at a meeting in December if oil prices rise to $100 per barrel". Here we have OPEC in the guise of Santa Claus bringing Christmas goodies if we all behave.

Such is the Alice in Wonderland world that we have come to accept without serious questioning, acquiescing as we are all being taken to the cleaners. And that is the Department of Energy's job, to wake us all up to the day to day willful distortions and manipulations that are costing the consumers and the nation billions. To date, not a peep from the Department of Energy other than a most welcome focus on long term programs toward the development of alternative energy fuels. This while the national economy is bleeding billions to foreign suppliers and oil interests throughout the world, in these deeply challenged economic times. Billions that could be put to far better use at home.

Consider the enormous potential savings to America's balance sheet. Consuming around 20 million barrels of oil a day at say $80 barrel transfers $1.6 billion from American consumers into the pockets of oil interests both here and abroad. Were the price at February's level of $33/bbl the transfer of wealth would radically lower, barely $660 million/day. This would result in a saving of $940 million/day or $342 billion a year. Let me repeat, $342 billion a year. More than the "staggering" $243 billion in money alone that the war in Afghanistan has cost us, according to Sen. John Kerry's testimony to before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee only a week ago.

It is long past time that our government take seriously and study intensely how oil prices are determined in a world of OPEC, speculation, timid oversight, failing transparency, international trading platforms, vast reserves of liquidity as those of sovereign wealth funds and their equivalents who have deeply vested interest in oil prices being quoted ever higher on the world trading exchanges. The whole gamut of oil price formation needs be examined and a government commission focused on this issue is long overdue.

In 1977 the then Department of Energy under Secretary James Schlesinger created a task force to address oil pricing and compliance to then existing oil price regulations. Given the turbulent and irrational movement in oil prices in the past few years, the appointment of a government task force has become essential to determine whether oil prices as currently constituted are truly an unfettered response to market forces, or an endgame of far more devious and malign pricing strategies to maximize illegally, even criminally, the profits accruing to oil producers at the expense of the public's well being.

Among the issue the task force could take under review:

-To determine the role of speculation in setting oil prices

-To determine the efficacy of such oversight agencies as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in monitoring the fairhandedness of trading activity on the Commodity Exchanges'

-Back in July the CFTC made bold announcements pinning much of the oil price increases on speculative trading in the commodity pits. Yet since then little has been heard from the CFTC. What was the nature of their findings that permitted them to arrive at those conclusions? (Please see "The Huffington Post Outs The Oil Price Speculators" 08.02.09)

-Have the efforts of the CFTC to expose the role of speculation been derailed by Wall Street influence and their allies in government? (Please see "Wall Street Stampedes to the Aid of the Oil Speculators" 07.12.09)

-What is the impact on the price of oil as the result of trading oil by the Bank Holding Companies such as JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and other banks the likes of Barclays who have dedicated billions to their proprietary oil trading/speculating departments while having access to virtually cost free funding at the Fed window? And how has this diversion/use of funds impacted their lending activities as banks in a time of economic stress?

-How does arbitraging the price of oil and oil products traded on offshore exchanges impact oil prices/products being traded on American exchanges such as the NY Merc?

-How transparent are these offshore exchanges, say London, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong among others?

-If they are not transparent are they subject to manipulation?

-What interface exists between our regulatory agencies, say the CFTC, and these offshore exchanges?

-The OPEC countries hold vast reserves of dollars and foreign exchange. Their sovereign wealth funds are bulging in cash. Can it be determined whether they or Russia are using this massive liquidity to move the energy markets on the International Commodity Exchanges to support the price of oil and oil products, these being the commodities that are the bedrock of their economies?

-Why did Saudi Arabia suddenly and only recently drop the widely used West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil contract as the benchmark for pricing its oil, substituting a new London based "Argus" index? Explanations offered talk about disparity in pricing. But could it be that with the potential of a more vigilant CFTC the WTI contract becomes more difficult to "influence"?

- How effective is OPEC in restraining production of oil and impacting its price?

-What political options present themselves vis a vis OPEC and if any, are they being implemented and should they be?

-What role could NOPEC legislation play in restraining OPEC's willful collusion by striking the sovereign immunity extended to OPEC members that gives them leave under American jurisprudence?

-During the Bush administration the House passed NOPEC legislation that would have permitted the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to take action against OPEC members in American courts, charging them with restraint of trade and anti trust collusion. Nothing ever came of it because President Bush threatened to veto the legislation. The issue has not been revived under the Obama presidency. Should it be?

-What benefits might accrue in our negotiating posture with OPEC,and all foreign suppliers were all imports of oil into the United States subject to an import license issued based on of country of origin. Yes, oil is fungible, but a rigorous licensing program might well be able to deal with that. Would it not send a clear signal, once and for all, that access to our market can no longer be taken for granted and begin to change our negotiating posture with foreign suppliers from being supplicants to being equals?

-Is there a role that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) can play in keeping prices at reasonable levels, and how would that be defined?

-Should price limits be set above which the Department of Energy would stop oil purchases for the SPR?

-How can the oil industry and the media be brought to task and the public made more aware of the realities of the oil marketplace rather than being fed such endless pabulum as 'high oil prices are a response to a weak dollar' (please note the dollar has eroded by some 15% since the beginning of the year while oil has escalated near 250% since February ) It is a canard that permits such as the CEO of BP Mr. Tony Hayward to explain away in stern instruction to us all, that in recent months the "drop in the dollar is a major factor behind oil prices breaking through $75/bbl." This is but one example of the patently misleading and self serving explanations for every jump in the price of oil, blindly being mimicked ad nauseum by the media as in the New York Times ("As the Dollar Sinks Oil Skyrockets" 10.22.09) and its endless incantations on CNBC as elsewhere (also please see "A Short Tutorial On the High Price of Oil and the Falling Dollar" 10.19.07). The public should be taught to understand self serving nonsense when it is ritually presented to them as fact. What can be done to make the public more aware and thereby more alert to the distortions being visited on them by the oil interests?

- In the need to combat the existential problem of green house gases, what steps must be taken to reduce the consumption of fossil based gasoline to offset the dramatic drop in oil prices that could well result from the implementation of effective policies countering the current high and likely manipulated oil price levels?

It is essential policies need be enacted that encourage the use of alternative fuels by establishing a voucher system, or gas tax, or whatever works to keep the potentially much lower oil prices from encouraging heightened consumption of gasoline. Better that funds gathered from gasoline taxes or other programs are circulated within our economy than the billions of dollars being shipped to foreign coffers, as is currently the case.

The irresponsible acquiescence of governments here and abroad to what has become perhaps the greatest rip off of consumers since the heady days of the Standard Oil Trust need be taken in hand.The difference being that then it was blatant monopoly control, whereas today it is insidious and duplicitous manipulation by cartel producers and a combination of speculative and manipulative trading on the commodity exchanges all countenanced by acquiescent governments lulled into inaction by the influence and wealth of oil interests and their lobbyists and an irresponsibly somnolent press too often sensitive to the priorities of their advertisers before their responsibility to the public.

Al Gore Explains How Call For Climate Change Action Is Similar To Civil Rights Movement (Video)

2009-11-02T22:25:28Z

The push for government action on climate change is like the US civil rights movement, according to former Vice President Al Gore. Both causes depended on and depend on a grassroots call to change.

Gore talked about those similarities during webcast interview with Katie Couric about his new book Our Choice, his follow-up to the film about global warming An Inconvenient Truth.

Couric referred to Gore as the "Godfather of Green" before beginning the 32-minute interview. Gore touched on the the moral issues surrounding inaction on climate change as well as cap and trade legislation specifics.

Watch the interview:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

The Yes Men: Chamber of Commerce M.I.A.! Chevron Takes the Heat!

2009-11-02T18:40:03Z

While you were sleeping this past Sunday evening, a most unusual incident transpired in San Francisco. Three top Chevron executives led a procession of hundreds from the Roxie Cinema at 16th and Valencia to the Chevron station at Market and Castro. It was quite a sight.

The execs stood atop wheeled platforms wearing "Survivaballs," 6-foot diameter "grub suits" designed to keep our most valuable citizens safe in the event of climate calamities they may have caused.

"We at Chevron have found a way to sustainably use fossil resources, while ensuring our survival in any ensuing climate crisis," said one bulbous executive. "I feel great, but I almost feel bad for the 99% of the population who can't afford one of these things."

After being dragged the mile uphill by hazmat-suit wearing minions, the executives descended from their wheeled daises to enact a series of "tableaux morts" from the post-apocalyptic future, with the Chevron station as backdrop. In one, they demonstrated to passersby just how easily a Survivaball could suck the lifeblood from any number of "less fiscally responsible" citizens. In another, they demonstrated how Survivaballs would protect executives from pounding assaults by starving hordes.

"This is only a little stretch," said Antonia Juhasz, director of the Chevron Program at Global Exchange. "Chevron is already actively sucking the lifeblood from many communities worldwide, including here in California, where they're not only destroying the environment, they're shirking $1.5 billion in taxes annually with the help of their lobbying. Also, for some it can feel as if Chevron has so successfully bought off the government that no amount of pounding will matter."

Larry Bogad, one of the protest organizers and a theatre professor at UC Davis, concurred. "Even the Pentagon agrees: corporations like Chevron are driving us to the brink of disaster. The rich will definitely need something like Survivaball to survive the result of what they're doing."

The eerie, elaborate protest ended on a positive note. "There's one thing a Survivaball cannot withstand," intoned Bogad through a bicycle-powered sound system. "And that's when citizens organize, and change the rules of the game, so that companies like Chevron can't keep undermining democracy and destroying the world."

The ensuing demonstration had the Survivaballs fleeing back down Market street whence they had marched, pursued by protesters, dozens of people in skeleton suits, and the fifty or so rebellious former "Chevron workers" who had dragged them up the hill.

"Organized resistance works," said Juhasz. "Right here in Richmond, long-term community organizing, combined with a lawsuit, has succeeded in stopping Chevron from a major retooling of its refinery -- which would have increased Chevron's already toxic presence in this area. They've been stopped dead in their tracks."

"There's still time," said David Solnit of Mobilization for Climate Justice West, one of the protest's organizers. "But we really have to act now. We've got to get organized, stay organized, and fight hard and effectively. One way to join the fight is to visit www.BeyondTalk.net."

Chevron is a target of citizen protests in California, across the United States and around the world because of Chevron's role at the forefront of climate destruction, human right and public health abuse, environmental devastation, economic strangulation, and wars for oil (The True Cost Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report).

Despite their record of heartily defending Chevron in disputes worldwide, the US Chamber of Commerce was nowhere to be seen Sunday evening. The Chamber, which is suing the Yes Men for impersonating them in a press conference two weeks ago, has purchased numerous Google Ad spots begging readers to give them money because they're "under attack" by the Yes Men and others.

Following a special screening of The Yes Men Fix the World, Bogad, Juhasz, Solnit, and film director Andy Bichlbaum led the entire theater audience, throngs of others waiting outside, and dozens of others who came out of their houses and off the streets to join the mass theatrical procession up 16th Street to the Chevron station at Market and Castro. This is the latest, and most elaborate in a series of post-screening rampages in major American cities including New York City and, most recently, Chicago.

More video and photos coming soon: http://theyesmen.org/blog/chevron
And new Babelgum channel here! http://www.babelgum.com/yesmen