Comments on Progressive Trader's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/progressive-trader/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-225218 225218 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:25:12 -0400
Whether or not OPEC is greatly overstating their reserve position, I think we all agree the long term focus has to be on reducing our demand for oil.
Coal displaced wood, oil largely displaced coal, and alternate energy sources must displace oil as quickly as possible.
Greenspan thinks OPEC could ramp up and the world could produce 115MM barrels a day by 2025 or so. Pickens says 85 MM is the peak.
They both agree that demand must be destroyed or the ability to produce will fail to meet global consumption at some point.

That Battery technology that Kleiner backs sounds very promising. I've read about some big companies getting close to solar breakthroughs that will be affordable to the mass of people.

For now, I do my small part to conserve, drive less and drive more intelligently and see a fairly quick and painless way to further erode US demand if we can get all 240MM or so US cars on board]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-224751 224751 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 07:44:24 -0400
I follow the price of oil throughout the day and have seen no one pushing the idea our gridlocked country may produce more oil in the fairly distant future has impacted the price slide.

The sell-off has been been driven by concerns over demand decreasing and increased above-ground supplies in the developed world. The latter has been caused by a combination of the effects of oil speculating and a marginal increase in production.

US gas consumption was down 2.4% a month, a huge figure in a country with 240MM cars. Our economy is slowing down , facing inflation and strapped with debt - a recipe for further short term demand erosion and longer term destruction.
High prices have slowed down economies and demand growth worldwide. Thankfully for us, it has chilled China's expansion for now.

In June the Saudi's invested 10 billion in what is perhaps their last huge oil field with a goal of bringing 1.2MM barrels a day by late next year. No meaningful impact on global price resulted.

It will interesting to see if we get to the 117/barrel threshold and large programmed selling occurs.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-224724 224724 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 07:04:51 -0400
OPEC reserves are definitely overexaggerated.
Between 1981 to 1985, Canterall, Prudhoe Bay and North Sea all come on line and glut world oil market with 20% excess capacity. Oil prices tumbled from $40 /barrel to $10 barrel. At the same time OPEC members lose 75% of their revenue. OPEC production quotas are based on a percentage of self-declared reserve sizes. Shortly afterwards OPEC members all boosted their reservation numbers so that they can sell more oil and make up for the recent shortfall in revenues. Look at the 1985 point on figure 2 on this article.
anz.theoildrum.com/nod...
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-224572 224572 Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:07:50 -0400
I'm not advocating we just keep on keepin on with the same ol hydrocarbon scheme... Far from. Don't worry about the demand exceeding OPEC or any other producers cumulatively. The world will move away from a oil based energy paradigm FAR FAR before we even near running out. No worries. The venture community (predominately US VCs) invested $92bn and $148bn in 2006-07 respectively and it's already starting to payoff. Just take a look at the one investment by John Doerr at Kleiner Perkins named EEStor. A radical revolutionary (not evolutionary) change is upon us and mark my words, oil will collapse long before any of that "Escape from NY, Mad Max" stuff. No -- we won't be running around in tight black leather pants with bad haircuts careening towards the last drop of high test in a car straight from the set of the Munsters...
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-224384 224384 Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:56:21 -0400
I read the oil drum presentation. Lot's of good information. The insights into the technical and economic limitations of producing oil are something that far too many American's don't grasp.
The same is true for the fact that oil has to be priced high before oil companies can produce the difficult sites that remain.

I think the real wild card is just how large are OPEC's reserves ??
I understand the idea that they are probably inflating their position. Alan Greenspan was all over the energy issue while Chairman of the federal reserve and had access to all the information on Oil Drum. He also knew a lot of the OPEC oil ministers. He thinks they have enough to ramp up production to at least 115 MM barrels a day by 2030 - but there is great risk to assume they will do so.

Regardless, we are fast approaching the day when demand outstrips supply.

The other wild card is how quickly China and other emerging markets will grow their demand. High prices stunt their demand as well. Chinese leaders are much more astute at economics than most realize and they may steer their country toward more alternative stuff than is presently predicted. The Olympics are show casing their terrible air and could be a positive in this regard.

Regardless, we are at a critical juncture under any scenario and need to make cutting down our consumption of oil the highest priority.

I'll pass that link around.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-224349 224349 Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:24:20 -0400
NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil prices slipped beneath $118 a barrel Wednesday -- $30 below their record high -- after a jump in U.S. crude and other fuel supplies fed beliefs that high energy prices are eating into demand.

Oil market traders are paying close attention to see if oil falls below $117, a key resistance level expected to trigger a rash of technical selling by computers programmed to dump oil contracts once prices fall below a certain threshold.

Let's keep driving demand down. Slow down, tune up , and ignore McCain and inflate your tires. with 240 million cars on US roads - we can all make a difference.

Note the comments about oil having a threshold price of $117 - if true, we could be near a major drop in price.

If it happens, please keep the SUV parked anyway.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-223825 223825 Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:35:34 -0400
The 85mbl/day figure originates directly from EIA (Energy Information Administration) data. There is a good power point on TheOilDrum.com (A peak oil site) that summarizes much of the EIA data. www.theoildrum.com/nod...

T.Pickens Boone, of course, has ulterior motives: To get tax incentives to make more money for himself and to create a legacy for himself. But at least his crusade will benefit millions of people and the planet along the way.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-223767 223767 Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:16:29 -0400
I do not buy the idea that the mere suggestion that US will drill in restricted areas will move the needle on price for more than a day or 2.
The really big investors know how the global economy works and that any "new" US oil will be marginal in amount and relatively expensive to produce.

I really am curious how many US companies will jump on the new "opportunity" if the OCS is opened up. THe oil, whatever exists, is below 7,000 feet of water and probably 1 to 3 miles under the ocean floor.

longoil :

I already am on Picken's mailing list. That does not mean I'm 100% behind all aspects of his plan, but I think he has the experience, money and ego to raise the level of political discourse . I really can't seem to get unbiased info. on how clean and domestically available natural gas truly is. Nor how quickly - 10 years as he suggests - we could move a lot of US vehicles to run on natural gas.

His weekly newsletter will come out today as you probably know.


I also am not convinced about peak oil theory of 85MM barrels a day. I think OPEC could move that number up if there were so inclined. Even if true, there is too much risk in hoping they will.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-223625 223625 Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:43:47 -0400 Trains get 250 miles/ton/gallon, whereas trucks only 60 miles/ton/gallon. River barges are the best with over 500 miles/ton/gallon.

There is a lot of great ideas out there that make up my "all of the above" list. I recommend the following sites if you are interested:

1) pickensplan.com (very simple video, but really illustrates the potential of wind power)

2) simmonsco-intl.com/res...
(Great power point slides by Matthew Simmons, a Texas oilman and forward thinking individual like T. Boone Pickens)

3) netl.doe.gov/publicati...
(Robert Hirsch Report commissioned by DOE on Peak Oil. It is a very comprehensive energy plan that unfortunately has largely been ignored to date)

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-223584 223584 Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:32:43 -0400
You are preaching to the choir on conservation and slower driving. I have been among a very small group of people where I live who have taken the bold approach of simply not speeding. In the northeast, everybody does the limit plus at least an additional 10MPH. I would go slower, but people get enraged if I simply don't speed.

Tire inflation is huge even though McCain has mocked Obama - it is low hanging painless fruit.

Look at the downward pressure on price that has been in part driven by a 1 month reduction of just 2.4% in US gas consumption.

It will take political courage to push a 55mph limit. I'm also not sure how it would effect truckers - our big rigs themselves consume more petrol than all of Germany - but time is built into the logistics of supplying goods in our economy. Probably should look at what can be shipped effectively on trains. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-223387 223387 Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:01:11 -0400
You are 100% correct on the lack of leadership. The other side of the coin is people will not vote for a leader that will do what needs to be done. Look what happened to Jimmy Carter when he ran on a platform with a comprehensive energy plan for his second term.

T. Boone Pickens is doing an excellent job of slowly shaming BO & JM onto the right course. This fiesty 80 yr old man with his forward looking plans is really making Obama and McCain look like a pair of dinosaurs. I like the airplay he is getting.


BlueTea,
Conservation can be legislated with minimal cost to the government (except lost fuel taxes)
1) Bring back the 55 MPH speed limit.
This will reduce America's oil demand by 15% immediately
2) Enforce a tough, but achievable a CAFE standard of +45 MPG now. This will reduce oil demand by another 33% as most of current fleet is replaced with fuel efficent cars over the next 10 yrs. Ford made cars (i.e. the Model A) capable of 30 MPG in 1928, why are we still making sub-20 MPG cars today ?

3) You implement T. Boone Pickens plan to replace the 20% of all electric plants in the USA (that are gas fired) and you will have reduced imports by another 20% in the next ten years. This will cost the government money in the form tax subsidies, but is well worth it in the long run.

With these three items alone, you can reduce consumption by 68%.
Go through more items on the "all of the above" list and you can reach complete energy independance.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-223384 223384 Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:57:13 -0400
"People are dreaming if they think the relatively small amount of oil we might bring to the global market will lower price"

I think you are missing the point. The averaged extraction cost (low Saudi Aramco @ $8 ppb. High shale extraction @ approx $14-28) let's say is $28 ppb. Add 100% markup for reasonable profit that brings us to $56 ppb. The CL contract is thereby all built upon psychology above $56 ppb. This "psychology" is a melange of supply and demand, geopolitical risk etc which is being distorted to manipulate the price. This is being done primarily by Goldman Sachs.

SO -- if you imply that there will be increased supply in the future, just the implication it will be available will defeat the psychology and traders will sell off the market right now today for immediate decrease in price. We don't need to drill anything to lower price. All we need to do is say we will and there will be a much broader supply base out into the future and we will recede below $100 now. The wild card is Iran. Notice how we never hear anything re Iran until we start seeing oil back off $3-4 per session? Part of the game...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-223362 223362 Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:27:41 -0400
The problem with "all of the above" is all of the above will be very expensive and we have a 9.5 trillion dollar national debt and our deficit will soon hit 500 million.
Our biggest opportunity is to reduce demand by conservation and alternate technologies. Oil is below 118 barrel right now because of lower US demand - real and projected.
The potential off shore oil at issue is below 7,000 feet of water and probably miles below the ocean floor, I don't see oil companies proceeding very far without a lot of government help.

People are dreaming if they think the relatively small amount of oil we might bring to the global market will lower price - it will be very expensive oil to extract.

We will always need foreign oil until we drastically reduce our consumption of gasoline. That is where the smart money should be focused.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-223336 223336 Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:53:22 -0400
Completely terrible...

This today from my renewable energy constituents.

-----

Barack Obama, despite voting 'yea' in that narrow defeat of the energy bill and in the first three attempts at extending the PTC and ITC, has not voted in the last five attempts. Together, Obama and McCain account for 40 percent of the 32 'not voting' tallies in those 8 attempts since last summer. The only other Senators to record more than one ‘not voting’ were Senators Ted Kennedy (4 - likely due to recent bout with cancer) and Hillary Clinton (3).
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-223269 223269 Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:43:00 -0400 Either T. Boone Pickens has spoken to Obama and McCain recently or they are both starting to take their energy platforms seriously.

I was shocked to hear intelligent and coherent remarks from both of them yesterady. Mind you they are isolated remarks, but let's hope it is the tip of the iceberg.

I heard McCain say the solution to the energy dilemna is "all of the above". This is what most people on SA have been saying for the last several months.

Obama said he likes the T. Boone Pickens wind farm project and that the USA stop buying oil from the Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Thanks for the obvious Barack, that the USA stop buying oil from the primary terrorist sponsor of 9/11 and a left leaning country with extreme spite and hostility towards the USA.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222803 222803 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:28:03 -0400
I just listened to the NPR podcast and it is a good summary of the situation as I have come to understand it from searching many different sources. It is worth a 17 minute investment in time to give a listen.

I do think Dr. Kaufman ?? is wrong in saying the drilling ban will fade away as a campaign issue. The Rove proteges in McCain's campaign see this as a thought ending wedge issue they can exploit.
I hope a compromise is reached to open up some new areas. Not because I feel it is a sound part of the solution to our energy problem, but as a way to prevent single issue voters from being duped into placing their votes for the wrong candidate for the wrong reason.

If the ban is lifted, oil companies will not rush in to produce this very hard to get oil unless our Tax dollars heavily subsidize them. That is where the the battle over fiscal responsibility should be fought.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222773 222773 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:56:46 -0400
"Exploring Realities Of Offshore Oil Drilling"
www.npr.org/templates/...
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222767 222767 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:45:47 -0400
Early on, our oil barons, mostly John D. Rockefeller, saw benefit in keeping prices fairly stable. Our oil was largely controlled by the Texas Railroad Commission (not a typo) for decades and they would raise limits on output to suppress price hikes and cut output to prevent sharp price declines.

Excess US crude was released in 1951 in response to the aborted nationalization of Iranian Oil, in 1956 in response to the Suez Canal crisis and in 1967 in response to the Six Day War.

Today, I don't think US oil producers limit output solely to impact prices. It is more likely they cannot afford to develop and produce a lot of oil because the cost has been too low. Our oil reserves are largely "hard" to extract by now and OPEC can still bring a lot to the global market with less expensive processes.

OPEC, by comparison, has not invested enough to ramp up production because they do fear it would lower price. Saudi Arabia is the lone exception to that approach. There are also internal political pressures on OPEC members to invest in domestic social programs and even alternate oil instead of new production facilities.

The ugly truth is the US does not the potential to ever produce enough oil to impact global price. We can do far more to lower our consumption curve than we can on the supply side.

There is a global shortage of essentially everything needed to explore, drill, transport and refine oil. Sector production inflation is about 25% per year. Any new US oil will be very expensive to produce.

We will need some amount of oil for a very long time. Until we drastically lower our demand, we will always need foreign oil.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222672 222672 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:11:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222586 222586 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:32:22 -0400
I agree. In a perverse way, high gas prices are a gift to the GOP. There are few issues they can win on. Creating the overly simplistic myth that drilling in environmentally sensitive areas will lower prices at the pump can easily be communicated in a quick, thought-ending TV ad.
The Congressional ban has been in place for 27 years. Bush's father signed the executive order. Seven and half years into Bushs reign he lifts the executive order and republican's rally to portray the problem as something created by Dems.

Does any republican find McCain's commercial blaming O'Bama for high gas prices intellectually honest ?

The great mass of American's lack the patience and maybe the smarts to understand the complexities of the oil industry and it's place in the global economy. There is now way to explain it in a 60 second commercial.

That's why I want a compromise. Too many single issue voters will be swayed by the simple ideas being advanced . The truth about the probable costs ad benefits are simply too hard to explain to far too many voters.

I just hop someone talks about our 9.5 Trillion debt/half trillion deficit as we continue to bleed money in Iraq, in propping up banks and lending institutions and continue to pay for the housing bubble burst.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222499 222499 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:58:25 -0400
The off shore drilling issue is a gold mine for the McCain campaign. Republicans win either way. Democrats lose both ways.

1) If Pelosi continues to block a free vote on the issue, the Republicans can claim the democrats are blocking a major solution to lower gasoline prices. Pelosi will be portrayed as authoritian by single handly blocking a free vote on major issue that should be decided democratically by the house.

2) If a free vote is allowed, there will be many democrats afraid to vote against a measure seen a cure for high gas prices. McCain can claim victory as many democrats will be backing his proposal for coastal drilling.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222490 222490 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:44:56 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222489 222489 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:43:37 -0400
"NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil prices are tumbling, hovering around $120 barrel Monday after a weak U.S. consumer spending report triggered another big sell-off.

Another dose of disappointing data fed investors' beliefs that a U.S. economic slowdown is forcing Americans to cut back on energy use. The Commerce Department says consumer spending fell in June as shoppers dealt with higher prices for gasoline, food and other items."

Lower demand, both real and projected, is largely driving the current sell off in oil. We can much more quickly lower our demand permanently than we can marginally increase supply by opening up new areas to drilling.

I welcome a compromise on off-shore drilling , not because it is a necessary part of a sound long term solution, but it is the only way to diffuse the wedge issue Bush and McCain created by promising lower prices at the pump.

1 out of 7 barrels of oil consumed worldwide are burnt on US roadways. Our biggest area of focus must be on reducing demand in transportation.

OPEC has in fact produced mush less than they are capable of for many years, but they are not all in favor of higher prices on oil. The Saudi Oil Minister warned his brethren against pushing for high prices . High prices will force consumer behavior to change and a flood of investment into alternate technologies. He told them "the stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones".

In the short term, OPEC will likely increase production because they do not want to see further demand destruction in the US and the rest of the developed world.

Aramco is paying investing 10 billion and using an army of underpaid South Asian workers to develop what is probably their last huge oil field. It could produce 1.2MM barrels a day in about a year.

American companies need high and stable prices to proceed on their oil leases. If they get new ones, the battle will become how heavily must we subsidize them so it makes economic sense for them to take the huge risks inherent in modern drilling. They cannot compete on the global market with producers who have much more oil and can produce it more cheaply.
If you want more drilling, be prepared to either pay at the pump or through taxes to subsidize US oil.

All of our options will need a big boost from Uncle Sam. With a 9.5 TRILLION dollar debt and a half TRILLION dollar deficit, I want the bulk of my money spent developing solutions that are permanent and do not worsen global warming.
Wind, Solar, Nuclear, bio-fuel, battery development trump mindlessly throwing money into oil.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222405 222405 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:42:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222397 222397 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:39:18 -0400 ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222390 222390 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:35:44 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222305 222305 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:45:10 -0400
T.Boone Pickens is an exceptional individual who can fund such large projects with his own money and that of his friends with very little outside help. I am hoping his wind farm project will be the catalyst for the whole alternative energy field.

I agree with you on your bulk electricity storage plan.

Your heat recovery idea sounds great, but sounds like we will only see it in the distant future.

In regards to taxes, I am talking tax incentives, not direct taxation.
Look at the ruckus over the tax incentives oil companies get. Early pioneers and adopters (i.e. the greatest risk takers) of alternative energy do deserve tax breaks. With no incentives in play, I would rather manufacture flooring tiles rather than solar panels.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222288 222288 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:32:45 -0400 ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222286 222286 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:30:57 -0400
None of what you say is stopping T. Boone from moving ahead with targeting wind power to replace 22% of the NG power generation, nor all the other countries opting for alternatives, as we speak.

And (as for investing) don't forget all the remote/undeveloped locales in many nations that can utilize solar and a small lead-acid or the like battery without infrastructure nor major storage (not unlike our railroad crossings and other remote power uses that already exist).

And, as I've said elsewhere/other times: having a real need for what we should maybe call BULK ELECTRICAL STORAGE will help bring it to fruition.

And as for vehicles, most favorable are hybrids. Those will really take off with efficient solid state waste heat conversion directly to electricity (which is developed for standard technology and getting close with nano-tech) by injecting biofuels into a burner (container) encapsulated by electical conversion devices and a small on-board battery or storage device - maybe even a flywheel (already demonstrated in busses, years ago).
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88555-crude-reality-big-oil-s-purposely-restricting-supply?source=feed#comment-222155 222155 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:51:13 -0400
I am all for alternative energy.
The reason it is not taking off as fast people want is NOT because of a conspiracy by OPEC, Big Oil or Republicans, but because of real technical issues that need to be resolved with alot of R&D dollars which no one (oil companies, tax payers, government, etc.) wants to pay for.

1) The many problems that exist with alternative energy is not the generation, but the storage. Solar and wind are intermittent sources that require temporary storage before being put on a power grid. These storage systems are not cheap; batteries, pumped hydro-electric storage, hydrogen generation, etc. The other issue is peak wind generation (e.g. in Texas and California) does not always concide with peak demand (i.e. A/C in summer months).

2) The waiting list for hybrids (such as Prius) is due to the shortage of lithium. Unfortunately, lithium is rare compare to older (and less efficient) battery technology materials such as nickel and lead.

3) Hydrogen not only has a negative EROI but has many infrastructure and storage issues. Not only does its small atomic size cause it to leak very easily, it is very reactive with most metals. It low density makes it very uneconomical to tranport by truck. A tractor trailer that can carry 22 tons of gasoline, can only carry 1000 lbs of hydrogen in liquid state. Conventional pipelines cannot be used due to leakage and corrison by hydrogen gas.

3) Ethanol (made with corn) also has a negative EROI. Again, conventional pipelines cannot be used due to the high reactive behaviour of ethanol (same problem with non-FLEX ready cars). Ethanol needs fertilizer made with NG, pecticides made with oil and planting and harvesting need diesel powered vehicles.

Do get me wrong, I am NOT negative on alternative energy.
More R&D is needed to resolves outstanding issues, but no one wants to pay higher taxes to do so.
]]>