US Task Force finds unconventional fuels from tar sands to shale oil will make little contribution to future energy needs.
Open Access Article Originally Published: October 04, 2007
The United States' Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels (www.unconventionalfuels.org) has made public its findings and recommendations on the future role to be played by five non-petroleum energy sources found in America: shale oil, heavy crude, tar sands, coal-to-liquids and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using captured carbon dioxide.
In three volumes, the Task Force, made up of the U.S. Secretaries of Energy, Interior and Defense, along with the governors of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Kentucky and Mississippi, takes a comprehensive look at the potential contribution these, heretofore under-utilized resources can make in supplementing the nation's declining petroleum production. They conclude that even under the most aggressive development scenario, these resources could produce about 7.6 million barrels a day of synthetic liquid fuel by 2035. Ander current, business-as-usual, conditions -- and assuming a whole host of issues from socioeconomic to technical can be resolved -- unconventional fuels might add 2.3 mbld by 2035, about one-tenth of what America currently consumes.
While there are no known proponents of "peak oil" to be found among the senior task force members, nonetheless, Volume One of "America's Strategic Unconventional Fuels" reads as if it might have been produced by the Association of the Study of Peak Oil. There are references to M. King Hubbert and energy return on energy invested (EROI).
The accompanying charts prove equally sobering. The graph (reproduced below) showing oil discoveries from 1930 and projected out to 2029 resembles geologist Hubbert's prescient peak. And a companion graph showing the contributions made by the various unconventional energy sources under three different utilization scenarios shows America continuing to be largely dependent on imported oil with energy conservation and efficiency making greater contributions then unconventional fuels put together.
The Task Force sees the rationale for encouraging the development of tar sands, shale oil, heavy crude, coal-to-liquid and EOR using captured CO2 being driven by declining conventional oil production in America and the uncertain availability of imports, which raises concerns for national security and economic development. They see increasing global competition with China and India, with the former already signing deals that will siphon off oil out of Venezuela and synthetic crude out of Canada, two important sources to the United States. Unless America can supplement and/or reduce its demand through conservation, oil imports are likely to make up 65% of the nation's consumption by 2030.
Troubling from a national security perspective is the heavy reliance of the U.S. military on petroleum, consuming in 2006 some 312,000 barrels of oil a day (Mbl/d) , 218 mbl/d in aviation fuel, 48 mbl/d in marine fuels, 35 mbl/d in ground fuels and 12 mbl/d in heating oils. Increased fuel usage and rising prices has caused the the Defense Department to spend $13 billion in FY 2006, up from the $3.9 billion in 2002. The U.S. Air Force has begun to address the issue by certifying the use of blends of synthetic fuels with conventional petroleum jet fuels (JP-8). The first aircraft to be certified to operate on a 50/50 blend is the venerable, but aging B-52. The Air Force plans to have its entire fleet certified by 2011. The Army and Navy have similar programs in place.
While the Task Force acknowledges that America has vast reserves of fossil fuels, and coal is the 800 pound the gorilla in the room, it also appreciates that there are critical constrains on how much of of these energy sources can be converted to liquid fuel. These include:
- Regulatory or institutional barriers to development,
- Improving technology performance,
- Economically competing with conventional fuels,
- Mitigating adverse socio-economic risks in impacted communities,
- Minimizing water demand, while protecting water rights and quality, and
- Managing carbon emissions and other environmental impacts.
Also highlighted in the study is the acknowledgment that the ultimate amount of energy that can be recovered is not governed by price, but by how much energy it takes to find, recover and refine. Quoting M.King Hubbert, Volume One states:
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 12172 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
8 comments so far...
05-Oct-2007
58603
| |
'...consuming in 2006 some 312 million barrels of oil a day...' I think the author got the units wrong. World wide oil consumption is about 85 Mbpd...don't see how the US airforce could use 3 times that in 06. I think he meant gallons.
Posted by: Entropy Brain
|
|
05-Oct-2007
58604
| |
...more likely that was a yearly total for the US military.
Posted by: Entropy Brain
|
|
05-Oct-2007
58605
| |
Here's is the direct quote from the report:
The Department of Defense (DOD) needs secure and reliable sources of energy. In 2006, the DOD purchased 312 MBbl/d to meet its defense requirements.4 Of the total, 219 MBbl/d were jet fuels, 35 MBbl/d were ground fuels, 46 MBbl/d were marine fuels, and 12 MBbl/d were heating oils (Figure I-5).
However, the accompanying pie chart (Fig I-5) seems to suggest that the numbers should be 1000's, not millions, which would make more sense if we are talking daily consumption. It appears the question is what does the report mean by 'M', the classic Latin 1000 or as is standard oil industry parlence, 1 million?
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
05-Oct-2007
58608
| |
Changing life habits...no way. Changing technology habits, for sure. Oil today is a deliberate choice not a necessity. Heating oil for the house can be replaced by a heat pump. Gasoline for your car can be replaced by electricity and biofuels in a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid. Airplanes can be replaced by high-speed trains on the short distances that like for cars also happen to be the biggest part of the trips. The remainder can be made on biofuels and yes, also liquid hydrogen. It is also, more then time to finally build the Reagan envisioned NASP to replace airplanes on intercontinental flights. It may not appear as obvious but a NASP on a route from London to Sidney would use less fuel then a 777 on the same route. This is because the NASP is not using any fuel once the big burst to orbit is over. It has then used 90+ % of its fuel but the rest of the trip is free. In more, the NASP would use very little kerosene but rather Ethylene and Hydrogen that can burn faster and be derived from bioethanol for the Ethylene and obtained through electrolysis for the Hydrogen. Thus, an oil free NASP in fact.
For the rest, the ethanol can replace the fuel in ships and a to build Ethanochemical industry can replace the petrochemical industry.
There is also a need for more electrified train transport through more lines and the completion of big projects like the Bering straight tunnel.
Big cities can also have a huge benefit from using hot-dry-rock geothermal technology for heat and electricity.
And last but not least, we have to enter the thermonuclear age faster then what is now envisioned, even if ITER is a good start. The intended timing must enter into military mode, not the present snail pace. We need it in years not decades.
Posted by: Patrick Leonard
|
|
05-Oct-2007
58620
| |
On the issue of how much fuel the Pentagon purchased in 2006, I asked Congressman Roscoe Bartlett's press secretary to get a clarification. She checked with her laiason at the Task Force and got a reply that the U.S. Air Force purchased 2.6 Billion GALLONS of jetfuel in 2006.
A rough estimate (2.6b gal/42/365) equates to 169,602 barrels (approx 7.1 million gallons) of jet fuel daily, just for the USAF flight ops.
So, it would seem that the 'M' refers to thousands, not millions of barrels.
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
06-Oct-2007
58634
| |
Sorry guys this stuff is all non-sense. Its 50 years too late. There is no way in the world that alternatives or conservation can save the world from "peak oil chaos". This chaos is going to unfold when billions of people begin starving and freezing because they can't afford to live in a world with $100 oil. When demand edges slightly above supply the market will cause the price of oil to sky rocket. Worldwide recession will ensue.
Posted by: Gale Whitaker
|
|
10-Oct-2007
58679
| |
MBbl means megabarrel, or 1000 barrels. Matt Simmons often uses the term MMBbl, Megamegabarrel, or one million barrels.
Posted by: Steve Erlsten
|
|
15-Oct-2007
58751
| |
The photo caption states: "The American military utilized some 312 million barrels of petroleum fuel a day in 2006".
Hardly. World production never exceeded 86 MBD.
Posted by: Heinz Guderian
|
|
