• Home
  • Go
  • RSS
A Word from John Hofmeister
Connect with us!

Archive for the ‘Offshore oil’ Category

Oil and petroleum resources
Saturday, April 24, 2010@ 1:46 AM
Author: admin

Oil and petroleum are the most expensive natural resources, which are depleting fast. There is a huge focus on creating a greater amount of oil and petrol independence in the country, and also to protect the environment. Obama’s plans are for a new focus on energy, and to begin drilling around the Atlantic Ocean near the south of Delaware, on the west coast of Florida, as well as in the Gulf of Mexico. There is a huge need for energy, and also a need to shift focus to traditional sources of energy, such as solar energy, to conserve our non-renewable resources.

The idea to drill off the Atlantic has been applauded by many industrial barons, and they are supporting this huge move, as a good bid towards adding production to the oil and petroleum industry, while also helping with the economy recovering and giving it a huge boost in the right direction. Drilling the coasts however, is not going to reduce the cost of gas or petrol; and with rising oil prices, this is a damping statement.

Offshore oil and gas production is quite a challenge to any government, and also a huge investment in terms of the economy and financial resources available, as well as in giving some great returns on it. There may be drilling platforms set up at a height of say 200 meters or more, or a platform for drilling may be done along with a mooring system, to keep them fixed on location.  Many drilling operations are done where sand is separated from the sea, by pumping it onshore and having installations done. There is a lot being done to bring professional personnel into managing and moving people, as well as equipment, in the most economical way possible, and to get as many sources as possible, to get floor space and sets done up for offshore rigs, all over certain key areas of the United States.

There are also environmental risks associated with oil spills, which have many environmentalists opposing the move. However, the economical implication still gives a huge push forward, to making a move in the right direction, to locate oil, petroleum and natural gas resources.  Offshore drilling and installing the necessary equipment and resources are also challenging in terms of having to conquer the elements and to be in a position to overcome various difficulties, while running a large facility of mining and production of oil resources.

  • Share/Bookmark
What are the environmental effects of oil drilling?
Thursday, April 22, 2010@ 5:02 PM
Author: admin

In this day and age when environmental protection is given such importance, offshore oil drilling is taking quite a lot of flak. There are a lot of environmental effects of oil drilling and the whole process unavoidably pollutes the air, the land and the water.

One of the major concerns is oil spills and a prime example of this is the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Oil spills of varying severity occur literally in every aspect and every phase of drilling. But the major threat comes from oil being transported. These spills pollute the water with poisons, which seeps into the land, and potentially disrupts the larger ecology and the food chain.  Everyone has seen those awful images of petroleum coating the feathers of seabirds, making it near impossible for them to fly.

Oils spills are not the only thing that affects marine life; there are seismic waves that are used to detect the oil located under sea beds. This tends to damage or hurt the sonar signals that are primarily used by whales and dolphins to navigate the waters. One major oil company had to halt their usage of seismic waves to detect oil because close to 100 whales were beached as their sonar was affected by oil detection efforts. In extreme cases this does cause marine life to change their migratory patterns. Therefore, our search for fossil fuels and alternative energy sources must be tempered by concerns for environmental protection.

Another major hazard that occurs due to all this is the damage to the ecosystem. Since the infrastructure for drilling oil is so large –from the oil rigs to roads and tankers and pipeline jobs – it affects everything in its path. Airstrips are a big problem for birds. The constant landing and taking off of planes creates problems for reproduction and a loss of their habitat. A lot of building and construction is undertaken to create more energy and all this too creates havoc for the nearby flora and fauna.

Today, the technology used for drilling by energy companies like Shell Oil has come a long way. They have improved the way they deal with the environmental fall out and are working to reduce oil spills as well. There is now a new method of drilling oil which is horizontal drilling which basically rules out having to have oil rigs. Double hulls on all tankers have also reduced the chances of spillage when at sea. All of these efforts are designed to make discovery more responsible and the environmental effects less damaging and not as long lasting.

  • Share/Bookmark
Some Facts about offshore drilling
Thursday, April 22, 2010@ 4:45 PM
Author: admin

In this modern global economy, rife with uncertainty, there are a lot of variables that affect the rising cost of gas and fossil fuels. This is in no small part due to the conflicts in the oil-rich countries. Many have internal strife within the nation as well as conflicts with other nations, so there is a constant battle directing what the oil price should be. There are ways in which the market can lower the price of oil, one being to fund offshore drilling. But the only drawback with this is that you need to be able to find oil in the area that you can easily access and build offshore oil rigs. This is the greatest immediate alternative to having to import any oil from foreign countries.

Offshore drilling is when companies or governments use a drill to slice through the oceanic crust to get to the oil underneath. It is usually done near the continental crust. This usually requires creating an underwater well and then bringing the oil up to the surface. But the only drawback is that the drill might end up hitting a pocket of gas – and you have to be careful that the gas is not explosive.

There are a lot of reasons as to why some countries would go in for offshore oil drilling. In Alaska for example, there is a lot of domestic oil available. If the Unites States were to actually use this oil, it would lower the oil prices domestically. Not only that, it would also provide opportunity for an oil job for out of work industrial laborers.

Offshore drilling however is often in the center of energy controversy due to the fact that it causes a lot of harm to many kinds of marine life. For one thing it tends to disrupt where animals live, hunt and reproduce and forces them to move and live elsewhere.  Sadly, this is not a happy situation and many animals perish as a result.  Another major threat is the danger of oil spills. All in all, it is clear that oil exploration must be done with an eye on environment protection, which is the only way we can consider it to be sustainable energy.

One of the other concerns is that offshore drilling actually changes the landscape.  The process demands the creation of new infrastructure in order for the interests doing the drilling to accommodate all the equipment. There are roads that need to be built as well and this tends to affect the nearby beaches, forests and other habitats There will continue to be arguments among  scientists, environmentalists, and politicians about the consequences of drilling.

  • Share/Bookmark
CAN SENDING A TEXT MESSAGE HELP LOWER ENERGY COSTS?
Sunday, April 18, 2010@ 5:22 PM
Author: Press

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Karen Hofmeister

Telephone: 713-523-7333

E-Mail: karen.hofmeister@jkhgroup.org

CAN SENDING A TEXT MESSAGE HELP LOWER ENERGY COSTS?

It Can If a Donation is Texted to Citizens for Affordable Energy

Citizens for Affordable Energy educates citizens and government officials about pragmatic, non-partisan affordable energy solutions, environmental protections, energy alternatives, efficiency, infrastructure, public policy, competitiveness, social cohesion, and quality of life. CEO and founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy is John Hofmeister, the former President of Shell Oil. He founded the group to help educate citizens who will ultimately demand public policy by which America produces much more energy for affordability and sustainability.

By texting the word ENERGY to 20222 individuals can make a donation to Citizens for Affordable Energy and help further the cause of leading America to a more prosperous tomorrow. Donations to the group can help to accomplish the goals of bringing the cost of energy down, more energy independence, creating energy in an environmentally-friendly manner, developing new technology for energy production, developing alternative forms of energy, and improving energy policy.

For more information please visit www.citizensforaffordableenergy.com. John Hofmeister has carefully explained his vision and energy solutions in the book Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an Energy Insider, to be released on May 25th by Palgrave McMillan.

# # #

For more information please contact Karen Hofmeister at 713-523-7333 or karen.hofmeister@jkhgroup.org.

  • Share/Bookmark
Chasing votes with ‘clean and green’
Sunday, April 18, 2010@ 4:40 PM
Author: Press

Chasing votes with ‘clean and green’

Despite the talk, ideology doesn’t translate to actual alternative energy

By JOHN HOFMEISTER

HOUSTON CHRONCLE
March 6, 2010, 4:00PM

I’m a backer of wind, solar and biofuels as new, high-technology future contributors to the energy supply of the nation. Facing the daunting demand forecasts of the medium- and long-term future, the nation will need all the energy it can produce from every available source. Today’s seeming abundance of energy is a recession-driven aberration from the continuing rise in postindustrial, electron-dominated energy requirements in this century. Companies, institutions, governments and homes are run by information systems and countless electrical devices. When transportation also demands electrons, watch your meter spin!

Yet public officials from the president and vice president to Cabinet and congressional leaders insult our intelligence by delivering scripted messages that the future of the new energy system in this country is clean renewable energy that will be delivered by countless so-called green jobs. The fake chimes of energy independence echo up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. Do headlines make truth, regardless of content? What is it about organizations like Repower America and the Center for American Progress, which provide ideology, not substance, to the administration and congressional leadership on the so-called new energy system? Why are their conclusions unchallenged? Is it ease of messaging, for who can be against clean and green? Is it to run away from hard choices about hydrocarbons and nuclear energy? No one’s against cleaner energy. But is it material? Is it affordable? Can it deliver commercial, ample new energy to the ever-aging existing energy system? Let’s be honest. It’s incremental and expensive.

The American people, if sometimes late, are eventually pragmatic about energy hype without substance. Wind and solar don’t reduce the electric bill; biofuels don’t reduce gas prices. Misinformation and disinformation lead to communications bankruptcy. I told Sen. Barack Obama he needed a hydrocarbon plank in his presidential energy platform to deliver affordable gasoline. He responded that, as president, he would do biofuels. I said I’m doing biofuels (at the time as Shell Oil’s president) but not materially by 2012, or even 2016. He said we’ll do biofuels. I asked, with what subsidy? End of conversation.

Clean and green, the energy system we aspire to, is subsidized like no other energy source in history. By whom? Us, and our progeny. All energy has historically received some type of public support to even out the volatility of high and low price cycles. The Energy Information Agency of the U.S. government’s Department of Energy reports that, for 2008, natural gas was subsidized 25 cents per megawatt hour of electricity produced, coal received 44 cents per megawatt hour, nuclear $1.59. Oil was not reported in these numbers since oil is hardly a factor in electricity production. However, oil benefits from a variety of tax subsidies for dry well expenses and royalty holidays dating from the $10-a-barrel oil days of the late 1990s, which the administration promises to rescind. At the same time in the same year, wind energy received public subsidy of $23.37 per megawatt hour; solar energy received $24.34. These numbers do not include the additional subsidies we taxpayers have been compelled to pay for wind, solar and biofuels through the stimulus plan, the 2010 budget and the 2011 framework budget. These subsidies help support 2 percent of today’s energy system. Their proponents promise to double and double again the amounts of subsidized supply from clean and green with no commitment to ending subsidies. That’s not a new energy system.

Frittering at the edges

Here’s the problem I have with what the administration and Congress are doing. They are frittering at the edges of the energy system, not even building a manufacturing base to sustain its growth, because it’s politically popular. Polls say bashing the energy industry gets votes. You don’t govern by promoting coal, oil, gas and nuclear when you just got elected berating them. Symbols trump substance. Meanwhile, our leaders ignore 93 percent of base energy — hydrocarbons and nuclear, which are aging rapidly and in need of major new investment — at their constituents’ peril. The nation needs its leaders to promote short-, medium- and long-term energy supplies from all sources and do what it takes to deliver. Beginning with the Nixon administration, we’ve had eight presidents and 18 Congresses who have promised energy independence and never delivered.

Recent announcements on tripling loan guarantees for future nuclear construction are little more than sleeves off the vest. Loan guarantees are useless for unaffordable new nuclear investments, which have also just lost their future source of nuclear waste disposal. The administration torched $20 billion of our money, announcing its determination to forever close Yucca Mountain, Nevada’s national nuclear waste repository. After decades of build-out, just as the site sought license approval, an eight-week-old administration pulled the budget plug.

It’s politics

Does anyone suspect the reason? Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, faces a tough re-election race in 2010; he is benefited by the energy secretary’s announcement, undoubtedly from orders on high, to shut down the nation’s only safe and reliable storage site. Now we’re appointing a blue ribbon panel to study what we studied decades ago and report out in two more years. Why not a blue ribbon panel to commoditize nuclear and reprocess waste to lower costs, so we can actually build more plants?

As for hydrocarbons, the administration is proposing a series of demonstration projects to evaluate carbon capture and sequestration by 2016. Never mind that new coal leasing is all but dead, stopped in its tracks by the EPA. They’re kicking the can down the alley, while making headlines as if they’re doing something.

Regarding other hydrocarbons, EPA regulation of fracking is being proposed, which will add time and cost to developing tight gas reserves. Offshore leasing for drilling is as stalled as it was when congressional and presidential moratoria precluded it for 30 years.

But “clean and green” it is: the simplistic formula to make it look like we’re serious about producing more energy. It will produce votes, not material energy. It’s not enough and never will be. We’re headed for an energy abyss.

Hofmeister, the former president of Shell Oil, is founder and CEO of Citizens for Affordable Energy. He also is the author of the book Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk From an Energy Insider (Palgrave Macmillan, $27).

  • Share/Bookmark
The new age of the energy abyss
Sunday, April 18, 2010@ 3:57 PM
Author: Press

The new age of the energy abyss

By JOHN HOFMEISTER

HOUSTON CHRONCLE
March 13, 2010

Given the condition of our country’s energy system and the public policies that currently govern it, the nation will begin a new era by the end of this decade. By the year 2020, the age of the energy abyss will begin. Once it begins, it is sure to last at least a decade or longer.

Hard decisions avoided and ignored over the past 40 years, together with another several terms of political leaders and policymakers kicking the can down the alley, will combine to ensure shortages of liquid fuel for transportation and electrons for everything electrical and electronic. (Texas may be exempted, other than having very high prices, thanks to local drilling, refineries and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which operates the electric grid and manages the deregulated market for much of the state).

Gas lines, outages of fuel and sky-high prices at the pump will besiege and enrage drivers and truckers who have no transportation alternatives. Ongoing brownouts and rolling blackouts are now inconveniences endured during ice storms and hurricanes or after thunderstorms. In the age of the energy abyss, they will be employed by electric system operators more frequently, and especially in the hot summer and cold winter months, as an alternative to otherwise shutting down the system to save it from self-destruction. Grass-roots Americans will ask themselves, How did this happen? What’s with this Third World, Venezuela-like problem? Who did this to us?

Who’s to blame?

Whom do we blame? Will it be the fault of electric utilities, oil, gas, coal, wind, solar, biofuels, hydropower, hydrogen, geothermal, nuclear or wave energy producers, each of which works for its investors? Will it be the fault of investors who put money only in energy projects that paid them a return? Will it be consumers who for more than a century have benefited from affordable and available energy and built their lives around it on the presumption that their energy purchases, votes and tax dollars ensured continuity of energy supply? Or will it be the combination of eight presidents since Richard Nixon, who in November 1973 promised “energy independence” within seven years, together with 18 Congresses, which likewise promoted energy independence but failed to deliver on their energy public policy promises?

From the 1910s through the 1970s the great American energy system build-out occurred. Never in human history had so much financial and human capital gone into creating a ubiquitous and homogenous energy system that fostered the creation of the world’s largest economy, won two world wars for freedom and raised a standard of living that became the envy of the world. Energy was affordable and available. The shiver down the spine created by the Arab oil embargo in 1973 was the first shot across the nation’s bow that suggested perhaps the energy nirvana we enjoyed also carried risks. Today’s energy system is essentially a 40-plus-year-old legacy of what we built back then. Add 10 more years and we are headed toward a 50-plus-year-old legacy energy system that cannot carry on. It’s worn out.

Dismal record

With no national energy policy, here’s the track record. In the past five years the nation’s electric utilities have shelved plans for more than 100 new coal plants because the barriers were too great to build them. They have ignored gasification of coal because they can’t get a high enough price to pay for the technology. More than 100 nuclear plants were built in the 1960s and ’70s. The last one built was finally commissioned in the early 1990s, having endured more than a decade of delay. Not a single new plant has been built since, and I can all but guarantee that another one will not be built or commissioned in this decade. Time marches on. Many nuclear plant licenses begin expiring in this decade. The nation has endured 30 years of congressional and presidential moratoria prohibiting offshore drilling across 85 percent of the nation’s outer continental shelf. While the law expired in 2008 and President George W. Bush took seven and a half years to lift the presidential moratoria, nothing has happened since then. Support for future drilling shows up in occasional words, not actions. For oil and gas companies to expand their operations into the nation’s reservoirs of untouched oil and gas resources they need approved leases, actions not words. Instead we “fritter at the edges” of our energy system by promoting subsidized wind, solar and biofuels, pretending to remake the nation’s energy system. Addressing 2 percent of our energy supply by promising to double it and double it again with subsidized funding does not make a new energy system.

Meanwhile, 93 percent of our existing energy base, and the infrastructure that supports it, is aging faster than it is being maintained. The balance comes from old and silted dams. No new dams are planned. The world’s largest economy is energized by a precarious, aged, diminishing supply infrastructure. The most promising new supply, natural gas from tight formations, relies on fracking technology. Its prospect is shrinking and slowed by the threat of authorizing oversight from the federal EPA instead of states.

Meanwhile, in China …

China, meanwhile, commissions a new coal plant every week and licenses coal gasification technology for multiple purposes, including electricity production. It just bought $60 billion of Australian coal because it can’t produce enough itself. It is building dozens of nuclear plants with a goal of a hundred new plants in coming decades. China is the world’s largest builder of wind and solar systems, not only the installations but also the manufacturing plants to produce such systems.

The American energy abyss will take hold of the country thanks to political leaders who make promises but not policy, who point fingers, but not at themselves. They have chosen the do-nothing path to avoid tough choices. They prefer partisanship and policy paralysis in spite of the nation’s needs. They are guided by the arrogance of incumbency, avoiding the risk of offending special interests. They make words of rectitude, not decisions to deliver the goods. Politics and energy are oil and water. They don’t mix. The nation’s energy abyss will be proof positive, if such is needed.

  • Share/Bookmark
The U.S. Needs an Industrial Policy
Sunday, April 18, 2010@ 3:38 PM
Author: Press

The U.S. Needs an Industrial Policy

The rest of the world actively promotes its core industries. It’s time we did too.

By JOHN HOFMEISTER

Much is being said about the terrible financial returns and lack of economic growth in the “lost” decade that began the 21st century. Why should anyone be surprised?

As a nation we’ve been driving toward this no-growth plateau for several decades. As manufacturing has shrunk, we’ve honored the gods of “rationalization,” “restructuring,” and the almightiest of all, “globalization.” Core industry after industry has orchestrated its own decline, facilitated by short-term managerial reward systems.

The next decade could see negative growth thanks to our foolhardy fondness for “free market” philosophies that tell us it’s OK to export all our jobs. The U.S. is down to four world leading industries: entertainment, out of Los Angeles (heavily indebted to Democrats); information technology, out of the Bay Area (likewise); energy, out of Houston (heavily indebted to Republicans); and financial services, out of New York (indebted to both parties). That’s it, folks. We’re otherwise second- or third-rung suppliers across the range of manufactured products—except for biotech, a small industry—and we can still (mostly) feed ourselves. Even aerospace has suffered.

Let’s acknowledge the parasitic legal industry’s role in eroding America’s manufacturing strength. Some argue that the U.S. leads in innovation and entrepreneurship. If so, where are the jobs and value creation?
It wasn’t always this way. For the first three decades after World War II, the U.S. led the world in manufacturing. From mining to materials to mechanical, electrical and electronic products, from textiles to footwear, autos to airplanes, furniture to food, U.S. manufacturing filled our households with self-made products and elevated the standard of living for most to unpretentious comfort.

Services grew out of the successful manufacturing base because we had it. Prosperity seemed endless until we started “rationalizing,” shipping jobs overseas to build supply chains that enlarged growth prospects everywhere but the country of origin.

And while the U.S. worshipped the free market, especially unrestrained freedoms to cut labor, the rest of the world didn’t. Other countries saw the wisdom of protecting jobs and people. They erected barriers and social programs that hardly exist in the U.S., while adding government-sponsored manufacturing incentives.

Services are just as vulnerable to the free labor market, only it’s called “outsourcing.” America needs manufacturing jobs for skilled, semi-skilled and low-skilled citizens. We need their wages circulating in the economy for sustained growth.

As we look ahead, the current Democratic majority is locking the government’s incisors into the neck of two of our four industries: energy and financial services. The antihydrocarbon and antinuclear crowds are making it virtually impossible for the producers of 93% of the nation’s core energy to expand or grow (coal, oil, gas and nuclear) while helping venture capital friends in Silicon Valley expand 2%-3% of our energy base (wind, solar and biofuels) with virtually free taxpayer money.

How long Houston can hang onto world energy leadership is being actively discussed in, yes, Houston. The financial services industry, in the aftermath of its inexcusable greed and manipulation of trust, is about to get regulated in ways that will drive it to impotence, sending the core strength of yet another historic U.S. industry elsewhere. Where? Probably not Europe, or Japan. More likely it’s China.

So then there will be two. Two world-leading industries in the U.S., entertainment and information technology. For how long? Entertainment is ever more virtual and universal. China, Korea, India and Japan are after Silicon Valley’s infotech dominance day after relentless day. And those countries create the government policies that help and protect those efforts.

The administration is worried about jobs in the runup to the fall elections. Every incumbent should be. Where to stimulate job creation should be as obvious as the cosmetic smile on an elected official’s face: manufacturing. Go where we’ve been.

Since government is involved anyway, let’s shift it from disablement to enablement. Create manufacturing incentives like other governments do. Lower repressive corporate tax structures, accelerate depreciation, defer income and inventory taxes, tax abate existing and new jobs, pay for worker training, incentivize new, and the conversion of former, manufacturing sites.

We’ve never systematically used government incentives to help U.S. industry compete across the board. It’s time we did, like everyone else. Use the unspent hundreds of stimulus billions to create millions of competitively priced manufacturing jobs in America. We’ve never had more people available, ready and willing to work. Let’s practice the “globalization” we taught everyone else.

Mr. Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil Company, is founder and CEO of Citizens for Affordable Energy, and author of “Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an Energy Insider,” due out in May by Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Share/Bookmark
“Political Time” is Sapping our Energy
Friday, April 16, 2010@ 10:44 PM
Author: Press

Political Time” is Sapping our Energy

By JOHN HOFMEISTER

HOUSTON CHRONCLE
March 27, 2010

As an intended joke I asked a Congressman’s chief of staff in December 2008 whether she was working on the 2010 election yet. To my surprise she responded with the comeback, “How did you know?” Remember, we had just finished (seemingly) the longest election in our history and it had hardly had a chance to wind down.

Yet this Congressman was already girding for the next election, working on the messaging, going over the finances, and steering his staff’s thinking toward the future. Two year terms can be an eternal political damnation or “Happy Days,” depending on how an elected official prepares for the future.  Four year presidential first terms are sustained campaigns; second terms are two years of legacy building and two years of wind down. Six year term senators can’t coast for any length of time. Tens of millions of dollars have to be raised; each week is a new milestone where messages, friends and their contributions matter.

I call “political time” the two year cycle between elections when every handshake, speech, vote and smile matters. The two year candidates never stop campaigning, the four and six year candidates guide their own messages and decisions based on their reading of the ongoing two year dynamics so they’re ready in the run-up to their election cycle. “Political time”  success is defined by winning elections. It requires successful campaigning and a good gut for decisions in the moment. It never stops and isn’t over ‘til it’s over, but then you’re out.

Energy executives meanwhile are delivering energy today from projects that began ten, twenty, thirty, forty and even fifty or more years ago. They keep them going as long as they can make a return to their shareholders and ensure the safety of the facilities. Their days and weeks are filled with project reviews and analyses of alternatives to decide which projects best fit future energy portfolios years and decades into the future. Investments and costs are continuously reviewed against oil and gas or coal price premises to determine what rates of return might be possible against short, medium and long term supply/demand forecasts. Supply chain decisions for new leases, power plants, platforms, turbines, castings and ships must be debated or made for the next decades of project flow.

I call “energy time” the decades of project analysis and execution that deliver future energy. “Energy time” success is defined by deliberation, analysis, capability in your organization, long relationships, knowledge and even mastery of technology. Gut decisions lead to short tenure; sound decisions lead to long term success.

Politicians and energy executives live in completely different worlds. There is nothing compatible about what they do or how they do it. They speak untranslatable languages to each other, think and work in totally opposite time dimensions, the here and now versus the future, and are accountable for incompatible objectives, winning votes versus risking popular resistance. Politicians are accountable for winning elections; executives are accountable for providing energy. One promises, the other delivers. “Political time” and “energy time” are as incompatible as oil and water.

Yet, unbelievably, politicians govern energy executives and decide what they can and can’t do. “Political time” energy policies are sapping the nation’s energy. We’re going backwards not forwards. Politicians, since Nixon first declared energy independence in 1973, have run for office on its promise. When Nixon was president we imported 30 percent of our crude oil from exporting nations; forty years later, 8 presidents and 18 congresses later, politicians have delivered political time results. We now import 65 percent of our crude oil. “Political time” policies make things worse.

It’s not enough that politicians have clamped down on energy companies for decades to keep us from producing our own domestic energy, they are now working on how best to strangle the remaining strength of our legacy energy system. “Big Oil,”  “Big Coal,” and “Nuclear Power” are the bad boys of the energy patch. Their so-called “excessive profits,” “filthy ways,” and “terrorist risks,” are being demonized, taxed, and controlled by politicians in “political time.” They are denying new leases and permits, stripping away decades of tax policies that stabilize energy production through economic cycles, and defunding the only national nuclear waste site, after spending $20 billion on it, to help the 2010 re-election prospects of the senate majority leader.

Today’s majority party politicians run for office to govern our energy future with all the knowledge and understanding of gifted amateurs, beholding to clean and green ideologues out to promote their special interests, while catering to the line-up of venture capitalists seeking taxpayer funds for the next “big thing”  in energy.  In case you haven’t noticed we’re experiencing a crusade to diminish the companies that deliver 93 percent of daily base load energy, while we ignore the 5 percent that comes from hydropower, and chattily, happily, smilingly promote and subsidize 2 percent of our energy supply from wind, solar and biofuels, which at best incrementally, and expensively, add to our energy mix.

“Political time” energy sapping is taking us perhaps unintentionally but continuously to an unprecedented energy abyss. Their track record proves we can’t count on politicians. Grassroots citizens are the nation’s only hope for the future. What they know and how they respond to this knowledge is crucial to the nation’s security, economic well-being and lifestyle promise. I founded Citizens for Affordable Energy and wrote Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an Energy Insider (Palgrave Macmillan 2010) to provide the facts, the non-political reality, and a pathway to future short, medium and long term sustainable energy solutions. We have more energy in this country than we will ever need. We should not restrict its production to keep prices high to reward politicians’ “political time” energy friends. We need more energy from all sources. “Political time” restrictions prohibiting “energy time” security are wrong. Citizens need to set the politicians straight. They work for us, not the other way around.

John Hofmeister

Founder and CEO: Citizens for Affordable Energy

Former President: Shell Oil Company

Author: Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an Energy Insider (Palgrave Macmillan 2010)

  • Share/Bookmark
Climate Change Is Not the Problem
Friday, April 16, 2010@ 10:28 PM
Author: Press

Climate Change Is Not the Problem

By JOHN HOFMEISTER

HOUSTON CHRONCLE
March 20, 2010

During my last 2000 or so conversations about climate change and global warming, since the time of Kyoto in 1997, it’s clear that the stridency and dysfunctional nature of the discussions have only gotten worse. Last month during an engagement at Rutgers Law School when I bemoaned the implications of shelving more than 100 new coal plants in the past five years and no new nuclear plants in decades on the cost of electricity for low and fixed income Americans paying the highest electricity rates in their lives, a panelist thanked God those plants were killed. He said that we shouldn’t have any coal plants when we can have offshore wind.

Misinformation, disinformation and lack of information dominate every climate change discussion I’ve been a part of. It’s worse when gifted amateurs spout out what they’ve heard or read with no real knowledge of climate science or energy’s critical importance in society. Headline deep knowledge is not enough to justify public policy decisions being made by hundreds of elected officials.

In the grander scheme of things climate change is not the issue. Climate has always changed and always will. There’s a more urgent concern that should grab every one of us by the throat and cause us to rethink what we’re doing. It’s what we breathe.

As people we’re prone to waste. We can ignore our waste and move on, clean it up, or live in it. My bottom line is we have a duty to our future generations to clean up our waste so they don’t have to deal with it. Let them deal with their own waste. I’m disgusted by the waste that has been left for us to clean up. Take an Acela Amtrak train from Washington to New York. Look out the window at the junk yard of America’s last century as you roll from Wilmington to New York. The filth, detritus, decaying, abandoned structures, spoiled waterways and wetlands shame us for our negligence. The same can be said for gaseous waste. The real challenge for our age is what do we do about our wastes: physical, liquid and gaseous?

Fortunately we’ve learned a lot about managing physical waste. We collect, sort, bury, burn, crush and recycle it. If we didn’t we’d be buried. Fortunately we’ve learned a lot about managing liquid waste. We separate, treat, clean, sequester, aerate and reclaim liquid wastes to the extent that water emitted from many facilities is as clean as, if not cleaner than, the water it takes in. If we didn’t we’d be poisoned by what we drink.

Why do we do such a good job on physical and liquid waste? Because we have to. It’s regulated and in our own self interest and that of our heirs. Why doesn’t every country behave as we do? They should. We all suffer because they don’t. But it doesn’t stop us from cleaning up our own mess.

So what about our gaseous waste? No one I know would willingly stick their head over the top of a smoke stack or stand behind a Metro bus for an hour or so. They’d become ill, or worse. Yet we all breathe what comes out of countless stacks and tailpipes every day. Tons and tons of effluent are emitted into our air every hour. Fortunately the atmosphere is large and the pollutants are dispersed, so we’re not all dead. But no one can argue that the atmosphere is infinite, because it’s not. Some excuse carbon dioxide emissions because they are also found in nature. True. But try breathing in an unventilated closed room full of people. Too much carbon dioxide is simply too much. How much man made carbon dioxide can the atmosphere stand? I, for one, would rather not have to find out.

It is time now to seriously put our collective, smart heads together to figure out the future of gaseous waste management. What comes out of smokestacks and tailpipes is more than carbon dioxide. It’s a lot of nasty stuff. Every living thing on earth has a stake in this. Nasties dispersed from smokestacks and tailpipes are still nasties. We have sustainable remedies for physical and liquid waste. Now is the time for gaseous waste solutions.

Regulating, managing, scrubbing, cleaning, capturing and sequestering are powerful concepts that could be applied to our gaseous wastes. That’s what it takes to rid our atmosphere of harmful gaseous waste! We have the technology today that can do the job. What we don’t have is the requirement or the infrastructure to get it done. Does it cost money? Absolutely. Does managing physical and liquid waste cost money? Absolutely. Do we know how much we spend disposing of trash and cleaning sewage? Probably, but it does it really matter? Managing trash and sewage is a normal, natural cost of living in our times. So, too, managing gaseous waste can become a normal, natural cost of living in our times.

Why are we debating the galactic question of climate change, which contributes such dysfunctional passion and ignorant rhetoric to our political dialogue? Why aren’t we framing the question as “why don’t we manage our gaseous waste like we do physical and liquid waste to make our lives better?” My own opinion is that elected officials, current and former, see pomp, power and glory for themselves by arguing the state of the world and mankind’s destiny in it, including their own part in the outcome, for or against, by debating climate change. They can be heroes either way, applauded by the masses for their courage and brilliance. If they stood in front of us proposing the garbage collection of gaseous waste, there is little in it for them. But then that’s my opinion.

It is the right time to do the right thing. Let’s manage gaseous wastes just like we do physical and liquid wastes. Let’s save ourselves from having to listen to the blathering of self-righteous, self-important would-be “destiny-makers” of mankind.

John Hofmeister

Founder and CEO: Citizens for Affordable Energy

Former President: Shell Oil Company

Author: Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an Energy Insider (Palgrave Macmillan 2010)

  • Share/Bookmark
JOHN HOFMEISTER NAMED KEYNOTE SPEAKER FOR OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE
Friday, April 16, 2010@ 9:25 PM
Author: Press

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JOHN HOFMEISTER NAMED KEYNOTE SPEAKER FOR OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE

 

The World’s Largest Offshore Industry Conference Will Begin in Early May

 

John Hofmeister, the founder and CEO of Citizens for Affordable Energy and former President of the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company, will be the keynote speaker of the 2010 Offshore Technology Conference. This year’s conference will begin on Monday, May 3rd and run through Thursday, May 6th and will be held at Houston’s Reliant Park.

For more than forty years, the Offshore Technology Conference hosts representatives of more than one hundred countries and is the world’s largest offshore resource development conference. This year’s meeting will have more than 70,000 attendees from around the globe and will allow corporations and individuals to make important business contacts while showcasing new technologies that are being developed for the industry. According to the Offshore Technology Conference website the gathering is the “world’s foremost event for the development of offshore resources in the fields of drilling, exploration, production, and environmental protection.” The four day conference will feature sessions, topical meals, exhibitions, and a workshop on numerous, relevant topics in the offshore industry.

Hofmeister is concerned about the high cost of energy and has founded Citizens for Affordable Energy with the stated mission, “To educate citizens and government officials about pragmatic, non-partisan affordable energy solutions, environmental protection, energy alternatives, efficiency, infrastructure, public policy, competitiveness, social cohesion, and quality of life.” His book, Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk From an Energy Insider will be released on May 25th by Palgrave McMillan. He wrote the book to share some practical steps that the United States can take to produce greater amounts of affordable energy.

# # #

For further questions or comments from John Hofmeister, please contact via the site contact form.

  • Share/Bookmark

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 67108864 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 998609 bytes) in /home/content/11/9238311/html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 251