The annual cost of drilling for North American natural gas has escalated from $4 billion/year to $40 billion/year in the last decade, yet production has dropped slightly. One "rule of thumb" is that the # of active rigs has to increase by 10% each and every year in order to keep NA NG production stable.

The drilling industry is showing signs of stress and limitations after the recent expansion. In how many years will we not be able to expand drilling by another compounded 10% and NA NG production will start to fall significantly ?

Best Hopes for Realistic Planning,

Alan

The transportation usage of petroleum is a significant CO2 source, particularly in the US. Up until now little has happened to limit this pollution, but it has to be expected that real targets and limits will be imposed in the short to medium term. How would the API go about ensuring delivery of real targets; such as:

- the EU CO2 emission ceiling of 130 grams per kilometre for all new cars by 2012, or

- 20% reduction in total transport CO2 emissions by 2020, or

- 50% reduction by 2060

and what mandatory CO2 limits do they believe should be placed on any future coal-to-oil conversion options?

Oh, and here's a non environment one.

A major topic of interest to the man (or woman) at the wheel is the price of gas. You said last time how this was majorly driven by the world oil prices, which we recognise is in turn driven both by sentiment and supply/demand mismatches.

What research has the API done to predict how the world markets in oil will react to differing levels of supply contraint - and thus how oil prices would be affected to deliver differing levels of demand destruction? How high does that price need to be to effect demand destruction in the US?

As an example, if demand needed to be reduced by 3Mbpd tomorrow, what level would the API expect the price of oil (and gas) to have to rise to to achieve that effect in today's market?

Hello R-squared,

Who does Red Cavaney & the API believe is more credible: [T. Boone Pickens, Matt Simmons, and the Deffeyes Group on TOD] OR [Yergin, CERA & IHS]? If the first group is more credible--what does the API plan to do? If the second group is more credible to the API: will they encourage the IHS to release its proprietary database to the public, and promote full IOC & NOC audit transparency as suggested by Simmons?

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

It is likely that a GHG cap-and-trade system may be established in the US. It will take many years to ramp up renewable energy as a replacement for fossil fuels. How quickly can the GHG cap be reduced?
Many perceive that soon both oil and natural gas extraction will be falling faster than coal, shale, and tar sands can be increased. Does this make cap-and trade irrelavent?

Q1. How does the oil industry plan to deal with the reality of global warming?

Q2. Given the reality of global warming, why is the oil industry still focused on supply expansion?

Q3. Does the oil industry believe that no CO2 emission restrictions will happen in consuming countries that will limit oil consumption?

Q4. How would the oil industry cope with a 50% globally mandated cut in oil induced CO2 emissions over say ten years?

Thanks,

Solarhouse

Question: Given the tone of such links at the API website as the "Energy Tomorrow" link, does the API consider the "Peak Oil" theory as bogus?

http://www.energytomorrow.org/energy_issues/alternative_energy.html

Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom

Is it true the CIA sees no oil alternative for the USA if CHINA demand grows?
Is ex-CIA chief Woolsey correct in his reccomendation to promote alternatives in China, in order to buy time for USA to shift to alternatives. [Read carefully each word in following paragraph.]

"Their top recommendation? To heavily invest U.S. tax dollars in renewable energy production in China, because they have a chance to build their burgeoning economy on renewables from the beginning, whereas we are trapped by our fossil-fueled infrastructure and they will only compete with us for those diminishing resources."

...a C-SPAN broadcast in 2005 of a hearing by the House Armed Services Committee on the proposed takeover of Unocal by China Oil. Woolsey testified before the committee on a panel that included prominent neo-con Frank Gaffney and Richard D'Amato of the U.S.-China Security Review Commission."
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/hybrid+-oil-electric/405

Ask them about their assessment of refinery utilization and future needs.

Also ask their opinion about filling and expanding the SPR.

Trying to keep with the theme of 'Energy and the Environment' -

A question along the lines -

Do you believe that Alberta tar sands production can be sustained and grown as predicted without utterly destroying the Alberta ecosystem, water table, and landscape?

Dear Mr Rapier,
I hope this letter finds all is well with you and yours. Thank you for allowing the participation of others.
?)If the value of energy can be determined by EROEI, What value does the Energy industry put on the environment? example: 1 billion, 100 billion, 1 trillion, 100 trillion, Priceless?
?)With the high percentage of the available fossilfuels being in the Sour,Heavy and tar variety or extremely hard to extract, ie ultra deepwater etc, most of these fuels are inordinately high in toxins and extremely destructive to the environment and extremely resource intensive to extract, at what point would the Industry decide these fuels cost to the Environment are to high? Is it Dollars or Environmental?
Thank You for your consideration.
The Fugue

How much of Global Warming is due to the amount of energy which has been poured into the world, by the conversion of so much oil and coal to energy?

Question: X Prize Foundation offered 10 million dollars for the first privately built spacecraft; they will offer another large sum to "inspire a new generation of production capable, super-efficient vehicles that exceed 100 mpg (or 100mpge)". How does API see this competition? Do they think cars capable of 100 mpg will be needed by the general public any time soon? What would their timeline be for ultra fuel efficient vehicles...2, 10, 20, 30, 50 years?

R2...feel free to change the wording.

How much of an ass-whooping should we give Big Oil for getting the world addicted to cheap oil and causing global warming?

Q1) How wise would it be to switch all of our energy production/consumption to an electric base--essentially putting all our eggs in one basket--in an unstable world? Would it wiser to conserve fossil fuels (dole them out more slowly and apply them to carefully chosen uses), continue to add some electricity generation (solar, wind, nuclear), include some biofuels in the mix, etc. and have a broader (and potentially less vulnerable) base in which to meet the all-important energy needs of industrial civilization?

Q2) Is there any significant effort to address the incredibly tragic divide between the haves and have-nots when it comes to the distribution of energy world-wide?

Thanks for this opportunity, Robert.

-best,

Wolf

How can "speculation" increase oil prices?

My understanding is that upon expiration of a futures contract the holder must take delivery of the oil. I have never understood pundits saying that price increases are due to speculators.

Is this subject appropriate for the conference call?

(1) How is the combination of nationalization of oil supplies and increasing domestic consumption by exporters expected to affect API members?

(2) Please comment on the significance of the price difference between WTI and Brent prices. What are the implications?

(3) How effectively is the industry responding to the decreasing quality (heavy, sour) of crude?

Sorry, these may be totally inappropriate given that I don't know the audience that well.

I just read an article in The Economist about carbon offsets. 15mar2007 issue.

Then i am hearing talk radio mentioning a carbon tax on emmissions. I don't know if "throwing" money at the situation would help, but since i don't trust govt as a whole, i can't help but think the money collected would be used/wasted on hair brained ideas like pushing hydrogen or ethanol solutions which have been discussed here. for some reason politicians seem to know whats best for us all, which we all know is a matter of lobbying and special interests groups. The old saying goes: Follow the Money!

I can't help but be suspicious of this when the amount of money collected and spent on wasteful ideas which line the pockets of the lobbyist biggest supporters (big business), when time is not exactly on our side. When the end result is we have all spent more money, and have gotten nothing in return. Meanwhile the oil situation gets worse! Then are costs overruns, and we all pay a bigger share.

Then i wonder if the politicians would just use the money for the pork barrel projects. Boston Tunnel ring a bell? Thanks Ted Kennedy! As I recall congress contemplated gaining access to all 401k accounts in the nation, years ago (13years?), to pay for other expenses/projects... Ugh, they make me sick!

What are the odds we see a carbon tax here in the USA?
And when might we start seeing this happen?

Voluntary Carbon Offset Tax

There is no denying that energy is expended at every stage of making jewelry. That energy consumption has the unfortunate side effect of generating greenhouse gases, believed to be contributors to global warming. Consistent with the overall objective of minimizing our impact on the Earth, greenKarat offers you a means to offset the CO2 emissions which occurred in the process of making your jewelry.

We have calculated the carbon emissions associated with energy usage from mining gold through making jewelry, and offer you an opportunity to buy credits to make your purchase carbon neutral. We then forward your contribution to a project which adheres to The Gold Standard. That assures that the emission reduction project is a good investment, and makes a genuine reduction in CO2 emissions. The conduit we currently use for contributions is Sustainable Travel. The name’s a bit of a red herring, but their work meets our carbon offset objectives. (By the way… we use renewable energy. greenKarat's offices are operated using 100% wind generated power).

We are calling it a ‘tax’, but it’s really a contribution, and it’s your choice. If you prefer not to participate, simply check “No Carbon Tax” on the Voluntary Carbon Offset Tax when selecting your product.

Source: http://www.greenkarat.com/custserv/ecological.asp

The intended goal of carbon offsets is to combat global warming.[2] The appeal of becoming "carbon neutral" has contributed to the growth of voluntary offsets, which, under current economic paradigms and conditions, are often a more cost-effective alternative to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption. However, carbon offsets are not without controversy, with some environmentalists and economists questioning the overall benefits of the practice.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset

Robert;
Thanks for the offer. I'll take a stab.

Energy and Environment -
If we are indeed facing a period of unprecedented shifts in our Climate Conditions, and simultaneously an imminent threat to the downslide of Petroleum Production, and possibly soon after a real Gas supply problem as well;

A) What specific collaborations between the Environmental Science Community and the Energy Industry could help to take advantage of the rich energies we still enjoy to be preparing for both an energy and a climate crisis?

B) Is this the job of Government alone, or can we safely say that the implications are great enough that every player must look into this (potential) storm and start now to work on a piece of it?

Regardless of 'who started it', as the Climate issue has sometimes descended down to, we will still have to try to 'Handle it', and Survive it, and it could well require a great deal of energy to do so, for either Securing New Energy Supplies OR Climate Mitigation/Readiness, say nothing of both of them together. With the information and leverage available to the leaders of the Energy Industry, we might stand a better chance of designing responses and preparations that will minimise the harm done by either eventuality.

Robert;
Maybe you'll find a nugget in there. There have been alliances in Maine lately where Logging Companies and Environmental groups, both fighting the Sprawl that breaks up large pieces of contiguous Forestland, have worked together to create Land Trusts, and then found agreeable terms for how the Timber is managed, etc.. A cause for hope up here. "Oh, the Farmer and the Cowman can be friends.."

Best to you,
Bob Fiske

I'm curious what kind of discussions come up at the meetings, regarding grass-roots movements, like the OEA (Oil Enforcement Agency). Here's a rather hilarious promotional video.

http://oea.freedomfromoil.org/the_video/

I have no connection to this group, but I think they're doing something that can really make a difference. Are their actions discussed?

Jim Gagnepain
www.oilfreeandhappy.com

Does API CEO Red Cavaney ever ride a bike?

Does he see the benefits of transforming human settlement patterns so that most people in cities and towns can conveniently walk and bike wherever they need to go on a daily basis?

Does API support transit in cities?

Hi Robert,

I appreciate your offer to present some questions, and the links to the March 7 phone conference.

After looking that over, it seems to me there's a need to frame a question that involves the larger picture. For example, John Felmy talks about being "...excorciated by just about everybody you can imagine..."

People do this out of a need for trust and honesty, and the fear they've been betrayed in some way. This seems to me to be the heart of the problem;(I'll return to this in a minute...or, next chance I get.)

Here's my shot at enlarging the perspective:

Mr. Felmy (p3): "If you don't invest in oil production and natural gas, ultimately you have reserve declines and consumers will suffer."

Mr. Felmy (and members of the API), geologists know, and others, such as yourself, no doubt realize, it is also the case that when (and if) you do "invest in...production", the very same outcome will occur, only at a later point in time. Namely "...reserve declines and consumers will suffer."

For those of us who have studied (even secondhand) the issue, the turning point of a global decline in production is inevitable. In addition, the time frame appears increasingly to narrow, based on the variety and quality of studies available.

This central, crucial fact is one that places the integrity of industry leaders on the line - in a way that far eclipses any negative criticism about how the industry operates, whether gasoline prices are fair, and so forth.

Does the industry see a way to address this crucial fact?

Does the industry see a way to tell the truth to consumers, namely, a postponement of economic suffering may lead to worse suffering - quite possibly even in the near future?

--------------

Edit/addition. Another way to ask the same question:

I noticed Red Cavaney will be the next speaker, so could you please address my question to him?

To tie it in to his letter on the API website:
"API hard at work in Washington to eliminate or reduce regulatory barriers to finding, producing, and delivering the affordable energy resources that American consumers rely so heavily upon."

Given the following:

1) American consumers "rely..heavily" on the "energy resources" provided by the industry API represents;

2) These resources are at or very near the beginning of geological decline on a world basis (for oil) and regionally (for natural gas) (Deffeyes, Bakhtiari, Robelius, Campbell, and many others);

3) API members and industry leaders are in a privileged position, with respect to understanding the magnitude of consequences of shortfalls in production, which are inevitable with the advent of decline ("peak oil"),

4) Can industry leaders deal with this challenge to their individual integrity - the challenge of knowing this crucial fact, which remains hidden to the vast majority of consumers ?

Can industry leaders tell the truth to consumers about the "big picture" of supply?

Can they live with themselves if they do not?

---------
One more version:

The essential, overriding fact regarding the environment and fossil fuel production is:

The environment from which oil and gas are extracted is finite in size and limited in scope,

Or, "The earth is round and it's not filled with oil."

Knowing this, as industry leaders do, can they respond and rise to the overarching ethical issue?

Namely, to paraphrase Kjell Aleklett, that those who know about "peak oil" and fail to warn the world, are like those who knew about the Indonesian tsunami and failed to warn those in it's path.

"Should geologists push, (and push hard, I would argue), their data and evidence to force the policy debate - or should we wait for political consensus to emerge? And what if that is when the last drop of oil is gone? Wouldn't that be personally irresponsible? How is that 'good science'?"
(James Evans, bowling Green State University as quoted in Am Sci July/Aug 2006).

-----------
Final question - goes with the above.

Are there actions by the public or by members of TOD that would help members of the API in facing the challenge I outline here?