Help Prioritize the Questions for the API
Posted by Robert Rapier on April 18, 2007 - 10:03am
Update: I am going to stop tabulating the votes at this point. Here were the top choices, in reverse-order of the number of points each received: 33, 13, 4, 3, 11, 12, 16, 31, 1, 7, 9, 23. I will start with Question 33, and work my way through the list as time allows.
I have pointed the API again to this thread, so they can get a handle on what people want to know. Here are some excerpts of the responses I got back:
Interesting questions all. Because we billed this as an “energy and the environment” conference call, we would, of course, prefer that the questions be relevant to the topic, primarily out of respect to those bloggers who signed on because of their interest in the environment and sustainability. There will be future calls during which other topics can be discussed.
I also asked whether or not questions about natural gas (#4) are appropriate for this particular call. The response I received back was:
API has a strong interest in natural gas. While we will leave it up to you to decide whether you should pose that question, I do want to reiterate what I said in my earlier email about sticking to the announced topic.
Given that, I will more or less play it by ear on some of these questions. If everyone else is asking purely environmental questions, I may hold off on certain questions until the next call. I do have a lot of questions that are purely environmental questions, and I will work my way through some of those at the top of the list. I will also do some rewording of some of the questions, as I agree that some are too vague and leave themselves open to a canned reply. I will follow-up on this as soon as they have the transcript online, which should be within a couple of days.
Thanks again to all who participated.
In response to my request for questions for the upcoming API conference call on energy issues, I got a number of very good questions here, via e-mail, and at my blog. In fact, I e-mailed a link to the API, and they read through the questions here at TOD. So, they know what readers are interesting in hearing.
I know that I said “first come, first served”, but some questions that were asked late are very good. So, I would like to ask for suggestions in prioritizing the most important questions. Keep in mind that the answers to these questions (IMO) should ideally better inform the public on important energy issues. Considering that, I think that the last question on the list (#33), for example, is certainly worthy of a top 10 slot.
I don’t know how many questions I will be able to ask, but below is a list of the questions that were submitted (and I threw in a couple as well). Please list at least your top 3 (e.g., 1, 26, 33). That way, I have an idea as to which questions are the highest priority of readers. Some are closely related and can probably be combined. But I want to make sure that the questions that you think are important get answered. Hopefully, I will be able to ask 10. I will at least make a list of the questions getting the 10 highest vote totals, and I will attempt to ask those. (Again, your question may get answered during the call even if I don't ask it, because the API is aware of the questions that have been asked).
If you asked multiple questions, I didn’t necessarily list them all. If you think I didn't list an important question, or you have thought of another one that you think should be asked, please list it as well.
The List
1. One could argue that the current focus of alternative energy proposals is more to benefit agriculture than to make a significant contribution in terms of supplying a new energy source. A much better alternative would be to use waste products as a feedstock. Do you agree with this argument? If you do, what actions are you taking to explain this message to Washington DC?
2. It seems that Congress and the White House think they can correctly predict what the fuel of the future would be. If one has to have a bias, it can be argued that that bias should be toward existing fuels (gasoline and diesel) or fuels that can be blended with these existing fuels without changing physical properties or precluding the use of existing infrastructure (as ethanol does). For example, it is possible to convert biomass into green diesel, which makes integration of the biofuel into existing fuel supplies a non-issue. Would you agree?
3. Given that ethanol usage in the U.S. is mandated, why does it require a subsidy? Also, some argue that the ethanol subsidy is really an oil company subsidy, given that they are the actual recipients of the blender's credit. How do you respond to that?
4. 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. 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?
5. Do you have a reliable source as to the water and energy inputs required to refine a barrel of oil?
6. What do you believe has driven the cost of oil over the past 5 years? And is the current price desirable from the viewpoint of the API?
7. What do you see as significant barriers to large scale production from tar sands?
8. Do you forecast a continued decline in U.S. oil production?
9. The NPC (National Petroleum Council) report "Balanced Options" in 2003 said that the U.S. would face a natural gas shortfall and have to import LNG at a rapidly growing pace, even if we opened up all moratoria areas in the U.S. to natural gas drilling. This would include the Western Rockies and the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) being opened for drilling.
(a) If we are really in such a dire position on natural gas need, what are the chances that these areas will be opened up for at least exploratory and then possibly production drilling? What do see the environmental issues to be and is it worth the risk?
(b) Is even discussing the issue of natural gas drilling in these areas politically acceptable, or is it "a third rail" that politicians won't touch, no matter what shape we are in on natural gas supply
(c) Given the resistance to LNG handling facilities almost anywhere they are considered to be placed, what are the odds of building enough LNG handling and offloading facilities in time to provide needed natural gas imports?
10. 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?
11. If world oil 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?
12. Who does Red Cavaney & the API believe is more credible: [T. Boone Pickens, Matt Simmons, and the Deffeyes Group on The Oil Drum] 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?
13. Have you read the GAO report? What is your position on the report?
14. 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 irrelevant?
15. How does the oil industry plan to deal with the reality of global warming?
16. 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?
17. If the US used fossil energy at the rate of Europe, how low will the import rate of oil be?
18. Which actions can the API recommend for making the fossil energies of the world last longer?
19. Is it true the CIA sees no oil alternative for the USA if CHINA demand grows? Is ex-CIA chief Woolsey correct in his recommendation to promote alternatives in China, in order to buy time for USA to shift to alternatives: “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.”
20. What does the API feel is the long-term outlook for IOCs given their lack of access to resources and rising resource nationalism?
21. Do you believe that U.S. refineries are expanding quickly enough to meet the growing gasoline demand?
22. With the high percentage of the available fossil fuels being in the Sour, Heavy and tar variety or extremely hard to extract, i.e. 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?
23. Regarding EROEI, would the API care to offer an industry wide graph of past, present and future oil EROEI?
24. 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. How does API see this competition? Do they think cars capable of 100 mpg will be needed by the general public any time soon?
25. 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?
26. How can "speculation" increase oil prices?
27. How is the combination of nationalization of oil supplies and increasing domestic consumption by exporters expected to affect API members?
28. Please comment on the significance of the price difference between WTI and Brent prices. What are the implications?
29. How effectively is the industry responding to the decreasing quality (heavy, sour) of crude?
30. Why is it that no one knows how much petroleum is really currently available?
31. What are the odds we see a carbon tax here in the USA? Is this something the API would support?
32. 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?
33. 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." 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 as resources deplete. How is the industry prepared to deal with potential supply shortfalls?
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Robert, my top three choices are (in order):
33.
4.
19.
Thank you for taking the time to do this. Please do keep us all informed of the results. Regardless of which questions you choose, may good fortune be with you, sir!
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Mine are:
33
11
3
And again, thanks for all your effort.
Antoinetta III
33
13
16 - go to the heart of it
nice one robert. should be interesting whatever questions get asked. after a brief look, i'd say:
13
33
28
1
cheers
phil.
My choices are:
13
9
4
Keep up the good work!
In terms of what i think it would be usefully for everyone to know:
12
4/9 (2 sides of the same coin)
33
in terms of what i personally would find interesting
19,23,26
i think q'n 17 is calculable from existing known data (ie, usage and efficiency (population, miles driven, average mpg) data for both america and Europe) although depending on who hears the answer it could be a good q'n to ask
Thanks, Robert.
4, 13, 16, 19, 23, 33
Do you expect more than perfunctory answers to any of the questions?
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
My top choices are:
33)
4)
6)
Thx for the opportunity!
-best,
Wolf
My preferences are reworded and combined, and there are 4 of them.
31. Will you, first and foremost and for perspective, state for the record that the most rational alternative, if the political will were available, is a significant carbon tax here in the USA? If nothing else, the future will take note that you bothered to say it.
16. and 12: Given the tone of such links at the API website as the "Energy Tomorrow" link, in what ways does the API consider the conclusions of T. Boone Pickens, Matt Simmons, and the Deffeyes Group on The Oil Drum to be incorrect? If so, how?
1. and 3. One could argue that the current focus of alternative energy proposals is focused more to benefit "big ag" than to make a significant contribution in terms of supplying a new energy source. Are you willing to point out the fundamental thermodynamic futility of grain-based ethanol? Are you willing to point out that it it were viable in the marketplace it would not require a subsidy? (this is a 'truth to power' question)
23. Regarding EROEI, would the API be willing to offer an industry wide graph of past, present and future oil EROEI, and explain the significance of EROEI as a useful metric for estimating the level necessary for maintenance of societal infrastructure?
3
7
33
Is the API report subject to blind peer reveiw?
#7: The funny thing about the oil sands is that oil is stuck in the sand.
I like
16. and 12: Given the tone of such links at the API website as the "Energy Tomorrow" link, in what ways does the API consider the conclusions of T. Boone Pickens, Matt Simmons, and the Deffeyes Group on The Oil Drum to be incorrect? If so, how?
3 and 33
oil junkie
11,23,33
Thanks Robert.
What is most important -
a) keep the US car industry alive till it crumbles by circumstancial realities - OR
b) start to plan for THE reality over all realities
Who is gonna take on this first - Beavis or Butthead?
( sorry -just had to...)
I would vote for
13 and 18
and one of the biofuel ones.
Related to 18, would they care to express an opinion on the highest and best use of the remaining high quality fossil fuels - as a liquid transportation fuel or as feedstock to the various materials industries.
Thanks again for soliciting our input. My top 5 from the list, in decreasing priority, are:
13
33
27
4
23
--------------------------------------------------------
The future of oil? "Soylent Black is peeeeoppplllle!!!!"
Thanks for your work and thanks also to those who constructed the questions.
33
4
13
are the three I'd pick to ask.
yeah, I'd go with 33, 4 and 13 too.
4, with a bullet
cfm in Gray, ME
Many of those questions are a bit leading, so are you concerned that your interviewee(s) might feel a bit taken aback?
Anyway, I see three really good questions:
#4 - because it demonstrates the law of diminishing returns and it also leads to acceptance of physical production limitations.
#27 - as it drives home the problem of importation regardless of the dating of Peak Oil.
#13 - because it demonstrates growing public and governmental awareness of Peak Oil.
As for #33, while it gets to the heart of the problem (finite available resource), I can imagine a possible answer that would point to the ( TOD readership acknowledged inflated) "reserves" figures of the World at large, thus putting off any real issues for decades.
Best wishes on your questioning.
Hi InJapan and Thanks again, Robert,
re: 33. I had a similar thought - could a "too easy" answer be "alternatives"? Or "more research"? We'll see.
Robert, I really appreciate your including "33" here. I was also trying to get at something else - maybe you could let me know how you see this?
Perhaps my trying (back under your original post) to talk in terms of ethics sounded accusatory or moralistic, which is actually not at all how I meant it.
I see it as a challenge in general (IMHO) to figure out how to be responsible/act responsibly for what one sees and knows, what one is involved in, or even observes.
It is not "merely" the impending shortfalls I'm asking about.
It's the knowledge of 1) what those shortfalls mean, taken together with 2) the fact that, in the US, it's been what, 30 years? - an entire generation has grown up without firsthand experience of shortfalls, and 3) theoretical understanding (basics of the role of energy in history, and in the present economy) is also lacking, so that 4) industry leaders know something relatively few people know.
I.e., They not only know what's ahead, they will be among the first to know when "the future" arrives.
Meanwhile, they are aware of this knowledge and the fact few others possess awareness of the implications.
How can they best deal with the *knowledge of* impending shortfalls? (How to deal with knowing something now that will effect people's lives in such a major way in the future?)
Also, Robert, it brings a smile to my face to see you ask us for suggestions and then also involve us in the selection process. I take it as an example of an inclusive and open way to do things.
Your questioning is about valid topics, or should I say topic - ethics. In this case ethics and a specific industry group. However, dealing with ethics in the corporate world is as difficult as with any other area of life, as there are seemingly endless streams of related issues that can be raised once you open Pandora's box.
What you are wanting to ask, as I understand it, is "How responsible are the API members in informing their customers of limited future availability of key products?" and the corollary "How will the industry deal with the effects of not meeting their customers needs?".
Please remember that the API is an industry interest group and solely exists for the benefit of its members, not to solve the world's problems. However, as part of this world they cannot escape their surroundings and at least from their published material it appears they are at least open to discussing these issues.
Given that this API conference call appears to be at least somewhat open to the ethical issues (or else why would they even want to discuss the environment in the first place?) neverthless it would probably be nonproductive to try and paint the API into a corner from the outset.
Hopefully someone (RR?) will be able to get the leaders of the API to acknowledge that issues of energy availability do indeed exist and will get worse in the coming decade, not as some undeterminable far future event.
And indeed the environmental impacts of decreased oil and gas are large as coal, and poor quality coal at that, will be used as substitutes wherever possible.
Hi InJ,
Thanks.
re: "What you are wanting to ask, as I understand it, is "How responsible are the API members in informing their customers of limited future availability of key products?" and the corollary "How will the industry deal with the effects of not meeting their customers needs?".
This is a more specific wording of my thoughts.
Dear Robert
Thank you for all your hard work.
Numbers 13
4
12
9
One other question: Out of the top 50 biggest oil-
extracting countries, more than 50% have peaked.
How many barrels of "new" oil need to come on-stream
just to maintain the current level of production?
I think a lot of people are neglecting the first rule of questioning - work out what you expect the answer will be as people try to wriggle out of saying anything interesting. Make sure that no matter what they say, you get the action you want out of it. Call it the reporters' fork.
There are two aims of a question, either to get them say something interesting, or get them to think and question after the event.
Many of the questions presented will get canned answers that neither tell anything, or get the participants to think further. I'd suggest, in no particular order:
10
11
16
17
24
28
29
And in particular chaining the questions to get them off balance. For example if the question is likely to get a 'less government regulation' type answer, follow it with something where the canned answer is 'more government regulation'.
This is extremely important. There are quite a few questions in here that will get shaken off in a heartbeat.
Question 13 is popular here but it worded terribly...
13. Have you read the GAO report? What is your position on the report?
A1: No, we have not read the report and so can not comment on it.
A2: Yes, we have read the report and it shows just how much room there is for technological advance to change the picture.
Question 1:
1. One could argue that the current focus of alternative energy proposals is more to benefit agriculture than to make a significant contribution in terms of supplying a new energy source. A much better alternative would be to use waste products as a feedstock. Do you agree with this argument? If you do, what actions are you taking to explain this message to Washington DC?
A: No, we do not agree with this argument. Waste products alone as a feedstock would not produce a significant enough amount of energy.
Question 16:
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?
--This question suffers from extreme vagueness...what exactly is "the peak oil theory"? I think everyone on here would give me a different answer. Given that, the range of "pooh pooh" responses is endless.
Question 7:
What do you see as significant barriers to large scale production from tar sands?
--this will get a quick technical response "infrustructure, blah blah" and no real insight. The problems will be played off as something that will be overcome by the wonder of human ingenuity and magical technology.
Question 11:
If world oil 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?
A1: That is something you're going to have to ask an economist ::chuckle::
A2: We see no reason for reduced demand.
I'll try to offer an example. Question 4 starts off pretty good so I'll rework that a bit.
--Got rid of "slightly" - too wishy washy and replaced "escalated" with "skyrocketed". This first sentence is good because its throws out some scary information. The second sentence gets in a good stab by mentioning reliance on foreign nations for our energy security(just because it's a tangent and has nothing to do with the question doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the question). The last couple of words, and the actual question, already pre-supposes that the event will occur, which means they would have to dig out of that hole before they can begin to rebut the question, or just wind up answering it. Even if they say some ridiculously high number, you got some good stabs in with the escalating costs, and energy security angle. Another good way to finish this question (instead of asking how many years) might be "in the coming years, how will you respond to supply shortfalls." Anyway most (if not all) of these questions need a serious re-working by someone with enough knowledge to word these so that not only do you get a non-damaging answer, but get an answer at all...and in the meantime get a few jabs in just with the phrasing of the question.
The points being made here are really important. Hopefully the questions can be formed optimally - lawyers are good at this, no?
To be fair, that's part of my original question. The totality started by asking if they had done research to understand the supply shortfall/price relationship.
Reasoning was if they said no, the question was why not (given how important the effect is).
If they said yes, then what was the relationship they found.
Now personally I'm fairly confident they have done such research. I know that in their position, and with the access to the data, I would have done it (I have done it, but that's another story). So the answer illuminates how prepared they are, and in what direction.
Judging by the reaction to $78 a barrel oil last year, they have GOT to have a plan for $100, $120, $140...
Q: "in the coming years, how will you respond to supply shortfalls."
A: yadda yadda bs.
Truthful, unsaid A: We will luxuriate in our astonishing profitability and I'll celebrate my ginormous bonus with a ferrari and trophy wife.
I take as my picks:
22. (a bit complicated, but very good)
31. (puts them a bit on the spot...)
2. (If we can mention bio-butanol in that question as an option, it becomes perfect!)
as a runner up to these:
32. (green petrol.....I like the collaboration idea...:-)
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
My choices:
4, 11 and 27, not in a particular order.
Thanks for your effort
My picks:
33
4
13
You state that this is an “energy and the environment” conference call ....
On the news this morning, I am hearing from the UN and others that the issue is now ...
Energy , Environment ,and SECURITY.
Perhaps a question including "Security"
I think #33 is a silly question. Sure, resources are bounded. The upper bound implied in this question is so large as to be meaningless. Much excellent work has been done here to hone this question to a finer point and disagreements are over some very specific issues.
To me, this reads like "we'll force them into admitting that resources are finite and then they'll have no choice but to share their secret mitigation strategies or confess being woefully unprepared."
Good luck
Its not silly, its important, if they choose not to answer, then that is their choice, but it will be on record. Part of asking questions is to get a response,, period.
Perhaps wrapping 33 in a wrapper with environment issues.
add a phrase,..
with energy getting harder and harder to find, this will cause more economic and environmental issue, making it perhaps harder to get energy from these new resources, is the current known stockpile and the industry able to contend with set backs in new resources and still supply from the old, due to the economic and environmental issues from new resources yet discovered.
summthin like dat. or not.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
I don't fully understand the relevance of #33, "The earth is round and it's not filled with oil." Yes, oil is finite, but what matters is how much there is, well before we reach the question of an earth "filled with oil".
It's interesting to consider how things might have been different if we had had 10x less or 10x more oil than we do. With 10x less, the oil age as we know it would have been stillborn. Oil would probably never have become a major industrial resource. We would probably have focused on coal development, and electric vehicles might have won out.
If oil had been 10x more prevalent we'd be in fine shape today and probably for the rest of this century. By that time our technological development would put us in a much better situation to transition away from fossil fuels. We'd have inexpensive solar cells and other renewables, good batteries for electric cars, and maybe even nuclear fusion. Chances are the oil age would fade away due to better alternatives even before we used it up.
Instead we're on the cusp between these two alternatives; enough oil to make us fully dependent on it, but not enough to assure that our technology base can make an easy transition away. The main question is whether we will be able to develop the needed alternatives quickly enough to minimize the pain of the transition.
Hi w and Half,
Thanks and I more or less agree. My original "stabs" are under Robert's first article. I mentioned the date range, for eg.
re: "If oil had been 10x more prevalent we'd be in fine shape today and probably for the rest of this century."
Well...I'm not so sure. Would there be any incentive to working on solar cells and making them available? Do those "better alternatives" exist in theory? (I mean, we know now - and what's happening?)
Or would we be exactly in the same boat - only worse...and anyway, as many have pointed out, the "carrying capacity" would be long exhausted before such a point is reached. Also, - do the alternatives add up? The answer appears to be - "not by a long shot".
Question for API folks:
1. Hypothetically speaking, if I have not gotten to my off-grid compound in the southern hemisphere when the shit really hits the fan here in North America, whose forced work camps do you think will have the best accomodations: FEMA, Halliburton, Blackwater, or Dyncorp?
2. How far back do you see this kicking us to? Should I be preparing for life as a 13th century AD peasent farmer or as a 20 centuries BC hunter-gatherer?
In the case of the later, what sort of loincloth should I procure if I am equally concerned about durability, environmental-friendliness, and durability?
Hmm, don't get your hopes up for informed responses. The Wired / Autopia blog report on this conference call is up, and anyone who seriously still uses the line:
"the stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones. Similarly, the oil age won't end because we run out of oil -- it will be because something better will take its place."
Obviously is still playing the marketing/soundbite game, not seriously engaging with issues.
Ho hum, I await RRs report with interest.