Introduction. It remains a sad fact that our country as she enters the 21st-century still has no national energy plan. We do have, and have had since 1969, an energy "policy;" consume the oil of other producers, while "preserving" our national supplies. This is not an irrational policy, but it is not a substitute even for an oil plan - let alone an energy plan. Given the wide range of energy resources, revolutionary changes in technology, and world instability, we need such a plan. As a modest contribution toward many of the key points, let's explore some of the complex issues[1]. We'll focus on the major hydrocarbon energy resources: coal, gas and oil.

As a nation we have become too addicted to oil. Our consumption of oil has increased over 300% since 1950; oil use increasing faster than the growth of total energy consumption. As a statistic, each U.S. resident consumes two and a half gallons of oil per day - 722,500,000 gallons (17,200,000 barrels)!

Energy costs inform everyday conversation and political positions of every persuasion. In addition to a host of technical, perceptual and political challenges, the end-user consumption of all hydrocarbon energy is filtered through economics. One colossal problem is that we do not know with great precision how much oil, gas, or coal (in all their manifest forms) exists as a resource. When we speak of oil "reserves," we mean oil that is known to exist and can be economically recovered. It is vital to understand the term "economically recovered," because a $10 rise in the price of bench-mark oil directly causes world oil reserves to rise by approximately 10 mmb (million, million barrels). The same occurs to a lesser extent, with gas or coal. This "good news" is offset somewhat by the "bad news." Although new resource is developed every year, for the past two decades the world has consumed roughly three barrels of oil for every barrel of new oil "discovered."

In 1948, Dr. Marion Hubbert a much-respected petroleum geophysicist suggested that the world's "peak" in oil production would soon occur in the U.S. - by 1970. His original thoughts were published in Science in 1949, restated in 1956 (Petroleum Week, March 16, 1956, pp 9-10), and refined and amplified thereafter. Hubbert's predictions emphasize the "finite" nature of all resources; however, time has proven his major predictions were erroneous. What is called "Hubert's Peak," has been a rallying cry for some politicians and their "running dogs," however, the chatter has generated more smoke, than light. The world can never run completely out of any resource. That resource's production will become cost prohibitive, long, long before the resource is exhausted. On the other hand, "Given the long lead times required for significant mass-market penetration of new energy technologies, this result in no way justifies complacency about both supply-side and demand-side research and development" (Long-Term World Oil Supply Scenarios, U.S. Energy Information Administration, July, 2004).

In the balance of this paper, we'll review the interlocking relationships between our common energy icons, oil, natural gas and coal, and other hydrogen resources. All chemical energy is dependent upon hydrogen the most common element in the universe. Then, we'll briefly note some of the myriad "alternative" energy resources; some we are quite familiar with, and others we are unlikely to have ever heard of. We end with the skeleton outline for a national energy plan. If such a plan were adopted, we Americans would enjoy almost unlimited access to that energy which is the key to our well-being and security as a nation.

Hydrocarbon Resources. One of the gigantic problems with energy reserves[2] is they are "damnably" difficult to measure. Experts often disagree. What experts do share is the common knowledge that rising prices for any energy resource are quickly matched by price rises of "competing" resource. The recent steep rise in crude oil prices has been matched by equivalent rises in gas and coal prices. While not a pleasant outcome for consumers, there is agreement that new technologies become more and more viable as "cheap oil" disappears. The cost of gasification of coal, liquefication of gas, retorting of shales, tar sands extraction and the horrific costs of deep well exploration, all become viable with $60/barrel oil. High prices have the salutatory effect of increasing our total proven reserves dramatically. High prices also force us to be more conscious of energy conservation; the pathway to wiser use of all resources. Currently, there are no complete studies of the appropriate adjustments to be made to proven reserves, however, those studies completed within the past four years, assume "cheap oil."

Even with our too heavy reliance on oil, we could achieve "energy independence" entirely with oil resources within the U.S. for many years into the future. The House Energy Committee's 2004 Report estimates that U.S. oil production will increase by .8 mbpd (million barrels per day) by 2010. Twenty-five percent of the increase will come from the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A)[3], another 37.5% from enhanced recovery (using injected CO2), another 18.7% from Alaska heavy oil recovery, and a final 18.7% from Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), especially the North Aleutian Basin.

Notwithstanding our wasteful habits of oil consumption, neither the U.S. nor the world is "running out of oil." We are running out of "cheap oil." In the massive USGS study of oil, "World Petroleum Assessment 2000, conventional crude oil reserves were estimated at 3,000 mmb; up from earlier estimates of 2,400 mmb and 1,500 mmb from 1994 and 1990, respectively. These estimates refer only to conventional oil, oil in its liquid form, oil that is both accessible and available. This does not include oil shales, tar sands or heavy oil; nor does it include deep ocean drilling, Arctic or Antarctic potential and much Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) resource.

By 2030, it is forecasted that we will have increased production by 11.1 mbpd (million barrels per day), a full 89% of total oil consumption in 2004! These production increases will come from extraction from western oil shales (4.0 mbpd), enhanced CO2 recovery nationwide (2.0 mbpd), OCS; Alaska; the North Aleutian Basin (1.5 mbpd), Alaska heavy oil conversion (0.8 mbpd), continental tar sands (0.5 mbpd), and continental heavy oil (0.5 mbpd)[4]. The balance of increased production includes .6 mbpd from NPR-Alaska. All of these estimated increases were based on assumptions of well-head oil prices of not more than $22/barrel![5]. It is unlikely, almost beyond measure, to believe that oil will return to such values. The U.S. has very large "proven reserves" for all forms of energy. The USGS/CIA estimates of our "proven reserves" total 3,000 mmb of liquid only oil, 2,000 mmb of tar sands, 2,000 mmb of oil shale. Undoubtedly, some of this resource may turn out to have been overestimated, while other resource will be underestimated. Historically USGS estimates have tended to be quite conservative, even very conservative. We have been unable to find a USGS estimate that overestimated actual production.

Alternative Energy Resources and Technologies. The currant high cost of oil, gas and coal has stimulated magnificent response from energy research and development efforts. Successes include new techniques for the exploration of resource, resource development, processing resource into product and finding market acceptance. Processing energy can involve very complex technologies that because of the nature of carbon molecules usually create many byproducts. However, all hydrocarbon technologies pose challenges[6]. Oil refining, as an example, creates a range of useful products, from gases to asphalt; each with a different specific gravity. The lightest product is hydrogen (often sold to chemical companies), ranging downward to asphalt, through various dissolved gases (often "flared-off"), petroleum ether, gasoline, kerosene, gas oil, lubricating oils and fuel oils. The quality of the crude dramatically increases or decreases the amount of recovery for any particular fraction. To get more gasoline, per barrel, one gets less fuel oil. The product mix depends on demand. That is why gasoline prices increase during summer months and fuel oils increase during winter months, as refineries adjust to market forces. All resource alternatives must, in the end meet marketplace realities.

The prevailing theory is that all coal, natural gas and crude oil have a fossil origin. This is what we were taught in High School; that hydrocarbons are the product of decay of bio-organic matter mediated by earth processes of pressure and temperature - during the last 200 million years. Another theory is gaining favor, because studies of very deep deposits (those below about 12,000 feet) of gas and oil indicate no presence of fossil activity. If true, this new theory (actually an idea almost 80 years old) will have a profound impact on everything we think we know about gas and oil. This new theory is called "abiosis;" meaning that oil and gas are not of fossil origin, but are created continuously by deep earth processes acting directly on pure methane from the earth's mantle, at the bottom of our crust, between 25 and 40 miles below the earth's surface. The first clues were gained when measures of the amount of oil withdrawn proved too large to be accounted for by organic decay and transformation. Further supplementary evidence is the fact that many older, sometimes abandoned fields are once again producing gas or oil. The final evidence will come from extremely deep drilling, well beyond present drilling techniques. Current technology limits drilling depth to 40,000 feet (about 7.5 miles). Within the next decade or two, drilling technologies will permit depths of perhaps 50 to 100 miles! This is not science fiction. If confirmed, everything we now know about petroleum reserves could change and presumed limits of supply could have us using oil and gas for millions of years into the future. The costs will be enormous, but we have already passed the age of "cheap oil." Three major technology shifts have arisen from higher-cost energy: more and better science; geophysics, geology and engineering, great advances in industrial and chemical processing, and a broad range of new energy fuels. Advances in geophysics and geochemistry, as well as engineering have led to the development of huge off-shore drilling platforms, now capable of creating an entire gas or oil field from a single location. These technologies will soon lead to very deepwater platforms and ship rigs capable of enormously deep drilling; in 25,000 feet of ocean. At present, the Bertha Rogers well in Oklahoma is America's deepest production well, at 32,000 feet. Eventually these efforts will make possible recovery of the vast amount of deep sea methane. We have another huge dispersed resource in "stranded" gas. An estimated 2,500 tcf (trillion cubic feet), is entrapped in formations too far from processing or consumption to be economic. At current energy prices, however, there is a massive effort being made to locate and exploit the larger entrapments. An additional 400 bcf is "flared-off" annually at the wellhead, or is re-injected into oil wells to increase pressure and flows.

Among the potential alternative chemical energy fuels, are many that offer some unique qualities or characteristics. For instance: biodiesels, internal combustion fuel made by partially refining vegetable or animal fats; bioethanols, the ethanol process, applied to grasses, shrubs and trees as feedstock; butanol, a remarkable idea for a complex alcohol fuel that can be made from any, or all, biomass feedstock. To take a small diversion, butanol processes are less expensive to derive than other biofuels; they can be burned in pure form, or admixed with other fuels as an extender. Butanol has higher Btu content than most biofuels, and can be transported and dispensed through existing pipeline and storage facilities and has lower tailpipe emissions than either gasoline, diesel or other common biofuels ("Acetone-Butanol Fermentation Revisited," Microbiological Reviews, Dec., 1986, Vol. 50, No. 4), Ethanol, the fermented and distilled grain starch substrate from our most common feedstock; corn. Hydrogen as a direct fuel; either (1) steam reformed from natural gas, or (2) electrolysis of water to separate out the oxygen, and methanols, fuels made from the steam reforming of natural gas. Expect many new such options as energy prices remain at today's levels.

Industrial developments in processing, refining and handling fuels have kept pace with other developments in the "oil patch." A number of proven technologies demonstrate the technical ability to convert, for instance, both coal and gas to liquid as oil. Coal to liquids (CTL) conversion becomes feasible when extensive coal seams are shallow, greatly reducing the costs of strip mining and restoration; let alone the pollution problems of burning coal. Gas to liquid (GTL) technologies lend themselves well to "stranded" gas situations with the added benefit that the liquid fuel recovered has neither sulphur nor aromatics. This low emission fuel can be used in any modern vehicle. Several oil industry research subsidiaries are working on a very pure hydrocarbon fuel that can serve as a universal military fuel; one that can be used in all applications, from vehicles, to jet planes, to naval vessels. Coal (coalbed methane process) can also be transformed directly into natural gas. Gas hydrates, contaminated frozen gas/water mixtures, now completely unexploited and left in underground deposits can also be liquefied and recovered. Notwithstanding the enormous economic risk and political resistance to building refineries, we have slightly raised refining capacity with new industrial techniques. Although 115 refineries have been scrapped or "mothballed" since 1982, the remaining 148 have increased their capacity from 15 mbpd to 17 mbpd, even though no new refinery has been built in the U.S. since 1976.

Energy Planning. Sometimes we ask, isn't all this talk about oil and gas reserves just a "conspiracy" by the oil companies to manipulate supply for profit? The "counter conspiracy" is we are virtually out of oil and being held hostage by Middle Eastern and other oil-producing countries. Alas, neither is true. There are no great "capped reserves" hiding anywhere. The development of oil and gas fields require such enormous capital investment that no oil company, whether Exxon Mobil or independent "wildcatter," could bear the costs of exploration and development, only to leave the energy in the ground. The oil and gas industry is exquisitely sensitive to economic realities. In only a few cases are very deep deposits not developed as producing fields because the costs of extraction await the price rises that have characterized the past few years to justify profitable development. Another question sometimes asked is, why don't we just explore and drill more when prices are high? We do! In fact, worldwide there is no excess drilling capacity; every drill rig is in use today. The giant ocean platforms now in use require years and years to construct and cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" each. We also suffer from limits of available technical personnel. What used to be largely "grunt work" in the oil patch has now become unbelievably sophisticated technology, requiring the lengthy education and deployment of various scientists, geologists, engineers and technicians. Our national interest is further challenged by the increasing competition for oil from such growing giants as China and India. However, steady, methodical American technology will prepare us for a broad balance of energy strategies, so that when conventional world crude oil production may be reasonably expected to "peak" sometime between 2030 and 2035, we are prepared.

Implicit to a reasonable energy plan, is an effort to increase our energy independence; to make our nation less vulnerable to the vagaries of world politics. Today the issue is oil. Tomorrow, either oil will be found in locations that are less threatening to our nation, or we will better develop the many alternative energy resources available to us. We, ourselves, are largely responsible for our energy problems; we want energy without great cost or inconvenience. We have made some intelligent moves recently. An example: the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that authorizes the government to complete the recently expanded National Petroleum Reserve and to fill it from 700 mb to 800 mb. The act also authorized increasing the Reserve capacity to 1 mmb at several new locations.

Let's review the principal elements of a sound national energy plan. What would we ask of such a plan? (1) We would reduce our dependence on foreign energy resources of all kinds. We live in an exceptionally dangerous world, but in a nation that is remarkably rich in hydrocarbon resource, and the technology leadership to develop dozens of energy options. (2) We should move aggressively to reduce our dependence on "fossil fuels." The high costs of energy today, are likely to continue, and this will provide the economic incentive to work on "renewable" resources. (3) We should undertake a massive effort to harness hydrogen directly. Think hydrogen; the universe is awash in hydrogen. Its full exploitation would both provide fuel for light transportation vehicles, and re-emphasize and re-focus on "nuclear" power for electric generation[7]. (4) We should permit, encourage, and in some cases subsidize on national security grounds, the research and development of renewable or continuous energy resources; including especially fission/fusion technology. (5) We should permit and support with national legislation, parallel codependence among the dozens of viable energy resources that are feasible, but without special subsidies. The "invisible hand" of the marketplace will be the final arbiter of energy values and efficiency, no matter what government or pressure groups want. (6) It is scientifically unlikely, but possible, that free carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere plays some role in climate change. To "plan" for this outcome, we should develop more and better technologies for carbon sequestration. Government research organizations should lead this effort. It is entirely appropriate that national government play this national and international contingency role. Finally, (7) for a national energy plan to be successful we as a people must learn to see through the many preposterous claims of the radical environmental movement, the panders of politicians seeking approval and the minions of newsmakers, ever anxious to provide media "news/entertainment" 24-hours a day. Energy matters are matters of science and engineering technology, not political whim, characterized by bluster and assertion. The health of our economy and the ability of America to lead the world in technology through this century will be tested by how well we understand and implement our "energy challenges." We should also relax in the knowledge that we have many, many energy resource options at today's energy prices; if we have a plan! In the end, "oil's well that ends well."

[1] When we commonly speak about 'energy,' we are usually discussing fuel sources. Energy is the output; fuel provides the energy source. There are hundreds of 'fuels', therefore let's simplify and categorize 'fuels' in this footnote rather than marginalize the major energy issues. All fuels derive from solar/cosmic processes. First, consider the direct solar energy sources: hydroelectric dams, wind, waves, tidal action, ocean thermal conversion, biomass (vegetation, including trees), sewerage and biofuel cogeneration. The latter are chemical fuels from sunlight (via the process of photosynthesis). All are 'peripheral' fuel sources that except for hydroelectric, provide in the aggregate, tiny amounts of consumed energy. In future these resources will become more important as exploitive technologies are developed. None figure significantly in our discussion. Other chemical fuel technologies include: thermophotovoltaics (the conversion of electromagnetic radiation into electricity), thermonuclear fusion, and nuclear fission. Only the last figures somewhat at present as a useful, practical energy resource. Finally, we have the fuels mediated directly by geological processes: geothermal, tar sands, oils shales, lignite, coal bed methane, natural gas hydrates, coal, natural gas (methane) and oil. The latter three, coal, gas and oil, provide most of the world's consumed energy

[2] 'Energy reserves' is a technical term for the amount of resource deposit, factored for the cost of production, minus the amount of the deposit not technically recoverable. Such estimates are 'elastic' in that the higher the cost of energy equivalents, the more resource potential becomes 'proven reserves.' With today's prices our national proven reserves have risen astronomically

[3] USGS Fact Sheet 045-02 (2002) concludes that the 'technically recoverable, undiscovered oil beneath the Federal part of NPR-A likely ranges from 5.9 to 13.2 billion barrels. Of the original U.S. domestic reserves in place of 582 billion barrels, only 183 billion barrels have been produced. There are an additional 22 billion barrels of proved reserves. 60 billion additional barrels are potentially producible with advanced CO2 enhanced oil recovery technology.' See also: A Technical and Economic Assessment of Domestic Heavy Oil, April, 1987; estimating that Alaska has 25 billion barrels of heavy oil in large reservoirs (each over 20 billion barrels). The West Sak field alone contains more than 10 billion barrels of heavy oil. In the continental U.S. there are documented another '100 billion barrels, originally in place' as known reserves. More than 80 billion barrels are in 248 large, heavy oil reservoirs (each over 20 million barrels). The bulk of the heavy oil resource is located in three states; California with 42 billion barrels, Alaska with 25 billion barrels, and Wyoming with 5 billion barrels. Smaller accumulations of 1 to 2 billion barrels (in reservoirs over 20 million barrels each) exist in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Further, see: MMS (Mineral Management Service) report, USDOI; RP2N, 2003. Most of the offshore Alaska production will be from the Arctic, but 120,000 bpd in 2015, 200,000 bpd in 2020, 180,000 bpd in 2025, and 140,000 bpd in 2030 will be from the North Aleutian Basin/Bristol Bay per unofficial estimates of MMS. 'Starting in 2015, the production from the Alaska OCS could easily be two to three times larger than the estimates included in this table. The Arctic OCS has the geologic potential of including at least half a dozen Prudhoe Bay-sized accumulations.'

[4] Major Tar Sand and Heavy Oil Deposits of the United States (July, 1983). This report found that the total U.S. tar sand resource base is estimated at 54 billion barrels of oil. The measured in-place resource for major deposits is 22 billion barrels and the speculative resource in place for major deposits is estimated at 31 billion barrels (not including the potential of offshore California). This total resource estimate of 53 billion barrels, is concentrated in Utah (20.1 mmb), Alaska (10.0 mmb), Alabama (6.5 mmb), Texas (4.8 mmb), California (4.7 mmb), and Kentucky (3.4 mmb)

[5] Sometimes energy deposits in production are hugely underestimated. In 1899, one of California's major production areas, the Kern River Field, was opened. KRF produced uncounted millions of barrels, and in 1941 was estimated to have a proven reserve of 56 mb (million barrels). In the intervening 50-years KRF has already produced over 735 mb, 13 times proven reserves, and has today still, another estimated 970 mb of reserve

[6]We consistently use the term 'hydrocarbon' throughout this paper to refer to the entire range of 'fossil fuels,' as a convenience

[7] Notwithstanding public fears of nuclear power, fission energy is the safest form of energy ever developed - despite concerns over nuclear waste. Once re-established, our present fission knowledge will stimulate technologies to make breeder reactors and eventually fusion possible. Fusion will not only produce no waste whatever, except heat, but existing nuclear waste can even be used as a fuel source for a fusion reactor. With eventual inexpensive fusion, enough energy will be in surplus for the fusion destruction of all forms of waste 'down to household waste.'

Copyright 2006. All rights reserved