We've never heard of C. John Mann, and doubt many in our local corner of Coal Country have either.
But, we should all be talking, and writing, like him.
There's not much new in here, except that Mann is neither a politician nor a journalist. He is, though, as some research reveals, an accomplished scientist; a Mann of learning, so to speak. He knows what he's talking about, and we all should be listening.
And, again, writing.
C. John Mann: Nation must use oil from unconventional sources
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Oct 27, 2009 @ 01:02 AM
All but ardent environmentalists who have a perverse antipathy toward science seem to recognize that continued use of fossil fuels is inevitable. What is not inevitable is a costly energy crisis that results from an over-emphasis on unreliable energy sources and neglect of oil, natural gas and coal.
Though they’re helpful in meeting energy demand in some parts of the country, solar and wind energy are too undependable to run factories and keep the lights on in cities. Solar and wind can’t move the nation’s transportation system. Nor can biofuels. For America’s motor vehicles, we’re still going to rely on gasoline and diesel. But our foreign-oil dependence is about to get much worse unless something is done about it.
If the Obama administration is really interested in reducing U.S. reliance on foreign energy supplies, then it should recognize the value and validity of unconventional oil made from liquefied coal, Canadian oil sands and Western oil shale.
Using these vast resources to meet America’s energy needs would be a boon for U.S. consumers and this country’s energy security. And everyone would benefit from well-paying jobs and revenue that come from producing, processing and refining liquefied coal and oil sands.
A recent decision by the U.S. State Department to support oil-sands production offers at least a glimmer of foresight and flexibility.
Canada’s oil sands formations hold an estimated 173 billion barrels of recoverable oil, making Canada second only to Saudi Arabia in the size of its reserves. The International Energy Agency has said that with future advances in technology as much as 1.7 trillion barrels of Canadian oil sands could be extracted.
Despite protests from environmental groups, the State Department approved a permit for a 1,000-mile-long pipeline that would carry oil from Canada’s oil sands formations in northern Alberta to refineries on Lake Superior in Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper pipeline will be capable of carrying 800,000 barrels per day of crude oil, shoring up Canada’s position as America’s No. 1 source of foreign oil.
Environmentalists, however, are waging an all-out battle against the use of oil sands, largely on grounds that it is more carbon-intensive than conventional crude oil, as if the crucial role of unconventional oil in meeting America’s energy needs doesn’t matter.
Environmental groups have filed lawsuits to block expansion of the vast infrastructure (production facilities, pipelines, and refineries) that are needed to accommodate the growth in oil sands production.
Earlier, they succeeded in getting Congress to include a provision in 2005 energy legislation that prohibits U.S. government agencies from using petroleum products made from oil sands, shale oil and liquefied coal. The Air Force has objected strongly to this ban, pointing out that it prevents military aircraft from using jet fuel made from oil sands.
California and Oregon have banned use of oil sands, oil shale and liquefied coal, and several northeastern states reportedly plan to follow suit. At the same time, the U.S. House of Representatives is considering legislation that would impose a national ban in the guise of a low-carbon fuel standard. House members who are pushing for its passage seem heedless of economic consequences.
Quite simply, lawmakers should steer clear of regulations that discriminate between conventional and unconventional fuel sources, as they would exacerbate energy security problems without delivering compensating climate benefits. Imposing greater costs on oil sands producers and the liquefied coal sector will only benefit OPEC and would have little impact on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Given this country’s increasing rate of unemployment, we can ill-afford to turn our back on unconventional fuels.
Take liquefied coal. Helped by rising energy prices and new research, coal is moving to the forefront as a cleaner-burning fuel and a source for liquid fuel. The technology for converting coal into diesel and jet fuel is well established, having been used for nearly 100 years in Germany and for several decades in South Africa.
Plans for two-dozen major coal-to-liquid projects in the United States are under way. Some of the projects are awaiting federal loan guarantees so that construction can begin. Importantly, research has shown how to capture carbon dioxide at coal facilities and store the gas in the earth's subsurface.
As for Western oil shale, the technology for tapping it is still being developed. But policymakers are counting on oil shale to help meet the nation’s energy needs in future years. In fact, Western shale is far and away Americas most abundant source of oil. Shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming holds an estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. And there is no doubt its development could obviate the need for imported oil.
As the administration works with Congress to develop energy policies, those who shape legislation need to wake up and realize that our country cannot afford to forego the use of unconventional oil. A misguided push to prevent its use can only succeed in undermining our economy.
C. John Mann is a professor emeritus of geology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
----------------
We all "need to wake up and realize that our country cannot afford to forego the use of unconventional oil".
And, it's way past time Coal Country journalists started pouring the coffee.
