Comments by Robert Rapier Subscribe

On Why Keystone XL is Not in the U.S. National Interest

Of course there will be people opposed, but Canada has clearly indicated that they are going to do whatever it takes to develop those oil sands. And production there has showed no signs of slowing down.

On Why Keystone XL is Not in the U.S. National Interest

Even so, as you are well aware, that rail expansion is inadequate to support the desired export requirements. 

Canada is presently pursuing a 5 million bpd rail line to their West Coast -- largely because we are playing politics over the pipeline. The drugs/oil will get to the market when the demand is there. I didn't complete my analogy, but to be effective it is the demand that must be curtailed. When demand is there the supply will get to market.

RR

On Why Keystone XL is Not in the U.S. National Interest

But. But. But. Here’s my problem: when do we finally just say “no more?”  When are we and our elected officials going to look at the complete picture created by our individual choices and decisions?

That's never going to happen. Countries are going to look out for their own self-interests. Canada will develop and sell their oil, and China will buy it if we don't.

The problem with trying to stop Keystone is akin to the war on drugs. How well has it worked to attempt to cut off supply? It's just made drug dealers are lot wealthier. The tar sands oil is still getting to market. It is getting there by rail. Movement of oil by rail has gone from near zero to a million barrels a day in the past five years. That's more than the capacity of Keystone XL, and has made Warren Buffett an even richer man.

Further, it is more energy intensive and there is a far greater risk of an accident by rail versus pipeline. This is one of those situations where what seemed like a good idea to some -- stopping Keystone XL -- just makes matters worse. I know people rationalize that stopping Keystone would be great for the environment, but we have to stop and pay attention to what's actually happening.

RR

On The Facts About Canada’s Oil Sands and Climate Change

I am actually covering that in my newsletter this week. I can promise you they don't want to see the Keystone XL built.

RR

On The Facts About Canada’s Oil Sands and Climate Change

you offer no evidence that misinformation is being presented by McKibben or Hansen, suggesting instead that a distorted or otherwise exaggerated conclusions are drawn. Fair enough - but misinformation it is not.

I don't simply "suggest it", I quote them and then go on to show that these things are not true. Distorted information is misinformation. Exaggerated information is misinformation. Calling the oil sands the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb is flat wrong, plain and simple. In fact, the paper I linked shows the potential for coal to minimize the oil sands contribution into noise. So anyone listening to either of these guys on this is getting a picture of the situation that is false.

To assume that no new reserves of tar sands will be discovered and exploited before 2075 ignores every historical precedent.

This is why I showed the growth rate of the industry. If you presume the contribution is going to be greater on a faster time scale, you have to assume that Canada's oil industry grows at unprecedented rates for a long period of time.

Third, are you prepared to back up your tu quoque requirement that pipeline opponents must "stop using oil" before they're entitled to object to the dirtiest of extraction methods?

You and I both know that many of these opponents are simply opposed to oil. McKibben just said this weekend that we have no choice but to leave it in the ground. That's an easy position to take: Be against everything and you don't have to make any tough choices. But if you put McKibben in charge of the world's oil production, he would have to make some very difficult choices and would find himself approving certain projects. Right now, I would challenge you to point to any fossil fuel projects that he has supported. Yet without them over the next couple of decades, a lot of people would die.

What higher dirty energy prices would provide is a real incentive to reduce consumption, as well as make zero-carbon technologies like renewables and 3rd gen nuclear more competitive.

I am long on record as supporting higher energy prices, and if I got my way Keystone would be irrelevant. But stopping Keystone is unlikely to have much impact on prices. It might add a penny a gallon as the oil is transported by costlier (and more carbon-intensive) methods like rail and truck -- which is what is happening now. I think that's the real problem: Opponents have an unrealistic view of what happens if they get their way. It doesn't stop the oil sands; it more likely forces them into more carbon intensive ways of getting to market, and it makes it more likely that more of the oil ultimately ends up in China. After all, China is not buying Nexen to supply the U.S. with oil.

RR

On The Facts About Canada’s Oil Sands and Climate Change

There are a couple of extensions to the pipeline. One would go south from Cushing and does not require any sort of approval from the administration. The Keystone XL extension would just be a more economical outlet for both oil sands crude and crude from the Bakken. That is the one that requires approval since it crosses international borders.

RR

On Renewable Energy — Facts and Figures

From the perspective of a grid operator, or any other market participant, this is false statement of what (a) the "capacity factor" metric is used for, and (b) what metrics are used in grid reliability calculations; for example, when calculating continuous and post-contingency reserves.

I think it depends on how that is calculated. If your renewable energy has priority for getting fed into the grid, then the capacity factor is essentially capturing the percentage of the time it is available -- and thus will influence how much backup is needed. "Depends on" may have been the wrong way phrase it, but there it is true that the lower the capacity factor (the way most renewables are measured) the more backup that will be required.

How would you measure the backup needs of the grid?

I actually did spell that out in the book. Regardless of the capacity factor, if you have times that the renewable source is not available at all, then the backup needs to be whatever the grid requirement is at that time.

Tangentially: In your communications with BP regarding solar capacity...

I did get a response back from them. Here it is:

BP uses official data on power generation from wind and solar where it is available (e.g. from national statistics offices, power sector regulators, power system operators) – this covers roughly 75-80% of their wind and solar data. Where power generation data is not available, they estimate power output based on installed wind or solar capacity and assumed load factors.

On Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions — Facts and Figures

I'm not sure I buy your arguement that people in the US and other developed areas can't set an example that is helpful to undeveloped areas.

It is possible for individuals to do. No country has demonstrated that it is possible to do. We have an economy that is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Very poor people in India and China are going to gravitate to cheap and reliable energy. That is going to be coal for the most part. In fact, that has been the strong trend now for two decades. 

And remember, we aren't talking about a 50% cut in our fossil fuel consumption. China uses about 1/10th the oil (for instance) per capita that we use. So nobody is saying that we can't do with less. I am saying that there is no developed economy that uses fossil fuels at such low levels. We are nowhere close to being able to provide an example to those poor countries. We could cut by 50%, think we are doing great, and still be far beyond all of those developing countries. That is my point. It's like a fat person losing 20 pounds and thinking he is an example for a starving person.

RR

On How Much Oil is Left in the World?

I don't view it in the way you describe it for two reasons. First, the world is heavily dependent upon oil, but there is no adequate replacement. I believe this is a resource that will become more valuable as developing countries continue to emerge. This is why OPEC can remove product from the market to jack prices up. We have never been able to consistently withhold demand to lower price. :)

That leads to the second reason, which is that there will always be plenty of buyers ready to buy the product. Even when oil was averaging over $100/bbl, demand in developing countries continue to grow. I think that inevitably means that power will shift. Do you believe that it hasn't shifted over the past few years? Look at Russia and Europe with respect to natural gas.

RR

On How Much Oil is Left in the World?

The Canada reserves are more than what is in the Middle East.

No. The resource may be, but not the reserve. And shale oil has raised reserves, but in the Bakken for instance only 1-3% of that resource is currently classified as reserve because that's all we know how to currently extract economically. If oil prices fell to $50 or so for the next year, you would see reserves plummet as a lot of oil would not be economically viable.

RR

On The First Commercial Cellulosic Plant is NOT About to Open

I've pushed "solar biofuels" so now a company "SundropFuels" shows up. It actually arose from efforts to eliminate landfill waste decades ago.

I actually visited their headquarters in Colorado around 2008. They were just starting to emerge from stealth operations at that time.

RR

On E15's Problems Are Symptomatic of A Failing Biofuels Policy

The governors of Midwestern states could take these matters into their own hands. I spelled out how to do this in my book without increasing the overall tax burden. Just shift taxes from other areas -- property, sales, income -- into higher gasoline taxes while exempting ethanol. There are of course a lot of details that would have to be worked out, but I believe this is a feasible way for local governments to grow the market for their own products.

RR