Saturday, August 13, 2011

Thoughts on Methane


At a recent OOGA Trustees meeting I opined briefly about the natural geologic occurrence of methane and why we need to talk about it with friends outside our industry. The public knows it comes into their home through a pipe in the basement, from the utility company. We need to talk about Natural Gas (of which methane is the primary component) is our product product whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.

Methane is a naturally occurring byproduct of the decay of organic matter.


Where could we expect to find methane? Possible answers: around barnyards, at the dump, in the sewer...oh yes, and those wells scattered across the landscape.

Easy geology lesson. What is coal?. It is combustible black or brownish black sedimentary rock, comprised primarily of carbon. It is highly compressed organic matter (chock full of plant fossils as proof of its terrestrial organic genesis). So might we expect to find methane in, perhaps a coal mine? Yes (old rotten organic matter nets methane). How about in the soil and rock layers or aquifers surrounding a coal bed? Yes. Basically, in coal country (which a large portion of Ohio qualifies) where coal is “near” surface, should we expect to see methane in ground water? That is obvious.

Now what about shale? Virtually the entire state has shales at or near the surface. Shale is fine grained mix of clay particles and often contains organic matter. Shale’s blackness is the carbon derived from from the marine organic critters and plants that died and settled at the bottom of the vast deep sea. This is the reason shale and other related deep basin centered deposits are referred to as source rocks. Often, shales are the source of all the hydrocarbon in a basin. So again, would we expect to find gas in shale? Of course. How about in the aquifers in the proximity of shale (like the entire State of Ohio)? This too should be obvious.

Keeping these three things, the natural occurrances of methane, coal and shale when you are debating friends, family, store clerks, or whomever, and the discussion turns to “contamination” of water by methane, try to be the voice of reason. The presence of methane is simply proof of the working hydrocarbon system that has been here for hundreds of millions of years and that we have been developing for over 150 years.

Geochemical techniques to help guide exploration. Soil geochemistry, in simplest terms, works by measuring methane in the soil. If there is methane in the soil, it is most assuredly present in the aquifer. Often, wells are drilled on geochemical anomalies - in areas with high concentrations of methane in the soil (pre-drill). Higher concentrations of methane indicate a trapping mechanism is at work and that there is a deposit of natural gas at depth.

While the public may hear the soil and water is “contaminated” with methane, we should at every opportunity talk about what we know and what we do. We look for oil and natural gas in places we would EXPECT to find it... Methane in the soil or water isn’t the smoking gun of and spill, it is evidence of a working geologic hydrocarbon system.

Financial Peril for the Ohio Geologic Survey

Despite its many important roles for economic development in the state, Ohio Geological Survey still in financial peril.


The Ohio Geological Survey, established in 1837 and in continuous operation since 1900, is the statutory agency responsible for managing information relating to the natural resources of the State.

Despite the latest news touting one of those resources, the Utica Shale oil and gas play and the significant role it stands to play in Ohio’s economic recovery, the primary agency that supplies research and data to the public, regulators as well the oil and gas industry may soon face layoffs, and possibly extinction. The Ohio Geological Survey has been researching the Utica Shale for a number of years and created many of the maps and data helping us understand and characterize this potentially huge play. The Survey maintains historic data and provides it to the public as well as supporting research for Ohio’s regulatory agencies. Its geologists are well respected and are in high demand to speak at professional meetings across the nation, and is working in high gear to provide answers to inquiries from the general public, media, environmental groups, and other agencies.

Yet, because of the tight state budget, this quiet division of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources had it’s primary funding totally eliminated in July 2010 and has yet to receive any relief. It is existing mainly on federal and state research grants, many of which will end soon. This means the survey is increasingly unable to service the needs of the State, public, media, industry, et al., at a time when increasingly their services are needed, to frame public policy and understanding.

And is isn’t just science and research. An economic impact study conducted on the Survey was recently completed by Kleinhenz and Associates of Cleveland. This investigation reveals that this small agency has a big impact on the economy of the State. The analysis was based on 2010 costs and benefits (a peak year of the recession) and shows that the products, services and data provided by the Survey contributes an estimated $575 million to the Ohio economy annually – and this was before the current shale frenzy had gripped the state. The study also reveals:
  • Approximately 8,740 projects were undertaken utilizing items requested from the Ohio Geological Survey. Without these items, the projected average per-project replacement cost was $65,800.
  • Without Ohio Geological Survey maps and data, 17% of project costs would be needed to cover additional information gathering or research—totaling $1.5 billion per year.
  • For every $1 in state revenue it receives, the Ohio Geological Survey receives 80 cents in federal grant money, not unlike an exporter of goods—bringing funding into the state and expanding the Ohio economy. Should the agency lose its federal revenue, Ohio businesses would lose $2.5 million in sales, and Ohio payroll would be reduced by $1.6 million.
Oil and gas is not the only industry that benefits from the state geological survey. Its products and expertise are also employed by mining companies, the Ohio EPA, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), other divisions within the ODNR and governmental agencies, university researchers, K–12 educators, non-governmental organizations, realtors, and a cross section of environmental and geotechnical engineering consultants. Individual landowners, municipalities, townships, and counties all benefit from the geologic archives and mapping of this agency.

The Survey receives a small percentage of mineral severance taxes collected from the oil, gas, and mining industries (the bulk of this tax goes to regulate these industries). In fact, this is the primary remaining source of state funds to the agency, but it alone would only support a staff of about six, including all overhead. And, any increase in funding from severance taxes due to the expected boost in production from the shale plays will take up to two years to make it into their coffers. Plus, it will be 5-10 years before Ohio begins to see the full production results of the shale drilling that is just now starting.

In the view of many of the Ohio Geological Survey’s frequent users, it is the best example agency that should receive support from the general revenue fund (GRF) – because of its huge impact on economic development. Those funds come from all Ohioans and all Ohioans benefit greatly from a strong state geological survey. Understanding the geology under our feet helps us make better decisions about where and how to build roads, sewers, tunnels, shopping centers and homes as well as helping us find where the oil, gas, coal, limestone, sand and gravel are best located to build and power our society. This same agency and its archives of geologic records and samples are simply our best resource for information on where not to build to protect us from geologic hazards such as shore erosion, abandoned underground mines, landslides, and karst sinkholes. These archives are irreplaceable and invaluable.

Just ten years ago this proud agency had 50 employees and a GRF budget of $2.2 million. It is now down to 23 employees with zero GRF, but still valiantly trying to cover its legislative mandates AND provide increased public service in response to the shale plays. Unlike other government agencies, the geological survey does not regulate activities, build roads, operate parks, or take money to re-distribute it elsewhere, so it may not get noticed as much by the general public. The Ohio Geological Survey quietly supports, and in many cases is the primary information source for so much within our society.

Restore funding to the Ohio Geologic Survey, it is in the interest the State of Ohio, of public safety, of common sense.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

CO2 - Health - Education...

It strikes me a little amusing that politicos who last month piled on the Cap & Trade band wagon, knowing full well that the intent of the bill is to raise energy prices dramatically and quickly in order to help alternative energy be more competitive, under the guise of saving the world from global warming (or climate change or what ever they call it now), are now piling on the Universal Health Care initiative (or is it now called Health Care Reform? - I can't keep up), taking about and using cost-benefit issues to weigh it down. Where was cost-benefit in the Energy Bill? We think you should beware of those who want to "save the world" at "any/all cost".

Increasing the cost of energy here, in the US, will simply drive more widget manufacturing to other "friendly" countries (and won't reduce the offending pollution on a global scale). Destroying the powerhouse economies of the world on the other hand potentially will have a tremendous effect on global pollution, it will spread the pollution and wealth flat across the globe, to places outside of the
EPA's control. If we can't afford widgets (or food), well, the widget, jobs, and benefits will go away. But will the world will be a better place?

CO2... plants breath it, the earth exhales it, we use it to make pop fizzy, make cool smoke at concerts, keep ice cream and steaks cold when we ship them, and we emit it from planes, trains, automobiles, coal plants, factories, etc. Even still, unbelievably (which is why CO2 is such a powerful fund raising tool) at the end of the day, we are responsible for a very small proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. A total dead stop will have negligible effects on total atmospheric CO2. The simple truth is, we don't know. More research is definitely needed, to understand the earth model and to develop new technologies to be cleaner and more efficient.

Why are there no cost barriers for energy reform yet there are cost barriers to Universal Health Care, or Public Education?

Perhaps the only way to get people to properly value their way of life and conveniences (energy, environment, health, education) is to start taking it away. Is that what is going on today? It sure feels like it...

We really don't understand why it is palatable to the American public to intentionally more than quadruple the cost of energy, but bicker over nickles and dimes at the School Board...

Socialism is a very nice ideal, it is easy to get lulled into it's beauty and whisperings. A successful democracy should lean on socialist values as affordable. Goverment should not exist to raise money (which is all Cap & Trade actually does), it exists to create an environment where as individuals we can prosper, as living beings.

We can ALL do better, and likely have more impact on our energy use, environment, health, education than allowing the taxing authority to make those decisions for us. We have a personal responsibility to respect the earth and its resources, our environment, and our money.

The solution is indeed in the mirror. We continue to try improve our lives and impact, how about you?


Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Energy and Taxes


America needs American energy.

Natural gas and oil provide 65 percent of America's energy needs.

When the sun doesn’t shine, and the wind isn’t blowing, natural gas keeps the lights on.

American natural gas provides roughly 85 percent of America's natural gas needs; most of the rest comes from Canada.

Oil is a different story; America only provides 35 percent of US needs - but the more it can provide, the less Americans must pay for oil from foreign nations (foreign economies).

Independent producers, that’s us, and thousands of other small family and locally owned business, are hard working Americans, striving to farm home grown energy. Independents are essential to providing American natural gas and oil. These independents develop 90 percent of American wells, produce 82 percent of American natural gas and produce 68 percent of American oil.

Over the past several years independents have been reinvesting 150 percent of US cash flow back into new US production. Independents get their capital three ways - from selling their natural gas and oil, from obtaining credit and from investors willing to invest capital in high risk ventures.

The dramatic swings in prices of natural gas and oil are challenges that the independents recognize and respond to, like any good business they adapt and overcome. Projects that were economic ventures at $10 are in a holding pattern at $5. The credit crunch obviously limits access to capital. Investors are cautious, banks are even more cautious. This reality is already constricting activity (and available supply). The Obama Administration's signals to the energy industry are scary. They cut into the core of a uniquely American industry that has been serving the nation since the 1880’s.

The Obama Administration tax proposals will radically shift investment incentives for development of American natural gas and oil - changing policies that have been in place since 1913 in some cases. Let's be clear - it will mean less American natural gas and oil, it will mean more quality job losses and it will result in increased costs for basic public utilities, for everyone.

These results run counter to the Obama Administration's own agenda of cleaner energy and less foreign oil dependency. The proposed changes are unjustified to energy tax policy and we oppose them vehemently. We STILL need to develop rational national energy strategies - strategies that rely on American energy first, including American natural gas and American oil.

Over our careers here, our discoveries, principally in Ohio, are 80% natural gas and 20% oil. Energy produced through the hard work of Ohioans in support industries too numerous to note here, from Ohio farms and lands, sold in Ohio, and in most cases consumed in Ohio. Ohio is experiencing a steady decline in production in recent years, and so for Ohioans, the financial burdens will be particularly costly, funding for new wells will be more scarce, production declines will accelerate as fewer wells are drilled to replace depleting reserves. Ohioans will be forced to purchase more and more energy resources from other states and other markets, with an assuredly increased cost.

The wrong policy shift, at the wrong time, and bad for Ohio.

Ohio needs Ohio’s energy.

ExxonMobil does not drill or operate wells in Ohio, Ohioans do. The Ohio oil and gas industry is driven by small, locally and family owned independent businesses, not Big Oil. Please help your friends and colleagues understand this clearly, demand that our representatives explain to us what the realized cost of the loss of jobs, activity, and home grown Ohio energy will mean to us, and why it is a sacrifice worth making at this time when the American economy needs plentiful energy to help claw back to relevancy.

Conservation is at the foundation of the energy business - it simply is. Conservation is also an obvious component to the solution of the energy problem. The natural gas and oil industry is a quintessential American industry, as American as apple pie and baseball. Small family and locally owned businesses, in your communities, your neighbors. Unfortunately, carpet bombing an ultimate American industry, which will affect the American way of life in a plethora of ways, to follow the idealistic idea that it will save the world, is simply wrong.

For more information on the plight and perspectives of the American Independent, visit www.ipaa.org.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

State Resources

Would you believe the State of Ohio doesn't know and can't tell you who many acres we own, or even where it all is? Neither can they tell you specifically what minerals interests that we own.

This isn't really that strange or uncommon in fact. Often fractional property interests are conveyed and through time is widely distributed in tiny pieces.

Furthermore, each state agency who owns property, basically manages that property itself. All the property, that means their mineral interests as well. Certainly the Department of Transportation can assess and evaluate it's own mineral estate interests, right? And I am a doctor, let me write you a prescription. If you had an expert in the family you would ask, right? How often do you think the the Ohio Division of Geological Survey is asked about mineral resources from other state agencies? The Survey is home to the experts within state government and they are rarely, if ever consulted, on mineral (geologic) resources.

Nor can they tell you the total value of the property they are managing (particularly the mineral estate). And by value, we mean tangible value to the citizens of Ohio. A value that considers all potential revenue generating resources. This is not to say just because we know the value of something that we are somehow obligated to exploit it. It is like your home, you kind of like to know its value, so you know how much equity you have in it. Whether you chose to access that equity, well, that is a separate and distinct question.

What we are really talking about here is oil and natural gas, although the same applies to any potential resource (coal, peat, limestone, gravel, etc.). With respect to these mineral interests we don't know what the value is, and state government are not the people to make those assessments. Reserve analysis can be excruciatingly simple, or excruciatingly complex (the product price has a huge impact on reserves - what will prices be in five years? Who knows?).

We applaud Ohio lawmakers for beginning to recognize that they are responsible for the management of the resources of the state. While the serenity and beauty of our natural areas, parks, preserves, lakes, etc seems boundless, we should temper a protective attitude with some reality. These areas have been farmed, timbered, dumped on, used, and abused since the colonization and industrialization of Ohio, so as beautiful as they are, pristine they are not. These areas are covered with trails, access roads, nature centers, cabins, and hotels, all of which have a significant and lasting footprint on the parks, not to mention the pollutants generated by the operations of the parks so that Ohio's can drive to and in, to hunt, fish, hike, and play (with smog spewing cars, boats, 4-wheelers, snowmobiles, etc).

We suggest that the oil, gas, and mineral interests of the parks, owned by the citizens of the state of Ohio, are also resources, potentially valuable resources. We believe the regulatory agencies in place can effectively manage wells on state lands as they manage the currently 50,000 producing wells that exist here today. The real risks are minimal, and the payoff enormous.

The economic impact of the energy extraction activities in the state is real and significant. Opening state lands and waters to development will create a significant economic impact, in jobs, in royalty revenue, all to produce a energy resource produced here, and used here, that reduce costly imports for the citizens of Ohio.

The states of Michigan and Pennsylvania have an excellent nomination system, by which parties who are qualified to assess value and are ready to assume the risk nominate properties that they are interested in. Once or twice a year the state holds an auction, for nominated properties which meet some criteria, and for which a minimum bid is established and we see what the market bares.

Don't believe the naysayers, the State lands contain significant energy resources, which like any other resource, should be managed. Make state lands, parks, natural areas, fee properties in any agency, available for reasonable resource development. It makes sense that these resource be managed by a central agency. Ohio needs Ohio’s energy, and we need, more than ever, every job we can keep or create here and every dollar we can save and keep within Ohio.

US Forest Service and Solar Panels, what would you do?

We are proponents of wind, solar, and other alternative energy generation and capture methods to supplement conventional sources. America needs to cultivate a diverse portfolio of energy supplies, for national security and the recovery and maintenance of our economy. America is now feeling the sting of decades of funding cuts to basic research and technology development. America's current reality is that there are few alternative energy options that are technologically and economically viable, and we have to take issue with bad math to support unrefined technology to justify decisions, particularly spending public dollars.

The news release from the US Forest Service is woefully devoid of information (http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wayne/press_releases/contract_awarded_solarpanels.html), here it is:

"Nelsonville, Ohio (March 13, 2009) – The U.S. Forest Service has awarded a $398,000 contract to the Ohio-based D.J. Group from Beverly, Ohio. The contractor, a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business is being hired to purchase and install more than 250 additional solar panels to the roof top of the Wayne National Forest Headquarters building, bringing the total to over 300 solar panels.The funding for the contract is coming from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It’s estimated four jobs will be created by the Wayne National Forest six-month project that gives business to Ohio’s growing solar industry. The Wayne began its Solar Energy Program in 2007, by installing a 20-panel solar system. Last year, the Forest added 30 more panels to bring the total to 50. The current system is generating 7% of the facilities energy needs. Once the new expansion is completed later this summer, up to fifty-percent of the Wayne National Forest headquarters building will be powered by the sun."

Past references in the news to this project have included little additional information, until this morning.

The Columbus Dispatch published and article in the Business Section called "Solar Power Bolts Forward" (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2009/03/31/moresolar.ART_ART_03-31-09_C10_MFDDBNP.html) which included some additional and interesting information.

The US Forest Service is outfitting a building with solar panels for $398,000 that will reduce the annual electric bill by (up to) half. The article states that the past twelve month's electric bill was $31,000. It also states that the project will pay for itself in 10 to 15 years.

That can't possibly be so.

Simply using last year's expense, and the quoted forecast, basic math show us that "payout" is between 25 and 40 years. The only way to make this expense payout somewhere within the reasonably lifespan of the solar panels, is to dramatically increase the cost of electricity, and soon. Here in Ohio, electricity means coal. About 90% of our electricity comes from coal (by the way, Ohio is one of the nations leading consumers of electricity).

Lets look at this. The total annual bill is $31,000. We don't know how much electricity that is, but using the Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.doe.gov/) data in Ohio electricity costs about ten cents per Kilowatt hour, we can estimate that the US Forest Service Wayne National Forest Headquarters uses about 310,000 Kilowatt hours of electricity per year. For a point of reference, the best solar panel generated electricity runs around fifty cents per Kilowatt hour. Ohio is not Arizona or Hawaii, unfortunately we have clouds from time to time...

It will take about 126 tons of coal (one ton of coal will generate 2,460 Kilowatt hours) to generate the power for the HQ. Now coal costs about $30 per ton, so that is $3,780 worth of raw fuel to provide $31,000 of electricity for the HQ.

The DOE says coal fired power plants release two pounds of CO2 per Kilowatt hour. HQ currently is responsible for 620,000 pounds of CO2 "pollution", 310 tons.

We have two issues here. A financial problem, and an environmental pollution problem.

Financials. The US Forest Service says their $398,000 expenditure will payout in 10-15 years. Let's use their disclosed electric cost for lack of actual data. $31,000, and let's assume they can cut that in half with the solar panels, $15,500 per year. We are not going to considering time/value of money or future price fluctuations for electricity, we simple divide - 398,000/15,500 = ~25 years. We can tweak the financial model, but we doubt we can tweak it to get a 10 year payout. That would require, again ignoring the value of money, annual maintenance and replacement costs, and the balance of the electric bill which (at least half) , their annual electric bill would need to soar from $31,000 per year to nearly $80,000 per year, right away, and for the next ten years (forget about any maintenance service costs) to get an annual electric bill of $39,800 "saved" for ten years!

On the CO2 "pollution" side of the equation. They currently are responsible for spewing 310 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year. Again we are halvsies, so the solar panels will replace 155 tons of CO2 emissions. Did you know that you (or they) could buy offsetting CO2 credits for between $2 and $15 per ton? So for no more than $2,325 per year they can offset the CO2.

We suggest putting the $398,000 in a savings account and using the interest to offset the CO2 and the account will never run out, EVER, in fact it will probably GROW.

Why is almost a half a million dollars being spent on this project? 2 net jobs for the year? Another future property maintenance liability? In the most basic sense there is no justification, financial or environmental (for this site specific case).

We propose that America's efforts are better spent practicing conservation (reduce consumption!), to ramp up research funding, and work diligently to keep the flow of affordable energy moving so that we can climb out of this economic hole stronger than before.

Increasing the cost of energy to make stale technology viable is wasteful, and bad policy, and at this strained economic time, a potential death knell for our high quality of life.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Survival of Print Media

I am a consumer, not a reporter or publisher. I only know the print media business as a consumer. For this discussion I am talking about newspapers. Here is are a couple of thoughts or observations regarding the demise of print media.

I don't think it will happen.

I think the business of print media is in for some challenges as it tries to evolve and recapture market share from other sources. What do I mean? These comments are not based on data, just perceptions - which I don't like to do generally, but in this instance a dose of common sense is in order.

The realm of newspaper has been constricting for quite some time. Columbus used to have multiple papers, with morning and evening editions. We (like many other major markets) now have one. Which in itself should worry us as consumers, but for the moment, I am going to let that lie.

If the Dispatch is to survive, it needs to make sure it is reaching the consumer. What do I mean? For the last week, our carrier has delivered the paper to the house about the time I am leaving for work.

I am a creature of habit, and I am up early in the morning, and a good, normal, quality day for me starts off with a cup of coffee and the Dispatch. I will read it cover to cover, if it is on my doorstep. I really like reading words on paper. I am sure there is psychological research out there to support me on this. The printed word is just different from a monitor. I have a Kindle, and I read books on it. I love my Kindle, and the ability to carry the Bible, the Koran, War and Peace, How to Coach Youth Basketball, ad nausea, at my fingertips. It is just a different reading experience. I don't 'feel' the characters the same way, I don't remember the content the same way. It is different - and that is one reason print media will never go away.

We are trying to be a paper free office too, what a joke, you should see this place!

Anyway, if the Dispatch isn't on my doorstep when I get up in the morning, my whole day is kind of thrown off kilter. Yes, I get more laundry done, I read National Geographic an extra couple times, all good stuff. But I will my news from some other source during the day, and not from the Dispatch. Your advertisers are going to catch on to this. They are paying you because I read the paper, not simply for you to deliver it at an inconvenient time for me (because in that case, I won't even take the rubber band off).

The Wall Street Journal is delivered, wireless, to my Kindle every morning. So when the Dispatch is tardy, I read the WSJ in the morning. Normally I scan the WSJ headline online during breaks and lunch at work. I get the printed WSJ delivered to the office also (it is never late) - but 'donate' it to the barber shop across the street.

I don't think I am unique. Most consumers of print media are educated, connected people. If they are not getting their paper in the morning , they will get their news from other sources. We don't read the Dispatch to get their indispensable perspective on the news, we read it because it is out morning paper. I think the Dispatch has some outstanding writers and photographers, but realistically am I seeking them out specifically? No, not usually.

Newspapers have to fix this delivery issue (maybe though it is just our route, I don't know). Perhaps it is an earlier deadline for stories, perhaps it is better, more reliable and faster printing presses, perhaps it is making sure the delivery people understand the importance of their role in the survival of the Dispatch (or other newspapers).

UPDATE: Great action and attention from the Distribution team at the Dispatch, the paper delivery issues have been eliminated at our house, the habitually late paper is now delivered on-time, hanging on to at least one loyal print subscriber!

Friday, October 10, 2008

Natural Gas Powered Vehicles

Natural gas powered vehicles (NGV) - why aren't there more on the road?

**Natural gas, an inherently clean-burning fuel, produces 75 percent fewer smog forming pollutants (oxides of nitrogen) compared to the output of a conventional gasoline engine.

**The gasoline gallon equivalent of natural gas costs an average of one-third less than gasoline.

**While NGV filling stations are limited in the US, half of US homes have access to natural gas. NGVs can safely be fueled at home via a compressor that is plumbed into your house gas line. Most personal vehicles in the U.S. have a majority of their annual mileage within a 100 mile radius of the home - allowing home refueling to be a reasonable option.

**98% of natural gas in the US is produced domestically.

**Natural gas is plentiful in the US and reserves are growing

Most major automakers offered production NGVs in the 1990s, primarily for government and corporate fleets. Today, the only production model NGV available in the U.S. is the Honda Civic GX which is assembled in East Liberty, OH. Of the approximately 300,000 Honda Civics sold in the US annually, about 1,000 are the GX or natural gas version of this model. Most are sold as government fleet cars available nationwide, and a handful of them are sold to consumers at select Honda dealers - but only in NY and CA. The 2008 Honda Civic GX achieves an EPA-estimated city/highway fuel economy of 24/36 miles per gasoline-gallon equivalent and a fuel tank with an 8.0 gasoline gallon equivalent capacity at 3600 psi provides a range of approximately 200 to 225 miles.

The Honda Civic GX is often described as the "cleanest internal combustion engine on the planet" and is the only vehicle certified by the EPA to meet both Federal Tier 2-Bin 2 and Inherently Low Emission Vehicle (ILEV) zero evaporative emission certification standards.

If we're really serious about reducing emissions in the U.S. - NGVs need to be part of the solution - and the technology and infrastructure are in place now to satisfy the majority of personal transportation needs in this country.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Global Warming? Climate Change? How about Earth Science!

Does Earth's climate change? Of course. Often.

We are geoscientists, we know from the geologic record that environmental conditions change, this is absolutely true.

In central Ohio in fact, something like 10,000 years ago there was a mile and a half of glacial ice sitting on the ground. Does 10,000 years sound like a long time to you? It isn't. When you visit the Bahamas does it occur to you that it is strange that the rocks that make up the island are corals? If you look close enough you will see even the same species as you can see living in the reefs 100 yards offshore! How did the coral reef get up there on the land? It grew there my friend, in place, when the ocean level was higher than it is today. In fact, in the geologic record one can identify a plethora of indicators of the climate changing. It has happened before, it will happen again.

Scientific research within the geosciences will continue to help us understand the mechanics and underlying causes of the observed changes. It is important that science be kept sacred. Scientific study is a continuum effort that add to our knowledge base. It suffers immensely by fits and starts of funding as well as socially driven research whims (ie global warming).

The alarmists would like you to believe that the crisis called global warming (although they are no trying to supplant that term with "climate change") is something we can do something about (remember the bumper sticker "stop continental drift"?). As if we can control mother earth. Our recent friend Hurricane Ike should make us consider this.

Are we causing climate change? Is anthropomorphic carbon dioxide to blame

I have many very smart colleagues who believe we are.

I have many very smart colleagues who believe we are not.

Quite frankly, we are skeptical, but we are also not researching and studying the question either, so we don't THINK it is, and that is an opinion, subject to change.

Science will, eventually, sort it out (much like the goofy theory of continental drift).

We support advancing and escalated funding for geoscience research.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Policy, Science, and Politics

Thinking of opening the US coastal waters for drilling?

Less than six months ago, the House was continuing to root out government expenditures that supposedly were oil stained and purportedly subsidies to "Big Oil". Talk about knee jerk reactions. Obviously the House has a very poor understanding of science.

Science is not always about telescoping results, science isn't always sexy and headline grabbing, science doesn't always appear relevant. Most science is grueling, boring, ceaseless, (ad nausea). Fortunately, a brilliant segment of society thrives on the quest, and provides for the maintenance and growth of a growing foundation of science by which society can build itself.

Here are two examples I have learned about over the last six months or so.

Last year the US Department of Energy had to freeze some programs because the Federal Budget was not being approved, and the President's budget request of course left certain line items zeroed out (so that Congress would have to put them back - a silly budget game played every year). The DOE Office of Science effectually had to issue stop orders to to over 200 graduate students at 19 Universities. Now, these graduate students of course were relying on that funding to, well, go to school and be trained. These dollars were not going to Big Oil, they were going to a graduate student, doing basic scientific research, working toward an advanced degree. This within months of approval of the America Competes Act which recognized the severe shortage of graduate students in the sciences, and recommended massive shift of funds to help build the future workforce (for private industry, regulatory agencies, government science laboratories, and policy advisers). Ridiculous. Hurtful to the students, the universities, and our country.

Another simple example. Stream gauges. What is a stream gauge? It is a simple device that measures the amount of water flowing in a stream or river over time. Useful in many scientific analysis from basin water analysis, rainfall, flood planning, etc. The USGS with other agency partners has been maintaining and monitoring stream gauges throughout the country for decades. Recently, scientists trying to find basic data to help characterize and predict patterns in our climate (global warming, climate change, um-geologic processes) were excited to find such complete time series data (ie regular, consistent measurements through time). Now comes budget tightening, and funding slipping away from the agencies monitoring the gauges. We will loose a valuable resource if the gauges stop being monitored or maintained. Even if funding is restored in the future, there will always be a gap - and as in Murphy's Law - something will happen in that gap, and no data will be available to help us understand what it was.

Science is a process, a delicate process that is absolutely destroyed by irregular, neurotic and inconsistent support. We advocate solid stepped increased funding for geoscience throughout the funding agencies (NSF, DOE, USGS, NOAA, etc).

Monday, August 18, 2008

Conservation

We appreciate the access to cheap energy we enjoy, gas stations on every corner, natural gas electricity, (and water) plumbed to every home, it is certainly easy here in the US to be a resource consumer. We believe in a market economy, that consumers will make better choices with better knowledge and appreciation of the real cost (and value) of the resources used.

We believe that "better choices" are intertwined with conservation. We believe that as consumers we are not educated enough in the value (and cost) of energy.

The hydrocarbon molecule is an extremely power packed, the economy of the world is powered by it, and a global change to that truth will take many decades of investment in research and development as well as behavioral change. These changes can/will occur as a result of (or should to occur in spite of) economic pressures.

We need to continue to explore, but we also need to continue to be more efficient. Energy independence is a lofty and unrealistic goal. Reducing our reliance on alien sources of energy is a far more realistic goal, for our national and economic security. We believe the barrel of oil we do not use today is the cheapest "discovered" reserves that there are.

The danger in developing or encouraging or providing cheap resources is that they are not valued (ie, if the price of gasoline was $1 per gallon, our useage would not have decreased this year....). We argue for more efficient use of cheap energy.

Conservation just isn't popular, but it is a big key item. Conservation doesn't raise much money (save the earth) and doesn't have a bad guy (big oil), because conservation is something we each, as individuals must commit to. Look in the mirror to find blame, there is plenty to go around.

A common topic in this blog will be about our use of resources, and ideas to moderate that use, from our lives, from our observations, in our world.