So does this mean they have spare capacity - And if they do, why haven't they brought it to the market to reduce the price?

I am skeptical that there is "no lack of capacity" - I would have thought at current prices all nations would bringing as much to the market as they can sell?

OPEC's Oil Expansion Plans May Be Delayed Due to `Rig Shortage'
May 15 (Bloomberg) -- Oil expansion plans by members of OPEC, which pumps 40 percent of the world's oil, may be delayed because of a shortage of drilling rigs, Qatar's energy minister said.

``We see that there are big shortages in rig providers because of the huge demand, so these logistical problems are delaying some projects,'' Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah said in an interview in the Jordanian capital Amman, where ministers from the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries are meeting.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has kept its official quotas unchanged at 28 million barrels a day for 10 months as some members including Saudi Arabia pump more than their allotment to make up for members such as Venezuela and Nigeria, which aren't meeting their share.

The group's next policy-setting meeting is on June 1 in Caracas.

Qatar's oil minister said prices around $70 a barrel may slow global economic growth and demand for crude oil.

The International Energy Agency last week lowered its estimate for crude demand by 200,000 barrels a day to 84.83 million barrels a day, reducing this year's growth to 1.5 percent.

Al-Attiyah said that oil producers are already over-supplying the market, with as much as 2 million barrels a day ``floating'' around in search of a home.

double speak ?

I would like to know where 2 million barrels a day are floating around. If this goes on since a month, there are 60 million barrels floating around ? Anyone who saw some these days ?

P.S thanks to RR for explaining argonne acounting rules. I can now tell my wife she shouldn't feel cold when its 20°C at home because 68°(F) is >> 20° :-).

Oil tumbles. Gold, silver fall too
$2 slide follows comments that high prices could hurt economic growth and demand. Precious metals also dive.

May 15, 2006: 11:00 AM EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil fell towards $70 a barrel, gold dropped almost 4 percent and copper plunged on Monday as investors feared a rally that has taken many commodities to or near record highs may slow economic growth.

U.S. crude dropped three percent after reports signaled last week that energy costs were hitting global fuel demand and consumer confidence. Greece's finance minister said on Monday that oil is as a downside risk to "strong" global growth.

"Everybody has got a bit jumpy," said Mark Mathias, managing director of Dawnay Day Quantum hedge fund. "We've seen very sharp rises over the last couple of months on equities and commodities, so it's no surprise it's being marked down a bit."

Oil prices are however unlikely to fall too far and may go even higher in future, investors say.

Supply losses in Nigeria, Africa's largest oil exporter, and concern that the standoff between Iran and the West over Tehran's nuclear work could cut exports from the OPEC member have supported oil prices this year.

"The fundamentals are still for the price to go up," Dawnay Day Quantum's Mathias said. "If it drops much below $70 it's a good buying opportunity.

"We're still looking at $100 oil in a couple of years time, because there just isn't enough oil to go around."

RR

The key things to look at are the SSTs in the Caribbean and the tropical Atlantic between Africa and the Antilles Islands, since this is where 85% of all major hurricanes form. While SSTs are .5 to 1.5 degrees above normal--which is a lot!--SSTs are a full degree Centigrade cooler this year than last year at this time. This reduction in SSTs should keep this year's hurricane season from producing early major hurricanes, like Dennis and Emily of July 2005. However, once we enter the prime hurricane months of August through October, expect another above normal year for hurricanes and intense hurricanes.

My worst-case scenario for 2006 is a year similar to 2004, which was awful, but modest compared to 2005.

Regardless, I think history has shown that this will not prevent us from diving in with both feet, exacerbating an already alarming trend. If the public showed the same kind of outrage over global warming that they show toward high gas prices, then Peak Oil would get top billing on my worry list.

RR

The original article is found here: Climate Change and Peak Oil

As more evidence comes out daily of the ties between the leaders of petroleum producing countries and terrorists (not to mention the human rights abuses in their own countries), the incentive for finding an alternative to petroleum rises higher and higher.

The environmental problems of petroleum have finally been surpassed by the strategic weakness of being dependent on a fuel that can only be purchased from tyrants. The economic strain on our country resulting from the $100-150 billion we spend every year buying oil from other nations, combined with the occasional need to use military might to protect and secure oil reserves our economy depends on just makes matters worse (and using military might for that purpose just adds to the anti-American sentiment that gives rise to terrorism). Clearly, developing alternatives to oil should be one of our nation's highest priorities.

In the United States, oil is primarily used for transportation - roughly two-thirds of all oil use, in fact. So, developing an alternative means of powering our cars, trucks, and buses would go a long way towards weaning us, and the world, off of oil. While the so-called "hydrogen economy" receives a lot of attention in the media, there are several very serious problems with using hydrogen as an automotive fuel. For automobiles, the best alternative at present is clearly biodiesel, a fuel that can be used in existing diesel engines with no changes, and is made from vegetable oils or animal fats rather than petroleum.

In this paper, I will first examine the possibilities of producing biodiesel on the scale necessary to replace all petroleum transportation fuels in the U.S.

I. How much biodiesel?

First, we need to understand exactly how much biodiesel would be needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels. So, we need to start with how much petroleum is currently used for that purpose. Per the Department of Energy's statistics, each year the US consumes roughly 60 billion gallons of petroleum diesel and 120 billion gallons of gasoline. First, we need to realize that spark-ignition engines that run on gasoline are generally about 40% less efficient than diesel engines. So, if all spark-ignition engines are gradually replaced with compression-ignition (Diesel) engines for running biodiesel, we wouldn't need 120 billion gallons of biodiesel to replace that 120 billion gallons of gasoline. To be conservative, we will assume that the average gasoline engine is 35% less efficient, so we'd need 35% less diesel fuel to replace that gasoline. That would work out to 78 billion gallons of diesel fuel. Combine that with the 60 billion gallons of diesel already used, for a total of 138 billion gallons. Now, biodiesel is about 5-8% less energy dense than petroleum diesel, but its greater lubricity and more complete combustion offset that somewhat, leading to an overall fuel efficiency about 2% less than petroleum diesel. So, we'd need about 2% more than that 138 billion gallons, or 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel. So, this figure is based on vehicles equivalent to those in use today, but with compression-ignition (Diesel) engines running on biodiesel, rather than a mix of petroleum diesel and gasoline. Combined diesel-electric hybrids in wide use, as well as fewer people driving large SUVs when they don't need such a vehicle would of course bring this number down considerably, but for now we'll just stick with this figure. (note - my point here is not to claim that conservation is not worthwhile, rather to strictly look at the issue of replacing our current use of fuel with biodiesel - to see how achievable that is). I would like to point out though that a preferable scenario would include a shift to diesel-electric hybrid vehicles (preferably with the ability to be recharged and drive purely on electric power for a short range, perhaps 20-40 miles, to provide the option of zero emissions for in-city driving), and with far fewer people buying 6-8,000 pound SUVs merely to commute to work in by themselves. Those changes could drastically reduce the amount of fuel required for our automotive transportation, and are technologically feasibly currently (see for example Chrysler's Dodge Intrepid ESX3, built under Clinton's PNGV program - a full-size diesel electric hybrid sedan that averaged 72 mpg in mixed driving 6, 7).

One of the biggest advantages of biodiesel compared to many other alternative transportation fuels is that it can be used in existing diesel engines without modification, and can be blended in at any ratio with petroleum diesel. This completely eliminates the "chicken-and-egg" dilemma that other alternatives have, such as hydrogen powered fuel cells. For hydrogen vehicles, even when (and if) vehicle manufacturers eventually have production stage vehicles ready (which currently cost around $1 million each to make), nobody would buy them unless there was already a wide scale hydrogen fuel production and distribution system in place. But, no companies would be interested in building that wide scale hydrogen fuel production and distribution system until a significant number of fuel cell vehicles are on the road, so that consumers are ready to start using it. With a single hydrogen fuel pump costing roughly $1 million, installing just one at each of the 176,000 fuel stations across the US would cost $176 billion - a cost that can be completely avoided with liquid biofuels that can use our current infrastructure.

With biodiesel, since the same engines can run on conventional petroleum diesel, manufacturers can comfortably produce diesel vehicles before biodiesel is available on a wide scale - as some manufacturers already are (the same can be said for flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on ethanol, gasoline, or any blend of the two). As biodiesel production continues to ramp up, it can go into the same fuel distribution infrastructure, just replacing petroleum diesel either wholly (as B100, or 100% biodiesel), or blended in with diesel. Not only does this eliminate the chicken-and-egg problem, making biodiesel a much more feasible alternative than hydrogen, but also eliminates the huge cost of revamping the nationwide fuel distribution infrastructure.

II. Large scale production

There are two steps that would need to be taken for producing biodiesel on a large scale - growing the feedstocks, and processing them into biodiesel. The main issue that is often contested is whether or not we would be able to grow enough crops to provide the vegetable oil (feedstock) for producing the amount of biodiesel that would be required to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel. So, that is the main issue that will be addressed here. The point of this article is not to argue that this approach is the only one that makes sense, or that we should ignore other options (there are some other very appealing options as well, and realistically it makes more sense for a combination of options to be used). Rather, the point is merely to look at one option for producing biodiesel, and see if it would be capable of meeting our needs.

One of the important concerns about wide-scale development of biodiesel is if it would displace croplands currently used for food crops. In the US, roughly 450 million acres of land is used for growing crops, with the majority of that actually being used for producing animal feed for the meat industry. Another 580 million acres is used for grassland pasture and range, according to the USDA's Economic Research Service. This accounts for nearly half of the 2.3 billion acres within the US (only 3% of which, or 66 million acres, is categorized as urban land). For any biofuel to succeed at replacing a large quantity of petroleum, the yield of fuel per acre needs to be as high as possible. At heart, biofuels are a form of solar energy, as plants use photosynthesis to convert solar energy into chemical energy stored in the form of oils, carbohydrates, proteins, etc.. The more efficient a particular plant is at converting that solar energy into chemical energy, the better it is from a biofuels perspective. Among the most photosynthetically efficient plants are various types of algaes.

The Office of Fuels Development, a division of the Department of Energy, funded a program from 1978 through 1996 under the National Renewable Energy Laboratory known as the "Aquatic Species Program". The focus of this program was to investigate high-oil algaes that could be grown specifically for the purpose of wide scale biodiesel production1. The research began as a project looking into using quick-growing algae to sequester carbon in CO2 emissions from coal power plants. Noticing that some algae have very high oil content, the project shifted its focus to growing algae for another purpose - producing biodiesel. Some species of algae are ideally suited to biodiesel production due to their high oil content (some well over 50% oil), and extremely fast growth rates. From the results of the Aquatic Species Program2, algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel in the US (as well as its other main use - home heating oil) - but we first have to solve a few of the problems they encountered along the way.

NREL's research focused on the development of algae farms in desert regions, using shallow saltwater pools for growing the algae. Using saltwater eliminates the need for desalination, but could lead to problems as far as salt build-up in bonds. Building the ponds in deserts also leads to problems of high evaporation rates. There are solutions to these problems, but for the purpose of this paper, we will focus instead on the potential such ponds can promise, ignoring for the moment the methods of addressing the solvable challenges remaining when the Aquatic Species Program at NREL ended.

NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals.

The algae farms would not all need to be built in the same location, of course (and should not for a variety of reasons). The case mentioned above of building it all in the Sonora desert is purely a hypothetical example to illustrate the amount of land required. It would be preferable to spread the algae production around the country, to lessen the cost and energy used in transporting the feedstocks. Algae farms could also be constructed to use waste streams (either human waste or animal waste from animal farms) as a food source, which would provide a beautiful way of spreading algae production around the country. Nutrients can also be extracted from the algae for the production of a fertilizer high in nitrogen and phosphorous. By using waste streams (agricultural, farm animal waste, and human sewage) as the nutrient source, these farms essentially also provide a means of recycling nutrients from fertilizer to food to waste and back to fertilizer. Extracting the nutrients from algae provides a far safer and cleaner method of doing this than spreading manure or wastewater treatment plant "bio-solids" on farmland.

These projected yields of course depend on a variety of factors, sunlight levels in particular. The yield in North Dakota, for example, wouldn't be as good as the yield in California. Spreading the algae production around the country would result in more land being required than the projected 9.5 million acres, but the benefits from distributed production would outweigh the larger land requirement.

III. Cost

In "The Controlled Eutrophication process: Using Microalgae for CO2 Utilization and Agircultural Fertilizer Recycling"3, the authors estimated a cost per hectare of $40,000 for algal ponds. In their model, the algal ponds would be built around the Salton Sea (in the Sonora desert) feeding off of the agircultural waste streams that normally pollute the Salton Sea with over 10,000 tons of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers each year. The estimate is based on fairly large ponds, 8 hectares in size each. To be conservative (since their estimate is fairly optimistic), we'll arbitrarily increase the cost per hectare by 100% as a margin of safety. That brings the cost per hectare to $80,000. Ponds equivalent to their design could be built around the country, using wastewater streams (human, animal, and agricultural) as feed sources. We found that at NREL's yield rates, 15,000 square miles (3.85 million hectares) of algae ponds would be needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels with biodiesel. At the cost of $80,000 per hectare, that would work out to roughly $308 billion to build the farms.

The operating costs (including power consumption, labor, chemicals, and fixed capital costs (taxes, maintenance, insurance, depreciation, and return on investment) worked out to $12,000 per hectare. That would equate to $46.2 billion per year for all the algae farms, to yield all the oil feedstock necessary for the entire country. Compare that to the $100-150 billion the US spends each year just on purchasing crude oil from foreign countries, with all of that money leaving the US economy.

These costs are based on the design used by NREL - the simple open-top raceway pond. Various approaches being examined by the research groups focusing on algae biodiesel range from being the same general system, to far more complicated systems. As a result, this cost analysis is very much just a general approximation. Some systems could be considerably more expensive, but could also see considerably higher yields, resulting in less land being required. How exactly the economics play out will hopefully be decided over the next few years as some of these groups research algal biodiesel bring their systems to commercialization status.

IV. Other issues

To make biodiesel, you need not only the vegetable oil, but an alcohol as well (either ethanol or methanol). The alcohol only constitutes about 10% of the volume of the biodiesel. Among the most land-efficient and energy-efficient methods of producing alcohol is from hydrolysis and fermentation of plant cellulose. In the early days of the automobile, most vehicles ran on biofuels, with Henry Ford himself being a big advocate of alcohol produced from industrial hemp (not to be confused with marijuana). The Department of Energy's "Mustard Project" has focused on the prospect of growing mustard for the dual purposes of biodiesel and organic pesticide production. Their process focused on alternating mustard crops with wheat. One nice effect of this is that the biomass from the mustard (after harvesting the seed ) could be used as the cellulose feedstock for producing alcohol for biodiesel production.

..

What is the energy efficiency for producing biodiesel? Based on a report by the US DOE and USDA entitled "Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus"5, biodiesel produced from soy has an energy balance of 3.2:1. That means that for each unit of energy put into growing the soybeans and turning the soy oil into biodiesel, we get back 3.2 units of energy in the form of biodiesel. That works out to an energy efficiency of 320% (when only looking at fossil energy input - input from the sun, for example, is not included). The reason for the energy efficiency being greater than 100% is that the growing soybeans turn energy from the sun into chemical energy (oil). Current generation diesel engines are 43% efficient (HCCI diesel engines under development, and heavy duty diesel engines have higher efficiencies approaching 55% (better than fuel cells), but for the moment we'll just use current car-sized diesel engine technology). That 3.2 energy balance is for biodiesel made from soybean oil - a rather inefficient crop for the purpose. Other feedstocks such as algaes can yield substantially higher energy balances, as can using thermochemical processes for processing wastes into biofuels (such as the thermal depolymerization process pioneered by Changing World Technologies). Such approaches can yield EROI values ranging from 5-10, potentially even higher.

REFERENCES
#1. www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf
#2. www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf
#3. www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/pdf/algae_salton_sea.pdf
#4. www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2002/eberhardt.pdf
#5. www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf
#6. www.autointell.net/nao_companies/daimlerchrysler/dodge/dodge-esx3-01.htm
#7.
www.allpar.com/model/intrepid-esx3.html
#8. www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/iea/pdfs/honda.pdf
#9.
www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=4217&page_number=1
#10. www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=4217&page_number=2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article cut for length, see link for additional text on problems of producing and using hydrogen as a fuel. -LJ

"The UNH Biodiesel Group is working on improving the technology for growing algae on waste streams for biodiesel production. UNH has filed a provisional patent application and is seeking partners to develop the technology. For more information contact:
Michael Briggs 603-862-2828;
email msbriggs@unh.edu"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original article available here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.energybulletin.net/2364.html

"Algae -- like a breath mint for smokestacks"

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm

------------------------

As I keep saying over on my web site, the two technologies that will play enormous roles in our energy future are biotech (enzymes to help convert cellulose into ethanol, algae that turn waste into fuel), and nanotech (better batteries, like the new "M1" lithium ions, and lighter, stronger materials for vehicles, wind turbine blades, etc.).

These are prime examples of why I believe that the longer you study energy issues in a broad context, and keep an open mind, the less pessimistic you'll be.  I'm nowhere near being a cornucopian, and I think peak oil, peak natural gas, and global warming will give us all the challenges we could hope to deal with.  But I think the evidence strongly suggests that predictions about the suburbs disappearing or people being limited to eating food grown within 100 miles of their home, etc. are seriously misguided.

We're just beginning to see the first signs of a convergence of technologies, a multidisciplinary approach, that I'm convinced will combine with human flexibility and adaptability to make the PO doomers look just as silly as the Y2k crowd.

As a side note, back in the day, when I was growing up, the "slogan" on the signs found alongside Texas highways was "drive friendly."  Now its "don't slow Texas down"--no use caring about that gas mileage anymore, I guess, or congeniality either.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/sub_coll_leno/1302886.html

Jay also has a nice spiel about how the US should be producing low-sulphur diesel fuel and buying more diesel cars.