Welcome to ArticleXI.com!
We are a group of environmental advocates united in providing a one-stop source for Virginia's environmental news. We each focus on different issues, but share the vision of a Commonwealth that preserves and protects its natural resources. Please join us!
Via Lowell's Blue Virginia, the Roanoke Times editorial board blasts presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee Bob McDonnell's "1950s" energy plan:
McDonnell needs to realize that if Virginia wants to become the energy capital of America, the commonwealth must look to the future of renewable energy. The state simply doesn't have huge reserves of fossil fuels.
Take coal, for example. The National Mining Association estimates that Virginia has about 770 million tons of recoverable coal. Compare that to the 17.6 billion tons in West Virginia, or the 75 billion tons in Wyoming.
Oil is perhaps worse. In an online chart of proven reserves published by the U.S. Department of Energy, Virginia doesn't even merit an entry. Even if the most optimistic estimates of offshore reserves prove accurate, Virginia would be a minor player.
Check out the coal and oil reserve maps at ShowUSA. Even states like Iowa and Alabama have better shot at being the "coal capital" than Virginia. And forget about oil -- Virginia vanishes from the top 25 altogether.
Now look at the renewable energy map. The first thing you notice is that renewable resources are much more equitably spread among the states than fossil fuel deposits. The next thing is that while Virginia ranks 18th on the list, it's not a distant 18th -- and as a tech leader, Virginia is in much better position to take full advantage of the resources we have than other states ahead of us on the list. And if we do take advantage of Virginia's clean energy resources, we can create jobs, lower consumers' energy bills and preserve our planet.
The diary below is reprinted from an RK piece I did on May 27, 2008. I believe it's relevant once again, given that Bob McDonnell is saying stuff like this:
According to one estimate, there are 130 million barrels of oil and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off Virginia's coast. A study by a professor at Old Dominion University, forecasts that natural gas production alone off Virginia's coast would create 2,578 new jobs, and produce $271 million in state and local revenue. Unfortunately, the Democratic candidates said no to Virginia jobs and yes to the special interests.
By the way, I've been searching around for this "study" and still haven't found it. If anyone has any ideas, please email me at lowell@raisingkaine.com - thanks!
*********************************
There's a lot of misinformation out there about how much oil and gas might be off our coastline, and how much of a difference this might make in terms of our energy supplies, prices, etc. Based on 17 years of working at the Energy Department, my understanding all along has been that there's not a great deal of oil and natural gas off the U.S. east coast, let alone off Virginia's coast, certainly not by world standards and certainly not sufficient to make much of a difference in the big picture.
Still, I wanted to be sure, so I checked with one of the top oil and gas experts at the US Energy Information Administration. Here's the response (bolding added by me for emphasis):
A total of ten oil and gas lease sales were held in the Atlantic in 1976 and 1983. Forty-seven exploratory wells were drilled. Five of these wells drilled offshore New Jersey discovered hydrocarbons in non-commercial quantity and were abandoned.
In its most recent assessment (1995) the United States Geological Survey assigned no undiscovered technically recoverable oil or gas resources to State-jurisdiction waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
In a July 2006 addendum to its 2006 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) assessment, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) assigned mean undiscovered technically recoverable resources of 1.5 billion barrels of oil and 15.13 trillion cubic feet of gas to the MMS Mid-Atlantic Planning Area (located off Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina) portion of the Atlantic OCS.
There are large gas hydrate deposits along the continental slope and rise offshore of Virginia but it will be quite a while before any of it becomes technically, much less economically, producible -- if ever. Its not included in the estimates above.
Just to reiterate: "the United States Geological Survey assigned no undiscovered technically recoverable oil or gas resources to State-jurisdiction waters of the Atlantic Ocean."
With regard to the MMS' "1.5 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and 15.13 trillion cubic feet of gas" in the mid-Atlantic region, that potentially, hypothetically represents about 7% of proven U.S. oil reserves and about 5% of proven U.S. natural gas reserves. However, note that the MMS figures are not "proven," but the much sketchier category of "assigned mean undiscovered technically recoverable resources." In plain English, we don't know for sure if that oil and gas is out there and we don't know if it's economically worth recovering. Probably not.
One other point: total U.S. oil and natural gas reserves make up only a tiny percentage of world oil (under 2%) and natural gas (3%) reserves. The undiscovered oil and natural gas off Virginia's coast constitutes a small-to-tiny percentage of a small percentage (U.S. reserves) of total world oil and gas reserves. And, so far, there's been almost no success in finding oil and gas off the east coast. In other words, this discussion is barely worth having; the bottom line is that oil and natural gas reserves off Virginia's coast are almost certainly not significant from an economic or national security point of view.
At first glance, this would appear to be encouraging news.
Confronted with a sharp change of priorities in Washington, international oil executives are expressing an eagerness to work with President Obama to fashion new policies to tackle global warming.
At an industry conference here this week, the executives struck a conciliatory tone on how to limit the emissions that are contributing to climate change, with many of them sounding like budding conservationists as they stressed energy efficiency and the need to develop renewable fuels.
Believe it or not, one of ExxonMobil's top executives is even backing a carbon tax, "while criticizing a so-called cap-and-trade approach." And Dan Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates says that the oil companies "are not arguing about basic philosophy anymore, but about practical steps."
It all sounds good, so why aren't I getting too excited? Mainly, because looking at these companies behavior - including funding global warming deniers - I don't trust 'em as far as I can throw 'em. In addition, I worry that the involvement of oil companies in fashioning measures to tackle global warming will simply water them down until they're worthless, sort of like Virginia House Republicans just did to the smoking ban. Still, I admit to a bit of optimism that Big Oil might really be seeing the political writing on the wall. Should I be optimistic, or is Big Oil simply putting out public relations talking points here? What do you think?
First, let me just say that I like Creigh Deeds, find him to be a thoughtful and intelligent man, someone who cares deeply about people and who is in politics for all the right reason. In conversations I've had with him, he's also seemed sincerely concerned about protecting our environment. In that context, Sen. Deeds' Blue Commonwealth interview is particularly disappointing. Here are the relevant excerpts with my comments.
Blue Commonwealth: One of the more vexing environmental problems is obviously coal.
Creigh Deeds: Right.
Good, Sen. Deeds admits that coal is a "vexing" environmental problem. That's a start. Let's see where he goes with this.
Blue Commonwealth: And what makes it vexing is you have on the one hand the environmental impact of coal and the fact that for some communities in our state it's an economic lifeline. How do you balance that, not just looking at policy for this year or next, but when you look out 10 years from now, or 15 years from now, what would you like to see?
This is a question, not Creigh Deeds' answer, but I would sure hope that Sen. Deeds would disagree with the assertion that coal constitutes an "economic lifeline." For an alternative view, how about we ask Jim Webb what he thinks about this (from his book, "Born Fighting").
The people from the outside showed up [in Appalachian coal country] with complicated contracts...asking for "rights" to mineral deposits they could not see, and soon they were treated to a sundering of their own earth as the mining companies ripped apart their way of life, so that after a time the only option was to go down into the hole and bring the Man his coal, or starve. The Man got his coal, and the profits it brought when he shipped it out. They got their wages, black lung, and the desecration of their land...Coal made this part of Appalachia a poverty-stricken basket case while the rest of the mountain region remained mired in isolation.
Yeah, that's some "economic lifeline" there. For "the Man," that is. Also, as we've pointed out here previously, coal represents only 6% of jobs in Southwestern Virginia, let alone in the Commonwealth as a whole, where it constitutes a much, much smaller percentage (99.95% of Virginians are NOT employed by coal mining). In other words, so much for that theory. Now, back to the Deeds interview.
Creigh Deeds: The other vexing point is this. More than 50% of the electric power we have in this country comes from coal.
What I'd like to see in the future is alternative sources of energy developed. I also want to make sure - you know, some people say there's no such thing as clean coal. Well, perhaps there isn't.
Huh? First, Sen. Deeds doesn't correct the "economic lifeline" assertion. He then appears completely confused on the issue of "clean coal." There is such a thing, there isn't such a thing, who knows. Coal's a problem, we need to develop alternatives, or not. Maybe there's "clean coal." Etc., etc. With all due respect, does anyone have any idea what Creigh Deeds is getting at here? I'm lost. And does anyone who knows anything about energy believe that large-scale carbon capture and sequestration (necessary for any hope at "clean coal") will be technologically and economically feasible anytime in the next 15-20 years? Nope, didn't think so.
Creigh Deeds: It's clear to me we cannot burn coal in the future as we did in the past and continue to exist as a people, as a planet. I think it would be irresponsible for us not to consider clean coal technologies. And frankly, those people that say you can't do it, I mean, this is the country where an airplane was developed; this is the country that developed both the wartime and the peaceful uses of nuclear power; this is the country that put a man on the Moon. The only barrier to what we can't do is our imagination and the creativity and the genius of the American mind, so I'm not willing to concede that we can't develop clean coal technology. I'm not willing to concede anything.
OK, so we can't "exist as a people, as a planet" with coal, but we're not "willing to concede anything" in terms of using coal? Is your head starting to spin yet, along with the frantic political spin?
Creigh Deeds: I know this. I know we can't exist if we continue to burn coal the way we have. We have to find ways to reduce our carbon footprint. We have to find ways to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses. That's why we have to continue to look for ways to develop alternative and renewable sources of energy.
But the key to our energy future, it seems to me, is that we can't afford to take any tool off the table. We have to consider everything. We have to consider all of our alternatives and let the science govern what works and what doesn't.
Back and forth...can't continue with coal, but must use coal. [image of "The Scream" painting comes to mind] Then, to top it all off, comes my favorite line of all, that we "can't afford to take any tool off the table." In other words, we're back to coal again. But why? I mean, if it's expensive and dirty, economically and environmentally ruinous to the region where it's mined, why can't we take it off the table? Uhhhhhhhhh. [cue sound of crickets chirping]
Blue Commonwealth: I'm kind of embarrassed. I don't know your position on off shore drilling and exploration.
Creigh Deeds: My position is that, like coal, you can't take it off the table. If we can get royalties, if we can do it in a way that protects our environment, if we can do it a way that does not hamper naval or other military operations offshore - military operations are a huge part of our economy in Hampton Roads in Southeast Virginia, if we can do it a way that doesn't affect our fisheries in a negative way, if we can do it in a way that doesn't affect our tourism industry, which is also a huge part of our economy all over Virginia, then by all means we ought to explore off-shore drilling.
Ugh, here we go again with the "can't take it off the table" evasiveness and/or code language. Let's see: we can't take offshore oil drilling off the table, UNLESS of course it harms fisheries, tourism, the military, etc. Which it almost certainly will (the navy, for instance, is dead set against it). Is that clear?
Creigh Deeds: I think I've got the same position as Jim Webb. In fact, I know it's the same position because we've talked about it. I think my position is probably the same as Mark Warner's, and as far as I know if very close to the position of Tim Kaine.
And the relevance, Sen. Deeds, of your position on offshore drilling supposedly being close to other politicians is...what exactly? How about just stating your case, clearly, and let the voters decide what to make of it, without hiding behind all these popular politicians?
Blue Commonwealth: So, it's fair to say that if off-shore drilling couldn't happen with all those conditions -
Creigh Deeds: Then it wouldn't happen. I just don't think it's fair to say, "Never. Never can we do that." If certain qualifications are met, yeah, yeah, we ought to consider it.
OK, so offshore drilling won't happen...unless it will. Or not. Or something. Again, is that all clear? Maybe clear as mud, or clear as a coal ash spill, or clear as an oil slick on Virginia Beach...
On the surface, the collapse in oil prices from over $140 per barrel to around $40 per barrel threatens to take the wind from the sails of energy efficiency and clean, renewable power development. In addition, an article by Reuters points out, "[the] slowing economy has already started to take a toll on alternative energy projects that looked promising in 2008 when oil costs were soaring." As if that's not bad enough, "financing has dried up" for all projects, including renewable power. Finally, perhaps most worrisome, the collapse in oil prices is already resulting in signs of a reversal in Americans' desire for fuel efficient vehicles, with some "movement back toward SUVs and away from hybrids."
A basic law of economics is that demand for any good or service is inversely related to that good or service's price. The higher the price, ceteris parabis, the less people consume of it. Likewise, the lower the price, the more people consume of it. In the short run, the "price elasticity of demand" tends to be small, but in the longer run, it gets a lot higher. In other words, if oil prices stay low for a while, and/or if people BELIEVE they will stay low for a while, demand for oil will start to rise. Meanwhile, there's also an income elasticity of demand, whereby the lower one's income is, the less one consumes of goods and services. Currently, we're seeing that in spades with the world economic slowdown, including demand for oil. The question, once again, is how long will this last?
Obviously, we will not be in a recession forever. Eventually - the question is really whether it's "sooner" or "later" - the economy will bounce back, as will demand for oil and other goods. As demand for oil starts to grow again, the price almost certainly will rise, potentially putting us right back where we started in this particular "shock to trance" cycle (as Barack Obama calls it). Here's Obama on the subject:
User comments or postings reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Sierra Club and/or the League of Conservation Voters. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (but not the obligation) to delete postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.
ArticleXI.com is paid for and authorized by
Virginia League of Conservation Voters PAC, 530 East Main Street, Ste. 410, Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 225-1902 and
Sierra Club VA PAC, 422 E. Franklin Street, Suite 302, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 225-9113.
Via Lowell's 
The diary below is reprinted from an RK piece I did on May 27, 2008. I believe it's relevant once again, given that Bob McDonnell is saying stuff like this:
At first glance, 
First, let me just say that I like Creigh Deeds, find him to be a thoughtful and intelligent man, someone who cares deeply about people and who is in politics for all the right reason. In conversations I've had with him, he's also seemed sincerely concerned about protecting our environment. In that context, 
On the surface, the collapse in oil prices from over $140 per barrel to around $40 per barrel threatens to take the wind from the sails of energy efficiency and clean, renewable power development. In addition, an 
