Hearing of the House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee - Shock and Oil: Where Military Concerns Meet Consumer, Climate Crises
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Everyone who stops to fill up at the pump, and that's most people in this country, know firsthand how the United States' dependence on foreign oil affects them. They feel it in their wallet, pennies at a time as the price of gas creeps up. And most Americans understand that the price of oil is often influenced by events around the world. I doubt the results of the Oil ShockWave simulations would surprise many Americans. But I bet many Americans don't realize just how vast the energy supplies are in the United States.
Beneath this great nation, there are enough energy reserves to propel us towards energy security. And surely we have the intellectual and scientific capacity to give us energy security that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, desire. According to the Interior Department, there are potentially 102 billion -- that's with a b -- barrels of untapped oil in the United States, including offshore reserves in Alaska, the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. Add to that the potential of 635 trillion -- with a t -- cubic feet of natural gas remains untapped, and we've got what we need to start weaning ourselves off the oil supplies from foreign countries that are hostile to the United States.
But that's just the start. It's estimated that there are 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves which is nearly six times the combined U.S. oil and natural gas reserves. In fact, it's believed that our coal supplies are larger than any single energy source of any single nation, including Saudi Arabian oil. The U.S. coal supply is equivalent to nearly 800 billion barrels of oil, more than three times the energy equivalent of Saudi Arabia's oil. I'll bet many Americans don't know that coal can be converted into a fuel that is comparable to gasoline and can power any automobile. If we used coal to its fullest potential, we could turn our backs on the Middle East and never look back.
Right now, the type of scenario laid out in the Oil ShockWave simulation is possible, and this scenario could cause major disruptions to our economy. But there are some indications that it might not have the same impact as that of the 1970s oil crises. For every unit of economic output, the U.S. now uses half the energy it did in 1980. Let me repeat that. For every unit of economic output, the U.S. now uses half the energy it did in 1980. Energy costs are a smaller percentage of household budgets now than they were then, even though some people would find that hard to believe.
Assessing our own natural energy reserves probably couldn't happen as quickly as an oil shock wave. We should work to change that. Through research and development of new technologies, we can prepare for the worst. We have the energy supplies, all we really need is the intellectual energy and the political will to put them to work.
And I thank the chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First of all, let me say, I shudder to think of the chair as national security advisor. (Laughter.) Put him in another role, please, and I think we'll all be happier.
You know, in looking at, you know, how we war-game the strategy and what we can do ahead of time, the one question I have is, what's the role of Canadian oil resources and oil shale in the West? I know that you can't turn that spigot on as quickly as we'd like, but if we're looking at ways to prevent an oil shock from being extremely severe, that seems to be the most convenient and secure way to get increased oil or replacement oil.
MR. BLAIR: The position that the council took in the report that we released almost a year ago was that the Canadian tar sands resources would be a big part of the problem, as soon as they could be done in an energy-efficient and environmentally acceptable way.
So we saw that as part of the solution, but our understanding was that the technology was not quite there on those two criteria so we couldn't count on that, but that the R&D should be put in to see if it's a viable alternative as an alternative source. Similarly, R&D should be put into other synthetic fuels in order to make them part of the solution.
So it didn't seem to us, looking across that alternative, as well as others, that there was one that you say had all the right attributes right now to be able to solve the problem. More work was needed.
MS. BROWNER: Oil shock, sir, did not deal with could you explore and find other resources, because it was a real time. You had to solve the problem, you know, that day, that week. I think SAFE has taken a position on whether or not some of the thoughts you have are viable in the short term. And I share their concerns that, in the short term, they are probably not.
They may also bring with them some other challenges. For example, we need to understand -- this is me personally speaking, as someone who is very concerned about greenhouse gas and global warming -- what are the repercussions? Are we adding to our global warming footprint? Are we diminishing it? And I think that's something that still needs to be better understood.
I think part of the issue is where are the technologies and what are the technologies that we would end up using, because that may have some bearing on what are the emissions.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source