Republican presidential contender Michele Bachman has said that if she is elected, gas prices will fall to $2 per gallon. Such promises have understandably been greeted with considerable skepticism. But $2 gas is exactly what America needs. The question is, how can we get it?
We can’t do it just by expanded domestic drilling. In order for gasoline prices to fall to $2 per gallon, oil prices must be cut to $50 per barrel. And oil prices are set globally, with the dominating influence being the OPEC oil cartel. Since 1973, this cartel, which controls 80 percent of the earth’s commercially viable oil reserves, has refused to expand production, thus keeping petroleum prices artificially high. While, with a more pro-business government, the United States might conceivably be able to expand its production by a million or two barrels per day, OPEC could easily counter by cutting its production to match, or more likely, by simply continuing its non-expansion policy and letting increased Chinese demand take care of the slack.
Advertisement
If we are ever to get $2 gas, the power of OPEC to control oil prices needs to be broken. The United States Congress could do this with a stroke of the pen, simply by passing the bipartisan Open Fuel Standard bill (H.R. 1687). This act would effectively destroy OPEC by requiring that all new cars sold in the USA be fully flex fuel, able to run equally well on gasoline, ethanol, and — most important — methanol. This latter capability is critical because methanol can be, and is, made cheaply in large quantities from coal, natural gas, or any kind of biomass without exception. The United States has only 4 billion tons of oil reserves, but we have 270 billion tons of coal, vast amounts of natural gas, and an enormous capacity to produce biomass. By requiring that all cars sold here (and thus all cars made worldwide) be compatible with methanol, the act would force oil to compete with a fuel whose sources are not controlled by the cartel, and that we and our allies possess in abundance.
Methanol has only about half the energy per gallon as gasoline, but is 105 octane, which means it can be burned more efficiently. Taken together, these two factors make methanol’s current spot price of $1.38 per gallon roughly competitive with $2 gasoline.
Of course, the passage of the OFS bill would not cause gasoline prices to crash instantly. While it would no doubt hit oil futures hard, and thus cut the speculative premium on petroleum prices, the most immediate result of allowing methanol to compete against gasoline in the vehicle-fuel market would be to send methanol prices up, perhaps by as much as 60 percent. This situation would not, however, last for long. Methanol can be made and sold profitably today for $1.38 per gallon. At a 60 percent markup, its manufacture would be super-profitable, and massive amounts of capital would rush in to expand production. This would drive the price of methanol down, dragging gasoline and oil down prices with it, until methanol reached a price point where its production offered no greater profit than that prevailing in the economy at large. The fact that methanol would reach this price — what Adam Smith would term its natural price — follows from the fact that the sources to make methanol are plentiful and diverse, so that no cartel can artificially limit its production.
This underscores the key issue. There is not a free market in oil. Adjusted for inflation, the price of oil has increased eightfold since 1973, but OPEC production has not increased at all. In a free market, such a price increase would spur increased investment, with subsequent expanded production driving the price right back down again. That is why the inflation-adjusted price of coal, and nearly every other industrial commodity, has not risen in four decades. But because of the cartel, oil production has not responded to price increases in the way that it should in a properly functioning capitalist economy. In order for the free-enterprise system to do its work and deliver the cheap fuel the world needs, the ability of this cartel to limit the world’s liquid-fuel supplies needs to be broken. The Open Fuel Standard bill would accomplish that.
High oil prices are wrecking our economy. Since the United States imports 5 billion barrels of oil per year, the current price of nearly $90 per barrel will hit us for $450 billion this year alone, a huge tax on our economy. As a result, millions of jobs and thousands of businesses are being lost. If this wealth-draining process is allowed to continue, fiscal necessity will require us to withdraw the military forces protecting our national interests abroad, without a shot being fired.
Instead of seeking to exploit this catastrophe by placing its blame on their opponents, or posing with empty promises of salvation contingent upon their promotion to higher office, politicians need to take action. Two-dollar gas is not just a nice idea for inclusion in a campaign speech. It’s a critical necessity for economic recovery.
Either we break the cartel, or the cartel breaks us. The Open Fuel Standard bill needs to be passed.
The author states that increased production would put downward pressure on methanol prices, which are profitable at $1.38 a gallon, the current price. He also maintains that because of its lower efficiency, this price is equivalent to $2.00 a gallon gasoline. Conceptually, at that price, demand would probably outstrip production, negating and in fact reversing any downward pressure on prices. Of course, this does not take into account the lag in establishing distribution networks. I suppose, current gasoline stations could easily switch to methanol, but I don’t know and the author doesn’t cover this. I would also be interested to know the manufacturer’s cost of making a car flex fuel. I also suspect the author’s estimation of 4 billion tons of oil reserves in America is low. The Bakken oil formation alone is estimated to have 200 billion barrels of oil and that’s not counting U. S. oil shale reserves, which some estimate at over 1 trillion barrels. It seems to me that if we were allowed to produce our own oil, we could probably just as effectively lower the price of gasoline rendering flex fuel less competitive. I am not opposed to flex fuel; I would just need more information.
No it is not. Title II of the clean air act mandates the fuel. There is only one such fuel. It is reformualted gasoline and diesel. Thats it. There are some provisions for additives including ethanol. But there is no other legal fuel in the US.
This idea is a great dilemma. Why do we need to get government involved in methanol production in the first place? Government has proven itself to be trustworthy in it's ability to perform such tasks, hasn't it?(turn off sarcasim). If this was such a great investment, wouldn't the market react to this? Yet, the cartel does present a problem. The argument that OPEC would just cut production and decrease supplies worldwide is strong. But if we really open up domestic drilling and export some of the oil because of the profitability, then economic growth through job creation would be spurred and some benefit would befall the economy through increased profits and increased revenue into the tax coffers.
Methanol is half as efficient as gasoline, so you buy 2x the amount.
Current price is $1.38 per gallon. Multiply by two to get your effective gas use, and the price is $2.76/ effective gallon. Add in his supposed 60% increase in methanol price, and you get ~$4.42/ effective gal. How does that help, precisely?
Chad makes a good point. The real key question is what current regulatory barriers exist that prevent methanol from being a viable motor fuel and how might they be eased? It would be embarassing to start a pro-methanol program and then discover some EPA regulation that blocks it in mid-stream.
Way to cherry pick numbers, Robert. Maybe the price of oil has increased 8 fold adjusted for inflation from 1973, but it has only increased 2 fold adjusted for inflation from 1975. And could you do another article detailing the negative effects of your moronic suggestion of governmental mandates for flex fuel cars so we could be aware of the total cost of such a mandate? And could you give us a list of all the subsidies, tax credits, blenders credits and all the other you name it credits that will accompany your flex fuel mandate? Could you let us know what are the known distortions in the market as a result of your mandates?
Well said Chad R. Reading articles like this, in a place like this, reminds us how many so-called conservatives don't even blink at imposing government mandates. If conservatives do not differ with liberals on the fundamentally misguided premise that the government can and should order us around for our own good as government sees it, then we are truly lost.
I'm with you, Mr. TL. When National Review publishes something like this (and they do occasionally), I have to wonder if the editors have some skin in the game.
I hope not. Maybe they are reminding us that there are lots of people out there who masquerade as conservatives when they line up at the gummint trough?
This again? What happened to that bet about converting a car to run on methanol and PROVING that it is workable? We're still waiting... (cricket, cricket, cricket...)...
Mr. Zubrin continues to peddle his snake oil consisting of methanol. There are solutions to our foreign oil addiction which would violate free market principles in so as much as OPEC violates the free market already. Increased domestic drilling has traditionally spooked the oil markets down, recall gas was BELOW 2 dollars a gallon before Wonder President halted off shore drilling.
The mere suggestion of opening federal land or other areas off limits to drilling takes the wind out of oil traders.
Mandating our cars run on a variety of fuels sounds great to the scientist but doesn't work well in actual practice. I don't want to buy new cars because of it. Watering the fuel with alternatives has been a costly mistake.
Mr Zurbin already issued a sophomoric challenge to compare a methanol fueled car to anything else as if all that mattered was fuel consumption. The logistics and costs of using "something else" has been played out with ethanol, previously a cheap distillate now a subsidized, expensive commodity we are stuck with.
"Methanol, just like ethanol, contains soluble and insoluble contaminants.[9] These soluble contaminants, halide ions such as chloride ions, have a large effect on the corrosivity of alcohol fuels. Halide ions increase corrosion in two ways; they chemically attack passivating oxide films on several metals causing pitting corrosion, and they increase the conductivity of the fuel. Increased electrical conductivity promotes electric, galvanic, and ordinary corrosion in the fuel system. Soluble contaminants, such as aluminum hydroxide, itself a product of corrosion by halide ions, clog the fuel system over time."
Consider the unintended consequences of such a mandate. This will certainly shorten the life of the engines. Is it worth having $2 a gallon gas but needing to replace cars much more often?
It does make much more sense than ethanol though.
Thank you to the author for being honest about our (lack of)control on world oil prices. When North America only contains 16% of the worlds oil reserves and much of that is in Canada, how can you expect a small(or even large) increase in US production to have a significant effect on the worldwide price?
You're referencing short term fear-driven market reaction. From day to day any publicly traded commodity has fluctuations based on rumors, insignificant news and the like. In the long term the addition or subtraction of 2-3% a commodity can't possibly have the effect of doubling or halving the price of itself. The Libyan uncertainty shot the price of oil up by about 15-20% and it has already recovered from that. I support using more of our natural resources but I realize that increasing oil production isn't going to solve this problem long term.
The fear was that the Libyan supply would be cut off. If as the original poster claims, small changes in supply have little impact on prices, there would have been no need for any fear of price changes due to even a total cut-off of Libyan oil.
You are welcome to continue buy imported expensive gasoline if you are concerned about the longevity of your car.
I would rather buy cheap American made fuel. Not only that it is good for our economy, when the price of gasoline went up the resell value of my truck went down. Less expensive fuel would mean higher resell value for my truck, so I would be able to replace my truck more often if needed.
Beside, with the close loop fuel system in my pickup the issues you are describing are non-existent.