JOURNAL: Iraq is a major reason for high oil prices

Finally, the major media has picked up on what I have been saying for years. The initial domino that drove oil to its current high level was the loss of Iraqi production. The ongoing attacks in Iraq have stripped 1.6 m barrels a day from the market. For an inelastic oil market beset by rapid growth in demand (both China and the US), this was a huge shock.

Further, the loss of production in Iraq is a demonstration (on a global scale) that guerrillas can produce sustained systems disruption -- the rapid open source evolution of my global guerrillas. This has immediate implications in Nigeria. It also generates fears that the same methodology could be applied to Saudi Arabia, the BTC pipeline (Caspian oil), and Russia (both Gazprom and Transneft). For a market caught on knife's edge of demand and supply, this is pure poison.

NOTE: This is exactly the opposite of what the US thought it was going to do in Iraq (it may not have been the primary reason for the invasion, but it was clearly in the ballpark). The US administration clearly saw the tightening of supply brought on by the rise of Chinese demand. Iraq was the only major global producer underperforming due to political problems. The invasion of Iraq was in part a way to remove the limitations of sanctions on the country and turn it into a major global supplier through western investment. If it had succeeded, Iraq would be producing 3.5 m bpd of oil today with an outlook of 5-7 m bpd by 2010. As a result, the price of oil would be closer to $30 a barrel today than $70. It is also important to note that the first targets secured by US forces in Iraq were the oil production system (which was mostly accomplish by day ~5 of the invasion).

Comments

[Boghie]

John,

I know this is facetious, but why was Iraq producing 2.5 million barrels of oil a day in 2002?

Oil sales were only supposed to fund ‘Oil For Food’.

Was the ‘Oil For Food’ program a success?

Although the link I use is down, it appears that Iraq is now producing 1.9 million barrels a day - 1.6 million barrels for export and more than ever for internal use. All those damn cars and stuff.

Regardless, in the larger context I think you are 100% correct. It is easy to game the system when the system is running outside it’s norm. And, there are an awful lot of gamers out there in the bucolic Middle East, eh… They all make Enron look like the paradigm of honesty and fair play.

Here is another thought. The major target in the ‘Axis of Evil’ is Iran. To neutralize its influence in the world – i.e. terror. Right now, all the bleating is about whoopin up on Iran – does anyone remember why we hit Iraq in March/April rather than May/June? Won’t happen. And, it won’t happen till UN sanctions are given another chance… But, can you sanction Iran without another comparable oil source…

Just thinking…

[Duncan Kinder]

Imagine what the $300 billion spent in Iraq might have accomplished had it - instead - been spent on alternative energy R & D.

[Boghie]

Duncan,

300 Billion over three years means that we spent 300 Billion out of 36,550 Billion that the United States economy pushed around.

In other words, it maps to 0.8% of our nations economic effort.

And, when did the government create a useful fuel? One that we use now.

Don't worry, gas mileage is going up - without government mandates. Out here in San Diego Clinton era (cheap shot, I know) Hummers and SUVs are becoming as rare as Ferraris and Porches... And I have been looking seriously at the Honda Civic Hybrid that just came out - I think it would be free.

Popular Mechanics just had an article on alternative fuels for vehicles. It was exceptional. The basic jist is that we seem to be moving to biodiesel right now and that the other forms are difficult to deal with.

National Geographic had an article in August 2005 on alternative fuels for power generation - it was exceptional. The basic jist is that nukes might be the way to go - the other forms take to much realestate and are too flaky.

So, the R&D is going on out there. We just don't want to see it.

[Boghie]

Duncan,

This observation may be obsolete because I was in Europe in the mid-1990's, but...

They don't seem to be developing alternative fuels for vehicles, and the only alternative fuel that really produces power for power generation is nukes.

Additionally, most/many of the fuel efficient cars out there would not be permitted in America. You can smell and see the air in Europe. They squeeze fuel efficiency at the expense of clean air. Do we want to make that choice...

And that is with $5.00/gallon in tax. Are those governments spending their billions on alternative fuels - or on bloated government pension systems?

[Chris Alemany]

Sorry to go a little offtopic, but Biodiesel isn't going to replace anything, there simply isn't enough vegetable oil to use... nor is Ethanol, the US doesn't produce enough corn to supply anywhere near enough gas for its' current fleet of cars.

As for Nuclear energy. It takes 10-15 years to build 1 nuclear reactor. What will we do with the waste? And when, in 20-25 years, when Canada and Australia run out of the easily extractable uranium ore, where will we get uranium?

The only alternatives are the renewables, and a complete change away from the drive-50miles-to-work-in-single-occupancy-vehicle lifestyle...

A combination of wind, solar, tidal and wave energy would be able to produce all the electricity we could ever need... but if no money is sunk into renewables now, and people don't get over their NIMBY-ism, then we'll be stuck on Foreign oil until the very steep decline comes, and resource wars become even more prevalent and destructive.

[Boghie]

Chris,

Biodiesel will help on the edges - semis and the like...

The 50 mile commute lifestyle will change on its own. Either that or we will see many more 50 mile/gallon hybrids out on the street - I-15 in San Diego already sports such vehicles in mass.

Read the August 2005 edition of National Geographic. To power New York City:

74 sq miles of solar photovoltaics
10.6 miles of wind generators
2 square miles of nukes

What is more reasonable? What is possible?

And, yes a nuke takes forever to get the Federal/State/Local government OkyDoky, but it doesn't take 15 years to build. Those are two very different issues - with two very different solutions.

[Ryan M. Ferris]

The simple answer to America's debilitating energy problems is at it has always has been: "Nationalize Big Energy Now". Back when people still had a shred of anti-authoritative thought left, you used to see bumper stickers that said exactly that. Now we have "energy poverty" and "energy welfare" where our government subsidizes millions of American energy bills through direct handouts like LIHEAP, quite extensively used in a place like Whatcom County. The next step we will see is Congress (using deficit financing of course) construct similar help for low income drivers, like this amazingly futile and insulting $100 gas rebate Congress is thinking about. Amazing. Russia, Iran, Venezuela are laughing all the way to the bank. Maybe someone with more smarts than me will e-mail me and try to explain why they think the monopoloid capitalism that characterizes American energy production and refining has any relation at all to market competitiveness and efficiency in America...or national security.

Many people in rural America are hurt badly by expensive transportation costs. Here in Whatcom County, not everyone is a well off retiree. When gas hits $3.00 per gallon I hear families talk about it on the cell phone in the parks. They bought into the RAM Trucks, the Suburbans, the Mini-Vans. $200 per month gas bills, $150 per month heating bills, $50 dollar per month electrical bills are a big deal to them.

[Boghie]

Ryan,

Mexico nationalized their oil industry in the 1970s.

They now import refined gasoline from Southern California because there is very little investement in their industrial plant - they are still using the same equipment they used in the 70s. Just took a trip to San Felipe, Ensenada, and Tijuana where I got to see the price of gas first hand. Also, fuel in northern Mexico (at least) is more expensive than fuel in Southern California - and San Diego has the highest gas prices in the nation. Mexican fuel is nortoriously dirty as well. And, check out the gross polluting cars in Mexico. You can see the air. So, how did nationalizing the oil industry help the common people in Mexico.

By the way, who in 2001 was dumb enough to purchase the gas guzzlin' vehicles you document? Yup, many Americans - even though gas prices had already started spiking up. And which car companies in the 2001/2002 were bragging that they were just building cars Americans wanted - yup American companies who now have no vehicles that can run in the gas mileage race. Ryan, take my advice - Don't buy big heavy gas guzzlin slugs; it hurts! My heart ain't bleeding for someone who bought an 8 mpg Ram truck in 2004 to tool around the mall with.

Life is changing. Look at what the hot vehicles are now. We don't need circa 70's style retarded price controls - or a nationalized oil industry. Gas prices did not come down till Reagan dumped those price controls. Gas lines didn't go away till Reagan dumped those price controls.

Also, part of the reason for EXXON et al. to show taxable profits is because investors (greedy slugs like me and also my grandma who needs retirement income) want dividends because of the 2003 tax changes. They are coupon clippers rather than day traders. Dividends can only be paid out with AFTER TAX profits - so violla, we have profit. Did you know that corporate income tax reciepts have increased 111% in two years? Did you like the Enron style capital gains investment (pre-Bush tax code) where investors made money only through share price appreciation.

Finally, do we really want the Federal Government running anything new. They can't seem to run anything now.

[Marcello]

"Additionally, most/many of the fuel efficient cars out there would not be permitted in America. You can smell and see the air in Europe. They squeeze fuel efficiency at the expense of clean air. Do we want to make that choice..."

I think you are conflating different things.You can have a small old car (like let's say some older FIAT design) which uses comparatively little fuel but has no provisions for lowering polluting emissions.And you can build a massive fuel guzzler incorporating all the latest devices for lowering pollution.The latter will probably have far less emissions but it is a matter of technology, not a trade off between fuel efficiency and pollution.As a personal anedocte when my family bought her first car incorporating low emission technology in 1990 it was still a relatively new thing.I would bet that what you have seen was simply the result of the lingering on of older models.

Regarding nuclear power.
I have given a look to the chinese nuclear power program.From the timelines given it would seem that it takes approximatively seven years from the moment the bulldozers roll in to an operational plant.I do not know if there is some long lead time item whose construction has to start before that.
The problem with nuclear power are
1)Strong political opposition.
2)It is relatively expensive.
3)Nuclear power plant are long lead time items.
As I understand it nuclear power is barely competitive on its own.The political opposition simply drives it over the cliff.
I would not be too concerned with uranium supply,some thorium based designs should be available in the 2020s.

Regarding alternative energies
Everyone says they love them, with the mouth.When you actually start to plan wind farms everyone goes in NIMBY mode.As they take more space than any other plant the problem is even worse.I suspect that 20-30% might be as far you can practically go with wind/solar in the next future.You still need more dependable power sources for stabilizing the energy supply, unless you can find ways to tell the wind to increase speed at whim.

[James Bowery]

I spent a good deal of time on reforming technology policy (http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/PublicFacts.html) around 1990 and learned a basic lesson:

Until you correct the underlying false dilemma between subsidizing capital and subsidizing bureaucracy, you are going to end up with rent-seekers controlling R&D spending, as well as the rest of the economy. This is a formula for global disaster. The correction of the capital subsidy is conceptually pretty simple: charge a use fee for non-subsistence net-property rights at an annual rate equal to short term government debt. The correction to subsidizing bureaucracy is to simply terminate all govenment funding of technology development (programs targeting the creation of technology that would be patentable), and don't charge a property-right use fee to the creator of a property right such as patent.

[Boghie]

Marcello, concur...

But cars are extremely expensive in Europe because of the huge VAT taxes. They are not replaced as often - but then again the stoopid American concept of dumping a car after three/five years also causes serious pollution as well... So, in Europe - where folks are taxed to the hilt but get government subsidized health care - people drive fifteen year old cars. Cars built in 1991 naturally pollute more than ones built in 2003. It can't be a coincidence that we don't find European hybrids. Why are they going toward diesel???

I don't have the first hand knowledge you have, but the numbers in the August 2005 National Geographic are as follows:

Coal - $0.05 / KWh
Natural Gas - $0.051 / KWh
Wind - $0.06 / KWh
Nuclear - $0.07 / KWh
Solar - $0.22 / KWh

There are opportunities and liabilities to using all these forms of fuel in power generation. There is room for them all. In the end, I think nuke and solar win out for me in SoCal. With a 20 year investment I can get myself almost off the grid. If that shrinks to 10 years the game is on. When folks realize you have a choice of wrecking 2 square miles of Kennedy's back yard waterfront view or 11 square miles from horizon to horizon I think clearer minds will prevail. Finally, on nuke waste - if we are ditty bopping about Iran using 'reprocessed' fuel shouldn't we use 'reprocessed' fuel? Then the waste product is greatly minimized.

On the timeline to build a modern nuke - I defer to you... Since Americans with American ingenuity haven't built one in 30 years I have no idea how long it would take once we get the tree huggers out of the way.

NOTE: The numbers in my first post were for 60% of New York City's power needs. That is to produce 60% of New York City's power requirement you would need:

74 sq miles of solar photovoltaics
10.6 miles of wind generators
2 square miles of nukes

[Duncan Kinder]

Boghie: "And, when did the government create a useful fuel? One that we use now."

The Manhattan Project and nuclear power immediately comes to mind.

The entire point of R&D, as opposed to directly implementing some particular alternative energy source, such as solar cells or anything else, is that R&D is apt to promote new approaches with new properties.

[James Bowery]

I would argue that both the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Project mined out a substantial portion of the United States' natural technical wealth and largely neutralized it. You aren't going to get guys like the Wright Brothers or Howard Hughes coming from the National Labs or NASA but you certainly can bury them.

It can take a very long time to recreate such resources when you've burned them out. The best you can do is ope prize awards for operationally defined objectives to let outsiders best the "blue ribbon" experts.

[Marcello]

"Finally, on nuke waste - if we are ditty bopping about Iran using 'reprocessed' fuel shouldn't we use 'reprocessed' fuel? Then the waste product is greatly minimized."

The reprocessing vs non reprocessing debate has been going on for quite some time in the nuclear industry.There are advantages and disadvantages for both courses of action.Bear in mind that reprocessing create its own radioactive waste,although I will have to check the exact specs.

"On the timeline to build a modern nuke - I defer to you... Since Americans with American ingenuity haven't built one in 30 years I have no idea how long it would take once we get the tree huggers out of the way."

Four or five years for the actual construction is the figure claimed by the nuclear industry,if everything goes smoothly.Before that however you need to identify the sites,prepare the plans etc.

[Veteran]

This little rise in price is only the beginning of a most horrible oil conflict to come.

The occupation and use of Iraq has just started, and despite the squabbling insurgency and the salvador squads, Iraq will become the unsinkable aircraft carrier to exert airpower over the Gulf.

This coming petroleum conflict will prove that America's 'National Security' and 'National Survival' are independent variables, where the former variable and its' subsets are being degraded to ensure the latter.

As the oil conflict enters the 'no regrets' phase, there are levels of survival that will turn zero-sum for large populations.

[g510]

Let's take that $300 billion figure for the Iraq war and break it down in terms of energy supply.

First of all, we could increase our domestic electricity generating capacity by 50%, as follows:

Assume $1million/megawatt as standard cost for building nuclear and wind. This figure I know well, having worked on engineering design for utility generating projects. It was the design target for financial viability, and our detailed cost breakdown for the project came in at just about that number plus or minus a couple of percent. (Yes, for real: I did not screw around with the numbers to make the finance guys happy.)

Present US electrical consumption is 3.656 trillion KWH / year according to CIA World Factbook.

To increase that by 50% we have to build capacity for about 260 GW (gigawatts) of new generating capacity. If we assume the standard ratio of 20% wind, 80% nuclear, and an average 2 MW wind turbine, and an average 800 MW nuclear reactor, we end up with about 26 million new wind turbines and 260 new nuclear plants.

At 80% uptime (a reasonable figure for nuclear and wind), this capacity will produce 1.821 trillion KWH / year, which is about 50% of total US electricity consumption.

So far our total cost is $260 billion, so we have about $40 billion left over.

With that "left over" money, we can take two million of the worst gas guzzlers off the road by replacing each of these with a 50-mpg hybrid, at approx. $20k per new vehicle.

We could have GIVEN the entire $300 billion away to utilities, independent power producers, and automobile owners, and gotten to that point.

Or we could have used it as loan guarantees to those constituencies, and thereby gotten all of that wind, nuclear, and efficiency benefit while retaining the $300 billion on the books as an ASSET rather than as part of the out of control budget deficit.

Instead we end up with a huge disaster that has weakened American military and intel capabilities, strengthened our real enemies, and destabilized a region of the world that the entire world depends on.

Great job, Mr. President.

---

Notes, other:

Build time for a wind farm is about 2 - 3 years after completion of wind survey (one year) and financing (variable depending on whether utility or private), not including dealing with NIMBY issues.

Build time for a nuclear reactor is about 5 - 7 years after completion of site feasibility survey, not including dealing with NIMBY issues.

New reactor designs are intrinsically safe ("New nukes are good nukes!"); and spent nuclear fuel can be recycled with about 90% efficiency.

New wind turbine designs minimize bird kill due to a) smooth towers that cannot be used as perches and b) slow blade rotation speeds which make blades visible so birds will fly around them.

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) offer a typical 100-mile range on batteries alone, plus disesl or gasoline power for longer trips. For most purposes they can be recharged overnight at off-peak rates, so you rarely have to fill up the gas or diesel tank. This technology is presently viable, and Diamler/Chrysler has deployed it on the Sprinter van in Germany.

IMHO the way to deal with NIMBYs is to offer them a deal: they get to be first in line for power outages in the event of spot shortages of electricity. After a few rounds of this they will come to recognize that their property values are higher with a wind farm or nuclear reactor on the horizon than with the lights out at random intervals each week.

[Boghie]

Duncan,

You bring up the Manhattan Project - I knew you would. We used that to build a devastating weapon. Power generation was not a thought in nuke development - it was an afterthought. Our very existence as a democratic polity was challenged - the GWOT, while challenging, is not that. If it was even the Far Far Left might be willing to fight it. Cindy Sheehan would be collecting Birkenstocks for the soldiers. Maybe later...

Your missed on solar power - another government sponsored power producer. But, the government stuff cost gazillions and was extremely inefficient. Check out the panels the evil oil companies sell on-line. They are about four times as efficient as they were in 2000.

The science for these alternative fuel sources is well known. We need technology to cost effectively harness that science - and that provides an incentive to evil corporate America and the evil corporate New World Order.

Look at the effect the vast energy price swings had in California in 2001. Solar is starting to come on-line. Look at the effect of increased fuel prices. SUVs are falling off the road while there are waiting lines for new Hybrids. People adjust to market moves - the government is too damn slow.

None of that is government sponsored. And, none of that would have benefited on whit by the government spending 300 Billion on Bridges to Nowhere. Actually, the government probably would not have spent much of that money - it would have been a peace dividend. Ah, the thought of peace - a world without Zarqawi, bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Iranian 'energy' program, etc... But I live in 2006, not 1996 - and some could reasonably state that the bucolic world we thought we lived in 1996 was really an illusion since we had just gone through the Khobar Towers bombing by al Qaeda.

[Boghie]

Marcello and g510,

I think your numbers are in concurrence…

I kinda feel like a bit of a sadsack for using an article in National Geographic, but it does seem clear… And, the basic numbers seem to match what you are saying. Interesting information on build times. I think we Americans will soon accept them – we are learning that our infrastructure for generating and wheeling energy around is a bit long on tooth. I am concerned that the NIMBY/Tree Huggers are cutting their noses off in spite of their face.

g510,

To increase that by 50% we have to build capacity for about 260 GW (gigawatts) of new generating capacity. If we assume the standard ratio of 20% wind, 80% nuclear, and an average 2 MW wind turbine, and an average 800 MW nuclear reactor, we end up with about 26 million new wind turbines and 260 new nuclear plants.

Based on my infamous NG article we would need:
260 reactors * ½ sq-mile/reactor = 130 miles of nuclear reactors nation wide
and about 40,529 sq-miles for the wind turbines.

America has about 5.7 million miles of land…

So this should be doable – I mean we are talking about 0.7% increased usage for growing our power supply by 50%...

Can it be done in a NIMY environment? Can it be done when you should locate power generation reasonably close to the target population?

I think the time is coming…

[Marcello]

You can try this DOE paper.
http://www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/MPR-2627%20DOE%20Construction%20Schedule%20Evaluation%20Rev2_final.pdf

Scroll down to page v to see a graph with some timelines for the actual construction.

[Boghie]

Marcello,

You should start a freebe blog on Blogspot. I think your skillset would be appreciated.

Thanks for the link. It will probably contain a whole lot more than directly related to this topic.

[g510]

Boghie, not to worry about using Nat'l Geographic figures. NG is a credible source. (BTW, Alexandar Graham Bell, who invented the telephone, also started the National Geographic Society. According to one of his relatives, the latter was the thing he was most proud of having done in his life.)

Re. square mileage: Still less than devoted to sprawl and the supporting roads for sprawl, which after all are the #1 cause of oil addiction.

But in any case, many of those wind turbines will be installed on agricultural land: utilities and independent power producers making deals with farmers to put them in existing fields, which can be done at minimum impact on the agricultural capacity of those fields. This is also a market-driven phenomenon, and is economically viable right now.

BTW, "tree-huggers" are starting to come over in favor of nuclear, based on a) relative climate impacts, b) intrinsically safe reactor designs, and c) spent fuel recycling to minimize nuclear waste issues.

We will also have to beef up our transmission line infrastructure since the best places to locate any new generating capacity are usually on cheap land that's further from population centers. This is a relatively straightforward issue also.

Bottom line is, there's no good reason not to go full ahead on this.

[jon]

Where at least some of that $300 billion would have done a lot of good would have been as a fund to make every new car purchased by the various levels of government hybrids, with a multi year contract. If this had been done a few years ago there would now be a whole lot more hybrids on the street, we would have seen prices come down sooner, and finally seen production capacity ramp up much more quickly. The other two places would have been to create a large number of science scholarships to many differnt universities throughout the country. Specifically in fields dealing with alternative fuels, civil engineering, physics, and electrical engineering. This may not lead directly to discoveries, but it will provide a larger pool of bright young educated people to work on the problems for the next 30 years. Finally, a national program to encourage and in some cases subsidize basic, relatively pain-free conservation measures. Whether they be minor changes in driving habits, make fewer trips to the stores, keep tires inflated, smoother acceleration and stopping. Don't know exaclty what these measures would do, but at the very least they would get people thinking seriously about the issues.

Most people that I've talked to about gas and fuel price/problems have one of two viewpoints. First, it is the Arabs/oil companies restrictin the flow of supplies that is causing all of the trouble. Second, it is the environmentalists, keeping us from drilling in ANWR that is the reasonfor the high gas prices. Most don't seem to realize that prices while they may drop some if the Iran situatio nis resolved peacefully, are going to stay in this ballpark and get higher over the long run. They may not be higher on 5/1/07, but on 5/1/08 the moving average for the previous quarter will almost certainly be higher.

[Peter]

Duncan isn't as far off as you guys are thinking. The reactors designed and built in the US were built to brew Plutonium for the weapon program. Reactor owners would sell the plu to the feds for $1k/gram, or about a half million buck per pound. The cost of building, operating and dismantling the reactor would have been paid for by the sale of plu to the feds. That is why the head of the AEC claimed that nuclear generated electricity would be too cheap to meter. Because electricity production would be the by-product, not the primary product produced. In 1970, the federal government stopped purchasing privately produced plutonium. It was that economic incident that made reactors too expensive to build. Not treehuggers, although folks prefer to pretend that treehuggers and their lawyers caused the cessation of nuclear power plant construction. Last time I checked, there were over 1700 tons of plutonium in private ownership. That is enough to make almost 200,000 Nagasaki equivalent bombs, using 1940s technology. More modern technology could probably squeeze more than a million nukes out of that private hoard of plu.

Before the Manhattan Project, the technology to refine chemicals to the purity needed for semiconductors did NOT exist. No single company could have afforded the huge piles of money needed to develop such stuff. Transistors, integrated circuits, modern computers and the internet would never have been possible without the Manhattan Project. They weren't the intended product, they were by-products of the stuff you had to invent in order to make the bombs. Our domestic nuclear power industry was built as a source of plutonium for that atomic weapon manufacturing program, and electricity was the by-product.

MOS (metal oxide semiconductor) technology was invented in the 1920s. It was more than 40 years before chemical refining technology was able to reduce them to practice.

[Boghie]

Marcello,

I think you are 100% correct. We can roll with power production and still not be able to wheel it where it is needed. With the suburban sprawl and all...

We may need to condemn right of ways through our communities - to include growth paths. We definitely need to make certain that we protect areas from sprawl that will house future power generation sites. And, we need to protect pathways from those sites (still projected) to city centers.

That is going to be difficult - but doable.

Here in San Diego we have some NIMBY's squealing about additonal transition lines following an existing path. Oh, well...

[Craig]

Many say we will see $3.50/gal this summer. If you factor in Iran, who knows how high it could go. Everyone knows America MUST get off the oil. After September 11, 2001 I expected our President to call on Americans to GET OFF THE OIL. I was expecting a speech like the one JFK gave that motivated us to reach for the moon. As you know, this never happened. Eventually I realized that the only way this is going to happen is for us to do it ourselves. To that end I created this idea and have been trying to make it a reality..

The EPA is offering a research grant opportunity that I believe is a perfect fit for this idea. I have sent an e-mail to a hand picked list of university professors who have experience with government research projects. I’m looking to form a research team to apply for the EPA grant, conduct a social-economic experiment and surveys to determine to what extent the American public will support it, project the economic potential of WPH, and identify logistical, social and political obstacles as well as opportunities.

All government grants are awarded based on merit of the proposed research. I believe WPH has merit but your help is needed to verify it. You can help by posting your feedback. Let the professors and the EPA know what you think about WPH. Do you think this idea is worth pursuing? We need to know if Americans will support a plan like this.

Do you have any ideas to improve the plan?

Share any and all of your thoughts.

Tell your friends and family about this Blog post and ask them to post their thoughts on WPH

http://wepayhalf.org

Thank you

Craig