Staggering cost of the Calif. oil fight: $100M

A surprising $100 million has been raised so far in the fight over the California oil tax. Californians will vote in November on whether to put a tax on oil extracted from California wells.

There’s so much at stake in California, because its economic clout often means other states follow its lead. To put this $100M number in perspective, that’s 40 percent of what it cost to run for U.S. president last time, according to this summary in the Mercury News (registration required) about the fight between Silicon Valley supporters (including venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, pictured here) and Chevron and other oil interests.

Wired has a noteworthy piece by Vinod Khosla, where he describes his biofuel investments with more detail than we’ve seen before. Not only is Khosla at the center of the one of the biggest political battles the state has seen, he’s as frenetic as any investor right now in biofuels. In one example, he elaborates on the $3.3 million investment he made last month in Kergy, a Denver company, which is the first “anaerobic thermal conversion machine.” Kergy has been secretive until now; we mentioned it here.

So what, you ask, is anaerobic thermal conversion? Khosla explains:

Kergy’s machine is special because it makes cellulosic ethanol through anaerobic thermal conversion rather than through fermentation or acid hydrolysis. It does not need organisms or enzymes to do its work. Biomass is heated in an oxygen-free environment to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen….The carbon monoxide and hydrogen are then reconstituted into various alcohols • like ethanol. Better still, fermentation and acid hydrol­ysis can take days to occur, but thermal conversion breaks down organic matter and converts it to ethanol in minutes.

And here’s the really exciting part: Because all organic matter contains carbon, [inventor Bud] Klepper can make ethanol out of cellulose or any form of organic matter. This means the usual suspects such as corn, switchgrass, sugarcane, and miscanthus but also any waste product such as wood chips, paper pulp, cow manure, and even human waste.

Khosla has his critics, as when he came under attack by The Oil Drum. When we visited him last week, he said his argument now is that nation can take incremental steps — but not necessarily huge steps — to wean itself from oil dependence. He dismisses hydrogen as an energy source, because it would require too radical a shift in resources. There is no infrastructure build to support it. He says he keeps getting pitches from entrepreneurs wanting to build a hydrogen company, and he responds: “Now what? Who are you going to sell it to?”

Corn ethanol, on the other hand, is already here, and has a ready market. So then you can build upon that, by moving to the much more efficient cellulosic ethanol, which is where Khosla is focused. He compares it to the Internet. The earliest version of the Internet was far from perfect. But it was useful, and some companies made money. But with AJAX and other cool new tools, we’re still innovating.

Next Story: Venture shocker: Sevin Rosen returns cash, cites “terrible” environment
Previous Story: Google-YouTube marriage?

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , ,

Photo of Matt Marshall

About the Author, Matt Marshall

Matt Marshall is editor and CEO of VentureBeat. Follow him on Twitter at @mmarshall, and follow VentureBeat on Twitter at @venturebeat.

  • or molasses? as is being done right now in swaziland? they've designed cooking stoves that work on green fuel made from molasses.
  • Anon Coward
    Wired has always been a great magazine. Sorry to see their editorial integrity getting bought out by some VC's financial and political clout! :(
  • California uses 23 billion gallons of gasoline per year and 6 billion gallons of Diesel fuel.
    There is 5-8% of Ethanol in our fuel already. The mandate allows 10 percent, but there has not been the qauntity consistantly available to use 10%. We only have had one producing plant, with Pacific Ethanol soon to come online and others looking to build. But instead of shipping and railing the ethanol in we will ship and rail the corn here. Colusa Biomass (CLME) is one potential answer. They are building a plant that will make Ethanol out of one of California's worst agricuture air issues, what to do with the rice stubble instead of burning it, make ethanol.

    My issue with ethanol is its 20% decrease in BTU's and mileage. Then look at the cars that are now being made into flexfuel, the biggest cars in the carmakers fleet. So if the vehicle gets 18mpg on gas they are going to get 12-14mpg on E85. You are not going to get American people behind if they are going to be paying even more for monthly fuel costs. E85 vehicles should only be made in small vehicles getting over 30mpg already or be moved into ethanol hybrids and then just go all the way and do plug-in ethanol hybrid, that gets 80-100mpg

    My Goal is that americans start demanding the highest mileage possible, like ethanol, biodiesel hybrids that are plug in. People could have the size vehicles they need but using the appropriate fuel for the weight and technology. Biodiesel hybrids can be used in all mid-size to large vehicles. Diesels get excellent MPG already, are very durable and can tow anything. Just increasing our MPG to 40 gallon average on 1/4 of the cars driven in the US would be equal to the amount we import from OPEC. And we havent even starting talking about emmission reductions, or how much biofuels can stimulate local and national economies if the money we spent on importing fuel was kept here and spent here.

    Even If you never drive a diesel you are affected every day buy the effects of diesel costs and emmissions. Every product you buy has been hauled in a truck at some point.

    Kari Lemons
  • painless
    a great analysis on this proposition 87 over at EconoBrowser.com

    Summary: Surprise! add a tax on CA oil and you'll wind up importing more oil from abroad.


    California crude oil production, like that of the United States as a whole, is on a long-term downward trend owing to the failure of new discoveries to keep up with depletion from older fields. The state produces a little over a third of the oil we consume and must import the rest from elsewhere. This proposal taxes the oil produced in California but not any of the oil that we import, giving imported oil a tax advantage relative to that produced here. If you look just at the tax incidence of the proposal, it is inconceivable that the tax change could have any effect other than to reduce the amount of oil California produces and increase the amount we import from other states or countries. And yet, proponents of Proposition 87 advance as one of their arguments the claim that the Act would reduce our dependence on imported oil!

    How can it make sense to tax imported oil at a lower rate than that which is produced domestically? One argument might be that oil production has environmental externalities, and Californians prefer to see this environmental degradation occur outside our state boundaries. However, it seems clear to me that the use of oil (both in refining and combustion) entails more significant environmental externalities than production of the kind that currently takes place in California, so if that is the aim, it makes far more sense to tax the users of oil rather than its producers. Furthermore, if the effect is to replace some of the seemingly benign production around Bakersfield with Alberta tar sands or Colorado oil shale, it seems absurd to try to justify that on the basis of environmental considerations.

    full article here
    http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/10/pro...
  • Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! pgwupjlrad
  • Hi there...Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts ! it was a great Saturday