• 2 days U.S. On Track To Unseat Saudi Arabia As No.2 Oil Producer In the World
  • 2 days Senior Interior Dept. Official Says Florida Still On Trump’s Draft Drilling Plan
  • 2 days Schlumberger Optimistic In 2018 For Oilfield Services Businesses
  • 3 days Only 1/3 Of Oil Patch Jobs To Return To Canada After Downturn Ends
  • 3 days Statoil, YPF Finalize Joint Vaca Muerta Development Deal
  • 3 days TransCanada Boasts Long-Term Commitments For Keystone XL
  • 3 days Nigeria Files Suit Against JP Morgan Over Oil Field Sale
  • 3 days Chinese Oil Ships Found Violating UN Sanctions On North Korea
  • 3 days Oil Slick From Iranian Tanker Explosion Is Now The Size Of Paris
  • 3 days Nigeria Approves Petroleum Industry Bill After 17 Long Years
  • 4 days Venezuelan Output Drops To 28-Year Low In 2017
  • 4 days OPEC Revises Up Non-OPEC Production Estimates For 2018
  • 4 days Iraq Ready To Sign Deal With BP For Kirkuk Fields
  • 4 days Kinder Morgan Delays Trans Mountain Launch Again
  • 4 days Shell Inks Another Solar Deal
  • 5 days API Reports Seventh Large Crude Draw In Seven Weeks
  • 5 days Maduro’s Advisors Recommend Selling Petro At Steep 60% Discount
  • 5 days EIA: Shale Oil Output To Rise By 1.8 Million Bpd Through Q1 2019
  • 5 days IEA: Don’t Expect Much Oil From Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Before 2030
  • 5 days Minister Says Norway Must Prepare For Arctic Oil Race With Russia
  • 5 days Eight Years Late—UK Hinkley Point C To Be In Service By 2025
  • 5 days Sunk Iranian Oil Tanker Leave Behind Two Slicks
  • 5 days Saudi Arabia Shuns UBS, BofA As Aramco IPO Coordinators
  • 5 days WCS-WTI Spread Narrows As Exports-By-Rail Pick Up
  • 5 days Norway Grants Record 75 New Offshore Exploration Leases
  • 5 days China’s Growing Appetite For Renewables
  • 6 days Chevron To Resume Drilling In Kurdistan
  • 6 days India Boosts Oil, Gas Resource Estimate Ahead Of Bidding Round
  • 6 days India’s Reliance Boosts Export Refinery Capacity By 30%
  • 6 days Nigeria Among Worst Performers In Electricity Supply
  • 6 days ELN Attacks Another Colombian Pipeline As Ceasefire Ceases
  • 6 days Shell Buys 43.8% Stake In Silicon Ranch Solar
  • 6 days Saudis To Award Nuclear Power Contracts In December
  • 7 days Shell Approves Its First North Sea Oil Project In Six Years
  • 7 days China Unlikely To Maintain Record Oil Product Exports
  • 7 days Australia Solar Power Additions Hit Record In 2017
  • 7 days Morocco Prepares $4.6B Gas Project Tender
  • 7 days Iranian Oil Tanker Sinks After Second Explosion
  • 9 days Russia To Discuss Possible Exit From OPEC Deal
  • 9 days Iranian Oil Tanker Drifts Into Japanese Waters As Fires Rage On
Alt Text

The Single Biggest Oil Price Influencer In 2018

The OPEC production cut deal…

Alt Text

The Most Feared Businessman In Russia

No politician or businessman is…

Alt Text

Unexpected Phenomenon Observed In Lithium-Ion Batteries

New research shows that lithium…

John Daly

John Daly

Dr. John C.K. Daly is the chief analyst for Oilprice.com, Dr. Daly received his Ph.D. in 1986 from the School of Slavonic and East European…

More Info

Nazi-era Technology Embraced by Republicans in U.S. Congress in the Name of National Energy Security

Nazi-era Technology Embraced by Republicans in U.S. Congress in the Name of National Energy Security

Twentieth-century American military history has two iconic dates - 7 December 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor and 6 June 1944, D-Day, when the liberation of Europe began.

The subsequent vicious Allied fight from Normandy to Germany saw the Nazis largely fueled by a technology that is now being promoted by the Republican Congressional leadership, in collusion with its munificent fiscal campaign energy supporters, as a way to lessen U.S. dependence on energy imports.

At issue is the Fishcher-Tropsch coal liquefaction process, developed by energy-poor Germany in the 1920s and expanded by the Nazi regime. Bent on dominating Europe, Hitler’s war machine suffered from increasing fuel shortages, first in September 1939 when Britain’s Royal Navy clamped a naval blockade on the Baltic, exacerbated in June1941 when the invasion of the USSR ended Soviet energy imports, leaving Germany largely dependent on Romania’s Ploesti oilfields after the failure of Army Group south to capture the Caucasus and Azerbaijan’s rich Caspian resources. FT production became increasingly critical to fueling Hitler’s war machine from then onwards, given Germany’s immense coal reserves.

By 1944, Germany was producing 124,000 barrels of synthetic fuels daily at 25 FT plants. FT was subsequently commercialized by South Africa’s apartheid regime, beginning in the 1950s through South Africa's state energy company Suid Afrikaanse Steenkool en Olie (SASOL), founded in 1950, now a private company and the world’s leading proponent of FT. In the early 1980s, as UN sanctions against South Africa began to take effect, two large coal to liquid (CTL) SASOL production facilities were commissioned and now form the single largest and most profitable asset in SASOL's global portfolio.

If the ideological footprint of Fischer-Tropsch is vile, then its environmental impact is even worse. Quite aside from the ideological concerns, fuel derived from the FT process has a carbon footprint 118 percent greater than that of conventional gasoline.

Nevertheless, on 12 May the House Armed Services Committee voted to eliminate a ban on the military purchasing high carbon non-conventional fuels. In considering the annual National Defense Authorization Act, House Resolution 1540, the committee voted to exempt the Department of Defense from Section 526 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which prohibits federal agencies from procuring fuels with higher life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels, including liquid coal and tar sands oil.

The Pentagon is pushing back against being mandated to use these dirty fuels, backed by the coal industry and its Congressional supporters. On 3 June, Tom Hicks, the Navy’s deputy assistant secretary for energy, testified before a House Energy and Commerce Committee panel against Fischer-Tropsch fuels, stating, “In addition to requiring large new sources of coal, it requires enormous quantities of water, $5 to $10 billion in capital per plant to provide a fuel result that is more than twice as carbon-intensive as petroleum,” promoting instead new generation biofuels made from sources like camelina crops, corn stover and algae.

The House of Representatives Energy and Power subcommittee is reviewing a sweeping energy bill sponsored by Republican California Representative Devin Nunes. The bill, which has more than 70 co-sponsors, envisages opening vast offshore areas to oil-and-gas drilling, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as well as mandate scores of new nuclear reactors over the next three decades.

If  Congressional Republicans have their way, then the U.S. military will soon be fueled by an environmentally filthy technique that allowed the Nazi war machine to kill tens of thousands of allied troops and Pretoria to number thousands of black South Africans, all the while producing massive amounts of greenhouse gases, all in the name of corporate profits and U.S. energy “national security,” not to mention a revival of nuclear power in the U.S., an alarming prospect in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima catastrophe.

FT’s environmental impact is as squalid as its historical legacy, and in this case, the Pentagon’s commitment to agricultural biofuel renewable puts it on the side of the angels. So the question remains – will Congress, dominated by Republicans backed by “Big Coal” fiscal concerns, be able to coerce the Pentagon to accept this technology?

Watch this space.

By. John C.K. Daly of OilPrice.com

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on June 06 2011 said:
    Be a shame when people (not dems) look up the history of the space program....
  • Anonymous on June 07 2011 said:
    I really wish that I understood what you are trying to say, John. FT technology has been improved, and it might eventually turn out to be essential. I'm not happy about this, but that is the kind of world we live in. A world where American voters reelect somebody like George W. Bush, and might reelect a man who doesn't know beans about energy.As for copying German technology, the German Panther tank should have been copied, as well as the V2 (or even V1) rockets. According to a calculation I once made, doing that would have saved at least a million lives...at least.
  • Anonymous on June 07 2011 said:
    Too bad the author is only presenting part of the picture.Yes. Fischer-Tropsch has a significant impact when you use coal as a feed stock because you have to dig and burn coal first. However, when you use natural gas and a solid state catalyst your environmental impact is minor.Plus, when you use stranded natural gas as a feed stock - you turn a no value input into an extremely clean 'green' desiel with no sulfer and ultra low particulates.Just because some germans developed the process the 1920's (pre-Nazi) does not make it a tainted science.
  • Anonymous on June 07 2011 said:
    I have the impression that J.D. is more interested in pumping adrenalin than addressing energy issues in a logical and rational matter. Yes, Germans who grew up under the horrid 19th century strongman Otto Von Bismarck, invented the F-T process. But is that a reason for rejecting this technology? We should remember that billons of gallons of methanol are produced each year by what is essentially a variant of the F-T process. Should we stop using methanol?
  • Anonymous on June 07 2011 said:
    Where is the beef in this article? The author is clearly ignorant of both chemistry and industrial energy processes. There is no factual content of note, and the logic such as it is has twisted itself into a political diatribe.Not what one generally comes to OilPrice.com to find.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2011 said:
    John Daly's logic is challenging indeed. Let's examine his unstated first principles of syllogisms.1. Technology is evil if developed by National Socialist or even Weimar Republican Germany.2. Carbon Dioxide is a filthy environmental pollutant.3. Any energy policy proposed by the Republican majority House must be rejected.Well John, having failed to convince me that any of these foundational principles are valid, let alone true; you did manage to convince me of the opposite.We should pull out all the stops on F-T processes and while we're at it "Drill Baby, Drill!"

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News