 |
|
Add to My Group
|
July 13, 2008 at 12:38:30
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 7/13/08: by Doug Rogers Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
It's a sinking feeling watching your country collectively making bad decisions over and over again. It seems like it's about to happen once more with the move to expand off-shore oil drilling and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is happening because there hasn't been enough logical introspection into what is driving our thinking. It's clear enough that the recent tripling in the price of gasoline and other petroleum products is the reason this issue has come up. But what are the assumptions behind the thinking on new drilling in environmentally sensitive areas? It seems that those who advocate this want to have it both ways, especially in regards to the issue of whether the world is experiencing the phenomenon known as peak oil. This idea is ridiculed by some, who point to extensive underground reserves and improved technology for extraction, as reasons why supply will meet demand for years and years to come. The price rise is therefore due to one, or a combination of reasons- speculation on the futures market, the shrinking value of the dollar, or increased demand in new markets. But if there's no problem on the supply side then there's really no rationale for recklessly expanding drilling. Demand can be met through deliberate, routine increases in production. If the oil is abundant then there's no need to take unnecessary risks in extracting it. So the argument for off-shore and ANWAR drilling has to be made on the opposite contention. That is that we are in fact facing a supply shortage. It would be great to get the drilling proponents to admit that this is the core of their argument. That, in itself would be a victory. But even if they were forthcoming about their rationale, would it still be a good argument?
If we really are on the downward slope of the normal curve, in the process of extracting the second half of the total quantity of oil that the earth will yield, what exactly is the point of speeding up that process? Scarcity will increase no matter how fervently we race to catch up with it. This is not a permanent solution to the problem we face- life without abundant sources of liquid portable energy.
It's important to remember that whatever domestic supplies that are developed will only be added to the pool of the world market. So there should be no illusion that we are somehow weaning ourselves from "foreign" oil. We should also remember that any decision to charge down the path of willy-nilly oil drilling won't yield any results for ten years. So we should be asking what other "real" solutions could we be pursuing with as great a vigor as some are now expending on pushing for increased drilling?
It seems to me that ten years is exactly the window that would be needed, with appropriate civic energy, to construct a comprehensive mass transit system in the United States. This would be comprised of high speed rail between cities, interurban lines that run from city centers into their hinterlands and subway, light rail or trolley service that would operate within cities.
Not only does this provide hope for relieving the fatal pressure we are currently exerting on the environment, but in the event of a shrinking automobile option, such a system may be all that stands between average people and total economic catastrophe. At the same time we could be moving along dozens of other fronts to develop alternative energy sources and conservation techniques.
There is also the argument that even as we transition to new transportation and energy paradigms we will still need oil to sustain and buffer us in the process. This is absolutely correct and shouldn't be de-emphasized. But the question remains what's the rush? If the oil under the coastal shelves will be a boon to us in ten years, it will also be a boon in fifty or a hundred years. Are our needs more important than our descendants' needs? A plan to attain these reserves should be implemented incrementally, cautious in its impact on the environment and it shouldn't pull our focus away from finding the real solutions to our predicament.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 10 comments |
|
LIV..(low information voters)
we don't need more oil..we need more gasoline (heating oil, diesel, etc.)...can't burn "crude" in you car, it has to be refined into gas first before your car will run...we need more refineries to convert crude oil to gasoline....in the 1980's there were 346 refineries..now there are only about 129 in the U.S....the oil companies will not open or build new refineries..they love the price at $4.50 (and more, going up daily) wind and solar energy should also be pursued....why can't Americans think any more..? by Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments) on Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:53:53 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: oil/gas
Quite right. That's a different article. by Doug Rogers (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 152 comments) on Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 1:36:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Oil refineries and other considerations
As you said, in 1980 we had 346 refineries and now we have about 129. Well, when we had 346 refineries we only refined 7 million barrels of oil per year, whereas now, with far fewer refineries we refine 17 million barrels of oil per year. It's obvious that the oil companies consider it cheaper and easier to expand and improve the output of existing refineries that to build new ones. If they were interested in increasing the amount of domestic oil they might, for example, drill in the 6.6 million acres within the Continental United States on land where they already hold leases, or they could push for exploiting the oil shale in Colorado, or go up north and extract oil from Canadian oil sands. Another approach might be to expand the use of cleaner and cheaper natural gas. of which we have an almost unexhaustable supply. According to P. Boone Pickens, there are now 8 million natural gas driven vehicles on the road today, as compared to only 5 million 3 years ago, and that Argentina has gone for natural gas as their primary power provider for their vehicles. Honda makes a car that runs on natural gas and General Motors has about 13 platforms that run on natural gas, but only one in the United States. There are lots of solutions to our high prices for gasoline that are shorter term than drilling off our coasts. Many of them would also be far better for the environment and could be in place in less time than it would take to have off shore drilling make a difference. We should concentrate on developing those resources and leave our coastliines alone. Leon by Leon (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 30 comments) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:54:30 PM (0+)
|
|
US hypocrisy
it's ok if the petroleum we use comes from the continentl margins of South America, Africa, the Middle East and Indonesia isn't it? as long as our coasts aren't polluted, then we're all happy, right? more refineries and more drilling of existing leases would help, and even drilling offshore Florida, both coasts and Alaska would help. But the real problem is that all of this will not solve the problem. The world needs a fair way to produce the existing hydrocarbons, and a coordinated effort to find new ways to provide new energy. by Houston Radical (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 82 comments) on Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:48:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: hypocrisy
When people have political power then wise choices are made about how resources are developed. That's what the fight is about in the Nigerian delta and the rain forests of Ecuador. We have had a consensus in this country against off-shore drilling. As limited as our voice may seem at times, the fact was that you couldn't win Florida without opposing drilling. This latest push by the oil companies, if successful would be a tremendous blow to democratic control. This subjugation of human needs is a hallmark of oil development everywhere. Losing our power to influence resource management won't bring justice to anyone else in the world. Indeed we should stand in solidarity for the exact same cause. by Doug Rogers (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 152 comments) on Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:16:55 PM (0+)
|
|
I see
No evidence of a supply shortage. See any gas lines? Big Oil has no interest in drilling for more oil, this would depress profits, as imported oil is more profitable since they buy at below market rates, and sell to their refineries at market rates, with profits getting hid off shore. Bush and the Republican controlled Congress at a time when his popularity was high and oil was rising in price, could have opened up the off-shore drilling then, instead of waiting for a Democratic controlled congress. The reason they did not is clear by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:19:07 PM (0+)
|
|
There is in fact
a supply problem. All things are finite in a finite world. We have known there was a supply problem since 1949. It was brought to the forefront again in 1956, again in 1974 and again in 2006. The Department of Energy was created to deal with this very issue. But then a supply problem would be an inconvenience to the 4.8% of our planets inhabitants that consume more than 25% of all global energy, so therefore, those who wish to inconvenience us must be wrong. Doug Rogers submitted a nice thought provoking article here. Thanks Doug. by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:01:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Supply Problem
You say there is a supply problem. If so, where are the lines? Where are the shortages? The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to make sure nuclear got shut down. It's inaction over oil for the past 30 years indicates there is no shortage. President Bush lifting a presidential moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf only now, when he could have done so in 2006 with a Republican controlled Congress indicates their is no shortage. The US military consumes 2% of our total oil consumption BTW. That does not include what industry consumes making their toys and weapons, so don't lay it all on our consumers. More than 68 million federal acres are now under lease and sitting idle, that according to one Congressman could yield an estimated 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of gas a day. Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits for public drilling in the past four years, though only 18,954 wells were actually drilled Proven Reserves have went up from 600 billion barrels to 1.2 trillion barrels over the last 30 years. Probable and undiscovered oil is much greater. The lack of any urgency by anyone in government or Industry to find alternatives, despite energy being a national security priority. The fact is, there is plenty of oil for decades, even if it is finite. Big Oil is simply keeping the supply/demand ratio tight to allow prices to rise, helped by speculation. They control the supply by keeping oil in the ground. Cartels and monopolies like to do that, especially when Big Brother lets them. Recent oil discoveries: 2008 Petrobras' most recent oil finds off the Brazilian coast are of the same order as the massive and newly discovered Tupi field, the chairman of Brazil's state oil company said in an interview published on Sunday. Tupi has estimated recoverable reserves of 5 to 8 billion barrels. 2007 Kuwait could potentially boost its oil capacity to 4m bpd by 2012 after recent finds, eight years earlier than a previous target of 2010, Reuters reported quoting oil minister Sheikh Ali al-Jarrah al-Sabah. Kuwait's existing capacity is around 2.8m bpd. 2007 An oil researcher in Iraq said that Iraq has approximately 530 geological complexes of potential oil reserves and that up to one hundred and fifteen sites have recently been drilled for that have reserves of around 311 billion barrels of oil, Iraq Directory reported. 2007 PetroChina Co.'s (PTR) recent major oil discovery in Jidong field, Bohai Bay, China, is estimated to contain probable reserves of 2.2 billion barrels, a government official said Tuesday, and is expected to produce 200,800 barrels a day of crude oil within three years, a source close to the field's operations added 2008 Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said on Sunday that Iran has discovered a new oil field in the southwest province of Khuzestan with in-place reserves of 1.1 billion barrels. The field, which is located near Andimeshk in Khuzestan, holds an estimated reserve of 233 million barrels of recoverable crude oil, state television quoted Nozari as saying. 2008 Iran's Central Zagros region may contain up to 50 billion barrels of oil, the oil ministry's official Shana Web site reported Wednesday, citing a senior oil official. Fereydoun Salehi, who manages exploration plans for the Iranian Central Oil Fields Company, said seismographic and geological studies show the Central Zagros region as having numerous large oil fields, Shana said. Salehi said the region also has several oil traps with a projected capacity of 50 billion barrels of oil, according to Shana. 2008 The Bakken oil play stretches across Montana, North Dakota and into Southeastern Saskatchewan. We're talking about some potentially massive reserves of oil, too. The amount of oil in place has been estimated between 271 billion and 503 billion barrels of oil. Although that is only referring to total oil-in-place, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) field report released on April 10, 2008, estimated there are up to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil on the U.S. side of the Bakken.[earlier estimates by Leigh Price who died in 2000 suddenly despite being in his 50's and in great shape was said to have had a far higher estimate with oil at only 20 dollars a barrel , but his report was pending peer review at the time and the USGS refused to issue his draft due to rules] Individually, any given point is not conclusive. Collectively, they are. Cherry pick the weakest link as you are prone to do if you wish. by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:54:58 AM (0+)
|
|
MORE CRUDE
AFTER BUSH STRIKES IRAN THERE WILL BE MORE WORLD DEMAND FOR OIL. AND NOW BUSHS AND HIS CRONIES WANT DRILL HERE AND, SELL OUR OIL TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. BETTER WAKE UP. AND IT WOULD BE A LOT EASER THEN FIGHTING TERRORIST,TO GET IT. by RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:49:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Supply Problem
In fact I haven't made any claim about whether there is a supply problem or not. Your response has a lot of information in it. Thanks. But I think you would have to agree that it proves my point. There is no imperative to drill on the continental shelf. Bush just removed the executive injunction against off-shore drilling. This is supposedly to put pressure on congress to act. Why? What's the imperative for us to change our environmental standards if the situation is as you have described it. In 2001 he claimed that the California electricity crisis was clear evidence that we needed to drill in ANWAR. These people are shameless in their willingness to manipulate the situation to push private interests. Whatever your view of "peak oil", whether you are liberal or conservative, we should all be outraged that this is going on. I hope you can see a reason for consensus on this particular point. by Doug Rogers (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 152 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:30:45 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
