Plenty of Oil
by Ted Slater on 07/29/2008 at 3:42 PM
We're about to run out of petroleum, right? The peak of production is imminent, at which point less oil will become available, a dire condition considering the world's increasing appetite for it. There will be shortages, famine, riots ... unless we immediately pour all our resources into developing alternative energies: solar, wind, hydroelectric (but not nuclear, of course), and curtail others' use of "fossil fuels."
It's TEOTWAWKI, right?
Nah. The truth is that there is indeed plenty of petroleum available. Plenty that we know of, and likely a whole lot more that's yet to be discovered.
Facts: Saudi Arabia has an estimated 260 billion barrels of oil in its reserves, enough to last another 80 years at current extraction rates. Canada has about 180 billion, which will last 180 years at current rates. Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Venezuela and Russia together have about 580 billion barrels in reserve.
Current known global reserves of this stuff are over 1.1 trillion barrels yet to be drilled.
Now here's something you probably haven't heard: There are between 800 billion barrels and 2.6 trillion barrels worth of oil within the oil shale reserves in the United States.
Stunning, hm? And at over $100 per barrel for oil, it's a profitable possibility ... if only U.S. lawmakers would get out of the way and stop hindering the efforts of those who want to provide it to us.
Earlier this month Senator Orrin Hatch, of the shale oil-rich state of Utah, presented some things most of us probably don't know about shale oil:
- Oil shale has a smaller carbon footprint than ethanol.
- Oil shale uses less water than ethanol and no more than gasoline.
- Oil shale uses much less land than either ethanol or gasoline. One acre of corn produces 10 barrels of ethanol. One acre in the oil patch produces about 10,000 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces between 100,000 and 1,000,000+ barrels of shale oil.
- Oil shale has been commercially produced in Brazil for 30 years and in Estonia for 80 years.
- Oil shale failed in 1982 due to the price dropping to $10 a barrel, not because of technology or scarcity of water.
It's worth getting excited about the amount of oil available in ANWR, some 15 billion barrels. But the potential lying beneath the ground in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah is exhilarating.
Yes, let's explore and exploit alternative energy sources, including nuclear (France, FWIW, derives over 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear). But let's not shut the door on the blessings of abundant oil quite yet.
By the time we run out of the stuff in 100 or 200 years, I'm confident that the level-headed investments we're currently making in alternative energy will enable us to replace our dependence on petroleum entirely, without the infringements on liberty, productivity and lifestyle inherent in "peak oil" proponents' route to the future.
1. farmer Tom said the following at 4:22 PM on Jul 29:
Well said!!
Of course the response will be that we are destroying our environment when we use that oil. And that just aggravates the heck out of me.
If oil is a naturally occurring substance, whether it's a biotic or biogenic, it was put here for our use by the Creator God. If the plants and animals, the trees and the rocks are here for our use, then oil, wind, running water, nuclear power and every other form of energy is here for our use as well.
If we are careful not to waste the resources God has provided us with, I see no logical reason not to use all the resources to make human life as comfortable as possible. So use all the oil we can find.
2. Tope said the following at 4:25 PM on Jul 29:
Good grief. What is it about the American lifestyle when it comes to consumption of oil (or consumption, period) that is really worth preserving? I'm not sure I understand why Boundless seems so adamantly opposed to the idea that we should be, um, better stewards of our natural resources.
3. Justin Gunter said the following at 4:40 PM on Jul 29:
Although I must agree with your other post "I Don't Know" in that I can't conclusively make a judgment from the research I've done, I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the "peak oil movement" is not scientifically supported. First, the whole idea is politically and economically expedient for many influential people to support. Ideas with no factual basis many times survive because they are expedient to a certain group (think Y2K bug, Evolution, economic bubbles in US settlement, existence of bacteria, geocentric view of the solar system, et cetera). Second, in relation to this particular issue the concept of "running out of oil" falls directly in line with the current "green push." If you want to end the use of oil what better way than to convince people there is no more left? That might seem like a conspiracy theory, but as previously stated if enough people have enough to gain from a concept (ie running out of oil) it is incredible how the idea can exist even if it is certifiably false.
My conclusion would be that enough people who do have some level of credibility have stated we're running out of oil often enough that people believe it. Furthermore, enough people have something to gain from running out of oil that they pass the message along without any challenge. At some point (I would guess during the early 90s?) this concept metastasized and became "main stream" and at that point even staunch evidence existing in disagreement was discarded as statistically irrelevant, outdated, or simply the old "well that just can't be true."
A solution to the problem? It might sound simple, but exactly what you're doing, using facts and media to attempt to counter this popular opinion. Great job on the article!
4. Tom said the following at 5:11 PM on Jul 29:
Oil reserves should be explored, mainly for national security reasons. It's just not safe to depend on Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia for our oil.
That said, it isn't the government's responsibility to subsidize our waste of resources. The government has sheltered consumers from the real cost of energy for a long time. How many of us really need an SUV? Futhermore, wouldn't we all be better off if the free market started shifting resources to walkable/cycle-friendly/public transit-oriented communities. The obesity epidemic might be stemmed.
I don't believe in infringing on liberty or productivity, but a lifestyle shift in this country is overdue.
5. Hannah C. said the following at 5:35 PM on Jul 29:
Wikipedia isn't necessarily the most reliable source..
But even if they're somewhat off, it looks like there won't be any disappearance of gas in my lifetime.
6. Leah said the following at 5:41 PM on Jul 29:
I'd say the amount of accessible oil is running out. Like you're saying about Utah's oil, there's plenty of oil about that people we are currently unable to touch.
7. Tom said the following at 5:47 PM on Jul 29:
Just so you know, peak oil theory doesn't say that we will run out of oil. It says we will run out of CHEAP oil. And the current (and likely stable) above 100 dollar price seems to suggest we have indeed run out of cheap oil.
8. Tom said the following at 5:50 PM on Jul 29:
To number 2, I agree but having read Boundless for a long time, I have come to the conclusion that this blog is 80% solid Christian advice, 20% pro-Republican agenda propaganda. These oil posts of course fall in the latter, I don't see any Biblical support for a lot of these positions, but rather just standard Republican ideology.
9. Richard Greatbanks said the following at 6:21 PM on Jul 29:
As a Christian, I am ashamed to see a Christian blog encouraging people to continue to use oil.
The burning of fossil fools has already caused horrific damage to our planet. The Canadian arctic is melting, and Australia is suffering its worst draughts in recorded history. All over the globe the weather is becoming more and more extreme, causing crop failures which are causing millions to starve.
Tens of millions are expected to die as a result of climate change, which is primary caused by burning fossil fuels. Is that in line with being "pro life" ?
10. JB said the following at 6:30 PM on Jul 29:
Even if we don't all agree that global warming is a negative consequence of continuing to use fossil fuels, surely we can agree that large-scale mining in the middle of America is less than ideal from an environmental perspective. My understanding is that extracting oil from shale is a pretty intensive process, generating a lot of waste rock contaminated with heavy metals, etc. Surely that's enough reason to support aggressively investing in alternative energy technologies that could be both clean and profitable.
11. elizabeth said the following at 6:56 PM on Jul 29:
I totally agree with Tom in post #4. Whether there's "enough" oil for 200 years more or not, we've got to explore other options more aggressively.
12. Chris said the following at 7:35 PM on Jul 29:
Something to keep in mind:
Tar sands production requires a lot of water. SAGD methods typically put out an 80%/20% mixture of water/"oil", and that tar sands stuff must still be refined. Obviously, it's better than the open mining that was originally done up in Alberta (check out the area around Suncor), but there's still an impact. Spend some time in Fort McMurray, and you'll see what type of environmental impact people are talking about. It's no wonder many people develop a cough up there. (SAGD does, however, minimize the overall amount of land impacted since well footprints are relatively small.)
That said, there are some interesting developments for oil shale. I believe Shell has developed a process in which they "freeze" a ring around a heated well. They then heat this stuff up and extract material from within the frozen ring. Very interesting technology that they developed, especially since the return rate is something like 7 to 8 barrels to 1. (This means, they get 7 to 8 barrels of oil for each barrel of oil, in energy terms, they spend to get it.)
That said, there's still the impact of using carbon-based fuels (e.g., Ted's favorite subject of global warming). Using fossil fuels for the next 200 years may not be the best path.
But keep in mind this will still take up to 30 years to bring to full production. My main concern is how fast production can keep up with expected demand growth.
As for peak oil, that's been a crackpot bit for some time now. Every time the "end of the world" date was passed, they just moved the date back. It's like those end-times people who pick a date that comes and goes. Just ignore it and pay attention to the real economics.
13. Lauren said the following at 7:37 PM on Jul 29:
I have to say that I agree with Tope (#2). I am honestly interested in understanding what you mean by "infringements on liberty, productivity, and lifestyle", and I wonder why boundless consistently brings up these buzz words when discussing the whole green movement.
Additionally, as an environmental scientist I must say that I don't quite trust the facts coming out of the office of a Senator Hatch, whose state would stand to profit from the use of oil shale. Conflict of interest anyone? Seriously, we are smart enough to know that the majority of senators have no expertise in 90% of the subjects that they are forced to talk about. They hire resourceful staff members to find the "facts" necessary to support whatever position they desire.
I am fully aware that when dealing with any environmental issue we must evaluate the potential costs/benefits to human "liberty, productivity and lifestyle". As an environmental scientist who often disagrees with boundless on these matters, I am more than willing to debate the costs/benefits of these environmental solutions. My one request is that if we are going to have a discussion about a scientific matter, can we please stick to scientific studies? Unlike senators, the academy is called to be non-partisan and therefore should give us more accurate facts to debate.
Therefore Ted, I see your Senator Orrin Hatch, and I raise you Dr. Richard Newell (graduate of Harvard and professor of energy and environmental economics at Duke University).
"For alternatives, such as oil shale and cellulosic ethanol, costs are uncompetitive even at the high prices recently experienced. The technologies needed for production require further research, development, and demonstration to bring down costs and establish commercial viability."
"Reasonable estimates put green house gas (GHG) emissions associated with the production and use of tar sands at about 25 percent higher, oil shale at about 65 percent higher, and coal-to-liquid (CTL) at about 75 percent higher than conventional oil."
"The key to more effective policy on oil and its alternatives lies in correctly deciding which part of the oil "problem" to solve. Policymakers often look no further than high gasoline prices and oil imports, an orientation that leads to "solutions," such as repealing the federal gasoline tax and expanding wasteful government subsidies for domestic energy production. These approaches can actually hurt rather than help."
"The top priorities for oil policy should instead be reducing both our vulnerability to supply disruptions and GHG emissions. The emphasis would then turn to reducing our exposure to these risks through reduced fuel consumption, diversifying our options through research and development of low-emission alternative fuels and technologies, and insuring against disruptions through wise use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve."
All quotes taken from Dr. Richard Newell's article What's the Big Deal About Oil?: How We Can Get Oil Policy Right featured in the Fall 2006 issue of Resources.
http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Features/The-Deal-About-Oil.cfm
14. BDB said the following at 7:42 PM on Jul 29:
One class I took in graduate school was taught by a government relations manager with the local power company. He did an interesting job of showing us how the power company had to manage its business.
One challenge is that coal and natural gas plants don't run the same. Coal plants are basically "off" or "on." And they are big.
Natural gas plants can be adjusted precisely, turning the gas up or down so that the turbines match the power needs.
So, aside from the whole global-warming discussion, there's the expenses of scrubbers for coal plants to prevent acid rain (something that really does a lot of damage to buildings), the management challenges of coal vs. natural gas, the coal trains necessary vs. natural gas pipelines...
The one thing that is certain is that significant changes to energy infrastructure are quite expensive, no matter how you do it.
15. Lisa said the following at 8:15 PM on Jul 29:
This could be a little too political, but is it possible that the gov't is waiting for the rest of the world to use theirs up and America would still have some? Just a thought.
16. Leah said the following at 8:21 PM on Jul 29:
Farmer Tom said If the plants and animals, the trees and the rocks are here for our use, then oil, wind, running water, nuclear power and every other form of energy is here for our use as well.
Yes, but there's correct and incorrect usages of these resources. I'm not saying our current use of oil is bad, not at all. My comment is not about oil, it is about the fallibility of your statement. It is true that those things are here for our use, but that doesn't mean every type of use is ok. Water is here for our use, does that mean we should be wasteful with it? Does that mean it's ok to drown farm-able land for the sake of a new dam? Trees are here for our use, does that mean we should bulldoze the entire Amazon?
I'm not a green-pusher, not by a long stretch of the imagination. But we must still use the resources God has given us wisely and not haphazardly with the excuse "God's given it to us to use".
17. Leah said the following at 8:22 PM on Jul 29:
PS - I think it's a good idea to look into renewable forms of energy for our everyday uses (eg. cars, housing electricity, etc) so that we *don't* use up the oil, so that it's still there for uses that other types of energy might not be suitable for.
18. cam said the following at 9:25 PM on Jul 29:
"without the infringements on liberty, productivity and lifestyle"
Infringements on liberty, productivity and lifestyle would be great for most of America right now. Too bad.
19. Ryan said the following at 10:29 PM on Jul 29:
Tom (#4)--
While your comments are well said and well taken here-- and some of the reasons why we are "consumers," Tope (32)-- is because first, we have a huge landmass and only 300 million people in the United States. While the major metropolitan areas would benefit from public transportation, most cities here are ill-equipped. It isn't a matter of spending money, or lack of will. We would use transportation if the bus schedules were more like England's, and such things like walking and cycling woudl be better if our cities were more compact.
Have you been to Denver lately? Good grief... POOR city planning... it takes fourty-five minutes to get anywhere. Walking? Whereas in England (I'm using that as an example because I've been there)--very compacy island, lots of people, not much room, but you can walk and cycle and public transportation in Europe is AWESOME!
Until the alternatives prove themselves to be viable, i think the status quo is the only choice. It isn't bad stewardship to admit the facts.
20. Rock said the following at 10:47 PM on Jul 29:
Justin, I gotta blow the whistle at you for your comment above:
"Ideas with no factual basis many times survive because they are expedient to a certain group (think Y2K bug, Evolution, economic bubbles in US settlement, existence of bacteria, geocentric view of the solar system, et cetera). "
I agree with you about the Y2K bug and the fact that non-factual ideas can survive due to their expediency, but I have to call you on the existence of bacteria. The discovery and the manipulation of bacteria has saved countless lives and is as time proven as any scientific theory. We have taken many pictures of them with SEM's and such and have studied their genetic makeup and have made great strides in healing sicknesses with the knowledge we have gained. They are, for all intents and purposes, a 'fact' of modern science.
21. Lynne said the following at 3:44 AM on Jul 30:
My seven-year old mentioned a few months ago, what a better world it would be if no one drove and polluted (thank you public elementary school). We had a lovely discussion about decisions and consequences. Not driving drastically changes the economy. Talked about how it impacted daddy and mommy's jobs. Talk about how it impacted him, and his little brother (who spend extended time in the NICU). He's still a concrete thinker (as is appropriate in a 7 year old), but he's staring to see that decisions made have larger implications...a lesson that will serve him well.
Tom, the point of a free-market economy is that it responds to consumer demands, populations have to shift for the market to respond. Right now, even with $4 a gallon gas, people are starting to make new decisions, we'll see what the implications are down the road. We get into trouble when we think we know what another person needs....
Just my .02
22. obewan said the following at 6:15 AM on Jul 30:
Ted:
What your logic derived from the Wikepedia article fails to recognize is that some countries in the supply table with a longer reserve life produce less than others who are important suppliers with a high production rate but a short reserve life. When those heavy suppliers dry up, those countries with the longer reserve life will be expected to produce more, and their reserve life will go down. (Which means shortages will occur.)
I don’t know how old the Widepedia article is, but the reports I have heard on Mexico say that they are done in only 5-8 years, not 10. I think Mexico is the number 3 supplier to the U.S. We will need to find a replacement for sure, and the interim during the switch may be painful.
The other curve ball is that the Saudis are famous for greatly exaggerating both reserves and possible production rates. It is a combination of “don’t worry we have plenty” and “the customer is always right.” Are they capable of producing more to meet our current 3% shortage? What about when China has 300 million cars or more? What about when India expects the same middle class lifestyle as China and America?
The deal with oil shale is that the oil may exist, but it will take a huge amount of energy to extract it, so the theoretical reserves must be reduced by that amount. It will take many more barrels of oil to produce oil from shale than from sweet or even sour crude. This will have a certain impact on price.
The alarm posted by the peak oil proponents is not stating that we are about to run out. It is stating that the low hanging fruit has been picked, and the rough waters are ahead on the supply curve. We won’t see an abrupt shutoff. We will see a reduction in production capacity, which will impact the price. Aren’t we seeing that already? I think the Saudi’s are already peaked out in spite of our repeated requests for them to open the spigots’.
What about the estimates posted by the DOE that say we only have 50 something years left? That is nowhere near the 200 years you espouse.
I am not trying to be negative. I am trying to be realistic. We need to get going on drilling and alternatives for sure. Even if we did something like use hydrogen produced with nuclear power, some say it would take 50 years to switch our infrastructure, and that there would be a shortage of uranium.
My current hope is that the peak oil proponents will be heard and that their message will motivate people to seek out both liquid coal production and conservation. It seems to be the American way to complain about shortages and put the blame somewhere else. If the peak oil alarmism will motivate a few people to NOT buy a SUV, then it is a worthy message. Most people who would do so have their heads in the sand on the issue of oil shortages, so it probably won’t make a difference anyway.
23. Eric M said the following at 7:26 AM on Jul 30:
I'm troubled by some of the implications behind these comments.
"By the time we run out of the stuff in 100 or 200 years, I'm confident that the level-headed investments we're currently making in alternative energy will enable us to replace our dependence on petroleum entirely, without the infringements on liberty, productivity and lifestyle inherent in "peak oil" proponents' route to the future."
This seems to imply to me that the total depletion of one of the resources God placed on this planet is an acceptable outcome. It is important to keep in mind that petroleum has only been commercially extracted since the late 1860s or so. This would mean that in less than 350 years we've completely run through one of this planet's natural resources. It doesn't seem a wise use of the Creator's provision, especially since we don't have to consume energy at the current rates.
Incidentally, on the ANWR issue, estimates of the volume of recoverable petroleum vary widely. Your source (www.ANWR.org) cites a 1987 US Department of the Interior assessment and states, "Recoverable oil estimates range from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end." Now the rate of oil consumption in the United States in 2005 was estimated at 20.1 million barrels per day (according to the CIA world factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html).
At that rate of consumption the high end of ANWR total production would completely satisfy US demand for about 460 days. Is it worth the trouble? (As an aside, ANWR won't be depleted that quickly because we can't extract oil at a single field nearly that fast, but practically this is an estimate of how much it would help). I'm not saying it isn't, but we are talking about relatively short term solutions (to clarify I consider 200 years short term, especially since it has been a scant 500 since the Protestant Reformation). How are we respecting God's creation in consuming these resources so quickly for only a few centuries of benefits when we are capable of making them last much longer? Why shouldn't we be working hard at finding solutions that are sustainable on even longer timescales?
I don't want to sound like I'm fear mongering, or anything like that. We'll actually never run out of oil. The economics of the situation will prevent that. If oil ever becomes scarce, the price will simply rise beyond the means of most individuals and companies to use it as an energy source.
We just need to look at these questions of resource utilization in perspective. Yes, oil shales contain huge amounts of energy. They will, however, likely be extracted by strip mining or open pit mining and water resources in the Rocky Mountain region are more taxed by growing populations in the area than they were in 1982. Yes, ANWR may help... but not for much more than two years of total US consumption even if 15 billion barrels can be extracted. There will be consequences to our actions which may outlast the remaining 200 years of abundant oil. The question is, do we feel our current comfort is worth the future changes. It is a serious and sober discussion and not something we should just forget. Especially considering how much Americans (myself included) drive.
24. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:41 AM on Jul 30:
Tope (#2)
Don't mistake someone advocating the continuing use of oil as someone who is gluttonous.
There's a difference between choosing resources wisely vs being conservative in how much of those resources you use.
I'm completely in support of using oil over ethanol. I refuse to support Ethanol at all (unfortunately with the government taking my money for that, I have little choice BUT to support it...). I'm with Ted and Farmer Tom in the belief that there is PLENTY of oil to supply us and that the current techonologies being explored are not wise and are just as poor uses of our resources as using oil to the extent that the average american uses it.
In spite of my feelings about oil and so-called "environmentally-safe" alternatives, I am buying one of the most fuel efficient vehicles out right now (without getting a hybrid...). I live 10 minutes away from work, own a bicycle that I will ride during the fall, winter, and spring, and make very few trips to visit my parents who live 2 hours away.
I'd consider all of those exercising good stewardship. And I bet that just because Ted says we should continue using oil, he also practices due diligence in how much energy he spends in doing things.
25. Adam said the following at 8:24 AM on Jul 30:
"I'm confident that the level-headed investments we're currently making in alternative energy will enable us to replace our dependence on petroleum entirely, without the infringements on liberty, productivity and lifestyle inherent in `peak oil' proponents' route to the future."
There's a fine line between infringing on lifestyle and making it better. Cars are more efficient than they were and pollute less. These advancements have been made largely been made because the government forced them to. Yes, it infringes on liberty. But we don't have the smog problem of Beijing either.
In our homes, we can cut our electricity usage for lighting by 3/4 by merely switching from standard to CFL light bulbs. A fairly reasonable step I would say.
I view level-headed investments as being a 2-way street. Both from a production standpoint, AND from a consumption standpoint.
One of the reasons that energy is such a big "crisis" is that it takes extreme measures to wake people up and make even a simple, basic, reasonable change. Might things go overboard? Absolutely. One thing that I have learned about the world though. The only way things will go overboard in a secular is where there is lots and lots of money. Find where the money will be, and you will find what is driving the change.
26. Ted Slater said the following at 10:49 AM on Jul 30:
Lots of ideas being put forth here! I appreciate the variety of opinion.
I'm tempted to start another blog post entitled "The Evils of Energy" or "The Virtues of DIscomfort and Poverty," and maybe I will, but for now let me just respond to some of the comments.
Tope (#2) -- energy consumption is not evil. You use energy to run your computer, to travel from place to place, to prepare and eat food, to provide entertainment, to keep your home at a comfortable temperature, and so on. You, my conflicted friend, thrive on energy consumption.
Your saying that I advocate poor stewardship of our natural resources is just uninformed, Tope. That's a cheap ad hominem attack, used by someone who's got nothing substantial to say. To be frank.
Tom (#4), you ask, "How many of us really need an SUV?" That is not for you to decide, Tom. This is not Communist China or Communist Russia or Screwed Up North Korea -- residents of the U.S. are free to purchase any vehicle they are legally able to purchase. DId you know, by the way, that eeeevvvviiiiiillll SUVs have the same mileage as pickup trucks? Yes, eeeeevvvviiiiilllll pickup trucks.
Leah (#6), let the market decide whether the oil is accessible. Not the fat cat politicians.
Tom (#8), you're saying that providing sufficient energy to meet demand, at reasonable prices, is a "Republican" issue? Consequently, energy shortages and high gas prices are a Democrat issue. Fine. At least it's clear now.
Richard Greatbanks (#9), please stop eating, moderating the temperature of your home, traveling between locations, enjoying various entertainment, and using your computer, all of which consume energy. If you continue consuming energy -- if you continue exhaling dangerous amounts of CO2 -- then the destruction of the fragile environment is on your head. Those tens of millions "expected to die" (expected by ... whom?) are your responsibility, unless you cease consuming energy. Be "pro-life" and stop it.
JB (#10) and elizabeth (#11) -- let's BOTH secure our own energy sources here in the States AND invest in alternative energy technologies. Nuclear is the best, in my opinion -- cheap, tested, environmentally friendly.
Chris (#12) -- some things that take 30 years to bring into full production are worth it.
Lauren (#13) -- without sufficient energy, government may begin to institute rations for various items, curtailing my ability to purchase them. If they limit the amount of gasoline I'm able to purchase, then I may not be able to drive to work five days per week. If they limit the amount of food I can purchase, my family may have to skip a meal. That is an infringement on liberty.
If a factory doesn't have enough energy to run as many hours as demand calls for, that infringes on productivity.
If energy is limited, and my home experiences brownouts, that infringes on my lifestyle -- my ability to watch a particular TV program, microwave leftovers, or leave comments on blog posts.
Infringements on liberty, productivity and lifestyle. Does that explanation help?
Lauren -- then you tell me: How much oil shale is in these three states? What do your scientific studies tell you? And why is the desire to make a profit necessarily wrong?
You quote Dr. Newell, who says that costs are uncompetitive. He wrote that two years ago, when oil was HALF what it is now, when gasoline was HALF what it is now. I say, "Let the market decide." This isn't (as I mentioned earlier) China or North Korea. Oh, his concerns about green house gas emissions (such as water vapor, etc.) are unfounded.
Lisa (#15) -- great point. I've wondered that too. We're sitting on more oil than the rest of the world combined, and we're using theirs all up. Pretty clever, perhaps.
cam (#18) -- I appreciate your concerns. Please see my comment to Richard Greatbanks (#9) above. You're free to have your liberties, productivity and lifestyle infringed upon. Or are you only wanting my liberties, productivity and lifestyle infringed upon?
obewan (#22) -- the DOE's estimate doesn't take into account the oil shale reserves here in the States.
I'm not advocating against alternative energy. I'm advocating against fearmongering and advocating for continued and expanded oil production.
There's that evil SUV again, the bane of humanity.
Christina in green (#24) -- great comments.
I could comment further, but I think most of you get my point.
My, how lack of sleep tempts one toward curmudgeon-ness.
27. Tigger said the following at 1:52 PM on Jul 30:
Well, I'm afraid I can't back up the thing I'm going to say here shortly, because I don't know where I heard it, but I've heard it more than once, and read it too, and that is that up until now, or perhaps in the relatively near future, it's been considered too expensive to extract reserves in the US due to geologic features and transport costs and other problems.
Regardless of whether that is true, one thing is definitely true - and that is that nothing will change at all until whatever we have hurts more than the alternative, be it drilling for gas in the good old USA or changing rather excessive lifestyles.
28. skp said the following at 3:38 PM on Jul 30:
I 'd like to consider myself an environmentalist but maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm just a pragmatist or maybe I just think people should practice and not preach. I personally recycle and turn down my air conditioning and I drive a Honda Civic -but I am cold in the winter and have my thermostat set at 70. I work and don't have time- so I use my dryer instead of hanging out clothes. I am not perfect but I try. Basically I think everyone should just put their money where their mouth is. PETA people should not eat meat and if AL GORE wants to be the spokesperson for environmentalism he should sell his old energy consuming house and live a life that represents his beliefs. So If you want to help the environment- then I say do it -and set an example for others. If Ted wants to drive a Hummer- I may think he's being a waster- but it is OK by me because at least he is being congruent with his actions and beliefs. . If I drive a Prius and turn off my air conditioning, and live in a conservative sized house then maybe I might have a right to preach to others. Actions speak louder than words. In my opinion there is a BIG difference between use and abuse.
29. Leah said the following at 5:47 PM on Jul 30:
Richard Greatbanks - oh please. The pollution caused by burning oil contributes a minute amount to global warming. 90% of greenhouse gas is water vapour. If we want to stop global warming, stopping oil use isn't going to do much.
I am also not sure how global warming is responsible for the lack of rain in Australia... if you lived in northern Australia, you'd know our hottest months are also our wettest. Also, if we're suffering such terrible global warming, why is Queensland (a state of Aus) setting record-breaking minimum temperatures this winter? Why is it snowing in Queensland? (The place it snowed- Queensland's coldest town, Stanthorpe- is said to get snow only every 20 years).
Australia is getting drier, yes. Not hotter. (Queensland also just set a record for the wettest July ever).
30. Amelia said the following at 4:57 AM on Jul 31:
Richard Greatbanks (#9) says: "Australia is suffering its worst draughts in recorded history"
Yep. It's pretty windy down here.
31. Caleb Woodbridge said the following at 5:57 AM on Jul 31:
"Reserve life" isn't "how long these reserves will last". It's how long production of a particular oil reserve would take *at the current rate*.
Global demand for oil is set to increase dramatically, which will either result in shortages and greatly increased prices if production stays at the same rate (it doesn't matter how much is there if you can't get it out fast enough), and if production increases, then we'll use those reserves up a lot quicker.
Also, the reserve life of other countries' reserves, such as the US, Mexico and Russia, are much shorter. Once these are used up, then that will increase demand on the remaining reserves, driving up prices and/or the rate of consumption.
So your interpretation of the data is somewhat optimistic, to say the least!
32. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:23 AM on Jul 31:
Adam, #25, you said (emphasis mine):
There's a fine line between infringing on lifestyle and making it better. Cars are more efficient than they were and pollute less. These advancements have been made largely been made because the government forced them to. Yes, it infringes on liberty. But we don't have the smog problem of Beijing either
That's a funny statement...
If I recall correctly, the two biggest american car companies are going bankrupt because no one is buying their cars...because they aren't fuel efficient (GMC and Ford).
The cars that ARE the most fuel efficient are FOREIGN car industries (which haven't been forced to do so by government, but because of smart business) - Honda and Toyota.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Looks to me like government infringement is NOT leading to more fuel efficient vehicles other than encouraging vehicle makers to make wise business decisions...
The thing that government infringement IS doing, though, is limiting how much corn is available for food, how much land is available for growing other crops besides corn, and forcing citizens who don't agree with the direction this research is taking to pay out money to support it. =p
33. Ted Slater said the following at 9:13 AM on Jul 31:
Caleb Woodbridge (#31) wrote that "the reserve life of other countries' reserves, such as the US, Mexico and Russia, are much shorter."
The good news, Caleb, is that you're wrong.
Let's go with the low estimation of 800 billion barrels worth of oil within the oil shale reserves in the United States, rather than the high estimation of 2.6 trillion barrels.
The U.S. uses some 20 million barrels per day, or 7.3 billion barrels per year.
If we stopped importing oil altogether, we currently have over 100 years worth of oil -- in the U.S. alone!
If you take into account how little energy is derived from alternative sources such as nuclear, and therefore how much petroleum-related energy we could offset by taking better advantage of nuclear, then that 800 billion barrels of oil can go much further -- perhaps a couple hundred years.
We are sitting on a gold mine here in the States. Accessing it would benefit the United States in numerous ways, and in turn benefit the rest of the world. Why are we not accessing it? Ask our Congress.
34. Jeremy said the following at 9:45 AM on Jul 31:
"If I recall correctly, the two biggest american car companies are going bankrupt because no one is buying their cars...because they aren't fuel efficient (GMC and Ford)."
That is simply untrue. American car companies are going under partly because of a historic lack of quality (less true these days, but the impression remains for many), but mostly because of poor business practices. Fuel efficiency has almost nothing to do with it.
I live in Detroit and can tell you first-hand that the reason Ford is going to to fall apart is the auto-workers union. They always have and continue to demand more than the company can feasibly provide, and as a result are putting thousands of their members out of work.
35. Paul said the following at 2:05 PM on Jul 31:
I completely agree Ted, let's keep using oil...
...but, let's try to use it at roughly the same rate as creation is producing it. That way we will be able to give the earth back in a good condition when we're finished with it.
36. Adam said the following at 3:25 PM on Jul 31:
#32: Christina (in green);
I can appreciate the fact that US automakers are going out of business because consumers want more fuel-efficient cars.
Internationally, fuel is often taxed at a very high rate by the government. This will cause an artificial increased demand for more fuel efficient cars.
Foreign automakers have been selling to customers with higher gas prices for years. Thus, they have figured out a way to make a good profit from it. Here, automakers are still working on it.
Emissions laws are passed by the government. Fuel standards - diesel is so much cleaner than it was 5 years ago - are dictated by the government.
I agree with you that eventually things reach a tipping point where the consumer makes a change in behavior. That typically has not happened until it hits their pocketbook.
37. Christina (in green) said the following at 6:31 PM on Jul 31:
Paul (#35),
That way we will be able to give the earth back in a good condition when we're finished with it
**ahem** what?
Did I read something in Revelations that isn't there?
Something about war and famine...
Do you think that if the environmentalists actually get through to the rest of the world that it'll change that?
Regardless, the earth is going to be "given back" in a depreciated fashion.
Tell me, when you buy a new pair of shoes, are you throwing out a pair in "good condition" or bad? If they're still in "good condition", I seriously doubt you need a new pair...
What exactly do you think God is going to do with earth when we give it back? Especially since he's already made it clear that its going to be war-torn and used up?
That's like the one thing I seriously don't understand about the hype over using up resources, which is why I'm not so worried about it...rather simply practicing good "stewardship" by practicing self-control (fruit of the spirit) and not being gluttonous (result of self-control). That's all I'm called to do as a Christian. Share the good news, cultivate the spirit within me and harvesting good fruits, and gaurding myself against evil.
I know this earth is going to end in a rather horrific way. But I also know that it will last to be destroyed in such a horrific way...and you know? When the earth is FINALLY destroyed, guess where I'll end up? Guess where you'll end up? Guess where all the atheist environmentalists will end up? (I'm not implying that all environmentalists are atheist) Makes ya wonder if maybe they're so concerned about earth being destroyed because they don't understand that there's something better coming...
But you should be aware of that...right? You are aware that our future does not hinge on the life of this planet, right?
38. Leah said the following at 7:25 PM on Aug 3:
Ted- I never supported the politicians in controlling access to the oil. I only made an observation.