Will The End of Oil Mean The End of America? (Wishful thinking alert!)

CommonNightmares.org ^ | 3/1/2004 | Robert Freeman

[IYAS9YAS]

I've heard of previously "empty" oil wells showing an ability to refill themselves.

[backhoe]

Potential oil supply refill?

The world has more oil not less

The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth
Thomas Gold
U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1570, The Future of Energy Gases, 1993

PETROLEUM RESERVES EVALUATED WITH MODERN PETROLEUM SCIENCE

Another Washington Post article here

Oil Fields' Free Refill - More oil than we thought (maybe)

-30-

backhoe

[DonQ]

I think American technology ... and American resources ... will enable us to conjure up some form of energy to replace petroleum. At least it might work here, if not in some other countries.

But the end of petroleum - either as a resource that can be taken from the ground or as a commodity that the world is eager to buy - would mean the end of the death grip that the Moslem world has on our throats. Without their oil money, some of the Arab dictatorships will fall, and most of them won't be able to subsidize terrorist attacks on us or our friends anymore.

[hopespringseternal]

The problem is that the alternatives cost more than oil now, so energy will cost more.

Not necessarily. Most of the cost and difficulty with nukes is political. Technically, it can be very cheap, and quite a bit safer than the industries it replaces. With sufficiently cheap nuclear energy, all sorts of options open up for powering our cars. If electricity is cheap enough, even hydrogen fuel cells may become economically viable.

In addition, you have to remember that most of the oil ever found is still in the ground. As technology increases, we go back to those old reserves and pump more out.

Rather humorous that right now, oil price and production is more dependent on technological progress than nuclear (fission) energy is.

[MrB]

I was looking for the correct basic economic evaluation of this story, and you're the first!

The author is an economic ignoramous. Oil does NOT "run out" - it gets more expensive. Then new finds occur because they are now economically feasible.

Then, when alternatives become MORE economically feasible than finding more oil, the alternatives will be developed and used.

The problem with these lefties is that they are ignorant of or despise the free market so much that they can't see its reality and implications.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Wait a minute, I thought the Iraqi liberation was all about the oil we were going to steal!

Shouldn't America be rolling in ill gotten oil?

[fourdeuce82d]

Couple of thoughts-

1. "Securing" oil supplies is not the same thing as grabbing them- generally when people "grab" something they do not pay for it.

2. I have read some pretty persuasive arguements that the "peak of production" has either been reached, or will be soon. The arguement is NOT that we are running out of oil-merely that the bulk of the oil that can be retrieved with less energy than the oil itself provides has been located. New discoveries may be made...but most likely not on the same magnitude as we have seen in the past. There will still be huge amounts of oil, but increasing demand will boost the price. A lot.

I'm agnostic on this particular idea- don't have enough background to have a firm opinion. It would seem to me, however, that if it was true, oil companies that own the rights to oil fields would cut back production, in anticipation of hugely increased revenue when the price spikes. Who knows.

Regardless,

3. if the arguement in 2 above is correct, efficiency measures etc. will only postpone the inevitable- i.e. if we're heading for a huge upset in the next 10-15 years, what good does postponing it another 10 years do?

If, on the other hand, there are technologies we can develop to wean ourselves off the petro-teat (nuclear, including breeder, polymer "spray-on" photo-voltaics, nanotube capacitors to store electricity with great density) it would seem that trying to keep a strong, dynamic economy would be the best way to bring those technologies online.

I'm not an expert, just someone who's driven past a Holiday Inn. I do seem to recall great gnashing of teeth over the darkness that would descend upon the world (circa 18??) when the whale oil ran out, and lamps would have no fuel. That, and the concern that by 1920, New York City would be three feet deep in horse dung.

Somehow things worked out.

[marron]

These guys do not get it. Oil is a business. Oil producers are not pirates and we are not a pirate nation. We do not steal oil, oil production is not a conspiracy. We are not hostage to the oil producers. We are not prisoners of OPEC's evil will.

We did not invade Iraq for their oil, we already were buying and reselling their oil. Furthermore, we were invited into their oil industry on the eve of the invasion of Kuwait; we gave up access to Iraq's oil industry when we decided to defend Kuwait. And we consciously gave up access by enforcing the containment of Iraq during the nineties.

Oil is neither cheap nor expensive. It is a commodity, and it sells for the price the market will bring. When its high, more oil comes onto the market, and the price drifts downward. When it is low, drilling slows down until the price firms up again.

OPEC has no power at all over the price of oil. The largest new fields are not under OPEC control, and they dare not withhold oil from the market for more than one reason. The first reason is that these are almost every one centalized economies on the verge of bankruptcy. To cut production is to risk social turmoil and blood in the streets. The second reason is that to cut production is to lose market share. OPEC oil left in the ground is oil replaced by Russian, Mexican, Caspian, and African sources.

And we do not steal oil. We bid against multiple bidders, the best bid wins, the host government takes the lion's share, and at the end of the contract all of the infrastructure and assets revert to the control of the host government who either operates it themselves, or offers it up for bid again.

There are two cases where the host governments have stolen US investments, specifically Mexico 1938 and Venezuela in the early seventies. There was no invasion by US forces, on the contrary, the companies involved negotiated a settlement and went on their way. Actually, in the case of Venezuela, they continue to act as consultants and to offer technical assistance to the new owner of their former property.

[Dad was my hero]

thanks for the links. I remember reading in Discover Mag (June 2000 I think) where they were looking at the amount of reserves then and their conclusion was that there were at least 200 years of oil based on our increasing consumption.

[truth_seeker]

This type of impractical idealism is typical of the left. The website is "progressive"--

http://www.commondreams.org/

I recall Dr. Paul Erlich's book from about 1970 titled: "The Population Bomb"

He warned that by now, we'd be swimming in feces-thick rivers, out of oil, smog-covered skies. But worst of all--out of food.

He was wrong. They do this wild extrapolating technique, to scare the bejesus out of regular folks, and to make them get in line with world greenism.

I used to work in energy. Oil & gas production, then engineering & construction. A fact NOT stated in this epistle is that Alberta province alone, has more hydrocarbon reserves than Saudi Arabia.

We may have to "take" that too, from our Canadian buddies up north. Let me predict they will accept $US instead of going to war.

Let me further predict that the US will provide much of the technology for a shift away from oil.

[RightWhale]

you're the first!

Happens a lot. BTW, when is the award ceremony? :)

[backhoe]

Thanks- I have also read that we have 200-500 years of coal reserves left, if we'd only use them. Personally, I'd prefer next-generation nuclear power, not just for electricity generation, but for any large industry needing lots of power, steam, etc., thus freeing up oil & natural gas for consumers.

[BadAndy]

The article is complete idiocy. Even IF there is a depletion of available oil, it would occur gradually and the laws of supply and demand would result in more exploration and discovery. At the same, alternative energy sources (i.e. natural gas), would become more competitive and a switch to the more cost effective fuel would occur. The wonderful thing about capitalism is that it is a self regulating system that compensates for shortages and drives the development of newer more efficient technology. Leftist idiots just don'e get it.

[Iris7]

I always find this argument humorous. If oil consumption is cut enough to make a difference, say by 50%, then there will have to be enough price rise to reduce consumption by that much. Otherwise there has to be truly severe rationing, very unpopular with those not getting any gas, and very wasteful because those getting all they "need" have no reason to be economical. The choice is between allocating gas by price or allocating gas by your political connections.

"Restructuring"energy consumption means cutting total energy usage. Who will suffer? Who will gain? Who will decide who gets what, who decides what "to each in accordance to his need" means? I tell you one thing, it will need men with guns.

Will new sources of energy be brought on line? If so, the only option is nuclear. This guy is saying we should increase nuclear power by about seven to ten times.

[RightWhale]

should increase nuclear power by about seven to ten times.

Sure, but per Peak Oil, it is too late. It would have been possible 30 years ago.

[Joe Brower]

Wowzer, folks, that gives me LOTS of good things to through back at the lefties. I knew you'd come through on this topic with all sorts of perspectives that I would not have come up with on my own.

Many, many thanks!

[Paleo Conservative]

Shouldn't America be rolling in ill gotten oil?

Only after several years of investments in Iraqi oil fields. The embargoes worked. The Iraqis put very little capital investment in maintining their oil fields. They damaged many of their reservoirs by producing them too quickly. The real advantage to overthrowing Saddam is that a freer (hopefully) and more democratic Iraqi government is more likely to want to produce more oil than OPEC will want them to.

[eno_]

And then people will figure out that the new-generation nuke plants that were designed in the 80's and 90's will, in fact, work and be cost-efficient. And we'll dig more coal. Ho hum.

[techcor]

Coal gasification will take care of the problems of any oil shortages.

[eno_]

The Peak Oil theory also is predicated on old-tech nuke plants. If Motorola built Iridium birds the way satellites had always been built, it would have taken 200 years to build the Iridium network. Build nukes on a production line and you will get 10X as many at a price 90% lower than today's nukes.