The next oil crisis

The Albany Times Union ^ | Monday, March 1, 2004 | editorial

[Willie Green]

U.S. Petroleum & Crude Oil Overview
(thousand barrels per day)

	1960	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000
U.S. Crude Oil Production	7,035	7,804	9,637	8,375	8,597	8,971	7,355	6,560	5,834
U.S. Petroleum Imports	1,815	2,468	3,419	6,056	6,909	5,067	8,018	8,835	11,093
Total	8,850	10,272	13,056	14,431	15,506	14,038	15,373	15,395	16,927
Imports as % of Total	20.5	24.0	26.2	42.0	44.6	36.1	52.2	57.4	65.5

Yes, increased global petroleum consumption and dwindling reserves make a future oil crisis a virtual certainty.
Yet government policies of the last 30 years, INCLUDING efficiency "standards", have done NOTHING to decrease our dependence on imported oil.

The call for "improved" standards is simply more of the same, phoney political posturing. When faced with rising fuel costs, consumers will NATURALLY begin to opt for homes, vehicles, appliances, etc. with greater energy efficiency, just like they did back in the '70s.

One area where the government CAN be helpful in averting this foreseeable crisis, however, is in providing incentive for infrastructure development that is less petroleum dependent.

Petroleum Consumption by Sector

From this chart it can be seen that Transportation is by far our greatest usage for petroleum. So it is logical that this is the sector where we should focus our efforts to develop alternatives.
Of all the technologies that are currently available, the most obvious that would be helpful would be the construction of electricly powered mass transportation systems in our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas. While not a panacea, such systems would allow us to shift a significant portion of our transportation energy consumption AWAY from petroleum to other fuels used for generation of electricity: Nuclear and clean-coal technologies have the most potential. But we should not ignore possible contributions from hydroelectric, wind or solar.

[MCRD]

If DiFI has the answer it must be a stupid question.

[Texas_Dawg]

The market will work it out. No big deal.

[RightWhale]

According to Peak Oil, it is too late. There is now no solution. 30 years ago a solution was possible. The peak passed 5 years ago.

[Dog Gone]

Saudi Armaco

This idiotorial couldn't even get the name of the company right.

[taxed2death]

This is good news. Ethanol will be more cost efficient now. We can finally pay our farmers to grow crops again.

[.38sw]

Can you expand upon your comment please? What is Peak Oil, and why is it already too late? Thanks.

[null and void]

Yup. Back to renewable whale oil...

[neutrino]

Good post! I think peak oil is something we need to be aware of...

[txzman]

Uh, Iraq is starting to boom in production, with better crude than Saudi Arabia. The pipelines in the Caucuses are in full construction mode and when the oil from the Caspian starts hitting, we'll be back to 'Why Cheap Oil is Hurting America".

This is a garbage article, with garbage statistics.

[The Duke]

One of my grandfather's favorite saying was "Can't never could do nothing!"

Somehow this article brings that to mind.

[Willie Green]

Can you expand upon your comment please? What is Peak Oil, and why is it already too late?

"Background At a meeting of the American Institute of Petroleum in 1956, despite protests from his employer's public relations department, Dr. M. King Hubbert correctly predicted that USA oil production would peak around 1970. In 1974, he predicted that world petroleum output would peak around 1995. Based on current data and new analytical techniques, recent studies by Dr. Colin J. Campbell and others conclude that world petroleum output will peak during the first decade of the 21st century and will decline rapidly thereafter.
Source: Hubbert Peak of Oil Production

[RightWhale]

Yes, that is the Hubbert Peak. There is a lecture by Campbell you might find if you search on Peak Oil.

[RightWhale]

Search on Peak Oil. There are a lot of links and although it seems like junk science at first, it gets more interesting as you go through the links.

[.38sw]

Thanks and thanks. Google. Why didn't I think of that?

*slapping forehead with palm of hand*

[Dog Gone]

This article is wrong, but only in timing. Every year as world population grows and formerly primitive economies (like China) develop, the demand for oil grows.

The problem isn't that oilfields are in decline. We'll keep finding new oil. The problem is that we can't possibly find it fast enough and in sufficient quantities to keep up with the new demand for energy.

By the end of this century, there will be 10 billion people on earth, and energy demand will be at least 15 times what it is today. We're not going to be producing 15 times as much oil as we are today.

Windmills, geothermal, and solar will never begin to make up the difference. A lot of people think that hydrogen is solution, but fail to understand that it takes more energy to create the hydrogen than is released by it. It's a net energy LOSER.

There are only two solutions out there for our grandchildren. Nuclear fission, and possibly nuclear fusion.

[Truth666]

I already explained that table here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1043049/posts?page=1

[RightWhale]

There are only two solutions out there for our grandchildren

Campbell optimistically thinks that after the crisis the world may emerge as a better place--for those few left.

[Dog Gone]

Yeah, I guess that's the third solution. Run out of energy and die like lemmings.