Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Conservation, conservation, conservation...or, less controversially; efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.
1 posted on 05/26/2005 10:09:54 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
To: liberallarry

The authors are the ones with the "Atomic Clock' (now at 7 minutes to midnight)


2 posted on 05/26/2005 10:12:06 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry

This article has me so depressed that I am going to go out and buy and SUV, just to cheer myself up.


3 posted on 05/26/2005 10:14:37 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry

There's one answer to that - DRILL, DRILL, and DRILL SOME MORE!


4 posted on 05/26/2005 10:17:25 AM PDT by steveegg (Will the "extraordinary" line have the name Brown or Pryor attached to it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry
I average about 35 MPG, which is more than most of the left-wingers that I'm surrounded by here in the D.C. capital beltway.

And I wonder how the author feel about nuclear power? It's important to know whether he should be taken seriously about energy matters.

5 posted on 05/26/2005 10:19:15 AM PDT by jpl (Arrest Michael Dumbkopf and flush Newsweek down the toilet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry

How does that square with huge recent finds in the US and off Norway.


9 posted on 05/26/2005 10:25:06 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: biblewonk

Impending-death-of-the-SUV ping.


13 posted on 05/26/2005 10:49:39 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry

This is like the water problem: it's not too little oil, it's too many people and, in particular, the conversion of China from a sleepy agricultural society to another large industrial economy that is competing with us for energy supplies including but not limited to oil. This is the result of some bad decisions by our friends in Congress influenced by a bunch of 25-year-old "economists."


17 posted on 05/26/2005 11:05:42 AM PDT by henderson field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry
Here is an interesting web site: http://www.peakoil.net/

The association of peak oil. It is a little scare mongering, but I myself think the writing is on the wall, reduce consumption, look for alternative energy sources(solar, wind etc.) and save oil for cars. It is just not there anymore and oil companies cannot replace their reserves. Like that old tower of power tune, `There is only so much oil in the ground.`

18 posted on 05/26/2005 11:06:56 AM PDT by oilfieldtrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry

It that group that former Soviet front group?
Or was it the "Union of Concerned Scientists" that used to be the USSR-sponsored 'progressive' peace group?


27 posted on 05/26/2005 11:56:45 AM PDT by WOSG (Liberating Iraq - http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry
For their part, American consumers would do well to take a cue from their Western European counterparts, who enjoy a comfortable lifestyle despite a per capita use of petroleum that is half of that in the United States. The sooner the United States begins this transition away from oil, the easier it will be. That's a far more attractive option than trying to squeeze oil from stone.

So, in order to avoid have to make a sudden jump to 5 or 6 bucks per gallon of gas, we should have the governmen't add a tax so that we make a sudden jump to five or 6 bucks per gallon of gas.

I am always amazed by these liberals who assert that we should all worry about higher energy prices... and then say that we should do like Europe does and raise energy prices.

33 posted on 05/26/2005 12:22:34 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry; oilfieldtrash
liberallarry:

Conservation, conservation, conservation...or, less controversially; efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.

All very nice, but this (at best) merely buys us a few years. Cheap energy for transportation (not merely energy - cheap energy) lies at the very core of our civilization. The transition to expensive energy is likely to have profound consequences.

oilfieldtrash:

Here is an interesting web site:

http://www.peakoil.net/

The association of peak oil. It is a little scare mongering, but I myself think the writing is on the wall, reduce consumption, look for alternative energy sources(solar, wind etc.) and save oil for cars. It is just not there anymore and oil companies cannot replace their reserves. Like that old tower of power tune, `There is only so much oil in the ground.

If your screen name means what I think it does, you probably have more knowledge and insight regarding the problem than do the rest of us - and so, I have taken the liberty of quoting your posting.

I must (respectfully) disagree on one small point. Even though alternatives are important, and saving oil for transportation is fine - it simply isn't enough. We don't have time to make the changes needed before the crunch hits. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a storage mechanism - and the current method of producing it in bulk uses natural gas, which is already getting tight on the continent of North America.

We as conservatives pride ourselves on hard-headed realism, and it is time to apply that to the problem at hand.

For those who think that only liberals and dems believe this...take a look at http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches. Matthew Simmons is a key player in the energy investment banking business, and has briefed both the President and Vice President Cheney.

40 posted on 05/26/2005 12:30:07 PM PDT by neutrino (Globalization “is the economic treason that dare not speak its name.” (173))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

Anybody seen that commercial for that movie "Oil Storm" thats coming on FX next month? Looks like this years "Day After Tommorrow".


42 posted on 05/26/2005 12:35:54 PM PDT by Sybeck1 (chance is the “magic wand to make not only rabbits but entire universes appear out of nothing.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry; All
Conventional petroleum production will soon--perhaps in five years, ten at best--no longer be able to satisfy demand.

I read earlier this week that a BP pipeline from the Caspian Basin through Azerbaijan and Turkey just came on line this week. The article stated that experts estimated the fields to be the 3rd largest in the world.

Any thoughts on how this may affect the world oil supply?

43 posted on 05/26/2005 12:39:22 PM PDT by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry
Conservation, conservation, conservation...or, less controversially; efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.

The answer is: Take an economics class, then return and pick up the discussion again. The market price of a commodity has very little to do with production costs. Supply and demand are supreme here. OPEC et al control market prices by adjusting production. More production => lower prices.

The real answer is: more production!

I heard one report that found that about 50% of the oil refineries in the USA had been shut down due to excessive environmental regulation and its associated costs. They simply couldn't afford to keep the refineries running when it costs millions of dollars a year to hold the greenies at bay. When you lose 50% of the supply capability in a market, the price will reflect that!

44 posted on 05/26/2005 12:41:17 PM PDT by TChris (Liberals: All death, all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry

Get those boys back to work on cold fusion.


52 posted on 05/26/2005 1:02:05 PM PDT by dennisw (He writes everything's been returned which was owed...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry

Three words - drill Gull Island.


54 posted on 05/26/2005 1:04:17 PM PDT by lodwick (Integrity has no need of rules. Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry

We're DOMED ! DOMED I tell ya ! This is hugh! /sarc

Howsomeever, I do find this a very interesting issue...i.e. peak oil. On the surface it seems logical if one assumes a finite/non-replenishing supply of oil and limited recovery technology. Interesting but scary to contemplate. Thanks.


66 posted on 05/26/2005 1:51:16 PM PDT by OB1kNOb (Excrementum Occurum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry
Yep. While we can object all you want to about their governments or social policies, one thing that's fairly undeniable about western Europe and Japan is that they are technologically advanced countries with a quality, modern standard of living similar to our own. It's important to point out that they do so with oil consumption rates that are, per capita, one-half to one-fifth of our own. If we really wanted to, we could slash our oil consumption without greatly affecting our standard of living just by cutting waste.

How much oil do we waste heating our houses every year when electricity and natural gas could do the same thing? How much oil do we waste generating throwaway plastics when durable materials could do the same job? How much oil do we burn for power every year? How much oil do we waste on long commutes to work, when existing mass transit systems could get us to the exact same place? How many of us hop in our car to drive to a store that we could walk to in under five minutes?

We could easily cut our oil consumption by half, but it's always been seen as an endless resource and we weren't concerned about conservation. In many ways, it's like water in the western US. At one time people saw it as an unlimited resource and wasted it with abandon, while today we recognize that water sources are limited and in much of the west it's use is carefully watched and never wasted. We can all get it whenever we want, but we understand that it's not a limitless resource and treat it appropriately. It may be time for that same realization to come to the US about oil.
75 posted on 05/26/2005 2:34:45 PM PDT by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry

There was an article on the frontpage of the WSJ on Monday that stated that the greatest factor in the price of gasoline was the worldwide refinery shortage, not a shortage of crude. Refineries around the world are running at full capacity and just cannot keep up with demand. Sure the OPEC per barrell costs have had an effect, but the fact is that supply and demand are still the greatest determining factor at the pump.


103 posted on 05/27/2005 11:12:32 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry

NCPA


Policy Issues

NCPA Publications

Both Sides

Editorial Opinions

Audio/Visual



NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
HOME / DONATE / ONE LEVEL UP / ABOUT NCPA / CONTACT US
Are We Running Out of Oil?

Policy Backgrounder

No. 159

January 29, 2003

Download this page in PDF format

Adobe Acrobat LogoGet Adobe Acrobat Reader


"Estimates of the world's oil reserves have risen faster than production."
Oil is a nonrenewable resource. Every gallon of petroleum burned today is unavailable for use by future generations. Over the past 150 years, geologists and other scientists often have predicted that our oil reserves would run dry within a few years. When oil prices rise for an extended period, the news media fill with dire warnings that a crisis is upon us. Environmentalists argue that governments must develop new energy technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The facts contradict these harbingers of doom:

  • World oil production continued to increase through the end of the 20th century.
  • Prices of gasoline and other petroleum products, adjusted for inflation, are lower than they have been for most of the last 150 years.
  • Estimates of the world’s total endowment of oil have increased faster than oil has been taken from the ground.
How is this possible? We have not run out of oil because new technologies increase the amount of recoverable oil, and market prices — which signal scarcity — encourage new exploration and development. Rather than ending, the Oil Age has barely begun.

History of Oil Prognostications
The history of the petroleum industry is punctuated by periodic claims that the supply will be exhausted, followed by the discovery of new oil fields and the development of technologies for recovering additional supplies. For instance:

  • Before the first U.S. oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859, petroleum supplies were limited to crude oil that oozed to the surface. In 1855, an advertisement for Kier’s Rock Oil advised consumers to “hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s laboratory.”1
  • In 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, the nation’s leading oil-producing state, estimated that only enough U.S. oil remained to keep the nation’s kerosene lamps burning for four years.2
"Warnings of U.S. oil shortages were made before the first well was drilled in 1859."
Seven such oil shortage scares occurred before 1950.3 As a writer in the Oil Trade Journal noted in 1918: At regularly recurring intervals in the quarter of a century that I have been following the ins and outs of the oil business[,] there has always arisen the bugaboo of an approaching oil famine, with plenty of individuals ready to prove that the commercial supply of crude oil would become exhausted within a given time — usually only a few years distant.4

1973 Oil Embargo.

"After the revolution in Iran, oil prices returned to the long-term average of $10 to $20 a barrel, in real terms."
The 1973 Arab oil embargo gave rise to renewed claims that the world’s oil supply would be exhausted shortly. “The Oil Crisis: This Time the Wolf Is Here,” warned an article in the influential journal Foreign Affairs.5 Geologists had cried wolf many times, acknowledged the authors of a respected and widely used textbook on economic geology in 1981; “finally, however, the wolves are with us.” The authors predicted that the United States was entering an incipient 125-year-long “energy gap,” projected to be at its worst shortly after the year 2000.6

The predictions of the 1970s were followed in a few years by a glut of cheap oil:

  • The long-term inflation-adjusted price of oil from 1880 through 1970 averaged $10 to $20 a barrel.7
  • The price of oil soared to over $50 a barrel in inflation-adjusted 1996 U.S. dollars following the 1979 political revolution in Iran.8 [See .]
  • But by 1986, inflation-adjusted oil prices had collapsed to one-third their 1980 peak.9
"When projected shortages failed to appear, doomsayers made new predictions."


When projected crises failed to occur, doomsayers moved their predictions forward by a few years and published again in more visible and prestigious journals:



  • In 1989, one expert forecast that world oil production would peak that very year and oil prices would reach $50 a barrel by 1994.10
  • In 1995, a respected geologist predicted in World Oil that petroleum production would peak in 1996, and after 1999 major increases in crude oil prices would have dire consequences. He warned that “[m]any of the world’s developed societies may look more like today’s Russia than the U.S.”11
  • A 1998 Scientific American article entitled “The End of Cheap Oil” predicted that world oil production would peak in 2002 and warned that “what our society does face, and soon, is the end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all industrial nations depend.”12
Similar admonitions were published in the two most influential scientific journals in the world, Nature and Science. A 1998 article in Science was titled “The Next Oil Crisis Looms Large — and Perhaps Close.”13 A 1999 Nature article was subtitled “[A] permanent decline in global oil production rate is virtually certain to begin within 20 years.”14

1990s Oil Glut.

However, rather than falling, world oil production continued to increase throughout the 1990s. Prices have not skyrocketed, suggesting that oil is not becoming more scarce:

  • Oil prices were generally stable at $20 to $30 a barrel throughout the 1990s. [See .]
  • In 2001, oil prices fell to a 30-year low after adjusting for inflation.
  • Furthermore, the inflation-adjusted retail price of gasoline, one of the most important derivatives of oil, fell to historic lows in the past few years. [See .]
Reserves versus Resources
Nonexperts, including some in the media, persistently predict oil shortage because they misunderstand petroleum terminology. Oil geologists speak of both reserves and resources.



  • Reserves are the portion of identified resources that can be economically extracted and exploited using current technology.
  • Resources include all fuels, both identified and unknown, and constitute the world’s endowment of fossil fuels.
Oil reserves are analogous to food stocks in a pantry. If a household divides its pantry stores by the daily food consumption rate, the same conclusion is always reached: the family will starve to death in a few weeks. Famine never occurs because the family periodically restocks the pantry.

Similarly, if oil reserves are divided by current production rates, exhaustion appears imminent. However, petroleum reserves are continually increased by ongoing exploration and development of resources. For 80 years, oil reserves in the United States have been equal to a 10- to 14-year supply at current rates of development.15 If they had not been continually replenished, we would have run out of oil by 1930.

How Much Oil Is Left?
Scaremongers are fond of reminding us that the total amount of oil in the Earth is finite and cannot be replaced during the span of human life. This is true; yet estimates of the world’s total oil endowment have grown faster than humanity can pump petroleum out of the ground.16

The Growing Endowment of Oil.

Estimates of the total amount of oil resources in the world grew throughout the 20th century [see ].

  • In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world’s total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels.17
  • In 1950, geologists estimated the world’s total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
  • From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.
  • In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.
By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced.18 Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels.19 If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world’s oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.

"Oil shales may hold another 14,000 billion barrels -- a 500 year supply."
Additional Petroleum Resources.

The estimates above do not include unconventional oil resources. Conventional oil refers to oil that is pumped out of the ground with minimal processing; unconventional oil resources consist largely of tar sands and oil shales that require processing to extract liquid petroleum. Unconventional oil resources are very large. In the future, new technologies that allow extraction of these unconventional resources likely will increase the world’s reserves.

  • Oil production from tar sands in Canada and South America would add about 600 billion barrels to the world’s supply.20
  • Rocks found in the three western states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone contain 1,500 billion barrels of oil.21
  • Worldwide, the oil-shale resource base could easily be as large as 14,000 billion barrels — more than 500 years of oil supply at year 2000 production rates.22
Unconventional oil resources are more expensive to extract and produce, but we can expect production costs to drop with time as improved technologies increase efficiency.

The Role of Technology
With every passing year it becomes possible to exploit oil resources that could not have been recovered with old technologies. The first American oil well drilled in 1859 by Colonel Edwin Drake in Titusville, Pa. — which was actually drilled by a local blacksmith known as Uncle Billy Smith — reached a total depth of 69 feet (21 meters).

  • Today’s drilling technology allows the completion of wells up to 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) deep.
  • The vast petroleum resources of the world’s submerged continental margins are accessible from offshore platforms that allow drilling in water depths to 9,000 feet (2,743 meters).
  • The amount of oil recoverable from a single well has greatly increased because new technologies allow the boring of multiple horizontal shafts from a single vertical shaft.
  • Four-dimensional seismic imaging enables engineers and geologists to see a subsurface petroleum reservoir drain over months to years, allowing them to increase the efficiency of its recovery.
New techniques and new technology have increased the efficiency of oil exploration. The success rate for exploratory petroleum wells has increased 50 percent over the past decade, according to energy economist Michael C. Lynch.23

Hubbert’s Prediction of Declining Production
Despite these facts, some environmentalists claim that declining oil production is inevitable, based on the so-called Hubbert model of energy production. They ignore the inaccuracy of Hubbert’s projections.



Problems with Hubbert’s Model.

In March 1956, M. King Hubbert, a research scientist for Shell Oil, predicted that oil production from the 48 contiguous United States would peak between 1965 and 1970.24 Hubbert’s prediction was initially called “utterly ridiculous.”25 But when U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, he became an instant celebrity and living legend.

"Environmentalists now tie their predictions of declining energy supplies to M. King Hubbert's model of energy production -- which has been consistently inaccurate."
Hubbert based his estimate on a mathematical model that assumes the production of a resource follows a bell-shaped curve — one that rises rapidly to a peak and declines just as quickly. In the case of petroleum, the model requires an accurate estimate of the size of the total oil endowment.26 His best estimate of the size of petroleum resources in the lower 48 states was 150 billion barrels. His high estimate, which he considered an exaggeration, was 200 billion barrels.

Based on these numbers, Hubbert produced two curves showing a “best” estimate of U.S. oil production and a “high” estimate. The claimed accuracy of Hubbert’s predictions are largely based on the upper curve — his absolute upper limit [see ].

  • Hubbert set the absolute upper limit for peak U.S. oil production at roughly 3 billion barrels a year, and his best or lower estimate of peak future U.S. crude oil production was closer to 2.5 billion barrels.
  • As early as 1970, actual U.S. crude oil production exceeded Hubbert’s upper limit by 13 percent.
  • By the year 2000, actual U.S. oil production from the lower 48 states was 2.5 times higher than Hubbert’s 1956 “best” prediction.
Production in the 48 contiguous states peaked, but at much higher levels than Hubbert predicted. From about 1975 through 1995, Hubbert’s upper curve was a fairly good match to actual U.S. production data. But in recent years, U.S. crude oil production has been consistently higher than Hubbert considered possible.

"U.S. oil production has been higher than Hubbert thought possile."
Hubbert’s 1980 prediction of U.S. oil production, his last, was substantially less accurate than his 1956 “high” estimate.27 In the year 2000, actual U.S. oil production from the lower 48 states was 1.7 times higher than his 1980 revised prediction [see ].

In light of this, it is strange that Hubbert’s predictions have been characterized as remarkably successful. While production in the United States is declining, as Hubbert predicted, it is doing so at a much slower rate. Furthermore, lower production does not necessarily indicate the looming exhaustion of U.S. oil resources. It shows instead that at current prices and with current technology, less of the remaining petroleum is economically recoverable.

Hubbert’s Prediction for Natural Gas.

In 1998, Peter McCabe of the U.S. Geological Survey showed that energy resources do not necessarily follow Hubbert-type curves, and even if they do a decline in production may not be due to exhaustion of the resource.28

For example, Hubbert also predicted future U.S. natural gas production. This prediction turned out to be grossly wrong. As of 2000, U.S. natural gas production was 2.4 times higher than Hubbert had predicted in 1956.29

The Production Curve for Coal.

Production of anthracite coal in Pennsylvania through the 19th and 20th centuries followed a Hubbert-type curve more closely than any other known energy resource. Production started around 1830, peaked around 1920, and by 1995 had fallen to about 5 percent of its peak value. However, the supply of Pennsylvania anthracite coal is far from exhausted. If production were to resume at the all-time high rate of 100 million short tons per year, the resource base would support 190 years of production. Production declined not because the resource was depleted but because people stopped heating their homes with coal and switched to cleaner-burning oil and gas.30

"U.S. production in 2000 was 1.7 times higher than Hubbert projected in 1980."
The primary problem with a Hubbert-type analysis is that it requires an accurate estimate of the total resource endowment. Yet estimates of the total endowment have grown systematically larger for at least 50 years as technology has made it possible to exploit petroleum resources previously not considered economical. Hubbert-type analyses of oil production have systematically underestimated future oil production. This will continue to be the case until geologists can produce an accurate and stable estimate of the size of the total oil endowment.

Is an Oil Economy Sustainable?
In the long run, an economy that utilizes petroleum as a primary energy source is not sustainable, because the amount of oil in the Earth’s crust is finite. However, sustainability is a misleading concept, a chimera. No technology since the birth of civilization has been sustainable. All have been replaced as people devised better and more efficient technologies. The history of energy use is largely one of substitution. In the 19th century, the world’s primary energy source was wood. Around 1890, wood was replaced by coal. Coal remained the world’s largest source of energy until the 1960s when it was replaced by oil. We have only just entered the petroleum age.31

"Without innovation, no technology is sustainable."
How long will it last? No one can predict the future, but the world contains enough petroleum resources to last at least until the year 2100. This is so far in the future that it would be ludicrous for us to try to anticipate what energy sources our descendants will utilize. Over the next several decades the world likely will continue to see short-term spikes in the price of oil, but these will be caused by political instability and market interference — not by an irreversible decline in supply.

David Deming of the University of Oklahoma’s School of Geology and Geophysics is an Adjunct Scholar with the NCPA.


12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800 - Dallas, TX 75251-1339 - 972/386-6272 - Fax 972/386-0924
601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 900 South Building, Washington, DC 20004 - 202/628-6671 - Fax 202/628-6474
Copyright © 2003 National Center for Policy Analysis


The sky is falling. Again.
125 posted on 05/29/2005 2:27:29 PM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson