Posted on 06/20/2008 6:18:29 AM PDT by Tolik
Gas is $4 a gallon. Oil is $135 a barrel and rising. We import two-thirds of our oil, sending hundreds of billions of dollars to the likes of Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. And yet we voluntarily prohibit ourselves from even exploring huge domestic reserves of petroleum and natural gas.
The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews.
The highlighted part is exactly what has created our problem.
If the Democrats and their enviro-wacko supporters were in complete charge, we'd also be begging for grain, lumber and steel.
Cultivated fields would be reserved for ethanol-producing corn -- not wheat or other cash crops, which would be plowed under so as to return the prairie to its one-time "pristine" state.
We're already short of lumber, thanks to the National Forests being put off limits to logging -- much of our lumber now comes from Canada.
And steel???!!! Steel mills pollute. We can't have that.
The Democrats would turn us into a nation of beggars. And, in their mind, that's what we deserve to be.
Psssssssst.
Acres are a measure of area -- 43,560 sq. ft, to be exact. There is no such thing as a linear acre. Thus, to say they are "square" is a redundancy.
Technically, an acre is 10 sq. "chains" (a surveyor's measure). Or a square about 209 ft on a side.
Oops...went right over my head...
Larry, by now you should expect the New York Times to misguide, mislead -- even lie -- in support of their liberal agenda.
Taking just a few of their points...
1. The infamous "68 million acres" claim is already discredited. Yes, they are under lease. But, if they are like most leases, only something like .0002% of the acreage will hold exploitable supplies of oil under current technology. First, these .0002% of the acres have to be found -- and seismic mapping of these areas could take years. Second, once found, they have to be test drilled and the optimum bounds of the field determined to maximize eventual production. More years. Thirdly, once determined to be productive, the supporting infrastructure must be built -- drilling ships/platforms, pipelines, onshore terminals, etc. More years and, by now, billions of dollars.
But it is not until all this has been done -- and production wells drilled -- can the field be said to be "in production".
Even then, the oil companies might maintain some leases, though not drill them, because the amount of oil that is recoverable with current technology is insufficient to warrant development. But may well be developable at some future point.
2. "3% of the world's reserves" does not include reserves that are off-limits to development. Thus, ANWR and the offshore deposits under discussion aren't part of the calculation.
Unless the NYT editors are dummies, they already know all of these facts which qualify their assertion. Or should, if they've done any homework. So, they're either a.) lying or b.) stupid.
And, if they're dummies on the topic, what the hell are they doing editorializing on energy policy?
This from WSJ...
The 'Idle' Oil Field Fallacy'.
People who bothered themselves to learn something about the oil business explain what the ignorant editorial writers at the New York Times couldn't be bothered to discover.
It's one thing to have an honest disagreement with the left and have a reasoned debate over policies. But it's quite another thing when the left's propaganda organs undertake to make outright lies in defense of their position.
And, all too often, that is the only means of defense they have...
Pickens certainly has looked into the possibility of expanding supply by drilling offshore and in ANWAR and rejected it as unrealistic. I don't have access to his thinking but, no doubt, it is similar to that of Simmons and Goodstein and many others.
Environmental imperialism. I like that Barak Obama is an environmental imperialist. It has a nice ring.
That's not what Pickens is saying. He's remarking that, long-term, demand is growing greater than supply. Thus, we'll have to develop alternative energy sources.
His reasoning is impeccable. And inarguable.
But he is NOT saying that, in the meantime, we should give up the pursuit of additional petroleum reserves.
Because, until those alternative energy sources are available, the world's economy is going to run on oil. T. Boone is not unfamiliar to me and he would agree with this statement, just as I am agreeing with his.
The solution posed by the New York Times editorial board would apparently be to simply shut down the economy and wait.
What would be your solution?
I think Pickens is saying something other than demand is increasing faster than supply (of oil). That would imply that the problem could be solved by more investment in supply.
He's saying that he believes in peak oil, that we may not be able to achieve substantial increases in supply. That's why supply has stagnated at 85mbpd for the last several years, why the IEA has adjusted its target downward from 116mbpd to 100mbpd.
So, what to do?
First, the problem must be recognized and acknowledged. Hubbert's theory, and the evidence behind it, must be better and more widely understood.
Second, as you say, the world will be dependent upon oil as its primary energy source for many years, and will rely upon it indefinitely for lubrication and non-transportation or heating uses.
Third. There's going to be great pain in making the adjustment (if its possible). My feeling is that should be accepted and dealt with now rather than fobbing it off on future generations when the population is greater and the amount of reserves less. If we provide more oil people will immediately backslide, just as they did when the crisis of the '70s passed. This crisis won't pass. People are going to have to adjust to a much lower standard of living (until and if we find new energy sources)...and probably to some form of mandatory birth control. Probably there will be some vicious wars of population reduction.
AP INTERVIEW: T. Boone Pickens says global oil production has reached its peak
AP INTERVIEW: T. Boone Pickens says global oil production has reached its peak
Oh, come now!
Why have such little faith in people? In the ability of free market economies to adjust on the fly? In the ability of innovative people and companies to solve problems?
You propose to give up looking for more oil simply because there won't ever be enough? Hunker down and wait for some miraculous silver bullet alternative energy (developed, no doubt, by some government agency)? Accept misery as your lot, even when it's not necessary?
At the turn of the previous century, people of a similar demeanor were concerned with our increasing reliance on the horse. The streets were full of horsesh!t...the stables stank up the neighborhood...public health was at risk...the cultivation of oats exceeded that of grains to feed human beings.
Should we have slaughtered the horses, suffered the consequences, then waited for somebody to develop an alternative: the automobile?
The point I'm making is that there is absolutely no need "to adjust to a much lower standard of living". No need for "mandatory birth control" nor "vicious wars of population reduction".
Long-term, there are -- on the horizon -- all kinds of "alternative energies". Not wind, not solar, not biomass, since there are physical restrictions to their ever becoming significant contributors to the overall energy mix. Instead, there is hydrogen, etc. and other high tech solutions we haven't even conceived yet.
And, short-term, there is coal. Lots of coal. Which can be converted to oil. Or burned cleanly. The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. And there is nuclear -- in unlimited quantities. There is shale oil. Lots of shale oil. All of these are exploitable under known technology -- given the will and an economically-feasible price and market.
In the meantime, there is still a huge amount of oil left in both known reserves and as yet unexplored territory. And there is still technology to be discovered that will improve our ability to exploit these reserves.
More than enough -- under anybody's projection -- to carry us beyond the point where improved technologies mollify the problem.
We arrived on the moon seven years after we made a societal decision to do so. We could achieve Energy Independence in seven years if we chose to do so.
Is it simply the default position for liberalism to assert, "No, we can't"?
One additional comment on this part of your response.
People "backslid" after the oil of the '70's passed because it was an artificially created "crisis". There was no shortage of oil; there was no reason to adjust.
Now, my contention would be that the current situation is likely quite "real" -- but falls well short of a "crisis". There is ample time -- and resources -- to arrive at a solution within the necessary timeframe.
That assumes, of course, that the proper corrective actions are taken. By which I mean: The federal government should get out of the damn way and allow production from known reserves.
One additional comment on this part of your response.
People "backslid" after the oil of the '70's passed because it was an artificially created "crisis". There was no shortage of oil; there was no reason to adjust.
Now, my contention would be that the current situation is likely quite "real" -- but falls well short of a "crisis". There is ample time -- and resources -- to arrive at a solution within the necessary timeframe.
That assumes, of course, that the proper corrective actions are taken. By which I mean: The federal government should get out of the damn way and allow production from known reserves.
And, if it hasn't been clear to this point, understand that I'm all in favor of pursuing alternative energies and undertaking a practical degree of conservation at the same time.
This is the United States of America: We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Re: More drilling. If Hubbert is correct - and he most likely is - drilling is going to be more and more expensive for a smaller and smaller return unless prices are correspondingly adjusted upward. Heavily upward.
That being said, I recognize that I am by nature a pessimist. I also recognize that people will do whatever they can to protect their present wealth, the future be damned.
Everything from nuclear, coal, wind, solar, hydrogen and biofuels stands a chance to assuage growing demand for energy, Pickens said.
I don't see that Pickens is saying anything different from what I'm saying.
Nor do I see him saying we should forget exploring and drilling for more oil in the short-term.
Do you see otherwise?
Larry, it's always very easy to take a pessimistic view of the future. Because, simply stated, you don't know what's out there. And such doomsday tripe is very easy to get published.
Academicians of this sort have always had their audience. I give you Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford biologist.
Now, I don't know whether Goodstein is right or not (neither does he, nor do you). But I do know that Ehrlich was full of sh!t.
Problems are very easy to conceive. We all do that every day. However, the most productive thinkers in society not only expose problems, they also posit solutions for them.
If it is your nature to be pessimistic, that's your privilege. It doesn't make you a bad person -- my wife's tht way, as a matter of fact. But it does make you better-equipped to deal with the past than with the future.
And you're right, Goodstein (being very good as I said) isn't sure he's right and actually hopes he's wrong. But Matt Simmons bet Rita Simon (wife of Julian Simon, he who exposed Paul Erlich) a few years ago, that oil would be over $200 a barrel in 2010. It looks like he'll win.
I'm sure that people will continue to drill as long as they think it profitable. Doesn't matter what theories are out there, or what the collateral damage.
On your final point, however, I have to disagree. I'm very well positioned to deal with the future, even if it's terrible.
At the simplest level, if two people carpool that cuts their gas usage (and cost) in half. A lot of hot water heating can easily be converted to solar. Mixed use neighborhoods can be built (or retrofitted) so that travel to work and shopping is drastically reduced. And so on.
Conservation alone can probably give us 20 to 30 years - a generation - to find alternative technologies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.