Posted on 03/25/2005 6:50:44 PM PST by neverdem
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Princeton, N.J.
PRESIDENT BUSH'S hopes for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge came one step closer to reality last week. While Congress must still pass a law to allow drilling in the refuge, the Senate voted to include oil revenues from such drilling in the budget, making eventual approval of the president's plan more likely.
Yet the debate over drilling in the Arctic refuge has been oddly beside the point. In fact, it may be distracting us from a far more important problem: a looming world oil shortage.
The environmental argument over drilling in the refuge has often been portrayed as "tree huggers" versus "dirty drillers" (although, as a matter of fact, the north coastal plain of Alaska happens to have no trees to hug). Even as we concede that this is an oversimplification, we should also ask how a successful drilling operation would affect American oil production.
The United States Geological Survey has estimated that the Arctic oil field is likely to be at least half the size of the Prudhoe Bay oil field, almost 100 miles to the west. Opening that oil field was like hitting a grand slam: Prudhoe Bay, which has already produced more than 13 billion barrels, is the biggest American oil field. (I was once at a party with a bunch of geologists from Mobil Oil when an argument broke out: who discovered Prudhoe Bay? Everybody in the room except me claimed to have done so.)
Unfortunately, you don't hit a grand slam in every at-bat. The geological survey estimates that the Arctic refuge could produce at least half as much oil as Prudhoe Bay. It is also possible, however, that the refuge could produce no oil at all - it often happens in the oil industry. At the other extreme, the upper range of the geological survey's estimate soars to 16 billion barrels. Although the geologists at the survey are widely respected, the upper ranges of their petroleum estimates for the refuge have drawn criticism, sometimes expressed as giggles, from other petroleum geologists.
Despite its size, Prudhoe Bay was not big enough to reverse the decline of American oil production. The greatest year of United States production was 1970. Prudhoe Bay started producing oil in 1977, but never enough to raise American production above the level of 1970. The Arctic refuge will probably have an even smaller effect. Every little bit helps, but even the most successful drilling project at the Arctic refuge would be only a little bit.
But if the question of whether to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the wrong one, what's the right one? In 1997 and 1998, a few petroleum geologists began examining world oil production using the methods that M. King Hubbert used in predicting in 1956 that United States oil production would peak during the early 1970's. These geologists indicated that world oil output would reach its apex in this decade - some 30 to 40 years after the peak in American oil production. Almost no one paid attention.
I used to work with Mr. Hubbert at Shell Oil, and my own independent research places the peak of world oil production late this year or early in 2006. Even a prompt and successful drilling operation in the Arctic refuge would not start pumping oil into the pipeline before 2008 or 2009.
A permanent drop in world oil production will have serious consequences. In addition to the economic blow, there will be the psychological effect of accepting that there are limits to an important energy resource. What can we do? More efficient diesel automobiles, and greater reliance on wind and nuclear power, are well-engineered solutions that are available right now. Conservation, although costly in most cases, will have the largest impact. The United States also has a 300-year supply of coal, and methods for using coal without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere are being developed.
After world oil production starts to decline, a small group of geologists could gather in my living room and all claim to have discovered the peak. "We told you so," we could say. But that isn't the point. The controversy over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a side issue. The problem we need to face is the impending world oil shortage.
Kenneth S. Deffeyes, a professor emeritus of geology at Princeton, is the author of "Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak."
In the World Almanac of the mid-70s, I remember a statement from the EPA noting that the world's supply of oil would be gone by 1981. The sky is always falling, and it will continue to fall for the rest of human history.
Best reply so far!
This might be off-topic, but many geologists believe oil comes from inorganic sources deep within the earth; it is NOT decomposed swamp and vegetation matter, and so it may never run out.
The next issue then, is what will happen to all the carbon we put in the air and oceans when we burn that oil. Will it cycle back to earth, or stay there and become a greenhouse? This question is unanswered, though liberals will say it's settled fact that the greenhouse will happen.
Which is why I post on FR, to dispel such myths.
But,....Soylent Green is made out of people.......
It's not my problem.
Afterall, isn't that why we are constantly being told to vote? To have 435 brilliant elites solve our problems? Well, what will happen to them if we run out of oil should be the question.
Yes!
E.I.B. hydrogen and electric conservative rides...
Damn!
My dreams of total anarchy have just died (and yes, that is a joke for all you WP reporters without a sense of humor).
These clowns are pros at leaving all sorts of relevant variables.
US production is declining because the government has blocked drilling in many areas which contain very large reserves. The government has, since the late 60s, put up all sorts of impediments to domestic oil exploration/production.
There is more than enough recoverable oil (with today's prices and technology) to last for [at least] 100 years.
The private sector will not put up the massive investment needed to get the oil because our government has not shown the political will to let the market work. I remember VERY clearly the huge mess produced by Nixon's (and Carter's) price controls on US oil in the 70s. Oil was going for $12 pbl and US oil companies were forced to sell their's for $6. So, where do you think they sold their oil? Duh. And, companies did not invest in domestic exploration, etc. because price controls meant that it cost more to produce new oil than the government allowed them to charge.
So, when I read crap like this, I want to go postal on the moron saying it.
The previous poster about Hydrocarbons being created deep within the crust is accurate. The decayed matter theory ran into problems when they found oil at much deeper depths.
The Saudis have openly admitted that their window of opportunity regarding wealth derived from oil will be a short one. They know an alternative source breakthrough will eventually come, and their remaining oil will be worthless. It reminds me of the story of the man who once had a near monopoly on ice houses in America. Then, in the 1920's, Sears started selling refrigerators. Suddenly, one of the wealthiest men in America was broke, and it happened in a period of just 10 years.
When "the oil runs out" string up the enviros and drill California and it's off shore reserves and we will have at least another 800 years of oil.
Just wait, one of them is going to shreek..........."That's besides the point!".
http://www.rense.com/general63/staline.htm
interesting about Abiotic oil ie oil is made by earth activity opposite to biological fuel...
Go back to horses, of course...but as Michael Crichton points out, what'll we do with all the horse shit? Because we'll need millions and millions of horses!
These idiots on the Left never let up, never let facts get in the way.
The "Sand Oil" production costs have gone from about $25 to $17 per barrel. Also, a pipe line extension will go to Texas from Indiana which is fed from Canada.
True, but look at all the problems we can solve while powering our S-U-V's (GASP): the over stressing of the Social Security system; wives that won't die; the spreading of Islam; illegal aliens; etc.
;-) (Just in case any libs are reading this - they think the worst of me already!...)
I have infonate faith in the ingenuity of mankind and the efficiency of the free market to satisfy this problem.
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.