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."
I don't know anyone who claims that ANWAR will solve all the problems. However it is an available step when most of the hot air crowd is touting pie in the sky such as hydrogen or solar. Nuclear, clean coal, ANWAR and liquified natural gas are the most obvious available sources at this time and should be used until we find something better. No one item will solve the problem by itself.
Open up an account...and buy dips in crude futures.
Stalls to house New York Slimes reporters and editors as they are hooked up to a new methane gas pipeline... then they are fed buttritos..
Just like the impending global warming or is it a new ice age????????
Bear fat and goose grease?
Thermal depolymerization?
And it will be profitable, promises Appel. "We've done so much testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," he says. "This is our first-out plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five years, we'll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production company. And it will get cheaper from there."
"We've got a lot of confidence in this," Buffett says. "I represent ConAgra's (Butterball turkeys) investment. We wouldn't be doing this if we didn't anticipate success." Buffett isn't alone.
Appel has lined up federal grant money to help build demonstration plants to process chicken offal and manure in Alabama and crop residuals and grease in Nevada. Also in the works are plants to process turkey waste and manure in Colorado and pork and cheese waste in Italy.
He says the first generation of depolymerization centers will be up and running in 2005. By then it should be clear whether the technology is as miraculous as its backers claim.
Last article I read claimed that the Missouri Butterball to oil plant was on line and producing as expected. I haven't seen updates on the others.
The plant would be a great for two reasons. On which is oil the second is it turns waste into something useful. It is a business man's dream come true.
What's amazing is that Ehrlich still has a career and isn't met with guffaws every time he speaks.
Great collection of quotes, JL..
Another good thing is once the plants are up and running, they become energy self sufficient.
Another thing people don't know, is that the oil refineries production excess energy that they then sell off to whoever wants it. Ex: GM Auto Plant here in Arlington, TX.
Diesels used in European autos get excellent mileage. the Volkswagen TDI engine is an example. The US is behind in that respect. The mileage attainable by American diesel pickups might also surprise you.
"What Happens Once the Oil Runs Out?"
We will go to war for MORE!!!!! ;)
Can't be done. They're not bright enough.
Yeah, I used to buy Fords too.
Energy is made out of money - out of wealth and capital dedicated to procuring it. It is not finite. The earth is continually bathed in more energy than we can use, more comes from radioactive elements throughout the earth's crust, and plenty of past photosynthesis over hundreds of millions of year has provided large stocks of additional stored energy as fossil fuels. Coal is much more abundant, and gas as abundant.
Oil is simply more economical than most other energy sources, particularly for making portable fuel for vehicles. That is why we use it. We should develop oil resources because doing so makes us all richer, by saving effort on harder to procure forms of energy. But we can readily procure all we will use.
The entire energy sector is a quite modest portion of our overall economy. If all prices and scarcities in the sector - not just oil - doubled, it would have an impact on our wealth and income roughly equivalent to a couple of years worth of ordinary growth. We aren't going to suddenly become poor because a well runs dry. It is a fantasy of capitalist hating greens, with no basis in economic reality. Our wealth does not come out of the ground, it comes out of our minds and our sweat.
America wiil find alternative sources of energy and sheetheads will go back to cooking their food over camel dung!
"Could someone clue me in on this? Why and in what sense are diesels autos more effieicent."
Be happy to!
Briefly, Diesels are more fuel efficient because
1) they use a higher BTU fuel that also takes less energy to refine
2) Diesels have no throttle, hence they can suck in as much air as possible, maximizing efficiency. Turbochargers make more power and more efficiency on Diesels for this reason.
3) Diesels use higher compression to ignite the fuel, and higher compression means more efficiency.
4) a gasoline engine needs to use an air fuel ratio of about 15:1 to run acceptably. A Diesel can use a/f ratios of 20:1 (high load) to 80:1 (idle). That means while sitting in traffic, you are using about 1/4-1/5 the fuel of a similar gasoline powered vehicle, and still can get about 25% better mileage under full load.
Bonus features:
1) Diesel is much less flammable than gasoline (but a spill turns the road into a skating rink!)
2) The infrastructure is in place, and Europe has kindly developed small, medium and large Diesels into a fleet of fabulous vehicles that would immediately be acceptable by American drivers (see the Volkswagens and the new C class Mercedes) Their small cars can get up to 90 mpg!
3) A Diesel will run on any sufficiently filtered fuel, particularly bioDiesel, which can also be blended with petroleum based Diesel to extend supplies.
4) You can drive SUVs without guilt!! A Diesel Jeep Liberty
will get about 30 mpg on the highway. My Diesel Suburban can get significantly over 20 mpg when driving prudently. That is called having your cake and eating it too!
5) Diesels are more heavily built, and with the natural lubricating features of the oil like Diesel, last much longer (low sulfur fuel takes some of the latter away though).
Downsides:
1) America has the lousiest Diesel in the world right now, both in average cetane ratings and sulfur content. The refineries can fix it, but say there is no need without significant demand.
2) the moron liberals (those in California and the Northeast, with the momentary exception of Connecticut, but give them time) have banned the sale of small Diesel vehicles until the advent of ultra low sulfur Diesel (ULSD) is introduced, which means no Diesels until sometime in late 2006! Just when we need them, we can't get them! That included the Liberty, which would be a big seller here in the Northeast. They would save fuel NOW, and get cleaner when the ULSD is sold.
Try one out if you can, and you will be pleasantly surprised! They are quiet and powerful. The Volkswagen TDIs are great to drive, quiet and efficient. Folks I know that got one before the ban find it difficult to get less than 50 mpg (manual trans)!
Yeah, I have the Diesel disease. Once you go Diesel, you never go back!
How can oil (organic) come from inorganic sources, reverse transmutation?
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.