RE: 4 sobering paragraphs on oil

From: Vandergraaf, Chuck (vandergraaft@aecl.ca)
Date: Wed Jan 24 2001 - 14:39:34 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: 4 sobering paragraphs on oil"

    Glenn,

    Thanks for (yet another) dire warning. I have a few questions/comments for
    you:

    1. Some time ago, you mentioned a drop in oil extraction from the North Sea
    basin. Have you ever found out what caused this drop and is this decrease
    continuing?

    2. There is a lot of discussion about the limits to our fossil fuel
    resources. There is the "Pollyanna" view that there will always be more oil
    and gas "down there" and all we have to do is improve our exploratory and
    extractive methodologies. Then there's the pessimistic view, yours being
    one of them and I tend to share your pessimism. However, the truth is
    probably somewhere in between: there's lots of oil that cannot be recovered
    with current technology or at current costs but, when (not if) oil companies
    can charge more for their oil, they will suck it out of the ground. To get
    back to your example of a few days ago, where you owned a few percentage
    points on a well in Fayette county in Texas, you mentioned that it cost 50$
    to get 5$ oil. However, when oil becomes a scarce commodity and the price
    shoots up to 60$, that well may be worth pumping. Thus, these resources are
    "soft" and depend on our willingness to part with our hard-earned shekels.
    So, the oil will never run out because there will always be some that we
    cannot access.

    3. The following dawned on me a few days ago: we tend to compare the energy
    costs to get the oil out with the energy that the oil will give us. Yet, we
    don't always apply this logic to all forms of energy generation. What we
    may be ignoring is the form in which we want the energy carrier. There will
    be (if there is not already) a premium on portable fuel in the future. For
    example, we won't be able to use nuclear-powered airplanes when the oil runs
    low but if we, as a society, want to continue to fly from one place to
    another, we might consider running coal or nuclear power plants to generate
    electricity (at 25-30% efficiency) or use solar panels to generate
    electricity (at whatever efficiency) and use that electricity to synthesize
    synthetic kerosene (at another poor efficiency) simply so that we can fly
    from North America to Europe (or keep the F-18s flying). In fact, we
    already do this with our space programs.

    I recall a presentation some 20+ years ago on a proposal to build nuclear
    power plants in Nova Scotia, one of our Maritime provinces. Nova Scotia has
    lots of coal and (used to have) access to cheap oil from Venezuela (that was
    before 1980!) The idea was to use the nuclear power plant to generate
    electricity and use that to generate hydrogen by electrolysis. The hydrogen
    would then be combined with the coal from the Nova Scotia coal mines to make
    a synthetic fuel (note that the South Africans used to make synthetic fuel,
    so this is not a new idea). The synthetic fuel would be then be used in
    diesel locomotives. I asked the speaker if it would not be a lot simpler to
    just electrify the railroads. His response made it quite clear that the
    goal of the exercise had nothing to do with transportation, but to come up
    with a "make work" project to keep the coal mines in Nova Scotia open. No,
    I am not making this up! It's an example where the energy balance does not
    even factor into the equation.

    Comments?

    Chuck Vandergraaf

       

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Glenn Morton [mailto:glenn.morton@btinternet.com]
    Sent: Wednesday January 24, 2001 12:33 PM
    To: Asa@Calvin. Edu
    Subject: 4 sobering paragraphs on oil

    Three paragraphs from an economist William E. Rees, "Revisiting Carrying
    Capacity: Ara-Based Indicators of Sustainability," Population and
    Environment 17(1996):3:195-215

    "But there is another issue at hand. The world is running out of
    conventional oil. Recent price hikes are mere tremors heralding the real
    price shock to come. Surely this is not the time to be deepening our
    dependence on fossil fuel."

    "The evidence? Oil 'production' (i.e., extraction) in the US peaked around
    1970 and in North America as a whole in 1984. Non-OPEC production is peaking
    even as you read these words. Several recent studies project global oil
    production to peak by 2013 or sooner, possibly as soon as 2007. Even the
    necessarily conservative International Energy Agency (IEA) in its World
    Energy Outlook, 1998 concurred for the first time that global output could
    top out between 2009 and 2012 and decline rapidly thereafter. Indeed, the
    IEA projects a nearly 20% shortfall of supply relative to demand by 2020
    that will have to be made up of from "unidentified unconventional" sources
    (i.e., known oil-sands deposits have already been taken into account). Other
    studies show that by 2040 total oil output from all sources may fall to less
    than half of today's 25-26 billion barrels of oil per year." [in 2000 we
    produced over to 28 billion barrels of oil--grm]

    "And running out of oil is not running out of just oil. Oil is the means by
    which industrial society obtains (and over-exploits) all other resources.
    The world's fishing fleets, its forest sector, its mines, and its
    agriculture all are powered by liquid portable fossil fuels. Seventeen
    percent of the US energy budget, most of it oil, is used just to grow,
    process, and transport food alone. (It takes a gallon of fossil fuel to feed
    each American every day.) Keep in mind, too, that petroleum is not just a
    fuel. Oil and natural gas are the raw material for thousands of products
    from medicines, paints, and plastics to agricultural fertilizers and
    pesticides. Since oil is directly or indirectly a part of everything else
    the coming scarcity of oil and the attendant price shock means higher prices
    for everything else as well."

    "But wait a minute. Many analysts will agree with energy economist M.A.
    Adelman that rising prices will stimulate "..a stream of investment
    [creating] additions to proved reserves, a very large in-ground inventory,
    constantly renewed as it is extracted". Unfortunately, this argument is
    dangerously misleading. The physical stock of exploitable oil is not being
    "renewed"; historically, improved technology has simply made a dwindling
    finite resource more accessible. Abundant short-term market supplies then
    effectively short-circuit the price increases that would otherwise signal
    impending real scarcity, even as finite stocks are depleted."

    glenn

    see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    for lots of creation/evolution information
    anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    personal stories of struggle



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 24 2001 - 14:43:15 EST