Re: Energy Policy / Junk Science Environmentalism

Question: as we look at alternatives, does anyone know the costs, in energy,
of using some of these alternatives? Hydrogen - where will get get it, and
what will it cost in energy? For that matter, with hybrid cars now getting
some govenrment support through tax incentives, has anyone done a study on
what the overall enery cost of a hybrid car is, counting not just the MPG in
its operation, but also the enegy required to manufacture, as opposed to the
energy to manufacture conventional vehicles? While such vehicles may be
efficient in operation, what about the overall picture from an energy
perspective.

Comment: regarding executive optimism, is it possible that even a bit of
this optimism stems from a certain conflict of interest? May executives are
compensated on the basis of company performance, either through bonuses or
stock options, and while I may be wrong, it would seem that stating that we
are heading for a crisis that "my company" cannot solve might have a
negative effect on such compensation. I have no knowledge of any of the oil
executive who have been cited on this, but it seems that such a conflict may
exist withoug their even really seeing it.

Pete Cook.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Koop" <koopa@gvsu.edu>
To: <glennmorton@entouch.net>; <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: Energy Policy / Junk Science Environmentalism

> DW: Recent news reports say Saudi Arabia is willing and able (if
necessary) to raise its production significantly, by from one to 3 million
barrels a day, as I recall. Glenn and others question whether they can do
it. Probably no one knows for sure, but it's clear that someone at a fairly
high level in the business over there believes they can. Can other major
producers also raise output? Glenn believes Kuwait and (I think) also
Mexico won't be able to, but there are several others. I suspect Iraq will
be able to if and when the country stabilizes. Maybe also Iran and Russia.
Chevron's CEO expects his company to raise output by half a million barrels
a day by 2008; and from what I've heard, Exxon is also optimistic in this
respect. Much of this adds up to a possibility, at least, that the supply
crunch will come later rather than sooner. A lot, of course, depends on how
rapidly production declines among those who are unable to raise it.
>
> AK: It would be great if it were all the petroleum engineers and
geologists that were predicting more oil production as opposed to the top
executives. I haven't found any evidence and data that can be used to
justify their predictions. ASPO puts out fairly detailed estimates of oil
production for each of 40 countries or so. I would like to see Chevron or
Exxon put out a similar report with their version of oil production for
comparison. All I can find are sweeping statements that tell us not to
worry and that oil reserves are increasing. If I remember correctly, 33 of
the top 48 oil producing countries are now in declining production. Most
optimistic reports indicate places where new fields have been found and new
fields are being brought online, but they devote almost no space to specific
estimates of the rate of decline. We need not only to find new fields to
meet the increasing demands of a growing population and of growing
development in places like China and Ind!
> ia, we need to replace the loss of oil production in these 33 countries on
top of that. Show me more than 3 sentences from some top executives
describing a rosy scenario.
>
>
> DW: Only time will tell whether these countries/companies can do what they
claim. But what does this say about prophecies of imminent doom? While
it's fairly urgent for people to start working on alternatives to
hydrocarbons, it might be best to soft pedal the prophecies of doom lest
they lose credibility if and when the Saudis (and others) come to the rescue
and the world continues to sail on with higher prices and therefore somewhat
curtailed demand but otherwise pretty much unaffected. On the other hand,
if the countries/companies come up short, the doomsayers will gain
credibility.
>
> AK: What do you mean by imminent doom? Granted some people argue the
peak has already hit, but I think most of those who are concerned think that
it will happen sometime within the next 10 years--is that imminent enough?
Since you agree that it is urgent that we begin working on alternatives, how
are we going to make it clear that working hard on alternative energy
sources now is the only prudent thing we can do, and it may already be too
late to avoid a severe economic downturn from dropping oil reserves. How do
we convince the general public that we have to start ramping up the supply
of alternative energy resources immediately if we have top executives
telling us not to worry for decades?
>
>
> DW: Price of oil from unconventional sources depends strongly on what
source you're talking about. In some cases production costs are insensitive
to the price of oil. The very fact that companies seriously ramp up
production in many plays (e.g., tar sands, heavy oil) when prices rise is
proof that high product prices increase both profits and production.
Throughout the oil industry there are examples of additional production
resulting from higher product prices. On the other hand, some
alternatives--e.g., hydrogen and ethanol--may never be truly cost-effective.
(I'm skeptical that they'll ever be able to make a profit on oil from shale
with prices at $30 per barrel, as your Web reference says; but at least this
time they aren't talking about freezing the rock around heated wells!)
>
> AK: Sure the tar sands are a source, but I think the production is now
about 1 million barrels a day and they hope to increase that to 2 million
barrels a day by 2010. The question is how fast this oil product can be
produced even if there are 1 trillion barrels there. A second question
relates to the amount of environmental damage this method causes. A third
question is whether all the natural resources needed will be available to
increase production. I think there are serious questions whether the
currently known methods of obtaining energy will be sufficient to meet the
world's needs in the near future. The uncertainties are such that no one can
honestly claim that we are in good shape.
>
> I do not think that anybody out there can assure the world that our energy
needs will be covered over the next 20 years. It isn't a sure thing that we
have the technology and resources to increase supplies if only we have the
will. I won't rule out some breakthroughs and some new discoveries that
possibly could bail us out for a generation or so, but I don't think anyone
knows now what these breakthroughs might be, and I don't think we have
enough good reasons to expect that they have more than a minor chance of
happening.
>
> Finally, I think we pretty much agree that there is a problem. What
bothers me is that it seems that if someone can establish that a tiny bit of
doubt exists for a situation, many among the general public then take the
view that any contrary position is equally valid. I therefore see almost no
possibility that we will take up any long term planning to alleviate future
energy problems. Only when there is a crisis will any significant action be
taken, and then it will be too late for a soft landing. Unless somebody
makes a great breakthrough using the meager resources now devoted to
alternative energy, we will experience some pretty severe consequences.
>
Received on Tue Jan 3 22:49:09 2006