- << How to reduce oil dependency
David Kirsch, an oil analyst at PFC Energy, said that if the most promising areas off Florida and California were opened for drilling, their peak production in a decade could be as little as 250,000 barrels a day — less than a quarter of what the gulf produces now. “It’s almost a desperate attempt to take advantage of the political climate brought on by high energy prices to steamroll through legislation that won’t fundamentally address those high energy prices,” Mr. Kirsch said. (As reported in the New York Times)
250,000 barrels a day – to put this number in perspective, it’s the amount that the Cantarell oilfield in Mexico declined in the last six months (and its decline will continue).
Cantarell: Steep decline
It’s the amount that North Sea oil fields declined in the last year (and their decline will continue). It’s the amount taken offline recently when rebels in speedboats attacked an oil rig off the coast of Nigeria. It’s a little over 1% of our current oil consumption and maybe a third of a percent of the world’s. It’s spit in the bucket.
Meanwhile, conservation methods offer us a way to reduce our dependence on oil by as much as one-third. That would be 28 times as great an effect. Twenty-eight times. We wouldn’t have to spend anything, or spoil anything, to do it. We could start right away, rather than waiting 10 years. And perhaps most tellingly, it would be a benefit that actually accrued to squeezed U.S. citizens, rather than a benefit that accrued to oil companies and whoever will bid the highest for the offshore oil.
It’s what the other developed nations of the world have done. Maybe we should take advantage of the research they’ve done in this area? Or must we live through the World Without Oil scenario first?
U.S. lags in conservation measures
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 6, 2008 at 10:42 pm
imaknoyd
Two points. First, the easy one. Your information that European countries have been keeping their oil consumption steady, or reduced it. You do realize that many of the European countries have a negative population growth, right?
Second, drilling offshore or in ANWR is a red herring. Tear down the platforms, stop production, let the Chinese and the Indians drill for oil, it won’t matter.
On the other hand, we have 240 years worth of oil at today’s level of consumption sitting idle in the oil shale fields of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Generations of steady employment, lower fuel cost, energy independence and security, and we send 25% of the worlds oil supplies back on the world market for consumption by others. There are no losers in this. With modern technology, we can leave very little negative, if any, ecological impact, and provide for our country all the oil we need.
“Drill and Mine US Oil!-Buy and Refine US Oil!” (copyright 2008, kelly and dorthey knight, http://imaknoyd.wordpress.com)
July 6, 2008 at 11:53 pm
WriTerGuy
Re: your first point. The countries listed in the chart all have positive population growth.
Re: your second point. In the aggregate, you are making the common mistake of confusing reserves with output or flow. This is misleading enough when talking about oil, but much more so when it comes to oil shale, which requires more processing. In simple terms, you have to cook the shale to get the oil, plus you consume water, so the actual Energy Return on Investment is very low. Scaling up to build an energy source to rival oil is unrealistic in practical terms; the infrastructure will have evolved away from oil by the time you had any significant flow.
As to your “very little negative ecological impact” you would have to explain that. The Wikipedia entry on shale oil lists quite a few negative ecological impacts. The hardest one to obviate, in my mind, is the water consumption requirement. Not a lot of extra water in the Green Field area, for example.
That said, it does seem like there’s potential for oil shale to be a regional energy source. I don’t think it will ever produce oil, however; it will just be used directly to produce energy.
July 7, 2008 at 7:47 pm
imaknoyd
Writerguy-
I stand amended. What I would have been more accurate in stating is that the percentage of growth is declining. For example, between 1955 and 1960, France had a 5.2% growth, and from 1960 to 1965, a 6.0% growth. On the other hand, 2000 over 1995, the growth was at 1.7%, and it is expected that between 2005 and 2010 growth will be at 2/5%, significantly less than the 60’s.
For those same periods, the US has seen growth of 8.4%, 8.8%, 5.4%, and 5.0%. Our current growth rate is double that of France, although declining.
Nonetheless, and moving to oil shale, I have little regard for Wikipedia. It would never be accepted as a resource in any scholarly work because the loose parameters by which entries can be made. The professors at the university I attend will discount a grade if Wikipedia is used as a source.
So, where do we look for expertise in oil shale extrapolation? See my post on the RAND report. The article is somewhat dated in that it discusses extracting oil at $60/barrel as expensive, which at $144/barrel for oil, now looks rather attractive. http://imaknoyd.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/rand-report-on-oil-shale/
July 7, 2008 at 9:39 pm
WriTerGuy
Re: growth rates. As I covered in my post July 1, growth rates (GDP) are misleading. What we really care about is quality of life, and I haven’t heard of any significant decline in the quality of life in Denmark, as an example, which cut its oil use by 33% since 1980.
Re: Wikipedia. You do realize that you undercut your criticism of Wikipedia, perhaps fatally, when you apologetically offer an outdated report in its place?
I read the summary of the 2005 RAND report. It jives pretty well with what Wikipedia says. There is significant risk of ecological damage, especially since strip mining seems to be part of the plan. The water issue is critical, as 3 barrels of water will be needed for every barrel of oil produced. And of course the killers are that (1) the process is unknown and untested and (2) produces greenhouse gases and (3) even if we went full out starting today, we would only be getting 3mbd about 30 years later. So oil shale as our oil-rich savior is off by 30 years minimum and a production factor of at least 7.
I stand by what I wrote: oil shale has potential as a regional energy source, if its significant ecological risks can be mitigated (which I think is possible). But it’s not an oil source.
July 7, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Draining America's Oil is NOT a Solution |
[...] Offshore drilling vs. men in speedboats – David Kirsch, an oil analyst at PFC Energy, said that if the most promising areas off Florida and California were opened for drilling, their peak production in a decade could be as little as 250000 barrels a day — less than a quarter of … [...]
July 8, 2008 at 4:41 am
PeakProphet
Ken, you are absolutely correct about the Bakken formation. A complete technical analysis is available here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868
Knoyd, I recommend you do a lot more research before professing knowledge of panaceas to the energy crisis. There is no fix. Once a non-renewable resource is depleted, it’s gone. We’re past the overall peak of light sweet crude and are left with a pastiche of sour, heavy crude, shale, tar sands, and unconventional oil on the other side. No one who knows about all this wants to talk about what it means — a major, and I mean Major, die off of the human population. There’s no room for optimism here without the most radical kind of social, psychological and economic actions imaginable. This situation is much like the movies where an asteroid is hurtling toward the Earth. It’s that bad.
We’re at the point in the game now where “demand destruction” starts to kick in. Only, demand will not go down uniformly — it will hit the US very hard, which is not something I foresaw in the WWO. I imagined developing countries being hit the worst, but as it turns out, the financially-leveraged state of the US is causing the economy to twist and groan like a rusty oil rig ready to fall to the ground. There is a good probability that total, irreversible financial collapse could happen in the next 2 years. The people behind the scenes — the top economists are terrified! Check this out for a little dose of reality:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303317.html
August 5, 2008 at 2:34 pm
jeff roensch
The only energy or oil monopoly in this country is a governmental institutionalized monopoly on our country energy market. The legislative branch has been engaging in anti-competitive energy practices from drilling to building new refineries and much more. They are in clear violation of the
“Sherman Antitrust Act
This Act expresses our national commitment to a free market economy in which competition free from private and governmental restraints leads to the best results for consumers.” http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm#file
Clearly the governmental restraint are in violation of a free market economy and is criminal negligence on the part of the liberal politicians who are the real cartel that profit in taxes more then 3 to 1 to the oil companies that actually work for their money and then have to pay taxes on top of that. So when Oil profits go up the tax revenue increase is 3 times that of the oil companies. So who do you think is the real cartel???
This criminal incompetence of the democrats and legislative politicians anti free market energy economy in allowing American companies to meet American Oil needs is in need of change and with bush opening up offshore drilling it is time that we conservatives take a page from the left wing play book and for us to us the judicial system in upholding our laws and open up drilling.
Why dose the Senate call for investigations on big oil? Because they are trying to transfer the blame off of them by placing the blame on someone else. By placing the blame on the oil companies and keep people from seeing that government is the true problem they are able to offer false hope in an effort to gain more power and money from taxes while eliminating a free market economy in our country and forcing us to send our money to unfriendly Middle Eastern countries.
August 5, 2008 at 5:50 pm
WriTerGuy
Jeff, I’m guessing you didn’t read the original post or the comments, since your comment doesn’t touch on them at all. The point is, drilling won’t meet our energy needs, period – the oil just isn’t there. It’s a trivial quantity compared with our need.
You are trying to convince me that the oil industry is suffering at the hands of a monopolistic government? Good luck with that. The oil companies’ latest quarterly reports are stating earnings greater than any company has had ever before in human history.