<\/p>\r\n
| \r\n What Happens Once the Oil Runs Out? \r\n Re-printed from the The \r\n New York Times op-ed page\r\n By Kenneth S. Deffeyes President Bush's hopes for the Arctic National Wildlife \r\n Refuge came one step closer to reality last week. While Congress must \r\n still pass a law to allow drilling in the refuge, the Senate voted to \r\n include oil revenues from such drilling in the budget, making eventual \r\n approval of the president's plan more likely.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n Yet the debate over drilling in the Arctic refuge has been oddly beside \r\n the point. In fact, it may be distracting us from a far more important \r\n problem: a looming world oil shortage.<\/p>\r\n The environmental argument over drilling in the refuge has often been \r\n portrayed as \"tree huggers\" versus \"dirty drillers\" (although, as a matter \r\n of fact, the north coastal plain of Alaska happens to have no trees to \r\n hug). Even as we concede that this is an oversimplification, we should \r\n also ask how a successful drilling operation would affect American oil \r\n production.<\/p>\r\n The United States Geological Survey has estimated that the Arctic oil \r\n field is likely to be at least half the size of the Prudhoe Bay oil field, \r\n almost 100 miles to the west. Opening that oil field was like hitting \r\n a grand slam: Prudhoe Bay, which has already produced more than 13 billion \r\n barrels, is the biggest American oil field. (I was once at a party with \r\n a bunch of geologists from Mobil Oil when an argument broke out: who discovered \r\n Prudhoe Bay? Everybody in the room except me claimed to have done so.)<\/p>\r\n Unfortunately, you don't hit a grand slam in every at-bat. The geological \r\n survey estimates that the Arctic refuge could produce at least half as \r\n much oil as Prudhoe Bay. It is also possible, however, that the refuge \r\n could produce no oil at all – it often happens in the oil industry. At \r\n the other extreme, the upper range of the geological survey's estimate \r\n soars to 16 billion barrels. Although the geologists at the survey are \r\n widely respected, the upper ranges of their petroleum estimates for the \r\n refuge have drawn criticism, sometimes expressed as giggles, from other \r\n petroleum geologists.<\/p>\r\n Despite its size, Prudhoe Bay was not big enough to reverse the decline \r\n of American oil production. The greatest year of United States production \r\n was 1970. Prudhoe Bay started producing oil in 1977, but never enough \r\n to raise American production above the level of 1970. The Arctic refuge \r\n will probably have an even smaller effect. Every little bit helps, but \r\n even the most successful drilling project at the Arctic refuge would be \r\n only a little bit.<\/p>\r\n But if the question of whether to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife \r\n Refuge is the wrong one, what's the right one? In 1997 and 1998, a few \r\n petroleum geologists began examining world oil production using the methods \r\n that M. King Hubbert used in predicting in 1956 that United States oil \r\n production would peak during the early 1970's. These geologists indicated \r\n that world oil output would reach its apex in this decade - some 30 to \r\n 40 years after the peak in American oil production. Almost no one paid \r\n attention.<\/p>\r\n I used to work with Mr. Hubbert at Shell Oil, and my own independent \r\n research places the peak of world oil production late this year or early \r\n in 2006. Even a prompt and successful drilling operation in the Arctic \r\n refuge would not start pumping oil into the pipeline before 2008 or 2009.<\/p>\r\n A permanent drop in world oil production will have serious consequences. \r\n In addition to the economic blow, there will be the psychological effect \r\n of accepting that there are limits to an important energy resource. What \r\n can we do? More efficient diesel automobiles, and greater reliance on \r\n wind and nuclear power, are well-engineered solutions that are available \r\n right now. Conservation, although costly in most cases, will have the \r\n largest impact. The United States also has a 300-year supply of coal, \r\n and methods for using coal without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere \r\n are being developed.<\/p>\r\n After world oil production starts to decline, a small group of geologists \r\n could gather in my living room and all claim to have discovered the peak. \r\n \"We told you so,\" we could say. But that isn't the point. The controversy \r\n over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a side issue. The problem \r\n we need to face is the impending world oil shortage.<\/p>\r\n Kenneth S. Deffeyes, a professor emeritus of geology at Princeton, \r\n is the author of \"Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak.\"<\/i><\/p>\r\n © 2005 New York Times and Kenneth Deffeyes<\/small><\/i><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n Sunday, April 10th, 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM<\/b> Learn about the issues of oil and natural gas \r\n depletion and the options we have in the Los Angeles area as we approach \r\n the global peak in fossil fuel extraction. This Post Carbon Institute \r\n sponsored event features the documentary, \"The End of Suburbia: Oil \r\n Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream\"<\/em> as well as a panel \r\n of speakers from local organizations. The speakers will include \r\n Richard Bruce Anderson who's presentation is titled, \"Endless \r\n Growth\" Meets Reality: Finding Our Way in a Post-Carbon World, <\/em>Roger \r\n Gray, co-founder of Pasadena Walks!, an organization which advocates for \r\n walkable, livable cities, and Joan Stevens of the Los Angeles Permaculture \r\n Guild. The event will also include vegetarian food, poetry and music.<\/p>\r\n Event Schedule<\/span><\/b><\/p>\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n 4:00 PM<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/td>\r\n Documentary, 78 Minutes:<\/b> 5:30 PM<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/td>\r\n Political and Environmental \r\n Poetry<\/b> Organized by \r\n Aire \r\n Celeste Norell<\/span><\/span> <\/p>\r\n \r\n <\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n Vegetarian\/vegan \r\n food will be provided<\/b><\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n 7:00 PM<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/td>\r\n RSVP:<\/b> Transportation: Flyer:<\/b> For more information visit www.lapostcarbon.org\/options.htm<\/b><\/p>\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n<\/table>\r\nPeak Oil Information:<\/strong>\r\n http:\/\/energybulletin.net\/primer.php <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","contact":"eric@pealoilaction.org","link":"http:\/\/www.lapostcarbon.org","address":"","phone":"714-926-1916","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"What's the connection between the Arctic National \r\n Wildlife Refuge and Los Angeles? The answer is peak oil. President Bush wants to open up ANWR (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) to oil drilling and it has everything to do with the fact that \r\n we are at the global peak in oil extraction. Peak oil is the start of the age of ever declining oil extraction. This is very significant to Los Angeles because it could be argued that Los Angeles is one of the most oil-addicted places on earth - the birthplace of freeway suburbs, and home to thousands of big-box stores which carry products that traveled thousands of miles to reach us. In the article below, Kenneth Deffeyes brings to our attention the fact that the debate over ANWR is missing the big issue, the issue of peak oil. On April 10th in Venice, the Post Carbon Institute presents Options and Actions for a Post Carbon Los Angeles, with local community activists presenting projects addressing these issues.","numcomment":2,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2005\/03\/124418.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":125842,"heading":"Peak Oil = Hype or Hoax","article":"I realize that this is going to piss a lot of folks off and get me branded as a troublemaker, but I think this stuff about Peak Oil is nonsense. Here is an excerpt of a posting I made to www.indybay.org on the subject:\r\n\r\n. . . I think that "Peak Oil" is about as threatening as the (now largely forgotten) Y2K bug. Let me explain why I believe this to be so:\r\n\r\n\r\nI. Demand and consumption are both elastic and do not necessarily correspond to supply.\r\n\r\nThe classic Peak Oil theorists are essentially Malthusian--believing that as supply grows, demand and consumption grow until the peak is crossed. Logic suggests that this is a gross oversimplification of the real world. Even oil-addicted societies can deploy methods designed to conserve the oil supply (as as done in the early 1970s, but later abandoned until the gas crisis of 1979).\r\n\r\nFurthermore, gas-electric hybrid automobiles, such as the Toyota Prius (which I drive) or the Honda Insight, reduce gasoline consumption by as much as 67 - 75% per user. Suppose hybrid technology becomes the dominant automotive trend over the next ten years? The supply of oil will not change, but the demand and the consumption rates would plummet.\r\n\r\n\r\nII. Alternatives to oil exist and are already cost effective.\r\n\r\nMost Peak Oil adherents argue that alternatives to oil are pipe dreams or false hopes. For example, they argue that bio-diesel will not mitigate the oil shortage, because bio-diesel crops require oil-based fertilizers to produce. I disagree. Organic farming methods can eliminate the need for fossil-fuel based fertilizers,\r\nbut even if fertilizers are still needed, the use of oil for fertilizer is probably more efficient than the use of oil for internal combustion, so once again, the supply doesn't necessarily correspond directly to consumption.\r\n\r\nPeak Oil alarmists argue that hydrogen is no better, because hydrogen is a carrier of energy and not a producer, and hydrogen requires more energy to extract than it saves in usage. Both of these claims, while technically true are utterly meaningless if they are placed in practical context. Oil is itself, a "carrier" of energy--not a producer; it, too, has to be extracted and that takes energy. Most of the energy required in extracting oil for use as an internal combustion engine fuel is derived from the burning of other fossil fuels.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, Hydrogen can be produced using renewable energy. As for hydrogen requiring more energy to extract than it saves, this claim is only true because the technology for its extraction as an automotive fuel is in its infancy. Petroleum oil also had its share of "growing pains" as a resource. Unlike hydrogen and renewables, however, fossil fuel technology is highly subsidized by the government.\r\n\r\nIn any case, much of the negative, pessimistic claims about hydrogen are quite thoroughly debunked by Amory Lovins, who is the CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, here:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.rmi.org\/images\/other\/Energy\/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf\r\n\r\n\r\nIII. Renewable energy is a viable alternative and developing rapidly.\r\n\r\nPeak Oil alarmists argue that renewable energy could replace fossil fuels, but not before a serious economic (and perhaps societal) catastrophe, primarily because renewable energy technology cannot be developed fast enough to prevent it.\r\n\r\nThis pessimism (or perhaps deliberate fear mongering) is unwarranted. In the March \/ April issue of Solar Today, Donald W. Aitken, Ph.D. describes how Germany is on a course to generate all of its electricity from renewable resources by 2050. In fact, they are ahead of schedule. An abstract of the article is available here:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.solartoday.org\/2005\/march_april05\/Germany.htm\r\n\r\nThe previous issue (January \/ February) of Solar Today includes an article about the rapid deployment of solar electricity generation technology in Japan.\r\n\r\nEven China is getting on the bandwagon. The demand for hybrid automobiles is higher in China than it is in the US.\r\n\r\nPeak Oil pessimists (and\/or ideologues?) argue that the standard of living that we "enjoy" here in the United States is what all industrialized nations aspire to achieve, but Canada, Japan, and much of Europe all enjoy similar standards of living but use less energy. There's no reason to assume that China will follow the American model, particularly when the alternatives are cheaper and better!\r\n\r\n\r\nIV. Peak Oil assumes that oil has biotic origins; it may not.\r\n\r\nThe idea that the world is running out of oil is based on the notion that oil is a "fossil" fuel, i.e. that it is the remains of organic material. Suppose that isn't the case? Suppose, as some Soviet geologists argued for half a century, oil has abiotic origins and is instead the byproduct of chemical processes that occur below the earth's crust? Keep in mind that oil is known to exist on Jupiter's\r\nmoon Io, and possibly on Venus. Did Paleozoic and Mesozoic lifeforms develop space flight? Not very likely.\r\n\r\nThe Peak Oil crowd argue that the abiotic origin theory is pseudo-science, perhaps as unbelievable as "cold fusion", but what evidence do they present to back up such a pejorative and ad-hominem attack?\r\n\r\nHere are some--sadly obscure--discussions about the possibility that oil my not be the remains of organic matter:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.davesweb.cnchost.com\/nwsltr52.html\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.davesweb.cnchost.com\/nwsltr55.html\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.davesweb.cnchost.com\/nwsltr59.html\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.davesweb.cnchost.com\/nwsltr64.html\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.davesweb.cnchost.com\/nwsltr70.html\r\n\r\nWhile the abiotic oil theory is by no means any less controversial than Peak Oil, it is also no less a legitimate hypothesis.","author":"Steve Ongerth","parent_id":124418,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-05-02 21:53:51","modified":"2005-05-02 21:53:51","fileurl":""},{"id":125856,"heading":"Alarmist, but not without reason","article":"I think they're alarmists, and have some apocalypitic visions fueling their fervor, but, we have seen oil prices increase. Likewise, we've seen overall fuel economy increase as well, and I think that's not *proof* that oil is getting more expensive, but it seems to be a possible sign.\r\n\r\nI agree with Ongerth that there will be a major shift in the kinds of energy we consume, and our use of oil will decline as the price increases. I suspect, for the wealthy and upper-middle class, oil depletion won't be that painful.\r\n\r\nThe situation won't be so sanguine for the poor and working class, who can't afford the new hybrid cars, and, generally, won't have the capital to take advantage of more distributed energy production and conservation technologies. Social tensions, and possibly a cleaving of social divisions, I think, will be the real outcome of "peak oil".\r\n\r\nA great example of this is the SynUS, a prototype car by Ford that uses biodiesel. So, it's "green." It's also got thick windows, and is built like a small fortress, to protect the passengers from the attacking hordes of poor people in the decaying inner city (amd, presumably, suburbs as well).\r\n\r\nIt's just a concept car, but the concept is right out of the imagination of a survivalist maniac.\r\n\r\nFord, being what they are, doesn't really delve into why there would be hordes of impoverished, angry people in the post-carbon future. This is particularly telling, that their vision of the future revolves around the reconfiguration of a CAR as a mode of personal security. In the post carbon future, who the hell needs FORD, much less cars?\r\n\r\nFord's dystopian vision, whether they know it or not, stems from the fact that the car, SynUS or not, would be the "vehicle" that creates povtery and urban decay. In the Ford future, as always, the "lords" who enforce the oppression that preserves the "kings" circulate among the serfs, in a well guarded sedan.\r\n\r\nThe other reason why there would be impoverished masses of people, would be because they can survive in the post-carbon world. Just as people before us lived pre-oil lives, people after us will live post-oil lives. The main difference will be in how much ability the impoverished masses will to access oil, and use it efficently. It will come down to access to technology and information.\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/auto.howstuffworks.com\/ford-synus.htm\r\n\r\n","author":"johnk","parent_id":124418,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-05-03 05:10:16","modified":"2005-05-03 05:10:16","fileurl":""}]} |