The Oil Drum

220 comments on A Conversation on Energy Issues

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

InfinitePossibilities on December 21, 2006 - 2:26pm

What is wrong with discouraging re-development of oil fields? We do not need more oil, we need to learn to live without it. Actually, the most natural way of doing this is a true carbon tax slapped on producers. They can hand it down to consumers any which way they like and the market will reduce demand accordingly. And if the carbon tax is used to encourage conservation efforts on the residential level, consumers can get their money back by upgrading their homes. Once they are upgraded, they will use much less energy and thus pay less carbon tax. It is a win-win-win for everyone which also creates plenty of economic activity for the contractors and thus raises federal and state tax revenue...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

GreyZone on December 21, 2006 - 3:07pm

Your statement makes sense only if we have sufficient oil supplies and time to smoothly transition from oil to alternatives. If we are at or very close to peak, we may not have that time and discouraging remaining oil production at that point exacerbates the problem greatly. Once peak hits, we are in a race to the bottom of the oil supply - can we transition society over to alternatives before the drop in supplies causes disruptions so large that it destroys society itself? As Stuart's VMT discussions demonstrate, the rate at which we can expect normal turnover runs less than the most reasonable estimates of overall decline rates thus the decline rate exceeds conversion rate, stranding more and more of society in an unsustainable situation. Discouraging remaining oil production simply makes that bad situation even worse, which increases the probability of social unrest - exactly what you don't need when trying to make a crash conversion of core energy sources for an entire civilization.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

InfinitePossibilities on December 21, 2006 - 4:13pm

My comment makes sense if you love the planet the way it is and want to preserve it in a halfway acceptable state for your children. But that is another discussion.

I do not believe in therapy for drug addicts that tries to make more drugs available for cheap until they decide to sober up. Neither does anyone who works with drug addicts in the real world.

"Once peak hits, we are in a race to the bottom of the oil supply..."

Or are we? I do not see a problem to reduce our oil dependence in a world where one can buy 13mpg cars as well as 50+mpg cars. The consumer choses his model and then has to live with the consequences of expensive gas. They can pay anywhere from one times the bill to four times the bill. Once PO hits more people will chose more wisely.

"As Stuart's VMT discussions demonstrate, the rate at which we can expect normal turnover runs less than the most reasonable estimates of overall decline rates thus the decline rate exceeds conversion rate, stranding more and more of society in an unsustainable situation."

There is nothing unsustainable about sharing a ride or taking the bus. I have been doing it all my life. I live, I thrive. I just don't whine about it.

"Discouraging remaining oil production simply makes that bad situation even worse"

Discouraging exploitation now makes the situation much better ten years from now. If you have a limited amount of cake and you are afraid to be out of cake tomorrow, what would you do... eat more cake today... or leave some over for later?

GreyZone... your logic does not make sense. Please think about it again.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

slaphappy on December 21, 2006 - 4:32pm

I like it, makes perfect sense to me. A huge carbon tax (for example) right here and now would get most of the nastiness out of the way while we still have control. The tax could be eased off a little, for instance, if the situation required it.

Soon enough we'll see the equivalent of a huge carbon tax, whether it's coming out of our hides in the form of powerful hurricanes or is going to the oil barrons makes little difference. We won't be able to tweak and loosen that if we find that it's a little too sudden to cope with.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ET on December 22, 2006 - 1:38pm

His logic makes perfect sense to me as well. You seem to be blissfully unaware of the tendencies of growth-dependent economies to collapse when certain growth-sustaining elements are removed. The rapid rise of oil prices, coupled with the gargantuan debt of the US, plus the increasing lack of any productive capacity add up to a volatile mix that IMO is likely to result in an economic collapse.

If we do have an economic collapse, you can crunch all the optimistic numbers you want and it won't decrease the millions of homeless on the streets or bankrupted people. Starting an economy over was difficult after 1929. With a large energy deficit it would likely be an order of magnitude more difficult.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Aniya on December 21, 2006 - 9:13pm

Thanks GZ,

"Once peak hits, we are in a race to the bottom of the oil supply - can we transition society over to alternatives before the drop in supplies causes disruptions so large that it destroys society itself?"

Q: What do you see as the ideal "alternatives", and how would you incorporate the twin problems of 1) "Jeavons" - or, what I call "need to conserve lest increased consumption overwhelm 'technofix'" and 2) population, (same reason) - ?...into your "alternatives"?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oilmanbob on December 21, 2006 - 3:12pm

The main thing wrong with dicouraging the redevelopment of old oil fields is I make my living from them. But aside from my purely personal considerations, we are importing nearly 2/3rds of the oil we use in the US. About 1/2 of your oil cost goes to produce the oil, about 1/2 to refine and distribute it. So my back of the napkin arithmatic shows that1/6th of the cash you spend on gasoline leaves the United States, and not into the hands of your co-countrymen. And the really big oil exporters are not our friends.
Admittedly some of them, like the Saud family, buy lots of US bonds with the money. That means that your taxes are going to pay interest to slave owning aristocrats who fund terrorists, and this has been happening for years. The only good historical comparison is the nobility in pre-revolutionary France who collected taxes but paid none.
And, pray tell , do you suggest we get out of this situation. We're like junkies slobbering for a fix. An oil cut-off would rapidly throw the United States into a complete economic convulsion, just as too rapid heroin withdrawel killed Jerry Garcia.
So think about it. Domestic production is like methadone for the United States. It will ease the symptons while we taper off. Remember what George Bush said, as he left the room with a sulpherous smell "We are addicted to oil". .