A Conversation on Energy Issues
Posted by Robert Rapier on December 21, 2006 - 1:02pm
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: global warming, oil companies, peak oil, solar power, sustainability [list all tags]
First of all, let me introduce Jerry. He is a Ph.D. chemist that I met 11 years ago when we both worked on butanol research and technical support for Celanese Chemicals. While I was certainly aware of Peak Oil (I had mentioned it in my graduate thesis), Jerry was the first person who convinced me that the smooth transition to biofuels that I envisioned at that time was highly questionable, and that things might not turn out so well. Jerry is also the father of Ana Unruh Cohen, the Director of Environmental Policy at the Center for American Progress. Ana previously wrote a guest essay on Prop 87 here. Jerry makes around 300 contacts a year with government officials (congress, federal agencies, etc.) in his role as an advocate. Jerry is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon Society, Wilderness Society, American Solar Energy Society, and a supporter of Worldwatch. He is also a member of the Technical Advisory Group for Colorado Springs Utilities which is tasked with looking at renewables and demand-side management. He lives in a solar rammed earth tire house (pictures can be seen here) in the Rocky Mountains west of Colorado Springs with his wife Diana.
Jerry is denoted in this essay as JU and I am obviously RR. If you want to discuss energy or environmental issues with Jerry (he especially likes to talk about his experiences with solar energy) he can be contacted at jerryunruh42@msn.com.
On Peak Oil
RR: Jerry, you are probably aware that you were my first major Peak Oil influence. You asked me what we were going to do when oil production peaks, and I remember naively saying "Switch to ethanol." You laughed over that.
JU: Yeah, I remember that.
RR: So, when is world oil production going to peak?
JU: We may be at peak right now, but I would say definitely within 10 years.
RR: So, what will the world look like 30 years from now?
JU: If we used wisdom, we could potentially transition from fossil fuels. We could have more livable cities, public transports, electricity from renewable sources powering PHEVs, and household electricity being produced by a combination of solar power and stationary hydrogen. However, it is not clear that we have the wisdom, in which case I see more wars and widespread starvation.
RR: Speaking of wars, tell me your views of the Iraq War.
JU: I get so upset talking about it. I was against it before we ever went in, but look at where we are now. All of those lives lost and all of that money spent on securing oil supplies. The recently released Iraq Study Group Report suggested that this war may ultimately cost $2 trillion. $2 trillion! Do you know what could have been done with $2 trillion? You could have put solar panels on 40% of the homes in the U.S. Imagine the greenhouse gas reduction from that. Imagine the energy security. Instead, we spent it to go to war to protect our oil supplies.
RR: How do you think the U.S. will fare after peak oil?
JU: I think the Northeast is pretty well-positioned. They have many walkable cities and public transport is good. They also have good water and agricultural resources. I think the West is in a bit more trouble. I don't know what California is going to do, because they are so car-dependent. Actually, California does pretty well with per capita energy usage. They just have too many "per capitas."
RR: Jim Kunstler made that same case in The Long Emergency - that the Northeast was better positioned than most places, and that the West is in trouble. By the way, have you read Kunstler?
JU: No, not yet. But he is on my list.
(Incidentally, the books in Jerry's library included Jared Diamond's Collapse, Lester Brown's Plan B 2.0 and Eco-Economy, Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, Joel Cohen's How Many People Can the Earth Support?, Garrett Hardin's Living Within Limits, Travis Bradford's Solar Revolution, Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers, and Paul Ehrlich's Extinction. Jerry also informed me that he has given away several copies of Plan B 2.0 to government officials.)
RR: You also believe that some sort of hydrogen economy can supplement solar?
JU: Not a hydrogen economy as it is often presented. I don't believe that we will drive around in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. But I believe that excess solar can be used to electrolyze water and produce hydrogen, and then that hydrogen can be used to produce supplemental electricity in a combined-cycle turbine. The electricity produced can be used to run PHEVs.
RR: I am also a big fan of the potential of PHEVs driven by wind and solar power, but hadn't thought much about a hydrogen tie-in. That would actually be a great way to supply some electricity at night. But do you think solar is practical for everyone, given the implications of people operating their own electrical systems and having to maintain their own batteries?
JU: Ideally, you would have local distribution stations in which the solar power was fed into by the homes in the region. This would also be where the hydrogen was produced. The local stations would be responsible for maintaining the integrity of the system.
RR: I hear what you are saying, and agree that this would do wonders for both Global Warming and Peak Oil mitigation. But then I think back to the comments I made about Al Gore after we watched An Inconvenient Truth. The facts may be incontrovertible. The logic may be crystal clear. The solution may be staring us right in the face. Now, trace out the path for implementing the plan. That is the disconnect I see here. You listen to Al Gore and you think "It is obvious that something must be done." But I look at the politics and wonder how we will get it done.
JU: There are solutions, and some are relatively clear. But again I am not sure we have the collective wisdom to make the transition.
On Biomass as an Alternative
RR: I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with the potential for biomass to mitigate peak oil and global warming. On the one hand, I love the potential of biomass gasification, and I think biodiesel and potentially butanol make sense in some situations. On the other hand, I hate what we are doing with corn ethanol in this country. However, you have a different take on the biomass issue.
JU: Here is my problem with biomass. The net primary productivity of some of the most efficient ecological systems in the world is at best approximately 1% capture of solar insolation. Many areas - the forested regions of the West, for instance - are much lower at 0.2% or so. Corn is about 0.5%, but that includes fossil fuel inputs from fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, etc. Of course then if you are going to turn that biomass into biofuels, there are inputs into that process that lower the net capture. While there may be some limited applications in which such poor efficiencies are justified, in general this is a very inefficient way of capturing solar energy.
Contrast this with our solar panels, which convert approximately 15% of the sun's energy into electricity. That is orders of magnitude better than the biomass route. We have numerous rooftops that could have solar panels setting on top of them. There are no issues with soil depletion, and we don't have to worry about planting great swaths of monoculture crops, nor of food competing with fuel. Of course with biomass you can produce a liquid fuel instead of electricity, but there is simply no reason that we can't adopt much higher levels of PHEVs instead of continuing to rely on the internal combustion engine as our primary means of transport. And note that this is with present commercial solar technology. Spectrolab just produced some solar cells with an efficiency of over 40%. Biomass simply can't compete with numbers like that, and it never will.
RR: OK, there are definitely some points there that I haven't considered. The net primary productivity argument, specifically. While I have heard passing mention of this, I have never set out to calculate the potential of biomass from first principles like net primary productivity. Sounds like something I should work on, because this would be a pretty strong argument against biomass and in favor of solar energy.
On Big Oil
RR: So, first of all I have to know if Ana (Jerry's daughter, and a supporter of Prop 87) is ticked off at me over my Prop 87 essays.
JU: Well, she certainly wasn't happy with the way the vote went, but I don't think she is upset with you. In fact, she told me that she has defended you many times when people said "Why are you taking that guy seriously? He works for an oil company!" She would tell them "No, he is very serious and he cares a lot about energy policy."
RR: You can't imagine how often I get that reaction. A lot of people are willing to completely dismiss my opinion because I work for an oil company.
JU: No, I can believe that. The same thing frequently happened to me when I worked for a chemical company.
RR: What really bugs me is that people are so incredibly dependent on petroleum for so many things, and they loathe the companies supplying that product to them.
JU: Of course most people are unaware of the extent of their dependence on petroleum. Look at the clothes we are wearing. They came from oil. Look at the snowshoes we are wearing. They came from oil. But people feel that when ExxonMobil is making $37 billion and they are paying $3/gallon for gasoline - which should be $5/gallon in my opinion anyway - that something needs to be done about that. Those profits simply look ridiculous.
RR: But you know that our profit margins are only about average for all industries. We make about 10% on sales. Profits are high because the companies are huge.
JU: It doesn't matter. Your profit margins could be 2% or 20%. The perception people have is that they are being cheated, and those are the consequences you will have to live with as they lobby their representatives for relief.
RR: That's on my mind a lot, actually. I have been investing a lot of my money into energy, because I think it will do well even in a post-peak world. People will still demand energy, and it is going to be very expensive. Oil companies should do well. But what is the government going to do when gasoline is $6/gallon, and ExxonMobil makes $100 billion? There is a risk there, and I imagine government is going to be very hostile to Big Oil in a post-peak world.
JU: One of the reasons for your public relations problem is that oil companies have been too cozy with this administration. Look at Cheney's energy task force. They wouldn't release the proceedings. This leaves the impression that Big Oil is getting special favors and benefiting from closed-door deals.
What you really need to do is be proactive. If you guys would get behind a revenue-neutral fossil fuels tax - and I don't mean just pay lip service to the idea - then people might start to think you were serious about dealing with issues like Peak Oil and climate change. You (personally) say the right things. Your ideals are good. But those of your industry are questionable. You could also give up some of those subsidies. Do you really need subsidies?
RR: I agree that oil companies don't need subsidies. In fact, 4 out of the 5 CEOs who testified after Katrina said that they don't need subsidies. But I want to point out a couple of things. First, eliminating the direct subsidies would amount to only a nickel a gallon or so. Those subsidies spread across all of the diesel and gasoline we use amount to very little per gallon. I am not defending the subsidies, I am just saying that the effect will be small and more needs to be done like a direct fossil-fuels tax. But the other thing is that oil companies have not even requested some of these subsidies. Some subsidies are put in place because congress wants the oil companies to do certain things; things like drill in a particular location. So, even though oil companies might never even take advantage of this, it gets counted as a subsidy.
JU: Again, it doesn't matter. It would improve public perception if you were to publicly announce that you were giving up all subsidies. Besides that, $6 billion or $10 billion might not mean much to Big Oil, but if those subsidies were redirected to alternatives, it could really accelerate their market penetration. In fact, just getting rid of the oil subsidies would level the playing field for alternatives and allow them to compete head to head with oil.
Right now it appears to the public that the government is in collusion with Big Oil. If you want to change this perception, and the perception that people have of Big Oil, you need to make some serious policy changes. You can only do this by being very serious about solving some of these major issues facing us. Whitewashing will not do it.
RR: I do believe that those who think that Big Oil is going to fade away after oil production peaks are kidding themselves. They have enough cash on hand to get into any energy business that looks promising. I note that 2 of your solar panels were produced by Shell Solar.
JU: I think companies like Shell and BP - despite their recent problems - are positioning themselves to be leaders as oil production depletes. ExxonMobil just doesn't seem to care, and could end up going the way of General Motors.
RR: Speaking of the government and Big Oil, what do you think the new Democratic congress is going to do differently?
JU: Well, first off I think there will be less pressure to drill in environmentally sensitive locations. I think we have a real shot at some climate change legislation, but I also expect Bush to start using his veto power with more regularity. I hope to see higher efficiency standards, higher CAFE standards, and more support for renewables. One wild card is the greenhouse gas case before the Supreme Court. It appears to me that the language is clear that the EPA could and should regulate GHGs. I am cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will vote in favor, and this could make a real impact in our fight against Global Warming.
The final section contains information that Jerry put together on their house. Again, feel free to contact Jerry for more detailed information.
Rammed Earth Tire House - Owners/Builders: Diana and Jerry Unruh
(Updated: August 31, 2006)Structural Information
Footprint = 2350 sq ft; Actual floor space = 1950 sq ft.
950 tires (225x75x15) packed with decomposed granite from site.
Total of about 750,000 lbs of dirt used in tires and for interior adobe walls.
Framing: 2x6 studs with double studding in east and west walls and above tire shell.
Roof: Standing seam metal roof with ice and water shield underneath; 1to12 pitch.
Insulation: R-38 in ceiling; R-42 in side walls, R-26 in rear wall.
Windows: double pane with 6 operable 3.5'X2' windows; total window area on South-facing side of house is approximately 410 sq ft.
Skylights: four operable 4'X4', and one operable 2'X2'.
Floor: ceramic tile for heat absorption.Heating
House is passively solar heated with energy stored in thermal mass of tire walls. About 90% of heat comes from solar. Supplemental heat is a propane gas-log stove. For supplemental heating we use about 200 gallon of propane/yr (~ equal to two-third cord of wood or about 185 units (100 cu ft) of natural gas)
Electricity ("off-the-grid")
All electricity is from photovoltaics (1.52 kW) with energy storage in batteries (twelve 350 amp-hr; 1,050 amp-hr storage at 24 volts). The system is 24 volts with all electricity being converted to ac via a Trace 4024 inverter. All lighting is compact fluorescent bulbs. The refrigerator (main power consumer) is a 21 cu ft energy star Amana. Otherwise all electrical devices are conventional, but we turn off "phantom" loads when necessary. In order to run the 240 volt well pump we have a transformer which is wired directly to the float switch on the 500 gallon spherical cistern so that the transformer is only on when the well pump is running. Our average consumption is approximately 5.0 kWh/day. No generator -Backup is from the grid. In almost 6 years we have used only 71 kWh from the grid (most of this consumption has been around the Christmas/New Years holidays when the children and their families have been here).
Propane
Other than the supplemental heating stove, propane is used to heat water, cook, and dry clothes: Water heater - Aquastar 125X LP tankless (on demand); Range - GE profile; Clothes dryer - Frigidaire LP. Propane consumption for these three appliances is ~ 0.35 gallon/day (125 gallons/year), of which about 0.15 gallon/day is for water heating. New addition: Single point electric water heater under kitchen sink; so either electricity (~0.5 kWh/day) or propane can be used.
Summary
Our house approaches net zero energy, when electrical production is subtracted from propane consumption. Our net propane consumption is approximately 0.4 gal/day (gross is 0.923 gal/day). Our net carbon dioxide production is approximately 1.5 kg/day while the average household production in Colorado Springs is > 40kg/day. We plan to reduce heat loss from windows with translucent coverings so that net zero energy is more closely approached. Our net household energy consumption is approximately 0.75 Btu/sq ft-hr. For comparison, the maximum energy consumption for an ultra low energy commercial building designation from LEED is 3.4 Btu/sq ft-hr.
Appendix - Calculation of Heat Rate and CO2 Emissions for Colorado Springs UtilitiesAssumptions
- Lower heating value used for propane calculations
- One gallon of propane weighs 4.3 lbs and yields 86,012 Btu
- One gallon of propane produces 12.9 lbs (= 5.86 kg) CO2
- Our gross consumption of propane is 0.92 gal/day = 79,130 Btu/day
- Our gross CO 2 production is 5.45 kg/day
- Efficiency of coal and peaking natural gas is 32% = heat rate of 10,633 Btu/kWh
- Lower heating value for natural gas is 913 Btu/cu ft & contains 1.2 g-mole/cu ft
- For coal at 32% efficiency, 1.01 kg CO2 produced/kWh = 1.01 metric ton/MWh
- For nat. gas at 32% efficiency, 0.56 kg CO2 produced/kWh = 0.56 metric ton/MWh
- Combined cycle natural gas efficiency is 45.2% = heat rate of 7,540Btu/kWh
- For combined cycle natural gas, 0.40 kg CO2 produced/KWh = 0.40 metric ton/MWh
- Heat rate and CO2 production for hydro and wind are both zero
Cheers and Happy Holidays from The Oil Drum!
Hello Robert, I appreciate your sharing your work, as always, and expanding the circle your friendship to include us, by interviewing Jerry.
My first question is one of clarification: (I skimmed down and notice that Alan also responded to this, which I hope to get to...time permitting):
"First, eliminating the direct subsidies would amount to only a nickel a gallon or so. Those subsidies spread across all of the diesel and gasoline we use amount to very little per gallon. I am not defending the subsidies, I am just saying that the effect will be small and more needs to be done like a direct fossil-fuels tax."
Could you possibly explain a little more? (And apologies in advance, if I have not understood your views from previous posts.)
My questions are along these lines:
1) By referring to the "nickel or so", do you mean that you believe the benefit of any kind of monetary "fixing", for example, taxes, or subsidies, comes in...where, exactly? Let me try again. Okay, you are saying that eliminating subsidies "only amounts to..." X. (Whatever.)
What is the benefit you would be aiming for as an end goal, in any case? I read your sentence as though you are saying: "Eliminating subsidies is not enough..."
Okay, so my question is: Enough on the road to...what, exactly?
Do you see my point, here? (I'm being completely sincere, BTW.) Are you saying that the end goal you envision is less consumption by the gasoline-buying public? And, across the board - ?
Or, eg.: "Robert's Hypothetical Goal: Americans purchase less gasoline. Strategy: Make gasoline more expensive. How do subsidies fit in? Not much, one way or the other." Would this be a fair reading of this first sentence?
2) Another question: How does the OC profit margin you speak of (I believe you said it's about 10%) compare to the subsidy, when translated to the same "price per gallon" terms?
3) If this is "the goal" or "Goal #1", then could you perhaps make it a little more specific; and also add specificity in terms of elements of the strategy? Example: Goal: US gasoline consumption cut by 10% per year. Strategy: This could be achieved by X.
4) And, can this goal stand alone? Or, must it be accompanied by contingent goals?
5) I have further questions: perhaps to take up later. Say, if the "Goal #1: lower gasoline consumption", on the difference in impact of each strategy (subsidy, tax) an each stakeholder, OCs, consumers, and subsets of consumers - i.e,. households, businessnes, etc.) And, perhaps first, a question: Can the goal be achieved by other means equally valid? For example, if there were a 50 MPH speed limit, this might be equal to X % lower consumption...(?)
There was a post recently that stated that direct subsidies to oil and gas companies in the latest energy bill were $6 billion. If you simply spread that across the more than 300 billion gallons of oil we use each year in this country, you get a subsidy only amounting to $0.02/gallon. So, the point is that taking direct subsidies away certainly won't have much impact.
Furthermore, everything that gets counted as a subsidy is not necessarily being utilized as a subsidy. If the energy bill allowed for $6 billion, that doesn't mean oil companies will take advantage if it's not in their best interest.
I read your sentence as though you are saying: "Eliminating subsidies is not enough..."
Okay, so my question is: Enough on the road to...what, exactly?
Enough to bite into our consumption and to make alternatives seriously competitive.
Another question: How does the OC profit margin you speak of (I believe you said it's about 10%) compare to the subsidy, when translated to the same "price per gallon" terms?
Direct OC profit on a gallon of gas is probably in the $0.20/gal range. If they own the stations, they also get some markup there.
If this is "the goal" or "Goal #1", then could you perhaps make it a little more specific; and also add specificity in terms of elements of the strategy? Example: Goal: US gasoline consumption cut by 10% per year. Strategy: This could be achieved by X.
The goal has to be more than 10%. Nature will make that cut for us if we don't. How high gas taxes would have to go to achieve that, I don't know.
For example, if there were a 50 MPH speed limit, this might be equal to X % lower consumption...(?)
Sure, and I have advocated lowering speed limits.
Jerry
I've been noticing all my adult life that the oil companies have terrible public relations, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps its anger that we have made the rest of the modern world dependent, maybe its the ham-handed arrogance of many of our public figure, maybe just sheer envy of wealth. It seems too easy to the rest of humanity. API (American Petroleum Institute) has started raising money for a big public relations campaign, but they are the lobbyists for big oil, not the independents.
Your friend Jerry Unruh's suggestion, that oil companies take a proactive stance to fund alternatives and get new revenue nuetral taxes to support alternatives, is excellent. I heard an opinion today from my coffee drinking bunc at the local cafe, that they would support a dollar a gallon tax just to even out gasoline prices,the uncertainty is making it hard to plan.
Unfortunately Nancy Pelosi is firmly in favor of a "windfall profits" tax. The last time this was tried it discouraged redevelopment of old oil fields, and penalised royalty owners and independent operators more than the majors, because the majors shifted their production overseas. Plus, it moved the independents and royalty owners to the Republican party, where many remain. It was a domestic disaster, and if we repeat it we're crazy
I would support limiting depletion allowance to deplete actual cash costs, or covering new investment in domestic production or alternative energy production only. I'd support a big import tax.
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.
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.
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.
"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"?
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". .
Just asking...
And, if you believe Freddie Hutter, it will be 190 years before the oil runs out. Wonder what kind of mushrooms he's eating in the woods of the Yukon? He probably prays for global warming!
At any rate, it won't be in anyone's lifetime, although in another 20 or 30 years it won't be used as transportation in anything but antiques and toys. We're definitely ending the cheap oil era in less than 10 years, probably 2 years if I'm reading the signs correctly.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Cornucopian. But we're not going to produce enough domestic oil cheap enough to do more than ease the transition, but I see that as worth doing.
And we all know you can't get to it economically. So what is the deal? Are you hoping to drive mine shafts all the way down to the remaining oil?
"And since I'm 55 and diabetic, I expect to be amoung the dead."
I guess you want me to take your agument as that of a desperate person who's got nothing to lose? That wouldn't make your argument any better... it simply would make you a desperate person. Sorry Bob... you got to do better than that.
"And, if you believe Freddie Hutter, it will be 190 years before the oil runs out."
Why would I believe that? Because "Freddie" is a cute name? Please...
"Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Cornucopian. But we're not going to produce enough domestic oil cheap enough to do more than ease the transition, but I see that as worth doing."
Cheap oil is exactly the source of the problem. It does not matter how long you can keep it cheap... people will not change just because you tell them that it will be extra pricy two years from now. The longer oil stays cheap, the harder the landing will be. You of all men should know that. It would be far better for the US to limit production at home right now, drive global prices up and force everyone to conserve. Then, ten years from now when the real crunch hits, we would not only need less, but we would have more left over, globally and especially domestically.
I agree with this assessment, but it's very uncertain.
If the crunch was going to hit in two years, as alluded to by OMBob, could you imagine that the courses of action you have suggested would greatly magnify the crunch, and thus we shouldn't do them?
:-)
The USA is in huge financial trouble because of our profligate ways. Money spent drilling and producing oil wells and reentering oil wells here mostly stays here, is taxed here and provides good, well-paying, honest, productive work for Americans.They spend it in the United States, it has a multiplier effect in the economy making a real product that people need. And that should be obvious.
As far as the economics, oil has always been a crap shoot. But many old fields were abandned with the wells making 10 or 20 bbl/day per well, just the wells weren't good enough to make a profit at low prices. This is particularly true of fields abandoned about 1932-1933 when oil fell from $100 a bbl to 10 cents a barrel.In lots of fields wells were abandoned making a 20% oil cut because of water disposal costs. In many fields the wells were overproduced and coned, and horizontal wells or infill drilling can profitably restore production. Few fields were waterflooded before 1960, and virtually none were flooded with CO2. Sure, its going to cost a lot per barrel to reenter and produce these wells, but its a hell of a lot cheaper than the $500,000 per barrel per day that Shell is spending on tar production in Canada, plus lifting costs, waste disposal costs and refining costs.
I can not look at either problem from my own perspective. I simply can't. Maybe you can and maybe the majority of Americans can, for now, but that does not concern my consciouns.
I think we agree that America has lived beyond its limits. But that is not some diffuse entities fault but our own. We are the only ones who can fix it. And we won't fix it by drilling a few more holes into Earth's crust. The little extra oil we will get from that won't even get you through retirement, far less me and to the kids who are celebrating their first conscious Christmas it won't mean as little as another number in a history book they will probably never read. And sadly enough, even a diabatic these days has all the chances in the world to live longer than the tiny amount of time that your proposed drilling fix can buy us.
I am not talking about Shell having the solution by mining tar. That is just another road we shouldn't bother going down. The richest oil fields in the world right now are in the tanks of our cars. We could have easily stretched the world's oil twofold if we had wanted to. We missed that opportunity. We are missing the last chance to stretch what is left by a third, right now.
The consequences will not be as dire as they will be rather simple. Oil will go to $100 or $120 a barrel and the US government will start raising the gas tax to stop the country from bleeding to death. Either that or the country will bleed to death... it will be black blood but the results will be all the same.
Besides doubling the price of gas by taxing the shit out of it, shutting in our currently producing oil wells therebye putting honest hardworking people out of work like oilmanbob, and shutting down the oil sands production in Canada - do you have any ideas that are realistic?
I like your idea of "steps". Have you given much thought to a "list" of first steps, and if so, could you share?
Personally, my view was that "addiction" was not the best metaphor...perhaps came from the speaker's experience. One can (and people do) live without addictive substances. Although people can use what would otherwise be more-or-less nutritional substances as addictions (I suppose both "over-" and "under-" eating can be viewed this way as well), the primacy of oil is more closely tied to basic survival (food and water), on the individual level, even in the US.
If one wants to use the "addiction" analogy, my suggestion is to take a look at the work of people like Lance Dodes, MD (author, The Heart of Addiction) and others, who put aside oft-repeated conventions and began a fresh exploration. Dodes found the first impulse (in any particular decision to act in line w. the addiction in place) was to respond to an inner feeling of helplessness or lack of control. http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Addiction-Understanding-Alcoholism-Behaviors/dp/0060198117
consider for example the junkie who makes damaging choices to feed his or her particular "habit" and maybe it is not a "physical addiction" at all but only "psychological addiction" in any case it think the metaphor has merit and maybe the "solution" contains a similar metaphor
we may not be able to achieve a 100% cure and different strokes for different folks maybe cold turkey will work for some maybe a gradual weaning will work for some and maybe an alternative addiction will work ............. on and on thanks for the link
The difference between addiction and overshoot is that when remove an addicted substance, you have withdrawal symptoms, but when overshoot removes an available resource, you have death.
I appreciate your questions. In all sincerity, what are your ideas?
The Oil companies are in a similar position to the Railroad barons of old.
Also in general the ice/icebox salesman did not become the refrigerator salesman.
I'd much rather see properly funded small companies grow to be our next energy provides than to see big oil control the area.
Big Oil is that last place I'd look for real alternative energy solutions.
Instead of charging oil companies I think a better approach is to first eliminate all subsidies for the current oil infrastructure and to funnel all tax monies from the oil companies into alternative energy and also of course provide plenty of incentives. Oil companies should be barred from having a controlling interest in alternative energy companies that receive subsidies. So it they want to play the get no help.
And we should remove support for federal highway funding asap. This is probably the biggest and simplest change we need to make to move away from automobiles if we quit subsidizing road construction we can and will convert from automobiles.