Peak Oil: Why Drilling Solves Nothing

Peak oil is a heavily contested topic - no one really knows how much of the black gunk is down there, below the earth, except that there is a lot. It means the point where we have exhausted half of a natural resource and have hit our production peak - from there, production has only one way to go, down. We do know one thing about oil - we're using it far faster than it can ever be produced. 50 million years of natural decomposition went into the amount of oil we've already burned.

But I read this interesting tidbit the other day - and it reminded me again why the oil economy isn't sustainable, no matter how much we drill.

The world currently produces about 310 billion barrels of oil per decade. That amounts to about three times the current discovery rate of 100 billion barrels per decade.

Sorry, drilling advocates. That includes that's already in ANWR, and on our coastlines. We're producing far more than we are discovering.

Peak oil isn't merely the top of a mountain and beginning of a slow decline. It's more like a cliff, and if we get too close, us, our economy, and our livelihoods will all go tumbling down.

How can we avert this disaster? One way - investing in renewable, clean energy technologies and increased efficiency before we hit peak oil, so that our economy can transition before feeling the real bite.

Want to learn more about peak oil? See this fantastic PDF presentation from the good folks at the Oil Drum.

Comments

[Dan Miner]

According to leading independent geologists, world oil production will peak and begin permanent decline by 2010. The Hirsch Report, commissioned by the US Dept. of Energy, predicts that as peaking approaches, volatility of price and supply will increase dramatically, and so it has. Sierrans and all environmental activists should address both peak oil and climate change, for several reasons.

While sustainable responses to the two issues largely overlap, most Americans are moved more by economic and national security impacts than by environmental concerns. Peak oil will get more action than global warming. As oil prices rebound from their current correction, concern for conservation will rise as well. Sudden disruptions in fuel imports, or sudden drops in production, as are already taking place in Mexico, can easily translate to price spikes or shortages - outside the domain of climate change responses.

Here are two models for Sierrans wishing to combine the two issues. The Club's new flood disaster preparedness program with Morgan Freeman is a terrific idea. It should incorporate preparation for fuel price spikes and shortages, making it applicable to all communities, not just coastal ones.

As Sierra Club NYC's chair, I've written a report on how New York City can begin planning for peak oil as well as climate change. The main requests are for formation of a City Council energy price task force, to study future pricing scenarios, and for creation of a municipal energy shortage contingency plan. Legislation on the first item is expected shortly. San Francisco and Portland, OR already have their task forces underway. "Sustainable Energy Independence for NYC" is available online at www.beyondoilnyc.org.

Dan Miner
beyondoilnyc@yahoo.com
www.nyc.sierraclub.org

[Charles Moore]

increase domestic oil production reduces imported oil.

Oil is a huge part of this economy and there is nothing in the near future that can change it.

So until alternative energy sources and increased efficency enable a reduction in oil consumed, oil will still be needed. Better that the oil be domestic then imported

[Satan from Hell]

The rule of science. Hypothsesis,Theory,Law. In that order.

All I see here is hypothesis.

Sorry you loose.

[Angry Gen-Xer]

Bottom line is this folks. We had a warning in 1973 and again in 1979 with two oil crises. We did nothing about it since then. Today we are getting our third strike. Last time I checked, when you get 3 strikes your out. And the people that should be out of here are anyone in Congress over 56 years old. My reasoning is, if you are over 56 it means you were 21 YOA in 1973 and perectly able to begin doing something about the energy crisis in this country.
So the solution is not "drill baby drill" it is fire all of these old, do nothing senators and congress people that have had their chance and have done nothing with it. That includes you McCain! Give the younger generation a crack at this problem. Guaranteed we will solve it.

[Charles Moore]

Can not put any stock in what someone says who can't be honest enough to use their real name - satan.

Why not try some simple thought instead of psudo-intelectual nonsense.

You have 20 widgets with 10 in the domestic group and 10 in the import group. If you need 21 widgets do you want the extra widget to be a domestic one or an imported widget. If widgets can be reduced to 19 which do you get of the domestic widget or an imported one.

America can not continue to use oil as we have. No argument on this.

So what is there that can replace it in the immediate future? ----Nothing.

So until alternative sources and increased efficiency can start a reduction ....oil will still be needed. This is not an oil company conspiracy. It is the reality of the huge machine that is America

Even the Democrats on the House Natural Resource Committee in Congress and Pelosi say that increased production will reduce imports. Read their June 2008 Special report (though the report is a fraud).

[Matthew Finnell]

Let's work together to make sure congress doesn't fall prey to 'drill fever'

Cross posted from Environment America's Daily Kos Diary

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/8/15457/79891/662/591234

We're raising the voice of people from all over the country to expose Big Oil's self-serving agenda, which includes:

* Saying NO to clean energy and energy efficiency tax credits,
* Saying YES to $13.5 billion in tax giveaways to the oil industry, and
* Saying YES to new drilling off our coasts.

Let's face facts. Big Oil's agenda is not about saving us money at the pump. It's about making them more money any way they can.

As outrageous as that is, we cannot win without Congress hearing from more Americans like you.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/8/15457/79891/662/591234

[Charles Moore]

Daily Kos - iris ideology

Some more economic reality, in 2008 oil companies paid $10.3 billion to the government for leases.

Some more economics...ROI, return on investment. What all the ranters fail to see or underatand is what is done with the record profits. To that, look at the ROI, oil industy roi of 7.4% in in the lower middle of industry. Computer devices, airplane parts even apparel have higher roi. The pharmacuticals have the highest. Oil and Gas ROI is lower becasue the mney goes back into "the measn of production".

For those who think Congress is the answer, look at Freddi Mac and Fanny May and the other endless list of disasters. Government is NOT the solution. The solution is in creativity of the American. Government sucks that spirit dry. A bigger Federal government is a bigger monolopy by another name.

In case anyone is wondering, I do not work in the O&G industry nor a political operative for the Republican Party.

[ActuarialNinja]

I would expect better from any advocacy group. It is unfortunate that scaremongering is the way by which many people are pursuaded to advocate for policy nowadays.

The truth is nobody really knows what will happen when oil supplies do peak, and anyone who claims certainty in the matter is kidding themselves.

My main issue with this article is that it uses scare tactics; there are predictions of unpleasant future events to try and convince people to vague action. Without specific imperatives, the recomendation itself is not useful and provides no help (although it may work wonders in creating general support for a cause).

I suspect that they don't get into specifics because the alternatives are either going to lead to economic downturn anyway (i.e. using wind power or solar to replace existing fecilities) or will not be viewed as environmentally friendly (i.e. hydroelectric or nuclear power).

It is my belief that as oil becomes increasingly more scarce (and the evidence seems to be indicating that this is so), the price of energy will increase. This will, (more powerfully than any call to action) spark both conservation and technologial develpment the likes of which we have not yet seen to date; all the while preserving our standard of living. The market will see to it, as it has in times past, and the high price will be the reason for an investment in non-oil technologies. This is, of course my version of events, but it has happened so many times in the past that it is not unjustified here.

If you want to argue for alternative forms of energy besides oil, use reason, not scaremongering. Developing technology not reliant on oil is something we should do anyway. It decreases our trade deficit and diminishes Saudi control over America. There is no shortage of arguments for, say, using hybrid-electric vehicles, or using nuclear energy. Not having to pay as much for gasoline or eletricity are good reasons as well, and might actually help people take specific action.

So stop scaring people into adopting your mentality based on a set of false choices (i.e. either invest in clean technology now or suffer a decrease in living standards). Instead, try providing specific alternatives that are supported by reason and not modern-day apocalyptic visions.

[drilling rigs]

i do not agree with you at all. i think we need to start drilling but alternative is must too.

[oilfield equipment]

drilling offshore is such a tricky subject. i am not sure if what the best would be to go. there are good points and bad points.

[oilfield equipment]

there is so oil be produces. i would not worry about none of this.