The Myth Of Energy Independence - Seattle Times

[hatrack]

EDIT

As for oil itself, although the world is at or near peak, we're not "running out." The remainder of this one-time gift of geology will just be more expensive and harder to find, extract and refine. But because oil tends to trade in a world market, we will find ourselves bidding against every other nation. Some will also try to protect domestic supplies, as was happening before the Great Recession. In any event, most oil is controlled by national entities, leaving the American majors -- who sell in the world market -- with a small share.

The end result is we're probably going to need every kind of energy source for the future, but we need to be clear about the trade-offs and adjustments necessary. If we attempt to sustain the current American lifestyle, that, too, will be a fool's errand. We can't drill, baby, drill, back to 1965. On the other hand, the recession has provided a breather to make a transition -- if we have the will and imagination to make it.

One other thing is clear: Nations will increasingly be in competition in the new energy era. Not for nothing has China declared renewables a strategic industry and is aiming to dominate the market not just in manufacturing but research. China has also quietly lined up its own overseas oil supplies, even as America maintains military in the Persian Gulf partly to enforce the Carter Doctrine (yes) to protect our national energy interests. This portends an uneasy future of global competition for resources. It could also, if we got our act together, mean new jobs and industries -- including building more transit and rail to give people choices.

President Obama, like his predecessors, mentioned energy "independence." Such a thing is not possible, especially since the U.S. hit national peak oil in 1973, and even less so since we were an oil superpower in the mid-20th century -- no small element in winning World War II. We will be more interdependent than ever. George W. Bush talked more about peak oil, albeit parenthetically, than Mr. Obama. The president had better start preparing the American people for a very different future than the past.

EDIT/END

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/soundeconomywithjontalton/2011488276_drill_baby_drill_the_myth_of_e.html

[skeptical cynic]

1. There will never be cheap energy and a healthy economy

with globalization, as long as fossil fuels are the primary energy source. Coal is still abundant, but climate change concerns will drive the cost of using coal higher, too.

Lifestyle/cultural changes are necessary: smaller AND more fuel efficient vehicles (a hybrid Hummer or Ford F150 is still not an efficient way to go to work); smaller homes; mass transportation...

[zbiker]

2. agreed, from where i am sitting

here in wonderful wyoming, we should turn our energy access of to the rest of the states and let them fend for themselves for a bit, we here would be energy independent for the foreseeable future and it would give others a jolt to reality. this would definitely turn the heads of the environmental groups that have tied our hands so profoundly once they had to deal without.
then and only then would folks realize that energy Independence means developing and KEEPING what we produce, not putting what we have on the open market so that the country could benefit as a whole.

oh, wait a minute, that defeats the purpose of being energy independent unto it's self
:O

ok, ok, i hope you get the sarcasm here, whether we have fossil fuels as a primary source or not, the main thing to look at right now is to get ourselves in a position where we can develop other sources that WE control inside our borders, once done then the rest will follow
the presidents promise to simply explore for oil does little to solve the issue of becoming independent. knowing where it is at is one thing, having it and using it is another all together.
it is a step in the right direction thou, and for that he should be applauded.

[skeptical cynic]

3. We, in Alaska, would also be energy independent

But the nation, as a whole, has a long way to go.

I think for every organization like ExxonMobil you need an organization like the Nature Conservancy to balance the developmentalism/environmentalism equation. I make my living as an environmental engineer, and consultant, and most of our revenue is oil-related, but I still support keeping ANWR closed to force the development and use of alternatives to petroleum.

People believe we have a lot of fantasy oil reserves, and the only thing between us and energy independence is environmentalists. But here's the truth: With few exceptions, the easy oil is gone. What's left is "hard oil"--deeper, more diffuse, lower quality, smaller reservoirs, difficult political/cultural environments. Why else would we be sending the children of the Many to die for the economic interests of the Few in the Middle East?

I flew into Odessa/Midland, Texas about two years ago, right about the time oil dropped back below $100/bbl. On the approach to the airport, I noticed that most of the wells I was flying over were not pumping. I asked my host at the petrochemical plant I was visiting whether the fields were played out, and he laughed. He said that as soon as the price of oil dropped below $100/bbl the property owners shut the wells in. He said they weren't trying to drive the price back up, they were just waiting for a better price. The last time I checked, those wells were still shut in.

Who has benefited the most from high oil prices? Big Oil. Who has the greatest interest in ensuring high prices? Big Oil. Why did we invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Big Oil.

I spend too many hours locked behind closed conference room doors hearing too much inside information to believe otherwise. Big Oil is always complaining about taxes and regulation, threatening to leave Alaska if the climate becomes too economically adverse. BS and so what if they do? They aren't going anywhere, and if they did we'd have a hundred smaller companies with lower overhead willing to come in and operate the oilfields. Flint Hills Resources (Koch) has been running a long-standing scam by threatening to close the North Pole Refinery because it isn't profitable enough for them. Guess what? FHR is still operating that refinery because there are plenty of companies willing to operate it if they don't. And I guarantee we could find a high school business class that could operate the Trans-Alaska Pipeline more efficiently and professionally than Alyeska Pipeline Service Company does. Big Oil is always complaining--it's their MO--but nobody who knows how they do business believes the BS.

[happyslug]

8. The person you talked to does NOT understand how oil is pumped.

Most of the oil fields in the Continental US (This excludes Alaska and the Gulf coast wells, through the North Slope is on a rapid pace to become seeper wells) are "seeper wells" i.e. a well that is pumping oil out of a well that is mostly gone. The pumps are worked only when it is believed enough oil had "seeped" into the well area to be pumped. There can be weeks or months between such pumping, for as time goes on the well produce less and less oil, so to get enough oil to pump the owner of the well must wait longer and longer between pumpings.

In Western Pennsylvania we have several of these types of well. I can see the pumps are maintained and are operated every once in a well, but I have NEVER seen them being pumped. Why? Pa wells were some of the first wells ever put into production and as such have very little oil left, thus it may be months between pumpings.

Now you may ask why keep such expensive pumps on such wells? While most of the pumps were installed when these were hot new wells and were being pumped constantly. When new these wells produced a lot of oil, but over time each well produced less and less and sooner or later it was found the best way to get oil is to leave the oil seep into the area the pump is located and then pump and then wait again. As to the wells themselves, the wells were paid for when they were new, all that is done now a day is to maintain the pump and that does NOT cost that much (Especially if you do it just before Pumping, the oil pump pays for the maintenance).

As to Texas, Texas was a huge state for oil, but Texas lost control over world wide oil prices in the early 1970s. Since that time Texas had pumped all the oil it can, but can NOT pump enough to influence the world price for oil. Thus most of the pumps in Texas are now seeper wells, wells that produce the most oil today it the pump is only operated occasionally. Thus what you saw were wells laying fallow while the oil seeped to the well to be pumped when enough oil had seeped.

Now sooner or later these wells will go dry (i.e. the cost of maintaining them will exceed the value of any oil that is being pumped). At that point the well will be shut down, but in many wells that will be decades from now.

Please note, Exxon and the other major oil company owe most of these seeper wells. The cost to keep such wells in operation is relatively small and the oil can be sold at world prices (Thus when Oil hit top price in 2008, Exxon and the other major oil companies made huge profits). Exxon and the other majors did NOT complain about these profits in 2007 or 2008 (They made a mint prior to the collapse in oil prices in late 2008) and such profits will occur again whenever the price of oil gets to high (and thus you have people like me who advocate an oil tax of $5 a gallon both to get people use to high oil prices AND to keep wholesale value of oil LOW do to the high taxes, I rather the excess profits of high oil prices go to the Government then the Major Oil companies).

[starroute]

4. That's easy to say when you have only 5.5 people per square mile

That's the figure for Wyoming -- second only to Alaska, with 0.5 per square mile.

Being energy independent within your own borders is a lot harder if you're New Jersey, with 1171 people per square mile.

(See http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/usadensityh.htm for the figures.)

This is not an "I've got mine, Jack" situation. And competing for increasingly scarce resources is only going to waste both energy and lives.

We really are in a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" position here, whether you like it or not. But the struggle will be in figuring out how to implement that in a fair and non-coercive manner.

[speedcat]

5. nicely said ^^^^^

f'ng Alaskans. You would destroy your irreplaceable natural resources for short term benefit.

[zbiker]

7. irreplaceable ??

I'm just curious speedy, have you spent much time in any fields that have been recovered after they have been worked ??, how about in an operational field with the low impact wellheads that have been developed. one can easily walk within 8 feet of a cbm well and easily miss it unless he/she knows where it is.
i dare say that with a blatant remark like that you have never seen a open pit coal mine that has been reclaimed or seen how well the wildlife can flourish
here is a question for you as well, ever been to alaska ?? how about wyoming ?? please, until you have experienced either one don't pretend to know what you are talking about in our natural resource arena.
it saddens me to think that such narrow mindedness is still so pervasive on DU ( even thou it may be heartfelt, it is still based on a lot of mis-information and a lack of personal knowledge) and more over needs to be addressed more often, to help curb the urge, just ask yourself before posting " have i been there or done that ??"
if not, then quietly move along to a topic that you can respond to intelligently :)

[speedcat]

6. thanks

thanks for sharing this article. Not sure how I missed it, here in Seattle. :)