Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wash Post: After the Oil Runs Out

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
gold_bug Donating Member (485 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 11:45 PM
Original message
Wash Post: After the Oil Runs Out
Edited on Sun Jun-06-04 11:56 PM by gold_bug
After the Oil Runs Out

By James Jordan and James R. Powell
Sunday, June 6, 2004; Page B07


If you're wondering about the direction of gasoline prices over the long term, forget for a moment about OPEC quotas and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and consider instead the matter of Hubbert's Peak. That's not a place, it's a concept developed a half-century ago by a geologist named M. King Hubbert, and it explains a lot about what's going on today at the gas pump. Hubbert argued that at a certain point oil production peaks, and thereafter it steadily declines regardless of demand. In 1956 he predicted that U.S. oil production would peak about 1970 and decline thereafter. Skeptics scoffed, but he was right.

It now appears that world oil production, about 80 million barrels a day, will soon peak. In fact, conventional oil production has already peaked and is declining. For every 10 barrels of conventional oil consumed, only four new barrels are discovered. Without the unconventional oil from tar sands, liquefied natural gas and other deposits, world production would have peaked several years ago.

Oil experts agree that hitting Hubbert's Peak is inevitable. The oil laid down by nature is finite, and almost half of it has already been extracted. The only uncertainty is when we hit the peak. Pessimists predict by 2010. Optimists say not for 30 to 40 years. Most experts expect it in 10 to 20 years. Lost in the debate are three much bigger issues: the impact of declining oil production on society, the ways to minimize its effects and when we should act. Unfortunately, politicians and policymakers have ignored Hubbert's Peak and have no plans to deal with it: If it's beyond the next election, forget it.


Washington Post: After the Oil Runs Out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Indiana_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good catch!
Edited on Sun Jun-06-04 11:49 PM by holyrollerdem
I will send on if I may!

on edit: DARN! it's a registration needed one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. I disagree with only one point
pessimists believe that we've already hit peak circa 2000-2002. The only problem is that it will take about 5 years to actually notice and feel the effects.

Time to shift to nuclear power while we still can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolo amber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. I wonder how far this will go
to keep people from calling those of us who have been trying to warn people about this *Chicken Little*...:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. It will do nothing to stop them from calling us that
But when we do hit the other side of the curve, and we not only run low on oil, but are in the middle of violent climate change, they will
go up against the wall like the rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. 'Only So Much Oil In The Ground' - a little song that I would like
to recommend from around 1974 by Tower of Power. Not only prophetic, but a great song as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. T.O.P.
I love their stuff with Little Feat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
5. Some more info:
I have read that we have already reached the Peak Oil phenomenon. From here on out, oil production will start a rapid decline. Wars will be fought and won over this very issue: oil. Whoever has access to it will rule the world.

When you realize that, it's very easy to see why the neo-cons marched into Iraq. Iraq has the world's #2 supply of oil, estimated at 3 trillion barrels. Saudi Arabia has the #1 spot.

Oil is a finite resource. They don't make any more of it. When it's gone, it's gone. The insanity of the last 30 years is, instead of showing Americans how to conserve this precious, non-replaceable fuel, they encouraged people to use more, more, more.

Stan Goff has said that the world has the ability to sustain about 2 billion people through agriculture, ranches etc. But thanks to petroleum fertilizers and agri-business which is heavily dependent on truck transportation, we are now sustaining over 6 billion people. That's 4 billion who are at risk, according to Stan.

He feels that when the oil starts to sputter and slow down, many of these people will be facing starvation. We will be battling over oil. Because oil is energy. Energy is life itself.

Very, very scary. And I COMPLETELY blame the politicians who did nothing to encourage conservation. They did the opposite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wwagsthedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
6. Another information source - which agrees with the above....
David Goodstein, CIT Professor, has just had published his layman's explanation of the impending energy crisis in "Out of Gas" (wwnorton.com), a very short and concise book. I got my copy from the local library. Amazon has a better review than I can write at this time of night. Glad I live in a forested area and have a fireplace - and have the ability to defend me and mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WVhill Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
7. I'm not worried for several reasons.
Edited on Mon Jun-07-04 01:09 AM by WVhill
1. Back in the 70's I did some research when OPEC first ran oil prices up. Most folks don't know that if gasoline becomes scarce in the near future, alcohol is a substitute. The American Petroleum Institute (API) probably doesn't want that known. In fact when the automobile age began, gasoline wasn't the standard fuel. Back then the API sold the automobile makers on using gasoline by stating we'd always have enough oil. The potential of alcohol is the reason we'll never see $100 a barrel oil.

To run a carbureted car on alcohol, the jets would have to be replaced with ones 25% larger. With a modern fuel injected car, the engine control module could be reprogrammed to do the same thing. In either case a material review would be necessary to make sure all parts of the fuel system were compatible with alcohol. Once that's accomplished, fill it up with alcohol and drive it away.

2. Dual fuel engines are available now. Ford sells several vehicles that can run on ether natural gas or gasoline. That shows that the technology is available today to deal with fuel changes in the future.

3. Diesel engines will run on vegetable and nut oils. BTDT after reading an MIT master's thesis from the 40's. Lots of info out there about making bio-diesel out of waste cooking oil. In other words, that Mercedes with the diesel engine will run on Mazzola.

4. We've taken a lot of agricultural land out of production. That unused land could be put to work growing crops for fuel.

5. FWIW, alcohol can be made from lots of stuff. You can make your own if you have the proper permits.

6. It's generally unknown by the public that in areas of the Appalachians oil exists at deeper depths than previously exploited. Drilling has confirmed this. This is an issue in West Virginia because of the separation of oil rights from property ownership in many cases. The oil companies have to reach new arrangements with current property owners for access.

7. The Gulf of Mexico as well as offshore areas on both the East and West coast represent significant untapped fields.

8. Oil may have not originated from rotting dinosaurs and plants. There's evidence that oil may be a natural product of subterranean processes that we may just be starting to understand.

Hubbert's curve impresses me about as much as the Club of Rome's previous prediction of world-wide famine. IC engines are going to be around longer than most think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. ah yes, the optimist.
2. Dual fuel engines are available now. Ford sells several vehicles that can run on ether natural gas or gasoline. That shows that the technology is available today to deal with fuel changes in the future.

Oh yes, natural gas, even though we're building tons of power plants based on LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) and we're quickly peaking on that resource and we have no import capabilities for LPG. Greenspan warned that our lack of LPG import capabilities would be a serious problem in the future back in Feburary. And nothing has been done. Oh yes, and lets not forget, how exactly are we suppossed to distribue this? How much do you think the current system will cost to overhaul?

3. Diesel engines will run on vegetable and nut oils. BTDT after reading an MIT master's thesis from the 40's. Lots of info out there about making bio-diesel out of waste cooking oil. In other words, that Mercedes with the diesel engine will run on Mazzola.

Yes bio-diesel. I'm just curious how we're suppossed to sustain our current system of agriculture without the fertilizer being derived from... you guessed it, LPG. So we're suppossed to take our food, convert it to oil, and then take the waste oil and turn that into bio-diesel. And then once a year we might be able to drive a whole ten miles, YAY!

4. We've taken a lot of agricultural land out of production. That unused land could be put to work growing crops for fuel.

Really? Just like that? How would we get crops to market? Is the soil depleted and over farmed? Has the soil been turned to dust? How long can we farm it before we burn it out? How much energy would it take to make or revitalise a road out to all this abandoned agricultural land?

5. FWIW, alcohol can be made from lots of stuff. You can make your own if you have the proper permits.

Yeah it can, and it's also usefull for a LOT of stuff. Just curious, can we make plastic from it? How about fertilizer? What about all this stuff that we're turning into alcohol that could be better used as compost?

6. It's generally unknown by the public that in areas of the Appalachians oil exists at deeper depths than previously exploited. Drilling has confirmed this. This is an issue in West Virginia because of the separation of oil rights from property ownership in many cases. The oil companies have to reach new arrangements with current property owners for access.

Will it cost 1.60 to extract 1.00 of oil? If it doesn't then they would already be tapping it.

7. The Gulf of Mexico as well as offshore areas on both the East and West coast represent significant untapped fields.

Really? They said the same up in Canada, too bad it didn't pan out. And once again we get the cost-benefit ratio. How much will that cost?

8. Oil may have not originated from rotting dinosaurs and plants. There's evidence that oil may be a natural product of subterranean processes that we may just be starting to understand.

Yes you're right. It might be able to be sped up by the compacting of plant matter placed in contact with heat. But it doesn't matter, all that oil is is natures version of a fuel cell. The only real reason I can think of to go to hydrogen is because it's cleaner to burn. Either way, oil is a net energy carrier. If we have to make it it is no longer a net energy source.

It's time to face the facts. Iraq is the second largest source of oil currently on earth. Saudi Arabia sits next to it, as does Kuwait, as does Iran, as does the Caucusus. All huge sources of oil. Afghanistan is next to the Caspian. Huge source of oil.

The sooner we find a way to get off of oil, the sooner we can get out of there and let the rest of the planet fight over our scraps. Nothing can replace oil. But we can make more in the lab, and we can switch to hydrogen fuel cells provided we start making large numbers of nuke plants, solar generators, and wind farms. From there we can ride it out and switch to He3 Fusion from the moon.

But oil WILL run out(well, it will never run out, but it will get absurdly expensive), and we're not doing anything to soften the impact. You can hold out optimism, but if you don't prepare for the worst, well, you certainly won't be a good boy scout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. really good points, S.
I tend to agree with these arguments. Stan Goff wrote, "if you think we can substitute oil with other substances, think again. There is NO substitute that is as effective or versatile, as oil.

However, the most important reason why any kind of changeover will not be easy, if even possible, is the reason that the U.S. BURNS THROUGH 9.3 million gallons of oil PER DAY.

Any kind of a changeover will require a gargantual adjustment. It won't be done over a coffee break.

While this is happening, businesses will tumble.

Sorry to be so negative. My cynical understanding of human nature makes me realize that nothing will be done until it reaches a critical stage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WVhill Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Still not convinced?
That's fine. But!

The fertilizer usage that farmers have grown dependent on is the end result of the chemical industry and the USDA forming a mutual admiration society at least sixty to seventy years ago. There's a farm in Pennsylvania that has never used chemical fertilizers or herbicides for almost as long. The yields are comparable to conventional farming. The farm has rotation cropped the same fields throughout that time. Most farmers would kill for that kind of soil fertility.

The difference is the management practices that were used. The farm has been an active research site since it started. In short forget the need for the chemical fertilizers. Manage the crops to ensure soil fertility. The knowledge exists NOW.

When you look at the amount of oil required for transport keep in mind the fuel for trucking and rail transports are the priorities. I'd like to see the figures on how much fuel is wasted in metropolitan areas were mass transit exist. How much would a forced shift to mass transit save? If you doubt that would work, look at how London has restricted cars from the central city.

As for oil sources consider cottonseed oil. It's a component of many packaged foods. Look at the labels. The cottonseed meal which remains after the oil extraction is used for .... fertilizer. The knowledge exists to return "farmed" out soils to production. Crop prices have dropped too low to furnish a decent rate of return for farms that aren't big enough. That's why the conventional wisdom is either get big, or get out ... of farming. When they get bigger, improve production, then prices drop more requiring a single farmer to put more land into production. that's why the total number of farmers and farms have decreased but average farm size has increased.

To get additional crops to market we just need more rail cars or barges. The rail system and the waterways exist.

The last I read, the population density of the state of Nebraska has dropped bellow what was originally required for statehood consideration. Look up the buffalo commons concept for more info. If prices are too low to support farming, maybe another market is needed like .... oil or alcohol for fuel.

As for deep drilling in the Appalachians, it's just a matter of time before it's widespread. Drilling started before oil hit the current highs. You wouldn't believe the number of gas wells that have been drilled locally in the past few months.

The decision to not drill off the coast was strictly a political decision. As for Canada, even with the relative low oil prices before the current run up, companies were expanding oil sand operations. They never stopped when the prices dropped. The US also has oil sand deposits.

Take some time and look up the alternative theory of the origin of oil. You'll probably appreciate it more if I don't spoon feed you.

BTW, why has everyone forgotten coal? Check out the latest research on coal to oil conversion. You'll be surprised how advanced it is. FWIW the research is sponsored by the military.

As for the need for me to be a boy scout, there are two oil/gas wells on the place that will still produce enough for my family and descendents long after the oil companies abandon them. Did I mention the onsite compressor to fuel the truck with .... natural gas?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Soil fertility
"Most farmers would kill for that kind of soil fertility."

You do realize that it took decades to build up that soil fertility to the current levels by crop rotations and composting, right? Fertilizers are currently not applied to naturally fertile soils that don't need them. We had soil tests done every spring on our fields before planting, in order to get an idea of what needed mineral and nitrogen supplementation. Farmers, especially small family farmers, cannot afford to spread fertilizers around everywhere where it is not needed. The farm you mentioned is sadly in the minority. Even with the intensive organic methods they use, it would take many years to get even a fraction of US farmland up to that level of productivity. Unfortunately, Peak Oil may hit well before those fields are capable of fertilizer-free crop production. Many US fields, even with intense rotation, will never reach those levels, and will always remain marginal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bdog Donating Member (280 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Turning Swine Manure Into Fertilizer

http://www.thepigsite.com/FeaturedArticle/Default.asp?AREA=&Display=1072

By Theo van Kempen, Swine Nutrition Specialist, North Carolina State University - Premium Standard Farms has started the construction of a "Next Generation" environmental system on one of its farm complexes, Valley View Farms in Northern Missouri. The objective of this project, the construction of the Crystal Peak fertilizer plant, is to convert hog manure into a high value commercial fertilizer using a process developed and patented by Premium Standard Farms and its technology partners.

The process of developing the Crystal Peak plant began following a 1999 Consent Decree between the company and the State of Missouri. That agreement called for the company to develop "Next Generation" technology with the assistance of a State-appointed panel of experts and to invest $25 million in manure management research and technology. The Crystal Peak plant is one of their major initiatives and will cost an estimated $9 million.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bdog Donating Member (280 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #16
18.  biosolids are an extremely high quality fertilizer.
http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/farm/gasrecovery.asp

Methane Gas Recovery
Environmental Benefits of Methane Gas Recovery

Biogas can produce electricity and heat offsetting a farm's energy costs and reducing the need for other fuels. This, in turn, reduces pollution that comes from drilling, mining, transporting and burning and reduces carbon dioxide—another major contributor to global climate change.

Digestion reduces the potential for surface and ground water contamination.

Collecting biogas prevents the methane from releasing into the atmosphere and becoming a powerful greenhouse gas.

Anaerobic digestion typically decreases the volume of manure solids by more than 90 percent. The remaining biosolids are an extremely high quality fertilizer.
Handling the manure produced on a livestock farm requires a lot of manpower, but farmers are discovering there is a way to use that same manure to produce power.

Installing an anaerobic digestion system—and the equipment necessary to generate electricity from the methane produced and collected by it—has environmental and economic benefits.

Using methane to generate electricity can lower energy costs. Anaerobic digestion systems are also a way to handle the increased pressure on livestock operations to control odors. And such a system can improve manure handling, reducing ground and surface water contamination and controlling harmful pathogens.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. There is much more to soil than simply fertility
Edited on Tue Jun-08-04 03:15 PM by NickB79
You can't just dump massive amounts of manure onto a field and expect it to produce massive amounts of produce. It takes time (usually decades) to build up the soil QUALITY as well as fertility. The composition of the soil, its ability to hold water and provide minerals, is just as important as how much nitrogen it holds.

BTW, the only reason we have massive amounts of manure in this country is that we have cheap oil and natural gas that can be used to generate fertilizer. Without these fertilizers, we could never raise even a fraction of the livestock we raise today. Where will we get the manure to rapidly restore soil quality when we don't have the oil we depend on for livestock production? You could use crop rotation of nitrogen-fixing plants, but that takes land out of production for food and biofuel while the soil is being left fallow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bdog Donating Member (280 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. People use man made fertilizers because the nutrient cycle is broken.
Edited on Tue Jun-08-04 08:59 AM by Bdog
Fertilizers only give plants needed nutrients. Plants use the sun, water, & CO2 to grow not oil or natural gas. They are nature’s solar panels.

Soil and its nutrients are made up of dead things and poop.

The conservation of mass dictates that if you keep removing the nutrients then you will deplete them...the cycle has been broken.

KOYAANISQATSI...Hopi Indian word meaning "life out of balance."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WVhill Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. "Soil and its nutrients are made up of dead things and poop." Not really.
That's the type of thinking that got us where we are now. Healthy soil is an ecology that includes worms, micro-organisms, fungi, etc. The thinking that soil is an inanimate substance and can be "pepped up" by the addition of fertilizers misses the big picture. It completely overlooks the symbiotic relationships between plants, soil and the organisms in the soil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. If you think biofuels can replace current fuel usage
then do some calculations to check this. I've lost mine now, but I did this based on reputable websites that gave the net energy yields for growing both corn to produce alcohol, and rape seed (called canola in the US, I think?) for bio-diesel. Both can produce a net energy gain, when grown right; but it would take roughly the entire potential agricultural land of the USA to feed its current need for transport fuel. If you know any calculations that show it can be done with significantly less land, I may defer to them (after all, I'm bound to have made some mistake with my calculations). This then has to assume you can grow the same crops, intensively, year after year on the land without exhausting it.

The untapped oil fields are untapped because it costs more to extract that oil (measured in money) than is economic at the moment. Yes, they'll come into play some day; but it may take that $100/barrel as a base price to do it. That's assuming they can give a net gain in energy - but I'd guess fields of oil that are known about now probably could.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bdog Donating Member (280 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
14. Biodiesel fueling stations are sprouting like weeds across America
Edited on Mon Jun-07-04 09:45 PM by Bdog
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,63635,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
Biodiesel fueling stations are sprouting like weeds across America, where production of the alternative fuel rose 66 percent in 2003. Experts say the rapid growth of the renewable fuel will stretch the country's tenuous petroleum supply while helping people breathe a little easier.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bdog Donating Member (280 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
15. without ethanol gasoline would cost an additional 30 cents per gallon
http://www.e85fuel.com/front_page/Kaptur_biofuels060404.htm
Some of the highlights from Urbanchuk's report are:

* Without ethanol, gas prices would increase 14.6 percent, or 30.2 cents per gallon in the short term (including the entire summer driving season).
* Without ethanol, gas prices would increase 3.7 percent, or 7.6 cents per gallon, in the long term once refiners build new capacity or secure alternative sources of supply.
* More than 30 percent of all U.S. gasoline is blended with ethanol.
* Without ethanol, refiners would be forced to import about 217,000 barrels per day of high-octane, gasoline blending components.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC