Normally I do this on Sunday or Monday, but this has been an extraordinary week in many ways.
This QOTW comes from an unexpected and surprising source. When I read it, I realized that it describes what we witnessed today on the floor of the House of Representatives.
“When the strategic interest of the nation and the world is so clear, can a few gluttons with a few bucks really drive our policy? Does this great country not have better leadership than that?”
Guess who said it? Don’t be tempted to click through right away, think about it a bit.
Who said it?
NASA’s Dr. James Hansen, in a personal essay written on the evening of June 25th.
Dr. Hansen’s latest has seen little notice due to the intense media coverage of the deaths of celebrities followed by the Waxman Markey bill in the house today.
He may not have intended those words to be relevant to today’s situation, as it was written in the context of coal in West Virginia. However, they seem prescient now.
Read his latest missive here (PDF).
Looking at his essay written the evening before, ( Thursday at 4:55PM EST, I checked the document properties) I wonder if Dr. Hansen even thought about today’s vote at all?
Here’s a man writing about himself, the day before “historic” climate legislation, much of it due to what he started in an address to congress on June 23rd, 1988, and all he thinks about is coal in West Virginia and describing his experience there?
Odd.
Back to science tomorrow. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Murray Duffin, glad we agree on nuclear. Cap and trade is going to do more harm than good. Period. It is based on a false premise and provides nothing in return for the investment. In fact it will very likely increase Co2 as corporations will produce more and pass the cost on to the consumer, crippling the economy. It will also line the pockets of some very greedy people who care nothing for you or I or the environment. What is your area of expertise? My understanding of this is from a layman’s perspective, which does not make it less credible. Are you familiar with Paul Erlich’s predictions, none of which came to pass. We are running out of this and the cost is going to be exorbitant on that. I believe we can solve these problems with technology, but we need to have a stable economy and stable energy sources to do that, this has little to do with the “market” at all. you have confused my post with someone else’s. I would love to see us get off oil, as the tar sands are ugly (it wasn’t pretty or viable land before we started digging). If you have ever read any of my posts, you will know that I oppose wastefulness with all of my being. Let us go back to your original post (08:02:14). Your claims of peak energy have not been established with any reasonable credibility. Are you old enough to remember the oil shortage of the ’70’s? We were supposedly running out then, and yet here we are today. That shortage was driven by different factors ( OPEC) and this one is perpetuated by those who are invested in alternative (and highly subsidized) forms of energy, none of which are viable on a large scale. I am against pollution and waste, but I am for common sense. Is this not a better world than the dark ages or the renaissance? We are moving forward. I have lived “off the grid” in Canada, and let me tell you, there is a reason life-spans were so short in the past. If you have children, you would not want them to live that way. You are trying to pidgeon-hole me as one of the wasteful westerners. We live very humbly, recycle and conserve at every opportunity. In regard to the insults, I took offense when you painted all on this blog with a broad brush. Turnabout is fair play after all. You claimed we are running out, and so far you have not cleared that up.
Murray Duffin (06:41:17) :
If we’re running out of oil and natural gas, how come we keep finding more of it? And we’ve scarcely begun exploring undersea. Then we’ve got hundreds of years of coal still in the ground, which can easily be turned into liquid fuels. And of course you can make fuel out of practically anything: trash, algae, etc. For electricity there’s nuclear fission, which we have sorely neglected these past few decades.
The growth of civilization and attendant prosperity and human well-being depend on the availability of cheap, plentiful energy. Government measures which, for whatever reasons, limit the development and use of energy will have precisely the opposite effect.
There are always good reasons for companies and individuals to economize—we all have bottom lines to meet—but for government to artificially and unnecessarily restrict supply is the height of folly. These foolish and irresponsible measures taken in the name of ‘combating climate change’ and other chimeras are going to do nothing but take the wind out of the sails of progress.
If the West falters by falling prey to such nonsense, I guess we can be grateful that the East will take up the slack and keep human progress going. But it will be a great loss, as the East cares not a whit for the individual and his rights.
/Mr Lynn
David Ball – I never claimed we are running out of anything. I claimed that we are very near or past the point when world production of oil will go into decline, irreversibly. Production of oil has been on a “bumpy plateau” since mid 2004, with a first production peak at May 2005, and a second peak at August 2008. Known development projects (see Wikipedia Megaprojects), if they came in as projected (and they rarely do) in mid 2008 were enough to offset declines of existing production and perhaps give us a new peak at about 89 M B/d in 2010. with the sudden post-bubble drop in oil prices in H2 2008, many projects have been delayed or even cancelled. As a result we are probably past peak. All the great reserves that are touted, like oil sands, exist, but there is the issue of stocks and flows. Great stocks, very low flows, so they will not postpone the peak, but may slow the post peak decline a little. FYI global exports of oil exporting countries have been in decline for more than 2 years. the impact of that issue has been masked by the decline in demand in OECD countries caused by the great recession. There is no way we will develop the alternatives you mention in time to offset the declines in oil availability.
Similarly for the USA NG production peaked in late 2002, and declined to late 2006, with a new peak in 2008, resulting from adding 200 drilling rigs a year for 5 years, and developing new ways to generate NG fro “tight sands” and shales. Since Sept 2008 over 800 rigs (more than 50% ) have been idled, and probably 200 of them scrapped. We may get back to Q3 2008 production levels by late 2012, or we may never get back there. In the meantime, economic recovery will again raise demand, and this time supply will not grow in parallel. Look for oil prices north of $150./b and NG prices north of $12/Kcf before the end of 2010, and look for homes being cold in New England by March 2011, and coal won’t save us.
BTW, any reasonable projection of coal use growth has us past peak coal tons before 2050 and probably past peak coal Btus by 2040. We have to make a lot of changes very fast, and it won’t happen without further crisis. Addressing CO2 intelligently has the unintended consequence of mitigating the crisis.
Your opinion on “cap and trade” is just an opinion, and will probably be just as wrong as Erlich. Murray
Mr. Lynn – We haven’t found a giant field (=>500Mb reseves) since 2003. Peak discovery was in the 1960s. You can’t produce what you don’t discover. OPEC reports unchanged reserves year after year, in spite of production, and without major new discoveries. Some interpret that reporting as new discoveries, but it’s just marks on paper. As for coal – no, not hundreds of years. Peak by 2050, and decline to near zero by 2150, unless alternatives replace coal use, which I expect will happen. Coal to liquids doesn’t make sense energetically. electricity from trash won’t be enough to supply more than 2 or 3 quads per year, and we use 100 quads of energy per year. Algae is hopeful but unproven, and is for sure decades away if it ever works. Nuclear fission is good, but also more than a decade away. TSHTF long before a decade. the trouble is that energy has always been so cheap and plentiful that we have not economized, and we can’t do it now overnight. Dream on. Murray
Murray Duffin, you have not shown me that it is necessary to even address Co2 and you have not shown, just stated opinion, that peak oil has passed. Where is your irrefutable proof that we are in decline. Your statements have been regarding production (or lack thereof) and reduced shipping. These have both been hindered by so called green agenda. Your good intentions are paving the road to hell, IMHO. The advent of just one technology, horizontal drilling, opened up HUGE amounts of oil. Again, you have not really addressed Paul Erlich’s predictions ? You are also avoiding addressing the basic assumptions of your argument. Let’s clarify those, because you seem to be attempting to side step the issues. A) Co2 is a problem, if so how? B) Oil depletion is due to environmental restrictions, not depletion of resource. C) What is the result of your agenda? To cripple society and send mankind back to the stone age? D) What do you believe will be the result of Cap and Enslave? Your answer will be opinion only as well, since no one knows for sure. The dirty tactics of Pelosi et al sure seem to indicate that they know what the result will be. But then they are considered “wealthy” and could probably afford the $6,000.00 (at a minimum) cost to every household in the USA. Majority of Americans are just getting by and this is going to sink most of America. Do you have a family? Open your eyes to the devastating cost to the majority people. Or does the end justify the means?
David Ball – Actually horizontal drilling and MRC wells only increase the rate of extraction/depletion. It did nothing to develop more availability. As before you are ill informed. Your view on Cap and Trade is simply parroting, what you accused me of. I have given you facts on oil and NG. check them out for yourself.
Go back and read my posts. I never suggested anywhere that CO2 is a problem. You are so busy disagreeing that you can’t read accurately what was said. Old managemant technoque for avoiding disputes. Play back to your disputant what he said and get him to agree that is what he said before you argue. How about if you provide some proof that oil depletion is due to environmenyal restrictions. The only restrictions I know of are ANWR and the OCS, neither of which will ever flow enough to prevent decline. Do I have to do all the quantification for you. Oh, also for the OCS, more than 40% of the suposed resource areas are open for development now. You don’t see the oil companies rushing in. Same for ANWR, no major lobbying by oil companies. Why not? Because these are no really attractive prospects. the costs of C&T that you provide are pure invention. The OMB has come up with $170./household. Simi;lar numbers were given for the clean air act, and there was no measurable cost in the final analysis. You are simply practising religion, and have difficulty with anyone questioning your faith. You ask for proof. Give some yourself. Murray
If that prediction comes true, the Congress of the United States, and states like California, will be to blame, for restricting off-shore drilling, refinery construction, and atomic power development over the last few decades—not that “we have not economized.”
It is well known that efficiency can (and often does) lead to more consumption, not less. More efficient gizmos mean we can have more gizmos for the same amount of energy—and what’s a few more? It’s fashionable for the eco-nuts these days to complain about all the little power adaptors and warm, stand-by circuitry in our gadgets, which use miniscule amounts of electricity but in the aggregate add up to a lot. Efficiency means we find more ways to use energy, not less; that’s progress, man! Why should we give up instant-on TVs, GPS devices, cell phones, MP3 players, and all the rest? Was life so much better when you had to crank up the phone and ask the operator in town to connect you to your neighbor?
The solution is not more efficiency, though that is always good, but more energy. I don’t know about gigantic oil fields, but Brazil just found some off-shore, and the Russians are about to plant a flag on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, because they smell petroleum. And some say there’s a trillion barrels more or less in the oil shale in the US and Canada. If there were the will, we could start cranking out turnkey nuclear plants within a decade, too.
If gasoline goes over $4 again, you’ll see the Democrats turned out on their ears, and we’ll get back on the path to cheap, abundant energy again—the path we abandoned three decades ago.
/Mr Lynn
WUWT is the best! Thank you Anthony Watts and the amazing posters here. Your patience with the Luddites of the AGW crowd is terrific and the responses to such verbose tools such as Murray Duffin & Neven is very civilized.
Great collaboration on the US Monitoring Station [snip]and the wacky AGW Climate Models….Thank you for all you do!
rephelen
Meerkat: a mongoose like vivverine of South Africa, having a face like a lemur and only four toes.
You made the claim of “passed peak oil”, and have yet to establish that beyond doubt. I do not think it is possible to make that determination. No one can see the future. “Horizontal wells increase the rate of extraction/depletion”. HUH? Even though those resources were inaccessible previous to the technology of horizontal drilling? I do not follow your reasoning. I have not found the $170.00 per household number in my reading. That certainly is a far cry from my claim of $6000.00 per household. I hope you are right. Is it possible the OMB (slightly biased) might be skewing the numbers in their favor? No, a politician wouldn’t do that, would they? Perhaps you are right, and my perspective is only faith based. Maybe we could meet back here in, say, five years and we can compare notes. Assuming I haven’t sold my computer for food.
@Murray Sandland Duffin:
No new elephant fields, huh?
First, ExxonMobil (March 13,2009) announced the discovery of a huge oil field off the coast of Brazil. The recoverable barrels of oil is estimated at 8 billion. The day of Peak Oil is moving further out, as it always has.
Second, a huge oil field was just discovered in Iraq, with between 2.3 and 4.2 billion barrels of oil. The figure will be improved as more wells are drilled. This qualifies as an elephant field, and again puts the lie to those who say we have passed the peak of oil. Not so. Never have, never will. Imagine the world as a stack of pancakes, and we have just stuck a fork in the upper layer of the top pancake. Such is our situation with drilling for oil. There are lots of pancakes down deeper, and we have not even begun exploration and drilling there.
Regarding natural gas, more natural gas is being liquefied and shipped around the world, so much so that there is a glut of natural gas. The world is swimming in natural gas. More is found almost daily, it seems, in shale formations. Even more is produced from coal beds, known as coal bed methane. The price of natural gas is around $3.5 to $4 per million Btu. On an equivalent basis, a barrel of oil would be $25. So, either natural gas should increase to $8, or oil should drop from around $50 back to around $25. Yet, OPEC is throttling production to prop up prices in the $50 range. They would prefer it be in the $70 to $80 range. As more car owners wise up, and convert their cars to CNG as fuel, the demand for gasoline and diesel will decrease. What a strange turn of events…OPEC countries may go broke, as they cannot raise prices for oil enough to produce the cash flow they must have to support the infrastructure in place. Stay tuned on this one, and watch for massive dis-array within OPEC, as the smaller members cheat and produce more than their quotas.
http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2008/09/peak-oil-not-big-deal.html
First, ExxonMobil (March 13,2009) announced the discovery of a huge oil field off the coast of Brazil. The recoverable barrels of oil is estimated at 8 billion.
Daily global oil consumption is 80+ million barrels (and soon to grow again when the economy rebounds as it always does and always will). Let me see. This huge oil field would provide the world with 100 days of oil, right? That means that within 100 days of drilling this huge oil field a new huge oil field has to be found.
Neven,
And there are only 10 billion barrels of easily recoverable oil in ANWR. So we shouldn’t bother getting it. Right? Is that what you’re saying?
In fact, there is more oil available every time new exploration takes place. Alaska is a big, big place, but without exploration, we only know about what’s available in ANWR and a few other fields. And ANWR is only a 3.13 square mile dot on the map: click. [ANWR is the tiny red square.]
Think of the
possiblyprobably trillions of barrels of oil in Alaska and off the coast of Alaska. And there are trillions of barrels of oil under the continental shelf. And many billions more in the Dakotas.The problem is NOT a lack of oil. The problem is the enviro movement, and the Representatives and Senators they own lock, stock and barrel.
Oil can be extracted with minimal environmental risk [that’s obvious, because when the inevitable little spill happens once or twice a year, the media has a conniption fit, and runs to groups like Greenpeace to get their quotes]. But much more oil is emitted naturally from natural seeps than all the oil ever spilled by mankind, doubled and squared.
So explain to us: why should we not make use of the really enormous amounts of domestic oil that are available?
Neven, and any others who have a belief in peak oil:
If you truly believe we are at or past the peak of oil production, then you should make a fortune investing in crude oil futures.
Let us know how that works out.
Your premise is invalid. You’re assuming ALL the world’s oil would be coming form this one field. There are hundreds if not thousands of such fields.
Some data on crude oil prices, both real and nominal, may be found at the EIA database at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/real_prices.html
The interesting chart is the top chart for gasoline price, dating from 1919. Note that “peak oil” was cried out by alarmists many times during the entire period (1919 – 2008).
Never happened. (gasoline would have been $10 to $20 per gallon in a post-peak-oil scenario…clearly that has never happened).
Never will.
Well, ‘never’ is a bit of hyperbole. The oil under the Earth’s crust may after all be finite, and some may prove way too difficult (i.e. expensive) to get with any foreseeable technology (realizing that a hundred years ago much of our present technology could not have been foreseen). But by then the market will come up with plenty of alternatives.
Let’s get rid of the CO2 bugaboo and start growing the US economy—and the world’s economy—once again. Drill, baby, drill!
/Mr Lynn
PS Re foreseeable technology: It is not hard to imagine robotic tunneling and drilling machines capable of working under high pressures and temperatures, e.g. beneath the ocean floors. These could be run from engineers sitting in shirtsleeves on beachfront porches, sipping piña coladas. That’s 4/5th of the earth’s surface that hasn’t been explored yet.
If I can foresee these, think of what else might come down the pike—er, pipe! Genetically-engineered deep-sea mining creatures, anyone?
/Mr Lynn