From American University via Eurekalert, professor Matthew Nisbet demonstrates that the impact of peak petroleum on public health may be a way to unite conservatives and liberals in an effort to move away from fossil fuels and towards alternative forms of energy.
Peak Oil & Public Health: Political Common Ground?
WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 8, 2011)—Peak petroleum—the point at which the maximum rate of global oil extraction is reached, after which the rate of production begins to decline—is a hot topic in scientific and energy circles. When will it occur? What will the impact be? While geologists and economists debate the specifics, American University School of Communication professor Matthew Nisbet believes peak petroleum and the associated risks to public health may provide an opportunity to bring conservatives and liberals together in the move toward alternative forms of energy.
“Somewhat surprisingly, conservatives are more likely to associate a major spike in oil prices with a strong threat to public health,” said Nisbet—an expert in the field of climate and energy communication. “This could present a gateway to engagement with conservatives on energy policy.”
In a forthcoming peer-reviewed study at the American Journal of Public Health, Nisbet and his co-authors find that 76% of people in a recent survey believe oil prices are either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to triple in the next five years. A dramatic spike in oil prices is a commonly recognized outcome of peak petroleum.
Even more telling is that 69% of respondents believe a sharp rise in oil prices would be either “very harmful” (44%) or “somewhat harmful” (25%) to the health of Americans. According to the survey, strong conservatives were the most sensitive to these possible risks, with 53% believing that a spike in oil prices would be “very harmful” to human health. Similarly, in a separate analysis of the data, those who were strongly “dismissive” of climate change (52%) were the most likely of any subgroup to associate a sharp spike in oil prices with a negative impact on public health.
According to Nisbet and his co-authors, this creates a challenge and an opportunity for the environmental and public health communities. Peak oil and energy prices are often talked about in terms of economic and environmental impact, but rarely as a public health concern. Nisbet argues that his findings show reason to reframe the debate.
“These findings suggest that a broad cross-section of Americans may be ready to engage in dialogue about ways to manage the health risks that experts associate with peak petroleum,” said Nisbet. “Peak petroleum may not currently be a part of the public health portfolio, but we need to start the planning process.”
The study was co-authored with Edward Maibach of George Mason University and Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 11th Hour, and Surdna Foundation.
####
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Richard: your
Yes, let’s not: http://www.planetforlife.com/oilcrisis/oilsituation.html
I give you EIA data. You give us data from a peak oil group. Of course, if you follow their references to BP and the EIA, you will get exactly the same info I have been giving you. Oil reserves have more than doubled since 1980. And even the peak oil group says that there is 40 years of oil, if not another drop of oil is found.
No crisis.
A Roman, say in the year 300, would probably have scoffed at the very suggestion that the Empire might collapse. He could point to a continuing history of success. The emblem of the Senate and the People of Rome had been taken to the ends of the Earth. And yet the Empire was riddled with the seeds of its own destruction. The Romans were ever more out-sourcing their own protection to their potential enemies.
In the same way, some seem to scoff at the idea that we may ever run out of petroleum. I think we should all accept the fact that petroleum is a non-renewing resource. There is no evidence that the Earth is replacing petroleum at the rate that it is being used, quite the opposite in fact. One should not confuse rate of discovery with rate of renewal. Eventually, if not already, we will reach a point where it becomes progressively harder to find new petroleum deposits. At that time, I would expect to see utilization begin to be quenched by progressively increasing prices as supply does not meet demand. Of course there still remain sources out there untapped for environmental concerns that could be brought on line.
I do not think that Peak Oil means prices are suddenly going to skyrocket. For a while, I expect the gradual trend upward will initially be masked by other market dynamics. It may be hard to point to a date and say “here is where the Peak Oil price impact began.” Eventually, however, these prices will rise to a threshold that will make it economical to convert to another energy source and change the way energy is supplied to mobile vehicles.
Some options for this, like coal, are also non-renewing and will be of temporary utility (500-1500 years is temporary) and will require eventual replacement.
Fusion Power still remains largely hypothetical after over 60 years of research. I have seen fringe reports of potential success, but not the big news breakthrough I would expect of the real thing. This would be an important discovery.
Nuclear fission is a proven option but there remains the question of waste products, some with a half-life of 24,000 years, and the question whether we can accept having a Chernobyl/Fukushima event every ten or twenty years. Perhaps these plants should be located underground so that they can ‘go China’ without contaminating the surface. Reports on ‘Thorium Power’ seem encouraging.
Beyond this, there remain various naturally renewing sources such as wind, bio-solar, electro-solar, and geothermal. These, for the most part, appear to be partial solutions at our current population level.
Firstly, the concept of EROEI is moronic. It makes no more sense than FeROFeI or BaSO4ROBaSO4I (iron returned on iron invested or barite returned on barite invested). When we develop an oil field, we put a lot more iron (steel), barite and other odds & ends into the ground than we ever recover. The only ROI that matters is the one denominated in $.
As to the potential production rates… We won’t know until the industry is actually allowed to exploit the resource. Shell estimates that they could be producing 500,000 barrels per day from the Picenance Basin with a very small footprint using an in-situ recovery process, summarized by Rand here…
Assuming a 12-yr lead time to reach the production growth stage, it will take ~30 years to reach 3 million barrels per day. If production continued to grow at a rate of 1 million BOPD every 5 years… Oil shale production from just the Piceance Basin could reach 15 million BOPD by the end of this century…
Production Chart
Good grief. Experts have warned about “peak oil” for decades. I suppose someday they will get what they wish for. But, in the meantime, oil prices have dropped about 20% in a week – mainly due to weak global demand.
If we go into a double-dip recession, few will be talking about peak oil.
If it isn’t clear by now, it never will be: Richard Wakefield is a piedpiper of “peak” oil.
That’s what he does (if he isn’t holed up in his Mexican retreat), going to various venues and spreading the “peak” oil gospel. (You will never persuade him of the fallacy of “peak” oil because he is a “professional” peak oil pusher — all you can do is set the record straight and not let others fall into his “doomer” mind-set.)
It’s false.
His numbers are circumspect or one-sided.
Oil is abiotic. Oil has been produced in the laboratory and commercially by chemical processes known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. The hydrocarbon profile (distribution of different hydrocarbon chain lengths) is the same for Fischer -Tropsch laboratory and commercial process (Germany produced oil this way during WWII and South Africa still does today) as it is for Saudi Arabian oil.
Why do the two seperate sources of oil have the same profile?
Because it is a chemical process. One happens in the ground, the other in the laboratory or the industrial factory.
And oil is located deep under ground, deeper than 25,000 feet under the seafloor: Under the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Brazil and the West African coast.
True, oil wells run dry, but others are constantly being brought on line.
Richard Wakefield says:
August 10, 2011 at 11:59 am
“Yes, let’s not: http://www.planetforlife.com/oilcrisis/oilsituation.html ”
Looked around there under their renewables section; they link to
http://dieoff.com/
which says
“From Capitalism To Democracy”
Typical NWO socialists if you ask me, the lot of them. Don’t know if all peak oilers are like that but i wouldn’t believe these sites one word.
If the price goes up, it’s because oil is more expensive to get (farther out to sea and in deeper water and deeper under the sea floor), or possibly, more likely, the dollar has been depreciated by inflation, or speculators have run up the price, or, even, a combination of all three.
But not because of a physical shortage (or a “flow rate”, which, apparently, is Wakefield’s new meme).
Very little of the sea floor has been explored in proportion to the total possible territory that can be explored for oil deposits. And, surprisingly, there are still land areas that haven’t yet been explored for oil.
Richard Wakefield says:
August 10, 2011 at 9:18 am
“But in absolute terms, Russia, using your source, is currently above the peak of the Soviet system.”
Yes, that’s why I posted it!!! The issue in that link is the effect of that previous peak of flow rate had on their economy. But what is happening now in Russia?
==================================================
The limit on the rate of oil production and the negative effect it had on the Russian economy is not a peak oil problem. Besides, the limit is more a symptom that their economy was in trouble already and was an effect more than a cause.
Russia is not exactly a free market economy. It decides how to invest in oil exploration and development. The Russian peak oil problem was lack of investment, poor economic planning coupled with a lack of financial resources.
Peak oil will not be a problem for some time, because as the price of oil increases, non-conventional supplies (oil, shale etc) become profitable and eventually substitution (and reduction in consumption) takes place.
Peak oil will have occurred when the Ford F-150, the Chevrolet Silverado and the Dodge Ram are no longer in the top 10 vehicles sold in the US and it will be achieved not because of production limits but because of consumption costs. Despite the current grumblings, we are nowhere near this.
Shocking …… that this passes for science. It is nothing more than reporting on a poll. What the average American thinks is totally irrelevant, because the average American is either stupid, misinformed or uneducated or all three.
Oil prices willl rise over time, in real dollar terms, but so what? As free market oil prices rise the supply of oil will increase as the more costly methods of oil extraction now become economic. Ultimately – a long, long time from now, the actual, physical limits of oil will be felt through ever rising prices. Then there will be a free market, voluntary move to cheaper alternatives.
As some have already noted, that is very far in the future so it is foolish to assume that mankind will be dependent on the same energy sources as today. Think back a mere hundred years ago – who could have imagined the technology we have today? No one. When John D Rockefeller entered the energy business, the predominant source of energy for domestic lighting was whale oil. Kerosene was an option, but it was too expensive. Rockefeller brings down the cost of kerosene and voila – nobody needs whale oil anymore.
As oil becomes more expensive there will be voluntary moves to other sources, and there is more than enough time so there is no need to panic.
James F. Evans says:
August 10, 2011 at 2:22 pm
“Oil is abiotic.”
James, your argument is more one-sided. Sure oil can be abiotic. They can make diamonds in a laboratory too. So what? Is coal also abiotic or just oil? If Russians were so smart with their abiotic oil exploration model, why have they not exploited it more? You can’t be the only country in the world that “really” knows how oil is formed and also have a problem with oil production. You would have to be completely awash in oil AND snickering at the same time.
“Peak oil will not be a problem for some time, because as the price of oil increases, non-conventional supplies (oil, shale etc) become profitable and eventually substitution (and reduction in consumption) takes place.”
I said peak oil (extraction potential) is being put off because of economic problems we face. However, it seems clear twice now (2008 and spring of 2011) that oil goes up to some point at which the economy can’t absorb the price and we go into a recession, and the price of oil drops, as it is now. If this is a trend that continues, which I think it will, then the problem with unconventional sources is the price does not go high enough to make them profitable. Hence we lose supply not because of technical reasons, not because of geological reasons, but economic reasons.
That’s the whole point of the USSR problem. Yes, they were not at “peak oil” in the geological sense, but as I have noted there are lots of peak oil scenarios for the cause of distuption in the flow rate. The USSR situation appears to have been technologically and economically imposed. That is, they lost flow rate, which was geological there, but it wasn’t economically there. That’s the point. “peak oil” is not just one cause for flow interuption, but many causes, including political ideology (the current US administration). Geological peak, as i have stated many times, is not the main cause of peak oil, but has been in some cases (North Sea, and Cantarell).
So when you say “peak oil will not be a problem for some time.” you are refering to geological peak oil. Where as peak oil is really any event that disrupts the flow rate. Peak oil is about flow rates, not the cause. In the end, reduced flow rate will be less energy to run society, regardless of the cause of lower flow rate.
“But not because of a physical shortage (or a “flow rate”, which, apparently, is Wakefield’s new meme).”
Not me. Read the literature on peak oil. I has ALWAYS been flow rates. That’s the entire premise of Hubbert. Oil production increases in FLOW RATE until a peak flow rate is attained, then the flow rate drops off. Peak oil has always been about flow rates.
“Very little of the sea floor has been explored in proportion to the total possible territory that can be explored for oil deposits. And, surprisingly, there are still land areas that haven’t yet been explored for oil.”
Factually incorrect. There is very little of the planet that hasn’t been checked. And there is a very good reason for that. Oil is found only in a small group of geological formations. There is no point in looking for oil in the middle of the Pacific or Atlantic. Wrong geology. No point in checking the Canadian Shield, wrong geology. Geologists are smart people, and they have a lot of money at their disposal. Yes, they have checked the entire planet. Read the book Twighlight in the Desert, Simmons explains this clearly.
Do they find oil in formations that should not? Yes, but very rarely does that happen. The norm is that there is no oil when there should be.
“Looked around there under their renewables section; they link to
http://dieoff.com/
which says
“From Capitalism To Democracy””
You are shooting the messenger. The data in that graph is correct, you can find that anywhere, including the IEA yearly reports. They just copied one of those graphs. The facts of the graph are correct.
“And oil is located deep under ground, deeper than 25,000 feet under the seafloor: Under the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Brazil and the West African coast.”
Peronsal attacks aside. What do you mean by “Sea Floor”? The “sea floor” is the basaltic basement rock. Sedimentary deposits are on top of that, but only close to shore. Deepest well in the Gulf is about 30,000 feet. The Tupi field off Brazil is some 16,000 feet. West African oil wells are less than 10,000 feet. Every single one of those locations you noted are SEDEMENTARY. The source rocks for Tupi has been identified (you must have missed the link I posted), just under the deposit, but above the basalitic basement rock. 25,000 under the “sea flloor” is in the asthenosphere. Remeber the Atlantic is from a spreading ridge. The sea floor is basalic, derived from sea floor spreading. Oil physically cannot exist at 25,000 feet under the sea floor, too hot. Cooks it completely. Do yourself a favour, read up on the geology of these deposits before you pontificate that I’m wrong.
Abiotic has been dealt with, every oil field on the planet has chemical markers that shows the source rock, all of which are biological zones (one time shallow seas rich in life).
“Firstly, the concept of EROEI is moronic. It makes no more sense than FeROFeI or BaSO4ROBaSO4I (iron returned on iron invested or barite returned on barite invested).”
No, ERoEI about the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is why ethanol was not viable, it’s ERoEI was negative. Iron? Yes, you can add that. If it takes more iron to build the infrastructure to mine the or than you get out of it, what’s the point in mining that deposit? When it takes 1 joule of energy to get one joule of oil, you are at break even, there is no point in extracting it.
$ is a good analogy. If you invest $1 but only get 99c back, what’s the point of it?
“Les Johnson says:
August 10, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Richard: your
Yes, let’s not: http://www.planetforlife.com/oilcrisis/oilsituation.html
I give you EIA data. You give us data from a peak oil group. Of course, if you follow their references to BP and the EIA, you will get exactly the same info I have been giving you. Oil reserves have more than doubled since 1980. And even the peak oil group says that there is 40 years of oil, if not another drop of oil is found.
No crisis.”
The graph is correct on discovery of oil fields, been dropping since the 1970’s. That is FACT. Second, reserves is meaningless. First, you cannot trust the reserves of the Saudis. 20 years of production and their reserves has not changed, in spite of not one new field found. Their OPEC quota is bases on their reserves.
But you are still making the same mistake. Peak oil is NOT about what is in the ground, it’s about flow rate. That has ALWAYS been the case since Hubbert.
“report.
Les Johnson says:
August 10, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Richard: your
The host of the show had to ask the CEO twice about the number of nukes, yes 1000 reactors to pump 3mb/day.
I would love a reference for this as well. But I won’t hold my breath.”
It was on BNN (Canada’s Buiness News Network) last year. It was on line, but long gone. I’m not lying. I watched the show as I do every morning.
“Methinks you need to read on this some more. Especially on air injection, not O2 injection. THAI (toe-heel air injection) gives very high ERoEI (20-50).
http://www.iseof.org/~netenergy/node/5183
And it is not TAR. Tar is a different process, from a different source.”
That link, on the Oil Drum, shows something completely different from what you are saying it does:
“The highest estimate of the EROI of the production process using THAI is 56:1, while the lowest estimate is 3.3:1. ”
“the appropriate EROI estimation for the THAI process is 8.9:1. ”
They also refer to it as the Tar sands.
Steve from Rockwood:
Russia is the number one oil producer in the world, more than Saudi Arabia, although Saudi has more spare capacity, so, could outproduce Russia if Saudi wanted to.
True, I didn’t offer much other than the fact that oil can be produced in the laboratory via the Fischer-Tropsch process where iron and other metals act as a catalyst.
But that is important, because the so-called “fossil” theory has never been produced in the laboratory and there is no specific chemical process known — it’s just an assumption.
Here is an excellent scientific paper for you to read:
Petroleum Formation by Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis in Plate Tectonics, by Peter Szatmari (1989)
Szatmari wrote:
“Abstract:
A somewhat speculative hyposthesis of petroleum genesis in the upper lithosphere is proposed, based on Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. This hypothesis is distinct from both the organic (biogenic) model and the inorganic model of hydrocarbon degassing from the Earth’s interior.
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is a well-known industrial process whereby millions of tons of hydrocarbon oil resembling petroleum are produced annually from carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide and hydrogen gasses reacting on a metallic iron or iron-oxide catalyst. Like natural petroleum, this synthetic oil consists of gas, gasoline, diesel oil, and wax fractions, all rich in saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons and enriched in the light 12C isotope.
The hypothesis presented in this paper proposes that petroluem liquids form by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis on magnetite and hematite catalysts when carbon dioxide (derived by massive metamorphic or igneous decarbonization of subducted sedimentary carbonates) reacts with hydrogen generated by the serpentinization (in the absence of air) of shallow-mantle lithosphere and ophiolite thrust sheets. Oblique plate movements may favor hydrocarbon formation by creating deep faults that aid fluid flow and serpentinization. The world’s rich oil provinces, including those of the Middle East, may be tentatively interpreted to have formed by this mechanism.”
Further:
Szatmari wrote:
“[Sir Robert] Robinson (1963), past-president of the Royal Society of London, noted that the distribution of normal paraffins in crude oil is the same as that in hydroformed oil produced by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4653669/Petroleum-Formation-by-FischerTropsch-Synthesis-Peter-Szatmari
There is a wealth of scienfific evidence supporting Abiotic Oil Theory
There is no such thing as a thermodynamic return on investment in business.
ROI is denominated in $, €, £, etc.
EROEI is moronic.
If this were a prize fight, I’d score this a clear win by a knock out for Les Johnson, and Richard Wakefield the clear loser. Mr. Wakefield, ERoEI (energy returned on energy input) is a meaningless measure for purposes of oil discussion. The only thing that matters, as others have said before me, is profit.
There is no Peak OIl, and never has been, despite numerous predictions and alarms. There never will be, either.
What confounded the Peak Oil Alarmists is the finding of huge oil fields. Most of those oil fields are controlled by OPEC, the cartel that was formed to manage them. OPEC has maintained the price at a constant value, after adjusting for inflation, since 1980. The constant price is only possible when there is a glut of the commodity – because a shortage would create a price increase. If one thing can be said for Peak Oil alarmists, it is that they don’t have a good grasp of economics.
Meanwhile, technology advances have made finding and producing oil much, much cheaper and more oil is found even as the glut continues.
Only after the huge fields are depleted will scarcity enter the equation and allow prices to increase. At that point, several things could happen. If the demand for oil continues, then more oil will be produced. If alternatives are more economic, then those alternatives will be exploited. If conservation measures are economic, then they will be employed and demand will decrease.
We currently can predict that the demand for oil will continue, as the less-developed nations expand their economies and consume more oil. However, the Western nations are struggling these days and their demand for oil is declining. Also, ill-advised national policies such as higher and higher CAFE standards for both cars and now trucks are artificially decreasing demand, while throttling economies and causing needless waste of capital.
There are numerous alternatives for petroleum, and here I use that term to mean traditional oil found in the strata of the Earth. These alternatives include, to name only a few, coal-to-liquids, gas-to-liquids, shale oil, and algae-to-oil. Substitution of motive energy also is available, such as using natural gas to power the vehicle, and all-electric vehicles in limited services.
Conservation measures also exist, including the CAFE standards mentioned above, lower speed limits, restrictions on driving such as carpool lanes and carpool times, building and making mass transit more affordable and attractive, eliminating stop signs and replacing them with yield signs, mandating all vehicles have brake-energy recovery systems, and others. Governments could mandate some or all of these, in varying degrees.
One last, but key point about oil in the modern world. I suggest and hope that anyone reading this thread reads the excellent book, The Prize, by Daniel Yergin. He won the Pulitzer Prize for this work. In The Prize, Yergin demonstrates that oil is too important to be left to the control of the marketplace. He is correct in this. Oil is a strategic resource, perhaps better stated it is THE strategic resource. In time of war, only oil can be depended on to propel ships (other than the few nuclear powered ships), to propel aircraft through the skies, to propel tanks and other vehicles and weapons over the land, and even generate electricity in remote areas.
Because oil is so important strategically, many countries have restricted access to their oil – including the United States. Oil is too precious to waste and must be conserved in the ground against those dark days when foreign supplies are cut off, but a country must wage war. There will never be any drilling on the West Coast, nor the East Coast, nor a large part of the Gulf of Mexico, and likely not ever in the ANWR, either, despite loud claims that we should stop importing oil and develop our own fields. Producing that oil is total suicide, and is very myopic. As I said in my speech to Tulane Law School, and wrote in my blog piece on Peak OIl, “Drill, Baby, Drill is Dumb, Baby, Dumb.” http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/speech-on-peak-oil-and-us-energy-policy.html
Peak Oil is a myth.
Roger Sowell:
While I agree with your conclusion, “Peak Oil is a myth,” I disagree with your reasoning.
As a resident of California, you know oil companies already have drilled on the West Coast (California) and while there was a moritorium on new platforms. the old platforms have been modernized with multiple wells (a couple have over 5 wells to each platform).
Your “strategic reserves for war” proposition has some validity. But the time from initial exploration to production would be too long if there was a total cut-off in imports. This would not be satifactory to sustain the nation’s military or domestic needs during that time frame.
This is a democratic republic and so if the People want access to those oil deposits you mention, private companies should have an opportunity for exploration & production.
I would argue that having those oil deposits online before any war is stategically the better policy position. Not to mention having more domestic oil supplies puts America in a better stategic position which would discourage foreign countries from playing the “oil card”.
Interestingly enough, those California offshore oil wells have been pumping oil for multiple decades and still pump plenty of oil (given the restrictions placed on exploration & production).
As Admiral Mullins, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, the greatest threat to America is economic — It is in America’s stategic national interest to produce those hydrocarbons, so America does not turn into a potemkin village.
Richard Wakefield said: “The source rocks for Tupi has been identifie…”
HYDROCARBON PRODUCTION FROM FRACTURED BASEMENT FORMATIONS Version 5.1 (1999)
http://www.hendersonpetrophysics.com/fractures2.html
Take the time to review all the oil fields that have their origin from basement rocks.
Sedimentary rock acts as a trapping sturcture as the oil rises from below.
Oil has been found that has a temperature hotter than 400 degrees Fahrenheit in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Brazil, disproving the “oil window” hypothesis.
@James Baldwin F. Evans,
“Your “strategic reserves for war” proposition has some validity. But the time from initial exploration to production would be too long if there was a total cut-off in imports. This would not be satifactory to sustain the nation’s military or domestic needs during that time frame.”
It is well-known that the nation must have a viable oil industry, with fields identified and some production occurring. This is why the US continues to produce several million barrels of oil per day and does not rely solely on imports. It is also a myth that oil production takes years to bring oil online. Many fields can be producing in a matter of months or even weeks. Finally, the US has done what many other countries have done, established a large strategic oil reserve. The US has a different name, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and has now stored many million barrels of oil there. The public is told that this is for use in a supply crisis, but the more important reason is for a buffer in time of war when supplies are cut off. The SPR, coupled with rationing, allows us time to increase domestic production while still prosecuting the war effort.
“This is a democratic republic and so if the People want access to those oil deposits you mention, private companies should have an opportunity for exploration & production.”
It doesn’t work that way, where oil fields are located on Federal or State lands. The appropriate government owns the rights to the oil (and any other minerals). The government decides which, if any, areas to place up for bid for drilling rights, and when. The private companies have the right to bid on and drill on those leaseholds that the government makes available. This is also true for other minerals and resources such as timber.
As to the production off-shore California, that is true for the few platforms and close-to-shore production within the state’s jurisdiction of 3 miles offshore. The federal waters are off-limits, as I wrote. The federal waters begin at the 3 mile limit and extend to the national boundary many miles out to sea. Recently, oil companies have requested a permit from the California Coastal Commission to drill into known oil deposits offshore, and have been denied. See: Plains Exploration and Production company’s bid to drill the Tranquillon Ridge oil field, just north and offshore from Santa Barbara. I attended the Coastal Commission hearing in which the request was denied by a 2-1 vote of the 3-member Commission.
The existing off-shore California production is part of the domestic oil production I mentioned earlier, approximately 5 to 6 million barrels of oil per day.
RE: Philip Nolan: (August 10, 2011 at 3:01 pm)
As oil becomes more expensive there will be voluntary moves to other sources, and there is more than enough time so there is no need to panic.
Quite right. There is no need to panic. For the most part, it is out of our hands. It is just the way it’s going be.
“Yesterday the President of the largest gold mining and production company, Barrick Gold, noted that after ten years of declining production it is time to recognize that the world has seen the peak in gold production.” (The Oil Drum, November 14, 2009)