Guest post by David Middleton
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently released an outline of his plan to achieve “North American energy independence” by 2020. While the white paper (1) is short on specific details, it does contain quite a few good ideas and some supporting documentation. For anyone interested in a business plan approach to energy policy, it’s well worth reading. Rather than focus on the details of the plan, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to see if “North American energy independence by 2020” was even technically possible. If it’s not technically possible, then it’s not really relevant whether or not it would be economically advisable or politically achievable. Since North America already pretty well has the capacity to be energy independent in terms of coal, natural gas, uranium and electricity generation, I’m only going to look at oil and natural gas liquids.
So, without any further prologue, I’m going to jump right into some numbers.
Can we “get there from here”?
According to the American Petroleum Institute (2) the current estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable Federal resources (UTRR-Fed) of crude oil currently stands at 116.3 billion barrels.
The UTRR-Fed are concentrated in areas close to existing exploration and exploitation infrastructure. The Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and the Lower 48 States comprise 88% of the UTRR-Fed.
| Region | Offshore/Onshore | Billions of Barrels of Crude Oil | % | Cum. % |
| Gulf of Mexico | Offshore | 44.9 | 39% | 39% |
| Alaska | Offshore | 26.6 | 23% | 61% |
| Alaska | Onshore | 18.8 | 16% | 78% |
| Lower 48 | Onshore | 11.7 | 10% | 88% |
| Pacific | Offshore | 10.5 | 9% | 97% |
| Atlantic | Offshore | 3.8 | 3% | 100% |
| Total | 116.3 | 100% |
There is no reason that these potential resources could not be exploited within the next few decades if the U.S. government adopted regulatory policies geared toward exploitation.
If industry converted the UTRR-Fed into proved developed producing reserves of crude oil over the next 25 years, this is what might happen to U.S. domestic crude oil production:
I think that it is technically possible that US crude oil and natural gas liquid production could reach 14.4 million BOPD by 2028 and peak at 15.7 million BOPD by 2032. If U.S. demand remained in the 18-20 million BOPD range, the United States could come very close to being self-sufficient in crude oil. I also took the liberty of including 73 billion barrels of Green River Oil Shale production from 2022-2100 (more on this later).
Canada expects to double its oil production by 2030 (3). Assuming that Canada’s domestic consumption remains stable and the U.S. remains Canada’s primary export market, Canadian imports could also be expected to double by 2030. While Mexican oil production is currently in decline and Pemex is one of the most poorly managed national oil companies (NOC) in the world, Mexico has huge potential in the area of undiscovered resources (4). Mexico does have the potential to stabilize its current production levels. If Canada doubles its production by 2030 and continues to increase its production through the end of this century and Mexico stabilizes at roughly its current levels, this is what U.S. domestic production plus Canadian and Mexican imports might look like:
Based on these numbers, North American energy independence could be achieved by 2027.
116 billion barrels of ”undiscovered technically recoverable oil” is equal to about 16 years worth of current US consumption. However, past history shows us that gov’t agencies always grossly underestimate what the oil industry will find and produce. Alaska’s North Slope has already produced 16 billion barrels of petroleum liquids. Currently developed areas will ultimately produce a total of about 30 billion barrels. The government’s original forecast for the North Slope’s total production was 10 billion barrels. The current USGS estimate for undiscovered oil in the Bakken play of Montana & North Dakota is 25 times larger than the same agency’s 1995 estimate. In 1987, the MMS undiscovered resource estimate for the Gulf of Mexico was 9 billion barrels. Today it is 45 billion barrels (2).
The MMS increased the estimate of undiscovered oil in the Gulf of Mexico from 9 billion barrels in 1987 to the current 45 billion barrels because we discovered a helluva a lot more than 9 billion barrels in the Gulf over the last 20 years. Almost all of the large US fields discovered since 1988 were discovered in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. In 1988, it was unclear whether or not the deepwater plays would prove to be economic.The largest field in the Gulf of Mexico, Shell’s Mars Field, was discovered in 1989. Prior to this discovery, no one thought that economically viable Miocene-aged or older reservoirs existed in deepwater. Mars has produced 1 billion barrels of oil and 1.25 TCF of natural gas since coming on line in 1996. It is currently producing over 100,000 barrels of oil per day. Dozens of Mars-class fields have been discovered over the last 20 years… Most of those have only barely come on line over the last 5 years.
The most significant play in the Gulf of Mexico, the Lower Tertiary, wasn’t even a figment of anyone’s imagination in 1988. These are massive discoveries – BP’s recently discovered Tiber Field on Keathly Canyon Block 102 is estimated to contain 3-6 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Several recently discovered fields are expected to come on line at more than 100,000 bbl/day. This play is still in its infancy.
Based on the gov’t’s track record, the estimated 116 billion barrels of undiscovered oil under Federal lands is more likely to be 680 billion barrels. That’s close to 100 years worth of current US consumption – And that’s just the undiscovered oil under Federal mineral leases.
When you factor in shale oil (kerogen) plays, the numbers become staggering. The Green River formation oil shale has more than 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil just in the Piceance Basin of Colorado.
- There are at least 1.8 trillion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil in just the Green River formation (DOE).
- Oil shale deposits like the Green River formation (technically a marl) are currently economic at sustained oil prices of $54/bbl, possibly as low as $35/bbl (DOE).
In my hypothetical production forecast, I projected Green River oil shale production to reach 15 million BOPD by 2096. Am I being overly optimistic in projecting more than 15 million barrels per day (BOPD) of production from oil shales by 2100? 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 (5):
Technical Viability and Commercial Readiness (pp 18-24)
Shell has tested its in-situ process at a very small scale on Shell’s private holdings in the Piceance Basin. The energy yield of the extracted liquid and gas is equal to that predicted by the standardized assay test.13 The heating energy required for this process equals about one-sixth the energy value of the extracted product. These tests have indicated that the process may be technically and economically viable.
This approach requires no subsurface mining and thus may be capable of achieving high resource recovery in the deepest and thickest portions of the U.S. oil shale resource. Most important, the Shell in-situ process can be implemented without the massive disturbance to land that would be caused by the only other method capable of high energy/resource recovery—namely, deep surface mining combined with surface retorting. The footprint of this approach is exceptionally small. When applied to the thickest oil shale deposits of the Piceance Basin, drilling in about 150 acres per year could support sustained production of a half-million barrels of oil per day and 500 billion cubic feet per year of natural gas.
[…]
Once oil shale development reaches the production growth stage, how fast and how large the industry grows will depend on the economic competitiveness of shale derived oil with other liquid fuels and on how the issues raised in Chapter Five are ultimately resolved. If long lead-time activities are started in the prior stage, the first follow-on commercial operations could begin production within four years. Counting from the start of the production growth stage and assuming that 200,000 barrels per day of increased production capacity can be added each year, total production would reach 1 million barrels per day in seven years, 2 million barrels per day in 12 years, and 3 million barrels in 17 years.
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.
The hydrocarbon characteristics of the the oil shales of the Green River formation in the Piceance Basin are superior to those of the Athabasca oil sands. The hydrocarbon areal density is about 13 times that of the Athabasca deposits. The Green River hydrocarbons are not technically “oil;” it’s a form of kerogen. But, for or refining purposes, it’s oil. It will be booked as oil, just like the Athabasca tar sand oil is. It’s a high-grade refinery feedstock…
Canada is currently producing ~ 1 million barrels of oil per day from Athabasca oil sand deposits. They expect to increase that to 2 million barrels per day over the next decade. The Green River oil shale deposits in the Piceance basin could easily outperform Athabasca within a decade and with a much smaller environmental footprint.
Athabasca oil sands are currently economically competitive with the OPEC basket. Green River formation oil shales are superior, by a wide margin, to Athabasca oil sands. The Green River oil shales would yield 100,000 bbl of 38° API sweet refinery feed per 160,000 tons of ore & overburden. Athabasca oil sands yield 100,000 bbl of 34° sweet refinery feed per 430,000 tons of ore & overburden. The unconventional oil is actually very light and very sweet; the OPEC Basket is actually heavier (32.7° API).
Athabasca is economically competitive now. Green River could be economically competitive now. The only obstacles to US energy security are environmental terrorists activists and the U.S. government.
“Peak Oil,” if it exists, won’t be reached for hundreds of years if the U.S. government would just get out of the way. About 80% of the most prospective Green River deposits are under Federal leases. The Obama administration effectively blocked exploitation of the Green River oil shale earlier this year.
Does Policy Matter?
Bad policy certainly matters. “One bipartisan policy tradition is to deny Americans the use of our own resources” (6):
The Obama administration’s energy policy has been disastrous as it relates to oil production. While it is true that U.S. domestic oil production has been rising over the last few years, all of the growth has come from onshore plays in Texas and North Dakota:
Some of the Texas (less than 1%) and North Dakota (~11%) production is from Federal leases. I downloaded the onshore Federal lease production data for Texas and North Dakota from Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONRR) and subtracted the minuscule Federal lease production from the State and private lease production in those two States. I added that to theFederal Gulf of Mexico production (the GOM is the Big Kahuna of Federal lease oil production):
All of the net growth in US domestic oil production since 2009 has come from State and private leases in Texas and North Dakota.
Since President Obama took office, Federal lease oil production in the GOM, TX and ND has declined by 79 million barrels per year; while State and private lease production in TX & ND has grown by 205 million barrels per year. The decline in Gulf of Mexico has occurred during a period of high oil prices and is directly attributable to the unlawful drilling moratorium and “permitorium” imposed in the wake of the Macondo blowout and oil spill. Drilling permits that once took 30 days to be approved now take more than 300 days. Even relatively simple things like the approval of development plan (DOCD) revisions are being drawn out to nearly 300 days. The average delays for independent oil companies are currently 1.4 years on the shelf and almost 2 years in deepwater (7):
Between the “permitorium” and high product prices, many of the best, most capable drilling rigs have been moved overseas. Once we manage to get permits approved, the delays in obtaining a rig can be almost as long as the permit delays were. In this “dynamic regulatory environment,” wells can’t be drilled quickly enough to compensate for decline rates, much less to increase production.
References:
(1) Romney for President, Inc. 2012. “The Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class: Energy Independence.”
(2) American Petroleum Institute. 2012. “Energizing America: Facts for Addressing Energy Policy.”
(3) CBC News. 2012. Canadian oil production to double by 2030, industry predicts.
(4) Talwani, Manik. 2011. “Oil and Gas in Mexico: Geology, Production Rates and Reserves.” James Baker III Institute for Public Policy.
(5) Bartis, James T. 2005. “Oil shale development in the United States : prospects and policy issues.” RAND Corporation.
(6) Ford, Harold. 2011. “Washington vs. Energy Security.” The Wall Street Journal.
(7) Quest Offshore. 2o11. “The State of the Offshore U.S. Oil and Gas Industry.”
EIA. US Crude Oil & Petroleum Liquids Consumption
EIA. US Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production
EIA. US Crude Oil and Natural Gas Condensate Production
No more than the Peak Oilers can defend their pet theory. On the whole, the notion of abiotic oil is a lot less ridiculous than Peak Oil. However, there’s simply no evidence that significant volumes of abiotic oil exist anywhere on Earth.
Even if oil was abiotic and the product of some mythical mantle process, it would alter how we look for it or where we find it. The oil has to migrate from its source and accumulate in reservoir rocks from which we can economically produce it.
Here’s a short list of things that do not support the abiotic oil theory:
Here’s a comprehensive list of things that might indicate than abiotic oil is possible.
Plenty oil, but at a price. To be economically recoverable the price will stay between 70-100 $ a barrel. That price level will provide a strong incentive for fuel efficiency, possibly even reducing total demand in an expanding economy. The target of 2020 may not be so unreachable after all.
Correction: Even if oil was abiotic and the product of some mythical mantle process, it wouldn’t alter how we look for it or where we find it.
David Middleton:
Thankyou for your responses to me at August 31, 2012 at 7:09 am and especially at August 31, 2012 at 7:10 am.
To be clear, I agree what you say.
Richard
<
EROEI is to accounting what Trofim Lysenko was to science. EROEI is even dopier than AGW and Peak Oil. I don’t spend energy to fill my tank. I don’t give energy back to the gas & electric companies in exchange for them being nice enough to heat and light my home. My company doesn’t drill for oil & gas to make energy.
I spend money to fill my tank. My company drills wells for oil & gas to make money. My gas & electric bills are paid for with money. My pay check, ExxonMobil & Shell credit card statements and checks to the gas & electric companies aren’t denominated in joules, kilowatts or btu – They are denominated in $.
I don’t give a rat’s @ur momisugly$$ if 1 barrel of amoeba flatulence uses less energy to produce than 1 barrel of crude oil… Because the barrel of amoeba flatulence costs $800 and can’t be produced in sufficient quantities to be waiting for me at the Exxon or Shell station when I need it.
If oil companies (or any businesses) used EROEI to guide their investment decisions, they would go out of business (unless the gov’t was footing the bill).
Regarding the Green River Oil Shale of the Piceance Basin, see pages 20-21 and 50-51 of Bartis, James T. 2005. “Oil shale development in the United States : prospects and policy issues.” RAND Corporation.
The in situ recovery process proposed by Shell requires 250-300 kWh of electricity per barrel of oil. That’s roughly 1 million BTU of electricity to produce 5.8 million BTU of oil. Production would require about 1.2 GW of generation capacity per 100,000 BOPD. The electricity could be provided by gas-fired generation, fueled by the associated gas production. The Piceance Basin has more than adequate water supply to support at least 3 million BOPD of production. The primary constraint was water supply infrastructure, currently only capable of supporting ~400,000 BOPD. Water would be the biggest hurdle in the path of growing above 3 million BOPD of production. Hurdles get hurdled all the time.
cw00p:
At August 31, 2012 at 7:24 am you ask
Mexico and Canada are net energy exporters and each is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. I think you will find all the information you require at these links
http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=MX
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/nrgyftr/2011/nrgsppldmndprjctn2035-eng.html
You may want to use some of the links from the URL for the Mexican data.
I find the Canadian information is an especially concise but comprehensive useful analysis. The analysis at that URL concludes
I hope that is sufficient and what you wanted.
Richard
to Richards Courtney
We are maxed out on rigs and personnel presently and many experienced people will be retiring in a few years. Petroleum engineers are not being graduated in enough numbers to increase our production rate. In other words we are limited in our ability to produce oil while demand continues to increase. Also the peak in oil discoveries was in the mid 1960s. Thr Bakken shale oil reserves while large are much more difficult to drill and they produce at a much lower rate per well than with regular wells. Similarly for dep sea oil.
curt lampkin:
re your post addressed to me at August 31, 2012 at 9:08 am .
It is possible that there may soon be a shortage of qualified petroleum engineers. If so, then that may delay new oil production while additional engineers are trained. But such a delay would merely be temporary because oil producing companies and countries would pay for the training.
If the Bakken shale and deep sea oil sources are needed then the technologies will be developed for extraction of those sources.
Keep posting this stuff if you like, but none of it supports the economically illiterate notion of ‘peak oil’.
Richard
Technical and economics issues aside, Americans elected Barack Obama into office. Here’s a quote from him during his 2008 campaign:
“under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.
That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election. People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks…they’re going to destroy the economy.
This is going to cost us 8 trillion dollars or whatever their number is.”
Here’s a link to audio of interview, listen to it in his own words:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/02/obama-energy-prices-will-skyrocket
richardscourtney says:
August 31, 2012 at 6:27 am
Friends:
Can those using this thread to promote ideas of abiotic oil please explain the relevance – if any – of their pet theory to the subject of this thread.
======================================
Richard, if you are not familiar with the theory of abiotic oil, google “Thomas Gold”. The continental drift fiasco in the 20th century, where a theory proposed by Alfred Wegner was pretty much universally derided by geologists then found to be essentially correct, seems to have injected some humility into the science, So Gold’s work is treated politely by geologists — possibly more politely than it deserves.
If you are asking what relevance abiotic oil has to immediate energy issues, the answer is probably none.
(BTW, surely it should be ‘abiotic natural gas’ rather than ‘abiotic oil’ Most of the interior of the Earth is quite warm — outside the “oil window” (very roughly 60C-120C) of temperatures where oil, once formed, is stable and doesn’t break down into natural gas).
Rig availability won’t that big of a problem, if a reasonable regulatory environment is restored. The 12-15 rigs that left the Gulf since Macondo will come back if a predictable workload is there and new rigs will be built. Margins tend to be higher here than overseas. Most of those service assets will come back once “rule of law” is restored to permitting and regulation. On the other hand, if Gov. Romney loses, as many as 20 more rigs will head overseas.
The graying of the industry is a bigger problem. I started in 1981 during a period of expansion. Things slowed down in 1983 and crashed in 1986. The US oil industry was in a state of depression from 1986 through about 1994. There was a brief rebound from 1995-1998 and then a big crash in 1999. I recall commenting that, “less people were being laid off, but this time it seemed like I knew them all.” The lack of college recruiting and the layoffs effectively left the industry with a very narrow age demographic. Almost everyone I know is in their 50’s.
From an exploration standpoint, the current workforce is far more productive than it was 20-30 years ago. When I started, seismic interpretation and mapping was done by hand on paper and 3d seismic was a novelty. Today, almost everything is done on computer workstations and 3d seismic is the norm. The imaging capabilities are orders of magnitude better than they were just 10 years ago. A staff of 3-4 geo’s in 2012 can carry the workload of a staff of 20 1982 geo’s. But, clearly, the AAPG, SEG and SPE need to “kick it up a notch” when it comes to encouraging students to pursue STEM educations in general and geoscience/petroleum engineering in particular.
US operable refinery capacity currently stands at about 17.7 million barrels per day. In 2011, the average utilization rate in 2011 was 86%.
While it’s true that no new refineries have been built in the US in decades, the capacity of existing refineries has grown by 13% since 1985. The US has adequate refinery capacity to triple our domestic crude oil production. Last year, US refiners were actually net exporters of refined petroleum products (~734,000 barrels per day).
Don K:
Yes, I am familiar with Gold’s ideas. I am not capable of assessing if his ideas about abiotic oil and gas have any substance, but I know with absolute certainty that his ideas bout abiotic coal are plain wrong (I was responsible for conducting maceral analysis in the past).
But as David Middleton explains, whether or not abiotic oil exists has no relevance to the subject of this thread.
Richard
On the subject of abiotic oil: About 25 years ago I was sitting in a NASA conference room at Marshall Space Flight Center listening to Sir Fred Hoyle expounding his belief that all oil and natural gas in the Solar system is created biotically. One of the NASA guys near me raised his hand and said: “Hey, wait a minute! That would mean the methane on the outer planets and moons was created by living organisms!”
“Yes, exactly” was Sir Fred’s response. Interesting, but probably not relevant to this thread.
Abiotic methane appears to be abundant on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system. Oil is a far more complex hydrocarbon than CH4.
Romney would be smart to turn the Federal leases over to the States, with intelligent oversight of course, but holding some leases for strategic purposes. The potential revenue to each State would encourage them to help move along the process of energy independence. Build more nuclear, coal and gas plants while encouraging electricity use, where it can replace oil/gasoline, and indepedence could easily be acheived in 20 years and really help to improve the economy. .
Re
Gail Combs says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:44 pm
“Don’t hold your breath that Romney will actually allow more fossil fuel. His statements show he is on the Global warming/CO2 is EVIL bandwagon.
I wonder how Mitt’s ““North American energy independence” by 2020. fits in with the Bush and Clinton and Obama Administrations commitment to Agenda 21? As far as I can tell all he is doing is repackaging the same old UN totalitarian crap.”
Gail, Glad you raised this question
I read through Romney’s plan for energy independence by 2020 and it appears to be an all out effort to develop fossil energy in the US and North America. As I read it Romney has thrown out all the previous commitments to reduce development of fosil fuels to reduce global warming. Did I miss something?
You do raise an excellent point about the UN agenda which has been hidden from the public. While Obama’s actions appear the support the UN proposition, I find it hard to believe a Republican Senate would ever ratify such a UN Treaty.
I would like to think that Romney has grown since his comments in 2007, certainly much of the rest of the nation has become aware of the the global warming fraud and there is more balance due to sites such as this one. Global warming does not even appear on the radar today after being a major issue in 2008
I would love to have the UN issue part of the debate for the election. I doubt the MSM will allow this to be discussed since they don’t want the citizens to know it’s provisions and how we could be sold out.
For reference the Romney energy plan is indicated below again:
http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/energy_policy_white_paper_8.23.pdf
Thorium! Thorium is the solution to the energy problem. If I was President, this would be my platform.
Jeff B. says:
August 31, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Practical thorium power on a scale sufficient to effect a significant shift from current fuels is probably 20 or more years off, assuming we get serious about it Real Soon Now.
Global economic collapse is a lot closer. At present trends the US will be Greece in 10 years — perhaps as few as 5. By the time we go over the cliff we’ll be following Britian, France, Italy, Spain and quite likely Germany as well. We’d better find some other way to keep our industrial civilization going in the years between now and whenever thorium power can assume a major role.
Keeping coal-fired plants operating another 20 years may have some harmful health effects. Throwing another million people out of work will do a lot worse.
If I were President I would offer a bi-partisan compromise: legalize pot and tax it, start approving oil & gas exploration leases and build the Keystone pipeline. Oh, and tell the NRC they have 180 days to develop and publish regulations governing R&D on commercial thorium reactors.
Another note on the energy efficiency of the Green River oil shale:
Thr associated natural gas production is expected to be 2.7 MCF per barrel. 1 MCF of gas generates about 100 kWh of electricity. Each barrel of oil will yiled enough gas to generate about 270 kWh of electricity, Each barrel of oil will require 250-300 kWh of electricity to produce. The associated gas will provide at least 90% of the electricty required to produce the oil.
Gail Combs says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Don’t hold your breath that Romney will actually allow more fossil fuel. His statements show he is on the Global warming/CO2 is EVIL bandwagon.
I wonder how Mitt’s ““North American energy independence” by 2020. fits in with the Bush and Clinton and Obama Administrations commitment to Agenda 21? As far as I can tell all he is doing is repackaging the same old UN totalitarian crap.
Gail,
Note that the GOP platform has added opposition the the Agenda 21!!
Do you think the Dem platform will incorporate similar opposition?
I don’t. See below:
“One of the new additions to the Republican Party platform is opposition to Agenda 21. In its section on leadership in international organizations, the platform now reads, “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty, and we oppose any form of U.N. Global Tax.” I’m glad they added this language to the platform, but I wonder how many people who voted in favor of this addition know what Agenda 21 is.”
“Agenda 21 is a plan put forth by the United Nations that seeks to implement “sustainable development.” Nebulous government-speak terms like “smart meters,” “smart growth,” “sustainable communities,” “greenways,” and my personal favorite, “social justice” all have to do with the U.N.’s Agenda 21. On the surface, sure they sound good. Why would we not be in favor of “smart” things and “sustainability?” Why would we not be in favor of “social justice?” They sound like things we could be in favor of, but what do they mean by them?”
Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/agenda-21-and-why-is-the-gop-now-opposed-to-it/#ixzz25Ev6MKh7
I would strongly disagree with Shells method of in-situ recovery because it leaves too much karogen in the ground. Open pit mining with structured back fill would leave the basin in better shape than it is currently. Near the center of the basin the karogen holding formation is about 2000 feet thick. If we mined the who thing, we would only disturb 350 acres each year to yield 1 million barrels per day.
The larger problems are with air quality during the winter when inversions set in and trap all of the particulates and pollution.
Why wait until 2020? A good war in the Middle East would guaranty energetic independance within months! Shales and quite a few renewables would instantly become competitive and consumption would also fall quite drastically as prices rise until… demand meets production on the way down. But whatever the scenario, 2 dollar per gallon is not coming back. Unless a huge pool of abiotic sludge is found under congress.
Is it possible that oil is actually not a fossil fuel? I’ve often wondered at the enormous volume of oil that exists in the earth and have trouble reconciling this huge volume with how much life on earth has possibly existed in the millions of years of earth’s history. It just seems like there’s too much oil for it to all have come from organic life.
But then again, I’ve never analyzed the numbers in any detail.
Dispelling one more enviro-fraud – Water and the Athabasca Oilsands
The Athabasca River is one of the most regulated streams on the planet. The radical enviros have tried to claim this river is in terrible danger, and have even alleged that the river is horribly contaminated due to development of the Athabasca oilsands. This is false.
The Athabasca River naturally cuts through the Athabasca oilsands and is in direct contact with the oilsands deposits. It has been this way for millennia. The river is exposed to some natural contamination from the oilsands and some possible minor industrial contamination, but it is intensely monitored for water quality. Furthermore, Athabasca River water quality monitoring is being intensified.
One of my favorite alarmist stories is how the water demands of the Athabasca oilsands are “draining the river dry”. One professor even held a conference called “Running Out of Steam”. One would assume that the oilsands industry must drain well over 50% of the Athabasca river’s flow, perhaps even 70%, 80% or even 90%!
In fact, the entire Athabasca oilsands industry consumes just 1% of annual Athabasca river flow. In comparison, the monthly river flow in a typical high-flow Spring month is ten times (1000%) that of a typical low-flow winter month, and yet the fish survive that huge variation in their natural habitat with apparent ease.
The truth is the river habitat is materially unaffected by oilsands water withdrawals, especially since these water withdrawals are curtailed during periods of low river flow.
Another great enviro-fraud was the alleged mutant “two-jawed fish” found in Lake Athabasca – in fact it was a normal dead goldeye, in a normal state of decay.
One should be very skeptical of the scary claims of the environmental movement – in my experience, the claims of the radical enviros over recent decades have all proven to be wildly overstated and fundamentally false.