Peak Oil

[razorsharp]

<p>

We need a comprehensive energy policy in which ordinary Americans actually have to make sacrifices for our future.

</p>

<p>What would such a policy be?</p>

[mapesy]

<p>Off the top of my head, here are a few ideas:</p>

<p>-Substantial gasoline tax (with rebates for lower income taxpayers)</p>

<p>-Reduction of interstate speed limits</p>

<p>-Additional taxes for households whose electricity usage is higher than average</p>

<p>-Additional tax on the purchase of large SUVs </p>

<p>-National campaign asking Americans to lower thermostats in winter and raise them in summer; turn off lights; turn off computers and small appliances when not in use</p>

<p>On a governmental level, we could start with federal legislation to streamline licensing of new nuclear power plants and the approval of nuclear power sites.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

On a governmental level, we could start with federal legislation to streamline licensing of new nuclear power plants and the approval of nuclear power sites.

Yay.</p>

<p>

Reduction of interstate speed limits

Nay.</p>

<p>

-Additional taxes for households whose electricity usage is higher than average</p>

<p>-Additional tax on the purchase of large SUVs

Nay.</p>

<p>If you’re gonna increase gasoline taxes, this would crimp SUV sales anyway.
Don’t tax people to death…you’ll stifle economic growth.</p>

<p>

-National campaign asking Americans to lower thermostats in winter and raise them in summer; turn off lights; turn off computers and small appliances when not in use

California does this…it’s called “Flex Your Power”.</p>

<p>IMO, provide tax incentives for development of renewables.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>I believe in peak oil. I don’t know if it’s happened already, but I believe it will happen in the next 5 years. I don’t believe any planning needs to be done for it. I believe consumers will adjust their priorities well with what their price level is. I believe companies will come up with suitable alternatives. I believe that energy investment is at an all time high right now.</p>

[SBmom]

<p>Those interested in peak oil: you may want to read “The Long Emergency.”</p>

[overseas]

<p>Thanks for the tip…I concur with some of his ideas. BBC had a documentary on this several years ago. It may have been driven by the book.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>Leonid Fedun, an executive with Lukoil, believes Russian oil production has peaked. Russia is the world’s biggest oil producer and the second largest oil exporter. Until recently, it was considered “the most promising oil region outside the Middle East”:</p>

<p>[FT.com</a> / In depth - Fears emerge over Russia?s oil output](<a href=“Fears emerge over Russia’s oil output”>Fears emerge over Russia’s oil output)</p>

[mapesy]

<p>For those who think ANWR is the answer:</p>

<p>

The Arctic refuge would provide a six-month supply of oil – which would not be available for ten years. According to the 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study, there is estimated to be 3.2 - 5.2 billion barrels of economically-recoverable oil in the Arctic refuge. This is equivalent to the amount of oil the United States consumes in about six months. According to the Congressional Research Service, production from the Arctic refuge would not come on line for ten years (RS21030, October, 17, 2005).</p>

<p>The Arctic refuge would not reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. We cannot drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States currently relies on foreign imports for about 58 percent of its oil. America has approximately three percent of the world’s oil reserves but consumes 25 percent of the world’s oil. At peak production, the EIA estimated in 2004 that oil generated from the Arctic refuge would account for only 3 to 4 percent of U.S. consumption.</p>

<p>The Arctic refuge would not affect current oil or gasoline prices. The price of oil is a world price, and is largely determined by the international market. The EIA said in March 2004 that the effect on world oil prices of developing the Arctic refuge’s oil resources “is not expected to be significant.” The impact on gasoline prices—when the oil becomes available in ten years—would be similarly negligible at only a penny per gallon.</p>

<p>Ninety-five percent of Alaska’s North Slope is already open to oil and gas drilling. Ninety-five percent of the potential oil reserves of Alaska’s North Slope are already designated for potential leasing or open to exploration and drilling. The last five percent—the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge—is the only wild stretch of the coast of Alaska’s North Slope that remains off-limits. Established by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960, the Arctic refuge remains the only conservation area in North America that protects a complete range of arctic and sub-arctic landscapes…

</p>

<p>[America</a> Can Do Better: Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Would Not Increase Energy Independence](<a href=“http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-printable.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-1-122]America”>http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-printable.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-1-122)</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>We should be drilling for oil in ANWR because every drop of oil we get is one less drop of oil we have to buy from countries that hate us and are trying to destroy us. It is a national security issue not an environmental issue.</p>

[LongPrime]

<p>And the those countries with US dollars will outbid the US for that oil. </p>

<p>In the meantime, burn that stuff until its going out of style. Use it or lose it, I always say.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

And the those countries with US dollars will outbid the US for that oil.

Nonsense. The price of oil is set on the world market that does not include the cost of transportation. China would not buy ANWR oil with high shipping costs when it can get the same oil from a closer neighbor with lower shipping costs to China. </p>

<p>The US gets much of its imported oil from Canada and Mexico becaues they are close neighbors and shipping costs are lower than other getting it from many other countries.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>I wasn’t posting about the oil in ANWR from a political or environmental perspective. The point of my previous post is that the oil in ANWR is just a drop in the bucket of US oil consumption. Drilling in ANWR would have little effect on the Peak Oil problem (if Peak Oil is indeed a problem.)</p>

[mapesy]

<p>This month, Connecticut became the first state to be proactive about the impact of Peak Oil on its citizens:</p>

<p>

Peak Oil: Everything is going to change
STATE REP. TERRY BACKER
Article Last Updated: 05/16/2008 08:07:22 PM EDT</p>

<p>There is little government can do about the price of oil. That is not what people want to hear. Yet it is a fact. The U.S. government and all the states have no “Plan B.” They continue to rely on a delusional “Plan A” — more oil and cheaper oil all the time. Politicians, generally asleep at the wheel on this issue, have been shocked into trying to do something about the current and future problems arising from oil costs. They are spinning around looking for someone to blame, dazed by the precipitous rise from $50 per barrel last January to $126 this past week.</p>

<p>In an election year, members of Congress are beating the bushes trying to escape the fallout of their years of dozing in their seats. They point at speculation, greedy profit takers or big oil companies, perhaps all true to one extent or another. However, despite the rising chorus of voices pointing out rising demand coinciding with falling or flat production, they seem to be ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room that is “Peak Oil” production. Just a few years ago, Mexico, Russia, Norway, England and Indonesia were producing vast amounts of oil for the world market. Today, England and Indonesia are net importers of oil, Russia’s production is flat, Norway’s production is falling and Mexico has informed us that their giant oil field, Canterall, is in terminal decline and may not be able to export after 2015.</p>

<p>Neither drilling in Alaska, the continental shelf or other ultra-deep-water sites will change the
Advertisement
trends of less and more expensive oil. Only changing our infrastructure and consumption patterns will preserve somewhat our current lifestyle.</p>

<p>Connecticut broke out of the pack this month to become the first state in the country to make a major step forward in planning for the increasingly high cost and reduced availability of petroleum. With only 15 minutes remaining until the end of the 2008 General Assembly session, the state Senate approved by unanimous consent and sent to Gov. M. Jodi Rell the “Energy Scarcity and Security” bill.</p>

<p>The measure requires the state to develop a planning scenario model that will predict impacts based on the price of oil. The model will predict future impacts on heating, transportation, food cost, road paving, fleet operations, education, public health I think you get the idea. The outputs of the model will guide us in formulating Plans B, C and D for the state.</p>

<p>The model won’t make more oil or cheaper oil; it will reveal to us the impacts on our citizens and our state before they happen. It will allow the Legislature and municipal governments to reprioritize what is possible and what is not.</p>

<p>Thanks to the members of the Connecticut Legislative Peak Oil and Natural Gas Caucus, state government opened its eyes for a quick peek into the future. A small awareness has begun in the Legislature, but it is not an understanding. The public now must educate itself about the issues of oil supply and help lead its government to make the changes that will surely be painful, but needed.</p>

<p>State Rep. Terry Backer is co-founder of the Connecticut Peak Oil and Natural Gas Caucus and a member of the General Assembly’s Energy and Technologies Committee. He represents Stratford’s 121st Assembly District.</p>

<p>[Peak</a> Oil: Everything is going to change - The Connecticut Post Online](<a href=“http://www.connpost.com/ci_9286142?source=most_viewed]Peak”>http://www.connpost.com/ci_9286142?source=most_viewed)

</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

Drilling in ANWR would have little effect on the Peak Oil problem (if Peak Oil is indeed a problem.)

</p>

<p>I misunderstood your point. Yes, I think ANWR will not be enough to change Peak Oil. </p>

<p>My political and economic point is that oil is priced “at the margin”. Those who say it won’t affect the price of oil because there is not enough there are wrong. They are wrong. ANWR’s oil will affect the price of oil at the margin and may keep billions of dollars in American instead of going overseas. This is especially true given that historially once actual drilling begins even more oil is found than anticipated. The significans of ANWR oil will be even greater in five to seven years when the price of oil will be more than double what it is today.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

I wasn’t posting about the oil in ANWR from a political or environmental perspective. The point of my previous post is that the oil in ANWR is just a drop in the bucket of US oil consumption. Drilling in ANWR would have little effect on the Peak Oil problem (if Peak Oil is indeed a problem.)

I’ve never really understood this line of thinking as support for not drilling ANWR. No single project can solve energy problems. Not Ghawar or Tupi or the Prudhoe Bay or anything else. That’s not the point. The point is getting energy as cheaply as possible. The free market has already understood that oil is on it’s way out. Alternative energy is more funded now than it has ever been. That does not mean we shouldn’t be putting money towards developing other oil resources. Even if one dislikes gasoline, oil will still need to be produced, as it is extremely valuable for other reasons. ANWR will be drilled, the only question is when.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Even if ANWR only were pumped enough to meet 5% of our demand it would have a material downward impact on prices. It would also improve our balance of payments and the dollar.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>Many legislators believe we should save the oil in ANWR for a true emergency. If we are at or near Peak Oil, perhaps we should begin drilling today since it could take up to 10 years for ANWR oil to reach the market.</p>

<p>Daniel Weiss, energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington, says about ANWR oil: “Even if oil was flowing, it would be too small amount to reduce the price of crude or gasoline.”</p>

<p>Finally, I read an interesting article over the weekend. Martin Wolf of the Financial Times believes “speculators are only the messengers”:</p>

<p>

The market sets high oil prices to tell us what to do</p>

<p>By Martin Wolf</p>

<p>Published: May 14 2008 03:00 </p>

<p>Oil at $200 a barrel: that was the warning from Goldman Sachs, published last week. The real price is already at an all-time high (see chart). At $200 it would be twice as high as it was in any previous spike. Even so, it would be a mistake to focus in shock only on the short-term jump in prices. The bigger issues are longer term.</p>

<p>Here are three facts about oil: it is a finite resource; it drives the global transport system; and if emerging economies consumed oil as Europeans do, world consumption would jump by 150 per cent. What is happening today is an early warning of this stark reality. It is tempting to blame the prices on speculators and big bad oil companies. The reality is different…</p>

<p>…First, do not blame conspiracies by speculators, oil companies or even Opec. These are the messengers. The message is one of fundamental shifts in demand and supply. If speculators push prices up in response, they are helping the adjustment. Even if Opec keeps output back, it is preserving a valuable resource for the future…</p>

<p>[FT.com</a> / Home UK / UK - The market sets high oil prices to tell us what to do](<a href=“http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6c54e1a-2151-11dd-a0e6-000077b07658.html]FT.com”>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6c54e1a-2151-11dd-a0e6-000077b07658.html)

</p>

[tenisghs]

<p>Hello parents, my question has to do with cost-effective savings on gas:</p>

<p>I commute 45 miles to work one way and I’m trying to figure out if it is better for me to refill every half tank or when it is closer to empty. Thanks!</p>

[cottonwood513]

<p>? It depends on the price of gas at the half tank location and the</p>

<p>full tank location.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>If you wait until tomorrow to get gas, it’ll probably cost more than it does today at the rate things are going. Still, it’s probably not worth going out of your way to fill up your tank.</p>

<p>I recently started filling up my car when I get down to about 1/2 tank, but I’ve only partly been doing it because of rising gas prices. When I drove down the New Jersey turnpike a couple of weeks ago, I was horrified to see long, long lines at all the gas pumps. I’m sure it’s mostly because the NJ turnpike has the best gas prices in the area, but the lines brought back extremely unpleasant memories of gas shortages and rationing in the 70s. If it comes to that, I don’t want to get caught with an empty tank.</p>