If you believe that oil and gas companies conspired to receive record high profits, that oil supplies are diminishing and that gasoline companies purposely gouged — buckle up, because this will be a very rough ride.
Many shout about gas price gouging lately. Actually you are gouged when you have no choice but to pay some exorbitant fee for an absolutely necessary service or product. Paying $50 per gram for penicillin (one supplier) for allowing your daughter to live — that’s gouging. Non-life-threatening circumstances with products available through other vendors is not gouging. So many ogled at the alleged profits oil firms reported during this last quarter. But taking the initial investment, the total sales dollars and the actual profit margin of sales, you would see that most oil companies lately have made only 7-9 percent.
Many believe in M.K. Hubbert’s theory of “peak oil.” It says that production will peak and then decline while demand increases. Proponents theorize that oil is a fossil fuel from decaying forests and dinosaurs, and we are running out. But another theory argues that the science of oil is an “abiotic” (lifeless) natural product that the earth generates on a constant basis, and may well be a renewable resource.
To predict a correct theory is difficult at best. But recorded data is as follows:
• 1885; U.S. Geologic Survey — “Little or no chance of oil in California.”
• 1991; U.S. Geologic Survey — Same prophesy for Kansas and Texas.
• 1914; U.S. Bureau of Mines — Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil; at most a 10-year supply remaining.
• 1939; Dept. of Interior — Oil reserves in the United States exhausted in 13 years.
• 1951; Oil and Gas Division — Oil reserves to be exhausted in 13 years.
• 2005; Energy Information Administration — proven worldwide reserves of oil at 1.28 trillion barrels.
Consider some good indicators. Russia’s giant Samotlor Field reached peak production in 1983. After BP spent 18 billion on “hydraulic fracturing,” production went from 30 tons per day per well in 2000, to 117 tons in 2004.
Brazilian oil giant Petrobras has seen surprising results by drilling ultra-deep offshore wells in Brazil’s Barracuda and Caratingua oil fields. Brazil’s oil production has grown at 9 percent per year since 1980.
Saudi Oil Minister Al-Naimi told a conference in Washington, D.C., that Saudi oil reserves have been drastically underestimated. Energy Information Administration estimated them at 262 billion barrels in 2004 — only 20 percent of Al-Naimi’s estimate. Ghawar oil has been dated with Precambrian rock produced 570 million years ago, but dinosaurs did not roam the earth until 250 million years ago.
Pemex’s Cantarell field formed 65 million years ago when the Chicxulub meteor impacted the Gulf of Mexico. Abiotic proponents argue that the deep fracturing of bedrock by the meteor’s impact was responsible for oil formed in the mantle to seep into the sedimentary rock.
Thunder Horse, 125 miles southeast of New Orleans, promises to produce 1 million barrels per day by next year. Thunder Horse is truly an ultra-deep project, and only part of BP’s 2.5 billion barrels of proven reserves in the Gulf. From the floor, BP has drilled down another six miles to hit oil.
There is no evidence that any ancient dinosaur walked on land that is now eight miles down. Thunder Horse illuminates the current technology that makes it possible to tap into reserves thought inaccessible.
A study by Integrated Geophysics Corp. emphasizes that almost 90 percent of the Gulf’s discovery prospects lie in 3,000-5,000 foot of water. However, radical environmentalists are currently blocking oil production almost globally. In actuality, oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would require 5,000-7,000 acres, or about 0.004 percent of Alaska’s total land mass. Even with Prudhoe Bay, the total area represents the size of a postage stamp on a football field.
Even a limited area for ANWR drilling would offer the option of producing 40 percent of the oil consumed in America from Alaska. But now, with oil at $60 per barrel, we are sending overseas nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars each year.
No matter which theory is correct, peak oil or abiotic, it behooves us to remember the past. Didn’t pessimists say we couldn’t get to the moon, that the atom could not be harnessed that light only traveled in straight lines and that women could never hold a regular job?
For 30 years we have not built an oil refinery. Current drilling techniques access more oil, whatever theory is correct. So even if a hurricane takes out a main supply line, depleted supply, higher prices, energy dependence and alleged gouging would never occur if we used our heads instead of our emotions.
Originally from New Orleans, Kevin Roeten has a B.S. from Louisiana Tech in chemical engineering. He lives in south Asheville.
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
17-Oct-2006
34853
| |
This same Mr. Roeten also believes overpopulation is a myth. In an article at tinyurl.com/k2k2b he repeats the fallacy of the entire world fitting happily inside Texas, and that Man has nothing to do with habitat destruction. More bull ensues about global warming and ozone depletion being nonexistent. Roeten is just another Catholic propagandist trying to force mindless growth on a crowded world.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
Posted by: E. A.
|
|
31-Mar-2006
16549
| |
On the topic of giant oil company profits... Regardless of whether the profits result from
gouging and artificial shortages, they have the positive effect of stimulating interest in
non-oil alternatives, and they give oil companies that are sufficiently forward-thinking
some money to invest in those alternatives. In an ideal world, (i.e., not this one) those
would be the profits that build the non-oil future.
Posted by: Steve Ward
|
|
01-Apr-2006
16614
| |
Bit early for an April Fools joke isn't it? Oil from dinosaurs - good one! Just what does his B.S. stand for? Aside: The higher the price of oil, the more secondary recovery (e.g. hydraulic fracturing), but all that will do is push out Peak Oil. Peak Oil is happening now, e.g. the US has already peaked (fact) whilst the UK's part of the North Sea (i.e. not Norway's part) is most likely peaking now. There are other concerns too, such as is over pumping at Ghawar drawing in too much groundwater such that the expected life of Ghawar will in fact be shortened?
Posted by: Steven H
|
|
30-Mar-2006
16402
| |
Can do, seems very short sited. More drilling only keeps us in the same addiction we have. The real can do people are converting their vehicles to all electric, using renewable power like solar PV and Wind to power their homes and vehicles.
Drilling and using more air polluting oil is not a smart can do activity. Using our brains and looking at the entire picture is the right thing to do.
Posted by: Jim Stack
|
|
30-Mar-2006
16411
| |
This article is like a museum piece. It's just a great example of the thinking of past years, which seemed to work for a while, but doesn't work very well anymore and won't work at all rather too soon. The ThunderHorse example is particularly telling. The incredible technological achievement there would be significant if the value of the oil produced was leveraged and multiplied by using that carbon for advanced materials to allow us all take advantage of the free and endless energy provided by renewable sources.
Thunderhorse and any other source of hydrocarbon fuels, if used intelligently, could allow us all, (meaning all of the world's population) to live in prosperity, indefinitely. But to do that, would require using the resource as a feedstock to build materials, not as this incredibly valuable resource is continuing to be used, as an unbelievably inefficient way to eek out a small amount of energy and then just add to the garbage pit we are all breathing and over-heating our spaceship with.
The only thing standing between us and a much better energy world is greed and lack of vision and leadership. The good news is that we have a wealth of opportunity. The bad news is that we are not taking advantage of it. Instead we do stupid things like find oil 4 miles deep in the earth, below a mile of water and then just throw it away. It becomes a drop in a bucket of foolishness.
Posted by: Kevin Hill
|
|
30-Mar-2006
16414
| |
The ANWR claim made in the article is just plain wrong. The peak production rate from ANWR has frequently been reported to be about 1 million barrels per day (taking about 10 years to get there). That is less than 5% of current US consumption, not 40%.
Posted by: Kevin Hill
|
|
30-Mar-2006
16416
| |
Well, I can confirm that this guy has a BS.
'Proponents theorize that oil is a fossil fuel from decaying forests and dinosaurs....Ghawar oil has been dated with Precambrian rock produced 570 million years ago, but dinosaurs did not roam the earth until 250 million years ago.'
Do what? Oil is the product of algae that fall to the seafloor and are buried in an anoxic environment. No dinosaurs required so there is nothing wrong with Precambrian oil.
Geologist have had physicists tell them that the earth must be less than a million years old, that plate tectonics is impossible and had a cosmologist tell them that archaeopteryx was a fake. Now we have a chemical engineer telling us that decades of declining oil finds and the peaking of cheap oil can be fixed with 'can do'.
The US has as much can do and technical prowess as any nation, so could Mr Roenten please explain why its oil production did, historically, peak in the early 1970's? His liteny of quotes on failed predictions is from people who were wrong, not simply pessimists. Hubbard was not wrong, he did use his head and did not fall back on an emotional call for 'can do'.
Posted by: Thomas Lankester
|
|
30-Mar-2006
16427
| |
Yes better drilling and oil recovery methods are can do but so are cheaper batteries, better hybrids and better engines.
Posted by: JW Ogden
|
|
30-Mar-2006
16459
| |
The argument for abiotic oil is highly conjectural. It was most recently championed by an astronomer, Thomas Gold, but so far no such oil has been found. All oil found to date has born the signature of a biotic origin, so relying on abiotic oil's existence seems Quixotic. In fact, if one examines the geographical positions of current oil fields, one finds them just where there may very well have been large forests/grasslands that were subsumed during a plate tectonic process. Finding abiotic oil would be virtually impossible, because there would be no clue so drilling would have to be done everwhere and to every possilbe depth -- a huge financial risk.
Posted by: James Gervais
|
|
31-Mar-2006
16500
| |
The abiotic oil theory is warmed-over Soviet pseudoscience based on several idiosyncratic exploratory drilling sites where it was conjectured that the oil was generated through abiotic processes, based on the recognition that it is theoretically possible for oil to be abiotically generated. However, this conjecture did not take into account plate tectonics and the folding and faulting of strata, or account for the biological markers found in oil. I challenge anyone to find a single career geologist for any major oil company or reputable university or government geological survey who believes abiotic oil, if it exists at all, exists in commercially extractable quantities, or that the vast majority of petroleum is not of biological origin.
For anyone even to suggest that abiotic oil exists in commercially extractable quantities in particular is probably a sign of how desperate the situation really is. What's next, perpetual motion machines?
Furthermore, the author of this article reveals his illiteracy in geological science when he confuses the eras in which fossil fuel beds were deposited with the era in which the Dinosaurs lived - no geologist has ever argued that oil comes from recycled Dinosaurs. Please get your facts straight.
Posted by: Rob Rastorp
|
|