Oil

(1/2/2009) - The basic premise of Robert Bryce’s Gusher of Lies is that U.S. efforts to attain energy independence are A) not worth it and, B) probably not even possible. Though Bryce does a pretty good job dissecting the meaninglessness of political rhetoric of energy independence from the past four years, Gusher of Lies fails to recognize the energy-related problems we do face.  Bryce’s world is one in which global warming is nothing to worry about, extraneous costs associated with burning fossil fuels don’t exist, and the average American is destined to remain a consuming, tax cutting machine forever.  This shortcoming severely limits the book’s applicability to the wider world of energy issues. 

In the first half of the book, Bryce looks mostly at the oil industry, and describes the differences between political rhetoric with regards to energy independence and the reality of the situation.  The long and the short of it is that the United States uses more oil every year as it produces less, and is therefore increasingly reliant on imports.  Even if the United States could move itself quickly off of oil or only buy oil from countries we like, the so-called petro-dictators will still get plenty of money selling its oil on the world market.  Plus, countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia need our money just as much or more than we need their oil.  Overall, Bryce does a good job describing why the foreign policy rationales for trying to achieve energy independence don’t add up upon close inspection.  If you are an energy independence diehard, this section of the book is worth a read if you are left unconvinced by shorter articles.

(11/16/2008) - Ever since the use of oil as a major transportation fuel began in the early twentieth century, we have known that we will some day run out.  This was clear after observing the initial surge of production wells offered and their subsequent deterioration. 

Predicting the demise of oil has been a long-standing American tradition.  Leonardo Maugeri, senior vice president of the Italian oil company Eni, writes in his book “The Age of Oil” that a World War One era senate investigation concluded that oil production in the United States has already peaked and that supplies would be depleted within 25 years.  In 1919, the head of the U.S. Geological Survey predicted the end of American oil production would occur by 1928.

Of course, none of this happened.  These estimates were made before the science of oil exploration has come into its own.  But not all such predicti predictions.  Author Kenneth S. Deffeyes writes that when M. King Hubbert made his 1956 prediction that oil production in the U.S. would peak between 1965 and 1970, many people ridiculed him for it.  Looking back, we know that U.S. production peaked in 1970.

Lucky for us, increases in worldwide production more than compensated for sinking American production.  And when it costs $2 a barrel for a supertanker to move oil anywhere in the world, it doesn't make much of a difference at the pump whether the oil was drilled in Saudi Arabia or Texas. 

Have you ever wondered what “energy independence” even means?  Every year, more and more people – politicians, media pundits, oil companies, environmental groups, and T. Boone Pickens – call for it. 

 But what does energy independence mean? The answer depends on who you ask.  Some think we will be energy independent when don’t have to import oil from Venezuela and the Middle East.  All oil and natural gas should be made in the U.S.A. or imported from friendly countries, like Canada.  Others seem to imply that energy independence is independence from fossil fuels in general.  They promote the use of wind, solar, geothermal, and other forms of alternative energy.

For the most part, proponents of energy independence don’t spell out exactly what they mean by the term.  Like many concepts politicians bandy about (the War on Drugs and the War on Terror are two great examples), conditions for victory are either incoherent, impossible (“we will stop all illegal drug use,” “we will kill all the terrorists”), or more just not spelled out at all.

Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert’s Peak is part history, part memoir, and a whole lot of geology. Kenneth S. Deffeyes, a Professor Emeritus at Princeton and former researcher for Shell, tells the story of how the earth turned ancient plants and algae into modern fossil fuels, how we extract these fuels from the ground, and what future energy supplies the depths of the earth have to offer.

Beyond Oil evaluates a host of energy sources – petroleum, natural gas, coal, tar sands, oil shale, uranium, and hydrogen – and evaluates advantages, disadvantages, and practical concerns of each.  Deffeyes is first and foremost a geologist, and approaches the book through this lens. He admits he is not an economist and makes no attempt to predict the future of the economy other than to say that, “Business as usual is not in the cards.”

The Peak

In the book’s first chapters, Deffeyes walks us through the basic methodology behind Hubbert’s peak. Named for its original theorist M. King Hubbert, Hubbert’s model tries to predict future levels of petroleum extraction. After an oil industry, whether it be single country or the entire world market, has had a chance to mature, production tends to fall into a fairly consistent pattern. By dividing the current annual production levels by the cumulative production up to that year, Hubbert’s model predicts how much oil will be extracted in the coming years.