Solve 4 Biggies
  ~  by reducing income taxes & increasing energy taxes

                          
   
New entries Wednesday &
Sunday evenings
  (& sometimes in between)

- Contribute to this online
  public conversation -





   1 - Global warming

   2 - Dependence on
        foreign energy

   3 - Trade deficit

   4 - Pollution from non-
        renewable fuels

Oil - we're out of control

Print the article

This entry was posted on 7/11/2007 11:55 PM and is filed under OIL.

 

                                                
Some numbers:

Proved reserves of oil (billion barrels):  World - 1,317;  U.S. - 21.8 (2% of total)

Consumption (million barrels/day):        World -  84.5;   U.S. - 20.6 (24% of total)

The U.S. has 2% of the earth's oil reserves, but our consumption is 24% of the total.

How long do you think this will/can last before economic upheaval in the U.S.?  We import over 60% of the oil we use every day.  Our addiction is being fed by others, so we're completely vulnerable to an import disruption.

At present consumption and percentage import levels, how many years do you think before the U.S. proved reserve is gone??   7.5 years !!  Do the math.  Literally frightening.  Sure, some will argue that technology will increase the reserve figure over time and they'll be right.  However, extraction costs will also rise as the "easy" barrels are snarfed up.  U.S. oil will be at a price disadvantage to foreign oil.  So, I don't care if we have 10 or even 15 years of oil left -- this is an incredibly short amount of time.

We need to act, now.  We have no control over a key input into our economy.

The relatively small amount of oil we do have.... might be wise to save it for a "rainy day" when we really need it.  At a minimum, if we use it, shouldn't we find alternatives during the oil's "lifespan"?  Nothing like spitting on our children and grandchildren - use up the oil without creating a solid base of economically and environmentally viable alternatives.

The best thing we can do to:
   - increase the amount of control we have over our economy;
   - treat future generations as we'd like to be treated, by....

                   ... quickly reducing our oil consumption via a tax shift.
 

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

    • 7/13/2007 9:57 PM Robert wrote:
      And the amazing thing is we turn on the news and this is NOT one of the lead stories. In fact, this recent jump of 40 cent in a day for gas barely drew a reaction. And since taxation doesn't increase with the price, afixed to the gallon not the dollar, the price increase puts no money forth for exploring alternative energy sources.
      Is that what our generation truly is, one of growing consumption without regard for our children & grandchildren?
      Speaking of consumption: recent article in Fast Company reports we discard 38 billion WATER bottles a year into land fills (bottles made using petroleum). Incidently, 24% of that bottled water is tap water repackaged by Coke & Pepsi.
      Landfills that our future generations will have to contend with.
      I recently traveled with a friend through an IL tollway and was pleasantly surprised to see them expanding the IPass lanes. No slowing down or even sitting in a lane burning up gas. A small step but these are the steps we need to be making every day all over the country.
      Those reserves should only be touched when an equal amount of renewal energy has been produced, if at all for now.
      Reply to this
      1. 7/14/2007 5:37 AM Paul Riehemann wrote:

        Thanks Robert - agree 100%.  The best part of the internet; we choose our own news, an almost infinite number of choices for reading AND writing (blogs and comments).  This can change society.

        Positive things to solve the 4 biggies are happening, just at a turtle's pace.  When we have societal agreement to increase energy prices by shifting taxes from income, watch out.  There is a "silver bullet."

        (Used to be a really fun bar in Moodus, Connecticut named The Silver Bullet with great bands like Fountainhead - but I digress.....)

         


        Reply to this
    • 7/14/2007 1:10 PM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
      Let's not confuse reserve levels with extraction rates. Even if we wanted to, we could not physically extract and use all the remaining oil in the US in that time. But it is right that our energy usage, particularly in the liquid-fuels sector, is grossly unsustainable.

      As for saving it for a rainy day, Roscoe Bartlett---a conservative Republican---made exactly that point about GOP proposals to drill in ANWR. "Bank it" is his advice. And let's remember that Prudhoe Bay's massive oil influx in the 1980s was merely a brief uptick on the US's downward slide in oil production in the last 3-1/2 decades.

      **************************************************************
       * Host note:  Mark and I emailed each other on this for clarification - copied below.

      From Paul -
      For me, reserve levels fall into two categories - "Proved" ("reasonably certain to be recoverable in future years under existing economic and operating conditions") and those that "could be recovered with existing drilling and production technology."  I used "proved" numbers in the calculations in my entry because they include economics as a factor in getting the oil out.  I mention the other oil available, but also that it will cost more to get it out.

      For me, extraction rate is the amount we can pull out of the ground in a given period.  I used consumption rates instead in my entry because I believe that is more important.  We might significantly increase extraction rates to store it, but it still is there to be used.  Based our use of domestic oil for almost 40% of our total, based on the definition of "Proved" it seems to me we could pull out this amount in 7.5 years because we're extracting at this rate now.

      P.S. - like the "Bank it" quote.
      ---------------------------------

      From Mark -
      Without going through all the specific numbers, here are some general points:

      All oil fields, regions, and countries follow a bell-shaped curve of production. That means once we're past peak for any oil-producing entity, production gradually tapers off---with a long, low-slope tail. As wells get into their senior years, extraction slows to a trickle. Depending on oil prices and net-energy considerations, at some point it's no longer worth taking the oil out of the ground. But regardless of price and demand, there are certain geological factors that are impediments to the extraction process. For instance, the tar sands of Canada are touted as the "Saudi Arabia of the western hemisphere," implying that they could start supplying all of our oil-import needs at some point in the future. B ut limitations related to geology and the natural resources needed for processing oil sands into liquid fuels will combine to prevent Canada from EVER producing as much oil from tar sands as SA does from conventional oil---and they won't even get close.
       
      Back to conventional oil in the US. As we get further and further from the 1970 production peak, the production tail will get flatter and flatter. It's asymptotic. There is no way we will be able to maintain today's production levels for even a few years. New technologies may become available that increase extraction rates temporarily, but studies have show that the general effect of new technologies is to increase real-time, short-term extraction rates much more than total recovery rates. So that does support your theory a little---they could conceivably try to pump what's left faster than would be geologically natural---but my reading tells me that the US will continue to produce oil for another 2-3 decades at ever-dminishing rates.
       
      Problem 1 with this scenario is how much we use---and that we continue increasing demand. Problem 2 is that oil production in exporting countries now  appears to be peaking . It will be interesting to see how they balance their internal needs for oil against their need for generating cash from oil sales to oil importers. Some of the smart players are guessing that they'll reduce imports faster than their production rates fall, which means a double-whammy for countries like the US.       
       
      Mark
       
      P.S. Extreme measures to enhance extraction rates do work to temporarily  to  increase output, but these tend to damage the oil field. It's speculated that Ghawar and Cantarell---two of the world's most important fields---have been damaged this way.

      Reply to this
    • 7/15/2007 9:08 AM Bob wrote:
      There will not be the focus needed on our addiction to oil as long as WE are unwilling to admit to ourselves to the problem.

      We build sprawling suburbs, multiple lane highways, massive parking lots, and at the same time compain of traffic problems and gas prices, while we denounce public transportation as "lower class" and trains as "burdensome."

      We have issues, but we put our combined heads in the sand.
      Reply to this
      1. 7/16/2007 11:16 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:

        Bob,

        Agree 100%.

        The answer to the problems you list: pass federal tax shifting legislation --> lower income taxes and increase non-renewable energy prices.  When non-renewable energy costs more, people will live closer to work, on smaller lots, will drive less, and will take public transportation more.  It won't happen overnight, but it really is as simple as that.

        In addition to the financial incentive, when tax shifting legislation actually is signed into law, by definition, a mindset change with respect to energy use will have taken place.  It will be "cool" and admired to conserve energy; wasting energy will be frowned upon.  Watch.  It WILL happen.  Why?  Because American's are smart, and we care about each other, and we care about the planet.

        The merits of tax shifting need to be widely shared and discussed so the public leads elected representatives.

        Thanks for your comment.

        P.S. - I could use much less energy (I admit it (it's a start)).  When energy costs more, I use less.  Natural gas prices were sky high two winters ago so we installed more insulation in our attic.  The first time gas was at $3.00 gallon I tracked (for the first time) how long it took between fill-ups and I tried to extend it by driving less.


        Reply to this
        1. 7/17/2007 7:21 AM Jim Blair wrote:
          Hi,

          It is good that Americans conserve, but that will not adequately deal with the GHG problem. Factor in the population growth, and your 10% reduction will be offset by the 10 or 20% increase in US population.

          Sometime the "Greens" will be forced to face up to US population growth. The Sierra Club avoided the issue a few years ago in a big showdown, but it won't go away.

          During the 1960's and 70's environmental leaders like Gaylord Nelson were not afraid to call for Zero Population Growth.

          But then US population growth was driven by births and Nelson took on the Religious Right and the Catholic Church on the issue. But today it is driven by immigration, and (so called) environmentalists will not raise the issue.
          Reply to this
          1. 7/23/2007 7:08 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
            Absolutely right---population is a huge issue in general, but it looms large especially in the US. Here's a great quote from Tom Horton, Chesapeake Bay advocate: "Given continued high rates of population increase, all environmental victories are temporary."

            I can't improve on that!

            Mark
            Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.