I will defer to JSV who is far more knowledgeable than I on the subject and who wrote the following in a comment to my post “Why Vote for Obama?”
“ENERGY: In my opinion, by far and away the most important issue facing individuals, Americans, and the world is our impending energy crisis. While it may be temporarily overshadowed by financial headlines, it is both one root cause of these troubles and the hurdle that must be crossed before our economy can ultimately be set back on track for the long haul. It is a challenging issue because, in my opinion, the right solutions are neither the easy nor the short-term solutions. It is also inextricably tied into our health, quality of life, type of political order, and sustainability of our environment. On the energy front, neither candidate fits well with my ideal set of solutions: 1) radical reduction in the amount of work consumed (note: this is different than conservation, which leads only to a slippery slope by not addressing the question of physical work), 2) immediate and intense investment in renewable generation capacity, 3) a focus on re-localization and decentralization of select economic processes (while continuing to globalize in the energy non-intensive realms of information processing, communicaitons, etc.) to build resilience and true energy self sufficiency.
– Evaluation of Obama’s energy platform: He supports rapid investment in true renewables, though he is still too wed to the biofuels industry (which is the wrong approach), and his investment program is too timid (I’d like to see $200 billion per year, taken from the defense budget, not additional spending). His distance from nuclear is acceptable as the Energy-Return on Energy Invested due to declining ore quality will rapidly become a problem. I like that he shuns the easy, but false, hope of the “drill here, drill now” crowd.
– Evaluation of McCain’s energy platform: He also supports rapid investment in renewables, though more timid than even Obama and more wed to biofuels. His unfortunate alliance with the “clean coal” fantasy is roughly on par with Obama, so I don’t count that as a + or -. His push for nuclear energy is more aggressive than Obama’s, and I think that makes it more of a mistake. However, what I find most problematic about McCain’s platform is his promise of an easy fix, including the “drill here, drill now” speaches and the push to open up offshore drilling (which, buy the way, I think is fine but irrelevant in the big picture). This suggests to me one of two things: either he fundamentally doesn’t understand our energy crisis or how the oil industry works if he thinks that “drill here, drill now,” to include all of the OCS and Alaska, will have any impact, or he is pandering with the promise of an easy fix and won’t be able to later reverse course and tell people that they need to sacrifice for the difficult solutions that are actually viable.
SCORE: While I’m not crazy about his platform, Obama’s platform–and what I think he will realistically be able to accomplish with a Democratic Congress–look far more positive to me than what I think will happen under McCain.”
I would add to the JSV comment my disagreement with the overall choice. JSV picks Mr. Obama but is not thrilled by either. My difference with him is minimal in that I agree neither has a great policy nor will either be able to get done half what they want if they continue to relegate this issue to a low priority. Where I differ is based on my test of words vs. deeds. Mr. McCain has mostly voted what he is saying on the campaign trail. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has voted consistently for subsides for corn ethanol. He avoids mention of it on the campaign trail unless he is in farm country. I think this is predictive of the fact he will bend with the wind from the strongest interest group. I think far more than most politicians, he has voted with his party and his interest groups but promised what will get him elected.
If it is not obvious yet, I, like most people in the country like much of what Mr. Obama says. My problem with him is that the more I read, and the more I learn of his past actions, the more I see what he will actually do if elected and it is not what he is promising.
Responsibility-Freedom Demands It 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 21, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Marc Emelianenko
First, our energy “crisis” is ENTIRELY self-imposed. Over the past 35 years, a cadre of greedy tort lawyers and rabid anti-capitalists hijacked the environmental movement from those well-intentioned – and mostly reasonable — conservationists who started it. Read the thoughtful writings of Greenpeace’s founder, Patrick Moore, who quit when zealots took it in a direction he never intended.
The solution to our self-imposed “crisis” is quite simple: reduce the unreasonable regulatory burdens placed on 1) Domestic oil exploration, 2) Nuclear-power development, and 3) Our ability to expand refining capacity. Reducing the onerous regulatory chains with which the eco-frauds have bound us will make energy independence a reality within our lifetimes. In fact, we can be refining crude pumped from ANWR within two years. The development of viable alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear energy will come when they can compete efficiently.
I eagerly await the challenge from those who’ve been brainwashed into believing that fossil fuels are intrinsically bad and that we can’t drill our way out of this crisis. And those few Luddites opposed to nuclear power.
October 21, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Energy Crisis Information » Preparing for Peak Oil
[…] 30-30 Energy Policy By ttoes ?ENERGY: In my opinion, by far and away the most important issue facing individuals, Americans, and the world is our impending energy crisis. While it may be temporarily overshadowed by financial headlines, it is both one root cause of … Responsibility-Freedom Demands It – https://ttoes.wordpress.com/ […]
October 22, 2008 at 6:20 am
ttoes
If you are interested in Energy and the consequences of various policy ideas, I can highly recommend (as noted in my Blogroll) Energy Intelligence (http://www.jeffvail.net)
October 22, 2008 at 7:59 am
jsv
Marc,
I disagree with your statement on the energy crisis being entirely self-imposed. Well, I should say that I agree completely, but for entirely different reasons. We created our energy crisis by developing an economic system that depends on massive energy inputs. We can get out of our energy crisis by simply using continually less and less energy going forward, but that would require a complete scrapping of our current economic system.
One part of what bothers me about the McCain energy position are the continued statements that we can “solve” the problem by “drill here, drill now.” This is contrary to the plain facts: completely unfettered domestic oil exploration, to include all of Alaska and ANWR, will have no substantive effect on the global energy supply picture. To the extent that it increases supply (an increase that will be minimal and won’t come for many years), that will just make energy more affordable to the developing world that is just waiting to absorb any “surplus.” Here’s a good way to look at it: the amount of new production that completely unfettered energy production will produce–in terms of barrels of oil per day equivalent–within the next 10 years will be less than the amount that Mexican energy production DECLINED last year. And less than it will decline next year. We’re not in the driver’s seat when it comes to supply. The suggestion that we can “drill our way out of this crisis” is simply uninformed. Even IF (and this is well beyond all estimates) we could increase domestic (including Alaska and Offshore) oil production by 1 million barrels of oil per day within 10 years, that would be negated separately by each of the following: 1) the projected decline in Russian production within that time frame, 2) the projected decline in Mexican exports within that time frame, 3) the projected increase in Chinese demand within that time frame, 4) the projected increase in Indian demand within that time frame, 5) the projected decline in Angolan production within that time frame, 6) the projected increase in Gulf Cooperation Council demand within that time frame… the list goes on. I don’t know which scares me more: if McCain and his advisors are disingenuously pandering to the American people with this “drill our way out of it” information that they know is a lie, or if they actually are so misinformed about the situation that they believe it is true.
Likewise, refining capacity is inapposite. Refineries don’t create supply, and increased capacity there can only reduce the refining margin (how much more the refined product costs than the component crude). The problem with refined petroleum products stems from the supply of crude oil. Refining margins have actually shrunk over the past 5 years–the increase in the price at the pump has been a function of the cost of the crude oil component.
Additionally, while the regulatory environment surrounding nuclear power is certainly limiting the amount of nuclear power supply domestically, it is of minimal relevance to our long-term energy supplies. This is because we’re facing steadily declining quality of uranium ores, resulting in lower energy-return on energy invested for nuclear power production. This isn’t due to regulation at all, but rather due to the law of diminishing marginal returns applied to mining. There is enough positive-energy-return uranium ore available to power our existing energy demand for well over 100 years. If you include electricity demand growth (especially from China), then that shrinks to about 35 years. If you try to replace any significant portion of liquid fuels with nuclear power, that number shrinks much more dramatically.
The longer we delude ourselves into thinking we can drill or deregulate oru way out of this problem, the greater chance we squander our rapidly shrinking window of surplus net-energy to invest in real alternatives (solar, wind, tidal) as well as shifting the strucure of our civilization to one that requires less physical work (efficiency only gets you to 100%–it’s the physical work demanded that is the true limiting factor).
October 23, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Marc Emelianenko
JSV:
I’m still not certain whether your opposition to fossil fuels is because you think they’re unsustainable or because you think alternatives are a superior energy source regardless of the long-term availability of crude oil and natural gas. Please clarify because if it’s the latter, then my argument will be different than the supply-based one that follows.
There are three elements as to why we can – and should – drill here and drill now:
1) We have ample short- and medium-term supplies of domestic crude, and we may have sufficient long-term supplies as well.
2) We can bring much of this supply into production within two to seven years, but only if the onerous regulatory shackles we have allowed to be imposed are removed.
3) We should be developing all viable domestic sources of energy, petroleum-based as well as alternatives. There’s no logical reason not to do both, especially given the reality of how long it will take for the various alternatives to sort out their market viability.
Regarding the supply situation, please consider the following:
1) ANWR, the outer-continental shelves off Florida, California, and Alaska as well as oil shale in the West are conservatively estimated to have 150 billion barrels of EASILY RECOVERABLE crude oil. ANWR in particular can be on line within two years due to available drilling capacity in nearby Prudhoe Bay and the capability of transport to a year-round port via the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) already in place.
2) The Bakken formation stretching across Montana and North Dakota may have between 500 billion and 2 trillion more barrels of crude. And of course there are also trillions of cubic feet of natural gas from this and the other sources of crude oil.
3) The US Dept. of Energy estimates there are 1.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of shale oil in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. This is more difficult to recover, but could be brought to market within seven years or so.
In our own hemisphere, we have access to ample supplies, some of which are recent discoveries. The recent discoveries continue to demonstrate that there are undiscovered deposits of crude oil around the globe.
1. Canadian tar sands hold about 175 billion barrels of oil that is recoverable with current technology under recent economic conditions.
2. Columbia recently discovered huge new oil deposits in its Meta jungle, more than doubling its reserves to 4 billion barrels overnight. Columbia also has some of the biggest clean-coal reserves in the world. There’s a tariff issue right now due to Congress’ failing to pass the Columbia-US free-trade accord, but that’s a discussion for another day.
3. Brazil’s recent discovery of oil in the Santos Basin turned out to be three times larger than originally expected. This will be more difficult to extract, but the Brazilians are undeterred in their efforts to bring this oil to market.
My original contention remains: we can drill our way to energy independence in a relatively short time frame. I’m open to being persuaded otherwise, but to summarily dismiss the tried-and-true energy source that fueled the greatest period of global prosperity in humankind in favor of unproven alternatives is quixotic at best.
October 24, 2008 at 7:31 am
jsv
Marc,
I do take the position that fossil fuels are supply-constrained (though, in some limited circumstances and applications I also think alternatives are superior–that is not the basis of my argument).
I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of our ability to drill our way to energy independence–or even our ability to drill our way globally to sufficient supply to meet rising demand. I think the key point is that reserves do not equate directly to RATE of production. 100 Trillion barrels of oil in the ground isn’t worth much if it can only be produced at 100,000 barrels per day. So, point by point:
1. OCS & ANWR: The amount of oil reserved estimated by MMS to be currently off limits in ANWR and the OCS is actually only 18 billion barrels (see http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4339). Getting from there to 150 billion counts all the oil that’s already available for exploration, so really doesn’t represent any kind of change. I don’t know if you’re involved in the oil and gas industry, but it certainly isn’t “easily recoverable.” There’s a 3-4 month weather window for exploration and geophysical mapping, for example, in ANWR. And while the Alyeska pipeline is currently in place, a trunk pipeline needs to be built to it. Not to mention the general shortage of rigs globally (especially bad for offshore rigs needed to explore OCS) for drilling and the shortage of trained personnel. Even if every regulation and restriction imposed by any government anywhere was lifted today, oil wouldn’t be reaching the consumer from these fields for well over 5 years. If you can cite any industry (not political) source saying otherwise, I’d be interested. I talk to peole in the oil industry about this exact topic with great frequency, and the 5 year estimate is VERY optimistic. It’s also critical to consider the flow rate from ANWR and the OCS, not just the total theoretical reserves. Superimpose production from ANWR and the OCS on top of US production that peaked in the early ’70s and it is unlikely that either will do anything but slow the decline in domestic production. Here’s a graph (that may or may not show up in these comments?):
2. BAKKEN: Your numbers here are way, way off on the high side. See http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868. There is very little chance that production from the Bakken formation will ever exceed 100,000 barrels per day (it’s at 75,000 currently), and this is in no way constrained by regulation. Bakken is VERY poor quality formation that is difficutl to produce, very well intensive. Between 2005 and 2008 the average oil produced per well, per day in the Bakken declined from 110 barrels to 80 barrels. That isn’t 80 thousand of barrels, that’s just 80 barrels. Bakken is insigificant in the larger picture–a nice bit of pocket money if you’re a N. Dakota farmer, but no more…
3. COLORADO OIL SHALE: Isn’t going to amount to anything for several reasons. 1. Very, very water intensive, and the water is all spoken for. This isn’t a regulation question, it’s a matter of who loses their water rights to produce from these formations? 2. Very, very low energy return on energy invested. It takes more energy input than you get out. While it’s theoretically possible to use nuclear energy input here, this only adds to the expense and complexity. Permits for production here are already available–it isn’t government standing in the way, it’s energy companies that realize they can’t make this work.
Bottom line, domestically we won’t reverse the declien in oil production that started in the early 70’s. I’m not against any of these options–I say we should encourage people to drill here and drill now, but I think we’re seriously deluding ourselves if we think it will increase our domestic production at all–at best it will slow our production declines.
As for the foreign sources you mentioned (Canada, Columbia, Brazil), these are all great sources of energy (though I should point out that 4 billion barrels in Columbia is relatively insignificant–if we could magically have ALL of it out of the ground today, it would satisfy world demand for a little over a month). Again, the problem is the ability to transform “reserves” into realized rates of production. Brazil has been making some very significant finds. However, at the rate that PETROBRAS expects to bring these new finds on line, they will do LESS than make up for Brazil’s expected increase in domestic consumption. Canadian oil sands face a similar problem–the rate of production of these is barely making up for declining Canadian conventional production. IF everything proceeds according to plan, Canadian oil sand development will increase production by about 1 million barrels per day over the next decade. That is, without doubt, a help, but not a panacea. As I noted above, that 1 million barrel per day increase (one of the very few global bright spots) is more than offset by several individual sources of decline. It can help slow decent, but not more.
At the end fo the day, we can’t drill ourselves to domestic energy independence. Politicians can argue the case by using wildly inflated numbers, but this does little more than demonstrate their fundamental lack of understanding of the issue (or worse?). At best–and this is globally, not domestically–an aggressive drilling program can stave off production declines for a decade. If we let that decade pass continuing to think that we can drill our way to salvation, we will have squandered our last, best opportunity to put the surplus energy we still have toward the production of something truly lasting…