Why us?
Just a little question.
Specifically why is the U.S. been blessed with consuming 25% of the world's oil each year while only holding 2-3% of the world oil reserves?
More importantly, why ought we to expect to be able to contine this trick?
A small detour, getting "data" to back up statistics is pain, but there are numbers out there.
Example:
BP oil reserves by region: 2004
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9003054&contentId=7005895
Proven Reserves by Continental regions
----------------------------
Middle East: 773.9Bbbl (63.0%)
Europe/Eurasia: 139.2Bbbl (11.3%)
Africa: 112.2 Bbbl (9.1%)
South/Central America: 101.2Bbbl (8.2%)
North America: 61.0Bbbl (5.0%)
Asia Pacific: 41.1Bbbl (3.3%)
Total: 1228.6Bbbl
North America is Canada, USA, and Mexico, and combined we have 61Bbbl of reserves, and 5% of the world reserves. (Reserves being claimed "proved", meaning a 90% confidence that at least that much oil is available)
How much do we "consume" as a region?
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/publications/energy_reviews_2005/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/table_of_regional_oil_consumption_2005.pdf
24.619Mbbl/day in 2004 --> 8.986Bbbl/year
If you compute 61Bbbl/8.986Bbbl/year you get 6.8 years of "proved reserves" available within our continental region, assuming we did not trade for oil from outside.
That would seem a frightening statistic. Calmer minds will have their buts:
1) But "proved reserves" are intentionally low, AND these 2004 numbers are 20% higher than BP's 2002 estimates!
2) But oil is a world commodity, sold to the highest bidder, and so we can buy what we need.
3) But there's nonconventional oil, like Canada's "sand tars" and US "Shale oil" which are more expensive, but available when we need it.
4) But "The Industry" is prepared to get us more oil now that prices are making new investment worthwhile. (After a 20 year collapse of world prices)
Others...?
I can't answer all these and I accept that in the short term, it is possible we can continue without serious disruption. The USGS says world oil production can continue increasing at least until 2030 by known and likely reserves.
Still the fact that we use so much more than most of the rest of the world to me suggests we've got the most to lose if there's problems with the production and distribution system.
The U.S. has a "Strategic Petroleum Reserve", to handle disruptions, now "topped off" at just uder 700Mbbl.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3544.html
Given US consumption is about 21Mbbl/day that reserve is worth 33 days of US consumption. Of course a total disruption is unlikely. Say a 10% disruption can be subsidied for 330 days, almost a year. But given we now import something like 2/3 of our consumption, a mere 10% drop is not unreasonable. Of course conservation can play a bigger effect in the short run for oil consumption - and a 20% drop there alone might be done with a combination of pricing and rationing.
It is hurtful to my sensibility to even try to talk calmly about such an unsustainable situation as we've fallen into.
If we go back to 1970, the year that U.S. Oil production peaked, we muddled through a decade of high prices that resulted from the end of our "monopoly" on setting world oil prices. Probably that's the most fundamental reason of "Why us?" since we were first to widely exploit oil, along with large reserves to consume and sell before our peak.
We had an out then, expanding our imports. It was a little scary. President Nixon was worried about national security over oil dependency. President Carter suggested the U.S. stop increasing our consumption of oil and conserve what we had left. But all those fears were lost into the 1980's when oil prices plummeted from oversupply.
It seems to me that the flood of cheap oil in the 1980s and 1990s acted as a low-cost energy source for a world-wide economic engine. So country after country looked at the U.S. as a model and in trying to copy our success, they began their own exponential growth in consumption of oil.
People are now worried about China's massive growth in oil consumption and imports, but they are still below a quarter of U.S. gross consumption with 4 times our population.
It would seem to me that the U.S. lead the growth of oil consumption, and now we ought to lead the decline. I mean in the heroic sense of being trail-blazers. But power is hard to give up, and so our share of the oilpie is in decline at least, and we're mostly just hoping for something else to come along.
I'm afraid that I'm a follower of the Carter approach. Given predictions of oil demand exceeding supply within zero to 20 years, I say too much is at stake to risk an uncontrolled failure of our economy from an oil crisis. I'm on the side of Richard Heinberg, author of Powerdown, that the most sane solution is to voluntarily reduce our consumption.
Challenges of "Global Warming" were not enough for the U.S. to consider reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. Why should risks of shortages get our attention any better?
I continue to believe the strongest reaction is conservation in the short term, and I'd support much higher federal gasoline taxes as the most powerful incentive. We know prices will increase in the fuure, so the best preparation is to "pay ourselves" for our consumption, and invest the money back into our country to rebuild our lifestyles in ways that reduce our dependence upon cheap energy.
As an intellectual, the solution is obvious. As a politician's power in a democracy, I can see any proposals that have a direct impact on people's freedom and power will be resisted. How do you sell "powerdown" to an unwilling democracy? The answer is education as always, but it is an uphill fight, and like global warming, when people are asked to sacrifice, they'll want hard evidence, and although the "trends" are solid, the future is not. There's no way to escape a hope that tomorrow the next great thing won't propell us past the fossil fuel age into Star Trek and Jetson worlds of the future.
No one talks about energy limitations in science fiction, do they?
I was raised to see great technological progress. This computer I tap away at now was a dream 50 years ago. The internet is barely a decade old, a world wide data communication network. The possibilities seem endless. Will we be halted in our tracks for lack of a little energy?
I'm not quite as pessimistic as Jim Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, is over our future. I accept a fair chance that humanity will one day be able to support 6 billion people on earth without fossil fuels. But I'm sure we're not there, and convinced no one sees that path. I accept an even bet that the world population in 50 years may plummet due to our environmental destruction and depletion of our energy sources that keep our economy humming. That 50 years is within my potential lifetime, god willing. Will I be a survivor or a victim in this new world that will be created?
I accept the philospophy that culture changes through Memes http://memes.org - ideas are formed that promote successful and that success allows it to be reproduced, just like genes are passed on, until some more successsful meme takes over, or the original meme causes side effects (pollution of any sort) that destroy the followers. Something like that, a bad attempt, but I'm thinking specifically about the "decision" for humanity to "industrialize" by abundant fuels and mechanization of physical work. It was a "good idea" in the sense of producing success, but the consequences of our dependence allowed our population to grow beyond alternative lifestyles, and now we're stuck. The spiral went up for 200 years, along with the growth of the US, and now we're heading into a downward spiral, unless we can change direction somehow.
My certainty is based on sustainability arguments. I think Einstein said "You can't solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it." I don't see modern culture as being capable of "powering down". We are only capable of looking up at the next solution that fits our demands. I'm SURE such vision means our next step, if successful, can at best move us one step further away from sustainability. My assumption is based on the idea that life ought to be powered by solar energy. All science fiction assumes we are not limited to solar power, and that fiction is directly based on the modern industrial memes that we've developed over the decades.
In my mind, whether we fall next year, or in 30 years, it is certainty. I'm okay if we want to challenge other energy sources, like fusion, but we shouldn't depend on success there.
I guess my main question relates to the fear that "Given an unfair advantage in the past, in the world oil consumption, why should we expect to continue this advantage?"
Fairness is not an objective term in any real measure. I suggest fairness (fair share) as possible tools to help give context to our dilemma.
Specifically, consider the US has 5% of the world's people, and consume 25% of the world's oil each year. A "fair-minded" person might say we're better off reducing our consumption to a world average. Even assuming world oil production would maintain itself, much less fall as peak oil theory predicts, that means th US must reduce our consumption by a factor of 5. To me that sets an arbitrary goal, even if still unsustainable. At least in the process of challenging the goal, we will be closer to the solution than if we wait for a crisis to force it upon us.
Even the Kyoto signing nations, fighting global warming have much more modest goals, many just holding consumption (CO2 production) constant, much less claiming a desire to reduce by factor of 5!
Where's the incentive to "give up" a hard earned "market share"? It is communistic to suggest "people are equal" and poor people in Africa or India ought to be considered equally to our own needs.
I promote higher gasoline taxes to reduce consumption, but I fully admit it seems unlikely to reduce consumption to the degree I suggest without completely destroying the economy as we know it. In my mind there is no timescale that a "controlled powerdown" will be fast enough to deal with peak oil. Still, again and again, whatever CAN be done, should, and we'll have a smaller distance to fall later.
It is at least interesting to imagine "what we should do", and still wonder if I'd have the heart to follow through, even on my own.
Life is short - enjoy it! The future will take care of itself, right?
Specifically why is the U.S. been blessed with consuming 25% of the world's oil each year while only holding 2-3% of the world oil reserves?
More importantly, why ought we to expect to be able to contine this trick?
A small detour, getting "data" to back up statistics is pain, but there are numbers out there.
Example:
BP oil reserves by region: 2004
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9003054&contentId=7005895
Proven Reserves by Continental regions
----------------------------
Middle East: 773.9Bbbl (63.0%)
Europe/Eurasia: 139.2Bbbl (11.3%)
Africa: 112.2 Bbbl (9.1%)
South/Central America: 101.2Bbbl (8.2%)
North America: 61.0Bbbl (5.0%)
Asia Pacific: 41.1Bbbl (3.3%)
Total: 1228.6Bbbl
North America is Canada, USA, and Mexico, and combined we have 61Bbbl of reserves, and 5% of the world reserves. (Reserves being claimed "proved", meaning a 90% confidence that at least that much oil is available)
How much do we "consume" as a region?
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/publications/energy_reviews_2005/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/table_of_regional_oil_consumption_2005.pdf
24.619Mbbl/day in 2004 --> 8.986Bbbl/year
If you compute 61Bbbl/8.986Bbbl/year you get 6.8 years of "proved reserves" available within our continental region, assuming we did not trade for oil from outside.
That would seem a frightening statistic. Calmer minds will have their buts:
1) But "proved reserves" are intentionally low, AND these 2004 numbers are 20% higher than BP's 2002 estimates!
2) But oil is a world commodity, sold to the highest bidder, and so we can buy what we need.
3) But there's nonconventional oil, like Canada's "sand tars" and US "Shale oil" which are more expensive, but available when we need it.
4) But "The Industry" is prepared to get us more oil now that prices are making new investment worthwhile. (After a 20 year collapse of world prices)
Others...?
I can't answer all these and I accept that in the short term, it is possible we can continue without serious disruption. The USGS says world oil production can continue increasing at least until 2030 by known and likely reserves.
Still the fact that we use so much more than most of the rest of the world to me suggests we've got the most to lose if there's problems with the production and distribution system.
The U.S. has a "Strategic Petroleum Reserve", to handle disruptions, now "topped off" at just uder 700Mbbl.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3544.html
Given US consumption is about 21Mbbl/day that reserve is worth 33 days of US consumption. Of course a total disruption is unlikely. Say a 10% disruption can be subsidied for 330 days, almost a year. But given we now import something like 2/3 of our consumption, a mere 10% drop is not unreasonable. Of course conservation can play a bigger effect in the short run for oil consumption - and a 20% drop there alone might be done with a combination of pricing and rationing.
It is hurtful to my sensibility to even try to talk calmly about such an unsustainable situation as we've fallen into.
If we go back to 1970, the year that U.S. Oil production peaked, we muddled through a decade of high prices that resulted from the end of our "monopoly" on setting world oil prices. Probably that's the most fundamental reason of "Why us?" since we were first to widely exploit oil, along with large reserves to consume and sell before our peak.
We had an out then, expanding our imports. It was a little scary. President Nixon was worried about national security over oil dependency. President Carter suggested the U.S. stop increasing our consumption of oil and conserve what we had left. But all those fears were lost into the 1980's when oil prices plummeted from oversupply.
It seems to me that the flood of cheap oil in the 1980s and 1990s acted as a low-cost energy source for a world-wide economic engine. So country after country looked at the U.S. as a model and in trying to copy our success, they began their own exponential growth in consumption of oil.
People are now worried about China's massive growth in oil consumption and imports, but they are still below a quarter of U.S. gross consumption with 4 times our population.
It would seem to me that the U.S. lead the growth of oil consumption, and now we ought to lead the decline. I mean in the heroic sense of being trail-blazers. But power is hard to give up, and so our share of the oilpie is in decline at least, and we're mostly just hoping for something else to come along.
I'm afraid that I'm a follower of the Carter approach. Given predictions of oil demand exceeding supply within zero to 20 years, I say too much is at stake to risk an uncontrolled failure of our economy from an oil crisis. I'm on the side of Richard Heinberg, author of Powerdown, that the most sane solution is to voluntarily reduce our consumption.
Challenges of "Global Warming" were not enough for the U.S. to consider reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. Why should risks of shortages get our attention any better?
I continue to believe the strongest reaction is conservation in the short term, and I'd support much higher federal gasoline taxes as the most powerful incentive. We know prices will increase in the fuure, so the best preparation is to "pay ourselves" for our consumption, and invest the money back into our country to rebuild our lifestyles in ways that reduce our dependence upon cheap energy.
As an intellectual, the solution is obvious. As a politician's power in a democracy, I can see any proposals that have a direct impact on people's freedom and power will be resisted. How do you sell "powerdown" to an unwilling democracy? The answer is education as always, but it is an uphill fight, and like global warming, when people are asked to sacrifice, they'll want hard evidence, and although the "trends" are solid, the future is not. There's no way to escape a hope that tomorrow the next great thing won't propell us past the fossil fuel age into Star Trek and Jetson worlds of the future.
No one talks about energy limitations in science fiction, do they?
I was raised to see great technological progress. This computer I tap away at now was a dream 50 years ago. The internet is barely a decade old, a world wide data communication network. The possibilities seem endless. Will we be halted in our tracks for lack of a little energy?
I'm not quite as pessimistic as Jim Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, is over our future. I accept a fair chance that humanity will one day be able to support 6 billion people on earth without fossil fuels. But I'm sure we're not there, and convinced no one sees that path. I accept an even bet that the world population in 50 years may plummet due to our environmental destruction and depletion of our energy sources that keep our economy humming. That 50 years is within my potential lifetime, god willing. Will I be a survivor or a victim in this new world that will be created?
I accept the philospophy that culture changes through Memes http://memes.org - ideas are formed that promote successful and that success allows it to be reproduced, just like genes are passed on, until some more successsful meme takes over, or the original meme causes side effects (pollution of any sort) that destroy the followers. Something like that, a bad attempt, but I'm thinking specifically about the "decision" for humanity to "industrialize" by abundant fuels and mechanization of physical work. It was a "good idea" in the sense of producing success, but the consequences of our dependence allowed our population to grow beyond alternative lifestyles, and now we're stuck. The spiral went up for 200 years, along with the growth of the US, and now we're heading into a downward spiral, unless we can change direction somehow.
My certainty is based on sustainability arguments. I think Einstein said "You can't solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it." I don't see modern culture as being capable of "powering down". We are only capable of looking up at the next solution that fits our demands. I'm SURE such vision means our next step, if successful, can at best move us one step further away from sustainability. My assumption is based on the idea that life ought to be powered by solar energy. All science fiction assumes we are not limited to solar power, and that fiction is directly based on the modern industrial memes that we've developed over the decades.
In my mind, whether we fall next year, or in 30 years, it is certainty. I'm okay if we want to challenge other energy sources, like fusion, but we shouldn't depend on success there.
I guess my main question relates to the fear that "Given an unfair advantage in the past, in the world oil consumption, why should we expect to continue this advantage?"
Fairness is not an objective term in any real measure. I suggest fairness (fair share) as possible tools to help give context to our dilemma.
Specifically, consider the US has 5% of the world's people, and consume 25% of the world's oil each year. A "fair-minded" person might say we're better off reducing our consumption to a world average. Even assuming world oil production would maintain itself, much less fall as peak oil theory predicts, that means th US must reduce our consumption by a factor of 5. To me that sets an arbitrary goal, even if still unsustainable. At least in the process of challenging the goal, we will be closer to the solution than if we wait for a crisis to force it upon us.
Even the Kyoto signing nations, fighting global warming have much more modest goals, many just holding consumption (CO2 production) constant, much less claiming a desire to reduce by factor of 5!
Where's the incentive to "give up" a hard earned "market share"? It is communistic to suggest "people are equal" and poor people in Africa or India ought to be considered equally to our own needs.
I promote higher gasoline taxes to reduce consumption, but I fully admit it seems unlikely to reduce consumption to the degree I suggest without completely destroying the economy as we know it. In my mind there is no timescale that a "controlled powerdown" will be fast enough to deal with peak oil. Still, again and again, whatever CAN be done, should, and we'll have a smaller distance to fall later.
It is at least interesting to imagine "what we should do", and still wonder if I'd have the heart to follow through, even on my own.
Life is short - enjoy it! The future will take care of itself, right?
posted by Ares Olympus at 5:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home