US Dept of Energy office supports Peak Oil theory

US Dept of Energy office supports Peak Oil theory

An office of the US Department of Energy addresses - and supports - Peak Oil research in this unusually frank document entitled Strategic Significance of America’s Oil Shale Resource. Produced by the DoE's Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, it disregards the overly optimistic oil production projections of the DoE's own Energy Information Administration. It references instead the research of Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrère, Kenneth Deffeyes, Matthew Simmons and other so called 'pessimists' in one of the first serious official documents supporting the thesis of an imminent oil peak. (In fact a later version of one figure included in the report was first published here on EnergyBulletin.net by Werner Zittel and Jorg Schindler.) The report looks towards the US's shale deposits as a potential source of fuel for the future. -AF ]
___________

~~~~ Full Report: ~~~~
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/npr_strategic_significancev1.pdf

(PDF, 1.1MB)

~~~~ Extract: ~~~~

Overview:

The growing dependence of the United States on foreign sources for its liquid fuels has significant strategic and economic implications. The United States has been a net importer of oil for more than 50 years, and today, imports nearly 60 percent of its liquid hydrocarbon needs (Figure 1). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) projects that U.S. imports may double, to 19.8 MMBbl/D by 2025. By then imports will exceed 70 percent of demand, the vast majority coming from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). As imports rise, America’s vulnerability to price shocks, disruptions, and shortages will also increase1.

The expected increase in demand for imported oil comes at a time when other consuming countries are also increasing their demand for oil, primarily from OPEC. Is such a growing dependence on imports and on OPEC accept able? Is it even possible for OPEC to meet the ever-increasing world demand for oil? And if it is possible, is increasing dependence on OPEC oil in the best long-term interests of the United States?

Adding urgency to these questions is the indication that world oil production may peak sooner than generally believed, accelerating the onset of inevitable competition among consumers (and nations) for ever-scarcer oil resources. Figure 2 illustrates the supply peak concept, first espoused by Dr. M. King Hubbert (Ref. 1), and now being debated by a number of respected petroleum experts (Ref. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). All of these experts agree that world petroleum supply will peak; the question is when? When the petroleum production peak occurs, the consequences will be severe if import-dependent nations have not prepared for it.

http://energybulletin.net/3664.html

past 30 years.

For the past 3-5 years, when OPEC has upped production to meet demand they are pumping heavy, sour crude out of the ground. This oil is very difficult to process and is not used for gasoline. Given its nature, it's also difficult and expensive to process. Knowing this, you have to believe we are at or very near peak oil.

To rip on the current admin, these idiots should be pursuing policies to reduce our contry's dependency on foreign oil - and not just by drilling in Alaska. We need policies that reduce our oil usage and improve technologies to utilize renewable sources as well.

But it's more important to keep gays from having abortions at the moment.

But only a little. These days, I tend to take everything coming out of the government with about a pound of salt.

...... then I guess we don't have to worry about global warming anymore.

Or, is there something wrong with my logic in saying that?

Only ~25% of energy worldwide is produced from oil. The majority of it, unfortunately, is produced by burning coal. With oil peaking out, more and more countries will switch to coal to replace oil as much as possible, by building more coal-fired generators and possibly by liquifying coal to produce synthetic fuels. With the decline of oil, we will still be pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, only from another fossil fuel source. Burning coal is far more environmentally harmful than burning oil in numerous other ways as well, producing soot, toxic coal ash residues and noxious gases. Its excavation is also devastating to local forests and grasslands when they stripmine rather than deepmine.

The only way Peak Oil will nullify the problem of global warming is if it hits so fast and so hard that national economies crumble worldwide. We wouldn't have to worry about global warming as much anymore, but we would be plunged into the next Great Depression. Is that a little more comforting to you?

And no, I don't want another Great Depression.

We should replace the coal plants with nucleaer ones.