Oil Myths Risk Yielding Bad U.S. Energy Policy

There are two oil myths currently making the rounds.  The public could become convinced that pursuing these myths is a solution to the energy crisis so the danger the myths represent is partially the environmental risk but more importantly the risk of our not pursuing a truly useful energy policy.

Both myths envision  the U.S. being delivered  from dependence on evil foreign oil sellers  by one of two Fairy Godmothers.  The two are:

1.  drilling for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and the Alaskan National Wildlife Preserve (ANWR) , and

2.  converting “oil shale” in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming into “billions” of gallons of American crude oil.

In regard to drilling the fact is that more drilling will have no impact on oil supplies for 5 - 10 years.  The idea being put forward that just starting to drill would lower oil prices by lowering expectated future oil prices is ridiculous because serious analysts understand that even when the “new U.S oil” flows in ten years or so it will have little if any impact on the global oil price and more importantly by that time the global oil supply problem will be far more serious than it is currently - meaning that oil prices will be much higher ten years from now whether we drill or not.

I personally think we should drill OCS and ANWR (or at least give the states the right to make the decisions) for two reasons.  First, by the time the oil flows we will REALLY need it. Second the environmental impacts are probably nil and can in any case be best assessed by the impacted states.

On the other hand, the true risk of a drill, drill, drill program is that people might confuse it for an effective energy policy and therefore give up doing what really is needed, which is to migrate our transportation system to electriciy.  But if drilling is part of a political compromise which includes truly useful policies, that would be fine with me.

The second Fairy Godmother is more pernicious.  Trying to convert the western shale into oil requires heroic unproven technologies.  Serious scientists like Ken Deffeyes state that the energy return on such a venture is negative with currently known technologies and will be so until and unless we are able to produce very cheap renewable (solar) electricity.

More importantly, the environmental hazards are very real.  The effort would take enormous quantities of both electricity and water resources.   The electricity would be highly polluting using present technologies and the water is simply unavailable in the west.  Western Congressional leaders will fight this effort tooth and nail.  It is not likely to go anywhere.

Nonetheless, idiotic editorial writers in the pay of various industrial interests are pushing the public with ideas like this:

“EDITORIALS & OPINION
Read more at: IBDeditorials.com

America Needs A (Shale) Oil Change

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 7/22/2008

Oil Development: In boldly announcing plans to unlock the crude in America’s vast shale-oil reserves, President Bush is showing real leadership. Now only Congress stands in the way of a brighter energy future.”

The actual energy policies we need are ones that will help us get from the inevitably declining age of petroleum to the only future we can have: renewable electric energy.   This transition will take a long time.  If we wait for market forces to push us toward it, the social pain will be much greater than if we intelligently guide the economy in the direction it must go anyway.

Clearly, the pursuit of either one of these Fairy Godmothers is simply a distraction.

Subscribe by RSS Subscribe by Email

Comment by jlounsbury59

2008-08-04 08:31:36

It is not a pretty story, but our politicians need to start telling the American people the truth. It may be that many of them don’t yet know the truth themselves. If our next president doesn’t lead this citizenry education process it may not happen without a lot more pain than is really necessary.

Reply to this comment