----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Europe, the US, and Environmentalism
> "John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> > The truth of the matter is that the oil wells will dry up slowly over
the
> > course of years. As the wells dry up, oil will become more scarce,
> > causing the price to go up. This increase in prices will cause
investment
> > in other energy sources all by themselves, without any need for
government
> > interference.
>
> Actually, it's a whole lot more gradual and drawn out than that. The price
will
> be less affected by scarcity as by cost of recovery. At the moment, most
of the
> oil we're using is obtained relatively easily, a lot of it coming up under
it's
> own pressure.
Huh? I think you are mixing up a lot of different things here. Mud weights
are controlled to make sure that there is a slight overpressure. Otherwise,
when one hits a gas zone, there is a significant risk of a blowout. There is
a pressure gradient everywhere in the world, and mud systems are designed to
deal with it. Oil is pumped out of the ground once a well is completed, and
gas is taken out in a controlled fashion, also after completion.
As we start to have to pump sea water into the wells to force it
> out, as we start to rely on wells that are currently regarded as too
expensive
> to operate,
Actually, field recovery costs have dropped tremendously. That's one of the
reasons for the tremendous drop in the real costs of oil from the early 80s
to the mid 90s. The drop in the late 90s to historically low levels has to
do with a temporary oversupply of about 3%.
>as we tap reserves of more difficult (to crack and to handle)
> crudes, the prices will reflect that, and other energy sources that are
> currently regarded as inefficient or too expensive will suddenly be more
viable.
That's true. But, a more accurate description is "as we tap smaller and
smaller fields."
> Similarly from an environmental point of view, oil will rise in its *bad*
status
> to *evil* status as we go to more wilderness (and more settled) areas, and
as we
> start using high cadmium oils, suddenly fields of windmills or nuclear
reactors
> won't seem as bad.
>
Well, the footprints are really relatively small, and with directional
drilling, one doesn't need to run rigs that close to houses. Although,
before we moved here, a rig was run a quarter mile or so from my house.
As for the wilderness areas, that will only matter in the US, to first
order. Even Norway has tons of rigs, and is comfortable with their
environmental impact.
> You only have to look at the size of the average American car between 1965
and
> 1975 and compare to the average size between 1978 and 1988. Or compare the
> average size of cars in countries like USA and Australia where fuel is
cheaper
> (though I'm currently paying USD2.00/gal) compared to the size of cars in
> Europe. Western society will adapt when their wallets force them into it.
>
That's valid. I think there will be a point where recovery costs increase,
and other alternatives become more attractive. The only caveat to this is
that it might not just be a question of applying known science to develop
technologies. I guess cutting down energy use, paying a lot more for
energy, and relying on windmills everywhere might work, but it would be
worthwhile developing things like high temp superconductivity to make it
more practical.
Dan M.
