Comments on: Contributor Opinion by Carl Henn: Peak Oil and Rockville

By: art Stigile

art Stigile — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:14:29 +0000

Herb, I had no idea that such a thing exists. Keep us informed.

By: Jonathan Smith (New Mark Commons)

Jonathan Smith (New Mark Commons) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:29:14 +0000

Herb: I didn’t see this in time… hope someone posts an article about this event!

By: Herb Winkler

Herb Winkler — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:48:30 +0000

We discussed solar coops earlier, and there is a workshop tomorrow at the Solar Energy Industries Association conference in Gaithersburg. The model that we can promote may be based on the Mt. Pleasant Solar Coop, I’ll keep you posted…

By: Carl Henn

Carl Henn — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:14:48 +0000

Bill – So we made to 50 posts on this topic after all. Yes, I saw the Post’s article on the front page above the fold. They never provide similar coverage of peak oil issues. No coverage at all of GAO’s report on Peak Oil – http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07283.pdf. No coverage at all of DOE’s Hirsch report – http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf Hope these two government references make up for my earlier references to peak oil sites. I find the Energy Bulletin provides summaries of a broad range of useful articles. I find the Oil Drum to have an overwhelming amount of well informed discussion (though it takes an effort to learn the host of acronyms they use to speed communication – KSA = Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, ELM = Export Land Model, etc.I’ve sent a letter to the Post in response to their shale oil article which they won’t print. The Post rarely ever covers peak oil even in letters to the editor. Carl

By: Bill Burchett

Bill Burchett — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:24:48 +0000

Carl, just as I was about to give up on this topic, the Washington Post put this story on the front page today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120204305.html Then they run a companion story detailing some of the issues you mention with pollution caused by the shale drilling procedure: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120203984.htmlIn the 2nd story, the 2005 Congressional ruling exempting the chemicals used in this type of drilling from being disclosed is worrisome but it looks like that ruling is being reviewed. It should be. At the same time, other companies have adapted to using “green” fractioning fluids. I also viewed the links you provided in your last posting. While interesting, they are very one sided. The Energy Bulletin is a self described clearinghouse for peak global energy news. The Oil Drum is a Peak Oil blog. I guess that’s fair though as I posted George Will’s editorial. At least I linked to Bloomberg and the NY Times last time.

By: Carl Henn

Carl Henn — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:00:53 +0000

See http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5997 for an analysis of George Will’s recent editorial urging us to ignore concerns about peak oil. See http://energybulletin.net/node/45535 for 26 things you can do to reduce peak oil anxiety.See http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50827 for an analysis predicting that the peak oil is more likely to result in recession and relatively low oil prices rather than very high oil prices.

By: Carl Henn

Carl Henn — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:49:12 +0000

Yes, I’ve seen that ad claiming America has 100 years worth of natural gas. This is based on “resource divided by production”. So if production doubles, the number of years of supply is cut in half. And of course production will peak and decline before it runs out, so don’t count on having current production for 100 more years.The 100 years of supply is based on the resource estimate in the Potential Gas Committee report of 2 trillion cubic feet of supply. But the 2 trillion cubic feet is a “3 P” estimate. Proved, Probable and Possible. Proved = 90% probability of actually being produced, Probable = 50% probability of actually being produced, Possible = 10% chance of being produced. To be safe, we should rely on 2 P estimates, wherein there is an equal chance that more or less will be produced. The Potential Gas Study was clear that the 2 P number is much lower – only 700 million cubic feet. That’s still an increase over the previous estimate and well worthy of note. The increase in the natural gas resource estimate is due to the recent breakthrough that allows us to produce natural gas from shale source rocks. The process requires highly pressurized water mixed with sand and chemicals to be pumped down the drill hole in a process to fracture the rock. It results in high production that falls off by over half in about two years, then has a longer low production tail. It requires high prices to support this more expensive extraction process.It’s interesting how many ideas people have for this natural gas. George Will includes it in his vast fossil fuel resources that he hopes will allow us to go on with business as usual, restoring growth to our growth based economy that recently stopped growing. T. Boone Pickens recognizes that conventional oil is in decline, so his vision for natural gas is to use it for truck and bus fleets and replacing the natural gas currently used for electricity with wind based power. Some environmentalists want to use natural gas to replace coal for electricity production with the intention of leaving the coal in the ground since natural gas puts out about half as much carbon as coal does. Note that we only get to burn it once, and it can’t serve all three purposes outlined above.You can’t have infinite growth on a finite planet. Attempting to do so will build a high peak of production followed by a steep decline. Worst case scenario for people who care about their children.If our intention is to replace gasoline with natural gas, the math shows it runs out in 20 years (based on the 2 P numbers – see http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5615) It is clear that America has a lot of natural gas resources. It is also clear that as we use them, we use them up, that natural gas production will peak and enter decline well before it runs out. We currently use natural gas to heat homes, run factories, create nitrogen fertilizer, and generate electricity. Wind and solar energy are nicely complemented by natural gas in electricity generation since it can offset the variability of the renewable energies. Far better to use our natural gas for its current uses than to run it out faster in an unsustainable effort to continue business as usual. Oil is likely to enter decline roughly now. Our primary response should be to find ways to use less energy as oil declines and ramp up renewable energy. Natural gas clearly has a major role to play since we have a lot and it will take time to reduce our demand and increase production of renewable energy. Having lots of natural gas doesn’t mean we don’t have a problem due to peak oil.

By: Bill Burchett

Bill Burchett — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:54:22 +0000

I was watching Monday Night Football last night and saw a cute mother/daughter commercial suggesting that have a 100 year supply of natural gas right here in America. I’m sure it was paid for by the natural gas industry but I decided to look it up anyway. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=a0vNeQSytLD4NY Times Greenwire.http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/18/18greenwire-report-of-abundant-us-natural-gas-supplies-rat-50410.htmlThis is a more detailed explanation.http://www.mines.edu/Potential-Gas-Committee-reports-unprecedented-increase-in-magnitude-of-U.S.-natural-gas-resource-base

By: Carl Henn

Carl Henn — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:34:53 +0000

Bill – Thanks for the link. I hadn’t seen Will’s article yet. Interesting that he quotes the incorrect ‘peak oil’ predictions from 1914, 1924 and 1939 while ignoring later correct peak oil predictions. The 1914, 1924 and 1939 numbers were accurate statements that known reserves would be depleted in short order. They weren’t intended to predict how much was left to be found, only to speak to how far current reserves would carry us. Reserves means oil that we have found already. Resources means how much we think we have based an analysis of the geology. Reserves are based on drilling. Resources are can be estimated for areas where drilling hasn’t been done yet. Reserves close in on resources as drilling continues. Not surprisingly, early projections based on proved reserves don’t stand up well when we pretend that they were predictions of total oil depletion. Will quotes reserve based predictions taken out of context. He ignores the actual peak oil predictions that don’t support his point of view. M. King Hubbert is the geologist who created the model upon which peak oil estimates are based. In 1956 he estimated that production from the lower 48 states would peak around 1970. Production from the lower 48 states did peak in 1970. As it happens, production from the lower 48 fell off faster than production from Alaska came on, so that 1970 was the peak of American production overall rather than just from the lower 48 states. Now Alaskan production is also in deep decline. Geologists who follow Hubbert’s model and use more recent adaptations have correctly predicted the peak in Great Britain, Indonesia, Norway and Mexico. President Carter’s prediction was unfortunate. Note that he isn’t a geologist. But we would have been better served to follow his advice to take the problem seriously even though he got the timing wrong. We do have enormous fossil fuel resources left. But the high grade easy oil is going fast. How we move forward from here is critically important. Pretending that oil is in grand abundance a full 39 years after our production peaked does our nation a disservice. Will is right that replacing oil will be difficult. The sooner we start the better.

By: Carl Henn

Carl Henn — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:21:00 +0000

We need a Peak Oil Committee made up of Councilmembers, Planning Commission members, Traffic and Transportation Commission members and a broad cross section of other Commission members because we need to convince our policy makers that the problem is real and needs to be addressed. It is Council members who make policy in Rockville. If they don’t get it, policy is unlikely to change. If a few of them are on the commission that thinks through the issue, they are far more likely to get it. The Planning and Traffic Commissions also play important roles. If they are on such a commission, they are more likely to incorporate this issue into their actions.If the Environment Commission alone handles this issue, then there is a good chance that even if they do a fine analysis and write a brilliant report, it will make no impact on City policy. I used to be on the Environment Commission. I don’t recall a single instance in which the City adopted a new policy because of our recommendations. They did occasionally adopt our recommendations when they already agreed with what we recommended. I’m sure the Commission has had greater impact since I left it. I do believe that the Environment Commission should be represented on the Peak Oil committee.

By: Bill Burchett

Bill Burchett — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:21:33 +0000

Carl, did you read the Post today? George Will had a piece on fossil fuels: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002619.htmlOK, I know it’s George Will and he is easily dismissed and you can predict what he will say before you read it but hearing both sides is important. He does recite some “Peak Oil” history. I was surprised he didn’t even casually argue for conservation. He seems to thinks technology will bail us out as it usually does. Organizing a Rockville “Peak Oil” Committee made up of members who are inclined to believe we have reached “Peak Oil” is too easy. Of course they would recommend that we have reached “Peak Oil”. Doesn’t George Will live in Chevy Chase? Maybe we could have a Rockville/Bethesda/Chevy Chase “Peak Oil” committee and you and Mr. Will could be the inaugural members. I’d attend those meetings! I’m not saying I agree with him to the point where I am not sensitive to the “Peak Oil” argument. Only that there are two sides to every argument. If nothing else, this is a very timely editorial. I bet this topic will quickly pass 50 comments now.

By: Erik Read

Erik Read — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:15:05 +0000

The irony of municipal apathy…I agree with Carl, it’s mostly apathy but with a good slice of ignorance. My sense is that most voters don’t participate in municipal elections because they misapprehend the true impact on their daily lives relative to flashier yet more distant national elections.The true challenge lies in educating the populace just how far reaching and direct the reach of municipal government actually is in their lives.The problem is that there is a dearth of comprehensive well organized reporting and analysis on the issues at hand. Sure their are individual efforts and even online resources, but they are incomplete on their own. There is very little synthesis available.

By: Brigitta Mulilcan

Brigitta Mulilcan — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:45:52 +0000

Carl,Why is the Rockville Environmental Committee not the appropriate committee to deal with your concerns? Can that group not review the energy concerns and help educate the Rockville citizens with energy efficient systems households can consider?

By: Carl Henn

Carl Henn — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:53:29 +0000

At the Mayor and Council’s inauguration today, Mayor Marcuccio announced her intention to form three committees. I briefly hoped that this would include one such as I suggested in this column. No such luck. The proposed committees are to cover budget, city charter and communications.The budget committee was stated as being important given the bad economy. I think that understanding peak oil would help us understand the bad economy and help us to set better priorities, which is central to budget processes. The communication committee was announced in regard to low voter turn out, with the observation that it can’t be due to soley to apathy. My observation is that low turn out is mostly due to apathy. The barriers to voting are low. We have same day registration, we have polls open before and after work, we have absentee balloting, we have local press coverage, announcements through Channel 11, Rockville Reports and 12 candidates doing their best to get people to vote. A communication committee will talk about communication, or communicate about talking and two years from now the people who care enough to vote will vote. My thought is that if we can only have three committees, a peak oil committee is more important than a communications committee. It could broaden the type of conversation that we have been having here on Rockville Central. It would likely create more communication that would a communication committee. Or maybe I’m just missing the point and a communication committee would really add value. In which case I say we need 4 committees.

By: Leonel Guardado

Leonel Guardado — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:32:29 +0000

There was a good article on solar coops in the Wash Post this year. About 3 months ago maybe. I don’t quite remember which neighbourhoods they wrote about (chevy chase, takoma park ??). Anyways, it sounded that they had done all of the legwork already. Even with all the tax credits it wasn’t cheap but I would love to have a solar powered system for my home if I could afford it.