Science and Society

The Latest Developments in Science and Technology

Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.

November 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

« Nuclear Power, Caught in an Earthquake | Main | The Sands of Mars »

The "Hard Truths" About Oil

July 18, 2007 5:49 PM

Oil_refinery_070709_main This may come as a surprise: some of America's biggest oil producers are calling for--take a deep breath now--oil conservation.

"The world is not running out of energy resources," says a report chaired by executives of some of the world's largest oil companies,"but many complex challenges could keep the world's diverse energy resources from becoming the sufficient, reliable, and economic energy supplies upon which people depend."

The report was put together by the National Petroleum Council at the request of the Energy Department; you can find a summary HERE.  Its title: "Facing the Hard Truths about Energy: A Comprehensive View to 2030 of Global Oil and Natural Gas."  It urges, among other goals: 

--Increased energy efficiency.

--More energy production from a variety of sources, including "clean coal, nuclear, biomass, other renewables, and unconventional oil and natural gas...."

--Better laws to advance "carbon capture and sequestration"--ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  The report favors "establishment of a transparent, predictable, economy-wide cost for CO2 emissions."

It also calls for more domestic oil and gas production to control imports, but energy suppliers have long agreed on that.

We're told the report, 422 pages long, took 18 months of work, and involved more than 350 people from different organizations, mostly outside the oil and gas industry.

But some of the people in charge were big names there: Lee Raymond, the retired CEO of ExxonMobil; David J. O'Reilly, the Chairman and CEO of Chevron; and Andrew Gould, the CEO of Schlumberger Ltd., the oil-services company.  There were non-oil people as well, such as Daniel Yergin, head of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, and Pulitzer-prize winning author of "The Prize," a major history of oil.

One might not think of these folks as calling for conservation or a carbon tax...but they did.

Thanks to Carrie McGourty of our staff for the information.

July 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (15)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/20148454

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The "Hard Truths" About Oil:

User Comments

oil is not a fossil fuel
its abiotic

big oil creates artificial scarcity to drive up prices.

big oil buys up and shelves all usefull tech. we should be well over 150 mpg by now. 1970's sedans got better gas mileage than they do today with more hp. dont listen to big oil ever

Posted by: James | Jul 18, 2007 8:41:50 PM

I lives in the 1970s! My first Corolla was a 1975 and made about 23 MPG on the road and that was a lot! Seems like you learned a new word - abiotic. Long shot like your current out look on car mileage. Give the oil companies this one -- we need to do more to conserve.

Posted by: latazman | Jul 18, 2007 9:30:45 PM

1970's cars had terrible HP. EPA regulations in the 1970's killed HP figures as the automakers did not advance there technology at all. A 1975 L82 Corvette had 205 HP(!)

My first car, a 1981 Chevy Malibu with a 6cyl had a whopping 130HP.

Posted by: Bill | Jul 18, 2007 10:29:31 PM

You've all contributed mightily to our unbearable and waning existence on this planet.
Your Greed will be preyed upon so agonizingly.

COME ON DOWN

Posted by: Steevn | Jul 18, 2007 10:45:28 PM

Oil is like diamonds -- a finite natural resource. So yes, no matter what, the price will go up as scarcity increases and supply decreases. But we have lots bigger issues to worry about that the price of oil and gasoline and who is making a profit. Pollution and climate change are much bigger issues than oil, even Big Oil. So let's keep our eye on the ball. We have huge challenges, and if the oil companies really promote conservation (and even restrict supply), then in the bigger picture, we win.

Posted by: Lawrence Walker | Jul 18, 2007 10:48:49 PM


Whenever stories like this come out, it's amazing how quickly most people trot out their automatic defense systems when faced with a reality they don't want to accept. In this case, that energy is become very expensive and scarce in our future, possibly dooming our modern civilization. "oil companies/countries keep oil off the market" "drilling more in ANWR will solve the problem" "Oil companies hide 200 MPG technology" "oil is abiotic" etc. without first doing the most basic research to show how silly those statements are. A similar response happens to many when faced with the reality of our mortality: "I'm going to heaven where I'm going to live forever" ...

Posted by: Ubik Valis | Jul 18, 2007 10:51:39 PM

so let's go solar,

I mean, scary nuclear because, when you look into the Sun all you see is just the biggest nuclear reactor around. That nice heat of the sun is radiation from a nuclear reaction.

and as a byproduct, no more money to those arabs for nasty things and no more trade deficit.

alternatively, if everyone would drive a hybrid, we don't need oil from the middle east anymore. Now that would be nice bumper sticker for Edwards.

Posted by: anhe | Jul 19, 2007 12:52:09 AM

I drive a 1959 caddy and I love it. To hell with big oil.

Posted by: SCOTT | Jul 19, 2007 7:41:16 AM

Remember Al Gore's book where he called for taxes to increase gasoline prices to $5.00 a gallon figuring that is the price most people would have a hard time paying? Well, $3.00 a gallon gas is harming most families and is economically devestating to the poorer people, making freedom of mobility to get to work unaffordable. The oil companies are raping our wallets by creating a false fear and making windfall profits every quarter. In the meantime, Congress has done nothing to mandate more nuclear power plants be built and Bush is happy with the high price of gasoline and propane gas. Let the people suffer... That is the attitude of the ultra rich oil execs and the ultra rich Bush family. And all the Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi led Dems can do is harp about how much they hate Bush and lay around at all night slumber parties doing nothing useful. Opps, Al Gore is a DEMOCRAT and he put the idea to make gasoline unaffordable in their heads in the first place!!!! The irony of it all.

Posted by: Bill | Jul 19, 2007 8:08:46 AM

I have to check the Weather Channel immediately to make sure Hades hasn't frozen over!

Posted by: chuck | Jul 19, 2007 11:32:35 AM

Yeah, well I don't see them giving up their profit margins, on which they have made billions in windfall profits, now do I?

When they pretend to be good "citizens", I must confess, I don't buy it.

Posted by: Rick McDaniel | Jul 19, 2007 2:02:24 PM

I'm not one of the truly paranoid 'Peak Oil' folks that are out buying survivalist gear and dried food rations. However, I do believe that the world will be an amazingly different place in ten years as energy costs ramp into the stratosphere due to the supply/demand curve. Everyone hold on - the ride is about to get really bumpy.

Posted by: Drew Grgich | Jul 19, 2007 4:09:19 PM

Maybe in the long run higher energy prices will do what people haven't allowed. We SHOULD be 90% nuclear for electricity by now, and hot and heavy for the developement of Fusion, but we aren't cause oil, gas, and coal have been cheap. Nuclear power is safe and reliable, but we need a standardized reactor design, not like we have now that EVERY NUKE PLANT IS UNIQUE!!! As for the 200MPG car, I am an auto tech and sure, you could get more MPGs, at the cost of the enviroment. I also believe that the biggest CO2 provider is right below our eyes, OUR NOSES!!! How many people are on this planet now?? 3 Billion? 4 Billion?? Thats alot of CO2 just by breathing. Sure, we need to look at the possible solutions, but at the same time we have to stop being afraid of everything and anything that is different.

Posted by: Peter | Jul 19, 2007 7:11:22 PM

Back in 1965 in Washington DC,I listened to a ship/shipping lobbist plead his case for imposing financial penalties on aircraft carryig freight and passengers because our passion for speed has created multi fuel guzzlers. This lobbyist had reasonable data showing how much less fuel ships would use in comparison to the aircraft. He went as far to predict a severe fuel shortage by the year 2005. This prediction was in 1965,he wasn't far off was he? What is our hurry???

Posted by: Bob | Jul 23, 2007 8:45:33 PM

The problem with oil is they don't realize that since it's a finite resource (at least until we begin tapping coal for oil), one isn't participating in a market simply for oil now, but also across time. As such, the oil companies have an incentive to ask the question: "Gee, if we sell it all now, could we have made a bigger profit in the future by saving some for someone who was willing to pay a price greater than the one we would've received plus interest? If so, perhaps we should slowly distribute oil so as to maximize profits and intertemporal efficiency so that people get what they most need when they most need it across generations." Believe it or not, people, for as counter-intuitive as it is, high prices are actually good.

Posted by: Stoic Patriot | Jul 25, 2007 10:42:55 AM

Post a comment