Bush
Is Wasting His Energy and Ours on Old Ideas [Robert Bryce Commentary
- LA Times]
Why is the president insisting on 1970s policies -- which stress drilling
and nuclear plants -- when decreasing oil supplies worldwide should
be pointing us in a new direction?
source: Robert
Bryce in LA Times 2003.11.13
Robert Bryce is the author of "Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego and
the Death of Enron" (PublicAffairs, 2002).
President Bush is missing his Nixon-Goes-to-China moment.
In 1972, President Nixon was able to go to Beijing and negotiate
with the Communists because he was an ardent anti-Communist. Bush,
the Texas oil man, has an opportunity to ignite fundamental change
in Washington's ruinous energy policies. But he's never done it.
The simple truth is that, despite the energy policy plan put forward
by Dick Cheney's task force in 2001 and the pending energy bill
in Congress, the U.S. doesn't have a viable long-term energy policy.
It never has.
The new energy bill offers more of the same misguided policies
that have driven the U.S. for the last 40 years. The measure, likely
to be voted on by the House of Representatives shortly, provides
$16 billion in new incentives to increase oil drilling and build
new nuclear power plants. It's the same thinking that was in place
in 1973, when the first oil shocks rocked the U.S. economy. The
U.S. still has energy myopia a belief that we can produce
ever-increasing amounts of energy to fill our gas tanks.
It can't be done.
About 50 years ago, M.
King Hubbert, a geophysicist who worked for Shell Oil in Houston,
used mathematical models to predict that American oil production
would peak in the early 1970s. That's exactly what happened.

In 2001, Princeton University geology professor Kenneth Deffeyes
used Hubbert's work to predict that world oil production will peak
in the early part of this decade. After that peak, writes Deffeyes,
"the world's production of crude oil will fall, never to rise
again."
In his book, "Hubbert's Peak," Deffeyes predicted the
peak would occur in 2003. After that, he writes, "no initiative
put in place starting today can have a substantial effect on the
peak production year." No new energy sources, he warns, "can
be brought on at a sufficient rate to avoid a bidding war for the
remaining oil."
There's evidence afoot that gives credence to Deffeyes' prediction.
It came quietly in the third-quarter results turned in by the major
oil companies.
In late October, Exxon Mobil, the world's biggest oil company,
announced that its profit increased by 38%. But its energy production
fell 1%. Production fell even though Exxon Mobil is spending 16%
more on exploration efforts nearly $8.7 billion than
it did last year.
ChevronTexaco told a similar story. It too had a huge profit. But
its total oil and gas output fell 2.7%. Meanwhile, British oil giant
BP reported that its energy production was flat for the first three
quarters of 2003.
Given today's strong commodity prices, these companies desperately
want to produce more energy. They are not able to. That's probably
because they are reaching the limits predicted by Hubbert and Deffeyes.
Of course, scientists, pundits and oil men have been predicting
that the world will run out of oil ever since the gusher blew at
Spindletop in Texas in 1901. But there is simply no denying that
the number of major new discoveries are dwindling and supplies are
tightening. The globe has a finite supply of oil.
Whether production peaks this year or next year or in 2015 doesn't
really matter. What matters is how well we prepare for it.
Bush has the political capital that could allow him to deliver
a clear message to the world's biggest oil companies and to the
American people: We need to change course on our energy policy.
We must become more energy-efficient and energy-intelligent. We
must increase the use of natural gas (particularly imported gas)
and speed the development of fuel cells, solar cells and other energy
technologies. Doing so would allow us to reduce our reliance on
imported oil, particularly oil from the Persian Gulf, while making
our economy more resilient.
Bush's sales pitch would be easy. He could say that we will of
course continue to rely heavily on oil and natural gas for decades
to come. But we must look to the next generation. We need a technology
revolution a sustained, focused effort to equal the one that
began in the early 1960s and culminated with Neil Armstrong's stroll
around the Sea of Tranquillity. We must begin this effort today.
Nixon didn't go to China until his fourth year in office. President
Bush, there's still time.
|