By Richard W. Rahn in the Washington Times
Oil reserves are largely a function of price. Global proven reserves of conventional oil obtainable at prices of less than $40 per barrel are estimated at more than 1.3 trillion barrels, with much of it concentrated in the Middle East. Additionally, reserves of so called “heavy oil,” the largest reserves of which are in Venezuela’s Orinoco area, are estimated at 1.2 trillion barrels, and most of this could probably be recovered for less than $50 per barrel.
The reserves of oil sands, which are actively being mined in Canada’s Alberta Province, are estimated to be 1.8 trillion barrels. Experts estimate that much of this can be produced for $45 per barrel or less. Global reserves of oil shale are estimated at more than 3.3 trillion barrels, with 70 percent in the United States (primarily in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming).
Shell Oil Co. last year announced it has developed a process for extracting the oil from the shale, without mining, at a price of roughly $35 per barrel. The United States also has the world’s largest reserves of coal - enough for hundreds of years of production at present levels. Coal also can be turned into liquid petroleum (as the Germans and South Africans proved decades ago). Current estimates of the conversion cost are as low as $35 per barrel.
Does it seem a bit odd that the current price of oil is more than twice the cost of producing all the oil the world presently needs and will need long into the future? The reason the price is so high is that the supply has been artificially constrained by governments. Most (88 percent) of the conventional oil reserves are owned by governments, and these governments have underinvested in new production. As is well-known, the U.S. government has restricted offshore and onshore drilling, shale development, and coal conversion.
Some politicians argue, even if the U.S. government started to allow increased production, that it would be seven to 10 years or more before there would be additional output. This is nonsense. Oil wells can be drilled at an average rate of 1,000 feet or so per day, which means that the average U.S. well can be drilled in a week. It does take a few weeks to set up the pump and install the separation tanks, etc., but new land wells can be producing within months, even if the product has to be trucked rather than piped away.
The very same politicians who claim we cannot increase oil production quickly are often the same ones who tell us we need to move to alternative forms - windmills and solar, etc. - without seeming to understand these desirable technologies will take far more time to meet the goals of “energy independence” than ramping up oil production. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said she would not allow a vote on more drilling because she wanted “to save the planet,” without seeming to understand, if increased oil production does not take place in the United States with all its environmental safeguards, it will take place where U.S. environmental law cannot be enforced - and that is not healthy for the planet.
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
By Zbigniew Jaworowski
Zbigniew Jaworowski submitted comments to CCSP-USP report - ‘Report totally ignores studies which disagree with the man-made warming hypothesis’
A striking feature of the Report is a unilateral presentation of information, with an almost exclusive concentration on greenhouse gases, and particularly on the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, as the dominant cause of the Modern Warm Period. The Report totally ignores studies which disagree with the man-made warming hypothesis.
An example of this neglect, one from among many, is a lack of information on cosmo-climatologic research. Recent studies demonstrate a powerful influence on climate of fluctuations of the muon fraction of cosmic rays, caused by variations of Sun’s activity. In the lower troposphere muons create condensation nuclei for water particles, indispensable for cloud formation. Cloudiness, which is directly related to the flux of muons, determines temperature at the surface of the Earth and in the lower troposphere. Short-term fluctuations of muon flux change the cloudiness by 3 – 4% (Svensmark and Calder, 2008). In the Report this is not discussed at all. But the relationship between climate and cosmic ray fluctuation, on the time scales from decades to centuries to millennia, is much stronger than between climate and human emissions of CO2. (Svensmark, 2007; Svensmark and Calder, 2008). Only a 2% increase in cloudiness is sufficient to cancel any climatic effect of man-made emissions of CO2 (Veizer, 2005). The activity of Sun, which was stronger during the last 60 years than for the past 1100 years (Usoskin and al., 2004; Usoskin et al., 2003), is a much more plausible cause of the Modern Warm Period than human emission of CO2. Extremely strong correlation between temperature (estimated from delta 18O in stalagmites) and radioactive carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere) indicate that the influence of Sun (modulating the cosmic ray flux) on the Earth’s temperature was about 280 times stronger than the influence of atmospheric CO2 (Mangini et al., 2005). These fundamental studies are ignored in the CCSP-USP Report, making its claim that CO2 man-made emissions are the main cause of the Modern Warming Period unsupportable.
The foundations of the CCSP-USP Report, its “fingerprints” and “human influences”, are based on ice core studies of CO2. However, ice cores are a wrong matrix for reconstruction of chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere. No effort dedicated to improving analytical techniques can change the imperative pattern of polar ice as a non-closed system matrix. Because of this pattern of ice the CO2 ice core data will always be artifacts caused by processes in the ice sheets and in the ice cores, with CO2 concentration values about 30% to 50% lower than in the original atmosphere. The low CO2 ice-core concentrations during the past interglacials, when the global temperature was warmer than now, suggest that either atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate, or that proxy ice core reconstructions of the chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere are false - both propositions are probably true.
The scenarios in the CCSP-USP draft Report are based on unreliable ice core data and on incorrect presentation of the past climatic changes. They should not be used for global economic planning. Under Information Quality Act’s terms this document is not permissibly disseminated so long as it continues to reproduce these false scenarios with the apparent imprimatur of the federal government. The requested change is: (1) to drop all the references to “human influences” and “fingerprints” as they cannot be credibly validated and are in fact empty notions; (2) to present the veritable fluctuation of climatic cold and warm phases over the past millennium; (3) to review the recent cosmo-climatologic studies, and to reflect them in the conclusions and recommendations of the Report. Without such corrections, the statements in this document fail to meet the authors’ claim of representing “the best available information” (p. 14), and “the best available evidence” (p. 15), and otherwise violate applicable objectivity requirements. Read full comments here.
By Jim Ott, JS Online
Predictably, the climate scientists on the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board endorsed the recommendations of Gov. Jim Doyle’s Global Warming Task Force ("Making it happen,” July 29). But the Editorial Board -and the task force - left out important facts you should know:
The task force was charged by the governor at the outset to assume that human use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to global warming. The fact that a significant number of climate scientists do not share this view or have serious reservations was ignored. The Editorial Board forgot to mention that there have been many dramatic natural climate variations in the past that are not fully understood, such as the “Little Ice Age” that affected Europe for several centuries.
Has the Journal Sentinel determined that natural causes of climate change are no longer relevant? Where is the science to back this up? The editorial mentioned the “recommendations” of the task force regarding nuclear energy. In fact, the task force states on page 49 that, “This recommendation is not a recommendation by the Task Force that a new nuclear power plant be built.” The easiest way to reduce greenhouse gases - increased use of nuclear energy - is clearly not a priority of the task force.
And, like the task force, the Journal Sentinel fails to make any mention of the potential cost to you or to our state’s economy if the “recommendations” are enacted into law. Isn’t this important information? Would you be willing to pay $6 a gallon for gas to fight global warming? How does a 40% increase in the cost of electricity sound? The price of virtually everything would rise. Last year, Wisconsin’s economy grew by a paltry 1%. What will raising prices, taxes and the cost of doing business do to Wisconsin’s economy?
Finally, any effort by an individual state to address global warming is pointless. Even if Wisconsin’s greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced to zero, there would be no measurable impact on global atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases and therefore no measurable effect on global temperatures. So a cost/benefit analysis of the task force’s recommendations reveals major increases in prices and taxes for consumers, massive growth in state government rules and regulations and no impact or benefit to Earth’s climate. Regardless of how you feel about “global climate change”, the task force’s recommendations are a recipe for disaster.
Jim Ott, formerly a meteorologist with WTMJ-TV (Channel 4), represents Wisconsin’s 23rd Assembly district.