It's the Fermi Paradox come to life.
1
Our economy is irredeemable until we can find a business model that is fundamentally better morally and practically than forced addiction. In the end nobody benefits from it, regardless of how profitable it seems for a few. The forced addiction to fossil fuels will kill the biosphere and destroy trillions of dollars in property. Do the people who still embrace this catastrophe think they can find a refuge for themselves on another planet?
4
I used to be in this business. The premise of the article is only indirectly correct. More oil does not mean more consumption, except via lower prices. We have seen that recently with the doofus's vain attempts to increase coal production. More supply doesn't matter if there isn't more demand. Oil companies will not continue to produce petroleum products (unless they are by-products) if the price isn't sufficient to cover the incremental operating costs. I was involved in those decisions for several decades, and we never wavered. If it doesn't make money you don't make it.
Remember peak oil? Nobody talks about it any more. Technology appears capable of continuing to find more oil and product it cheaply. We need to tax carbon, in a steadily increasing fashion. That will drive the perception of price, and people will then make sensible decisions that will result in lower oil consumption, which will of course lower prices further, requiring further carbon taxes. This will not be easy - it will require fortitude and the long view. I'm not optimistic, but only because Americans are so short-termist. So long as 40+% of the population believes that anything that looks like a tax is evil it will be very difficult for sensible long-term decisions to be made.
12
Tomorrow's NYT headline: Record Low Unemployment Across the Board, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming
Nooooo!
1
Whatever new technologies emerge to extract ever more oil from beneath the ground, it is still a finite resource. Getting that last bit out of the earth, using ever more extreme and energy dependent methods, will only make the supply drop-off more steep when it finally happens, whether its 20 years or 50 years away. I can' think of anything more shortsighted than betting on a resource that has no future. Meanwhile, the planet goes into crisis mode. Civilization, if it want to continue, has to get off fossil fuels now.
1
Given that the only actual climate danger always has been and always will be GLOBAL COOLING this is double good news.
4
I remember when our betters told us that we couldn't drill our way out of an oil shortage. Any reason why I should believe our betters now?
8
Yipee, keep it coming. Nice dire headline though, apparently it worked with most of the believers who pray to the mother earth goddess.
2
The USA is now the world's largest oil producer. We no longer depend on the Middle East. The developing world now has increased access to reasonable priced oil, and this will immeasurably improve their lives.
Electric cars have no measurably impact on C02 production, and when the CO2 cost of mining and refining lithium, rare earths, aluminum, steel, and oil and coal for plastic, plus the cost to ship them, and the fossil fuels used to make electricity, there is likely no net CO2 reduction.
Face it. Here in the US, you are not going to change your lifestyle to reduce CO2 production, except by virtue signalling symbolic purchases, like a Tesla. Even DeCaprio and Al Gore, our celeb climate change scolds, won't give up there private lives, multiple large homes, etc.
12
There is no such thing as "fossil" fuel. Do a search for Saturn's moon Titan. It's covered with lakes of petroleum. Do you think that Titan's dinosaurs had space suits? Oil is created in deep in the planet under great pressure. It's obvious to anyone with an open mind.
2
For the last 20 years, we've had a flood of pronouncements from the experts like Prince Charles saying we have only 5 or 10 or 15 years to solve global-warming/climate-change/wierd-weather/(whatever they're calling it in this week's Newspeak dictionary.) So, since the science was settled and we missed the 5 or 10 or 15 years deadline, why worry?
3
Great news. Just in time for Trump to do deficit reduction in his second term. Part of the plan.
3
Increased oil production will accelerate global warming and put the future of the earth's environment into deeper peril. As this article states, the switch to electric cars will slow down as gas gets cheaper. In addition, a cascade of negative externalities will occur to the environment and the social-political balance of our planet.
1
Might some powerful players in the US be happy with Maduro's impact of decimating Venezuelan production, and might these players have had an impact on Maduro lasting so long?
Some evidence:
(1) Most observers are quite surprised by how long Maduro has lasted. It seems strange.
(2) Regime change in VE would mean a turn-around in VE production (although not immediate), which could put downward pressure on oil prices and hurt some powerful US interests (Exxon, etc).
(3) The Trump administration acted quite quickly to get Iranian crude off the market. Might there be a similar desire to keep Venezuelan crude off the market?
I think the headline is blaming an industry where no blame lies.
I spent over 4 decades in the oil patch - much globally and in production. And I am very proud of my industry.
In these 4 countries, news of this production would be received differently - to say the least.
Especially Guyana - an impoverished country that just might see it's fortunes change completely.
Oil industries these countries are completely different from each other to be pumped them together as it it is some vast conspiracy to damage environment.
Oil industry is producing more from these countries because there is still demand out there.
You would think folks below would applaud these efforts that will bring pump prices low because there will be that much more money to invest in other industries.
Folks - I would think - who are so concerned about environment - will not exploit low pump prices to increase carbon footprint.
Our industry has gone thru a lot - from a bust to a windfall.
As long as largely American ingenuity, expert engineering and learning from the past - the oil industry is here to do it's job.
And it's job - I dare say - is to increase overall wealth of people's from around the world.
It is users who need to worry about global warming and not producers.
5
I think the headline is blaming an industry where no blame lies.
I spent over 4 decades in the oil patch - much globally and in production. And I am very proud of my industry.
In these 4 countries, news of this production would be received differently - to say the least.
Especially Guyana - an impoverished country that just might see it's fortunes change completely.
Oil industries these countries are completely different from each other to be pumped them together as it it is some vast conspiracy to damage environment.
Oil industry is producing more from these countries because there is still demand out there.
You would think folks below would applaud these efforts that will bring pump prices low because there will be that much more money to invest in other industries.
Folks - I would think - who are so concerned about environment - will not exploit low pump prices to increase carbon footprint.
Our industry has gone thru a lot - from a bust to a windfall.
As long as largely American ingenuity, expert engineering and learning from the past - the oil industry is here to do it's job.
And it's job - I dare say - is to increase overall wealth of people's from around the world.
It is users who need to worry about global warming and not producers.
I think the headline is blaming an industry where no blame lies.
I spent over 4 decades in the oil patch - much globally and in production. And I am very proud of my industry.
In these 4 countries, news of this production would be received differently - to say the least.
Especially Guyana - an impoverished country that just might see it's fortunes change completely.
Oil industries these countries are completely different from each other to be pumped them together as it it is some vast conspiracy to damage environment.
Oil industry is producing more from these countries because there is still demand out there.
You would think folks below would applaud these efforts that will bring pump prices low because there will be that much more money to invest in other industries.
Folks - I would think - who are so concerned about environment - will not exploit low pump prices to increase carbon footprint.
Our industry has gone thru a lot - from a bust to a windfall.
As long as largely American ingenuity, expert engineering and learning from the past - the oil industry is here to do it's job.
And it's job - I dare say - is to increase overall wealth of people's from around the world.
It is users who need to worry about global warming and not producers.
Our existing production rate of greenhouse gases will already displace an increasing number of people around the world--and also in the US. New production facilities will increase the rate of CO2 and methane production--and climate change. Our current rate of production will blow though the 2 degree C global rise thought to be the maximum our civilization can support already. Adding production ensures global carnage.
Trump is moving his official residence to a place that will be uninhabitable within the normal lifespans of his grandchildren. He apparently does not care at all about his own progeny.
This celebratory article, eager for an increased supply of greenhouse gases without a word of caution or concern is like helping a proven axe murderer shop for new axes, and adding chain-saws and assault rifles to his arsenal. Why would any reasoning, caring human being do such a thing?
2
The reality is that regular political processes have had forty years or more to show themselves of addressing the crisis. They have proven ineffective. Frankly, at some point, reality based people are going to need to do more than just wrong hands and march in the streets. I mean if Al Qaeda we’re building a device to wipe out all of humanity because god said so, we wouldn’t just sit around saying “gee, that’s too bad. Wouldn’t it be good if someone did something”. Why is it that when corporations do it because money said so, suddenly that’s all just fine by everyone?
I know, why is this?
Oil prices are always changing due to many factors but 1 factor often ignored is that the world population increases by about 85,000,000 people a year. The Green movement wants to get cleaner air but sometimes they create the opposite result.
Canada will be More Polluted for decades--- as diesel powered tanker trains will now haul tarsands oil to ships destined to China by using USA railways.
The tanker trains will almost double the pollution as they must haul the empty tanker cars back to Alberta to be refilled.
The Canadian Green movements success blocking Canadian export pipelines----- have caused massive unintended consequences.
Information from link below.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/chinese-buyers-ramp-up-purchases-of-cheap-alberta-bitumen-laden-crude.
1
This is great news for the free trade crowd. The global economy should pick up after being hamstrung by tariffs.
Sorry, NYT.
5
Just because there is more oil on the market doesn't mean that you can not install solar, or at least on demand water heating in your home, that you can't turn off the lights/computer when you leave the room, that you can't walk if your destination is 10 min or less on foot, that you have to throw your jeans and towels in the laundry after using them just once, that you can't set your AC at 75 instead of 65. It doesn't mean that we can't empower ourselves in our struggle against climate change.
1
Fourteen years ago (2005) a gloomy article by Peter Maass ("Breaking Point") appeared as a cover story in the NY Times Magazine. The author cited several petroleum engineering experts here and abroad to make a thoughtful and compelling argument that the world's largest oil fields - some producing for decades - were headed for inevitable production declines with little prospect for newer fields to provide adequate supplies in the face of steadily increasing global demand.
The prospect of sharply higher energy prices, he observed, could hit the world economy "like a sledgehammer".
More recently, anxiety over "peak oil" supply has been shouldered aside by concerns over "peak demand". How times have changed in ways few "experts" predicted.
4
@Weston Wellington Read the articles from the energy crisis in the 1970s and 1980s. The world was going to run of oil by 2005. And this was accepted wisdom. Exxon put 500 millon dollars into the Colony oil shale project in Colorado back when that was serious money. The moral of the story is that it is hard to predict the future.
1
Major misleading statements in Krauss’s article:
“... new pipelines in Texas are expected to increase United States exports to 3.3 million barrels a day next year, from the current 2.8 million” and “... the rise of hydraulic fracturing ... converted the United States from a needy importer into a powerful exporter”.
In fact the USA is still in the top four net importers of oil, dependent on net imports for about 10% of its oil consumption.
From an EIA website:>> In 2018, the United States exported about 7.60 MMb/d of petroleum to about 190 countries and 4 U.S. territories, of which about 27% was crude oil and 73% was non-crude oil petroleum. The resulting net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum were about 2.34 MMb/d.<<
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6
Petroleum has a use-by-date so, the Saudi's are selling the Crown Jewels taking their final profit before the serious consumer decline.
The current global warming started in the early 1700's and has not accelerated, at 2F/century. So it couldn't have been CAUSED by the 1950's big emissions. Or by the 50 steam engines in the 1700's.
Seas when George Washington was around were rising at the same rate as now.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=190-091
The human brain was built for relentless work to find food. Once you can get food in the supermarket, or with a click, the brain is prone, in many people, to feel guilty about SOMETHING. Like having caused the 275 year old warming.
That is why you don't get this guilt in developing countries, where getting food is still a strife.
This guilt is so deeply ingrained that it cannot be touched by rational arguments. Fortunately the founders of our nation have enshrined the right of people to believe in whatever they choose to.
1
There are so many reasons to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. It's money for nothing for petrostates (yes, even Canada and Norway), in other words Ghandi's "wealth without work," and I'd argue his other six deadly sins as well. Even if we could stop global warming, cheap oil would still be a curse.
Increased production and low prices. Perfect time for a significant carbon tax.
3
And once again the Paris Agreement proves to be nothing more than a tattered piece of paper. Not one country is even close to meeting their agreed reductions. Talk, talk, talk.
We're undoubtedly the worst but every oil producing country uses their own brand of tortured logic to develop new fields and ramp up production.
So now Norway will use profits from their new field to invest in wind power? The more they drill the more wind power brought on line? You cannot be serious.
Climate change wasn't lost with a bang or a whimper. Just balance sheets and endless lies.
1
@Lou Good We're already doing it, so it's you who isn't serious.
I would love NYT to share stories from people who are about to have a children or considering it. Does this news affect their decision in any way with respect to climate change getting even worse?
6
Why am I paying $4.50 for a gallon of gas. When they are pumping gas off the shores of Santa Barbara, CA, pumping like mad in TX, AK, and LA?
We have enough oil here to sustain our country. Why are we buying oil from Canada and Saudi Arabia?
Why do we keep pumping if we currently have plenty?
Wouldn't it be better to stop robbing the environment and slow down and take a break?
1
@Gus
I live in SB as well, and if you want to know why you are paying almost $2 more than in say South Carolina, ask yiur governor. First, state fuel taxes are among the nation’s highest. Then, the gasoline sold here is more expensive to make so that cars emit fewer pollutants. And then there are other higher costs (labor, real estate) and regulations. But probably the most important reason is supply and demand. About the only refineries that make the California fuel are located in California, as it is uneconomic to make it in Texas and ship all that way, so that when there is an upset in supply, such as when a refinery goes down or a pumping platform is shut, then the California market is short of supply. Not the whole nation, just California.
1
@Gus
So you want cheaper gas and in the same breath, whine about oil consumption , "robbing the environment".
3
The Saudi's are selling Aramco?
Guess why?
1
I had solar panels on my home since 2013, however, I drive a car and fly on airplanes. From reading the top comments I am assuming that many of the readers live off the grid and do not use fossil fuel to heat their homes. Am I right on this point?
3
Emission of CO2 per capita , metric tons per year
US 16.1
UK 5.6
France 5.2
Transportation is the largest single contributor.
As gas prices fell, US consumers switched from passenger cars to ever larger pick up trucks and SUV's (the 3 top selling vehicles last year, were Ford F, GM Sierra, Dodge Ram. The best selling passenger car showed up as #6)
All the US needs to do is to tax gasoline at the EU level to fight global warming
And yet, no administration has attempted it
11
Watch out for political turmoil in Guyana. Whenever a small country with untested or weak institutions gets a lot of money from oil, usually, bad things follow. If history is any guide, Guyanese people are in for some turbulent future. I hope that its leaders invest in its people and future and not simply line their pockets or suppress its people.
3
While it is true that oil production is poised to rise, there's a far more complex dynamic here than this report suggests.
In the short term, lower oil prices will likely lead to smaller oil and gas companies filing for bankruptcy. That could mean less oil production in the years to follow.
Couple that with the long-term picture: even if oil demand flattens, chronic industry under-investment since 2014 points to an under supply in future years. So prices may rise significantly.
These two factors may lead to a period of lower oil and goods prices (about 40% of a barrel of oil is used for making gasoline and diesel; it's also used for plastics, etc). At the same time, investments in solar, wind and hydroelectric will suffer because it's hard to compete against the lowest priced fuel.
Suffice to say, this is not a two-dimensional problem.
This is bad news. It's just another "reason" people will use to keep using fossil fuels and destroying the planet and all for greed. It's tragic that the exploration for more oil continues while we should be pouring our resources into renewable sources and greater economization. We really don't need more oil.
3
Market failure resulting in overproduction. We need a big carbon tax now. A border adjustment can incentivize international adoption. HR763.
@Terry So the mandarins and the haves can extort more money from the middle class.
How is the US a powerful oil exporter. We use 19 million barrels a day yet only produce at most 12 million barrels a day. Yes we do export refined products and maybe export some raw crude, but we sell import a lot of raw crude?
We have gone from peak oil, the fear of running out of the stuff, a completely unjustified fear as it turns out, to the fear of having too much of it, which I suspect may be unjustified too.
1
@gbc1 I'm not sure I could come up with a wackier case of apples and oranges. Apples: At a point in time it appeared that we may be close to using up a finite resource. Oranges: Burning fossil fuel pumps CO2 into the atmosphere with horrible and predictable consequences. So by your logic, the latter (scientific fact) will turn out to be false, because we still have enough oil to burn?
1
@NotSoCrazy
The link is too little oil, too much oil, both causing great concern, which is ironic, don't you think? There are no apples and oranges. If oil falls out of use, it will not be used, regardless of how much of it there is, there is no concern needed. As for scientific facts, there was science behind peak oil theory too, turned out they were wrong. I am not saying the science behind climate change is wrong, but it is hard not to notice that scientific facts do tend to change over time.
2
@NotSoCrazy
And I should add, with respect to the problem of climate change, assuming there is a problem, which I do, it seems to me there is not even a glimmer of hope on the horizon that a solution will be found. This makes the question of whether or not you believe in the science of it rather a moot point, don't you think?
I suggest you read this, from the MIT Technology review:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/
This article seems to be unreasonably alarmist. These projects will add about 1% per year to capacity for the next two years. Global oil demand is about 100 million barrels per day, and consumption grows about 1% per year. So this alone would keep the supply/demand about where it is now. The key is what is the net supply change from other sources. There are other new fields coming online, but also older fields declining in production.
1
This hand-wringing nonsense has to stop. Oil is, and never was the problem. Coal is. And coal demand is zooming in Chindia et al. Nothing the West does makes an iota of difference if Chindia keeps up their massive expansion of coal. It's intellectual dishonesty at its finest to talk about anything else - but since Chindia et al have no intention of slowing their coal usage, we never read about the fact that the much vaunted 1.5 degree limit is a foregone conclusion.
6
Only way is to make us all pay taxers for oil use. Make it a carbon tax, a gas tax, an energy tax.We are talking survival of the planet.
3
It should be clear by now that we have only scratched the surface of the reserves of oil and natural gas.
1
@novoad Agreed - and we need to learn to resit the urge to scratch that itch so future generations can have a livable planet.
Peak oil, like the predictions of Malthus, didn't pan out as predicted.
3
Seems like a very good time for a gas/diesel tax to fund infrastructure building ... maybe trying to keep reg gas at $3/gal. I wonder if any candidate would suggest this vs. generic talk about a green economy ... someday. The US needs to use this short term oil fracking boom to reduce our consumption for the day this last bit that the oil apple end.
In any case reducing the political power of Russia and the Middle East is good, and less $ per barrel will be available for trouble making.
43
@Jeff Morse
I highly doubt any candidate, with the exception of former Maryland Congressman John Delaney, will recommend a fuel tax increase as it's perceived as a "middle-class tax hike." Obama opposed hiking fuel taxes for that reason.
Everything about this article scares me to death. Pumping more oil will only lead to further disruption. Disruption in financial markets from boom and bust cycles. Political/social disruption, especially in countries with fragile democracies, as they become more dependent on petro-dollars (Brazil's Petrobras is largely owned by the state). Disruption in our environment - mass extinction - from a warming climate.
No good, bad, and getting worse.
48
This is all a last ditch effort to ride the gravy train right to the edge before it goes over the cliff. Everyone sees the writing on the wall--the end of the fossil fuel era is coming--one way or another. But they just can't resist squeezing just a little more profit out of the system. Certainly the Saudis see the future, and taking their money now by going public is something of an insurance policy against the eventual closing of the valve--it will leave the shareholders with future losses. It's a little like musical chairs as the music gets louder and faster. And meanwhile, the Saudis can use the money to diversify. They have lots of sunshine over there...
59
@MRM There's very little gravy on a train with $50 per barrel oil, my friend. This industry excels at cutting its own throat and producing more oil will do just that. But it also means that while we pay lower prices for fuel and industrial plastics, solar and wind have to compete with this very low-cost fuel supply.
1
Rationales of "projects in the pipeline" that must be made regardless of economic and climate influences make a mockery of the notion of "capitalism".
The concept of long-range planning seems to escape Big Oil unless it's intention is to drill. Economic indicators and dire climate change conditions have been around for decades. Crony capitalism that gave Big Oil depletion allowances and accelerated depreciation keeps them drilling; not capitalistic forces that would have perhaps moved the same spending into the renewables we need NOW.
It's all about Deadwood Investment and these dinosaurs that are too feeble to do anything else. Government and Big Oil have lost their way. If they continue to have their way, things will not change. The only thing left to do for the average person is to vote these Do Nothing politicians out who have done nothing about our future and the immediate change that is needed to protect our environment. Corporations will not regulate themselves and it has been the hood-wink in plain sight of the horrible governance we have experienced for decades. Remember the Cuyahoga River...
35
And at the same time claiming a need for more oil, trump is giving away our national parks and wilderness areas while gutting EPA standards to feed the bottomless greed of the oil industry.
Our energy policies are pathetic in this country.
81
@Steven ~
The "good" news is that a glut will make it non-economic to ravage what was protected land.
7
No, it’s the voters who are preposterous in this country.
1
Its ironic that Norway with highest number of electric/battery vehicles for its population, would flood the international market with the fossil fuel.
57
@CTBlue
I think it's ironic for consumers to vilify producers who are offering up the very thing that consumers demand.
19
@CTBlue Norway is not 'flooding' the international market with oil, it's contributing less than 2 percent of the total. All electric vehicles are subsidized, and by 2030, all cars here will be electric. As for the continued production of oil and gas, the country is at a crossroads. Keep in mind that 6,000+ products in the world are oil-based, including the tires on electric vehicles and about 60 percent of all clothing (synthetics). Half of a barrel of oil goes to fuel, the other half to all those other products.
17
@Ron B Just like vilifying drug king pins for supplying what drug addicts demand?
4
Huge new investment in new oil doesn't just "complicate" addressing climate change, it makes it impossible, It ensures a continuing steady increase in production.consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, already disastrous for the long term, for at least 15 years, by which time climate change catastrophes will become uncontrollable.
73
As we ever had a chance to change the forces that are bringing on this climate change...
Now is the ideal time for a carbon tax. Keep gas prices the close to the same and offset the cost reduction in the price of crude with a carbon tax. Only by gradually weaning consumers off of oil and natural gas consumption can we begin to halt the acceleration in global warming.
I have yet to see the finger of blame for global warming and the glut of oil pointed at those who drive gas-guzzling suv's and jeep-type vehicles.
94
@MIKEinNYC We need to raise the Federal gas tax. I think it's been the same for 20 years or so. That revenue would help for the deficit and offer a disincentive to buy huge vehicles. Of course, that would never pass the Senate.
20
@MIKEinNYC
Most of the governments are not interested in cutting back on either oil consumption or put a break in gas guzzling vehicles. These are major sources of their tax revenue and point in example is my country of birth India. The Delhi pollution is well discussed but the state and local government earn 40% as tax on gasoline, diesel and similar fossil fuels. Therefore, so far the government has taken no major steps. Sad. Can’t blame oil producing countries.
3
I drive a 15 year old suv and I wouldn’t trade it in for anything. It has 4wd, goes in the snow, big tires that don’t go flat on pot holes, and weight enough to drive through wind and rain storms. Little efficient cars don’t last and on bad roads they aren’t safe. There is more to the equation of what car to drive than the price of gasoline. SUV’s are popular because they fit the American gig economy survival life style. Once we get good roads, and good jobs, and job security you may see everyone start to move toward flimsy movement cars to help save the planet but right now most of us are fighting for our own survival today.
2
All true, but the focus on oil production is wrong. We need to focus on oil demand. You've may have seen that SUVs alone are the second largest source of global CO2. We need economically attractive substitute vehicles and energy sources. Advanced fission can provide cheap electricity for electrolysis to make hydrogen fuel at half the $/mile we now spend. Nitpickers will say hydrogen might be explosive (not gasoline?) or fission power plants are radioactively dangerous (not Fukushima though). Let's look at the big picture and dispense with superstitions and myths about fission energy. [Disclaimer: ThorConPower.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/25/suvs-second-biggest-cause-of-emissions-rise-figures-reveal
1
@Robert Hargraves, Do they have SUVs in India or China or Brazil, for these are the leading polluters in the world, not SUVs.
6
@Ryan Bingham This was a global study by IEA. Here's Axios' article with reference to IEA. https://www.axios.com/suv-climate-toll-iea-report-34909b28-83c3-47e5-bb04-66d86f9dcb15.html
@Robert Hargraves SUVs are not the 2nd biggest source of CO2, they are the 2nd biggest source of GROWTH in CO2 behind the generation of electric power.
As usual, The Onion summed it up best: "Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe"
https://www.theonion.com/millions-of-barrels-of-oil-safely-reach-port-in-major-e-1819571678
1
Hollywood was wrong: Aliens would never need to attack us. We will destroy ourselves, thank you very much.
There is simply one question to ask,
"What good is all this oil when Mother Earth will be dead?"
These actions of greed are appalling.
Someday the Earth will have enough of humanity's mistreatment. The tragedy is that the long term thinking cultures that have not been eliminated are being ignored.
1
Just circling the drain. 40 years ago we knew what we needed to do to save the planet. Instead we elected Ronald Reagan. Now it is too little too late.
2
I just returned from two weeks in the forests and grasslands of southern Guyana, a beautiful, underpopulated area of relatively undisturbed and undeveloped natural resources. The one “highway” that runs from Georgetown south to the Brazilian Amazon closes every night because it includes an intermittent ferry. The group I was with stood on this dirt road in the forest at dusk for over an hour and only saw a few motorbikes.
The risks and opportunities associated with Guyanan oil are indeed intense and widely discussed. The intact forests and associated ecotourism offer the possibility of a green path that contrasts with the depressing events happening in neighboring Brazil and Venezuela, potentially offering the world a rare environmentally-friendly development story. But the temptation to use the oil money more traditionally (and corruptly) to build a car-centric economy is very real. China’s influence is also a risk, because they have little motivation to pursue environmentally-responsible strategies in Belt and Road outposts like Guyana.
The current government appears unpopular because promises made have not been kept. As the article notes, politics among the three main factions has been contentious, and an upcoming presidential election in March 2020 raises little optimism among any of the people we met with.
If visionary political leadership could emerge, supported by the EU, a post-Trump US and global nonprofits, the result could be a rare and needed hopeful example.
@Arizona Refugee
What makes you think that the locals don't want to live like the people in Miami, in air conditioned concrete and glass houses overlooking the forest and sea?
Now they can.
Unless they are overcome by oil driven corruption...
Very good article. Now there should be an article on how State Attorney Generals can weaponize the law to stop oil companies from producing oil. The Attorney General of NY is leading this effort, with an interesting legal theory, that ExxonMobil has not performed a proper risk analysis in determining its stock price, which could impact stockholder value. Hopefully CA will be next.
1
This is a story as old as the oil business, drill and build when the price is high, sell when the price is low. It’s what keeps the major oil companies rich as they pick off the smaller producers when the price crashes. As countries like China reach middle income status their growth in energy consumption will decline or stop and with many renewables cost competitive with oil (perhaps not natural gas yet) we should not expect $100 oil for many years -if ever.
1
Low cost producers flood the market to drive high cost producers out of business, then prices rise again.
1
Remember when we thought oil was only in the Middle East and we'll run out of it by 2050?
6
I can't see the US as a "powerful exporter" since we still import nearly half of our oil. We are not energy independent and never will be as long as we are on oil.
Imagine what will happen if more shale oil is developed world wide. That resource has been only slightly tapped.
I predict that there will be considerably less demand for oil when there is a step decline in population due to global warming.
Infinite growth will only mean that there will be a lot of people around when the collapse of our ecology comes.
No mention of wind and sunshine in this article. They are huge sources of energy, and they are free. Not a cent needs to be spent on drilling or mining or removing the tops of mountains. And we might even save our existence on earth if we use them rather than fossil fuels as our energy sources.
9
Of course, no one ever thinks to suggest that even if the oil is not all that expensive, it might not be a great idea to use or buy it. If isn';t exactly as if each of us is forced to consume so many barrels each year.
1
Nevertheless, physics and chemistry (which are incorruptible and are blind to stockholders, investment decisions and opinion polls) dictate that we can't burn all available oil, otherwise we destroy the climate.
Our family drives two electric cars with no compromises to utility, at one fourth the cost of driving on gas. I could care less how low or high the price of gas goes.
One of the most impactful, if not the most impactful, things you can do for the climate is to look very seriously at an EV the next time you need to replace one of your vehicles. Test drive, talk to owners, explore Youtube, do your research.
Driving an EV is not a weird, burdensome thing, it's a great secret more people are discovering.
13
Oil is like drugs. It's out there and it's subsidized and it's cheap. No one will give it up, disputes the clucking from the left, until they can afford to or are forced. The third world is going to use oil to develop because its cheap. Politicians who say, "were going to tax oil and clean up the air and cure climate change" may get some votes in liberal rich areas, but won't win any elections. Our mess at the southern border shows our dilemma. 100s of thousands of poor peasants want to come north. The democrats want to let them in and give them free health care. As Americans they will go from ~1.5 tons of co2/year to 1500 tons as Americans. Is the left also proposing to give them all a Prius and solar panels at the border? The only solution at this late date is first off honesty, and second facing up to the fact that human numbers and lifestyle both have to be addressed and it's going to cost the west a lot of money and the 3rd world is going to have to stay home and with our help fix their problems starting with birth control.
1
Why hasn't the mainstream press noticed this before? For that matter, why haven't I noticed this before? A short time ago, I thought the damage to the refinery in Saudi Arabia might send oil to $100 a barrel or more, implying a huge, sudden jump in gasoline prices to well into the high three dollar or the low four dollar range. Never happened.
1
@Stephen Beard
Places like Saudi Arabia are sitting on a sea of oil. Some of their wells have been gushing since the 30s. It costs almost nothing for them to produce it. Russia is the same. As neither of these places are free intellectually they get money by producing resources not ideas. Same for corrupt countries like Nigeria. The price of crude is far more sensitive to politics than regular market forces.
1
Americans will buy electric cars when they are both affordable and better than gasoline-powered cars. Today's tech is not, but tomorrow's is nearly certain to be. Range is a big issue, and charging time is a bigger issue.
The price of gas affects which gasoline-powered cars are purchased, but probably not many people's choice of gas vs. electric. Finding oil, which has lots of uses besides burning it for fuel, is a good thing.
5
Beg to differ sir. I’ve been driving a Tesla for 6 months and 10000 miles. Neither range or charging time has been a problem. When at home the 240 mile range is more than plenty and I charge at home while sleeping. When on the road superchargers are plentiful and charge in 15 to 20 minutes, just enough to stretch and go to the bathroom. No gas, no maintenance, and a lot of fun to drive for $35k. Can’t beat it.
25
@Jorge Romero
But for the recent spate of battery issues they sound great.
@Alan Those old chestnuts are fading away. We drive a Chevy Bolt, rated at 238 miles, and easily capable of 250. 95% of the time it gets charged at home in the garage at night, every other day or so. It also drives t 1/4 the price per mile of a gas car.
5
So now we don’t like the Iran deal because sanctions on Iran increase the price of oil and encourage development of alternative energy sources? What’s good for Iran is bad for the climate?
And conversely, we now want a glut of oil so that it becomes so cheap that energy companies need to develop alternative sources to make a profit?
Experts.
4
@Steven Roth "sanctions on Iran increase the price of oil"
Sanctions on Iran have not increased the price of oil.
1
A few responses from someone who has watched the oil industry up close for five decades:
Global oil demand is now about 100 million barrels per day. Almost all projections see that continuing to increase for at least another decade, driven almost entirely by the needs of developing and emerging nations. The most optimistic of the credible climate-action scenarios still foresee eventual demand of about 70 million b/d, including non-energy uses such as paving and petrochemicals and probably inelastic ones such as jet fuel. The supply has to come from somewhere.
In the US and Canada, the perverse response more efficient vehicles has been for consumers to buy bigger ones and drive more miles. Low oil prices create "tax room" to collect revenues, whether for conservative causes (deficit reduction), environmental causes (carbon reduction), or public benefit (infrastructure).
Increased Canadian production is almost entirely due to oil sands projects approved prior to 2014 and just now coming on stream. Line 3 and other pipelines improve the returns for this oil, but most of the new production will still get to markets by rail (at higher cost and environmental impact). New well drilling in Canada next year is expected to be less than one-quarter the level prior to 2014.
The comment below about too many people on Earth may be correct, but what do you intend to do about it? Some people have been saying that since at least the 1970s.
30
Weather disasters are not going away, they are only going to get worse. The oil industry is in control of most governments and the poor as well as those not paying attention will be the ones who suffer the most with climate change. The oil industry is doing irreparable damage as we squander away time. The cost will break the banks and insurance companies as the snowball effect of climate disasters mount. Science has propelled us to where we are now. Why is scientific study questioned when it comes to climate change? The answer is big oil. It is in control of our lives and they have the money and the power to rule the narrative.
14
@Bella Here is a chart of deaths from natural disasters from 1900 to the present. You can see trends of deaths from drought, flood, extreme weather, etc. They have all decreased massively, in an almost perfect anti-correlation to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
If the data are telling you that weather disaster fatalities have trended down as CO2 concentrations have trended up, then on what "scientific" basis, exactly, do you purport to believe otherwise? Or, to put it another way, if"scientific study" purports to predict future outcomes that are in direct contradiction to a full century of empirically observed outcomes, on what basis do you believe that these studies should not be seriously questioned?
Data here: https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
1
@Bob Technology in terms of better forecasting and storm-resilient infrastructure is a confounding variable in your analysis so it's invalid to conclude that lower deaths mean fewer/weaker storms.
7
@OaklandWellesley The relevant issue with respect to weather disasters, or any other disasters, for that matter, is the amount of harm that they do. Measured in terms of deaths, it should be extremely clear that the amount of damage is dwindingly small and has reduced significantly over time. Much of this decrease, one would presume, is the direct result of plentiful fossil fuels. We now have plentiful heat in the winter to prevent deaths from cold, and we have air conditioning to prevent deaths from heat. We have, in fact, more of just about every resource we need to prevent harm from natural disasters, and much of this is attributable to affordable fossil fuels and the various machines they power. The "flood of oil" referred to in this article will increase human resiliency to natural disasters, not reduce it.
As for actual natural disaster trends, however, should you look at those, it is also the case that there has been no increase over the past century or more in either the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, or pretty much anything else. Empirical data simply does not support the popular imagination of what everyone believes is happening.
2
Fossil fuel might lose its importance with time but our societies are dependent on many products derived from petroleum. Until there are alternatives we will need to have a flow of oil and gas. As well, while there is positive progress in developing alternative means of transportation that are not petroleum reliant the progress has yet to point to affordable and sustainable choices for all of us. Innovation and invention will provide viable alternatives with time, investment, and persistence.
8
Sounds like the final nail in the coffin of life on earth as we know it.
17
We will have to subsidize plastic recycling because it will continue to be cheaper to keep producing it at nausum.
1
I'm done. I've officially become a nihilist. There is no hope for our future. This proves that capitalism is just a suicide cult that worships money.
81
@NobodyOfConsequence, No, capitalism is the way Americans see their standard of living not declining. We aren't going to live is a shack and eat berries.
1
@Ryan Bingham There is a middle ground between making the earth uninhabitable for extreme profits, and living in shacks. The problem is that rich people love making excessive profits more than they love making a future for humanity.
6
Welcome to the real world. Once you understand that the system is the problem and that it is beyond the control of your opinion or your vote you will feel a lot better. But you have to give up on saving the world for the future population, that world is already gone and the people of the future are doomed to live in that dangerous and unstable world. Know that this is not your fault except as a member of the species whose instincts are driving this suicidal transformation. We can find a sliver of hope in the thought that maybe Mother Nature has even thought of this, that she intends for the occasional environmental catastrophe to trigger another evolutionary change to make the species that much more adapted to the wide variety of challenges that we cannot imagine. Maybe in the long view, this was all preordained and we are on the path we were meant to be on. Maybe we are just where we are supposed to be.
1
Oil production continues to rise and coal production is not dropping (iea.org).
Arctic Sea Ice levels are at historic lows and the trends are clear. https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/. The global consequences of its loss are catastrophic.
The science has never been so robust or easily accessible.
Yet, the market just might save us, and by us I mean complex life on earth. Once the consequences of climate change gets priced in the insurance and finance industry just might bring this fossil fuel consuming global engine to its knees. No demand, no supply.
One of those fancy economists once said there is no such thing as a free lunch. The earth is reminding us of that now, and the message will only get louder.
20
@Yeltneb Most sea ice is in the Antarctic, and ice there remained steady. The total sea ice is at average levels.
@novoad - Please check your data -
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Than spend a little time looking into the Arctic Sea Ice and the Jet Stream.
However, thank you for your optimism.
It's not clear how significant this is. World oil production is on the order of 80 Mbpd, so an increase of ~0.8 mpbd is about a 1% increase. In the meantime, depletion is relentless and never sleeps. Yergin is a smart guy, but generally an oil optimist so needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
The point about climate change is well taken. But we'll need huge quantities of oil to build out the vast renewable infrastructure that people are imagining will "replace" fossil fuels (if that's possible—another issue here), so oil supplies are of concern for people interested in renewables as well as oil enthusiasts.
3
It's interesting world anger against the U.S. for its sanctions against Iran and Venezuela is not a lot louder. Trump's actions are to protect his domestic oil industry, not for concerns about Iran's nuclear status or for the dictator in Venezuela. Now, more new oil is going to heat up tensions between countries. With Trump leaving the WH next year there will be many new trade agreements made, for sure. And with Saudi Arabia bringing Aramco to the equity markets there may be some big changes coming for OPEC. After all, Saudi Arabia has more concerns at home for the price of oil, and maybe a lot less concern for how well the other countries in OPEC are doing.
A global addiction.
Drilling ships like needles.
Veins of oil.
One more fix.
The mechanical world spins ever faster
on a high of commerce and easy stuff,
even as the natural world its built on
begins to shut down.
40
Climate vandals. Our poor grandchildren.
63
Don't worry. After Warren destroys thousands of U.S. jobs by shutting down U.S. oil and natural gas production from fracking, supplies will fall and Putin will cheer.
3
@CK If you are currently following the trends it appears that companies have already started pulling back and laying off workers and rigs in the various oil patches here in the US. Fracking rigs are now being scrapped and workers are being laid off. Fracking is not sustainable at the current price of crude. It's still that typical boom and bust cycle in the Patch that is due to the market forces on oil prices and not the threat of a politician.
8
I proudly live in NY where we as a state have banned all fracking.
A filthy, toxic process completely unnecessary except to feed the greed of mostly fly by night fracking companies. Here one day and bankrupt the next leaving their mess behind for local communities to suffer.
You want to creat some real jobs, how about high technology alternative energy companies?
14
@SueG Oil and gas sector employment has increased nationwide by over 4,000 in just the last four months. Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1
Again with the electric cars.
Where do you think that the electricity to power such vehicles comes from? The ozone? Utilities continue to burn copious amounts fossil fuels, oil and gas and coal, to generate that electricity.
Locally, our dumb governor has ordered the closing of the Indian Point zero-emissions power plant which provides New York City and Westchester with about 25% of its electricity. Smart?
20
@MIKEinNYC I am just learning about the power generator designed with the Gates Foundation support that is zero emissions and totally competely safe using spent uranium from old nuclear power plants. Rather than just knee jerk reaction that nuclear is unsafe, do research on these new plant designs. This will give us all some hope that electric cars will be powered by safe and clean power plants..as well as all of our electric needs. Do the research it is inspiring.
29
@John
Great concept , but a single KWH has yet to be produced by these means.
4
@John
Thanks. Let us recall that France gets 80% of its power from zero-emission nukes.
7
Full Steam Ahead on the Titanic. Bad enough we won't or can't change course, it's starting to seem less like denial and more like a death wish.
101
The problem is demand, not supply. Too many people
55
@Byron
The only reason oil is being produced is consumers are burning some of it and converting the rest into petrochemicals.
We the consumers are the one responsible for the effects.
2
@Byron ..had we pursued other energy source options earlier and with actual seriousness, no one would bother typing and submitting your statement.
Most people now assume nothing can ever function without everyone both subsidizing the oil industry and burning oil all day, every day, for everything they do in life.
We were swindled and the suffering is just starting.
5
The number of people the planet can carry will change with circumstances and it will always find a balance point. This may mean a precipitous drop in population some time ahead but this has happened many times before. The human system will always adapt and move on given that there is any carry capacity left. All conceivable catastrophes (other than nuclear) give the human race another chance to develop toward a better global balance. What will happen will happen so sit back and enjoy the show.
1
Is it possible that the " moderate " price price for petroleum , which goes into so many products other than what propels our vehicles , is responsible for the low rate of inflation ?
1
@PFS Jr. That is precisely the point. Economic booms used to be stopped by OPEC raising prices and causing inflation. No more, since we are energy independent.
1
Think they will leave it in the ground? Think they won't try to undercut wind and solar? Think governments, especially the US---is doing all they can?
1
This article is wrong and should be recalled. The underlying assumed fact in Mr. Krauss' article is :
"Years of moderate gasoline prices have already increased the popularity of bigger cars and sports utility vehicles in the United States, and the probability of more oil on the market is bound to weigh on prices at the pump over the next few years."
The CAFE (gallon of petroleum product per mile drive) is falling and will continue to fall. Increased production does not mean more pollution: it means geopolitical stability, pressure on Russia to act more responsibly, and environmental progress.
10
@LeonardBarnes
How would increased oil production mean environmental progress? Unless large oil producers use their profits to invest in solar and wind energy on a very large scale, it will mean exactly the opposite: more carbon put into the atmosphere, which will hasten global warming.
13
@LeonardBarnes The sentence that you quote is about prices. But it does not seem you are arguing against the point that increased production will "weigh on prices". So you do not make an argument about that quote that supports any problem with the content of the article.
Instead you jump to efficiencies of consumption in cars, and claim that those efficiencies will completely counterbalance the line between consumption and pollution. That claim gnoses pollution and environmental cost of production (see oil sands), and implies that increases in efficiency in cars offsets increases in pollution due to overall. That is not the case. It is your reasoning here that should be "recalled".
1
Sadly, then, it's up to us to not use all the oil being pumped. Not much of a optimistic thought, however.
4
@david sabbagh
Realistic pricing of fuel with increased tax revenues directed to infrastructure build out would help.
Compared to other developed countries, US transportation fuel prices are dirt cheap.
1
@david sabbagh - Not optimistic, indeed.
Not only do we American Fossil Fuel addicts burn up 25% of global oil (even tho' we represent only 4.2% of global peeps) but we WASTE 75% of our transportation energy, according to the Lawrence Livermore National Labs.
Let's sit back and watch sales of urban 4WD SUVs and pickups soar as Fossil Fuel prices drop.
MAGA!
1
Life on Earth is doomed. For the sake of those yet not conceived, don't let them be.
43
@Rethinking Overpopulation is the biggest problem of all and the root cause of climate change.