Oil age celebrates 150th birthday, death urged
It has now been 150 years since Edwin Drake first successfully struck oil in Titusville, Pennsylvania and, while it certainly wasn't the first well created (the earliest known dates back to 347 AD in China), that discovery is marked by many as the beginning of the oil age. As that original production of 25 barrels a day has grown to 85 million worldwide, the end of the oil age is being urged for in a piece published in the Houston Chronicle, the paper of record for the city referred to by some as the energy/oil capitol of the world. Written by Gal Luft, the executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS), it looks back over the history of the black stuff and notes its ties with major conflicts in the past, as well as its uncertain future supply and price volatility. As we read it, the piece argues that more domestic drilling and increases in fuel economy can not offer relief of energy uncertainty except for in the very near term. It's interesting to note that environmental concerns don't really even come up in the piece.
To reach the desired end of the oil age, the author notes the need to stop making the vehicles which burn black gold and replace them with those that rely on different technology, offering up two of the usual suspects – biofuels and electricity – as the most likely candidates. Of course, we can only concur but, barring a significant scientific breakthrough, fear that the oil will continue to flow much longer than we would wish and are saddened that the political and popular will to make it stop will likely only arise from the tragedy of oil-funded or motivated attacks, economy-crumbling price shocks and/or environmental catastrophes.
[Source: Houston Chronicle]
Original photo by Zamoose. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
meme 3:34PM (8/31/2009)
My father is the CEO of a major oil refiner, and he once stated that he looks forward to the day where some new, better technology will come along and put him out of business. Now, mind you, he doesn't think it'll be any time soon (and, sadly, I have to agree with him; it's going to take a *long* time to phase out oil, and I expect to see global consumption *increases* for at least the next decade, probably two)
Reply
paulwesterberg 4:30PM (8/31/2009)
It will be hard for global consumption to increase when global production is in decline.
meme 4:32PM (8/31/2009)
I disagree with that premise. And clearly so does he.
Mark Kiernan 4:00PM (8/31/2009)
There are two problems, oil companies who care nothing about the environment that they destroy to get the oil, and automakers who continue to make inefficient cars to burn that oil. We could have had 50mpg cars 20 years ago only automakers told the public that everyone deserved a 12mpg SUV and sadly the public bought the BS.
Reply
miles 12:24PM (9/01/2009)
"There are two problems, oil companies who care nothing about the environment that they destroy to get the oil, and automakers who continue to make inefficient cars to burn that oil. We could have had 50mpg cars 20 years ago only automakers told the public that everyone deserved a 12mpg SUV and sadly the public bought the BS."
Please don't take my reply personally, I'm attacking your opinion, not yourself.
And your opinion is simply riduculous.
Are you actually blaming oil companies & carmakers for oil-ralated pollution? Then is the solution to get these companies to start caring? Good luck with that!! These companies are doing exactly what they were conceived to do - deliver products they hope will make money. The fact that these companies "care nothing..." is absolutely irrelevent.
"The automakers told the public..." Really? The automakers didn't make my wife drive a Suburban. She drives it because it fits our needs perfectly at a reasonable price. Automakers also didn't make me drive my Metro. I drive it because my ridiculous 100+ mile daily commute makes fuel efficiency very important to me.
If today's oil companies stopped making oil at competitive prices, other companies would step in to provide it. Same thing with cars. That's capitalism, the system we've elected to put in place.
The sad fact is that human greed is far and away the best motivator, and my choice of cars is a perfect example. I don't drive a Metro to make my environment 0.000000001% cleaner, I drive it because it saves me 1 or 2 thousand dollars a year in fuel costs. I also appreciate the fact that I send much less money out of the country to the oil-exporting nations.
You may get some people to spend more money than needed in order to help the environment, but you will get much better results if you highlight how greater concern for the environment will save them money!
There are many reasons to push for gains in effeciency:
environmental benefits
economic benefits (saves you $$$)
national security (wars for oil are a drag, eh?)
In fact, we did have (nearly) 50mpg vehicles 20 years ago - I drive one. They don't make & sell them any more because they were unprofitable. The reason we don't have (affordable) ones today is because nobody bought them. My Metro is the cheapest new vehicle money could buy at the time (meaning lowest total cost of ownership), and I wish I could get a new one.
The 2 problems you speak of don't exist. The real problem is that it's political suicide for our lifelong politicians to raise the gas tax. Fix that problem and (gradually) add $2 to each gallon of fuel and the other issues will fix themselves.
Mark Kiernan 2:11PM (9/01/2009)
I agree with you to a certain level, but corporate image in regard to the environment has changed radically over the past 10 years. Companies are being held to account for their ways. I never expect companies like ENI or Exxon to change as the leadership of both are living in the corporate dark ages (1980s or perhaps 1880s).
Another point that an SUV fits almost nobody's needs. I know people who drive SUVs who live in cities (apartments), they mostly have one child, they never go cross country. However automakers promote this as a status symbol and dumb people buy into it. GM said for years that nobody wants an EV and we know how that ended. GM has made a big change now which I welcome but I know old ways die hard.
In regard to oil, you so they can't be caring. How about Google, they don't even produce oil and they have backed environmental projects with no return of investment. Also Google (an example in my opinion of a modern progressive company) has invested in renewable energy, but not only from a cost point of view, they see it as something that represents their ethic. I don't know if you will agree or disagree but to prove my point Google also donated money to the promotion of equal rights for gays last year in California, this of course has no effect on the bottom line.
miles 6:09PM (9/01/2009)
Hi Mark,
I understand your point onthe corporate image thing, but I'm a cynic enough that I think that stuff is more funded by the company's marketing budget (desiring good public opinion) than by any actual goodwill from the company to the environment. The exception to the rule is something like Google. There you have one (or a few) strong personalities that own or control a significant portion of the company, and people like that can indeed go 'on a mission' and accomplish great things - and I will always applaud them for it. Unfortunately, by and large, most companies aren't like that.
And why doesn't an SUV fit many people's needs? SUV'a aren't about going cross-country. I need to haul things sometimes and in Michigan my family drives on snowy roads 2/3 months a year. I agree it's not absolutely necessary, but if I can afford it then it's darn nice. Yes, a minivan would be just as good, until I tried to haul my camper up north. A pickup would haul my camper fine, until my wife needs to take 6 cub-scouts camping. (this happens a few times a year) People really shouldn't need to defend their choice of vehicle, should they? Let's tax gas so most of the people that commute alone in oversized vehicles realize they will save cash by buying a commuter vehicle. That's when you will see people's choices change - when it makes financial sence to do so.
Mike Z 4:48PM (8/31/2009)
The author does not seem to lay out why efficiency is not enough. A 30%-50% increase in Mpg by 2025 seems more than possible. Mix in a little CNG and a few EVs and you have a 'good enough' solution.
What's more interesting however, is from my research there is some thought that the crude types of remaining oil reserves will result in MORE gasoline being refined and less other products(diesel, jet fuel, etc). Therefore, it's quite possible that oil production decreases, but gasoline production increases.
Reply
paulwesterberg 6:30PM (8/31/2009)
You are correct that there is more sour crude remaining, and less light sweet crude. We can still make gasoline out of sour crude, but diesel and jet fuel are harder to produce from lower grade oil.
Murc 12:02AM (9/01/2009)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY OIL!!!
I hope you will have another 150 to go! whooohooo.
lol
Reply
jgravante 7:30AM (9/01/2009)
I LIVE IN TITUSVILLE!!!! Thanks Autoblog for recognizing the history my hometown!
Reply
Ray 5:14PM (9/01/2009)
Ah yes the greed factor. The consumer holds the keys.
The government is held in check by the lobbyist and the voters. The voters are ignorant for the most part. Mindlessly following suggestions of advertisement. Most are just breeding and trying to eat. If eating and feeding your offspring is your main concern you realy don't care about the environment or who is getting the money when providing the cheapest way to allow you to travel.
So it looks like disruptive technology will be the only way to beat the oil companies and foreign energy.
This brings to mind the Ovshinsky NMIH batteries that were invented around the time the EV-1 or Impact from GM came into existence (early 90's) and how low and behold the auto and oil companies were able to keep these from being utilized by purchasing them and allowing no mass production of them for a decade or more. Not to mention suing the CARB and the EPA for anything that did not fit with there profit plans.
The above paragraph is what I blame car and oil companies for. Yes I do blame them and they pissed me off enough to buy my EV below and enjoy every minute of driving in it. To contribute knowingly to the corrupt oil and auto companies as well as excessive speculators, terrorist, politicians, pollution and general underhanded good old boys network is loony. Especially for those who can afford to do something different, the well off are the true lethargic, wasteful people who look on and do nothing to provide a good example of alternatives to the oil economy.
My car below. It took a long time for me to be motivated by somthing more than greed as I am now 47 years old. Anger is my motivation now and I will drive my car as much as possible because it makes me happy to go down the road in a auto in just the way that big auto and oil did not intend. Instead I support a small innovative American company with Korean batteries.
http://www.evalbum.com/1892
Reply
miles 7:01PM (9/01/2009)
Hi Ray,
Let's try to give people a bit more credit. there's a bit more than breeding & eating going on in anyone's life. If the populace is that dim, then we're all doomed anyway!
What we really need to do is to use all of the many arguements available to 'green' our society. I think not too many people are willing to give up much to emit less carbon/consume less/use less energy/... But the greed factor and also the national security factor can drive the same ends from an entirely different angle, and bring in entirely different resources & people to the cause of improving the environment.
When I'm worried about losing my job, or not being able to send my kids to college, it's hard to justify spending extra money on greener transportation. However, if you can show me how to save money but using green transportation, you will have all my attention. I just can't justify the financial hit to "provide a good example of alternatives to the oil economy". All I can afford right now is to discuss the issues online and learn from others and if I'm lucky maybe I can even open a few eyes while I'm at it.
National security is a much under-valued arguement as well. If we could subsidize solar/wind/whatever domestic renewable you like to the level we subsidize oil (through our military spending), we could do quite a lot for the environment, and make the world a safer place to boot! (with not so much money flowing into unstable regions) I think the nation would be much more secure without our oil addiction, and that's a point that's hard for anyone to argue against.
You can blame these oil & car companies if you want, but they are just doing their job - trying to make money. Exxon quite successfully, GM quite ineptly. I don't bother blaming them because they're a product of our system, and I don't see any political/economic system I'd like to put in place of the current one. (well ok, maybe this political system could use a few tweaks!)
Not to be an apologist - I'm no GM fanboy despite what I drive - but I don't think supressing battery tech is in their best interest, especially if they have the lead on the competition. So it's hard for me to believe they would willingly keep new tech (which would give them a profitable advantage) off the market. On the other hand, GM leadership of a decade or two back was surely as deaf, dumb and blind as they come!
By the way, your car is awesome. I wish something like that could work for me, but alas, my commute is too big, and Michigan winters require more than just miles from the battery.
Good heavens I ramble!
Reply
Ray 11:31PM (9/01/2009)
Good points, well put Miles. I concur with many of your points.
These corporations become so big and so powerful they game our system through loop holes their high powered attorneys dream up. GM is not so big anymore. As part of their bailout they are not allowed to sue the governments on a state or federal level.
Using the greed factor to induce green ways will take much time and invention. The stick and the carrot can work. The stick will be government not subsidising oil to make it unrealistically cheap and upward pressure on oil as demand ever increases. The carrot will be the inventions that make ICE obsolete as well as the fact we won't send 700 billion overseas and use billions more to send young people over to secure oil reserves with our military. Government is paralysed as far as price increases for oil as they will not be reelected if they do so. So invention is where it is at.
The oil companies are just doing their jobs, so to were the cigarette companies. Like cigarettes it is time that people realize that oil is not good for our country. It was not the greed factor that finally made cigarette companies vulnerable. Lord knows the CEOs were willing to lie, cheat and steal to keep people hooked on them.
I own GM products also and have been brainwashed by the commercials all my life.
Glad you like my car, soon they will make them go 200 miles at half the price that I paid.
Actualy they already make a 200 mile version but it is about 4k or 5k more than I paid.
Yes I will work on the giving people more credit, we all could be a little greener. I know I could.
mirek1968 12:10AM (9/03/2009)
A Edwin Drake was not exactly first in modern era that mine oil. It really start in Poland:
The first Polish mine oil founded in 1854 on the initiative of Ignacy Lukasiewicz in Bóbrka near Krosno, and the first oil well drilled on contemporary design in 1859 in the USA.
What more about Ignacy Lukasiewicz first destinate kerosene and invented kerosene lamp 1853, and this lamps were first used for lighting hospital in Lviv on 31 July 1853 and the first operation was carried out at night with their use.
The first Polish plant distillation of crude oil was formed in 1856 in Ulaszowicach near Jaslo (today within the city limits).
Reply