 On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com. |
Carroll: The question about Judge Walker
We all know about the fellow who sued his cleaners for $65 million over a pair of pants the firm allegedly lost. Thanks to a no-nonsense judge, this high-handed litigant lost his case — even if he did force the family who owned the business into a costly legal grinder.
But what if the judge had been someone less hostile to dubious lawsuits? What if he’d been, let us say, Doug Walker?
Walker is a magistrate in southwest Colorado and one of two candidates selected by a commission to fill a new district court judgeship for Dolores and Montezuma counties. The final choice is up to Gov. Bill Ritter, who has a few more days to mull over his decision. Those musings will no doubt include an incident from two years ago involving the “T and L Club.”
The club came together spontaneously one evening when 17-year-old Taylor Ostergaard — she would be the “T” — and Lindsey Jo Zelitti, 18, decided to bake some cookies and distribute them anonymously to neighbors in a rural area south of Durango. Most of the neighbors appreciated the chocolate chip and sugar cookies left at their doorsteps with a red or pink paper heart and the message “Have a great night,” although their origins were a mystery.
But one neighbor — there’s always one — called police. No crime had been committed, but Wanita Renea Young was so upset that she would check into an emergency room the next day with an anxiety attack. And when she found out who’d left the cookies, she took off the gloves and sued.
“We feel that knocking on a door and leaving cookies is a gesture of kindness and would not create an anxiety attack in the general public,” Ostergaard’s parents told the court. But Walker disagreed and awarded Young $900 to offset her medical bills.
In Walker’s defense, he learned at the hearing that the girls’ families had already offered to pay the medical bills, but had been rebuffed. Still, the plaintiff’s refusal to accept that offer should have been a clue that she was — what’s the word? — overzealous. Indeed, Walker was taken in by someone for whom interpersonal conflict was a way of life.
As The Denver Post reported on Feb. 11, 2005, “The Youngs are no strangers to court proceedings. In addition to the cookie lawsuit, records show the Youngs have sued or been sued at least nine times since 1991. Two more court actions have involved restraining orders.”
It’s possible, of course, that Walker is still the better of the nominees. But Ritter should closely question him about the ruling. After all, the last thing Colorado needs is a judge who believes no good deed should go unpunished.
Abundant oil
More bad news for “peak oil” enthusiasts — those wishful thinkers and doomsday peddlers who say the world is running out of oil. BP’s annual “Statistical Review of World Energy” shows “proved oil reserves continue to exceed 1.2 trillion barrels, equivalent to current production levels for more than 40 years.”
If that’s not long enough for you, consider this: “Global proved oil and natural gas reserves thus have been on an increasing trend since 1980, when our data set begins. . . . there is no global scarcity of hydrocarbon reserves.”
But is that condition likely to endure, given the demands of world economic growth? “The history of our industry is that technology and innovation win out over depletion,” Mark Finley, head of energy analysis for BP, told me last week.
BP is hardly a blinkered industry cheerleader that can’t see the big picture. The big picture and the long view are among its specialties (it has been producing the highly respected statistical review for 56 years). Moreover, the company’s assessment parallels that of experts such as Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, who has been similarly dismissive of the idea that the world is running out of oil.
There is a finite amount of oil, of course. But if the world abandons fossil fuels sometime this century, it is more likely to be the result of deliberate choice as opposed to necessity.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Thanks for the comments, check is in the mail
Posted by The Oil Lobby on July 5, 2007 07:37 AMYou're nuts. If oil is that abundant why has the price doubled in the past few years? If oil is that abundant why are we tearing up Colorado and Canada to squeeze some liquid out of shales and tar sand? You do yourself and your readers a great disservice by passing on this corporate-driven drivel.
Posted by Lisa on July 6, 2007 07:59 AMWhat an idiot you are, sir. Just think what would happen to oil companies stocks if they would accept the reality
Posted by jebb on July 6, 2007 08:11 AMYou clearly have no idea what peak oil is about. There is huge amounts of oil in the world ... the problem is we can't get it out of the ground fast enough to meet ever increasing demand ... hence the price has risen from $10 in 1998 to well over $70 today. Peak oil doesn't mean the end of oil ... it means the end of cheap oil.
Posted by Xeroid on July 6, 2007 08:20 AMLisa, "proved reserves" does not mean it costs the same to get it and refine it. There are many more factors that effect price than the mere existence of the oil. Which is why oil sands & shale projects are now feasible.
Posted by Grant on July 6, 2007 08:23 AMSir, I'm afraid this article misstates what "peak oil" is.
It is not a statement about oil in the ground, although the "industry" hacks would certainly like you to think this.
"Peak oil" describes the rate of FLOW of liquid fuels from reservoirs. The growth of that flow has come to an end, and a permanent decline should begin soon.
There is no way to definitively predict the when and how of production RATE decline, but it is as certain world wide as it was for the US in 1970.
All the tar, shale and Orinoco sludge in the world cannot FLOW at the same rate as conventional light, sweet crude from pressurized reservoirs.
Posted by Mike Bendzela on July 6, 2007 08:30 AMThe best way to mislead is to surround deceptions with true statements:
Proved oil reserves are greater than 1.2 trillion barrels.
There is no shortage of hyrdrocarbons.
We will never run out of oil.
All are true.
Also true:
Discovery of oil peaked over 40 years ago and has declined every decade since despite remarkable advances in technology.
Reserve numbers are a sham. For most OPEC nations the reserve numbers are the same year-after-year despite prodigious production and limited or no discoveries. The reserve growth from the US, which uses a strict SEC reporting requirments, is unlikely to be experienced elsewhere where transparent and objective reporting requirements are almost non-existent. Simple question for your BP contact: Can they vouch for the OPEC reserve claims?
Our actual oil supply is dependent on a handful of super-giants - 20% of oil consumed comes from 14 fields, most over 50 years old. There hasn't been an oil field brought on-line that produces over a million barrels a day since the late '70's. Simple question: if there is so much oil why invest billions on tar sands and burn through the declining supply of Canadien natural gas just as US import needs are climbing?
International oil companies are investing more in acquiring competitors rather than E&P - Exxon+Mobil, Chevron+Texaco+Unocal, BP+Amoco.
CERA? Look at their statements over the last 3 years and compare their projections to reality. Also look at their "bottom up" projections of future growth in supply for certain countries where production is declining rapidly. And then look at their big "above ground factors" caveat.
Bottom line: we will not run out of oil but the age of cheap oil is over.
Posted by Raymond on July 6, 2007 08:30 AMI like your baiting tone in the 'Abundant Oil' section. It's the equivalent of being a troll on the internet. However, this is on the internet, so I suppose you are being a troll.
I'm confused by this part of the article: "Global proved oil and natural gas reserves thus have been on an increasing trend since 1980, when our data set begins. . . . there is no global scarcity of hydrocarbon reserves.”
The 'increasing trend' statement is deliberately vague. How is this statement to be reconciled with the fact that yearly global oil discoveries have been less than yearly global oil consumption since the early 1980s?
Posted by GrimRC on July 6, 2007 08:37 AMVince sure does a heck of a number on the BP report.
“proved oil reserves continue to exceed 1.2 trillion barrels, equivalent to current production levels for more than 40 years.”
but he chopped off the rest of the quote which goes -
"...although accessing the oil is getting tougher due to high exploration and production costs and also to more state control of production"
and here he even alters the quote to change its meaning!
“Global proved oil and natural gas reserves thus have been on an increasing trend since 1980, when our data set begins. . . . there is no global scarcity of hydrocarbon reserves.”
(emphasis mine)
but it really goes like this:
"He said global proved oil and natural gas reserves had been on an increasing trend since 1980, when BP's data series started."
(emphasis mine)
First, notice Vince left off the "He said" part - know why? His quotes DON'T come from BP’s annual “Statistical Review of World Energy”, they come from Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSL1272726920070612?pageNumber=1
UPDATE 2-World proven oil reserves at end 2006 edge down-BP
What? Reserves went DOWN? Seeing that Vince changed that one little word from "had" to "has" giving the false impression that reserves are still rising makes me seriously wonder just what Vince is trying to pull here.
Oh, and Vince forgot this little tidbit as well
"This year's review, which covers the period to the end of 2006, included an assessment of the size of Canadian oil sands for the first time. They stand at 163.5 billion barrels. "
BTW, the ACTUAL BP review can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/2gr6xv
(The actual huge URL is www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2007.pdf)
What a hack!
Your article above is a joke. Lets go through it line by line:
"More bad news for “peak oil” enthusiasts — those wishful thinkers and doomsday peddlers who say the world is running out of oil."
Peak Oil does not say that the world is running out of oil! You are attacking a straw man. PO thinks that we will never "run out" of oil, only that the rate of production will peak and then decline.
" BP’s annual “Statistical Review of World Energy” shows “proved oil reserves continue to exceed 1.2 trillion barrels, equivalent to current production levels for more than 40 years.”"
Every time you head the words "at current levels of production" you are being scammed. The question is the ability to maintain the GROWTH in production.
"If that’s not long enough for you, consider this: “Global proved oil and natural gas reserves thus have been on an increasing trend since 1980, when our data set begins. . . . there is no global scarcity of hydrocarbon reserves.”"
Again, Peak Oil does not state that there is a scarcity, only that the rate of production will begin to decline soon.
"But is that condition likely to endure, given the demands of world economic growth? “The history of our industry is that technology and innovation win out over depletion,” Mark Finley, head of energy analysis for BP, told me last week."
How come then the US, where the most advanced technology has been used, has been declining for 37 years?
"BP is hardly a blinkered industry cheerleader that can’t see the big picture. The big picture and the long view are among its specialties (it has been producing the highly respected statistical review for 56 years). Moreover, the company’s assessment parallels that of experts such as Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, who has been similarly dismissive of the idea that the world is running out of oil."
How come you don't quote all the experienced petroleum geologists claiming that peak is imminent. You're picking and choosing your source to fit your thesis.
"There is a finite amount of oil, of course. But if the world abandons fossil fuels sometime this century, it is more likely to be the result of deliberate choice as opposed to necessity."
How does this follow from your premises?
"None are so blind as those that refuse to see"
World conventional oil (crude + condensates) and (crude + condensates + Natural Gas Liquids) peaked in May 2005 (see IEA and EIA) .
.
It is a matter of debate within the "Peak Oil" community as to whether this is the ultimate peak or not.
.
Oil is $72/barrel as I write.
.
Regardless of world oil production, world oil exports are falling.
.
Putin will take care of Moscow taxi drivers before worrying about American SUV drivers. Saudi will make sure that there is gasoline for their flood of new teen-age drivers before worrying about our teenagers.
Russian oil production up, exports flat to down.
Saudi production and exports down. (40% of their production is close to watering out).
Mexican oil exports fell 11.4% so far this year and will fall again and again, Their President is worried.
http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybrid.aspx?type=comktNews&storyID=2007-06-29T175602Z_01_N29417243_RTRIDST_0_MEXICO-OIL-EXPORTS-UPDATE-2.XML
Our best, and truly only, hope is to use far less oil.
My Plan:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
Best Hopes,
Alan
Posted by Alan Drake on July 6, 2007 09:05 AMIf investors had acted based on BP's claims and predictions over the last 5 or 10 years, they would have lost their shirt.
How irresponsible it is of you to trumpet BP as a good source of info when their own data has been contradicted by reality for nearly a decade now!
Posted by Phil on July 6, 2007 10:01 AMVince,
The comments to this article are a LOT more informed and accurate than your shallow, silly attempts to downplay the deadly serious energy problem that potentially will end civilization as we know it.
Posted by Mark on July 6, 2007 11:02 AMThis article regarding oil production is more than irresponsible journalism. It is downright dangerous to suggest to the masses that they can continue their profligate energy consumption forever and ever.
The current high energy prices are the result of supply and demand, right? Unless you believe that there is a huge oil company conspiracy going on, then we have a present situation where supply growth is being outpaced by demand growth. Global demand growth is not really all that impressive, so the problem must be on the supply side.
The only plausible solution is to address the demand side, and with op-ed pieces like this one, it's not looking very likely, is it?
Posted by Joe on July 6, 2007 01:31 PMVince,
Have you considered a different line of work? I hear Bush is looking for someone to replace Snow. You're a shoe-in, buddy, if Baghdad Bob doesn't apply.
Posted by Lyn on July 6, 2007 01:34 PM“The history of our industry is that technology and innovation win out over depletion,”
Hmmm, where "depletion" refers to the US peak in oil production in 1970, "innovation" is taken to mean the highly innovative Desert Storm and War on Terror, and "technology" is the military hardware used to achieve it...
:-)
Posted by James Ward on July 6, 2007 06:31 PM"More bad news for “peak oil” enthusiasts"
I am a "peak-oil' enthusiast, and this is not bad news, this is frightening news. The fact that you believe an oil company when it says "everything is hunky-dory, keep on driving" is scary.
Posted by Hans Blix on July 6, 2007 07:44 PM
Just recently the peak oil camp has received support from the U.S. government. A study prepared for the Energy Department concluded:
"The world is fast approaching the inevitable peaking of conventional world oil production, a problem unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society."
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman:
"There's plenty of oil to deal with this over the near term, five years. But if you look out over the next 20, 25 years, we expect demand to grow 50% to 120 million barrels a day. I wouldn't want to opine that's available, it could be, but I don't know."
Comment on BP's stats. These may be optomistic, we may have as little as 50% of current oil supply available within 5 years
written by a guest, July 03, 2007
Lots of interesting ideas here, but don't forget us here in Europe!
UK and Norway together are a bigger producer than Canada or Mexico and are declining at 7-10%. I think when you add in these declnes the peak of non OPEC will be closer to 2008 than 2015.
Kind regards,
Roger Button
...
written by a guest, July 03, 2007
If one assumes an oil production decline of 4%/yr and nominal demand growth of 2%/yr, you get a 6%/yr gap, extend that out 10 years and you can get about a 50% shortfall.
Initially, as oil output starts to decline, population growth rate changes will lag the decline by many years, so the impact after the first decade is apt to be that of a 50% deficit.
I think it would be helpful if some sociologists and behavioral psychologists could add some thoughts to this discussion.
LINK HERE.
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=160&Itemid=91
For about 20 years, the world has been pumping more oil than it's been finding every year. The gap between discovery and production has been widening each year, only getting worse. We are now producing from 3 to 6 times as much oil every year as we are able to find. I'm not sure how you managed to misunderstand such simple math. Because we are using more than we can find, we are dipping more and more into our reserves, which are not being replaced. As a whole, we have less each year, not more. You should be more suspicious of reports that defy all logic and reality. At the end of the day, you don't end up with more cookies in the jar by eating them faster than you can bake them.
Posted by Pythor Sehn on July 7, 2007 10:17 AMWow, Vince.... what a way to blow your credibility, assuming you ever had any. Being a sock puppet for the oil industry will do nothing to sway the masses, as reading through the comments here shows the masses are far more well-informed, and construct far more convincing arguments, than you.
Posted by Dan on July 9, 2007 07:11 AMWhen the american people start going without gasoline, offshore oil, ANWR, oil shale will look sweet. The real long term answer is coal to liquids and coal gasification. Hide and watch it happen!
Posted by NWJAK on July 9, 2007 09:29 PMI say we get Judge Walker to decide who is correct....Vince or the “peak oil” enthusiasts".
Afterall if he can rule against a nice gesture by two teenage girls....he has to be a great judge who takes into account all sides.
Judge Walker....the judge who knows the law and not afraid to punish the "law breakers."
Posted by Adam 2 on July 10, 2007 02:51 AM