Home |About Mahesh | Portfolio| Blog | Twitter
Oil and Water, Part One: Slick Debate
by Mahesh Raj Mohan
July 11, 2004
Every morning, I settle into my
slightly
worn blue easy-chair, a cup of coffee on the warmer plate beside me,
and open The
Oregonian. Usually, I only have time for the front page, but
on Sundays I
read the whole thing. This past Sunday, the Commentary section had a
huge,
attention-getting article on the world’s depleting oil supply, written by Aaron Naparstek of The
New York Press. This
is something that affects the world, obviously, but especially our
car-crazy
culture with its two-bucks-per-gallon gas prices (Norwegians pay $5 per
gallon,
and Indians pay $3.40.)
The article concerned the “Peak
Oil
Theory,” which states that there is no “if” with a decline in global
oil
production–it is a question of when. By the estimate of renowned oil
expert
Colin Campbell, we will reach a conventional oil peak by 2005 or 2006
and have
a “terminal decline” by 2010. There is a rosier view. David Greene of
the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory says we will have peak oil production in …
2040. Two
dollars per gallon will begin to look very very cheap.
Lovely, no?
This oil crisis is different from
the
oil crisis of the 70s, which was caused by the retention of existing
supplies.
In addition, oil mega-fields were still being discovered then, but
mega-fields
are not being discovered with as much frequency now. Meanwhile, the
worldwide
demand for oil is only growing. China, for instance, now has seven
million
car-owners as opposed to 700,000 a decade ago. This decline will effect
everything from electricity to food production.
The Peak Oil Theory does have it
detractors. There is an alternate theory that explains the origins of
oil,
developed by Ukranian and Russian scientists about fifty years ago–the
abiotic
(abiogenic) theory. Unlike the fossil fuel theory, which states that
oil has an
organic origin (fossilized matter, etc.), abiotic theory states that
oil is
inorganic and formed deep in the Earth’s magma, and will not run out
anytime
soon. Those in favor of the Peak Oil Theory (among them the founder of
the
newsletter From the Wilderness Michael Huppert)
think abiotic oil theory
is “groundless,” stating that all oil carries the microscopic evidence
of the
organisms that formed it. They further go on to say that “the chemistry
of
magma does not compare to the chemistry of hydrocarbons. Magma is
lacking in
carbon compounds, and hydrocarbons are lacking in silicates. If
hydrocarbons
were generated from magma, then you would expect to see some closer
kinship in
their chemistry.” (Here is a web page where both sides are explored: oil debate. )
I included the information on
abiotic
oil, because Mr. Naparstek’s essay centered entirely on the Peak Oil
Theory. I
think it’s interesting to know about, just so the public has as many
facts as
possible. I personally don’t think that abiotic oil is the answer to
our oil
woes. Deep drilling, by all accounts is expensive, and as far as I can
tell,
the main question of the debate centers on whether oil is a renewable
resource.
From the available evidence, it seems that it is not. But let’s assume
that
abiotic oil does yield renewable oil, and we can
continue using oil to
our heart’s content. Everything would be peachy right? Not really.
Burning oil
sends a lot of carbon dioxide into the air. And carbon dioxide has been
cited
as a major cause of global warming, which is changing the climate.
Pollution
and climate change are major culprits in the loss of a resource that I
guarantee is more precious to our daily lives than oil.
Water.
And yet, pollution is only one of
many
threats that can take away one of our fundamental resources.
I’ll take up that issue in the next entry.
---