America’s dream of greater energy independence is rapidly turning into an ecological nightmare. Instead of filling empty gas tanks, BP’s Deepwater Horizon well miles offshore is oozing thousands of barrels a day of oil, already covering an area over 1,900 square miles in the food-rich waters of the Gulf of Mexico. With no way of shutting off the valve, which is now buried 1,900 meters below the sea, a $2 billion seafood industry is threatened, not to mention the billions more in damage to coastal real estate values and the potential devastation to wetlands and the wildlife they contain if the growing slick washes ashore.

Most forms of unconventional oil and gas (including, by the way, shale gas) are invariably very hard on the environment. Although tar sands production draws most of the world’s criticism, we are quickly discovering that deep-water wells and the pressure surges they engender run the risk of wreaking even greater ecological and environmental devastation.

And the deeper that technology allows us to drill miles below the ocean floor, the greater the risk that we will see more and more of these disasters. If this week has shown us the pressure surge of wells a mile below the ocean floor, what are the prospects of our standing up to those we’ll encounter in newly discovered Gulf of Mexico fields like BP’s Tiber one, six miles below the ocean floor?

Of course, devastating leaks haven’t been the only thing to thwart America’s efforts to boost its oil production in the Gulf. Five years ago, Hurricane Katrina and the other Category 3 to 5 storms that hit the region devastated its oil industry. Instead of doubling production levels, as once confidently forecast by the US Department of Energy, production got hammered. In fact, it’s only very recently returned to pre-Katrina levels, only now to face an entirely different setback.

Why is this so potentially devastating to America’s oil future? The Gulf of Mexico was the only area of the country where there was any reasonable hope of expanding domestic supply. Production in the lower 48 states peaked in the early 1970s, as predicted by the American geophysicist King Hubbert back in 1956. And despite the enthusiasm of the “drill, baby, drill” lobby to do more in Alaska, that state’s oil production has been depleting even faster than in the rest of the country. As a result, a country that once produced ten million barrels a day is now barely able to produce half that amount.

If you’re wondering why we’re risking catastrophic environmental consequences by drilling wells miles below the ocean floor, the answer is simple enough. It’s the same answer to the question of why we’re pouring billions of dollars into the tar sands.

It’s all that’s left.

Share
  • Dave Scott

    The amount of oil required to extract a barrel of oil from tar sand and off shore production is so much higher than coventional. Everything about how we live and work, inhabit the landscape etc is dependant on oil and impossible without it. Renewable energy can't come anywere near replacing the energy obatined from conventional oil.

  • DG

    Jeff,

    I disagree with some of your comments…

    1. 'And the deeper that technology allows us to drill miles below the ocean floor, the greater the risk that we will see more and more of these disasters'

    This disaster occurred because somehow the rig lost control of the well. This could have happened on a shallow oil/gas well being drilled in the Colorado or Texas or anywhere. It occurred because something went wrong with the pressure control system. There have been thousands of wells drilled over the years into reservoirs with pressures equal or greater than what the Horizon was targeting with no problems. I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that over the years as we have drilled deeper and deeper blow outs have become more common. I think it is actually the opposite. There are fewer blow outs now than in the past when we were drilling shallower wells because the safety systems, technological/geological understanding and operating systems have improved a lot over the years.

    2. 'With no way of shutting off the valve, which is now buried 1,900 meters below the sea'

    It can be done but it is not a trivial exercise and will take time. Incredibly complex machinery is commonly placed on the sea floor for drilling and production operations. It will take time but I think/hope they will shut off the oil with the ROV long before they finish drilling the relief well(s).

    3. ‘Five years ago, Hurricane Katrina and the other Category 3 to 5 storms that hit the region devastated its oil industry. Instead of doubling production levels, as once confidently forecast by the US Department of Energy, production got hammered’

    I do not ever remember reading anything from the US Department of Energy suggesting the Hurricanes would increase production from the Gulf of Mexico. How could a Hurricane improve the reservoir quality, compressor efficiency or production capacity of an offshore oil/gas installation and thereby increase production? That makes no sense.

    4. ‘If you’re wondering why we’re risking catastrophic environmental consequences by drilling wells miles below the ocean floor, the answer is simple enough. It’s the same answer to the question of why we’re pouring billions of dollars into the tar sands.’

    I would say we have been taking the same risks since the first oil well was drilled or the first mine was commissioned. We have always been taking these risks so as to fuel our continually improving lifestyles… we at least for a very small % of the world’s population. We drill every oil/gas well in order to fuel continued economic growth or at least maintain the status quo.

    But you are 100% correct in your general comment that fueling a world economy with a non-renewable resource is a dead end street and sooner or later will end in tears.

    Regards

  • G.B.

    “you are 100% correct in your general comment that fueling a world economy with a non-renewable resource is a dead end street and sooner or later will end in tears.” – DG

    It will end MUCH sooner than people think. The US military has just released a report which concludes world oil production will go into terminal decline in two (!) years:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/…

    The Party's Over !

    http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3878

  • Brandon

    After OIL, there is plenty of COAL. Liquid Coal can run in Diesel engines. Coal plants are becoming environmentally cleaner all the time.

  • AO

    DG,
    I think you’ve missed the point. Accidents may happen and do happen anywhere? Including as you said Colorado or Texas. The difference is if it happens in Texas one can address it relatively quickly with minimal impact on environment while in the Horizon case this is almost impossible.
    The way I see Jeff’s blog is that he is questioning viability of being fixated on oil. My addition would be – there are other energy avenues that can be explored that have been completely ignored or even worse blocked.

  • liquidsnake2010

    Dear Sir

    The trend i spot is the concept that it is too late to do anything about the decline in crude oil production. I argue to the contrary that we have within our powers the ability to change things tomorrow and remove the danger, if we are prepared to acknowledge the gift that is the hemp plant.

    President Obama recently ordered 69 million hectares to be allocated for oil drilling within U.S borders. Based on an output of 1000 litres per acre, Hemp based methanol could be a potential candidate as a liquid fuel that could, at the very least, lessen the decline, or, of course, halt and reverse it. I am a self learned person on this topic, if anything because i simply want to live in peace on this planet, and leaving gripes about modern living aside, i don't believe industrial civilisation is destined to go down, but evolve. It isn't always black or white in my opinion. I have studied many, many articles about energy and liquid fuels, but hemp based methanol seems to be off most peoples radar. From what i can see, it would not displace regular food crops from being grown (even if it did, that wouldn't be a disaster) would improve soil condition, provide much needed natural nutrition in the form of seed and raw material for textiles, clothing etc. You can build houses with it, cars, tools lots of things from one plant species. It seems to be the best option if we are economically/energeticaly constrained. It would not mean we all live on farms, but a nationwide effort to grow and harvest Hemp in local communities/states could have many societal benefits, let alone the economic and environmental ones. I cannot see anything else that could be implemented rapidly and at low cost to meet a near term shortfall. Building wind turbines won't put a 747 in the air or drive you across the rockies, i believe it is too late for implementing a new infrastructure, its too expensive. Why don't we just amend what we have? Vegetable based fuel and oils appear to have positive benefits for engines, we only wear them out because we use crude oil and abuse them.

    In the UK, Hemp has to be grown under licence, and it is still seen as a narcotic drug. Thats the law and it must be respected, but, the industrial strains of Hemp that have no narcotic content, yet immense economic value are still categorised as illegal drugs. This is a huge blind spot, and the perception still exists today that Hemp is the one you smoke. If anything, i find this the greatest tragedy of our current time. The short term greed of the few has led us to the point where we are so enchanted with the system we have, we don't realise that it has always been fundamentally fragile, and harmful to all concerned. This is the critical factor that i believe is pivotal to western civilisation perpetuating, and reforming itself.

    I was previously very pessimistic about the future once i became fully aware that peak oil was happening, and feel pretty much trapped in a system where everyone is too scared to face what we have done, and where it is heading. This is a geat shame as western civilisation is at a point where information is at its highest ebb, yet many do not enlighten themselves to the fact that nature always provides for us, and we are simply looking in the wrong place to find future growth. We have used wood, coal, whale oil, crude oil in our journey of learning and conflict so far. We only have to tap the next most abundant source of energy, the plant kingdom, and i truly believe the potential for the human race is unlimited if we do so. Its right under our noses, it was pushed out the way by our desires and ignorance, but its still there and always will be. We can easily get out of this funk, we just ave to get back to nature and love it as much as it loves us.

    Yours sincerely

    James

  • Rod Lamirand

    Jeff Rubin – How poignant reading Chapter 1 of your book is, sitting here and watching the oil slick grow off the coast of Louisiana. The disaster hadn’t occurred a month ago when I ordered the book from Amazon UK, ruing the fact that the cost of the shipping was equal to the cost of the book (and used lots of energy too). So far I’m greatly enjoying it – but sad that this may be the last Jeep Cherokee I will ever own.
    Signed fellow Canadian,
    Teaching in Romania

  • Greener

    The US Department of Energy predicted that production in the Gulf of Mexico would double based on expansion of the exploration and drilling in the area not because of hurricanes. Hurricanes 'hammered' production and hopes of rapid expansion at the time.

  • Zeke

    The one thing I enjoy about reading many of the comments to articles like this. It, truly, helps me understand why we're in the trouble we are. The lack of comprehension, consequences to our actions, etc is incredible. Comparing an accident 5000 ft down and under incredible pressures to an accident on a land field or in a mine is beyond my comprehension.

    Or we're going to grow enough hemp, pine cones, grass, corn, vegetable oil or whatever to solve our problems is crazy. I remember the first ethanol solution. I'm no genius but ten minutes on a pocket calculator, searching the net for production figures and looking at the available acreage dispelled that solution for me. Yet untold million (or billions?) were spent.

    But then I'm just an old cynic, sitting in front of a wood stove in northern Minnesota, what do I know?

  • george

    We prefer the term oilsands it seems that people who don't understand the process think the area is covered by a layer of thick oozing tar. More people should visit the area to see the efforts being made to reclaim the mines, maybe then they would understand that this is the least harmful source of oil for the future.

  • george

    We prefer the term oilsands it seems that people who don't understand the process think the area is covered by a layer of thick oozing tar. More people should visit the area to see the efforts being made to reclaim the mines, maybe then they would understand that this is the least harmful source of oil for the future.