Will the unfolding environmental catastrophe from the ruptured Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico become deep-water oil’s equivalent to the Three Mile Island nuclear accident?

In terms of environmental degradation and economic cost, it’s already become much more. The real legacy of Three Mile Island wasn’t what happened back in 1979, though, but rather what happened, or more precisely didn’t happen, over the course of the next forty years in America. Literally overnight, the near-meltdown of the reactor core changed public acceptance of nuclear power plants. No company in the US has built a new one since.

Deepwater Horizon was not a producing well, nor will it likely ever be one. Hemorrhaging anywhere from 5,000 to 25,000 barrels of oil every day, the spill is already approaching the size of the discharge from the Exxon Valdez. What’s worse, BP has no way to shut it off, short of drilling a relief well to divert the pressure, which will take three months. At 25,000 barrels a day, three months means a cumulative discharge of 2.25 million barrels of oil, or 94.5 million gallons (one barrel equals 42 US gallons), or roughly eight Exxon Valdez spills. Even at 5,000 barrels a day, that’s almost 20 million gallons of oil. And to top it all off, by the time a relief well can be drilled, we’ll be smack in the middle of hurricane season.

The scene of hurricane-force winds raining oil on New Orleans and the rest of America’s Gulf Coast will no doubt make for an apocalyptic image of the end of the age of oil. Unfortunately, our dependence on the stuff will survive this catastrophe, even if the fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and the marsh ecosystems of the Mississippi Delta won’t. But what might also not survive is deep-water drilling: no firm’s shareholders will be willing to accept the consequences that BP will soon have to face.

President Obama has already suspended his recent decision to open up new offshore areas for oil development, and he’s declared a moratorium on new drilling. You can imagine what the regulatory environment will be like after three months of the spill, just as you can imagine what those satellite photos of the Gulf of Mexico will look like.

But what you might not imagine are the implications for world oil supply. Conventional oil supply has not grown since 2005. Without a steady stream of oil from fields below the ocean floor, not only can’t world oil production grow, it can’t even stand still, since we rely on oil from new deep-water fields to replace the bulk of the four million barrels per day of global production we lose every year to depletion (out of a total of roughly 86 million barrels per day).

If the Deepwater Horizon disaster is the offshore energy industry’s Three Mile Island, then not only has world oil production already peaked, but it will also very soon start to shrink.

So if you think oil prices are high today, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Share
  • Rojelio

    I would be interested in hearing expert predictions about what price of oil would prompt the United States to implement a takeover of oil fields in the middle east and other parts of the world? Not this unaffordable nation-building confusion, but a harsh military smack-down to the extent that it will still be possible? In other words, at what price do we lose our comfortable way of life to the extent that doing the unthinkable seems like a good idea?

  • Newfie

    The US military is actively preparing for oil production decline – a situation that is only a few years away – 2012 (maybe a little sooner as a result of the blowout disaster)

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/16/1583194/u…

    This rather ominous article was hidden in the back pages of the Miami Herald, not on the front page where it belonged – meaning that people cannot face the truth about the impending end of oil. The coverage was better in foreign newspapers:

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

  • russmackay

    It seems to me this makes the Oilsands look a heck of a lot greener and attractive? Agree??

  • scaledownjames

    I don't think you can compare the two. Production of electricity at that time and for the forty years since has continued to expand because technology existed to keep producing it by means other than nuke.

    Oil, on the other hand is not replaceable. There are no real substitutes. I expect this disaster will be leveraged for funding to improve deep water technology to reduce the risk of a repeat.

    The only places left that are showing the potential for productive volumes of oil are deepwater, offshore and remote.

    @Rojelio
    Not an expert but, IMO price is not the trigger. Supply is. Strategic need will be the driver of military seizure of individual fields. I think Iraq's oil fields, for all intents and purposes are secured by the presence of U.S. troops and bases in the country. The build-up of U.S. troops in A'stan is tactical. It keeps anyone east of Iran careful about providing supplies to Iran. Just my thinking though.

  • T E Carey

    I have to agree with ScaledownJames. The massive economic squeeze sure to follow a multilateral decision to abandon deepwater drilling would soon trump the “Three Mile Island” syndrome. In 1979 we could get along fine without any more reactors. The lights stayed on, the trucks kept rolling. Not so in 2010. The risks of resuming deepwater drilling won't look so horrendous when the world realizes the consequences. We'll be building reactors, too, but there's a long lag between permit and power delivery. That could change if the pebble bed design gets more acceptance. In any case, uranium will be a critical commodity from now on. China's buying all it can find.

  • brm2000

    This article nicely supports your thesis. Which it was not so, but reality looms…

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news…

  • jlow5

    Great Blog! Why doesn't the media mention that we never got a barrel of oil out of this mess! Or that this is going to be five times worse then Exxon Valdez?

  • jlow5

    Why doesn't the media mention that we have never gotten nor are we likely to get one barrel of oil from this mess? Or that this will be worse than the Exxon Valdez? Drill baby spill!

  • Steve_Manders

    Jeff has this exactly right, it is called “Peak Oil” It was predicted for years to be about now, and global oil production actually peaked in the 1 st quarter of 2008, and has since fallen back to 2005 levels. See. EIA data. There is a lot on the internet about peak oil. Those that dispute it, claim that there is still lots of oil left, but that is not what peak oil is about. It is about the year that global ( or national ) oil production reached its greatest amount, then falls off, slowly at first then rapidly, regardless of demand or price. The USA oil peaked in 1970 and production has fallen back to 1947 levels. Global oil discovery peaked in 1962 with the mid-east oil fields. The global peak oil is actually a plateau, 5 years wide, it started with $30 oil, went to $145, back to $30 and now about $80. Production does not change with price, a new situation, because production is maxed out and cannot respond to demand. There is a huge amount of oil in storage being held for post peak price rises. Peak oil is not about an oil shortage, that is what post peak oil is about. Next, imagine a 10 % lower global production in only 5 years, 25 % in 20 years, and demand in China and India still growing. Boy, our tar sands are looking beautiful as does the Bakken oil field. The world will not look the same in only 5 years and not recognizable in 25 years. We use 10 calories of oil energy to grow 1 calorie of food, With post peak oil you will have post peak food. Post peak oil is post peak almost everything else. There can be little dispute about this, all that needs to be settled is when, and the hard data says it is under way now. There can be no greater catastrophy facing our western society, and no one is talking about it. We are running out of oil to make more global warming with. Price will save the environment faster than we can.

  • Joe Wheeler

    I'm writing this May 15, 10 days after this article was posted; it may seem ironical that in that time period a barrel of crude has dropped $10. Is this a trend or part of the overall market correction in the face of the EU crisis? My guess is that there are other variables in the short term than peak oil, i.e. the USA's penchant for making up excuses to conquer countries whose petrochemical resources they want (think Iraq, Afghanistan [pipeline routes/access]; add to this the stockpiling of oil by the US, which has recently reached new reserve levels, and there are many variables that confuse the picture. Still, in the longer run, I think the trend will be oil prices rising into the triple digits, with commensurate rises in the expense involved in producing just about everything.

    Irony #2: the subject of this essay, the Gulf oil catastrophe is happening at the same time as the price of oil has declined, seemingly counter-intuitively. Again, this appears to be short-term, but why, in a market that is supposedly so exquisitely sensitive to economically-related events, would the price of crude drop so much at this time?
    To top it all off, just as the summer driving season in N. America is about to begin, gas at the pump is/will be cheaper rather than the usual case of going up. One would think that anticipation of greater demand in the face of supply strains would push gas prices up. I cannot figure out what is going on here, some other factors are doubtless at play.

  • Joe Wheeler

    I'm writing this May 15, 10 days after this article was posted; it may seem ironical that in that time period a barrel of crude has dropped $10. Is this a trend or part of the overall market correction in the face of the EU crisis? My guess is that there are other variables in the short term than peak oil, i.e. the USA's penchant for making up excuses to conquer countries whose petrochemical resources they want (think Iraq, Afghanistan [pipeline routes/access]; add to this the stockpiling of oil by the US, which has recently reached new reserve levels, and there are many variables that confuse the picture. Still, in the longer run, I think the trend will be oil prices rising into the triple digits, with commensurate rises in the expense involved in producing just about everything.

    Irony #2: the subject of this essay, the Gulf oil catastrophe is happening at the same time as the price of oil has declined, seemingly counter-intuitively. Again, this appears to be short-term, but why, in a market that is supposedly so exquisitely sensitive to economically-related events, would the price of crude drop so much at this time?
    To top it all off, just as the summer driving season in N. America is about to begin, gas at the pump is/will be cheaper rather than the usual case of going up. One would think that anticipation of greater demand in the face of supply strains would push gas prices up. I cannot figure out what is going on here, some other factors are doubtless at play.

  • Pingback: A Moratorium on Supply Growth | Jeff Rubin

  • Steve Manders

    The EIA (Energy Information Administration) of the US government keep records on all energy production and consumption in the USA, and much global statistics.  They know about every oil well, where it is, how deep it is, how much oil it produces each day, and what proportion was used for different products.  It is a lot of data, but it is a simple matter of addtion, of a lot of numbers.   They also make projection for the future of oil.  They claim that oil production will increase to 110 million barrels a day by 2030 with no mention of peak oil.   Their own data now shows only a 2 % increase in production in the last 5 years while the world population grew by 7 %  resulting in us now using 5 % less per capita.  That is why the price of crude is soaring.  We are past peak per capita oil by 5 years, and at peak absolute oil now.   Their projections are in such contrast with their own data that they now no longer publish the chart called “World oil Balance”   They even removed the data for the 4 th. quarter of 2010 so that you cannot summarize the last decade properly.   There has to be a conspiracy within the EIA when they contridict what their own data shows, and end up withdrawing the data we all need to watch Peak Oil unfold.   The decisions of the US government will be based on what the EIA says is happening, and they obviously have an agenda of peak oil denial.

    For your interest,  last May they published the data for the 4 th quarter of 2010.  World oil supply  was 87.29 million barrels a day, total world consumption was 87.51 million barrels a day.  That is a small short fall, as a result, the US has released about 60 million barrels from their strategic oil reserves.   This data on supply and consumption is no longer abvailable on their web site.  The data for the 1 st. and 2 nd. quarters of 2011 is also not available as it should be.

    I can only speculate why they are in denial of Peak Oil when their data supports that idea.   Is it a major oil lobby that is behind it for some reason?   The Republicans?  The Tea Party?  I dont know, but it is a deliberate action keeping the world from acknowledging what is about to unfold and keeping us from preparing for it.

    THIS WILL TURN OUT TO BE THE GREATEST SCAM OF THE CENTURY, AND IT IS UNFOLDING RIGHT NOW IN SLOW MOTION BEFORE OUR VERY EYES.

  • Manders Steve

    I found the missing EIA data on the world oil balance,  production and consumption.  I could not find it even using their search engine,  but I e-mailed them and they told me how to find it.   It was well burried and disguised, as you would expect, if they did not want you to find it. Anyway, go o http://www.eia.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html click on the Dynamic table in html.     Go to the Short-Term Energy Outlook, Table 3a.   

    Here is where you can watch peak oil unfold with fairly  accurate data to support that claim.  I wish that they would not publish their predictons in the same table that they report actual historical data.  No data is ever perfect, but I believe that this is the best you can get.   I would rather that they hide the data from public view, as they have done, than cook the numbers to suit some political purpose.

    The data is reported by the quarter year, usually about 5 weeks after that quarter.  Thus, they have the data for the 1 st. and 2 nd. quarters of 2011, and will likely publish the data for the 3 rd quarter some time about Oct.  10.  

    I suppose if they hide it well enough, and no one can find it, then they will stop publishing that data altogether because no one was using it.   We will see.

    Mean while, the world passed peak per capita oil 5 years ago, we are clearly at a plateau for absolute peak for the last 6 years, but not past peak yet.  Oil production grew by 2 % in 5 years, but the world population grew by 7 %, giving  net decline of 5 % per capita.   Our tar sands are not conventional oil, so 1.5 million b/day should be subtracted from the totals.   Peak oil is about conventional oil.  New technology such as horizontal drilling,  flooding old wells with CO2, methane and water has teporarily rejuvinted a few old wells, sustaining production where it would have fallen off much more.   This is much like tipping an almost empty bucket a bit higher, you get a bit more briefly but just end up emptying the bucket even faster.  

    The solution to Peak Oil is,  “The more we drill, the more oil we get, the faster we can deplete this resource, the better off we will be.”   Isn’t what what is happening?