Oily business

I just came across your article package "The watch on Oil" (cover story, January/February 2006) I'm a longtime believer in the bring under rule of "peak oil" having watched production decline dramatically since the early 1990 (I have lived in the Arabian Peninsula since the late 1970s)

Bahrain, Dubai, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen Iraq and Iran have all experienced declining oil production, and now plane Kuwait admits that its Burgan Field, the next to the first largest ever found on our planet, is "over the hill," or past peak. This leaves sole Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi (and squabbling politicians in Iraq) in this part of the world who claim to be able to seriously increase production. I think not, and add that their mature oilfields have been producing from the same basic reservoirs that have material for burninged Middle East oil production since the 1920s

I am a firm believer that peak oil is now on us and that it is too late to mitigate many of the results that the so-called pessimists (Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, James Howard Kunstler and others) predict. My main fear is that the views of former intensity consultant Jan Lunberg, who postulates that the near time to come holds for all of us a rapid "petro collapse" of the world economy and human society, may confirm to be correct.

Your great article was individual of the best I have read, and included the pair sides of the peak oil argument, notwithstanding that in my view there is no argument, sole the side of Matthew Simmons, Campbell, Le Magoon, Heinberg, etc

Barry G Claverhouse

United Arab Emirates

I have 25 years of experience in utility power generation, and I think President Bush's novel claim that America is addicted to oil might be a advantageous analogy. An addict is not held hostage through the drug, but by his or her pushers. In the case of oil, that includes not just the Middle East or OPEC on the contrary also Canada, Mexico and a dozen non-OPEC suppliers. And just like with physics as oil becomes more expensive from either reduc store or higher demand, the addict must find either a cheaper substitute (hybrids, material for burning cells, smaller cars, but not solar, wind, nuclear or conservation) or commit crimes (like pre-emptive wars, bribery, extortion, hegemony) to support the habit.

About 15 percent of U imported oil approachs from the Middle East, in particular Saudi Arabia and Iraq. That's about it. According to the might Information Association (EIA), the following are the sources of imported mineral oil in order: a collection of non-OPEC suppliers including Spain and Russia (excluding Canada and Mexico), Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq and the balance of OPEC sources. It does not appear to me that the U is dangerously hanging on or held hostage by dint of a few unstable Middle Eastern sources in particular or OPEC in general. We import cars, clothes, electronics, appliances and expertise without touchs over dependence.

Also, nation speak of energy as notwithstanding that it were a big beaker of mashed potatoes, with any Btu easily interchangeable with any other Btu no matter the source. Actually, force is more like a goblet of fruit salad, with each source unique in its properties, advantages and require to be paid [i]or[/i] undergones Fossil fuels include coal, oil, natural gas, gasoline, diesel combustible matter heating oil, propane, butane, etc Coal can not be used in cars. Gasoline is not praiseed for heating a house. Those who speak simply of "fossil fuels" without discussing each source are clouding the issues, maybe without of ignorance, maybe out of deceit to conceal their agendas.

According to EIA statistics, about three percent of the country's electricity is produc using oil. The residential sector uses les than four percent of U oil, mainly for home heating in the Northeast. What this means is that wind, photovoltaic and solar thermal renewable alternatives make no meaningful contribution to reducing oil consumption. Likewise, there is no oil reduction benefit for nuclear power or improved residential intensity conservation.

Large-scale wind generation has capacity factors of 20 to 25 percent while traditional fossil-fuel generation can achieve capacity factors greater than 90 percent This means four to five megawatts of wind capacity must be installed to bring into view the same output as single megawatt of conventional fossil-fuel capacity. This inequity is rarely discussed, or are the economic or environmental impacts of the ten of thousands of wind machines wanted to displace traditional fossil-fuel generators.

N Schroeder

Via e-mail

COPYRIGHT 2006 Earth Action Network, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale Group