Daily Kos

Congress Told the Truth about Oil Depletion by Rep. Bartlett

Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:19:18 PM PDT

As demonstrated by this transcript of an amazing hourlong presentation by Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican from Maryland's 6th District, the entire story of peak oil has now been laid out before our elected representatives. It happened yesterday -- on March 15, 2005.

Please turn the page.
Following is a brief excerpt from Congressman Bartlett's presentation. I have added a few notes in square brackets.
A couple of Congresses ago, I was privileged to chair the Energy Subcommittee on Science. One of the first things I wanted to do was to determine the dimensions of the [oil depletion] problem. We held a couple of hearings and had the world experts in.

Surprisingly from the most pessimistic to the most optimistic, there was not much deviation in what the estimate is as to what the known reserves are out there. It is about 1,000 gigabarrels [42 trillion gallons of crude oil].

That sounds like an awful lot of oil. But when you divide into that the amount of oil which we use, about 20 million barrels [840 million gallons] a day, and the amount of oil the rest of the world uses, about 60 million barrels a day, as a matter of fact, the total now is a bit over the 80 million that those two add up to. About 83 1/2 [about 3.5 billion gallons of crude oil per day for the entire world], I think.

If you divide that into the 1,000 gigabarrels, you come out at about 40 years of oil remaining in the world. [I get 32.8 years]

That is pretty good. Because up until the Carter years, during the Carter years, in every decade we used as much oil as had been used in all of previous history.

Let me repeat that, because that is startling. In every decade, we used as much oil as had been used in all of previous history.

The reason for that, of course, was that we were on the upward side of this bell curve. The bell curve for usage, only part of it is shown on this chart. That is the green one down here, the bell curve for usage. Notice that we are out here now about 2005.

Where is it going? The Energy Information Agency says that we are going to keep on using more oil. This green line just going up and up and up is a projection of the Energy Information Agency. But that cannot be true. That cannot be true for a couple of reasons. We peaked in our discovery of oil way back here in the late sixties, about 1970. In our country it peaked much earlier than that, by the way. But the world is following several years behind us. And the area under this red curve [total oil discovered] must be the same as the area under the green curve [total oil extracted]. You cannot pump any more oil than you have found, quite obviously. If you have not found it, you cannot pump it.

If you were to extend this on out where they have extended their green line, even if it turned down right there at the end of that green line, the area under the green curve is going to be very much larger than the area under the red curve. That just cannot be. We will see in some subsequent charts that we probably have reached peak oil.

Although I haven't studied Rep. Bartlett's other positions, he is a Republican, and so I probably don't agree with many of them. Nevertheless, I phoned his Washington office to express my appreciation for the service he has performed for the entire country, and in fact for the world, by delivering this talk.

Not only has he educated his peers -- who now have no excuse not to pay attention -- he has also provided an excellent reference text for any member of the public who wishes to learn more about this critically important issue.

I cannot urge too strongly that all Kosmopolitans consider reading this transcript. It is probably the easiest and most transparently credible way you can catch up with the scientific facts of oil depletion.

Our gathered Members of Congress have now seen and heard a timely, well reasoned argument that the world's daily output of oil will very soon reach a peak and then begin to fall off, never to rise again.

Did they choose to listen and to understand?

And among those who did listen and understand -- will they now choose to act?

Poll

What is our most critical problem in the United States?

7%3 votes
33%14 votes
4%2 votes
54%23 votes

| 42 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 13 comments

  •  this talk coming from a repug (none / 0)

    me thinks is to gird the country for war to "secure energy independence" because those damn middle easterners won't share unless we pay them ransom prices for their oil.

    Sorry very cynical today

    John McCain gets economic advice from subprime mortgage banking lobbyist

    by gaspare on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:29:09 PM PDT

    •  Energy independence is Bartlett's token stance (none / 0)

      Energy independence is the one thing Bartlett is not far right on.  And that's pretty much it.  When asked about funding education he once took out a copy of the Constitution and said "where in here does it say that I have to fund education."
      •  Not about politics (none / 0)

        Oil depletion in itself does not arise from politics, although many political decisions are based on it. It seems almost certain that President Bush invaded Iraq because, in the face of the urgent status of oil depletion, he hopes to control the world's oil resources. Aside from being incredibly immoral, that policy will never work. Everyone in this country needs to understand the facts of this matter. If you don't want to read something written by a Republican, I can certainly understand that. Most or all Republicans now are telling awful lies and supporting even more awful policies. But as someone who has been studying the oil depletion situation intensively for about a year now, I can tell you that Rep. Bartlett's facts and his science are of excellent quality.

        "This document is totally non-redactable and non-segregable and cannot even be meaningfully described." *

        by dratman on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:57:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  He gave them important information (none / 0)

    and they used it to open drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

    "I can't listen to Lanny Davis interviews unless he's constantly being drowned out by the sound of metal folding chairs." --Obfuscator

    by Alna Dem on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:34:54 PM PDT

  •  We have a secure energy independence plan (none / 0)

    Here it is:
    We'll kick your ass & take your gas

    It does have the niggling problems of being immoral, unconstitutional and ineffective in the long term, but hey, every plan has its downsides.

    Sorry, I'm a bit cynical today.  I expect 10% or more of my coworkers to be fired tomorrow, but senior management, our great leaders, to remain almost completely intact.

    Cheers

    "The Universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it." Marcus Aurelius

    by Mosquito Pilot on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:43:43 PM PDT

  •  No one seems to mention that (none / 0)

    over half - that's right - over half of the oil we use in this country is for agriculture. Mostly, it's used to make fertilizer. Ain't that something? And futhermore, we use a lot of energy to mine water to grow crops in the fucking desert, and pay agribusiness to let their fields go fallow where rain is plentiful.

    You just have to love the corporate/fascist model. It is so effecient at making money, or rather, /stealing it.

    •  link or source? (none / 0)

      It would be astonishing, although I am not in the position to dispute it.

      I have big objections to US agricultural policies, to wit, subsidies and regulations that make it difficult to change unhealthy patterns of food production, like plenty of corn-fed beef rather than healthier grass-fed beef, and plenty of massive commodities and few vegetables -- vegetables are damn expensive in US!  If the industrial modes of pruduction waste a lot of energy as well, it would be yet another argument for change.

      By the way, if you alternate growing grass with clover or some such, you do not need nitrogen fertilizer, not to mention that cows on a pasture provide fertilize it.  Cows can also crop the grass instead of tractors.  Decreasing energy use is very much possible.

      •  My bad (none / 0)

        Petroleum is used to make pesticides, not nitrogen based fertilizers, which are derived from natural gas. I will do a diary on this over the weekend so that we all can understand that oil is used for much more than just vehicles. Energy use for mining and moving water is huge.
  •  Bartlett (none / 0)

    he's a wingnut on social issues.  Ask him about gay rights for example.

    Article 6: "...no religious test shall *ever* be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the U.S."

    by billlaurelMD on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:03:24 PM PDT

Permalink | 13 comments