A Brief History of Oil
The discovery of oil can be described as both a blessing and a curse. Its use as a cheap and plentiful energy source drove the huge economic expansion, and the increase in living standards, of the last 100 years. But its use has also led to devastating environmental impacts.
Oil dates back a mere 150 years. During its first 50 years, oil production was marginal and was mostly used for heat and light. Oil production—and its importance—started taking off at the beginning of the 20th century, in conjunction with Henry Ford’s assembly line and the beginning of automobile mass production.
Throughout the 20th century, and still true today, oil’s most essential role is as a transportation fuel. Oil fuelled both World Wars—transforming them into mechanized conflicts using tanks and aircraft—and both post-war booms. America’s love affair with the car began in earnest during the roaring 20s. Economic growth in the 1950s accelerated the migration out of city centres and the expansion of suburbia. Drive-in movies and restaurants epitomized North America’s love of the automobile during this period.
The manufacturing and use of plastic, a synthetic polymer derived from oil, also became an ever-increasing trend over the last century. Though the practice began in the 1920s, its prominence, like that of the car, really accelerated in the post-WWII years. Today, its use is ubiquitous, yet few people are aware of all the products derived from oil: toothpaste, contact lenses, credit cards, golf balls, polystyrene cups, plastic bags.
Who has oil and who needs it has shaped world politics for a century. In the early 1900s, important oil discoveries were made in Texas and Persia (now Iran). Venezuela joined the oil club in 1922, with the discovery of the Lake Maracaibo reserves. Large reserves in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were discovered in the late 1930s. In 1960, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, was created. OPEC’s oil embargo in 1973 and the Iranian revolution of 1979 produced price spikes that led to global economic downturns and revealed the world’s dependence on this non-renewable resource.
Despite short periods of increased energy efficiency and the development of alternative forms of energy during the oil crises, global production, demand, and use of oil has continued to climb. Though America remains the second largest producer of oil, its production peaked in the early 1970s while its demand continues to soar. It has largely eschewed energy efficiency and energy self-sufficiency, and is therefore extremely dependent on imports, mostly from Canada, the Middle East, and Venezuela.
Environmental Impacts of Oil
Like other fossil fuels, oil’s production, transport, and use have significant environmental impacts. Oil production creates air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change, and wilderness destruction. Impacts on the landscape are so significant that Alberta’s oil and gas industry now cuts more trees and destroys more habitat than the province’s forest companies. The proliferation of offshore oil production, essentially a search for more and more remote sources of oil, has produced numerous large-scale oil spills, including a major spill from Nova Scotia’s Terra Nova offshore platform in 2004.
Transporting oil also has produced its share of environmental peril, from the Exxon Valdez disaster to leaks from both oil pipelines and gas pipelines everywhere they exist. Even when pipelines operate as intended, they cut swaths through the landscape that fragment important habitat.
And then there’s climate change. The production and use of oil has made a significant contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions, the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, and the consequent changes to our climate.
Peak Oil
At some point, no matter how much effort is put into discovering and producing more oil, its production will continue to decrease. The world won’t have run out of oil (there will still be about half the global reserves remaining), but reserves will be so depleted that maintaining production levels will be impossible. Economic disruption will follow because of a global economy that is dependent on cheap oil for so much of its activity and growth.
Where experts disagree is when peak oil production will occur. Generally, petroleum geologists seem to agree that peak production is at most a few years away. They rely on the influential work of geologist Dr. M. King Hubbert, who rightly predicted the peak of U.S. oil.
Some economists and oil executives believe that the world has decades before reaching peak oil production. However, they largely ignore the reality of oil production curves and simply point to erroneous predictions of peak oil from the past. They believe increased prices will spur exploration, more oil discoveries, and continued growth. However, every year since 1980, oil use has exceeded new discoveries by an increasingly wide margin. As the oil left to be discovered dwindles, exploration costs surpass the value of oil discoveries, making further exploration uneconomic. This has been the case for the last three years, which is why oil exploration remains low despite record oil prices.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Energy/Fossilfuels/default.asp
The problem with coal
Burning coal to produce electricity seriously affects human health, air, climate and wildlife:
· Coal is a major threat to our climate. Just one 150-megawatt coal-fired power plant produces more than one million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year. That’s the same emissions of more than 300,000 cars.
· Coal-fired power is the leading source of mercury emissions in North America, which are dangerous to people, fish and wildlife. Fish may have thousands of times more mercury in their systems than is found in the surrounding water due to bioaccumulation. Wildlife species reliant on fish, such as eagles and osprey, also have high levels of mercury. Mercury is known to affect learning ability and neuro-development in children.
· Burning coal also produces large quantities of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. The federal government recently declared particulate matter to be a toxic substance because it can cause breathing and respiratory problems, irritation, inflammation and damage to the lungs and premature death.
· Sulphur dioxide in the air can also form into sulphuric acid and mix with rain or snow, creating acid rain. Acid rain can have drastic ecological impacts on lakes by changing the water's acidity, making the lake uninhabitable for its resident fish, plants and animals.
· Concerns about air pollution prompted the Ontario government to promise to close down most of its coal-fired electricity plants by 2007.
Coal bed methane
Coal bed methane (CBM) is similar in composition to natural gas (ie. mostly methane) but it is found in and around coal seams. CBM is now being aggressively pursued in Canada as traditional supplies dwindle and demand for natural gas increases. The B.C. government is a strong advocate, offering significant tax breaks and a major policy encouragement now underway.
· Because CBM is trapped in rocks deep within the earth, more work is needed to get it out, leading to greater environmental damage at the source.
· Large quantities of water – sometimes more than tens of thousands of litres per day – are first pumped from the coal seams in order to release the CBM. Pumping this much water (usually from many wells simultaneously) can deplete local water supplies. The water, which may be contaminated, must then be released somewhere. Surface disposal is often permitted, which can be harmful because the water is often laden with salts and chemicals that damage vegetation.
· Pumping the water from the seams releases the CBM but there is no guarantee that it will all be vented up the designated well. CBM can travel through the coal seam and end up being vented into the atmosphere acting as a powerful greenhouse gas, or can migrate into nearby water wells or houses, posing health risks to local communities.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Energy/Fossilfuels/default.asp
Natural Gas
Natural gas has some advantages over other energy sources like coal and nuclear power, which have significant safety, security, and environmental issues. However, relying heavily on natural gas is also problematic for several reasons.
Air Pollution and Climate Change
Natural gas-fired power plants do emit lower levels of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides than coal-fired plants do, but these emissions still contribute to acid rain and ground level ozone, both of which can damage forests and agricultural crops.
Ground level ozone (commonly called smog) has also been linked to a range of respiratory illnesses. More recently, ground level ozone has been linked to the development of childhood asthma, the “most common chronic disease” among children.
Possibly more troubling are the emissions of fine particulates from gas-fired power plants. Though particulate emissions are about one-tenth what they are for coal power, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 77% of particulates from natural gas plant are dangerously small. These fine particulates have the greatest impact on human health because they by-pass our bodies’ natural respiratory filters and end up deep in the lungs. In fact, many studies have found no safe limit for exposure to these substances.
Natural gas also contributes to climate change. Burning natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions (25-40% lower, per unit of generated electricity) than coal or oil, but there will be no real climate change benefit until gas-fired power plants actually displace coal-fired generation. Across North America, gas-fired plants continue to be built in addition to coal-fired power.
Using natural gas as a “transition fuel” also poses risks. That’s because pipelines required to transport natural gas from its source to the power plant are expensive. High pipeline costs have to be spread out by building several gas-fired power plants that last a generation. Even the best-case scenario shows that natural gas is not a solution to climate change.
Price Increases
There is also the issue of the price of natural gas. Many energy experts are predicting that North American natural gas prices will climb to twice their average price. That’s because continued growth in gas-fired electricity in North America—driven by U.S. demand—is exceeding proven reserves of natural gas.
Canada is America’s largest source of natural gas, but Canada’s reserves are dwindling. Based on proven reserves and 2002 production, Canada has less than ten years of production left. In the long run, increased supply will not be able to match demand.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Energy/Fossilfuels/default.asp