Usually when I get in a discussion on this it surprises people, even really highly educated people, as they're prepared in their minds to engage in a completely different discussion. For people who are Greens, it's that coal is dirty and needs to go, and they're going to drive it under, and they might have that view on petroleum as well. For people who take the opposite view, it's that coal is necessary and the Greens need to get out of the way, and they might make references to petroleum as well.
I note that as there's been rumblings that technology is catching up with petroleum oil, even here in Wyoming, where such thoughts were dismissed until very recently.
And given that, it might be worthwhile to put an ear to the ground (the derrick? the pumpjack?) and listen to what the rumblings are.
Now, to be fair to the story, part of what we're hearing is undoubtedly due to the advancement of environmental concerns. This thread isn't on that, but it would be dishonest to maintain otherwise.
It's also be dishonest, however, to say that all of them are by any means.
Rather, what this thread is about is the rumblings we're beginning to hear from some sources, and what that means. Things may be getting hard to ignore.
Recently an issue of the AAPG Explorer arrived. I'm a member of the AAPG, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and in issues for some time there have been quite an assortment of articles that make it clear that industry insiders basically feel that the current trend towards reduced petroleum usage is a long term and unstoppable one. A decade ago or so there were scientific articles on climate change and the geologic view of that, but that's really stopped. At one point the change in the articles came to be that no matter what the science may be, the trend of accepting it was long term and the industry had to brace for that.
Now thing have changed again. Oil is in a severe slump (still under $40/bbl) and recent indications from Saudi Arabia are that prices in that range will remain until at least 2023, absent market spikes here and there. The last issue of the Explorer made it plain that industry insiders now don't expect the long term future for petroleum to feature must fuel tank use.
Now, keep in mind, this is from the AAPG, not the Green Party. The AAPG is made up of people who have made their livings in the petroleum industry. So, this has sort of the same quality to it as an association of draft horse breeders issuing an exception of decreased need around 1910 or so.
Indeed, not only are industry geologist, who usually are pretty measured in their opinions, expressing this view, in their typical measured tones, but the rank and file on the rigs are too, through their actions. Individuals I've known or whom I'm aware of, who have worked on rigs their entire work lives are now electing to take other jobs.
Indeed, both of those are remarkable as these aren't "green" decisions or statements. Geologist in fact have been very careful regarding voicing opinions in this area and early on, when they started to, their statements were pretty measured and tended to be rooted in the geologic knowledge of the paleoclimate and what that caused them to think. Indeed, they never really got an airing on that when they wanted to pitch in, interesting science though it is. Being scientifically trained, they tended to express opinions rooted solely in their science, which is interesting as it had little to really do with their personal economics, which tends to be how most people approach these topics.
Folks who worked on the rigs tended to view things through those personal economics, which as noted is what most people in fact do. The fact that they're now departing the industry, to some extent, is telling as that's voting on their personal economic assessment, which is informed and calculated.
Drilling rig crewmen, 1944. Its unimaginable to see floor hands without hardhats today.
Anyhow, following that surprising news from the AAPG, came more from a committee of Wyoming's legislature, which we've already posted on here:
September 21, 2020
And here's the first entry:
A committee of the Wyoming legislature has passed a bill advancing a Road Use Charge. The RUC would track a vehicle's highway miles by use of a GPS and then bill the user. There's obviously a lot of technology that I don't grasp on this one, not the least of which is that I don't have a single vehicle equipped with a GPS so I don't know how that would really work.
While this bill did get past committee, my prediction is that it might not actually make it to the legislature and that it won't make it to the floor. It'll prove to be unpopular with Wyomingites, at least right now, who will find the thought of being tracked by GPS offensive.
On that, I'm not sure how it actually intends to track a vehicle. It's interesting in that there's a certain assumption that everyone drives a relatively modern vehicle, which I suppose most do. All mine are older, however.
September 23, 2020
A review of the RUC bill, which can be read here, indicates that in fact the law anticipates automobiles being retrofitted with GPS devices or individuals having to report their odometer readers.
It further envisions six categories of motor vehicles with six different charge per mile rates. Looking at it and roughly figuring it, it would cost me a little under $5.00 in tax to drive my truck to Laramie. The gas tax is supposed to be phased out after it passes, if it does.
Again, it may be just me but I have a very hard time imaging the average Wyomingite liking the idea of retrofitting their vehicle with a GPS monitor for any reason.
That committee passed on a bill proposing to basically make all Wyoming highways a type of toll road through a per vehicle Road Use Charge system. One of the reasons that was cited by one committee members was the on coming arrival of increasing numbers of electric vehicles which don't use gasoline and therefore pay no gas tax at the pumps. The head of the Wyoming Department of Transportation cited the same thing, while expressing skepticism at the speed at which they'll arrive in a recent statement, and while also using some surprising analogies (like cavalry to tanks, for example). Indeed, there were statements levied at legislature "RINOS" and the like. I don't think the RUC stands a chance of passing, which is not the point. The point is that members of the legislature, who are pretty conservative and who have a lot vested in Wyoming's energy economy, are publicly acknowledging that its in a permanent downturn in their view.
As if to emphasize that, just a couple of days after the legislature passed that item on from committee, the Governor of California issued an executive order banning the sale of new petroleum fueled motor vehicles after 2035.
I noted at the time that I really doubt that's a Constitutional act, but so far it hasn't been challenged. Of course, there's years and years to challenge it. But the fact that a state executive officer has now flat out taken on petroleum fueled vehicles is pretty telling. Even if this was struck down by a Court, it's highly likely that California's legislature would pass a law providing for the same thing. And they're likely just one of several states that would take that act right now.
Wyomingites used to take cold comfort in the belief that if this sort of thing happened people would have to "freeze in the dark at home", but that's pretty clearly not the case anymore. We've already addressed the onset of really effective "renewable" sources of power generation, although we still feel that the omission of nuclear power from that is flat out dim,
but now there's evidence that's starting to change. While some will take a little hope from the U.S. Supreme Court's indication that it wants a Solicitor's brief in Wyoming's lawsuit on Pacific Northwest ports, the trends there are really irreversible. Nuclear power, which really ought to be pushed strongly for anyone who is really serious about clean energy, and who is educated in a real sense about it, could be for Wyoming, to a smaller extent, what coal has been. We aren't doing much about that.
Anyhow, the old "you won't be able to drive your cars" clearly isn't going to be true in the near future. Nobody now denies that electric cars have really arrived. You still hear some claims that "well, you can't use them here. . . ", but most cars aren't sold here. And besides, that soon won't be true. Jeep is introducing an electric Jeep. . . and that means something.
And if California's ban remains in place, the economic boost that gives to electric vehicles will be enormous. Along with that, Joe Biden is indicating that if he's elected to the Oval Office, which it appears he will be, he'll require the Federal vehicle fleet, which is huge, to covert to electric over time, and that he'll take a similar approach to California in terms of phasing out petroleum vehicles.
If all three of those things hold; i.e., California mandates new cars be electric fifteen years hence, the Federal government does the same, and the Federal motor vehicle fleet switches to electric, the shift to electric vehicles won't take fifteen years. It'll happen quicker than that.
All of which is why geologist who have made their living in oil and legislators who have to fund the state by way of it are now taking the view that its inevitable.
