No peak oil in Bakersfield

So my hometown's on the front page of the New York Times today, in an awkwardly written story debunking the "peak oil" theory, using Bakersfield as an example.

Bakersfield has long been an oil town, (when my grandparents eloped, they met up at the oil well in front of the high school and drove to Vegas,) but what's left in the ground isn't great quality and it's hard to get. So the only time it makes sense to drill is when the price of oil is absurdly high.

The NYT story eventually makes that point:

Initially, engineers expected to recover only 10 percent of the field’s oil. Now, thanks to decades of trial and error, Chevron believes it will be able to recover up to 80 percent of the oil from the field, more than twice the industry’s average recovery rate, which is typically around 35 percent. Each well produces about 10 barrels a day at a cost of $16 each. That compares with production costs of only $1 or $2 a barrel in the Persian Gulf, home to the world’s lowest-cost producers.

But it hardly seems to justify the tone of the story, which is summarized much higher:

With plenty of oil still left in familiar locations, forecasts that the world’s reserves are drying out have given way to predictions that more oil can be found than ever before.

Their video with the story is better balanced, but I still would like to know what the price at the pump would be if we had to rely solely on this hard-to-tap oil. Presumably as much as 16 times as we pay now if it currently costs $16 in Bakersfield vs. $1 to $2 in the Persian Gulf?

Labels: bakersfield

- posted by Amy @ 3/05/2007 08:56:00 AM