Oily business.

I just came across your article package "The Outlook on Oil" (cover story, January/February 2006). I'm a longtime believer in the subject of "peak oil" having watched production decline dramatically since the early 1990s (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 even Kuwait admits that its Burgan Field, the second largest ever found on our planet, is "over the hill," or past peak. This leaves only 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 fueled Middle East oil production since the 1920s.

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

Your great article was one of the best I have read, and included both sides of the peak oil argument, though in my view there is no argument, only the side of Matthew Simmons, Campbell, Les 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 recent claim that America is addicted to oil might be a good analogy. An addict is not held hostage by the drug, but by his or her pushers. In the case of oil, that includes not just the Middle East or OPEC, but also Canada, Mexico and a dozen non-OPEC suppliers. And just like with drugs, as oil becomes more expensive from either reduced supply or higher demand, the addict must find either a cheaper substitute (hybrids, fuel 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.S. imported oil comes from the Middle East, in particular Saudi Arabia and Iraq. That's about it. According to the Energy Information Association (EIA), the following are the sources of imported petroleum, 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.S. is dangerously dependent on or held hostage by a few unstable Middle Eastern sources in particular or OPEC in general. We import cars, clothes, electronics, appliances and expertise without concerns over dependence.

Also, people speak of energy as though it were a big bowl of mashed potatoes, with any Btu easily interchangeable with any other Btu, no matter the source. Actually, energy is more like a bowl of fruit salad, with each source unique in its properties, advantages and costs. Fossil fuels include coal, oil, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, propane, butane, etc. Coal can not be used in cars. Gasoline is not recommended for heating a house. Those who speak simply of "fossil fuels" without discussing each source are clouding the issues, maybe out of ignorance, maybe out of deceit to conceal their agendas.

According to EIA statistics, about three percent of the country's electricity is produced using oil. The residential sector uses less than four percent of U.S. oil, mostly 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 energy 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 produce the same output as one megawatt of conventional fossil-fuel capacity. This inequity is rarely discussed, or are the economic or environmental impacts of the tens of thousands of wind machines needed to displace traditional fossil-fuel generators.

N. Schroeder

Via e-mail