In its zeal to avoid pandering to the energy industry, which it considers a special interest group of Brobdingnagian proportions, Washington has overlooked the fact that with the exception of a few individuals living a hermit-like existence on a mountain top somewhere, the public, the engines of our economy, the national security, and yes, even the politicians themselves, require access to energy — and lots of it.

But before killing off the world’s most powerful industry with inappropriate legislation, onerous regulation and downright obfuscation, wouldn’t it be prudent to consider the timing of alternative resource development?

Even the most progressively minded scientists among us have acknowledged that as of today many of the “solutions” to dependence on foreign oil are either impractical to implement or way too costly. The ethanol idea, designed to solve our problems by growing our own solutions in the corn fields of the Midwest, has done little more than drive up the cost of a gallon of gasoline while threatening the balance of the world’s food supply. Wind and solar work, but how many windmills and solar panels will it take to provide even a fraction of the energy needed? And at what cost?

We all know the argument against nuclear power. It’s too dangerous. Oh, wait. France seems to be able to supply the majority of its citizens with nuclear-generated power without turning anyone into some sort of mutant troll.

Trying to wean the US off its dependence on imported energy requires time, investment, and considerable ingenuity. Timing is everything. Cutting off domestic energy development before perfecting alternative solutions is just plain stupid.

How about pandering to the consuming public for a change? Let energy resources compete on the level playing field of economics while investing in the future by encouraging basic research, not only in discovering innovative technologies and techniques to convert energy but in making them economically viable.

A story emerged from the recent congressional hearings where energy industry executives were being castigated for escalating oil prices — a commodity, which by its very definition absolved the executives from guilt. A commodity is an item for which the market, not a company, sets the price. According to the story, one of the executives tried to explain why energy cannot be created, only converted. “It’s against the laws of physics,” he explained. “We write the laws,” allegedly snapped an irritated congressman. “If it’s against some law, we’ll repeal it!”

It’s all about timing.

It’s said that Leonardo da Vinci invented the airplane. No doubt he had a great idea, but the world wasn’t ready for it. His timing was about 400 years premature.

The same analogy can be applied to many of the E&P techniques in use today — they were conceived a century ago, invented many decades ago, but actually built and implemented only a few years ago. When I started working in this industry, most wells were vertical, a few were deviated, and none were horizontal. But the concept of horizontal drilling had been floated. What would have happened to the country’s economy, let alone its security, if Congress had passed a law requiring all wells to be horizontal because that’s the way to improve domestic production and reduce imports? Our economy would have ground to a halt, because no one could drill, log, or complete horizontally then. The technology hadn’t been perfected, but now it has, and we use it every day.

President John F. Kennedy challenged America when he set a timetable for us to put a man on the moon. What if he’d said, “I want a man on the moon by next Thursday!” Unless he possessed the power of the intrepid Ralph Kramden, it wouldn’t have happened. But with a timetable and a goal, the dream was realized.
That’s how to solve the problem of disproportionate energy imports. Set a timetable, and stick to it. Because,
at the end of the day, timing is everything.

Comments