Peak Oil Matters

We all act much the same way, ideologies notwithstanding. Human nature, I suppose. The more important questions: might we benefit from a bit of introspection before doing more of the same….

What comes after the ideology is appeased? How do we each and collectively deal with the outcomes of roads taken and not taken?

I could spend hours pointing out the nonsense of Republican orthodoxy, and sure as hell ten from the Right will rise up and point out what an idiot I am because they happen to have Chart A, Opinion B, and Evidence C to show me why I’m so thoroughly wrong. And just as quickly, ten of my peers will produce Chart D, Opinion E, and Evidence F to show why the Right is clueless. There are surely no topics having influence or impacting any segment of society which are not subjected to this type of analysis, dialogue, and dispute. And on and on it goes….

As an ideological exercise designed to reassure us that we are obviously correct and our opponents are just as decidedly insane, there’s merit in continuing to wage philosophical, political, and economic war with those on the “other” side who just simply don’t get it … at all! Ever! In a fact-free and consequence-free world, we could indulge ourselves forever by playing this game. Every day is Groundhog Day.

What is this getting us, exactly (besides a healthy stroking of our egos and intellect, of course)?

Back in the day, when all of life was so much simpler and easier, we could afford to just take care of our own, prosper, debate, solve problems, and then carry on with the assurance that tomorrow all but guaranteed better opportunities than those of today. That dizzying pace never got away from us.

But today, “our own” is … everyone else, and the pace has quickened in every direction. Several billion people want to be just like the best of our best. But when the few best resist the efforts and attempts of everyone else, or deny them the very opportunities which boosted them up the ladder, we have problems. And when the game board itself has changed to, and we no longer have all the pieces we need to win the game on our own, we’ll have even more problems if we don’t consider changing the rules a bit—assuming “winning” is still the goal. If not, then the current winners will by and large remain, everyone else loses, and pretty soon, everyone loses … all 100% of us.

Sound like a good strategy for the 21st Century?

I’m thinking a bigger vision is needed. As I suggested several months ago: “do we bog ourselves down by nit-picking—working harder to find out why something won’t work or why it is not perfect in every way under every condition and for every person—or do we adopt a grander strategy that will under no conditions be perfect or even acceptable to everyone, but provides us with the best long-term opportunities…?”

That remains a choice we each and all own.

The challenges are exacerbated by little tricks each and every one of us plays. They must help us in the moment, else we would change, but introspection might offer up some different approaches to help us all, and for a longer period of time. We shouldn’t be turning down any chances to make things better.

… [P]eople who know very little about an issue — say the economic downturn, changes in the climate or dwindling fossil fuel reserves — tend to avoid learning more about it. This insulates them in their ignorance — a pattern described by researchers as ‘motivated avoidance.’
Faced with complicated or troubling situations, these people often defer to authorities like the government or scientists, hoping they have the situation under control….
‘This is psychologically easier than taking a significant amount of time to learn about an issue, all the while confronting unpleasant information about it,’ [Steven Shepard] added. [1]

Too often, the “authorities” deferred to have motivations and interests entirely at odds with those who have turned to them for assurances that everything is being managed and “under control.” The result is obvious: Authorities misinform, misdirect, or even outright lie to promote their own agenda.

More and more we respond by shutting out the assault of cognitive dissonance and retreating from any unwelcome input. We surround ourselves with news outlets, friends and even neighbors who carefully reinforce what we want to believe. We are building our own reality to support our chosen narrative. It doesn’t seem to be working out well on a personal level and it’s rotting our politics. [2]

Is this the better and wiser approach (notwithstanding the pointlessness of it all)? Will there come a time when most of us (I’m not that optimistic!) decide that perhaps we ought to consider choosing paths which give us the best chance of leading to a reasonable and acceptable level of continuing well-being and prosperity—even if those choices do not mesh with the ideologies and beliefs we cling to so tenaciously?

That commitment requires that we take a moment to consider what happens if we don’t do so. This is not the time or place for delusion and denial.

… [A]n array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called ‘motivated reasoning [citation]’ helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, ‘death panels,’ the birthplace and religion of the president [citation], and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts….
We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself….
[O]ur quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that’s highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about….
‘[We] retrieve thoughts that are consistent with [our] previous beliefs,’ says Charles Taber [political scientist from Stony Brook University], ‘and that will lead [us] to build an argument and challenge what [we’re] hearing.’
In other words, when we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing … Our ‘reasoning’ is a means to a predetermined end—winning our ‘case’—and is shot through with biases. They include ‘confirmation bias,’ in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and ‘disconfirmation bias,’ in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial. [3]

Okay … guilty as charged. So now what?

We obviously wouldn’t be making use of these psychological tricks of the trade if they didn’t provide us with benefits and gratifications. So is that it? Shrug our shoulders, admit that we are all guilty from time to time and then … nothing?

Might we consider the possibility of being “better” than that? If we choose to solve what might appear at first blush to be overwhelming and even insoluble problems, we need more. We need more from our systems, more from our leaders, and more from ourselves. “Greater/better” leads to greater responsibilities of course, and there are ample reasons why we may prefer to just leave that to others.

A choice, of course. But every choice has an outcome, and when the challenges are great, great effort is called for. The alternative outcome is usually quite obvious: worse….

Guilty as charged there, too. Not much long-term benefit, to be sure, but easier in the moment by a long shot….

… [A]ccording to Charles Taber and Milton Lodge of Stony Brook, one insidious aspect of motivated reasoning is that political sophisticates are prone to be more biased than those who know less about the issues. ‘People who have a dislike of some policy—for example, abortion—if they’re unsophisticated they can just reject it out of hand,’ says Lodge. ‘But if they’re sophisticated, they can go one step further and start coming up     with counterarguments.’ These individuals are just as emotionally driven and biased as the rest of us, but they’re able to generate more and better reasons to explain why they’re right—and so their minds become harder to change.
Cherry-picking is precisely the sort of behavior you would expect motivated reasoners to engage in to bolster their views. [4]

Sound familiar?

More shoulder-shrugging, or do we reach for and seek to be … more?

Sources:

[1] http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2011/12/19/1; PUBLIC OPINION: Report finds ‘motivated avoidance’ plays a role in climate change politics, by Umair Irfan – 12.19.11
[2] http://www.frumforum.com/where-the-crazy-may-be-coming-from; Where the Crazy May Be Coming From, by Chris Ladd – 09.16.11
[3] http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney; The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science – How our brains fool us on climate, creationism, and the vaccine-autism link, by Chris Mooney – 04.18.11
[4] Mooney

If we focus on trying to wean ourselves from dependence on oil, we can do it.
No, it won’t be easy–kicking an addiction never is. Yes, it might lead to some people eventually switching jobs or being slightly less fantastically wealthy (oil industry executives). And, yes, it will require some lifestyle and philosophical changes (ditto). But some of those changes will eventually be positive, not negative.
And, done intelligently, kicking our Middle Eastern oil addiction will also lead to the development of vast, exciting new jobs, companies, and industries–industries that we own and control and that will ultimately employ and enrich millions of Americans…..
We’ve had almost a half-century to prepare for this situation, and we haven’t done jack. If we remain in denial, fighting to preserve the status quo, a transition of Middle Eastern oil will ultimately be forced on us. And it’s hard to see why we would ever want that.
So it’s time we focused on this problem. And it’s time we did what any individual or company focused on fixing a long-term problem would do: Start by developing an intelligent long-term plan. [1]

Creating and disseminating an executable, unambiguous and widely adopted vision with supporting goals is one of the first steps to successful goal setting and implementation for any organization. The more complex the initiative and the larger the organization, the more important the creation and adoption of a shared vision becomes. [2]

Both quotes above echo themes I’ve been promoting since my first post more than two years ago. Addressing concerns and the challenges we face now by promoting ideas and policies designed to get us to the next election is not enough, and we should not for one moment be content with this strategy. Feckless Democrats and mind-numbingly narrow-minded Republicans serve no useful purpose, and we should all work to make sure that our elected leaders share the Vision we create for our future, and that they will abide by the directives we establish to make that our reality.

The challenges Peak Oil and Global Warming impose on us demand nothing less. Leadership has been almost entirely absent, and we’re past the point where we can wait through one or two more election cycles to get what we need. So far, we’ve gotten too much of the leadership we’ve deserved, and so there is responsibility on our parts to become more involved and knowledgeable about what takes place in the world outside our front door. Leaving others entirely in charge is no longer a viable option. The sooner we come to grips with that, the better our chances for the future most of us still hope to create.

Those themes are among the guiding tenets of what I’ll be proposing as this blog evolves, as I first suggested here.

As time passes, we’ll have fewer resources at our disposal to make the great changes we’re destined to make. Accordingly, we cannot afford to waste more now. We clearly have to find ways to move beyond the soul-crushing partisanship and the idiotic battles we wage to preserve ideologies at the expense of this great nation. Putting ourselves further behind cannot be a guiding strategy any longer. It never was, and is less so now.

So too must many of us come to accept that a blind, stubborn, and/or arrogant insistence on having now what once was is not the path forward either. Certainly it is more appealing and psychologically easier, given that it requires less of a (or no) commitment and effort on our part. We cannot do that to ourselves and our children, for one. And the uselessness of Congressional officials has made it abundantly clear that ceding all authority to them is a pointless exercise on its best days. We should be far more embarrassed than we are. We need to move beyond that, as well. Finger-pointing cannot be in the playbook, either.

In truth, the future could be unrecognizably harder than today in as little as 20 years. To reject this real possibility is to be willfully biased toward a bright future. Just because I warn of a possible future of hardship does not mean that I reject the notion that we could pull through the transition ahead in glorious fashion to a splendid shiny future for all. In fact, I’d love to see this happen, and I’d love it if we find a way around all my worries. But given the scale of our challenges, we would be foolish to assume that this path will materialize.
Assuming that a high-tech future will naturally unfold on the back-side of this curve is dangerous.
But for us to pretend that we are not stressing the ecosystem on a multitude of fronts at a scale never before seen in this world is irresponsible. It really is no wonder that we have a sense of unraveling. The future is unwritten, and the recent past may not be a good     template for the near future. We must accept that we face in the decline of fossil fuels the mother of all problems for humanity, and that past success has been against the backdrop of cheap and abundant energy. An unfamiliar phase awaits. [3]

The evidence of a warming planet and diminishing fossil fuel supplies are everywhere. What’s not at all clear are the motivations which support the destructive strategy of denial (although Naomi Klein had a brilliant piece on this recently—one to which I’ll be devoting considerable time to in the next few weeks.) Changes are going to force adaptations on our part. We can either lead by making intelligent, rational choices for the long term, or be at the mercy of changes for which we’ve instead chosen to be foolishly unprepared.

One could go on. The point is that the way we live together now, the way we govern ourselves, the way we arrange our physical spaces and our commerce, the way we do economics and measure prosperity—all these have to be changed in creative ways if we want to achieve the goal of sustainable prosperity. All these changes require … wait for it … innovation. Innovations in the way we think, interact, and structure our lives require just as much imagination, intelligence, persistence, and funding as innovations in technology. [4]

We buy fire insurance for our homes even though the likelihood of ever needing it are exceedingly small. The National Fire Protection Association reports that approximately 400,00 house fires occurred per year in the last half of this past decade. The U.S. Census Bureau reports there are more than 90 million single detached and mobile homes in this country, and 40 million other types of housing units. The percentage of homes requiring such coverage is thus exceedingly small, on the order of about four-thousandths of a percent if I did the math correctly (odds aren’t good, but regardless, the number is small!)

We weigh the risks and decide nonetheless that it is one we cannot and will not chance. Global warming is happening, and the quantity and quality of fossil fuel reserves available to us will not meet demand in the years to come. Much better odds (almost a guarantee) of dealing with the varied and overwhelming consequences, yet we are doing almost nothing about these challenges which carry the potential for greater harm and disruption to all of us! Hello!

Even if you want desperately to doubt, and can muster all the artillery possible which favors your point of view, the reality is what it is. Deniers must demonstrate the courage to at least consider the possibilities that there are indeed many truths and facts in support of the evidence they so ardently deny, and thus preparation and planning ought to at the very least be considered.

If you choose not to purchase fire insurance for your home because of your supreme confidence it will never be needed, then this argument will fall on deaf ears. But for all the others, you owe it yourselves and your children to consider the possibility—however slim it might appear to be from your perspective—that the evidence offered by your ideological opponents might … just might, have some validity.

America needs to resurrect the benevolent community and take on a new challenge. The Great Seal of the United States bears the dictum, ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ Out of many, one. That’s the historic spirit of America that is needed now more than ever. [5]

Sources:

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-eastern-oil-addiction-2011-12; It’s 2012–It’s Just Absurd That We’re Still Addicted To Middle-Eastern Oil by Henry Blodget, 12.28.11
[2] http://www.businessofgovernment.org/blog/strategies-font-color-redcut-costsfont-and-improve-performance/reduce-energy-use-leading-vision; Reduce Energy Use: Leading with a Vision and Acting with Strategic Intent by Tim Fain – 07.20.11
[3] http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/12/the-future-needs-an-attitude-adjustment/; The future needs an attitude adjustment by Tim Murphy – 12.27.11
[4] http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51627; Why Bill Gates is wrong by David Roberts – 02.17.10
[5] http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lost-in-Space-The-Decline-by-Bob-Burnett-110715-765.html; Lost in Space: The Decline of the American Spirit by Bob Burnett – 07.15.11

Ten months ago, I offered this observation:

This is the reality: we’re NOT running out of oil, and we won’t for several more decades. But that is not the point and never is when discussing peak oil. Peak oil is about the rate of production, the quality of oil, the ease of access, refinement, availability, and affordability. Each of these production elements are now more challenging to meet, and is now happening when worldwide demand is ratcheting up. Finding fewer and smaller fields that consistently fail to keep up with depletion rates, producing less oil, often inferior in quality, more slowly, at greater expense, with much more effort required to satisfy increasing demand (just for starters) is not a recipe for success, profitability, and availability. And it’s not going to get any better. The steady march down the back slope of oil production is soon upon us, and very little that we produce, use, or depend on will remain unaffected by that truth.

Reality can be incredibly inconvenient, but we do ourselves no favors now, short-term, and especially long-term by either falling for the fact-free, feel-good nonsense offered by too many; deluding ourselves into thinking “someone else” is working on this and so we need not be concerned; or perhaps worst of all: simply refusing to educate ourselves about what we’ll soon enough be facing.

With that in mind, I thought it might be best to offer up some inconvenient truths about our fossil fuel supplies we would all do well to keep in mind. How we respond to the realities at hand is absolutely critical to the different future we’ll find ourselves in before too long. Preparation is a good thing; knowledge even better.

A little more than a year ago, Jeffrey Rubin offered commentary on the International Energy Agency’s then-current World Energy Outlook. His sobering take:

Output from currently producing fields is projected to fall precipitously, looking ironically like the steeply declining trajectory of peak oil’s Hubbert curve. (I say ironically because the IEA has historically denied the existence of peak oil.) According to the report, by 2035 three quarters of currently operating oil fields won’t be producing anymore. In fact, current fields are only expected to account for less than one fifth of that     year’s production.
That leaves over 80 per cent of the IEA’s 2035 production projection coming from new oil fields, ones that either haven’t yet been developed or haven’t even been discovered. And the contribution from that undiscovered category alone is still far greater than the one from currently producing fields. That’s a tall order for new field discovery. especially since almost none of it is cheap or easy….

Take that in for a moment. Those projections offer comfort about the future availability of high-quality crude oil only if Major Denial is your standard MO and/or happy, fact-free optimism is your preferred glide path through life.

With all indicators suggesting that we reached Peak Oil production rates more than five years ago (see this as just one observation on the issue), how we pull ourselves out of these difficult economic conditions and restore ourselves onto the path of continuing growth (along with those same expectations from several billion other inhabitants on the planet) demands some consideration from all of us.

If that didn’t get your attention, how about this:

In the 2011 World Energy Outlook by the IEA the Production of Crude Oil from the oil fields that produce oil in 2010 in expected to drop by over Two-Thirds by 2035. Quote: ‘We project that crude oil production from fields that were producing in 2010 will drop from 69mb/to 22mb/d by 2025 – a fall of over two-thirds’. But the IEA still expects the crude world production to remain at 67,9 mb/d per day 2035 from Crude Oil Yet to be found and Yet to be developed (WEO 2011: 122-123)….
The World’s Largest Oil Fields play a very important part for supplying the world’s energy demand. The Top Ten Fields produced 14,26 mb/d; around 20% of the World’s Total Oil Production. If the next ten fields were added the figure was around 25%. In total there was around 70.000 Oil Fields producing oil in 2007 and 20 of these fields produced a fifth of all the oil (WEO 2008: 225-226).
Another fact also stands out very clear; none of these fields has been discovered recently; the ones that was discovered the latest was discovered in 1982 and 1985. Only two of these fields hadn’t reached their Peak in production in 2007; the rest where on decline. During the summer of 2011 there were big headlines concerning an unusually big oil find outside the coast of Norway that is expected being able to produce up to 500-1200 million barrels of oil. Ghawar with its production of 5 million barrels of oil per day produces this amount of oil in 100-210 days. The trends of smaller and smaller findings are something often stressed by researchers within the Peak Oil movement; smaller and smaller fields of oil are being discovered even though the technological tool available to search for new fields constantly develops. [1]

This author’s conclusion states an obvious and painful truth: “[W]e will either have to be very lucky in our explorations or find an enormous amount of small fields.”

Despite putting their best foot forward, those in denial about Peak Oil, who laud the potentials of the tar sands and shale oil (and even those advocating the very necessary focus on alternative sources of non-fossil fuel resources) are unable to come up with any scenarios where production of these unconventional and alternative reserves make up what will be lost over these next few decades from the conventional oil fields we’ve long depended upon.

Denial remains an option, but its utility diminishes by the day. We need to be better.

If subtlety is not your thing, Henry Blodget offers us a more direct assessment:

Oil is at $100 not because of some world war or supply shock or other Black Swan, but because the world’s emerging economies are demanding more oil while the world’s oil producers are producing pretty much the same amount of it….
We’re highly dependent on a finite fuel source controlled by crazy people who hate us
We’ve done next to nothing about this problem for four decades
In some places, this inaction on our part would be referred to as insanity. Or at least gross stupidity.
In other places, it would just be called denial. [2]

And in a recent post by Brad Plumer, more sobering assessments were offered for those still struggling with facts and reality:

Most of the older, easier-to-drill oil fields appear to be running near full capacity, while newer supplies often prove costly and difficult to drill….
But here’s another way to look at it. As a chart from ExxonMobil’s new 2012 Outlook for Energy (via Gregor McDonald) shows, the vast bulk of our oil comes from those older, easier-to-drill fields, with more recently discovered supplies playing a smaller and smaller role:
As ExxonMobil details in its report more than 95 percent of today’s oil comes from fields discovered before 2000. About 75 percent comes from pre-1980 discoveries. While many massive, older fields can keep gushing for decades — Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field, first tapped in 1951, still hums along at 5 million barrels per day — they seem to be dwindling overall. As Exxon’s chart shows, reserves discovered in the 1960s and before maxed out around 1980 (even as oil companies are trying to recover additional oil from older wells with better technology). What’s more, it seems to be getting tougher to squeeze oil out of newer finds. [3]

This is what confronts us: do we choose to spin it so it sounds better, or do we accept it and then work collectively to meet the challenge?

Simple choice … monumental ramifications.

Sources:

[1] http://www.americanpreppersnetwork.com/2011/12/peak-oil-and-our-mental-models.html; Peak Oil and Our Mental Models – The WikiLeaks Cable and The Worlds Largest Oil Fields, from  http://sibitotique.blogspot.com – 12.15.11
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-eastern-oil-addiction-2011-12; It’s 2012–It’s Just Absurd That We’re Still Addicted To Middle-Eastern Oil by Henry Blodget, 12.28.11
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/most-of-the-worlds-oil-comes-from-aging-fields/2011/12/13/gIQAaM6CsO_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein; Oil’s getting harder and harder to come by – Brad Plumer, 12.13.11

… [W]e are farther away than we have ever been from having a shared national vision for the future of our country….
Absent such a framework for the future, the national debate has been the victim of an increasingly acute form of intellectual paralysis: The short-term mindsets of our elected officials and the voters — tied to the two-year election cycle — force debate on inherently inadequate, short-term solutions to substantial, long-term problems. Because we have no shared vision of the country’s future, against which short-term solutions might be measured, there are no metrics for productive discourse. Hence, our so-called ‘leaders’ argue in reliance on their ‘principles,’ rather than with a broader view toward implementing the future we want to see.
Things will only continue to grow worse, and much more polarized (although that’s truly frightening to imagine), unless and until we agree, as a nation, that there are some fundamental issues about our future that need to be addressed… and resolved. [1]

So perhaps the most important question of all: What is the Goal—our Vision for the future—for the kind of nation and people we hope to be?

It is much more than a discussion of how we get there. What is it that we want to achieve … to be? Do we want “success” and prosperity and peace only if it can be obtained through the narrow lens of our highly-partisan individual and collective ideologies, or is attaining our primary objectives by whatever means are necessary in a changed world more important?

Last July, I offered this:

If we truly wish to believe and know ourselves to still be exceptional amid all the chaos and challenges and burdens that encompass us, then we need to harness a vision for the future that is not just incrementally better than this one, using the same resources and methods and strategies and ideologies that brought us to here and now. Peak Oil is going to change pretty much all of the dynamics.
We must ask ourselves—individually and community-wide—what we believe are the best opportunities for growth and prosperity going forward, and we must ask this with full awareness that we approach a future very different from the past and the present we will soon leave behind. In the years to come, the energy source which empowered and enabled us to rise to our lofty perch atop the world of technological marvel and progress     will gradually but steadily fail to meet our expectations of ongoing, ready availability; ease of access, and affordability.

We have the opportunity to take the best of all that we have and have to offer—from everyone—and move forward with greater definitions and determinations of success and prosperity and fulfillment. That’s a choice we still own.

But whatever it is we might want or feel entitled to will have to give way to the courage of knowing and understanding what the new scenarios and circumstances will be. Only then can we/should we proceed. That knowing, unpleasant or unwelcome as it is to all of us, must be accepted. The delusional and the fact-free denials about the challenges ahead must be set aside once and for all. They preserve an ideology which serves almost no one, and we need to come to terms with that fact. We deserve better; we are better; and it’s time we demonstrate those truths.

We still have the chance to resume our position of leadership, excellence, and exceptionalism, but we will do so from a different platform and with different resources and purposes to guide us. The longer we take to accept this inevitability, the more troubles we create for ourselves.

Resistance to change must be avoided in every possible way, as unfamiliar a process as that may be for some of us. Without our efforts and commitments and greater understandings, things will only get much worse for almost all of us, regardless of ideology.

I raised these issues almost a year ago:

Is global warming a “hoax” and nothing more? Should we concern ourselves at all with the current and future conditions of fossil fuel production that provides for us all? Are we better off in the long run cutting even more public expenditures that now afford some minimal assistance to our fellow citizens in need, better educational opportunities for our children, opportunities to innovate and invent better lives for all of us, and maintain, repair, and improve the infrastructure that serves as the foundation of all that we achieve? Or are we better off ensuring that instead, that small group of the wealthiest among us preserve their wealth at the expense of the many?

It may seem to be nothing more than a philosophical/ideological exercise, but the answers to those questions go to the very heart of the decision-making that will determine our future. Those decisions affect all of us, if not today or tomorrow, soon enough. As I’ve previously noted:

But the most critical issue to be addressed by all of will be more direct: do we bog ourselves down by nit-picking—working harder to find out why something won’t work or why it is not perfect in every way under every condition and for every person—or do we adopt a grander strategy that will under no conditions be perfect or even acceptable to everyone, but provides us with the best long-term opportunities in the face of Peak Oil. If     we cannot get beyond problem-solving-business-as-usual, we’ll be having these pointless partisan battles for another century … assuming we survive intact that long.

We begin with the question of where we want to go and how we want to be, and then figure out the path that will get us there by taking into account the realities with which we must contend: peak oil, global warming, economic issues (including the destructive inequality), and their impact on what has been to date. Anything less will eventually show us to be doing nothing more than chasing our tail.

The capacity for the United States to alter its current and projected economic and energy course is dependent upon its leaders’ abilities to formulate and effectively communicate a clear vision and unified purpose in the energy field, establish clear renewable energy goals, commit to a rigorous energy-use reduction plan, prioritize energy research, and implement an energy policy that creates a viable energy future. The American populace will need to acknowledge the reality of biophysical constraints, and embrace a renewable, energy efficient ‘American way of life’. [2]

I remain convinced we’re up to the task. We just need to start.

Much more on the way.

Sources:

[1] http://www.newgeography.com/content/002394-whatever-happened-the-vision-thing-part-ii?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Newgeography+%28Newgeography.com+-+Economic%2C+demographic%2C+and+political+commentary+about+places%29; Whatever Happened to ‘The Vision Thing’? Part II, by Peter Smirniotopoulos – 09/03/2011
[2] Lambert, J.G.; Lambert, G.P. Predicting the Psychological Response of the American People to Oil Depletion and Declining Energy Return on Investment (EROI). Sustainability 2011, 3, 2129-2156 [p, 2150]. http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/11/2129/

What would the New Year be if we didn’t have an offering of more half-truth, delusional nonsense about our fossil fuel status?

Amy Myers Jaffe (nice takedown here) wrote an article for Foreign Policy a while back, serving up another example from the playbook of denial nonsense. As I suggested in a series of posts at the end of 2011 [first one here], it’s high time we start recognizing the strategies of half-truths employed by those whose primary vested interest appears to be their own wallets much more so than the well-being of our nation. But this is a free country, and if nonsense is what you choose to spout, there are forums everywhere.

Just a sampling from that article of what continues to pass for the valuable exchange of information, with my commentary in the [ ] following:

Geologists have long known that the Americas are home to plentiful hydrocarbons trapped in hard-to-reach offshore deposits, on-land shale rock, oil sands, and heavy oil formations….The problem was always how to unlock them economically.
But since the early 2000s, the energy industry has largely solved that problem. With the help of horizontal drilling and other innovations, shale gas production in the United States has skyrocketed from virtually nothing to 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply in less than a decade. By 2040, it could account for more than half of it.

[Facts—damn them!—suggest that the energy industry hasn’t exactly “solved” the problem, and “could account” is not the assurance we should be counting on. Chris Nelder—damn him—took this proposition apart in a very nice post. Nelder had the audacity to use facts, calculations, statistics, reports and assorted other so-called evidence to rebut this now-familiar claim about our natural gas potential, when he could have played by the same rules and tossed in a few “might possibly’s” and “if only’s” … but no, he had to use actual information. I hate that!]

… analysts are predicting production of as much as 1.5 million barrels a day in the next few years from resources beneath the Great Plains and Texas alone — the equivalent of 8 percent of current U.S. oil consumption. The development raises the question of what else the U.S. energy industry might accomplish if prices remain high and technology continues to advance. Rising recovery rates from old wells, for example, could also stem previous declines. On top of all this, analysts expect an additional 1 to 2 million barrels a day from the Gulf of Mexico now that drilling is resuming. Peak oil? Not anytime soon.

[A couple of questions come to mind: Which analysts? Using what evidence? “predicting … as much as” means what, exactly? As for “what else the U.S. energy industry might accomplish if prices remain high and technology continues to advance”: I believe that “if prices remain high” is good for oil company executives and … that’s about it. So that’s not necessarily a good thing for most of us, but if “technology continues to advance”, why then, we might perhaps possibly have some potential good news in the future. Fantastic!]

The picture elsewhere in the Americas is similarly promising. Brazil is believed to have the capacity to pump 2 million barrels a day from “pre-salt” deepwater resources, deposits of crude found more than a mile below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean that until the last couple of years were technologically inaccessible. Similar gains are to be had in Canadian oil sands, where petroleum is extracted from tarry sediment in open     pits. And production of perhaps 3 million to 7 million barrels a day more is possible if U.S. in situ heavy oil, or kerogen, can be produced commercially, a process that involves heating rock to allow the oil contained within it to be pumped out in a liquid form. There is no question that such developments face environmental hurdles. But industry is starting to see that it must find ways to get over them, investing in nontoxic drilling fluids, less-invasive hydraulic-fracturing techniques, and new water-recycling processes, among other technologies, in hopes of shrinking the environmental impact of drilling. And like the U.S. oil industry, oil-thirsty China has also recognized the energy potential of the Americas, investing billions in Canada, the United States, and Latin America.

[Where in our planning for the future should we put “similarly promising”? As regards the second sentence about Brazil, who is doing this “believing” about that nation’s capacity? When might this happen? I didn’t note anything about the actual costs or process of extracting this crude “more than a mile below the surface” of the ocean … I’m assuming some facts might be available to instruct us as to what’s involved and what we     can expect? This nonsense—emphasis mine—speaks for itself: “And production of perhaps 3 million to 7 million barrels a day more is possible if U.S. in situ heavy oil, or kerogen, can be produced commercially, a process that involves heating rock to allow the oil contained within it to be pumped out in a liquid form.” Perhaps it’s possible if? This is the basis for the happy-talk about our fossil fuels? Seriously? I didn’t happen to catch any details about what’s involved in “heating rock.”     The facts would spoil all that optimism, and God forbid we be obliged to deal with reality….And that kerogen deal: they’ve been trying for a few decades now….]

And then there’s this bit of almost-factual opinion from Robert Bradley, touting his very own Institute for Energy Research’s report on our energy “inventory.”

The first red flag is right there in the title of his Forbes piece: “America’s Massive Energy Potential Awaits, Mr. President”

As I noted in that above-referenced November 15 post of mine, “massive” and “vast” are straight from Page One of the right-wing handbook on misdirection and half-truths: use impressive (but unquantifiable) terms to bolster your claim … and hope readers aren’t curious enough to ask how much?

The real problem is that much of our resources are not being developed because of antiquated, heavy-handed government regulations. As a consequence, the American economy is being deprived of significant job creation and new investments….
The blame rests largely on unnecessary and onerous government regulations. Many offshore reserves are still blocked by outdated moratoriums no one is taking the time to reform. New permit applications are almost always subject to massive bureaucratic delays. Existing energy operations have to navigate labyrinthine — and costly — regulations. And regulators themselves are largely free to impose new controls on energy development with little to no congressional check.

This tiresome rant from the Right just isn’t adding much to the discussion any more. It’s a great red-meat sound bite, but devoid of any factual content, its benefits to our well-being are, well, non-existent. (But if you use “liberal”, “taxes,” and “regulations” in a sentence, you earn bonus points!)

Why are these regulations “unnecessary”? What “massive bureaucratic delays” (unique to this issue) and “labyrinthine [sure sounds awful!] — and costly — regulations” are involved? What might happen absent these socialist-liberal-Martian-tax-crazed regulations? “[R]egulators themselves are largely free to impose new controls on energy development with little to no congressional check.” Sounds awful! How about a “for instance” unique to this situation (with context, of course, which I realize violates a basic rule of the playbook)?

Seriously? “Regulations” are all that stand in the way of a limitless bonanza of energy resources for us? These johnny-one-note offerings suggest nothing more than a failure of both imagination and willingness to engage in meaningful and honest conversations.

I remain at a loss to understand why so many insist on tactics like these which have almost no relevance to legitimate, long-term solutions. Sure would be nice to toss some integrity into the mix now and then.

The author then offers this impressive-sounding collection of statements:

Total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels, which is more oil than the entire world has used over the last 150 years. And that amount alone could meet the energy needs of the United States for the next 250 years.
An estimated 1.4 trillion of those barrels are buried under American soil. For some perspective: the total proven reserves in Saudi Arabia is just about 260 billion barrels.
And even that 1.4 trillion figure might be an underestimation. Future technological innovation may well lead to improved detection techniques, helping us locate oil deposits currently uncovered. Or innovation could improve extraction techniques, enabling us to tap into reserves previously thought unreachable.

I can’t help myself [my emphasis]: “Future technological innovation may well lead to improved detection techniques, helping us locate oil deposits currently uncovered. Or innovation could improve extraction techniques….” Really? More Page One happy talk about all of the “could possibly perhaps” and “just might if” justifications (I use that term loosely). When do we declare a winner in the Happy Talk v. Facts competition?

I don’t recall seeing much in the way of an explanation or facts about all of these magical totals. Costs? Quality? Environmental concerns? Time factor? Return on energy investment? How about depletion from existing fields as a factor?

Robert Rapier offered a damning rebuttal to this author’s propositions, starting with a big hint in the title of his piece: Why Some Republican are Delusional About Oil and Energy Policy. (To be fair, he also offers criticisms of some of the positions offered by Democrats, and commends each party as well for certain other approaches.)

Like Mr. Nelder above, Mr. Rapier wasn’t content to just toss out a fact-free statement and end the discussion there. No, he had to go and conduct an investigation, and then analyze the facts offered above. Damn him! (Another hint Rapier offers comes from a sub-heading discussing the very same report prepared and cited by Robert Bradley: “Misleading Study Obfuscates Recoverable Reserves.”)

Rapier begins his analysis with this: “I find these sorts of reports highly misleading, for the following reason” and then quickly dismantles Mr. Bradley’s contentions in the next few paragraphs.

He then concludes:

The truth is that it will always take too much energy to produce some of those oil resources, placing some of them forever out of reach. But, the magical thinking from many Republicans here is that the oil is there if the political will is there for taking it. The danger in this kind of thinking is exactly the same as the danger in thinking we can smoothly transition to renewables: It diminishes the urgency of our energy predicament. After all, if people believe that renewables will save us, or that more drilling will save us — we are going to put off making the tough decisions that could really save us in the long run.

All of us—conservatives, liberals, whatevers—would do well to heed his advice.

YN5KW46ZWK8Q

You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today
— Abraham Lincoln

Let’s work to make this a very good year for us all….

Imagine, if you will, a nation of 300-plus million people … the vast majority of them good, honest, decent, and hard-working (when they have the opportunity, that is).

Each and every one of these honorable individuals is looking for just about the same things as everyone else: to make a good life for themselves and those to whom they owe a responsibility; to better their circumstances and those of their children in whatever manner best expresses their individuals dreams, ideals, and expectations; to plan for a future that is a bit brighter than the one they faced years ago or contend with now; and a future for their children filled with hope and promise and expectations that the world they inhabit will be brighter and happier and more fulfilling and peaceful and rewarding at all levels.

Not so difficult to imagine, is it? Any objections to this definition of what most might recognize as an expression of the American Dream?

Now imagine this same nation where just 400 people are wealthier as a group than half of that exceptional nation of 300 million citizens (impressive, and not necessarily a problem in and of itself). But imagine further than these 400 people are better served by policies and benefits and advantages than more than 150 million of their fellow citizens. Imagine that the representatives elected by those millions of citizens to serve them instead devote their efforts and energies to making certain that the 400 are always better served and protected than the 300 million.

Probably don’t have to actually explain to anyone residing on Planet Earth in these last couple of years which nation we’re referencing. What comes after shameful?

This is “exceptional”? This is the kind of nation we choose to be? One need not vilify the 400 for their wealth if fairly-earned, but it should not be an objectionable argument that protecting their interests at the expense of all others is not the mark of a great nation and respected leaders.

This is the kind of nation we choose to offer to our children?

It’s been a recurring theme of mine, among others, that we face a set of challenges as daunting as any this nation has ever encountered.

I have not been shy in stating that I believe we are up to the challenge, and that we are indeed an exceptional people. But I have not been hesitant to call out the rampant hypocrisy, stupidity, as well as the appalling lack of integrity and compassion routinely exhibited by “leaders” (and yes, much of my ire is directed to the nonsense and fact-free justifications from some on the Right, whose lack of concern for almost everyone not in that sacred group of 1%-ers is breathtaking in its arrogance and disregard.)

Ideology can be a club, but rarely is it a shield, and in light of what the facts (for those for whom such things matter) tell us about our climate (laughable, tinfoil-hat-wearing, paranoid nonsense like this notwithstanding) and fossil fuel reserves, the narrow-minded and short-sighted ideology guiding too many with influential voices will offer them no protection when the consequences make themselves known to even the most delusional among them. (The attacks from the many who placed their misguided trust in the smooth assurances these “leaders” trotted out from their one-note play books will be another story altogether.)

We’re all going to have to come to some understanding sooner than later about what is most important: prosperity, opportunity, and peace; or preserving a rigid ideology which protects the few at the expense of the many.

Long-term planning, visionary thinking, and the courage and wisdom to act upon what is in the best interests of society, regardless of the short-term consequences, political or otherwise, are the hallmarks of a progressive* society. [1]

* I interpret this term in its broader (i.e., forward-thinking, innovative) sense than the left-leaning political definition more often attributed to it.

What will we demonstrate now and in the years to come? And by “we” I mean all of us, not just the “leaders” to whom we’ve assigned responsibility for our well-being while paying too little attention to what they’re doing with that charge.

Back in May, I began this series about our future by setting out my “table-setters” for the Vision I’ll explore in much greater depth in the months to come:

~ What kind of a nation do we want to be?

~ What do you want for yourself, now and in the days to come?

~ What kind of life are you looking forward to living, whether you are a recent graduate about to enter the workforce, an established professional, or are now in your later years?

~ What kind of community do you want to live in?

~ What kind of environment do you truly believe is most conducive to a life of opportunity and hoped-for prosperity?

~ Will you choose to fear change, or welcome it as an opportunity for you to play a greater part in using it for your own benefit as well as for others—in whatever manner offers the most meaning for you?

~ Do you want to feel as though you have a voice in what your life can and will be, or is being entirely at the mercy of others a better way to live?

~ Do you still harbor at least a bit of hope for better days to come?

~ What do you want for your children and grandchildren?

~ What answers will we provide for them in years to come when they are mired in the difficulties and challenges brought about by an ever-declining supply of fossil fuels and are wondering why we were so short-sighted and narrow-minded when we had so many opportunities to do more?

These are not (or at least they shouldn’t be) idle questions given short-shrift. How we answer these and related questions will determine our future. It’s not rocket science.

Will our future be one filled with great regret for opportunities lost, or one relished because we showed ourselves—individually and collectively—to be the exceptional people we’ve been boasting about? I know where I’m casting my vote and placing my hopes. You?

The great majority of us—the 99%-ers (Left and Right), have a very simple decision to make and abide by from this moment forward: should we continue to advocate affirmatively, support passively, or defend vigorously, the policies and ideologies which in the end (and through most of the journey, for that matter), benefit the 1% and their obedient sycophants regardless of its negative impact on most of us; or do we decide that we and our children (future 99%-ers in most cases) are just important enough that we all need to start doing things differently?

Should each and all of us be denied the better opportunities we have long held as this nation’s most sacred promise because of the actions and favored policies of the few? Do we honor the hopes of the 21st Century or find ourselves catapulted back to the Middle Ages with clear demarcations between the those entitled and those not? We might want to sneak a peek out the front windshield and figure out which road we’re traveling.

We still have choices….

Much more on the way.

Sources:

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-simmens/california-high-speed-rail-_b_1093423.html; Why We Can Afford High-Speed Rail by Lance Simmens (Deputy Director for Communications, California High-Speed Rail Authority) – 11.17.11

I realize that this is surely too much to ask of Santa this holiday season, but there’s never any harm in asking. Sometimes, when you least expect it, good things do happen…..

As we approach 2012, dealing as we are with a struggling economy; highly-partisan politics which get almost nothing done (in no small part because some of those responsible are blessed with or beholden to an ideology where facts don’t always matter); signs everywhere (at least for those who place some value on evidence and facts) that our Earth is warming and fossil fuel resources are declining, I’m hoping that the vital, mandatory dialogues we engage in in the days and months to come are guided by an integrity and honesty too often lacking.

No one (myself included) wants to deal with problems of fossil fuel decline and what that means for all of us (even the delusional, fact-free inhabitants of this planet), or warming climates whose consequences are now coming into sharper view.

None of that is pleasant by anyone’s definition. Filled as we are with enough of life’s challenges and burdens, adding to a full plate issues whose impact on every aspect of our lives will overwhelm almost every other matter we each and all contend with is on no one’s wish list.

But I’d like to think that our collective future matters to all of us just as much as our individual prospects do to each of us. And for us to give ourselves the best chance of a satisfying future, we need to deal with some problems and challenges and realities. And we cannot do so effectively or successfully if we continue to allow too much nonsense, half-truths, lies, and misrepresentations to serve as guideposts for the conversations we need to start having about ten years ago. Serious discussions need to replace the too-many specious ones.

With that said, here’s a few simple wishes I’d like to see fulfilled, to be fleshed out in the weeks to come:

Stop putting morons in office or as candidates for office who have no clue what they’re talking about!

If we were serious, we would open up enough oil fields in the next year that the price of  oil worldwide would collapse. Now, that’s what we would do if we were a serious country. If we were serious… – Newt Gingrinch [1]

Clueless … but sure does sound good, doesn’t it? Perhaps Newt might want to break away from his pontifications long enough to read this and this before he spouts that same nonsense next time.

By the way, this: “Current prices of over $100 a barrel make even complex efforts at recovery enormously profitable” [2] isn’t really a good thing unless you are an oil company. That “over $100 a barrel” price is kind of a problem for most of us, unless you have some inside knowledge that the oil companies are from now on going to explore and produce cost-free to the public. Might want to think about pointing out the other side of that argument, since I’m not holding my breath on that oil industry alternative….

While you’re at it, when telling us that peak oil has been “discredited”, tell us by whom. (No, I don’t mean oil industry shills whose livelihood depends on their mouthing the company line regardless of its veracity. Offer up a few well-respected experts not beholden to the God of Fossil Fuels. Tough task, I’m sure, but give it a go and see who turns up.)

This inane type of commentary doesn’t help your cause much, either:

The peaksters claimed that the world was on the point of reaching an oil production tipping point. After that, the laws of the market — which these individuals never understood in the first place — would cease to function and the Four Horseman would gallop abroad. The solution was much tighter control by governments, and draconian restrictions on personal freedom.

“Draconian restrictions”? Sounds awful! Wonder what that might refer to? If only the author hadn’t run out of space before he could explain….(I am almost 100% certain that none of my peers has ever been concerned about the Four Horseman galloping abroad, which then begs the question: Which “abroad” are we talking about: Canadian right-wing crazy or American right-wing crazy?)

If you are going to argue that we are not facing fossil fuel/energy supply issues, then do us a favor (yourself included) by giving us reasons (the kinds based on facts) why you are right and I and others of like mind are wrong.

Start by tossing out that idiotic one-page media guide you all seem to worship … the one that tells us that we have “vast” or “massive” supplies at the ready; or that Field X might possibly produce a sufficient amount of needed supply that could perhaps satisfy many of our needs well into the future.

Put some numbers in those appeasing, empty statements you all toss around. If you are so sure about your position, then just give us the facts! (You do remember what those things are, right?) Discuss the counter-arguments and explain why they are incorrect with more of those annoying facts (the real ones). Explain what’s involved in producing these magic resources you tout.

Just how much is “vast” in the world we live in? What exactly does “could possibly” mean? We brain-damaged liberals can’t relate to “maybe we could possibly have massive reserves.” Help us out!

And if you decide you are going to have just enough integrity to address the issues honestly, put some context in your statements, also.

One of your Peak Oil-denying peers recently offered the blog and financial world these tidbits of profound energy analysis, and for the many who probably couldn’t be bothered for any of a dozen reasons to ask a few follow-up questions, I’m sure this sparkling assessment was all they needed to hear (I could have selected similar comments from a dozen recent articles):

The Canadian oil sands, a combination of sand, water and oil found mostly in the Canadian province of Alberta, are believed to contain 1 trillion barrels of oil while another 1 trillion barrels are believed to be trapped in rocks located in the states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. All told, the US is estimated to have around 1.5 to 2.6 trillion barrels of oil reserves. However and according to Peter Huber, the co-author of ‘The Bottomless Well,’ just the oil sands of nearby Alberta alone may contain enough hydrocarbon to fuel the entire planet for over 100 years.

In 2009, Occidental Petroleum Corporation’s (NYSE: OXY) announced the discovery of between 150 million and 250 million gross barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) reserves within an outlined area in Kern County, California. Approximately two-thirds of Occidental Petroleum’s discovery is believed to be natural gas while the entire discovery may be the largest new oil and gas discovery made in California in more than 35 years. Moreover, Occidental Petroleum California proved reserves already stood at 708 million BOE at the end of 2008 and represented approximately 24% of the company’s worldwide reserves.

Let’s take a look at each of these paragraphs, and allow me to ask a few questions.

Can you explain to the uninformed what’s involved in extracting and producing tar sands in contrast to conventional oil fields? How much more expensive is the process? (We’ll get all of it out of the ground, right?)

How does the quality of the end product measure up? (Sorry, but “in some cases it could possibly compare favorably” isn’t an answer.) How long does it take to get from Point A to gas in my tank? What kind of resources (water, natural gas, etc.) might be involved in the tar sands process? Where do those resources come from? At whose expense?

Any environmental issues we might need to ponder? (Humor us; we like to pretend there are environmental impacts … that whole global warming thing.) How easy is it going to be to just extract the oil “trapped in rocks”? (it is oil, right … the liquid kind most of us think of when you say “oil”? Perhaps it might possibly not be? Oops!)  Any contrasts in refining this unconventional resource versus conventional crude? Extra costs, perhaps? More effort? More time? Quality concerns?

How does the decline in supply among the existing conventional oil fields around the world factor in to these massive reserves which could possibly produce as much as several million barrels per day in another decade or two? Should we be concerned that existing exporters of conventional oil may not have as much to share in the years to come? Are we going to stay ahead of future demand by producing these vastly massive/massively vast reserves (inexpensively, easily, and quickly, of course)?

That’s just off the top of my head. Gimme a few more minutes and I’ll have a few more technical questions for you….

And as for the second paragraph, here’s where “context” would be oh-so-useful! I won’t quibble with the author’s math, I’ll use his high numbers, and I’ll even round-off the totals for ease.

So it appears that a couple of years ago Occidental “discovered 150 million and 250 million gross barrels of oil equivalent.” Wow! “Gross barrels of oil equivalent”! How cool is that? (Um … so is that, like, you know, regular oil?)

Let’s be generous and use the 250 million figure, and we’ll just call it oil, okay? The “two-thirds … is believed to be natural gas” part has me wondering. Two-thirds of 250 million in natural gas means one-third of 250 million in oil, so we’re talking about 85 million barrels or so of oil, right? Can’t put any of that natural gas in my car, but hey!

If we have approximately 85 million barrels of (“equivalent”) oil available (at a cost of what … a few bucks? Coupla weeks of drilling, maybe?), then (here’s where “context” would really, really help the uninformed), that’s about a whole day’s worth of world-wide supply. Fan-freakin’-tastic!

A word of unsolicited advice: if this kind of “logic” and substantive “analysis” is your best shot, consider coming over to the dark side with us. Let go of the fear-driven, paranoia-laden short-term thinking which prevents you from understanding that actions taken and not taken today are going to matter ten, fifteen, thirty, fifty years from now …. a hell of a lot more than any of us realize, given what’s at stake.

Today, when powerful men sit down and make decisions, they generally make those decisions as if the future didn’t exist, as if the consequences of their actions were beyond anticipation, as if they bore no responsibility for foresight. The future’s not welcome in the room. [3]

Perhaps you and we should do something about that? See if you can’t put some of your talents to better use helping … well, everyone.

Happy holidays to all!

Sources:

[1] http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/12/12/why-some-republican-are-delusional-about-oil-and-energy-policy/; Why Some Republican are Delusional About Oil and Energy Policy, by Robert Rapier December 12, 2011. See also: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8646#more; A Reality Check on Oil Supply for Newt Gingrich by aeberman, November 28, 2011
[2] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/08/oil-rich_america_112318.html; Oil-Rich America? by Victor Davis Hanson
[3] http://www.alexsteffen.com/2011/12/putting-the-future-back-in-the-room/; Putting the Future Back in the Room by Alex Steffan, December 11, 2011

I wasn’t certain if I was going to write another post at this time on the phenomenon of the fact-free efforts to deny the reality of Peak Oil, but there is simply too much good crazy available to pass up the opportunity. There’s always the risk of getting into an endless battle over the nonsense Peak Oil deniers routinely offer, but I remain convinced that the greater harm is in letting that nonsense go unchallenged.

Erik Curren’s recent “request” for proactive responses to the flurry of not-coincidental efforts to once again misinform readers about the realities of our energy future made it almost mandatory that I add at least one more post. [A must-read for the week is Chris Nelder’s recent post discussing “Why energy journalism is so bad.”]

Before jumping into the pool of right-wing half-truths, a terrific piece by David Jenkins at [the conservative and almost-always reasonable and well-considered writings of the] FrumForum offered this bit of wisdom, which sadly seems glaringly absent from far too many of Mr. Jenkins’ peers on the right:

Conservatism requires decisions to be made on the basis of a clear-eyed and unbiased analysis of fact, and an adherence to values that have stood the test of time, not emotions stemming from a rigid political dogma.

As Mr. Jenkins rightfully laments, “clear-eyed and unbiased analysis of fact” is increasingly absent from most right-wing discussions about the state of energy resources and climate change. Most of the time, facts themselves are missing, at least when they are not cherry-picked, glossed over, trivialized, or misrepresented. When reality intrudes on a well-rehearsed ideological rant, it is easier to just dispense with it … saves so much time and effort.

A fact tossed about in recent weeks without explanation or context (amazing how much those attributes can restore reality to an otherwise irrational bit of nonsense!) is how much U.S. oil production has increased in just a few short years. That’s so wonderful … at least up to the point where those statistics are then contrasted with the actual, fact-based peak production more than four decades ago.

That annoying little detail, pointed out by, among other, James Hamilton [PDF here], tells us that the current “oil renaissance” [1] is only a renaissance if a 43% disparity between the current level of production and the 1970 peak production totals is your idea of a renaissance.

Not to be too picky, but this cited article, touting the possibility of “an all-time high” in North American production by 2016 conveniently omits one teeny, tiny little bit of information. While labeling this as “crude” oil production, the author doesn’t point out that the primary source of this magical increase is not actually crude oil as the term is commonly used. The Canadian tar sands and various shale oil deposits in the United States which he refers to are considered unconventional oil resources.

All the growth in supply since [2004] was not crude but unconventional liquids, including natural gas liquids, biofuels, refinery gains, synthetic oil from tar sands, and other marginal resources. These liquids are by no means equivalent to crude [and] hide the fundamental issue of the depletion of mature fields. They also hide the declining energy density, higher cost, and lower flow rates of these new resources.

As Shell, Chevron, Total, the IEA, and a host of other serious observers have openly declared since 2005, the age of cheap and easy oil has ended. The ‘oil’ that’s left is progressively expensive, difficult, risky, marginal, and fraught with secondary effects like increasing carbon emissions, demand for water, and competition with food. [2]

And on a related theme, yet another ideal example of the fact-free assertions offered by those unable or unwilling to genuinely explain the facts, we have this gem [my emphasis added]:

… [S]ignificant technology advances have unlocked abundant natural gas and oil resources. These greatly expanded resources have already benefited our country economically. Increased supplies of natural gas have resulted in lower prices and helped revitalize many U.S. industries.

The study * announced several conclusions:

First, the potential supply of North American natural gas is far bigger than previously thought. It is now understood that the natural gas resource base is enormous and that its development … is potentially transformative for the American economy….

Second — and surprising to many — North America’s oil resources are also much larger than previously thought. These oil resources offer substantial supply for decades and could help the United States reduce, though not eliminate, its reliance on imported oil.

These conclusions are rocking the establishment’s reliance on such now-disproven myths as ‘peak oil’ and the necessity to ‘go green’ in order to reduce reliance on liquid hydrocarbons. [3]

There’s not a single highlighted (and context-free) term or phrase in those few paragraphs that lends itself to being quantified, so it’s a bit challenging to agree that those “conclusions” are “rocking the establishment.” I’ve yet to read anything by any Peak Oil peer who’s reeling from being so rocked. Wishful thinking won’t make it so. (And “now-disproven” by whom?)

As I discussed here, these kinds of vacuous positions are what pass for substantiation by those unwilling or unable to accept the fact that unquestioned reliance on energy supply business-as-usual is what’s going to be “rocked.”

At what point will they realize that their short-sighted, narrow-minded inability to accept simple truths will afford them absolutely no protection from the consequences of the irreversible depletion of the finite resources which made life as we know it possible? Having accessible resources today offers few assurances that business-as-usual will remain our birthright.

If only some of their wasted efforts to try and deny reality might be used instead to help persuade others that planning for a lengthy and inevitable transition to industry, business, and daily living dependent on something other than increasingly-harder-to-find-and-extract reserves might be a worthy pursuit for all of us….

To quote Mr. Jenkins once more:

When you listen to the policy focus coming from the right, such as a gluttony-driven energy policy that eschews conservation and renewable energy but favors aggressive fossil fuel production, it sounds a lot like 1960s liberalism’s credo: ‘if it feels good, do it.’

Any restraint on material appetites, even efficiency measures that make a dollar go further, is the enemy of a political ideology that places a premium on material gain and immediate gratification. This is not conservatism. There is nothing conservative about waste and gluttony.

More to come….

* The National Petroleum Council’s September 15 report: Prudent Development – Realizing the Potential of North America’s Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources, found at www.npc.org

Sources:

[1] http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/N-American-oil-output-could-top-40-year-old-peak-2193837.php; N. American oil output could top 40-year-old peak by Tom Fowler, Houston Chronicle
[2] http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/10/there_will_be_oil_but_can_you.html; There Will Be Oil, But At What Price? October 4, 2011 by Chris Nelder and Gregor Macdonald
[3] http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/9636-north-american-oil-development-is-reducing-demand-for-foreign-oil; North American Oil Development Is Reducing Demand for Foreign Oil by Bob Adelmann

As I mentioned in my last two posts, there are some common threads running through the mostly nonsensical camps arguing against the reality that oil is a finite resource which is now on the downside of its maximum production rates. We fact-based lunatics call that Peak Oil.

I outlined (only partially tongue-in-cheek) some of the initial red flags readers should be alert to when combing through material discussing the pros and cons of Peak Oil. So far I’ve established five separate “criteria” for making a quick determination whether an article discussing Peak Oil deserves more careful attention. Those two prior posts (my most recent efforts on the subject; see here for more) provided examples of what to look for.

Today’s discussion is about something which I’m not entirely convinced is an actual criteria for my modest little test.

Where on the list does one put outright nonsense?

Several weeks ago, Tim Worstall posted an essay at Forbes which left me speechless. I’m sure Mr. Worstall is a very pleasant man who does a great many good and helpful things for others. That being said, his claim that Peak Oil is just so much nonsense, based on the arguments he put forth, has to be among the most bizarre attempts at refuting something I’ve ever read. (It was not his first article attempting to debunk Peak Oil, either. That is a different topic.)

Any article on the topic of energy supply claiming, as does Mr. Worstall, that “[W]e’re discovering entire new planets to explore for the stuff” probably deserves at least a “Say what?” before plunging in.

What’s most noteworthy is that his is not an isolated example, sad to say.

His post is actually a fairly brief piece, and it might be worthwhile for purposes of this one to read it first, so you have your own sense about the points he was trying to make.

Mr. Worstall disputes and denigrates the concept of EROEI. In a must-read article on the subject of energy, peak oil, production, and our future, Jim Quinn describes EROEI as follows (while duly noting that “The concept of energy returned on energy invested [EROEI] is beyond the grasp of politicians and drill, drill, drill pundits.”):

EROEI is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource. When the EROEI of a resource is less than or equal to one, that energy source becomes an ‘energy sink’, and can no longer be used as a primary source of energy. Once it requires 1.1 barrels of oil to obtain a barrel of oil, the gig is up.

To help us understand what Mr. Worstall attempted to explain, let’s use another example from the world of finance.

You have $100.00 to invest, and decide to do so with Trusty Financial Advisor (TFA). After a reasonable period of time during which TFA uses its expertise to provide you with the best (and honest) return possible, you not only get back your $100.00, you get you another $100.00 in addition, while TFA earns a nice commission in the process. Most people, I’m quite certain, would be happy with a return of 100%. As TFA’s specific “basket” of investments becomes more popular, that 100% return will eventually become more difficult to sustain, but over more reasonable periods of time, TFA is still returning at first $50.00, then $30.00, and now $20.00 for every $100.00 you invest. Not as spectacular as that first investment, but who kicks at 20% returns in this economy? TFA’s commissions decline as well: more effort for less of a return, but so far so good nonetheless.

In energy production terms, EROEI is a lot like the principle behind this example.

If oil exploration and production results in finding more marketable oil than is “invested” (the energy quantity of all of the machinery and technology and staffing and transportation and what-have-you) , that’s a good investment. Early on, as others have noted, using the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil in exploration and production netted oil pioneers as many as 100 barrels of oil in return. Now that’s a damned good investment, and dwarfs my little $100.00 return on $100.00 invested example above.

Pretty straightforward, agreed?

What if your $100.00 investment with TFA is now giving back only $3.50? You are still making more than if the $100.00 stayed in a coffee can, but 3.5% is not all that exciting after a run of great returns in the past. TFA is now expending a lot of time and energy just to get you that return and a much smaller commission as well. It’s still on the plus side of the ledger, and a lot of people in this economy might not bitch too much.

But what if we’re down to just a few pennies in return? Incentives to invest become more difficult to justify, and once we get close to you give TFA $100.00 and TFA gives you back $100.15 and that’s it, time to play elsewhere. TFA won’t get rich that way, and long before then TFA will stop expending so much time and effort and expense if that’s the best it can do. And no one is going to play the game if investing $100.00 gets you only $90.00 of that $100.00 back. That game is over long before that’s a likelihood.

We’re not at the “few pennies” stage of oil exploration and production yet, and probably won’t be for quite some time to come, but we’re getting there. Slowly, steadily, surely, the “easy” oil isn’t being found because it just isn’t there any more. That investment has maxed-out, and now we’re investing elsewhere: deep water, tar sands, shale, perhaps the Arctic … not like the those early stick-a-straw-in-the-ground-and-out-it-comes oil finds.

More effort; more costs; more time; more difficulties in general; less inclination for countries to give up all they have left; increasing demand; less supply day-by-day simply because we’re taking out something that isn’t being replenished … all those factors add up to investing more to get less. That’s not good math.

This is all a long preface to get to the complete nonsense the good Mr. Worstall offered readers in attempting to rebut the reality of what I’ve just described.

In his own words as he first addresses EROEI (“That is, as far as I understand it, the argument.”) we get this [my commentary added]:

Basically, what is being said is that as oil gets deeper, more difficult to pump up, perhaps with tar sands we’ve got to use more energy to purify the stuff, then at some point we hit a boundary, a system boundary [Not the terms I’d use, but okay so far]. We’ll be using more energy to get the oil out than we’ll get energy from the oil we get out. [By Jove, I think he’s got it!] Which, self-evidently, is nonsense, [perhaps I spoke too soon] that’s like the internet companies losing money on every transaction and they’ll make it up in volume. [Huh?! Someone took a sharp right turn off of the I-get-it highway]

In the very next paragraph, there’s hope that this last comment was just a brief detour. Got lost, back on the right road: “… it does work in certain special situations. It would indeed be self-evidently absurd to use 10 barrels of oil at one site to pump up one barrel of oil. [Yes! He’s got it!] Better, obviously, to use one of the 10 you have and have 9 left over.” [Damn. So close! That is, as far as I understand it, the argument: if you keep using up what little you have left because you can’t get more, and are no longer trying, then … uh … uh, at some point, you kinda get to the point where nothing is left. Perhaps that’s not the wisest course of action? Just saying….]

What follows after he makes this statement: “But let’s really go wild here and think about something very different indeed,” is a interesting journey to say the least; more an indication that we have now officially lost contact with reality, and a search party is in order.

If you haven’t read what Mr. Worstall discusses next, he decides to use the growing and producing of wheat (for bread: “the staff of life”) as his way of refuting EROEI. He sets aside other energy components required in growing the wheat (fertilizer, transportation, etc.—all perfectly reasonable to do for these purposes) and claims—I assume accurately—that we expend far more energy in creating a loaf of bread than the energy we get from it. I’ll give him that, and since he is obviously far more skilled mathematically than I am, I won’t dispute his computations as to how much energy is expended and “wasted.”

He decided to focus on just one of the essential elements required in growing wheat: fresh water. His premise is that 1000 tons of water are required to grow a ton of wheat. I’ll buy that, no questions asked. (Keep in mind that for his purposes we’re setting aside all of the other energy components needed.) Mr. Worstall concludes that the solar energy required to evaporate the ocean water which must then fall back to earth as fresh water works out to 35 times the amount of energy (calories) we get back from a ton of wheat.

I’ll go along with that, but immediately after we come to a fork in the road. I’ll go left, and Mr. Worstall apparently beams himself directly to Planet Rational Thinking Not Necessary:

And we’re quite happy with this. We don’t think it odd at all. And we most certainly don’t say that it’s unsustainable because it doesn’t pass the ERoEI calculation.

The reason we’re not worried about it is because we’ve got vast amounts of energy coming to us as sunlight. Huge, massive, great big gobs of it. And we’re entirely happy to use it copiously, waste huge amounts of it, because there is so much. We want that energy in a form that can be used by our bodies and we’re just delighted to waste 97% of the energy in order to get a bit in the form we can use….

And the reason that ERoEI doesn’t mean very much is that we’re not, an any kind of human scale, limited by the availbility [sic] of energy. The Sun simply pumps in so much energy that total energy availability simply isn’t a binding constraint upon us. What we’re interested in is usable energy and we’re quite happy to waste total energy in order to get usable.

So there you have it. We have lots of energy from the sun (no doubts there); we waste a lot of it to grow wheat (okay, I’ll buy that); and since we’re happy eating the bread and wasting the sunlight, EROEI as it relates to finite amounts of oil in the ground is “still nonsense.”

(There’s very little rational comparison between quantities and characteristics of these two vastly different energy sources, but why interject reason into the conversation now?)

Fairly certain that I don’t need to say one more word except … WOW! (and point out this was in Forbes online, not Mr. Wacko’s Wild World Of Online Crazy magazine … WOW! Again.)

As I mentioned in my last post, there are some common threads running through the mostly nonsensical camps arguing against the reality that oil is a finite resource which is now on the downside of its maximum production rates … Peak Oil.

[NOTE: If you have not yet read this terrific article by James Quinn and you have even the remotest interest in the realities of our energy future, take a few minutes to do so.]

I outlined some of the initial red flags readers should be alert to when combing through material discussing Peak Oil. If an article contains some or all of the following buzzwords, it’s a good chance that the argument offered against Peak Oil is likely going to be an at-best disingenuous collection of partial truths with all the damning facts contradicting the assertions neatly omitted; or the “facts” within are not exactly the type of facts used by people here in reality.

(1) Peak Oil proponents/doomers are constantly spreading falsehoods that we will soon be “running out of oil.” [The deniers keep saying we are making those claims, when in fact only they are! We know that is not true, but it’s also not the issue!]

(2) We still have “vast” resources [or “giant”; “immense”; “entire new planets of”, etc. ... the kind of “facts” you can’t assign numbers to.]

(3) Failure to put genuine facts in any kind of truthful context. [As cited in my last post, mentioning a find of 250 million barrels of oil as yet another sign that we Peak Oil nutcases are full of it conveniently fails to point out that a find like that one will meet three days’ worth of oil demand, and thus loses a fair amount of its impressive-sounding luster.] *

(4) The newest talking point: “The now-discredited theory of Peak Oil.” [Each time that assertion is offered, any credible authority substantiating that claim never gets mentioned, curiously enough. So the “now-discredited” part is actually the writer’s own fact-free assessment. Does save research time!]

* A glaring recent example of this comes from David Holt, President of the Consumer Energy Alliance, arguing in favor of more drilling in the Arctic [my emphasis added]:

Energy exploration in Alaska’s OCS, in both the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, is expected to produce 25 billion barrels of oil over the next 40 years. This is the equivalent of 2010 imports from Iraq and Russia combined. That production will also spur nearly $200 billion in government revenue from royalties and taxes, and 55,000 new jobs per year for generations.

Two comments on this disingenuous-at-best effort to inject meaningful facts into the dialogue:

(1) Take your handy calculator and do the math to discover just how many barrels per year Mr. Holt’s assertions will add to our energy supply (assuming full production at some distant point on the time horizon, while keeping in mind what might be involved in Arctic oil production; and the inconvenient fact that we use approximately 85 million barrels of oil per day);

(2) In reading the jobs claims Peak Oil deniers tout repeatedly, it would appear that only fossil fuel production and exploration produces tax revenue and creates jobs … go figure! (The comparison to imports from Russia and Iraq is important for apparently secret reasons.)

One of the “best” examples of Test Criteria # 5 comes from the same Clifford Krauss (New York Times) I mentioned in last week’s post (and more thoroughly here). In his most recent Peak Oil-related work, Mr. Krauss offered this gem of certainty [emphasis is mine]:

The United States may now have the means to reduce its half century of dependence on the Middle East. China and India may have the means to fuel the development of their growing middle classes. Japan and much of Europe may have the chance to reduce dependence on nuclear power. And, at least theoretically, poor African countries might be able to lift themselves out of poverty.

I may have a winning lottery ticket in my shirt pocket and thus may have the means to purchase my own private island and accordingly may have the chance to reduce my dependence on anyone else to provide anything for me at all; and at least theoretically, I might be the richest man on Earth (and while we’re at it: at least theoretically, pigs might start flying tomorrow).

The tap dance required by these advocates (of an apparently limitless supply of worry-free fossil fuel resources) to make claims with such certainty about complete uncertainties is exhausting to behold. If they weren’t doing so much harm to so many who do not and cannot be expected to have knowledge on this subject, the effort would be Monty Python-esque hilarious!

This kind of physics-defying contortions to make bold claims about nothing is not limited to Mr. Krauss (who, to be fair, has also written many fine pieces for the Times).  In one of several prior posts of mine, I highlighted this CNNMoney-Fortune Hall of Fame effort [emphasis added is mine]:

“There are many oil reserves around the globe that remain untapped, and explorers continue to discover new fields deep beneath the earth’s surface. Depending on how the controversy surrounding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge turns out, the U.S. could exploit oil reserves in the area, despite potentially grave environmental consequences.”

I then noted that: “‘Depending’; ‘could’ … along with ‘might potentially’, ‘if’, ‘could be possible’, and an array of similar, carefully-worded utterly-lacking-in-certainty phrases are the apparent stock in trade for those denying those annoying facts about declining world oil production.’” (Glossing over “potentially grave environmental consequences” is in a category all by itself.) And perhaps an explanation as to what’s involved in getting to “new fields deep beneath the earth’s surface” might be a good idea?

That article is the poster child for denier nonsense, as I took pains to detail in that February 10, 2011 post. I can only assume that the purpose or intent is to offer semi-plausible assertions to those whom the authors fully expect to accept their claims unquestioningly, thus protecting whatever their ideological, financial, or business interests might be, and all with only the most minimal of efforts at sharing the truth.

Even if they were right and we do have at least several more decades of plentiful, easily-obtained, relatively inexpensive supplies of fossil fuels (which we don’t!), by what perverse notion of long-term thinking are they content to do absolutely nothing to begin the beyond-description complex transition away from fossil fuel dependency?

Anyone looking out their window and/or taking a quick peek at all the gizmos and gadgets inside would have to be completely delusional in failing to realize that almost everything we have, own, use, depend on is in some measure large or small a product of fossil fuel.

Just how much effort, time, money, planning, trial-and-erroring, marketing, producing, implementing, and transitioning to something other than fossil fuel dependency do these deniers think might be involved in swapping out this way of living for a non-fossil fuel existence? Full-blown denial and misrepresentation is their idea of contributing to our collective well-being (and their own)? Seriously?

The Hirsch Report (see this and also my series beginning here) is among the most influential energy studies undertaken in the past decade. A major conclusion reached by the authors left little doubt as to the depth and breadth of challenges we will face (deniers included).

The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.
Mitigation will require an intense effort over decades. This inescapable conclusion is based on the time required to replace vast numbers of liquid fuel consuming vehicles and the time required to build a substantial number of substitute fuel production facilities.  Our scenarios analysis shows:

• Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program action would leave the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades.

• Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.

• Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

The obvious conclusion from this analysis is that with adequate, timely mitigation, the economic costs to the world can be minimized. If mitigation were to be too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), which would translate to significant economic hardship.

There will be no quick fixes. Even crash programs will require more than a decade to yield substantial relief.

Is it really in anyone’s best interests to instead rely upon a host of head-in-the-sand “mights” and “possiblys” and “may haves” and “coulds”?

Worth pondering?

More to come….

Happy Thanksgiving!