Peak Oil Matters

In a number of prior posts, including my post from earlier this week, I have tried to impress upon readers of this blog the urgent need for planning. In a future world that was once created, maintained, and enhanced by fossil fuel resources at every step, we’re going to have to devise means and methods to achieve many of the same functions without oil to sustain the efforts. That is no easy task.

Certainly we will help the cause by paying attention to our energy usage and by finding ways to conserve, starting right now. Every measure will help. If we don’t have the basic energy resource (oil) available to us to power our industrial economy in all its facets, then obviously “alternative” energy resources will have to step in as substitutes.

There’s one serious problem: we don’t have alternative energy resources anywhere near the quality, quantity, or scale to serve as an appropriate substitute. That’s Gigantic Hurdle Number One, and we’re not going to clear that bar any time soon absent a legitimately miraculous discovery in the near term; or a massive, nation-wide commitment to make the transition away from our oil-powered economy—with all the research, design, testing, implementation, and sacrifice that entails. The latter is very likely the one we’ll have to depend on, sooner or later. Sooner is the better option.

As mentioned in my last post, as have others, the Hirsch Report was quite clear that mitigation efforts designed to transition away from oil as the foundation of economic growth and industrial production required an all-hands-on-deck twenty year process. With Peak Oil now, apparently, a few years past already, we’ve got a calendar problem. Those mitigation efforts would have had to begin about a quarter of a century ago. Turning back the clock has never been an option, and it’s not available now, either.

“Achieving any really significant percentage of renewable energy contribution to current consumption levels appears to be next to impossible. Current efforts to try and achieve this impossible target require ever more massive and complex machinery and higher and higher inputs of, increasingly scarcer materials and fossil energy to achieve.
“The point is very simply that an enormous amount of fossil energy is required to manufacture, install and operate all forms of renewable energy systems. Without the input of fossil fuel the existing renewable energy projects could never have been built and could not be maintained in operation.” [1]

Worldwide discovery of oil peaked more than three decades ago. Every year since, we have been using a lot more oil than we’re finding. Spin that any way you’d like, it’s still bad math. Approximately two-thirds of the countries producing oil (including the U.S.) have now—or long ago—reached peak production. That math doesn’t work any better.

As the remaining major oil producers continue to expand their own economies and serve their citizenry, the amount of oil they will have left over to only then export to countries like our own will decline. Whatever sense of entitlement we might insist upon won’t be worth much when that reality intrudes. That’s a grand social psychology problem we’re not close to recognizing. We’ve always gotten whatever we need … sometimes just because we wanted “it.” There will be a lot of whining and complaining in the years to come when the realization dawns on us that “just because” is no longer good enough. The citizens of the world have every reason to expect or desire growth and prosperity for themselves. And I don’t foresee the peoples of developing nations deciding en masse to forestall progress so that Americans can continue to gorge themselves at the world’s expense. That may not be a happy message to receive, but it’s an honest one.

And let’s not forget that finding and producing the same quality and quantities of oil that has sustained us to this point is only going to be more difficult; which of course also means more expensive. Oil producers won’t be absorbing those higher costs out of the goodness of their hearts, either. We’ll be paying for that.

But so far we have no strategies to address these real-life consequences of peak oil production. The ones we are employing (because we have no alternatives), make less sense as time passes.

“What is crazy and wasteful is that the U.S. and other countries are still building car assembly plants, roads, highways, parking lots, suburban housing developments, and airplanes as though cheap oil will last forever (Brown 2009). We continue to make investments in an infrastructure that will be superfluous shortly after we build it. This is an example of a market that is failing because it does not anticipate even short-term changes.” [2]

What’s a better approach, as we continue to seek ways to pull ourselves out from the depths and burdens of this ongoing Great Recession (and no, tax cuts for the wealthiest few hundred among us really is not the solution)? Perhaps our national leaders might consider the opportunities to redress the myriad infrastructure repair and maintenance issues with an intense focus on adapting that infrastructure to a world where fossil fuels are no longer available to power or sustain it—and us. Relying on the normal resources is painfully short-sighted now. Certainly a reliance on hands-off government for an undertaking this complex is pointless to argue or consider. An unfettered corporate world cannot begin to handle the myriad aspects of this nearly-incomprehensible conversion.

More planning might be a good idea right about now, before we throw money and fossil fuel resources at problems that desperately require our attention.

Other nations, notably China, seem much more capable and willing to prepare themselves for a new energy culture than we are. That’s a problem now, and it’s going to become an even greater and more pervasive problem for us down the road unless we start getting our national act together. But no one wants to take that first giant step to explain to Americans that we’ve got a brewing challenge ahead, one that will too quickly morph into a crisis unless we start doing things differently … now.

“‘China right now is preparing to roll out electric cars, lithium ion batteries, solar cells, cellulosic ethanol. This is where the future of energy is. We’ve a finite resource in oil, just like we had a finite resource in whale oil, and we made a transition,’ said [Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)]. ‘And we have to really focus our national energies in a bipartisan way, I would hope, on finding our way to compete with China to really build new energy sources of the future.’”

“President Obama has made a similar case repeatedly in recent years, stressing the fact that countries like China and India ‘aren’t playing for second place.’ There’s a gut-level appeal to messages like these, at least there might be, targeting a certain nationalistic impulse — advancing America’s interests isn’t just about a debate over the size of government, it’s also about positioning the United States as a world leader in a competitive landscape.” [3]

The opportunities are still there, daunting though they may be. But unless and until we come to some national recognition about what the real world is going to be like for all us—Republicans, Democrats, You-Name-Its—we cannot hope to prepare ourselves for the massive changes that will confront us in the years ahead. Can we still lead? Will we?

The song remains the same: crisis, or opportunity?

Sources:

[1] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-25/how-sustainable-renewable-energy; How sustainable is renewable energy? by Roger Adair
[2] http://sustainability-ayersj.blogspot.com/2010/11/peak-oil-3-national-and-global.html; Peak Oil 3: National and Global Production Peaks of Oil and Other Resources by John Ayers
[3] http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026813.php; THE GLOBAL-COMPETITION ARGUMENT by Steve Benen

As has been reported on a number of other Peak Oil-related websites, the International Energy Agency, in its World Energy Outlook 2010, has finally come around to admitting what many have been stating for some time: Peak Oil is no longer a challenge to be faced in the distant (or even not-so-distant) future. The IEA has now gone on record as stating that world conventional oil production will never match or exceed the approximately 70 million barrels per day produced back in 2006.

Uh-oh!

So while that reality hits us, let’s consider another of those damned facts about oil production and usage:

“If you sort all of the countries by per capita daily oil consumption and start from the lowest consuming countries, you need to sum up the consumption of nearly 100 countries to match the daily oil consumption in the U.S. Among these countries are China and India.
“Altogether the citizens of the U.S. consume the same amount of oil as 4.8 billion people elsewhere.” [1]

Houston, we have a problem. Notwithstanding any sense of entitlement, or the false bravado of assured technological solutions just in the nick of time, our use of oil and its innumerable by-products (forget for a moment—but only for a moment—the demand and usage of every other nation) is going to smack head-first into a wall of declining supply and/or more expensive but still-declining supply. And it’s not going to get any better.

I don’t like it; I assume readers here do not like it; and I’m fairly certain that few individual or business consumers will appreciate or enjoy learning this. There’s no place to look around for any immediate solutions because there aren’t any! Changes won’t necessarily occur tomorrow or next week or next month, but the painful and unpleasant truth is that we’re not going to have available to us the same amounts of readily-available oil supplies at the same relatively low prices we’ve enjoyed for decades. Not gonna happen. That means adaptations, adjustments, and yes, even sacrifices beginning soon enough, with no end in sight. That’s a problem we’re almost completely unprepared to deal with or correct.

We’re all in this together, and we’re going to have to put our thinking caps on and start figuring out what we’ll need to do individually and as a nation to transition away from oil. The optimist in me still thinks opportunities abound, but the clock is definitely ticking.

We’ll still have a number of decades to make a complete transition away from oil as the power source. But the problem is that we’ll be making this monumental transition away from oil at a time when the supply is diminishing, world-wide demand is increasing, costs are on the rise, production and refining become more difficult (and of course more expensive), and it’s going to take much longer to bring that fossil fuel resource to market. That’s just for starters.

We use oil for just about everything produced, transported, and consumed. We’re now going to have to start figuring out many new ways to try and maintain some semblance of a “normal” industrial economy as well as a personal lifestyle using new forms of energy to power just about everything we rely on oil to do for us now. That’s also not gonna happen … certainly not to the extent, with the ease, at the low costs, or with the same quality and quantity we’ve come to expect.

Plans are in order—lots of plans. This is no quick-fix modern day dilemma, and it is most definitely not a challenge that we can rely on the “market” to solve on its own. What remains just as doubtful is the ability of our national government to lead the way, and that’s a problem. I’m not sure right now that Congress could easily, quickly, or even by majority vote declare December 25 as Christmas Day. Certainly they couldn’t do so if President Obama offered that up. This is not encouraging, and it’s even less so when we have a more-than-insignificant number of “leaders” who cannot seem to accept anything that even remotely resembles scientific fact.

We’re going to need a national government with national leaders who can … you know, lead; people who actually understand what is at stake, have some kind of vision for what we need to do now and going forward, are willing to articulate that to the citizenry, can explain what we all have to contribute, and are willing to make the tough choices devoid of ideology. Declining oil production has absolutely nothing to do with conservative or liberal philosophies of governance.

We’ve got an entire industrial and commercial infrastructure that is going to have to be modified, re-built, or in many cases created anew to allow us to move forward with something other than oil to power it. There’s no pretending otherwise, and waiting is simply not an option any more—not that it has been. The Hirsch Report which issued several years ago was quite clear that 20 years of full-out national effort would be needed to effect an orderly and hopefully pain-free transition away from fossil fuels in order to continue to power our economy and support our lifestyles.

If the IEA is finally admitting that peak conventional production happened four year ago, simple math tells us we’re a wee bit late on maximizing opportunities from that 20-year window. Uh-oh, again!

Just to keep things interesting, the transition from an oil-based industrial economy to Whatever-Plan-B-Will-Be will have to be achieved using that same declining measure of supply to design and construct and transport and put into place the infrastructure we’ll need to support and maintain this as yet unidentified and not-planned- for-yet Plan B. We’re talking about using a lot of declining energy supplies that’s a lot more expensive, over the course of a lot of years to put into operation a lot of new industrial and economic and civic foundations to (we hope) enable us to maintain some semblance of growth and prosperity—all while using new energy resources that simply will not be as efficient or inexpensive or dependable as oil has been.

And who does without or with less in order to achieve all of this? “Someone else, of course” is not the answer. We’re all “someone else” now. (As a bonus, extracting this now-more-difficult-to-come-by resource will create even more environmental and other resource-supply difficulties.)

So far, this is not encouraging. Where are the plans? Do our leaders have any courage at all to start dealing with the difficult truths all of us are now going to have to contend with? “Drill, baby, drill” was a poor solution when it was first suggested. Now, it’s just a fantasy. We’re going to need something a bit more intelligent as a solution.

The IEA’s 2010 Outlook states that more than three-quarters of the 2035 production amounts are going to originate from either oil fields that so far have not been developed (including the more costly, less efficient, and less reliable unconventional resources such as the Canadian tar sands), or from fields that haven’t even been discovered yet! Hello! There are a lot of unspoken hopes and wishes and finger-crossings being counted upon. And another bonus: all of this is going to be even more expensive.

What’s even more startling is that the IEA is projecting that by 2035, the conventional oil production we’ve relied on for decades will have decreased from the 2006 peak of 70 million barrels per day to less than 20 million barrels per day. According to my calculations, 20 million is a lot less than 70 million. That is not good math.

These are just some of the facts we have no choice but to deal with. This is not an ideal set of circumstances for us to confront in the midst of our continuing economic woes. But we play the hand we’re dealt, or we fold. Our choice.

First, we need to come to terms with these facts, and that means at a minimum the partisan, fact-free or manufactured-out-of-thin-air political nonsense must end immediately.

From there, we move toward plans and actions. None of the options will be simple, fast, or cheap. Are we willing to bet on human ingenuity and human capital? It won’t be the first time, and there’s no rule that even suggests that change won’t be better for all of us. I’m not willing to relinquish my hold on optimism (though I find myself having to grip a bit harder these days).

The game is different now, the rules are different, and if there is to be any “winning”, it’s going to have to come about with different strategies and lot more playing partners than some would like. But that’s the reality.

“Peak oil and the events associated with it will be an unprecedented discontinuity in human and geologic history. Peak oil crises will soon confront societies with the opportunity to recreate themselves based on their respective needs, culture, resources, and governance responses. Peak oil will require a change of economic and social systems, and will result in a new world order. The sooner people prepare for peak oil and a post-peak oil life, the more they will be able to influence the direction of their opportunities. Nevertheless, there are probably no solutions that do not involve at the very least some major changes in lifestyles. Consequently, peak oil will probably result in some catastrophic upheavals. Peak oil will also present opportunities to address many underlying societal, economic, and environmental problems.” [2]

I’ve ended more than one post to date with this question, and it’s just as vital today as it always has been:

Crisis, or opportunity?

Sources:

[1] http://seekingalpha.com/article/231957-the-end-of-oil-s-golden-age; King Oil – posted Oct 25, 2010
[2] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-21/collapse-nov-21 and http://www.global.ucsb.edu/climateproject/papers/index.html; Peak Energy, Climate Change, and the Collapse of Global Civilization: The Current Peak Oil Crisis by Tariel Mórrígan; Global Climate Change, Human Security & Democracy, Orfalea Center for Global & International Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara

Richard Heinberg, as knowledgeable a Peak Oil teacher as we have, and by personality apparently disinclined to be overly dramatic, is nonetheless offering some sobering thoughts about our future.

“Economic growth as we have known it is over and done with.
“The “growth” we are talking about consists of the expansion of the overall size of the economy (with more people being served and more money changing hands) and of the quantities of energy and material goods flowing through it.
“The economic crisis that began in 2007-2008 was both foreseeable and inevitable, and it marks a permanent, fundamental break from past decades—a period during which most economists adopted the unrealistic view that perpetual economic growth is necessary and also possible to achieve. There are now fundamental barriers to ongoing economic expansion, and the world is colliding with those barriers.” [1]

Evan Thomas, in Newsweek, also shared a prescient essay [2] about our current economic challenges, and the threat to future prosperity. I’d like to think his message will be taken to heart by the President and Congress, but I am not optimistic that it will happen. I don’t think most of America is prepared to hear it, and certainly most Americans do not want to hear it. We’re still looking to have Someone Else deal with the big problems of the day while we all struggle with the burdens we each carry. As Thomas noted:

“[B]roadly speaking, American popular culture is not very amenable to sacrifice, to choosing the harder right over the easier wrong, as our sterner parents and grandparents might have said. We have built a society of safety nets, a lawyer-constructed web where no one really has to take responsibility, where there’s always someone else to blame.”

It’s an understandable position to take, mired as we are in the midst of our individual financial and employment woes, but things are different now. Relinquishing that responsibility entirely to others is a recipe for disaster. Not only do we need to hear the truth, we need to take action—personally and collectively—to help steer our nation back onto some semblance of solid footing.

Political writer Steve Benen recently wrote [3] about a Tennessee state government worker who, while opposing the Republican Party’s positions on taxes and health care (fairly important issues, needless to say), still managed to cast his vote for the Republicans. Benen quoted the man as stating: “I’m tired of what’s going on, and the only way to do it is to make a change.”

Shooting ourselves in the foot ought to be a bit lower on our list of responses and contributions. As I suggested in my last post, we need to be better, and we need to take the time to consider—painful as it will surely be—the problems and challenges we all face, the solutions and approaches suggested by leaders from both parties, and then assess what kind of a nation and a people we want to be in the many years ahead … in a society and economy that will be vastly different than the one we left behind in 2008.

In an absolutely brilliant post (kudos to Daily Kos), a writer identified only as “Ed” listed the “mandate” Americans voted for in the recent mid-terms elections. It’s a quick read but well-worth taking the time to do so, because the piece points out exactly how most of us are choosing to view the problems we face. It’s just as clear that that strategy is mindless! (Just one example of what this writer suggests that Americans now require after casting their votes: “Giant trucks and SUVs that drive like Formula One race cars, look cool, fit into small parking spaces, cost under $18,000, and get the fuel economy of a Toyota Prius”)

As Richard Heinberg made crystal clear, the prosperity and a return to the familiar paths of economic growth are not likely achievable any longer. It’s an unappealing truth, but the only way we can deal with the challenges and fashion some sort of national strategy for transitioning into a different society and economy is to first accept the facts and the truth. We’re not particularly inclined to take up that approach when the problems are even a bit daunting, let alone something of this magnitude. But it’s the only way. Adopting any other approach that smacks of disregard, or ignoring the evidence, or pretending, or hoping for the magic of the marketplace, will only create more problems. We need more chairs in the room because we need a lot more adults to take part.

“[T]here are three primary factors that stand firmly in the way of further economic growth:
* The depletion of important resources including fossil fuels and minerals;
* The proliferation of environmental impacts arising from both the extraction and use of resources (including the burning of fossil fuels)—leading to snowballing costs from both these impacts themselves and from efforts to avert them and clean them up; and
* Financial disruptions due to the inability of our existing monetary, banking, and investment systems to adjust to both resource scarcity and soaring environmental costs—and their inability (in the context of a shrinking economy) to service the enormous piles of government and private debt that have been generated over the past couple of decades.” [4]

Those are the facts. No one has to like them very much, but ignoring them, or pretending otherwise, or choosing an alternative reality where evidence is not a consideration is exactly the wrong strategy. It might be less stressful, but it’s still the wrong strategy. Time for the adults to enter the room….

“So the world needs to come to a common understanding that:
1. The alternative energy is not mature enough to completely replace fossil sources any time soon.
2. Energy security means a diversified and balanced portfolio inclusive of every bit of resource, fossil as well as renewables,  just to meet the projected demand.
3. Real “green” energy is easier said than done.
“All this requires a balanced and unbiased government policy to guide exploration and development of technologies to unlock the new fossil fuel reserves, expanding the R&Ds of emerging technologies, while effectively practicing and promoting energy efficiency and conservation.” [5]

No easy choices. No simple solutions. No freebies. Not much time. Not our first choice for options to solve the problems, but that’s what we have.

Delaying the acknowledgement about the extent of the problems means only a delay in trying to fashion solutions or alternatives or strategies or plans or innovations or research or some combination of all of that and more. Absolutely no one wants to hear that we’re going to be facing a very different future with very different definitions about growth and success and prosperity. But that’s what we have. You name it: production, distribution, transportation, finance—all of it is going to change when we begin to feel the pinch of less energy. If anyone is hoping we can just wait and come up with instant solutions only when that day is upon us, I’d suggest you re-think that approach.

Although speaking about the debt and the deficit, Evan Thomas’s advice to President Obama rings just as true about the energy and climate issues that will soon enough overtake us (and I continue to acknowledge that we still have lots and lots of fossil fuels in the ground, and I agree that we will not be “running out” of anything for many years if not decades. But that’s beside the point.)

“But being honest about the real choices is the only way Obama can break through the noise and chatter. It is also absolutely necessary to save the country from very hard times ahead, or at the very least a steadily declining standard of living. Obama needs to start by explaining the mess we’re in.”

Echoing the themes Richard Heinberg urges, Thomas’s Newsweek article goes on to state:

“But very few economists believe that growth will solve the problem. Some warn of the ‘new normal,’ flat or at best slow growth or a decade of stagnation. A real growth spurt, in any case, will require government spending on badly deteriorating infrastructure and massive research and development. But there is no money….”

So as Richard Heinberg sees it, here we are:

“The result: we are seeing a perfect storm of converging crises that together represent a watershed moment in the history of our species….
“The end of growth is a very big deal indeed. It means the end of an era, and of our current ways of organizing economies, politics, and daily life. Without growth, we will have to virtually reinvent human life on Earth.”

Can we start to think about this seriously? Can we put our heads together and come up with at least some ideas to start with … ideas that take into account facts and the real world we leave in? The grunt work has to start at some point, and yesterday is as good a day as any.

Sources:

[1] http://richardheinberg.com/222-the-end-of-growth; MuseLetter #222 / November 2010 – The End of Growth by Richard Heinberg

[2] http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/13/what-obama-needs-to-do.html?from=rss; Truth or Consequences: Obama’s only real hope to be an effective president and secure his legacy: talk straight about the looming economic disaster facing the country by Evan Thomas

[3] http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026593.php QUOTE OF THE DAY

[4] Heinberg

[5] http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article24260.html; Panic Time for Peak Oil Pundits By: Dian_L_Chu

I’ve been very clear in stating that while I do believe Peak Oil is imminent (which doesn’t necessarily mean next week!), there’s no doubt that we still have billions of barrels available to us in the years to come. Our energy base is not falling off a cliff tomorrow.

Having said that, we must nonetheless start planning now for what happens when fossil fuel availability is significantly diminished and prohibitively expensive. While we still have a ready and adequate supply of oil and gas, we need to utilize those still-abundant levels of energy to begin the transition away from fossil fuel dependency. The reality is beyond dispute: our entire infrastructure developed, was built, and has since been maintained with coal, oil, and gas in mind. Until very recently, there had never been any considerations or concerns that we might actually have to completely re-vamp the transportation, power grid, communications, utility, food production, and/or other systems that comprise our basic infrastructure. We’re going to need lots of energy to make that happen.

When you stop for a moment and consider all the highways, the aqueducts, the power and electric grid systems (poles, wires, etc.), the schools, the hospitals, the bridges, the sewers, the farms, the waste treatment facilities and all the other components of our infrastructure, the amount of fossil fuels needed to design, build, repair, maintain, and renovate all of those elements are beyond staggering! Dealing with the impending reality that the fossil fuels which served at the heart of our infrastructure will no longer be available—thus requiring that the repairs, maintenance, renovations, re-design, delivery, and functioning of these complex components will necessitate something other than fossil fuels—means that the transition over to alternative energy sources or brand new design features will take years (read: decades.) We can’t wait until we’re up to our eyeballs in Peak Oil’s impact to start figuring out what to do. We’re too close as it is.

Our great dilemma then rears its head: We do not yet have the alternatives energies in place to effect an orderly and efficient transition. It’s going to take many, many years, much trial and error, and incredible amounts of research, design, production, and delivery implementation in order to achieve seamless transitions away from fossil fuels—assuming those efforts to identify efficient alternative energies prove successful! What are we supposed to do once the existing fossil fuel resources are not so plentiful ever again?

Disasters … or Opportunities?

In my last post, I cited the American Society for Civil Engineers’ 2009 report on the disastrous condition of 15 different infrastructure systems, and the assessment that we need several trillion dollars to bring them into some semblance of acceptable condition. Those systems do not exist in their only little cost-free vacuums, either. For example, when roadways or bridges become impassable for lack of timely funding to repair them, then the products and supplies needed for other elements of the infrastructure are undeliverable as planned, and those delays lead to other problems which create other issues that then lead to….

According to the International Energy Agency, if we continue to rely on fossil fuels, then some $26 trillion dollars in new investments are needed from now through 2030 to continue exploration for new resource fields and to utilize whatever new extraction technologies might be required to meet production and demand expectations. Does anyone doubt that a comparable amount will be needed to re-design, re-build, and/or re-configure our infrastructure so that its development, construction, repair, and maintenance are properly achieved without fossil fuels at the ready?

If we haven’t figured it out yet, then we need to recognize and appreciate the direct connection between a properly functioning infrastructure and the overall health of our industry and economy—and by extension the well-being of the citizens of this nation. A few tweaks and some tinkering here and there isn’t going to get it done. That’s a waste of time and resources, and we don’t have a lot to spare as it is.

The wonderful New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has stated that “We’ve become stupid about this.” Stupid can’t be a strategy any more than denial or delusion, and we’ve already got way too many people adopting those approaches.

I don’t pretend than any of this is pleasant to consider, but we are indeed presented with incredible opportunities to design an almost entirely new way of living, producing, and prospering. There are no elements of our cultural or industrial society that cannot (and will not) be impacted, and so the challenge is rife with the potential for great harm, or great opportunities. But success won’t happen if only some of us are on board.

So what choices do we make? What choices do our business and political leaders make on our behalf? Do we attempt to preserve a way of life that is inevitably subject to the reality of natural resource depletion; or we do we begin the lengthy, uncertain, and challenging path of finally moving away from fossil fuel dependence? There are no guarantees that we escape harm regardless of the choice made. We’re going to be affected and impacted regardless. And neither choice is free. But one is surely and at best only a short-term solution (and yes, decades are short-term in this regard).

Despite the amazing depths of foolishness (the kindest word I could manage) exhibited by those who have decided that ALL scientific assessments are completely wrong (a hoaxy-socalisty-changey thing, I guess), climate change is also going to impact us. Peak Oil is not going to help. We’re going to have to make fundamental, extensive changes in what we do to try and ward off the harm and destruction global warming will dump at our feet (even if that might be decades away as well). We need to start implementing those changes now, while fossil fuels remain plentiful.

These are not separate crises. We’ll need an extraordinary amount of wisdom and insight to make certain that fixing one problem doesn’t make the other worse … and we’ll need a fair amount of luck to try and make that work. We’re not going to come up with perfect solutions in the next couple of weeks, but we’re guaranteed to come up with none if we don’t recognize what we’re facing.

Despite the somber portrayal, I remain convinced that this is all about opportunity. The challenge of Peak Oil affords us a chance to determine and define growth and progress in new ways—and for many decades more than what continued reliance on fossil fuels will get us. Change is always difficult, more so now in the midst of great economic and financial uncertainty. Expectations about growth and prosperity along a comfortable and familiar path are understandably preferred. But they are now growing increasingly unrealistic, and the sooner we all understand this, the better off we’ll all be and the sooner we can begin to move in a necessarily different direction.

We have before us a great challenge, to be sure. Just contemplating the magnitude of what we have to undertake is overwhelming.  Designing and then undertaking all that is then required to actually implement this new vision is a feat well beyond our capacity to fully envision at this moment. But that does not make it impossible.

There’s no getting around it: we need to build a twenty-first century infrastructure. The one we have will not endure if it remains reliant on fossil fuels. We’re well past the stage where crossing fingers and toes is the answer. Our communication systems; food production; industrial development, production, and delivery; power grids; all that we consider transportation; water and sewer services, and all the other components that make up the infrastructure foundation that has brought us to this moment will have to be re-fashioned. All the pretending otherwise, denying, or ignoring isn’t going to change that. Those who’ve chosen some combination of these strategies must find the courage to look again.

A world of 6, 7, 8, 10 billion people simply cannot survive or hope to maintain (let alone enhance) economic growth and prosperity unless it embraces the changes contemplated here.

We have a choice, of course. But really, we have no choice. It’s up to us to recognize this and act, or fail. The opportunities are there.

Next: Part III

Recently, the always-wonderful New York Times columnist Bob Herbert raised some interesting questions about America’s future:

What will the United States be like in 20 years when today’s toddlers are in college or trying to land that first job or maybe  thinking about starting a family?

The answer will depend to a great extent on decisions we make now about the American infrastructure….

In 20 years, will today’s toddlers be traveling on bridges and roads that are in even worse shape than today’s? Will they endure  mammoth traffic jams that start earlier and end later? Will their water supplies be clean and safe? Will the promise of clean  energy visionaries be realized, or will we still be fouling the environment with carbon filth to the benefit of traditional energy  conglomerates and foreign regimes that in many cases wish us anything but good?

The answers to these and many other related questions will depend to a great extent on decisions we make now (even in the  midst of very tough economic times) about the American infrastructure. We’re trundling along in the infrastructure equivalent  of a jalopy, with bridges rotting and falling down, while other nations, our competitors in the global economy, are building  efficient, high-speed, high-performance infrastructure platforms to power their 21st-century economies. [1]

As uncomfortable as these questions may be; as difficult to ask as they appear to be; as unpleasant as they may be to consider, we are going to have to do the dirty work of asking and answering these and many related questions. Peak Oil’s challenges and the opportunities they will afford us to create a new framework for our future are not limited to ensuring we can fill the gas tanks of our Land Rovers and BMWs, or putting food on the table, or conducting “business as usual” (which is not to minimize the significance of those needs).

As I’ve discussed briefly in my prior posts and as will be detailed in a lengthy series of upcoming posts, there is very little in our everyday lives that does not originate from oil-based products. We are facing monumental changes when oil supplies begin their inexorable decline, and fascinating opportunities to address ways of meeting those changes!

What we give precious little consideration to, however, is that not just our lifestyles, our industries, our transportation, our health care, our businesses, and our entertainment rest on the fundamental availability of cheap oil. Our access to the basic utility services that sustain us likewise depends on that same cheap oil. How many sewer systems, power lines, natural gas and oil pipelines, water pipes, bridges, culverts, or roadways have been designed, built, maintained, repaired, or replaced without some necessary component of oil and the energy it provides?

We’ve spent decades creating an infrastructure in support of our phenomenal growth and successes because we’ve had access to inexpensive and plentiful oil that provided the energy and means to build it all. Does anyone really think that we’re not going to have to start addressing major repairs to our infrastructure soon? It’s no secret that we’ve neglected it far too long.

We have tens if not hundreds of thousands of miles (or more) of those very old pipes and power lines that need to be maintained and in many instances repaired and replaced. Reports and comments raised in just the past year alone suggest that we’ll need several trillion dollars here in the U.S. to bring our infrastructure back to some semblance of acceptable condition.

When the oil faucet starts flowing more slowly, what happens? Where do we prioritize, and at what cost?

We’re creating a dangerous precedent in thinking that this will all be fixed or replaced or reinvented any time soon. There are countless opportunities awaiting us, and countless problems looming if we don’t start thinking about how to deal with less oil.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is on record estimating that more than $26 trillion will be needed worldwide in the next twenty-odd years to continue fossil fuel exploration (gas, coal, and oil) and to develop and utilize production technologies to meet increasing energy demands. But those resources aren’t replenishing themselves! So after we spend all that money (which will come from … where?), we’re still going to have diminishing resources.

There’s a choice to be made, and it is not an easy one: Do we summon the financial means to try and meet increasing energy needs with coal, gas, and oil (along with unconventional resources such as oil shale and oil sands), or do we begin the long and costly process of converting and redesigning our existing infrastructure into one capable of supporting continued growth by means of alternative energy sources? (And this is all predicated on a fervent hope that we will in fact develop alternative energies of sufficient capability, quantity and economic feasibility to fully replace what oil does for us—not an inconsiderable task! Trillions of dollars are going to be needed in this regard as well. Our level of research and development expenditures this past decade is abysmally low. We’re already way behind.)

Alternative energy success is by no means a guarantee, but I daresay we don’t have much choice. The issue is how to go about doing all of this….Opportunities.

There are other problems to be addressed if we decide that we must continue a steady march toward development of all available oil—both conventional and unconventional. These tend to get glossed over in the more popular discussions about oil finds and oil usage, but they are no less important to consider.

And in the face of Peak Oil’s challenges, we are going to have to fashion solutions without the same ready supply of cheap and easily-available crude oil as we have for these past few decades. With another billion and half or so people added to world population in the next fifteen years, which is predicted to nearly triple energy demand, we’ve got our work cut out for ourselves. (Throwing up our hands and crying “Uncle!” seems an appropriate response right about now.)

I have alluded to the fact that the existing oil fields now in production face an inevitable consequence: the amount of oil pumped from the ground today means less oil available for tomorrow’s production quota, and then less the day after that…. In 2008, the IEA projected that the natural decline from existing oil field production would exceed 10 percent per year by 2030.

I’ve previously noted that we’re finding smaller and smaller fields to replace what’s now declining, so that’s not helping. Offshore finds, apart from their costs and the monumental efforts needed to bring them online, also decline faster than land-based fields owing to their unique characteristics.

We’re going to have to throw a lot more money at harder-to-find and harder-to-produce oil fields, and we’ll have to do so in the face of yet another challenge: this worldwide recession has significantly curtailed investment and production in the past two years. In just a handful of years, we’re going to start feeling the pinch of lower supplies because investments haven’t kept pace with demand. Billions of dollars worth of oil projects have been scrapped or postponed in these last few years, and they won’t run back at full throttle overnight. It’s going to take years to recover.

IEA Director Nobuo Tanaka warned back in November that global investment-related spending dropped nearly $90 billion, or 19%, during 2009 vs. 2008. That all adds up to less oil during this next decade [2].

In its most recent world energy outlook, the IEA is also predicting that almost half of the oil we’ll need by 2030 (an extra 45 million barrels per day, or about 50% more than what we now consume!) will have to come from oil fields not yet developed or found! [3], [4] In energy terms, twenty years is not a long time.

Is anyone planning to retire on funds yet to be found? That’s what we’re being asked to hope for when it comes to oil supply.

We must also not forget political considerations. We’ve haven’t exactly bathed ourselves in international glory this past decade. There are not an inconsiderable number of countries (think Venezuela and Iran, among others) which aren’t inclined to do us any extra oil favors.

Back in the 1970s, the Mobils and Exxons of the world controlled more than three-fourths of the planet’s oil reserves. Today, 90% of that is controlled directly by the oil-producing countries. Big Oil is getting shut out, and we’re all being left at the mercy of geopolitical interests and oil-production capabilities by many countries that are neither favorably disposed toward us nor necessarily as technologically advanced as the oil corporation giants. And let’s not forget that as their populations grow and their productivity increases, the need for these countries to keep oil “at home” increases.

Those who deny the implications of Peak Oil tend to overlook these facts. We cannot afford to do so.

Furthermore, various reports in the last couple of years suggest that over the past two decades, more than half a million skilled oil and gas workers have lost their jobs. It’s going to take years to replace them. Oil engineering and related studies are not drawing the same numbers of students as in the past, so as older professionals retire, there’s a growing shortage of experts.

We scoff at these factors at our peril, for they are real-world considerations directly affecting oil supplies and production. That’s not a good thing for those hoping for “business as usual” once we all get back on our feet.

Next: More Considerations – Part II

Sources:

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/opinion/17herbert.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1258455637-lZ9f+84UVVV0xzhkak7qzg – What the Future May Hold By BOB HERBERT, November 17, 2009

[2]: http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2010/01/top-ten-peak-oil-stories-of-2009/ – Top Ten Peak Oil Stories of 2009
By Tom Whipple, January 4, 2010

[3]: http://seekingalpha.com/article/176440-peak-oil-demand – Peak Oil Demand by: Hard Assets Investor December 03, 2009

[4]: http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2010/1/Pages/05012010/01062010_051f7226d8814fd1886f49052b75288a.aspx

In this post, I’m going to continue with the theme of my most recent entry and provide you with some additional considerations about oil consumption here in the United States. While few of the facts to be cited will surprise anyone very much, I doubt many are considered very often, if at all.  I believe this overview is critical to our understanding of Peak Oil’s importance. We obviously can’t and won’t address fundamental issues of which we remain contentedly unaware.

It is when we become more fully cognizant of just how vital the use of oil is to just about every single one of our economic activities that it also becomes obvious what a powerful and pervasive impact Peak Oil will have on just about everything we do and everything we plan to continue doing. (I’ll be exploring these specific issues in much greater detail in the weeks to come.)

Changes are inevitable … big changes. With no plans in place, those changes are going to be incredibly disruptive. But as I take pains to suggest, so too will these looming changes present us with incredible opportunities….

But as of now, the United States has no plans to deal with Peak Oil.

Understanding where we are is a key step in making plans for where we want to be. Doing what we’ve always done is not going to be a viable option for much longer. We’re bumping up against an immoveable barrier to our continued prosperity unless we summon the individual and collective wisdom, courage, and ingenuity to chart a different course. It is fraught with both uncertainty and unparalleled opportunity.

We may not be prepared to hear this, but there’s no getting around it: it is all up to us. Relying on Someone/Anyone Else is not going to work this time around.

Oil provides energy in ways unlike any other source we have. It is an incredibly powerful and efficient resource. Without it, economic development here and across the planet would have never attained its current levels and scope. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the United States gets 40 percent of its total energy from oil and another 25% or so from coal and natural gas. Those are much higher percentages than any other nation. We’re wedded to oil like no one else, and the separation will not be easy. But we’re not going to have much of a choice in the not-too-distant future.

This quote (by Michael Brownlee of  Denver’s Boulder County Transition Team), premised on an estimate that our nation uses one cubic mile of oil per year, provides us with a stunning portrayal of just how efficient oil is as compared to other energy sources:

[One cubic mile of oil] “equals the same amount of energy provided by 52 nuclear power plants generating energy being built every year for 50 years or 104 operating coal-fired electrical plants built every year for 50 years or 32,000 wind turbines built every year for 50 years and in continuous operation or 91,250,000 solar panels built every year for 50 years.” [1]

Think about that for a moment. How on earth (literally) do we produce energy sources of those magnitudes to replace this finite resource that has served as the lifeblood of world-wide economic and industrial development for these past 150 years?

There’s no doubt that we must continue development of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind, but the plain truth is that as presently developed they cannot possible duplicate or even remotely approximate the energy derived from oil.

Currently, the oil and gas industry produces between 80 and 90 million barrels of oil per day for worldwide consumption. But every year, anywhere from 4% to 7% of that oil (depending on the source cited) is lost to a simple and undeniable truth about any finite resource: depletion. Simple path math will tell you that if a supply of something is declining naturally and inexorably, then in order to maintain at least the same level of supply, you have to produce more just to stay even.

So far we’ve done a good job of maintaining that steady state, but it’s just not going to last. The many little fields of oil we continue to find, and those not-so-easy, not-so-cheap to find and produce oil sources we discover in the remote corners of the world will not keep pace with increasing demand. The math does not work, and when you consider the ever-increasing world population, the numbers are not comforting to those who continue to hope for business and development and prosperity as usual.

We’re certainly free to remain blissfully unaware or unconcerned, but that’s only going to make the inevitable that much more painful.

A greater truth, and one I don’t believe gets nearly the attention it deserves, is that for all the energy that we could potentially derive from those alternative sources, our entire infrastructure and way of life has been built around the availability of, access to, and use of abundant amounts of relatively inexpensive and just as relatively available oil. That option is running out, as prior posts have tried to make clear.

We have designed our lifestyles, our economic and industrial development, and our communities around cheap, easily-produced oil. Our everyday world is premised on that continuing supply (together with natural gas) to produce and transport food, to fuel our transportation, build and heat or cool our buildings, purify our water, treat our waste, and build, well, just about everything we use. (And a related issue I’m not even touching right now: we have an old infrastructure, one that will not repair or update itself for free.)

No amount of alternative energy sources as presently developed can provide us the same quality and quantity of those basic needs. We may fervently want or hope that the square pegs of alternative energy sources fit neatly into the round holes of continuing-on-with-life-as-we-know-it, but magical thinking inevitably runs into reality.

And the reality is that the foundations of all we do and have and use are built with oil, and when declining supply begins to travel the same road as increasing demand, we’re going to have a monumental problem on our hands, and one that will not be solved in just a few months or a few years. All the legislation and hand-wringing in the world won’t create an entirely new infrastructure reliant on energy sources not named oil in any period of time one would consider “short.”

A more unfortunate truth is that our political and economic system—indeed, our entire societal attitudes about growth, prosperity, and entitlement—are simply not fashioned to deal with what must be done … yet.

Any false hopes that we can instantly create new technologies to effect seamless transition are at their very best hopelessly naïve. Foolish is a better description. So we do have to begin thinking differently, and planning, and then doing.

“[T]he cold, hard, inconvenient truth is that trillions of dollars have been invested in the existing energy infrastructure, which provides consumers with electricity, gasoline, jet fuel, and myriad other commodities. Changing that infrastructure—nearly all of which has been built upon fossil fuels—to a system based on renewable and alternative energy will take decades.” [2]

An inconvenient truth indeed….

Next: The World Of Transportation

Sources

[1]: America’s Perfect Storm: Transition to Survival After Peak Oil Hits – Frosty Wooldridge http://neighbors.denverpost.com/blog.php/2008/11/25/america%E2%80%99s-perfect-storm-transition-to-survival-after-peak-oil-hits/

[2]: From the book Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence by Robert Bryce (p.44); publisher: PublicAffairs (Perseus Books Group)

Hello again!

In my last post, I took a brief look at some of the facts suggesting that we are indeed at or very near the point when our planet’s maximum rate of oil production has been reached.

Today, I’ll point out some of the more popular arguments here in the U.S. disputing Peak Oil. As I’ll do with the information from my prior post, I’ll likewise expand my examination of this material in future discussions.

Four popular arguments against Peak Oil are discussed below (although they are not necessarily the primary debating points). In no particular order, these refutations are as follows:

• there are billions if not trillions of barrels of “unconventional” oil in the shale deposits of the western United States
• there are comparable amounts of unconventional oil in western Canada (the oil or “tar” sands of Alberta), and thus the  combination of these oil resources will supply us with all the oil we need for hundreds of years
• the Arctic region/Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)/offshore areas here in the U.S hold billions of barrels of oil
• technology will be developed to boost oil production in existing fields or aid in the discovery of as-yet undiscovered fields

While reminding you that I lack the professional expertise of an engineer or geologist, I nonetheless do not challenge the range of estimated oil resources touted in the Alberta oil sands and America’s oil shale deposits.

Where I take issue is that the related facts and details about production and extraction of shale and sand are all too often conveniently omitted when these massive resources are hailed as the solution to any oil supply problems we might face. Just throwing out the phrase “trillions of barrels” is at best disingenuous. (Despite other arguments suggesting similar amounts of conventional oil reserves, most experts state with about 90% certainty that there are about 1.2 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves. [1]) Resources are not the same as reserves. There are no guarantees that “resources” can ever be successfully produced.

In more than thirty years of attempted production, about 110 million barrels of oil have been produced from oil shale (principally in the Bakken region of Montana and North Dakota). [2] That’s not per year. That’s a thirty-plus year total. (Our nation uses somewhere around 20 million barrels per day; worldwide the usage is approximately 85 million barrels per day). No one has yet managed a commercially viable method of production. One hundred and ten million barrels doesn’t sound quite that impressive when you stack that up against daily usage.

Most experts, even the most optimistic ones, suggest that it will be decades before oil production from oil shale reaches as much as 200,000 barrels per day. With demand expected to rise to over 100 million barrels per day in the next two decades (ignoring depletion rates in existing fields entirely, which the International Energy Association’s World Energy Outlook 2008 estimated at 6.7% a year and rising [3]), that’s not much of a dent.

Most underdeveloped nations aren’t especially inclined to wait a few more decades to improve their lot. Certainly China and India aren’t idling! Demand will increase, supplies will become more strained, and problems will ensue.

Similarly, most experts have pegged maximum lifetime production from the Alberta tar sands at a total of less than two hundred billion barrels. Not an insignificant amount to be sure, but it will take many decades to extract it all. Even the most optimistic supporters of oil sand production don’t expect production rates of more than a couple of million barrels per day—and that is many, many years down the road.

That won’t help much. It’s even less significant when you factor in the environmental degradation wrought by oil sands mining (as will be discussed in an upcoming post). The amounts of water and natural gas required in the process of extracting oil from the sands will cause its own set of problems in the not-too-distant future. Soil and water contamination issues are also prevalent.

As for the Arctic and offshore areas, there may indeed be “significant” finds, but … hello! Exactly how easily and efficiently is that going to be achieved? How many hundreds of billions of dollars and how many years and how much effort will it take if those areas do turn out to be a bit of a boon once again?

There are reportedly about 10.5 billion barrels of oil available in the ANWR, and tens of billions of barrels offshore. Natural topography and climate alone mean that herculean efforts would be needed … and none of that is free! Experts tell us that offshore fields (ignoring the immense difficulties of extraction/production) decline faster and sooner than fields on land.

If we have to go to those lengths and expenses to locate and produce oil, what does that tell you? No expertise required … just a bit of common sense.

Let’s not ignore the fact that as oil exploration becomes more challenging, expensive, and time-consuming, the energy required to locate and extract the oil increases as well, and thus the net energy gained is much less. Crude oil is a remarkably productive source of energy, and for all the talk about oil from the sands and shale, the return on those sources of energy is minimal in comparison. We’ll need a lot more of those resources to produce the same amount of work as crude oil.

As for technology, if one pays attention to the language used, there’s a lot of “potentially’s” and “maybe’s” and “could’s” and “might’s” liberally sprinkled through the optimistic declarations that peak oil is not an issue. My own favorite is “future discoveries of ‘superfields’ of conventional oil reservoirs could boost world production.” [4] Uh, well … ah, yes, I guess that’s true. Not exactly a solution we can count on, though. Future discoveries that indicate we can get oil from mattresses or hats could also boost world production, but….Need I say more?

The notion that higher gas prices will spur development of new technologies conveniently ignores the fact that there are not oodles of new technologies hiding in laboratory closets just waiting to be loosed on planet Earth next week. I have no doubt that technology will continue to improve the quality of our lives, but technology developed and perfected for commercial usage requires time, energy, effort, and money—among other things. What might prove economically or practically feasible 5, 10, 15, or 50 years from now isn’t of much help … now!

There are legitimate and not-so-legitimate arguments for and against peak oil, and like most complicated issues in this day and age, trying to figure out what is right and what is rightfully ignored is no easy task. I’ll do my best in future posts to help you sort through it all and assist you in coming to a better understanding of Peak Oil and its implications.

Next: Some Related Considerations About The Peak Oil Debate

Sources

[1] http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/saturdayextra/story.html?id=153514b8-0a4f-47d8-a68f-24e779264fcd&p=3
        The age of oil is ending – WILLIAM MARSDEN
[2] http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868
        The Bakken Formation: How Much Will It Help?
[3] http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2008/11/a-peak-oiler-but-still-in-the-closet-iea/
       A Peak-Oiler, but still in the closet? IEA’s 2008 Report
       By Matt Simmons • on November 17, 2008
[4] Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), as noted in http://science.howstuffworks.com/peak-oil2.htm
       Have we reached peak oil? – Josh Clark

Hello, and welcome to my new blog. Thank you for stopping by.

While I expect and plan to discuss other matters of import from time to time and as appropriate, this is first and foremost a blog about Peak Oil. My intent is to share information culled from various sources and then discuss the impact peak oil will have on our everyday lives.

For those unfamiliar with the term, Peak Oil is most often explained as the point when the maximum rate of oil extraction is reached because of technical and geological limitations, with a ceaseless global production decline thereafter. If we’re not at the maximum production levels now (facts would indicate we are), we will be in the not-too-distant future. At this moment, we have absolutely nothing in place to replace the vast amount of energy we derive from the tens of billions of barrels of oil used annually.

Let me state at the outset that I am not an energy or economic expert. I am likewise not a geologist or engineer; my professional and educational background does not suggest that I am “qualified” as a peak oil expert. I understand some will use that against me … but common sense, I hope, still counts for something. Having issued my disclaimer, I am nonetheless much more than just a casual observer. Not an expert, to be sure, but knowledgeable enough.

I first came across the concept of Peak Oil about a year ago, and since then have steadily immersed myself in the facts, opinions, claims, and observations of both its proponents and opponents. I am, in the end, a firm believer in peak oil’s basic premise: we have reached or will soon reach the point where we simply cannot and will not produce any more oil than we already have. However, I don’t think the sky is falling … yet. (But a steady decline will follow soon enough.)

We cannot effectively deal with a problem if we don’t understand how it will affect us, and relatively few understand the magnitude of oil’s influence and presence in their everyday lives. It’s not usually a topic of everyday conversation, so no need to feel as though you’ve been missing anything! But almost everything that sustains or assists us has oil as a basic component: food (fertilizers and transportation), furnishings, cosmetics, plastics … the list of oil-based products is almost endless. There are literally hundreds of thousands of them. Life as we know it does not run without oil … and that’s going to create some challenges for us.

I’d like to do my part to help increase awareness and understanding. That preparation is one of the best ways to deal with inevitable changes.

Peak oil is NOT about running out of oil. Those who dispute the concept invariably—and inaccurately—assert this. It’s a poor attempt to discredit those who are attempting in good faith to help others understand the issues and potential consequences.

I have no doubt that oil will be around for several decades to come. There are still hundreds of billions of barrels in the ground (although quality may be a serious factor, among other related challenges). How easily and inexpensively we get at the oil, extract it, refine it, and then utilize and distribute it to meet increasing demand are entirely different matters, however. Those are the core issues of Peak Oil.

Some who dispute Peak Oil’s looming impact share legitimate critiques, while others strain credulity in their wild-eyed denials and disingenuous claims. I’ll discuss those differing viewpoints and help you understand both sides so that you in turn can make an informed assessment about what we need to do.

I do not want to believe in peak oil for many reasons. For one, I usually find the topic quite depressing. Every informational piece or essay seems more disturbing than the last. I hope every proponent is wrong twice over, but I am not optimistic on that score. I find no solace or benefits in promoting doom and gloom scenarios, so I’m aiming to provide a different perspective about what we’re all going to be dealing with. I’ll leave the heavy-duty technical explanations to those better-qualified than me.

I like our way of life, and am dismayed that it may soon change forever—in quite dramatic ways (not that it hasn’t already). Soon doesn’t necessarily mean “soon” as we are accustomed to using that term, but it’s only a few short years before industry and lifestyles really change. It’s important that we understand why that is.

Let me also state that I am definitely not the peak oil movement’s poster child.

I’m an American consumer through and through, but/and yes, a political and social liberal. To our teens’ never-ending annoyance, we recycle religiously. Nearly every one of the seeming seven million light bulbs in our two homes is an energy-saving one. I installed them all myself. But that’s pretty much it for now.

We own two very nice, new luxury automobiles—one an SUV. We have a terrific second home a short walk from the ocean; less than an hour’s drive from our home in the ‘burbs of Boston. It takes a bus trip, two subway trips, a commuter rail trip, another bus trip at the tail end, and a several hundred yard walk thereafter for us to get to our beach house via public transportation … about 3 hours start to finish if we schedule it right, and that’s not counting the brutal walk up our very long and very steep hill when we return home.

We don’t make that trip … yet. In the summer heat, luggage and supplies get heavy, and quickly. We drive. Often. Always. Sometimes we make two round trips in the same day. Most times we take at least two if not all 3 vehicles (the third belongs to our 3 teenagers. A fourth—car, not teenager—will soon make its appearance in our driveway). We go to our summer home a lot between May and October.

We’ve traveled a fair amount, have lots of neat household toys, and in general have enjoyed a very nice lifestyle in recent years. I do not recite this to boast about what a great life we have, which we admittedly do—none of which I take credit for. We are indeed very, very lucky, and we know it. But I also understand that we won’t be donating or selling any of our possessions in the near or not-so-near future.

Peak Oil idealism often clashes with financial and family realities above ground—part of my dilemma as a peak oil advocate.

I share this to demonstrate at least in part that I am not a bug-eyed, tree-hugging, live off the fat-a-tha-land robe-wearing vegan anxious to shower everyone with liberal doom and gloom tidings while extolling how my family has shed all of its material possessions and has now learned to grow our own food by raising goats and corn on our front lawn and is using leaves and grass clippings to make our clothing while harvesting fire flies to store electricity and discarded branches to heat our animal-skin tent—and then either shaming or frightening you into doing the same. (Sorry, but you’ll have to look elsewhere for that.)

I have many selfish reasons to challenge both the veracity and inevitably of peak oil, and would much prefer that my pleasant, unremarkable suburban life continue undisturbed,  as is. None of that matters. Peak Oil is unforgiving that way. Denial is just … denial. Not particularly useful in the long run, but a wonderful tool of ignorance. It can no longer be one of our options.

So I’m writing this blog to share some ideas and information—or at least enlighten, so that the eventual challenges and problems we’ll have to confront are not all quite the surprise they will otherwise be. Peak oil does matter. We need to understand how, and why. Sooner would be best.

Call it a sense of obligation. I know some things; not necessarily a lot, but some things. I think others will benefit from that knowing, even if they refuse to believe it right now, or for even quite a while. That’s okay. I’ll offer what I have to offer, and leave it to you to decide what to do with it, if anything. No agenda. No strings. No shouting. Just some things to think about.

In my next post, we’ll take a look at some of the facts and considerations that cause many experts to believe we have now reached peak oil—giving you a more specific introduction to this issue. I’ll follow with an examination of the counter-arguments, and we’ll go from there….

I hope you’ll visit again, and share some thoughts, observations, and yes, even criticisms. It can only help us all find ways to treat the reality of peak oil as an opportunity and not a catastrophe. That’s a choice we all own.