Peak Oil Matters

In his presentation to Montana Energy 2012, Michael Economides told Montanans, ‘You are already a superpower in oil production. You have already defied the trends and once again showed the can-do attitude of this industry, smashing the myth of the ‘peak oil’.
‘You have redefined and defied the trends suggesting strongly the future of energy is oil and gas and not solar and wind.’ [1]

Yeah! We’re Number One!

Kinda gives you the chills, doesn’t it?

In an article noteworthy mostly because of its introduction of the word (?) “bizerk” (sic) and the phrase (?) “cut the mustered” (also sic), this cute tug at red, white, and blue American hearts was otherwise free of factual reasoning for “making the whole myth of peak oil a shambles,” according to Mr. Economides.

Why one might ask? Well, according to this article, “The reason places like Montana and Canada stand at the leading edge of the industry is because of conditions that exist in other countries, which are mostly hostile to the US.” That certainly clears things up! And of course “supplies have always increased and continue to meet a demand that only grows” because finite resources uh … uh … are secretly infinite, I guess.

As if that rationale alone wasn’t enough: “Many of these countries are ‘a shambles,’ ‘corrupt,’ and unstable. ‘It is hard to produce oil when people are shooting at you,’ said Economides.” That settles that! (Although I’ll agree completely that doing most anything is likely harder when one is being shot at it … pretty sure it’s not limited to just oil production.)

Just one tiny little problem to pass along before we order our Montana is a Superpower T-shirts. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration earlier this year:

Montana Crude Oil Production is at a current level of 1.823M, down from 1.963M last month and down from 1.867M one year ago. This is a change of -2.64% from last month and -8.79% from one year ago.

So how does a nearly 9% decline make Montana a “superpower in oil production”? According to this chart, in 2011 Montana was producing about 66,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The United States is using somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 – 19 million barrels of oil per day. So Reality Math tells us that supplying .00356% doesn’t exactly make one a “superpower,” or even a power, or even a pow….Pretty safe bet that whatever unconventionals Montana managed to scrape up didn’t make much of a dent in that percentage contribution. Just more damned facts getting in the way of perfectly good sound bites! (Of course, in Fact-Free Math-Isn’t-Useful World, those numbers tell us instead that Montana supplied exactly 63.826% of our oil needs.)

Raising a point argued by many others disinclined to consider what’s really happening with crude oil production and what’s not happening with unconventional oil production such as shale oil and tar sands, the article adds: “Economides expressed disappointment with the US Geological Survey and the degree to which they fail to take increasing prices into account in making their projections regarding supply. Increased prices increase the amount that producers can afford to invest, which puts into production resources that they previously considered uneconomical to recover.”

I find it a source of never-ending amusement that these “increased prices” are never viewed from the perspective of the end users: you and me. Higher prices allowing for investments in the exploration of previously untapped (and inferior, more expensive, more costly, etc., etc.) unconventional reserves is one end of a stick. Higher prices paid by you and me is the other end, and we don’t actually think that’s such a good thing….Imagine that!

“Economides predicted that $100 a barrel oil is the new norm.” Well isn’t that such good news!

And there’s more!

Economides pointed out that going back decades in the US, oil, gas and coal – the fossil fuels – have consistently contributed 87 percent of the fuel used in the country. He said that the day will come when his great, great grandchild ‘will stand here and tell you that 87 percent of the US fuels come from hydrocarbons,’ said Economides, ‘There are no alternatives to oil and gas.
And, that comes even with the increased demand for fossil fuels. In 1973, ‘the world energy demand was 60 percent of what it is today,’ and in 2030 it will be 50 percent more than what it is today,’ but still 87 percent will come from oil, gas and coal. ‘Production from other energies may grow, but they will not be where the 87 percent is going to come from.’

That is some kind of math … nothing to substantiate it and clearly unlike anything I ever learned, but definitely some kind of math!

So how does that work? We have depleting conventional oil fields; production of unconventional and inferior (and more costly, etc., etc.) substitutes not even matching depletion rates (see this, for example); increasing demand; decades more demand and use, and yet we’re to believe that supply will still magically meet demand for another … hundred and fifty years or so? Seriously?

A few months back, Mason Inman had an interesting observation (duly noted by others, including Robert Hirsch/The Hirsch Report – see Category sidebar) about the same kind of math (apparently from the same Fact-Free Talking Points handbook), with a concluding sentence that puts a nice bow on the discussion:

OPEC members in the Middle East have reserve numbers that are—to put it politely—magical. These countries’ figures for ‘proved reserves’ only go up or stay flat—and never go down. Kuwait’s ‘proved reserves’ stayed at 96.5 billion barrels from 1991 to 2002, and then have crept upward from there. From 1989 to today, Saudi Arabia’s ‘proved reserves’ have barely budged, creeping up slightly from 260.1 to 264.6 billion barrels. Meanwhile, these countries have produced tens of billions of barrels of oil. It’s as if a huge corporation told auditors that their bank account always held exactly $572 million dollars, for decades. It’s not believable [my emphasis]. [2]

But if you still aren’t convinced, we have this: “‘How can you have too much of a good thing?’ he asked, pointing out the importance of Canada, as a friendly country, and a dependable source of oil for the US.” Doesn’t it just warm your heart when the deniers mention Canada the Friendly Country as our primary supplier? It’s exactly how I felt as a child when I heard about Casper the Friendly Ghost … just all warm and fuzzy! Who needs reality and facts when you can just smile about friendly things….

Lest you’re thinking I believe the entire article was pure nonsense, I did agree with this, although with a caveat as to the first point:

Economides questioned every alternative energy option as being an ineffective alternative to fossil fuels.
He called ethanol a scam, because it takes 1.6 gallons of gasoline to produce one gallon of ethanol – not to mention the negative impact on food prices.

Every alternative energy option IS an ineffective alternative, and will continue to be as long as we make certain that we conduct no research and make no investments in discovering what the potential might be (and no guarantees, to be sure). Nope, let’s just make sure the profitable oil companies remain profitable, while we explain no truths about a finite resource, downplaying the fact that if every day you have less of Product X than the day before and more demand every day for the same Product X, the rules of math (and geology) will nonetheless be set aside and all will be well forever.

A fine story indeed, warm-hearted and all good things … except that it’s all bullshit. Other than that, no objections.

So what’s it going to take for more people to “get it” and fewer people to keep passing out nonsense as fossil fuel gospel. A couple of clues to assist: Who benefits? Who loses?

Not that difficult to figure it out … and a damn good reason to start thinking and planning.

More to come….

Sources:

[1] http://www.bigskybusiness.com/index.php/business/economy/2488-making-shambles-of-oil-peak-myth’; Making ‘Shambles’ of ‘Oil Peak Myth’ by Evelyn Pyburn – 04.18.12
[2] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-09-26/%E2%80%9C-quest%E2%80%9D-questioned-series; “The Quest” questioned – the series by Mason Inman – 09.26.11 [Original article: http://failinggracefully.com/?p=2850 ]

During the last century, society squandered 500 million years of captured sunlight on drag races, traffic jams, private jets and overheated office buildings – warns campaign group

Oil company cheerleaders proclaiming huge supplies of oil are dead wrong. Peak oil is as real as rain, and it is here now. Not 2050. Not 2020. Now. Oil production has been flat since 2005. This is not by choice. The producers cannot increase production because new fields cannot keep pace with declining production from old fields. The plateau is the top of the global depletion curve. Furthermore, this end of energy growth only accounts for volume. Energy quality and net-energy are falling like stones as environmental devastation increases. Every producing oil field on earth is in decline, unless it is brand new, and peak discoveries are well behind us. Meanwhile, the aggregate decline rate appears to be about 5 per cent per year. To maintain world production, we would need to bring a new Saudi Arabia – equivalent to three billion barrels annually – into full production every three years. There exists on earth not one single promising field that remotely approaches those requirements.

(The oil plateau: The calm before the decline. Reference: The Oil Drum.)

When you read or hear about “10 billion barrels” of oil discovered somewhere, here is how to think about that – a third of that is probably not recoverable or entirely illusory. The recoverable portion will require a billion barrels of oil equivalent energy to produce; in the tar sands it would take three billion barrels. What is left, about five or six billion barrels, equates to about a two-month supply for humanity. Two months. We will not “run out of oil” because, simply, we will never get it all. What petroleum geologists point out is that all oil fields have a production curve, a peak and a decline. Therefore, the earth’s total supply has a peak and decline.

But that is not all, the volume decline includes a decline in quality and net energy. As oil fields reach old age, energy returned on energy invested plummets and production costs soar for a lower quality product. Over the last century, oil producers have high-graded earth’s energy storehouse, and the best net-energy reserves disappeared 70 years ago. Oil in its heyday – the 1930 and 1940s – produced 100:1 net-energy, a hundred barrels out for one barrel of energy invested. Today, oil fields range from 20:1 to 10:1. The United States average is 11:1. We are now digging into the 3:1 net-energy tar sands. Energy expert Howard Odum warned of the net energy curve in the 1970s and geologist Marion King Hubbert graphed the oil decline in the 1950s.

(Peak discoveries occurred 50 years ago. Reference: Exxon Mobile, from The Oil Drum.)

United States oil production peaked in 1970, exactly as Hubbert predicted. In this era, the US spent millions to topple governments in oil nations and install US-friendly dictators such as Shah Pahlavi in Iran. Lately, America has spent billions to fight its own creations – Saddam Hussein, the Taliban – to gain access to the oil fields. They now contemplate opening a front in Syria to go after Iranian oil, for which they lost control when the Iranians toppled their puppet Shah.

In 2010, the US Military Joint Forces Command predicted the end of “surplus oil production capacity” – their way of saying “peak oil” – and warned “the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10-million barrels per day”. They also predicted that this oil decline “would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds” and “such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and have serious economic impact on China and India”. This is the US military talking. When politicians tell you the next war is “not about the oil” – rest assured it is about the oil.

In 1912, as the British navy switched from coal to oil Winston Churchill said flatly: “You have got to find the oil – purchased regularly and cheaply in peace, and with absolute certainty in war.” In the end, the Second World War was about oil and won by oil. During the war, the US produced 880 million tons of oil, Russia 100 million tons, Japan five million tons, and Germany 30 million tons; and most of this by expensive coal-to-liquid technology. Germany entered North Africa to secure oil and entered Russia to reach the Caspian Baku oil fields. German minister for war production Albert Speer conceded in his post war interrogation: “The need for oil certainly was a prime motive.” They failed, and the German war machine literally ran out of gas – as Rommel abandoned his empty, fuel-gobbling tanks in the Libyan Desert. Prior to the 1990 Gulf War, US Defence Secretary Dick Cheney revealed: “We’re there because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil would have a stranglehold on the world economy.” So there you have it. All this bloodshed is over dwindling oil reserves and the pipelines to deliver the black goop to refineries and markets.

Charles Hall, at the State University of New York, has calculated that it is not possible to run our complex civilisation on a net-energy below about 6:1 – because society needs that reserve energy to run its transportation, agriculture, health systems and so forth. The tar sands 3:1 net energy is simply pathetic. A salmon does better chasing herring. An Amish farmer gets 10:1 net energy with hand tools. I suspect most of the industry cheerleaders talking about “giant discoveries” and “energy gluts” know this. Still, they spin every new oil discovery as an arrival in the Promised Land, pump stock plays and promote their industry. In our world, that is legal. But it is not really honest. In April 2011, chief economist of the International Energy Agency Fatih Birol revealed what the industry knows: “We think that the crude oil production has already peaked, in 2006.”

And since the population is growing, peak oil per capita occurred in 1979. We have now reached the absolute peak. Without increasing energy sources, we cannot increase economic activity. We can print money and harvest the earth’s assets and make it look like growth – for a while – but the piper will be paid. Nature shall not be mocked. In 2008, when the economy appeared to be roaring and traders pitched mortgage-backed securities on unsuspecting clients, energy production had ceased growing. As a result, the oil price almost tripled from $50 per barrel to $147. This equated to a $3 trillion increase to the world’s annual energy bill, which sucked discretionary income from every other market and helped crash the global economy.

When the economy collapsed, oil prices fell. But as economies recover even slightly, the price will rise again since supply is restrained. Blaming the US President Barack Obama for rising energy prices is another con job. Blame nature. She just cannot make more of the stuff fast enough. During the last century, society burned the best half of recoverable hydrocarbons that represented 500 million years of captured sunlight; a one-time storehouse of high quality, concentrated energy. We squandered it on drag races, traffic jams, private jets and overheated office buildings. We burned this valuable asset and called it “income.” If you did that in your home, you would go bankrupt. Peak oil is real. The consequences – at best – will be a slowly scaled-down industrial civilisation. If we continue to ignore these facts, the consequences will be far worse. Nature just is not sentimental.

Rex Weyler is an executive member of the Vancouver Peak Oil campaign group

Here we go again. Every time gasoline prices spike, no matter the reason, Republican leaders and talk radio’s libertarian elite reach for the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) latest talking points and crank up the ‘drill, baby, drill’ rhetoric….
The GOP’s real energy crisis is one of focus. Republican leaders are focusing their energy on keeping America overly dependent on a resource that is far more plentiful outside our own borders. They largely dismiss the strategy of reducing demand and seem content to have us suck our own limited oil reserves dry as quickly as possible. It is a phony solution that they think will play well politically.
Peddling geologic ignorance may score some points with voters who don’t know any better, but it won’t bring the promised relief at the pump. [1]

That quote is almost a year old, but carries no less weight today.

With the GOP now both apoplectic at (1), what our Kenyan-Colonialist-Muslim-Socialist-Martian-Taxaholic-America-hating President (did I mention he’s not a white guy?) is doing to gasoline prices (all by himself, no less, and undoubtedly for non-patriotic, anti-religious purposes … possibly involving contraception and spending of some sort) and (2), relishing the opportunity to blame him for these rising prices (in their economic-fact-free world), I thought it might be useful to trot out an old post of mine, also from a year ago.

Not surprising, the gas prices issue is also giving rise to the same nonsense as was featured in 2011. No need to update with new quotes; they all come from the same Book of Nonsense.

With Newt Gingrich blessing us with revelations obtained from his most recent beyond-Earth’s-atmosphere trip to Planet Delusional Obnoxious Neanderthal that he and he alone will bring the price of gasoline back down to $2.50 per gallon in his Administration (unless some stuff involving reality happens and he … uh, can’t), perhaps we ought to try a different tack and see what facts suggest, just for comparison.

You know what they are, Right? Declining supply; increasing demand; increasing exploration, production, and refining costs; inferior quality substitutes; geopolitical considerations … ring any bells? (Not even Cheerful Newt, with the keen powers only a genuine, incredibly well-paid historian possesses, can prevent any of this.)

So with only a few editorial tweaks, let’s re-visit: “Apparently, Clueless IS A Strategy.”

[NOTE: This is the latest installment in a new PeakOilMatters series (which started here). It’s about finding a new and better vision to get to, through, and beyond Peak Oil and its widespread impact on what we produce, how we produce, and how we live. We won’t be falling off a cliff tomorrow, and the full brunt of Peak Oil’s effects won’t be experienced all at once, either. Gas and oil do not have to disappear entirely, nor do gas prices have to rise into the stratosphere before Peak Oil’s impact is felt.
Gradually, but inexorably, changes will be in the offing, however. We need to come to a better understanding of this, and start preparing ourselves now for the lengthy transition and just as lengthy ongoing impact of Peak Oil on all of us. Many issues must of necessity be considered, and I hope to make a contribution to the public dialogue we need to have. I hope you’ll find these objectives enjoyable as well as beneficial. We have more of a voice than we think we do. Finding that voice just might be our best hope.]

~~~

We’re blindly focused on searching for answers within our old paradigm of energy and it’s a vision that really needs to shift. [1]

I began a multi-part series entitled Clueless Is Not A Strategy (first post here) whose primary purpose was to argue that in the face of growing oil production challenges, we need to start having serious, adult conversations about what we’ll all soon be facing (yes, even those who deny the reality of Peak Oil). Remaining ignorant of the facts about oil production, oil supply, and increasing demand; or relying on ignorant or at best disingenuous arguments which urge us not to worry and be happy about our energy resources (if only we can stop our nefarious President with his socialist policies from implementing evil, job-killing regulations … have I covered most of the Buzz-Words of the Day?), is, I proposed, not our best approach.

It would appear, (unfortunately), that some of our fearless “leaders” haven’t gotten the strategy memo—or they are still working from the wrong one. Clueless reigns supreme in some corners of Congress—yet another display of the remarkable ability of some to completely ignore facts and simultaneously plan as far ahead as early next week.

Where is the president’s plan for rising gas prices? – Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)

Now is the time to be asking what we can do to increase domestic energy production, not proposing ways to squeeze American families even more,’ -  Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

‘My message today simply is the higher gas prices are simply a product of this administration’s goal [to enact a cap-and-trade plan to curb emissions of greenhouse gases].’ – Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) *

‘Since this administration has taken over, they have done everything to block energy development in this country,’ – Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)

Seriously? Must be part of the Socialist-Alien-Kenyan-Muslim-Not Exceptional-Completely-Ruin-The Country-Just-For-The-Hell-Of-It strategy Obama obviously began pursuing nefariously with his nefarious parents since shortly after his birth on a still-undetermined planet somewhere in our solar system.

Imagine that: an opposition party assailing the President because he (with his magical superpowers over all of commerce and industry) simply has not ordered prices to drop. If only he would stop pursuing regulations that raise gas prices just for the hell of it. What is Obama waiting for? (And while I have his attention, still waiting on lowering college tuition costs for our two daughters….)

Just how clueless are they, and how much of their nonsense will we permit to guide policy in the weeks ahead? They still don’t get it….We have leaders (including Democrats) still making the same pointless pronouncements about “weaning ourselves off of/ending our foreign oil dependency” while they now consider opening up our Strategic Petroleum Reserve because gas prices are high … and still doing absolutely nothing about the underlying causes. (And sorry, Ms. Palin and your loyal followers, “drill, baby, drill” is still as dumb and useless a policy as it was two years ago. See this for more information.)

To his credit, Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, said that the petroleum reserve should be left untouched absent a severe disruption in supply or other emergency. Hard to believe I know, but higher prices at the pump should not qualify as an “emergency.” (Jim DiPeso offered a terrific summary of the reasons against opening up the Reserve.)

As I noted in another post (echoing the realities explained by others much more knowledgeable than me): “For all the talk of the ‘massive’ amounts of oil offshore and in Alaska and the ‘obvious’ need for us to just ‘drill, baby, drill’, we’re several decades away from full production in those regions, and the amounts anticipated will wind up meeting far less than even 5% of our needs. None of it will come cheaply. Drilling in the Arctic is a wee bit more challenging than punching a hole in the ground in Texas, and one does not require an engineering degree to understand that. The ‘drill, baby, drill’ crowd never gets around to spelling any of that out for us. Magical thinking is nice, as is a denial of pesky truths, but on the planet we occupy, it’s a fairly useless exercise.”

Oil is produced and consumed in particular places, but there’s a single worldwide price of oil that’s determined by global supply and global demand. It’s not possible for one country to unilaterally alter the price its own citizens pay at the pump by altering the quantity of oil it produces. A new well in the United States has exactly the same impact on global prices as a new well in Norway or Venezuela or Saudi Arabia and thus the exactly the same impact on the price American consumers pay.
And yet turn it into a political story and suddenly all this knowledge drops away. [3]

Gas prices are higher, and that’s not going to change much in the weeks and months and years to come absent recessions—and it’s best if we not actually plan on falling into another one of those. It may tick off a significant segment of the population and those leaders who seem to think that we are just entitled to lower gas prices because we’re … you know … special, but here’s the message: Grow up and get used to it! We’re better than that, and we need to demonstrate it now. Our future well-being demands no less than recognition of facts and reality. Ideology is nice and serves its own purposes, but it ought to have a much more limited role going forward.

We have a problem with oil production now—not just here in the United States—and it is not going to get better. Demand is increasing, and the amount of oil now being produced will not keep up with that increasing demand. Unfortunately for those who don’t like hearing that kind of news, we Americans do not live in protective bubble. Billions of other people in less-developed nations are eagerly and diligently working to elevate the quality of their lives, and they all need energy to make that happen … the same energy sources we use. More demand for shrinking supply = less for everyone, even we exceptional Americans. Higher prices are part of the ride. Reality.

It is not rocket science. It is not another in a long line of delusional nefarious, Muslim-supporting, job-killing, regulation-creating, socialist conspiracies, despite the best efforts of some self-serving, narrow-minded politicians and media personnel looking to score points with a select group of citizens who also don’t seem to get it. They’re better than that, too.

Higher prices are one noteworthy consequence of a finite resource that can no longer be extracted in amounts, in time, in the right conditions, at optimum quality, and at prices sufficient to meet ever-increasing demand. Facts. Yes, Middle East turmoil has something to do with those price hikes right now—perhaps most of it. But above and beyond this particular geopolitical constraint, we’re now entering a stage on the historical time line of fossil fuel production where supply will not meet demand. Period. It is just that simple. That basic economic problem carries with it a host of consequences and outcomes.

As demand grows in the next decade, we will not have the oil production capacity we will need to meet demand. Supply will then have to ration demand, and prices will skyrocket – with the likely outcome of bringing the world’s economy to its knees. - John B. Hess, chairman and chief executive of the Hess Corporation [4]

Republican House Speaker John Boehner offered his energy insights:

‘As gas prices go up, so does the cost of everyday life,’ [he] told reporters as he unveiled a campaign dubbed the ‘America Energy Initiative’ to increase supplies and roll back regulations.
‘It costs more to drive to work, to buy groceries, or just to get the kids to school. And at a time when our economy already isn’t creating enough jobs, rising gas prices hurt the very people we need to lead us out of our economic crisis: Small businesses,’ he said.

Coming from leadership whose insane and shortsighted budget-cutting proposals are derided by not just Democratic economists but also independents, Wall Street analysts, and John McCain’s own Presidential campaign economic advisor (among others, here) as doing nothing but costing hundreds of thousands of more jobs while pushing us closer to another recession, the Speaker’s concerns about creating jobs rings a tad hollow (although nice job on getting another buzz-phrase: small business, into the comments!). But should we be surprised? It’s all about the sound bites and not the unpleasant truths….We deserve better.

Not to be outdone, Senator McConnell was quoted as saying that we will all be dependent on fossil fuels for “decades to come.” If I were to tell you that your ears will bleed for decades to come, is that the beginning and end of my conversation with you? Might there be at least one moment when you pondered a couple of things in response? “Is this a good thing? Why is that? Would it make sense to change the behaviors or factors causing my ears to bleed?” Just wondering….

Another unpleasant and sure-to-tick-off some truth is that we—you and me—share blame as well.

The success, to date, of fossil fuels being able to meet energy demand any time required has led to a feeling of society wide unrealistic entitlement. This translates into a belief that whatever we want we can always have whenever we want it. This of course is leading to problems as it patently can no longer be maintained. [5]

We will need to be better and wiser than that. We are, so let’s prove it.

There’s no disputing that higher gas prices put a strain on most budgets, both personal and business. That in turn sets all kinds of financial dominoes into motion, with few of them leading to pleasant results. But unless and until we can individually and collectively wrap our minds around the fact that this is just the beginning stages of an entirely new way of living, transporting, producing, and consuming, we’ll continue to look for the same band-aid solutions that will only defer more pain until a bit later on, making the problems all the more difficult to contend with. That’s not much of a strategy. At some point, we need to find our courage and our wisdom so that we make new choices, have new plans and policies, and deal with a future that will be unlike the past in more ways than any of us probably realize.

And an aspect of courage easily overlooked or simply ignored is that regardless of one’s political philosophy, when leadership pursues policies clearly at odds with our long-term interests—even though the policy is entirely consistent with the ideology—something has to give. Since when is shooting ourselves in the foot a noble principle? We all pay a price when we meekly accept an absence of integrity and honesty in political discourse or policy-making itself.

This is not doom-and-gloom for next week or next month, but the process of stagnating if not outright declining oil production has begun. It will unfold over a considerable period of time, and in that regard we’ll have at least some opportunities to “adjust.” But that cannot be our salvation nor can it be the guiding principle for what we need to do as individuals, in our communities, and through our government.

“No plans = unnecessary chaos.” – Chris Martenson

We have both the opportunity and the capabilities to create a recognizable future for ourselves. Failing to take advantage leaves us at the mercy of a fossil fuel tidal wave that will in time change the landscape beyond anything we can envision now. I’d like to believe none of us thinks that that is our best strategy.

More to come….

* See the terrific Steve Benen discussion of the bizarre “reasoning” behind this comment.

[NOTE: I’ll be traveling the rest of this week. Please look for the 3rd and final installment in my series: Peak Oil Denial: Alive, Well, Still Not Helping next Monday.]

Sources:

[1] http://peakoil.com/consumption/the-energy-prophet/; The energy prophet – Peter Tertzakian’s conversation with Derek Brower, October 28, 2010 (original article at http://www.petroleum-economist.com/default.asp?page=14&PubID=46&ISS=25702&SID=727276
[2] http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110310/pl_afp/mideastunrestuseconomypoliticsoil; US Republicans assail Obama as gas prices rise – March 10, 2011
[3] http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/oil-a-commodity-traded-on-a-global-marketplace/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+%28Matthew+Yglesias%29; Oil: A Commodity Traded On A Global Marketplace – March 11, 2011
[4] http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/a-dark-warning-on-global-oil-demand/#more-94428; A Dark Warning on Global Oil Demand By Clifford Krauss – March 8, 2011
[5] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-25/how-sustainable-renewable-energy; How sustainable is renewable energy? by Roger Adair – November 25, 2010

A few more of those annoying facts to keep in mind as we (don’t) prepare for looming energy challenges, courtesy of three recent and excellent articles/interviews well worth the time to review in full [see Sources below for the links]:

Nothing can replace oil as the lifeblood of our culture and there is no domestic supply source which will eliminate or even reduce our dependence upon the 10 million barrels per day we import from foreign countries. There are some hard truths that are purposefully ignored by those who want to mislead the public about the grim consequences of peak cheap oil:
* The earth is finite. The amount of oil within the crust of the earth is finite. As we drain 32 billion barrels of oil from the earth every year, there is less remaining within the earth. We have drained the cheapest and easiest to reach 1.4 trillion barrels from the earth since the mid 1800s. The remaining recoverable 1.4 trillion barrels will be expensive and hard to reach. [1]

While it is critical we invest our current resources to finding solutions to the approaching energy gap, it’s also essential we approach the situation realistically and with as little magical thinking as possible. Currently, the US is consuming 10 million barrels per day more than it produces domestically….The short of it is there is going to be no single fuel source that replaces oil, and the transition to a post-Peak Oil future is going to involve a period of “less energy” for society for an undetermined period of time. [2]

We tend to have self-confidence in our ability to solve any problem. But we have no historical analog to the peak of fossil fuels, without a clear (and superior) replacement on the horizon. As a result of our fossil fuel binge, we have unprecedented problems in population, water, agriculture, fisheries, pollution, climate change, and so on. Our moment in history is rather special. It is dangerous to assume that we’ll gracefully handle problems at this scale, because such assumptions amount to dismissals and concomitant inaction. Unacceptable.
It bothers me that we don’t have a plan. It scares me that we (collectively) don’t think we even need a plan. Faith in the market to solve the problem represents a high-stakes gamble. We can and should do better. [3]

Another in the body of recurring themes of Peak Oil Matters is that we do ourselves no favors by denial and delusion. The psychological purposes they serve are no match for the potential harm we’ll cause ourselves over a much longer period of time by ignoring, hoping, or wishing. Strategies available to us, of course, but their usefulness—such as it may be—is completely useless at this point.

The authors above each discuss similar themes raised in prior posts of mine and by any number of others doing their best to put us all on notice that we need to start thinking about the energy issues at hand, and then thinking differently about how to address the challenges. More importantly, planning should be among our top priorities starting about ten years ago. We’re a wee bit behind.

Echoing proposals I offered several months ago (as have others), Jim Quinn boils it down succinctly:

If our society acted in a far sighted manner, we would be creating communities that could sustain themselves with local produce, local merchants, bike paths, walkable destinations, local light rail commuting, and local energy sources.

And Tom Murphy bolsters that theme, citing the much-discussed and highly-respected The Hirsch Report (a subject I’ve covered in a number of prior posts; see the Category in the sidebar):

The bottom line was that initiating all such crash programs in parallel 20 years ahead of the peak (or more to the point, 20 years before the start of decline) may be sufficient to avoid major hardships. Waiting until 10 years before the decline would result in major disruptions as the efforts struggled to establish a large enough foothold in time for the decline. Initiating the crash program at the moment the decline starts was characterized as having catastrophic repercussions. Not treated was the more politically realistic scenario of waiting until 5 years after the start of decline while we bicker about the fundamental cause of our woes and strategies for mitigation….
Because we will more likely wait until the pain of decline has made itself clear, we may find ourselves handicapped by recession and debt, hampering our ability to act boldly….
… [S]tarting a crash program toward replacement of finite fossil fuels too early has great up-sides and marginal downsides (opportunity cost); but failure to act has enormous downside for marginal upside.

What exactly are we waiting for? For all the happy talk about the “potential possible if only we do X and Y might work” options discussed by others [as I’ve cited ad nauseum in the many “Denial” posts], too many of us have been lulled into a false sense of security that the problems—if any—are being handled.

Jim Quinn wasn’t as “kind” in his assessment (but he’s right) while pointing out a serious consequence of this pattern of deceptions and half-truths offered up by not only politicians but also by many in the oil industry who know better (and, as I’ve also emphasized repeatedly, by our own failure so far to learn more):

American presidents have propagated the Big Lie of energy independence for the last three decades. The Democrats have lied about green energy solutions and the Republicans have lied about domestic sources saving the day. These deceitful politicians put the country at risk as they misinform and mislead the non-thinking American public….
The propaganda blared at the impressionable willfully ignorant American public has worked wonders. The vast majority of Americans have no clue they have entered a world of energy scarcity.

For all the talk about the magic of Technology riding to the rescue, almost all of the research, planning, testing, marketing, etc., etc., etc required before establishing various Plan Bs as solutions require fossil fuels to make the processes happen from A to Z. What gets prioritized in a future with fewer of those resources available to begin with? Just how quickly will these various, successfully-tested and fully-implemented Plan Bs be showing up on our doorsteps?

Does anyone have a full appreciation for just how much and how many (processes, productions, transportation plans, products, etc., etc.) will have to be effectively and efficiently converted/prepared/tested for successful utilization of these Magic Technology Saviors (while fossil fuel reserves continue their steady march down the Depletion Slope)?

As Tom Murphy so nicely summed up: “Even though energy may represent something like 10% of GDP, it’s what makes the other 90% possible.”

Is anyone paying attention to the energy “quality” of all the alternatives being considered/hoped for? There’s not a single unconventional (tar sands, shale) or alternative (wind, solar, etc) energy resource that comes close to matching the energy density and efficiency of the hundreds of billions of barrels of crude oil we’ve consumed in the last century and a half. Hello! One need not be schooled in quantum physics, advanced algebra, or geology to appreciate that replacements which are for starters less efficient and more costly are not going to actually “replace” crude oil’s extensive benefits. They’re at best poor substitutes, and how might the consequences of that fact play themselves out for the billions of people with their trillions of products and demands and needs currently supplied by crude oil? Hello again!

With almost all of the major oil fields now on the downslope of their own production peaks, how much stock should any of us be putting in the still-rosy assessments of ramped-up production from those same fields over the next few decades? How does that math work? (We’re of course blindly assuming that these primary oil exporters will of course continue to serve the needs of Americans before … their own citizens? Seriously? Who gets to deliver that message? Safe to assume there might be a complaint or two?)

The most optimistic, arguably-realistic assessments about production potentials of the various unconventional and alternative resources will barely match current depletion rates. It’s now been several decades since we were finding more oil than was being consumed. Given that these crude oil wannabes aren’t as efficient, what kind of math is     being passed around to make this all seem acceptable and not worth a moment’s worth of concern?

As Tom Murphy again summed up for us:

The geological upshot is that oil is not a lake into which we thrust a straw, slurping as fast as we wish. Rather, oil is a viscous fluid in porous, permeable rock that resists rapid recovery. It’s not a spigot or valve that we can turn at will. Nature has a say in how fast we can claim the oil….
The lesson is that we don’t have full control over oil production. If previous discoveries are in decline, and we are not adding new fields at a replacement rate, we should expect aggregate decline.

Each of the three referenced authors do us all a great service by discussing these and other relevant considerations (economic and geopolitical, for example) which put a bit of a crimp in the blind happy talk which gets far too much airplay … at our expense.

I think I can safely speak for each of them, and almost every other proponent of Peak Oil, when I say that I would LOVE to be wrong about all of this! But the harsher truth is that there are just too many warning signs in too many aspects of fossil fuel exploration, discovery, production, cost, quality, and supply to ignore it all and expect that hope, wishes, good thoughts, and crossed fingers are all we need.

The potential exists, therefore, for major disruption to our accustomed ways of life. We will become viscerally aware of how fundamentally important oil is to all that we do.. It’s not just another commodity like sneakers or widgets. Curtail transportation and watch the grocery store shelves struggle to stay full. See food prices escalate and cause immediate hardships around the world. Find out how far-flung about the globe the material resources are that comprise a cell phone. [Tom Murphy]

So, assuming the Peak Oil camp is on to something, what’s the likelihood for a disruption-free transition to another energy source that can replace the energy output we currently enjoy from oil? … How realistic are these hopes?
Not very. [Martenson and Rapier]

Shouldn’t we at least be having broader and more meaningful discussions starting right about now?

Sources:

[1] http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31542.html; U.S. Energy Independence – The Big Lie by James Quinn – 11.15.11
[2] http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/robert-rapier-scientific-challenges-replacing-oil-renewables/65387; Robert Rapier: The Scientific Challenges To Replacing Oil with Renewables [interview with Robert Rapier by Chris Martenson, posted by Adam] – 11.26.11
[3] http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/peak-oil-perspective/; Using physics and estimation to assess energy, growth, options by Tom Murphy – 11.01.11

A few more thoughts on the heels of Monday’s post.

In a recent article on energy, climate change, and sports, Amanda Little shared an anecdote about an iconic National Football League team.

“The new Dallas Cowboy’s stadium, for instance, is an energy-guzzling Colossus averaging $200,000 in monthly utility bills and consuming about as much power as Santa Monica, California. (A conventional scoreboard, on its own, can devour as much electricity annually as 100 homes.)” [1]

Can we really continue to afford to think that this kind of energy excess can and will continue? Is that level of energy usage of greater priority or importance than powering neighborhoods? The truth we need to come to terms right about now is that absent some magnificent new discovery that comes into play very quickly and successfully, we may find ourselves having to make some painful determinations about energy consumption priorities that will have ripple effects in many aspects of everyday living—commercially and personally.

As has been noted by a number of bloggers and organizations, the International Energy Agency has now stopped dancing around the issue and finally admitted that Peak Oil was reached back in 2006. One of its prominent officials has once again indicated that “the era of cheap oil is over.”

Consider just a few more facts on the ground: exploration (deep water or tar sands, anyone?) and production has become more difficult and certainly more expensive, to say nothing of the resource quality. The primary exporters of oil are experiencing increasing domestic demand, and so naturally they are keeping more oil for their own national use. Hard not to understand that that just means less for everyone else. The majority of large producing oil fields are experiencing an inexorable decline in production. A poor worldwide economic environment has restricted investment in exploration and production, and there quite clearly will not be a ramp-up quickly or inexpensively. China is leading the way in higher demand for oil. On and on it goes….

These and many other frequently-discussed factors are going to have an impact soon if that process hasn’t already started. The situation simply is not going to get better, as disheartening as that may be. We’re all going to have to recognize a different set of rules about fossil fuel availability and consumption.

While alternative energy development is a primary source of hope, David Fridley’s excellent chapter in The Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st Century’s Sustainability Crises [2] has pointed out some very important limitations that need to be recognized and appreciated.

Mr. Fridley offers this important consideration:

“Alternative energy sources will need to form the backbone of a future energy system.
“That system, however, will not be a facsimile of the system we have today based on continuous uninterrupted supply growing to meet whatever demand is placed on it. As we move away from the energy bounty provided by fossil fuels, we will become increasingly reliant on tapping the current flow of energy from the sun (wind, solar) and on new energy manufacturing processes that will require ever larger consumption of resources (biofuels, other manufactured liquids, batteries). What kind of society we can build on this foundation is unclear, but it will most likely require us to pay more attention to controls on energy demand to accommodate the limitations of our future energy supply. Moreover, the modern focus on centralized production and distribution may be hard to maintain, since local conditions will become increasingly important in determining the feasibility of alternative energy production.” (p.13)

And a few more “for instances” from this terrific piece that we need to keep in mind about our supposed Alternative Energy Knight In Shining Armor:

“… —alternative energy depends heavily on specially engineered equipment and infrastructure for capture or conversion, essentially making it a high-tech manufacturing process. However, the full supply chain for alternative energy, from raw materials to manufacturing, is still very dependent on fossil-fuel energy for mining, transport, and materials production. Alternative energy faces the challenge of how to supplant a fossil-fuel-based supply chain with one driven by alternative energy forms themselves in order to break their reliance on a fossil-fuel foundation.” (p.3)

“Closely related to the issue of scalability and timing is commercialization, or the question of how far away a proposed alternative energy source stands from being fully commercialized. Often, newspaper reports of a scientific laboratory breakthrough are accompanied by suggestions that such a breakthrough represents a possible “solution” to our energy challenges. In reality, the average time frame between laboratory demonstration of feasibility and full large-scale commercialization is twenty to twenty-five years. Processes need to be perfected and optimized, patents developed, demonstration tests performed, pilot plants built and evaluated, environmental impacts assessed, and engineering, design, siting, financing, economic, and other studies undertaken.” (p.5)

When you add to that mix the fact that alternative energy supplies are currently inconsistent in terms of availability, and are much less efficienct than fossil fuels (i.e., we’ll need even more alternative energy to do what lesser quantities of oil provide)—among other factors Mr. Fridley takes great care to inform us of, we do not have adequate solutions/replacements in place.

There are no magic alternatives out there in Energy Solution Land that we can just drop in to our homes and industries and automobiles overnight and then just carry on without so much a single hiccup of interruption or inconvenience. (For all the good that electric vehicles offer, let’s not forget that we do not have the kind of infrastructure in place that will enable us to power an entire new generation of replacement vehicles—at least not without using considerable amounts of fossil fuel-burning power plants to power them up and keep them powered up.)

While our understandable preference may be to just bull our way forward on a blind assumption that something will come to the rescue, reality suggests otherwise. A broader understanding and awareness is called for—notably among and by our political leaders—but so too must the rest of us begin to recognize what looms on the horizon. Peak Oil does not mean our comfy little worlds are going to collapse next week or even soon (however we prefer to define that), but the reality that we’ve now maxed-out worldwide oil production and will never exceed those levels means we’re on the downside of availability.

Everything that we’ve come to rely upon oil for (in other words, pretty much everything), is going to be impacted. And that means we’re going to be impacted. The more of us who appreciate the challenges, the more intelligent our choices will be to plan for the needed adaptations.

We clearly cannot and must not be confident that a limited few will always act in the best interests of the majority. Congress has done a magnificent job of assuring us of that fact. But relying on our government is a necessity nonetheless.

“The Federal Government has many instruments that it can use to accelerate the creation and implementation of new energy technologies. These include research support, technology development, tax and other financial incentives, procurement, technology demonstration and deployment, regulation, standards development, knowledge dissemination, intellectual property protection, public-private partnerships, Federal-state coordination, support for education, immigration law, and international agreements. These instruments involve the responsibilities of many different Executive Branch agencies and Congressional committees. In the past, many actions taken by different administrations and congressional entities have been at cross-purposes with regard to their effects on energy technologies.” [3]

So while we face the daunting challenge of relying on national leaders to articulate our energy priorities and strategies as Peak Oil’s impact becomes more pronounced (leaders who by and large have demonstrated remarkable unanimity in failing to discuss the truths about what we face, by the way), another daunting truth is that much of what will actually be done to deal with the consumption changes will originate at the state, regional, and local levels. While I believe we must have some national objectives in mind, we cannot disregard the importance of bottom up input and expertise.

Soon enough it is not going to matter what your philosophy about governance is, or if deficit-spending is a greater burden than failure to spend, or if the Right is collectively more insane than the Left. We’re going to have to move above and beyond those ultimately petty ideological concerns and develop and deal with real-life implications of a society that it going to have its industrial design and production and transportation systems—and eventual consumption by end-users—all provided and sustained by something other than unlimited amounts of fossil fuels. It will indeed be a whole different kind of world we’ll live in.

While there are clearly some rather imposing challenges and issues, the question ultimately boils down to this: do we allow the challenges to defeat us, or do we recognize the magnitude of what faces us and rise up to seize the opportunities? We’re in due course going to have no choice but to restructure and revise and refine and re-create the industrial support system that has supplied us with our remarkable levels of prosperity for more than a hundred years, as well as doing the very same thing for the lifestyles we currently enjoy.

We must recognize that this will of course lead to different outcomes (we’ll have no choice in that), but that does not necessarily equate to “bad” outcomes. Life is going to be different, and the sooner we come to terms with that truth the better off we’ll be as we begin the process of adaptation and the creation of new strategies and new systems of production and usage. The most optimistic person on this planet cannot expect this to occur in anything less than many years—many years that will pass with less and less of the energy resources that brought us all to this moment. We do have our work cut out for us.

Are we up to the task?

Sources:

[1] http://blogs.forbes.com/amandalittle/2010/11/15/can-professional-sports-do-more-than-politics-to-save-the-planet/; Can Professional Sports Do More Than Politics to Save the Planet? November 15, 2010
[2] http://www.postcarbon.org/report/127153-energy-nine-challenges-of-alternative-energy; The Post Carbon Reader Series: Energy – Nine Challenges of Alternative Energy By David Fridley, p3-4 [Excerpted from The Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st Century’s Sustainability Crises, Richard Heinberg and Daniel Lerch, eds. (Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media, 2010 - http://www.postcarbon.org/reader)
[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-energy-tech-report.pdf; REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON ACCELERATING THE PACE OF CHANGE IN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH AN INTEGRATED FEDERAL ENERGY POLICY by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, November 2010 (p19).

I haven’t touched on too many geopolitical issues (but see here and here for examples) as they bear upon Peak Oil, but that is a result of choices made, and not a determination that the subject is unimportant.

The recent publication of both German and Australian reports on Peak Oil (here and here—the subject of an upcoming post) have sparked a great deal of interest and chatter on the internet, and deservedly so. Coming on the heels of several other high profile reports this year, such as the United States Joint Forces Command’s Joint Operating Environment (JOE) report and a Lloyd’s/Chatham House white paper, keeping government concerns about Peak Oil away from public attention is becoming increasingly difficult.

The report from Germany cited above suggests that Peak Oil will happen this year, and it paints a disturbing picture of potential foreign relation and energy supply problems that will surely not be limited to Germany. The JOE report is not much more sanguine about future international challenges and potential conflicts, although it did not assert a specific date for Peak Oil (but did express serious reservations about the stability and availability of adequate supplies beyond the next few years).

As oil supplies diminish over time, the relative importance of oil-producing nations will likely increase, and with that added influence and power will be the likelihood that U.S. and other Western nations may find their preferences and “values” playing second fiddle to the preferences and values of those foreign suppliers—not all of whom share our ideals and objectives. It’s not at all far-fetched to consider the real possibility that active resistance to the growing political and economic might of these new international power players may result in a swift curtailment of oil supplies. That’s a powerful club for the Russias and Venezuelas and Saudi Arabias of the world to suddenly wield.

Seven of the fifteen largest suppliers of oil to the United States are on the State Department’s Travel Warning List, for their “long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable.” [1] Who knows how the internal politics of those nations will play out in the years to come, and what the international/energy supply and security ramifications might be? Saudi Arabia, long-recognized as the leading oil exporter, has its own set of internal issues to contend with, as both Matthew Wild and this article make clear. We cannot passively assume that our primary suppliers of oil will remain so.

Relying on potentially unstable suppliers is not the most optimistic strategy, and we don’t have too many alternatives right now. Ignoring these geopolitical considerations is even less prudent.

Furthermore, the declining availability of fossil fuels will just as likely limit the opportunities we have to export our preferences and values to other nations in need of our assistance. Diminished influence in the international arena will carry its own set of consequences.

Coupled with the loss of political influence is the likelihood that our ability to project military might and protection will also be lessened. The military is the largest consumer of fossil fuels. If we continue to allocate the same percentages of energy supplies to our military, what happens to the rest of us? How will an even smaller pie be divided? And if we allocate fossil fuel supplies in the same proportions now, what happens to the comfort and security we derive from our then-decreased military capabilities? (The flip side, of course, is that proactively decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels lessens the need to project our military all over the world and at exorbitant costs—financial and otherwise.)

And let’s also not forget that diminishing supplies with the onset of peak oil production means that other nations will vie more aggressively for their fair share of oil supplies. The United States may find itself playing an international game it is not at all accustomed to playing—or prepared to play at all. Acceding to the types of political, economic or ideological “favors” that future suppliers may insist upon could prove a very difficult pill for this country’s leaders and citizens to swallow.

A sampling of headlines from just a few articles over the past few months about China’s aggressive acquisition of future oil supplies suggests another problem. They have the means to tie up a good chunk of future supply, and that behavior may be indicative of how future energy transactions take place, as the German report suggests.

“China Global Oil Shopping Spree” [2]

“China’s Global Shopping Spree” [3]

“Saudis Tighten China Energy Ties to Reduce U.S. Dependence” [4]

“China Looking To Make More Loan-For-Oil Deals – report” [5]

“China Now Controls Majority Of Canada’s Athabasca Oil Sands Corp” [6]

The longstanding practices of free market purchase and sale may not prove to be as enduring as we would expect. As the German report noted, “[b]ilateral, conditioned supply agreements and privileged partnerships, such as those seen prior to the oil crises of the 1970s, will once again come to the fore.” Suffering as we do from our arrogance and sense of entitlement because we’re Americans, the change in oil market practices in coming years will prove to be a distinct and unpleasant shock to our political and economic systems, with consequences spreading far and wide. We won’t be the only nation suffering, either, but that will be of little consolation.

Let’s also not ignore the fact that as supplier nations’ populations increase (Matthew Wild suggests that Saudi Arabia could have as many as 45 – 50 million people in twenty years’ time, more than double its 2000 population [7]), the needs of their own citizens will surely take precedence of those in other countries. Exports are usually derived from excess production after domestic usage is accounted for. (Mexico—one of our primary suppliers—has seen its oil exports to us decline by more than a third in just five years. That trend won’t be reversing course. That’s not encouraging.)

With hundreds of millions of citizens in less-developed parts of the world seeking their own version of the American Dream, where will that leave the gluttonous U.S. demand to be satisfied? (“Should China’s total per capita oil consumption reach the level of the United States, they will require basically all of the world’s current oil production. While it is highly unlikely that China’s per capita oil consumption will reach that level, even if it reaches half of the current U.S. level, they will require 40.7 million BOPD.” [8] That’s almost half of the world’s daily usage … not comforting.)

We’re beyond foolish and ignorant if we think that we’re always going to be first in line when oil is passed out just because we’re America.

Any sense that these are issues “out there” and not really affecting us in our daily, personal lives is a risk we should not be taking. What happens out in the real world oil markets has a direct impact on each and every one of us. The more information and understanding we possess, the better our chances of doing something to help mitigate the very real impact and consequences of declining oil production and supply. It’s understandably far more preferable to let “others” work on these issues, but we must give voice to our own concerns so that decisions and practices eventually implemented will have some marginal comfort and familiarity to us.

We are probably beyond the point where we can fully and properly prepare for effortless accommodations and transitions away from fossil fuel dependency, but having a say in how we all must deal with the effects of Peak Oil will help make those transitions more palatable.

Small consolations indeed.

Sources & References:

[1] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-09-03/exponentially-purpose-century-and-half-ignored-warnings – Exponentially on purpose: a century-and-a-half of ignored warnings – Published by Peak Generation on Fri, 09/03/2010 by Matthew Wild

[2] http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=3356; Posted on Mar. 02, 2010 By Michael Economides, ET editor in chief, and Xina Xie, ET China correspondent

[3] http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52256; 04/01/2010

[4] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601207&sid=afA7qKyLK44s

[5] http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/China-looking-to-make-more-loan-for-oil-deals-report-2010-05-17T101708Z

[6] http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/china-now-controls-majority-canada-s-athabasca-oil-sands-corp.php

[7] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-09-03/exponentially-purpose-century-and-half-ignored-warnings (full cite above)

[8] http://oyetimes.com/views/columns/5880-have-we-passed-the-point-of-peak-oil – Have we passed the point of Peak Oil? by Glen Allen

I spent some time on Friday catching up on my readings for the week, and came across several terrific articles that just happened to tie in quite nicely with the themes discussed in a series of posts I recently concluded.

I think it’s worthwhile to give those articles a little extra publicity. They will help provide readers with a broader perspective on what will or has to happen with Peak Oil looming on the horizon.

First up is a very nice piece by David Roberts, addressing points recently made by Microsoft founder Bill Gates. For those who think technology is going to save the day, Roberts presents a thoughtful essay on why technological innovation alone is not the answer.

As I have discussed, the solutions are going to come about and succeed only if we all contribute. What will happen in the wake of Peak Oil is not a problem we can pass on to our business and political leaders and then wait patiently for them to decide and do for us.

This is about as succinct and accurate a statement of what will have to be as you’ll find (from David Roberts):

“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.”

What also cannot be overlooked, despite the fact that events across the waters tend to be removed from our immediate consideration, are geopolitical factors that will indeed play a role in the continuing availability of oil to meet all our needs.

In the second part of his discussion, Professor Ferdinand E. Banks discusses not only some basic facts about decreasing oil production; of greater significance are the OPEC strategies he highlights. Like many other nations, countries in the Middle East have their own ambitions and economic objectives, many if not most of which will require oil to realize. The more oil the exporting nations decide to keep for themselves as they seek to meet their industrial and societal aims, the less the rest of us have to use.

It’s their oil, and if they decide they need it more than they need the petrodollars provided by exports, there won’t be a hell of a lot any of us can do about it. The shortsighted “drill, baby, drill” strategy isn’t going to help much over the next decade if that scenario plays out, as is likely.

A related political component is one raised in an informative article from The Economist.

Although most knowledgeable experts legitimately question the feasibility of Iraq’s stated goals of quintupling their oil production in these next few years, any successes that nation achieves by significantly expanding their production capabilities will have a measureable impact on OPEC politics and production quotas. If it influences or affects OPEC, it influences and affects us.

The article does a much better job of cogently explaining the prime issues than I could in attempting a summary. I’ll recommend that you read it to help you understand what impact successful Iraq oil production will have on the dicey politics of oil.

Last up: a warning from two major international investment institutions that oil prices are likely to rise soon; and a related piece from The Oil Drum’s Gail Tverberg on what happens to households and businesses in the wake of those higher prices.

Peak Oil is not just about the amount of oil in the ground. For those of us who hope to inform and educate others about the likely consequences of Peak Oil, these recommended articles offer vital details on the factors that do play just as important a role as do the billions (or trillions) of barrels of oil that may still lie beneath our feet.

We don’t have the luxury of cherry-picking which Peak Oil element we get to address. They’re all related, and the convergence of some or all of these factors (economic, geopolitical, technical, production, etc.) can only have adverse effects on our economy and living standards. We can pretend otherwise, but that accomplishes little here in the real world.

The more we incorporate these broader and related perspectives in our understanding of Peak Oil and the necessity for planning now on how to deal with its impact, the better served we’ll all be when reality intrudes

Sources:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-17-why-bill-gates-is-wrong-on-energy-and-climate/ - Why Bill Gates is wrong by David Roberts (Published Feb 17 2010 by Grist)

http://www.oilprice.com/article-more-about-oil-part-2-opecs-strategy.html – More About Oil (Part 2): OPEC’S STRATEGY; Contributed By : Ferdinand E. Banks Published : 15th Feb 2010

http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15549365&fsrc=rss – Iraq, Iran and the politics of oil - Crude diplomacy; Feb 18th 2010 | BASRA AND UMM QASR From The Economist

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6226#more – Peak Oil: Looking for the Wrong Symptoms? Posted by Gail the Actuary on February 18, 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7266837/Barclays-and-Bank-of-America-see-looming-oil-crunch.html – Barclays and Bank of America see looming oil crunch By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard; February 18, 2010

It remains my hope that with the right level of effort, commitment, vision, understanding, and action (BIG “ifs” of course), we can effect a reasonably non-disruptive transition away from our excessive fossil fuel dependency. It won’t be perfect or struggle-free, but we can take steps to make it easier. At this point, “easier” may be the best we can hope for.

I recognize that there are criticisms and ridicule leveled against the “doomers”—Peak Oil proponents who assert that we are heading for catastrophe. It’s difficult to gain an appreciation for how much of our lives are predicated on the availability of easily obtained and relatively inexpensive oil and gas, and then consider with nothing but sunny optimism how much of our lives will thus of course be impacted when easy and inexpensive are no longer options. I admitted in my last post on this topic that it is a challenge. The fear that we as a society will choose to do nothing but hope for the best leaves us with little leeway to predict anything but ominous outcomes when Peak Oil’s full weight falls upon us.

I vehemently disagree with the snarky, uninformed deniers who smugly claim that this “doom scenario” is in some bizarre manner a source of enjoyment for us. Those kinds of comments do more to tell a tale about an author’s integrity and character than they do about people like me who are trying to inform. It’s almost unimaginable to consider that there are people who absolutely deny we’re going to face challenges of oil supply and production in the face of clearly articulated facts.

Output from the world’s oilfields is declining faster than had been anticipated; the oil industry itself is relying on fields past their prime, with less skilled help than is needed; more projects are being scuttled for economic reasons and lack of investment funding, and the industry’s own infrastructure is in need of great repair.

Finding oil and gas to replace the world’s fast dwindling reserves is increasingly risky as rigs probe areas once seen as too difficult or too dangerous, and costs are rocketing, which could imperil future supply.
The cost of discovering each new barrel of oil and gas has risen three-fold over the last decade as technology has pushed the frontiers of exploration into ever more remote areas.
As old fields run dry, oil companies are drilling wells in some of the most inhospitable regions, where political, physical, geological, geographical, technical and contractual risks are high…. [1]

(Although the article claims that such efforts are a “remarkable success”, the fact remains we are finding less than we are using every year, as has been the case for many years now.)

When Peak Oil will occur, or what specific factors bring it about, really won’t matter in the end. What does matter is the outcome: less availability, more expensive, more difficult to provide, with demand increasing significantly in developing parts of the world. Bad math….

I’m hard-pressed to understand what Peak Oil and global warming deniers hope to honorably achieve by sowing confusion and doubt where none clearly exists. What fear motivates them to do so, and how callous are they about consequences to all of us? Denial is a powerful tool, but to what end?

For all my optimism, I think we’re too late in the game to effect a completely trouble-free move away from dependency on oil. Changing our habits, our infrastructure, and our economic and industrial way of life is an immense undertaking—one that realistically requires at least a decade or two to have everything in place. We do not have that much time, but we have some.

The sooner we collectively agree on new courses of action (now there’s a gigantic “if” and hope!), the sooner we provide ourselves with the best chance of creating some measure of prosperity and success in a world no longer shaped and fed by unlimited amounts of oil. We have our work cut out for us as it is.

The biggest “if” is how soon we are all willing to engage. If the answer is anything other than “now”, then we will encounter tremendous difficulties as we move away from a fossil fuel resource that simply will not be available to us in the quantities, at the prices, and with the ease we have come to expect.

The vital components of this successful transition depend first and foremost on essential individual traits—characteristics that likewise define our culture and provide guideposts for our future. And in this regard, I am not as optimistic as I’d like to be, but I remain hopeful and still convinced of mankind’s ability to do the right things for the right reasons. We’ve adapted before, and in spectacular fashion. No reason to doubt our capabilities now, but we need to get moving.

The attitudes we bring to this process, the beliefs we’ll continue to hold (and perhaps of more critical importance, the ones we’ll change), will likely make the difference between a “successful” transition to fossil-free ways of life and one of great, unnecessary hardship. What we choose to do now will of course make a difference, as will choosing to do nothing—an admittedly easier path.

We are a nation that does not accept limits on what we can do and be and achieve. In many respects that may be our most beneficial characteristic. But so too can it serve to hamper us when change away from business and life as usual is mandated due to circumstances well beyond our control. Peak Oil is one of those circumstances. We can prepare for it, but we cannot control it.

Ultimately peak oil will not be a geological crisis, not an economic crisis, not a political crisis. Inevitably peak oil will be a global philosophical and psychological crisis. [2]

Our economy and society were first constructed and have been sustained on certain key assumptions and expectations. There is a sense of entitlement many of us carry, one that says that the gratifications we seek and successes we demand are to be fulfilled ceaselessly—preferably with little effort on our part. The “drill, baby, drill” knuckleheaded clamor is only one of many indications that our general approach to gratification is at times one of: “Do, get, have, and then think (maybe). Consequences be damned.” Not particularly admirable or beneficial….

If one were to choose a single word to characterize [what it means to be a 21st-century American], it would have to be more. For the majority of contemporary Americans, the essence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness centers on a relentless personal quest to acquire, to consume, to indulge, and to shed whatever constraints might interfere with those endeavors. [3]

It’s a remarkably short-term focus that carries distressingly long-term implications.

The hard work of prior generations is not viewed with the same levels of respect it clearly deserves. It’s almost as though our attitude is that that’s what they should have done for us, so that we can now live lives of comfort, pleasure, and fulfillment for whatever needs we feel compelled to gratify in the moment. Prosperity is a reward for effort and commitment and skill and patience. It is not the right so many seem to think it is, and it is most definitely not a continuing guarantee. We are in some ways a lazy society getting lazier by the minute. We want everything fast, quick, cheap, and easy, and we have little appreciation for the hard work that was once our defining trait. That can change! I’m convinced of that; just as I am certain that it must change.

The risk is clear:

Generations that have been trained to want or expect easy, quick, automated abundance will find themselves having to adapt instead to a regime in which everything takes longer and requires more effort; in which there will often not be enough fuel or food to go around. [4]

What happens then? 

I’ll leave you with that thought for now.

To be continued….
Sources:

[1]: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61A28X20100211 – Oil exploration costs rocket as risks rise; Thu, Feb 11 2010 By Christopher Johnson
[2]: http://oilbeseeingyou.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-will-peak-oil-really-mean.html
[3]: Andrew Bacevich from his book: The Limits of Power: The End Of American Exceptionalism, (Metropolitan Books, 2008) as quoted by columnist Rod Dreher: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-dreher_17edi.ART.State.Edition1.adb331.html – Peak oil is coming, and we’re unready, August 17, 2008
[4]: Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines by Richard Heinberg, p. 127; New Society Publishers, 2007

This morning, I came across an interesting online article from The Wall Street Journal.

The paper is reporting that Venezuela’s energy and oil minister is meeting in China with government and oil industry official there. The main topics of discussion will be a joint-venture refinery project and more Chinese government investment in the Venezuelan oil reserves. I discussed the heavy oil resources of Venezuela in yesterday’s post. (here)

In that post, I also noted that one of many geopolitical issues we need to be mindful of is that foreign oil producers are no longer falling all over themselves to seek relations with the United States, nor are they always anxious to make us their primary customer. Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez, is a notorious anti-American.

China and Venezuela have already entered into a number of oil and energy-related agreements, and other countries are also working out oil agreements with Chavez’s government (Italy being only the most recent one.)

Another recent article notes that Russia and Venezuela are likewise engaging in trade talks and oil cooperation.

Tellingly, after referencing several recent China-Venezuela oil deals, the Journal’s article notes that:

“These moves stem from Venezuelan efforts to fund development of its huge oil reserves and diversify sales away from its traditional main market, the U.S., including by boosting sales to China to 1 million barrels per day.”

Our blind dependence on foreign oil and a naïve assumption that going forward we will continue to import all the oil we need may crash head-first into political realities where those assumptions are by no means a given. Those realities carry with them real consequences, too.

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575040431689856008.html?mod=googlenews_wsj – Venezuela, China in Oil Talks By SIMON HALL

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-02/01/c_13158157.htm – Russia, Venezuela step up oil cooperation

Once more I’d like to detour away from my next planned post and discuss a news item that received a fair amount of media attention last week: the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) assessment that Venezuela’s Orinoco Oil Belt now contains a bit more than 500 billion barrels of “technically recoverable” oil.

There’s certainly no question that if this report is true, the opinion enhances Venezuela’s status as a major player in the international oil market. (According to the Energy Information Agency—citing the Oil and Gas Journal—Venezuela had 99.0 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in 2009. That’s the largest amount in South America.)

The EIA reported that as recently as two years ago, the United States received more of Venezuela’s petroleum exports than any other nation. That amount continues to decline annually. (According to the EIA, we import more than a million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products from Venezuela per day.)

As is almost always the case, however, things are not as simple as they appear.

Unlike the light sweet crude oil produced by the U.S. and the light oil which has made Saudi Arabia such a force, the Orinoco oil is “heavy oil” found in oil sands—similar in characteristics to the tar sands bitumen found in Alberta, Canada. (See my prior post here.) The Venezuela oil is thus much harder to extract and refine, making it more costly. Significant investments of time and money are required to provide adequate refinery capabilities. Needless to say, extracting this heavy oil is a much more energy-and time-intensive effort than is the process for extracting the more familiar light crude. It is not anyone’s answer in the next few years.

Lead researcher and USGS geologist Chris Schenk admitted that their report is not asserting that the “technically recoverable” oil is in fact “economically recoverable.” That’s a significant distinction, and one that needs to be emphasized. All the presumed underground reserves in the world won’t mean much if it makes no sense to invest the time, effort, and money to try and extract them.

The USGS nonetheless estimates that a stunning 40 – 45% of that resource will be ultimately recoverable. One prominent geologist (and a former board member of Petroleos de Venezuela SA—Venezuela’s state oil company) is already on record as doubting anywhere near that amount can be recovered, and stated that much of what might actually be recoverable would in fact be too expensive to produce.

Merely stating that 40% or 45% is recoverable is not the answer. Those who dispute Peak Oil may fervently wish that merely uttering that remote possibility is enough to curtail discussions on the topic, but the optimism of “possibility” is insufficient in and of itself. The reality is that like with most other oil reserves, final production levels will be nowhere near that high a percentage. If experts already on record are correct, Venezuela simply does not have production capabilities or financial resources needed to meet that projection.

Aside from the political turmoil normally associated with President Hugo Chavez’s regime, Venezuela is suffering the effects of a poor investment environment. Rolling blackouts, drought, a high murder and crime rate and the social upheavals those factors spawn are all contributing to serious oil production challenges—among other political and economic difficulties.

Thousands of highly qualified oil company employees were fired by Chavez several years ago and many have left the country, so the state oil company is suffering a severe shortage of qualified personnel. Any outside oil company successfully bidding on these reserves will be called up to expend tens of billions of dollars to create infrastructure in the drilling/mining regions while simultaneously being obliged to deal with the political, industrial, and social problems unfolding in that nation. There is no easy or quick solution on the horizon.

Oil production has declined by about one-third in the last five years in that country, and exports continue their drop month after month. In the midst of its ongoing power crisis, Venezuela is being called upon to produce more energy in an economic climate that is hardly conducive to producing more of anything. (Many stores, malls, and businesses have been resorting to generators in order to stay in business, and the country’s infrastructure is in seemingly perpetual decline.)

And let’s not forget one key political factor about Venezuela and its oil production: it is no fan of the United States. By most accounts Chavez is pursuing agreements with other nations in no small part because it means less Venezuelan oil for America. The million or so barrels of Venezuelan oil we receive daily are amounts Chavez is no doubt hoping soon find their way elsewhere. That’s not an insignificant shortfall to make up. With Mexican production also crashing, we need to recognize the likelihood that past supplies of foreign oil are not guaranteed for the future. We receive an average of a couple of million barrels of oil every day from those two nations. If they are unavailable to us in just a few years, that’s an enormous energy hit for us to take.

Does all this mean we’re facing a catastrophe tomorrow? Of course not. But the problems within Venezuela and its precarious relationship with our nation are factors we must consider in any long-range energy planning or expectations about supply. Peak Oil is indeed about much more than just geologically-premised declining rates of production.

The sooner we pay attention to these vital issues and plan accordingly, the less disruption to our ways of life we’ll be obliged to endure.

Sources:

http://scitizen.com/future-energies/venezuela-may-yield-twice-as-much-oil-as-was-thought-_a-14-3350.html – Venezuela May Yield Twice as Much Oil as was Thought. 25 Jan, 2010

http://www.frumforum.com/chavez-strike-out – January 2010

http://www.frumforum.com/lights-out-in-chavez-land – January 2010

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51298 – January 2010

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=332210&t=01003417101430356940 – Revisiting the 4 Horsemen of the Oil Boom – January 2010

http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/01/25/en_eco_esp_energy-crisis-threat_25A3336133.shtml – Energy crisis threatens Venezuelan exports of fuel oil and diesel. Energy

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/4235916720/articles/oil-gas-journal/exploration-development-2/reserves/2010/01/usgs-pegs_orinoco.html – USGS pegs Orinoco’s recoverable figure at 513 billion bbl. Jan 22, 2010. Alan Petzet. OGJ Chief Editor-Exploration

http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/22012010/2/biz-finance-venezuela-s-orinoco-area-holds-vast-supply-crude.html – Venezuela’s Orinoco area holds vast supply of crude, US Geological Survey says. Fri Jan 22 By Ian James, The Associated Press

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