Peak Oil Matters

Ten months ago, I offered this observation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simple choice … monumental ramifications.

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He then concludes:

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

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

YN5KW46ZWK8Q

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy holidays to all!

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study * announced several conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote Mr. Jenkins once more:

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

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

More to come….

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

Where on the list does one put outright nonsense?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty straightforward, agreed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worth pondering?

More to come….

Happy Thanksgiving!

I have written a number of posts (most recently here, with other links therein) about the follies of those who do their damnedest to debunk the reality of Peak Oil with what can be charitably described as almost-factual claims. Common themes and buzzwords seem to populate most of the efforts, as if they are all working from the same playbook of right-wing nonsense.

Erik Curren touched on this theme recently, wondering aloud about the lack of coincidence in the disinformation campaign revving up once again. Erik cited a recent Steve Levine Foreign Policy post about the “cottage industry” developing in recent weeks about how we’re on the verge of that elusive “energy independence.” Both are typically good reads from these two writers.

I’m thinking that we now have an almost-official test to decide if one should pay any attention to the kool-aid-sipping advocates of “peak oil nonsense” and its relatives.

The playbook used has few components, given the limited facts* supporting their contentions [* a term used loosely in quantifying their arguments, since they are predominantly fact-free). But it’s become commonplace to find most if not all of their limited buzzwords and claims in every pseudo-argument put forth.

I recently posted (here and here) about the deniers’ repeated assertions that “Peak Oil advocates believe we are soon running out of oil”, despite the fact the fact that no credible Peak Oil proponent EVER makes that farcical claim. Anyone imputing that statement to Peak Oil proponents demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the simplest aspects of this subject.

But bless ‘em, they keep trotting out that same nonsense over and over. I guess when you don’t have facts to support your claims, using the same sincere-sounding terms is as good a Plan B as one can have. It’s on Page One of the Faux News Bible.

A second test is just as to employ. If you are reading anything which purportedly calls into doubt the inevitability and reality of Peak Oil, and the writer makes the claim of “vast” resources/reserves/supply/Whatever as a point of rebuttal, you can stop reading. Anything subsequent to that claim (alone or in combination with the “running out of oil” nonsense), will only further demonstrate the non-serious nature of the argument offered. Why waste your time?

As for “vast” ... what exactly does that mean? Sounds impressive as all get-out, doesn’t it? Vast is almost unquantifiable; it’s a ginormous, huge-like plentifulness which almost makes questioning it at all an exercise in its own foolishness. Who wants to doubt anyone who asserts we have a vast anything? How do ever run out of vast? If we have vast, we have enough....

Unfortunately, some of us are actually obliged to live on a planet where facts matter. Rational discussions and attempts at finding worthwhile solutions thus necessitate full and fair consideration of those damned annoying truths. No doubt: a solid fact can ruin a nonsensical argument in no time, which is why it’s apparently best not to even dwell on them at all if you can instead put forth weighty phrases which sound so much more meaningful instead.

Facts are boring; but an embellished and unquantifiable non-truth? Now that’s worth reading!

Calling it the “seventh-largest oil or gas find” of 2011, the New York Times’ Clifford Krauss* recently explained that explorations hundreds of miles north of the Arctic Circle (hello!) resulted in “an estimated 250 million barrels of retrievable” oil found in the Skrugard field. (* I discussed a previous report by Mr. Krauss just under one year ago.)

At the risk of confusing our ardent Peak Oil debunkers, world-wide energy demands require approximately 85 million barrels of oil per day (i.e., 24 hours; one-seventh of one week; one tenth of one month).

So the complex calculations needed to understand this in terms all of us can appreciate requires that we:
(1) Take the 250 million barrel figure cited;
(2) Take the 85 million barrel per day figure I used;
(3) divide 250 million by 85 million [or if that is too difficult, then divide 250 by 85 and then add lots of zeros after)

The result is how long that vast find will last energy users here on fact-based Planet Earth.

If the result was too difficult to compute, I’ll save you the trouble. That 250 million barrels of oil, if fully developed and brought to market at some distant point in the future, would get us through a whopping seventy-some hours! [As in: today is Tuesday, so all of that field would be bone-dry by Friday.]

As I’ve noted previously (one example here), these are the types of supporting “facts” routinely used by our denier counterparts in attempting to persuade readers that Peak Oil is just so much hooey. It’s another sure sign that we’re dealing with a peculiar kind of proposition–one that relies on as few facts as possible.

Now, however, the crop of deniers have apparently been instructed to add the following statement to their stable of non-existent- or half-truths. When assessing the value of information being offered, Test Criteria # 4 now in place [my emphasis]:

Peak oil, the belief that the US is running out of domestic oil or natural gas, is increasingly being discredited…. [1]

The technological breakthroughs in seismology and fracking are allowing access to reserves unknown just a few years ago, putting the lie to the now-discredited theme of ‘peak oil’…. [2]

In truth, the “now-discredited” Peak Oil “theory” is being discredited only by those fact-free, disingenuous voices, but perhaps I’m being too nit-picky. “Now-discredited” sure as hell sounds good! Who cares if the non-discrediting is being done by the ill-informed?

It’s not a hell of a lot different than the “running out of oil” claim which curiously enough is made only by those denying Peak Oil. Using their lack of understanding and instead attributing it as an assertion made by us liberal-atheist-socialist-doomer-unpatriotic scumbags is an admittedly good trick! Not high on the integrity or character scale, but a good trick nonetheless.

More recently, Erik Curren raised some necessary questions directed to those of us on the factual side of the Peak Oil fence as to how we go about educating the public. I maintain (and frequently post accordingly) that one of the ways we must do so is to continue pointing out the fallacies, disinformation, and outright nonsense spouted by those with a vested interest in making certain that the fossil fuel industry remains front and center in supplying our energy needs well into the  future … facts be damned!

I first raised this issue more than a year ago, and remain just as committed to it now as I was then. The nonsense helps only a few (and I have yet come to a logic-based understanding as to what motivates people to deny reality, avoid taking steps to help prepare others for a more secure future, and why they have decided that this ought to be their contribution).

If peers in the “pro-”Peak Oil camp continue their efforts not for self-serving reasons but to awaken the public to the challenges we’ll all face (as they clearly do), then we must continue to point out the “rubbish, gibberish, claptrap, balderdash, blarney; informal hogwash, baloney, rot, moonshine, garbage, jive, tripe, drivel, bilge, bull, guff, bunk, bosh, BS, eyewash, piffle, poppycock, phooey, hooey, malarkey, hokum, twaddle, gobbledygook, codswallop, flapdoodle, hot air; dated bunkum, tommyrot; bullshit and crap” [courtesy of my Macbook] which gets peddled by too many who so obviously have very little concern for the long-term well-being of their fellow citizens.

How sad….

I’ll speak more on this the next time.

Sources:

[1] http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Why-Peak-Oil-is-Nonsense-A-Look-at-Small-and-Mid-Cap-Domestic-Oil-Stocks-OXY-BEXP-NOG-KOG-OREO/s/via/3414/blog/view/p/mid/1/id/13/; Why Peak Oil is Nonsense: A Look at Small and Mid Cap Domestic Oil Stocks by John Udovich, November 13, 2011
[2] http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/9591-the-oil-map-of-the-world-is-shifting-to-the-west; The Oil Map of the World Is Shifting to the West by Bob Adelmann, November 1, 2011

This is a follow-up to my (only slightly) tongue-in-cheek post from last week regarding the Export Land Model [ELM) designed by petroleum geologist Jeffrey Brown and Dr. Samuel Foucher, a subject I first broached here.

Yet over and over again -- on the radio, on TV, in print, in the blogosphere, and all over Washington -- political ideology is   substituting for thought. [1]

And when our leaders and influential voices aren’t thinking, when facts and science become nothing more than carelessly-dismissed casual opinions, problems are sure to follow. The onset of Peak Oil and the mounting evidence of global warming are but two casualties to facts, evidence, and truth as partisan (ignorant) ideology trumps … well, you know … the facts!

ELM is a fairly straightforward and actually quite logical mathematical concept. One can quibble until the cows come home that this percentile or that mathematical construct is incorrect/fails to take into account/yadda yadda yadda. But the basic premise is little more than common sense, a point I tried to drive home using the only slightly-embellished water bottle analogy in the first part of this series.

An owner of a resource of any kind, one beneficial not only to buyers/users but to the owner itself, will of course make use of that resource to grow or otherwise benefit its own standing. Simple enough. Growth inevitably follows, and with growth comes an increase in demand, and thus an increase in the amount of the resource retained by that owner. First-grade math will then demonstrate that if I keep more of what I own rather than give to you, the end result is that you get less from me.

Not really all that difficult to follow … even the most mathematically-challenged denier shouldn’t have much cause for dispute. But then again, when reality doesn’t matter at all if it conflicts with one’s delusion and denials, then I guess I could be wrong about that! Facts are damned inconvenient at times….

Even more significant is a corresponding factor to the basic tenet of the ELM, as noted in this post.

An ELM Key Insight is that the domestic consumption of oil exporting nations will, over long time periods, tend to grow faster than the domestic oil consumption of oil importers because of the windfall effect of oil revenues, and will tend to continue to grow even past the   production peak, especially whilst net exports are positive.

In other words, in my example above, “owner’s” rate of consumption of the resource will be greater than the rate of growth exhibited by that of the established “buyers/users.” The more revenues “owner” acquires and plows back into growth or similar improvements to its own standing, the greater the “momentum” of that growth or increase … and thus the more of those resources “owner” must retain for itself to support the rapidly-expanding rates of growth. The end result is that the rate of export decline accelerates. Getting less, faster, is not good math.

A nation only exports the surplus of its vital resources. Following a peak in oil production, a nation is flush with capital after exporting more oil than ever in its history—oil that is often sold at previously unreached high prices as well–and its economy responds with growth. But with an expanding economy comes growing demand for oil, causing the nation’s domestic oil needs to cut into a supply that recently began a steady decline. These two sources of pressure on the nation’s oil surplus cause it to deplete at an ever-faster rate. Unless the nation does the unprecedented and keeps its rate of domestic consumption always at or below its exponentially declining rate of production, the surplus vanishes and exports stop. [2]

And so as our first-grade math quiz above convincingly demonstrated (complex though the concept may be), if owner keeps more for itself, less is available to everyone else, and “less” is proceeding along much quicker. Deniers should feel free to rest here if this is too much to absorb all at once.

So when this story appeared on news feeds recently (and has gotten precious little attention so far as best I can determine) and opened with this remark:

The world may have to live on a lot less Saudi Arabian crude towards the end of this decade as rampant internal demand eats into oil exports and the kingdom’s alternative energy plans may prove too little too late.

Followed a few paragraphs down by these tidbits:

‘Domestic consumption has been growing very fast as a result of rapid demographics, steady economic growth and heavy subsidies, with the latter leading to excess demand, said Ali Aissaooui, head of economic research at Arab Petroleum Investments Corporation in Saudi Arabia….

Excess demand could affect the capacity of some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, to maintain the spare capacity needed to provide flexibility to the global oil market.

The head of state oil firm Saudi Aramco admitted last year that unless internal demand is controlled the amount of oil left for export could fall by 3 million bpd to less than 7 million bpd by 2028.

But Jadwa expects exports to fall far more dramatically, with less than 5 million bpd escaping onto the global market by 2020, thanks to a 60-percent surge in internal demand to nearly 4 million bpd and barely enough new production to offset declines from older fields.

added these statistics:

According to analysts at Riyadh-based Jadwa Investment, oil demand in the kingdom rose by 22 percent between 2007 and 2010, out pacing the Chinese oil demand growth rate despite China’s economy expanding almost three times faster.

Official data shows Saudi oil consumption rose by more than 5 percent a year from 2003-2010 to an average of 2.4 million   barrels per day (bpd) in 2010. BP statistics put it closer to 2.8 million bpd last year, up 7.1 percent from 2009.

A simultaneous subsidy-driven fuel demand boom and natural gas shortage could see oil consumption hit 6.5 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2030, or over half Saudi’s current production capacity, according to a report by Jadwa published in July.

and finally offered this kicker:

The country’s domestic consumption of energy, especially oil, at very cheap prices, is also likely to rise rapidly, sharply reducing the amount of oil available for export.

It all adds up to a whooper of a problem, one surely not limited to this oil-producing nation. Any reason to think this isn’t happening in other exporting nations now seeking to provide greater opportunities for their own citizens? The end result (as that article noted) is not much of a surprise for those of who living in Fact-Land:

It’s because the decline in oil exports accelerates that the bottleneck in oil made available to importing nations occurs as a  ‘crash,’ not the steady decline, or ‘long gradual tail’ so often pictured by authorities like the IEA.

Hello!

For all the disputes and conflicts and name-calling and finger-pointing that dominates much of the (still-too-limited) public dialogue about our future supplies of fossil fuels, the clarity (and distress) of the Export Land Model is a bit much to ignore. When you add it to the mix of the other facts* suggesting we’re already past the peak in rates of oil production—the nonsense disputing evidence notwithstanding—(as I’ve discussed in recent posts), perhaps it’s time we start engaging in a much more serious, ongoing discussion about what we should be planning and thinking about and doing?

Now would be a very good time.

* As I noted in this post last December: “[E]xploration (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….”

Sources:

[1] http://robertreich.org/post/11410402042; The Triumph of Dogma, and a Sad Goodbye to David Frum By Robert Reich – October 14, 2011

[2] http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/another-take-on-peak-oil-exports-not-production-indicate-crisis224/; Another Take On Peak Oil: Exports, Not Production, Indicate Crisis by Zoe Macintosh on February 25, 2010

About twenty months ago, I discussed the topic of the Export Land Model, one defined and credited to Texas petroleum geologist Jeffrey Brown and a colleague (Dr. Samuel Foucher). Its premise begins with a simple question: “What happens to oil exports in a world with constrained oil supplies?”

As I noted in that prior post: “As oil-exporting nations use the profits generated from their production and sale to grow their own economies and strengthen their industries and infrastructure—while raising the standards of living of their own citizens—they must necessarily increase the amount of oil they retain for themselves. It is, after all, their oil. (And they function with fossil fuel-based infrastructures just as the rest of us do.) Seems fairly straightforward….

“What we tend to overlook … is that as oil production begins its inexorable decline (as it already has in many instances), and as this domestic use increases, the amount of oil available to the rest of us decreases even more drastically than it does based on a straight oil production decline.”

Uh-oh!

Let’s take a look at how this might work, using very simplified math (trying to help out certain political “leaders” as much as I can), and a scenario most can relate to.

I have 1000 bottles of water available to me each day from a reservoir located entirely on my property. My family has owned this land for hundreds of years. To extract the water and bottle it costs me, on average, just ten cents per bottle. So every day, like clockwork, investing the time and money needed, I extract 1000 bottles of water from my self-contained reservoir. My cost is a measly $100.00 every day.

Unfortunately, in my little community, we never get rain … ever! (Work with me here. I’m adopting a Republican leadership strategy: facts and science are inconvenient for purposes of my story, so off they go!)

The reservoir initially held, according to most water-bottling experts, approximately 100 million bottles of water way back when. Now I’m down to about 50 million bottles. Not an insignificant amount, to be sure! The reservoir is no longer just one big lake any longer, however. Draining away all that water over all these years has of course run it down quite a bit, and now some of that water tends to slide off here and there into little seams and pockets and shallower areas. That stuff is gonna be tough to get to, let me tell you!

But so far, I don’t have a lot of trouble getting to most of the water. Some days I have to work a bit more. Truth be told, more days are like that now than ever before, but not a big deal. I’ve had to buy some fancy do-hickeys to help me pump out the water, but I’m not worried. Just wish those things didn’t cost so much! But I’ve still got a lot of water on my property! Taking a good guess about those underwater nooks and crannies and eyeballing how deep I think the reservoir is, I’m pretty damn confident that I’ve still got “quite a few years” left before squeezing out all those bottles of water gets to be a bit too much for me.

Of course, water is absolutely essential to my continuing health. I can’t do without, that’s for sure! Every single day for the last many years, I’ve needed 50 of those bottles myself for all kinds of things. But those 50 that I first take out bottles every day for myself have been more than enough. I’ve never worried that I should start skimping here and there.

Now, I do like the finer things in life. A nice riding mower sure does help me out on the property, for one! Lots of TVs, too … can’t have enough of those! I like to take trips now and then, and as for new cars—the expensive kind—well, they’re a are a real treat for me. A few years back, I bought this really terrific piece of property and built a house. I like to spend a lot of time during the summer there. Lots of nice things in that house, too. Stuff is getting expensive! So I need some revenue to make sure I have all the stuff I want.

The neat thing about all of this is that with so much water on my property, every single day I’ve been able to share my good fortune with all my neighbors. It’s a small community, and most of them, unlike me, don’t have a lot of possessions yet and not a lot of needs, but they do need their water. And wouldn’t you know that each and every day, I’ve been able to sell all my bottles of extra water to my neighbors, all of whom are delighted to pay the $1.00 per bottle I ask. Win – win!

But here’s the thing: now I’m married (time travel into the future is way cool)! And wouldn’t you know, my wife needs her own supply of water every day. Not a problem, honey! We’ve got a lot of water. But I’ve been noticing recently that I’m not always getting the full 1000 bottles out every day. (That whole “no rain” thing is damned inconvenient!) Actually, I can’t remember the last time I did, but hey! We have enough for us, so no worries!

Neighbors grumbled a bit when I had to let them know I couldn’t meet all of their demands any longer, and because it’s getting a bit more difficult for me to get the water each day (gotta do some climbing down to get to the water nowadays, what with the level dropping and all), I had to start charging them a bit more. Truth be told, I’ve been kinda raising the prices regularly for quite some time. Wish it were different, but you know how it is!

Every now and then I’ve dropped the price when it made sense to do so, but most days I just can’t. (I do like buying all that stuff, you know, and it’s not free!)

And since my neighbors all need the water and would prefer getting it from me rather than having to waste time and money and effort driving all over the place to find a few bottles here and there in some of the outlying areas of our county (and it’s usually more expensive stuff, too; and some of it tastes funny, by the way), they keep buying whatever I put out on the card table I have out in front of my house.

No need to put up any fancy store decorations or anything like that. They’re gonna show up every day no matter what, so why spend the money? You would be amazed at all the cool stuff I buy from catalogs with all the money I save by not having to do anything to get my neighbors to buy my water! I’m sure I’ll use at least most of that stuff eventually.

Good news! We have a new baby (this fact-and science-free living is just amazing)! The baby sure does demand a lot, and it turns out that Junior needs a lot of water too! Not so much right now, ‘cuz after all he’s just a baby, but it’s just common sense that once he starts to grow, I know he’ll be needing more. Not a problem, ‘cuz I got lots of extra water!

Of course, while the neighbors are happy for me and delighted that my child is getting lots of chances to do things on my dime (amazing the stuff you can buy from baby catalogs!), I don’t have quite as many water bottles available for them each day. And you know how neighbors are: they do need their water!

There’s been some additional grumbling, and a few of the neighbors are starting to add some soda or tea to their daily routines, but that only goes so far. Those Dr. Pepper baths aren’t nearly as enjoyable as you might think, so they are definitely feeling the pinch now and then, but everyone is managing so far. There’s still just about enough water in the county to take care of everyone. Don’t for how long, but we’re all good at least today.

Fact is, I’ve got too much to think about right now as it is, so I really can’t be bothered thinking about tomorrow or next week, or even next month. That kind of long-term thinking just doesn’t work for me.

Of course, I could just tell my wife and Junior that they should do without all the water each of them needs, but I’m not having that conversation! So the bottom line is that I’m going to keep keeping for myself all the water my family needs every day and sell the rest.

More good news. Baby # 2 has arrived! Junior is starting to need a bit more water now that he’s starting to grow and have friends over, and well, with another thirst to quench, it looks like my neighbors’ supply has just gotten a bit smaller. And you know, I’m climbing down a bit more these days to get at all that water, so … well, you know how it is with costs and expenses and all.

Turns out that my parents are moving in. I’ve got a lot a space, and we do have that nice big second home (and man, that’s getting expensive to maintain). I hate to do it to my good neighbors, but it looks like the price is going to creep up just a bit more, and sad to say they are all going to have to start driving a bit farther out to get all they need, cuz most of the other suppliers in the county are having their own troubles keeping up with demand. I heard that just last week twenty of our neighbors had new babies! Six more of them started up new businesses, too. Good for them! They do need some water for all those new and shiny things, of course, and well, I’ve got more mouths to feed first and foremost, so  … well, you know how it is….

In fact, we just had baby # 3! Go figure! And man, do the other two growing children have their needs. Amazing how much more water I’m having to keep for myself these days. They all take showers; friends are now coming over; they’ve got school projects and sports activities and just about all of those events require water; and … well, the truth is that I’m needing a whole lot more water for my family than ever!

Neighbors are saying the same thing about their families, too! Go figure! A few of them are lucky because they have some smaller pools on their property, so they can usually make up for the county-wide shortfalls. Quality is not always as good, of course, but they’re fine. They do complain about how hard it is to get to those other reservoirs and how much work they have to do to get their water bottles back home, but no one seems to be worrying. Of course, they don’t have as much time to do other things, because getting that water home is now a lot more time-consuming than they imagined. Some of the store owners in town are complaining too. “Everyone in town keeps telling me that they can’t buy as much from me as they used to. Excuse is that they have to spend more money on that damn water! I’ve got expenses, too!” I hear that more and more these days.

This is kinda sad, but my sister’s husband lost his job, and they are having a tough time. Since I have a lot of water, I’m helping them out by giving them all they need. That’s one less thing they have to worry about, thankfully! After all, I do have lots of water! And my nephew … wow! He goes through water likes it … water! “It’s free, Uncle, and you’ve got a lot, so what’s the big deal?” I hear that all the time now. And my own Junior has this annoying habit of not turning the shower off, either. What a dummy! Twice a day, I have to clomp up the stairs to shut the water off. Good thing I have a lot of water to waste.

I know the neighbors understand, but I know they’re not happy. What can they say, really? It’s my water! It’s costing even more to get their water from me, I’m working harder, and my own water needs just keep growing! So glad I have a lot of water! Family is getting a bit antsy, ‘though. I had to buy my parents some new furniture because they were complaining so much. I think they’re happy now. But the kids! Every day they want something else, and I know there’s gonna be hell to pay if I don’t give in now and then. Truth is, it’s a lot more now than then these days….What can I do?

How’s all this math working for you so far?

Let me run by you this opening sentence from a recent Reuters report. Might be a good idea to take two minutes and read the entire story.

The world may have to live on a lot less Saudi Arabian crude towards the end of this decade as rampant internal demand eats into oil exports and the kingdom’s alternative energy plans may prove too little too late

Welcome to the Export Land Model … the one we need to consider here in the real, fact-based world.

More to come.

[NOTE: Back in April, I followed-up on a series of posts which I first began a year ago and last discussed back in April ([links below*). In that series, I’ve discussed the apparently limitless ability of too many to either ignore facts about oil production entirely, or who instead resort to efforts where disingenuous arguments and/or half-truths serve as sole support for their positions. The net effect is that these attempts do little more than confuse their followers, who likely do not have the time, interest, or inclination to explore the truths on their own (perfectly understandable ... life tends to interfere with lots of options). This post is a second another follow-up.

For starters, I’ll offer some familiar and popular contrasting views on the topic of Peak Oil and oil supply (the misleading, incorrect claim made in the first sentence below was addressed in the first of my two prior posts):

“The theory known as ‘peak oil’ has at its core the belief that we are rapidly running out of oil....

“When it comes to our day, the philosophy of scarcity comes full circle in the peak oil theory.  At its heart this philosophy of scarcity utterly fails to take into account human ingenuity, economics, technology and other important factors.  In other words, long before oil actually ran out, the price would go up so much that people would cut back on its use, find alternatives and seek out new sources of supply.” [1]

“Our abundant and rich lifestyle is all made possible from cheap and abundant energy. Our farmers use fertilizers made from natural gas. The tractors and combines burn diesel fuel as do the trucks that transport our food to either processing plants or the grocery store. Our stores are stocked with goods that are either made here or abroad. The goods arrive by planes, trains, boats or trucks that also burn fossil fuels. Everything we eat, consume, or enjoy is made possible through the production of energy. Liquid fuels have created new landscapes of concrete and asphalt highways, parking lots, shopping centers and endless urbansprawl.

“This is all made possible because of oil, the single most important source of primary energy in our world. Crude oil has changed the very tempo of modern life. Oil has increased the productivity of modern economies. It has accelerated as well as deepened the process of economic globalization….

“Oil has changed and transformed the landscape of the world.” [2]

As to the comments offered in the first quote above, I’m always struck by the glib dismissal of any consequences of declining oil production because of some combination of “human ingenuity, economics, technology and other important factors.” Economics has no impact on geology, so no matter how diligent one is in expounding economic principles, they will not create more fossil fuels. That supply is finite … period!

Certainly human ingenuity can always be counted on. Civilization has advanced to this date and in the manner it has because of that remarkable capacity demonstrated since the very dawn of mankind. And we cannot rationally dismiss the tremendous impact of technology working hand-in-hand with human ingenuity to create the marvels of this day and age.

But it is the author’s follow-up comment, repeated by too many others who discount the reality of our finite supply of economically feasible fossil fuel resources, which continues to astound me. “In other words, long before oil actually ran out, the price would go up so much that people would cut back on its use, find alternatives and seek out new sources of supply.”

The statement or a close approximation thereof is almost always uttered with the same assurance one has in stating that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning. Basic economic theory is absolutely correct that when the price of something goes up, almost always demand decreases until some other price equilibrium is reached or a less expensive substitute is found to be adequate. That’s not the bone I’m picking.

It’s the same glib certainty that “… people would find alternatives and seek out new sources of supply.” Just like that? I’ve yet to see any person challenging the reality of Peak Oil make a similar if not identical pronouncement who then explains in any detail whatsoever just how we go about finding these alternatives in any manner such that a transition from fossil fuel usage to the “alternatives” is achieved without considerable disruptions to our ways of living and producing.

Given the truthfulness of the second quote I offered above, do these dissidents have any conception at all of what kind of massive, monumental, nearly-inconceivable (take your pick) effort will be required to even approximate a seamless transition away from fossil fuels? Costs? Time? Research? Production to scale? Testing? Marketability? Resources? Expertise? Public understanding? Infrastructure? Pricing? Supply? Demand considerations? Just a few of the many questions that must not just be asked, but answered, before we’re all comfortably making use of “alternatives” and “new sources of supply.” And let’s not forget one of our major political parties’ relentless, shortsighted, narrow-minded efforts to cut back on investments in our future and in those very alternatives. Apparently waiting until we’ve fallen over the cliff before addressing the problem on the scale needed is the strategy du jour for some of our “leaders.” Great!

This flippant assertion that we’ll just simply move on to something else just like that does as much disservice to the future well-being of our citizens as anything I can think of. And in a too-crowded field of nonsense, that’s quite a determination! Listeners who have neither the time, nor interest, nor awareness, nor inclination to examine the matter further are then left with the “comfort” of knowing there’s nothing to be concerned about now, or any foreseeable point in time because some combination of magic “out there” by “others” will take care of this challenge before we know it! Does anyone on that side of the Peak Oil fence have any concept about the necessity of long term planning, integrity, or honesty in dealing with a challenge that will take us decades to fully adjust to? Is “get-what-I-can-today-consequences-tomorrow-be-damned” the strategy?

One final observation on this author’s recent post: “Just in the years 2007 to 2009, for every barrel of oil produced in the world, 1.6 barrels of new reserves were added.” Wonderful, except that those are not the same issues. Produced oil is not replaced by an accounting adjustment. An explanation of that accounting “trick” which created the “new reserves” is conveniently omitted from discussion. Of course, if you are going to make an argument in which truth will disprove your points as soon as the words start flowing, it sounds better if you skip the facts entirely! (See this explanation and refutation of this misleading “new reserves” meme; and read Mason Inman’s entire series on the Daniel Yergin essay in the Wall Street Journal—links provided in the article I’ve just referenced—it is well worth the read.)

The real issue is much simpler:

“… our Peak Oil problem is a case of simple mathematics.

“We stopped finding large oil fields 40 years ago. The production from those fields decreases every year and we simply can’t bring enough smaller fields on fast enough to offset those declines and grow daily oil production….

“The demand side of the equation is no help either. Population grows every year. And the most populous countries in the world grow per capita oil production every year as well. When you consider how many people are in China, India and other emerging countries and then consider how little oil each of them uses, it isn’t hard to see that changes in their lifestyle to include more oil consumption will make a big difference.” [3]

And if that won’t convince you, here’s a bit more:

“Global oil production (crude + condensate + natural gas liquids: C+C+NGL) has been on an 82 million barrel per day plateau for 7 years despite record high oil price, deployment of technology such as horizontal wells and 3D seismic, the development of new oil provinces such as offshore Angola and unconventional play concepts such as the Bakken shale in North Dakota. Oil production rose during the great oil bear market from 1980 to 1998 but has largely stagnated during the great bull run ever since….

“Any discussion about peak oil should begin with decline rates. Yergin’s organisation CERA is well aware of this fact having produced an excellent report on the subject a few years ago.

“Decline is the natural process whereby production rates fall as a result of depressurisation of the reservoir combined with water ingress into the oil-bearing strata. Oil production companies go to great lengths to mitigate for decline by injecting water or gas to maintain pressure, well maintenance programs (work overs) and by drilling new wells. Observed declines are therefore much less than natural declines but nevertheless run at a globalised average of around 5% per annum.

“With global C+C+NGL production running at 82 mmbpd, 5% observed net declines will wipe out 4.1 mmbpd capacity every year. What this means is that the oil industry must add 4.1 mmbpd new capacity every year from new field developments just to stand still. And this new capacity has to be derived from a stock of second-tier assets such as deep water Gulf of Mexico, heavy sour oil in Saudi Arabia, Arctic oil or the Bakken Shale since most of the favoured tier-one assets have already been produced.”

Just when ya think you’ve got the “farce” of Peak Oil pinned down, more of those damned facts pop up at the most inconvenient time!

* http://peakoilmatters.com/2010/10/18/more-on-the-message/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2010/07/12/peak-oil-more-fuzzy-math/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2010/11/22/still-dealing-with-peak-oil-denying-nonsense/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2010/12/20/the-stubbornness-of-denial/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2011/02/03/the-never-ending-efforts-to-skate-past-the-facts-of-peak-oil/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2011/02/10/more-never-ending-efforts-to-skate-past-the-facts-of-peak-oil/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2011/04/27/even-more-never-ending-efforts-to-skate-past-the-facts-of-peak-oil/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2011/09/26/still-more-never-ending-efforts-to-skate-past-the-facts-of-peak-oil-pt-1/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2011/10/03/still-more-never-ending-efforts-to-skate-past-the-facts-of-peak-oil-pt-2/

~~~

Sources

[1] http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2011/09/19/peak-oil-daniel-yergin-impending-doom/; Peak Oil, Daniel Yergin & Impending Doom By Kurt Brouwer

[2] http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/james-j-puplava/peak-oil-chronicles-when-giants-run-dry; The Peak Oil Chronicles, Part I: When The Giants Run Dry by James J Puplava CFP 02/04/2011

[3] http://seekingalpha.com/article/295546-hess-ceo-an-oil-insider-not-willing-to-sugarcoat-our-peak-oil-problem; Hess CEO: An Oil Insider Not Willing To Sugarcoat Our Peak Oil Problem by Devon Shire, September 23, 2011

[4] http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8391; Peak Oil – Now or Later? A Response to Daniel Yergin – Posted by Euan Mearns on September 21, 2011