Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Entering the Tough Oil Era: The New Energy Pessimism
When "peak oil" theory was first widely publicized in such path breaking books as Kenneth Deffeyes' Hubbert's Peak (2001), Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over (2002), David Goodstein's Out of Gas (2004), and Paul Robert's The End of Oil (2004), energy industry officials and their government associates largely ridiculed the notion. An imminent peak -- and subsequent decline -- in global petroleum output was derided as crackpot science with little geological foundation. "Based on [our] analysis," the U.S. Department of Energy confidently asserted in 2004, "[we] would expect conventional oil to peak closer to the middle than to the beginning of the 21st century."
Recently, however, a spate of high-level government and industry reports have begun to suggest that the original peak-oil theorists were far closer to the grim reality of global-oil availability than industry analysts were willing to admit. Industry optimism regarding long-term energy-supply prospects, these official reports indicate, has now given way to a deep-seated pessimism, even in the biggest of Big Oil corporate headquarters.
The change in outlook is perhaps best suggested by a July 27 article in the Wall Street Journal headlined, "Oil Profits Show Sign of Aging." Although reporting staggering second-quarter profits for oil giants Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell -- $10.3 billion for the former, $8.7 billion for the latter -- the Journal sadly noted that investors are bracing for disappointing results in future quarters as the cost of new production rises and output at older fields declines. "All the oil companies are struggling to grow production," explained Peter Hitchens, an analyst at the Teather and Greenwood brokerage house. "[Yet] it's becoming more and more difficult to bring projects in on time and on budget."
To appreciate the nature of Big Oil's dilemma, peak-oil theory must be briefly revisited. As originally formulated by petroleum geologist M. King Hubbert in the 1950s, the concept holds that worldwide oil production will rise until approximately half of the world's original petroleum inheritance has been exhausted; once this point is reached, daily output will hit a peak and begin an irreversible decline. Hubbert's successors, including professor emeritus Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton, contend that we have now consumed just about half the original supply and so are at, or very near, the peak-production moment predicted by Hubbert.
Since the concept burst into public consciousness several years ago, its proponents and critics have largely argued over whether or not we have reached maximum worldwide petroleum output. In a way, this is a moot argument, because the numbers involved in conventional oil output have increasingly been obscured by oil derived from "unconventional" sources -- deep-offshore fields, tar sands, and natural-gas liquids, for example -- that are being blended into petroleum feedstocks used to make gasoline and other fuels. In recent years, this has made the calculation of petroleum supplies ever more complicated. As a result, it may be years more before we can be certain of the exact timing of the global peak-oil moment.
On Tap: The Tough-Oil Era
There is, however, a second aspect to peak-oil theory, which is no less relevant when it comes to the global-supply picture -- one that is far easier to detect and assess today. Peak-oil theorists have long contended that the first half of the world's oil to be extracted and consumed will be the easy half. They are referring, of course, to the oil that's found on shore or near to shore; oil close to the surface and concentrated in large reservoirs; oil produced in friendly, safe, and welcoming places.
The other half -- what (if they are right) is left of the world's petroleum supply -- is the tough oil. They mean oil that's buried far offshore or deep underground; oil scattered in small, hard-to-find reservoirs; oil that must be obtained from unfriendly, politically dangerous, or hazardous places. An oil investor's eye-view of our energy planet today quickly reveals that we already seem to be entering the tough-oil era. This explains the growing pessimism among industry analysts as well as certain changes in behavior in the energy marketplace.
In but one sign of the new reality, the price of benchmark U.S. light, sweet crude oil for next-month delivery soared to new highs on July 31, topping the previous record for intraday trading of $77.03 per barrel set in July 2006. Some observers are predicting that a price of $80 per barrel is just around the corner; while John Kildruff, a perfectly sober analyst at futures broker Man Financial, told Bloomberg.com, "We're only a headline of significance away from $100 oil." New disruptions in Nigerian or Iraqi supplies, or a U.S. military strike against Iran, he explained, could trigger such a price increase in the energy equivalent of a nano-second.
A signal of another sort was provided by the government of Kazakhstan in oil-rich Central Asia on August 7. It warned the private operators of the giant offshore Kashagan oil project -- in the Kazakh sector of the Caspian Sea -- to cut costs and speed the onset of production or face a possible government takeover. In an interview, Prime Minister Karim Masimov said threateningly: "We are very disappointed with the execution of this project. If the operator can't resolve these problems, then we don't exclude their possible replacement."
Kashagan, it must be borne in mind, is not just any oil project: it is the largest field to be developed anywhere in the world since the discovery of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay some 40 years ago. With estimated oil reserves of 9-13 billion barrels, it is crucial to the hopes of its principal developers -- Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Total (of France), and Eni (of Italy) -- to increase their output in the years ahead. Consistent with the "tough oil" aspect of peak-oil theory, Kashagan is, however, proving dauntingly difficult to turn into a successful font of petroleum. The oil reservoir itself is buried beneath high-pressure strata of gas, making its extraction exceedingly tricky, and it contains abnormally high levels of deadly hydrogen sulfide; moreover, the entire field is located in a shallow area of the Caspian Sea that freezes over for five months of the year and is the breeding ground for rare seals and beluga sturgeon.
As a result of these and other problems, the Kashagan operating consortium has seen the price-tag for launching the project nearly double -- from $10 billion to $19 billion -- and has postponed the onset of initial production from 2005 to 2010, infuriating the Kazakh government, which had hoped to be earning billions of dollars in taxes and royalties by now.
A Demanding World
And then there are those reports from high-level agencies and organizations on the global energy picture, all coming to the same basic conclusion: Whether or not the peak in world oil output is at hand, the future of the global oil supply in a world of endlessly growing demand appears grim.
The first of these recent warnings, entitled the "Medium-Term Oil Market Report," was released on July 8 by the International Energy Agency (IEA), an arm of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the club of major industrial powers. Although filled with statistics and technical analyses, the report, assessing the global oil supply-and-demand equation through 2012, seemed to leak anxiety and came to a distinctly worrisome conclusion: Because world oil demand is likely to keep rising at a rapid tempo and the development of new oil fields is not expected to keep pace, significant shortfalls are likely to emerge within the next five years.
The IEA report predicts that world economic activity will grow by an average of 4.5% per year during this period -- driven largely by unbridled growth in China, India, and other Asian dynamos. Global oil demand will rise, it predicts, by about 2.2% per year, pushing world oil consumption from an estimated 86.1 million barrels per day in 2007 to 95.8 million barrels by 2012. With luck and substantial new investment, the global oil industry may be able to increase output sufficiently to satisfy this higher level of demand -- but, if so, just barely. Beyond 2012, the production outlook appears far grimmer. And keep in mind, this is the best-case scenario.
Underlying the report's conclusions are a number of specific fears. Despite rising fuel prices, neither the mature consumers of the OECD countries, nor newly affluent consumers in the developing world are likely to significantly curb their appetite for petroleum. "Demand is growing, and as people become accustomed to higher prices, they are starting to return to their previous trends of high consumption," was the way Lawrence Eagles, an oil expert at the IEA, summed the situation up. This is clearly evident in the United States, where record-high gasoline prices have not stopped drivers from filling up their tanks and driving record distances.
In addition, oil output in the United States and most other non-members of the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC) has peaked, or is about to do so, which means that the net contribution of non-OPEC suppliers will only diminish between now and 2012. That, in turn, means that the burden of providing the required additional oil will have to fall on the OPEC countries, most of which are located in unstable areas of the Middle East and Africa.
The numbers are actually staggering. Just to satisfy a demand for an extra 10 million or so barrels per day between now and 2012, two million barrels per day in new oil would have to be added to global stocks yearly. But even this calculation is misleading, as Eagles of the IEA made clear. In fact, the world would initially need "more than 3 million barrels per day of new oil each year [just] to offset the falling production in the mature fields outside of OPEC" -- and that's before you even get near that additional two million barrels.
In other words, what's actually needed is five million barrels of new oil each year, a truly daunting challenge since almost all of this oil will have to be found in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Angola, Libya, Nigeria, Venezuela, and one or two other countries. These are not places that exactly inspire investor confidence of a sort that could attract the many billions of dollars needed to ramp up production enough to satisfy global requirements.
Read between the lines and one quickly perceives a worst-case scenario in which the necessary investment is not forthcoming; OPEC production does not grow by five million barrels per day year after year; ethanol and other substitute-fuel production, along with alternate fuels of various sorts, do not grow fast enough to fill the gap; and, in the not-too-distant future, a substantial shortage of oil leads to a global economic meltdown.
The Missing Trillions
A very similar prognosis emerges from a careful reading of "Facing the Hard Truths About Energy," the second major report to be released in July. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Petroleum Council (NPC), an oil-industrial association, this report encapsulated the view of both industry officials and academic analysts. It was widely praised for providing a "balanced" approach to the energy dilemma. It called for both increased fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and increased oil and gas drilling on federal lands. Contributing to the buzz around its release was the identity of the report's principal sponsor, former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond. Having previously expressed skepticism about global warming, he now embraced the report's call for the taking of significant steps to curb carbon-dioxide emissions.
Like the IEA report, the NPC study does claim that -- with the perfect mix of policies and an adequate level of investment -- the energy industry would be capable of satisfying oil and gas demand for some years to come. "Fortunately, the world is not running out of energy resources," the report bravely asserts. Read deep into the report, though, and these optimistic words begin to dissolve as its emphasis switches to the growing difficulties (and costs) of extracting oil and gas from less-than-favorable locations and the geopolitical risks associated with a growing global reliance on potentially hostile, unstable suppliers.
Again, the numbers involved are staggering. According to the NPC, an estimated $20 trillion in new investment (that's trillion, not billion) will be needed between now and 2030 to ensure sufficient energy for anticipated demand. This works out to "$3,000 per person alive today" in a world in which a good half of humanity earns substantially less than that each year.
These funds, which can only come from those of us in the wealthier countries, will be needed, the council notes, in "building new, multi-billion-dollar oil platforms in water thousands of feet deep, laying pipelines in difficult terrain and across country borders, expanding refineries, constructing vessels and terminals to ship and store liquefied natural gas, building railroads to transport coal and biomass, and stringing new high-voltage transmission lines from remote wind farms." Adding to the magnitude of this challenge, "future projects are likely to be more complex and remote, resulting in higher costs per unit of energy produced." Again, think tough oil.
The report then notes the obvious: "A stable and attractive investment climate will be necessary to attract adequate capital for evolution and expansion of the energy infrastructure." And this is where any astute observer should begin to get truly alarmed; for, as the study itself notes, no such climate can be expected. As the center of gravity of world oil production shifts decisively to OPEC suppliers and to state-centric energy producers like Russia, geopolitical rather than market factors will come to dominate the energy industry and a whole new set of instabilities will characterize the oil trade.
"These shifts pose profound implications for U.S. interests, strategies, and policy-making," the report states. "Many of the expected changes could heighten risks to U.S. energy security in a world where U.S. influence is likely to decline as economic power shifts to other nations. In years to come, security threats to the world's main sources of oil and natural gas may worsen."
Read from this perspective, the recent reports from pillars of the Big- Oil/wealthy-nation establishment suggest that the basic logic of peak-oil theory is on the mark and hard times are ahead when it comes to global oil-and-gas sufficiency. Both reports claim that with just the right menu of corrective policies and an unrealistic streak of pure luck -- as in no set of major Katrina-like hurricanes barreling into oil fields or refineries, no new wars in Middle Eastern oil producing areas, no political collapse in Nigeria -- we can somehow stagger through to 2012 and maybe just beyond without a global economic meltdown. But in an era of tough oil, the odds tip toward tough luck as well. Buckle your seatbelt. Fill up that gas tank soon. The future is likely to be a bumpy ride toward cliff's edge.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show AllI've read a lot about Michael Klare and while he may be correct on the "Peak Oil" crisis, he never mentions any solutions. In fact, a friend of mine sent him a letter and this is what Klare or his staff sent back as a response:
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
While I appreciate your attempt to enlighten me on the use of biodiesels such as hemp, please do not forget that hemp is ILLEGAL. Legalizing it would undermine America's victory on the War on Drugs.
------------------------------------------------------------
It's like saying that pulling out of Iraq would "undermine" America's victory on the War on Terror ! If this is what it takes to be a "professor", America's education is going further down the toilet !
if we've achieved victory in the war on drugs, can victory in iraq be far behind?
That sober analyst who was quoted by Klare in this article was actually quoting Hugo Chavez--who is obviously correct because he controls OPEC.
Wake up, little Susie.
Wake up.
I hate to say this, but this article is garbage, based on what I have read of Greg Palast's work in "Armed Madhouse."
Here's the key chapter:
http://peakoil.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-palast-is-wrong.html
Palast argues quite convincingly that the concept of peak oil is a terrible canard advanced by Big Oil itself, and in the service of oil-based warfare, as justification for higher gas prices, and to ensure that the public is ready when Big Oil decides to turn attention back to nuclear energy.
The author of the above article is either a duped sucker, or is part of the Big Oil complex.
I urge you to scan Palast's work and decide for yourself. We should at least be very skeptical of any fear tactics related to the concept of peak oil, and acknowledge that this concept presents a tacit, revisionist justification for the war in Iraq, with Iran rhetoric ramping up.
One of the pernicious dimensions of this ruse is that on the surface it plays into the "liberal" and green environmentalist crowd, who thinks it has an additional reason to tout alternative energy supplies.
We should stop allowing ourselves to be played by these people.
To really understand this, you need to draw two curves on a piece of paper. One is the oil supply curve. That's the curve that climbs up, flattens out at the 'peak', and then goes back down. Its the one Mr. Klare writes about.
The second curve is the oil demand curve as it currently exists. It can start at the same spot at the bottom where the oil supply curve starts. The difference is, it only goes up. And its one of those geometrically increasing curves that goes up faster and faster the further to the left you go in the picture you are drawing.
Europe is the only area holding demand relatively flat or only climbing slowly. The US was definitely growing. But the real big regions to consider are China and India with their population in the billions and their rapid moves into the same sort of petroleum based society like the US and Western Europe. And the rest of the world is also growing in demand, but slower.
So, what makes this really fun is that while worldwide oil production is probably roughly at its peak and won't ever be substantially more than today, worldwide oil demand is skyrocketing and growing every year.
Sorry to the naysayers above, but Mr. Klare is only citing facts. And you'd better put those facts together with skyrocketing demand to get the real picture. Oil is going to be harder to get out of the ground and more expensive to get out of the ground. Meanwhile, more and more people are going to want it. Us Americans are going to be competing with a billion Chinese and Indians who will have cars and also want gas to run them. Whether you like it or not, the price of oil is going to skyrocket.
Someday we'll all be telling our grandkids about when we could get gas for $3 a gallon, and they'll look at us oldsters like we are crazy.
PS ... there is a lot of BS around peak oil. There are a lot of overblown fear tactics out there. I've read multiple articles and books where I just say Bull after awhile.
But .... Saudi Arabia used to claim they could pump 12 million barrels a day of oil. Today they are lucky to be getting 9 million barrels a day out of the ground. Oil fields do deplete. As time goes on and as you pump more oil out, it is harder to pump the oil out.
Study the Texas oil fields for a wonderful example. When they were first tapping them, there was such pressure in the ground that they got the 'gushers' you see in the movie. Just drive a pipe into the oil underground, and it came out with such pressure that it would shoot hundreds of feet into the air. That was in the early 20th century. During World War II, Texas had the most productive oil fields in the world. The US had all the oil it needed for that war, and could also ship oil to our allies to support them. Today, the Texas oil fields produce oil at about 10% of that peak amount.
There are no new major oil fields being discovered. For the last 30 to 50 years the oil companies have sent geologists all over the world to search for them. There's nothing new out there the size of Saudi Arabia or Texas that still hasn't been found.
So, while yes there are some overblown fear mongers out there on the topic of peak oil, the basic facts cited by Mr. Klare are esentially correct.
COMarc,
Mr. Klare may be correct about the DOOM and GLOOM on "peak oil" but he doesn't ever talk about the fact that BIG OIL made allies with the vested business interests to make Cannibas ILLEGAL first through OVERTAXATION and then the DEA once it was discovered by Henry Ford and others that hemp oil could run our autos. Because hemp was FORCED out of business, car engines had to be adjusted to adapt to petroleum. If Mr. Klare would take time off his "busy" schedule to connect the dots and better inform readers about the connections between wars for oil and defunding or even ILLEGALIZING alternative renewables, he'd be more credible. Until then, he's just another crybaby crying over spilled milk instead of actually encouraging REAL solutions.
articles like these don't need to be as long as they are.
we get the point about oil being a non renewable resource and what that might imply in the big picture of time and history.
People on the Titanic did not mention any solutions either. Sometimes there are no "solutions". Dealing with consequences in the best way possible was the best course of action for those on the Titanic and they did not do that either. We, like the people on the Titanic, must deal with the consequences of what we have created. How best to deal with the fact that human population needs to be reduced by some large per-centage and our entire civilization needs to be re-invented?
The worlds private oil companies only control 15% of the world's oil reserves, the rest is nationally owned. That being the case, it is not a good idea to go on a let's anger them crusade. You can not afford to do a regime change every time you want more oil. That would double the price and be WAY too obvious.
comarc,
Obviously, at some point oil will run out. to say fossil fuels are a finite resource is stating the obvious. So, to clarify, there are a number of curious phenomena around peak oil that require explanation if your view and the article view is to be accepted as factual.
In Hubbert's original plots, I believe production was expected to peak in the 70s. Since the 70s, every some number of years, someone comes out and says "oh yeah, now we are at the peak."
Though I do not have the evidence in front of me, my copy of Armed Madhouse is buried in a box somewhere as I just moved, I am fairly certain this has been going on for 30 years straight.
Magically, apparently in defiance of the laws of physics, or perhaps just as a stubborn reminder how inept the forecasters are, both production and the total estimate of worldwide reserves keep going up.
Now, either the "experts" have no idea what they are talking about, or they are serving some ulterior motive. The argument is there is a massive political and economic incentive to exaggerate the scarcity of oil. In fact, it seems this is exactly what has been happening now for three decades.
Anyway, whether the forecasters are incompetent or are motivated by sinister interests -- in either case their claims are to be greeted with extreme skepticism.
For example, you cite the Saudis cutting back on production as evidence of dwindling reserves. Is that the ONLY possible explanation? Could it be that Saudi Arabia profits from an artificial scarcity.
It's almost as if these oil producing nations would benefit by banding together, setting production quotas, and being disciplined about keeping production artificially low and prices artificially high. I wonder if they've thought to formalize some sort of institution to manage this as, say, sort of a cartel. They could call it something like the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Though I'm sure you've read many books and are quite an expert, your claims and those of all others that can be used to perpetuate the slaughter of innocent people overseas, who were unfortunate enough to be born over oil, needs to be greeted with extreme doubt and scrutiny, in my opinion.
kayaker, if you even read my posts you'd realize that comparing the Titanic to "Peak Oil" is an ABSURD ideology. The Titanic tragedy was unpreventable almost. "Peak oil" tragedy on the other hand IS PREVENTABLE and has been for 70 years. Do a google search on hemp and "peak oil" and then you'll get the picture.
Besides, if INDUSTRIAL HEMP were not outlawed and was in fact allowed to compete with petroleum, we wouldn't be in this "peak oil" PREVENTABLE crisis in the first place as hemp replace petroleum all the way. Also, do you like listening to a LOUSY "professor" who talks DOOM and GLOOM but then gives NO for an answer when presented with solutions that can indeed get us out of this mess? Michael Klare is HAPPY that middle America is voting against their own economic interests and that lower/middle/working class voters are forced to be dependent on foreign oil all the while he gets to keep his cushiony seat and Amherst University and live up to the liberal libel. Having actually read all his articles, I wouldn't be surprised if most of his income comes from repeating the same old DOOM and GLOOM stuff in his articles for the past DECADE.
mirf59,
Oil DID PEAK in the U.S.A. in the early 1970's exactly as predicted by Hubbert. Not even the discovery and production of the Alaskan fields changed the Peak date.
I have never read a Peak Oil theorist advocating the overthrow of other governments and the seizing of their petroleum assets. Peak Oil theory does help EXPLAIN the recent abominable behaviour of the U.S.A towards Iraq and Venezuela and our expected repeated (the first being our overthrow of their government in the early 1950's) abominable behaviour towards Iran. No where have I read that the ease with which we fill the tanks of our Hummers and Escalades justifies the suffering of the local environments and indigenous people surrounding the oil fields around the world.
I have to take issue with your idea that for thirty years OPEC or other sinister forces have contrived to reduce oil production and spread a false message of oil scarcity. OPEC for one has been careful to not allow the price of oil climb so high at to trigger large growth in and support for alternative energies. They have quashed the alternative energies market at least once already and right now I am sure they wish they could do it again. They also did not want to spur large oil drilling projects around the world by allowing the price to climb too high. Development of the North Sea Fields clued them into that.
On the other hand, if OPEC members and others want to develop their oil resources and produce them at a rate that maximizes efficiency and longevity of THEIR fields, I say more power to them. We need those fields to last, not quickly deplete or become damaged by over production and leave more oil trapped in the ground than is necessary.
The sad truth is that we will never leave these oil producing countries alone and we never have. Army tanks, jet fighters, helicopters, B-52's and other war toys run on petroleum. Not solar power, windmills, nuclear fusion, hydrogen, ethanol, or compressed air. PETROLEUM. Ask Germany, ask Japan. One of their weaknesses in WW2 was lack of adequate access to petroleum. German tanks ran out of diesel, the Luftwaffe ran out of gasoline. FishcerBosch (sp I know) could not produce enough fuel from coal to make a difference. Japan had similar problems. Naval battle plans affected because of inadequate fuel supplies. They tried to make fuels from pine trees, miserable gummed up failure. Yes, America was the arsenal of democracy in WW2 but we were also the gas can of democracy. Our allies did not suffer the terrible petroleum shortages of our enemies and fared better. This lesson was not lost on our military industrial complex.
America is still the arsenal of something. War toys are one of the few things we still manufacture in large quantities. The gas can we seem determined to steal. Our military realizes that without adequate supplies of petroleum our armed forces are just large numbers of people in blue and green marching in circles and peeling potatoes on KP. Can't rule an empire doing that.
I believe oil has peaked. Too bad because everything I have read says we need at least 20 years to transition to alternative energies and strategies. Civilization has now had over 100 years of oil welfare wherby (early on) one could invest one unit of energy and obtain one hundred units of energy. Now the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is something like seven or five to one, and decreasing as they have to drill in deeper water, more remote locations, or pry oil from tar sands. When it reaches one to one the game will be over and we had better be using something else that gives us returns of five to one or better. Oil will never run out, it will just reach the point where recovering it, refining it, and transporting it, will use more energy than can be obtained FROM it. As an energy source, it will be at that point extinct.
People don't need fossil fuel.
If you want to know more about how to survive in a scarce petroleum world come to the Community Solutions Conference in Yellow Springs Ohio.
http://www.communitysolution.org/
Community Service, Inc. (CSI), founded in 1940, is a non-profit organization that educates on the benefits and values of small local community living. We envision a world where people live sustainably and cooperatively in local communities which are diverse, equitable, and just.
The Community Solution program, started in 2003, is a national resource for knowledge and practices on low-energy living and self-reliant communities. We educate about the coming global oil production peak and climate change, and design solutions to the current unsustainable, fossil-fuel based, overly centralized way of living.
PEace
Caelidh
We usually think about depleting oil in the terms of what immediately comes to mind, less oil, higher gas prices. But, later on, when the oil is depleted the consequences will have more impact. For future generations the lack of oil will affect every aspect of their lives. The trickle down effect is hard to imagine when applied to everyday things that we take for granted. Petroleum is used in every aspect of our lives from heating to clothing to food growing and processing. The list is endless. The staple methods of survival have long been abandoned and the chores our grandparents and great grandparents took for granted are no longer practiced. Hope you have kept your FoxFire books. They may come in handy someday.
if hemp is the savior (smoke it, eat it, wear it AND run your Hummer off it), why aren't other countries investing in it?
the 2nd study cited by klare (by NPC) sounds a little suspicious to me. here's an oil baron trying to convince the gov't that they need 20 trillion dollars. oh yeah. and just what has exxon been doing w/its 50 billion annual profit all these years?
i don't feel qualified to be certain about peak oil, precisely b/c for all the actors involved (except the citizen consumer), the goal is to make money. the goal is not providing energy to people, but rather taking their wealth. we need highly qualified, disinterested analysis of this (and i know there is some out there), but OPEC & NPC reports don't necessarily qualify.
in any case, the ecological impact of the oil economy (including warfare over resources), that issue alone, should compel us to wean ourselves off of oil, right?
You know...I had to dab away a tear reading this sad prediction for the evidently impending plight of the big oil companies. I ask you all...where is your compassion and empathy? Can't you see that big oil suffers for us, worry for us and most of all...can't you appreciate the sincerity of the concern expessed here ...they care? Why don't you? Can't you just understand... their need?
Geeze...give me a break.
Proven reserves? Developed reserves? Uh huh. No new discoveries? Oh really? New fields are yet to be developed in Africa besides those starting to come in in Sudan and Russia. Even our own in the Gulf of Mexico.
However there is one other peak no one seemed to mention that perhaps is of passing minor interest. Were we to use all the known reserves already in development (excluding newly discovered supplies), our planet becomes toast. Yet here we have a balanced report by an uninterested objective source... the ceo of Exxon. I personally was quite touched by the mere mention of it. Weren't you?
As usage peaks along with prices and we raise taxes on oil which raises prices further and oh my...I worry for the oil companies. I gather from this article ...ahem...heart rending appeal...that apparently we will need to further subsidize them, as record breaking profits aren't sufficient to encourage investments? Hey...listen people...the twilight zone was just a TV show!
If we use all this oil...the future dies for our children and grandchildren. The race is not to discover new oil to match a doubling demand (which equals usage and a whole lot more carbon spewed into the atmosphere).
The race is for the planetary ecosystem's survival. Scientists say we need to cut our carbon production by 70% and do it fast and likely 90% if we can. We are unlikely as yet to do either. We all know that if we stopped adding carbon suddenly, that the planet would still warm for a couple of centuries anyway. Now China's and India's rapid industrial rise will in effect double the oil needs and the carbon added to the system, when instead we should be at least halving it. Where do you see that REALITY mentioned in this tear bedrenched plea for sympathy for big oil?
The realities of oil are such that if we do things as we already are doing them...we will need more oil. Yeah that's true. Of course if we actually used all that oil...geeze.
Before we can use all that oil, a peak of carbon addition (oil, coal gas etc.)in the atmosphere will be reached beyond which we will not be able to sustain either the world's economy (let's just say 'the heat is on') nor our environment.
But hear ye all among the faithful >>> remember... when life gets hard, when the misery knocks on your door, when you figure it's so hot that you just can't take anymore... remember always and have faith...that Exxon loves you!
Profits be praised...it's a matter of faith. Didn't you know? They are doing...their best. Ain't they. Exxon loves me...I know it's true. Exxon loves you too. Exxon loves everybody...whoopie do!
The irony of global warming is that as the arctic melts previously unavailable supplies of oil and gas appear and demand, for a while, will probably be met.
By the way, the reason Bush wanted to go to Mars was they think there's oil there.
Even if there is a limitless supply of fossil fuels it wouldn't hurt one little bit to try to consume less and begin to depend more on our local communities and economies. Driving 40 or 50 miles to save a few cents on items at WalMart doesn't compute as rational, but people still do it. There all of those wonderful things at the box shops that they don't have at home, don't need and don't have the money to buy,, so they charge, and what they bought on sale for a song will be a symphony when they pay the late fees and interest. That is not rational either, but they still do it.
I hate oil. All the dead or homeless Iraqis soon to include Iranians. I hate Big Oil. I hate Big government. I hate what the lust for oil is doing to our world. It pollutes. It destroys. It kills wildlife.It kills children. I hate oil. I hate greedy oil companies that thumb their noses at all us peons who line up to buy theirstinking,polluting, baby killing,greasy product. Sold by underpaid gas jockeys that resent washing your windshield. I hate dirty bathrooms in gas stations. I hate the smell of raw gas that gets on your hands or seeps into your car as your getting your fix at the station. I hate the obscene prices we have to pay. I hate obscene profits the soulless,fat, companies make at our expense. I hate the fact that we are not being offered alternatives to oil in any form. Big oil is destroying our planet,our hopes our dreams our future and our souls. I hate oil. Always will.
RTBOB99: informed points. I have not read Palast's book and frankly find it difficult to know the truth on this issue, although evidence supports the contention that this IS a finite resource, and therefore running lower. Meanwhile, note how often the date 2012 is cited by this author, and it's intriguing since that happens to be the year indicated by the mathematically ingenious Mayan calendar for a huge change in civilization, one that includes ominous portents. Whether the Christian concept of End times is taken into consideration or the astrological view of an age phase transition, many portents suggest the WAY we live, as industrialized rats in lifeless mazes, will not be ABLE to continue as thus. How much devastation accompanies this transition is yet to be seen; but with the US as the role model to the world for rabid resource depletion and its own maladies the psychic equivalent of canaries in the coalmine, the pursuit of wealth without heart, soul or care for nature or others, is equivalent to mass suicide. One cannot foul its own nest indefinitely and expect to live on... the indigenous learned to respect life from its source and build sustainable ecology into their social systems. Too bad those arts have mostly been lost to "live in the moment" unapologetic scenarios of wasteful consumption that largely leads to obesity and emotional bankrupcy. NOT a recipe worth sustaining, and the growing pains to learn OTHER will not be painless... but the transition is necessary, and probably destined.
I agree with Caelidh -- the Community Solutions conferences is among the best, because it concentrates on solutions, not "The sky is falling" fretting and hand-wringing.
More people are going to have to take more responsibility for their own food and energy supply in the future. That's the bottom line.
If you prefer to have a job that pays you money that you spend for food and energy, welcome to the "Boiling Frog" club!
busy butterfly bloggers, you're handed discontent from both sides. i bet you thought the democrats were going to "solve" everything. corruption is bi-partisan. there is no "real" energy shortage for us privileged americans, just a few more dollars per gallon. we will survive. but, on the other hand, ridiculous bio-ethanol solutions that drive food costs to third world nations; where they don't have a choice.they starve for our cars. all this progressive concern, and not one of you could see the obvious "human reaction". doesn't anyone take psychology courses these days? i'll take comments from any of you narcissistic "do-gooders".