Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How Fish Use Energy Teaches True Oil Economics
Charlie Hall, the outspoken ecologist who charges that neoclassical economists largely write fairy tales, is having a good day in Puerto Rico. The sun is shining and girls in bikinis are walking down the beach.
But Hall, as usual, is thinking about how surplus energy makes the world go around and why the U.S. economy is faltering.
Professor Charlie HallNow Hall, a 68-year-old New England born professor with a gift for plain speaking, has made a name for himself by championing a revolutionary idea known as energy return on energy invested (EROI). Every plant, animal and human civilization lives by EROI.
The law isn't rocket science. Whenever a salmon, bear, lodgepole or Dow Jones company spends more energy on an activity than they get back, death follows. Or in corporate terms, debt builds and things fall apart.
While studying migrating fish in the U.S. eastern seaboard and juvenile salmon in Nanaimo, B.C., 40 years ago, Hall derived and got obsessed with the idea.
At the time he discovered that 27 species of fish in North Carolina's New Hope Creek would spend a considerable amount of energy to migrate upstream. This great swim guaranteed their offspring a rich nursery where the young wouldn't have to spend so many calories trying to find food. In fact parents of all species behave much like these temperate fish.
These novel fish studies convinced Hall that the world revolves around surplus energy: "Everything in life is about energy costs and energy gains." (In Hall's line of thinking, the best advice a parent can ever give a child is strictly fishy: invest your energy wisely.)
Puzzling picture of oil drilling
After his fish energy studies Hall, a student of the great ecologist Howard Odum, started thinking about energy gains in the oil patch in the early 1980s. He wondered if the industry experienced that same sort of declining returns over time that dogged the world's fisheries. As ships, nets and quantity of oil burned got larger, the protein returns per unit of energy invested shrank dramatically.
Cutler Cleveland, then a muscular undergraduate and now an energy brain in his own right, investigated and came up with a puzzling graph.
It was N shaped and showed energy gains for oil going up and down like a yo-yo. "The yield per foot of drilling would reach a minimum and then jump back up, then down even more sharply." Hall then asked Cleveland to add the number of feet drilled per year and then the graph showed a dramatic decline over time. "It was just like the fisheries."
The Wall Street Journal reported on the findings with a headline that declared "Increased Drilling for Oil May Consume More Energy Than It Gleans." Like most of the media it then forgot all about EROI.
"Politicians who say, 'Drill, baby, drill' have their head up their asses," adds Hall. "You don't get more oil by drilling more. You just get less efficient returns. You only get more oil by drilling thoughtfully."
But Hall's EROI work (and that of students and colleagues) unsettled the energy status quo. "We never got any money to do this," he reflects. "It all happened on weekends or pro bono. No government agency is interested in the information. Most science, to be honest, promises some form of candy. EROI doesn't do that and we don't do that."
Steep decline in energy returns
In a new analysis for Sustainability Journal (along with 19 other papers on EROI) Hall spells out how steep the decline in energy returns has become in the oil industry. The trend almost looks as dismal as catches for the wild salmon fishery.
In 1919 petrolistas got marvelous EROI returns for finding oil at 300 to one. (It simple terms, it took but one barrel to find 300 more, yielding perhaps the greatest energy surplus and capital gains in human history.) Today that EROI has dropped as low as five or three to one.
The energy returns for producing oil are plummeting too. In 1919 they hovered around 20 to one and then rose to 30 to one during the age of big oil field discoveries in the 1960s. Now they've declined to 10 to one. "Society is now living on old oil fields and we're spending more energy to find less and less energy," says Hall. Moreover North America has built a society dependent on energy returns higher than 10.
Given such grim declines, industry is exploiting ever more extreme and difficult resources (from the tar sands to Arctic oil). (Or it burns more oil to create ethanol from corn than ethanol's net return.) Yet these high-priced fuels deliver less and cost more in terms of water, land and capital. (Oil analyst Peter Tertzakian calculates that the energy-eating tar sands, for example, offer returns of seven to one for raw bitumen which drop to three to one once the junk crude has been upgraded and refined into gasoline.)
Neoclassical economists, of course, reply that technology and markets will magically overcome depletion and even resolve dramatic losses in energy gains, the heartbeat of every civilization.
But Hall says that's bunk. He argues that economics -- which is currently touted as a social science, is really about "stuff" and how people change the natural world to get stuff. Not surprisingly, he wants to reconnect economics with the reality of resource depletion, and has started a whole new school of thinking called biophysical economics. (He's even written a provocative book on the subject: Energy and the Wealth of Nations.)
How can you capture more surplus energy from a resource that is increasingly getting more costly to produce with lower and lower energy returns? asks Hall.
He also notes that neo-classical economic thinking is pretty much a byproduct of hugely increased oil consumption. Prior to the petroleum age, which begin in the late 1850s, and didn't start galloping along until the 1900s, people mostly lived on farms and thought a lot about work, muscle and effort all the time. As a consequence, earlier "classical" economists wrote about limits, scarcity and prudence.
But oil seemingly banished these conservative deliberations. Fossil fuels returned such extraordinary energy surpluses and so much easy wealth that economists got dumb and stupid. They even dropped land, resources and energy from their models and equations. Thanks to oil they became a faith-based group that worshipped markets. Or as Hall puts it, "The abundance of oil allowed them not to think about energy."
EROI, however, explains a lot of dismal realties. On an island like Puerto Rico, where Hall has studied energy returns in the rain forest for years, the importance of EROI rolls sharply into focus.
Before the advent of oil, the island was a poor and hard-working village that sacrificed its forests for calories. But after oil and Operation Bootstrap, well, Puerto Rico became an industrial marvel in the Caribbean. Thirty per cent of its forests promptly grew back.
Now that the price of oil has reached $100 a barrel, and given that most of the island's power is generated by oil-fired generators, Hall wonders if the clock won't turn back. "I'm beginning to wonder when energy becomes less available if the same parameters that drove Puerto Rico development will have to be run backwards."
Why the US is in decline
Hall also thinks that EROI explains the damnable predicament of the United States. The world's first petro state, a resplendent creation, dazzled the planet with energy returns of 300 to one. But now the nation's energy jazz has shrunk and sputtered with returns of 10 to one or less.
"I have seen the future and it's here. Do you get what I'm saying?" says Hall. "Everywhere you turn in the United States you see economic constriction. About 46 of 50 states are broke. Our universities are broke. All the Tea Partiers are bent out of shape by the national debt. The country just can't do a lot of the things that it used to do. We have had no increase in GDP and no increase in energy use for six years. And that's not a coincidence."
Hall doesn't see another future of exponential growth in the cards either. The U.S. economy will either hover around no growth or barely exceed one per cent. The nation that got the world hooked on oil culture, Chicago school economics and cheap stuff has simply peaked and spent all of its cheap energy returns.
"We are sitting around waiting for growth to happen," says Hall. But like fishermen waiting for another catch, the nets are coming up empty and the big boats are spending more fuel to chase smaller fish or the ghosts of fish.
Now being a good ecologist, Hall doesn't think that EROI should necessarily become the only scientific tool for decision-making. But he thinks it's one critical and important idea that regulators and policy makers need to ponder.
Before building more wind farms or digging more bitumen mines or polluting more groundwater for shale gas, policy makers need to ask what they are sacrificing for energy as well as what the real energy costs and gains will be.
Given the declining returns for difficult oil and shale gas, as well as low EROIs for most green alternatives (solar is moving up), Hall predicts that EROI will shape our lives in the days ahead as much as the fish he studied in New Hope Creek.
Not so long ago the biologist stood in the middle of Puerto Rico's Luquillo Experimental Forest and talked about the importance of energy costs and gains for the Discovery channel. What works in a rainforest, he told viewers, also works for civilized society and empires based on oil.
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...


16 Comments so far
Show AllThis article, and the paper linked to it, are stunningly clear. As a cyclist, my concern with prudent acquisition and use of energy makes Professor Hall's observations and conclusions very clear indeed.
Excellent article. My guess is that capitalists do have a notion of "energy return on energy invested" (EROI), and they try to get around it by increasing production, and thereby increasing the destruction. Instead of thinking only in energy terms, they of course think in monetary terms - that is why the tar sands operations pick up when oil prices are high. The irony here is that if there is a steep drop in oil prices, Albertans get nervous and layoffs follow, with new "operations" put on hold. So, even though it's possible that oil prices may have dropped on their own during a time of global recession, they did not - for various reasons, and so all these reckless productions in the tar sands and other offshore drilling operations continue.
I think imperialists also have a notion of EROI and that is the reason for the rush to Iraq and Afghanistan. And now Libya. While Russia has oil and gas, it is not under western imperialist control - hence the other power games.
Those at the top clearly understand that the party is over - so they are moving in to put in measures that would enable controlling the population when the free ride finally ends. It's not just peak oil - it's also the real economic picture currently obscured by the manipulations by certain central banks, especially the US Fed.
Drawing "lessons" from the decades after WW-II is also problematic for this same reason: because the apparent "prosperity" of those times was based on a lot of factors, a big one being reckless oil production and consumption like there was no tomorrow. Plus the fact that other countries were rebuilding after WW-II and there was not much real competition for the US on a global scale.
The only way out is to start fresh, in the mind, with the question as to what is truly essential for a healthy, decent, dignified life and see how much can be shared by all even as humanity waits for its population to gradually decrease to more sustainable levels. But for this to happen, the percentage of population that understands this reality has to be much bigger than the one that refuses to see or acknowledge nature's limits. If not, well, then there are unpredictable times ahead. And we are not even talking climate change yet.
Energy invested should be less than energy extracted, I get it.
As long as you can buy a dollar for a dime, who wouldn't?
Buying a dollar for $1.50 doesn't make sense... unless you have a system where profits are privatized and costs are socialized, i.e. subsidized. It doesn't matter how expensive energy gets when you can pocket the profit and count on somebody else to pay the bill.
That's just what's been goin on... like a Global Ponzi Scheme.
To what end?
The article states that currently, for every barrel of oil expended, between 3 and five gallons are discovered. Once that hits one to one...game over.
We have been witnessing the largest transfer of wealth from the masses to a select group of (for want of a better word) sociopaths in the history of the planet. One can only extract so much water from a sponge. That Ponzi Scheme simply can't last. People will revolt. Gaia will revolt. Animals will revolt. Microbes will revolt. It is a life out-of-balance which is inevitably unsustainable.
Until monetary profit is removed from the system - and I believe this is at the heart of the coming paradigm shift (and the EROI is a great first step) - things will sadly only get worse.
Great Article and good Post O. P.
Capitalism and so-called "Free Markets" are the method these "sociopaths" employ in their Ponzi Scheme, which lauds the lie of infinite growth, to steal or if you prefer, "transfer wealth", until they've stolen it all; which they have! Revolt is all that's left: People ARE Revolting! (Egypt,Syria,Yemen); Gaia IS Revolting! (exterme weather, volcanoes belching, ice melting); Microbes ARE Rebelling (new drug resistant and virulent strains of TB, Staph.,E. coli,)
For Profit motives are "The American Way" to the "American Dream", but the coming "Paradigm shift" will have a difficult birth, over the dead body of the "Am. Dream"! Big families are another Amerikan Dream that needs to die. Several have mentioned population as an issue; it's the only issue really. Gaia can't do 20 billion as some claim; that's a lot of monkeys! She may have ZERO soon, check out the article @wired.com/Latest Extinction the Greatest. Plant a garden near a nice cave.
Good luck amigo!
I'm glad to see Andrew Nikiforuk, a fellow Calgarian, here on Common Dreams.
I am hoping the new measures to curtail the freedom of the Internet do not come to pass, but, like another fellow Albertan, songwriter and western singer Ian Tyson says - "Wishin' don't make it so."
Even here in Calgary, economic sweetspot of Canada due to the tarsands, the signs of James Howard Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency" are everywhere present.
Once the oil bubble bursts here, perhaps our mountain rivers, grass and cattle will come to be seen as an invaluable resource again. Many ranchers have always respected the land and the web of life. There seems to be something about a horse and the idea of the open range that appeals to our basic natures, unlike farming.
Manysummits
=======
The article is correct within its own context. Yet using the principles of energy to then speak about economics without taking into account the phenomenal wastes on war/warfare, added to incomprehensibly cruel & unfair tax policies, misses significant components of the equation.
Many in this forum recognize the composite benefits of going local, using solar and a variety of complementary energy technologies, using less in general, and teaching an ethos of simplicity--or conservation, far and wide.
What is needed opposes the central motive of capitalism: naked profit, and therein lies the rub. For even when capitalism's quest involves SENSELESS resource depletion to the point where ALL sentient life is put at risk, still its devouring machinery refuses to come to so much as a pause.. to rethink the rapacious life-negating features of its dying act.
With Japan's wound radiating dangerous radiation, added to the Gulf of Mexico's wound (BP) radiating toxic chemicals, added to climate warming and the already fierce, undeniable expressions of volatile weather activity... the subject of oil is important, but it needs to be taken within the context of the larger economic design. So long as the warriors/MIC get to use the lion's share of resources, and the bankers stick their claim on the people's money, shifting to better energy equations only answers PART of the problem.
Siouxrose:
"shifting to better energy equations only answers PART of the problem."
Agree - entirely!
I think sometimes I see perceptions such as this making inroads in our collective consciousness. At other times, such as a discussion I had with a 'high technologist' yesterday, on the way back from the country, I feel that the degree of monumental stupidity only increases, like some law of the Universe.
Too many people on too small a planet. We either turn inward and re-evaluate what is a good life, or we lash out at perceived enemies. Lashing out in a world of hurt and nuclear weapons would seem to constitute the very idea of monumental stupidity, or of a collective death wish.
Being out in the country, building with wood - it feels good - my wife Julia says she can see the change in my personality and appearance for the better.
Then it's back to this - contemplation of the now rapid deterioration of our prospects, and perhaps of those whose prospects have for too long been forgotten by us.
Manysummits
=======
Thanks for the head's up, Many Summits. And a hello to the wife, Julia.
We all tend to specialize, have our precise areas of interest, likely realms of real or imagined expertise. Still, the truth is best perceived through the Gestalt, and therein, for some, lies the perceptual rub.
The rain forest the writer speaks of in Puerto Rico surely is a wonder... I spent many nights walking through it without any light source, trying to sense things the way the early Indigenous did. It was amazing how when a serious downpour would begin, my companion and I would always be near a huge tree that could provide shelter from the rain. On one occasion when I flew over from the Florida Keys, he took me on a trail few knew about (having taken a contract with the Parks Service so that he'd be free to explore, and later turn me onto specific wonders), and we came upon a really splendid water fall. I had a WOW moment, and could swear to this day I heard the choir of heaven's music! I remember Richard Bach writing about that when he was camped out in some inspired place, and I never realized it could be true until it happened to me. And it did... and as soon as my conscious mind, which is to say LOGIC, stepped in with its reporter's line of questions, beginning with: "Where is that sound coming from?" The miracle was punctured, sent earthbound, never thus far to repeat again.
These are gifts to our perception so that the world can't hold us entirely hostage when life feels heavy. The key is to remember the magic, in times when everything seems opposed to it. Write On!
I also spent many days and nights in El Yunque and other PR forests. Psychedelics made the experience so much more intense and educational.
Excellent Article and cogtent posts. Restores my faith that humanity might not be better off extinct (hope it's still an option).
Indeed we must "remember the magic", as Sioux Rose remarks, and if we can't it's time to get back to the Costa Rican rain forest, or any forest, and remember!
Hall provides insight into only one aspect of what happens, thereby promoting misunderstanding of reality. He discusses the effectiveness of a process in transforming the input to the output. He does not mention that the input entails the irreversible consumption of limited natural capital, including the principal sources of energy. All organisms are dependent on the continuing supply of sustenance and we know what happens when that is lacking. Yet Hall, in common with most commentators, ignores the fact that natural capital is running out. It may be because the ecosystem has successfully evolved over eons with energy from insolation being the driver in the production of natural income. However, modern society has installed a system that divests natural capital. This is an unsustainable process. Hall only discusses the effectiveness of the consumption process.
Charles Hall's thesis may not be complete and comprehensive from a sustainability point of view, but he does shine the light on areas that are deliberately kept obscure by vested interests:
the insanity of the oil industry in chasing after the last drop of oil, without regard to what it takes to produce this oil (that is, the energy spent in the production process),
and the grand scam by some economists who pretend that they are dealing in some kind of science that deserves as much respect as any other science.
There are of course lots of things that are not mentioned in this article, and I'm not sure if Hall has covered them elsewhere. But these two things alone are significant - but only if you want to counter some bogus argument by an industry shill or a right-wing economist.
But if one is looking for an action plan towards a sustainable system, I agree, more is needed. And more constraints will come into play: such as how to use only renewable sources of energy, and without overshooting various limits such as CO2 absorption rate by trees, atmospheric CO2 concentration, freshwater replenishment rate, etc.
Since when are policies of corporate USA derived from logical conclusions? There are corporations which are heavily invested in the oil industry, and our financial institutions are too, and they pass along losses to the public. Don't forget, the military runs on oil and there is no substitute for that. The military/industrial/congressional complex will bankrupt us and the ecosystem just to stay in power. It is the Carbon/Satan connection. Carbon fuel is power in concentrated form and he who has it has power... even at the cost of his soul.
Denisaf sees it correctly: Professor Hall and Mr Andrew Nikiforuk seem to understand 'Conservation' well. If the sharks could they would eat to many fish to sustain billions of sharks. But they don't because Nature finds a balance naturally through bio diversity. These men hope Capitalists will understand that the over use and production of fossil fuel will kill the environment: And in the middle and long run this is bad for business. They think people are smart; but people don't really think so well. People are mostly stupid, especially people obsessed with making $. The professor misunderstands capitalism and human nature. And it has taken me an extra hour +, copy paste, copy paste to maybe get this comment on line. Ws