The Peak Oil Denial Train Rolls On

Claiming there is an oil limit on the economy and why peak oil is inevitable is usually talked down by saying its an unsure theory at best, and controversial, fear mongering or defeatist at worst. The totally simple numbers which prove it are however not
Einstein-type mathematics and are not impossible to understand – – only by the badly intentioned or plain stupid. [1]

Not my words, but for anyone who has spent enough time considering the facts about crude oil production/Peak Oil, it is difficult to come to grips with not only the level of denial exhibited by too many, but to understand what benefits to society at large might they think exist by the false claims, misrepresentations, and fact-free statements repeated ad nauseum, despite the clearly incorrect nature of their offerings? (Upcoming posts and a series devoted to the topic will explore the issue in more detail.)

I understand that those profiting from maintaining a status quo in fossil fuel production will do their damnedest to make sure we’re not devoting resources and efforts to alternatives. The fear and agitation they use as primary props suggests their good intentions and beneficent character could use some fine-tuning.

But the repetition of the same nonsense day after day is almost comical at this point, and would be just that and no more if it weren’t for the harm misinformation and half-truths leave scattered in their wake. If citizens who, through no fault of their own, are not being supplied with the truth, how can they expect policies and measures to effectively address their needs and concerns?

But like clockwork, the same sets of misleading statements and disingenuous arguments continue apace.

James Delingpole’s Commentary review offers plenty of criticism of Daniel Yergin’s 800-page book, The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. But Delingpole praises Yergin’s chapter on peak oil as the one ‘that performs the greatest public service.’
It matters because so much dangerous political nonsense — especially in the environmental movement — depends on it. If you believe, as peak-oil theorists do, that global oil reserves are about to run out, then clearly it makes more sense to go down the road many greens have long been urging us to take: Rein in energy consumption; tax fossil fuels; encourage renewables; ration air-conditioning and hot showers; deindustrialize. [2]

Rationing showers? Seriously? As I discussed in a series (first of five posts here) this past November and December, an immediate red flag goes up as soon as a purported debunking of the “myth” of peak oil (wouldn’t it be nice if facts continued to be treated as facts? What a concept!) suggests that Peak Oil proponents believe or advocate that we’re “running out of oil/reserves.” (I—among others—addressed that specific point here and here.) It’s a numbingly idiotic statement to make in light of our continuing assertions and facts to the contrary, but when you have no rational or legitimate argument to make, then I guess that making stuff up is your best Plan B. Certainly sounds plausible to the undiscerning uninformed….

The same blogger then praises Yergin’s Commentary reviewer for pointing out what must surely be the piece de resistance: “Yergin runs the figures, and they are amazing: In 2009, for example, after a year’s worth of oil production at around 90 million barrels per day, the world’s proved oil reserves were greater at the end of the year (1.5 trillion barrels) than they were at the beginning.” Holy Misdirection, Batman!

Chris Nelder said it best:

Peak oil deniers always talk about reserves, not production rates, for the same reason a squid squirts ink when it is threatened. Either they haven’t the foggiest idea what ‘peak oil’ means, nor a grip on production data (let alone the key production/reserves ratios). . . or clouding the issue, and painting peak oil analysts as Chicken Littles, is their explicit intent. After a decade of observing this behavior, particularly in publications which should know better, I’m now inclined toward the latter view. [3]

To what end?

“Reserves” do not equal available supply; not by a long shot. Quintuple the proved reserves figures if it floats your boat, but what might arguably be buried beneath the Earth’s surface offers exactly zero assurance it will in fact be produced economically, practically, or efficiently. (A more thorough fact-based discussion of Mr. Yergin’s assertion—with additional links and commentary—can be found here.) And let’s not forget amid all of this great news the fact that we have been using for decades is being drawn down each and every day, and so much of what will be produced going forward will first have to match depletion rates before we marvel at their substitute potential … while billions around the world strive to improve their conditions … using more of the energy resources still available.

The writer then offers this:

But such is the sophistication of the energy industry. Today it is worth $65 trillion, and in two decades it will be worth $130 trillion — more than enough incentive for entrepreneurs, scientists, and big business to develop increasingly imaginative ways of locating and exploiting the world’s resources. In the case of oil, this means learning how to drill in more hostile terrain, such as the deep-ocean sites off the coast of Brazil and in the Gulf of Mexico.

What does the estimated worth of an industry two decades from now have to do with the fossil fuels available to us on demand at reasonable prices now and in the intervening years? “Incentive” is all fine and well, but while conventional oil fields continue their daily depletion, how much “incentive” will fill your gas tank? How many products can be transported by the freight industry—or manufactured by industries dependent on crude oil to provide supplies or power their own processes—using “increasingly imaginative ways”? And I’m not all that comforted by “learning how to drill in more hostile terrain.” What does that suggest about the quality and availability fossil fuel supplies? Not cheap, either.

It’s possible that if you search through enough sofa cushions you’ll find enough spare change to retire on, but that’s not really much of a financial strategy, is it? Oil exploration is getting too close for comfort to the sofa cushions stage.

We’re better than that, and we need to demonstrate it. It will take our best if we’re to have any reasonable possibility of successfully adapting to a future with different quantities and quality of energy sources to power us all. These dopey comments aren’t demonstrating much in the way of “better.”

Citing an “excellent” article by economist and professor of energy policy Dieter Helm, another recent entry into the curious world of peak oil opponents offered this:

Helm rightly asserts, ‘The Earth’s crust is riddled with fossil fuels’ adding ‘there is enough oil and gas (and coal too) to fry the planet several times over.’ And his words echo Huber and Mills‘ definitive quote on the subject, ‘Energy supplies – for all practical purposes – are infinite’. The issue is not (and never has been) too much or too little of a given resource. It has always been whether prices are too low or too high to make extraction viable. Today, the shale gas and oil “miracle” – or rather man’s ingenuity in finding new ways to tap previously unrecoverable resources – has yet again blown a gaping hole in the peak-ist argument; as the end of year figures make only too plain. [4]

Where does “fry the planet” fit on the Right’s quantity scale: Is it more than “massive” but less than “vast”? How many barrels of conventional crude oil in “riddled”? And as for “infinite” supplies of energy (the “definitive quote” no less!) … I guess that depends on one’s definition of “for all practical purposes.”

If it’s the fact-based one used here on Planet Earth, our energy supply’s availability is not quite so infinite. But in a fact-free world … sure, why not? But if our energy supply is so infinite, why are we even having discussions about Peak Oil? Shouldn’t it be obvious that oil companies should just be going around and sticking giant straws in the ground so they can pull out some of those infinite supplies and keep oil priced at … oh, how about five cents per gallon? Sound good? Why are we going after shale oil and tar sands and deep water resources instead? What does that basic fact suggest to all but the most delusional?

In another discussion of this same “excellent” article, the author discusses several supply and demand arguments presumably serving as the foundation for Peak Oil proponents. Others more qualified than me have discussed oil reserve calculations and enhanced recovery methods, so I’ll take a pass.

But two other frequently raised topics (flaws in proponents’ arguments) are put forth. (And let’s not forget the all-encompassing magic of “Technological advances could potentially extend depletion rates of existing wells and new reserves.” Ah yes, the could potentially perhaps might if only meme):

Oil is not fungible: This is among the most serious flaws in the argument. History is replete with examples of fuels being replaced by other fuels. Power is now generated using gas and renewable energy in Europe, which has diminished the importance of coal and oil. Electric trains have largely replaced steam and diesel. Seen in this light, replacing oil with other fuels could mitigate spikes in oil prices.

Insatiable demand from China and India: Helm argues that peak oilers see China and India’s growth as exogenous to global economic performance. In reality, China’s growth depends largely on U.S. and European consumption, fueled by their prosperity. Turn the switch off, and the slower economic growth could ease any supply pressure on oil. [5]

One omission in the assertion contained in the first paragraph (aside from the “could mitigate” comment): Facts. Remember them? “Replacing oil with other fuels” … which fuels? How? How quickly? How much? How effective? How soon? By whom? And those are just off the top of my head. Great sound bite, but it leaves much to be desired if meaningful, factual content is your thing.

These other products are useful, but they are not as energy-rich, versatile or easily transported as oil. Our current infrastructure is heavily dependent on oil inputs with no real substitutes available in the quantities required….
The hard-to-get oil resources are large, but they take a long time to develop and require strenuous, expensive and energy-intensive methods to extract. All this, when combined with the relentless depletion of existing fields, spells little or no growth in the worldwide rate of oil production in the coming years. [6]

As for the China-related comment in the second paragraph above: “Turn the switch off, and the slower economic growth….:” So, if China stops buying our goods, then American businesses lose revenue, which means that they aren’t making as much money, which means they can’t purchase from their suppliers, and of course they can’t maintain the staffing levels they have when they are selling to China, which means workers lose jobs, which means they don’t have enough money to buy from other businesses, which means.…

Stop me when this turns into good news.

Peak Oil Matters