Peak Oil Denial: Nonsense Keeps Rolling Along # 3

Happy New Year to all!

At the risk of starting a cat fight where truth may too quickly become a casualty, why don’t we more forcefully challenge those who deny peak oil (and global warming) and who do so for reasons that generally ignore reality in favor of narrowly-defined interests? Those motivations will ultimately do nothing but promote more eventual harm by denying the truths to those who clearly need them the most….Of course, we run the risk of getting bogged down in he said/she-said arguments that quickly devolve into the lowest forms of ‘debate’, but why let those types of offerings go unchallenged? They feed on themselves, and it is tiresome and time-consuming to have to rebut all the nonsense. But if we don’t, uninformed readers and listeners have no reason to at least consider the possibility that there may indeed be other facts out there that should at least be examined in order to make informed assessments, rather than accepting the words of the few. More information is rarely a bad thing, and giving everyone the opportunity to examine the facts and engage in rational discourse as a means of seeking common ground makes for a healthier and more productive society.

That’s from a post I wrote three years ago, and my attitude hasn’t wavered. The constant flow of articles and opinions give me yet more opportunities to bat down the nonsense passing as advice and learned observations about the world of energy supply.

 

GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE ARCTIC!

 

The Arctic’s potential for oil and gas production is huge, massive, colossal even. The United States Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds ~90 billion barrels of crude oil, with ~58 billion of it in North America. The U.S. has six of the 18 major Arctic fields (not including Russia), which means it will be able to cash in on the huge potential. This provides an OPEC style growth runway for U.S. oil production. [1]

Wow … that’s an impressive amount of exuberance packed into one paragraph! If the author could have provided just a few facts and context to support the inference, our energy supply concerns would be over! If….

 

REALITY ABOUT THE ARCTIC

 

Several years ago I offered this observation about the possible potential which might be available—perhaps—in the Arctic if … if … if:

As for the Arctic and offshore areas, there may indeed be ‘significant’ finds, but … hello! Exactly how easily and efficiently is that going to be achieved? How many hundreds of billions of dollars and how many years and how much effort will it take if those areas do turn out to be a bit of a boon once again?
There are reportedly about 10.5 billion barrels of oil available in the ANWR, and tens of billions of barrels offshore. Natural topography and climate alone mean that herculean efforts would be needed … and none of that is free! Experts tell us that offshore fields (ignoring the immense difficulties of extraction/production) decline faster and sooner than fields on land.
If we have to go to those lengths and expenses to locate and produce oil, what does that tell you? No expertise required … just a bit of common sense.

A year later, I added this, followed by an observation from Michael T. Klare:

Off-shore oil is accounting for more and more of our basic production, but at what price? Is it worth it? Should we be listening to proponents who advocate off-shore/Alaskan/Arctic drilling or is it (past) time for us to seriously commit ourselves to investments and efforts in alternative energy and infrastructure?

Drilling in Alaska and the Arctic poses, if anything, even more perilous challenges, given the extreme environmental and climatic conditions to be dealt with. Any drilling rigs deployed offshore in, say, Alaska’s Beaufort or Chukchi Seas must be hardened to withstand collisions with floating sea ice, a perennial danger, and capable of withstanding extreme temperatures and powerful storms. In addition, in such hard-to-reach locations, BP-style oil spills, whether at sea or on land, will be even more difficult to deal with than in the Gulf. In any such situation, an uncontrolled oil flow is likely to prove lethal to many species, endangered or otherwise, which have little tolerance for environmental hazards. [2]

 

NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT

 

Whew! For a moment there, I thought oil exploration in the Arctic would be a challenge, but apparently not! If our exuberant unlimited-supply proponent above didn’t find room in his two-part series to point any of that out, then I guess we shouldn’t be concerned, Right? He’s not alone in touting the Arctic while omitting even some of the relevant and practical considerations.

I guess that means we can also ignore this:

[C]onventional oil reserves are being depleted throughout the world at twice the rate of their replacement, historically slow annual capacity declines from major oil fields are being replaced by rapid declines from significantly smaller new developments, and finally marginal new reserves such as arctic and deep water oil accumulations require inordinate new technology advancements and massive funding in order to be brought on-stream in adequate volumes as affordable costs. [3]

Of course, there is this consideration, if you happen to be one of those people who think that facts and context actually matter (along with this account, if experience means anything):

[E]xploiting those resources [Arctic and off-shore] would be a long-term effort: probably 10 years to bring the first oil online, and 15 years or more to reach maximum output around 2 to 3 mbpd. By that time, it would be hardly noticeable as it compensated for the loss of oil production in the U.S. and elsewhere due to the depletion of mature fields. [4]

Yes, the potential resources are impressive. And yes, technological improvements have been terrific in their own right, serving as the primary reasons why exploration and production can be conducted in hostile regions and at great expense, with great effort.

But potential resources will remain potential resources if costs are too high for consumers, and thus no longer supplying industry with the extraordinary amounts of investments needed to locate and extract the less efficient unconventional supplies. Those are the facts, and try as some do to skip past them to keep the Happy Narrative in line with the orthodoxy of abundance, facts will not go away.

The more of us who understand that there are two sides to the story of abundance and independence, the easier planning and transition becomes (not that any of it will be easier by anyone’s definition). Sooner would be the better time to start.

~ My Photo: near the Harbor in Santa Barbara, CA – 02.04.07

– I invite you to read my other blogs at richardturcotte.com

New features will debut soon at that website:

            * THE MIDDLE AGE FOLLIES

This new column begins on February 3, 2014. It’s a slightly skewed look at life for those of us on the north side of 50.

            * THE TRETIAK AGENDA

A political thriller filled with unexpected plot twists and drawn from real world historical events, this eBook is scheduled for Publication on January 28, 2014.

Excerpts will be posted beginning today. Look for a few brief samples already posted.

            * LIFE WILL ANSWER

(The inspiration for the second blog at that website). This eBook is scheduled for Publication on February 12, 2014

Excerpts will be posted as of January 15th. Look for a few brief samples already posted.

Looking Left and Right:
Inspiring Different Ideas,
Envisioning Better Tomorrows

Peak Oil Matters is dedicated to informing others about the significance and impact of Peak Oil—while adding observations about politics, ideology, transportation, and smart growth.

Peak Oil Matters