Peak oil denial: How does this help?
Whether or not peak oil is true cannot possibly be in doubt. Within anything other than a geological frame of time, oil is a finite substance. When it is burned, it is gone. Without stretching our brains very far, it is easy to conclude that anything that is finite and consumed will someday be gone.
Peak Oil, then, is really an observation, not a theory.
If only! What most four-year olds would agree is not much more than minimal common sense continues to confound some, who just cannot bring themselves to accept facts and a reality contrary to a carefully-crafted storyline where facts are inconvenient at best.
The latest foray into the fact- and stats- and context-free world of denying the obvious comes courtesy of Canadian economist Sherry Cooper, whose basic premise about the invalidity of Peak Oil seems tempered by the many troublesome production facts contained in her essay. What follows are assessments and observations she offered in leading to her conclusion:
[O]il production in the U.S. is surging….This new energy boom is the result of technological developments that have made the release of oil from shale rock not only feasible, but very profitable at oil prices around $100 or more a barrel…Manufacturing plants are returning to the U.S. to take advantage of cheap natural gas and relatively low unit labour costs, spurring major investments in petrochemical and steel production…Households are also benefiting from lower bills for heating and electricity…There is a growing demand for gas-powered electricity…The U.S. trade balance is also supported by these developments.
Big claims. Yet, not one single statistic, fact, or context to substantiate any of this.
The talking cure
Lots and lots of Happy Talk — unquantifiable, context-free buzzwords from the official Denier’s Playbook — but what does any of that actually mean? How do we plan effectively, as we must, to add others to the ranks of “many and diversified beneficiaries”?
And just as a for-instance, how many and diversified are we talking about? Nine? Sixty-four? Three hundred and two? But hey, demand for sand is surging, and all of this is positive for job creation, so we are told.
And all of that fact-free chatter apparently leads quite obviously to this conclusion: “This unexpected boom in oil supply puts to rest the so-called ‘Peak Oil’ debate, where adherents to this theory argued that the supply of oil is fixed and dwindling, as traditional oil wells dry up.”
Cooper does offer one-pseudo-factual comment: “estimated 3,000 new wells [are] slated to be drilled in the next year.” But then consider this sobering fact, offered by Chris Martenson: “Typical wells in the Bakken come in at an average 200 barrels of oil per day and decline about 70-75 per cent in the first year before flattening out at 30-40 barrels per day.”
A few inconvenient reminders:
- The U.S. currently uses somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 million barrels of oil each and every day
- Our own production is currently in the neighborhood of 50%-60% of the peak we last touched more than forty years ago
- Depending on the source one relies upon, we still import eight to ten million barrels per day despite these magnificent efforts in the Bakken and elsewhere
- Meanwhile, conventional oil fields are being depleted day after day, so getting back to “even” must happen first before we can start counting on unconventional, inferior quality, more-expensive-to-produce oil from the tar sands and shale.
Entitled to my own facts too
For the oil cornucopian, it’s clear that facts suck.
Predictably, this confuses the public. Empty pronouncements aren’t especially helpful to the tens of millions who don’t have access to the facts and the realities of energy supply and production. When the reality of peak oil intrudes on their happy lives, and it turns out that the “might possibly could potentially if only” promises turn out to be just as empty in practice as they are now in theory, what happens then?
In fact, we will become more vulnerable over the long run, because the renewed embrace of fossil fuels will induce us to postpone the inevitable transition to a post-carbon economy. Sooner or later, the economic, environmental and climate consequences of intensive fossil fuel use will force everyone on the planet to abandon reliance on these fuels in favor of climate-friendly renewables. This is not a matter of if but of when. The longer we wait, the more costly and traumatic the transition will be, and the greater the likelihood that our economy will fall behind those of other countries that undertake the transition sooner.
By extending our dependence on fossil fuels, therefore, the current oil and gas revival is not an advantage but, as President Obama said in 2008, a threat to national security.
Economist Cooper then goes on to describe the reality that “infrastructure has not kept up with supply;” “Getting the oil to the refineries is a problem and currently, refineries in the U.S. do not have the capacity to handle all of this oil;” and because “of the infrastructure problems, an increasing volume of crude oil is now transported by railway and tanker trucks, boosting employment and activity in these industries, but the costs are far higher than pipeline transport;” and then, of course,
With this boom, there are a growing number of concerns. The environmental impacts, though uncertain, are troubling. Potential pollutants entering the air and water supply are of great concern. Drilling is disrupting communities, damaging roads, and increasing costs to local governments. Some are worried about the effect of drilling on earthquakes….In some regions, like parts of Texas, there are already water shortages exacerbated by the huge volumes of water needed for hydraulic fracking.
Nope! Not seeing any problems there.
But, hey, as former GM executive Bob Lutz was so helpful in pointing out, we have a “scenario of abundance” coming from the Bakken shale oil fields and Canadian tar sands. Not much in the way of explaining anything about production rates, depletion of existing fields, costs, quality, and assorted other nit-picking facts some of us rely on, but when you have a scenario of abundance, and “so much greasy, oily and gassy stuff under the surface, it seems” well … who needs facts, Right?
Lutz, proud as well of his climate change-denying credentials, even relied on a “senior oil economist” in his assessment that “‘Peak Oil’ [is now] exposed as yet another Chicken-Little fallacy.”
Good to know. And all of us fact-reliant peak oil proponents have been concerned all this time.
Just when I was ready to join the reality-free world, Chris Martenson had to go and offer just a small dose of concern to those for whom reality (and the future) matters: “The only problem here is, what if that view of the future is wrong? Then what? Everything.”
Worth the risk?