Insight and inspiration in turbulent times.
The following POP QUIZ is brought to you in part by the American Petroleum Institute:
Which sounds better? A) The Obama administration should be doing more to develop U.S. oil-and-gas reserves. Or, B) The Obama administration should be doing more to deplete U.S. oil-and-gas reserves.
Since Congressman Fred Upton has become the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee the U.S.-Canadian border seems to have vanished when it comes to energy.
A chart in the World Economic Forum’s “Global Risks 2011” sets out all the risks they see in the world on a matrix which positions the various risks by their perceived impact on the global economy and by the perceived likelihood of their happening. What you might expect to be at the top, given recent media reports, would be the threat of terrorism or perhaps some hideous computer virus that knocks out nuclear power station. But no. There at the top, leading the pack, are climate change, ‘extreme energy price volatility’ and fiscal crises.
Oil prices surged again this week on news of tightening US crude stocks. Prices are remaining bullish despite concerns about the Eurozone, and Chinese manufacturing figures being at their lowest for two years, as the authorities there move to calm inflation…
A midweekly roundup of peak oil news.
Much has been made of the recent decision to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Some are for it, and others are against it. But there’s something missing in this discussion – something that affects our economy, the future of alternative energy, and the autonomy of local regions.
People living in cul-de-sacs, with no walkable stores or supplies in reach, abandoned to falling property values, after the real estate bubble broke – they will be confused, unprepared, and angry. Why do politicians keep promising more roads, as the oil runs out? Why do people get so angry when we tell them the age of the car is just about over? Answers in this fine speech by Yves Engler, author of “Stop Signs,” a recent book on cars and capitalism.
The last six months have been a wild ride. The Arab awakening, the Japanese tsunami, the EU’s continuing economic crises, rising temperatures, drought, floods, and another major surge in oil prices have combined to darken the outlook for the months ahead. Political stagnation continues in Washington, where nearly everybody knows we have a problem, but few have yet comprehended just what kind of a problem, much less what are sensible solutions.
Recently Jorgen Randers (best known for being one of the co-authors of The limits to Growth, 1972) asked me to do some modelling work on the World3-Energy model, an updated version of the classic World3 computer model that was used in The Limits to Growth that includes a much larger amount of information about energy. …
The main point of disagreement is that the IEA seems to believe most of the changes will happen quietly in the background, with the average citizen of the Western world barely noticing that the brand new cars just happen to be electric. World3-Energy suggests that the changes are likely to happen among very real concerns about world food production and other similarly “minor” issues.”
During the past century, world economic growth has depended largely on ever-expanding use of hydrocarbon energy sources: oil for transportation, coal and natural gas for electricity generation, oil and gas for agricultural production. It is no exaggeration to say that the health of the global economy currently hinges on increasing rates of production of these fuels.
Every now and again it seems like a solution has been found to our energy problems, one that will allow us all to go on consuming (and wasting!) for decades, if not forever. In the last few years shale gas has bubbled to the top of the pile and is now being widely touted by the oil and gas industry as: a) a clean, green alternative to coal and oil; b) proof that Peak Oil/Gas is many years off; and c) a cheaper use of government subsidies than support for renewables.
The IEA decision to release 60 million barrels from strategic petroleum reserves (SPR) of member nations has been criticized as politically motivated, too small and too late to matter, or, at best, as a desperate attempt to fend off economic woes. The reality and impact of the decision are more complex than that. The move is a bold, price-suppressing “poke in OPEC’s eye” from nations that have been perpetual price takers in the world oil market. The short-term rationale for the decision, however, should not obscure our real oil problem – geopolitics is combining with economics and geology to put us in an oil crunch that is not likely to abate until our nation moves beyond oil.
