Oil Apocalypse

Oil Apocalypse, a one hour show from the History Channel aired 2 nights ago.  It helps explain, in my opinion, what is happening to the world economy and society.

NOVA Power Surge

Watch the full episode. See more NOVA.

The Finite World

Paul Krugman points out the problem but somehow concludes:

It is, as I said, a sign that we’re living in a finite world, one in which resource constraints are becoming increasingly binding. This won’t bring an end to economic growth, let alone a descent into Mad Max-style collapse. 

Some believe the worst.

Earth 2100

History Channel International broadcast, on 12/16/10, a two hour exploration of one possible future; it originally aired on ABC 6/2/09.  Here's the ABC web page and a Wiki page regarding the show.

Many would like to characterize the show as fanciful science fiction or worst case scenario.  If you've read my other posts here, you'd know that I'd say the emphasis on climate change vs. peak oil is all wrong, and hence the situation is much more urgent and dire than portrayed in the piece.

The film does show a population odometer running quickly in reverse around the 3 billion mark.

Heinberg's video Museletter

Richard Heinberg discusses his upcoming book, The End of Growth.  He connects the recession to resource depletion.  Still, he holds out hope for a better future.  Forgive me, but I'm less sanguine.

On Charlie Rose, an electric car developer from Israel, Shai Agassi, connects the run up in oil prices some years back with the ensuing recession; Charlie fails to catch the implication.  Now oil prices are creeping up to above $80 a barrel.  Are we ready for double-dip?

We are in Kansas

Some Kansans kind of get it; see this NY Times piece. They draw a distinction between fossil fuel dependence and climate change. However, there's this from the comments:

Most of the energy saving initiatives described in this article are "nothings". They make people feel good but do not alter fundamental energy use patterns. Additionally the biggest crisis looming in America's future is not a lack of energy to run the electrical grid but rather a lack of oil to run the transportation system. I doubt very much whether small city Kansans are getting around on bikes - more likely trucks, SUV's, big cars are as popular as ever. So if these people don't believe in global warming, they soon will believe in peak oil because the gasoline will not be there in the local service station or will cost $10.00 a gallon.

David Brown, Victoria

Collapse: Based on the Book by Jared Diamond | National Geographic Channel

goes further than the book to look at the implications. also, with comments by such peak oil luminaries like Kunstler."

View

Where does the gushing oil come from?

The New York Times explains in Tracing Oil Reserves to Their Tiny Origins. One (I think important) thing lacking is mention about how much recoverable oil exists in all those coastal reserves as compared to how quickly we're using up the world's oil.

Another paper, the L.A. Times, points to evidence of the limits, in Sarah Palin's back yard, in:

The flow has slowed through the trans-Alaska oil pipeline .

There's only so much oil thar. NPR presented 2 segments on 8/18: Hungry For Oil: Feeding America's Expensive Habit and Can U.S. Take The Heat Of Canada's Oil Practices?

Going quietly into the night?

Scientist Predicts Human Extinction In 100 Years

Limits on Power

From President Obama's speech on June 2 at Carnegie-Mellon:

Now, this brings me to an issue that’s on everybody’s minds right now -- namely, what kind of energy future can ensure our long-term prosperity. The catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf right now may prove to be a result of human error, or of corporations taking dangerous shortcuts to compromise safety, or a combination of both. And I’ve launched a National Commission so that the American people will have answers on exactly what happened. But we have to acknowledge that there are inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, and these are risks -- (applause) -- these are risks that are bound to increase the harder oil extraction becomes. We also have to acknowledge that an America run solely on fossil fuels should not be the vision we have for our children and our grandchildren. (Applause.)

We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. So without a major change in our energy policy, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month -- including countries in dangerous and unstable regions. In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.

Now, I understand that we can’t end our dependence on fossil fuels overnight. That’s why I supported a careful plan of offshore oil production as one part of our overall energy strategy. But we can pursue such production only if it’s safe, and only if it’s used as a short-term solution while we transition to a clean energy economy.

It ought to give us pause when we consider that we in the U.S. consume about 20 million barrels of oil each day while the oil 'leak' amounts to (on the order of) 10,000 barrels a day. An ecologist, Richard Heinberg, gives his dire assessment here.

The President gave his first Oval Office address on June 15. From that address:

So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked -- not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

President Obama's first Oval Office address bears comparison to Jimmy Carter's so-called Malaise Speech given July 5, 1979. Several statements stand out now, 3 decades later:

• We remember when the phrase "sound as a dollar" was an expression of absolute dependability, until 10 years of inflation began to shrink our dollar and our savings. We believed that our Nation's resources were limitless until 1973, when we had to face a growing dependence on foreign oil.
• What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action.
• In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries...
• The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide.
• I will use my Presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow.
• I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this Nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.
• I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your Nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense—I tell you it is an act of patriotism.

Also, there's this critique from the aforementioned Richard Heinberg, A Tepid Plea for Unspecified Change:

Last night’s presidential speech on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill had been pre-billed by the Washington Post as Barack Obama’s “Jimmy Carter moment.” But reading any of Carter’s speeches (a good one to start with is that of April 18, 1977 side by side with last night’s bromide is an invitation to nostalgia and bitter disappointment.

President Obama offered up one promising paragraph:

“For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked—not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.”

It sounds for all the world as though the President is about to unleash a grand program on the scale of the New Deal—an energy Moon Shot, a rousing call-to-arms reminiscent of December 8, 1941. But this is what follows:

“So I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party—as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development—and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development. All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet. You see, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is our capacity to shape our destiny—our determination to fight for the America we want for our children, even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet know precisely how to get there, we know we’ll get there.”

Translation: “I don’t have a clue what to do; but, if anyone else has some good ideas, I’m all ears.”

Look: I want Obama to succeed; I want it earnestly, even desperately. And so I hate to be critical. It’s true that we’ve all got to work together to solve our energy crisis, and that means rising above partisanship. But leadership is sorely needed here, and leaders must set definite goals.

Jimmy Carter at least had a plan. He proposed lofty objectives and investments: targeted reductions in oil imports, an energy security corporation, a solar bank. In contrast, Obama’s strategy seems to be to avoid specifics while insisting that we Americans will somehow overcome our oil dependency because . . . well, because we’re Americans. We’ve gotten through other scrapes throughout our history as a nation, so why not this one? “I demand action,” the President seems to be saying, “but I’m unwilling to say what that action should be.”

Yes, we Americans have risen to meet previous challenges. The problem is, we haven’t been doing so well in dealing with the energy crisis, which has been going on for at least forty years—since 1970, when U.S. oil production peaked and began declining. Despite complaints, exhortations, and hand-wringing from both Democratic and Republican administrations, very little has actually been accomplished. America continues to import more oil, and to burn enormous amounts of coal and natural gas—and the monetary, geopolitical, and environmental prices we pay for these depleting fuels just keep escalating. Mr. Obama seems to say that now something has changed, but it would be nice to know what, and why, in a lot more detail.

The reality is that nothing significant has been done to deal with our energy crisis because tackling it will require fundamental changes to our economy—to our transport and food systems, even to our financial institutions. Until we are willing to honestly face the fact that an “American dream” based on ever increasing rates of consumption of non-renewable resources is a dead end, and that we will have to dramatically cut back on energy usage in order to make a transition away from fossil fuel dependency, all discussion about renewable energy, efficiency standards, and energy research is fairly pointless.

Call it the Carter Curse. Ever since the great peanut farmer-President scolded the American people about the need to reduce consumption in his famous series of cardigan-clad homilies, leaders have shied away both from telling the American people the truth about just how dire our energy dilemma really is, and from proposing any remedies powerful enough to make a difference. Instead we get only whimpers about our “addiction to oil” and timid suggestions to raise fuel economy standards another notch. It is assumed that if any President actually told it like it is—the way Carter did—he or she would suffer the same fate. Carter’s plan, after all, was ignored by Congress and ridiculed by candidate Ronald Reagan, who trounced Carter in the 1980 election.

Maybe the Carter Curse is real. Perhaps straight talk about energy is political suicide. But if nobody at least tries—if no one has the courage to make specific proposals that are commensurate with the scale of the challenge that faces us—then the political survival of the current office holder is essentially irrelevant. If no one is willing to confront the Carter Curse head on, then in effect we face a failure of our political system that will ensure a failure of our economic system, our food system, and our transport system.

I keep hoping that’s not the case, but hope needs to be based on evidence from time to time, and I’m not seeing any.

Deepwater Horizon blowout

See The Oil Drum take and this refresher course for background on our oil dependency.

See CBS 60 minutes' Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster

A Survivor Recalls His Harrowing Escape; Plus, A Former BP Insider Warns Of Another Potential Disaster

Newsweek: How Quickly We Forget

Our addiction to cheap energy has a way of clouding memories of even the most vivid disasters.

The New Republic: New Video Suggests Gulf Spill Far Worse Than Thought

For a moving tale from the past of the ocean deep and an earlier oil boom, see PBS' Into the Deep: America, Whaling & the World.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A refresher course from The Oil Drum

The Oil Supply (or Oil Demand) Problem

There is Plenty of Oil, but . . .

Our Energy Supply, Some Basics

World Oil Production Forecast - Update November 2009

Financial Problems which are likely to be Connected to Oil Supply Issues

Delusions of Finance: Where We May be Headed

Tipping Point Paper

Peak Oil and the Financial Crisis

Insights on Where We May be Headed

The Failure of Networked Systems

Dennis Meadows - Economics and Limits to Growth: What's Sustainable?

The dark side of coal - some historical insights on energy and the economy

Technical posts related to oil supply

See Tech talks by Heading Out (Dave Summers)

Other posts

We have posts on many other topics, including biofuel, wind, nuclear, solar PV, electricity, and many other subjects. Google search can provide help in finding posts.

We also have posts related to the general subject of sustainability. Many of these are in our Campfiresection. We also have many posts on related to Net Energy and Energy Return on Energy Invested. These are generally found in the Net Energysection.

Is there Life after Growth

Richard Heinberg's Museletter this month contains two pieces. The first contains an autobiographical sketch of the path that led him to write full-time about the transition to a post-carbon world, titled “Life After Growth.” The second piece, “Goldilocks and the Three Fuels,” was recently published by Reuters.

Heinberg is convinced that many of us will survive the transition; I am not.

Bakken Oil Shale

A neighbor of mine asked me recently:

Don't you think we need this oil [from the Bakken oil shale deposit]?? Why pay the bad guys for their oil if we can use our own.

My answer:

We do need this oil and then some.

It's just hard to squeeze oil out of rocks. Because it's hard, there's only so much we can practically get out, even according to the USGS and the link provided in the message you forwarded to me. The USGS article says we can only get out around 4 billion barrels, which is about a 6 month US supply.

Incidentally, there's one congressman, a Republican, who understands our (civilizational) dilemma more than most, Roscoe Bartlett. I'd recommend you view Congressman Bartlett's speech to the House in:

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/531 .

The article that is referred to by Dr. Bartlett and others is viewable here. It quotes:

"The least-bad scenario is a hard landing, global recession worse than the 1930s," says Kenneth Deffeyes, a Princeton University professor emeritus of geosciences. "The worst-case borrows from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: war, famine, pestilence and death."

Here's a USGS article on oil shale worldwide, with reference to the U.S. Green River Formation.

America's Energy Challenge

Bill Moyer's takes a look in his Journal. The guest authors suggest that we have viable options. However, there are two reasons why any options are unlikely to be viable:

1. The earth cannot continue to provide what we use, and
2. Human nature is too short-sighted to change direction.

plumbing the depths

Richard Heinberg explains the recession from an ecologist's perspective in:

Temporary Recession or the End of Growth?

and looks at where we are in on the curve of oil production in:

Is the Global Oil Tank Half-full, Is It Half-Empty...Or Are We Running On Fumes?

sciam update: Does Economics Violate the Laws of Physics?

all biophysical economists see only very bleak prospects for the future of modern civilization, putting a whole new spin on the phrase "the dismal science.

the well-being of our economy depends on a healthy natural world. To my mind, economics is a subset ofecology, and we place ourselves (nevermind our progeny) at great peril as we use up the world's non-renewable resources. For more on this alternative view of our global economy, visit these pages from:

NY Times, the SUNY-ESF conference, Revisiting the Limits to Growth after peak oil.

malaise 30 years later

NPR interviewed today the author of the book "What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?". Jimmy Carter spoke to the nation on July 15, 1979, thusly:

What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.

Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade ...

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

Sorry kids, for not following through.

the big picture

See The New Republic's piece about Dr. Doom

"A financial crisis needs general thinking, and a team of specialists will have difficulty understanding the whole thing," he says. "Nouriel's approach has always been worldwide, which is not rewarded in academia. "

and

Roubini has traveled from the Jeremiah wilderness, ...

The peak oil thesis is simple and stark:

1. oil has unique qualities as a material and as an energy source
   
2. created eons ago, there's a finite supply of oil
   
3. modern civilization, the world economy and 6 billion people greatly depend on abundant oil
4. we're rapidly using up that oil (80 million barrels a day, including 20 million by the U.S.)
   
5. we're past the peak of what oil we are able to extract globally each year
6. we will not find a substitute for oil in time to avert an irreversible global economic decline
7. we may now be witnessing the start of that decline
8. the decline will be steep and chaotic
9. the decline will result in billions of deaths

Did I say anything about global warming in this? Answer - no, 'cause it's irrelevant.

We Can’t Get There From Here

Leave it to a layperson to bring the facts about energy to the public's attention, but who's listening?  Sharon Begley poses the question and presents the numbers, where the venerable Scientific American studiously avoids it(also here).

Oil prices a-twitter

Why are prices so low, if we're running low of oil?

MSNBC has an answer, as did Kurt Cobb a month ago.