Peak Oil: Energy Supply Nonsense 2

This is the second half of my observations about a recent addition to the endless parade of hide-most-of-the-facts nonsense from oil industry cheerleaders. The first part is here. The subject matter is an article * published a few weeks ago by Gene Epstein, entitled “Here Comes $75 Oil” in Barron’s. This one was a gold mine of right-wing Happy Talk and tactics more routine than not: light on facts; big on hype; no context, while avoiding discussions of any consequences—potential or certain.

I’m only one of many who have raised similar concerns and asked the same questions: Keeping citizens uninformed (if not entirely unaware) of not just the facts but an understanding about consequences isn’t exactly a noble, integrity-laden pursuit. So why keep doing so? What’s the reason? Who benefits? (Hint: very, very few of us … very few.) If you shade, hide, misrepresent, or flat-out lie about the facts, then any outcome or support is all but useless. So why keep doing so? Does “long-term” mean anything? Planning?

To those unaware of a looming energy supply challenge (at least one where our ongoing needs can be met efficiently, affordably, timely, and with limited harm to the environment—among other considerations), that article was a wonderful and uplifting offering of full assurances that one thing none of us need concern ourselves with is filling our gas tanks. Fiction does have its advantages. But ignoring reality works only for so long.

I continue to ask why stories like this are disseminated when so much information is available to suggest the cheerleading requires some serious qualifiers. If those sharing such “information” don’t understand, then why are they offering it? Most of us have the good sense to write about or discuss subjects about which we have at least a reasonable measure of understanding.

The other option is not nearly as pleasant: those doing so know the real story with all of its implications, but make deliberate choices to massage carefully-selected facts to suit purposes which do not include properly informing the public or promoting the public good beyond a few days from now. Perhaps the unpleasant outcomes and challenges which will result from an uninformed public being confronted with realities for which they are largely unprepared serves as the fossil fuel cheerleaders’ version of a surprise.

Facts tell us that drilling wells in deepwater, or in shale formations, or in the Arctic, are neither easily accomplished nor inexpensive. That we’re now turning to those unconventional supplies as the Go-To source suggests that all is not well in Oil Production Land. But those in the know seem allergic to telling the public what it has every right to know and prepare for.

Instead, we get articles like this Barron’s one which exalts the potential possibility that perhaps oil prices could decline if certain other events just happen to occur as is hoped for. Lower oil prices when supply is abundant and resources are easily accessible is one thing. But in today’s world, lower prices have one glaring drawback: the industry can’t afford to perform its work because profit margins don’t and won’t support the costlier, more technologically and geologically challenging alternatives now being relied upon to maintain Business As Usual.

But as is usual, those considerations didn’t find their way into the Barron’s piece or most others trumpeting the same happy tunes.

But just omitting or shading the other side of the story isn’t usually the end of the tall tales. We often get a bonus such as this:

In a major study, Citigroup’s [head of global commodity research, Edward] Morse, together with a team of other analysts, has calculated that there is huge potential for savings if trucks, buses, ships, and ultimately passenger vehicles are run with natural gas rather than petroleum fuels. The study also notes that the conversion is well under way.

What? They’ve “calculated” a “huge potential” for energy-use savings “if trucks, buses, ships, and ultimately passenger vehicles are run with natural gas rather than petroleum fuels.” If those modes of transportation could be run on hot air, we’d enjoy some of those savings as well. The careful insertion of caveats, “if,” “potential” “might” yadda yadda yadda are standard fare in these types of deliveries.

If qualifiers and denial-laden messages were fuel we could all fly to Jupiter.

Of course a conversion might result in some savings! But how about some examples of the “well under way” efforts? What might those be? How far along in R & D are those efforts? What’s the plan, the cost, and time frame for a reasonably-comprehensive transition away from oil for all such forms of transportation? What are some of the sticking points to making that happen in the next decade or two? What happens in the meanwhile?

[T]he low-hanging fruit lies in commercial fleets setting up refueling stations along routes of 400 miles or less. In the U.S., that includes heavily trafficked routes in the Northeast and in Southern California. Intracity traffic that includes passenger buses and other short-haul vehicles can also shift to natural gas.

Sure they can! With research, they also run on peanut butter. How about a few answers and examples of where we are in the development, funding, research, testing, implementation, adaptation and assorted other transition-related considerations?

It was a nice touch to add this comment from a spokesperson of the Fuel Freedom Foundation, described as “a nonprofit dedicated to breaking the world’s oil addiction”:

‘Methanol can be made today competitively with existing technology, from energy resources with which the United States is well endowed — natural gas, coal, biomass, garbage, or any other organic material,’ Gal Luft, an advisor to the Fuel Freedom Foundation, argues in Petropoly, co-authored by Anne Korin. ‘In the future, perhaps even recycled carbon dioxide could be commercially converted into methanol, providing an elegant solution to the otherwise seemingly economically irresolvable issue of fossil-fuels-derived greenhouse-gas emissions.’

I’m not seeing a whole lotta “definitely” in those comments. Stating that “methanol can be made today competitively with existing technology, from energy resources with which the United States is well endowed” doesn’t mean it’s happening. Nor does it mean that funding, development, testing, adaptation, and wide-scale implementation is knocking on our doors anytime soon. And let’s remember the Republican Party’s and oil industry’s general aversion to funding research into alternative energy supplies at anything beyond minuscule amounts.

Around the same time as publication of this Barron’s article it was reported that some nitwit Congressman from Oklahoma wants funding for climate change research diverted to weather-forecasting. Good to know the future well-being of us all has now been cut down to a manageable two or three-day definition of “long-term.” That Congressman has a lot of fellow travelers on the Deny-Inconvenient-Facts-Or-Just-Choose-Ignorance tour bus.

‘The history of mankind … at least since the invention of the wheel, is a history of cheaper and cheaper energy. Modern civilization would be impossible without cheap energy. I believe we are entering another period of cheaper energy that should last 50 years or more.’

While I’m certain that the quote offered up by Mr. Morse was intended to assure and appease any readers who might not be fully on board with the story, facts and reality suggest that “impossible without cheap energy” signifies many more problems than offered. But he is correct on one count: Life as we know it will become a quite different experience for all of us without cheap energy.

Those days show no sign of sticking around or returning without a whole lot more problems in tow.

Facts still suck, but we’ll craft better plans and be better prepared than if we rely on pixie dust and Happy Talk pablum from those whose motivations and interests are clearly inconsistent with our own.

Peak Oil Matters by Rich Turcotte