Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Former head of Saudi Aramco: oil has peaked

31 Oct 2007 |


Sadad al-Huseini, the former head of exploration and production at Saudi Aramco, says that global production has hit its maximum sustainable plateau and that output will start to fall within 15 years, by which time the world's oil resources will be "very severely depleted".

In an exclusive interview with David Strahan of lastoilshock.com, al-Huseini said that oil production had reached a structural ceiling determined by geology rather than geopolitics, and that as a result the technical floor for the oil price will rise by $12 annually for the next 4 to 5 years. The market price for crude could hit $125 by 2010.

Al-Huseini said that Saudi Arabia's plans to raise production capacity to 12 million barrels per day by 2012 represented "an achievable number", but disparaged Western expectations that the Kingdom would produce significantly more. It was unfair, he said, to expect Saudi to "pull everybody's chestnuts out of the fire".

David Strahan is an award-winning investigative journalist and documentary film-maker who, since the early 1990s, has reported and produced extensively for the BBC's Money Programme and Horizon strands. Strahan is the author of The Last Oil Shock: A Survival Guide to the Imminent Extinction of Petroleum Man and is a trustee of the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

We must look back in history to understand our energy problem. Twice in the last several hundred years there has been a transition in the way people use energy.

The first was about 200 years ago, away from wood -- which had provided about 90 percent of all fuel -- to coal, which was more efficient. This change became the basis of the Industrial Revolution.

The second change took place in this century, with the growing use of oil and natural gas. They were more convenient and cheaper than coal, and the supply seemed to be almost without limit. They made possible the age of automobile and airplane travel. Nearly everyone who is alive today grew up during this age and we have never known anything different.

Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.

The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history.

World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.

I know that many of you have suspected that some supplies of oil and gas are being withheld. You may be right, but suspicions about oil companies cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.

All of us have heard about the large oil fields on Alaska's North Slope. In a few years when the North Slope is producing fully, its total output will be just about equal to two years' increase in our nation's energy demand.

Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.

But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.

One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.

Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.

We can continue using scarce oil and natural to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.

If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.

We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price.

If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source.

We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.

We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.

Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

These are the goals we set for 1985:

--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.

I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.

Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home an don every highway and every farm.

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.

We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.

And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.

I've given you some of the principles of the plan.

I am sure each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful -- but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.

But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.

The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.

We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.

There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.

Other generation of Americans have faced and mastered great challenges. I have faith that meeting this challenge will make our own lives even richer. If you will join me so that we can work together with patriotism and courage, we will again prove that our great nation can lead the world into an age of peace, independence and freedom.

Jimmy Carter, "The President's Proposed Energy Policy." 18 April 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420.

Briefing for the Descent - by John Michael Greer

Published on 7 Sep 2006 by The Archdruid Report. Archived on 7 Sep 2006.

As evidence piles up for the reality of peak oil, and more and more people start to grapple with an issue that challenges almost every assumption our society makes about the future, the issue of what to do about it becomes harder to avoid.

Predictably, survivalists are popping up again with their one-size-fits-all answer. That answer first surfaced in the 1920s, when the Evangelical Christian belief in imminent apocalypse fused with traditional American rhetoric contrasting the rich, crowded, and wicked city with the poor, isolated, and allegedly more virtuous back country to create the first survivalist ideologies. Since then, survivalists have insisted that the only response to any crisis you care to imagine – epidemic disease, nuclear holocaust, race war, the advent of Antichrist, the meltdown of the world’s computer systems on January 1, 2000, and the list goes on – is to hole up in the woods with plenty of food and firearms, and live the frontier life while urban America crashes down in flames.

From a survivalist point of view, peak oil is simply one more reason to head for the hills. Still, it doesn’t fill the bill very well. True, the peaking of world oil production will usher in an age of rising energy costs and dwindling supplies, and that will bring plenty of economic, social, political, and demographic problems in its train, but I have yet to see anyone make a reasonable case that these problems will cause civilization to collapse all at once. We’re facing decline, not apocalypse, and in the face of a gradual decline unfolding over a century or more, a strategy relying on canned beans and M-16s in a cabin in the woods is a distraction at best. A more realistic view, and more useful strategies, can be found readily enough by turning from the macho fantasies of surivalists to the facts of the industrial world’s predicament. Though the future we face is not an apocalypse, four horsemen still define the most likely scenario.

First out of the starting gate is declining energy availability. Sometime between now and 2010, world petroleum production peaks, falters, and begins an uneven but irreversible descent. North American natural gas supplies start their terminal decline around the same time. Some of the slack can be taken up by coal, wind and other renewables, nuclear power, and conservation, but not all. As oil depletion accelerates, and other resources such as fissionable uranium and Eurasian natural gas hit their own production peaks, the shortfall widens, and many lifestyles and business models that depend on cheap energy become nonviable.

The second horseman, hard on the hooves of the first, is economic contraction. As petroleum production begins to decline, energy prices skyrocket as nations, regions and individuals engage in bidding wars driven to extremes by rampant speculation. The global economy, which made economic sense only in the context of the artificially low oil prices of the 1990s, comes apart at the seams, driving many import- and export-based industries onto the ropes, setting off a wave of bankruptcies and business failures, and causing shortages of many consumer products, all the way down to such essentials as food and clothing. Soaring energy prices have the same effect more directly in many areas of the domestic economy. Unemployment climbs to Great Depression levels and poverty becomes widespread.

The third horseman, following the second by a length or two, is collapsing public health. As poverty rates spiral upwards, shortages and energy costs impact the food supply chain, energy intensive health care becomes unaffordable for all but the obscenely rich, and global warming and ecosystem disruption drive the spread of tropical and emerging diseases, malnutrition and disease become major burdens. People begin to die of what were once minor, treatable conditions, and chronic illnesses such as diabetes become death sentences as medicines price themselves out of reach. Death rates soar as rates of live birth slump, launching the first wave of population contraction.

The fourth horseman, galloping along in the wake of the first three, is political turmoil. What political scientists call “liberal democracy” is a system in which competing elite groups buy the loyalty of sectors of the electorate by handing out economic largesse. That system depends on abundant fossil fuels and the industrial economy they make possible. Many of today’s political institutions will not survive the end of cheap energy, and the changeover to new political arrangements will likely involve violence. International affairs face similar realignments as nations whose power and influence depend on access to abundant, cheap energy fall from their present positions of strength, while “backward” nations find their less energy-dependent economies becoming a source of strength rather than weakness in world affairs. If history is any guide, these power shifts will work themselves out on the battlefield.

The most important thing to remember about all four of these factors is that they’re self-limiting in the middle term. As energy prices soar, economies contract, and the demand for energy decreases, bringing prices back down. As the global economy comes apart, human needs remain, and local economies take up the slack as best they can with the resources on hand, producing new opportunities and breathing new life into moribund sectors of the economy. As public health fails, populations decline, taking pressure off all other sectors of the economy. As existing political arrangements collapse, finally, new regimes take their place, and like all new regimes these can be counted on to put stability at the top of their agendas. Thus we’re facing a period of crisis perhaps a quarter century long, followed by a period of renewed stability, with another round of crises waiting in the wings. Historically speaking, this is how civilizations fall, in a stair-step process alternating periods of crisis with breathing spaces at progressively lower levels of economic and political integration.

This is the predicament we face. Fortunately for us, it’s a familiar one for our species. None of the four horsemen I’ve just described are new arrivals on the scene; our great-grandparents knew them well, and today they are familiar to the vast majority of our species. Only the inhabitants of the world’s industrialized societies have had the opportunity to forget about them, and then only during the second half of the 20th century. Before then, most people knew how to deal with their presence, and those strategies remain viable today. The one hitch is that we have to be ready to put them into practice. Since the world’s governments have by and large dropped the ball completely, it’s up to individuals to get ready for the future ahead of us. Each of the four horsemen requires a different response, and so different preparations will be needed for each.

To cope with the first horseman,reducing energy use is the core strategy. The less energy you need to keep yourself alive and comfortable, the easier you can cope when energy costs spin out of control. Minor tinkerings aren’t going to be enough, though; you need to pursue the sort of comprehensive changes in energy use pioneered so successfully in the 1970s. Plan on cutting your energy use by half, to start with, and be ready to cut it further as needed. That means significant changes in lifestyle for most people, of course. In particular, commuting by car has to become a bad memory, and if this requires you to move, get a new job, or change your lifestyle, that’s what it requires. Get rid of your car if you can; if you can’t, trade in your gas hog for a light, efficient compact, and keep it in the garage under a tarp except when you actually need it. While you’re at it, practice coping with blackouts, brownouts, and other forms of energy shortage; they’ll be frequent visitors in the future.

To cope with the second horseman, choosing a viable profession forms the essential step. Most of the jobs in America today don’t produce necessary goods and services, and most goods and many ervices used in America today aren’t produced here. This mismatch promises massive economic disruptions during the crisis period, as an economy and a work force geared to sales, retail, and information processing collides with a new economic reality that has little room for these but a desperate need to produce food, clothing, and basic technologies. Anyone prepared to step into a viable economic role in this new reality has a much better chance of surviving, or even thriving. You need to choose a craft that can be done with modest energy inputs, and makes something people need or want badly enough to buy even in hard times. Think of market gardening, garment sewing, home appliance repair, and beer brewing as examples. You’ll need to get your training and tools in advance, of course, and the sooner you hang out your shingle the better, even if it’s just a hobby-business patronized by your friends until the crises hit.

To cope with the third horseman, taking charge of your own health is the central task. Modern medicine is one of the most energy- and resource-intensive sectors of the economy, and it’s already priced itself out of reach of nearly half of all Americans. By the time the first wave of crises is well under way, you can assume that your only health care is what you can provide for yourself. Plan on learning about preventive medicine and sanitation, taking wilderness first aid classes, and arranging for do-it-yourself health care in any other way you can. Don’t neglect alternative health care methods, either; while there’s some quackery in the alternative field, there’s also much of value, and the denunciations of alternative health care issued by the medical establishment are simply attempts to protect market share. Finally, get used to the inevitability of death. you probably won’t live as long as you used to expect, and if you need high-tech medical help to stay alive, you’ll die as soon as that stops being available. Death is simply part of the human condition. The stark terror of death that haunts people in industrial societies is a luxury a deindustrializing world can’t afford.

To cope with the fourth horseman, community networking provides the necessary response. This doesn’t mean the sort of Utopian projects that were tried, and failed so dismally, during the Sixties; it means the proven and effective approaches that have been used for hundreds of years by people who learned that working together is an essential tool for survival. If you’ve participated in a block watch, shopped at a farmers market, or belonged to a community service organization, you’ve taken part in community networking activities. In the future, local citizens will need to maintain basic community services such as sanitation, dispute resolution, and public safety during times when government no longer functions. Getting to know your neighbors, and participating in local community organizations, helps build connections that will make the ad hoc arrangements needed in a crisis a viable possibility.

Each of these strategies deserves further discussion on its own, of course. I’ll go into much more detail here in the weeks to come.

link

Prominent CERA official – “Peak Oil theory is garbage”

by Steve Andrews
Published on 11 Sep 2006 by ASPO-USA's Peak Oil Review / Energy Bulletin. Archived on 12 Sep 2006.

The Countdown for the Peak of Oil Production has Begun – but what are the Views of the Most Important International Energy Agencies...

Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) is a widely touted US-based energy advisor firm. They bill themselves as a source to “help decision makers anticipate the energy future and formulate timely, successful plans in the face of rapid changes and uncertainty.” One aspect of our energy future about which CERA appears certain is the concept of peak oil.

"Peak Oil theory is garbage as far as we’re concerned", said Robert W. Esser, a geologist by training and CERA’s senior consultant/director of global oil and gas resources, according to Business Week online national correspondent Mark Morrison (Sept 7).

A wide range of very serious organizations are looking at and/or have commented upon the concept of peak oil, including the National Academy of Sciences (10/05), the US GAO (11/06), and the National Petroleum Council (2/07), working at the request of US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. Apparently, CERA thinks that’s all a waste of time and, in some cases, tax-payer money. By inference, CERA completely discounts the considered opinions of dozens of sober individuals and firms looking into the peak oil issue. Consider just this partial list of informed (mostly US-based) commentators:

1. Fellow industry analysts like PFC Energy; Groppe Long & Littell; and Petrie Parkman & Co. Last fall, Tom Petrie said he expected peak oil by around 2010 and that he would be “shocked” if world oil production didn’t peak by 2015. In PFC Energy’s 2004 presentation on peak oil, they show world oil production peaking in the 2014 time frame; their 2006 study, to be presented at the ASPO-USA conference next month, likely points to a slightly earlier date. Henry Groppe sees world petroleum liquids production peaking by 2010.

2. T. Boone Pickens, oil industry entrepreneur with a background in geology, has stated several times that peak oil may have already arrived.

3. The Hirsch Report: with funding from the National Energy Technology Laboratory, Robert L. Hirsch and Roger Bezdek were lead authors of a 70+-page report entitled “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management.” The authors’ key concern: “Dealing with world oil production peaking will be extremely complex, involve literally trillions of dollars and require many years of intense effort.” Esser’s statement trivializes their report.

4. U.S. Congressmen Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Tom Udall (D-NM) sound seriously concerned about peak oil, have been speaking out and writing about the issue, and have enlisted over a dozen colleagues to join them in the House Peak Oil Caucus. CERA would seem to be saying they’re wasting their time.

5. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a former petroleum geologist, was recently quoted in a Bloomberg Markets article as saying, “I think the people most exuberant about peak oil underestimate how much unconventional sources of oil will help flatten the peak, but to say there is no peak is shortsighted.”

6. Former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore both recently referenced peak oil. First in June, Gore spent a minute talking it up on CNN’s Larry King Live. Then in early July, Clinton—in an interview with Atlantic Monthly—gave substantial credence to the peak oil concept. He also wondered why he had never received a peak oil briefing, given its strategic importance.

7. US cities large and small, from San Francisco and Portland (OR) to Willets and Sebastopol (CA), are leading the way in incorporating the eventual reality of peak oil in their long-term municipal planning processes.

8. Senior geologists like author Walter Youngquist (OR), Craig Hatfield (OH), Joe Riva (MD), and Jeffrey Brown (TX) have drawn attention to issues like long-term depletion, the limits to growth by unconventional oil sources, the problems with declining net-energy return, etc.

9. PhD academics like Dr. Al Bartlett (University of Colorado-Boulder) plus Robert Kaufmann and Cutler Cleveland (Boston University) have for at least two decades been pointing to upcoming problems associated with peak oil. By association, is their work “garbage?”

10. Financial analyst Jeffery Rubin—chief economist for the respected CIBC World Markets—foresees a peaking in world oil production between now and the end of the decade. Eric Sprott, Sprott Asset Management, has over $1 billion of his firm’s assets invested in areas that will benefit from peak oil.

11. Matt Simmons, chairman of Simmons & Co Int’l and author of “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy,” speaks more frequently about the peak oil story than any other respected executive in the country.

12. James Mckenzie, in his work for World Resources Institute, published a study in 1996 showing a peaking in world oil production in 2014 (plus or minus about five years, given three different scenarios).

13. Editorials and features in newspapers and major magazine cover the peak oil story. If, as CERA asserts, that story is “garbage,” why did a respected publication like Bloomberg Markets devote eight pages to this story in their September issue?

14. Richard Rainwater, a Texas-based billionaire investor, made piles of money by foreseeing, back in the mid-1990s, that oil prices were eventually headed strongly up due to long-term limited production vs. demand. Now he worries in the pages of Fortune magazine about the potential social costs and consequences that he believes peak oil could precipitate.

15. Sadad al Husseini, Saudi Aramco’s former head of exploration and production, wrote last fall that world oil production would peak and plateau by 2015, at between 90 to 95 million barrels a day.

16. French oil firm Total’s CEO Thierry Desmarest has broken ranks with other CEO’s of major oil companies by forecasting a 2020 peaking for world oil production. (From 1996 – 2000, several BP players forecast a 2010 peak; since 2000 they no longer mention a peak.)

17. Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, uses an analytical technique similar to that of CERA—following production trends and projections vs. following stated reserves. He sees a peaking in world oil production around 2010-2011.

18. Pang Xiongqi, professor at China’s University of Petroleum in Beijing, expects Chinese production to peak in 2009 and world oil production to top out in 2012.

19. The Oil Drum, perhaps the most rigorous website covering the peak oil story, includes a host of writers and researchers who research and write timely commentaries.

20. ASPO-USA foresees a peak between now and 2015. We believe there are too many variables, especially growing non-geologic factors, to forecast a date. However, given the Hirsh Report’s warning about lag time for mitigating actions, we’re close enough to peaking that trying to pick a precise date is irrelevant.

There is a bottom line here for people trying spot the signal vs. the noise here. Ask whether the risk is greater if decision-makers act earlier based on the views of peak oil “concernists,” or if those decision-makers accept the notion that “peak oil theory is garbage” and defer action beyond granting oil companies access to resources and simply letting markets work.

Steve Andrews is a co-founder of ASPO-USA. He has followed the building peak oil story since the early 1980s.



by Steve Andrews

Published on 11 Sep 2006 by ASPO-USA's Peak Oil Review / Energy Bulletin. Archived on 12 Sep 2006.

The Countdown for the Peak of Oil Production has Begun – but what are the Views of the Most Important International Energy Agencies...

Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) is a widely touted US-based energy advisor firm. They bill themselves as a source to “help decision makers anticipate the energy future and formulate timely, successful plans in the face of rapid changes and uncertainty.” One aspect of our energy future about which CERA appears certain is the concept of peak oil.

"Peak Oil theory is garbage as far as we’re concerned", said Robert W. Esser, a geologist by training and CERA’s senior consultant/director of global oil and gas resources, according to Business Week online national correspondent Mark Morrison (Sept 7).

A wide range of very serious organizations are looking at and/or have commented upon the concept of peak oil, including the National Academy of Sciences (10/05), the US GAO (11/06), and the National Petroleum Council (2/07), working at the request of US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. Apparently, CERA thinks that’s all a waste of time and, in some cases, tax-payer money. By inference, CERA completely discounts the considered opinions of dozens of sober individuals and firms looking into the peak oil issue. Consider just this partial list of informed (mostly US-based) commentators:

1. Fellow industry analysts like PFC Energy; Groppe Long & Littell; and Petrie Parkman & Co. Last fall, Tom Petrie said he expected peak oil by around 2010 and that he would be “shocked” if world oil production didn’t peak by 2015. In PFC Energy’s 2004 presentation on peak oil, they show world oil production peaking in the 2014 time frame; their 2006 study, to be presented at the ASPO-USA conference next month, likely points to a slightly earlier date. Henry Groppe sees world petroleum liquids production peaking by 2010.

2. T. Boone Pickens, oil industry entrepreneur with a background in geology, has stated several times that peak oil may have already arrived.

3. The Hirsch Report: with funding from the National Energy Technology Laboratory, Robert L. Hirsch and Roger Bezdek were lead authors of a 70+-page report entitled “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management.” The authors’ key concern: “Dealing with world oil production peaking will be extremely complex, involve literally trillions of dollars and require many years of intense effort.” Esser’s statement trivializes their report.

4. U.S. Congressmen Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Tom Udall (D-NM) sound seriously concerned about peak oil, have been speaking out and writing about the issue, and have enlisted over a dozen colleagues to join them in the House Peak Oil Caucus. CERA would seem to be saying they’re wasting their time.

5. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a former petroleum geologist, was recently quoted in a Bloomberg Markets article as saying, “I think the people most exuberant about peak oil underestimate how much unconventional sources of oil will help flatten the peak, but to say there is no peak is shortsighted.”

6. Former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore both recently referenced peak oil. First in June, Gore spent a minute talking it up on CNN’s Larry King Live. Then in early July, Clinton—in an interview with Atlantic Monthly—gave substantial credence to the peak oil concept. He also wondered why he had never received a peak oil briefing, given its strategic importance.

7. US cities large and small, from San Francisco and Portland (OR) to Willets and Sebastopol (CA), are leading the way in incorporating the eventual reality of peak oil in their long-term municipal planning processes.

8. Senior geologists like author Walter Youngquist (OR), Craig Hatfield (OH), Joe Riva (MD), and Jeffrey Brown (TX) have drawn attention to issues like long-term depletion, the limits to growth by unconventional oil sources, the problems with declining net-energy return, etc.

9. PhD academics like Dr. Al Bartlett (University of Colorado-Boulder) plus Robert Kaufmann and Cutler Cleveland (Boston University) have for at least two decades been pointing to upcoming problems associated with peak oil. By association, is their work “garbage?”

10. Financial analyst Jeffery Rubin—chief economist for the respected CIBC World Markets—foresees a peaking in world oil production between now and the end of the decade. Eric Sprott, Sprott Asset Management, has over $1 billion of his firm’s assets invested in areas that will benefit from peak oil.

11. Matt Simmons, chairman of Simmons & Co Int’l and author of “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy,” speaks more frequently about the peak oil story than any other respected executive in the country.

12. James Mckenzie, in his work for World Resources Institute, published a study in 1996 showing a peaking in world oil production in 2014 (plus or minus about five years, given three different scenarios).

13. Editorials and features in newspapers and major magazine cover the peak oil story. If, as CERA asserts, that story is “garbage,” why did a respected publication like Bloomberg Markets devote eight pages to this story in their September issue?

14. Richard Rainwater, a Texas-based billionaire investor, made piles of money by foreseeing, back in the mid-1990s, that oil prices were eventually headed strongly up due to long-term limited production vs. demand. Now he worries in the pages of Fortune magazine about the potential social costs and consequences that he believes peak oil could precipitate.

15. Sadad al Husseini, Saudi Aramco’s former head of exploration and production, wrote last fall that world oil production would peak and plateau by 2015, at between 90 to 95 million barrels a day.

16. French oil firm Total’s CEO Thierry Desmarest has broken ranks with other CEO’s of major oil companies by forecasting a 2020 peaking for world oil production. (From 1996 – 2000, several BP players forecast a 2010 peak; since 2000 they no longer mention a peak.)

17. Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, uses an analytical technique similar to that of CERA—following production trends and projections vs. following stated reserves. He sees a peaking in world oil production around 2010-2011.

18. Pang Xiongqi, professor at China’s University of Petroleum in Beijing, expects Chinese production to peak in 2009 and world oil production to top out in 2012.

19. The Oil Drum, perhaps the most rigorous website covering the peak oil story, includes a host of writers and researchers who research and write timely commentaries.

20. ASPO-USA foresees a peak between now and 2015. We believe there are too many variables, especially growing non-geologic factors, to forecast a date. However, given the Hirsh Report’s warning about lag time for mitigating actions, we’re close enough to peaking that trying to pick a precise date is irrelevant.

There is a bottom line here for people trying spot the signal vs. the noise here. Ask whether the risk is greater if decision-makers act earlier based on the views of peak oil “concernists,” or if those decision-makers accept the notion that “peak oil theory is garbage” and defer action beyond granting oil companies access to resources and simply letting markets work.

Steve Andrews is a co-founder of ASPO-USA. He has followed the building peak oil story since the early 1980s.

What Can we do?

It is time to begin to plan.

Helping cities, towns and municipalities adapt to peak oil
by Randy White

Hubbert's Prescription for Survival, A Steady State Economy...

Bringing the Food Economy Home...

As a member of the Portland Peak Oil Task Force, I am excited to see the amazing progress our team is making. The twelve members of the Task Force come from various backgrounds, including land use planners, social workers, business executives, farmers, environmental experts, and more.
For readers who understand the dire consequences we face with fuel and food shortages in the not too far off future, rest assured this team has a deep understanding of complex eco and business systems.
Currently, the team is interviewing businesses and organizations to understand the impacts of peak oil from a systems level down to individual citizens.

While I am excited about the progress our group is making, the challenges ahead of us are staggering. The biggest issue facing the Task Force (in my opinion) is how to help businesses and citizens make changes for a reality many of them are unaware of and unprepared for. With such a complex system oil based system interdependencies, small changes will not be enough to offset the anticipated devastating impacts of peak oil.

At the end of the Task Force's mission, we will submit a report to the city council with a shortlist of recommendations. While the following list of recommendations are NOT the recommendations of the Portland Peak Oil Task Force, they are my own - available to any local governments with the intestinal fortitude to heed the advice.

For readers interested in what can be done on a local level, please consider taking the following suggestions and recommendations to your local government leaders. I truly believe there is no time to lose.

Change school curriculum for High schoolers in grades 9 - 12 to prepare for a fast changing world
Mandate classes for students in 9th - 12th grade that teach everything from basics of earth's ecosystems to Biointensive food growing practices.

Recommended texts for students: When Technology Fails, The Long Emergency, sustainable agriculture books
(We will need new textbooks for schoolteachers based on sound principles of earth's reality, complete with questions and tests for students. It would be based on both needed changes to adapt to the earth's changes.)


Create awareness campaigns and encourage homeowners to buy products and services from local companies that can help convert parts of or their entire lawn(s) to food gardens
(May need to lobby Homeowners Associations)

The city can create assistance and learning programs catered to biointensive food growing practices appropriate for geographical areas. For citizens without land access, create bond measures or taxes for land / home buy-back programs and fund the growth of community gardens in the city and surrounding suburbs.

Continue fostering growth of Farmers Markets and Community Supported Agriculture
This can also expand to work with local grocers / council national grocery chains to offer shelf space for local growers

Create "food preparation, storage and nutrition" classes for citizens
Based on seasonal growing patterns, what can be grown when, and how to keep your health and nutrition all year long.

Expand business and residential composting programs
Helps turn waste into useful, natural soil boosters to grow more food

Mandate energy efficiency inspections for homes and buildings
Create achievable standards. For businesses and citizens that can't afford to retrofit and upgrade to these standards - create neighborhood volunteer programs and create incentives to boost volunteer participation and assistance.

Offer consulting for businesses and citizens looking to prepare and make changes for Peak Oil
This can be paid for by citizens and businesses by passing a reasonable "Peak Oil Preparation" tax or diverting funds from other programs

Assess local food production abilities
Study and prepare plans to begin relying on food generated and transported within a 100 mile radius of the city. Adjust the radius depending on available farmland

Encourage neighborhood grown food swaps
Foster neighborhood food swaps based on produce grown within the city.

Create program for sustainable year round water usage for urban farming
Assuming increased usage due to increased urban farming. Create action plan including rainwater harvesting and efficiencies based on existing water system.

Create or expand neighborhood introduction programs
Foster programs that help neighbors get to know one another (like City Repair)

Continue to encourage use of public transportation, biking, walking, and carpooling
Cities can learn from other cities leading the charge with success (Portland, San Francisco, etc.)

Foster neighborhood co-op owned fueling stations
Pair farmers making alcohol in their own micro-refineries / distilleries with neighborhoods that purchase the fuel from their own alcohol fuel co-op. (Fact: Alcohol can be used as a fuel)

Offer "Earth Shift" support groups
Help people cope with change to help prevent a rise in crime, violence and drug use.

Create "Wisdom of the Elders" program
Like a "Big Brother / Big Sister" program, match eldery citizens that survived the Great Depression with today's youth leaders.

Create a re-use storage program
Instead of recycling, collect used plastic containers and glass from citizens and businesses normally setting them out on the curb. Clean out waste product from these containers and begin storing them in empty city owned wearhouses for future use and distribution to citizens.


Randy White is a member of the Portland Peak Oil Task Force. He works as an advertising executive for AM620 KPOJ, Portland's Progressive Talk Station

Peak Oil: let's think about it together

Exploring emotional reactions to peak oil

by Kathy McMahon

The first blog post is usually the toughest, especially when you are trying to write about something that has no existing ‘experts.’

I’m a psychologist, I’m not a geologist, financial expert, political analyst or economist.

Yet, my world was dramatically changed when I learned about Peak Oil and began to read about all the related issues. Before learning about PO, my specialization was sex and couples therapy. I saw the world through the eyes of a middle-class US citizen. Electricity came from light switches. Oil was brought by a truck or pumped from a service station. I bought my food at the supermarket, albeit an organic food market, and my water was from my tap or in bottles. The value of my house kept going up, as did the taxes. I felt secure with a middle-class income, a home, and a healthy daughter that just finished college and was happy in a new job.

Then I learned about PO.

After that, I could no longer see the world in the same way. I realized that psychotherapy, while helpful to people in a ‘normal’ world, could easily become destructive to those with a PO view of the world. I call it “psychological terrorism.”

I realized how electricity was intimately linked to (in my case) gas or other fuels. As the price of gasoline began to rise, I was well aware of why and what it meant. I could see how food in the supermarket required fossil fuels for fertilizers, farming equipment, trucks, cold storage, heat and utilities. I began to worry about chemical companies buying up seed companies and taking out patents on common food seed. I learned how agribusiness treats animals that enables us to eat so cheaply and at what cost. I learned about the water shortage and water itself became a more precious commodity to me. I saw debt, any debt including my mortgage, as a threat to my future financial independence. I saw my spending habits and lifestyle for what it was: wasteful, thoughtless, excessive and leaving a huge environmental ‘footprint.’

As I looked around, I began to see the world with a ‘before and after PO’ view. I would say to myself “We won’t have that around anymore after PO.” The more I looked around, the more things I realized would go, like plastics or kiwi fruit. The more I looked into becoming more self-sufficient, the more awe I had at how ‘easy I had it.’ I realized how insulated I was from skills that were commonplace in my grandmother’s era. At times I became overwhelmed (and still do) at the amount of information I don’t possess. I would get dizzy trying to figure out what I needed to know from what would continue to be available to me for a long time to come.

I watched myself go through a wide range of emotions. I went through periods of shifting denial, and an attempt to find believable critics. I would work diligently on a permaculture project, and watch my spending carefully, then “forget” and go out to dinner or another unnecessary expense. I’d feel hopeful and elated, depressed and worried, busy and determined, overwhelmed and frozen. All the while, the stock market continued to ’soar’ and everything looked ‘normal’ in the culture around me.

My actions seemed ‘irrational’ to those who couldn’t accept the concept of PO. I had to make decisions about how I could talk to them and based on their responses, whether I should keep up the conversation. Some friends instantly understood the concept. Others were willing to be supportive, but had no intention of doing anything differently themselves. Still others refused to even discuss the issue with me.

I searched the PO sites and the internet to find out more about the kind of feelings and reactions I was having. I found people talking about their own individual reactions to learning about PO. I’d hear people on sites say “Ya, I know, I went through the same thing when I first heard” and I’d think, “Yes, I did too,” but none of my colleagues were talking about it. In fact, as a psychologist, I know what my reaction might have been if a client began to describe ‘the end of the world as we know it’ and all the action they were taking, and I was ignorant of PO. Several diagnostic categories would fit neatly.

But reactions to PO aren’t ‘diagnostic indicators.’ I now believe that there is a way to begin to understand the emotional impact of PO and to share that knowledge with others to help them move forward. I believe that there are different reactions depending on your age and circumstances. A twenty year old in college in an urban area who just found out about peak oil is going to react differently than a 60 year old farmer in the Mid-West who has been expecting it for some time. Someone making minimum wage is going to react differently than the professional with a substancial 401k and a large house in the suburbs. I believe there are ‘fuzzy sets’ that aren’t rigid categories saying “If you are in this situation, you will react this way” but nevertheless, there are generalizations that can be made about people at different:

stages of Peak Oil awareness,

life stages,

economic circumstances,

gender,

professions,

living environments,

parental status

… to name a few.

I wrote a story for a contest about the future without fossil fuels that was published at www.beyondpeak.com, and won second place. You can read it here:

link

The point of my story was to suggest that there were constructive actions that could be taken today to put oneself in the best circumstances to weather the upcoming ’storm.’ These actions required community building and using the skills each of us have toward mutually beneficial action. This blog, and www.peakoilblues.com is my contribution.

I’ve tried to gather up people who I feel are eloquent speakers of their own experiences and invited them to share their own thoughts, opinions, reactions, and emotions as they live in these ‘interesting times.’ If you also have something to contribute, join us. Together, we can help each other move forward toward a future we want to live in.

Kathy McMahon


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kathy McMahon, Psy.D. is an adjunct professor, a clinical psychologist, certified sex therapist, trainer, and a newbie chicken farmer in Massachusetts.

Believing that the 'personal IS political,' she thinks a lot about the elements of emotionally preparing for a post-fossil fuel age. Despite being pessimistic about the future of cheap energy she's very hopeful about the power of small groups of people creating a simpler but more meaningful life together, while simultaneously annoying each other in the process. She has been quoted as saying "If I can't dance, I don't want the Armageddon." Read her at www.peakoilblues.com and reach her at peakshrink AT peakoilblues DOT com

Monday, October 8, 2007

from Paul

A troubling turn in American history
By James Carroll | October 8, 2007

IF COLUMBUS is the beginning of the story, and, say, Lincoln is the middle, what is the end? Each episode of the American narrative surfaced a problem, which prompted attempts to resolve it, which led in turn to a new problem. This movement from problem to resolution to new problem and ever new efforts to fix things is what makes the American story great.

So Columbus arrived in 1492, but carried the European virus of ideological absolutism - what led Queen Isabella to expel Jews from Spain that same year. Such absolutism sparked Old World religious wars, and Puritan dissenters defied it by coming to America. But they brought their own version of that absolutism. John Winthrop's City on a Hill was a religiously gated community (no "pagans" or Quakers), with the magistrate empowered to coerce conformity. Therefore Roger Williams proposed the separation of church and state. By Jefferson's time, though, that distinction justified the separation of private morality from public ethics. Private morality meant he and others could keep the private property called slaves.
Abraham Lincoln presided at the altar on which the bloody sacrifice of civil war was justified by "freedom," but no sooner had redemptive violence (". . .as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free") saved the nation's soul than it spawned the Indian genocide, and the Jim Crow betrayal of blacks. In the name of freedom, the United States conquered a continent, and claimed a hemisphere - a destiny whose virtue was manifest against corrupt European imperialism. In the American Century, the nation born in rejection of ideological absolutism called itself capital of "the free world," but redemptive violence went nuclear, and defense of that freedom required absolute readiness to destroy the world. The chill of Cold War "realism" froze the American conscience.
An unexpected thaw (warming Gorbachev and Reagan) ended the Cold War bloodlessly, and America had a chance to redefine national redemption, removing violence from its center. That brings us to today. If this nation followed the pattern of its own historic reckoning with the ever unfinished work of public morality, political discourse would be defined by the dual-project of eliminating nuclear weapons and building international structures of peace. Instead, we are paralyzed by a war that no one wants, unable to change what matters most.
Last week, this story reached a climax of sorts, with developments like these:
War Cost. With new budget requests, the Iraq war price tag jumped over the $600 billion mark - enough, extrapolating from figures of the National Priorities Project, to add 9 million teachers to public schools for a year. Where would American education be if that happened instead? And where Iraq?
Mercenaries. We learned that the United States government has surrendered to "private contractor" hit squads the primal function of protecting its own diplomats in Iraq. Such unaccountable and profit-driven forces betray the foundational American military ethic. Hessians at last.
Abolition. Barack Obama made a major speech calling for a return to the long-abandoned goal of nuclear elimination. "We need to change our nuclear policy and our posture, which is still focused on deterring the Soviet Union - a country that doesn't exist." The major news media ignored this important declaration, obsessing instead with horse-race polls and fund-raising totals. Nuclear reform (antidote to proliferation and terrorism both) is not a campaign issue.
Torture. The Bush administration was revealed to have again secretly approved "enhanced" interrogation methods at restored CIA "black sites," where prisoners are once more held without treaty protections - measures that Congress and the Supreme Court have already rejected. Despite scandals, US torture continues.
These developments would be disturbing enough, but what they point to is an interruption in this nation's most important public tradition - the movement from recognition of a problem to its attempted resolution. From ill treatment of native peoples, to enslavement of Africans, to temptations to empire, to a religious embrace of violence, to Red Scare paranoia, to an insane arms race - we Americans have had our failings. But we have faced them. The capacity for self-criticism and change has defined our history. But that is not happening today. We are in an arms race with ourselves, and will not stop. Our unjust war is just unending. Our politics and media, meanwhile, form a feedback loop of banality. "Freedom" has become our prison.
Does all of this reveal a deeper flaw in our moral narrative itself? After all, we say today that our story began with Columbus. But what about the ones who welcomed him?
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
link