97. MATT SIMMONS AND ANWR

It's hard to shake the impression that environmental peak oilers are being incredibly naive and stupid thinking that Matt Simmons is a "hero".

It seems to me that Matt Simmons isn't an investment banker. His current "job" is to talk up peak oil in the media, and scare the shit out of everybody so oil industry lobbyists can pressure Congress into drilling ANWR. He's a tool of Dick Cheney. He also contributed $100,000 to George Bush's last inauguration party (Source). And all the fool environmentalists like Heinberg are just getting used. They're a bunch of poultry deferentially inviting the wolf to speak in the hen house.

Exhibit A: Matt Simmons has been obsessed with opening ANWR for years, even prior to his peak oil activism (see transcript at the bottom of the post). And he's still obsessed with it. His most recent interview on peak oil appeared in Petroleum News on Sept. 11, 2005. Here's the headline of the story:

Saudi oil shock ahead
Simmons pokes holes in image of unlimited Middle East oil; prepare for worst

And here's the first two sentences:

As Congress turns to legislation that could open a new era of Alaska Arctic oil production, one highly regarded energy analyst says he's convinced the move is critical to the success of a national energy strategy.

Matthew R. Simmons, author of "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy," (John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2005), says crude from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 1.5-million-acre coastal plain could play a valuable role in the nation's energy policy.

Seems like a disconnect, doesn't it? Actually, there's no disconnect at all.
Matt Simmons is turning up the "Saudi collapse" rhetoric to create a climate of fear which will result in the U.S. Senate signing off on drilling in ANWR. Yes, it's just another amazing coincidence that Simmons is fearmongering like never before, just as the provisions on ANWR are entering a delicate phase in the Senate:

The Senate Energy committee was scheduled to meet September 14 to vote on language for the federal budget that would raise an estimated $2.4 billion from leasing tracts in ANWR to energy companies for oil exploration.

That language would then be forwarded to the Senate Budget Committee, which would fold it into the giant budget bill that funds the federal government.

However, after Senate and House leaders decided to delay crafting the budget package for at least two weeks, the energy panel said it postponed its meeting on the ANWR drilling language.Source

Matt's really pulling out the stops on this current fear-mongering tour. Check this out:

But by 2030 we could easily have a world that can only produce 10 or 15 or 20 million barrels per day, and the shortfall from what we thought we were going to produce is only a modest 100 million barrels per day. So this is really a major, major, major global issue(Source: Petroleum News article cited above. Also see Note* at the bottom).

This is nothing but pure lobbyist FUD, a load of major, major, major bullshit that nobody agrees with. Nobody believes world oil production will be 10-20mbd in 2030 -- not Exxon/Mobil, not Shell, not the USGS, not the DOE, not Sadad Al Husseini (see #89), not Colin Campbell, not ASPO, not Jean Laherrere... Nobody. Simmons is talking out his ass. He is not a petroleum engineer, or a geologist, and he has a sum total of zero first hand knowledge of reservoir engineering, and zero first hand knowledge of the Saudi oil fields -- the two subjects on which he is now respectfully regarded as the world's foremost expert.

This is all just part of a trend. Boone Pickens is all over the media hyping peak oil because every time oil ticks up he nets an obscene profit (see #12). Chevron is all over the media hyping peak oil because it helped them muscle out CNOOC and lock up the Unocal deal (see #80, #82). And Matt Simmons is all over the media hyping peak oil because he wants to drill ANWR and tend to his own bread and butter as a deal architect for the oil and gas industry.

Personally, it's not drilling ANWR that bothers me. Energy is important, and we will have to drill ANWR at some point -- with the proper environmental protections in place, of course. The question I have is this: What the hell are we going to do with the oil we pump out of ANWR? If we're going to use it to fuel the status quo -- i.e. 10-mile long traffic jams every morning, and the Ford Explorer of Amanda P. Suburbia driving all over town to find just the right frisbee for her dog -- then I'm firmly against it. I don't care how environmentally sound the drilling process is. That's just greenwashing, because that oil is just going to get wasted in passenger car engines, and that isn't environmentally sound, or even necessary.

Note*) There was some controversy about whether Simmons actually said this, so I contacted the editor-in-chief of Petroleum News. The author, Rose Ragsdale, confirms that the quote is genuine, and there is an audio recording of Simmons making the comment, verbatim.

Note from JD) This discussion is continuing in the Peak Oil Debunked Forum
=========
Transcript of Matthew R. Simmons, testifying on the topic of ANWR before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, April 3, 2001 (Read the original too. Matt does a long spiel pooh-poohing fuel-efficient vehicles. Conservation isn't going to cut it, doncha know. The only thing that's going to help is drilling ANWR ANWR ANWR...):

At the end of the day, we have to increase our domestic supply of oil and natural gas, but getting this done requires fast action by both public and private sectors to begin eliminating all of the obstacles that now make it so hard to make real gains in the supply of either domestic gas or oil.
Access to where these reserves reside is obviously extremely important. While it is politically popular to attack the need to open up a few thousand acres of ANWR, this important area could create several hundred thousand barrels a day of extra oil and natural gas, and possibly even far more. So it is too important to abandon. It is time for ANWR's opponents to stop broadcasting photographs of pristine alpine mountain meadows of areas within the 19 million acre reserve which happen to be hundreds of miles away from where any oil and gas development would ever take place.
Lease Sale 181 in the eastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico is just as vital as ANWR, perhaps even more so. This highly gas-prone area is over 100 miles west of Florida at its closest point, but it is right next to the most efficient infrastructure to bring these reserves to where they can be
consumed.
The Department of the Interior is just beginning a critically important survey or inventory of all of the reserve prospects to the lower 48 States. I would highly encourage expanding this inventory assessment to the entire Outer Continental Shelf of the United States, including the waters offshore of California. This exercise does not commit any area to development, it would merely help identify where emergency relief might be found.
How tragic it would be to see the economy of a State like California destroyed through a lack of natural gas and electricity, all because natural gas lying just off its coast was never developed.Source

96. THE SOUTH AFRICA ANOMALY

I think we've all heard how South Africa (SA) survived the Apartheid-era oil embargo by producing synthetic fuels from coal.

So why didn't South Africa collapse? They went off a cliff from the "subsidy of cheap oil" as people like to say. They stepped back down from high EROEI oil, and reverted to crappy old low EROEI coal. Granted, the South Africans had access to limited amounts of smuggled oil, but it was expensive. In that sense, South Africa is an almost exact analog of peak oil. Peak oil does not mean a complete closing of the taps. At least in its initial stages, it means higher oil prices, and an embargo-like degradation of supply -- very similar to what happened in SA. SA coped with it to some degree by liquefying coal, and (judging from the Hirsch Report(pdf)) that is part of the U.S. "Plan B":

1. Fuel efficient transportation
2. Heavy oil/Oil sands
3. Coal liquefaction
4. Enhanced oil recovery
5. Gas-to-liquids

SA did have economic problems, but the worst case scenario didn't pan out. This seems even more astounding considering that mining (a very oil intensive process) is the backbone of the South African economy.

I find the details of what happened in SA during the embargo fascinating. They give us clues about how a developed nation responds to liquid fuel stress.

------

Apparently, the infrastructure needed to dig coal was so expensive that SA is now switching to GTL (Gas-to-Liquid) to save money:

Under the belief that partially replacing coal with natural gas as the synthetic-fuel feedstock would reduce investment expenditures in coal mining operations, Sasol began importing gas from Mozambique in 2004.Source

The following are some interesting tidbits from a SA court case:

288. Oil was the one major raw material not produced (except synthetically from coal) in South Africa. The Apartheid regime established a high degree of control over the industry in its attempt to ensure a constant supply of oil.

289. Without oil, the police and military could not have functioned and the economy of South Africa would have come to a standstill. The South African regime took a number of steps to ensure an adequate supply of oil.

290. In November 1978, in response to the fall of the Shah and the decision by Iran to join the oil embargo, then-Minister of Economic Affairs Chris Heunis, called a meeting with the managing directors of the oil companies. He met with them in alphabetical order: BP, Caltex, Mobil, Sasol, Shell, then Total and told them each "Our petrol pumps must stay wet."

300. Mobil received from its South African attorneys the following legal advice: "[a]s oil is absolutely vital to enable the army to move, the navy to sail and the air force to fly, it is likely that a South African court would hold that it falls within the definition of munitions of war."

349. In order to reduce its vulnerability to oil sanctions, South Africa began a coal to oil conversion program. The Apartheid regime expected to be able to meet up to 50% of its oil needs from this program. SASOL - the South African Coal, Oil and Gas Corporation, was a state controlled company formed to oversee the oil from coal program. Three plants were to be built. SASOL II and III constituted the largest and most expensive project undertaken by the South African government.

357. The Natref refinery had been regarded a National Key Point of the South African economy even before the adoption of the Act. A South African army journal explained the role of the ‘SASOL Commando,' a unit comprised of SASOL employees: "When the men of the SASOL Commando change their white coats for the uniform of the South African Defense Force they become members of a specialized unit, which in times of war will defend two key points of the South African nation. The SASOL factory ... and the Natref Refinery are two of the most important installations in the country. The importance of the task which the SASOL Commandos have in defending these two key points cannot be overemphasized."Source

From a study of the impact of sanctions:

In late 1970s, early 1980s, South Africa depends on oil for less than 20 percent of its total energy needs, but 80 percent of energy needs of transport sector. Moreover, South Africa has stockpiled at least one to two years' supply and is completing two nuclear power plants, a third Sasol coal-conversion plant. By one estimate, the stockpile would entail "tying up $1-$4 billion or more in capital, depending on acquisition price." In 1990 it is estimated that Sasol plants provide one-third of South Africa's oil consumption. Some estimates of total cost of oil embargo, including price premium on imports, costs of stockpiling, costs of construction and operation of Sasol plants, fall in range of $1 billion to $2 billion. Others question magnitude of these estimates, noting that some South Africans (e.g., dealers and shippers) have gained from embargo, and that South Africa might have pursued coal-conversion technology in any case after 1973-74 oil shock. (Chettle 82; Spandau 153-55; Lewis 60, 103; Lipton 1988, 86-87)

Direct costs [of the oil embargo] have more than doubled South Africa's oil import bill… Direct costs of the oil embargo in the 1980's equaled South Africa's gross foreign debt, which by the end of the decade was estimated at between $15 to 20 billion. Indeed, had the oil embargo not been imposed, the 1985 South African debt crisis would probably not have emerged… In addition to these direct costs, economic activity in South Africa suffered from spillover effects to other markets and opportunity costs, while the country's long-term development was hurt… Economic activity in South Africa has also been hampered by the fact that fewer new technologies became available to the country during the implementation of sanctions."(Van Bergejik 343-344)

Economist Stephen Lewis estimates that oil embargo, other trade sanctions impose cost on South Africa of $2 billion a year, primarily in terms-of-trade effects.

On the oil embargo: "The oil embargo has probably been the costliest international action against South Africa to date.... However, the decisions forced on South Africa by the oil boycott have resulted not only in higher costs. The SASOL projects, for example, have pushed South Africa into international leadership in coal conversion technology.... Policy actions by the government effectively mitigated both the economic costs and the disruption of the oil embargo, and South Africa is in a better position today to meet short-term cutoffs in oil than it was a decade or two ago." (Lewis 103-04)Source

95. LESSONS FROM WORLD WAR II

Some doomers say the U.S. can't conserve oil, and can't crack down on the private automobile because waste is the foundation of the U.S. economy. For instance, MonteQuest (a doomer moderator at peakoil.com) is fond of saying that one out of every six jobs in the U.S. is tied to the automotive industry. His position is that waste=jobs. We have to be wasteful to keep people employed, and any attempt to reduce consumption or car use will cause an economic collapse.

This is incorrect, as can be seen from the following chart of U.S. automobile production:
Note the big dip for WWII. This shows that society can still function, even if fuel is rationed and passenger car production is swiftly ramped down to very low levels.
In fact, in terms of production volumes, the economy performed superbly during WWII. Look at these aircraft production numbers:

1939: 2,141
1940: 6,086
1941: 19,433
1942: 47,836
1943: 85,898
1944: 96,318
1945: 46,001Source

This shows the sort of focused, rapid production scale-up industry can achieve when it has to.

94. ENERGY FLOW DIAGRAMS

Energy flow diagrams are useful for visualizing where energy comes from and where it goes. In this post, I will collect a number of diagrams for reference purposes (click on the image or the source for a clearer picture):

Source: US Energy Flow Trends(pdf), P. 2, 3

U.S. Energy Flow, 2004Source: DOE, Annual Energy Review 2004

U.S. Petroleum Flow, 2004
Source: DOE, Annual Energy Review 2004

U.S. Natural Gas Flow, 2004
Source: DOE, Annual Energy Review 2004

U.S. Coal Flow, 2004
Source: DOE, Annual Energy Review 2004

U.S. Electricity Flow, 2004
Source: DOE, Annual Energy Review 2004

Energy Flow Diagram, Coal Liquefaction, Liquid Solvent Extraction (LSE) ProcessSource: Technology Status Report: Coal Liquefaction(pdf), Department of Trade and Industry (UK)

Material Flow in the U.S. Food System
Source


More flow diagrams

93. PETROL RATIONING IN THE UK

Finally, a first world government starts using its head. From the Independent Online:

Secret plan to ration fuel on the forecourt
Ministers draw up crisis strategy to combat petrol protests as prices soar
By Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 11 September 2005

Motorists face rationing at petrol stations under emergency plans that are being drawn up by ministers to combat this week's fuel protests, The Independent on Sunday has learnt.

Ministers met secretly last week to finalise the Government's response to blockades of Britain's refineries threatened for Wednesday.

Petrol prices - which passed the £1-a-litre mark in the wake of Hurricane Katrina - are expected to remain at record highs in the coming weeks because of damaged refineries on the US Gulf Coast.

Soaring petrol prices are likely to add to growing demands for fuel tax cuts and further encourage militant hauliers and farmers into taking direct action in order to force the Government's hand.

Planned measures to combat a successful blockade include rationing of supplies, limiting the hours during which petrol can be sold and reserving some filling stations for "priority users". Source

92. QUORN

This is a radical development which could greatly increase carrying capacity (i.e. the ability of the earth to feed large numbers of people using fewer resources). Quorn is mycoprotein -- a meat-like food produced by fungi from corn syrup, ammonia and air. In short, it is protein grown in vats. It is vastly more efficient as a protein source than the chicken or cow. Its production requires far less water and land than conventional protein, and it produces less waste. Furthermore, it is a viable commercial product, right now.
QUORN
I've tried this stuff, and it was quite good. The response was also positive at a taste test at Wired Magazine:

For about an hour on Thursday, the office went a bit Quorn crazy, with 10 or so people popping into the coffee bar to taste this advanced food. The feedback was mostly positive. Everyone liked it, and some people said they loved it. Several said that the nuggets were indistinguishable from chicken, and others said that while they could taste a difference, they thought Quorn was very similar to meat.Source

More mycoprotein facts:

Many attempts have been made to manufacture foods that are rich in protein as cheaper alternatives to meat. Microorganisms can be made to grow on some industrial or agricultural waste materials (e.g. paper, wood sugar-refining waste) that contain the right balance of nutrients. They can produce protein rapidly and efficiently. In addition, protein products from microorganisms, such as the commercially available mycoprotein Quorn, are suitable for vegetarians.Source

One calculation suggests that the protein requirements of 1 billion people could be satisfied by a vat protein facility covering only 4 square kilometers of land. (Source: How Many People Can the Earth Support?, Joel E. Cohen, P. 327).

91. LET'S MAKE A DOOM DEAL

Call me a party-pooper, but I'm a little wary of peak oil websites that try to sell me something. My alarm bells start going off when I see the little shopping cart icon.
Have you folks buzzed over to the LATOC (Life After the Oil Crash) Store run by peak oil marketing genius, Matt Savinar? Apparently they've got these nifty tote bags coming out in October:

Stylish White-On-Black LATOC
Reusable Shopping Bag Made From
Recycled Materials
Expected Price: $14-$17
Available October 2005
Thanks Matt! I owe you so much for opening my eyes to peak oil. I don't know about you, but I've got my credit card out already. I'm sure a stylish LATOC shopping bag will come in real handy once civilization as we know it has ended, and the global monetary system has collapsed.
I think I'll also get me one of those bitchin' From the Wilderness Tees to go with it:
And the Peak Oil Medical care special offer:

You know yer gonna need those books because the modern medical system is utterly dependent on crude oil. They pump it into the back of hospital facilities through 15" hoses.

90. CORN AND FERTILIZER

Let's recall the "die-off" scenario, as concisely described by Wikipedia

Some envisage a Malthusian catastrophe occurring as oil becomes increasingly inefficient to produce. Since the 1940s, agriculture has dramatically increased its productivity, due largely to the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and increased mechanisation. This process has been called the Green Revolution. The increase in food production has allowed world population to grow dramatically over the last 50 years. Pesticides rely upon oil as a critical ingredient, and fertilizers require both oil and natural gas. Farm machinery also requires oil. Arguing that in today's world every joule one eats requires 5-15 joules to produce and deliver, some have speculated that a decreasing supply of oil will cause modern industrial agriculture to collapse, leading to a drastic decline in food production, food shortages and possibly even mass starvation.Source

This is complete bollocks, as we have seen from numerous previous articles (see #15, #22, #28, #46, #48, #55, #72, #76, #84 and #87), but fertilizers are a key factor, so let's look at them once again, and see where they actually go.

In 1999, corn (maize) accounted for about 41% of all fertilizer consumption in the U.S. The exact breakdown by fertilizer type was:
N (Nitrogen): 40.58%
P2O5 (Phosphate): 39.45%
K2O (Potash): 41.89% (Source: U.S. Fertilizer Application Rates, The Fertilizer Institute)

Where does all that corn go? You can see in the following chart:
Source

Most U.S. corn is used to feed livestock (dark blue); another large chunk is used for ethanol (purple); another large chunk is exported (yellow); and another large chunk goes into stocks (green). The part consumed by humans, directly as food, is a subset of the orange band, which represents FSI (Food, Seed and Industrial). This category also includes high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) which is a component of soft drinks, juices and ice cream, and a major cause of obesity. The USDA notes: "Food and starch, other segments of FSI use, are mature markets and projected gains largely reflect population growth."

This is further evidence that human beings aren't even close to the point of die-off due to the inability to produce enough food from the earth.

Here's another interesting data point from the Fertilizer Institute (click on the image for a clearer picture):

From the report:

Since 1980, corn production has increased by 57.8 percent. Interestingly, that increase was achieved using less nitrogen fertilizer. Notably, in 1980, nearly 6.395 billion bushels of corn were produced using 5.245 million tons of nitrogen. However by 2003, U.S. corn production soared to 10.089 billion bushels, even as the amount of nitrogen fertilizer used dropped to 5.14 million tons. Source

So, as we've seen earlier (#84), growth in the food supply is not dependent on growth in production of nitrogen fertilizer, and thus is not dependent on growth in the supply of oil or natural gas.

89. SADAD AL HUSSEINI

To support their doom argument, a lot of peak oilers are cherry-picking quotes from Sadad Al Husseini -- a retired executive of Aramco (the Saudi national oil company). A comment on this site (Peak Oil Debunked) is representative:

A senior Saudi oil geologist has stated to the New York Times that he believes Saudi oil will peak at about 12.5 to 15 million barrels a day. After that point, there can be no more growth in sour supply no matter what the world demands!

"When I asked whether the kingdom could produce 20 million barrels a day -- about twice what it is producing today from fields that may be past their prime -- Husseini paused for a second or two. It wasn't clear if he was taking a moment to figure out the answer or if he needed a moment to decide if he should utter it. He finally replied with a single word: No."

Once Saudi Arabia have peaked, then that's it -- the world has peaked. There will be no more economic growth of the oil dependent variety. Indeed, current industrys such as airlines will start to go broke. The New York times quote is from the comprehensive article below.
The Breaking Point (NYT article, Aug. 21, 2005, pdf)

Husseini certainly is an authority. Here's some background:

It can be argued that in a nation devoted to oil, Husseini knows more about it than anyone else. Born in Syria, Husseini was raised in Saudi Arabia, where his father was a government official whose family took on Saudi citizenship. Husseini earned a Ph.D. in geological sciences from Brown University in 1973 and went to work in Aramco's exploration department, eventually rising to the highest position. Until his retirement last year -- said to have been caused by a top-level dispute, the nature of which is the source of many rumors -- Husseini was a member of the company's board and its management committee. He is one of the most respected and accomplished oilmen in the world.(Source: same as above)

Things certainly do look bleak when you cherry-pick Husseini's comments, but let's put his remarks in context. Here's Husseini on the topic of Matthew Simmons:

Although Matthew Simmons says it is unlikely that the Saudis will be able to produce 12.5 million barrels a day or sustain output at that level for a significant period of time, Husseini says the target is realistic; he says that Simmons is wrong to state that Saudi Arabia has reached its peak. But 12.5 million is just an interim marker, as far as consuming nations are concerned, on the way to 15 million barrels a day and beyond -- and that is the point at which Husseini says problems will arise.(Source: same as above)

And here's Husseini on the broader issues of peak oil:

Q (ASPO-USA, Steve Andrews): My question to you, and I would like to share your answer with attendees at the conference as well as with our state's Energy Office here in Colorado: Do you have an approximate range when you estimate that world oil production might peak? Given that you won't be able to join us [at the November 10-11 Denver peak oil conference], your comments on this point would be tremendously appreciated.

A. Thank you for your e-mail. In response to your question, the answer is a little long winded but this is an important matter that needs a clear response.

Oil capacity today is not production limited but rather processing limited. That is to say, the DOE reports the world's refining capacity has leveled at around 83 mmbd for some time and refinery expansions are slow and costly. We have seen new downstream capacity investments average 300 mbd/year over the last several years. Doubling that rate would still put major changes in refinery expansions well into 2010 and beyond. Therefore the refinery capacities are now the effective ceiling for oil production.

The DOE shows oil demand (presumably after refining) is increasing at something like 1.5 - 2.0 % per year. This was doable in the past because of the excess refinery capacity that prevailed until 2003/2004. From here forward, satisfying oil demand will require 1.2 - 1.6 mmbd of new refinery capacity per year or 4 to 5 new world-scale refineries every year. These normally require 4 - 5 years to execute at a cost of no less than $ 2 B per 100,000 b/d of capacity. With deep conversion and petrochemicals, the investments are even higher.

Because of these massive requirements, I believe the production outlook will be gradual production increases over the next ten years limited by slow refining capacity expansions.

Given the current outlook in terms of global exploration and development, the rate of investments in the oil value chain, energy prices, and the prevailing legal and political investment climate, I believe oil production will level off at around the 90 - 95 mmbd by 2015. This plateau can be sustained beyond 2020 at continuously higher oil prices and with rapid improvements in overall energy efficiencies throughout the world.Source*

As you can see, Husseini disputes the idea of an early peak, or a Simmons-style near-term decline in Saudi production. His assessment largely agrees with the results of the report by Koppelaar (see #86).
-------
*) Thanks to antimatter for this link.

88. NOBODY REALLY CARES ABOUT PEAK OIL

All the peak oilers squealing on the Internet... They don't care about peak oil. They only care about the high oil prices. Ask Aaron over at peakoil.com. Their traffic spikes when oil prices go up, and drops when oil prices go down.

There's a few people out there who actually care about peak oil, and I happen to be one of them. Unfortunately, everybody else is worrying about peak oil because they're getting wallet shock at the pump. When the price goes down, they'll all forget about peak oil entirely, and say "whoo, we dodged that bullet".

I generally avoid making predictions, but I'll make this one: the price of oil will fall again, and when it does, the "peak oil movement" will wilt with it.

I'm sick of all these gasoline junky peak oilers worrying about how we're going to meet demand. "When are we going to get started? When are we going to start the mitigation? We're going to need more and more oil!!!"

You creeps farting up the air in your cars are the reason why we're running out of oil, and why the environment is getting all fucked up. The last thing we need to be doing is building coal liquefaction plants and other "mitigation" so you fools can proceed with business as usual.

We don't need to do anything now to mitigate the peak oil problem except crack down on waste in fuel hog first world countries. Everything else is just denial.

87. EATING URANIUM

One of the key "texts" of peak oil doom is "The Oil We Eat" -- a puff piece by Richard Manning, originally published in the Feb. 2004 issue of Harper's Magazine. The piece itself is basically a misanthropic screed which talks about humans "stealing" food from animals and the earth. It also spreads the lie (debunked in #28) that fertilizer is made from oil. Here's Manning in top form:

With the possible exception of the domestication of wheat, the green revolution is the worst thing that has ever happened to the planet.Source

Manning is clearly a doomer, and a traitor to the species, who thinks the earth would be a better place without people on it, because humans are a pestilence... a CANCER.

Still... the idea of "eating oil" is interesting. It makes you wonder: if we can eat oil, can we eat uranium?

The answer turns out to be: Yes. Nitrogen fertilizer can be produced from nuclear energy. Consider this:

About 97% of nitrogen fertilizers are derived from synthetically produced ammonia, the remainder being by-product ammonium sulphate from the caprolactam process and small quantities of natural nitrates, especially from Chile. The production of anhydrous ammonia is based on reacting nitrogen with hydrogen under high temperatures and pressures. The source of nitrogen is the air, the hydrogen being derived from a variety of raw materials, including water, crude oil, coal and natural gas hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons provide the energy for the energy-intensive process. Source

As we have seen earlier, nitrogen fertilizer is not made from oil. It is made from natural gas (or syngas produced from coal). The interesting thing, though, is that the only part of the natural gas used in the production of ammonia (the basis of nitrogen fertilizer) is the hydrogen. Since hydrogen can be produced through the electrolysis of water, it is possible to produce fertilizer from WATER, as noted in the above passage. The energy necessary for producing the ammonia can also be derived from fission, so clearly (if necessary) we can turn uranium into nitrogen fertilizer.

In fact, we could even go a step further, and use uranium to supply light, heat and mechanization power for multi-story vertical farming facilities, located in the middle of the cities they feed. This would greatly increase the carrying capacity of the earth, eliminate fuel wasted on long-distance food transport, and reduce the human footprint due to agricultural activities:

Vertical farming practiced on a large scale in urban centers has great potential to:
1. supply enough food in a sustainable fashion to comfortably feed all of humankind for the foreseeable future;
2. allow large tracts of land to revert to the natural landscape restoring ecosystem functions and services;
3. safely and efficiently use the organic portion of human and agricultural waste to produce energy through methane generation, and at the same time significantly reduce populations of vermin (e.g., rats, cockroaches);
4. remediate black water creating a much needed new strategy for the conservation of drinking water;
5. take advantage of abandoned and unused urban spaces;
6. break the transmission cycle of agents of disease associated with a fecally-contaminated environment;
7. allow year-round food production without loss of yields due to climate change or weather-related events;
8. eliminate the need for large-scale use of pesticides and herbicides;
9. provide a major new role for agrochemical industries (i.e., designing and producing safe, chemically-defined diets for a wide variety of commercially viable plant species;
10. create an environment that encourages sustainable urban life, promoting a state of good health for all those who choose to live in cities. All of this may sound too good to be true, but careful analysis will show that these are all realistic and achievable goals, given the full development of a few new technologies.Source

THE LIVING TOWER (Night View)

86. PEAK OIL IS DEAD

My title is tongue in cheek, but it's basically true. The early peak chicken littles (Campbell, Deffeyes, Simmons, Boone Pickens, Ruppert, Heinberg, "Olduvai" Duncan, Savinar etc. -- See #51) have been conclusively discredited. Why? Because oil is definitely not going to peak before 2010 (and probably not before 2015-2020, more on this later -- JD).

This fact is proven in a report called "Oil Production Outlook 2005-2040" by an ambitious amateur researcher from the Netherlands named Rembrandt H. E. M. Koppelaar. He describes his method as follows:

Which does not help to the clarity of the peaking date is the way most institutes and geologist model the peak of oil production. Central to their approach is the estimated total amount of oil that will ever be extracted (I.E. Estimated Ultimate Recovery). In the present this figure varies between 1850 and 4000 billion barrels. Most estimates lie around 2500 billion barrels. Because the total amount of oil that will ever be extracted is a guesstimate a lot of the predictions done in the past by all kinds of experts were totally wrong. Too much factors are involved and the arguments from all sides vary widely.

A better way to estimate to peak is to look at it from an oil production perspective. How much oil are we producing now? Which part of production is in decline? What is the amount of new oil production is coming online? Because of the more certain nature of these figures a probable estimate for the near future can be obtained.

The production figures from 1996 to 2004 are well documented in the Oil, Gas, Coal and Electricity Quarterly Statistics from the International Energy Agency which is updated every quarter. The countries that have already peaked can be read in these figures. Future production can be estimated by the decline rates of current fields and the new oil projects coming online. New projects are well documented because of the huge costs, leading times and multiple parties involved. These figures can be obtained from various sources.Source (P. 4-5)

Mr. Koppelaar's idea is simple: instead of using the usual Hubbert curve voodoo to predict the peak, he has combed the Internet for information on new projects scheduled to come on stream. He extrapolates the current depletion of nations beyond their peak, and adds in the scheduled new flows to obtain the future production numbers for 2005-2010. His conclusion:

A total gross capacity of 19.94 million barrels per day is expected to be added to the world production stream between 2005 and 2010. Due to declining oil production a net capacity of 9.5 million barrels per day is expected to be added to the world production stream between 2005 and 2010. [...] Conclusion: It is very unlikely that a peak of world oil production occurs before 2010. (Source: same as above, P. 22)

The graph looks like this (click on the image for a clearer picture):
Figure 2 – World liquids production outlook 2005-2010

What does this mean? It means:
a) Colin Campbell has demonstrated his incompetence, yet again.
b) Boone Pickens (who can afford to pay for data like that Koppelaar collected, only much more detailed and better) is a profiteering sack of shit. He goes on TV, saying "Never again will we pump more than 82 million barrels", when he knows from the numbers that that isn't true. He's a peak oiler because every time he opens his mouth about peak oil, his bank account shoots up. (See #12.)
c) The early peakers have done a great disservice to the cause of peak oil awareness. The only thing the public is going to remember is a bunch of squealing chicken littles whose predictions turned out wrong. Why, if peak oil is so critical, didn't Deffeyes or Campbell put in the effort to do what Koppelaar has done? They were totally irresponsible as scientists -- failing to make even the most minimal, cursory checks of the accuracy of their predictions. Because of their irresponsibility and laziness, they have given the best ammunition possible to the enemies of peak oil awareness, i.e. "Why should we listen to you idiots? You predicted the peak, and you were WRONG. Har!"

----------
Note: Those interested in learning more about this kind of analysis should go to the following thread at The Oil Drum: A little more on CERA. Rembrandt is posting there.

85. THE GAME OF "RESOURCE WAR"

As we've seen so far, much of the doomer position is based on hype and misinformation. Debating doomers is a lot like playing "Whack a Mole" -- you debunk one point, and another one pops up, which you debunk etc. etc. There are, however, a few doomer positions which lie at a deeper level, and it is there that the doomers always take refuge. One of these positions is the idea of "resource war".

The basic idea is simple: if there is not enough of a critical resource (like oil), war will ensue and the strong will take the resource from the weak. This is often framed as a lifeboat analogy. You have two men in a lifeboat: Steve ("S", the stronger) and Willy ("W", the weaker), and only enough rations for one to survive. The usual doomer interpretation is that S kills W, takes the food, and all is right in the Darwinian universe.

In reality, the situation is more complicated. To see this, consider the three possible outcomes of the game:

1) W dies, S lives
2) S dies, W lives
3) W and S both die

Now, if you are W, and you know you aren't strong enough to kill S, then only two possible options remain: 1) and 3). But because S is planning to kill you for the food, you don't like S, and therefore you would prefer outcome 3) to outcome 1).

So, in the lifeboat analogy, W's choice is clear: throw the food away in the sea.

The moral of this story is that Darwinian theft of resources only works if S is strong enough to totally neutralize W. To "win", W doesn't need to be strong enough to defeat S. W only needs to be strong enough to sabotage S, and prevent S from getting enough of the disputed resource to survive.

This is the reason why the world will cooperate rather than fight over oil. The "strong" aren't strong enough to stop sabotage by the weak.

84. MORE ON THE GREEN REVOLUTION

As I've noted before, the "Green Revolution" is the linchpin in the peak oil die-off argument. In short, the idea is this: Humans discovered oil, and by using oil in agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides, mechanization, transport) were able to boost food production above what is possible without oil. This allowed people to, in a sense, "eat oil" -- which in turn caused the population to bloom and overshoot the carrying capacity of the earth. Therefore, when oil gets scarce after peak oil, 4 or 5 billion people will have to die to bring the system back into balance.

This argument is as full of holes as a piece of swiss cheese (as I have pointed out in earlier articles -- see #15, #22, #28, #46, #48, #55, #72, #76), but here I would like to point out one more error: the claim that Green Revolution-style mechanized, monocropped agriculture produces the most food per acre. This claim is demonstrably false, and is in fact a myth propagated by the PR departments of multinational agriculture companies like Monsanto.

Numerous studies show that chemical inputs do not increase crop yields. Here are two examples:

One of the longest running agricultural trials on record (more than 150 years) is the Broadbalk experiment at the Rothamsted Experimental Station in the United Kingdom. The trials compare a manure based fertilizer farming system (but not certified organic) to a synthetic chemical fertilizer farming system. Wheat yields are shown to be on average slightly higher in the organically fertilized plots (3.45 tones/hectare) than the plots receiving chemical fertilizers (3.40 tones/hectare).Source

-------

A comprehensive review of a large number of comparison studies of grain and soybean production conduct by six Midwestern universities since 1978 found that in all of these studies organic production was equivalent to, and in many cases better than, conventional (Welsh, 1999). Organic systems had higher yields than conventional systems which featured continuous crop production (no rotations) and equal or lower yields in conventional systems that included crop rotations. In the drier climates such as the Great Plains, organic systems had higher yields, as they tend to be better during droughts than conventional systems. In one such study in South Dakota for the period 1986-1992, the average yields of soybeans were 29.6 bushels/acre and 28.6 bushels/acre in the organic and conventional systems respectively. In the same study, average spring wheat yields were 41.5 bushels/acre and 39.5 bushels/acre in the organic and conventional systems respectively.(Source: same as above)

More data on such experiments can be found here:
Moving Towards Eco-Farming
What is efficient agriculture?
The Seven Deadly Myths of Industrial Agriculture: Myth Four -- Industrial Agriculture is Efficient

*****
Another myth is that Monsanto/Cargill-style monster farms produce the most food per acre:

The emphasis on small-scale family farms has the potential to revitalize rural areas and their economies. Counter to the widely held belief that industrial agriculture is more efficient and productive, small farms produce far more per acre than large farms. Industrial agriculture relies heavily on monocultures, the planting of a single crop throughout the farm, because they simplify management and allow the use of heavy machinery. Larger farms in the third world also tend to grow export luxury crops instead of providing staple foods to their growing population. Small farmers, especially in the Third World have integrated farming systems where they plant a variety of crops maximizing the use of their land.

They are also more likely to have livestock on their farm, which provides a variety of animal products to the local economy and manure for improving soil fertility. In such farms, though the yield per acre of a single crop might be lower than a large farm, total production per acre of all the crops and various animal products is much higher than large conventional farms (Rosset, 1999). Figure 1 shows the relationship between total production per unit area to farm size in 15 countries. In all cases, the smaller farms are much more productive per unit area— 200 to 1000 percent higher — than larger ones (Rosset, 1999).(Source: same as above)

------

Government studies underscore this "inverse relationship." According to a 1992 U.S. Agricultural Census report, relatively smaller farm sizes are 2 to 10 times more productive per unit acre than larger ones. The smallest farms surveyed in the study, those of 27 acres or less, are more than ten times as productive (in dollar output per acre) than large farms (6,000 acres or more), and extremely small farms (4 acres or less) can be over a hundred times as productive.Source

The data shows that farm size is the critical factor. Man-hour intensive farming can compensate for the loss of fossil inputs, and increase food output beyond what it is now. Extremely small farms (4 acres are less) are 2 to 100 times more productive than large farms. Thus it is clear we can massively increase carrying capacity and total food production simply by decreasing farm size.

The above facts make me wonder if the mechanized/chemical farming industry is similar to the automobile industry. We don't really need the machines/chemicals, and that's why the makers push them with such an aggressive hard sell. It's a lot like cars; you don't actually need them, but the big automakers help rig the system to make you need them, and then they spend millions of dollars on PR to pump out the message: "Can't live without a car." Similarly, you don't need the chemicals, so the chemical manufacturers have really robust PR departments, and employ sophisticated media shills to pump out the message "Without chemicals, we'll all die." The peak-oil doomers have (as usual) bought into this corporate brainwashing.
--------
*) Thanks to oiless for the links.

83. DO FLAGGING DISCOVERIES BY THE OIL MAJORS PROVE PEAK OIL?

Comment from anonymous reader:

The thing is, you ignore the complete picture. Why is Chevron buying out other oil companies? Hmm, maybe that's the best way to make money from the remaining oil, because there isn't enough to just go and find?

have you commented on the declining rates of oil discovery? How much oil do we currently consume as a civilization compared to how much we discover?

Do you know that in 2003 big oil spent 8 billion looking for oil, but only found 4 billion dollars worth?

Anonymous is referring here to an article titled "Top oil groups fail to recoup exploration costs" published by the New York Times on Oct. 10, 2004. From the article:

Wood Mackenzie [an energy consulting firm] says the top-10 oil groups spent about $8bn combined on exploration last year, but this only led to commercial discoveries with a net present value of slightly less than $4bn. The previous two years show similar, though less dramatic, shortfalls.Source

This is yet another case of peak oiler spin. In the report, the term "top-10 oil groups" refers to the major IOGCs (International Oil and Gas Companies) such as BP, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron etc. The idea is: if the major IOGCs aren't finding enough oil, the earth must be running out of oil. This spin deceptively ignores the fact that the IOGCs are being SHUT OUT of oil and opportunities by the National Oil Companies (NOCs), who control most of the world's reserves and promising areas:

While geographic preferences based on corporate presence or long-standing relationships are often factors, it is quality reserves with quality fiscal terms that the companies are after; it is that objective that ultimately guides them in targeting assets and allocating investment dollars. Of total global oil and gas reserves, only about 14% are fully open for IOGC competition, where governments regulate the activities of oil and gas companies, but do not themselves participate in the exploitation of reserves (largely in the US and the UK). A further 17% of global oil and gas reserves are held by Russian companies, both privatized and public, where the degree of openness, the nature of IOGC access and the competitive environments and terms are still evolving and basically still unclear.(Click picture for a clearer image.)
Only 11% of global reserves where NOCs are present and governments own the resources are open for IOGC to have equity access to reserves. By far the largest portion of global reserves, 58%, are held by governments and NOCs where IOGCs do not yet have equity access; in part of this portion, IOGCs can have some limited involvement through service contracts or technical service agreements, but they cannot have equity access to reserves. In spite of this, out of some $180bn in capex spent in the global E&P sector in 2002, $140bn was spent by publicly traded companies. The situation is only slightly different if one considers only natural gas, where Russia becomes more dominant, holding about 31% of the global reserve base. Reserves with full IOC equity access amount to some 10% of world reserves, and only 8% of world natural gas reserves where NOC are present are open to IOGCs. When it comes to the remaining 51% of global gas reserves, IOGCs have only limited access, through service contracts, but no equity access.Source

In layman's terms this means: the NOCs (like Aramco, the Saudi national oil company, or Petróleos de Venezuela, the Venezuelan national oil company) regard the oil on their territory as the property of the state, and will not let "majors" like BP own it. This fouls up the IOGC business model, so they don't bother exploring there, even though that's where the oil is. Russia has similar issues after the Yukos affair; the majors can't be sure of the security of their investment, so they stay away. This is why the IOGCs are left to muck around in places like the US Gulf of Mexico, west Africa and the Caspian Sea, as noted by the NYT article. They are only exploring the least promising fraction of the earth, not the whole earth.

The report acknowledges these realities in the last two paragraphs:

Mr Plummer said even though "companies have been slow to react", exploration spending is likely to rise on the back of record oil prices. However, "a number of constraints will continue to act on exploration performance, the most important of which is being access to material opportunities".

The findings reflect the fears of some companies, who claim they need greater access to Opec nations to boost reserves.(Source: NYT article cited above)

Final note) In the interests of accuracy, we should point out that the $4 billion of oil discovered in 2003 by the top-10 is now worth about $5 billion, and in fact will be worth $8 billion if the price of oil rises to about $100.

82. GREENWASHING BY CHEVRON

Shepherd Bliss is an astute fellow with some interesting comments on Chevron's willyoujoinus.com (see #80):

Chevron, Oil, and China
by Shepherd Bliss

"It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil," notes Chevron Corporation's two full-page ad that began appearing in July in the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Financial Times and elsewhere. "We'll use the next trillion in 30," the ad continues, thus quietly admitting to the Peak Oil that the industry has not previously disclosed.

"One thing is clear: the age of easy oil is over," the ad reveals in a folksy letter from "Dave," Chevron's Chairman and CEO David J. O'Reilly. Most Americans are still unaware of the pending Peak Oil or try to deny the tremendous impact it will have upon us. Chevron proudly presents itself as "the Good Guy" by informing the public of the lessening supply of petroleum at a time when the demand is soaring, especially in China, India, and other industrializing countries.

Chevron's multi-million dollar global corporate goodwill effort includes TV teaser ads throughout the US, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Airport locations in Beijing, Moscow, Washington, D.C. and elsewhere broadcast the ad, also available online.

[...]

Meanwhile, Chevron CEO O'Reilly speaks out of both sides of his mouth. While sweet-talking to the world in the ad campaign, he is tough-talking against China's attempt to outbid Chevron for Unocal. After China's state-owned CNOOC offered $18.5 billion for Unocal, besting Chevron's $16.6 billion offer, the American suitor raised its bid to $17 billion. "Our increased offer has been driven by competitive circumstances," an aggressive O'Reilly stated on July 19, the day his folksy letter appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Behind the scenes Chevron and other corporations are pressuring Congress to reject the CNOOC offer as a national security risk and Un-American, should the Chevron shareholders accept the higher bid at their Aug. 10 meeting.

[...]

Meanwhile, the Chevron ad is classic green-washing. Whitewashing is a superficial coat that makes something appear cleaner than it is; green-washing is an attempt to present something that is environmentally damaging as clean. Now that most oil experts agree that Peak Oil will happen, Chevron wants to appear to be the oil company to act for the public good by informing people that we are indeed running out of oil.

"The same Madison Avenue firm, Young and Rubicom, that put together Bush's TV ads in 2004 and the Army's 'Be All You Can Be!' campaign prepared these ads," according to attorney Matt Savinar.*

[...]

We should ask“the tough questions,”fatherly Dave advises in his friendly letter.“What role will renewables and alternative energies play? What is the best way to protect our environment? How do we accelerate our conservation efforts?”

One would almost think that the Chevron chairman was in fact the chairperson of the Sierra Club. Dave makes it sound like one of the world's most polluting companies in one of the world's most polluting industries is actually on the side of the Earth, rather than merely trying to maximize profits by extracting natural resources that lead to global climate changes.

[...]

Chevron's ad is part of Big Oil's struggle to maintain power. Dave's folksy letter seems inclusive when it talks about "every citizen of this planet" and even calls upon environmentalists to "be part of reshaping the next era of energy." Don't be fooled. Beneath it is an attempt to shore up Big Oil's threatened power base.

As the struggles around Peak Oil and its consequences heighten we can expect more such calculated public relations language to point to Big Oil as the Earth's friend. Seeing through such green-washing will be important. Lets not make the same mistakes during the 21st century that we made in the last century by letting one country, the US, hoard too much of the world's resources, and one industry, oil, concentrate too much power.Source

-------
*) This fact was actually sniffed out by Grimnir of peakoil.com when willyoujoinus.com first appearedSource. The WHOIS record has since been changed.

81. IS FAMINE IN NIGER THE BEGINNING OF THE DIEOFF?

Omnitir asks:

How do you account for the (literally) millions of people currently starving to death in places like Niger, because they can no longer afford to buy food? As oil has rocketed to it current price, the cost of food has also risen, and people that could barely afford to eat before cannot afford to eat now.

Isn't this relationship between rising oil prices and rising food prices, which would be causing a much larger dieoff then what we are seeing if it weren't for UN relief, strong evidence supporting dieoff theory?

ANSWER: No. Let's recall what the die-off theory says. It states that human beings have overshot the carrying capacity of the earth, and 4 or 5 billion people will have to die because the earth is no longer capable of producing enough food to feed them. This is clearly not the case with regard to Niger.

As of today, the WFP (World Food Program) of the United Nations has received US$28 million of its US$57.6 million appeal for Niger. Donors include:

Canada - US$3.2 million
UK - US$2.7 million
United States - US$2.6 million
Netherlands - US$2.5 million
Denmark - US$2.4 million
Venezuela - US$1.5 million
Australia - US$1.5 million
Germany - US$1.5 million
Belgium - US$1.2 million
Luxembourg - US$1.2 million
Italy - US$1.2 million
Ireland - US$1.2 million
EuropeAid - US$1.2 million
Turkey - US$600,000
African Development Bank - US$500,000
Norway - US$306,000
New Zealand - US$349,650
Switzerland - US$39,062
Private - US$334,000. Source

Compare the above with the US$12.6 billion which the US alone spent on dog and cat food in 2003Source.

Japan throws out enough food to feed 50 million people (=5 entire nations the size of Niger) from its convenience stores alone:

The worst offenders are perhaps Japan's legion of convenience stores, where many youngsters and singles do their food shopping. Around ¥10,000 to ¥15,000 worth of lunch boxes are thrown away daily from each shop, that is if the managers can’t find homeless people to give them away to. Multiplied by 40,823 konbini in Japan, that brings the waste, in retail terms, to a staggering ¥220bn (=about US$2 billion) per year.

This level of profligacy is highlighted by a report in the Japanese weekly magazine Shukan. Its economics reporter recently pointed out that the volume of food discarded by convenience stores and supermarkets because they were past their sell by dates – an estimated 6 million tons per year – is equivalent to roughly 80% of the total volume of food assistance currently being supplied to developing countries, or enough to feed 50 million people for a year. Transposing calories into monetary values, Japan's food losses are roughly equal to the total annual output of its agricultural and fishery industries.Source

Clearly the earth produces enough food to feed the people of Niger, and thus the deaths in Niger cannot be attributed to die-off.

Furthermore, the rise in food prices in Niger had no relationship whatsoever to the rising price of crude oil. The price rise was caused by: poor rains, massive crop devastation by locusts, and economic factors relating to food imports/exports with Niger's neighbors (see Source).

Also, in the interests of accuracy, millions of people didn't die during the recent events in Niger; about 3 million people were exposed to varying levels of malnutrition and food insecurity, and the number of deaths ranged in the tens of thousands, not millions.

80. WILLYOUJOINUS.COM

The peak oilers are making a big deal about www.willyoujoinus.com: "See! Even Chevron admits that we're at peak oil!!"

That website is a total load of public relations bullshit, as can be seen from the following timeline:

June 10, 2005: FTC Clears Way for Chevron to Acquire Unocal for $18 BillionSource

June 22, 2005: CNOOC Trumps Chevron's Bid for Unocal
Chinese Oil Company CNOOC Offers $18.5B for Unocal, Trumping Chevron's $16.6B OfferSource

July 5, 2005: Chevron starts advertising blitz... "We're running out of oil!!!"Source

Think about it.

79. LOW HANGING FRUIT

A lot of peak oilers use the following argument:

"People pick the low hanging fruit first, therefore the costs of harvesting resources must increase over the the long term."

Let's call this the Low Hanging Fruit hypothesis.

The Low Hanging Fruit hypothesis is often called the "Law of Diminishing Returns" (LDR), but that is just sloppy thinking. Here are some definitions of the LDR, as it is found in economics:

in economics, law stating that if one factor of production is increased while the others remain constant, the overall returns will relatively decrease after a certain point.Source

When increasing amounts of one factor of production are employed in production along with a fixed amount of some other production factor, after some point, the resulting increases in output of product become smaller and smaller.Source

The LDR describes a short-term phenomenon, and does not apply when all the factors of production are increased, or when there are significant changes in technology. My impression is that economists are making a distinct point of not subscribing to the Low Hanging Fruit hypothesis because it isn't true.

Here's one example: According to Low Hanging Fruit, it was easier to catch tuna in the year 1550 than it is now, using sonar, explosives, helicopters, speed boats and huge purse-seine nets.

Or to paraphrase Mike Lynch: According to Low Hanging Fruit, it was easier to produce oil in 1908 Persia than to produce oil in 5000 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico. (Define "easy"!)

Here's another:
If the extraction of commodities becomes harder and harder by the year, then why do they keep getting cheaper and cheaper (click images for a clearer picture)?
Source

Here's another data point, from Gillett's nanotech paper*:

The extraordinary decrease in the cost of computing over the last few decades has already had a significant effect: the cost of domestic [oil] production since 1984 has dropped from $14 to $4/bbl, largely through information technologies (Paul, 2001).Source

This is backed up by the data. Over the long-term, oil has gotten cheaper to find:Source

And to lift:
Source

So let's cut the crap. Those claiming that the Low Hanging Fruit hypothesis is valid need to provide some evidence to support it. It is not the Law of Diminishing Returns which economists adhere to.

-------
*) Thanks to Lorenzo for this link.

78. DOOMER TYPE #3: THE PARTYER

Here's another logical response to becoming "peak oil aware". We're all going to die soon in a peak oil die-off which will make the Black Death look like a birthday party. So we might as well live it up, and enjoy all the modern conveniences while we still have them:

The world is in a truely dire situation. Lots of people have nothing to loose in the game for resources. Lots of people will be desprite enough and feel they have enough power to win the endgame. A lot of people are greedy and will do all the wrong things when dealing with the largest problem humanity has ever faced. All we are left to do is prepare in any way that we can, to hope for the future, and to try to spread the knowledge and the truth. Life poses many problems ahead, how we will react to them is unknown. All we do know is that the life we are living in today, may not be there tommorow. Live it up, love life, and prepare for the gloomy days ahead, for theres really not much we can do but prepare for whats comming our way. Depressing, yes. Hopeful? Not really. Loving my video games and driving my car... every second of it. --skateari Source

Note, once again, that peak oil awareness does not lead to sustainable practices. It leads to just the opposite: increased demand for every unsustainable product offered by the modern world because now is the last chance to enjoy them before the big die-off. Also note that (as usual) doom provides a convenient excuse for continuing your rampant consumption of gasoline.

77. DOOMER TYPE #2: THE FULL THROTTLE "SURVIVOR"

We seem to have ferreted out the next specimen in our ongoing study (#74) of the effects of the "peak oil message" on humans:

It is also common amoungst many forum members that if we conserve the energy the decline will be more gradual and perpetuate the problem of peakoil on the enviroment and prolong human suffering. If we go Full Throttle which will happen anyway, the decline will be instantious and the energy production will decline much faster causing a quick dieoff which would benifit the enviroment for the people left who were prepared than a gradual dieoff which would decimate most of the natural ecosystems making it much harder for the people left to live. --Dukat. (Source: see the comments for #75.)

Isn't it interesting how the doomers craft these elaborate excuses for wasting fuel? Yet again, "peak oil awareness" doesn't seem to be having the intended effect. PO awareness doesn't lead to conservation and sustainable local agriculture. It leads to insane little schemes for massacring humanity, which (conveniently) can be furthered by making as many useless trips to Taco Bell as you can in your SUV.

76. THE GREEN REVOLUTION NEVER CAME TO AFRICA

The Green Revolution is a critical linchpin in the peak oil die-off theory; it is what connects food and oil. The idea is that the Green Revolution used fossil fuels (fertilizer, pesticide, mechanization, transport) to increase agricultural productivity, and this increased productivity is what allowed the world population to overshoot the earth's carrying capacity. Without the "phantom carrying capacity" provided by oil, mass die-off would have happened decades ago.

Africa poses a big problem for this theory. For one thing, Africa's population is growing quickly:

Population in Africa has more than doubled since 1970, and is growing around 2.7% per year (the fastest growth in the world).Source

And yet Africa (outside of North Africa, Nigeria and South Africa) uses almost no fossil fuels at all. According to the 2004 BP Statistical Review, the entire continent of Africa (excluding Algeria, South Africa and Egypt) uses only 1.3mbd (million barrels per day), i.e. about 1/8th the amount the U.S. alone uses every day just to fuel cars. So it is clear that fossil fuel did not cause, and does not support, the rapid growth of African population.

Furthermore, it turns out that the Green Revolution started in Mexico, and spread to India, Pakistan and China, but it never got to Africa:

The failure of Africa's Green Revolution
The failure to introduce the Green Revolution on a large scale in Africa
in the 1960s and 1970s is due to a several factors.
Firstly, rice, maize and wheat were the predominant Green Revolution crops, of which only maize is a principal staple food in some African countries. In general, African diets are based primarily on grains such as millet and sorghum or on roots and tubers such as cassava, yams and sweet potatoes. These crops have never received much attention from scientists and were no part of the Green Revolution.
Secondly, much of the African continent has infertile soils, severe pest and disease problems and little water available for agriculture. The use of a narrow genetic base variety and practise of monoculture, all characteristics of the Green Revolution, increases the risks of large areas of crops being devastated by pests, diseases and crop failure. In West Africa, for example, disease and pest problems have hindered a successful introduction of improved Indian sorghum and millet varieties. Water control problems have prevented the introduction of high-yielding dwarf rice varieties. Only 3 to 5 per cent of Africa's cultivated areas are irrigated, compared to 20 per cent of India's cropland. After 10 years of experimenting, only 2 imported rice varieties out of 2,000 tested performed as well as local varieties. Additionally, some of the newly introduced varieties were not easily accepted by local people who preferred the traditional varieties.
Thirdly, Africa's poor transportation and commercial infrastructure makes inputs not easily accessible by all farmers, and harvests can not get to the markets on time. Recent experiences from a project in Ghana, supported by the Sasakawa Africa Association, headed by Norman Borlaug, have shown that high increases in agricultural output can be achieved. According to Borlaug, the main problems are how to ensue that fertilizers reach the farmers and how to bring their produce to the urban markets.
In India and Mexico, unlike many African countries, appropriate investments in rural roads were undertaken by governments with assistance from international donor organizations. The assistance of the donor organizations, notably the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, was predominantly directed towards the areas which were important to the US interests. Africa, historically linked more to Europe than to the USA, therefore had no priority.
Fourthly, many African countries have a lower labour/land ratio, less human and institutional capacity, and have economic limitations. While many Latin American and Asian countries have large economies, the many African economies are small and even more dependent on the export of primary commodities. Besides, their open economies are more susceptible to fluctuations in international prices. Government revenues and, consequently, agricultural research budgets, depend mainly on export earnings and are highly unstable as a result. Prior investments in human capital and development of training and research institutions by the Green Revolution countries of Asia and Latin America contributed to their success in agricultural research. India, for example, began to build agricultural colleges in the 1920s under the British colonial government. By the 1960s Indian policy makers and scientists had acquired extensive knowledge about the nature of problems facing agriculture in that country, about where the biggest pay­offs of research would likely be, and about which parts of the country had the largest agricultural potential.
In contrast, many African countries have, until recently, devoted little investment to the training of agricultural scientists or building research institutions. The lack of trained personnel and knowledge of local agricultural conditions severely limits the effectiveness of foreign assistance and places too much reliance on expatriates.
African countries have, compared to India, not such a strong agricultural policy. India's state advisory services have been much more geared to serve not only the large­scale but also the small-scale farmers, who make up the majority of the rural population in many developing countries.Source

The argument that die-off will occur due to a failure of oil-based Green Revolution agriculture does not apply to rural Africa.

75. DOOMER TYPE #1: THE SOCIAL DARWINIST

There's lots of these critters running loose in the "peak oil community". To illustrate, I have chosen Jack, one of the moderators at peakoil.com -- a website which serves as Peak Oil 101 for thousands of people everyday. Jack is an affected little worm who brags about his net worth and luxurious life, and has a Marie Antoinette style take on peak oil. He's been involved in peak oil longer than I have, and is familiar with all the key peak oil sources (ASPO, Savinar, Simmons, "The Oil We Eat", dieoff.org etc.) He's even developed a manifesto of sorts, explaining how he thinks we should deal with peak oil. I'll let him speak in his own words:

The End of Cornucopian Idealism
Are you a cornucopian? Perhaps you walk or bicycle whenever possible, wear warm clothing instead of using heating oil, and seek voluntary simplicity in every aspect of your life. You may not even own a television, an SUV, or a dishwashing machine. And yet, you may be every bit as much of a cornucopian as someone who drives a bright yellow Hummer2, keeps the thermostat at 80 in the winter and 72 in summer, and who personally keeps the mall merchants fiscally healthy. Attitude defines the cornucopian.

What, then, is a cornucopian? It is a person who believes in ever-growing, ever-lasting, ever-bountiful abundance. It is a person who cannot conceive of shortage, of limitation, or of want.

[...]

A cornucopian refuses to grasp a fundamental truth; that there is only so much of any particular thing. The food you give to another is food you no longer have. That mouthful might be the critical resource required for your own survival. The blanket you provide to someone else may be the very item you need to avoid freezing to death. Foreign aid is merely the collective version of the cornucopian ideal. A nation that gives away resources deprives itself on behalf of others. In a world of limits, this is tantamount to societal suicide.

Within our little community, many argue that nations should help each other, cooperate, and share what is available. It is an argument that ignores harsh realities. If resources exist such that two may live, dividing them among five determines that all will perish. Limitless abundance does not define our world. No, the lack of resources defines our lives. Two thirds of the Earth’s population – some four billion people – cannot be supported by existing resources. Moreover, the surplus population may be far larger – and the problem far greater. The fundamental reality is that more than two thirds of the people alive today cannot be fed, clothed, warmed, or maintained. Over the next 30 years, billions are likely to die. Our actions will decide who will be among their number.

Nations must recognize their duty to their own citizens. They must gain what resources are available, by whatever means are at hand. Supplies must be defended zealously against any who would take them. The weak will perish. Those who are to survive must accept this reality; those who refuse the dictates of reality will remove themselves from the equation.

We have the clear vision to recognize the likely shape of upcoming events. We must now attend to our thinking and embrace truth. For the most part, we are all part of the developed world. We have computers, electricity, running water, and adequate food. The third world cannot be saved. The best and kindest act is to let it sink beneath the seas and cease prolonging their pain. For our own survival, we must be prepared to take their resources for our own use. It is brutal. It is also the refutation of cornucopian idealism. Compassion is a luxury we cannot afford.

Abandon the mirage of limitless resources. Gather what you may, and hold it. For those resources are life itself.Source

Jack knows all about peak oil, and guess what? He doesn't give a shit about conservation. He brags about how much fuel he uses:

For myself, I drive a car that gets just under 20 MPG...if I'm going downhill...with a tailwind. I regularly eat pineapple flown in from Hawaii, strawberries from Mexico, and the rest of the stuff from who-knows-where. No one bothers to bring these matters up, because they recognize that I don't particularly care what they think.Source

So there you go. Case study #1 of what "getting the message out" does to people. How many more Jacks do you "peak oil activists" plan on creating with your ill-conceived "message"? Enough to win an election?

74. ISN'T DEBUNKING BAD FOR PEAK OIL AWARENESS?

I think this is the #1 question my readers ask me. As Avo put it:

If you want people to make profound changes in their lives, you must first convince them that there IS A PROBLEM. Yet the overall theme of your blog/group postings is, don't worry, things are not nearly as bad as those nasty racist peak-oilers would have you believe.

The main concern of the well-intentioned peak oilers is that our current culture is unsustainable. We are drowning in a sea of waste, consumerism, cynical commerce, greenhouse gas, toxic waste, pesticides etc. etc... We've got to get a grip on ourselves: stop eating so much meat, grow organic food grown closer to home, drive more efficient cars, conserve, compost, develop human-scale walkable communities, hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". This is where "peak oil awareness" comes in. If we can just get "the message" out to people, they will understand and start taking steps in the right direction.

Unfortunately, experience shows that this is exactly the opposite of what happens. After all, what is the peak oil "message"? Briefly, it is that the human population has ballooned together with oil production, overshooting the earth's carrying capacity, and most of the world population will soon perish in a peak oil die-off because food production/distribution is totally dependent on oil. Four or five billion people will have to die in order to bring humanity back into balance with the earth. We're talking about rivers of blood up to the horse bridles, folks.

This is the peak oil message:

DIE OFF

People don't respond to that apocalyptic message by thinking: "Oh, hey, I better buy a Prius" or "Maybe I'll take the bus to work." In fact, they respond to it with panic, and look for solutions not in conservation and environmentalism, but rather in survivalism, hoarding, profiteering, fascism, racism, eugenics and murder. This is the crux of the problem, which the well-intentioned peak oilers do not understand. Spreading the "peak oil message" has an effect exactly the opposite of that intended. It leads to social disintegration, not community. To illustrate this I will be showcasing a series of "Doomer Types", beginning in the following article (#75).

73. WORLD GASOLINE CONSUMPTION

This is the root of the problem, not the Saudi oil fields:

Calculated by U.S. Government Accountability Office, May 2005
Source (pdf, P. 19)

72. WHO NEEDS OIL? SHIT IS FERTILIZER

"Fertilizer is made from oil" is one of the most obnoxiously repeated lies in the peak oil community. Fertilizer is not made from oil, it is made from natural gas, coal and mined minerals (see #28). But what will we do when we run out of those resources? We will turn to our own urine and excrement.

Composting is a subject which futurists and back-to-the-earthers can all agree on. It is critical for ordinary life on earth, as well as for space travel and understanding sealed, cyclical biospheres. It drives me crazy that people have such strong childish taboos about a subject which is so critically important. We need to hire an army of ecologists and do a manhattan project on the human shit cycle tomorrow.

There is a fascinating old book I read once called "Farmers of Forty Centuries" by F.H. King. I believe it was written in the early 1900s, and describes a trip the author (an American) took to China to inspect its agriculture system. Shit was an extremely valuable commodity in the cyclic Chinese system. It even went to the point where a little boy would ride on the back of an ox while it worked driving an irrigation pump. His job was to collect the ox's shit in a ladle. There was a photo of that in the book.

The book (without photos) is in the public domain, and available on line here:
Farmers of 40 Centuries

Here's a quote:

One of the most remarkable agricultural practices adopted by any civilized people is the centuries-long and well nigh universal conservation and utilization of all human waste in China, Korea and Japan, turning it to marvelous account in the maintenance of soil fertility and in the production of food. To understand this evolution it must be recognized that mineral fertilizers so extensively employed in modern western agriculture, like the extensive use of mineral coal, had been a physical impossibility to all people alike until within very recent years. With this fact must be associated the very long unbroken life of these nations and the vast numbers their farmers have been compelled to feed.

This is also a great link: Civilization & Sludge: Notes on the History of the Management of Human Excreta

-----

In Calcutta, they've been culturing fish protein from sewage for about 100 years. Basically, they let the sewage flow into a shallow pond, where it causes an algae bloom. Apparently, this clears the water of human pathogens. Then, after a delay for re-aeration, the pond is stocked with fish like carp and tilipia. Systems like this can yield 2.8 metric tons of fish per hectare, per year. The "feed" is human and animal waste. See: Sewage Fed Aquaculture Systems of Kolkata: A Century-old Innovation of Farmers(pdf).

Fish from Shit


Open channel through which sewage is flown.
Lush growth of Colocasia seen on either side of the channel

From another article on shit-based fish culture:

Cities consume resources and produce both liquid and solid waste. The disposal of these wastes is increasingly becoming a problem. However, waste must be regarded as a resource for the sustainable urban development. Agriculture has always been an intrinsic part of Asian cities. In many Asian cities, the composting of separated solid waste and recycling of waste and sewage water used to be a tradition. These conventional methods are being renewed as urban agriculture is found to be providing employment, food and nutrition, land management and environmental improvement.

Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) has one of the largest recycling zones in India with age-old practices of fish culture and vegetable production. A large number of sewage-wastewater-fed fisheries have been developed on the wetlands in lagoon types of ponds in which fish are cultivated, and where sunlight, water hyacinths and phytoplankton are used to clean the water.Source.

71. HATCHING OUT OF THE EGG

I believe that our human destiny lies in space, and that we can and should make the next step to space mirrors (#51), LSP (Lunar Space Power, #33), space power satellites (#5) etc.

I see two ways the future can turn out:
1) We get through peak oil, synch into nuclear, and then unlock fusion or realize that space power isn't as hard was we thought. We have some tough times, but there is no severe plateau or trough in the growth curve. Fusion or space power saves the day, and we smoothly switch to harvesting space energy and resources with our current economic and consumer mindset intact.

2) Cars really are a virus (see #45). Not just a nuisance, but actually a lethal threat which has infected us, and could kill us while we're trying to hatch out of the egg. First we raise up the poor, so they can have an American standard of living, i.e. cars. Chinese peasants are driving en masse. Oil peaks, but we handle it by liquefying every hydrocarbon (gas, coal, unconventional, oil shale) left in the earth to fuel an exponential explosion of cars. Then gas runs out, so now we're running on nuclear electricity, and mining coal and uranium like mad to fuel private automobiles. We're also liquefying huge amounts of food to fuel cars, and paving over agricultural land for parking, roads etc. There's a lot of stress in the system, and a lot of fissile material in the world, and a nuke or two get blown off. Massive fuel stockpiles are sucked dry by pointless wars. Meanwhile, the atmosphere is getting all fucked up from car emissions, and the green house effect is kicking in for real. Eventually, the strain is so great that we don't get out into space, because we wasted too much of our resources making cars.
I disagree with the doomers who think this sequence of events is imminent. I think, if we just let it run its course, it might take 70 years or more. I personally expect to die before society seriously questions the car.

No matter which scenario is true, we should learn from the poor:

Case 1) People living in a sealed space colony will need to live a lot more like the indios or Chinese peasants than like us. Growth capitalism isn't going to work inside a sealed space colony. What is needed is the ahistorical mindset of cyclic man, who enacts the same ritual every year, and regards deviation from the cycle like an error or a sin. (Mircea Eliade has written at length on this topic, see The Myth of the Eternal Return: or, Cosmos and History.)
Space colonists will also need to recognize their own excrement as a resource, just like the poor Chinese did (do?) and the poor Indians (in India) who grow fish in ponds fertilized with sewage (see #72).
The most important thing we can learn from "primitive" people is how to exist in a condition of economic stasis. I am not anti-growth. The destiny of humanity is exponential growth into space. But to do that, we've got to learn how to control and stabilize growth, when necessary. In a space colony, you don't want anybody sitting on their ass and megaconsuming, no matter how much money they have. Resources are too critical to allow any form of parasitism. Ayn Rand doesn't work inside a space capsule.

Case 2) Here we need to learn from the poor so we don't kill ourselves. I'm not talking about powerdown where we shun technology and money etc. I'm talking about about power-stabilize, where we synch into a graceful stasis or powerdown so we don't foul up the step into space. We need to conserve our resources and restructure because metamorphosis takes a lot of energy.
The cornucopians are right. We can, and probably will, stall off dealing with the car problem for a long time. But in the long view, we only have two options, space or death (see #2), and wasting energy on cars and other frivolous bullshit makes death a lot more likely. The doomers are right on that point.
Unfortunately, I think Kunstler is wrong. Peak oil will not kill the car, and its going to take an excrutiatingly long time dying. Peak oil is not going to be the deus ex machina, and we're going to have to kill the car ourselves. I regard that as virtually impossible, but I think it's a good idea to be optimistic, and try anyway.