Peak Oil

Having a non-boring job that doesn’t allow my mind to wander during the day has significantly cut into the time I have to think of items about which to post. I’m still searching for balance (aren’t we all!), but rest assured I fully intend to restore this blog to its former glory...or at least, to the quality it was before the move.

The events in the world of energy over the last few months deserve some comment, as the situation has gone wildly out of control since I last wrote about it. You all know the numbers -- oil at record highs, gas at record highs -- and the boundless rhetoric as to the causes. Is it speculators, OPEC, the oil companies, supply constraints (i.e. Peak Oil), or something else? Honestly, we don’t know, but that’s the whole damn point -- we just don’t know if we hit production limits yet.

In the beginning, it was all so simple. Rub two sticks together, get a fire. Stick a pipe in the ground, get some oil. Trade a cow, get a llama. Simple systems require only straightforward applications of engineering, with little need to examine precisely how individual components might interact. But as our global production system has evolved, so too has the level of complexity amongst the various components. Our society, based on ever-advancing technology of all kinds, has become a seething morass of indecipherable interactions between mind, body, finance, and resources.

What was once a world of isolated simple systems is now what we (so creatively) call a complex system. Complex systems don’t have straightforward relations between cause and effect (input and output) because there are such high numbers of interactions within the system. As such, complex systems fail in complex ways.

Given the callous nature demonstrated by most oil executives with regards to Peak Oil issues, it's only a matter of time before they move toward solutions like the one below. In a sense, the policy is already in effect when you consider how developed nations extract energy from the third world. Perhaps the most surprising thing about this story is that someone suspected it was fake.

After noting that current energy policies will likely lead to "huge global calamities" and disrupt oil supplies, Wolff told the audience "that in the worst case scenario, the oil industry could "keep fuel flowing" by transforming the billions of people who die into oil," said a Yes Men press release.

Yes Man Mike Bonnano, posing as an Exxon representative named Florian Osenberg, added that "With more fossil fuels comes a greater chance of disaster, but that means more feedstock for Vivoleum. Fuel will continue to flow for those of us left."

The impostors led growingly suspicious attendees in lighting Vivoleum candles made, they said, from a former Exxon janitor who died from cleaning a toxic spill. When shown a mock video of the janitor professing his desire to be turned in death into candles, a conference organizer pulled Bonanno and Bichlbaum from the stage.

James Howard Kunstler had a fabulous post yesterday that exactly mirrors my feeling on our constant search for solutions. When I speak of "solutions" on PeakOilDesign, I am under no illusions that we will "solve" the problem of Peak Oil by innovating our way out of it. It's not a matter of fixing our society with infrastructure, but changing the way we structure our society.

When I speak of solutions, I'm referring to ways in which we can redesign our lifestyles to adapt to Peak Oil. The same mode of thinking goes for global warming, water shortages, bee extinction, or any other crisis of our environment.

JHK says it best. From the article:

Reddit.com user limukala posted a great compilation of oil shale facts in response to someone making the usual argument that bitumen is the answer to Peak Oil. He (or she?) gave me permission to republish the comments here.

You need to read beyond one wikipedia article apparently. The eroei for conventional oil is only 5:1 in the most technically challenging deep sea platforms. Pumping oil out of say, middle eastern sand provides an EROEI closer to 30:1, and some fields in their heydays had EROEI of 200:1. There was one study conducted by shell that concluded a 3:1 EROEI, but it was highly contested and other studies have found much lower or even negative EROEIs.

Even the shell study which you are obviously referencing wasn't nearly so optimistic about shale oil production as you seem to be. According to an interview of Steve Mut, CEO of their unconventional resources unit: "In response to questions, Steve guesstimated that oil shale production would still be pretty negligible by 2015, but might, if things go really well, get to 5 mbpd by 2030."

5 mbpd is jack squat, especially if demand growth continues, which is absolutely necessary to avoid catastrophic worldwide economic collapse, as our economic system is predicated on constant, exponential growth.

Observers who don't have direct financial stake in the apparent viability of shale oil are less optimistic still. According to geologist Walter Youngquist:

"The average citizen . . . is led to believe that the United States really has no oil supply problem when oil shales hold "recoverable oil" equal to "more than 64 percent of the world's total proven crude oil reserves." Presumably the United States could tap into this great oil reserve at any time. This is not true at all. All attempts to get this "oil" out of shale have failed economically. Furthermore, the "oil" (and, it is not oil as is crude oil, but this is not stated) may be recoverable but the net energy recovered may not equal the energy used to recover it. If oil is "recovered" but at a net energy loss, the operation is a failure. "

Next time try reading more than one wikipedia article. Also, to quote a man who worked extensively attempting to develop commercial shale oil production:

"If you heat this shale to 700 degrees F you will turn this organic carbon (kerogen) into the nastiest, stinkiest, gooiest, pile of oil-like crap that you can imagine. Then if you send it through the gnarliest oil refinery on the planet you can make this s* into transportation fuel. In the mean time you have created all kinds of nasty byproducts, have polluted the air and groundwater of wherever you have extracted it."

Sounds like a great plan to me.

There's more though:

"The rock expands in size upon heating, meaning you can't put it back in the ground, and it is carcinogenic. Two metric tons of rock are required to obtain a barrel of synthetic crude. Try to imagine the hole a 33,400,000,000,000 tonne excavation would make. Hello, China. Try to imagine the mountain of waste rock (carcinogenic) because the rock expands, kind of like popcorn, when it is heated to remove the kerogen, so more has to go back than is removed. Hello, Icarus. Try to imagine the poisons produced by the processing of all that shale if it is done above ground, or all the dead fish if it is done in situ."

Last but not least:

"Three barrels of water are needed per barrel of oil produced, and it is not clear how current users of that water might be persuaded to surrender its use for oil shale."

Especially considering that our shale oil is all located in the arid west, which is already have severe water shortage problems. If we have to start shipping in 15 million barrels per day of water from the coasts, that would send the EROEI even further down the toilet.

Essentially that shell study was a widely optimistic and in some cases blatantly fudged piece of political maneuvering.

http://dieoff.org/page132.htm http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/09/oil_shale_retor.html

MSNBC has put out a call to the public called "Gut Check America", calling for people to submit entries for the most important issues affecting our lives as we approach the 2008 elections. This seems like a prime opportunity for spreading the word on Peak Oil. While it may not pass through the MSNBC censors to reach the ears of the public, we might at least lodge the idea in the back of a media person's mind. I have little faith in the mainstream media breaking ground on this issue, but they might be prompted to do so if fuel prices continue their increase.

Of course, the more people who submit concerns about Peak Oil, the greater chance we have of being heard. I submitted my entry explaining why a peak in oil production could be a problem, why I think it could happen, and what we could do about it. I encourage everyone to do the same!

At NASA, we frequently have to step back and retreat to the last recognizable common ground on technical issues. If we hope to expand the dialogue about Peak Oil, we must do the same. Below are what I consider uncontroversial, solid facts related to energy and oil production. While several of these statements may appear ridiculously obvious to those who are in any way familiar with oil production, we must begin the discussion at the least common denominator -- the bare facts on which everyone can agree. If you are unfamiliar with the basic arguments of Peak Oil, I encourage you to explore these resources.

Please provide feedback on whether you agree or disagree with this list and we’ll see if starting from common ground will allow a wider audience to collectively develop more meaningful ideas about Peak Oil mitigation.

It was just over one year ago that I stumbled upon the theory of imminent Peak Oil. At the time, I was performing research for a novel exploring the idea of a second American Civil War driven by the issue of global warming. I was reading an article on sustainability which contained a passing reference to the term Peak Oil. Sensing a convenient plot expansion for my book, I typed it into a search engine, clicked on Matt Savinar’s Life After the Oil Crash, and proceeded to watch my concept of the structure of world society unravel thread by thread.

A few weeks ago I spoke at a screening of “The End of Suburbia” (see previous post). I felt it was, in general, a positive first experience at speaking on Peak Oil, but I did learn a few things about how to introduce the topic to people.

Recently I attended a screening of “The End of Suburbia” here in Florida and was invited to say a few words after the film played. The experience was very positive for me and, hopefully, helpful for those in attendance. I learned where I need to focus my message (upcoming in Part II of this post) and how to treat the “End of Suburbia” film.