You Don't Need to Understand Oil Discovery to be an Energy Columnist...Apparently

I shouldn't complain - the Telegraph's energy columnist, Rowena Mason is technically affirming that even non-crazy people can believe in peak oil. Her essay, titled "You Don't Need to be a Mad Max Survivalist to Take Peak Oil Seriously" at least acknowledges the point. Her equation of Mad Max survivalism with "grows root vegetables" is obviously going to annoy me, but I know the kind of people she talks about in the article too, the ones who say we'd better hurry into our bunkers now, so I can forgive that.

But the part that is a little problematic is that she doesn't seem to get the oil problem very clearly. It certainly true, as Mason points out, that many of our present energy problems are geo-political rather than those of absolute supply - the recession has somewhat reduced consumption and Iraq's fields are starting to produce again, so there's some truth in this.

That said, Mason doesn't quite get the case for peak oil, which she makes clear when she says,

This kind of fanatical anxiety has in the past given the idea of peak oil a bad name - particularly when coupled with the unscientific claim that the world is today actually running on empty.

The energy majors, like BP and Shell, are confident that the world has enough reserves to last us 40 years. At the moment, these resources are just about being steadily replaced, although a story in the Guardian last year claimed that officials at the International Energy Agency had exaggerated the extent of oil lurking beneath the earth's

In a sense, the actual reserves aren't the most pressing worry. The point is how much it will cost us to extract the oil from increasingly remote or hostile regions and whether companies have the ability to raise production much above the perceived limit of about 100m barrels per day (current levels are around 87m barrels).

But no significant figure in the peak oil community uses the term "running on empty" as anything other than a metaphor. It is the peak oil community itself that has, over the years, insisted on pointing out that we are *not* claiming that we are going to run out of energy, what we are running out of is endless cheap energy. I'm sure some idiots on the net say we're going to run out of oil, just like some idiots on the net say that there are androids in their cheese, but that's never been the claim of peak oil.

But it is also not quite fair to say that the actual reserves are not the issue. They are - and Mason's claim "resources are just about being steadily replaced" simply doesn't hold water, something any energy columnist should know. At this point, in fact, oil reserves are not being steadily replaced - there's no debate about this, either. We know for a fact that world oil discovery peaked in 1965. We know for a fact that we consume six barrels of oil for every barrel we discover. The general public hears when energy companies discover large reserves, and hears of the outer estimates for those figures. What they rarely hear are the technical challenges, the cost at which deepwater or other difficult to extract oil will actually be viable, the difficulty of capital investment in a recession or the near-inevitable later downward revisions of the estimated reserves that follow them.

oil discovery.jpg

What we've seen is not, as Mason implies, the rate of discovery keeping pace, but the conversion of "liquids" to cover the gaps in declining world oil supplies. As Stuart Staniford, one of the best of the oil analysts writes, these come in four categories:

There are four kinds of liquid fuel alternatives to crude oil in actual commercial production at the present:

Biofuels - ethanol and biodiesel, primarily from food crops around the world
Tar Sands - synfuel and bitumen, primarily from Canada
Gas-To-Liquids (GTL) - from South Africa, Malaysia, and increasingly Qatar
Coal-To-Liquids (CTL) - primarily from South Africa, but just starting in China

In this piece, I summarize some research I've been doing to look at how each of these sources responded to the oil price increases of 2005-2008. Two sources, GTL and GTL, haven't shown any particular price sensitivity to date and are at low levels. Tar sands growth has shown modest price sensitivity but mainly appears to be growing on its own internal dynamics. Biofuel production growth appears to be extremely oil price sensitive, and increased the fastest and reached the largest volume in response to the mid-to-late 2000s oil shock. I have argued in the past that there are structural reasons for this: given the comparatively low capital requirements and small plant size of biofuel plants, they can respond much faster to episodes of high oil prices than can the other sources, all of which tend to involve larger, slower-to-build, more capital intensive plants. This has important implications for food and land prices in future oil price shocks. Food prices are likely to rise quickly and markedly in response to oil shocks, public policy permitting.

What we are seeing is not a case of discovery keeping pace, but with a gap being covered by the elision of important differences between liquid fuels. These difference matter a great deal because the implications for food suppllies, global warming, water supplies, pollution and actual availability (many of these resources, as Mason does point out are only cost competetive in certain circumstances). To put them all together and claim that we are mostly keeping pace with consumption is simply wildly inaccurate and misleading.

I'm grateful that Mason acknowledges the potential problem of peak oil, and that she acknowledges that you don't have to be completely insane to believe in it (although she implies that does help.) That's good. But I think it would be a more compelling endorsement if energy columnists could actually describe our current situation accurately.


More like this

I somehow forgot to draw your attention to Kurt Cobb's wonderful essay on the difference between oil and "liquids" - he does a better job than anyone I know in making clear what most Americans simply don't know about our energy - all liquid fuels are not equivalent.  We have been told by…
(Yes, I will eventually explain this ;-)) I don't usually participate in the Huffington Post bashing that goes on at science blogs. Not because I don't often agree with it, but because my colleagues seem to have it covered when it comes to autism/vaccine links and dubious medical studies. Still…
The EIA, unlike the IEA, has been strident in its dismissal of peak oil. But the data that the EIA publishes tells a very different story than the one it wants us to hear. Gail the Actuary has a really good analysis up at the Oil Drum.. The essential message - that crude oil production remains…
I spent my weekend in Washington DC with folks from the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, talking about the future of peak oil research and advocacy. It was an interesting weekend, but for a farmgirl who spends most of her waking hours during the summer outside and working in the dirt, it was…

I had been told that cheese made from goat milk was the only android-free cheese, because goats eat thistles and tree shoots. I have seen horses that eat tree bark, but I haven't found any horse-milk cheese, yet.

Did they take the androids out of commercial cheese because of peak oil, or were they only thinking of putting androids in cheese? Gads, the USDA has a recipe for how many pounds of rat droppings and insect carcasses and other floor sweeping go in a ton of McDonalds hamburger. How would anyone check that cheese had the required amount of android per ton? I wonder if Monsanto remembered to list the appropriate amount of cheese android when they wrote their Food Safety Modernization Act (the Food Safety Administration creation bill before the Senate now)? Wouldn't they be embarrassed if they forgot that part. Maybe they just want to ban anything they haven't patented, no one would be allowed to put any android in cheese, ever. I mean, Monsanto might invent a nano-android that scavenges a host of cancer cells from residues from their crop chemicals and partially reverses some genetic damage from stray Genetically Modified crops that nearly dangerous but really make a good profit for them. But that's silly. They would just buy another President and Congress.

Not that I know what it used to be like, but these days the Telegraph is just another tabloid with know nothings writing for it, and AGW denialists infesting its columns.

No matter what the subject, I've always found it very frustrating to read newspaper articles about things which I happen to know a lot about. They almost always get things quite wrong.

As for total liquids, you are quite right. If we invested ALL of our C+C production (call it 74mbd) into other liquids production, and got say 100 mbd of other liquids production this way, they would say that we had 174 mbd of oil production. Not exactly.