Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Over the Peak

By Christopher Flavin, World Watch. Posted January 11, 2006.


No one knows when oil production will start declining, but we must focus on alternatives to petroleum now.
didi
From the Jan/Feb issue of World Watch

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

Sleeping Around Craigslist
Anna Reed, Lily Penza, East Bay Express

Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

Michael Pollan on What's Wrong with Environmentalism
Kate Cheney Davidson, Yale Environment 360

A Peak Oil Prophet Imagines Life in America After Wal-Mart
Michelle Nijhuis, Grist.org

Sci-Fi Heroes Take on the System
Roya Rastegar, ColorLines

Billionaires Are Gouging Your Grandparents
Brave New Films, Brave New Films

Online Activists Keep the Pressure on Obama
Ari Melber, TheNation.com

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

As oil prices soared from $24 per barrel in early 2003 to a peak of $70 per barrel in September 2005, the question being asked by experts and policy makers alike was whether we've "entered a new era," as Chevron Corporation CEO David O'Reilly has said, or just encountered a temporary glitch that will be corrected by market forces, as ExxonMobil President Rex Tillerson argued in a speech to the World Petroleum Congress last September. The most intriguing thing about this raging debate over whether oil production will soon peak -- and put an end to the go-go days of the petroleum age -- is that it's occurring at all. The fact that a century into the age of oil, and with the global economy dependent on $3 trillion worth of this black liquid each year, we don't know how much is left, is extraordinary.

It turns out that most of the forecasters who are responsible for the long-term energy projections on which private and public decision makers rely -- from Wal-Mart to the International Energy Agency -- have been on automatic pilot, assuming that whatever the future level of demand, the oil companies will be able to extract sufficient oil to meet it. You don't have to be a card-carrying member of the "peak oil" school that has gathered behind former Shell geologist Colin Campbell to see that this is a dangerous assumption.

One fact is undeniable: over the past decade, oil production has been falling in 33 of the world's 48 largest oil producing countries, including 6 of the 11 members of OPEC. In the continental United States, the world's oil pioneer, production peaked 35 years ago at 8 million barrels per day, falling to less than 3 million barrels per day now. Among the other major oil-producing countries where production is declining are the United Kingdom and Indonesia. Those who take a more sanguine view of the global oil prospect point to the 1.1 trillion barrels of "proven" reserves that are currently on the books of the world's oil companies -- equivalent to all the oil extracted over the past century, or more than 40 years of consumption at the current rate. Although those same figures appear in most official oil reports, it turns out that roughly three-quarters of the world's oil is controlled by state-owned companies, whose reserve figures are never audited and are based as much on politics as on geology. Many countries have added paper barrels to their reserves at times they weren't even looking for oil.

Since oil can't be extracted unless it is found, one of the most persuasive arguments that oil production is nearing its peak is that oil extraction has exceeded discoveries by a factor of three during the past two decades. This is clearly a trend that cannot continue. PFC Energy, an oil industry consulting firm, has recently analyzed these figures and concluded that non-OPEC oil production will peak within five years, and that OPEC production could peak within another five years. Chevron Corporation is among those that have argued that nearly half the world's exploitable oil has already been extracted.

The largest wild card facing the future of oil is the Middle East, where highly secretive state-owned companies have kept silent on the condition of their vast oil fields for the last 30 years. Contrary to the popular myth that their oil resources are so vast as to flow freely from the Earth wherever a hole is punched, papers published by Saudi engineers indicate that massive water injection and other forms of secondary recovery are now needed to keep the oil flowing. A handful of 30 to 50-year-old oil fields supplies most of the nearly 10 million barrels of oil that Saudi Arabia produces each day, and hardly any new fields have been discovered in the last two decades. Late last year, U.S. intelligence analysts questioned whether Saudi Arabia can even meet its near-term pledge to raise production modestly, let alone achieve the massive increases that many oil-consuming countries appear to be counting on.

Those who live by the crystal ball often end up eating ground glass, so I won't join those in the peak oil school who have predicted which month world oil production will peak. But there's one conclusion on which I'm ready to stake my reputation: the current path -- continually expanding our use of oil on the assumption that the Earth will yield whatever quantity we need -- is irresponsible and reckless.

The first step in getting off that path is to agree that far greater transparency is needed on the part of oil-exporting companies and governments. Just as commercial aircraft cannot land at international airports unless they meet accepted safety standards, and companies must meet accounting standards to be listed on stock exchanges, those who sell oil internationally should have their reserves regularly monitored by outside experts -- as is already required of the large private companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell.


Digg!

Christopher Flavin is President of the Worldwatch Institute.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Alternatives to Oil
Posted by: Estonia Hill on Jan 11, 2006 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, so oil has only lasted 100 years and already it's nearing death.
My comment is more like a question, in the hope one of you wonderful Alternet reporters pick it up.
How realistic is solar energy and the other alternatives as a sustainable energy source for the world? Which countries are likely to be the 'big guns' in leading the way?
Also, what is Alternet's predictions for the new (psychotic) favourite Nuclear Power?
Lead the way, Alternet,
Estonia Hill, Glasgow, Scotland.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Alternatives to Oil Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Alternatives to Oil Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Alternatives to Oil Posted by: HighCarbDiet
» RE: Alternatives to Oil Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Alternatives to Oil Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Alternatives to Oil Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Alternatives to Oil Posted by: jeffrey7
» RE: Alternatives to Oil Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Alternatives to Oil Posted by: TomCampitelli
» RE: Alternatives to Oil Posted by: crusty
» one alternative Posted by: Klaxton
The real discussion has yet to begin
Posted by: Farmertim on Jan 11, 2006 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wether or not alternative fuels are created before we run out of oil is not the question.
The "real" question lies in our ability as a world and on the most part America's willingness to look at our current life pattern and realize it must be altered severly in order to conform with the ability to live within a alternative fuel framework.
If we grow our energy, how much of that energy grown must be put into transportation of the food grown overseas we no longer have the space for given we grow our energy to remain in the patterns we have come to enjoy based on petroleum as an energy source.
A wholesale rethinking of where we work how we eat and how we live must be forefront in our disscussions of an alternative energy based life style.
Yes we can power trains on Bio-mass methane to haul the masses to work in the suburbs we created but are the masses going to give up the fact that they have meet that train every day at a given time to go to work and shop.
Let alone the fact we have no mass transit left other than in the extended walking distance of our larger cities.
Is light rail feesable for a 60 mile trip from house to job?
These are the real questions of how much we will be allowed to do on alternative energy.
I can't help but think that our lives will be more in line with the natural processes that rule everything other than human endevours on this planet, a life in which would be more rewarding that what we curently see as such.
We will have no life at all if we try to exchange oil for alternatives and carry on as we always have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» To kittynboi... Posted by: Colin
» RE: To kittynboi... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: To kittynboi... Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: To kittynboi... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: To kittynboi... Posted by: A. James
solar works, here's proof
Posted by: kablooie on Jan 11, 2006 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where I live (Memphis, TN) the Sharp Microwave corporation (they make copiers, TVs and advertise on CNN) has added a solar panel production facility at their factory here.

It is booming. All of its panels are shipped out pre-sold. It has already expanded after being open just a couple of years. It is a model for the future. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, oil peddlers! If this country got behind solar the way it has given over the goods to Big Oil, we'd have our solar breakthrough by now. Naysayers, step off!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: solar works, here's proof Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: solar works, here's proof Posted by: kablooie
» RE: solar works, here's proof Posted by: HighCarbDiet
» RE: solar works, here's proof Posted by: A. James
» RE: solar works, here's proof Posted by: heftysmurf
» RE: The alernatives are there Posted by: memememem
» RE: solar works, here's proof Posted by: bornxeyed
Finite Economic plannig is folly
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 11, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To have based this country's economy on such a limited resource is the dumdest thing this govt could have ever done!
We made fuels and plastics out of Ag crops before 1933. After passing the 'Natural Resources Conservation Act of '33',
the death nell was sounded for the family farm.
We actually have many alternatives,solar and wind can provide a surplus of energy,if properly suported by the Govt.
There are auto that run on compressed air. They only do 35mph,but it's a start. As to the gas engine,today's autos could run fine on a mix of 75% ETH to25% gas wouldcreate a surplus of gasoline. Ending production of high performance
engines would also realize a surplus. You can thank the Reagan Administration for the mess we have now. They help pave the way for SUV's,unsafe cars, bigger engines and more pollution. When we went back to 65mph speed limits we needed bigger engine for the speed. Damn the environment
we must go faster! What a load of shit!!!
Now the Govt is so mired in the mess of oil,we have to go to war for it. People must die for it. Ecosystems must fail for it.
We must endure air choking traffic jams and all the hydrocarbons we can inhale.
We used to be tied to the Horse and Buggy. When they proved to be outdated,we changed. We must do the same now. The sun has set on oil. Nuclear is close behind. We have to put a stop to their development. Nuclear and oil are two of the most hazzardous and polluting industries we have. Living
close to a nuke plant is hazzardous.The waste is worse.
We have turned the lower atmosphere has been turned brown with emmissions. If we are to continue as a People,
as a superior lifeform or World we MUST keep oil in the ground.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Technology is NOT Energy: Or How Christopher Flavin Gets It All Wrong
Posted by: cherenkov on Jan 11, 2006 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The same technological revolution that created the Internet and so many other 21st-century wonders..."

The idea that some miracle technology created by us ever increasingly intelligent monkeys will save our planet-destroying butts is a favorite apologia for our entropy machine know as modern technological civilization. It is precisely this gee whiz uncritical approach to what is essentially a simple physics problem grounded in geology that will cause us to head in the wrong direction, ignore the warning signs, and put off the needed, and painful, remedies that are absolutely necessary and which are advocated by those with the technical knowledge that Flavin is sorely lacking.

I can't cover all the reasons why Flavins' article is specious, but I can send people to resources that will help them to understand why this problem is not simply a technical fix away from being another Y2K scare.

First, be sure to view Dr. Robert Hirsch's report sponsored by the DOE which begins with this alarming paragraph:

The peaking of world oil production
presents the U.S. and the world with an
unprecedented risk management problem.
As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices
and price volatility will increase
dramatically, and, without timely mitigation,
the economic, social, and political costs will
be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options
exist on both the supply and demand sides,
but to have substantial impact, they must be
initiated more than a decade in advance of
peaking.

You can find this report at:

Hirsch Report

Another excellent site for a better understanding of the issue is:

Energy Bulletin Peak Oil Primer

Finally I would recommend the movie The End of Suburbia, which can be found here and the book The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler.

Don't be fooled by those who would have you believe that your happy motoring, recreational shopping, McMansion buying lives will continue without pause for eternity. They are at the top of the economic food chain, and their goal is to continue their gravy train for as long as possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Key is Energy Efficiency
Posted by: John Mullen on Jan 11, 2006 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am no expert, but I have just finished reading an article in the most recent Discover magazine. Written about Amory Lovins who founded the Rocky Mountain Institute, it suggests that we can practically eliminate our need for petroleum over the next couple of decades by using alternative fuels, e.g., wind and solar power. Supposedly Lovins electric bill for his 4,000-square foot home located at 7,100 feet in the Colorado Rockies is only $5 per month. That's using technologies available today. I remain guardedly optimistic that the globe can avoid economic and environmental collapse. As someone pointed out above, hopefully governments won't subsidize dirty fuels over clean ones. And hopefully, as Lovins points out, the two or three Saudi facilities that the world depends upon won't be successfully attacked by extremists. I plan to look into becoming energy independent at home. If anyone knows where I can get information on the latest solar technology, I'd appreciate the info.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Key is Energy Efficiency Posted by: Ben Furman
» RE: The Key is Energy Efficiency Posted by: heftysmurf
2 solutions - wind and solar
Posted by: jpinder on Jan 11, 2006 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only sustainable energy comes from wind and solar, all other solutions such as bio or hydrogen are not because it constantly needs energy to create. nuclear (fission and fusion) or ocean tides are not environmentally friendly . There is energy used initially in order to create wind and solar but for long term purposes it’s the only solution and they impact our environment the least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NYC Peak Oil Meetup
Posted by: Newt on Jan 11, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those in NYC, there is a Peak Oil meetup tonight - check it out if you'd like to meet a community of dedicated and informed Peak Oil activists. http://oilawareness.meetup.com/36/boards/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Apollo Alliance
Posted by: ScottP on Jan 11, 2006 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conspicuously missing in 3 articles in a row is the Apollo Alliance http://www.apolloalliance.org/, an organization that has been promoting workable solutions to peak oil for years. I agree with them. If we spend a fraction of the hundreds of billions we spend on military solutions to peak oil, we'd stabilize the situation within a couple of years, and surface with a far superior economy and society within a few years. Let's make some noise and wake up the public. End the wars, start the work towards solutions!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Apollo Alliance Posted by: kittynboi
an alternative available now
Posted by: sendmoretigers on Jan 11, 2006 9:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i have heard mention of alternative bio fuel in the "peak" oil essays and subsequent comments but none that specifically mention biodiesel. derived from vegetable oils and able to be used in existing diesel engines with minimal modification, biodiesel is available across north america right now. currently it is being sold in blends with petroleum diesel and even in this form offers numerous environmental advantages over conventional petroleum diesel. it's far from new but it is just gaining a foothold now with the help of tax incentives that benefit both producers and consumers of biodiesel. for more information, i suggest checking out http://www.biodiesel.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joy, then disappointment
Posted by: Bytesmiths on Jan 12, 2006 9:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Great!" I thought to myself, "Worldwatch finally gets Peak Oil!" But that was for the first few paragraphs, then it became clear that my former skiing friend Chris is in denial.

Don't be too hard on Chris -- he's very smart and will figure it out! It's normal for people to go through the "Seven Stages of Grief" when confronted with the end of this tall, thin energy pulse in earth's long history. It's like having a serious illness and contemplating your own mortality for the first time. Chris is middle-aged, he'll come around soon. :-)

It's very important to note that nothing can supply us with energy the way we have it now. We are currently "out spending" our solar "income" by a factor of about 400, by some estimations. A 200 HP engine is the equivalent of about 60 million watts of ancient sunlight.

We are not going to simply pave Arizona and New Mexico with solar cells, or turn several midwestern states completely over to biofuel crops, or line entire coastlines and every ridgetop with windmills. Oh, it might be nice if we could, but the energy to produce such capital resources is going to be increasingly dear. And if we switch to gasification and liquefaction of coal, we face the looming specter of "Peak Coal" within the lifetime of today's children, after which, civilization will revert to entirely pre-industrial times. And nuclear? "Peak Uranium" within 20-30 years.

So if (to paraphrase Kenneth Deffeyes) we show up at the till with lots of cash, and God somehow puts unlimited energy in the ground for us, what next? Do we simply continue growing as the energy supply grows?

No. Other resources are under serious strain. Fish stocks have collapsed. Topsoil loss is making farming simply a matter of using worn-out soil as a sponge for applying fossil hydrocarbons to convert to food. And we can expect "Peak Copper" within a decade. Where will all the wires come from in the next golden energy age?

So what about technology? Chris (and his mentor, Lester Brown) seem to think it will pave the way.

(continued)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Joy, then disappointment Posted by: triana1326
Joy, then disappointment II
Posted by: Bytesmiths on Jan 12, 2006 9:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Technology is merely an amplifier. Donnella Meadows wrote that Impact = Affluence (Energy) times Technology times Population (I = A * T * P). This means that technology is an impact enabler, not a savior. It also means that as Affluence (which I think Donnella would agree is Energy, had she not been snatched from us a few years ago by meningitis) decreases through the inevitable decline in fossil fuel, the impact of technology is reduced.

So, we're going to have to get by on perhaps 10% of our current ~8kW per person energy use, and perhaps five out of six people need to "go away" over the next 50 years or so.

That isn't all that scary. I'll be going away. Chris will be going away, too. The trick is to, as the 4th principle of Permaculture says, limit reproduction. Then you'll finally have I under control, through the decline of A, T, and P.

So we're just screwed, right? That's what James Howard Kuenstler might have you believe, but I prefer the visions of Richard Heinberg and Julian Darley: one of "cultural lifeboats" or "outposts," where the best of civilization can weather the storm.

Want to be a part of this future? Come join us in building a sustainable cultural lifeboat at EcoReality. I've also co-authored a Peak article with Diana Leafe Christian for the spring Communities Magazine that discusses how intentional communites can strive for true sustainability.

There are going to be two classes of "survivors" in the coming energy decline: those with the power and authority to hoard the remaining fuel, and small groups of like-minded individuals who "emulate the rich" through freedom from debt, while practicing voluntary simplicity and sustainable practices.

We find ourselves in an interesting time, in between the current energy-fed corporate age and the coming return of indentured servitude and feudalism. Don't let something happen to you -- choose what to make happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]