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
  • 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.

Giving Thanks For Oil and OPEC

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted November 21, 2007.


We should acknowledge that our food production system and every other aspect of our lives are utterly dependent on fossil fuels.

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

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Jim Hightower, Raising Hell
Jonathan Rowe

Democracy and Elections:
Are Feds Trying to Aid Republican Candidate's Election?
Tim Kalich

DrugReporter:
A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
Lux

Election 2008:
The Real Elitist: Video of McCain's Collection of Mansions Reveal He's Not Your Average Joe
Steven Greenhouse

Environment:
Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue
David Morris

ForeignPolicy:
Blocking a Gazan's Path to an Education
Fidaa Abed

Health and Wellness:
The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts
Sasha Abramsky

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Medical Neglect in Immigrant Prisons Reveals America at Its Worst
Kyle Hussein de Beausset

Media and Technology:
What's Going on with the Media's Ballooning Coverage of Celebrity Babies?
Meredith Blake

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis

Rights and Liberties:
Stop the Execution: Jeff Wood Faces Death Tomorrow for a Murder He Didn't Commit
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?
Drew Westen

War on Iraq:
How Many More Iraqis Can You Throw Behind Bars Without Trial?
Fatih Abdulsalam

Water:
What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink?
Elizabeth Royte

More stories by Kelpie Wilson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

When you sit down for your Thanksgiving meal this week, don't forget to thank the oil. No, not the extra extra virgin olive oil or the polyunsaturated high omega 3 vegetable oil, but the crude -- the dead dino, fossilized pond scum, ancient sunlight, rock oil -- aka, petroleum.

Remember as you give thanks for the bountiful Earth, that back of the bread lies the oil. We should acknowledge that our food production system and every other aspect of our lives are utterly dependent on fossil fuels. We should also remember that before World War II, this was not the case. We may even have relatives who remember those days. We should take a look at the children sitting around the table. They will not live in a world of cheap, abundant oil. Give thanks for that too.

Why should we give thanks that the future holds no cheap oil? There are several reasons, but the first is that cheap oil has fueled a 50-year-long party in the industrialized West that has left us with an unsustainable economy that is wrecking the planet. The recent awareness of global warming is beginning to put a damper on our out-of-control binge, but not fast enough to slow the heating of the planet. Rising oil prices will force a cutback in consumption. Rising oil prices will also chill the fantasy of endless growth and force us to confront the reality of planetary limits.

For several years now, "voices from the wilderness" have been gathering with louder volume to warn about the coming peak in world oil production. In 2005, petroleum geologist Kenneth Deffeyes predicted that the world output of crude oil would peak on Thanksgiving Day 2005, but he and other petroleum industry "outsiders" have been dismissed as "fringe" elements.

Not any longer. Over the past month, a number of oil industry insiders have made statements confirming that the annual growth in oil production has stopped. On Monday, November 19, The Wall Street Journal ran a front page story titled "Oil Officials See Limit Looming on Production." While the article emphasized opinions that tied flat oil-production curves to what they call "above ground" limits having to do with available drilling rigs, security concerns and the like, there is plenty of evidence that the underlying geology of oil is imposing absolute limits on the amount that can be produced.

Some oil industry executives seem to concur. The article quoted ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva on the likelihood of meeting the projected demand of 120 million barrels a day by 2030: "I don't think we are going to see the supply going over 100 million barrels a day. Where is all that going to come from?" In a Business Week article, Mulva said that his company was considering diversifying into renewable energy. "We may not be able to do in the next 100 years what we did in the past 100 years," Mulva said. "So we have to ask ourselves how we can transform from just an oil and gas company into an energy company."

Meanwhile, sustainability analyst Lester Brown released an update last week titled, "Is World Oil Production Peaking?" Brown ran through the figures: "After climbing from 82.90 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2004 to 84.15 mb/d in 2005, output only increased to 84.80 mb/d in 2006 and then declined to 84.62 mb/d during the first 10 months of 2007." Absent a big production increase from OPEC, the numbers indicate that the peak in world oil production may have already occurred in 2006, not far off from Kenneth Deffeye's prediction.

OPEC met last weekend in a summit -- only the third summit involving heads of state since the group was founded in 1960. U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman called on OPEC to raise production to alleviate high oil prices, but OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri's response was, " ... frankly we don't see that we should add more oil."

Lester Brown says that despite claims from Saudi Arabia that they can produce more oil, Saudi output so far this year is down six percent from last year. Many analysts are now saying that OPEC can no longer increase production enough to bring oil prices down. All they can do is make prices go up by further constricting supply.

Besides throwing cold water on the idea of production increases, OPEC leaders also broached the subject of dropping the US dollar as the default currency for oil payments. And Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez proposed that OPEC should become more strategic in using its oil to benefit the world's poor.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia disagreed with Chavez, saying, "Oil is an energy for building and prosperity, it shouldn't become a means of conflict." The Saudis would limit the mission of OPEC to providing oil at a stable price to benefit global economic growth. Apart from the troubled times in 1973-74 when Arab states embargoed oil exports to protest America's support for Israel, OPEC has pretty much done what it was asked to by the United States. We should thank OPEC for doing its part to fuel the massive economic expansion of the past 30 years.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: oil, opec, fossil fuels, global warming, climate change

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry. She is the author of Primal Tears, an eco-thriller.

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:
Thank you, Kelpie Wilson
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 22, 2007 1:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Kelpie Wilson, for naming some of the entities that are lobbying to
prevent investment in [non-fossil] energy. You should have said non-fossil rather
than renewable because it is CO2 that is the greatest threat to the continued
existence of human life on this planet. I already told you how global warming
leads to our extinction due to H2S bubbling out of a warm ocean. I also told you
that renewables are insufficient and way overpriced and unfeasible for the near
future. Converting coal to nuclear power is the only way to avoid extinction. I
already told you that coal contains enough uranium to fuel our nuclear plants and
that natural background radiation [that has always been here] is bigger than both.

The energy bill before Congress is not strong enough in the first place. We need a
CARBON TAX that gets paid back somehow. The danger is that running out of
oil will cause gasoline to be made out of coal. Gasoline made from coal is bad
gasoline and it costs 3 times as much carbon as gasoline made from petroleum.
[You have to put a lot more energy in to convert carbon to hydrocarbon. Coal
gasoline contains more abrasive rock particles and poisons than gasoline made
from petroleum.] There is already a strong drive to make gasoline out of coal, tar
sands and oil shale. There is great danger that the public will demand gasoline
made from these sources. We have to make sure it doesn't happen, no matter how
attractive it may seem at the moment. Remember, it is carbon that will make us
extinct. We have to run everything without making CO2. Congress has to fund a
huge research project in battery technology if we are to have cars that most people
can afford in the future. Converting coal to nuclear power is the only way to
avoid extinction. That means electric cars and we just don't have good enough
batteries for electric cars.

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

» RE: Thank you, Kelpie Wilson Posted by: mwildfire
Individual Responsibility
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Nov 23, 2007 1:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In addition to identifying the tools of the wealthy that lobby for more oil consumption, author Kelpie Wilson should also have pointed out Americans' love for the automobile and their desire to drive wherever and whenever they want. We can blame the rich endlessly, and there's plenty for which to blame them, but unless Jane and John Doe start reducing and eliminating their oil consumption, the rich will continue to attempt to make as much profit from it as possible.

Even in the auto-worshiping U.S. it's quite possible to arrange one's life to live near one's work and grocery shopping, but most people in this country prioritize things other than the environment, like wanting homes in the suburbs and the "freedom" provided by driving. Until those priorities change, the rich will have no economic incentive to provide energy from renewable resources instead of petroleum.

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