Joe Sparano: The Facts about the Peak Oil Theory

» Don McDermott on 11.01.09 @ 07:48 AM

I enjoyed reading this article and this revealing ‘other side’ of this peak oil debate.  I agree that political movements can inflate positions and slant the debate. But isn’t this “Consumers should drive” decisions also a political movement?  If it is can we also agree that “consumers” merely consume and do not necessarily think or make good decisions.

» Steve in Hungary on 11.01.09 @ 12:36 PM

I note that the only source that Joe quotes is CERA. They are acknowledged to be the uber-optimists amongst all the optimists. On the other hand IEA annual reports over that last few years have been growing more and more pessimistic. In my book they still count amongst the optimists but even they are saying that Peak Oil will probably be by 2020. That’s only a fraction over ten years away, and the Hirsch Report advises that action to mitigate Peak Oil needed to be taken at least twenty years before peak to avoid the worst effects.

We are already ten years past that, so we are into the middle scenario of what the Hirsch Report says. World wide _nothing_ is happening. Governments are doing nothing. My own (ex) government this year issued a statement that there was not a problem.

We’ll see. I could submit instances of many more reports that suggest that there is indeed a problem, growing in magnitude every day. And still nothing is happening. The lights are on but there is no-one at home!

» Bruce Allen SOS California Co-founder on 11.01.09 @ 04:02 PM

When oil prices surpassed $100 per barrel last year, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to ask the California Governor to reconsider allowing more CA offshore oil and gas production given it was safe, we needed the energy and economic resources and the best science indicated that CA offshore oil production has been a large net benefit to the central California coastal environment due to the large reductions in natural oil and gas seepage pollution which local residents have also witnessed over the last several decades. What was one of the loudest arguments against supporting more oil and gas drilling by pseudo-environmental groups and misinformed politicians? They said with absolute blind conviction that we could not possibly “drill our way out of our energy shortage” and it would do no good to try. At the very same time, over the last few years, the technology advances for extracting domestic deep shale natural gas has been proven-out by Chesapeake Energy and others so successfully that now even the New York Times (October 9, 2009)acknowledges that the U.S. has likely increased estimated total economically available natural gas resources to ~ 2,000 trillion cubic feet (100 years supply) equal to 350 billion barrels of oil equivalent- this is more oil equivalent than Saudi Arabia’s total oil reserves. Also, using more domestic, clean natural gas for transportation and chemicals can dramatically reduce our foreign oil import bills and provide more energy security while we continue to build-out a long-term renewable energy infrastructure- isn’t this obvious? I think the readers should note the irony that at exactly the same time many poorly informed pseudo-environmental groups and some politicians were adamantly proclaiming that we couldn’t possibly mitigate our energy shortages by more drilling, U.S. based energy companies and their advanced technologies were actually showing that we can significantly “drill our way out of our energy shortage” (until renewables become more economically established and widespread over the next several decades). Reducing our foreign oil import bill will allow the U.S. to spend more money more quickly on renewable investments. I may have missed it, but so far I haven’t seen any public retractions about it doing the U.S. no good to even try to increase domestic energy supplies through now proven advanced drilling technologies applied to these new natural gas resources. Ask your local Congresswoman, State Assemblyman or County Supervisor if they will now retract their public statements from only one year ago that “we can’t drill our way out of this problem”.

» Neil Baker on 11.01.09 @ 08:52 PM

As a 2003 Governor’s Recall election candidate, I proposed the universal fulfillment of human instinctual territorial imperatives with mass extrusion of New California interconnected equatorial-ocean, quarter-acre floating islands for as many as 14 billion people designed to extract the essentials of survival in abundance that also permitted the designed introduction of an optical internet communication system and high-speed, electric-drive, zero-collision tolerant transportation system, to offer the best and most benign method to engineer a plateau in the human population.  (This is the archived website from my campaign, all address information is expired)  http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/

Thus far, the only proven method of benignly reducing population growth rates has been the affluence and empowerment of women and I considered my territorial-based plan for guaranteeing unalienable individual floating island territories, lifetime survival essentials, security, privacy, identity and stimulation to every individual woman, every individual man and all individual offspring now and ever to be born, to be the best strategy for achieving the long-term goal of establishing a maximum sustainable, sane, prosperous, happy and most healthy human population on the Earth while optimally conserving health and diversity of wildlife species on depopulated continental landmasses restored to natural, near-pristine conditions having undergone extensive remediation of environmental damage.

It’s a hefty vision difficult to communicate and describe. Arnold’s “blowing up the boxes” was easier to sell, hence, economically devastating mediocrity won and I lost.

I proposed using the last of our estimated available petroleum resources be refined into less entropic polymers rather than fuel to enable its virtual eternal application for sustaining human existence on the planet. Rather than burning our petroleum in engines as part of an insane and ultimately suicidal endless population-growth strategy, I proposed it be refined into polymers that if protected from ultraviolet degradation could be eternally used for the extrusion of human floating habitations, interconnecting transportation conduit, and platforms for commercial free-enterprise capitalism applications.

Even if we’re not at peak oil we should do this.
Even if we had an infinite supply of future oil resources we should implement my proposal.
Even if we had inexhaustable abundant amounts of clean hydrogen, it would only be a blessing to the extent we were able to plateau our population.
We don’t have an infinite supply of wildlife habitat, many species have already gone extinct and many are under severe stress due to human encroachment.
Eventually, other necessary and finite resources will be exhausted if human population does not plateau.
Without a human-engineered benign plateau of human population, nature’s method will eventually most certainly be malevolent.
We don’t have time to dawdle.
Where there is no vision, people perish. But other lesser species perish first.
Life on Earth could be very good for every species even with as many as 14 billion people although 10 billion would be a nice population-plateau target to shoot for in the beginning with options for raising it, if desired, once we’ve confirmed it can be benignly controlled.

If you’ve got a better vision, please share it.
If you don’t, please support my vision.

» perceptions_now on 11.01.09 @ 11:36 PM

Peak Oil

Regrettably, I am of the opinion that Oil Production has already effectively Peaked in 2005, in that it has subsequently failed to keep up with inflation, Demand or Population growth.

There are no new sources of Oil, which will now prove sufficient in size to overcome the depletion of the existing, but decaying old super fields.

If we were just treading water, with no growth, we would need 1 new Saudi Arabia every 3 years, just to stay where we are!

If Production were to keep up with inflation, Demand & Population growth, then another 2 Saudi Arabia’s would need to be found & put into production every 3 years.

Unconventional sources such as Canadian Tar Sands & Shale and the newer deep water fields are simply not significant enough to offset the depletion rates at the old super fields, such as Ghawar & Burgan.

I suspect the current Production plateau may continue, for a short period, but production will fall behind Demand. However, as Demand outstrips Supply and Prices rise, those very Price rises will trigger the Global Oil Cost/GDP Ratio to run ahead too much, thus triggering another Economic & Share Market pullback.

The old rules are changing, the return on Money & Energy are being irreversibly delevered. The EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) was 100/1 in the early days of Oil, it is now less than 10/1 and falling. New Oil is going to be much more costly to find & Produce and the Investment return is not going to be anywhere near what it used to be.

When the general perception finally accept that Oil has Peaked, then the rush away from Oil will begin, into the search for something else, which may not be there. This process will also severely dilute the capital needed for Oil Exploration and the EROEI will be further eroded!

In fact, even though Demand and Price has been rising, the investment in new Exploration has already been falling!

In the interim, Oil producing countries, particularly OPEC, refuse to verify or even discuss their actual level of their reserves.

If that happened, then the conjecture & uncertainty would come to an end.

There are a few likely scenario’s -
1) The levels of reserves are substantially UNDERSTATED, THE IS MUCH MORE OIL THAN COMMONLY THOUGHT.
Whilst this is a very unlikely outcome, in this instance the result would be the usual where Supply exceeds Demand, the Price of Oil would fall!
An outcome not favoured by major self interest groups!

2) The levels of reserves are substantially OVERSTATED, THE IS MUCH LESS OIL THAN COMMONLY THOUGHT.
This would be the likely outcome and in this instance that would spark a MASSIVE & URGENT MOVE AWAY FROM OIL, towards other possible Energy sources, particularly for the transport sector.
That would result in a massive fall in Demand for Oil, in the near term and as usual where Supply exceeds Demand, the Price of Oil would fall!
An outcome not favoured by major self interest groups!

3) The levels of reserves REMAINS UNKNOWN, UNVERIFIED & SUBJECT TO CONSTANT CONCERN.
This is the current Status Quo outcome and the result is as usual where Demand appears to exceed Supply, there is constant pressure on the Price of Oil to rise!
THE PREFERRED OUTCOME for major self interest groups!

There are no guarantees in life, but the likely outcomes suggest that in 5-10 years, the Global Economic outlook, will be significantly different to today and I am not talking of upside!

» D. D. on 11.02.09 @ 02:37 AM

Of course, peak oil is an unproven theory, and may be a big conspiracy too. For example, U.S. crude oil is still growing every year. Just take a look at this graph from the U.S. government.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A

As for the “abiogenic oil formation” theory, which seems to be “proven”, unlike the “unproven” peak oil “theory”. The deep “holes” inside earth has been “delivering” since 1970!

I think the oil industry should come up with a better propaganda.

» Larry Saltzman on 11.02.09 @ 06:08 AM

Whether oil has peaked or not, we are facing the greatest crisis in human history - global climate disruption and warming.  For a rational person to talk about “consumers” determining the best fuel to use and assuming the continued use of gasoline and diesel makes no sense whatsoever.  We should eliminate the burning of fossil fuel in the next couple of decades, not talk about continuing to use it.

As for the issue of peak oil, the author presents no facts just vague generalities. When he says peak oil is just a “theory” he clearly doesn’t understand the scientific meaning of the word theory. What does it mean when you say evolution or relativity are “just theories”.

» Jeffrey J. Brown on 11.02.09 @ 07:07 AM

It is imperative that private oil companies be allowed to develop global oil resources, using the best available technology,  with virtually no restrictions on drilling activities. 

We have these three conditions present in Texas and the North Sea, which together produced about 9% of total world cumulative oil production through 2005, and the oil industry has succeeded in keeping the Texas oil production decline rate down to about 4%/year since peaking in 1972, and the oil industry has succeeded in keeping the North Sea oil production decline rate down to about 5%/year since peaking in 1999. 

If private industry can do globally what they have done in Texas and the North Sea, they can keep the post-peak production decline rate down to a level that would only cause production to drop by half about every 15-18 years or so.

Of course, some of us think that global net oil export capacity is the bigger story, and the US itself—once a major net oil exporter—went from finding its largest Lower 48 oil field in 1930 to net oil importer status only 18 years later, in 1948.

Our best case is that the combined post-2005 cumulative net oil exports from Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Iran and the UAE will be more than 50% depleted by the end of 2013, four years from now.
For more info on net oil exports, do a Google Search for Net Oil Exports + Jeffrey Brown.

» Hugh on 11.02.09 @ 07:19 AM

Another non-report. It amazes me how reporters like this one fail to offer even the most rudimentary analysis of the situation, instead opting to write an article based on nothing more than hot-air and second hand propaganda. Try doing some real scientific research next time.

» ceiii2000 on 11.02.09 @ 07:39 AM

‘Peak Oil’ is not a theory nor is it unproven. Texas, the lower 48, Alaska, the North Sea, Indonesia, Kuwait, and many more places ALL followed a slow rise followed by a slow decline oil produced. Add to that EVERY SINGLE oil well ever drilled follows the pattern and your statement is found hollow at best.
Oil people aren’t ignoring natural gas, solar, nuclear or anything else. They simply state what they see happening with OIL. People with other expertise will decide what to invest in next. And the customer will decide which they want to use.
Some make predictions, including CERA and they have been wrong as often as not. PLEASE look into Yergins history with price predictions (hint, they are horrible).
Lastly even if oil is (I don’t believe it) being made by abiogenic means as quoted below, it isn’t being made as fast as we are using it nor are we finding it as fast as we use it. 14 fields produced more than 1 million barrels per day in all of history, today it is 2. Let see we started at zero, went up to 14 and then down to 2. hmm sounds like a peak.

» Bob Fiske on 11.02.09 @ 08:27 AM

The US has been going downhill in oil production since the early 70’s, even Prudhoe Bay couldn’t stem the slide, and itself is now well over the hill.  The North Sea, Mexico, Venezuela and all but one of the SuperGiant fields are unquestionably in decline.

  Bank on the uber-expensive deep-sea finds and coal-to-liquids if you please.. but if these oilfield declines add up the way I fear they do, then you won’t be ready for the result.

  Our substitutes, such as they are (Ethanol, Shale Oil, Biomass etc..) cannot start to fill the role that Oil has played.  All Peak Oil crowd is saying, is Hedge your Bets, people.  GOT OPTIONS?  Oilmen still are devoted to selling oil, I just want to heat my house and get to work.

» Steven Walker on 11.02.09 @ 08:49 AM

This is one side of the argument, yes.  Information available with regard to reserves tends to be obfuscated and overoptimistic at best—at worst that information informs policymakers with information that everything will be all right, until of course it isn’t.

Peak oil is not about running out of oil, it is about flow rates and energy return on investment.  There is NOTHING like oil with regard to its energy return out there—no alternative source works as well.  All of the sources of oil that we are finding now are much more expensive to get out of the ground—which leads to more volatile prices.

I encourage readers to learn about this issue.  My two favorite sources are http://theoildrum.com and http://energybulletin.net .  They are informational forums that discuss energy and our future from an even-sided perspective.  I find them much more informed than this article.

» Ian on 11.02.09 @ 10:26 AM

Mr. Sporana,

While I am hopeful that all possible drilling for viable oil sources occurs, it appears that it will only slow down the inevitable powerdown.

We actually face two oil “peaks.” The first one, the easy one is price. Scarce oil becomes more expensive, but it’s available. Demand slows, and encourages research into alternatives. All of these are good things.

The second peak is energy return, and that’s much harder to beat. When it takes more energy to *get* a barrel of oil than a barrel of oil produces, we’re done with oil as a significant energy source. I’m afraid an energy return of 1 to 1 or less, is approaching *much* faster than reservoir depletion, per se.

The newest finds, so breathlessly reported in the media, are largely deep-water finds, in multiple small scattered fields. Not easy nor quick to extract. Moreover, this oil is not “light sweet crude” made of relatively sulfer-free, shorter chain hydrocarbons. It has more often been “heavy” oil. Not true?

So yes, there’s much we don’t know. What we do know is that the *amount* of oil, per se, doesn’t matter much. There will always be lots of oil, oil that’s neither profitable, nor energy positive (e.g. the Bakken oil formation), and it will stay in the ground forever for that reason.

And speaking of facts, I’d be much more interested in your article if you had credible, verifiable, quantifiable facts regarding reservoir structure, oil type, production costs and timeframes for these large reserves you mention, and the new ones recently discovered.

» b_reynaldo on 11.02.09 @ 11:02 AM

I’ll take all the followers of the climate change and peak oil religions more seriously when they stop driving and flying.  Driving a Prius with a carbon indulgence sticker doesn’t cut it.

» AlanfromBigEasy/ Alan Drake on 11.02.09 @ 11:24 AM

Among other errors is the contention that policies advocated by Peak Oil advocates are somehow harmful.

Lets look at some of the policies I advocate.

Electrify freight railroads, add back double tracks torn up in the 1960s, speed up rail shipments.

Shifting freight from trucks to electrified rail would

1) trades 20 BTUs of diesel for 1 BTU of electricity (potentially renewable).
2) Provides a national security backbone to move food and essential freight without ANY oil in case the Islamic Republic of Arabia cuts us off, or oil exporters decide not to take our debt for oil any more
3) Dramatically reduces wear & tear on our highways and saves thousands of lives each year.

Making it easier and safer to bicycle would

1) Provide a non-oil alternative for some people in an emergency (see above)
2) Bankrupt Social Security (people that bike to work live a decade longer than those that do not).  Good for public health, bad for actuarial calculations of SS.

Building out Urban Rail as fast as the French (1,500 km of light rail in ten years), adjusted for population and work hours (the French all take August off).

This would save dramatic amounts of oil as cities reform themselves around stations (TOD), save thousands of lives each year (bad for SS), and give Non-Oil alternative in an oil emergency.

DC Metro was built so that most workers could get to the Pentagon in an oil emergency without using ANY oil at all (2 star generals bicycle to the nearest Metro station).  Already more people in DC use Metro than drive alone in their car to work.

Best Hopes,

Alan

» Zev Paiss on 11.02.09 @ 12:14 PM

Joe,

There is nothing theoretical about Peak Oil. As a finite resource, eventually global oil production will peak as it did in the US in 1970.

The take away from all this is that at some point (and I agree many thing we are very close to this point)we will need to create economic systems that do not rely on oil as our main source of energy.

» Michael on 11.02.09 @ 12:53 PM

Why is this posted in the news section rather than the opinion section? The author. president of the Western States Petroleum Association, is clearly not an unbiased with regard to energy issues.

Though Peak Oil may sometimes be tagged as a “theory,” it is largely observable fact. Conventional crude production in the continental US peaked in or around 1970 and has been declining ever since. Not even CERA disputes this. The question then is not if, but rather when, global production will peak.

Really, the only party with anything to lose should we begin preparing now for declining oil production are the oil producers. That they should write articles like this one should not surprise anyone.

[Noozhawk note: This is posted in the Opinions section.]

» Michael on 11.02.09 @ 01:47 PM

[Noozhawk note: This is posted in the Opinions section.]

I linked here from Google news and the nav at the top of the page reads thus:

Local News » Joe Sparano: The Facts about the Peak Oil Theory

and links back to the Local News page. Nonetheless, the article *does* appear on the opinion page, so my apologies. I stand corrected.

[Noozhawk note. Interesting. We’ll look into that. Thank you for the heads-up.]

» AN50 on 11.02.09 @ 03:32 PM

Ok, so while some argue semantics and others global warming what was the author’s point? The point was we are being told that oil production “peaked” when in fact it has not. Regardless of the state of any one oil field there is evidence to support the idea that there is more oil left to extract than we have used, hence we are pre “peak”. This does not negate the theory, but gives it more accuracy. So we can dispense with the entire politically contrived BS.

It is also true that we are talking about a finite substance that we use for things other than fuel. We should not be using petrol for non-transportation fuel (its energy density makes it too valuable for transportation). Conservation (outside of how much we use for any particular thing) should start with removing oil burning electric plants. Coal reserves should be conserved for future use as feedstock to convert into complex hydrocarbons (when we have reached “peak” and need a replacement). Stationary fuel burners (mainly electric plants) should be converted to nukes and geothermal and in a hurry. The loopy mainstay of liberalism, wind and solar are not adequate to the task as base load supplies for electric production nor are they of sufficient density for transportation. To prepare for the oil free future we need to understand what we use, how we use it and what it will take to replace it and that takes engineering. Funny how we can argue quite well about the proper and scientific use of the word “theory” but haven’t got a clue about energy density or energy economics.

We engineers have a duty to our profession to be problem solvers, not obstructionist, leave that to the lawyers (they have proven they are the best). The engineers who have spent their lives on extraction and production of oil know their trade better than most of us and only need peer review not ego patrol. This country produces some of the world’s best engineering talent hands down, but that won’t continue as long as lawyers and politicians keep getting in the way. To that, drill now and drill here.

To the anthropogenic global warming religion, I welcome more CO2 in the atmosphere and a warmer climate. The world is much too cold and has entered an unstable temperature oscillation over the last 2 million years. This is most likely because too much CO2 is locked up in things like limestone and fossil fuels where it cannot lock in enough solar heat to keep us from these oscillations. There is no evidence in ice core studies or geology to show that the planet was in any danger of “thermal runaway” due to green house gas accumulation even with 4 times the CO2 we have now. So drill now, drill here and let her burn baby!

» Steve Mohr on 11.02.09 @ 04:13 PM

Hi
There are major issues with the arguement given. First, if you assume that oil is decomposed algae which took millions of years to decompose, and if you assume that extraction of oil will take far less time than a million years, then mathematically it must peak at some point (thereom in mathematics: a continuous function over a closed interval is bounded). You can argue WHEN oil will peak, you cannot argue IF. Please learn mathametics

» Dan on 11.02.09 @ 06:46 PM

It is unsurprising that the US is producing less oil than it once did - yes we are beyond that “peak.”
1. The cheap-to-produce stuff is mostly gone, replaced by oil that requires greater investment to recover.
2. US gasoline demand has peaked and will continue to decrease due to gains in vehicle efficiency and slowed population growth. That information comes from ExxonMobil’s Energy Outlook - they have the data and no reason to manufacture that trend.
3. Due to regulations, cost, and NIMBYism, most new power plants being built in the US use natural gas not oil, which sometimes gets included in “equivalent barrels” but otherwise is another reason why oil use in the US would decrease as older power plants are replaced.

In conclusion - it’s supply and demand. As supplies run low, if demand doesn’t go down then the price goes up, and alternatives (solar, tar sands, etc.) become more competitive.

» The New Rome on 11.02.09 @ 11:00 PM

After reading the first two paragraphs, of this article the author mentions the so called ‘fact’. I could not bring myself to continue reading until this ‘Fact, witch the author claims to be a theory is brought to light and clearly understood. The peak oil definition is; The day(that’s in a 24 hour period) when world wide oil production reaches a maximum limit and then starts to decline. Now under this proper definition, it should be called the Peak Oil Fact! Because there will be a day when, in a 24 hour period, that a maximum limit of world wide oil production is reached. Whether it is 85 million barels a day or 200 million barels a day there is one simple fact; Nothing on earth is infinite! In light of this, the ‘fact’ is, that Peak oil will one day come and how we addapt to the eventual decline, wheater production drops off a cliff or slowly declines, or if we have an on-hand ready-to-use energy substitute to replace oil, is debatable. Now understanding this, the whole article is based on incorrect information of the so called ‘fact’ that Peak oil is a theory.

» Grad on 11.03.09 @ 01:48 AM

Keep the propaganda stories flowing. They always make a lot of people more aware of our current energy situation.

» perceptions_now on 11.03.09 @ 03:35 AM

AN50,
You said -
“To the anthropogenic global warming religion, I welcome more CO2 in the atmosphere and a warmer climate. The world is much too cold and has entered an unstable temperature oscillation over the last 2 million years. This is most likely because too much CO2 is locked up in things like limestone and fossil fuels where it cannot lock in enough solar heat to keep us from these oscillations. There is no evidence in ice core studies or geology to show that the planet was in any danger of “thermal runaway” due to green house gas accumulation even with 4 times the CO2 we have now. So drill now, drill here and let her burn baby!”

You may like to have a look at the graph on the following site, which clearly shows a correlation bewteen CO2 & Global Temperatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

As CO2 falls below 180ppm, the Global temperature falls and produces and Ice Age.

As CO2 rises above 250ppm, Global Temps rise, as does the Global Ocean, to levels that would imperil Biilion of people, currently.

The Global CO2 level, now sit just below 400ppm!!!

What’s happened -
1800 - World human population reaches 1 billion
1927 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning/industry reach 1 billion tonnes per year

1930 - World human population reaches 2 billion
1946 - THE BABY BOOM begins
1955 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning/industry reach 2 billion tonnes per year.

1960 - World human population reaches 3 billion.
1964 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning/industry reach 3 billion tonnes per year.
1970 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning/industry reach 4 billion tonnes per year

1975 - World human population reaches 4 billion.
1977 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning/industry reach 5 billion tonnes per year.

1987 - World human population reaches 5 billion
1989 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning/industry reach 6 billion tonnes per year.

1999 - World human population reaches 6 billion.
2003 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning/industry reach 7 billion tonnes per year.

2006 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning/industry reach 8 billion tonnes per year.

2010 - ??? World human population reaches 7 billion ???
2010 - ??? Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning/industry reach 10 billion tonnes per year.

That’s what has happened!!!

» Jason on 11.03.09 @ 08:16 AM

A list of countries past peak:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5576

“IEA Economist Warns about World Oil Supply” (August 2009):
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5634

» AN50 on 11.03.09 @ 08:59 AM

Perception, what is your point! I have never denied global warming or anthropogenic causes. What I have denied is the crisis manufactured over it to promote liberal socialist economics globally.
The oceans will rise as it gets warmer, guess what, you can’t stop that! It will happen. Now then you can be an idiot like Local and expend all your energy trying to stop a human enhanced natural phenomenon, where you will die or you can expend your energy trying to adapt to the change that is coming. You make the call. All the Al Gore global warming religion is good for amounts to trying to piss on a forest fire to try and put it out. Good luck with that.
Oh, BTW you might try going somewhere other than Wikipedia for climate science.

» Markus Barton Stringer on 11.03.09 @ 01:19 PM

Joe Sparano’s “facts” about the “peak oil theory” present ideas and, in theory, a compelling argument. However, even if it is agreed that the source and supply of oil, domestically and globally, is much larger than currently estimated by various disparate groups with different agendas, the use and consumption of this fuel is inherently destructive, particularly at a larger and ever larger scale.

And, even if we agree that the potential damaging effects of increased levels of atmospheric levels of CO2 and also methane due to this unlimited unfettered demand, supply, and consumption of petroleum-based fuels are grossly exaggerated, despite increasingly unanimous agreement among highly credible and ostensibly OBJECTIVE scientific circles, are we THE PEOPLE then left with the blind faith in the preferences and needs of a huge consumerist mentality to guide the market and the management of environmental resources in the interests of the greater common good? A blind faith that the Western States Petroleum Association and a far-flung corporate global petroleum industry will be more than happy to serve and satisfy for huge profits that far outreach the long-term benefits to the common persons of the world.

The strident confidence with which petroleum industry representatives such as Mr. Sparano assert that “we” have access to far larger sources of oil than commonly believed is largely based on the improvement of mining/extraction technologies that allow for much deeper drilling, revisiting older wells for repeat extraction, exponentially larger distribution networks, shale and sand extractions, and so forth. ALL require more energy per unit and astounding amounts of WATER to apply these technologically improved extraction methods, which results in even more vast and, in the opinion of pro-oil advocates, UNPREDICTABLE environmental disruption.

If “we”, the general public, the scientific community, academia, and advocates for the poorest of the poor, are left with the responsibility to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that oil will run out and that the use of oil results in irreparable environmental damage BEFORE the oil industry begins to support the development of alternative energy sources and a more equitable distribution of the benefits and profits of resulting from the consumption of such fuels, we the consumers will be remembered by history as a relatively mindless, dependent, addictive herd of human slaves that allowed oursleves to be stampeded off the proverbial “edge of the cliff”.

» Publius on 11.03.09 @ 02:32 PM

Sparano is always good for a 2nd thought, then a hearty laugh.

And if that isn’t what a well paid lobbyist is supposed to do, then what is?

Within the “scientific community,” there’s huge support for the notion that natural and human activity are putting so many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere so fast that it is now having (and will continue to have for generations to come) serious, visible impacts on earth’s eco-systems, and, eventually, on all living things, including Sparano and his familial descendents.

Even the right-wing, Ostrich-leaning, pro industry Wall Street Journal’s top Climate Change doubter is an economist, not a climatologist or ecologist.

And even Bjorn Lomborg now publicly acknowledges that “climate change” seems to be happening, and that it seems to be getting visibly stronger.

So poor Mr. Sparano, like the lobbyists for “clean coal”, are in the embarrassing spot
of being paid to push traditionally valuable energy sources that most scientists now
believe are wreaking potentially catastrophic long-term havoc upon the earth.

Cigarettes, anyone?

It’s gratifying to know that after decades of pooh-poohing research findings, and
heavily financing Vegas-style pseudo-science “doubters” to publish “alternative
research” to “rebut” the real science, that Mr. Sparano’s clients are now paying to do
real “alternative energy” research.

Is that because they care what happens to California’s children, or the fish in the sea, or our rainfall and food supply?

Or, is it because they think they’ve found one more way to make lots of money,
which is why they exist, and what they’ve always been about?

» John Hunter on 11.03.09 @ 10:29 PM

This is silly.  Peak oil is irrelevant to this issue.  The US is importing over half its oil and I understand 70% of your negative balance of payments is oil imports.  To the extent you are going to use oil, despite off-oil efforts, why not use your own, employing Americans, gaining royalties, reducing negative balance of payments, and reducing tanker traffic from offshore (foreign) sources which are the main risk of spills.

» fling on 11.04.09 @ 09:02 AM

We can’t turn back time we need to adapt. Take a look at this article The Great Transition: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21656220/The-Great-Transition-Navigating-Social-Economic-Ecological-Change-in-Turbulent-Times

» Al on 11.05.09 @ 03:06 AM

I wouldn’t want to accuse you of lying, Mr. Sparano, but you are definitely not “trueing” either. You are arguing to ignore the principle of asking “what would be the right thing to do” in favor of a local, current, short term arrangement. You make it sound as if there were going to be two bell-curves. The first one’s peak is over as all numbers and statistics clearly indicate its downtrend, the second one’s beginning is just about to arrive any day now and we should all be so positively excited.

If it’s all so peachy, why does the administration push for control of mideast oil? Just, because it’s so much better for the economy to keep the weapons-industry running at low cost in human live compared to Korea or Vietnam? If so, how do you calculate that: For every dead US-soldier (and thereby dead U.S. taxpayer) you maintain 100 employees producing bullets and feeding in total 200 children to ensure taxpaying for the next 50 years, while it costs 40 non-US kills, which of course do not pay U.S.-taxes and thereby are expendible? Your view is short-sighted, and as you do not strike me as someone braindead, I can’t help but suspect you of knowingly lobbying rather than believing what you say here.
Fact is, we are stagnating. The car industry is stubbornly slow in developing. Compared to any other industry it’s amazing how consumers can accept being sold a concept invented one hundred years ago that requires to carry around about twenty times the weight with itself of what it is meant to transport, a human being. No other industry managed to be so inefficient in renewing and replacing old concepts.

» PulSamsara on 11.05.09 @ 09:46 PM

Peak oil is very real.  It’s a simple ratio of supply and demand.  What’s there to argue about ?

» Jesse on 11.10.09 @ 06:55 AM

Peak Oil is real.  I’ve done several hundred hours of reading on the subject.  The author of this article clearly has not.  The saddest thing is that as civilization implodes, 99.9% of the population will still be scratching their heads as to why.