Archive for February, 2007

Has the World All-Time Oil Peak Arrived?

Wednesday, February 28th, 2007

by Val Germann

A series of recent articles on THE OIL DRUM website have strongly suggested that the long-awaited and oft-denied “World Oil Peak” may have actually arrived, just a bit sooner than expected. Take a look at the graph below, shown on the TOD site and based on EIA data. EIA Graph

Note that actual “oil” in the 1950′s sense makes up only about 75 million barrels of the 85 million barrel-per-day world production. And part of that is “condensate” which is in fact not “oil” either. No matter, you can clearly see what looks for all the world like a peak, one forming in spite of very high prices and what should be strong demand, factors that should be bringing new supply out of the woodwork, if it existed. But that supply may not exist, after all.

Why might this be happening? There are several reasons, including the current troubles in the Middle East and the sharp declines being registered in both the North Sea and Mexican oil fields. Most important of all though could be the ongoing stagnation of Saudi production, continuing to decline slightly in spite of massive effort and investment in the kingdom’s oil infrastructure.

Could we be at the peak? It is possible, especially if a widening of the Mid-East conflict takes place, as seems likely. All bets would be off then, for certain.

Posted in Age of Oil, Conflict and War, Economics | 2 Comments »

Let’s Keep the CO2 Horse In the Barn

Sunday, February 25th, 2007

By David L. Brown

First, here’s the bad news: The world’s supply of available petroleum is about to peak just as demand is reaching record and growing levels due in part to the addition of the vast nations of China and India to the list of major oil importers. Natural gas supplies are also being drawn down at unsustainable rates. Soon, alternative energy sources will need to be found.

But there’s even worse news (you didn’t expect good news in relation to the challenge of energy use and climate change, did you?) In the near term at least, coal will be the alternate fuel of choice for energy production, through burning in power plants, gasification, and even liquification programs. There is enough coal to last for centuries at present rates and coincidentally much of the world’s coal reserves are found in places that will have the most demand, with 75% of the stuff being found in China, India, Russia, the United States and Australia.

Some see this as good news after all, but now for the even worst news: Coal produces more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel, twice as much as natural gas. At present coal burning is responsible for about 40 percent of CO2 emissions, and projections of energy use indicate that unless steps are taken, by the end of the century it will be cranking out fully 80 percent of the carbon entering the atmosphere.

Whoa, Nelly!

Clearly, something must be done to rein in this runaway horse before the nightmare scenarios of worst-case climate change predictions become reality.

The best alternative, at least from the point of view of the environment, would be to replace fossil fuels with “clean and green” energy sources that do not release carbon into the air. These include solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, and thermal.

Unfortunately the economics strongly favor continued reliance on fossil fuels, at least for the next few critical decades, and the focus is turning more and more toward coal. In China a coal-fired power plant is coming online on the average of once each week. In the United States there are 150 planned coal-fired plants on the drawing boards or in the approval stage. Clearly the Age of Oil is morphing into a new Age of Coal. What to do?

There may be an answer, but it is not one that is particularly appealing to those who build and operate coal-fired plants. That is to capture the CO2 they produce and sink it into the ground. This is called sequestration, and it has the theoretical ability to hide the greenhouse gas for centuries. The gas could be stored in underground saline aquifers (reserves of water too salty to be used for agriculture or drinking); pumped into depleted oil and gas fields; injected into deep layers of sedimentary rock; or even buried beneath the sea bed.

This would be an expensive proposition, which explains why exploiters of coal are not eager to embrace the idea of sequestering their greenhouse gas. They are like dog owners on the sidewalks of Paris or New York, chafing at the idea of having to clean up after their pets. And yet, eventually it will become necessary to stop the pollution and enforce a greener model for power production. Only in that way can we both continue to provide power for our economies while preventing runaway global warming.

But are we ready?

At present, the technology to make sequestration work is available mostly in theory. There are some small pilot projects underway, but far too little is known about how to capture the CO2, transport it to appropriate places, and put it into the ground. Questions abound concerning the safety and practicality of sequestration, questions such as whether we can be certain the gas will stay in the ground or whether our economy can sustain the added expense.

(more…)

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Technology, Fossil Fuels, Pollution | 1 Comment »

Oceans Dying Under CO2 Siege

Sunday, February 25th, 2007

by Val Germann

Climate change on the Earth’s land masses, as bad as it may turn out to be, is only one likely effect of the recent and gigantic increases in atmospheric CO2. The Earth’s oceans, too, are feeling the effects which will only worsen as this new century unfolds. A recent article in the Vancouver SUN states the case bluntly:

Unless we halt completely the emission of carbon dioxide from the world’s energy systems, we risk an oceanic catastrophe worse than the one associated with the disappearance of the dinosaurs.

Note the words “halt completely” in the sentence above and think about the chances of a total suspension of CO2 emissions from human energy use. Yes, it looks like there may be a problem, somewhere.

The basis for the quote above is a study presented at a recent conference on the world’s oceans held in Vancouver. One of the presenters, a Stanford oceanic specialist, is the ultimate source.

Ken Caldeira, who teaches out of the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University in California, says the level of acidification caused by dumping hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the world’s oceans is so great that it could cause a major disruption on par with, or worse than, the sudden dumping of sulphuric acid into the oceans 65 million years ago when an asteroid slammed into the Earth’s surface.

To quote a famous TV character, Homer Simpson, “Would that be bad?” Yes, it would, as one of the sponsors of Dr. Caldeira’s speech, Daniel Pauly, explained:

. . . if there’s no more fish, is that okay? No, it’s not.

Of course, this problem at its worst is most likely a few decades away, thank heaven, and so safely beyond the reach of any revenge by today’s electorate, as today’s politicians and executives are safe from any revenge from the future. All in all, a win-win for everybody involved, I think most people would agree. That is, how bad could it actually get?

When [the last oceanic extinction] happened, [Caldeira] said, it took 500,000 years for plankton to reappear, two million years for corals to redevelop, and 10 million years for the current level of oceanic biodiversity to re-emerge.

Well, not a problem! That’s a long way off, as even the most die hard whale-hugger must admit. Read this entire article and see if you don’t agree. As Keynes once said, tongue in cheek, “In the long run we’re all dead.” So, even if we do drag nearly all other life on Earth down with us to that infinite and eternal night, what difference could it make to us, living here today?  None, I think, none at all.

**

Posted in Climate Change, Diversity Loss, Extinction, Ocean Depletion | 2 Comments »

Why Our Government Rejects Climate Change

Wednesday, February 21st, 2007

By David L. Brown

Yesterday in a posting titled “The Great Climate Cover-Up” I wrote about a joint report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project. The study revealed widespread and apparently deliberate interference by government authorities in the public reporting of findings related to climate change. The result is to create misunderstanding and confusion about the subject.

Now why would our government, which spends $3 billion a year on climate research, want to suppress and distort the findings? Let’s see if we can find a clue. Well, a good place to start might be to look at the large corporations that drive the world economy and (perhaps) have considerable influence in the affairs of government. According to The Economist, here is a list of the ten largest companies in the world, ranked by their 2005 gross income in billions (with a “b”) of U.S. dollars:

    1. ExxonMobil … $339.9
    2. WalMart Stores … $315.7
    3. Royal Dutch Shell … $306.7
    4. BP (British Petroleum) … $267.6
    5. General Motors … $192.6
    6. Chevron … $189.5
    7. Daimler/Chrysler … $186.1
    8. Toyota Motor … $185.8
    9. Ford Motor … $177.2
    10. Conoco/Phillips … $166.7

    Hmm, do we see a pattern here? Well, yes, and it jumps out on us like a pack of hungry wolves. Every single one of these top ten corporations is heavily involved in the business of oil. Nine of the ten are either oil producers or makers of automobiles which burn petroleum products. WalMart may seem to be an anomaly, but if you drive past a WalMart or Sams Club store you will note the prominent gas pumps, and when driving on the Interstate highways of America you will probably be passed by several of the company’s tractor-trailer units every hour, bearing the motto “We Sell For Less…Always!” In other words, like the others WalMart’s business model is deeply dependent upon the exploitation of oil and ruthless domination of its markets.

    What does this mean in a world that many believe is soon going to reach peak oil production? In a world where most of the remaining easily extracted petroleum is located in places that are politically unstable and rife with terrorism aimed at bringing down the West? In a world where money talks and BS walks? Yes, that world. Our world.

    (more…)

    Posted in Age of Oil, Economics, Politics | 1 Comment »

    The Great Climate Cover-Up

    Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

    By David L. Brown

    We have discussed before the subject of how various entities may have colluded to distort the facts relating to climate change. In the past, NASA has been caught out attempting to muzzle its premiere climatologist, James Hansen. Recently we wrote about how ExxonMobil has spent millions of dollars supporting think tanks and so-called experts that have published documents of denial. There is a nasty smell of cover-up in the air.

    Not long ago I met a man who has been deeply involved in the American black arts of espionage, one obviously well connected at a high level in the Pentagon and probably acting as one of myriads of tentacles in the CIA’s global octopus. He told me something that has stuck in my mind ever since, describing what he called “the three principles of cover and deception.” They are simple: 1. Illusion; 2. Misdirection; and 3. Ridicule.

    “What does it mean to learn that those same techniques of counter-espionage and propaganda are now being used against the American people by our own government…“

    These methods may seem familiar, because we have seen these very same tried-and-true tools of the counter-espionage community at work in the area of climate change. Now there is new evidence, and full damning it is. A new study described in the report Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science, issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in conjunction with the Government Accountability Project (GAP), concludes that “political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic.”

    That statement was made by Dr. Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. She added: “Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.”

    According to a UCS news release (read it here), “The report, which includes a survey of hundreds of federal scientists at seven federal agencies and dozens of in-depth interviews, documents a high regard for climate change research but broad interference in communicating scientific results.”

    For its part of the study UCS sent questionnaires to 1600 climate researchers inquiring about “the state of federal climate research.” The responses from scientists working in federal programs revealed numerous examples of bureaucratic meddling in the scientific process:

    • Reports of experiences involving at least 435 occurrences of “political interference in their work” during the past five years;
    • Nearly one-half (46 percent) of those responding “perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming,’ or other similar terms from a variety of communications;”
    • Forty-three percent reported they had seen or personally experienced “changes or edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their scientific findings;”
    • And, perhaps even more significant, nearly one-half of the scientists saw or personally experienced the enforcement of “new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work.

    The news release adds: “In contrast, scientists at the independent but federally-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research, who are not federal employees, reported far fewer instances of interference.”

    (more…)

    Posted in Climate Change, Politics | 1 Comment »

    What the IPCC Report Didn’t Tell Us

    Saturday, February 17th, 2007

    By David L. Brown

    As I pointed out here last week, the recently released Summary of an upcoming report from the International Panel on Climate Change was produced by what might have been history’s largest committee (see “Does IPCC Report ‘Sugarcoat’ Climate Truth?,” posted February 7). New Scientist magazine has chimed in with a cover story in its February 10-16 issue describing what was not reported in the summary. The sub-head for the story reads “If the official verdict on climate change seems bad enough, the real story looks far worse.”

    Admittedly, the new report from IPCC does provide nearly unassailable evidence that human-induced climate change is real. I say “nearly” because the drafting committee used phrases such as “likely,” “very likely” and “extremely likely” to describe the various findings it recognizes. Nonetheless, statistics such as those shown in the graphs below warrant serious attention.

    25903801.jpg

    Still, the IPCC pulled its punches. The problem is that the panel systematically removed from consideration any research that was deemed “controversial, not fully quantified, or not yet incorporated into climate models.” While admitting that through this conservative approach to climate findings “there is now little room left for skeptics,” the New Scientist article raises the serious question that “many legitimate findings have been frozen out.” In other words, the IPCC reports only the most conservative facts, a process that places the threat of climate change at the absolute minimal level. I suggest that skeptics will continue to lobby against global warming “until the cows come home” as my Grandfather used to say.

    By soft pedaling its conclusions, the IPCC summary is kind of like putting up a stop sign at a dangerous intersection, but making it only six inches on a side, coloring it brown instead of bright red, setting it twelve feet off to the side, and letting bushes grow up around it.

    As recognized here and in the New Scientist article, despite its commitment to minimizing the threat, due to the growing body of facts the report provides significant evidence that climate change is real, and assigns a 90% chance that it is caused by human activity. At least that is something, but what the world needs right now is a very large, flashing, bright neon STOP sign to warn of the dangers ahead.

    (more…)

    Posted in Climate Change | Comments Off

    Does IPCC Report “Sugarcoat” Climate Truth?

    Wednesday, February 7th, 2007

    By David L. Brown

    Someone must have formulated a “law of nature,” perhaps as a corollary of Murphy’s famous dictum, concerning the relationship between the size of a committee and the quality of its work product. That law might read something like this: “The quality, objectivity, and value of any report produced by a committee is inversely proportional to the number of participants.” Unless it has already been claimed, let’s call it Brown’s Law.

    If that dictum holds true, the value of the recent report “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,” a summary of which was issued last week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, must be extraordinarily low, perhaps describable only in terms most often applied in the world of microbial research and nanotechnology. That is because, according to the IPCC’s web site:

    “The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers [Author's note: read politicians and bureaucrats here] also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report.”

    Apparently, every participating nation had the chance to edit, delete, challenge, revise, and suppress the content of the report from the point of view of their own self-interest. For example, it was reported that China caused the report to gloss over the contribution of fossil fuel burning to CO2 emissions in the interests of that nation’s continuing surge of coal-fired power plants. How could such a report have any value whatsoever?

    AND YET … Here are a few tantalizing quotes from the “Summary for Policymakers,” a kind of executive summary of the full report (a downloadable 18 page PDF is available on the IPCC web site):

    • Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values…. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are due primarily to agriculture.
    • The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since [the IPCC's last report in 2001] leading to very high confidence [IPCC's emphasis] that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming….
    • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.
    • At continental, regional, and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.
    • The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.
    • Most of the observed increase in [global temperatures] since the mid-20th century is very likely [IPCC's emphasis] due to the observed increase in [human produced greenhouse gas]. [This is an escalation of the assessment of the previous report, which termed the correlation "likely."]
    • Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely [IPCC's emphasis] be larger than those observed during the 20th century.
    • Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.

    Taking into account Brown’s Law and considering that this report was produced by what is perhaps the largest and most biased and self-interested committee in history, these are powerful (if carefully couched) statements. Truly, when viewed through the proper lens of skepticism about the process, the latest report provides firm grounds upon which to at last put an end to any doubt about whether global warming and the resulting climate change are real, and that they are the result of human actions. Apparently lacking in the report, or at least in the summary, are the more serious predictions concerning global climate change, many of which are based on recent observations. It appears that the statements in general refer to the bottom range of possibilities, a result that could be expected due to the committee approach to the subject.

    (more…)

    Posted in Climate Change, Politics | 2 Comments »