Are you qualified or important enough to know about Peak Oil?

I find it astounding that while the IEA (International Energy Agency) dithers, obfuscates, and turns away from facing the realities of Peak Oil it is the US Military that is being straightforward about it!

"...the US Joint Forces Command concludes:

By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD… The implications for future conflict are ominous..."

The implications for our way of life are even more ominous. Check out the rest of the article by Lionel Badal over at Seeking Alpha.

Here's some more of what the IEA is saying;
On the one hand,

"... in a recent interview to the British newspaper, The Independent[2], Dr. Birol was reported to say that the world was heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery.

The article added, “In an interview with The Independent, Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years – at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated”.

In fact, in 2008 the IEA conducted for the first time a detailed field-by-field analysis of global oil production and its findings are bleak. Asked by a journalist on what the previous analysis relied on, the Chief-Economist of the IEA admitted, “it was mainly an assumption”[4]. In the 2008 World Energy Outlook (the key document on oil used by OECD countries), they have analysed about 800 fields, which account for ¾ of global reserves and more than 2/3 of global oil production. They come to the conclusion that decline rates are far higher than previously thought, between 6.7 and 8.6% a year[6]. As result, they now estimate that to maintain the current levels of oil production (about 85 MBD) by 2030 the world would need to develop and produce 45 MBD; as said by Dr. Fatih Birol, approximately four new Saudi-Arabias.

Simultaneously, they have analysed all the projects that are financially sanctioned in all the countries in the world (about 230) up to 2015. As it takes five to ten years to produce oil from a new field, they have a clear image of the coming situation. When they add all the projects together (if all of them see the light of the day – unlikely with the current credit crunch-) they will bring about 25 millions barrels per day. However, because of the important decline rates, the world will still be short of “at least” 12.5 MBD before 2015. Asked by a journalist if this means Peak Oil, Dr. Birol answered, “We are facing a serious threat”

And on the other hand,

"Nevertheless, things are never clear when it comes to the IEA and Peak Oil, especially with Dr. Birol.

“Misquoted by the journalist…”

On the 27^th of August, David Strahan, a British journalist, asked the IEA press office confirmation that the IEA recognised Peak Oil would happen “in about 10 years” as reported by The Independent.

Amazingly, an IEA spokesman (initially) answered:

I spoke with Fatih who said he was misquoted by the journalist…The article incorrectly made it sound that the total oil production (including unconventional oil etc.) is going to peak at that time. Taking into consideration gains from unconventional oil, oil peak will be later than 2020, more around 2030...

The first obvious question anyone would ask is: if Dr. Birol really was misquoted, why didn’t he issue an official statement when the article was published?

The answer may well be that he wasn’t really misquoted at all.....

Fatih Birol feels that the article was confusing. Concerning peak oil, his position is clear and has not changed since WEO 2008… Taking into consideration gains from unconventional oil, oil peak will be later than 2020, more around 2030….

To be sure, the Peak Oil sceptics, Daniel Yergin and Michael Lynch (who, by the way recently attacked Dr. Birol) will be delighted to hear that!....

And yet, Dr. Birol who seems to be particularly concerned about his career has become a master in playing something that could be described as a “double game” regarding Peak Oil. Depending on the moment (and most likely, the pressures he receives), he publicly admits or denies or admits or denies the seriousness of Peak Oil and its potential effects.

In June 2004 the BBC[20] supported this claim and gave additional information about who Dr. Birol really is.

In public, Mr Birol denied that supply would not be able to meet rising demand, especially from the buoyant economies in the USA, China and India. But after his speech he seemed to change his tune… When BBC News Online followed up by asking if this giant increase in production was actually possible rather than simply a desire he refused to answer. "You are from the press? This is not for you. This is not for the press."

Apparently, for Dr. Birol the (hard) truth is neither for the press nor for the public."

Meanwhile what are our leaders doing about preparing for Peak Oil....Diddly! And why not, when was the last time you heard it covered in the mainstream media? As with climate change the policy seems to be "what the people (the average Joe) don't know won't hurt us (the captains of industry)"

"Green" companies still supporting US Chamber psuedoscience.

The US Chamber of Commerce represents, to me at least, unbridled consumerism, the erosion of personal rights in favor of corporate power, and the kind of business ethic that has created sprawl, traffic congestion, and an unstable debt based economy. As reported over at Climate Progress, companies are leaving other denier organizations;

PG&E, the major west coast energy supplier has issued this statement,

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another...."

I've posted before about green consumerism, greenwashing, and corporate sponsored media deception, and even a recent post on the companies leaving the US Chamber of Commerce over the Chamber's devotion to 19th century business principles. But what about the companies that are sticking with the Chamber and it's psuedoscience?

Several companies that have worked hard to gain "green" reputation seem unwilling to take the chamber to task. As reported over at Mother Jones;

"According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, at least 18 remaining members of the Chamber’s board publicly support federal climate policy. Bruce Freed, the president of the Center for Public Accountability, a shareholder activism group, is urging them to distance themselves from the Chamber. "Where there is a fundamental disagreement with company values, with company business strategies," he says, "companies really do need to act on that. Its a matter of companies holding their trade associations accountable."

The article goes on to discuss 6 major "green" companies that are sticking with the Chamber of Denial;

• "PNC Financial Services

The nation’s fifth largest bank, PNC controls a whopping $291 billion in assets, including a 35 percent stake in the high-profile investment group BlackRock. ... “Over the past decade, we’ve become one of the most active companies in the nation when it comes to doing good for the environment,” says the PNC website. ... BlackRock recently signed a statement calling for a global climate treaty that would slash emissions by 50 to 80 percent by 2050. “As one of the most progressive green companies in the nation,” PNC says, “we’re constantly looking for new ways to help the environment.”

Except, apparently, when it comes to using its considerable leverage inside the US Chamber of Commerce. ...

• Alpha Technologies Inc.

Alpha Technologies Inc, a member of the Chamber’s board of directors, manufactures solar panels that it says address the “growing concern” over climate change. Is Alpha concerned enough to raise a stink on the Chamber's board? An Alpha spokesman didn’t return repeated calls. ...

• Duke Energy

Duke Energy, the large southern electric utility, is one of at least seven Chamber members—six of them members of the board--that are also members of the US Climate Action Partnership, a group that wrote the framework for the Waxman-Markey climate bill. According to an anonymous source, several of these USCAP members sat down recently with Chamber president Tom Donohue to ask him to change the Chamber’s climate stance but were rebuffed. USCAP members PG&E, Excelon, and PNM Resources later quit the Chamber. But Duke Energy, General Electric, ConocoPhillips, Caterpillar, Siemens Corporation, Dow, and Alcoa have stayed on.

... Last month, the utility earned kudos from environmentalists when it quit the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal industry front group. “We believe ACCCE is constrained by influential member companies who will not support passing climate change legislation in 2009 or 2010,” the company said in a statement. Duke also cited differences over climate policy in leaving the National Association of Manufacturers earlier this year. But though the Chamber is likewise unlikely to back a climate bill, Duke is sitting tight.

“We think it’s important to stay a member because we do agree on some things,” said Duke Energy spokesman Tom Williams. ...

• Siemens Corporation

The front page of Siemens’ website features a panoramic photograph of windmills on a grassy plain. Clicking on the image reveals a US map studded with examples of the company’s work to save the planet: building the Smart Grid, helping a Manhattan skyscraper use 30 percent less energy than its neighbors, and, of course, manufacturing wind turbines. “We’re convinced that policymakers and industry alike must address climate change by actively pursuing integrated strategies,” says Siemens’ 2008 sustainability report. .... Siemens, unlike some other members of USCAP, hasn’t publicly confronted or disavowed the Chamber’s approach. Of course, Siemens is also in the business of constructing oil drilling rigs and pipelines. A company spokesman did not return a call.

• General Electric

General Electric's Ecoimagination campaign is much more than a marketing gimmick. Last year, its 80 climate-friendly Ecoimagination products--everything from wind turbines to halogen light bulbs--generated $17 billion in revenues. Next year GE plans to boost those earnings to $25 billion while investing $1.5 billion in cleaner R&D. It has also pledged to cut its own greenhouse gas emissions 1 percent below 2004 levels by 2012. "Climate change requires a long-term path for significantly reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions," GE says on its website. "Developing more energy- and fuel-efficient products and technologies is an important step, as is rethinking our own operations to use resources wisely."

But does rethinking its own operations include its use of the Chamber of Commerce? "We don't see the sense of urgency that we believe is necessary in their views on climate legislation," spokesman Peter O'Toole said, but added that GE didn't want to leave the group because its agrees with its stance on health care and financial regulation. He also pointed out that many of GE's industrial customers burn coal and other fossil fuels.

Asked if GE sits on the Chamber's 60-member Energy and Environment committee, which is supposed to oversee its climate policies, O'Toole didn't know. "If the answer is yes, I would 100 percent guarantee. . .that we advocate loudly and vigorously in any meeting of the Chamber for urgent action on the climate," he said. After pledging to investigate GE's membership on the committee and the actions it took there, he never called back.

• Johnson & Johnson

In May Johnson & Johnson and Nike sent a letter to the Chamber asking it to refrain from speaking about climate change unless its comments reflect "the full range of views" of its members. Yet the Chamber went right on speaking out against climate legislation while insisting that it represented "more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region." Exasperated, Nike quit the Chamber's board late last month in a strongly-worded letter. Johnson & Johnson's response has been more tepid.

Johnson & Johnson exhibited courage in challenging the powerful Chamber, but that might not be enough for its more eco-minded customers. Presumably, it's still funding the Chamber's activities through its dues. A non-irritating baby shampoo is nice. Seeing that baby inherit a non-irritating climate is even better."

Whether or not these companies deserve the "green" label was quite debatable prior to this revelation and the decision to stand firm with the backward looking Chamber further erodes confidence in their commitment to addressing climate change. I give them credit for their efforts thus far but they need to take the next step and join the exodus from the US Chamber of Commerce. If they are unwilling to do so it would seem that their efforts are really about profit, not the health of the climate.

You can take a stand on this issue and sign a petition that thanks APPLE computer for standing up to the US Chamber of Commerce and repudiating its shameful stance.

Is Peak Oil going mainstream?

This morning as the alarm switched the radio on I was surprised to hear on the BBC that a new report from the UK Energy Research Centre found a signifcant risk from Global Peak Oil and questioning why governments never talk about it. Tuning my television to BBC World I found mention of the report again, if only on the scrolling banner at the bottom of the screen. "This is encouraging" I thought.

After finally drinking my morning cuppa and checking on the days weather forecast, while wading through reams of twaddle on US news channels with no mention of the report or Peak Oil, I sat down to my computer and what do I see? A report over at Climate Progress about the statements from Deutsche Bank that they expect oil to hit $175/bbl by 2016 and the effects resulting from such a price. In his analysis Joe Romm also mentions a statement from Merrill Lynch,

"Steep falls in oil production means the world now needed to replace an amount of oil output equivalent to Saudi Arabia’s production every two years, Merrill Lynch said in a research report."

As the chart above shows this ain't gonna happen!

What interests me the most about this Peak Oil focused start to my day is that it is suddenly so visible, on some reputable mainstream media. Will it make a difference? Is Peak Oil going mainstream? Probably Not. Here's the closing statement for the BBC website about the UK report,

"This report does not contain new research, but is a review of data already available.

But the authors say the risk presented by global oil depletion deserves much more serious attention by the research and policy communities.

"Much existing research focuses upon the economic and political threats to oil supply security and fails to either assess or to effectively integrate the risks presented by physical depletion," they argue.

"This has meant that the probability and consequences of different outcomes has not been adequately assessed."

Despite the evidence, the report notes with some surprise that the UK government rarely mentions the issue in official publications."

Big Media continues to shill for Big Oil

Anyone with half a brain is aware that Fox is the propaganda arm of the republican party with "news" not fit to be called such. CNN seems to be mostly guilty of distraction, more entertainment funded by drug pushers selling their wares than serious news on serious topics. But what about print media? Long the bastion of independent journalism, it is clear that it has slipped into irrelevancy. Take this latest from Newsweek; "Big Oil Goes Green for Real".

Perhaps Newsweek has joined the ranks of psuedo news for comedic purposes, ala the Colbert Report. Perhaps it was meant to be a joke, but April fools day is many months off. Only a fool would believe such dribble. Read more at Climate Progress;
"Here is the basis of Newsweek’s nonsensical spin:

In July, ExxonMobil announced big plans to grow green algae to fuel cars. In July, ExxonMobil announced big plans to grow green algae to fuel cars; last week, Chevron unveiled the world’s largest carbon-sequestration project in Australia; and in recent months, Valero, Marathon, and Sunoco carried out a series of acquisitions that resulted in Big Oil controlling 7 percent of the U.S. ethanol business.

The list goes on. And this time it’s the real deal.

[Pause for laughter to die down. Pause longer for subsequent crying jag to end.]

Since when was corn ethanol green?

• Can words describe how bad corn ethanol is?
• Switch to Corn Promotes Amazon Deforestation
• Are biofuels a core climate solution?
• The Fuel on the Hill — The Corn Supremacy

And ExxonMobil is green … for real? Seriously, Newsweek?

Yes, forget the country’s biggest oil company has funneled millions of dollars to fund the disinformation campaigns of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, all of which continue to advance unfactual anti-scientific attacks as I have detailed recently (see posts on Heritage and CEI and AEI). Chris Mooney wrote an excellent piece on ExxonMobil’s two-decade anti-scientific campaign. A 2007 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report looked at ExxonMobil’s tobacco industry-like tactics in pushing global warming denial (see “Today We Have a Planet That’s Smoking!”).

The oil giant said it would stop, but that was just another lie (see “Another ExxonMobil deceit: They are still funding climate science deniers despite public pledge“). Newsweek should read this excellent commentary by award-winning journalist, Eric Pooley, “Exxon Works Up New Recipe for Frying the Planet."