Transition Culture

23 Apr 2007

Chris Vernon Responds to George Monbiot.

Chris Vernon edits The Oil Drum Europe and is an excellent commentator on peak oil and related issues. He sent me this response to some of the comments George Monbiot made at the Lampeter event.

“It was with disappointment that I read the transcript of George Monbiot’s Lampeter address. I can identify four points relating to peak oil, critical points where I believe Monbiot is mistaken.

On the subject of peak oil specifically Monbiot suggests, to paraphrase, “we’ll find some more� whilst vaguely identifying the wilderness of north-west Saudi Arabia and Siberia. Secondly he turns to “new technology� listing a trio of techniques suggested to recover more oil than previously thought.

We don’t need Peak Oil

I’ll address these two points in more detail below but more worryingly perhaps is his concluding remark (my third point) concerning peak oil, that we don’t have to invoke it as an argument for change at all:

But of course we don’t have to invoke peak oil at all to see the sense and the logic of what Rob is talking about, because even if the peak oil problem didn’t exist in any form, climate change does. Climate change is reason enough to start talking about the transition to a low energy economy of the kind that Rob and others have been pioneering, and the kind that many of us, I’m sure, have found so inspiring this evening.

On this point I think Monbiot is dead wrong. It is clear to me that climate chance has not proved reason enough for the masses and governments as evidenced by, I’m sure Monbiot would agree, the wholly insufficient global response to the challenge before us.

Whilst I am in total agreement with the problems associated with some of the “solutions� to peak oil, coal to liquids, non-conventional oil etc. are clearly environmentally disastrous this is no reason not to address peak oil. Peak oil must be used to justify lowering our energy demands and climate change must be used to justify lowering our CO2 emissions. There is clearly strong coloration and therefore reinforcement between the two but also limited areas of contradiction. In my experience the fear of peak oil’s ramifications is a strong driver for some individuals to reduce their reliance on oil and energy in general with the socially beneficial reduction of CO2 emissions. Peak oil can drive powerful, sometimes selfishly motivated actions which tend to be climate positive.

The subtle difference between the peak oil and climate change arguments is this:

Climate change says we should change whereas peak oil says we will be forced to change. Both are right. Informing people that forced change is approaching through raising awareness of oil depletion and the related price increases will bring about changes in people’s activities beneficial to the environment in general.

I strongly believe the areas of reinforcement outweigh those of contradiction leaving peak oil a valuable argument on balance.

Coal

My fourth point regards coal and Monbiot’s suggestion that peak oil and peak energy are not the same thing. At 37% oil represents the largest proportion of global marketed energy therefore it would be surprising if peak oil did not represent peak energy. Including gas, as it too faces near identical problems of peak followed by decline and the proportion increases to over 60%.

Monbiot seems to have fallen for the general consensus view that there are centuries of coal left, on analysis this does not seem to be the case. A paper this month from the German Energy Watch Group investigates this belief and finds it wanting. All around the world coal reserves are being systematically revised downward in stark contrast to how “proved� oil reserves have been historically revised upwards. Much of the data is old, for example the most recent reserves data from China is from 1992 when 55 years supply remained, 15 years on and no more than 40 years supply remain but factoring in the production profile illustrates a peak in coal production within 5-15 years. Remember China is to coal production as all of OPEC combined is to oil. When China’s coal peaks, the world peaks.

There simply isn’t coal resource or logistic capability to scale up coal production (and energy intensive liquefaction) to offset peak oil. Just 5 years of 2% per year decline in the oil supply after it peaks at say 90 million barrels per day represents a 3.2 billion barrel annual shortfall before considering further demand growth. That’s 440 million tonnes of oil or (assuming 50% energy efficient liquefaction) 1.3 billion tonnes of coal (coal has a lower energy density that oil) per year – considerably more than the total production of the US, the world number two producer.

Peak oil and peak energy are very likely one and the same thing.

We’ll find some more

Finally returning to peak oil and Monbiot’s dismissal on the grounds of finding more or employing technology.

I can only assume Monbiot has been influenced by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) World Petroleum Estimate from 2000. It is after all the body of work the international energy agencies and governments refer to for future discovery estimates. The USGS do indeed forecast significant future discoveries however, to date it has been spectacularly wrong. Between the years 1996 and 2030 the USGS forecasts the discovery of 939 billion barrels. In the first decade of this period, close to a third of the study period, only between 110 and 140 billion barrels have been found. The discovery rate has been falling for decades, with approximately four times as much oil extracted now as is being discovered. For the USGS forecasts to be even remotely accurate this long running trend would have to dramatically reverse. There is no evidence to suggest this is likely or even can occur.

Monbiot’s belief in new finds having a significant impact on peak oil is even more optimistic than Shell who last year published their own view on future discoveries. They forecast a continuing decline in the rate discovery:

What is more, with peak oil so close now and the typical time to market of significant new discoveries running close to 10 years it can be argued that it is already to late for any new discovery to impact the either the timing or magnitude of the production peak.

Technology

Will technology come to our rescue? We have to realise that when attempting to delay peak oil the steady state doesn’t cut it. What I mean by that is that the task in hand gets harder every year. There are two key reasons for this, firstly whatever the current extraction rate is from fields already in production, it’s falling. For example say we are currently extracting 85 million barrels per day, these existing fields could be declining at a rate of maybe 8% per year meaning that just to produce the same 85 mbpd next year we need to bring on 6.8 mbpd. Of course to avoid peak we need growth so say we want to see 86 mbpd next year we actually need to bring on almost 8 mbpd of new production. The higher production gets the more new production is needed to avoid peeking.

Secondly, the resource base that has to deliver this ever increasing rate of new oil is deteriorating. It is scattered in larger numbers of smaller fields, it is deeper in the rocks, under deep water etc. For how long can we continue to deliver ever increasing returns from an ever deteriorating resource? Not very long. The significance of these two points to Monbiot’s faith in technology is to say that it’s already been accounted for. Technology improvements are cancelled out by resource complications. This has always been the case.

Consider the now famous 1970 production peak in the lower 48 states of the US. For over 30 years now production has declined relentlessly despite absolutely the best access to incredible technology developments during that period, a benign capital and political environment and, due to the US reliance on imported oil, every reason in the world to want to stem the declines. Technology didn’t change the picture in the US as it isn’t changing the situation in the North Sea which too is experiencing relentless declines and it won’t change the global depletion ahead of us.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe Monbiot is mistaken about many aspects of peak oil. Its strength as an argument for positive change, the limitation for mitigation through alternative fossil fuels, and the potential for delay through future discovery and technology development.

My criticism for Monbiot is certainly not universal – he has been a fantastic agent for change and I’m sure he played no small part in the national awakening to climate change we witnessed in 2006. However, as unfortunate as our situation is, climate change is not the only, horseman of the apocalypse. Peak oil is critically related and must be considered in conjunction as Transition Culture so fantastically manages to do if we are to develop the best response to the challenges before us.