Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCI– Peak Oil, Economic Growth, and Wildlife Conservation: Envisioning An Alternative Future
Pompeii, Italy (1992). Photo by author.
Following on the heels of my Contemplation that looked at a Peak Oil article that focused upon whether our cities would ‘collapse’ or not as a result of waning hydrocarbons (see: Website; Medium; Substack), I offer a summary and some thoughts regarding the final chapter of the book Peak Oil, Economic Growth, and Wildlife Conversation that forwards the prospects for an alternative future to a ‘collapsing’ one.
The book itself offers a variety of perspectives written by an assortment of academics and other experts on subjects that overlap with energy, economics, and ecology. Below is the Table of Contents from this monograph.
While I only read the final chapter, there seemed to be some conflicting messages within its body: a recognition of our predicaments but the proposal of ‘solutions’ that tend to prolong or exacerbate the mechanisms mostly responsible for our dilemma.
First, on the one hand the editors argue that ‘renewables’ cannot possibly support industrial civilisation, their production consists of ecologically-destructive processes, and the scale of industrial manufacturing being called for by many would result in devastating and significant detrimental environmental impacts. On the other hand, they suggest that we should pursue these technologies to help us with the impending consequences of Peak Oil and climate change.
Another example of such conflicting messaging is the argument that ‘advanced’ economies need to reduce their consumption dramatically but that material throughputs should continue in order for ‘emerging’ economies to grow theirs. This is one of the suggestions that I have heard from a number of people within the ‘environmental’ movement and have some difficulty with.
Is shifting economic growth from advanced economies to emerging ones going to dramatically reduce material throughputs and all the deleterious impacts such activity has on our planet and its ecosystems?
It seems increasingly obvious that advanced economies need to throttle back their consumption dramatically if we are to hope for a reduction in the destruction that has accompanied economic growth systems, but I am not in agreement with the suggestion that this should be shifted towards emerging economies in an attempt to bolster their growth–and consequently their dependence upon modernity’s extractive and destructive industrial systems. Given how far we seem to be into ecological overshoot and the fact that continued material throughput exacerbates that situation, attempts to grow economies anywhere is problematic (and certainly not ‘sustainable’).
In fact, in their discussion on economic growth the authors raise the unsustainability of its pursuit. So, why would we encourage it anywhere? This problematic aspect of complex societies’ chasing of perpetual growth should be obvious to anyone who appreciates the finiteness of resources within the closed system that is our planet.
Unfortunately, many do not see this impediment to continuing growth. I believe this is thanks mostly to the stories that have been created to rationalise it–particularly the tales about human ingenuity and associated technological innovation’s ability to ‘bypass’ the restrictions that the finiteness of resources creates. It is here I would recommend viewing the presentation by the late Dr. Albert Bartlett, entitled Arithmetic, Population, and Energy, that demonstrates how quickly exponential growth can overwhelm a system.
The tendency of many to deny the issues raised in their book and place their faith in technological ‘breakthroughs’ is also discussed. What I believe most of the tech-faithful don’t realise is that the vast majority of such ‘breakthroughs’ never materialise and tend to be marketing/hype to attract investment in the project being highlighted–either directly or by way of government. But ‘success’ in controlled lab settings or with small-scale trials rarely if ever can be scaled up to meet civilisational needs–if such ‘success’ is even ever realised.
Add to this that many ‘innovations’ are energy and/or resource intensive (sometimes even sinks), requiring the destructive extraction and refinement of materials to continue and/or grow. ‘Breakthroughs’ are often simply profit-seeking schemes perpetuated by snake oil salesmen with media complicity through the ‘advertising’ of them. Their hype is meant to attract investors, not ‘solve’ anything for the benefit of society.
Another of the suggestions in the chapter that I have difficulty with is looking to our political systems to steer the establishment of self-sufficient communities. This is, in my opinion, misguided; as I have written about repeatedly. Subscribing to the Conflict Theory of how our governing institutions came to be and have ‘evolved’ (as opposed to Integrationist/Structural Functionalism Theory which the elite tend to push), I hold that our political systems are not the beneficent institutions we have been led to believe and that the political class and media crow on about repeatedly.
The systems’ primary role is and has been to help the ruling caste of society control and expand the wealth-generation and -extraction systems that provide their revenue streams. They ‘kick back’ a portion of this wealth to the masses to support the narratives about them being ‘representative’ of the people and acting in their best interests, but they siphon off most of the ‘wealth’ being generated by society and extracted from Nature. They only care about the environment in their messaging, not in their actions. And they certainly take no responsibility for the consequences of these actions.
Apart from these ‘inconsistencies’, the chapter (and book) cover some of the most important issues that confront our species and planet. Perhaps the most significant aspect raised in this text is the need to protect the planet’s wildlife and the ecosystems that all species depend upon. The options for doing this ‘successfully’, I’m afraid, are few.
If humanity wishes to avoid Nature responding in ways we probably don’t want or will ‘enjoy’, it seems to me that rapid and significant degrowth is the only remaining option. Given the ‘costs’ that would be involved and who the primary societal ‘influencers’ tend to be, I am increasingly doubtful that humanity as a whole will opt for a ‘managed’ path and that Nature will have the final say in our fate.
Time, of course, will tell how this all unfolds.
Some of my personal Contemplations that discuss the above topics:
Collapse Cometh CLXXXI-The Politics of Dancing: The politicians are now dj’s… (Website; Medium; Substack)
Collapse Cometh CLXXI–A ‘Solution’ to Our Predicaments: More Mass-Produced, Industrial Technologies (Website; Medium; Substack)
Collapse Cometh CLXV-Rackets: Keeping the Curtains on Reality Drawn (Website; Medium; Substack)
Summary Notes
Peak Oil, Economic Growth, and Wildlife Conservation J.E. Gates, D.L. Trauger, & B. Czech (editors) Springer Science and Business Media (2014)
Chapter 15: Envisioning An Alternative Future (pp. 316-339) J.E. Gates, D.L. Trauger, & B. Czech
The authors argue that the planetary limits to growth of human activity seems imminent as does the peaking of energy production and economic growth (that will impact human populations directly). On top of this, our hydrocarbon-based industrial civilisation has contributed to destabilising our planet’s climate and the loss of biodiversity and wildlife habitat
With our population continuing to grow due to demographic momentum, in spite of falling reproductive rates in most advanced economies, we must aim to reduce our material consumption within these advanced economies to help them move towards sustainability while those experiencing widespread poverty can pursue economic growth.
A Peak Oil recap is provided with the conclusion that humans have squandered their hydrocarbon reserves on all sorts of frivolous things. Oil has become indispensable and there is no other form of energy that can replace it. A mythology surrounding a new oil boom has arisen in the US but it saw its best energy reserves extracted more than 70 years ago.
Even if new reserves that are inexpensive can be discovered, it would be in the planet’ best interests to stop extracting and burning hydrocarbons since ”exponential growth of our fossil-fuel-driven economy is accelerating biodiversity loss, and potentially contributing to irreversible planetary state shifts” (p. 318)
Whether we can adapt to an elimination of hydrocarbons depends on a number of factors including the rate of decline and lifestyle changes. A number of substitutes and technologies have been proposed to aid our weaning from hydrocarbons but they cannot provide the energy density and the cost and scale necessary is extremely problematic..
While environmentalists have railed against coal and oil, they have failed to consider arguing against all forms of energy production due to the continuing environmental damage from alternatives. And politicians have embraced the ‘green’ bandwagon as a way of providing jobs and stimulating the economy (while many continue to also support hydrocarbons)–they appear more concerned about increasing energy production than what source it comes from, its costs, or the environmental impacts; their actions appear to be mostly about supporting economic growth and business as usual.
The ‘solutions’ that have been proposed to address the various hurdles are insufficient due to issues of scale and dependence upon non-renewables. In addition, the rollout of alternatives have been adding to our energy use and not resulting in a decline in hydrocarbon use.
“Many proponents of industrial-scale solar arrays and wind turbines also fail to acknowledge their detrimental impacts on wildlife species and massive alteration of wildlife habitats in many locations (southwestern deserts, forested mountain ridge-lines, prairie and sagebrush habitats); plus, these devices produce electricity, not liquid fuels that are needed” (p. 320)
Liquid fuel ‘solutions’ carry their own environmental destruction aspects, low EROEI, and have issues of scale. In fact, virtually all ’solutions’ to the predicament of Peak Oil appear to be the result of wishful thinking, delay tactics, and/or for appearance. Disentangling our societies (especially economies) from hydrocarbons is near impossible
-convincing society to pay much more for ‘renewables’ to help us is also near impossible. Hydrocarbons are likely to continue to play a role in the future despite all the negative repercussions as alternatives have not been adopted to the scale required and as a result any action in response to possible catastrophic ecosystem collapse or climate system chaos will be too late.
Peak Economic Growth and Interest On Debt
Economic Growth All world economies are pursuing growth (usually gauged via Gross Domestic Product; based upon personal consumption, business investment, goods and services exports, and government spending). While GDP is criticised as a measure for a variety of reasons, it does seem to be a good indicator of biodiversity loss. Anathema to economic growth is a stable or declining population/workforce and/or per capita consumption. Regardless, there must exist a limit to economic growth since the materials and energy required are of finite supply, and these limits must be recognised and respected to avoid an extended contraction and/or collapse. Growth rates are not sustainable and current growth has led to a number of negative consequences (e.g., sink overloading, biodiversity loss).
Monetary System Our credit-/debt-based monetary system is one aspect of our economic system. To maintain this system and GDP growth, new debt must grow faster than old debt (this also ensures that loan principal plus debt is paid off). A decline in the rate of growth of the energy required to sustain these systems is resulting in increasing debt defaults with wealth being transferred to the rich (currently in the US, the top 1% of wealth-holders claim 40% of the total wealth). Such inequality has negative impacts upon social stability and are also destroying our natural assets.
Peak Nature and Earth’s Biodiversity
Mass Extinctions Based upon past species extinctions, many biologists believe we are experiencing another Mass Extinction and caused primarily by human activity. Current extinction rates are about 1000-10,000 times higher than typical rates.
Threats To Human Health and Well-Being Extinctions are irreversible and can have profound consequences for humans. “[T]he loss of one keystone species on which numerous other species are dependent could cause a trophic cascade, resulting in the extinctions of numerous species and compromising the functioning of the entire ecosystem. Many species also provide critical ecosystem services, such as processing wastes and recycling nutrients, at no cost to us. Other species aid in the control of pest species in agriculture and forestry, reducing the use of insecticides and treatment costs to society.” (p. 325). Plant pollinators are one such keystone species.
Anthropogenic Causes Of the Sixth Mass Extinction Most, if not all, human activity is contributing to the mass extinction occurring; for example: ecosystem destruction, overexploitation of resources, land system changes, population growth, agriculture, pollution, introduction of invasive species. Many of these activities stem from our pursuit of economic growth. “Our sheer numbers and activities have made us a force of nature that now threatens the functioning of our planet’s life-support system.” (p. 326)
Reconnecting With the Earth
Most ignore this relatively slowly unfolding tragedy given seemingly more-pressing problems. “Trying to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that occurs in our perceptions of the future, ranging from a utopian, technological paradise to something out of “Mad Max”, can cause much mental stress and discomfort.” (p. 327) It’s easier to believe that all these ‘problems’ will be solved and we can continue with our business-as-usual path.
Existence without hydrocarbons would be vastly different from today’s modern complex societies. Hydrocarbons have provided the energy to grow our industrial civilisation and the benefits of many ‘energy slaves’. Given these are finite, either we will choose to scale them back on our own terms or this will be forced upon us. It is likely that many/most will not support purposeful contraction of their use and our economies, and will tend to blame the usual suspects when this happens. Some will claim to have ‘solutions’ if given enough power, and/or technological ‘breakthroughs’ will be heralded as the answer to Peak Oil.
Moving Toward Sustainability
Any sustainability movement should attempt to address a number of issues (e.g., resource depletion, biodiversity loss, sink overloading, etc.) and biodiversity loss should be a prominent component given its importance but it has not been. Current population growth and consumption are not sustainable (i.e., being maintained without exhaustion of resources or resulting in ecological damage).
“[W]e need to adapt our entire civilization to withstand shocks and roll with the punches of Peak Oil, resource depletion, climate change, and biodiversity loss; in other words, we need to build resilience andredundancy into our human and natural systems to increase their viability, which up until now have been shaped entirely by growth in the human economy.” (pp. 328-329)
To help transition to a shrinking economy, localised self-sufficient communities should be developed with significant rethinking about the many complexities of modern society (e.g., manufacturing, banking, transportation, governance, etc.). A more sustainable economic system is needed and should be founded in ecological economics and aiming to reduce consumption. A more sustainable agricultural system is also required using methods that protect the environment, human health, and animal welfare–practices must protect biodiversity and foster healthy ecosystems first and foremost. Such systems require more intensive manual labour as they are less reliant upon hydrocarbons and their adoption would result in far more people being involved in food production
“However, meeting the needs of a growing population would require producing more food on the same amount of agricultural land—a daunting task without fossil-fuel energy, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, and hybrid and genetically engineered (GMO) crops!” (p. 330)
Human Impacts On Earth’s Biodiversity
Human activity impacts natural landscapes in a number of ways but especially edge effects that provide routes for invasive species and are created by such things as power transmission corridors, fencing, and roadways
-in many countries, roadways are the most pervasive form of fragmentation (in the US alone, there are over 6 million kilometres of mapped roads). The continuing proliferation of this particular activity is leading to increasing edge effect impacts, habitat isolation, and species extinction. While there is “little that can be done at this point in time to save pristine ecosystems and their biota…benign neglect by humans could make it even worse, speeding up extinction rates and causing ecosystems to collapse rather than degrade. Humans need functioning ecosystems to provide the ecological services on which our civilization depends for its continued existence.” (p. 332)
Managing the Biodiversity Crisis
There exist a number of operations actively attempting to address the biodiversity crisis but the challenge is beyond environmental; it is human attitudinal and trying to get people to understand the importance of functioning ecosystems and how they support human welfare. This need, however, is “often up against powerful, well-connected and ecologically illiterate developers and interest groups, who feel that their way is the only way, particularly if they can cloak their project around economic growth.” (p. 333) Past compromises to provide mitigation have failed with total protection now being the only viable option that must be communicated to decision-makers.
Human population growth and its associated consumption must be confronted. This is challenging at the best of times, but even more so as we experience energy and resource depletion, economic uncertainty, climate chaos, and social unrest.
Hope For the Future
The hope is to take the steps necessary to save biodiversity but so long as economic growth is pursued that is unlikely to occur. “We need to reassess our long-term vision for human civilization and decide what we must do now to move it toward a more sustainable future for the benefit of the planet and generations yet to come.” (p. 335)
Once we envision where we want to go, we can begin our work to get there. “We envisage a future society distinguished by a stable population and per capita consumption, a more equitable distribution of income and wealth, full recycling of materials, waste streams that the environment can easily absorb or reuse in productive ways, and use of alternative, non-fossil-fuel sources of energy. Populations will be much smaller and in dynamic balance with available resources. Improvements in infrastructure by governments will be made without consumption of fossil fuels or piling on more debt and interest on debt.” (p 335)
Achieving this may or may not be possible and a balance between consumption and the planet’s ability to regenerate resources will eventually occur, either by human choice or Nature’s rebalancing processes. We can do things better and that are ecologically healthier but must reign in the pursuit of wealth/status and develop resilient, sustainable systems. If we cannot do this, we will be confronted by collapse of our modern societies alongside the loss of large portions of our biodiversity.
The more detailed summary notes can be found here.
What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:
“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.
Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.”
If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).
Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).
If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.
Costs (Canadian dollars): Book 1: $2.99 Book 2: $3.89 Book 3: $3.89 Trilogy: $9.99
Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…
If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.
You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.
AND
Released September 30, 2024 It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 2
A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.
With a Foreword by Erik Michaels and Afterword by Dr. Guy McPherson, authors include: Dr. Peter A Victor, George Tsakraklides, Charles Hugh Smith, Dr. Tony Povilitis, Jordan Perry, Matt Orsagh, Justin McAffee, Jack Lowe, The Honest Sorcerer, Fast Eddy, Will Falk, Dr. Ugo Bardi, and Steve Bull.
The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine–and most certainly than what mainstream media/politics would have us believe.
Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.
For long-time readers of mine, you will know that I have emphasised repeatedly the importance of energy to human existence and its complex societies. It is the net surplus energy that we have been able to leverage that allows us to continue growing our material throughputs and keep alive our perception of ‘progress’–particularly via our various technological ‘innovations’–and continue to expand (seemingly without limits) our modern complex societies, especially their economies1.
Over the past two centuries in particular, it is the extraction and refinement of relatively easy-to-access and cheap-to-extract, energy-dense petroleum–what some refer to as our ‘master resource’–that has well and truly led to an explosion of trends that began when we first started gathering in large, complex settlements about 10,000-12,000 years ago.
Further, there’s a very good argument to be made that this extraction and use of hydrocarbons is one of the prime causes of a huge leap in our ecological overshoot predicament with its influence upon our various technologies–especially with regard to food production (that has helped to support exponential population growth), resource extraction, and industrialisation.
On the flipside, however, our use of petroleum-derived energy also drives a variety of negative impacts upon the planet and its ecosystems–something ‘growth’ advocates often ignore and/or rationalise away. (Here I would argue that this ‘purposeful’ overlooking of detrimental consequences is primarily to avoid the anxiety-provoking thoughts that arise when one sees these repercussions and recognises their potential for significant and possibly irreversible harm–better to deny these and go along with the majority that wish for a happy ending to this latest experiment in large, complex societies.)
The realisation that hydrocarbons are a finite resource and have seen the easiest-to-access and least-costly-to-procure reserves already extracted has led a number of people to contemplate a future without this fundamental energy resource2. And as with most things, the prognostications about an unknowable future span a wide spectrum of ideas from a return to a stone-age way of life that is ‘short and brutish’3 to a technological-based utopia in sync with the planet’s ecosystems and the limits that exist on a finite planet.
The issues that get ‘debated’ within the ‘Peak Oil-aware community’ are varied and not unlike those that emerge in any complex subject area. The following are only a handful of the subtopics that arise when discussions occur regarding this significantly important resource and our future, and are by no means complete and somewhat overlapping: net surplus energy; energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI); diminishing returns; peak timing; conventional vs. unconventional–i.e., types of oil; socioeconomics; sociopolitics; supply vs. demand; ecological impacts; scale required of resources/new technologies to ‘replace’ hydrocarbons’; and biogeophysical limits to continued growth.
I pivoted towards doing archaeological research commentary/summaries in the past year or so to explore what the numerous pre/historical experiments in complex societies tell us about societal ‘collapse’, but came across the article summarised below just as a somewhat contentious debate began to arise within the Peak Oil community regarding the timing of Peak Oil, and the potential reserves that exist and can be extracted by us in our quest to continue growing and supporting our complex, global-industrial societies.
So, I thought it would be interesting to also include summaries of some published articles on the topic of Peak Oil. Below is my first by Dr. Peter Newman that appeared in the Journal of Urban Technology (2007).
The focus of this paper is basically that ‘the right technology can solve the consequences of Peak Oil’. This conclusion is not surprising given the academic focus of the author and the audience that the journal publishes for–its focus is primarily upon sustaining economic growth via ‘smart’ planning and technology.
While there are suggestions made by the author that I fully agree with (such as advocating for localism), there are others that I do not (such as pushing for mass-produced, industrial technologies to counter oil vulnerability). I do not believe we should be pursuing these industrial-based products because there has been increasing evidence that the production of these devices are helping to push greater hydrocarbon demand/use and contributing to the increased broaching of important planetary boundaries as material throughputs grow accordingly. The believers in such technologies to ‘solve’ our various predicaments, however, refuse to acknowledge or rationalise away such evidence; arguing for the most part that there is no other option–mostly ignoring the perspective of those who advocate for a low-/no-tech future.
The question posed in the article title, as to whether cities will ‘collapse’ post-Peak Oil, is in my mind quite clear: they will. All of humanity’s previous experiments in complex societies have ended more or less the same way: a significant simplification (i.e., ‘collapse’). I see little reason or evidence that our globalised, industrialised complex societies will be any different and capable of staving off a return to a far less complex way of living. In fact, I would argue (and have done so repeatedly) that our ‘decline’ may be far more precipitous than in the past given the degree to which we have expanded and become, for the most part, very dependent upon a finite resource that has ‘allowed’ most of our species to lose the skills and knowledge to survive without it.
In fact, it may be that our complex societies are already in the process of ‘collapsing’ but this has been well hidden via narrative management and massive credit-/debt-expansion. Regardless, it is the realisation of this ‘dependency’ that has prompted a concern for some regarding our societal vulnerability to a waning of our master resource and a call for planning in response. The plans to confront oil vulnerability that are highlighted in the summarised article appear to be focussed upon sustaining what is increasingly looking to be unsustainable, being quite blind to a number of issues.
I sense a significant blindness in this article to some specific impacts of declining hydrocarbon availability that cannot be met–or, at least, not well met due to issues of scale–via ‘renewables’ or other innovative technology, but also to the ecological systems destruction wrought by our materials-intensive industries. Instead, we are exposed to an argument that more mass-produced, industrial products are the ‘solution’ to resource decline rather than a reconsideration of the ‘industrial technology as solution’ mythology.
Despite the rising evidence that these technological ‘solutions’ are anything but a panacea and actually exacerbating our predicaments, it is my feeling that they will continue to be pursued for a variety of reasons–not least of which are the profiteering motives that are associated with them and the general acceptance by the masses of the marketing narrative (i.e., greenwashing) that surrounds them.
My shorter summary notes of the article can be found below the following post and follow-up comment from a fellow ‘Peak Oiler’ as it is apropos to the above Contemplation. It is from Schuyler Hupp whose insightful commentary within the Peak Oil Facebook group we are both members of I have shared previously. I thank him for giving me permission to do so once again (with some very minor edits):
Energy analysts say that the life cycle of aggregate domestic tight oil production will likely be much shorter than that of conventional oil, which peaked in 1970… So if the peak in aggregate domestic production occurs within the next few decades as some predict, then it would raise a bunch of pretty obvious questions:
1) When will tight oil actually peak?
2) As tight oil goes into terminal decline, what alternative energy resources and technology paradigms will replace oil?
3) What will be the net energy return of those alternatives to oil?
4) Does anyone actually know how to manufacture and maintain those replacements without cheap and abundant fossil hydrocarbons?
5) How long might it take to rebuild the infrastructure of western civilization to accommodate whatever new energy paradigm happens to emerge?
6) If net energy and surplus energy are lower under the new paradigm, with lower economic output and less to go around as a result, how well will societies manage the paradigm shift?
7) If indeed a broader decline scenario ensues, how long might it take before a new social and economic equilibrium is to be reached?
8) How much of a risk is it to assume that technological developments will necessarily materialize, so as to make up for the loss of our most essential resource, the one on which our current civilization is largely based?
Of course oil isn’t the whole energy picture, and although energy has primacy when it comes to economic prosperity, there are other factors to consider such as the broader natural resource base and the health of ecological systems… There’s much food for thought.
PS
I forgot to mention… that chart is for domestic, U.S. production, though it’s implied by “Lower 48 States. There are a number of prominent voices predicting a peak in our tight oil production within the decade. The exact date for global aggregate oil production won’t be known until it’s further behind us, but current data suggests that we may have passed that point as far back as 10 years ago. When tight oil goes into decline it will be a real life lesson in biophysical economics that nobody signed up for; people will have no choice but to adapt.
So far as climate…the range of possibilities is broad, at least from what I’ve seen. When it comes to climate models, when you get to 100 years out, at least the dozen or so I’ve seen… the average surface temperature predictions vary by as much as 400%. It certainly could be that it’s game over for humans and a lot of other species… or it could be that it becomes an evolutionary bottleneck, subsistence to follow… or it could be that things suck, and maybe civilization crumbles, but things somehow continue at a much smaller scale and under a very different paradigm.
Even in the best scenario, I don’t think it would involve 8 billion people living sustainably, or anything close to it. The main takeaway from that oil production data is that economic decline in “developed” nations is at the doorstep. So for a generation or so, it will be a question of how people will adapt physically, psychologically, and socially… Mainly, how people resolve claims on limited resources.
Whatever happens over the longer term, climate wise, is something that will just happen when it happens and to the degree that it happens, regardless of the reality of peaking fossil hydrocarbons, though that certainly won’t hurt when it comes to the climate system. Given the shortcomings of human nature, cognitive and otherwise, there’s no reason to expect preemptive actions toward preventing climate change, certainly not at a broad scale… but people are still going to have to deal with the shorter term challenges with regard to resource limits and economic effects.
Summary Notes
Beyond Peak Oil: Will Our Cities Collapse? Peter Newman
Journal of Urban Technology 14:2 (2007), pp. 15-30
Acknowledging the inevitable decline in the production of oil fields (and providing a brief introduction regarding the history of this realisation) and arguing that the exact date of Peak Oil is not as relevant as the recognition of it, human societies need to plan for this eventuality as time is running out to prepare adequately. There are four possible scenarios that need to be considered for this planning, especially for urban centres in advanced economies.
Collapse–given pre/historical examples, this is a distinct possibility–especially for those cities that require massive amounts of oil to support their complexities (i.e., those in advanced economies);
Ruralised Cities–a dispersal of urbanites out of the city into the countryside to establish permaculture villages and suburban agriculture is what some envision but is unlikely without a significant population decline as well as the adoption of far more sustainable lifestyles;
Divided Cities–the creation of ‘electrified cores’ for the wealthy few while the remainder of the urban population is on the periphery fighting for survival;
Resilient, Sustainable, Solar City–this is what we should be striving for, an electrified city for all residents.
Arguing that the threat of Peak Oil needs to be taken seriously, the author suggests that the United Nations must take the lead in setting goals for weaning economies off of oil with cities/states creating strategies to accomplish this. Some have begun to explore options, such as the prospects of a Hydrogen Economy.
Cities must plan for significantly reduced car use since they are the factor that most impacts urban vulnerability to oil decline. Public transport must be prioritised (e.g., electric rail lines and buses) as well as mixed land use and denser populations within urban cores and rural lands left for food production.
The impacts from declining oil supplies on agriculture will be significant and we need to halt the expansion of suburban residences onto arable lands. Establishing ‘Horticultural Precincts’ beside urban centres is recommended. Food production needs to become localised and surpluses pursued for trade purposes with nearby communities.
Localism needs to be pushed and innovation in it funded, especially of urban technologies.
A variety of regulations subsidise oil consumption and it is likely that regulations need to be developed to help reduce the use of internal combustion engine vehicles and increase that of hybrid transport. Massive investment in wind farms should occur. As there seems to be no alternatives to hydrocarbons for aviation, unnecessary travel should be reduced via increased pricing.
Advanced economies have virtually no plans for handling oil vulnerability. We need to adapt by using less and shifting our technology.
The more detailed summary notes can be found here.
What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:
“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.
Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.
If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).
Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).
If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.
Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99
Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…
If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.
You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.
AND
Released September 30, 2024
It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 2
A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.
With a Foreword by Erik Michaels and Afterword by Dr. Guy McPherson, authors include: Dr. Peter A Victor, George Tsakraklides, Charles Hugh Smith, Dr. Tony Povilitis, Jordan Perry, Matt Orsagh, Justin McAffee, Jack Lowe, The Honest Sorcerer, Fast Eddy, Will Falk, Dr. Ugo Bardi, and Steve Bull.
The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine–and most certainly than what mainstream media/politics would have us believe.
Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.
Although much of the expansion of the past handful of decades can be greatly attributed to a gargantuan increase in debt-/credit-based currencies; including the growth of energy resources.
Note, however, that some still refuse to accept such finiteness and/or rationalise it away with assertions that a ‘free’ market will adjust to such biogeophysical realities introducing alternatives or humanity will simply colonise other planets and mine passing asteroids for our resource needs once we’ve exhausted our planet’s supplies.
I would remind readers here that this phrase is often used to describe life before ‘modernity’ and its various technologies but this is not what Thomas Hobbes was referring to when he used it. Hobbes was advocating for strong, central authority as a result of people living in a constant state of fear, lacking the necessities of life, and having to struggle to survive prior to its existence.
Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCIV–US Peak Shale Oil & Gas: When the Walls Come Tumblin’ Down.
Tulum, Mexico (1986). Photo by author.
This Contemplation has been prompted by a publication (see summary below) focused upon the apparent peaking of shale oil and gas production within the United States. The commentary on US shale extraction by the natural resources investment firm of Goehring & Rozencwajg began making the rounds within some of the Facebook Group circles I frequent upon its publishing on December 19th.
Here are a few thoughts I have had as I’ve read through the G&R analysis and taken some time to digest its implications and some of the accompanying commentary by others.
It’s quite possible that the peaking of extraction from US shale deposits could usher in a speeding up of some trends (especially geopolitical and economic) as we travel ever-forward towards global, societal collapse–especially given the consequences this will have for the global hegemon that is the United States since shale deposits decline very rapidly. And as much as some in the US like to believe that it is energy ‘independent’, it is not. Not even close. Despite the ‘shale miracle’, the US continues to import just under 10 million barrels of oil per day–it needs to import heavy and sour oil since most of its extraction is of the light type and its heavy oil production has been in decline since 1970.
I say ‘possible’ regarding the impact of this eventuality since the following thoughts are not absolute. It is my perception and interpretation of evidence based upon my years of reading and writing about societal collapse and related topics–particularly the peaking of our master resource, oil. But as with virtually everything, observations (even of agreed upon ‘facts’) are interpreted through the eyes of the beholder and can result in different conclusions, even diametrically-opposed ones.
In addition, no one can predict the future with much if any certainty so any assertions that I make must be kept in perspective. It could be these thoughts of mine are all sound and fury signifying nothing, or it could be a fairly accurate Nostradamus-like prediction–only time will tell. The evidence that supports a story of inevitable and impending societal collapse due very much to the also inevitable and impending end of the oil age is very compelling.
And this is not even our most dire predicament since resource depletion is but one of several symptom predicaments of our far more significant predicament of ecological overshoot–a predicament that has been expedited very much by our leveraging of a one-time, finite cache of photosynthetically-derived and ‘stored’ hydrocarbon energy.
Putting all that net surplus energy into the opposable-thumbed hands of a story-telling ape with significant anxiety and highly-complex brains was probably not the best of evolutionary ‘decisions’. Especially since the species was already on the path towards overshoot once it began experimenting with large, complex societies. Again, time will tell.
I have emphasised previously that energy is everything. Without it there is no life. Without the tremendous amounts of net surplus energy afforded humanity via hydrocarbons, the vast array of societal complexities (i.e., political, economic, cultural) and technologies that our modern societies currently have, depend upon, and take for granted would not likely exist. The human-contrived world would be a much simpler and smaller version of itself, and without much in the way of what we would define as modernity. It might resemble, if we were lucky, the eighteenth or early nineteenth century–just prior to the discovery of oil in the United States (and followed closely in other areas around the globe).
There certainly would not be 8+ billion of us, communities would depend upon their local resource base for the most part, and much (all?) of the energy-powered technologies we have would not exist. This is provided Nature was keeping our population growth in check and we hadn’t denuded our environments of its plant and wildlife, as seems to be our way as we continue our seemingly ever-present expansion. We would likely still be in overshoot in such a world, but certainly not to the extent we currently are. Our speed towards a much smaller cliff would be considerably slower. Hydrocarbons have afforded us the ability to speed up the journey tremendously and produce a cliff that is much, much higher than it would be otherwise.
So, it’s beginning to look like Peak Oil might be raising its ugly head again for an increasing number of people–not that it ever disappeared for some small number of us. Even when the shale ‘revolution’ began to pump up the volume about it being vanquished, some adherents drowned out that noise holding on to the geologic inevitability of a decline in production. The more dire consequences of Peak Oil had just been delayed, not avoided. You cannot forever ignore the increasing drawdown of a finite resource that becomes more and more difficult and expensive to retrieve–diminishing returns can be most unforgiving. But I have to say, a lot of people have tried and are still trying to deny biogeophysical reality, mostly by way of magical thinking–and I expect this to get even more prevalent as reality bites us ‘wise’ apes in the ass.
Peak Oil, in fact, arrived quite a number of years ago depending on what type of oil you are discussing; i.e., conventional vs. unconventional. Unconventional extractions (primarily deep sea drilling, bitumen mining, and hydraulic fracturing of shale deposits) have helped to kick-the-can-down-the-road for humanity (along with expansion of the Ponzi scheme that is our credit-/debt-based financial/monetary systems) but the time is quickly approaching (actually, it’s past time) when it’s going to have to face a major reconciliation with hard, physical limits.
Or is it? With the narrative management and distractions our ruling elite will employ, combined with the denial and bargaining that will take place amongst the masses, it may be that the notion gets buried in the stories of pending ‘saviours’ and hidden by the proliferation of distractions to keep the hoi polloi in ignorance and compliant.
‘Renewables’ will save us. Look over there, a war. Nuclear Fusion will save us. Look over there, aliens. A new ‘leader’ will save us. Look over there, another pandemic. Artificial Intelligence will save us. Look over there, enemy drones. ‘Free markets’ will save us. Look over there, Taylor Swift is performing again. Technology will save us. Look over there, it’s the first billion dollar contract for a sports player. Space travel will save us. Look over there, ‘democracy’ is at risk from within. Something will save us…because, heaven forbid, we should be open to and considering that maybe we need to be discussing not ‘saving’ industrial civilisation but preparing for the inevitable return to simpler living.
The implications of this analysis by G&R could be immensely monumental for our complex societies. It is a stark reminder of the finiteness of hydrocarbon resources and the increasing difficulty of facing this reality. It is not the first and probably won’t be the last of such reminders but, like previous ones, will be mostly ignored, denied, or rationalised away by those that don’t wish to face what is quickly approaching (or don’t want the masses to be aware).
The peaking of US shale and gas is particularly problematic given that it has been the marginal producer of oil production increases over the past decade or more. Virtually all demand growth has been met by this extraction.
A decline in the overall production of oil/gas hydrocarbons will derail not only utopian dreams of an energy ‘transition’ (since all material extraction, refinement, and manufacturing processes are reliant on these resources; including all non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies and electrical-based products–including artificial ‘intelligence’), but also ramp up geopolitical maneuvering (including hot wars) over hydrocarbon resource reserves.
In fact, some of the consequences of this disaster-in-waiting have actually been with us and building for decades. Some Peak Oil analysts have argued that our ruling elite have been quite aware of the coming ‘challenges’ and have ‘planned’ accordingly, acting on their knowledge in a variety of ways.
Much of the geopolitical gamesmanship of the past half a century or more, for example, has likely been focused upon controlling hydrocarbon reserves. And as these finite reserves get dearer (both in quantity and price), the geopolitical maneuvering has been increasing in intensity–particularly around and within those regions where the remaining reserves exist. The coming wars (or should I say expansion of current ones) may also come with increasing ‘othering’ of those who reside close to ‘our’ resources.
A reminder of which nation states hold the most oil/gas reserves and where regime change operations/wars have occurred, are occurring, or will soon occur…and it’s not over some completely bullshit justification like ‘bringing democracy’ or ‘freedom’ to a region; it’s about expanding the racket that is war and about resources, especially hydrocarbon ones–our ‘rulers’ want to take it from their ‘rulers’. Keeping the gravy train rolling for the entitled few and ensuring the hoi polloi receive some of the spoils so as not to rise up against their ‘leaders’ are paramount–regardless of the impacts upon the masses or ecosystems of our planet.
Accompanying this has also been a lot of denial and bargaining in the narratives being disseminated about the globe, such as the notion of finite limits being meaningless in light of human ingenuity and technological prowess–especially as it pertains to an energy ‘transition’. Depending upon who’s telling the story, everything will be electrified and powered by carbon-free ‘renewables’ and/or nuclear fission/fusion; or, if you really want to ‘jump the shark’, we’ll simply mine passing asteroids or migrate to another planet. Do you believe in magic?
The repercussions of Peak Oil/Gas and the loss of net surplus energy can only but alter our world in a myriad of ways–some of which can be imagined (simplification and localisation is approaching like a bat out of hell) but some that will be complete Black Swan Events for most.
The world is not going to be the same for A LOT of people once we are well into the consequences of Peak Oil/Gas. Not. Even. Close.
And the stories that will be told by us story-telling apes will be something to behold as things unfold–especially by those dominant apes that hold sway over the masses due to their positions atop our power and wealth structures. Our ‘elite’ wish to continue in those spots to maintain their privilege and prestige for as long as they possibly can by whatever means they have–and can get away with.
It is quite possible that the facade of ‘representative democracy’ will finally melt away as the elite consolidate their control over the wealth-generating/-extracting systems that provide their revenue streams (and thus positions of power and prestige). I expect to see the trend of increasing inequality continue and accelerate, as well as the expansion of narrative management to help justify/rationalise the above.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
― Johann von Goethe, 1809
Narrative control is their preferred method as it is less resource intensive and tends to be more effective, but they will not be afraid to use obvious and intentional violence and oppression (framing it in terms that will be more acceptable to those not targeted–at least, for the moment; ponder how some activists/protesters have been vilified and oppressed in recent years). If you think censorship and narrative management is bad now, just wait.
Societies will crumble. Wars will be waged. Billions may perish. It’s not going to be pretty. Not. At. All.
On the positive side, as some have argued, the decline in hydrocarbon reserves may help to slow–and eventually will halt–some of the detrimental consequences of its use due to our extraction and refinement industries and the industrial production of material goods that leads to significant sink overloading and ecosystem destruction.
A reminder that hydrocarbons–especially oil–is THE master resource that supports the growth and maintenance of our societal complexities through its surplus net energy. The loss of this net energy surplus has huge ramifications for almost all aspects of modern, human existence, let alone the creation, maintenance, and distribution of mostly unnecessaryl consumer goods and services.
The production/procurement and distribution of food, potable water, and regional-shelter material-needs all depend significantly upon hydrocarbons. For so-called ‘advanced’ economies, little of these important needs are produced locally or within the natural environmental carrying capacity of regions. Virtually all the people of these economies are significantly dependent upon hydrocarbons in one way or another, even though most have no idea whatsoever.
“There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?” – David Foster Wallace, 2005
Some questions that persist in my mind’s eye as I contemplate the future:
What happens when we no longer have the ability to control/contain/manage those dangerous complexities like the hundreds/thousands of nuclear power plants, chemical production and storage facilities, and biolabs?
What happens when competing polities, who hold thousands of thermonuclear weapons of mass destruction, feel threatened?
What happens when diesel fuels are unavailable or so exorbitantly priced that food production and distribution systems break down for most?
What happens in cold climates during winter when heating by hydrocarbons is unavailable?
As individuals, even relatively well-organized collectives, we have little if any agency in affecting what happens in the future with regard to these potential threats. Even the ruling elite have little were they actually to go against their baser instincts of protecting their personal/familial interests. The wheels are in motion and there’s likely no stopping the slow-moving trainwreck that seems to be our trajectory.
So, grab some popcorn and get ready for all sorts of things to go sideways in a variety of ways in the years ahead. Socioculturally. Sociopolitically. Socioeconomically. We are in for some interesting times for sure.
As I stated at the close of my last Contemplation:
“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.
Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.”
NOTE: Peak Oil was the topic that first grabbed me by the short hairs and pulled me into the rabbit’s hole of societal collapse and ecological overshoot almost 15 years ago. I rented the movie Collapse starring the late Michael Ruppert as my personal pick on a Friday afternoon movie hunt for our weekend family movie night (for me to watch, not the family) at our local Blockbuster back in 2010 and I haven’t viewed the world the same since watching it.
A handful of my most recent Contemplations that have touched upon Peak Oil/Energy:
-Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXV–Energy and Its Interconnections With Our Financialised Economic System. February 7, 2024.WebsiteMediumSubstack
-Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLVII–Overshoot, Hydrocarbon Energy, and Denial: Avoiding the Pain. October 28, 2023. WebsiteMediumSubstack
-Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLVI–Peak Oil, Complexity, Psychology, Magical Thinking, and War. October 26, 2023. WebsiteMediumSubstack
–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLV–Planetary Boundaries, Narrative Management, and Technology. October 23, 2023.WebsiteMediumSubstack
–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIX–Carbon Tunnel Vision And Resource/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 1, September 7, 2023.WebsiteMediumSubstack; Part 2.September 20, 2023.WebsiteMediumSubstack; Part 3. October 6, 2023.WebsiteMediumSubstack
–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXV–Collapse Now To Avoid The Rush: Our Long Emergency. June 6, 2023. WebsiteMediumSubstack
–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXV–Hydrocarbons And The Maximum Power Principle: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? April 22, 2023.WebsiteMediumSubstack
And a handful that have touched upon the consequences of ‘collapse’:
–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXIX–Fiat Currency Devaluation: A Ruling Elite ‘Solution’ to Growth Limits. December 11, 2023.WebsiteMediumSubstack
–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXVI-Societal ‘Collapse’: Past is Prologue. November 27, 2023.WebsiteMediumSubstack
–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLVIII–What Do Previous Experiments In Societal Complexity Suggest About ‘Managing’ Our Future. September 1, 2023. WebsiteMediumSubstack
–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIII–Ruling Caste Responses to Societal Breakdown/Decline. August 3.WebsiteMediumSubstack
–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXI–Sociopolitical Agency, Narrative Control, and Collapse. May 22, 2023. WebsiteMediumSubstack
The Depletion Paradox
Excerpt from Third Quarter Natural Resource Market Commentary
Goehring & Rozencwajg: Natural Resource Investors
-US shale oil and gas production appears to have peaked in November 2023
-G&R models suggest that the decline is set to accelerate
-most view this prediction skeptically, believing higher prices and more drilling will counter declines
-G&R assert that “The primary forces behind the current downturn are neither policy-related nor purely economic—they are geological and inexorable. Depletion, not market dynamics or regulatory overreach, is the central culprit.” (p. 7)
-US conventional crude oil production provides a historical example of what is likely to occur
-crude peaked in 1970 and the OPEC crisis occurred in 1973 prompting the US government to expedite permitting and increase drilling
-despite a significant increase in oil prices and drilling, production declined and history seems to be repeating for the US shale patch
King Hubbert–A History
-in 1956, MK Hubbert (Shell geologist) predicated a peak of US conventional oil extraction to take place in 1970; most were skeptical
-assuming hydrocarbon basins were finite in nature, Hubbert argued that extraction flow would follow a set trajectory–a bell-shaped curve
-Hubbert also developed a method (linearisation) of estimating ultimate recoverable reserve amounts that allowed him to predict a production peak (see Figure 2)
-production stopped growing due to production dynamics and basin depletion
Explaining Hubbert–From Macro to Micro
-Hubbert’s logistic curve has been powerfully predictive but criticised since no one understands why
-it appears that the growth curve results from new wells being added during the early phase of basin extraction with each new well adding to total production
-as time passes, however, mature wells begin to decline in productive capacity and overall growth of production only continues if new well production exceeds older well decline
-eventually, new well production cannot offset the decline of mature wells and extraction plateaus then begins to fall and cannot be reversed by investment in more wells
-“It underscores a fundamental truth: growth is bound not just by resources but by the interplay between new additions and inevitable declines. Higher prices and technological advancements may influence the pace, but they can’t alter the underlying dynamics that eventually lead to a plateau in production.” (p. 12)
-even when production appears robust, depletion is inevitable
More Realistic Examples
-extraction is constrained by two decisions: where and how much to drill
-cautious, slow drilling characterises the early drilling phase in a new basin with activity ramping up once potential is realised
-activity slows once the best spots have been drilled, with subsequent wells being less productive
Conventional US Production–A Case Study
-from 1900 to 1945, US drilling was steady as production soared
-during the 1950s, drilling activity grew (+70%) but productivity did not keep pace (+20%) as depletion rates of mature wells increased
-the 1960s witnessed a drilling focus upon the best basins resulting in a doubling of productivity
-this increase rolled over (peaked) in 1970 as the best regions matured and began declining (falling 75% by the mid-1980s) despite a surge in drilling
Turning to Shales
-shale basins require more drilling due to their extensive layout, with productivity varying widely across a basin
-their production profile begins with high extraction rates followed by a steep decline and prolonged low-rate output tail
-this defies Hubbert linearisation but instead shows a logarithmic relation allowing precise extrapolation of production and peak production timing
Enter Neural Networks
-G&R began developing their own AI in 2019 to help model shale production using well design, subsurface geology, and regional trends (and has been revised over the years to include a larger variety of more precise information)
-predictive curves perfectly match actual production and see peak/rollover around when 28% of recoverable reserves have been extracted; current extraction estimates are at or beyond this point
-“Indeed, total shale oil and gas production likely peaked late last year. Both are already down 1%, and our models predict year-over-year production declines will turn sharply negative within six months.” (p. 21)
Depletion Paradox Redux
-the coming decline in production is occurring at a difficult time given that since 2010, global oil demand has been met almost exclusively by shale extraction, helping to suppress US prices by 80% relative to global prices and grow natural gas-fired electricity production and LNG exports
-inferior geology cannot be remediated
-the 1970s saw production plummet despite higher prices and more drilling, and we are likely going to experience the same for shale
-“In the end, the paradox remains—depletion is an unstoppable force, and it is becoming harder and harder to keep up.” (p. 22)
The more detailed summary notes for this article can be found here.
A collection of graphs, charts, and text screenshots of interest. The data shows the significant increase in U.S. shale oil and gas production since the 1990s.
The rollover/peak of this production has huge implications for not just the US but the entire globe as most production increases over the past two decades have come as a result of US shale extraction. The notion that production can continue to meet increasing demand via investment, increased drilling, and/or new technologies is increasingly being questioned–especially by this G&R commentary.
The world is not prepared for a decline/fall in oil and gas production. It has been lulled into complacency, denial, and bargaining via mass marketing of a faulty narrative. The piper has finished playing and must now be paid. Humanity must now sit down at the banquet of consequences that have accumulated over the past two centuries…
If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).
Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).
If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.
Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99
Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…
If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.
You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton’s Overshoot and Tainter’s Collapse: see here.
Released September 30, 2024
It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 2
A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.
With a Foreword by Erik Michaels and Afterword by Dr. Guy McPherson, authors include: Dr. Peter A Victor, George Tsakraklides, Charles Hugh Smith, Dr. Tony Povilitis, Jordan Perry, Matt Orsagh, Justin McAffee, Jack Lowe, The Honest Sorcerer, Fast Eddy, Will Falk, Dr. Ugo Bardi, and Steve Bull.
The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine–and most certainly than what mainstream media/politics would have us believe.
Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.
Global gross and net-energy of oil liquids production is determined from 1950 to 2050.
Energy required for production is estimated to be 15.5% of the actual gross energy.
Oil liquids become a limit to a rapid and global low-carbon energy transition.
The peak supply vs. peak demand dispute needs to be re-examined.
Focus should be put instead on net-energy transition and wise energy consumption.
Abstract
Since the Pennsylvania oil rush of 1859, petroleum has quickly become the dominant fuel of industrial society. The “Peak Oil” debate focused on whether or not there was an impending production crunch of cheap oil, and whilst there have been no shortages across the globe, a shift from conventional to unconventional oil liquids has occurred. One aspect of this shift was not fully explored in previous discussions–although of some importance in a low-carbon energy transition context: the extent to which the net-energy supply of oil products is affected by the use of lower quality energy sources. To fill this gap, this paper incorporates standard EROI (energy-return-on-investment) estimates and dynamic decline functions in the GlobalShift all-liquids bottom-up model on a global scale. We determine the energy necessary for the production of oil liquids (including direct and indirect energy costs) to represent today 15.5% of the energy production of oil liquids, and growing at an exponential rate: by 2050, a proportion equivalent to half of the gross energy output will be engulfed in its own production. Our findings thus question the feasibility of a global and fast low-carbon energy transition. We therefore suggest an urgent return of the peak oil debate, but including net-energy issues and avoiding a narrow focus on ‘peak supply’ vs ‘peak demand’.
Graphical abstract
Introduction
Today, oil is a critical supply chain component for 90% of all industrially manufactured products [1]; as such, it is the backbone of industrial civilization …
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
I could go on and on about acceptance for probably weeks if not months, but today’s article isn’t about acceptance. Today’s article is about energy and resource decline, one of the symptom predicaments of ecological overshoot and what is commonly referred to as Peak Oil. I have mentioned both energy and resource decline and peak oil many, many times in this blog but have never written an article specifically to address exactly what it is. I came across a publication from Stuart McMillen that makes the topic of Peak Oil easy to understand since it is in comic form. This provides a better explanation than a long-winded blog post because it equates peak oil with something fun – a roller coaster!
Maybe I should try more analogies that include fun things to describe and/or explain overshoot. The roller coaster actually isn’t too bad a description. My office manager calls overshoot by the name trebuchet. She described the action or motion of the sling as that of overshoot, taking the name quite literally. She also uses the term derogatorily when I bring up the subject of overshoot, saying, “We’re not going to talk about trebuchets…” From my perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing overshoot or any of its symptom predicaments such as peak oil or climate change. In fact, I robustly encourage discussion of the predicaments we face. How else is the general public supposed to understand what is actually happening? Attempting to avoid discussing it won’t make it go away or reduce the consequences, so there is absolutely no benefit in not talking about it. I’m rather passionate regarding talking about it, precisely because I think the conversations are very worth having and because I’d like more people to understand the situation more completely.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Theory Is Great, In Theory: More On Our ‘Renewable’ Energy Future
Quite often I get involved in online discussions with others about our predicament(s). Most of the time these are quite friendly in nature and a sharing of ideas and questions.
On occasion these turn into disagreements. And sometimes, unfortunately, these turn quite confrontational with me having to disengage from the dialogue due to the vitriol thrown at me — apparently I am not only anti-humanistic but a Big Oil shill, a climate change denier, and a fucking idiot/liberal/conservative/progressive/Malthusian, etc..
Once the ad hominem attacks begin, I usually just state we will have to agree to disagree and discontinue the interaction. I know people don’t want their beliefs challenged, they want them confirmed so if the interaction has gone sideways there’s little point to continue it. Few if any people change their beliefs due to a well-reasoned or evidence-based argument that runs counter to their own thoughts.
This said, most of the disagreements are civil and the issue stems from a divergence in whether we can ‘solve’ the problem/predicament we are focusing upon. I’ve found that the vast majority continue to believe that we can address the topic we’re discussing via some complex technology — usually non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies such as those that harness wind or sunshine to produce electricity (aka ‘renewables’).
While at one time during my fall into the rabbit’s hole of Peak Oil and all the related issues, I held out ‘hope’ for humanity and our planet. Nowadays, more often than not, I am tending towards there being no way out of the conundrum we walking, talking apes have led ourselves into. Neither time nor resources are on our side it would seem. Salvation, as it were, has been lost to the sands of time.
Here is one recent example with a fellow member of a Degrowth group I am a member of stemming from an article of The Honest Sorcerer’s that I posted to the group.
LK: “Politics” is just a name for technology of resource allocation on a societal scale.
We’re currently using the 18th century technology based on exponential growth (investments are made to obtain money to make more investments), it’s called “capitalism”.
Degrowth is another technology of resource allocation, and the one we need, because exponential growth on a finite planet is not possible.
(Having said that, we still need to combine degrowth with all kinds of low-emissions energy sources like renewables and nuclear, and we need to work on extending the life of existing low-carbon energy sources for as long as possible)
My response:: While I agree that degrowth (and radical at that) is needed, the alternative energy-harvesting technologies to fossil fuels you suggest we need to pursue require huge carbon inputs for their construction (and in perpetuity), continue to contribute to the destruction of our biosphere via the massive mineral mining and processing necessary, and only serve as an attempt to sustain the unsustainable so end up making our fundament predicament of ecological overshoot even worse. We need to be pursuing a low-/no-tech future with one hell of a lot fewer people. It is increasingly looking like it will have to be Nature that takes us there…
LK: The science is quite clear, low carbon energy sources have much, much lower carbon intensity of energy generation over their lifetimes, and lifetime extension to optimise for energy production instead of returns on investment decreases that carbon intensity even further. And fossil fuels have an enormous mining impact.
This is the third line of defense of fossil fuel companies: first they were straight-out lying about climate change, then they were lying about whether climate change is caused by humans, now they are lying about relative impacts of fossil fuel vs low carbon technologies, and it apparently works.
Low-tech future doesn’t work, it’s just a lie fossil companies are telling us to keep burning fossil fuels. We’re a tool-using social species and we need tools to get out of the shit we got into by using tools.
We will have to agree to disagree.
First, it seems you are assuming a support for fossil fuels in my comment that is not present. One does not have to be in any way supportive of the continuation of our extraction and use of them to see that alternatives are in every way — upstream and downstream — still quite dependent upon them. In fact, if you look at the largest investors in support of ‘alternatives’, you will discover it is the large energy businesses (aka Big Oil). Why would that be? Perhaps because they know that fossil fuels are required in huge quantities for them.
Second, the view that only carbon emissions are important blinds people to all the other complexities concerning our predicament of ecological overshoot. Biodiversity loss, mostly because of land system changes brought on by human expansion, appears to be much more significant. A concerted push to adopt non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies will ensure continued destruction of our biosphere.
The current refrain seems to be “Complex technologies and human ingenuity will save us from our predicament of ecological overshoot and its various symptoms (e.g., biodiversity loss) because they’ve worked up to this point in our history”…except inductive reasoning/logic does not always work. Continual observations by the turkey of the farmer have provided nothing but overwhelming evidence and positive reinforcement that the farmer is a beneficent and thoughtful caregiver; right up until the day before Thanksgiving and the trip behind the barn to the killing cone.
You should look at the work of energy researcher Alice Friedemann and geologist Simon Michaux to understand better the limitations of the ‘solution’ referred to as our ‘energy transition’.
But you are correct that a low-tech future doesn’t work. It doesn’t work to support our unsustainable living arrangements but more importantly the power and wealth structures of the status quo…that is why the ruling caste is pushing ‘renewables’: to maintain/expand their share of a quickly-shrinking economic pie. And this is ultimately why we will pursue these complex technologies despite the impossibility of what their cheerleaders promise. The profiteers of our world stand to make one hell of a lot of money before it all goes to hell in a handbasket.
These images/memes perhaps sum my perspective up:
LK: There’s one thing that kills people pretty rapidly and effectively and that is the lack of energy.
You can either support low-carbon energy sources or you can support fossil fuels or you can support widespread energy poverty that kills a fuckton of people, and those will be mainly poor people in the Global South.
Degrowth is not anarcho-primitivism, it’s not about the remnants of humanity huddling in cold and without hospitals and sewage networks, it’s about building sustainable future around equitable use of energy for everyone.
But we need low-carbon energy, because climate change drives biodiversity loss, water crises (because rising oceans make a lot of areas lose their access to potable water) and other nasty third-order effects.
My response: Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Pre/history shows us overwhelmingly that the utopian future you imagine is not possible on a finite planet with 8 billion (and growing). It is denial/bargaining in the face of biogeophysical realities and limits. Ecological overshoot for homo sapiens will be, I am almost certain, dealt with by Nature, not us — particularly given all the claims/liens on future energy/resources in the form of quadrillions of dollars of debt/credit that currently exist and have been created to sustain our current arrangements with zero concern for the future from which the resources have been stolen.
LK: There’s a lot of research by degrowth theoreticians that demonstrates that we’re perfectly technologically capable of supporting 8 billion people on a finite planet, leaving 50% of it to wild nature. It just would be a different life than the US “cardboard houses in suburbia with 2,5 cars per family and 2+ hours of commuting daily, eating beef and flying regularly”.
It would require end of capitalism, though, which is why capitalists are promoting narratives of “we’re doomed, there’s nothing we can do, all alternatives are bad, I guess we’ll have to die off in the future, but so far, we’re bringing in record annual profits”.
My response: Theory is great, in theory. Reality is something quite different. Every complex society to date has perished/collapsed/declined — most before ‘capitalism’ ever existed. To believe we will do otherwise is, well, just denial/bargaining built upon a lot of assumptions and hope. We would be better to plan for a future much, much different than the one you paint. But, again, I think Nature is going to take care of this predicament for us.
After mostly finishing this contemplation I came across Gail Tverberg’s latest that provides some great insight into why the complex technologies many are arguing will help solve our energy dilemma will not.
There are plenty of similar arguments out there if one so chooses to discover them and the overwhelming evidence that ‘renewables’ are not in any way going to do much except: add to the drawdown of finite resources; contribute to the continuous overloading of planetary sinks; provide more profits for the industrialists, financiers, and well-connected elite; and, sustain the misguided belief system that all is well for the most part, and human ingenuity and our technological prowess can solve any problem that stands in the way of some utopian future where we all (billions and billions of us) live in harmony with nature. Transcending the biological and physical constraints of existence upon a finite planet is well within our reach…if only you believe.
If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers). Encouraging others to read my work is also much appreciated.
Photo by Nigel Brown; licensed under Creative Commons
My adult life has run on two diverging tracks. On one, I played science. The other track branched off at age 34—twenty years ago this month—when I started teaching a class on Energy and the Environment. I was eager to piece together our likely energy future: how we would beat climate change and leave fossil fuels in the dust. Against my wishes, this fork presented unexpected turns that took a long time to sink in. The two tracks eventually became too divergent to keep a foot on each. At this stage, I can’t seem to muster the denial it would take to disregard what I have learned so that I might return to the more blissful play-time track.
Much of my writing in the last few years has tried to capture why I have become convinced that modernity can’t last, likely to begin disintegrating in the near-term. In this post, I attempt to distill core elements informing this sense. My apologies if this seems like a rehash. For what it’s worth, the packaging exercise is something that helps me address the question I constantly ask myself: what part of this might I have wrong? It’s a way to take stock.
Growth
I began the Do the Math blog with a pair of posts about why growth can’t last—hitting limits in a historically short time. I also dedicate the first chapters of my textbook to the same topic. In 2022, I synthesized the arguments in an academic paper. This thread should be very familiar by now to my readers, and in fact really ought to be common knowledge. Yet, modernity still operates in a market economy and political system built around a growth expectation. Pension plans and social safety nets (like Social Security and Medicare) become Ponzi schemes unquestionably destined to fail at some point as growth falters.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Preface. When I first published this post in February of 2022, I said that peak world oil production might have arrived, but it takes 5 years in the rear-view mirror to call it. Now peak “crude oil including lease condensate oil” is officially here! Production was less in November 2023 than the peak of global oil production in November 2018. See for yourself at the U.S. Energy Information Administration site here.
You can ignore all the other liquids, they do not make diesel fuel for heavy-duty trucks, locomotives, and ships that do the actual work of civilization. Mainly the other categories are good for plastics, which we have more than enough of. Or ethanol for gasoline, but you’d destroy a diesel engine if you added this to extend diesel fuel. I suspect these categories were added to keep people from panicking like they did in the oil crises of 1973 and 1979. Why would they panic? There is a very tight correlation between fossil production, GDP, and population.
Unconventional shale oil was responsible for over 90% of the increased production above the 2008 plateau with a little help from Canadian tar sands.
Seven of the eight U.S. shale basins are past peak, with only the Permian producing the majority of fracked oil. And it may peak in 2024 (Geiger 2022). Or not, some scientists think the USA shale oil production could be on a plateau until 2040. But at any rate, when shale oil and gas decline, will be a hell of a rollercoaster ride down, since shale oil declines 80% over 3 years. And already 81% of all the other oil production is declining at 8.5% a year, offset by 4.5% enhanced oil recovery.
As the energy crisis in Europe deepens, there could be a sudden mad rush of capital to explore, drill, and produce more oil which would keep the plateau going a bit longer.
“Respect the blob, learn from the blob, love the blob.” — Robert Kagan, Arch Blob Monster, Brookings, 2020
HG Wells concocted a marvelous trick ending to his classic tale The War of the Worlds (1897). Remember: the colossal Martian tripod “fighting machines” swarm all over the planet zapping cities with “heat rays”. . . it looks like all-is-lost . . . but finally the darn things just quit marching, stop zapping, and stand down . . . the alien protoplasms at the controls (surprise ending) turn up dead and rotting inside from the action of our tiny invisible allies: the earth’s one-celled, disease-causing bacteria, to which the Martian blob creatures have no immunity!
The Gaian overtones in that story resound today as we Earthlings devise ingenious new methods to wreck terrestrial life, including ourselves. The planet seems to have some teleological drive to save itself, a kind of immune system. Notice: in all the ongoing debates about the wonders and dangers of A-I, and Bitcoin, and suffocating surveillance, nobody ever talks about the sketchy condition of the electric grid that all these worrisome phenomena utterly rely on. In our chatter over Peak Oil, there’s little awareness of oil production’s utter dependence on steady capital flows. In all the guff about centralized control emitted by Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum, there’s no mention of the centrifugal forces driving human affairs to re-localization, dis-aggregation of large states, and down-scaling of many activities. In our zeal to become Gods, we miss a lot.
Imagine: Bitcoin shoots up to a million dollars. You’re a zillionaire! Uh Oh. . . somewhere outside Zaneseville, Ohio, a squirrel takes a final chaw through some old insulation on a wire coming out of a transformer. His head blows up in a blue arc flash, and in a few seconds all the electricity goes out from Chicago to Boston…
