peak oil thoughts

2009-05-01T14:16:00.000-07:00

This note has been provided by Austin Brookes

I am a green party member and deeply concerned about global warming. However the emphasis placed on “Peak Oil” by environmentalists merely plays into the hands of the big oil companies. To be sure, at the present rate of growth there cannot be a lot of time before we meet with “peak liquid oil” but we must remember there are huge quantities of methane in the melting permafrost of the Arctic and even bigger quantities in the methane hydrate deposits of the deep oceans.

The technology of converting natural gas [mostly methane] into liquid petroleum has already been demonstrated by Exxon-Mobil at Motonui in New Zealand. To polymerize methane is not a big problem. It is certainly not as big a problem as artificial sequestration of CO2 in large quantities or developing the semantically absurd “clean coal” technology. However the huge profits being made by those same oil companies as a result of the “peak oil” panic means that they, as potential major investors in the energy industry, will call the shots as to which technologies will be pursued. Given their history of underhanded dealings when trying to discredit scientists’ warning of anthropogenic climate change we should not entrust the earth’s future to their tender care. Currently they come up smelling of roses when there is a small reduction in the price of petrol after a huge price hike merely because motorists, living in a suburban environment designed primarily for the motor car, are grateful for small mercies.

I believe, given their track record that the oil companies, in collusion with the ruling elites of OPEC, are quite likely to have generated the shortage themselves and encouraged the public to accept the concept “peak oil”. The acceptance by ordinary motorists of the likelihood of insufficient supplies leaves them willing to pay more after the initial price shock. The price may go down but not to the previously low levels. Huge windfall profits are made followed by business as usual. There does not even need to be or have been a formal conspiracy. Any half competent marketing person would predict public reaction to a high price oil scare followed by a return to a relative plentiful supply

The oil companies, aided and abetted by vehicle manufacturers, have done this twice before, in the seventies and in the late eighties. In both instances environmental concerns were beginning to gain traction with the public. In both cases a quick bout of high petroleum prices brought the public back into line and the environmental concerns were forgotten. Prices for petroleum were quickly reduced to manageable proportions and there was no lessening of demand and also no let up in marketing pressure to keep on using fossil oil reserves and buying more motor cars. A brief period of really high prices followed by a longer period of moderately high prices pays off. High prices mean high profits for the oil companies and for motor manufacturers as they sell the next generation of “more efficient” vehicles. It is only a problem if there is a great drop in demand. It means big dividends for the old money that dominates such companies and for the elites in oil producing countries. To my knowledge it is 40 years at least since the big oil companies first tried to market the image that they are really “energy companies”. So far only BP has managed to market a few very expensive solar cells to demonstrate this rhetoric. I tend to accept James Lovelock’s [to see his website—just google James Lovelock] theory that the smart thing is for mid latitude island nations to prepare to be oases of survival in a rapidly warming world. They will have to restrict their populations to a manageable size compatible with the island’s resources.

The only major problem for New Zealand is its proximity to an overcrowded Asia which is already feeling the pressure on its food supplies. The only real question is whether New Zealand will be a haven for New Zealanders or a haven for the rich. Guess who is buying up New Zealand’s available real estate? They are doing the same in Chile. You can buy yourself an island of the southern coast of Chile at bargain rates. You can even buy yourself an area equivalent in size to a minor national park. As a result of “Washington consensus” economics both these countries have minimal restrictions on foreign ownership of desirable real estate. Lovelock is not a pessimist and nor am I, which is why I remain a member of the Green party. However we must be prepared for major changes in the earth’s climate and only a residual population of human beings surviving. Hopefully some will be in New Zealand. A further hope must be that the salutary lesson will be that we will never again have uncontrolled population growth coupled to unsustainable economic growth.

PEAK OIL THOUGHTS

peak oil thoughts