Skip to main content

Apparently, the possibility that some innovations might be introduced, if they aren’t already in an undefined but probably—or at least likely—manner in certain instances where there could be some potentially good news provided that certain other events fall into place exactly as some are hoping for at some point, but in a good way (just not consistent with facts or reality, but why quibble), then by golly we might possibly see oil prices drop, which, coupled with the distinct possibility that certain savings could be achieved immediately after magic happens, could result in something good—perhaps. (Of course, lower oil prices would lead to lower profits and lower investment funds available and thus end a lot of exploration and production, but hey! Prices will be lower.) We won’t have anything to buy, but it will be cheaper....

That’s the essential point offered in the latest in an endless series of hide-most-of-the-facts nonsense from oil industry cheerleaders, this one courtesy of an article by Gene Epstein, entitled “Here Comes $75 Oil” in Barron's. This one was a gold mine of right-wing Happy Talk: light on facts; big on hype; no context, and ignore the consequences—all designed to help … well, not us. What’s the point?

For the first time in its 150-year history, the internal combustion engine can be run efficiently on alternative fuels from a number of sources, including natural gas. As these alternatives are increasingly introduced, global consumption of oil will slow its growth and flatten out.
[If the link is unavailable, you can read the article here]

The first line does have some truth to it; no dispute there. Nice set-up, but then … the fine art of cherry-picking and dancing around reality begins in earnest.

What are the number of sources? How efficient? Give the Republican Party’s general aversion to investing in research to learn more about … you know, reality, how might that all play out? Infrastructure all set? What should we do with our gas-powered vehicles? When can I turn mine in? And about that “increasingly introduced.” When? How soon before a full transition takes place? What happens in the interim? What if it might possibly not achieve the potential a study suggests could happen under certain circumstances? As for the slowdown of global consumption: When? How? Where? How do we share the potential with several billion others?

Perhaps we should introduce some of these Happy Talkers to the reality of high prices. There’s a long line of other not-quite-so-Happy experts who prefer the factual side of the discussion. Look up almost anything written by Steve Andrews; Chris Nelder; Steve Kopits; Ron Patterson; Gail Tverberg; Chris Martenson; Kurt Cobb; Tom Whipple; Jeffrey Brown; Richard Heinberg, among many others (apologies for not running the long list) who point out that high prices are enabling the oil industry to produce the inferior, more costly, harder-to-extract, environmentally-questionable (I’m being kind) tar sands and tight oil now being relied upon. They also point out that even at current high prices, profit margins are not* justifying further expenditures. Uh-oh! [* added for clarification/correction]

Bean-counters for the fossil fuel industry love high prices! We lowly consumers, not so much. So when real economics come into play and we peons stop coughing up as much money, prices will certainly drop. So won’t production totals. See how that math works? Facts suck!

Did I mention that the conventional supply of crude oil we’ve relied upon for more than a century continues its relentless depletion? Oh, and what happened to the information about the much more rapid decline rates of wells drilled in the shale formations, or the vast trillions of barrels of shale oil whose production has not yet been found commercially feasible? (Of course, to be fair, the industry has only been attempting that for about a century—the fact-based one which has one hundred years in it. But the potential is there!) So what if the environment-savaging tar sands production hasn’t yet met its own lofty potential? Best not to discuss that, actually. My bad.

But there is the natural gas side to turn to. As Mr. Epstein noted:

[S]omething resembling a global market in liquefied natural gas will likely develop

Can’t get more specific and certain than that! (Well, you can, but that would require the introduction of facts, reality, consequences, and context. Who has time for that?)

As for helping the public to understand the realities and challenges of future energy supply so that they and their communities might actually plan for adaptation to a different reality, information (loosely-defined) such as the Barron's article aren’t exactly intended to help at all.

The challenge of adaptation is all the greater—if that’s possible—because from our perspective too many people without the means/opportunities to understand what’s at stake are being fed a steady diet of half-truths, misrepresentations, irrelevancies, nonsense, and in some cases outright lies. If you come to the table without understanding or even knowing the facts, it’s a wee bit more difficult to contribute and then leave with meaningful solutions in hand. Not exactly a major revelation….

There was enough meaty nonsense in the Barron's piece that it merits a second entry all its own. That arrives here on Thursday.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The first line does have some truth to it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The first line does have some truth to it; no dispute there.
    Rudolf Diesel's engine runs just as efficiently on vegetable oil as it does on petroleum, in terms of the percentage of energy contained in the fuel that is available at the crankshaft (the engine's thermal efficiency).  Diesel himself envisioned vegetable oil as a perfectly acceptable and useful fuel for his engine.

    Now, if burning a litre of a petroleum-derived fuel oil releases more heat than a litre of a vegetable oil, the petroleum-derived fuel oil could be seen as a more efficient fuel.  But I think that you will find that vegetable oil is a more efficient fuel in this sense than natural gas is, because of its greater molecular weight and energy density.

    •  Vegetable oil (biodiesel) less ghg impact... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      than natural gas but NG is sooooo cheap right now. Few energy prophet$ called thi$ a generation ago.

    •  Yup. More advantages than that, too. (0+ / 0-)

      Biodiesel makes for a cleaner running engine, too -- just about scrubbing out sludge and crap from an older engine -- sometimes doing dirty to emissions control equipment that gets clogged with all the crap being scrubbed clean.  Sigh -- always a catch.

      The real big win from diesel, though, is that we can't easily get rid of it.  The biggest reason is aviation: diesel and jet fuel are kissing cousins, more or less special versions of kerosene.  Heavy equipment tends to run on diesel as does much military equipment and generators the world over.

      Which is great -- get a diesel now, even if you fill it with petro-diesel.  When the time comes, you're ready.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 03:01:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site