If oil reserves are waning, how will we fuel our
future?
Richard
Heinberg
At a Denver airport newsstand,
Richard Heinberg flips through Popular Science. A headline catches his
eye: "Are We Really Running
Out of Oil?" Heinberg, a Santa Rosa journalist and social ecologist, is
writing a book on fossil-fuel depletion. Gazing up from the magazine to
the flurry of passengers, he wonders how the airport will look in two or
three decades.
"By then, oil production will drop by 50 percent,
and there will be virtually no air transport," he thinks. "How many people
will be packing into Boeing 747s if a New York-to Los Angeles fare rises
to $10,000?"
Is this guy for real?
In San Francisco last April, Heinberg makes a case
for his predictions during a lecture on his now published book, The Party's
Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (New Society Publishers,
2003). Heinberg, 52, is a faculty member at New College of California,
a liberal-arts college and graduate school geared toward social activism.
Tall and ascetically thin,. he paces the stage in hiking boots, khakis,
and a cardigan, using no microphone or notes. His approachable manner and
his occasional jokes (often mocking the Bush Administration) lighten his
bleak-some might say extreme-prognosis.
Our fate, he believes, is much more dire than gas
shortages and high air fares. Heinberg says that modern societies are completely
dependent on nonrenewable petroleum and that world oil production will
peak between 2005 and 2010. After the peak, he foresees global battles
for remaining oil, an economic collapse worse than the Great Depression,
automobiles too expensive for anyone but the wealthy, poor crop'yield without
petrochemical fertilizers, mass famine and water scarcity, oceans without
fish, and human overpopulation by the billions. To prevent this scenario,
he says, would require immediate and massive change.
The U.S. and the world are at a crossroads, he believes. "Path
A is to continue the status quo, using guns and bombs to acquire oil," he
says. "It's politically expedient, and it will continue until whoever in
power gets the last drop. Path B is to wake up. Nationally and internationally,
we must map out what's left and distribute it equitably. We must adopt
a slower, simpler lifestyle. We must realize there are alternatives to
continual growth, resource competition, and chaotic collapse."
Fossil fuel depletion gained widespread notice when
renowned geophysicist Marion King Hubbert predicted U.S. crude oil production
would peak between 1966 and 1971-and then the U.S. peak occurred in 1970.
Hubbert believed that the production life of any oil
reservoir follows a bell curve: When a reservoir reaches peak production,
only half of its total oil remains. After the halfway point, he found,
production grows increasingly more challenging and costly.
Hubbert's theories inspired the work of many scientists
and spawned an ongoing debate about global oil depletion. One of his most
famous successors is Cohn Campbell, a prominent geologist based in Ireland,
whose work sets the foundation for Heinberg's views. In a controversial
March 1998 Scientific American article, "The End of Cheap Oil?" Cambell
and coauthor Jean Laherrère concluded that the global peak would occur
around 2010, after which demand would soon exceed supply.
Optimists scoff at such warnings as doomsday nonsense,
asserting that global oil reserves have grown substantially in the past
20 years-and that they continue to grow. But pessimists are skeptical of
rising estimates, arguing that Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC) members greatly inflated reserve figures in the late 1980s to increase
their export quotas. Indeed, global petroleum data are often incomplete,
flawed, or inaccessible-and calculations such as Campbell's are debatable
and difficult to replicate.
Heinberg, clearly in the pessimist camp with Campbell
and his coterie of independent petroleum geologists, says global oil discoveries
peaked in the 1960s. Currently, he says, we find only one barrel for every
four we consume. Matthew Simmons, chairman of the energy investment bank
Simmons & Company International, and an adviser to the Bush Administration,
adds that even in the Middle East, discoveries have been modest in the
past three decades.
"Almost all of Saudi Arabia's production comes from
a handful of very old fields," he says. "Ghawar, the world's largest field,
is injected with seven million barrels of seawater per day to prop up reservoir
pressure." Simmons is referring to the use of water to force oil out, a
process necessary in aging reservoirs.
Optimists counter that we cannot base future discovery
or production on the past. We cannot predict how much oil we can ultimately
recover from every reservoir on earth, they say. Michael Lynch, an energy
economist affiliated with MIT arid president of Strategic Energy & Economic
Research in Amherst, emphasizes that an estimate of "ultimately recoverable
reserves" (URR)-proven reserves plus probable reserves-is not a static
figure. Rather, it depends on dynamic factors, such as new technology.
"Sixty years ago, offshore oil was not included in
estimates because we hadn't developed offshore drilling rigs,' he says. "Then,
20 years ago, we developed the technology to extract deepwater oil. So,
our reserves grew."
Lynch says governmental policy and global politics
also play a role in the fluctuating discovery of new oil. "Global oil discoveries
dropped in the 1970s," he says, "largely due to a drop in Middle East exploration,
when governments nationalized foreign operations and cut back drilling
because demand fell by half." Similarly, he says, drilling in Iran and
Iraq fell sharply in 1980, after the war between the two countries-a drop
caused by political strife, not geological scarcity.
Two months ago, when gas prices spiked across the
U.S., the biggest factor, according to Lynch, was the power outage that
struck the Northeast and Midwest on August 14. The blackout shut down refineries
when gas inventories were low and the Labor Day driving weekend was two
weeks away. Simultaneously, crude oil prices had risen due to the strike
in Venezuela and the war in Iraq. Lynch considers such circumstances as
short-term factors, not indicative of long-term inventory shortages or
production capacity.
Another point of contention is whether unconventional
forms of petroleum should count. For example, Oil & Gas Journal, a foremost
industry publication, reported in January 2003 that Canada has a staggering
180 billion barrels of reserves, while its estimate for Canada in 2002
was only 4.9 billion barrels. The reason for this 175 billion barrel increase:
the 2003 figure includes the Athabasca oil sands in northern Alberta.
But Heinberg dismisses the oil sands as inefficient.
Currently, two tons of sand must he mined to yield one barrel of oil. Further,
the process generates two-and-a-half barrels of oily waste water for even
barrel of oil recovered. Today, at the Syncrude plant in Alberta. a 14-mile
pond of murky water, 20 feet deep, lies atop a 133-foot slurry of sand,
silt, clay, and unrecovered oil. An alternative method of obtaining synthetic
oil from the tar sands uses immense quantities of natural gas-which is
also growing scarce throughout North America-to heat fresh water, which
is injected into the ground to liquefy the bitumen. This process is equally
destructive to the environment and yields little net energy.
In his book, Heinberg cites the clashing viewpoints
of Campbell and Lynch. Campbell, who wrote the foreword to The Party's
Over, says, "Heinberg faces up to the situation squarely .... No one can
pronounce on the consequences of the peak and decline of oil with authority
because it is ... a historical discontinuity without precedent. [But w]hat
he says is eminently reasonable."
But Lynch says that industry outsiders, like Heinberg,
are not experts, but merely policy advocates who amass data to push ideas
that are "a bit wacky and extreme." Referring to Heinberg and other authors
on alternative energy (including social critic and economist Jeremy Rifkin,
who recently published The Hydrogen Economy), Lynch says, "[They] get publicity
and a hearing, but people in the industry mostly roll their eyes."
Both sides agree that estimates for URR range from
roughly 2,000 to 3,000 billion barrels-of which we've found slightly over
1,000 billion barrels. Regardless, considering our worldwide oil consumption
to date (950 billion barrels) and our ever-increasing appetite, cheap and
abundant oil won't last through the century. The real question: Does it
matter?
On ablazing afternoon in July, I drive from Berkeley
to Santa Rosa to meet Heinherg at New Colleges North Bay Campus. where
he teaches a program on Culture. Ecology, and Sustainable Community." My
car is a 1987 Honda, a hand-me-down from Mom that surely earns me brownie
points for energy savingsdecent gas mileage and no new-car production costs
for 16 years. But Heinherg, who got his first car at age 40. trumps me
with his 1980 Mercedes that runs on vegetable oil-based biodiesel.
While he'd encourage anyone to try biodiesel or to
switch to a hybrid. Heinberg nonetheless foresees catastrophic disruptions
in postpeak transportation. Without cheap oil, Heinberg predicts automakers
will manufacture fewer cars, unable to afford energy-intensive production
costs. Road construction will slow or cease, as petroleum is necessary
for asphalt and paving machines. Mass transit will be crippled, for rail
systems require prodigious amounts of energy. Commercial airplanes run
on high-grade kerosene (and there's no comparable technology in sight).
so air travel will be too pricey for middle-class travelers. Tourism will
languish, devastating tourist-dependent places like Hawaii. The global
marketplace, dependent on oil for low-cost transport of raw materials and
finished products. will waneand long-neglected local commerce will be ill
equipped to fill the gap.
Most economists would consider such a downward spiral
improbable. if not ludicrous. Charles Lave, professor emeritus of economics
at the University of California, Irvine, who has written extensively on
energy and transportation, seems sanguine about petroleum depletion though
he advocates conservation and drives only 2,500 miles per year.
According to Lave, when petroleum becomes scarce,
its price will rise-and let loose all the necessary signals. Producers
will have strong incentives to hunt for more oil or to develop alternative
sources. Consumers will reduce their oil consumption, by shortening commutes,
shopping on the Internet, buying fuel-efficient cars, and so forth.
Indeed, after the 1979 oil shock, Americans cut oil
consumption by 15 percent and Persian Gulf imports by 87 percent. New domestic
cars showed fuel economy gains by seven miles per gallon.
Economists point to the historical evolution of energy
sources. The world's economies once relied on burning wood and charcoal
for energy." Lave says. "Wood got scarce: its price rose. People took action,
not governments, but people-and found a wood substitute, coal. They developed
the technology for deep mining and for its uses. End of that energy 'crisis.'"
To economists, it is absurd to plan for risks we
might face in the far-off future. "It's hard to get a handle on how things
can change," Lynch says. "A hundred years ago, people worried about how
New York City would cope with all the horse poop that would be generated
as the population grew."
But Heinberg believes market signals will come much
too late. First, only a huge hit to American pocketbooks will change people's
energy-consumption habits. "We let [the price of gas get so low," Simmons
says, "it can rise by a great deal and be only an annoyance." While Americans
cringe at $2-pergallon gas, he adds. "there is nothing in a Starbucks shop
that costs less than $2.75-and those are cups." It seems high prices at
the pump won't deter driving unless they double or triple.
Second, Heinberg believes the U.S. government lacks
a cohesive, long-range energy policy to increase energy efficiency-and
actually encourages inefficiency. "The U.S. government subsidizes the use
of SUVs by giving small-business owners a $20,000 tax break for buying
one!" he says. Instead, Heinberg suggests the government give a similar-sized
tax deduction for buying a hybrid car or base new-vehicle registration
fees on gas mileage.
Third, while market signals might induce progress
in alternative energy, he believes the U.S. is already lagging in developing
substitutes that will be ready when the price of oil soars. In The Party's
Over, Heinberg writes that current renewable energy provides seven percent
of total U.S. consumption-while petroleum accounts for 30 percent; natural
gas, 24 percent; coal, 23 percent; and nuclear electric power, eight percent.
And most of that seven percent is derived from hydropower, wood, and municipal
waste. Only a minuscule fraction comes from solar photovoltaics and wind,
the renewables that most environmentalists would like to see developed.
"Conservative estimates suggest that at least three
decades would be needed to redesign and replace the entire current fleet
of automobiles." Heinberg says, "as well as power plants, heating and cooling
equipment, and agricultural systems."
He emphasizes that we cannot switch to alternative
sources overnight. To produce a fifth of current U.S. energy annually with
wind power by 2030, he says, we would need to install half a million turbines,
roughly 20,000 per year starting immediately-five times the present world
production rate for turbines. He doubts whether private companies can ramp
up without governmental intervention.
Our current natural gas decline, he says, foreshadows
the oil crisis to come. Industrial consumers of natural gas--such as fertilizer,
chemical, and plastic manufacturers--are already cutting production due
to soaring prices. Eventually, Heinberg says, home users will suffer: Since
the 1990s the U.S. has invested billions on electric power plants fueled
by natural gas-considered efficient and clean burning-assuming we'd have
ample supplies. But North American stocks are low, and importing natural
gas from overseas is extremely expensive.
"During the past three decades, the U.S. should have
been investing in alternative energy sources," he says. "Instead, we spent
$305 billion on the military and less than $5 billion for energy research
and development in 2001." Such spending indicates to Heinberg the U.S.
goal to secure the lion's share of all future oil production. "This does
not bode well for global peace." he says.
Heinberg grew up in St. Joseph, Missouri, the only
son of devout Christian Republicans. From an early age, he knew he was
not like his parents. "I was basically an atheist when I was 12," he says. "They
made me go to church every Sunday, but I was reading Marx, Buddhist literature,
and physics. I didn't want any part of what I saw around me."
Eager to leave his hometown, he attended the University
of Iowa in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But he soon grew so disturbed
by U.S. foreign policy and the turmoil around him-political assassinations
and Vietnam-that he dropped out. "An ordinary career of going to school,
getting a degree, and finding a job at some corporation seemed like the
most absurd thing one could possibly do with one's life," he says.
For nearly two decades, Heinberg, who is also a professional
violinist, lived in alternative communities in over a dozen cities across
the U.S. and Canada. Twelve years ago, he settled in Santa Rosa and began
publishing a monthly newsletter, MuseLetter, which was nominated in 1994
by One Reader for an Alternative Press Award.
A few years ago, he installed photovoltaic panels
to power his home with solar energy even though his PG&E usage was low,
only onefifth that of the average California household. "I want to have
electricity when the rates are skyrocketing," he says. Likewise, he adds, "My
wife and I planted nut trees in our backyard, and we grow a lot of our
food, not just because we care about organic farming-we want to be able
to feed ourselves."
Heinberg tries to live the alternative path that
he champions: a return to small, sustainable, slowerpaced communities where
people live closer to nature and are less competitive and materially greedy.
His vision is to overhaul our current lifestyle and facilitate a "managed
collapse" rather than to find an oil substitute that will perpetuate growth-in
economy, population, globalization, and natural-resource consumption. "Energy
is the limiting factor du jour," he says. "It's the wake-up call. Later
in this decade, it will be water, topsoil, biodiversity, overfishing of
the oceans."
His ideal sounds like a throwback to old-fashioned
village life. But what about the benefits of modern teihnology, like affordable
jet travel, cosmopolitan cities, medical breakthroughs, abundant fresh
food, and instantaneous electronic communication? Heinberg concedes that
the lifestyle we expectwhich he, too, enjoys-requires an industrial infrastructure.
But he also believes we've reached the climax of upward mobility and "the
good life," as we have defined it. Fossil fuels have created a "party" for
the lucky who live in industrialized countries. But, he says, the party
will soon be over. We have a choice either to ration our supplies, fix
our mistakes, and plan for the next generations-or to revel until the bitter
end. •
Luci Yamamoto, a former attorney,
is a freelance writer based in Berkeley. Her work has appeared in publications
including the San Francisco Chronicle and The Threepenny Review. Her last
article for The Monthly was "Railroading BART" published in February 2003.
