Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

A new free online course, Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, begins April 28, 2015 courtesy of edX and the University of Queensland Australia. 

From the course description: "This course will give you the tools to identify, understand, and respond to climate facts and climate myths. We'll look at the psychology, we'll explain the science, we'll examine the mistaken arguments that distort that science. This will equip you to distinguish information from misinformation. You'll learn how to respond to climate myths by fighting sticky myths with even stickier facts."

Course participants will learn:

• How to recognize the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
• How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
• How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
• How to effectively debunk climate misinformation

Register for the course on the edX website.

"Shale Plays Have Years, Not Decades"

If you ever have a few hours free and you need a good video overview to develop a more realistic view of oil (and a window into the pessimistic side of the Peak Oil Debate held by people like me), you can't go wrong by choosing Steven Kopits early 2014 talk or by choosing any of Art Berman's talks on shale like his great 2013 talk to the Houston Geological Society (HGS). Or Art's recent 2015 update to the HGS embedded above.

These presentations will give you great background to re-think common oil and shale industry hype and insight into factors that don't often make the news. Art's talks in particular tend to focus on the little discussed aspects of shale profitability. The simple fact is that oil production continues to cost more and more money, requiring higher oil prices to breakeven and larger amounts of debt to stay afloat. When the money and investors dries up, production is soon to follow.

This talk is the first time Art has publicly used a term that's sometimes associated with him, even though he never actually said it until now. He called shale a Ponzi Scheme. Talk is talk and hype is hype, but in the end, shale just has to work in a financially sustainable way, and it simply doesn't. Big production gains can only mask that for awhile, but eventually investors will catch on, then the house of cards will tumble down.

The Paradox of Oil→

“In this article I outline and analyse various explanations for why the price of oil has fallen so dramatically in recent months and present some considered but tentative hypotheses about what we can expect from the oil markets in coming years. I also hope to challenge the naive conclusion – drawn all-too-hastily in the mainstream media – that the drop in price somehow debunks the analytical framework of the ‘Peak Oil’ school...

Those who claim that the effects of cheap oil are ‘clearly positive’ are at best being simplistic and are at worst just plain wrong....

The fall in prices... undermines the oil industry by scaring off capital investment in an age when the costs of establishing and drilling new fields is relentlessly on the rise, due to declining energy returns on investment. Cheap oil therefore is likely to retard mid-to-long term production, setting the scene for a foreseeable mid-range supply crunch that will soon enough push prices back up. ”

— Samuel Alexander

Samuel Alexander's paper "The Paradox of Oil: The Cheaper It Is, The More It Costs" is an excellent review of modern Peak Oil thought. It's well worth reading both as a review of important concepts and for the impressive list of references at the end. 

The paper describes what's sometimes referred to as the "Goldilocks Zone" for oil production - there's danger on both oil price extremes, the price can't be too low or too high, it needs to be just right.

Sure, there are some out there making bold claims that oil is going fall to $10 or $20. But oil producers are businesses. They won't just happily produce away regardless of price and profit. Just as investors won't continue to pump money into ventures that don't provide an adequate return on investment.

The cure for low oil prices is always low oil prices. Just as the cure for high oil prices is always high oil prices.

And remember to revisit Steven Kopits' talk from this time last year. If producers were having that much trouble at $100 oil, you can imagine how they're doing at half that.

Statistical Realism→

“...the output of the average well drilled in the Bakken slumps by 85 percent over the first three years of production... by comparison, the production decline at Ghawar, the world’s largest conventional oil field in Saudi Arabia, is about 5 percent per year. “The problem is that all shale plays ramp down much faster than conventional oil fields,” said Hughes, pointing out that steep decline curves are inherent with shale oil fields and yet rarely mentioned in breathless discussions of the riches of the Bakken and Eagle Ford.”

From a longer profile of David Hughes by Jeremy Miller titled "Statistical Realism: David Hughes crunches unpopular numbers for the shale oil boom"

There Is No Free Market In Energy

Remember, if you ever hear a politician preaching an "all of the above" energy policy and that we can't "pick winners and losers" - what they're really advocating is business as usual. And they're advocating for avoiding difficult choices.

Because our policies absolutely prioritize certain fuels over others. 

If someone ever, really, advocated for a true free market in energy, where no one receives subsidies, tax breaks, or special deals - that's a deal the renewable energy lobby would accept in a heartbeat, and a deal the fossil fuel lobby would violently reject.

That's the tradeoff. We subsidize fossil energy because to do otherwise would raise the cost of fossil energy. But the higher cost of fossil energy would make renewables far more competitive and speed their adoption. 

As is the case for many policy decisions, it's a choice of if you want the pain now in terms of the economic damage of higher energy prices, or the pain later in terms of greater energy transition challenges and climate impacts. 

• 350.org highlights a cartoon that openly asks what else we could do with the $2 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies
• In 2013, I highlighted an IMF report that seeks proper pricing for fossil fuels

It's Supposed to Be Wrong, But Effective

“One thing that I would point out is that it’s very important for people to be skeptical and anticipate that people will be misleading to the public. Some of the misinformation that’s out there is not accidental. I think there’s quite a bit that’s put into the public discourse in order to have a political effect. It’s supposed to be wrong, but effective.

What our research shows is that if people are aware of the possibility that they might be misled ahead of time, then they’re much better at recognizing corrections later on.”

That's a quote from Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist at the University of Bristol and co-author of The Debunking Handbook. It is taken from an interview of Lewandowsky titled "How to debunk false beliefs without having it backfire."

The quote above speaks to a point I often try to drive home: That some misinformation is not accidental. 

My very first post on this blog examined what I considered the worst and most misinforming energy chart of 2013. Part of the story is to examine the chart and understand WHY it's misinformation. But the next question, the question rarely asked, is the WHY of the chart itself. You have to go out of your way to produce the chart like that. Someone has the intent to make the chart like that. Someone signs off on it and commands the graphics staff to make the chart like that. The question is why?

Here on the blog I also often discuss the changing definition of "oil" over time. And two classic articles by Chris Nelder and Kurt Cobb examine the differences between how we used to discuss oil data previously and how that has changed. And it wasn't industry groups changing the presentation of data to bolster numbers - this was the EIA and the IEA themselves, organizations that hold almost universal trust from a public that would never question their data or motives. The result of the change is the well-known talking-point that the United States is now the number one producer of oil. Is that talking-point true? Again, it all depends on how you choose to define oil. 

The latest piece this week from Cobb actually looks at the growing movement to go around the EIA and IEA in pursuit of energy data (and a couple of weeks ago, Cobb also looked at the dangers that arise when EIA forecasts are wrong - as they frequently are).

The question again, is why. Why change the definition of oil to include various other liquids? What was the catalyst over the past 15 years that caused and explains this change? Satisfactory answers to these questions are rare.

It's like the old-saying says: Sometimes you have to revert to a child-like mind and be willing to ask WHY five times in order to get to the truth of a matter.

Merchants of Doubt (2015) - A documentary that looks at pundits-for-hire who present themselves as scientific authorities as they speak about topics like toxic chemicals, pharmaceuticals and climate change.

Remembering William Catton Jr.

Like many, I only recently heard of the passing of William Catton Jr, author of the 1982 book "Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change."

Richard Heinberg and John Michael Greer have both written excellent remembrances of Catton:

• "Thanks, Bill" by Richard Heinberg (Feb 5, 2015)
• "As Night Closes In" by John Michael Greer (Feb 5, 2015)

Greer writes of the one time he had the chance to meet Catton, a 15-minute conversation over dinner at the 2011 ASPO-USA conference. Since I had a hand in planning that conference in Washington DC, I'm happy to have had a small part in that meeting.

And it seems fitting to revisit Catton's talk from that conference in the video below. Through the large help of the offices of Congressman Roscoe Bartlett and Congressman Mike Honda (who were both in attendance), we were able to secure the Congressional Auditorium at the U.S. Capitol Visitor's Center inside the U.S. Capitol as our venue for the first day of the conference. 

From this esteemed stage, Catton spoke of lessons learned over a long life and of visions for the future.

William R. Catton, Jr - Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Sociology, Washington State University;

An analysis of the fundamental trends underlying the Peak Oil and resource depletion issue, and the implications for the economy, energy security, and global stability.

Should Environmentalists Stop Using Fossil Fuels?

WSJ letter: If greens really believe fracking is wrong, then they shouldn't use any products derived from oil & gas http://t.co/wa3e6x4HV3

— Steve Everley (@saeverley) December 30, 2014

I always get a chuckle out of the "Stop-Using" strawman argument. In short it's the line of thinking that says that if you're opposed to fossil fuel production than you shouldn't be allowed to use the products of fossil fuels. 

And you hear versions of this from time to time. There's the fake outrage people have when they discover an environmentalist using plastic bags at the grocer. Or the fake outrage people have when they discover the shocking truth that Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, lives in a large house or occasionally travels in an airplane. 

I wrote about this before in a piece titled "No, You Can't Just Pretend That People Hate Fossil Fuels" 

Notice that environmentalists never make the opposite claim: That if someone opposes solar power, then they are hypocrites if they do not instantly stop using all the products of solar power. These of course would include all plant and animal life and... oh yeah... fossil fuels.

It's always easy to spot when an arguer is walking into strawman territory when their claim becomes person-centered as opposed to issue-centered. All of these discussions are about people. They aren't about fossil fuels or solar power, they're misinformation about a person's claim combined with an attack on the person making the (now re-imagined) claim.

Products from Fossil Fuels

Just because a person is concerned with the financial sustainability of fracking, doesn't automatically mean they're opposed to fracking. Just because a person is concerned about potential environmental damages of fracking, doesn't mean they are opposed to fossil fuel production. Just because a person is concerned with climate change and the need to reduce emissions, doesn't mean they lack appreciation for the benefits and advantages fossil fuels and modern technology bring to the world.   

We have to guard against living in a world of absolutes, and recognize that the ability to see multiple perspectives isn't being hypocritical, it's exercising a strong maturity of thought.

Adult thinking about these issues challenges us to walk the difficult path and find the nuanced middle ground. Nothing in policy is ever simple. There are always hard choices. There are always tradeoffs. Anyone that tells you otherwise is lying to you.

Must Read: Arthur Berman on the Real Cause of Low Oil Prices

I touched a little on Arthur Berman's views in a recent article on why break-even price is a sort of silly metric to focus on during the oil price slide. In a new interview with Oilprice.com, Art expands on those thoughts.

First, Art's easy to digest quote on the current oil situation:

"The current situation with oil price is really very simple. Demand is down because of a high price for too long. Supply is up because of U.S. shale oil and the return of Libya’s production. Decreased demand and increased supply equals low price."

On break-even prices (emphasis mine):

"We’ve read a lot of silly articles since oil prices started falling about how U.S. shale plays can break-even at whatever the latest, lowest price of oil happens to be. Doesn’t anyone realize that the investment banks that do the research behind these articles have a vested interest in making people believe that the companies they’ve put billions of dollars into won’t go broke because prices have fallen? This is total propaganda.

... smart people don’t invest in things that break-even. I mean, why should I take a risk to make no money on an energy company when I can invest in a variable annuity or a REIT that has almost no risk that will pay me a reasonable margin?

Oil prices need to be around $90 to attract investment capital. So, are companies OK at current oil prices? Hell no! They are dying at these prices. That’s the truth based on real data. The crap that we read that companies are fine at $60/barrel is just that. They get to those prices by excluding important costs like everything except drilling and completion. Why does anyone believe this stuff?

... the real question is “when will people stop giving these companies money?” When the drilling slows down and production drops—which won’t happen until at least mid-2016—we will see the truth about the U.S. shale plays. They only work at high oil prices. Period."

Finally, numerous analysts have suggested that technological advances caused the drop in oil price, and that Peak Oil was proven wrong - not so fast, Art claims:

"Who said that technology is responsible for increasing production? Higher price has led to drilling more wells. That has increased production. It’s true that many of these wells were drilled using advances in technology like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing but these weren’t free. Has the unit cost of a barrel of oil gas gone down in recent years? No, it has gone up. That’s why the price of oil is such a big deal right now.

Domestic oil prices were below about $30/barrel until 2004 and companies made enough money to stay in business. WTI averaged about $97/barrel from 2011 until August of 2014. That’s when we saw the tight oil boom. I would say that technology followed price and that price was the driver. Now that prices are low, all the technology in the world won’t stop falling production.

Many people think that the resurgence of U.S. oil production shows that Peak Oil was wrong. Peak oil doesn’t mean that we are running out of oil. It simply means that once conventional oil production begins to decline, future supply will have to come from more difficult sources that will be more expensive or of lower quality or both. This means production from deep water, shale and heavy oil. It seems to me that Peak Oil predictions are right on track.

Technology will not reduce the break-even price of oil. The cost of technology requires high oil prices. The companies involved in these plays never stop singing the praises of their increasing efficiency through technology—this has been a constant litany since about 2007—but we never see those improvements reflected in their financial statements. I don’t doubt that the companies learn and get better at things like drilling time but other costs must be increasing to explain the continued negative cash flow and high debt of most of these companies.

The price of oil will recover. Opinions that it will remain low for a long time do not take into account that all producers need about $100/barrel. The big exporting nations need this price to balance their fiscal budgets. The deep-water, shale and heavy oil producers need $100 oil to make a small profit on their expensive projects. If oil price stays at $80 or lower, only conventional producers will be able to stay in business by ignoring the cost of social overhead to support their regimes. If this happens, global supply will fall and the price will increase above $80/barrel"

Definitely read the full interview for Art's thoughts on global shale development, renewables, and natural gas.

Critical Thinking in Global Challenges

Critical thinking is a skill that's important for all of us to continually develop. 

Luckily, the educational platform Coursera is offering their free course "Critical Thinking in Global Challenges" beginning on January 19, 2015. You can register on the course site. 

Here is the course overview:

"Critical thinking is the ability to gather and assess information and evidence in a balanced and reflective way to reach conclusions that are justified by reasoned argument based on the available evidence. Critical thinking is a key skill in the information age, valuable in all disciplines and professions. 

This introductory course will give you the opportunity to better understand what critical thinking is, and to practice and enhance your critical thinking skills. To do so, we will use the context of some important global challenges that affect us all, and to which we have no clear “correct” solutions: for example, the risk and spread of serious infectious diseases in epidemics in modern societies, the implications of increasing human population on global resources, energy, environment and climate, and the challenges of human health and wellbeing in the modern world. Possible solutions to global issues such as these are hotly debated, and give the perfect setting to practice recognizing and evaluating facts, ideas, opinions and arguments." 

Also of interest is the Coursera course: "Introduction to Sustainability" beginning in April 2015. This course "introduces the academic discipline of sustainability and explores how today’s human societies can endure in the face of global change, ecosystem degradation and resource limitations." And it should provide a good overview of population, climate change, Peak Oil, agriculture, water depletion, and everything in between.

Thanks Everyone

Just a quick word of thanks for all the nice words, feedback, and constructive criticism for my article "In Search of Oil Realism." I appreciate all of you.

And a big thanks to Scott Barkow for mentioning the article in the Globe and Mail:

"Energy industry expert D. Ray Long presents a wonderfully even-handed review of the peak oil debate that rightly dismisses the exaggerations and hyperbole on both sides."

Good, balanced response by @RayLongDC to @russellgold's "Why Peak-Oil Predictions Haven't Come True" http://t.co/NtIjF9aZEp

— Chris Nelder (@nelderini) October 1, 2014

Slow clap for @RayLongDC, h/t @nelderini: In Search of Oil Realism http://t.co/eaieLIQhtj

— Avi (@Avi_Jacobson) October 1, 2014

+1 RT @nelderini: Good, balanced response by @RayLongDC 2 @russellgold’s “Why Peak-Oil Predictions Haven’t Come True” http://t.co/isaK09Vua4

— Alan Nogee (@alannogee) October 1, 2014

A very thoughtful response to @russellgold's piece on Peak Oil - important reading: http://t.co/RsI7Z37lJB h/t @nelderini

— Matthew Lewis (@mateosfo) October 1, 2014

Thanks @raylongdc for balanced response to my peak oil is dead essay. http://t.co/ETQRHR24pF

— Russell Gold (@russellgold) October 1, 2014

In Search of Oil Realism - great @RayLongDC response to @RusselGold re #peakoil: http://t.co/Y4ZgZPQetl pic.twitter.com/tPPVsq4Eif

— Post Carbon Inst. (@postcarbon) October 1, 2014

BIG kudos to @russellgold for highlighting @RayLongDC's thoughtful response to his peak oil is dead piece. Classy. Now go read both!

— Elias Hinckley (@EliasHinckley) October 2, 2014

"The optimists were just as wrong as the pessimists." Great piece on #PeakOil from @RayLongDC: http://t.co/nNd4sk445z (HT @nelderini)

— Ed Crooks (@Ed_Crooks) October 2, 2014

Phenomenal contribution to the "Peak Oil" debate from @RayLongDC. Read it now, energy nerds. http://t.co/oOieFeUUab

— Ben Serrurier (@bserrurier) October 2, 2014

One of the best things I've read on "peak oil", what it means, where it is now http://t.co/CgGJeN4iPr ht @Ed_Crooks @nelderini

— Kate Mackenzie (@kmac) October 3, 2014

Subscribers: What both sides of the peak-oil debate are getting wrong http://t.co/uGQAc6wgFy @SBarlow_ROB

— Report on Business (@globebusiness) October 3, 2014

Excellent analysis and overview by @RayLongDC on the #peakoil debate in 2014. Can highly identify with his approach. http://t.co/ZudMJk2WsT

— Georg Günsberg (@georguensberg) October 4, 2014

excellent piece "In Search of Oil Realism" by @RayLongDC http://t.co/jUwDKb5EoM #peakoil debate is about correct data ht @georguensberg

— walter palmetshofer (@vavoida) October 5, 2014

“@bserrurier: Phenomenal contribution to the "Peak Oil" debate from @RayLongDC. Read it now, energy nerds. http://t.co/6OaKwGxJf8”

— Mark C. Lewis (@MCL1965) October 4, 2014

"#Peakoil realism" indeed from D. Ray Long... http://t.co/5XX6MVWbAq via @RayLongDC

— Resilience.org (@buildresilience) October 2, 2014

The Peak is the Maximum Rate

CHART: World oil production 1950-2014.... Peak what? pic.twitter.com/f9ppfC7gY0

— Mark J. Perry (@Mark_J_Perry) September 29, 2014

Mark Perry can always be counted on to gleefully make a new chart for every new uptick in oil production over on his Carpe Diem blog for the American Enterprise Institute (like this and this and this). 

But in this case he took the chart on the left from the Wall Street Journal article I discussed recently (I also discussed the fact that the chart would look very different if "natural-gas liquids" were not included). 

I'm always reminded of an anecdote from Matt Simmons where he recalled magazines from 1970 where writers smugly observed that US oil production was at historic highs, while teasing M. King Hubbert for his predictions of early 1970s oil production peak. 

Of course, the ironic part about all of this is that the peak of production, by definition, occurs at the point of highest production.

The debate isn't about how oil production looks right now, the debate is about providing evidence for sustainable oil production growth in the future.

1970 was a long time ago, but it's important to remember those who assumed US oil production would continue skyward in those days, and the rude awakening in the years that followed.

The Benefits of Connected Cars

In late August, I had the pleasure of attending the "Accelerating Sustainability: Demonstrating the Benefits of Connected Cars" event here in Washington DC (I'm a little hard to miss in the video below). 

Years ago, I remember giving a talk about self-driving cars and one of my statements was that "the magic isn't that the car is driving itself, the magic is that every car knows - with 100% certainty - everything all the other cars know as well."

I know that sounds a little "woo woo" and out there with the car chase scene from Minority Report, but it's true - once you remove that uncertainty of what all the other vehicles on the road are going to do from one moment to the next, then traffic and transportation as we know it completely changes. 

But even before you get to that far future scenario, many technologies in the near future will have an effect on cutting oil consumption and GHG emissions. From the description of the event:

"ITS America President Scott Belcher and Analyst Anthony Shaw will describe their new report, followed by a panel discussion of leading experts on the role of policy and innovation in ensuring that such technologies are unleashed to reduce our current annual average of over 6 billion barrels of oil used, roughly 1.7 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions emitted, and billions of hours wasted on US roads."

You can read the report here and video of the panel is on the right.

History of Energy in 10 Minutes

Charlie Hall recently shared the link to the nice video below via his email blast. He even appears himself in the section on Energy Return On Investment (EROI). The description of the video: 

"All forms of economic production and exchange involve the transformation of materials, which in turn requires energy. Until recently cheap and seemingly limitless fossil energy has allowed many to ignore the important contributions from the biophysical world to the economic process and potential limits to growth.

The video that follows, commissioned by the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID) and developed by the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF) and Next Generation Energy Initiative (NGEI), examines the energy used by modern economies over time. This work centers on assessing the relation of energy costs of modern day society and its connection to the quality of human life. A focus of this video is energy return on investment (EROI) and some important characteristics of our major energy sources over time."

Geology is Crushing Technology→

In July, I highlighted James Hamilton's paper "The Changing Face of World Oil Markets," as well as the critical response from Reuters writer John Kemp. But I didn't circle back to also highlight Steven Kopits reply to Kemp that appeared in Platts: "Hamilton has it right on oil." 

You should definitely read the entire thing, but here's a short quote below on Capex. Kopits discussed the capex issue in great detail in his Columbia University presentation earlier this year (and if you haven't seen that, then go watch it immediately). But the short and simple version: Oil companies are spending more money, while gaining less production. Here's Kopits:

View fullsize

"...productivity of capital has deteriorated by a factor of four, from $5,300 capex b/d of oil production in 2004 to $21,400 in 2013. This deterioration is net of technology improvements. Geology is not only winning, it is crushing technology.

Hamilton’s graph testifies to the grizzly unraveling of the economics underpinning oil production since 2005.  For the oil business as a whole, productivity has imploded, not improved."