Book Review of “War: How Conflict Shaped Us”

Preface.  This is a very profound and wide-ranging book about many aspects of war, the reasons for fighting, what it’s like to be a soldier, women’s roles during wars, the history and future of war, and more, a really outstanding book.  What follows are some of my kindle notes, a lazy book review meant to give you an idea of whether you’d like to purchase the book. These fragments are out of context and leave much out. It is especially timely now that Russia has invaded Ukraine and the Great Game – Resource Wars — may be back (especially since world oil production likely peaked in 2018).

Other books about war are in this list: Booklist: War, Limits to Growth, Overpopulation, Collapse, Pollution, Resource depletion, Infrastructure, Peak everything, Transportation

Continue reading

Posted in Over Oil, War Books | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Book Review of “War: How Conflict Shaped Us”

Criticism of Dawn Of Everything

I’d read a lot of anthropology decades ago so much of “Dawn” sounded right and plausible.  But it seemed too good to be true, and I’ve been looking since then for criticism. Much of what I’ve found was full of straw man arguments and dense bureaucratic language that was hard to understand.

But the podcast by Daniel Bitten (aka WorldWideScrotes) , “What is Politics” (transcripts here) is quite good, and makes me feel a bit dumb not to have seen the many flaws in “Dawn”. Though I don’t regret reading it — much is true and it was fascinating to learn about past societies.

Continue reading

Posted in Dawn of Everything | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

Why mining to make renewables will destroy the planet

Figure 1 Landscape of earth after 37% is mined to build renewables

Preface. As I wrote in Life After fossil fuels: “Mining spews out acid rain, wastewater, and heavy metals onto land, water, and air (PEBI 2016). One-fifth of China’s arable land is polluted from mining and industry (BBC 2014). Mining the materials needed for renewable energy potentially affects 50 million square kilometers, 37% of Earth’s land (minus Antarctica), with a third of this land overlapping key biodiversity areas, wilderness, or protected areas. If mined, that would drive biodiversity loss, harm (rain) forests, and poison ecosystems (Kleijn et al. 2011; Hickel 2019; Sonter et al. 2020).”

Figure 1 shows what the landscape might look like after we mine the Earth to create so-called renewables. Which are not renewable, merely rebuildable since they depend on fossil fuels for every single step of their life cycle, from mining, crushing and smelting metals out of the ore, fabrication of parts, delivery of parts and final turbine or solar panel to a construction site. So much energy is required to recycle turbines and solar panels that they typically end up in landfills (Martin 2020, Kisela 2022).

With world peak oil production likely in 2018, there’s no time left to invent ways to electrify essential areas of society that are dependent on fossil fuels. Without diesel, civilization stops within a week as trucks stop farming, logging, mining, transporting goods, construct roads and buildings, and bring raw materials to factories. Ditto for locomotives and ships. Without fossil fuels, manufacturing ends because cement, steel, glass, ceramics and more depend on the high heat of fossil fuels.

And as energy declines, the prices for mining will skyrocket, and remote or difficult areas unexploited. Mining requires a tremendous amount of energy and time: a productive mine on average takes 16.5 years to build.

If you’ve gotten this far still believing that renewables are clean and green, try to get past this sentence: Over the next 30 years 7.5 billion of us we will consume more minerals than the last 70,000 years of the past 500 generations, which is more than all of the 108 billion humans who have ever walked the Earth.

Mining requires the extraction of solid ores, often after removing vast amounts of overlying rock. Then the ore must  be processed, creating an enormous quantity of waste – about 100 billion tonnes a year, more than any other human-made waste stream. Mineral extraction is also filthy in causing 10% of human greenhouse gas emissions.  In Brazil a study found that a single mine can disturb the surrounding 70 kilometers of land, not just with toxic waste, but roads to move the materials. There goes biodiversity!

An electric car requires 6 times more minerals than a petrol one (excluding steel & aluminum). An offshore wind turbine 13 times more than an equivalent gas-fired power plant.

Much of this draws on Pitron’s book “The rare metals war”, the best book I have found on the topic, full of citations so you can learn more, unlike other angry rant books on this topic with few and out of date citations.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Pitron G (2020) The Rare Metals War: The Dark Side of Clean Energy and Digital Technologies. Scribe US.

The solution seems obvious: reopen rare metal production in the United States, Brazil, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and even in the ‘dormant mining giant’ of France. Enter the next predicament: mining these rare minerals is anything but clean! But extracting and refining rare metals is highly polluting, and recycling them has proved a disappointment.

We are therefore faced with the paradox that the latest and greatest technology (and supposedly the greenest to halt the ecological countdown) relies mostly on ‘dirty’ metals. Thus, information and communication technologies actually produce 50% more greenhouse gases than air transport!

From the 1970s, we turned our sights to the superb magnetic, catalytic, and optical properties of a cluster of lesser-known rare metals found in terrestrial rocks in infinitesimal amounts. Some of the members of this large family sport the most exotic names: rare earths, vanadium, germanium, platinoids, tungsten, antimony, beryllium, fluorine, rhenium, tantalum, niobium, to name but a few. Together, these rare metals form a coherent subset of some 30 raw materials with a shared characteristic: they are often associated with nature’s most abundant metals.

Purifying a single tonne of rare earths requires using at least 200 cubic meters of water, which then becomes polluted with acids and heavy metals. On top of that, imagine the destruction and energy required to obtain these essential metals:

  • 18,740 pounds of purified rock  to produce 2.2 pounds of vanadium
  • 35,275 pounds of ore for 2.2 pounds of cerium
  • 110,230 pounds of rock for 2.2 pounds of gallium
  • 2,645,550 pounds of ore to get 2.2 pounds of lutecium
  • staggering amounts of ore are needed for other metals

(Wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars) are packed with rare metals to produce decarbonized energy that travels through high-performance electricity grids to enable power savings, which are also driven by digital technology heavily dependent on these same metals.

Enter the military, which is pursuing its own energy transition. Or strategic transition. While generals are unlikely to lose sleep over the carbon emissions of their arsenals, as oil reserves dwindle they will nevertheless have to consider the possibility of war without oil. Back in 2010, a highly influential American think tank instructed the US army to end its reliance on fossil fuels by 2040 (Parthemore 2010 Fueling the future force). How will they do this? By using renewable energy, and by raising legions of electrically powered robots recharged with renewable energy plants. Wow, a think tank paid to produce science fiction.

China has used barely credible chicanery to position itself as the sole supplier of the most strategic of the rare metals. Known as ‘rare earths’, they are difficult to substitute, and the vast majority of industrial groups cannot do without them. Most rare earths cannot be substituted.

An ecological observation: our quest for a more ecological growth model has resulted in intensified mining of the Earth’s crust to extract the core ingredient — rare metals — with an environmental impact that could prove far more severe than that of oil extraction.

Changing our energy model already means doubling rare metal production approximately every 15 years.

At this rate, over the next 30 years we will need to mine more mineral ores than humans have extracted over the last 70,000 years.

The continued existence of the most sophisticated Western military equipment (robots, cyberweapons, and fighter planes, including the US’s supreme F-35 stealth jet) also partly depends on China’s goodwill.

By seeking to break free from fossil fuels and turn an old order into a new world, we are in fact setting ourselves up for a new and more potent dependence.

We thought we could free ourselves from the shortages, tensions, and crises created by our appetite for oil and coal. Instead, we are replacing these with an era of new and unprecedented shortages, tensions, and crises.

From tea to black oil, nutmeg to tulips, saltpeter to coal, commodities have been a backdrop to every major exploration, empire, and war, often altering the course of history.

These critical metals are associated with abundant metals found in the Earth’s crust, but in minute proportions. For instance, there is 1,200 times less neodymium and up to 2,650 times less gallium than there is iron.

Every year, 160,000 tonnes of rare-earth metals are produced — 15,000 times less than annual iron production of two billion tonnes. Likewise, 600 tonnes of gallium are produced annually, which is 25,000 times less than the 15 million tonnes of annual copper production.

For almost three centuries we have been working tirelessly at developing new engines with increasingly impressive power-to-weight ratios: the more compact and less resource-intensive they are, the greater their mechanical energy output. Enter rare metals.

Magnets are now — to a vast majority of electric engines — what pistons have been to steam and internal-combustion engines. Magnets have made it possible to manufacture billions of engines, both big and small, capable of executing certain repetitive movements  (Note: note, not all engines have them, i.e. heating, ventilation, air-con. But electric vehicles and some wind turbines have them)

Without realizing it, our societies have become completely magnetized. To say that the world would be significantly slower without magnets containing rare metals is not an understatement. (These super magnets are produced with the rare-earth minerals neodymium and samarium alloyed with other metals, such as iron, boron, and cobalt. Magnets are usually 30% neodymium and 35% samarium. The scientific community refers to them as ‘rare-earth magnets’.

Electric engines did more than make humanity infinitely more prosperous; they made the energy transition a plausible hypothesis. Thanks to them, we have discovered our ability to maximize movement — and therefore wealth — without the use of coal and oil.

That is merely scratching the surface of rare metals, for they possess a wealth of other chemical, catalytic, and optical properties that make them indispensable to myriad green technologies. An entire book could be written on the details of their characteristics alone. They make it possible to trap car-exhaust fumes in catalytic converters, ignite energy-efficient light bulbs, and design new, lighter, and hardier industrial equipment, improving the energy efficiency of cars and planes, and the  semiconducting properties regulate the flow of electricity in digital devices.

Between the ages of antiquity and the Renaissance, human beings consumed no more than seven metals; this increased to a dozen metals over the twentieth century; to 20 from the 1970s onwards; and then to almost all 86 metals on Mendeleev’s periodic table of elements.

The potential demand for rare metals is exponential. We are already consuming over two billion tonnes of metals every year — the equivalent of more than 500 Eiffel Towers a day.

By 2035, demand is expected to double for germanium; quadruple for tantalum; and quintuple for palladium. The scandium market could increase nine-fold, and the cobalt market by a factor of 24. (Marscheider-Wiedemann 2016 ‘raw materials for emerging technologies’. German mineral resources agency (DERA), Federal institute for geosciences and natural resources (BGR).

The 10,000 or so mines spread across China have played a big role in destroying the country’s environment. Pollution damage by the coal-mining industry is well documented. But barely reported is the fact that mining rare metals also produces pollution, and to such an extent that China has stopped counting contamination events. In 2006, some 60 companies producing indium — a rare metal used in the manufacture of certain solar-panel technologies — released tonnes of chemicals into the Xiang River in Hunan, jeopardizing the meridional province’s drinking water and the health of its residents. (ft. 2006. Environmental disaster strains China’s social fabric). In 2011, journalists reported on the damage to the ecosystems of the Ting River in the seaside province of Fujian, due to the operation of a mine rich in gallium — an up-and-coming metal for the manufacture of energy-efficient light bulbs.

In Ganzhou the local press recently reported that the toxic waste dumps created by a mining company producing tungsten — a critical metal for wind-turbine blades — had obstructed and polluted many tributaries of the Yangtze River.

There is nothing refined about mining. It involves crushing rock, and then using a concoction of chemical reagents such as sulphuric and nitric acid, a long and highly repetitive process using many different procedures to obtain a rare-earth concentrate close to 100% purity. Worse yet, purifying a single tonne of rare earths requires using at least 200 cubic meters of water, which then becomes saturated with acids and heavy metals. (2016 Dwindling supplies of rare earth metals hinder China’s shift from coal). Will this water go through a water-treatment plant before it is released into rivers, soils, and ground water? Very rarely.

As rare metals have become ubiquitous in green and digital technologies, the exceedingly toxic sludge they produce has been contaminating water, soil, the atmosphere, and the flames of blast furnaces

Today, China is the leading producer of 28 mineral resources that are vital to our economies, often representing over 50% of global production. It also produces at least 15% of all mineral resources other than platinum and nickel. Which has led to 10% of arable land  contaminated by heavy metals, and 80% of ground water unfit for consumption. Only five of the 500 biggest cities in China meet international standards for air quality.

Large-scale lithium mining requires staggering volumes of water, diminishing the resources available to local communities living on water-scarce salt flats.

Extracting minerals from the ground is an inherently dirty operation. The way it has been carried out so irresponsibly and unethically in the most active mining countries casts doubt on the virtuous vision of the energy and digital transition. A recent report by the Blacksmith Institute identifies the mining industry as the second-most-polluting industry in the world, behind lead-battery recycling, and ahead of the dye industry, industrial dumpsites, and tanneries (2016 the world’s worst pollution problems, the toxics beneath our feet). The much-maligned petrochemical industry doesn’t even crack the top ten.

We need to be far more skeptical about how green technologies are manufactured. Before they are even brought into service, the solar panel, wind turbine, electric car, or energy-efficient light bulb bear the ‘original sin’ of its deplorable energy and environmental footprint.

We should be measuring the ecological cost of the entire lifecycle of green technologies.   

Comparing the carbon impact of a conventional fuel-driven car against that of an electric car, Aguirre (2012) found that the production of the supposedly more energy-efficient electric car requires far more energy than the production of the conventional car. This is mostly on account of the electric car’s very heavy lithium-ion battery.

Then there’s the composition of the lithium-ion battery: 80 per cent nickel, 15 per cent cobalt, 5 per cent aluminum, as well as lithium, copper, manganese, steel, and graphite. (2016 Extraordinary raw materials in a Tesla Model S’ Visual capitalist).

Industrializing electric vehicles is three to four times more energy-intensive than industrializing conventional vehicles.

The caveat of this research is that it was conducted on a medium-sized electric-vehicle battery with a 120-km range in a market that is growing so fast that none of the cars being rolled out today have a range below 300 km. According to Petersen, a battery that is powerful enough to drive a vehicle for 300 km emits twice as much carbon as production-phase emissions — a figure we can then triple for batteries with a 500-km range. Therefore, over its entire lifecycle, an electric car may produce as much as three-quarters of the carbon emissions produced by a petrol car.

John Petersen’s conclusion? Electric vehicles may be technically possible, but their production will never be environmentally sustainable.  This concurs with similar research conducted along the same lines. The 2016 report by the French Environment & Energy Management Agency (ADEME) finds: ‘The energy consumption of an electric vehicle [EV] over its entire lifecycle is, on the whole, similar to that of a diesel vehicle.

Digital technology requires vast quantities of metals. Every year, the electronics industry consumes 320 tonnes of gold and 7,500 tonnes of silver; accounts for 22 per cent (514 tonnes) of global mercury consumption; and up to 2.5% of lead consumption. The manufacture of laptops and mobile phones alone swallows up 19% of the global production of rare metals such as palladium, and 23% of cobalt. This excludes the other forty or so metals, on average, contained in mobile phones.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, for the energy and digital transition will require constellations of satellites — already promised by the heavyweights of Silicon Valley — to put the entire planet online. It will take rockets to launch these satellites into space; an armada of computers to set them on the right orbit to emit on the correct frequencies and encrypt communications using sophisticated digital tools; legions of super calculators to analyze the deluge of data; and, to direct this data in real time, a planetary mesh of underwater cables, a maze of overhead and underground electricity networks, millions of computer terminals, countless data-storage centers, and billions of tablets, smartphones, and other connected devices with batteries that need to be recharged.

Feeding this digital leviathan will require coal-fired, oil-fired, and nuclear power plants, windfarms, solar farms, and smart grids — all infrastructures that rely on rare metals.

Unlike traditional metals such as iron, silver, and aluminum, rare metals are not used in their pure state in green technologies. Rather, the manufacturers in the energy and digital transition are increasingly partial to alloys, for the properties of several metals combined into composites are far more powerful than those of one metal on its own. For example, the combination of iron and carbon gives us steel, without which most skyscrapers would not be standing. The fuselage of the Airbus A380 is in part composed of GLARE (Glass Laminate Aluminum Reinforced Epoxy), a robust fiber–metal laminate with an aluminum alloy that lightens the aircraft. And the magnets contained in certain wind turbine and electric vehicle motors are a medley of iron, boron, and rare-earth metals that enhance performance.

Alloys need to be ‘dealloyed’ to be recycled.  Manufacturers have to use time-consuming and costly techniques involving chemicals and electricity to separate rare-earth metals from other metals.

Metals in Japan’s waste dumps are hidden treasures that no economic model today can retrieve. It is the prohibitive cost of recovering rare metals — a cost that currently exceeds their value — that is holding industry back. The price of recycled metals could be competitive were it not for the fact that commodity prices have been structurally low since the end of 2014.

For manufacturers, there is little point in recycling large quantities of rare metals. Why rummage through e-waste dumps when it is infinitely cheaper to go straight to the source? It is not surprising, therefore, that only 18 of the 60 most used industrial metals have a recycling rate above 50% (aluminum, cobalt, chrome, copper, gold, iron, lead, manganese, niobium, nickel, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, silver, tin, titanium, zinc).

An additional three metals have a recycling rate over 25% (magnesium, molybdenum, iridium), and three more a rate of over 10% (ruthenium, cadmium, tungsten). The recycling rate of the remaining thirty-six metals is below 10 per cent (UNEP 2011 Recycling rates of metals: a status report. United nations).  For rare metals such as indium, germanium, tantalum, and gallium, as well as certain rare-earth metals, the rate is between 0 and 3 per cent.

Even recycling nearly 100% of lead has not been enough to stop its mining and extraction, because of perpetually growing demand.

‘Green’ technologies require the use of rare minerals whose mining is anything but clean. Heavy metal discharges, acid rain, and contaminated water sources — it borders on being an environmental disaster. Put simply, clean energy is a dirty affair.

While Europe produced nearly 60% of the world’s heavy metals in 1850, its momentum steadily declined to produce no more than 3% today. Mining production in the US hasn’t fared any better: after peaking in the 1930s, accounting for close to 40% of global production, it now represents around 5%.

The United States, when they realized after the Second World War that their own oil reserves would not be enough to meet their growing energy needs, turned to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its extraordinary crude oil reserves. The ‘Quincy Pact’, signed on 14 February 1945 between President Roosevelt and the Saudi king, Ibn Saud, gave Washington privileged access to Riyad’s petroleum in exchange for military protection.

There are many more examples of export restrictions, as observed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Its most recent report on trade in raw materials gives an inventory of all basic product export restrictions declared around the world, and identifies 900 such cases between 2009 and 2012.

Trump took the Chinese policy of slapping quotas on rare metals exports to reignite — and amplify — resource sovereignty across five continents. ‘China galvanized the nationalism of resources,’ says an American expert, ‘not only on its own territory, but all over the world.’ From that point, it was no longer a question of if new trade crises would occur, but rather when they would occur.

We know that an electrical charge coming into contact with the magnetic field of a magnet generates a force that creates movement. Traditional magnets made out of the iron derivative ferrite needed to be massive to generate a magnetic field powerful enough for more sophisticated applications

By orchestrating the transfer of magnet factories, the Chinese accelerated the migration of the entire downstream industry — the businesses that use magnets — to the Baotou free zone. ‘Now they’ve moved onto producing electric cars, phosphors, and wind turbine components. The entire value chain has moved!’  This makes Baotou much more than just another mining area. The Chinese prefer to call it the ‘Silicon Valley of rare earths’. The city hosts over 3,000 companies, fifty of which are backed by foreign capital, manufacture high-end equipment, and employ hundreds of thousands of workers who generate revenues of up to €4.5 billion every year.

Thus, rare-metal restrictions did more than serve China’s sporadic embargos. The second stage of its offensive is far more ambitious: China is erecting a completely independent and integrated industry, starting with the foul mines in which begrimed laborers toil, to state-of-the-art factories employing high-flying engineers. And it’s perfectly legitimate. After all, the Chinese policy of moving up the value chain is not dissimilar from the viticulture strategy of winemakers in the Napa Valley in California, or the Barossa Valley in South Australia. As one Australian expert put it, ‘The French don’t sell grapes, do they? They sell wine. The Chinese feel like rare earths are to them what vineyards are to the French.’

Industrial robots require terrific amounts of tungsten. China has always produced this rare metal in abundance, but there are other tungsten mines around the world, ensuring supply diversity for manufacturers.

During the 1990s, the Chinese machined their own cutting tools — ‘Some hammers, a few drills … really crumby tools,’ said an Australian consultant. But they wanted to move up the value chain in this area as well. ‘They drove down tungsten prices [from 1985 to 2004], hoping that Westerners concerned about getting their raw materials at the best price would buy exclusively from the Chinese, and that competing mines would shut down.’ We can guess what could have happened next: the Middle Kingdom — now the hegemonic power in tungsten production — would have used the same blackmail tactic to force the Germans to move their factories as close as possible to the raw materials. The Chinese would have crushed any German lead in the cutting-tools industry, and would then have made off with the machine-tools segment — a pillar of the Mittelstand.

The Germans saw the Chinese coming, and aligned instead with other tungsten producers (Russia, Austria, and Portugal, among others). ‘They preferred paying more for their resources to sustain the alternative mines and not depend on the Chinese

By now a pattern is emerging, and it is being applied to molybdenum and germanium, a journalist I met in Beijing told me. Lithium and cobalt should go the same way. ‘They’re using the same industrial policy for iron, aluminum, cement, and even petrochemical products,’ warned a German industrialist. In China, there is even talk of applying this policy to composite materials — new materials resulting from alloys of several rare minerals.

The West is starting to put words to what has happened with China: whoever has the minerals owns the industry. Our reliance on China — previously limited to raw materials — now includes the technologies of the energy and digital transition that rely on these raw materials.

Bangka is the world’s biggest producer of tin — a grey-silver metal essential to green technology and modern electronics, such as solar panels, electric batteries, mobile phones, and digital screens. Every year, over 300,000 tonnes of tin are mined around the world. Indonesia represents 34% of global production, making it the biggest exporter of this high-tech mineral, which is nevertheless not considered rare. The archipelago recognized the value of this outstanding mineral: from 2003, as a spokesperson for one of Indonesia’s biggest mining houses, PT Timah, explained: ‘Tin became the first mineral to be used in an embargo.’ It would be the first of a very long series of embargos. From 2014, all of Indonesia’s mineral resources — from sand to nickel, and diamonds to gold — were no longer exported in raw form. As explained by Indonesian authorities, ‘The minerals we don’t sell now will be sold tomorrow as finished products.’

As in China, this policy was a powerful way to generate wealth. By some calculations, preserving the added value in this way quadrupled profits on iron, increased profits on tin and copper sevenfold, bauxite profits by a factor of as much as eighteen, and nickel profits by as much as twenty.

The reality is that China’s definition of indigenous innovation is reworking and adjusting imported technologies to develop its own technologies. ‘The plan is considered by many international technology companies as a blueprint for technology theft on a scale the world has never seen,’ a US report published in 2010 asserted. It continued: ‘With these indigenous innovation industrial policies, it is very clear that China has switched from defense to offense.’ The Chinese applied this very tactic to rare-earth magnets: it enticed — or forced — foreign businesses onto its territory under the guise of joint ventures, and then launched a process of ‘co-innovation’ or ‘re-innovation’.

This is how China purloined the technologies of Japanese and US super-magnet manufacturers. Having reaped the benefits of the invention of others, Beijing built an ecosystem of endogenous creation to ‘move from factory to laboratory’, starting with a variety of research programs that began in the early 1980s.

China has many weaknesses: relative to its population size, it has far fewer researchers than France or the UK; there remain colossal challenges to education; while rural China — a massive part of the country — is sidelined from this momentum.

Some of China’s characteristics do little to aid its cause. While an interventionist regime may have allowed a strategic state to flourish, it leaves no room for any deviation. How can an administration that employs two million government agents to restrict online freedom of expression encourage creativity? A government that stymies the freedom to criticize — and therefore to think differently — nurtures a potent culture of copying, and turns the lack of inventiveness into a building block.  ‘The Chinese have the technology, but they are stuck in an organizational and intellectual logic that dates back to 1929,’ concluded a former Western diplomat posted to Beijing.

No one could have imagined what happened next,’ admits a European journalist based in Beijing. China’s astounding progress in the electronics, aerospace, transport, biology, machine tools, and information technology sectors caught everyone off guard — including the upper realms of the Communist Party. In aerospace, China has already put a robot on the moon, and it plans to send an astronaut as well by 2036. In 2018 alone it launched some 37 space missions, dethroning Russia as the US’s main competitor in the new space race. Beijing wants to move beyond the demand side of new technologies by trading its status of being a skills consumer for that of a skills supplier. In 2018, China filed a staggering 1.4 million patents — more than any other country in the world.

It wants to explore the still-unknown properties of rare earths to develop the applications of the future. Some of its university research programs are advanced enough to both astonish and alarm a researcher at the US Department of Defense: ‘Losing our supply chain was tragic enough. But now China is busy getting a ten-year head start on us. We could easily find ourselves without the intellectual property rights of the applications of the future that matter the most.’

Beijing has already designed a stealth fighter jet more advanced than that of its Japanese rivals. From 2013 to 2018, the most powerful super computer on the planet came from China. This earned China the title of ‘the leading IT power globally’. It has also put into orbit the first quantum communications satellite with reputedly impregnable encryption technology.

Donald Trump succeeded in reaching the White House because he could count on the voters in the de-industrialized states of the Rust Belt. In these swing states, where votes can tip the result of a national election, the Republican candidate vigorously denounced the anti-competitive practices of the Chinese and offshoring, and emphasized the need to protect the US from the industrial war spearheaded by Beijing.

Around the twelfth century BC, in the south of modern-day Turkey, the Hittites melted an even lighter and more widely available metal — iron — to forge weapons that were more powerful and easier to wield. This, say some historians, led ultimately to the European conquest of the Americas. Then came steel, which in 1914 tipped Europe into an industrial war. The iron and carbon alloy was used to make shell casings, the first modern fragmentation grenades, hardier helmets for soldiers, and armored tanks — all of which contributed to the bloodbath that was the First World War.

Every time a people, civilization, or state masters a new metal, it leads to exponential technical and military progress — and deadlier conflicts. Now it is rare metals, and in particular rare earths, that are changing the face of modern warfare.

The premise of the Sixteen-Character Policy was pragmatic: given the difficulty in procuring war technologies due to the US arms embargo, China would buy foreign companies whose know-how in civil applications could be repurposed for more hostile ends. In the years that followed, this strategy would lead to an extraordinary proliferation of Chinese espionage against the US. According to a former US counterintelligence agent, ‘China’s intelligence services are among the most aggressive [in the world] at spying on the US.’ A European researcher explained that Beijing’s interest was in two technologies in particular: those used in network-centric warfare, allowing armies to use information systems to their advantage; and smart bombs, containing the very magnets produced by Magnequench.

Nicknamed the ‘aircraft carrier killer’ and operational since 2010, the DF-21D has been central to Beijing’s policy of prohibiting access to the South China Sea these past few years. Having control over this strip of ocean running from its coasts to the south of Vietnam would increase China’s strategic leverage, and give it access to prodigious quantities of offshore hydrocarbon resources, as well as an eye on the comings and goings of half the world’s oil. This scenario is unacceptable to Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines, but especially to the US, which several years ago planned to position 60% of its warships in the Pacific by 2020. Barely a week goes by without a naval incident of some sort, making the territory the powder keg that could ignite a Sino-American conflict.  Beijing’s capability in advanced ballistic technologies has already shifted the balance of power in the South China Sea.

Wouldn’t the US be vulnerable against an adversary that is also the source of its most critical defense components? And would China not take timely advantage of this dependence, either by playing the rare-earths card during trade negotiations, or by hampering America’s military efforts?

The US Department of the Interior has identified no less than 35 minerals considered critical to the country’s national security and economy.

Another broader question of national security that the US has asked itself time and again: how does it prevent the infiltration of Trojan horses in the microchips and other semi-finished goods containing rare metals sold by the Chinese around the world, including to Western armies? A 2005 report by the Pentagon even raised the possibility of electronic systems that are used extensively in US weapons being infected by malware that could disrupt combat equipment mid-operation.

Digital technologies, the knowledge economy, green energies, electricity logistics and storage, and the new industries of space and defense are diversifying and expanding our need for rare metals exponentially. Not a day goes by that we don’t discover a new miracle property of a rare metal, or unprecedented ways of applying it.

By 2050, keeping up with market growth will take ‘3,200 million tonnes of steel, 310 million tonnes of aluminum, and 40 million tons of copper’.

Indeed, wind turbines guzzle more raw materials than previous technologies: ‘For an equivalent installed capacity, solar and wind facilities require up to 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum, and 50 times more iron, copper, and glass than fossil fuels or nuclear energy.’ According to the World Bank, which carried out its own study in 2017, the same applies to solar and hydrogen electricity systems, which ‘are in fact significantly more material intensive in their composition than current traditional fossil-fuel-based energy supply systems’.

We will consume more minerals than in the last 70,000 years, or five hundred generations before us. Our 7.5 billion contemporaries will absorb more mineral resources than the 108 billion humans who have walked the Earth to date.

Just as we have a list of threatened animal and plant species, we may soon have a red list of metals nearing depletion. At the current rate of production, we run the risk of exhausting the viable reserves of 15 or so base and rare metals in under 50 years (antimony, tin, lead, gold, zinc, strontium, silver, nickel, tungsten, bismuth, copper, boron, fluorite, manganese, selenium); we can expect the same for five additional metals (including currently abundant iron, rhenium, cobalt, molybdenum, rutile) before the end of the century.

In the short to medium term, we are also looking at potential shortages in vanadium, dysprosium, terbium, europium, and neodymium (2013. Critical metals in the path towards the decarbonization of the EU energy sector. Joint research centre of the European commission).

What if climate change drastically reduces the water reserves needed to extract and refine minerals?

China is ready to stockpile what it produces — for itself. It already consumes three-quarters of the rare earths it extracts — despite being the sole supplier — and, given its appetite, it may well use up all of its rare earths by 2025 to 2030. The output of any of China’s future rare metals mines inside or outside its borders will not go to the highest bidder, but will be taken off the market and channeled to Chinese clients only.

A lack of mining infrastructure. ‘It takes 15 to 25 years to get a mine up and running, from the moment we say “Let’s do it” to the time we start extracting minerals,’ explained an expert. But according to some projections, a new rare-earths mine will need to be opened every year from now until 2025 to accommodate growth needs. Any delay will cost us dearly in the next two decades. ‘We do not produce enough metals today to meet our future needs,’ stated an American specialist. ‘The numbers just don’t add up.

Lastly, the energy return on investment (EROI) — the ratio of the energy needed to produce metals to the energy generated using the same metals — is against us. Extracting one to five grams of gold requires crushing one tonne of rocks — up to 10,000 (times?) more rocks than the metal itself,

Rare metals require increasing amounts of energy to be unearthed and refined.  Producing these metals takes 7 to 8 per cent of global energy (UNEP 2013 Environmental risks and challenges of Anthropogenic metals flows and cycles: a report of the working group on the global metal flows)

Ugo Bardi (extracted) writes that, in Chile, ‘The energy required to mine copper rose by 50% from 2001 and 2010, but the total copper output increased just 13% … The US copper mining industry has also been energy hungry.  The limits to mineral extraction are not limits of quantity; they are limits of energy.

For the same amount of energy, mining companies today extract up to 10 times less uranium than they did 30 years ago — and this is true for just about all mining resources. 

Countries are therefore striking up new alliances for rare metals exploration: Tokyo and Delhi have concluded an export agreement for rare earths mined in India; Japan has deployed its rare-earth diplomacy offensive in Australia, Kazakhstan, and Vietnam; Chancellor Angela Merkel has made numerous trips to Mongolia to sign mining partnerships; South Korean geologists have made official their discussions with Pyongyang on the joint exploration of a deposit in North Korea; France is carrying out prospecting activities in Kazakhstan; Brussels has engaged in economic diplomacy to encourage mining investment with partner states; and in the US, Donald Trump has expressed his interest in buying Greenland — rich in iron, rare earths, and uranium (Cilizza 2019)

It is a new world that China wants to fashion to its liking, as corroborated by Vivian Wu: ‘Given the growth of our domestic demand, we will not be able to meet our own needs within the next five years.’ Beijing has therefore begun its own hunt for rare metals, starting in Canada, Australia, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, and Vietnam.

Many observers believe that Beijing was manipulating prices. ‘The Chinese do absolutely whatever they want on the rare-earths market,’ deplored Christopher Ecclestone. They can decide to stockpile just as they can decide to slash prices by flooding the market. It has become a headache for non-Chinese mining companies to design long-term economic models with a behemoth like China intentionally destabilizing the market. How can they escape bankruptcy when mineral prices are five to ten times lower than forecasted?

The vast majority of alternative projects that emerged after the embargo have been scuppered. The Californian mine Molycorp went bankrupt and reopened, but then had to export its minerals to China for processing due to a lack of adequate refinery facilities. The Lynas mine in Australia has long been running at a reduced speed, and is being kept afloat by Japan out of its refusal to eat from the hand of its sworn enemy. In Canada, entire battalions of mining companies have shut their doors. Mining licenses — once worth their weight in gold — now go for no more than a few hundred dollars.

When Beijing doesn’t manage to hamper operations, it deploys a strategy of acquiring competing mines. Despite the Chinalco group expressing interest in buying the Mountain Pass mine in California, it was acquired in 2017 by MP Mine Operations LLC — a consortium whose investors include a Chinese mining group, Shenge Resources Shareholding Co. Ltd. China also barges its way into the partial ownership of competing companies: in Greenland, the same group acquired a sizeable stake in the operations of the Kvanefjeld site, rich in rare earths and uranium. What better way to build up economic intelligence and possibly undermine the emergence of a serious rival? It’s as if Saudi Arabia, which holds the largest proven reserves of oil worldwide, took it upon itself to control the oil reserves of the now thirteen members of OPEC.

When China is not undermining the capitalistic foundations of alternative mines, it takes diplomatic action to torpedo them. Such is the case of Kyrgyzstan: the chairman of Stans Energy accused China of putting pressure on the Kyrgyz president to withdraw the Canadian mining house’s operating licence without any valid reason.

An environmental nonprofit organization in the US has listed a staggering 500,000 abandoned mines (NYT 2015 When a river runs orange). According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Mining pollutes approximately 40% of the headwaters of Western watersheds and … cleaning up these mines may cost American taxpayers more than $50 billion.

They condemn the effects of the very world they wish for. They do not admit that the energy and digital transition also means trading oilfields for rare metals deposits, and that the role of mining in the fight against global warming is a reality we have to come to terms with.

As for the entire rare metals industry, the Government Accountability Office in the US believes it would take at least 15 years to rebuild the industry. (US GAO warns it may take 15 years to rebuild U.S. Rare Earths Supply Chain. Mineweb. 2010).  While Western countries wait …, their mining culture is wasting away. Training is insufficient, and young people are no longer drawn to careers in geology. As the last of the talents disappear, there is a real risk that the sector’s revival may be decades in the making.

Relocating our dirty industries has helped keep Western consumers in the dark about the true environmental cost of our lifestyles, while giving other nation-states free rein to extract and process minerals in even worse conditions than would have applied had they still been mined in the West, without the slightest regard for the environment.

The effects of returning mining operations to the West would be positive. We would instantly realize — to our horror — the true cost of our self-declared modern, connected, and green world. We can well imagine how having quarries ‘in our backyard’ would put an end to our indifference and denial, and drive our efforts to contain the resulting pollution. Because we would not want to live like the Chinese, we would pile pressure onto our governments to ban even the smallest release of cyanide, and to boycott companies operating without the full array of environmental accreditation’s.

We would protest en masse against the disgraceful practice of the planned obsolescence of products, which results in more rare metals having to be mined, and we would demand that billions be spent on research into making rare metals fully recyclable.

Perhaps we would also use our buying power more responsibly, and spend more on eco-friendlier mobile phones, for instance. In short, we would be so determined to contain pollution that we would make astounding environmental progress and wind back our rampant consumption. Nothing will change so long as we do not experience, in our own backyards, the full cost of attaining our standard of happiness.

Some countries have even resorted to subterfuge: China has gone as far as building artificial islands in the South China Sea so that it can claim exclusive use of the surrounding marine territory.

The exponential growth of our need for rare metals will increasingly commoditize the world’s backwaters, which have long been spared from humanity’s greed. But it will be decades before mining in the ocean becomes technically and ecologically possible.

References

Aguirre K, et al. 2012. Lifecycle analysis comparison of a battery electric vehicle and a conventional gasoline vehicle. UCLA institute of the Environment & Sustainability.

BBC (2014) Report: One fifth of China’s soil contaminated. https://www.bbc.com/news/worldasia-china-27076645.

Cilizza. 2019.  5 questions about Donald Trump’s interest in buying Greenland, answered. CNN.

Hickel J (2019) The limits of clean energy. If the world isn’t careful, renewable energy could
become as destructive as fossil fuels. Foreign policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/06/thepath-to-clean-energy-will-be-very-dirty-climate-change-renewables/

Kisela R (2022) California went big on rooftop solar. Now that’s a problem for landfills. Los Angeles Times.

Kleijn R, Van der Voet E, Kramer GJ et al (2011) Metal requirements of low-carbon power generation.  Energy 36:5640–5648

Martin C (2020) Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills. Bloomberg.

PEBI (2016) World’s worst pollution problems. The toxins beneath our feet. Pure Earth Blacksmith
Institute. https://www.worstpolluted.org/2016-report.html

RealClearEnergy. 2017. Cost of Elon Musk’s dream much higher than he and others imagine.

Sonter LJ, Dade MC, Watson JEM et al (2020) Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity. Nat Commun 11:4174

FURTHER READING

‘The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy: achieving US national security objectives in a changing environment’, US Department of Defense, 2015

Grasso, Valerie Bailey. 2013. Rare earth elements in national defense: background, oversight issues, and options for congress. Congressional research service.

Lawton G (2021) Will a scramble to mine metals undermine the clean energy revolution? Creating green technologies like batteries and solar panels requires a lot of minerals, and a lot of mining. The challenge now is to extract what we need without destroying the environment. New Scientist.

USGS. 2018. Interior releases 2018’s final list of 35 minerals deemed critical to U.S. national security and the economy.

Manchin, Capito. 2019. Reintroduce rare earth element advanced coal technologies act. U.S. Senate committee on Energy & natural resources.

UNEP. 2013. Environmental risks and challenges of anthropgenic metals flows and cycles. United Nations environment program.

IEA. 2014. World energy outlook 2014 factsheet: power and renewables.

Petersen. 2016. How large lithium-ion batteries slash EV benefits.

VIDEO:

  • Guillaume, Pitron “Rare earths: the dirty war” 2012
  • Miodownik, BBC 2017 “secrets of the super elements”

Related posts:

Rare Earth & Platinum-group metals are used in many products:

  1. Magnets (Neodymium, Praseodymium, Terbium, Dysprosium, Samarium): Motors, disc drives, MRI, power generation, microphones and speakers, magnetic refrigeration
  2. Metallurgical alloys (Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodymium, Yttrium): NimH batteries, fuel cells, steel, lighter flints, super alloys, aluminum/magnesium
  3. Phosphors (Europium, Yttrium, Terbium, Neodymium, Erbium, Gadolinium, Cerium, Praseodymium): display phosphors CRT, LPD, LCD; fluorescent lighting, medical imaging, lasers, fiber optics
  4. Glass and Polishing (Cerium, Lanthanum, Praseodymium, Neodymium, Gadolinium, Erbium, Holmium, Baryte): polishing compounds, decolorizers, UV resistant glass, X-ray imaging
  5. Catalysts (Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodymium, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, platinum): petroleum refining, catalytic converter, diesel additives, chemical processing, industrial pollution scrubbing
  6. Other applications:
  • Aerospace: Beryllium
  • Aluminum production (fluorspar), alloys (Magnesium, Scandium)
  • Catalytic converters (Cerium)
  • Cathode-ray tubes (Gadolinium, Terbium, Yttrium)
  • Ceramics (Fluorspar)
  • Computer chips (Indium)
  • Defense (Neodymium, Praseodymium, Dysprosium, Terbium, Europium, Yttrium, Lanthanum, Lutetium, Scandium, Samarium)
  • Drilling oil and gas (Baryte)
  • Electric bicycles: 0.1 kg neodymium, praseodymium per bicycle
  • Electric vehicles 1.7 kg of Neodymium & Praseodymium (Nd) per car (Bohlsen 2017), Neodymium (Niobium) electric motors (Samarium)
  • Electronics and electricity (Tungsten)
  • Fertilizers
  • Fire retardants (Antimony)
  • Fiber optics (Germanium, Erbium Europium, Terbium, Yttrium)
  • Flourescent light bulbs (europium, terbium, yttrium)
  • Fuel cells (SOFC use lanthaneum, cerium, prasedymium)
  • Healthcare (Baryte, Erbium)
  • Hybrid engines (Dysprosium)
  • Integrated circuits (silicon metal)
  • iPods (dysprosium, neodymium, praseodymium, samarium, terbium)
  • Lasers (Europium, Holmium, Ytterbium)
  • LCD screens (Indium)
  • Lenses (Lanthanum)
  • Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (Gallium)
  • Lighting (Lanthanum, Samarium, Europium, Scandium)
  • Luminescent compounds (Promethium)
  • Magnets for turbine systems, car parts, scientific instruments, smart phones, electric vehicles, stereo loudspeakers TVs (mainly neodymium, praseodymium)
  • Metallurgy and alloys (Baryte, Cerium)
  • Nuclear power (Europium, Gadolinium, Cerium, Yttrium, Sm, Erbium, Beryllium, Niobiumm /sanaruyn)
  • Oil refinery (Cerium)
  • Optics (fluorspar)
  • Phones, computers, hybrid vehicles, magnets (Cobalt)
  • Photovoltaic cells (Germanium, silicon metal)
  • Pigments
  • Satellites (Niobium)
  • Semi-conductors (gallium, Holmium)
  • Solar panels: copper, indium, gallium, selenide (CIGS) solar cells
  • Steel production (coking coal, fluorspar, vanadium, Ytterbium)
  • Superconductors (high-temperature) Bismuth, Thulium, Yttrium
  • Superconductive compounds (Lanthanum)
  • Telecommunications and electronics (Beryllium)
  • Thermoelectric auto generators (Bismuth)
  • Water Treatment
  • Wind turbines up to 150 kg neodymium, praseodymium per MW (Bohlsen), (dysprosium, neodymium, praseodymium, terbium)

Cerium                 Catalytic converters, oil refining, glass-lens production, glass polishing, flints for lighters, water treatment, self-cleaning ovens

Dysprosium        Lasers, nuclear-reactor control rods, high-power magnets

Erbium                  Fiber optics, nuclear reactor control rods

Europium            TV & computer displays, lasers, optical electronics

Gadolinium         Cancer therapy, MRI contrast agent

Holmium              High-power magnets, lasers

Lanthanum         Oil refining cracking catalyst, fuel cells, hybrid-car batteries, camera lenses, carbon arc lamps for T and film industries, camera lenses

Lutetium              Chemical processing LED lightbulbs

Neodymium       Computer hard drives, cell phones, high-power permanent magnets for electric motors, wind turbines, capacitors, lasers, ear bud headphones, microphones

Praseodymium Permanent magnets, coloring pigment in photographic filters, Aircraft engines, carbon arc lights, glass in airport signal lenses, goggles for welders & glassmakers, fluoride glass in fiber optic cables to amplify signals

Samarium            High-power magnets, ethanol, PCB cleansers

Scandium            Aerospace components, aluminum alloys, mercury vapor lamps to make them brighter, aluminum baseball bats, lacrosse sticks, bicycle frames, fuel cells

Terbium               Solid-state electronics, sonar systems

Thulium                X-ray machines, superconductors

Ytterbium            Portable x-ray machines, lasers

Yttrium                 Lasers, TV and computer displays, microwave filters, strengthen glass, magnesium, ceramic, and aluminum alloys

Posted in Alternative Energy, An Index of Best Energyskeptic Posts, Batteries, Climate Change, Electric & Hydrogen trucks impossible, Electric Grid, Energy Books, Peak Critical Elements, Peak Platinum Group Elements, Peak Precious Elements, Peak Rare Earth Elements, Recycle, Recycling | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Venezuela – when will it collapse?

Preface. This is a book review of Newman’s 2022 “Things are never so bad that they can’t get worse”. He lived in Venezuela from 2012 to 2016 as a correspondent for The New York Times.  Venezuela and Canada have the largest remaining oil deposits in the world. But they are resources, with only 10% or so obtainable at today’s price and technology (reserves), with the other 90% unobtainable.

But given that peak oil was likely in 2018, any country with oil will be of tremendous interest since we are utterly dependent on it for civilization as we know it.

Newman might say Venezuela hasn’t collapsed yet. The lights are on in the wealthiest parts of Caracas, Maduro is still in power, and there is money to be made from gold and other resources.  It’s hard to define collapse. Does some percent of the population need to die or flee? When I read what the average person is going through, it sure seems like collapse to me — one meal a day of rice or lentils for most, little to no access to health care, and preyed on by gangs and death squads.  Hell on earth. Our fate some day when energy decline strikes the U.S. and meanwhile we can see how Europe copes this winter.

Newman writes that from 2013 through 2019, nearly two-thirds of all economic activity disappeared. So picture 2 out of 3 shops closed, 2 out of 3 workers unemployed, and one meal a day instead of three, often just pasta or lentils.  Today in 2022, Venezuela has yet to hit bottom, despite 6 million refugees fleeing the country (of 30 million), about as many as have fled Syria and Ukraine. T

It’s hard to imagine how Venezuela could get worse after you read his book, but since there are still people making money off the status quo, mafias fighting over the tiny pieces of the remaining pie, and high levels of corruption persist, Venezuela hasn’t hit bottom yet. The central government is made up of competing circles of power. At times some factions work together against other factions, but always for their own survival. That’s why when the electric grid crashed fixing it was not the highest priority, the division of the spoils comes first. In 2022 Newman writes, Venezuela is still a giant piñata for those in a position to swing a stick at it.

I was constantly reminded of Trump. For example, Chavez was on television almost every day. From 1999 through 2012 he took over the airwaves 2,377 times to taunt and skewer opponents, delight supporters and infuriate enemies, making his fans love him even more. On one show he fired essential employees who worked for oil company PDVSA, reading off a long list of names. When he was done, Chávez picked up a whistle and blew a sharp blast.  Offsides!” he said. “Get out!” Chávez’s fans loved it. They cheered. They clapped. Did you see what he did? He fired them on TV! He fired them with a whistle! He showed those elite sons of bitches who’s boss.

Chavez and Maduro hired many generals to positions they knew nothing about but for which there was a great deal of graft, weakening the oil, electric grid, and other institutions. This made them less likely to instigate a coup as well.  So I have to wonder why Trump appointed four generals, more than anyone since Was he already anticipating a coup in 2016 and wanted to make sure the military would support him?

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

American policy during the Trump regime

American policy toward Venezuela and Cuba became intertwined. Cuba hard-liners believed that Venezuela had saved the Castro regime by offering it a lifeline of cheap oil. So the Cuban American lobby believed that if it could force a change of government in Venezuela, Cuba’s source of oil would dry up and Cuba and Nicaragua would fail too. The U.S. began taking actions to do that despite greatly harming the well-being of Venezuelans. And contributed to the 5.4 million of 30 million Venezuelans who fled.

Meawhile, Venezuela as buying weapons from Russia and given Russia generous and lucrative participation in its oil fields.

The only country with more refugees than Venezuela is Syria, a nation failing from both severe drought and civil war. The thread that linked both countries was Russia, which backed Venezuelan President Maduro and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, bombing rebel areas in Syria’s civil war and catalyzing the Syrian refugee crisis. The flood of Syrian refugees into Europe heightened political stress there and energized the right-wing nationalist parties friendly to Russia. Likewise, millions of Venezuelan refugees destabilized neighboring countries and increased nationalism in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and other countries.

So I can’t help but wonder if Russia doesn’t intend to further increase right-wing populism in Europe by forcing millions of Ukrainians to flee.

Sanctions also had a political dimension. Maduro had been saying for years that the country was under attack in an economic war waged by the United States. Playing the victim was always a Chavista fallback—the nation’s woes were always someone else’s fault. After 20 years in government, Chavismo still tried to pretend that it was the valiant outsider fighting the evil establishment. In this case, it was also a way of deflecting responsibility for bad economic policy. And it was a fantasy—until Trump made it a reality. What are sanctions if not economic warfare? Every day, on television, radio, social media, the government hammered away at the message: Venezuela was the victim of an economic war by the United States. And who are they putting the sanctions on? The people. Because the big shots, Maduro and Guaidó, they’ve got food to eat. So who do the sanctions hurt? The people.

Through negligence, corruption, and mismanagement, the Maduro government presided over the destruction of the oil industry. The Trump administration’s sanctions were the coup de grace.

Today Venezuela is a Republican Dream

Newman explains why Venezuela in 2019 fulfills the Republican dream: “Some call Venezuela a failed state. Others call it a mafia state. But it is neither. It is a state reduced to the absolute minimum. Maduro had started the process, and the Trump White House had helped him carry it to perfection. In the United States the Republican dream was to starve the beast, to cut government financing so deeply that most of the things that we expect a government to do become impossible. Then theoretically society and private initiative can flourish, unencumbered. This was Venezuela. There were almost no services, no fire trucks, no ambulances. Public hospitals and clinics barely functioned. People were on their own, left to fend for themselves, free to exercise personal responsibility.  

The irony was that Republicans in the United States considered Maduro their enemy. They should have been applauding him. He was a fellow traveler.”

Venezuela in the news:

Reuters (2022) Cuba is struggling to cover a fuel deficit as imports from Venezuela and other countries decline and global prices boosted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine make purchases almost unaffordable. Cuba is dependent on fuel imports from Venezuela to cover 75% of its demand, shortages have led to long lines at gas stations. And aging thermoelectric plants are failing more often as well. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cuba-struggles-buy-fuel-imports-venezuela-dwindle-data-2022-04-05/?mc_cid=7860bc0677&mc_eid=20e9bfe034

Stone R (2022) Healing Venezuela. Science 375: 1082-1085.  Malaria cases rose 20-fold from 2001 to 2017.  Hugo Chavez disdained science and railed against intellectuals. After Maduro took power in 2013 economic collapse soon followed and there’s been a brain drain as scientists fled.  Those stuck in Venezuela have seen their labs stripped of anything of value. Criminals pillaged the Institute of Tropical Medicine over 20 times in 2016 alone. Now Venezuelans are in survival mode with most lacking access to water and sanitation, medicine is scarce, and in 2014 the government shut down all medical data collection, so the true scope of this ongoing disaster isn’t known fully.  What little medical care exists is private near elite clientele who still have electricity and clean water.  A September 2021 survey found 77% of Venezuelans are living in extreme poverty.  High prices allow most families to buy only a few days’ of food every month.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Newman W (2022) Things Are Never So Bad That They Can’t Get Worse. St. Martin’s Press.

Venezuela’s first oil well was drilled near Lake Maracaibo, in the far western state of Zulia in 1914 and is still pumping oil in 2014.  The first oil workers’ strike occurred here (and was put down here) in 1925. In 1976, during the country’s first petro-delirium, when oil prices quadrupled, President Carlos Andrés Pérez came to Mene Grande to declare the nationalization of the oil industry. Three decades later, in the midst of an even bigger boom, President Hugo Chávez came here to announce a second nationalization, changing the terms by which foreign oil companies operated in Venezuela and giving the government a controlling stake in everything that happened in the oil fields.  The word mene, in the name of the town Mene Grande, comes from an indigenous word for oil seep, a place where oil bubbles up naturally from the earth. That is typical of Venezuela’s oil.

The oil surges up, and over time it congeals and becomes a mound of something like tar or asphalt. Behind the tricolor park with the first oil well was a barrio, tumbling down the back of the hill, where people lived in hovels. Wandering around the barrio, I came upon a woman who was probably in her thirties or forties, but she looked twice that age. Her bones showed under the skin of her arms. She wore a housedress so threadbare that it was almost sheer, and whatever color it once had was gone. She seemed faded too in the white-hot sun, bleached instead of burnt or tanned. She lived in one of the worst hovels I’d seen in Venezuela or anywhere else, a teetering collection of corrugated metal, cardboard, and wood. The most striking thing of all was that it had been assembled on top of a mene. Shiny slicks of oil stained the earth all around. To keep themselves out of the muck, the woman and her family had built up a kind of midden, maybe three feet high, from chunks of hardened oil residue and debris. It was like a big, broad pitcher’s mound with a shack on top. Using a rectangular metal can for a stool, she sat in front of her hovel, on top of this mound of oil in its various states of coagulation,

before the crisis, before the collapse, before hyperinflation, before the bottom dropped out from under the price of oil, there would have been three or four operators watching the computer screens in the central control room in Caracas that monitored the electrical grid for all of Venezuela. In March 2019 there was just one man in Venezuela in charge of making sure that there was a smooth flow of electricity to every city and town and millions of homes and businesses, with their air conditioners, refrigerators, televisions, and appliances, and all the airports and seaports, government offices, oil wells, refineries, and everything else in the country that used electrical power.

Venezuela has one national control room because the country is composed of a single integrated power grid. About three-quarters of Venezuela’s electrical generating capacity resides in three large hydroelectric plants in the far eastern part of the country, in what is known as the Guayana sector. Those generating plants provide virtually all the power used in Caracas and a large portion of the electricity used in Maracaibo, Venezuela’s second- largest city, all the way across the country, close to the western border with Colombia.

He’d watched his coworkers disappear. Your salary wasn’t enough even to buy food for your family. Some drifted off to find other work in Caracas. Others had taken jobs with electrical utilities in Chile or Colombia or Ecuador. But Darwin and a few colleagues had stayed. No one wanted to leave Venezuela. Your people were here—your family, your parents, your friends. It was the life you knew.

On any given day, all sorts of things could happen—a brush fire under a transmission line could cause a spike in current, a transformer could blow—and then you had to think and act fast. And if it occurred at peak consumption, you had to scramble to keep power flowing. It was like being the pilot of a jet plane when an engine goes out in flight. You had alarms going off and split-second decisions to make. These days the whole system was under strain, held together with chewing gum. Equipment was going longer without being replaced; less maintenance was being done.

On March 7, 2019, Darwin was less than halfway through his 24-four-hour shift when a series of alarms flashed on the screens in front of him. Power had gone out all across the country. From one moment to the next, as though someone had thrown a switch, all of Venezuela had no electricity. In some places it would stay out for five days. Millions of people would run short of food and water. Hospital operating rooms went dark. Banks and grocery stores couldn’t function. In a few days the looting would start. Two weeks later the lights would go out again. And then again less than a week after that. And again in early April. The system was falling apart.

Night had fallen, and the valley of Caracas lay before him, plunged in blackness. There was no twinkle of a thousand bare lightbulbs in the shantytowns climbing the hillsides, no lights from the giant housing blocks, no yellow glow from the wealthy enclaves to the south, no lights in the middle-class neighborhood that spread out below his window, no tangerine-tinged streetlamps. There was only darkness. The headlights of cars slashed white channels through the night, but that only seemed to accentuate the blackness all around.

In 1989, I was living in Mexico City, and I watched on television as Caracas was swept by riots and looting. Police and soldiers opened fire on the looters and hundreds of people were killed. My Mexican friends were stunned. For them, Venezuela was a place apart, a country touched by the blessing of wealth. Mexico had oil too, but nothing like Venezuela. La Venezuela Saudita, people called it: a Latin American Saudi Arabia. The chaos on television belied all that. It was like the crushing of a dream. The riots exposed Venezuela as a hollow fantasy—a pretty bauble on the outside, with rolls of money and shopping trips abroad, while inside, there was pulverizing poverty, a familiar tale of debt, mismanagement, pauperism, and corruption.

By the time I moved to Venezuela, as a foreign correspondent, in January 2012, the country was deeply divided. You could say that division is what defined it. Pro-Chávez versus anti-Chávez. Poor versus well-off. Red T-shirt versus any other color T-shirt. You were for or against. On one side or the other. The division was obvious everywhere I went and in nearly every conversation

People were talking across one another, over one another; they were full of anger and incomprehension; they’d given up trying to understand one another. They were frustrated and pissed off, and when they talked about it, the words often came out at top volume. The causes of the division were historical, but the rift deepened with Chávez. He had mined it and encouraged it until it became part of the landscape, something that people took as a given.

Each of them was shouting so loud, and with so much intensity, that they couldn’t hear what the people on the other side of the street were shouting. Meanwhile, the street itself was a ruin, full of potholes and debris and trash. And no one cared. All they wanted to do was keep shouting at one another.

Life in a collapsing nation

“Those days seemed like years,” Marlyn Rangel told me. “You didn’t know what day it was. To make things worse, without electricity you couldn’t charge your phone. So you didn’t know what time it was. Or the day of the week. You didn’t even know the date. You were isolated. There was no news. No TV. No radio. No cell phone signal. No data plan. No internet, no social media. No one from the government ever came to say what was going on. The government never sent water, never sent food or medicine. No police officers, no firemen, no rescue workers, no one to tell you what was happening and how long it would last. You were on your own. Alone, you and your family and your neighbors, every neighborhood an island surrounded by silence and darkness. The city an archipelago.

In Maracaibo, the country’s second-largest city, with nearly 2 million people, where Marlyn lived, the power stayed out for five days. And it didn’t come back on all at once. Some parts of the city were without power for longer periods of time, and in some areas it returned, only to go out again.

And as the days go by and there is no power and no news, you start to wonder: What if it doesn’t come back on at all? And then the food runs out. Or it spoils in the heat. And you have no cash (hardly anyone has cash anymore, because on top of the shortages of food and medicine, there’s a cash shortage). And without power the bank machines don’t work. And the stores can’t sell you food because the card readers don’t work. And it’s over 90 degrees. And there’s no air conditioning. And there’s no running water. And you can’t bathe.

In Maracaibo, the residents had been coping with blackouts and electrical rationing for more than a year before the big blackout hit, already desperate since 2017. Power would be shut off for about four hours a day, in different areas at different times, to ease the overall load on the grid.

Eventually rationing increased to about six hours a day. Over the next few months, it would fluctuate, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. The schedule was erratic: you never knew when your turn would come. It was like a giant behavioral experiment to see how hundreds of thousands of people would react in an environment of increasing uncertainty and stress.

Maracaibo and the rest of Zulia state are at the far end of the nation’s power grid, almost as far as you can get from the big hydroelectric plants and still be in Venezuela. Yet they are reliant on those plants for most of the electricity they consume, which has created chronic problems. The state has several thermal generating stations, which operate on natural gas or diesel fuel. If they are operating at full capacity, they can provide nearly enough power to satisfy local demand. But most of those plants are either shut down or barely functioning.

During 2018, Nataly counted a total of 25 blackouts, some lasting just two or three hours, some more than a day. The longest blackout in 2018, in August, lasted three days. After that, the rationing became more intense: many people would go without electricity for up to half a day at a time. Toward the end of the year, it improved, and on some days there might be no rationing at all. Then it became worse again, and by February some areas of the city would be without power for up to sixteen hours a day.

You might think that the frequent absence of electricity would be conducive to better sleep—no lights to disturb you, no TV to watch, no bars or clubs to go to. But Maracuchos in general wear the irritable, beleaguered demeanor of the sleep-deprived. And it’s easy to see why. They spend nights in their cars, waiting in line to buy gasoline. They have to wake up in the middle of the night when the water suddenly comes on (often after weeks without running water), at which point they set to work filling tanks, washing clothes, bathing.

Without electricity there’s no air conditioning. Maracaibo, where the average high temperature every month of the year is over 90, and the nights are hot and full of mosquitoes. Most air conditioners sit like an outsize brick in the window because they burned out in one of the countless power surges. So people stay in their sweltering rooms with the windows closed against the bugs, tangled up in the clammy sheets, or lying outside in a hammock, sweating and slapping at mosquitoes.

Many refrigerators have been burned out by power spikes following the blackouts and brownouts, so people were caught unprovisioned. They had no food to last them till the power came back on. There was a day or two when the merchants were giving away perishables, like meat and dairy products, because they started to spoil. After that there was nothing at all.

On the fourth day of the blackout, Marlyn’s family ate the last of the food they had in the house: spaghetti with nothing on it. They had no dinner Sunday night and no breakfast Monday morning.

For a long time, people had been living day to day—money was short and food was so expensive that you couldn’t buy more than you needed for that day or maybe the next. I was in many houses in Venezuela in 2019 where you opened the kitchen cupboard and there was nothing inside, not a can or a crumb.

Venezuela used to be a land of plenty. People would say that to me all the time: We’re a rich country, we have oil. During the Chávez years, the country filled up with oil money—oil was over $100 a barrel—and these people who were going hungry now used to eat three meals a day and had enough money to take their kids to the movies or to the beach or to a fast-food restaurant. Now many people were eating just once or twice a day, and what they were eating was lentils. Maybe some rice or pasta. Tomorrow existed only as a doubt: What will we eat tomorrow?

People slept poorly or not at all; they didn’t bathe; they didn’t eat much, and what they did eat was mostly cheap calories: pasta, rice, lentils, with few fruits and vegetables and little protein.

They lived attenuated lives whose limits and constrictions were set by the irregular comings and goings of electricity, water, phone service, the internet, food, cooking gas, gasoline. It was all out of their control, a constant reminder of the power and the incompetence and the arbitrariness of the state. And of your own state of uncertainty. People became accustomed to just scraping by, putting up with what would have been unthinkable a few years or even a few months earlier. When power first started to go out, people were indignant. Now they hardly reacted. They used to have reliable running water. At first, when the water went away, people protested. Now they woke up in the middle of the night every few weeks when the water sputtered on and started washing clothes

The way Venezuelans talk about it, electricity is given and taken away. The government gives electricity just like it gives boxes of food or houses. And like gasoline, electricity is so cheap it might as well be free. With the devaluation and hyperinflation, the government electric company had essentially stopped charging customers. Whatever it might receive in payments wasn’t worth the cost of processing them.

People would stand in line for hours to enter supermarkets where they would buy whatever was on the shelves. Outside a large supermarket in El Tigre, I came upon a line of hundreds of people. They stood pressed one against the other, front to back. Stranger against stranger. They said that it was to keep people from cutting in line. There was something horribly dehumanizing about it, the way every person was squeezed between the person behind and the person in front. The desperation of it.

The residents of Santa Teresita were angry and afraid. They were afraid of the police and they were more afraid that the police would send the colectivos—the armed motorcycle gangs that served as the government’s shock troops. They were afraid that the colectivos would come and that there would be violence. People crowded around me. They saw that I was an American, a journalist. “When are the Marines going to come and overthrow Maduro?” someone said, a voice in the darkness. “You tell Trump we’re waiting for him,” said another.

Invasions come with casualties, I said. They don’t always go as planned. People are dying anyway, a man said. That’s right! A woman jumped into the conversation and they talked over one another: People are dying from hunger, being shot in protests, dying for want of medical care.

A woman told me that she’d just returned from a trip to Colombia, and at the border, Venezuelan National Guard soldiers stole the medicine she was bringing home: antibiotics, and drugs for high blood pressure and diabetes.

People told me about the arbitrariness of electricity’s coming and going, of the uncertain water supply. It robbed you of your sleep. That was the worst. Normally you slept with the air conditioner on. But without power, in the heat of Maracaibo, you had to leave the windows open or sleep outside, and the mosquitoes wouldn’t leave you alone. You could wrap yourself up in a sheet, but then you felt like you were suffocating and still you couldn’t sleep. On top of all that, you were on edge all the time. You were worried about your family, your neighbors.

A man listening to us broke in: “We’re the walking dead here!” “They’re killing us slowly,” Alejandro said. “We’re like zombies!” said a short, wiry woman with thin bare arms. Her words came out in angry, repetitive bursts. “They’re killing us! No food! No electricity! We’re going to disappear! Any day now!

The people here took care of one another. One woman had a mastectomy last week. Another suffered a stroke. Their neighbors checked in to see how they were doing. One family had two children with special needs. The woman who’d had the medicine stolen was bringing some back for a neighbor. But the neighborhood was emptying out. “Those folks over there went to Ecuador. The ones next door went to Peru. We’ve gone backward, to before the Second World War. To 1910. We’ve gone so far backward.”

One man survived out in the country raising rabbits to eat and sell. Everything was difficult: getting food for the rabbits, transporting the rabbits. He’d be stopped at a checkpoint and the soldiers would steal the rabbits. He lived in a shack with a tin roof and a dirt floor, cooking on a wood fire.

Middle-class people were spending the savings they had in dollars and wondering what to do when they ran out.

The farther you went from Caracas, the worse things were. And the worst of all, everyone said, was Maracaibo. If in some parts of Caracas you could squint your eyes and pretend that the world was normal, in Maracaibo, you could open your eyes and imagine that you’d arrived in the zombie apocalypse. The city felt depopulated. At least half the stores and businesses we passed were shuttered. There was no traffic, but there were long lines of cars at the gas stations, perhaps more than driving on the streets. A line of people waited at a bank for their turn at the cash machine. The daily withdrawal limits hadn’t kept up with inflation, so you could take out only enough money for a single bus fare. You had to come back the next day to withdraw the return fare. Parts of the city had no electricity because of the power rationing. If there happened to be other cars at an intersection where the traffic signals were out, you’d play chicken to see who would go first. Some drivers would cruise right through. Others would ease into the intersection, hesitating, foot on the brake.

Gas shortages had been chronic for years, since before Chávez, but as was true with everything else, it was much worse now. Mostly these days, there was no gas to be had. Then, when the gas arrived, you had to wait in line for hours, perhaps all day, to buy a cylinder. That was at the government price. You could probably find a cylinder on the black market, but it would cost more than a month’s wages.

The author went to a firehouse to tell them about a pickup truck on fire, where just two firemen and no vehicles remained. Not even a car. At one time there’d been 6 ambulances and several fire trucks. Now there were no ambulances at all and just one fire truck for the entire city at another firehouse.

By the start of 2020, Venezuela’s healthcare system was barely functioning. Close to half of the country’s doctors, some 30,000 of them, had emigrated. Medicines were unavailable or in short supply. Hospitals frequently had no electricity or running water. Equipment was out-of-date or broken. People were leaving Venezuela, not going there. At first it seemed that there were few cases of Covid-19. But it was only a matter of time. People who live day to day and have no food at home can’t stay inside for weeks or months waiting for the pandemic to subside. They have to go out and make a few bolivars to buy food. And people who have no running water and no soap can’t wash their hands. So while Covid was slow to take off in Venezuela, its spread inevitably accelerated.

By now authoritarianism had become a vocation and the government criminalized infection. Venezuelan refugees returning from other parts of Latin America were labeled as bioterrorists, intentionally bringing infection back to the country. The government strictly controlled the number of returning refugees allowed to reenter the country, forcing hundreds to wait at the border on the Colombian side. Returnees were placed in quarantine facilities, in crowded conditions, without basic hygiene or adequate food or attention. The government acted aggressively to control information as well. It began arresting reporters and medical personnel who posted information on social media that questioned or contradicted the official data. Doctors and nurses who questioned the readiness of the healthcare system or the government’s low case counts were intimidated and harassed.

Without cooking gas, people built wood fires using scraps of wood in the street or going up hills with trees or underbrush.

Looting

The looting started in Maracaibo late on Sunday, the fourth day of the blackout. The looters broke into a pharmacy and then an upscale mall. People were going down the street carrying packages of corn flour, rice, and pasta. In Marlyn’s house they hadn’t eaten since the day before and now food was literally walking past their door. La Curva was always a busy place, but Marlyn had never seen so many people there. They’d broken through the metal pulldown gates in front of the shops. People would run in, desperate to get their hands on something, anything. There was a chemistry in the air, almost a smell, you could sense it: desperation, adrenaline, a fever. It scared her. Suddenly Marlyn heard gunshots and she ran.

A group of men with guns stood outside a variety store called Todo Regalado (Everything Cheap), and they’d fired into the air to keep the looters back. But this was the only store that was protected. All around, the other stores had been ripped open and people were swarming in and out. The crush was so bad at some of the stores that many people couldn’t get in. When that happened, the people outside would start to shout, “Guardia!”—pretending to warn the looters inside that the National Guard had arrived. Scared of being caught, the looters inside would rush out. And then the people waiting outside would run in to take their places.

“It was like a game,” Marlyn said. “‘Guardia!’ Run out. Run in. Out. In. Out. In.” But there were no police, no soldiers. “It was absolutely out of control.  The stores were like dark caves. There was broken glass, jagged metal. People were bleeding. Marlyn was too scared to go inside. “I felt like I was about three feet tall, like a hobbit. Everyone else seemed like giants, and if I went inside, I’d be crushed. She found a safe spot from which she could watch the parade of looters. People were taking more than food: electric fans, tables, chairs, a bed, blenders, pressure cookers, shoes, clothing, and even the shelves from inside the stores.

Later in the day Marlyn and her family followed the crowds to a warehouse. Inside there was a bonanza: pallets of food stacked to the rafters. This time Marlyn was determined to go in. But Andrés pulled her back. He was afraid she would get hurt. The boys went inside and soon came out loaded with treasure. Sacks of pasta, a case of canned deviled ham, laundry detergent, toilet paper, catsup, and a box of caramel candy. The boys dropped their booty and went in for more. Marlyn sat on top of the pile like a robber princess. They came out again with more stuff and now decided to head home.

“Morality, your sense of right and wrong, everything you learned when you were little, everything they taught you when you were growing up, everything they teach you in school, all the way up to college, was completely lost,” Marlyn said. “Why? Because people got to a point where they couldn’t think past tomorrow. What are you going to eat tomorrow? That’s the only thing that they have in their head anymore. No one cared about anybody else. If you die from hunger, what do I care, as long as I’ve got food. There’s no more lending a helping hand. People here, we have a tradition of helping each other out. If you come to my house: ‘Here, have some coffee. Do you want something to eat?’ People don’t do that anymore. You wait for the person to leave before you sit down to eat because you haven’t even got enough for yourself.

I didn’t have food. What was I going to do? Of course, everyone has their own conscience, everyone has their own way of thinking, every head contains its own world, but at the end of the day that’s what it was: I had food on my table that night. But what did that do to me? What about my conscience? Where was I? Where was Marlyn Rangel at that moment? I didn’t know her anymore.

in Maracaibo thieves stole the telephone wires that provided landline and internet service. The wire was made of copper, and the thieves sold it to scrap dealers. As a result, there was no internet.

On Sunday, looters cleaned out the Pepsi warehouse. On Monday, they looted Makro. On Tuesday morning the first looters showed up at a hotel. They broke a hole through the cinder-block wall at the back, backed up a flatbed truck and started loading it up. They knew what they were doing. A crew of looters went to the roof and removed the hotel’s four large air-conditioning units. Each one weighed hundreds of pounds. Word started to get around: They’re looting the hotel! More and more people showed up. The few hotel employees who had been able to make it to work that day fled before the wave of looters.

People were swarming over the hotel building, the grounds, the outbuildings, the cabañas, like ants on an anthill. People were running every which way. It was bedlam. A man whacke an electrical transformer mounted on a concrete pad with an axe until he broke through the steel shell and oil spurted out. Windows exploded as people smashed them, and on upper stories, men shoved mattresses out the windows and let them fall to the ground. Cars drove out loaded with loot. Others drove in to take their place.

In the midst of all the mayhem, people were acting like everything was normal. Looters went in and out, as casually as guests. Cars drove by on the main road, not fast, not slow, as though this were just another day—cars, a road, people, a hotel, destruction. The cabañas were stripped down to the studs. The roofs were gone, the doors, the windows, every toilet and sink and plumbing fixture, every inch of pipe, all the furniture, the wiring, the light switches. Every piece of equipment was gone from the restaurant: freezers, refrigerators, stoves, ovens, a fryer, dishwashers. The granite countertops from the bar had been pried up, the tables and chairs carted off, not as much as a spoon was left.  The furniture was taken from the lobby. The computers were stolen from the front desk and the office, and everything else too, down to the staplers and the paper clips. The carpets were pulled up and the ceilings pulled down. All the copper wiring and the copper pipe was stripped away, as well as anything made from aluminum. The floor was littered with chunks of plaster and broken ceiling tiles. Ductwork and conduits hung down through great gashes in the ceiling. The looters had taken the doors from the rooms and the closets and the bathrooms, and when they couldn’t open a room, they broke the door down with an axe. Inside the rooms, all the furniture was gone—beds, mattresses, tables, chairs, lamps. All the fixtures were missing—sinks, shower heads, even the toilets. What they couldn’t take, they broke: windows, mirrors. The tan wallpaper, painted with white dogwoods, was scarred with holes where they’d pulled out the electrical sockets and the light switches.

The Government & Oil

What’s distinctive about Venezuela is that its economy revolves entirely around oil. The government owns the oil in the ground and receives money from oil sales. The effect of that is to put the government at the center of economic life. And the government’s main function becomes the distribution of the oil money to its citizens. This accentuated an existing tendency toward a highly centralized government with a powerful executive. Because an extreme amount of power (both political and economic) was concentrated in the government, an outsize amount of power was put into the hands of the president. And because there was always money from oil flowing in, the government never developed a strong tax base outside the oil industry. Income taxes, value-added taxes, property taxes, sales taxes—all were either nonexistent or charged at lower rates and with lower rates of participation than in other countries in the region.  The Venezuelan state came to be viewed primarily as an enormous distributive apparatus, a huge milk cow that benefited those who were able to suckle at her teats.

And since distributing oil money was the main function of the state, it developed a patron-client relationship with the citizenry, whereby each constituency lined up to get its slice of the pie. Labor unions got a big bureaucracy with a large workforce and state-owned companies that hired more workers than they needed. The business community got state contracts and subsidies, including low-interest loans and reductions or exemptions to the already low taxes. Old people got pensions. Poor people got housing. The middle class got access to cheap dollars that subsidized trips abroad. Everyone got cheap gasoline, sold at some of the lowest prices in the world. And while governments in every country offer some or all of these benefits and pork directed at preferred constituencies, Venezuelans came to view them as essential attributes of citizenship—regardless of whether oil prices were high or low. It was like belonging to a special club—you expected all the good stuff and being born was the only dues you had to pay.

Chávez  

Chávez was deeply conservative in an essential way. His discourse was aimed at the past more than the future. It was about recapturing a golden age, returning to an imagined greatness that never really existed. Like no other politician, Chávez lived and governed on television, by television, for television, cutting out the middlemen of the press and speaking directly to his supporters, the ones he chose to call “the people.” This was true from the very first moment that he burst into the cognition of his fellow countrymen to the very last time they saw him, live on television, 20 years later,

Chávez visited farms and factories; he rode horses, took walks, drove tractors. He sang. He danced. There were musical acts. There were special guests (Fidel Castro, President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua). It started every Sunday at eleven A.M. but you never knew when it would end. It might last four hours or eight. He was on television almost every day. He broadcast cabinet meetings and speeches and tours of public works projects and trips abroad. He frequently commandeered the airwaves, breaking in and preempting the programming on all broadcast television and radio stations. From 1999 through 2012 he took over the airwaves in this way 2,377 times, for a total of 1,695 hours on the air. The whole critical mass of Venezuelan society had to watch the program, whether you were for Chávez or against him. All the heads of institutions had to watch because you never knew if he was going to call you, you never knew what he was going to come up with, you didn’t know if he was going to give you a direct order.

He would taunt and mock and skewer his opponents, at home and abroad. He would make announcements that his supporters knew would enrage his enemies, and because of that, they loved him even more.

In April 2002, Chávez used an TV to carry out a shake-up at PDVSA. He’d been in a long-running battle to increase his control over the government-run oil company, and a few weeks earlier he’d named several new members to its board. Ever since, the company’s workers and executives had been in revolt, staging protests and reducing production at wells and refineries. It was a test of wills—a defense of PDVSA’s independence from politics and a challenge to Chávez’s authority as president. Chávez took to the air and announced that he had a list of PDVSA executives that he’d decided to fire. When he was done, Chávez picked up a whistle and blew a sharp blast. “Offsides!” he said. “Get out!” Chávez’s fans loved the whole thing. They ate it up. They cheered. They clapped, on screen and at home. Did you see what he did? He fired them on TV! He fired them with a whistle! He showed those elite sons of bitches who’s boss.

This was in 2002, two years before Donald Trump would make entertainment out of firing people on TV. Chávez beat him to it.

If Chávez was visiting a farm and there wasn’t any livestock, the producers would truck in cows and release them in a pasture behind the comandante. Idle factories would receive the materials or equipment they needed to produce. His TV show was a televised Potemkin village—a stage set created for Chávez and the viewers that showed a shinier, more prosperous Venezuela than the one that existed. Chávez generally wasn’t in on the deception.

Oil prices were high and the government ramped up spending. It built thousands of apartments and houses and broadcast weekly televised giveaways, like game shows, where Chávez presented grateful families with the keys to their new homes. It spent millions to import washers and dryers and televisions and cars, which it gave away or sold at subsidized prices.

Chávez was a populist. The point of government for was staying in government. The point of power was staying in power. It wasn’t using that power to improve lives or make the country better in a lasting way. To the extent that any of those things were attempted, the attempt was made with a different end in mind: Would it help him stay in power? The core claim of populism is this: only some of the people are really the people. There is no more succinct description of Chávez’s 14 years in power. Populism, according to Müller, a professor at Princeton University, incorporates a moral vision that pits the pure people against the corrupt elites.

Chávez’s ideology was Chavismo, which is another way of saying that he was the boss and he would make the decisions. It was the same caudillismo that ran like a hauling rope through the nation’s history. Chavismo wasn’t a movement in any massive sense, but a following. The Venezuelan system of government has always been heavily centralized and weighted toward the presidency. And that suited Chávez and his cult of personality. What Chávez understood intuitively was that the way to stay in power was to exploit the “us versus them” dynamic of populism.

Chávez’s tendency was always to polarize,” said Izarra, Chávez’s former information minister. “That was the only way a revolution like his could function. He would say, ‘Polarize! We are good! They are bad!’ … Class struggle. Social class warfare. There’s no way to do that without polarizing. It has to be a no-compromise thing. There was no other way to move forward.

His stagecraft was brilliant, all alone on the stage, a lone figure in dark clothing surrounded by and elevated above the adoring masses in red. He holds a wireless microphone. Sometimes he grips it in both hands like he’s praying. His voice booms across the center of Caracas through giant speakers. An enormous campaign banner declares “Together forever.” “Who is the candidate of life?” Chávez asks the crowd. “Chávez!” they answer. Chávez works the crowd like a master. They cheer, they wave flags. He sings to them and they sing along. Nothing less than the life of Venezuela is at stake, he tells them. They reach a kind of ecstasy together.

Chávez had turned the military into the Bolivarian Armed Forces, loyal to him and his party. He brought in Cubans to set up an intelligence operation within the military, efficient and brutal, to root out dissent. He promoted loyalists and built a system of political indoctrination.

Gangs

Petare is often called the biggest slum in Latin America. Some 400,000 people live there on a concatenation of hillsides, ridges, and arroyos rising like a wall at the eastern end of the valley of Caracas. After the dictatorship ended in 1958, the new democratic government lifted the restrictions on squatting. People from the countryside poured into the capital and built their shacks on any piece of empty earth they could find. They started at the bottom and worked their way up the hillsides. The higher they went, the steeper it got, and where the roads didn’t reach, they built narrow, zigzag concrete stairways. Petare is one of the most violent places in Caracas, a violent city on a violent continent. Gangs control the barrio and fight over territory, and if you stray across one of the invisible borders separating them, you might not return. When Hilda was 12, one of her uncles was shot dead, in front of his family. When she was 22, her 17-year-old brother was returning from a party when he was shot and killed in the street.   A couple of years later another uncle was hit by a stray bullet and bled to death. Hilda’s fourth child Yara disappeared on the way to the grocery store, and the police did nothing. They didn’t care about a lost little girl from a poor family in Petare.

The family printed posters with Yara’s picture. They searched everywhere. Hilda sold an electric mixer to pay for the posters and the bus and cab fare. Days went by. They put up more posters. Some of the kids fell ill and had to go to the doctor. A man called asking for a ransom. They sold the refrigerator and their bed to raise the money. But the ransom was a hoax. The man didn’t know where Yara was. On January 6, Yara’s body was found in a garbage dump. She’d been tortured. Her fingers and ribs were broken. Her hair was pulled out.  But now that there was a body, the cops got interested. They put Hilda in a room and asked her why she’d killed her daughter. Hilda was furious.

The part of Petare where Hilda lives is run by a gang boss named Wilexys. He is feared and revered. He is the law in a lawless place. He helps the needy. Some months after Yara disappeared, Hilda received a phone call. It was Wilexys. He told her that he had found two men who had kidnapped Yara and sold her to another man, who owned a bodega. When the bodega owner tried to molest Yara, she’d resisted, and the man had beaten her to death.

It’s easy to see why Hilda and so many others of her generation loved Chávez. Suddenly the country filled up with money. This was not because of anything that Chávez had done. Instead it was driven by events halfway around the world—because economic growth in China and other countries pushed the price of oil sky-high. But that’s not how people in Petare viewed it. They voted to reelect Chávez for the same reason that people vote to reelect presidents in the United States when the economy is strong. Chávez was president and their lives were better. And he delivered for Petare. The government built medical clinics, installed water lines, and rebuilt the decaying staircases on the hillsides. It’s not that previous governments hadn’t done some of the same things. But oil prices had never been so high, and Chávez had more money to spend.

Venezuelan Death Squads

The FAES, as it is known, is a police force that was created by Maduro in 2017. It was proposed as an elite anti-crime squad, but it became clear early on that it had a different purpose. The FAES is designed to intimidate. FAES agents dress in black, with black body armor, and they often wear black balaclavas to hide their faces. They drive black pickup trucks without license plates and carry assault weapons and automatic pistols. The symbol of the FAES is a death’s-head, which agents wear in patches on their uniforms. The FAES carried out sweeps in poor neighborhoods, often resulting in a high body count. The dead would be identified afterward as criminal suspects who were killed while resisting arrest. After the killings, the FAES would plant weapons or drugs on the bodies of their victims, according to the report. In some cases, the killings occurred after the victims had attended anti-government protests.

In 2018, the government recorded 5,287 cases of killings due to “resistance to authority. Venezuelan human rights groups had reported an even greater number. At least 15,045 people were arrested and held for political reasons between January 2014 and May 2019.

In “Enforced disappearances,” the whereabouts of detainees were not revealed to family members or lawyers until days or weeks after their arrests. In most cases, people were held for exercising basic rights of free speech or political activity, and the detentions “often had no legal basis.” It found that people were repeatedly denied the right to a fair trial. In most cases, detainees were subjected to torture and other forms of cruel or degrading treatment. These included beatings, suffocation, waterboarding, and sexual violence.

The authoritarian turn was Maduro’s. With Chávez, there was protest but also money and good times. There were political prisoners, but not many. In the transactional relationship between the Venezuelan state and society, he had fewer plums to dole out, so instead he doled out violence and repression.

A United Nations report, released in late 2020, said that investigators had reviewed nearly 3,000 allegations of human rights abuses. The report concluded that they were part of “a widespread and systematic attack directed against a civilian population” and that they constituted crimes against humanity. I’ve talked to dozens of people who were beaten or tortured by security forces. Many of them were ordinary people, rounded up during protests.

BLACKOUTS

Three hours after the lights went out all across Venezuela on March 7, 2019, Maduro tweeted: “The electrical war announced and directed by U.S. imperialism against our people will be defeated!” A few minutes later, the communications minister, Jorge Rodríguez, went on television and announced that a foreign enemy had carried out a “cybernetic attack” against the large hydroelectric complex at Guri, in southeastern Venezuela.  On day three of the blackout, Maduro spoke at a rally in Caracas. Government technicians had been close to restoring power to the entire nation, Maduro said, when another cyberattack had occurred, which set the process back to the beginning. He also revealed a new type of aggression. He said that the country had been the victim of an electromagnetic attack aimed at its power transmission lines. Maduro was very angry. He said that the Venezuelan opposition and the U.S. government were behind the attack.

A 2nd nationwide blackout occurred on March 25. This time Jorge said that snipers had fired on a transformer at the Guri complex, causing the transformer to explode.

One electrical technician said that so much effort goes into covering over mistakes and pointing fingers at others—playing the victim—rather than fixing the problem. Casting blame on outside forces or internal double-dealers is one of the essential traits of populism. A shared sense of persecution helps build the us versus them identity.

Chávez indulged in this and Maduro excelled at it: the claims of coup plots, assassination attempts, and sabotage multiplied. While Maduro and Jorge were claiming sabotage and outside aggression, other people were pointing to what everyone knew to be true: for years Venezuela’s electrical system had been decaying, suffering from massive disinvestment and a failure to maintain its installations. Like virtually everything else in the country, it was falling apart.

One of the most likely causes of the initial blackout was a fire under the high-tension lines. All electric utilities make it a priority to cut the underbrush from beneath high voltage lines, in part because a fire can produce a spike in current that can disrupt the transmission system. For years all types of basic maintenance, including cutting brush, had been neglected by the electrical utility

How did the nation with the biggest estimated oil reserves in the world turn into a disintegrating country where millions of people were going hungry and one in six residents had fled? The short answer is that Venezuela ran out of money. From 1999, the year that Chávez took office, through 2013, the year he died, Venezuela’s total oil export income was $768 billion. In 2012 the value of Venezuela’s oil exports reached its highest one-year level ever, surpassing $93 billion. Then the price of oil started to drop. In 2015, the nation’s oil export income fell to $35 billion. In 2016, it was just $26 billion.

We drive along lightless streets. Families sit in front of their homes, on stoops, in chairs, at tables, talking, playing dominoes, passing the time. The white light from our headlights engulfs them for an instant, like a strobe, capturing scattered images—a hand raised to place a domino on the table, a mouth opened in laughter. The light washes over them and moves on, leaving them behind in darkness. This is life now, post-electricity, which is to say pre-electricity, rushing forward into the past.

Many issues to fix the electric grid remain unaddressed. At the offices of Corpoelec 25% of the people are at work and they leave at two o’clock to make some money on the side. The same thing is happening in the power plants. In Guayana City there were only two workers assigned to do maintenance on close to 20 electrical substations. There was one old pickup truck available, and when it broke down, the workers paid for the repairs on their own, which they did since they used the vehicle to do odd jobs on the side to make extra money. To do their job properly, these workers needed a vehicle with a bucket lift, but they’d all broken down and never been fixed. Throughout the company, routine maintenance schedules had been allowed to lapse.  At its peak Corpoelec had about 50,000 employees, but needed only half that many, swollen by profligate patronage and corruption and incompetence.

Corruption

Corruption destroys the idea of being a citizen. Everyone becomes complicit. Anyone who didn’t drink from the overflowing cup before it was empty and cracked, anyone who didn’t grab his fistful of dollars while he could was just stupid and to be pitied—no, not pitied: scorned. And that’s how the corrupt want it.

In Venezuela there have been two primary areas of commerce or industry into which people could channel their energy. One, of course, was oil. The other was importing. Since oil exports boosted the value of the bolivar and created strong incentives against producing things locally (this was the Dutch Disease effect), it was natural that the import business should thrive in Venezuela. Importing was also one of the ways that people could share in the oil revenues. The dollars produced by selling oil were used to bring in all sorts of things that consumers wanted. Food. Alcohol. Cars. Television sets. Clothing. Medicine.

In 2003 Chávez created a fixed exchange rate and a government agency, to decide who got dollars and for what purpose. This had two important effects. First, it put the government in charge of handing out dollars—accentuating its permanent role as the distributor of oil money and creating new avenues for corruption. Second, it led to the creation of a black market for dollars.   Not all applications for dollars were approved. So you might want to have a friend or a cousin in the government, who could grease the wheels for you, and you might want to pay bribes to this friend or cousin and their friends.

Next, tennis rackets are nice, but money is nicer. So instead of spending the entire $1 million on tennis rackets in China, you arrange with your Chinese supplier to ship just $450,000 worth of tennis rackets to Venezuela, with a phony invoice that says the tennis rackets are really worth the full amount. Even so, once the merchandise arrived in Venezuela, customs officials might raise objections, and you might need to bribe them as well. That leaves you with $500,000. You could then take that money and deposit it in a bank account in Miami or Switzerland. Or you could turn around and sell it to other Venezuelan businessmen who needed dollars. And you would sell it to them at the black-market rate, which was double the rate you’d paid for the dollars. You could now take that money and spend it, or you could apply to buy more dollars. Venezuelans called that “the bicycle”: using the profits of one currency transaction to finance the next one, and the next one, and the next one. The wheels kept turning. You were playing with the house’s money.

The more you exaggerated the value of your shipment, the more you stood to profit. The incentives and opportunities for corruption were enormous for both importers and government officials.  The orgy of dollars and bogus shipments became extreme. You could throw the tennis rackets you’d imported into the ocean and what would it matter? There were cases where importers didn’t bother to bring in anything at all, or they shipped containers full of scrap metal. Importers abandoned containers of merchandise on the docks because they had already realized such an enormous profit that they couldn’t be bothered to collect the merchandise and sell it.

Oil dollars ceased to be primarily a means of importing needed goods at an affordable price and became instead an object of speculation and corruption.

Even before the oil price started to drop, recession had set in, and the economy in 2014 would shrink by nearly 4%. At the same time, inflation was increasing and so were shortages of basic goods and lines outside depleted supermarkets.

Maduro’s response to inflation was price controls. Intended to keep basic goods affordable, they had the opposite effect. Cheap goods, including corn flour and other food staples whose prices were set below market value, were siphoned away from stores and resold on the streets at higher prices. The result was even more acute shortages and more inflation.  Many goods also disappeared into Colombia and Brazil. Anything subject to price controls or produced with government subsidies—corn flour, shampoo, cooking oil, and more—chased higher prices across the border.

But the biggest cross-border profits were to be had by selling gasoline. Venezuela had the cheapest gasoline in the world—you could fill up your tank for pennies. There had always been contraband traffic of gasoline into Colombia. But as the economic crisis set in, the incentive increased.

With oil revenues decreasing, the government had less money to spend. But Maduro, intent on shoring up his political position, wasn’t willing to reduce spending. To cover the shortfall, he printed more bolivars, which produced more fuel for inflation. His response was more price controls and stricter enforcement.  Low prices discourage companies from producing the controlled products, so there are fewer of them in the market. People rush to buy up the cheap products and stores run out. Then because the price-controlled products tend to be staples, those people who weren’t quick enough to buy them in stores still need them—and so the people who bought them resell them on the black market at much higher prices.

To keep its hard currency reserves from disappearing, the government restricted the sale of dollars. As with any other good, Rodríguez said, high demand and low supply meant the price of black-market dollars soared. As that happened, a growing portion of the dollars that the government sold to importers never resulted in goods coming into the country. The profits to be had by playing the spread between the official and black-market exchange rates were so great that would-be importers simply covered their costs and pocketed the money.  All that meant fewer imports and fewer products on store shelves, which meant higher prices. At the same time, the government’s costs were going up too—salaries, pensions, military uniforms—and the government was printing money to finance its operations. As oil revenues fell, the government printing machine worked harder.

Maduro doubled down on price controls. He sent soldiers into electronics stores to mark down the prices of TV sets and computers. He added to the list of products subject to controls. He deployed an army of inspectors to audit stores and fine violators.  The effect was to push more and more products onto the black market (or across the border), and store shelves became emptier. Lines at stores became so long the government assigned shopping days to people based on the last digit of their national identification number, and it sent soldiers to patrol the lines to make sure people weren’t shopping on the wrong day. If you had dollars, you were rich. You could buy a bottle of twelve-year-old Scotch for the equivalent of ten bucks, using bolivars bought on the black market.

Over time, the airlines cut back more flights, and the country, which had always been so open to the world, became isolated.

Working with Maduro was a shock. “I found myself with a person who was like Jell-O. He moves this way and he moves that way and he doesn’t make a decision. And the country, I felt like it was a boat that was sinking, down, down, down.  Over time, however, Ramírez concluded that Maduro was listening to a group of businessmen who had made a fortune through easy access to Venezuela’s cheap dollars. And they didn’t want the system to change.  “Maduro decided in favor of an economic interest group that had been at his side and had supported him for years,” Ramírez said. “Every time he either made a decision or didn’t make a decision, it was to favor that group.

I asked when the breaking point in Venezuela would finally come. She gave me the kind of look that a teacher might give a pupil who hasn’t mastered a lesson. “Things are never so bad that they can’t get worse,” she said. “They can.” I met de Krivoy a second time several months later, and true to her prediction, as grim as things had appeared before, they were orders of magnitude worse now. I asked de Krivoy how the country had come to this. “You start by weakening institutions. Chávez reformed the law of the Central Bank and allowed the Central Bank to fund the government. That opened the door to printing money and hyperinflation … Chávez sacked 20,000 professionals in PDVSA, changed the law [governing] PDVSA, turned PDVSA into a petty cash [source] for the government—and production started coming down. The process at PDVSA was complete, she said, when Maduro named a general with no oil sector experience to run the company. This was part of a broader pattern involving the military. First Chávez politicized the armed forces by making them loyal to his party, and then Maduro handed out key government posts to generals.

“Then you have the judiciary. Chávez increased the number of judges in order to control the Supreme Court, and the rule of law disappeared. Then you destroy property rights and overregulate the economy. Then you change the constitution and you start having yearly elections in Venezuela. So what used to be a 5-year horizon for policy making ended up being a one-year horizon, because every election in Venezuela was a referendum on Chávez, so the quality of policy making also deteriorated.

Maduro appointed Motta Domínguez as president of Corpoelec and minister of electrical energy in 2015. He had no experience in the electrical sector; he was a former general in the national guard. Maduro needed to shore up his support in the military and he was handing out sinecures to generals, regardless of their qualifications. Motta Domínguez also checked another box: he was close to Tareck El Aissami, a powerful governor who controlled an important faction within Chavismo. Corpoelec, even in its reduced state, was a juicy plum: there were patronage jobs to hand out and millions of dollars in contracts to assign. And he was utterly incompetent, firing some of the most essential workers keeping the electric grid up.

Under his leadership the grid fell apart. The 12 generators at Caruachi had been leaking oil and were surrounded by a lake of oil that no one had bothered to clean up. Basic maintenance had been neglected. Spare parts were exhausted. Radios didn’t work. Burned-out lightbulbs hadn’t been replaced.

People had deserted the company because they could no longer afford to live on wages that had once guaranteed a middle-class lifestyle and now provided for a starvation existence. Many experienced workers had left the country.

Where did the money go?

It is commonplace to say that Hugo Chávez had charisma and that this was the key to his success as a politician. And he certainly did have an ability to connect with people, especially those who had felt shut out for so long, pushed to the margins of Venezuelan political and economic life, the slum dwellers and the ranch hands and those left behind in the small towns. But more than charisma, what Chávez really had was the steadily rising price of oil. Put another way: oil at $100 a barrel is a lot of charisma.

In 2000, the year after he took office, Chávez had announced a National Rail Plan, which later would be renamed the Socialist Railway Development Plan. It was also sometimes called the Simón Bolívar National Railway System. The plan called for tens of billions of dollars to build or rehabilitate 15 rail lines with about 5,300 miles of track. The only part of it that was ever finished was a short commuter line connecting Caracas to a town called Cúa. The line covered 25 miles and had four stations. When it was finished in 2006, the government said that it had cost $3 billion. What struck me about the rail line beside the highway is that it was out in plain sight, for everyone to see. And what you saw was waste. And futility. There was a shamelessness about it, as though merely beginning were enough. As though promising something was all that was needed, and actually delivering on the promise was not what counted.

Promising and not delivering wasn’t something invented by Chávez. Building a train to connect Caracas to the central cities of Maracay and, further west, Valencia, had been talked about for decades. The difference with Chávez was the scale of the waste. He had more money than any of his predecessors to squander on miles of concrete and steel, on trains to nowhere.

The fact is that Chavismo was born of what came before it. Chávez’s greatest talent wasn’t inventing something new. It was just repackaging the old and pretending that he’d come up with it himself. The democratic governments in the four decades before Chávez had had their share of corruption and their share of wasted money. The Chavistas had either the good luck or the great misfortune to have been in power when the spigot was turned on all the way. You think of what could have been accomplished with all that money—how the country could have taken a different road, arrived at a different place. That is perhaps the greatest tragedy of Chavismo.

The great advantage of not finishing things was that you could come back every few years and announce them again: New Hospital Coming Soon! It was like a person who knows only one joke and keeps telling it over and over. And laughing each time.

There were so many avenues for waste. A paper plant sucked in more than $800 million and never produced a single roll of paper. An aluminum rolling mill was announced with an initial investment of $210 million. A few years on, Chávez complained about delays in construction and announced that he had approved an additional $500 million. In 2019, Maduro dredged up the rolling mill project again—more than a decade after its first announcement—and said that he was installing a new manager. On television, he wagged a finger at the man and said, “Get it done!” Six months later, the construction site for the project was quietly shut down.

In 2006 Chávez announced plans to build the country’s third bridge across the Orinoco River. He said it was one of Venezuela’s biggest engineering projects ever. Pilings were built, approach roadways were constructed. In 2012, the government said that it had spent nearly $900 million. In 2013, the transportation minister said the budget had increased to $2.8 billion. In 2014, he said that the project would be completed in 2017. Today there still is no bridge

The landscape is littered with unfinished projects. If you were a giant striding across Venezuela, you would have to watch where you stepped. You would stub your toe on an unfinished hospital here; you would howl in pain when you stepped on the pilings of an unfinished bridge over there. The exposed and rusting rebar poking up from half-built factories would be like splinters in the soles of your feet.

In 2005, Chávez declared his intention to make Venezuela a socialist country. He said that the nation would create a new kind of socialism that he called 21st-century socialism. No one ever knew what that meant. It wasn’t an ideology—it was a brand. The one thing that everyone knew about socialism was that the workers should control the means of production. Talking about socialism, then, meant making a show of acquiring the means of production for the working class. So Chávez embarked on a campaign of nationalizations.

His pockets stuffed with oil money, Chávez started buying back the privatized companies and went on a spree of expropriations and nationalizations. The national telephone company, CANTV, had been privatized in the 1990s. In 2007, Chávez bought it back, paying $572 million to Verizon, the largest shareholder. He paid about $1 billion for several privately owned power companies in order to create the single electrical utility that he christened Corpoelec and insisted on charging low rates—to protect the buying power of the poor and to buy support from the middle class at election time. But he didn’t provide the financing that would allow the company to perform maintenance and invest and grow.

You can make an argument that certain industries or certain types of companies might be better under public control. Many countries have public utilities and banks. But if you’re going to go out and buy up private companies and put them under government control, you ought to make an effort to run them well—to invest in them and to hire competent administrators. Chávez didn’t do those things. He put loyalists in charge and did almost nothing to prevent corruption. He starved his newly acquired companies of investment. The steel mill wasn’t for making steel, it was for making Chávez look like a socialist.

It couldn’t last, and it didn’t. That became clear on March 7, 2019, when the lights went out.

When Chávez wasn’t able to negotiate the purchase of a company, he would expropriate it, deferring the payment until a price could be fixed by an international arbitration panel. But that process took years, and the bills came due when Venezuela could least afford to pay.

Chávez expropriated a large gold mining project from the Canadian mining company Crystallex International in 2011. In 2016, an arbitration panel ruled that Venezuela must pay the company $1.2 billion. Another Canadian company, Rusoro Mining, won a judgment of $1.2 billion for another gold mine. Chávez seized the Venezuelan assets of ConocoPhillips, the American oil company, in 2007. Arbitration panels ruled that Venezuela must pay the company more than $10 billion.

Once Chávez had the properties, what did he do with them? Nothing. The gold mines were never developed. The oil ventures languished without sufficient investment.

Chávez created a national development fund, called Fonden, in which he deposited billions of dollars in oil money. The fund was under his direct control—a slush fund, pure and simple. He spent the money on large industrial or infrastructure projects or anything else he felt like supporting. From 2005 through 2014, Fonden received $142 billion from PDVSA and the Central Bank. That equals a fifth of oil exports during that period—under the sole control of the president, with no independent oversight and no consistent follow-up.

Chávez (and Maduro after him) also borrowed heavily, often using future oil revenue as collateral. Chávez established a series of off-budget development accounts with loans from China and investment from PDVSA. Between 2007 and 2014, these so-called Chinese Funds received a total of $62 billion, including more than $50 billion from China. As with Fonden, this money was under the president’s control.

When Chávez nationalized Sidor, the company had 5,600 employees. The total payroll eventually grew to more than 14,000 workers. It kept adding employees even as production fell. At the same time, the union came under control of the government and was effectively neutered. To be a unionist meant being a revolutionary, and that meant supporting the government, which was now the boss. Under Maduro, union leaders who asserted independence were jailed. Management was chosen based on loyalty rather than expertise. Corruption was commonplace. Rincón and Shiera had been paying bribes to receive contracts that allowed them to sell items such as pipe or drilling equipment at hugely inflated prices. The high prices provided for outsize profits for the two businessmen and also covered the cost of the kickbacks.

Investigators estimated that over a period of five years, Rincón and Shiera received contracts worth more than $1 billion. Their scam went along smoothly until PDVSA experienced a cash crunch, which caused it to delay payments to its suppliers. But adversity breeds opportunity. A Venezuelan lawyer approached Rincón and Shiera with an offer. He said that he represented high-level officials at PDVSA who could decide which suppliers were paid and which were not. These officials would make sure that Rincón and Shiera were paid on time, the lawyer said, if the businessmen kicked back to them 10% of everything that PDVSA paid them.

Santilli had sold PDVSA a consignment of 55-gallon drums for $9.2 million. Nothing could be more mundane: selling oil barrels to an oil company. But investigators said that the drums were actually worth just $2 million. In other words, Santilli was charging a markup of 360%. According to court documents, that was typical of Santilli’s transactions with PDVSA. The barrel sale occurred in October 2015, when the price of oil was in free fall and PDVSA could hardly afford to pay a $7 million premium for metal barrels.

Failed Projects

Since 2008 about $440 million had been spent to build the Bolivarian Cable Train for 0.6 miles of track while a similar system of 3.2 miles at the Oakland airport cost $484 million.  Chávez suddenly showed up on TV screens everywhere to test Bolivarian Cable Train. It wasn’t even close to working, but the staff had rigged a car and short stretch of wire to make it appear as if ready, and it never was.

Everywhere were empty, dead, and dying houses.  And there were gigantic holes in the ground, a monument of the broken promises.  One hole had been intended to be a civic center for Maracaibo, a project started by President Carlos Andrés Pérez during the 1970s oil boom. Vast in scale, a marriage of culture and commerce, it would have office towers, a concert hall, a library, a stadium, and more. Plans were drawn up and a hole was dug, where foundations and subbasements and utilities and parking garages would go. But dig the hole was all they ever did. The project stalled. Presidents and governors came and went. The pit remained. It’s still there. It had become a dump site. All along the lip of the crater, trash was piled up, spilling into the void. It was hard to say how far down the hole went, but it was an impressive distance. At the bottom, there was a jungle, with trees.

Guayana City also had its holes in the ground, although none were as big as the Coquivacoa Hole in Maracaibo. A giant hole had been dug for a regional office of the Central Bank; it was to have had underground vaults to hold the gold from the Guayana mines. It was never built. I saw two giant holes excavated for shopping malls that were never constructed and one for a hotel.

Venezuelan Oil

Venezuela was becoming an oil-producing country that could barely produce oil. There are many reasons that production fell. American sanctions cut off the country from oil markets and from financing. PDVSA was badly managed. It failed to make necessary investments and maintain its facilities. Maduro had installed a general with no oil experience to run the company.  By 2018, PDVSA wasn’t an oil company anymore. It was a junkyard. Thousands of employees had stopped going to work or fled the country because the wages PDVSA paid had become worthless. All the installations I visited were in ruins. Thieves stole the motors from pumpjacks and tore transformers off poles to remove the copper inside. Workers had no tools. Vehicles were broken down.

A manager for one of the foreign oil companies that worked with PDVSA in the heavy oil belt told me that the looting of the oil fields was done by the workers themselves. They would steal copper wire or tools and sell them for a few bolivars to buy food.  There were so many ways to steal. In 2017, Alejandro Andrade, a former national treasurer of Venezuela, pled guilty to bribery charges in federal court in Florida. Andrade had been Chávez’s bodyguard before being elevated to treasurer for the nation. His only qualification was loyalty. In court he admitted taking hundreds of millions of dollars from a Venezuelan businessman named Raúl Gorrín. The bribes included private jets, a yacht, show horses, fancy cars and watches, and real estate.

The whole country was corrupt. One of the first groups to take advantage was the middle class. In fact, the currency controls were Chávez’s way of buying off the middle class. Cheap dollars made it possible to take trips to Madrid, Rome, Miami, Houston, New York. That was perfectly legal. But then people started selling their travel quotas to operators who came up with ways that let them extract money from the system without ever leaving the country. It destroys your sense of right and wrong, Patricia said. It destroys your sense of belonging to a society, something that matters and has value.

Financial sanctions in August 2017 had a particularly strong impact on PDVSA. Venezuelan oil production had begun to fall in 2016, but it went off a cliff after the financial sanctions went into effect. There were many reasons for oil production to decline. There were years of corruption, mismanagement, and underinvestment. At the end of 2014, Maduro put his wife’s nephew in charge of PDVSA’s finances, and in late 2017 he installed a former general with no experience in the oil industry as head of the company. Under the guise of a corruption investigation that had the appearance of a political housecleaning, the government jailed dozens of PDVSA executives. Once the economic crisis started pushing Venezuelans to leave the country, the exodus included many experienced PDVSA managers and workers. The theft of equipment also affected operations—thieves even stole the motors from the pumps on oil wells. Rodríguez considered that, coming on top of those factors, the loss of access to financing due to sanctions was decisive.

Finally, in January 2019, after Guaidó’s swearing in as interim president, the White House enacted the sanction that barred U.S. companies from doing business with PDVSA, effectively banning Venezuelan oil sales to the United States. This was the sanction that the National Security Council under McMaster had placed at the far end of the road map, to be used only if it was clear that the Maduro government was about to crumble. But there was no win. Maduro endured. And the United States continued to add more sanctions which only made life more miserable for ordinary people.

Through negligence, corruption, and mismanagement, the Maduro government presided over the destruction of the oil industry. The Trump administration’s sanctions were the coup de grace.

Trump & Maduro

Maduro was not in absolute control, as was revealed when he was unable to release Holt, an American hostage. Power was fragmented. Maduro shared power with other important figures who had their own circles of influence. These included Diosdado Cabello, who was believed to control the Sebin intelligence police. Some of these figures were Maduro’s allies and some his rivals.  He was being controlled at Sebin, and he was probably in the hands of the Cubans or Diosdado.  But just as there were factions in Caracas that didn’t want improved relations with Washington, there were hard-liners in the United States who didn’t want a thaw with the Venezuelans. The Trump White House was in the midst of a maximum pressure campaign against Maduro—steered by National Security Advisor John Bolton and backed by hawkish legislators like Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. And hard-liners in the Trump administration were unwilling to negotiate with Maduro to free Holt.

Trumps appointees believe we were too soft and what’s needed is a crackdown, maximum pressure. It fits in with the Trump vision. Many who had years of diplomatic experience in Venezuela were fired by the Trump administration as well.  New appointees didn’t understand the rooted nature of Chavismo in Venezuela. And they still don’t. And there’s this belief that grows with time, especially after Chávez takes ill and then dies, that Venezuela is run by a very small group of criminally oriented, ideologically driven politicians who are dependent on Cuban intelligence officers and security officials and Chinese and Russian money to stay in power. And that if these things were to be taken away from them, they would be swept out to sea immediately and Venezuela would become this tabula rasa for whatever political leadership would present itself. Which is not true and foolish, because Chavismo in Venezuela is like Peronism in Argentina, a lasting feature of the Venezuelan political landscape. It is a political movement and a party that has dominated Venezuela for 20 years–the state, the Venezuelan security services, the armed forces. Even if Juan Guaidó became President, what would he control?

Sanctions aren’t working. As one policymaker put it: “Sanctions by themselves often were a poor substitute for policy and bigger decision-making. It can often take a long time for the full effect of sanctions to be felt, and if you get results, it’s hard to know if it was because of the sanctions or other factors. Too often sanctions were something that policy makers did just so that they could say that they’d done something. And the National Security Council was under pressure from hard-liners like the Cuban Americans and the Rubio-ites to sanction everybody. The idea was to ratchet up the pressure little by little in the hope of forcing Maduro to engage in negotiations that could lead to an even playing field for the opposition in the presidential election scheduled for 2018.   At the very end of the road map was a sort of doomsday sanction: an oil embargo to bar Venezuelan oil sales to the United States and restrict the country’s ability to sell its oil anywhere.  Though there were concerns more harm would be done to the Venezuelan people than the government, pushing the country into even more chaos and misery for Venezuelan citizens.

Maduro was deeply unpopular. All over the map, spontaneous protests were breaking out. The opposition had the street—it could call a march and people would turn out. And it had international support. More than 40 countries had condemned Maduro’s bogus reelection. But these things were not enough to push Maduro from power.

The group around López concluded that the military was the key. They knew that there was discontent in the armed forces. A soldier’s wages were just as worthless as everyone else’s. Top officers sanctioned by the United States might be persuaded to come over in exchange for having the sanctions lifted. Mid-level officers and the rank and file might simply be waiting for the right opportunity to switch sides.

Mines expressed his frustration in notes that he wrote on January 2, 2019. “We are kind of stuck,” he wrote. “I haven’t heard a good new idea lately.” That changed a few days later when López and a small circle of allies began reaching out to State Department officials with a novel proposal: now that Guaidó was the leader of the National Assembly, he could invoke Article 233 of the constitution to become interim president. The United States and other countries would recognize Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate head of state. Secretary of State Pompeo warmed to the idea, but others were skeptical. “There was a fierce debate in the American government whether this was a good idea or not,” Mines said. “And there was a number of us that thought it was not a good idea because we just didn’t think it was going to work and we thought it was going to get Guaidó killed.

Guaidó told González that he planned to formally swear himself in as the interim and legitimate president of Venezuela at the opposition rally that was to take place later that day. González was stunned. This was not what the parties had agreed on. And it was being done without coordination or preparation. Guaidó reassured him: he’d talked to Mike Pence and the Americans were on board. Within minutes of swearing himself in, the White House issued a statement from President Trump, recognizing Guaidó as interim president.

Why hadn’t the swearing in been discussed and approved in advance by the full assembly? Why was it done on the fly, in the street instead of in the legislature? It showed a lack of respect to Canada, Colombia, and Brazil who were part of a group of countries that had been working for more than a year to seek a solution to the stalemate in Venezuela. They had condemned Maduro’s slide to authoritarianism and advocated for democratic change. It was hoped that, by leaving the United States out of the group, more progress could be made, without the irritant of the ill will between Washington and Caracas. Given that history, it might have made sense for the Lima Group countries to be the first to recognize Guaidó. But Washington wanted to be first. A South American diplomat told me that Washington’s insistence on going first put its Latin American allies in a bind, exposing them to criticism that they were doing the White House’s bidding when they recognized Guaidó

Maduro responded by breaking diplomatic relations with the U.S., giving its diplomats 72 hours to leave the country. “I am the only president of Venezuela,” Maduro said. “We do not want to return to the 20th century of gringo interventions and coups d’état.” The United States said that since Maduro wasn’t president, he couldn’t order its diplomats to leave.

The U.S. had made no preparations to safeguard embassy personnel—a noteworthy omission, given Pompeo’s history. As a member of the House of Representatives, he had been the driving force behind a lengthy investigation into security lapses at the U.S. diplomatic mission and a CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were killed when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

The days after Guaidó’s swearing in were heady ones. The streets filled with people, by the tens of thousands, calling on Maduro to leave. His greatest assets were his anonymity and his youth. He stood for one thing only: getting rid of Maduro. Before long, more than 50 countries had recognized Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela. Guaidó declared that his government would act on its own to bring humanitarian aid to the Venezuelan people.

He picked Cúcuta, a shapeless Colombian border city that sits across the Táchira River from Venezuela. Several bridges connect the two countries there, and, to counter Guaidó, Maduro had them blockaded with shipping containers and other barriers and had stationed troops and police on the Venezuelan side.

Guaidó predicted that 600,000 Venezuelans would show up to carry the supplies across the border. The next day hope was replaced by violence and chaos. The bridges were sealed and nothing crossed over. Venezuelan soldiers fired tear gas as demonstrators coming from the Colombian side tried to cross the bridges. There was no mass defection of soldiers. Some waded across the river, in ones or twos, to surrender on the Colombian side. Guaidó had called on the armed forces to back him up, to become the force that carried him to the presidential palace.  But only a few dozen mostly low-ranking soldiers who handed their weapons over to their Colombian counterparts turned up in the hope of receiving something to eat. At the end of the day the Colombian government said that about 60 had come across. There was no avalanche of aid, just violence and disarray. There had been no break in the military. There had been no groundswell of hundreds of thousands of supporters.

Guaidó had three ideas about how to remove Maduro. One was a military coup, the second a massive popular upwelling of protest or rioting, and finally a foreign intervention.

The objective of the broad economic sanctions deployed by the Trump White House was to starve the Maduro government of the cash that kept it going assuming the government survived only because it could continue to dole out graft to top-level Chavistas and military officers. And if the graft dried up, then the people that propped up the government, especially in the military, would stop doing so.

At what point would people become so desperate—lacking food, medicine, hope—that they would rise up? At what point would military officers say the country can’t take it anymore and neither can we?

Bolton pressed for an oil sanction. One official described the Bolton approach as: “Just crash the economy and they’ll somehow cry uncle.” He called it “reverse rapture theology, where somehow you put pressure on the bad guys and they just leave and leave the good guys in charge. It was so much more complicated than that. It still is, and that was just never going to work.

Many had misgivings. Would the sanction put Guaidó in greater danger? Would Maduro target U.S. embassy personnel or seize the assets of American oil companies? How would the military react? Instead of getting officers to flip, would the sanction unite them behind Maduro? What would the humanitarian impact be and how would the loss of oil income affect food imports? What was the diplomatic strategy of the U.S. to dissuade other countries from buying Venezuelan crude? None of these questions had been adequately addressed.

When Mines told me that he and others in the government were aware that Guaidó’s approach was based on a chimera, I asked him why the U.S. government had poured its resources into supporting him. “We just all got behind trying to find some way to make it work,” Mines said. “None of us fell on our swords and said, ‘Oh, this is just going to be a disaster.’” The way he described it, the administration’s policy took on an institutional momentum. When it failed to produce results, there was always a fallback. “Whenever something was tried and failed, it was more sanctions,” Mines said. “The answer was always more sanctions.

The lights are still on in wealthy areas

While many families were struggling to eat, even once a day, in the wealthiest area, the restaurants were always full, the bars packed with stylish men and women, laughing, playing, flirting, doing business. In gyms, fit people took Spinning classes, sweating to keep the pounds off, even as a mile or two away, people were going hungry, agonizing over their malnourished children. A new kind of high-end store, called a bodegón, started to appear, selling imported goods with prices in dollars. They had fancy hams from Spain and extra big boxes of Frosted Flakes from Costco in Miami. Behind much of this traffic were mafias connected to the military and top echelons of the government, which made it possible to fly in all these goods without paying import duties and allowed the stores to operate with no government interference. In Caracas there was electricity and gasoline. The government worked to maintain a degree of normalcy in the capital.

Guayana City, Gold, and Gangs

In the early 1960s the leaders of Venezuela’s fledgling democracy hired a group of urban planners from Harvard and MIT and asked them to design a new city that would rise out of the country’s eastern wilderness. They called it Guayana City, and they placed it at the confluence of two great rivers: the Orinoco and the Caroní. They envisioned the city as a hub for industry and electrical power and planned immense dams, steel and aluminum. There was gold and diamonds in the hills. The gringos came and drew long, wide straight avenues for their imagined city. Workers came from all over Venezuela, South America, and Europe to build them.

When Chávez was elected, the city’s strength became its weakness. Chávez didn’t trust professionals. They weren’t his people. They didn’t owe him anything or want the old order turned upside down. They were bourgeois. If there is one unifying strand of the last 20 years of Chavismo, it was the conscious destruction of everything that was successful. In 2013 Guayana City was still intact, but by 2019 it was decayed, dirty, uncared for. The mills were stopped, but not as desolate as Maracaibo, mainly because gold was keeping it going. Guayana City was the jumping-off point for the enormous arc of licensed and illegal gold mines to the south. But the streets were mostly empty. The malls were deserted. Few restaurants were open. Long stretches of roadway were dark. Everything seemed covered in a layer of gray dust. Traffic signals were out.

At the Macro Centro, the young men stand around and sing: Oro. Oro. Oro. Oro. Oro. Gold. Gold. Gold. Gold. Gold. It sounds like this: Orororororororororororo. The Macro Centro is a shopping mall in the center of Guayana City, and the young men are the barkers for the gold buyers, who stand outside with their song of gold, drawing in the small-time miners fresh from the mines, who’ve come to sell. These are the gold panners, the guys who carry long steel bars up into the mountains to lever up boulders and look for gold nuggets underneath, grunts on a placer mine crew,

The sindicato has eyes everywhere. The gold mines and the towns here are controlled by criminal gangs who took their code of violence from Venezuelan prisons and applied it to society at large. The sindicatos were brutal, but they had established a kind of order in the interest of more efficiently carrying out the extraction and movement of gold.

Donis operated a placer mine. He had a crew of seven men, plus a woman who cooked. He needed only six men to work the mine, but at any given moment at least one of the men was sick with malaria and couldn’t work. They slept in hammocks slung side by side under tin-roofed ramadas and ate in an open-sided canteen. Donis’s mine was a big crater in the jungle. The men used a pressurized hose to wash the sediment from the yellow sides of the crater. It collected in a pond and they pumped it up onto an enormous sluice, a couple of stories tall at the top. It was covered with green Astroturf. The sediment ran down the incline, and bits of gold were trapped in the fibers of the carpet. Once a month they washed the gold bits off the carpet and used mercury to separate the mineral from the soil and other impurities. The take for the previous month, Donis told me, was 400 grams (14 ounces) of gold. This still wasn’t pure gold, but it was the form of gold used locally as currency. At the time that I was there, 400 grams was worth about $12,000.

Donis paid his crew (including the cook) 35% off the top, which worked out to $525 each. And he paid all the expenses of the operation, including food, fuel, and machinery. On top of that, he paid 10% to the indigenous community whose land the mine was on and another large percentage to the sindicato. He paid bribes to the National Guard for every drum of fuel and more bribes for each piece of equipment that he brought upriver. “The sindicato is really the government around here,” Donis said.

Out here, the government’s main function was to shake people down and extort money from them—such as in the bribes paid to the National Guard. The mob stepped in and, in its own brutal way, did some of the things that we expect a government to do—it collected taxes and enforced a kind of order. It was really a form of contracting out. The government found it more efficient to let the sindicatos keep order and keep the gold flowing than to go in and do the work itself. At the end of the day, the same people ended up lining their pockets.

Everyone knew their place in the great flow of riches. The dirt-poor miners at the bottom, the sindicato tough guys, the privates and the officers in the National Guard, the prans, and far away, where they didn’t have to get their boots dirty, the government officials who received their portion.

Néstor estimates that he has come down with malaria more than 40 times; and that last time was one of the worst. Néstor lived in Tumeremo, a town north of El Dorado, and he’d done a bit of everything that had to do with mining for gold. He’d panned for gold, he’d worked in a placer mine, he’d been lieutenant to a pran in a sindicato, and he’d run cantinas and bordellos in mining towns. Everyone in Néstor’s family has had malaria many times. His youngest daughter, Aurora, who was five years old when I met her, had, by the family’s count, come down with malaria 17 times.

The disease had once been so chronic and widespread that it seemed like a permanent feature of the country, like oil. In the 1940s, the country developed an innovative public health program that involved the spraying of DDT and the deployment of rural health workers to distribute antimalarial medicine. It was so effective that it became a model for other countries to follow. Now malaria is epidemic again. In 2019, there were 400,000 cases reported in Venezuela, according to the Pan American Health Organization. That was two and a half times more cases than in Brazil, which has almost eight times the population.  The epicenter is in the gold mines, where mosquitoes breed in the jungle. There are still some government workers who provide antimalarial pills, but they often sell them to supplement their salaries. The miners, to save money, will take just enough pills for their symptoms to go away and then face a relapse later on.

 

The sindicato is cruel [here is one of the less awful examples]. A young man wanted to leave the sindicato. He told his boss, who told the pran. He wanted to go home. But the rule of the sindicato is that no one leaves the sindicato. The young man was beaten. Another young man was summoned. The second young man was a backhoe operator at a mine controlled by the sindicato. He was told to climb into his machine and dig a hole. Then the first young man, the one who wanted to go home, was led to the hole and pushed in. He was in bad shape, but he was conscious. The men from the sindicato ordered the backhoe operator to fill the hole. He did what he was told.

 

As the country’s economic situation grew worse and oil production went into free fall, the government became desperate for a new commodity that it could sell for the hard currency it needed to sustain a minimum level of imports and the flow of graft that bought the loyalty of groups within Chavismo. That’s when it turned its attention to the gold mines.

 

In the gold mines, the government had outsourced most state functions to the sindicatos.  PDVSA had a specialized workforce, unions, labor safeguards, and environmental regulations. By turning to gold mining as a substitute, Maduro replaced a modern, highly technical industry with a lawless, unregulated enterprise where workers had no rights, no regular salary; where they were beaten or raped or killed; where they were exposed to an epidemic of malaria; where environmental devastation was the norm, with jungles stripped and rivers poisoned with mercury; where indigenous rights were violated.

 

Freedom of the Press: NOT

 

There is no paper mill in Venezuela that produces newsprint. If you want to print a newspaper, you must import paper. For years, under Chávez, the government used currency controls to make it harder for unfriendly newspapers to get the dollars they needed to buy and import newsprint. Then in 2014, Maduro created a government-run company to be the sole importer and distributor of newsprint.

 

Only one independent newspaper existed, though El Correo del Caroní lived a precarious existence online. There were two part-time reporters and a part-time editor.  Despite immense obstacles, this paper managed to produce some of the best news coverage in the country, with exposés on the environmental impact of gold mining, on violence and disappearances in the mines, on the murder of Pemón Indians by the army, on the decline of the steel and aluminum mills.

 

History

 

For a brief time, this new land would be the scene of the first commodity boom-and-bust in the New World. The pearls that Columbus saw worn by the inhabitants of Paria came from a group of small islands off Venezuela’s Caribbean coast. From 1510 to about 1540, one of those islands, a tiny scrap of dry rock called Cubagua, became the center of a pearl fishery that brought immense wealth to the Spanish crown. Millions of oysters were harvested, yielding tons of pearls. Thousands of indigenous slaves, many taken from the mainland, were forced to work under brutal conditions as divers. It didn’t take long for Columbus’s Land of Grace to become a hell on earth. After twenty years, the oyster beds started to give out, and after another decade it was all over.

 

Venezuela declared independence from Spain on July 5, 1811.  But Venezuela’s first spasm of independence was short-lived and Spain took control again. Bolívar and his fellow radicals wanted to fight on, but after defeat, fled to Curacao and then Colombia), where he raised an army, and returned to Venezuela. Sweeping through a series of decisive battles, he defeated the Spanish forces. When he entered Caracas in August 1813, he rode on a white horse and was dressed in a uniform of scarlet, blue, and gold. An adoring throng acclaimed him the Liberator of Venezuela, and he was declared dictator, with absolute power to govern. The euphoria didn’t last. The country soon tore itself apart in what amounted to an undeclared civil war along lines of race, caste, and class. The white elite had preached liberation from Spain. The darker-skinned lower classes and the black slaves heard this and decided that they would like freedom too—from the white elite. They saw the best chance of achieving that goal was by taking the side of the Spanish Crown against their local masters. The bloodletting on all sides was ferocious.

Venezuelans had followed Bolívar and fought and died across much of South America. But the war that took place on Venezuelan soil was the bloodiest of all. Towns, roads, and plantations were destroyed. Historians estimate that more than 30% of the population of Venezuela died during the war.

Venezuela was more a loose collection of regional fiefdoms, each headed by a caudillo, or strongman, than a coherent, unified country. The rest of the 19th century was the age of the caudillo: a series of civil wars and uprisings by local chieftains. The bloodiest of these, from 1859 to 1863, was known as the Federal War, with perhaps a fifth of the population being killed.

In his eventful 47 years Bolívar said enough, wrote enough, gave enough speeches, corresponded widely enough, and changed his thinking often enough, that today you can find material in the vast Bolivarian catalog to support virtually any ideology, position, or cause. Bolívar ruled as a dictator—so Venezuelan dictators held him up as an example of how the country needed to be ruled by a firm hand. Bolívar said that elections were essential—so democrats embraced him. Bolívar warned that elections would lead to anarchy—so conservatives revered him. Outside Venezuela, both Mussolini and Franco saw Bolívar as a fascist precursor. Marx called him “the dastardly, most miserable, and meanest of blackguards.” Cuban communists honored him. Chávez hailed Bolívar as a socialist. Chávez

In 2019, as the country slid deeper into dysfunction and collapse, the government erected billboards around Caracas, showing pictures of happy Venezuelan families. They seemed to be not so much persevering through the hard times as living in a different, idealized country. The billboards carried a slogan with an echo from the past: “Heroic Venezuela”.

In 1926, the value of oil exports, for the first time, exceeded the value of agricultural exports, including coffee, which for a century had been Venezuela’s main commodity. By 1928, Venezuela was the world’s top oil exporter and the second-biggest oil producer, after the United States. By 1935, nine out of every ten export dollars came from oil. Government revenue, from taxes on oil exports and concessions, soared. At the same time, exports of coffee and cacao, another staple crop, were falling. Oil hadn’t just taken over the economy. It was the economy.

In 1908 Juan Vicente Gómez became president, and except for the secret police, the government under Gómez was minimal. The country was mostly empty space. Epidemics of malaria and yellow fever helped keep the population in check. Gómez treated the country like his personal hacienda. He grew rich off the oil concessions, and he gave the foreign oil companies, mostly from the United States, value in return—he let them draft Venezuela’s 1922 petroleum law. It was low on regulation and taxes. Gómez died in December 1935, after 27 years as president. He left behind a country that was so backward that the historian Mariano Picón Salas would say that the twentieth century didn’t begin in Venezuela until 1936, after the death of the dictator.

Stumbling out of the roadless decades of insurrection and malaria and coffee bushes and testicle-hanging, Venezuela found itself blinking in the klieg lights of the 20th century. It was only then that it began to coalesce as a modern state and society. It’s not so much that Venezuela produced oil; it’s that oil produced Venezuela. The country that emerged from the depths of this underdevelopment was in almost every way shaped by the economics of oil and the social and political relations that oil imposed on it.

After Gómez, there was a succession of military governments and coups and then another strutting general as dictator. Marcos Pérez Jiménez fancied himself a builder and a modernizer. He took the oil money and built highways and cloverleafs and airports and housing blocks. Like Gómez, he threw his opponents in jail and tortured or killed them. He outlawed labor unions and censored the press. He decided that Venezuela’s problem was the color of its skin (too dark), and he encouraged Europeans to immigrate, to make the country whiter (like him).

Then there was another coup, this time by a group of officers committed to a transition to democracy. Pérez Jiménez was forced out on January 23, 1958 (the date was once celebrated in Venezuela with more fervor than Independence Day). Later that year, Rómulo Betancourt, the head of the center-left party, Democratic Action, which had led opposition to the dictator, was elected president. The young democracy fended off military coup attempts and a leftist guerrilla insurgency. The two main political parties, Democratic Action and COPEI (the Christian Democrats), signed a pact pledging to share power and to work together to preserve democracy. Oil prices were stable, the economy grew steadily, elections were held peacefully, and presidents passed the sash from one to another. And then the world tilted. In 1973, the Arab members of OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, declared an oil embargo. The price of oil soared. Venezuelan oil was selling for almost $14 a barrel by the end of 1974, up from less than $3 a barrel in 1972.9 The result was a head-spinning windfall.

More money poured into the public treasury in the 1970s than in the previous seven decades combined. Pérez launched an ambitious campaign to supercharge development. As fast as they could, officials approved plans to build or expand steel mills and aluminum foundries and hydroelectric plants, oil refineries, ports. The bigger and faster, the better. The government shoveled money into its pet development projects. Huge amounts were spent by PDVSA, the government oil company, to modernize its facilities. And because policy makers were convinced that oil prices would stay high, the government chose to borrow money, in order to front-load the spending and make progress faster. Foreign banks rushed to write loans. The country’s foreign debt soared.

But there was little or no planning and no oversight. No one asked if there was a market for the steel and other products that the new mills and factories would produce (too often there wasn’t). No one checked the plans to see if the construction schedules and budgets could be met (they couldn’t). Contracts ballooned, millions of dollars disappeared, fortunes were made.

Consumers went on a spending spree of their own. The country was flooded with cheap imports: American cars, Japanese television sets, newfangled digital watches, VCRs, and other gadgets. Venezuela became one of the world’s leading consumers of Scotch whisky. Those who could afford to flew to Miami to do their shopping. This was the era of “It’s cheap, I’ll take two.” And then it all fell apart.

Inflation—always low before—had surged above 20% a year by 1979. Even with wage increases, many Venezuelans were having a hard time getting by. Shortages set in as basic goods disappeared from store shelves. The non-oil sectors of the economy, like farming and manufacturing, stagnated or declined. Unemployment increased. Calls to restrain government spending were cast aside as everyone clamored for a piece of the pie, and despite having the highest revenue levels in history, the government started running enormous deficits. News stories reported delays in big projects. Accusations of corruption were commonplace. Pérez, lionized as a national savior when he came into office, watched his popularity plummet.

By now there was a new president, Luis Herrera. He promised a course correction. But it was too late. In 1980 and 1981, with oil prices at record highs, the Venezuelan economy went into recession. Eventually the price of oil started to fall. But even as the government’s income declined, its spending continued to grow. Government spending under Pérez had more than tripled. Under Herrera, it doubled again.

The year 1983 was supposed to be a celebratory one, marking the two hundredth anniversary of Bolívar’s birth. Instead, Herrera stunned Venezuelans by devaluing the bolivar. Venezuelans called the day of the devaluation Black Friday. It came as a shock, showing Venezuelans that their heightened expectations based on the oil bonanza were an illusion.

The full reckoning came at last in 1989. Carlos Andrés Pérez had been elected president a second time, promising a return to prosperity. Instead, upon taking office, in February 1989, he announced a package of economic austerity measures. A hike in transit fares sparked the riots and looting known as the Caracazo. Security forces opened fire on unarmed citizens. The social fabric seemed to have unraveled. The oil genie showed a demon face.

It was an era of heavy-handed U.S. intervention in Latin America. In Chile, the CIA waged a covert campaign to destabilize the government of socialist president Salvador Allende, who was overthrown in a coup in 1973 that ushered in years of brutal dictatorship. In Nicaragua in 1979, the Sandinista guerrillas forced out the dictator Anastasio Somoza, only to come under attack by the U.S.-backed Contras. The U.S. supported brutal right-wing governments in El Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina, Uruguay, and other countries. In 1983, the United States invaded Grenada—barely a hundred miles off the Venezuelan coast. In 1989 the United States invaded Panama and arrested its dictator, Manuel Noriega, on drug trafficking charges.

Maduro becomes president

One of the things that everyone noticed about Madurowas that he seemed to hate to make decisions. The warning lights were flashing, the economy was deteriorating, but Maduro refused to change the policies that he’d inherited from Chávez. When Maduro came into office, the fixed exchange rate of the bolivar was causing unsustainable distortions in the economy, and the bolivar was rapidly losing value against the dollar on the black market. Nearly everyone was screaming for a change in policy, yet Maduro didn’t act.

The country was losing billions of dollars a year by virtually giving away gasoline to Venezuelan drivers; maybe that was fine when times were good, but now the country was running out of money. Maduro said publicly that it was time to raise the price at the pump—and yet he kept putting off the decision.

One reason perhaps why he did nothing was that he believed in predestination, in fate, what happens was already decided, perhaps because he and his wife were acolytes of Sathya Sai Baba, an Indian guru who died in 2011. They had traveled to India to visit the guru and kept an altar to him in their home.   There’s not much you can do about anything since it’s already going to happen anyway. And he believes in signs. When Maduro was foreign minister, he was always in a good mood and there was no way to stress him out. He told me more than once that if something was going to turn out badly, he would know because he would have received a sign.

Maduro seemed to be gripped by a deep insecurity and the old guard that had spent years around Chávez looked at Maduro as the class clown who suddenly became the quarterback of the football team. But his keen political instincts helped him contain and manage the factions within Chávez’s movement. And he took advantage of the mistakes of his opponents. Everything was tactics. There was no strategy. There was no long-term planning. Every day was taken up dealing with the immediate obstacle. Inflation getting out of hand? Send in soldiers to mark down the prices in stores! Price controls causing shortages? Dispatch inspectors to enforce the controls! People can’t buy food? Create a system of subsidized food deliveries! It was never about root causes; it was always about reacting and treating symptoms.

Why did Chávez choose Maduro, a man who was guided by a belief in predestination, who believed in signs, who had distinguished himself more than anything as a yes-man, who was averse to making tough decisions? Among the opposition, the speculation has always been that Chávez’s Cuban advisors influenced him to pick Maduro. According to that theory, Cuba needed Venezuelan oil and Raúl Castro believed that he could control Maduro. Also, Chávez thought that he might be incapacitated for a while and unable to start his new term, and didn’t think he was going to die and would be able to guide Maduro. Others thought Chávez had picked Maduro because he had no other real choice. For years Chávez had governed as the lone caudillo, who slapped down anyone who might rival his popularity. That made Maduro the best of a limited set of options.

U.S. Sanctions

In 2017, Donald Trump became president and the United States cranked up sanctions. They landed with force on an economy that was already under stress, first cutting off Venezuela from international financial markets and then barring oil sales to the United States and greatly restricting the country’s ability to sell oil elsewhere. Oil production had started to decline sharply in 2016, and even when prices started to recover that year, the nation’s oil income did not—because it was pumping less and selling less. By 2019, with production dropping fast and U.S. sanctions biting deeply, oil exports were less than $23 billion, a quarter of what they were at their peak. During all those boom years, Venezuela saved nothing. All the oil money had been spent or stolen. There was a law that said the government had to put money in a rainy day fund. Chávez repealed it and spent the money that had been set aside. When he died, the fund contained just $3 million.

Two large transformers had exploded and started a fire that had impaired adjoining transformers and the cables that connected them. The disruption in power flow also caused damage to equipment inside the generating plant. American sanctions had cut off the country from financial and commercial markets, and as a result, the government couldn’t easily go out and buy new equipment. So they cannibalized what they had. They pulled backup transformers from other substations, allowing them to patch up Guri but creating new vulnerabilities in the system.

The price of oil crashed when Saudi Arabia and Russia started a price war. Venezuela’s already low oil revenues fell even further. The country’s decrepit refineries stopped producing gasoline.  All the while the United States kept turning the screws, targeting sanctions at Russian and Iranian efforts to help Maduro sell oil. There were a few lonely voices calling for an easing of sanctions during the pandemic—but they were ignored.

The responsibility for the disaster in Venezuela lies with Maduro, and Chávez before him. Chavismo has been in power for more than two decades. They own the wreck of Venezuela. It is of their making. Maduro built a government that is brutal, cruel, and destructive.

Maduro cracked down on the left as well. The courts took over several leftist parties that had begun to voice criticism of the government, and leftist leaders were thrown in jail.

And the Americans? It was like watching the Venezuelanization of U.S. policy making. So much was improvised, done without thinking things through, without preparation, ignoring the facts, hoping that it would all work when your own experts said that there was little chance of success.

Venezuela had become a second Cuba, a cat’s-paw that could be used to swing an election in Florida. For more than fifty years the embargo against Cuba hadn’t changed things for the better on the island—but how many votes had you gotten in that time? And if the oil embargo on Venezuela had to last fifty years—why not? Trump’s Venezuela strategy paid off again in Florida. He won the state in 2020, helped by a large-scale misinformation campaign targeting Hispanic voters with the message that the Democrats were socialists and that Joe Biden, Trump’s opponent, was a pawn of Maduro.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Corruption & Finance, Crime, Gangs, Corrupt police, Private security, Venezuela | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Venezuela – when will it collapse?

Booklist: Pollution, Resource Depletion, Infrastructure, Transportation, Peak Minerals, Life after Fossil Fuels

More booklists

Pollution

  • G Pitron. The Rare Metals War: the dark side of clean energy and digital technologies
  • T Colborn. Our Stolen Future: Are we threatening our fertility, survival?
  • J McCormick. Acid Earth: The Global Threat of Acid Pollution.
  • J Watts. When a Billion Chinese Jump: How China will save mankind–Or Destroy It
  • J Shapiro. Mao’s War against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China
  • Thomas Hayden. Trashing the Oceans
  • W Rathje. Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. What our garbage tells us about ourselves
  • D Fagin. Toxic Deception: How the Chemical Industry manipulates science, bends the law, and endangers your health

Resource depletion

Mineral Resources

  • Bardi U, et al. 2014. Extracted: How the Quest for Mineral Wealth Is Plundering the Planet.  Chelsea Green Publishing.
  • Beiser V. 2018. The world in a grain: the story of sand and how it transformed civilization.
  • Courland R. 2011. Concrete Planet.
  • Klare M. 2012. The Race for What’s Left: The Global scramble for the world’s last resources. Picador.
  • Mann CC. 2012, 1493: Uncovering the new world Columbus created. Vintage.

Infrastructure

Transportation

Peak Minerals

Postcarbon life

  • A Friedemann. 2021. Life After Fossil Fuels 
  • T Thwaites. The toaster project: Build a simple electric appliance from scratch
  • J. Stratton.  1981. Pioneer Women: Voices from the Kansas Frontier
  • Greene. 2008. Horses at Work: Harnessing Power in Industrial America
  • R. Winston. Life in the Middle Ages.
  • Jean Gimpel.  Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages.
  • G Huppert.  After the Black Death: A Social History of Early Modern Europe
  • EA Wrigley. Energy and the English industrial revolution.
  • EA Wrigley. The path to sustained growth: England’s transition from an organic economy to an industrial society
  • R White.  It’s your misfortune and none of my own. A new history of the American West.
  • S Ambrose. Undaunted Courage.  Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the opening of the American West
  • R. Massie. Peter the Great: His Life and World
  • B Tuchman Distant Mirror: The calamitous fourteenth century.
  • M Holloway. Utopian Communities in America, 1680-1880
  • R Hine. California’s Utopian Colonies
  • DE Pitzer. America’s Communal Utopias
  • H. Norberg-Hodge. Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh
  • R Ekirch. At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past
  • D Cordingly. Under the Black Flag. The Romance & the reality of life among the Pirates
  • A Light. Common People: In Pursuit of My Ancestors

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

Posted in Book List | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Booklist: Pollution, Resource Depletion, Infrastructure, Transportation, Peak Minerals, Life after Fossil Fuels

Peak Rubber

Rubber trees can’t be grown anywhere. They require 100 inches (250 cm) of rain year round. Dry seasons not allowed. The average monthly temperature should be 77 to 82 Fahrenheit (25-28 C), with 6 hours a day of bright sunshine, at least 2000 hours a year, and no strong winds allowed. In ideal conditions, two tons of rubber can be produced per hectare a year.

Yet growing rubber harms biodiversity, deforestation, pollution and more.  Especially in the tropical regions of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, India & China where most rubber is grown on over 12 million hectares since too many pests destroy them in their native South America. But now these diseases are spreading to Asia. In addition, natural rubber supplies are tight due to covid-19, natural disasters, and supply chain delays.  Nor can rubber trees be scaled up quickly, it takes seven years for a rubber tree to mature.

Over 75% of this rubber is used for 40,000 products that require its unique properties of high flexibility, durability, and water resistance. There is no substitute.  Above all, vehicle tires need to be mostly natural rubber — that’s how two-thirds of rubber is used — as well as being essential for many industrial products and in construction, electronics, cables, shoes, medical devices and more.

Many have tried to use other plants. A century ago Henry Ford tried with dandelions, goldenrod, and sunflowers. The most promising plant today is a a dandelion from Kazakhstan with roots of 10-15% natural rubber, but it is years from becoming commercially viable if it can be.  They are slow to establish and mature, and easily overtaken by weeds.  They have to be genetically engineered to be unable to cross pollinate with other plants, withstand weeds and toxic pesticides, and have a stronger disease resistance.

The upside of peak rubber is peak peace. Military aircraft, tanks and other weapons must have natural rubber tires and other components.  With Russia tempted to use nuclear weapons to destroy Ukraine launching WW III and the extinction of much of life on earth, declining natural rubber doesn’t sound like such a bad thing.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

 

Posted in ! PEAK EVERYTHING | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Understanding peak oil theory 2005 U.S. House

Preface. With world oil production likely having peaked in 2018 (as documented in chapter 2 of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy), this seemed like a good time to go revisit peak oil history.

What follows is from the 95 page transcript of this 2005 hearing — the only hearing explicitly about peak oil, though both the Department of Energy and Government Accounting Office wrote peak oil risk management plans for Congress. It’s also the only hearing where most of the speakers explaining peak oil, including Representative Roscoe Bartlett, were scientists. From now on EIA bureaucrats, think-tank experts and CEO’s of large companies — not scientists — promise peak oil production is decades away and that the U.S. has 100 years or more of energy independence. Though of course Congress knows we’re in deep trouble — see the March 7, 2006 “Energy Independence” Senate hearing and other congressional hearings in the energy dependence section here.

Some of the hearing is from the various members saying not to worry such as the following:

Mr Green of Texas: However, after several decades of predictions, many of the so-called peaks have come and gone and global oil exploration has in fact increased, not decreased, due to a variety of factors.  Conventional oil technology has also improved in the last 25 years so we are able to reach deep water oil previously uneconomic.  So I hope believers in Peak Oil will forgive some of us from thinking that they sound like a little boy that cried wolf.  Furthermore, it is comforting to know that energy information agencies predict peak oil around 2050, which is not exactly right around the corner, with fuel cell prototype cars in production it looks like we have time to adapt to the new energy economy.  Also with prices staying high or rising, this effect will further accelerate the development of alternative energy technologies.

Mr SHIMKUS of Illinois. In July, as everyone knows, we passed the Energy Policy Act and part of that was addressing the concern of our alliance in foreign oil. We have done this numerous times. Of course everyone knows my focus on renewable fuels.  With the ethanol and soy diesel debate and expansion is quite phenomenal. Microsoft’s cofounder Bill Gates seems to want a piece of the action when it comes to renewable energy.  The billionaire’s investment company, Cascade Investment, has agreed to invest $84 million in Pacific ethanol which will help it finance construction of several planned fuel additive plants on the West Coast.

The country has 250 years of BTU ability based upon our coal resources.  I know Roscoe is very knowledgeable of Fisher Tropes technology and the ability to turn coal into fuels.  And at the supply and demand issue, Economics 101 when we have limited supply, higher demand, prices go up, coal or liquid technology probably turns profitable around $35 per barrel which is where we are at.  And so what do we see?  We see Soso, a South African Company that has this technology looking at locations within the United States to do this BTU conversion.  And that is the way the market should work and that is what the market does.

Illinois, used to be a huge oil producing part of the Nation.  Now it is still halfway decent.  We have the largest operating well. It produces a million barrels a year and it drills underneath a State wildlife refuge with new technology.  New technologies are going to help address some of the immediacy but there are reserves based upon the cost of a barrel that we now can get active.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

House 109-41. December 7, 2005. Understanding the Peak Oil theory. U.S. House of Representatives.

RALPH M. HALL, TEXAS. We are having this hearing today to learn more about peak oil theory, to hear different opinions, and to learn what we can do about it, if anything. While some theorists believe that we have reached our peak, the point at which the rate of world oil production cannot increase at any time, there are others that tell us that we are not going to peak any time soon, and others who still believe oil is continuously being created and will therefore never peak. We have not been ignoring a possible peak in oil production and this energy bill that was signed into law in August had provisions that address oil usage by promoting conservation and conventional and unconventional production. Whether or not we are reaching our peak, it seems responsible to continue in the vain we are going in by continuing to work on ways to conserve energy while increasing our domestic supply of oil and using research to develop substitutes for conventional oil.

JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, Committee on Energy & Commerce. I asked Chairman Hall to hold this hearing on the “peak oil” theory at Congressman Bartlett’s request. Congressman Bartlett is an active and persuasive advocate for peak oil theorists and I look forward to hearing his views and perspectives on peak oil.

TOM UDALL, NEW MEXICO. Mr. Bartlett and I started the House Peak Oil Caucus to bring immediate and serious attention to this issue. The continued prosperity of the United States depends on the Nation taking immediate and intelligent action concerning Peak Oil.

I have had a chance to review the testimony of my colleague, Mr. Bartlett, and also that of Mr. Aleklett and I agree with their analysis that the peak in oil production will occur in the next two decades and potentially as early as 2010. The central theme here is there is not much time to act.

Our economy and way of life is dependent on cheap oil. In many ways, cheap oil is responsible for our prosperity. Since oil provides about 40% of the world’s energy, a peak and global oil production will be a turning point in human history. Oil and natural gas literally transport heat and feed our country.

Therefore, we must act immediately to diversify our energy supplies to mitigate the economic recession and social and political unrest that will undoubtedly accompany the peak in oil and natural gas production if we do not act.

The United States’ demand for oil continues to increase by about 2% a year, and global demand has increased faster than production. The once substantial cushion between world oil production and demand has decreased. This phenomenon has increased the price of oil and consequently huge amounts of American money up to $25 million per hour goes abroad to pay for foreign oil. And as many people are now  aware, some of this money goes to governments and groups who are considered a threat to our national security. Middle Eastern Countries flush with oil dollars help fuel the terrorism we are fighting.

Some say that market forces will take care of the Peak Oil problem. They argue that as we approach or pass the peak of production the price of oil will increase and the alternatives will become more competitive.

But no available alternative is anywhere near ready to replace oil in the volumes we use it today.

The main problem with the market force argument is that current U.S. oil prices do not accurately reflect the full social costs of oil consumption. Currently in the United States, Federal and State taxes add up to about 40 cents per gallon of gasoline. A world resources institute analysis found that fuel related costs not covered by drivers are at least twice that much. The current price of oil does not include the full cost of road maintenance, health, and environmental costs attributed to air pollution, the financial risk of global warning, or the threats to national security.

Over the past 100 years, fueled by cheap oil, the United States has led the revolution in the way the world operates.

Replacing this resource in a relatively short time is not only an incredible challenge, but also imperative to the survival of our way of life.

We must produce effective policies that create a new generation of scientists devoted to changing the way we produce energy. We must also commit to decreasing our demand for oil. We can start by increasing efficiency. The United States consumes 25% of the world’s oil. Of that 25%, two-thirds is used for transportation. Hence, transportation in the U.S. accounts for 16.5% of the world’s oil consumption.

It is obvious that more efficient transportation is one of the keys in reducing our demand for oil. Transporting goods and people by rail is at least five times as efficient as automobiles. Therefore, we must revive and reinvest in our passenger and freight rail system. A modest increase in fuel efficiency of our automobile fleet from 25 miles per gallon to 33 miles per gallon using existing technology would decrease our demand for oil by 2.6 million barrels a day or about 1 billion barrels a year. However, the turnover rate for the automobile fleet is 10 to 15 years, therefore, we must start immediately.

Simple, everyday things like automobile maintenance also increase efficiency. According to the Department of Energy, proper inflation of car tires can increase fuel efficiency by 3%, translating to the equivalent of 100 million barrels of oil per year. The buildings in which we work and live are terribly inefficient. We could easily reduce their energy consumption by one half. We must immediately weatherize and make more energy efficient tens of millions of buildings. Our bold new initiative must instill these ideas in the American consciousness.

The sooner we start the smaller our sacrifices will be. These tasks will not be easy but I am confident that we will achieve our goal for we have little in the way of alternatives.

The theory of Peak Oil states that, like any finite resource, oil will reach a peak in production after which supply will steadily and sharply decrease.

In 1956, Shell Oil geologist M. King Hubbert predicted that oil production in the contiguous United States would peak in about 1970 and be followed by a sharp decline. At the time, many dismissed his predictions as false, but history shows they were remarkably accurate.

A growing number of geologists, economists and politicians now agree that the peak in the world’s oil production is imminent; predicted to occur within one or two decades. Some disagree with this prediction, calling it a doomsday scenario and say that technological advances will buy us more time before we reach peak production. Theirs, however, is not the consensus view and even they agree that a peak in the world’s oil production is inevitable

The strongest evidence that the peak in world oil production is imminent is that for the last 30 years, production of oil has exceeded discovery of new oil resources.

The reason for this is relatively simple. Oil is a limited commodity and the large oil fields with easily extractable resources were naturally the first ones to be exploited.

These fields were found thirty or forty years ago in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and the United Arab Emirates) and are still the main suppliers of the world’s oil. As the finite supply of oil in these deposits diminishes, exploration for new supplies continues. However, new discoveries tend to be small and rapidly exhausted, making them less economically viable.

Meanwhile, global demand for oil, which is at an all-time high, continues to rise. The United States demand continues to increase by about 2% per annum. Also, with the globalization of the market economy and increases in oil-driven industrial production in Asia, new consumers are contributing to rising demand. To meet rising demand oil companies must increase production, accelerating us towards the peak.

The United States only possesses 2% of the world’s oil reserves and only produces 8% of the world’s oil capacity. Therefore, we are not in a position to control the world’s oil production.

Oil is a very powerful resource with an incredibly high energy density. For example, the energy in just one barrel of oil (42 gallons) is equivalent to eight people working full time for a year.

Over the past 100 years, fueled by affordable oil, the United States has led a revolution in the way the world operates. For example, petroleum-based fertilizers are used to inexpensively grow remarkable amounts of food and airline transportation allows us to reach virtually anywhere in the world within 24 hours helping to create a global economy. However, the sustainability of the oil-based economy is rapidly decreasing.

Reaching a peak in oil production has the potential to destroy our economy and cause great social and political unrest.

And the carbon released using fossil fuels is contributing to dramatic changes in the earth’s climate.

Therefore, replacing this resource in a relatively short time is not only an incredible challenge but also imperative to the survival of our way of life.

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland. Thirty of our leading citizens, Boyden Gray, McFarland, Jim Woolsey, and 27 others, including a lot of retired four star admirals and generals, wrote a letter to the President saying Mr. President, the fact that we have only 2% of the known reserves of oil and we used 25% of the world’s oil and import nearly two-thirds of what we use is a totally unacceptable national security risk. We need to do something about that. I would submit that if you do not believe that there is such a thing as Peak Oil, you need to understand that this really is a big national security risk. And the things that we need to do to transition to alternatives so that we are not so dependent on foreign oil are exactly the same things that we need to do to attenuate the effects of Peak Oil.

We have only 2% of the world’s oil reserves but we are producing 8% of the world’s oil which means that we are pumping our oil roughly four times faster than the rest of the world. We are really good at pumping oil. These data have made me opposed to drilling in ANWR and offshore, because if we have only 2% of the known reserves of oil, how is it in our national security interest to use up that little bit of oil we have as quickly as possible? If we could pump the offshore oil and ANWR oil tomorrow, what would we do the day after tomorrow? And there will be a day after tomorrow. I would like to husband these resources. This is very much like having money in the bank that is yielding really high interest rates. If you have money in the bank yielding really high interest rates, you probably would leave it there and that is what I think we need to do for the moment with this oil.

To put this discussion in context, we really need to go back about six decades to the mid-40s and 50s. A scientist in the Shell Oil Company M. King Hubbert was looking at oil fields, their exploitation and exhaustion. He noted that they all tended to follow a rough bell curve and he theorized that if he could add up all those little bell curves he would have one big bell curve where he could predict when we would reach our maximum production in this country. He made a prediction in 1956 that we would peak at about 1970, which was correct. We are now about halfway down what many people call Hubbert’s peak. Texas has been a big contributor to oil in our country. And notice that we did reach maximum oil production in 1970. And in spite of Prudhoe Bay, which produced a quarter of the oil that we were pumping in our country, it has been pretty much downhill since Prudhoe Bay peaked.

I remember the fabled Gulf of Mexico oil discovery that was supposed to solve our oil problem for the foreseeable future. But it didn’t. The observation was made that we are not running out of oil, and that is true. There is still a lot of oil there. As a matter of fact, worldwide there is probably about half the oil there yet to be recovered than we have recovered so far.

The same M. King Hubbert that predicted that we would peak in 1970 and he was correct there, predicted that the world would peak would be about now If M. King Hubbert was right about our country, why shouldn’t he be right about the world? And we have known for at least 25 years that M. King Hubbert was right about our country. By 1980, when President Reagan came to office, we were already 10 years down the other side of Hubbert’s peak and we knew very well that we were sliding down Hubbert’s peak. The response was to drill more wells, but we really did not find any more oil. You cannot find what is not there. You cannot pump what you have not found.

Most of the discoveries of oil occurred 30 or 40 years ago. For the last two and a half decades there has been an ever decreasing discovery of oil. Since the early 1980’s, we have been using more oil than we have found. It is obvious you cannot pump more oil than you have found.

If we have enhanced oil recovery we can recover it more quickly. But all that does is cause us to reach a higher peak a little later, and change the shape of the down slope to fall off more steeply.

Mr. Green mentioned crying wolf, and yes, we have cried wolf several times in the past. But in the parable the wolf did come. I think he ate all the sheep and the people. So one day the wolf will come and that is what we are trying to do is to avoid the kind of catastrophe that they had in the parable.

Energy Return on Invested (EROI)

When we are looking at replacing the fossil fuels we have been using, you have to look at energy profit ratio. We are now producing oil from the oil shales in Canada at about $30 a barrel, maybe less than that when it is selling at $60. That is really a good dollar profit ratio. But I understand that they are now using more energy from natural gas than they get out of the oil they produce. So the energy profit ratio is negative. That is a good thing for them because they got a lot of gas, it is cheap, it is hard to transport to other places and oil is in high demand and they can sell it for twice the production cost so that makes a lot of sense. But at the end of the day with the limited energy resources in the world, we really should not be producing energy with a negative energy profit ratio.

Exponential Growth

Two hundred and fifty years of coal, I wish we would stop saying that unless we qualified it by saying at present use rates, because as soon as you increase use just 2% a year, it shrinks to 85 years. If you use energy to convert it to a gas or a liquid, you have now shrunk it to 50 years.

Yeah coal is there, it is a finite resource. We really need to husband it, because it is not 250 years worth.

Albert Einstein said that that exponential growth was the most powerful force in the universe, the power of compound interest. If you have not heard Dr. Albert Bartlett’s Hour Lecture on Energy, pull it up and read it. It is the most interesting one hour lecture I have ever heard. One of his examples is an ancient kingdom where the king was so pleased with a subject he promised to give him anything reasonable he asked. His subject asked for a grain of rice on the first square of a chessboard, twon on the second, and to double the grains on each subsequent square. And the king thought stupid fellow, I would have given him something really meaningful and all he asked for is a little bit of rice on a chessboard. The number of grains on the 64th squares would be 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 and weigh 461,168,602,000 metric tons, a mountain of rice higher than Mount Everest, and over one thousand times the global production of rice in 2010. That is the power of exponential growth.

I would also like to note that the population curve of the world roughly follows the production curve for oil. We started out with about a billion people and now we have about 7 billion people almost literally eating oil and gas because of the enormous amounts of energy that go into producing food. Almost half the energy that goes into producing a bushel of corn comes from the natural gas that we use to produce the nitrogen fertilizer.

Just a comment or two about energy density and how difficult it is going to be to replace oil. And by the way, we are about 100 years into the age of oil. In another 100 years or so, we will be through the age of oil. In 5,000 years of recorded history, 200 or 300 years is just a blip, just a tick in the history of man. We found this incredible wealth under the ground. And rationally what we should have done as a civilization is to ask ourselves what will we do with this incredible wealth to do the most good for the most people over time. Each barrel represents about 50,000 man hours of effort, the equivalent of having 12 people work all year for you. And today at the pump with gas prices about $2, it costs you, 42 gallons costs you less than $100. That is incredible.

If you have some trouble getting your arms around that, imagine how far that gallon of gas or diesel takes your car or truck and how long it would take you to push it the same distance to get some idea of the energy density. And how long would it take you to get it there? If you go work really hard in your yard all day, I will get more work out of an electric motor with less than 25 cents worth of electricity. That gives us you some idea as to the incredible energy density in these fossil fuels. What wealth it was we found under the ground. And almost like children who found the cookie jar, we had no restraint. We tried to use it up as quickly as we could use it up. And there will be an age of oil. One day there will be no more economically feasible recovery of oil, gas, and coal.

The cheapest oil that we use that we buy is the oil that we do not use. And so if we are going to have any energy to invest in alternatives it will take three things. Money we will not worry about that. We will just borrow money from our kids and our grand kids. But you cannot borrow time and you cannot borrow energy from our kids and our grand kids. And we are going to have to make big investments of both time and energy to get these alternatives. In order to have energy to invest, we are going to have to have enormous conservation efforts now so that we free up some of the oil because if in fact we are reaching peak oil, when we have reached peak oil, all the oil that is produced is needed by the world’s economies, none will be available to invest in the alternatives.

So I would suggest that maybe the goal would be to find a way to have high quality of life without increasing energy use.

We are very much like the young couple whose grandparents have died and left them a big inheritance and they now established a lifestyle where 85% of the money they spend comes from their grandparent’s inheritance and only 15% from their income. But they look at their grandparent’s inheritance and the amount they are spending and it is going to be gone before they retire. So they are going to clearly have to do one of two things. Either spend less money or make more money. Similarly, 85% of the energy we use today comes from fossil fuels. And only 15% of the energy comes from the alternatives.

By and by, all of the energy will need to come from the alternatives. Of the 15% that is not fossil fuels, a bit more than half of that comes from nuclear. This could and should grow probably. But that will not be the water reactors we have because fissionable uranium is of finite supply in the world. We will have to move to breeder reactors and the problems that come with that.

I think planning to solve our energy future with fusion is a bit like planning to solve our personal economic problems by winning the lottery.

Of the other 7% renewable energy almost half of that is conventional hydro. We have maxed out hydropower in our country. We have dammed up all the rivers that could be dammed and maybe a few that we should not have dammed.

The next biggest source of alternative energy is wood. Not the West Virginia hillbilly, it is the timber industry and the paper industry burning what would otherwise be a waste product. And then the next biggest one is waste.

And now we are down to the things that we will transition to in the future, solar. We have been growing at 30% a year. That doubles in 2.5 years. It was .07% in 2000 and now it is .28%, big deal. That is a long way from any meaningful contribution. The same thing is true of wind.

Just a word of caution about energy from agriculture, the world has to eat. If we will eat the corn and the soybeans that the pig and the chicken and steer would have eaten, maybe we can get more energy from agriculture. And be careful, Mr. Chairman, about taking biomass to produce energy because we are barely able today to maintain the quality of our topsoils without returning much of that biomass to create humus in the soil.

Geothermal we need to exploit as much as we can.

We need the kind of commitment we had in World War II. No new cars were made for three years. They rationed gasoline. They rationed tires. They rationed sugar. You brought the grease from your kitchen to a central depository. I think we need a program that’s a combination of putting a man on the moon, with the urgency of the Manhattan Project and the involvement of every one of our citizens to avoid a bumpy ride.

Perhaps Matt Savinar is more pessimistic than he needs to be, but he is not an idiot. He says, dear reader, civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. I hope not, Mr. Chairman.

At the start of the age of oil, world population was one billion; now it’s seven billion. The population of the United States is almost 300 million and increasing by nearly 30 million people every decade. Nitrogen fertilizer is made from natural gas. In a very real sense, oil feeds the world.

I thank the Committee for scheduling this hearing and inviting distinguished witnesses to discuss House Resolution 507 which expresses “the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency that was incorporated in the “Man on the Moon” project to address the inevitable challenges of “Peak Oil.”

Shell Oil company geologist M. King Hubbert first identified “Peak Oil” in the 1940’s and 1950’s. He discovered oil field production follows a bell curve. Oil flows slowly at first, then rapidly increases, reaches a maximum or peak when half of the oil has been extracted, and then production declines rapidly. Adding the curves from individual wells in the United States, Hubbert projected in 1956 that “Peak Oil” for the United States would occur in 1970. He was right. U.S. oil production peaked and has declined every year since 1971. Despite sharp increases in prices and better technology, US domestic oil production has declined every year since then.

Just as Hubbert was right about the United States, peak oil has occurred in other countries and global peak oil will happen. Oil production is declining in 33 of the world’s 48 largest oil-producing countries.

U.S. natural gas production has also peaked. The United States is now the world’s largest importer of both oil and natural gas. From importing one third of the oil we used before the Arab Oil Embargo, the U.S. now imports about two thirds of the oil we use. After U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, our country started and we are continuing to accelerate down a path of growing energy insecurity.

The United States used to be the world’s largest oil producer. After the U.S. peaked in 1970, Saudi Arabia became the world’s largest single oil producer and the leader of OPEC nations which became the world’s dominant oil suppliers.

Global “Peak Oil” has not yet occurred, but will.

I met with the President at the White House on June 29, 2005 and was impressed by his understanding of the need for our government to act now to prepare for global “Peak Oil”.

On October 5, 2005, Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman requested the National Petroleum Council to study “Peak Oil” and the oil and natural gas industry’s ability to produce enough oil and natural gas at prices that would not cripple the American economy. Our country’s leadership is slowly becoming aware of “Peak Oil”.

However, it is my hope because of hearings like this and the testimonies given by some of our most prominent figures, our country’s leadership will start to see the urgency in addressing this issue, and make it the centerpiece of their agenda.

For example, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on November 16, former CIA Director James Woolsey discussed “seven reasons why dependence on petroleum and its products for the lion’s share of the world’s transportation fuel creates special dangers in our time.” 1. Transportation infrastructure is dependent upon oil 2. The Middle East will continue to be the low-cost and dominant petroleum producer. 3. Petroleum infrastructure is highly vulnerable to terrorist and other attacks. 4. The possibility is increasing of embargoes or supply disruptions under regimes that could come to power in the Greater Middle East. 5. Oil revenue transfers fund terrorism. 6. Current account deficits for a number of countries create risks ranging from major world economic disruption to deepening poverty that could be reduced by reducing oil imports. 7. Oil used for transportation produce greenhouse gases that increase the risk of climate change. The planes, ships and trucks of our military run on oil.

Tight supplies and high oil prices threaten our national security and the Department of Defense is responding. For instance, in an October 11, 2005 memo on “Assured Fuels,” Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition John J. Young, Jr., endorsed a recommendation by the Naval Research Advisory Committee in its “2005 Summer Study of Future Fuels” to set the goal of the Navy to become independent from reliance on foreign oil by 2020. Secretary Young explained, “In light of the current painful reality of DoD fuel price adjustments, and the risks to our fuel sources posed by natural disasters and terrorist threats, I believe we need to act on this recommendation with a sense of urgency.”

For many years, Saudi Arabia maintained enough production flexibility to leverage oil prices at around $20 per barrel. In recent years, the cushion between world supply and demand whittled away. Three years ago in November 2002, the prompt price for immediate delivery of oil was $27 per barrel NYMEX WTI (New York Mercantile Exchange – West Texas Intermediate). The price for contracts on 10-year long term derivatives combining NYMEX and forward swaps market transactions was between $22 and $24 per barrel. Beginning in December 2003, the price for 10-year contracts began a sharp upward trend that has not abated. The change was prompted by an increase in long term contract purchases by the Chinese and the judgment by market participants that Saudi Arabia could no longer maintain sufficient extra capacity to drive the price of oil down. In November 2005, the prompt price for immediate delivery of oil was $60 per barrel after a spike to $71 per barrel after Hurricane Katrina. The price for 10-year contracts was $59 per barrel. In the past three years, the prompt price increased two times from $27 per barrel to $60 per barrel. The 10-year price increased almost three times from $22 per barrel to $59 per barrel. The world’s largest banks are the primary transactors in the private forward swaps markets on behalf of clients who are among the world’s largest and best financed institutions and companies. Those price increases in oil, the emergence of a well-defined forward swaps market in oil and the larger magnitude increase between the prompt and 10-year price represent a dramatic change in world oil markets.

A December 1, 2005 CRS report (prepared at my request) documents and ranks countries that experienced declines in oil production between 2003 and 2004. Despite the increase in oil prices, United Kingdom oil production declined 228 thousand barrels. United States oil production declined 159 thousand barrels. Australia declined 83 thousand barrels. Norway declined 76 thousand barrels. Indonesia declined 57 thousand barrels. Argentina declined 50 thousand barrels. Other countries with production declines included: Egypt, Oman, Syria, Yemen Brazil, Columbia and Italy. At the same time, demand for oil is increasing. China and India are increasing their oil consumption. China increased consumption 51.3% and is the world’s second largest importer of oil, behind the United States. Developing countries around the world are increasing their demand for oil consumption at rapid rates. For example, the average consumption increase, by percentage, from 2003 to 2004 for the countries of Belarus, Kuwait, China, and Singapore was 15.9%;

In order to keep energy costs affordable, improve the environment, safeguard economic prosperity, and reduce the trade deficit, the United States must move rapidly to increase the productivity with which it uses fossil fuels, and to accelerate the transition to renewable fuels and a sustainable, clean energy economy.

There is no one silver bullet to solve this problem. Only through a combination of conservation, improved efficiency, and a combination of alternate sources of energy for transportation and ultimately renewable sources of energy (i.e. wind, solar, geothermal, harnessing ocean tides) will we be able to meet the energy demands of the future.

How and when we as individuals and government leaders will respond to global “Peak Oil” is what we need to address immediately. I believe global “Peak Oil” presents our country with a challenge as daunting as the one that faced the astronauts and staff of the Apollo 13 program. Contingency planning, training, incredible ingenuity, and collaboration to solve the problem brought the Apollo 13 astronauts back home safe. The U.S. government must lead and inspire Americans’ unmatched ingenuity and creativity to end our unacceptable and unsustainable energy vulnerability and to prevent a worldwide economic tsunami from global “Peak Oil”.

We in the Congress must work with and on behalf of our constituents to debate, develop and start implementing appropriate policy changes and legislation to make Americans more secure, as we did in the 1940’s with the Manhattan Project. The federal government took an active role in funding a crash program, in partnership with the United Kingdom and Canada, to develop the first nuclear weapon in order to defeat Nazi Germany. Now, we again must adopt a crash program, this time in cooperation with our international allies. We must overcome the obstacles we can foresee and those that will emerge. “Peak Oil” will inflict unprecedented pressure upon our citizens and strain the capability of our social, economic, and political institutions. We must survive the challenges of “Peak Oil” only with the tools we have available. We have no choice.

The Hydrogen Economy

Hydrogen, of course, is not a source of energy. We will always use more energy producing hydrogen than we get out of it because we are not going to suspend the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

To understand what hydrogen will do for us, please think of it as a battery. It is just a way of carrying energy from one place to another. Hydrogen is not a solution to our energy problem, it is simply a way–for instance, using energy from coal, you cannot put a trunk full of coal in your car and go down the road. But you can use coal to produce electricity. The electricity can split water into hydrogen and oxygen. You can then use the hydrogen in a fuel cell to take your car down the road. So you can run, you can use coal to take your car down the road.

I would remind you that even some things God cannot do. God cannot make a square circle. There are not infinite resources here. And so you have to qualify what the marketplace can do in terms of that. But as you will hear in later testimony from SAIC, none of the alternatives have the potential for being ramped up quickly enough to make up the slack [of declining oil production]. That is the reality. We should have started 20 years ago if we wanted to make sure we were not going to have any dislocations.

 

KJELL ALEKLETT, PH.D., PROFESSOR, Department of Radiation Sciences, Uppsala University.

By choosing the wording Peak Oil Theory, some persons might think that this is just a theory and it is not reality. I must say sorry, ladies and gentlemen, Peak Oil is reality.

As a summary of m y written testimony, I would like to highlight the following points.

  1. Peak Oil will come because oil is a limited resource.
  2. Fifty years ago the world was consuming 4 billion barrels of oil per year and the average discovery rate (the rate of finding undiscovered oil fields) was around 30 billion barrels per year. Today we consume 30 billion barrels per year and the discovery rate is dropping toward 4 billion barrels per year. This is significant; Chevron is even running an ad saying, “The world consumes two barrels of oil for every barrel discovered.” By discovery, I mean only new oil fields. Some analysts include reserve growth—newly accessible oil in old fields—as new discoveries, but we are using the same approach as in World Energy Outlook 2004, IEA, International Energy Agency.
  3. We can only empty the reserves that we have at a limited speed. Depending on demand, Peak Oil will happen within the near future.
  4. Another problem is that most countries are planning to increase their import of oil. Very few countries are planning to decrease their import of oil.
  5. Studies of the correlation between oil consumption and the growth of GDP in individual countries such as Sweden or China, as well as for the world, shows that since the Second World War, there has never been an increase in GDP without an increase in the use of oil
  6. The enormous resources of oil sands in Canada are often mentioned as a lifesaver for the world. Our group in Uppsala has made studies that show that even a crash program for production of oil from Canadian oil sands will yield only a limited amount of oil. By 2018, it might be possible to produce 3.5 million barrels per day. If that should rise to 6 million in 2040, they need to open up a couple of nuclear power plants to get heat to get the oil out of the ground.
  7. Excluding deep water oilfields, output from 54 of the 65 largest oil-producing countries in the world are in decline
  8. If we extend the decline in existing fields through 2030, and accept the 2004 Energy Information Administration estimate that global demand will be 122 mbpd, then we need 10 new Saudi Arabias. Some might call this a doomsday scenario, but if so I’m not the doomsayer, this was said by Sadad Al Husseini, until recently vice-director of Saudi Aramco, the largest oil company in the world.
  9. There is at present an extreme dependence on supply from the Middle East holding more than 60% of the global oil reserves. A key country is Saudi Arabia, which is supposed to hold about 20% of the global reserves of conventional oil and much of the world’s spare capacity.

Currently, 2010 is the most likely year for Peak Oil. And the question is then more oil be produced for export. And if you look at the 20 largest countries for export, you have as number two on the list, Russia. Russia will not increase their export because they need more oil within Russia. Number three on the list is Norway, and the production in Norway is declining at 10% per year. And I could go down the list. In principle, there are only one, two, three, four countries that can increase their production for export.

The role of the Swedish Academy of Science is an independent non-Government organization with expertise in most of the sciences. The academy has a made a statement about oil that said to avoid acute, economic, social, and environmental problems worldwide, we need a global approach with the widest possible international cooperation. Activities in this direction have started and they should be strongly encouraged and intensified.

Technically advanced countries like the United States have a particular responsibility. If you or one of the members of the committee have grandchildren, they will also face Peak Oil. What you decide to do will affect the future for our grandchildren. I hope that you are not the kind of politicians we used to see that can only promise that they can do better in the future and maybe promise to take care of crisis when it happens. As Peak Oil is here in the near future, we need action now.

Now consider China, a developing country with 21% of the global population. It consumes 8% of the global oil supply, and thinks it is fair to claim 21% of daily global consumption, or 17.6 million barrels per day (mbpd). During the last five years the average annual GDP growth in China has been 8.2% and the average increase in oil consumption 8.4% per year. We can now see the same correlation between increase in GDP and use of oil in China as in Sweden 50 years ago. If China’s economy grows 8% per year over the coming five years, we can expect that it will need an increase in the consumption of oil of 3 million barrels per day by 2010.

According to Professor Pang Xiongqi at the China University of Petroleum in Beijing, China’s oil production will plateau in 2009 and then start to decline. This means that the total increase in consumption must be imported. As China is already importing 3 million barrels per day, it will have to increase imports 100% during the next five years. Where will it come from?

Since 2001, when ASPO was founded, we have tried to tell the world that there will soon be a problem supplying the world with crude oil while demand continues to rise.

Unfortunately, few have heeded our alerts, even though the signs have been so obvious that a blind hen could see them.

If we extrapolate the downward discovery slope from the last 30 years , we can estimate that about 135 billion “new” barrels of oil will be found over the next 30 years. The latest large oil field system to be found was the North Sea (in 1969), which contains about 60 billion barrels. In 1999 the North Sea field production peaked at 6 mbpd. Our extrapolation suggests that over the next 30 years we will discover new oil fields equal to twice the size of the North Sea—a very pessimistic prediction, according to our opponents. But I think the oil industry would be ecstatic to find two new North Sea-size oil provinces.

The problem we are facing is that we are using too much oil per year, 30 billion barrels per year. A 5 billion barrel east Texas oil field is only a couple of months of global oil consumption. You do not find big fields often anymore. The largest field discovered during the last 20 years is in Kazakhstan, and it is 10 billion barrels, equal to 4 months of global oil demand. Tar sands could produce 3 million barrels a day in a crash program. But there are 2 problems: Only a small part is the best part – the mined tar sands. The larges part must be obtained with in situ methods and that means you must heat it up and take it out, and for that you need a lot of energy.

The problem with the technology in Texas and the other lower 48 States hasn’t stopped production decline. If you use all the technology you have in the 5 billion barrel East Texas field, the decline rate is just increasing. You are talking about 10 to 20% per in decline now. So what technology did was bring it out faster and now we see, for instance, that in the North Sea, which has had advanced technology from the beginning, the decline is now 10% per year, 10% per year! So do not hope that technology will solve the problem. It might make the problem even worse in the future.

The World Energy Outlook 2005 base-case scenario projects that by 2030 global oil demand will be 115 million barrels per day, which will require increasing production by 31 million barrels per day over the next 25 years, of which 25 mbpd is predicted to come from fields that have yet to be discovered. That is, we’ll have to find four petroleum systems of the size of the North Sea. Is this reality?

Every oilfield reaches a point of maximum production. When production falls advanced technologies can reduce but not eliminate the decline. The oil industry and the IEA accept the fact that the total production from existing oil fields is declining. ExxonMobil informed shareholders that the average production decline rate for the global oil fields are between 4 and 6% per year (The Lamp, 2003, Vol 85, #1). Current global production is 84 mbpd, so next year at this time current fields may produce a total of roughly 80 mbpd. Given the expected increase in global GDP, one year from now total oil demand will be 85.5 mbpd—so new capacity might have to make up for 1.5 mbpd plus 4 mbpd, or 5.5 mbpd. Two years from now the needed new production will be 11 mbpd and in 2010 at least 25 mbpd. Can the industry deliver this amount?

Indonesia, a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), not only can’t produce enough oil to meet its production quota, it can’t even produce enough for domestic consumption. Indonesia is now an oil importing country. Within six years, five more countries will peak. Only a few countries—Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, and Bolivia—have the potential to produce more oil than before. By 2010, production from these 6 countries and from deepwater fields will have to offset the decline in 59 countries and the increased demand from the rest of the world.

Can they do it? Let’s look at Saudi Arabia, which in the early 1980s produced 9.6 million barrels per day. According to the IEA and the EIA Saudi Arabia must produce 22 mbpd by 2030. But Sadad Al Husseini claims that “the American government’s forecasts for future oil supplies are a dangerous over-estimate.” The Saudi Ghawar oil field, the largest in the world, may be in decline (see for example the book “Twilight in the dessert” by Mathew Simmons). Saudi Aramco says that production can be increased to 12.5 mbpd in 2015. They plan a new pipeline with a capacity of 2.5 mbpd, so it looks like they are willing to increase production to 12.5 mbpd, but so far there are no signs of reaching 22 mbpd.

Now consider Iraq, which in 1979 produced 3.4 mbpd. Iraq officially claims reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, but ASPO (and other analysts) think that one-third of the reported reserves are fictitious “political barrels.” At a recent meeting in London, I was told (privately, by a person who is in a position to know) that Iraqi reserves available today for production total 46 billion barrels. If this is the case, it will be hard for Iraq to reach its former peak production level in a short time. And so on. It’s time to ask, can the Middle East ever again produce at the peak rates of the 1970s?

The examples of Sweden and China suggest that, if past economic development patterns are followed, doubling GDP will require doubling global oil production. Can this even be done?

The United States, the wealthiest country in the world, has 5% of the global population and uses 25% of the oil. It is time to discuss what the United States should do to cut consumption—and rapidly. In February 2005 a report for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), (Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management) argued that “world oil peaking represents a problem like none other. The political, economic, and social stakes are enormous. Prudent risk management demands urgent attention and early action.” Any serious program launched today will take 20 years to complete.

What about oil sands?

The enormous reserves of oil sands in Canada are often mentioned as a lifesaver for the world. The report to DOE in February inspired us to undertake a “Crash Program Scenario Study for the Canadian Oil Sand Industry” (B. Söderbergh, F. Robelius, and K. Aleklett, to be published). In the study we found that Canada must very soon decide if its natural gas should be exported to USA or instead used for the oil sands industry. In a short-term crash program the maximum production from oil sands will be 3.6 million barrels per day in 2018. This production cannot offset even the combined decline of just the Canadian and North Sea provinces. A long-term crash program would give 6 million barrels by 2040, but then new nuclear power plants would be needed to generate steam for the in-situ production.

The problem is that we should have started preparing for peak oil at least 10 years ago. We must act now, as otherwise the bumps and holes in the road might be devastating. I like to summarize the global situation for Peak Oil the following way: When I was born in 1945, none of the four small farms in my little Swedish village used oil for anything. Ten years later, the oil age had arrived: we had replaced coal with oil for heating, my father had bought a motorcycle, and tractors were seen in the fields. From 1945 to 1970, Sweden increased its use of energy by a factor of five, or nearly 7% per year for 25 years.

It is very likely that the world is now entering a challenging period for energy supply, due to the limited resources and production problems now facing conventional (easily accessible) oil. Nearly 40% of the world’s energy is provided by oil, and over 50% of the latter is used in the transport sector. An increasing demand for oil from emerging economies, such as China and India, is likely to further accentuate the need for new solutions

Some analysts maintain that there are inherent technical problems in the Saudi oilfields, but this is not an uncontested viewpoint. It is uncertain how much the oil production in the Middle East can be increased in the next few years and to what extent it would be in the interest of these countries to greatly increase production. It is clear that, even in these countries, conventional oil is a limited resource that they are almost totally dependent on. It is, however, also clear that the countries of the Middle East are undergoing massive internal and regional changes which may have negative consequences for the global oil supply system. Mitigation measures must be initiated in the next few years in order to secure a continued adequate supply of liquid fuels, especially for the transport sector. Over the longer term, completely new solutions are required. Therefore, increased R&D (Research and Development) in the energy sector is urgently needed.

Key points

  1. Shortage of oil. The global demand for oil is presently growing by nearly 2% per year and the current consumption is 84 million barrels per day (1 barrel=159 liters) or 30 billion barrels per year. Finding additional supplies to increase the production rate is becoming problematical, since most major oilfields are well matured. Already 54 of the 65 most important oil-producing countries have declining production and the rate of discoveries of new reserves is less than a third of the present rate of consumption.
  1. Reserves of conventional oil. In the last 10-15 years, two-thirds of the increases in reserves of conventional oil have been based on increased estimates of recovery from existing fields and only one-third on discovery of new fields. In this way, a balance has been achieved between growth in reserves and production. This can’t continue. Half of current oil production comes from giant fields and very few such fields have been found in recent years. Oil geologists have a wide range of opinions on how much conventional oil there is yet to be discovered, but new reservoirs are expected to be mainly found in the deeper water, outer margins of the continental shelves, and in the physically hostile and sensitive environments of the Arctic, where the production costs will be much higher and lead times much longer than they are today. A conservative estimate of discovered oil reserves and undiscovered recoverable oil resources is about 1200 billion barrels, according to the US Geological Survey; this includes 300 billion barrels in the world’s, as yet unexplored, sedimentary basins.
  1. Middle East’s key role. Only in the Middle East and possibly the countries of the former Soviet Union is there a potential to significantly increase production rates to compensate for decreasing rates in other countries. Saudi Arabia is a key country in this context, providing 9.5 million barrels per day (11% of the current global production rate). Their proven reserves are 130 billion barrels and their reserve base is said to include an additional 130 billion barrels. Iraq also has considerable untapped oil reserves.
  2. Unconventional oil resources. In addition to conventional oil, there are very large hydrocarbon resources, so-called unconventional oil, including gas, heavy oil and tar sands and oil shales, coal, from which liquid fuels can be produced.  At present, 1 million barrels of oil per day comes from Canadian tar sand and 0.6 million barrels from Venezuelan heavy oil. The Canadian government estimates that by 2025 the daily production rate will have increased to 3 million barrels per day. Thus, the problem with these unconventional oils is not so much price, but lead times and non-price related aspects, such as the effects on the environment and availability of water and natural gas for the production process.
  1. Immediate action on supplies. Forceful measures to improve the search for and recovery of conventional oil as well as improving the production rate of unconventional oil are required to avoid price spikes, leading to instability of the world economy in the next few decades. Improved recovery of oil in existing fields can be expected. The estimated reserves of conventional oil are, however, located primarily in unexplored sedimentary basins, in environments difficult to access. A substantial part has yet to be found! Sizable contributions from unconventional oil need time (some decades) to become really effective. It is necessary to have public funding for long term petroleum-related research, since this must not be an exclusive task for the oil companies.
  1. Liquid fuels and a new transport system. Oil supply is a severe liquid fuels problem. Major programs need, therefore, to be implemented to develop alternatives to oil in the transport sector. Until these measures have been introduced, which may take one to two decades, demand for oil for the needs of a globally expanding transport sector will continue to rise; other users of oil will suffer, including those concerned with power generation.
  1. Economic considerations. At present the high oil prices are due to the limitations of worldwide production, refining and transportation capacities. Furthermore, the price is influenced by the threat of terrorist attacks on the world’s oil supply, transport system and infrastructure.
  1. Environmental concerns. Constraints on unconventional oil similar to those imposed on other fossil fuels (for example emission controls and CO2 sequestration) will be necessary and provide major challenges for industry.

In view of the importance of the world’s future energy supply, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (the Academy that awards the Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, and The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel) has recently established an Energy Committee. The Academy is an independent nongovernmental organization, with expertise in most of the sciences as well as economic, social, and humanistic fields. The Energy Committee has selected a number of subjects to be studied in some depth and one of these deals with oil and related carbon-based fuels. The Academy organized hearings and a seminar before subsequently (on October 14, 2005) issuing a statement about oil (the full statement can be found at the end of this text). I’ll note just one excerpt from the general remarks: “It is very likely that the world is now entering a challenging period for energy supply, due to the limited resources and production problems now facing conventional (easily accessible) oil.

For the United States, saving oil is the most important thing that you can do. I mean why should you consume twice as much oil per person than we do in Europe? We are doing quite well with half the amount of oil.

Thanks to the Committee for this opportunity to discuss Peak Oil and the work of Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group, Uppsala University, Sweden. We are also members of ASPO, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, and since 2003 I’ve been president of ASPO. Members have an interest in determining the date and impact of the peak and decline of the world’s production of oil and gas, due to resource constraints (www.peakoil.net). The mission is to: 1. Define and evaluate the world’s endowment of oil and gas. 2. Model depletion, taking due account of demand, economics, technology and politics. 3. Raise awareness of the serious consequences for Mankind.

 

Robert Hirsch, Senior Energy Program Advisor, SAIC, lead author of 2005 Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, mitigation, & risk management, Department of Energy.

The era of plentiful, low-cost petroleum is approaching an end.

Oil is the lifeblood of modern civilization. It fuels most transportation worldwide and is a feedstock for pharmaceuticals, agriculture, plastics and a myriad of other products used in everyday life. The earth has been generous in yielding copious quantities of oil to fuel world economic growth for over a century, but that period of plenty is changing.

The world has never confronted a problem like Peak Oil.

Oil peaking represents a liquid fuels problem, not an energy crisis in the sense that that term has been used. Motor vehicles, aircraft, trucks, and ships have no ready alternative to liquid fuels, certainly not the large existing capital stock. And that capital stock has lifetimes measured in decades. Solar, wind, and nuclear power produce electricity, not liquid fuels; their widespread use in transportation is at least 30 to 50 years away.

Risk minimization mandates the massive implementation of mitigation well before the onset of the problem. Since we do not know when peaking is going to occur, that makes a tough problem for you folks as decision makers because if you are going to start 20 years ahead of something that is indeterminate, you have a tough time making the arguments. Mustering support is going to be difficult. We would all like to believe that the optimists are right about peak oil, but the risks, again the risks of them being wrong, are beyond anything that we have experienced, the risks of error are beyond imagination.

The peaking of world oil production represents an enormous risk to the United States and the world. Peak Oil is not a theory. Maximum conventional oil production is coming, but we cannot predict when because no one has the verified data needed for a credible forecast. Peaking could be soon. Our studies through the Department of Energy indicate that soon is within 20 years.

Saudi Arabia

The economic future of the United States is inextricably linked to Saudi Arabia because they are the lynchpin of future world oil production.

No one outside of Saudi Arabia knows how much oil they have in the ground because that is a closely held state secret. Also, no one outside of Saudi Arabia knows how much and how fast the Saudis will be willing to develop what they have. Like it or not, Saudi Arabia is not required to satisfy world needs and conserving their oil is in their national interest. Think risk.

Until recently, OPEC assured the world that oil supply would continue to be plentiful, but that position is changing. In fact, some in OPEC are now warning that oil supply will not be adequate to satisfy world demand in 10-15 years (Moors). Dr. Sadad al-Husseini, retired senior Saudi Aramco oil exploration executive, is on record as saying that the world is heading for an oil shortage; in his words “a whole new Saudi Arabia (will have to be found and developed) every couple of years” to satisfy current demand forecasts (Haas). So the messages from the world’s “breadbasket of oil” are moving from confident assurances to warnings of approaching shortage. Think risk.

Today, EIA is forecasting adequate world’s oil supplies for decades into the future. The question is, are they going to get it right this time? The National Petroleum Council has been asked by Secretary Bodman to assess Peak Oil. Are they going to get it right this time? Think risk.

It is important to recognize that oil production peaking is not “running out.” Peaking is the maximum oil production rate, which typically occurs after roughly half of the recoverable oil in an oil field has been produced.

What is likely to happen on a world scale will be similar to what happens with individual oil fields, because world production is by definition the sum total of production from all of the world’s oil fields.

A recent analysis for the Department of Energy focused on what might be done to mitigate the peaking world oil production. It became abundantly clear early in our study that effect of mitigation would be dependent on the large scale implementation of mega projects and mega changes. We performed a transparent scenario analysis based on crash program mitigation worldwide which is the fastest that is humanly possible. The timing was left open because we do not know when peaking is going to occur. The results were startling. If we wait until peaking occurs, the world will have a problem with adequate liquid fuels for more than two decades. If we start ten years before peaking occurs, that will allay the problem somewhat but in ten years after that, a problem will arise. And finally, if we initiate a crash program 20 years before peaking occurs, we have the possibility, a possibility of avoiding the problem.

If we get oil peaking wrong, how bad might the economic damage be? Unfortunately, there is a paucity of analysis in this area which is tough analysis to do. One study called oil shock wave, which I believe was mentioned earlier, was performed by a group of distinguished former high level Government officials not too long ago. They concluded at a sustained 4% global shortfall would result in oil at $160 a barrel which would push the United States into recession losing millions of jobs.

Note that oil shock wave focused on a multi-year drop in oil supply of 4% total but experts in this business will tell you that 4 to 8% per year is entirely possible and is happening in many parts of the world. Think risk.

Chinese officials have forecast the peaking world oil production around 2012. As this committee knows, China has been making huge investments to secure oil for its own country doing this around the world and paying premium prices. They tried to buy Unocal and that did not work. They offered a premium in that particular case.

BACKGROUND

Oil was formed by geological processes millions of years ago and is typically found in underground reservoirs of dramatically different sizes, at varying depths, and with widely varying characteristics. The largest oil fields are called “super giants,” many of which were discovered in the Middle East. Because of their size and other characteristics, super giant oil fields are generally the easiest to find, the most economic to develop, and the longest-lived.

The world’s last super giant oil fields were discovered in the 1960s. Since then, smaller fields of varying sizes have been found in what are called “oil prone” locations worldwide — oil is not found everywhere.

The concept of the peaking of world oil production follows from the fact that the output of an oil individual field rises after discovery, reaches a peak, and then declines. Oil fields have lifetimes typically measured in decades, and peak production often occurs roughly a decade or so after discovery under normal circumstances.

Oil is usually found thousands of feet below the surface. Oil fields do not typically have an obvious surface signature, so oil is very difficult to find. Advanced technology has greatly improved the discovery process and reduced exploration failures. Nevertheless, world oil discoveries have been steadily declining for decades.

OIL RESERVES

“Reserves” is an estimate of the amount of oil in an oil field that can be extracted at an assumed cost. Thus, a higher oil price outlook often means that more oil can be produced. However, geological realities place an upper limit on price-dependent reserves growth. Specialists who estimate reserves use an array of technical methodologies and a great deal of judgment. Thus, different estimators might calculate different reserves from the same data.

Sometimes self-interest influences reserve estimates, e.g., an oil field owner may provide a high estimate in order to attract outside investment, influence customers, or further a political agenda.

Reserves and production should not be confused. Reserves estimates are but one factor used in estimating future oil production from a given oil field. Other factors include production history, local geology, available technology, oil prices, etc. An oil field can have large estimated reserves, but if a well-managed field is past maximum production, the remaining reserves can only be produced at a diminishing rate. Sometimes declines can be slowed, but a return to peak production is impossible. This fundamental is not often appreciated by those unfamiliar with oil production, and it is often a major factor in misunderstanding the basic nature of oil production.

THE OIL PRICE-RESERVES NEXUS

In the past, higher prices led to increased estimates of conventional oil reserves worldwide. However, this price-reserves relationship has its limits, because oil is found in discrete packages (reservoirs) as opposed to the varying concentrations characteristic of many minerals. Thus, at some price, world reserves of recoverable conventional oil will reach a maximum because of geological fundamentals. Beyond that point, insignificant additional conventional oil will be recoverable at any realistic price. This is a geological fact that is often not understood by economists, many of whom are accustomed to dealing with hard minerals, whose geology is fundamentally different.

Oil companies and governments have conducted extensive exploration worldwide, but their results have been disappointing for decades. On this basis, there is little reason to expect that future oil discoveries will dramatically increase. A related fact is that oil production is in decline in 33 of the world’s 48 largest oil-producing countries.

IMPACTS OF IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY AND HIGHER PRICES

Exploration for and production of petroleum has been an increasingly more technological enterprise, benefiting from more sophisticated engineering capabilities, advanced geological understanding, improved instrumentation, greatly expanded computing power, more durable materials, etc. Today’s technology allows oil fields to be more readily discovered and better understood sooner than heretofore.

Some economists expect improved technologies and higher oil prices will provide ever-increasing oil production for the foreseeable future. To gain some insight into the effects of higher oil prices and improved technology on oil production, consider the history of the U.S. Lower 48 states. This region was one of the world’s richest, most geologically varied, and most productive up until 1970, when production peaked and started into decline.

In constant dollars, oil prices increased by roughly a factor of three in 1973-74 and another factor of two in 1979-80. In addition to these huge oil price increases, the 1980s and 1990s were a golden age of oil field technology development, including practical 3-D seismic, economic horizontal drilling, dramatically improved geological understanding, etc. Nevertheless, Lower 48 oil production still trended downward, showing no pronounced response to either price or technology. In light of this experience, there is no reason to expect that the worldwide situation will be different: Higher prices and improved technology are unlikely to yield dramatically higher conventional oil production.

PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION

Various individuals and groups have used available information and geological tools to develop forecasts for when world oil production might peak. A sampling is shown in Table 1, where it is clear that many believe that peaking is likely within a decade.

MITIGATION

A recent analysis for the U.S. Department of Energy addressed the question of what might be done to mitigate the peaking of world oil production. Various technologies that are commercial or near commercial were considered: 1. Fuel efficient transportation, 2. Heavy oil/Oil sands, 3. Coal liquefaction, 4. Enhanced oil recovery, 5. Gas-to-liquids.

It became abundantly clear early in this study that effective mitigation will be dependent on the implementation of mega-projects and mega-changes at the maximum possible rate. This finding dictated the focus on currently commercial technologies that are ready for implementation.

New technology options requiring further research and development will undoubtedly prove very important in the longer-term future, but they are not ready now, so their inclusion would be strictly speculative.

Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking offers the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period. The reason why such long lead times are required is that the worldwide scale of oil consumption is enormous – a fact often lost in a world where oil abundance has been taken for granted for so long. If mitigation is too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will have to be achieved through massive demand destruction and shortages, which would translate to extreme economic hardship.

WARNING SIGNS

In an effort to gain some insight into the possible character of world oil production peaking, a number of regions and countries that have already past oil peaking were recently analyzed. Areas that had significant peak oil production and that were not encumbered by major political upheaval or cartel action were Texas, North America, the United Kingdom, and Norway. Three other countries that are also past peak production, but whose maximum production was smaller, were Argentina, Colombia, and Egypt. Examination of these actual histories showed that in all cases it was not obvious that production was about to peak a year ahead of the event, i.e., production trends prior to peaking did not provide long-range warning. In most cases the peaks were sharp, not gently varying or flat topped, as some forecasters hope. Finally, in some cases post-peak production declines were quite rapid. It is by no means obvious how world oil peaking will occur, but if it follows the patterns displayed by these regions and countries, the world will have less than a year warning.

IT’S NOT YOUR MOTHER’S ENERGY CRISIS

Oil peaking represents a liquid fuels problem, not an “energy crisis” in the sense that term has often been used. Motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, and ships simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels, certainly not for the existing capital stock, which have very long lifetimes. Non-hydrocarbon-based energy sources, such as renewables and nuclear power, produce electricity, not liquid fuels, so their widespread use in transportation is at best many decades in the future. Accordingly, mitigation of declining world conventional oil production must be narrowly focused, at least in the near-term.

RISK MANAGEMENT.

It is possible that peaking may not occur for a decade or more, but it is also possible that peaking may be occurring right now. We will not know for certain until after the fact. The world is thus faced with a daunting risk management problem. The world has never confronted a problem like this. Risk minimization requires the implementation of mitigation measures well prior to peaking.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Over the past century world economic development has been fundamentally shaped by the availability of abundant, low-cost oil. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal, coal to oil, etc.) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary. The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation at least a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and long lasting. Oil peaking represents a liquid fuels problem.

Robert L. Hirsch is a Senior Energy Program Advisor for SAIC and a consultant in energy. Previous employment included executive positions at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Exxon, ARCO, EPRI, and Advance Power Technologies, Inc. Dr. Hirsch is a past Chairman of the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems at the National Academies. He has a Ph.D. in engineering

Haas, P. August 21, 2005. The Breaking Point. New York Times Magazine.

Moors, K.F. How Reliable are Saudi Production and Reserve Estimates? Dow Jones

 

Robert Esser, Senior consultant & director, Global oil & Gas resources, Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA):

CERA does not recognize a peak in oil capacity until at least 2030.

We at CERA have been conducting continuing research on the future of oil supplies. The following are our basic conclusions. One, the world is not running out of oil imminently, or in the medium term. Our field by field activity based analysis points to a substance build-up of liquid capacity over the next several years. Two, an increasing share of supplies will come from non-traditional or unconventional oils from the ultra-deep waters, from oil sands, from gas related liquids in which we include condensates and natural gas liquids and also the conversion of gas to liquids. Three, rather than an isolated peak, we should expect an undulating plateau, perhaps three or four decades from now. Peaking does not imply a precipitous decline towards running out. Four, one reason for the general pessimism about future supplies is that based on Cambridge Energy’s reserve study, the reserve disclosure rules mandated by the Securities and Exchange Commission are based on decades old technology and need to be updated to reflect the new technology which is now available to verify reserves. Five, the major risk to this outlook, however, are not below ground geological factors but above ground geopolitical factors.

Our sources of new supply: new capacity comes from the development of recent discoveries, older discoveries only recently made available – such as all of those huge fields now being developed in the Caspian Sea area – existing field reserve upgrades, and the drilling response to high prices which will tend to reduce decline rates in mature areas. Accordingly, the CERA outlook is a more optimistic picture than many of the other publicly available outlets and strongly contradicts those who believe Peak Oil is imminent.

Key trends: in our core scenario, which is at the high end of our expectations, CERA expects capacity could increase by as much as 15 million barrels a day to 102 million barrels a day by 2010. This is up from the 87 million barrels a day currently with a further increase of 6 million barrels a day to 108 million barrels by 2015. This is a 25% increase. All regions except the United States and the North Sea will show strong growth to 2020. Non-OPEC countries with strong growth in exports include Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Angola, Brazil, and Canada. Actually right now there is no more intense exploration in producing play than the Canadian oil sands. Strong growth takes place in both OPEC and non-OPEC countries till 2010, however, we also recognize that this will moderate by 2015.

This is led by gas related liquids associated with the gas under development to meet the soaring demand for liquefied natural gas, especially for the United States and other country and regional gas demand growth. The inclusion of these gas related liquids is certainly warranted as they too satisfy the demand of the liquid oil demand.

The increases in capacity are also underpinned by the development of the characteristic very large discoveries recently made in very deep waters since the late 1990’s. The top ten discoveries alone each year add something on the order of 2 to 2-1/2 million barrels a day. Accordingly, CERA does not recognize a peak in oil capacity until at least 2030.

Many risks loom on the horizon that could impact productive capacity. Most of these are above ground risks such as severe lack qualified manpower and the shortage of rigs. Political risks occur in most OPEC countries especially in Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and non-OPEC Russia. Other risks include access to areas of major under discovered reserve potential, a slowdown in the company sanction of new field development, and this is most important, an unexpected higher than assumed decline rate in some of the large Middle East fields, and lastly, delayed Government sanction of certain long awaited projects in Iran, Kuwait, and the UAE. Should many of these concerns take place in the near future, capacity in 2010 could be 5 million barrels a day lower than projected.

In addition to crude oil from conventional settings, our analysis concludes that unconventional oil—condensates, natural gas liquids (NGLs), deepwater production, extra heavy oils and gas-to-liquids (GTLs) will represent about 35% of total capacity in 2015— compared to 10% in 1990.

Political risks also have an impact on capacity expansion in the Middle East, where the situation in Iraq continues to be highly problematic, and there is growing uncertainty over events in Iran. In Russia, changes in ownership, the constraints of geology, and the fiscal and regulatory systems, as well as logistical bottlenecks and geological challenges – all these have led to the end of Russia’s high supply growth era. In Venezuela fiscal and political changes have hindered the recovery of oil production and investment in the aftermath of the late 2002/early 2003 disruption and are likely to have continuing impact.

 

Our views about the peak oil debate have been reinforced by a detailed new audit of our own analysis and also further evidence that has come to light concerning the enormous scale of field reserve upgrades of existing fields. We also draw upon the proprietary databases of IHS, of which CERA is now part. These are the most extensive and complete databases on field production around the world. We see no evidence to suggest a peak before 2020, nor do we see a transparent and technically sound analysis from another source that justifies belief in an imminent peak.

It will be a number of decades into this century before we get to an inflexion point that will herald the arrival of the “undulating plateau. Assuming no serious political crises in key producing countries or an unexpected shortfall in investment, global oil production capacity will continue to grow strongly toward 102.4 mbd by 2010 from the current level of 87.2 mbd. [NOTE: BUT IT DIDN’T GO UP 15.2 mbd, it went up only .7 mbd. EIA world oil production 2005 = 73.9 mbd, 2010 = 74.6, not sure where CERA came up with 87.2 mbd]

Production capacity of extra heavy oil from Canada and Venezuela will expand from 1.8 mbd in 2005 to 4.9 mbd in 2015 . Despite accidents earlier in 2005 the Canadian projects are moving forward at an accelerating pace. Expansion from 1.2 mbd currently to 3.4 mbd by 2015 is anticipated, with approximately half being mined and the remainder in situ.

[Canadian oil sand production was only 2.2 mbd in 2014 and possibly less in 2016 due to oil bubble popping]

MURRAY SMITH, MINISTER—COUNSELLOR GOVERNMENT, CANADIAN EMBASSY

Today Alberta produces just over 2 million barrels a day and will grow to 2.5 million in three to four years and about 3 million barrels per day before 2015. Alberta crude oil production from oil sands is currently in excess of 1 million barrels per day (bbl/d). Production is anticipated to reach 3 million bbl/d by 2015, and 5 million bbl/d by 2030.

Alberta is recognized as the home of the second largest oil reserves in the world. From initial reserves in place of 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, there are currently 174.5 billion barrels of oil in established reserves and 315 billion barrels believed to be ultimately recoverable.

Replies of Robert Hirsch to questions asked by representatives

I was on the National academy panel that reviewed a hydrogen program and provided the report that came out a year ago. We spent a year looking into the issues in a great deal of detail. It is technically feasible to do hydrogen, but it is not economically feasible. And for the economics to make any sense at all, you have to have breakthroughs in two areas in particular. One is in fuel cells which are totally inadequate for the application right now and the other is onboard storage. You cannot predict when those breakthroughs are going to occur. We took an optimistic view as to when these vehicles might enter the market in order to see how long it would take for them to have an impact. But do not bet on it. You just cannot bet on it because the things that are needed that are essential to go do not exist now.

My work was for the Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory and I am familiar with the work at other laboratories. Computer simulations are not worth a damn if you do not have data to go in that has any kind of certainty to it. And that data does not exist. It simply does not exist. When CERA makes their estimates, they are using estimates. When other people predict other dates for peaking, they are using estimates. They are taking bits and pieces of information. In some cases they are basing their projections on what somebody tells them without any independent verification. So a computer program with bad data is going to give you a bad result.

I ran exploration and production research at Atlantic Richfield and we looked at not only the technologies that were being developed, but we looked off into the future and there have been improvements, 3D, 4D seismic has come along, there is horizontal drilling that was developed in large part by somebody who was in the laboratory that I managed. There is deep water. What has happened there is rather dramatic and rather marvelous. But if you look at all of those things and the character of the problem, there will definitely be improvements made, but they are not going to change the basic picture. They will change the time by maybe a matter of years.

You have to keep in mind that some of those technologies in fact will drain reservoirs faster than would otherwise be the case. And under those conditions, you are going to have a big ramp up, but then you are going to have a much sharper drop afterwards.

I think that all of us would agree that you do not pick winners in a situation like this; you go with anything that is reasonable. I totally agree with my colleague here that biodiesel, as wonderful as it sounds, is going to be a sliver in terms of the problem. And finally, in terms of having a program, there needs to be a will first and there needs to be a worldwide will and then there needs to be Government stepping in and facilitating the private sector to doing things on a basis that has not been done before. That is the only way you are going to minimize the risks. That is not what we are talking about today in detail, but that is effectively what has to happen.

ROSCOE BARTLETT. When it comes to ethanol production you should not look at the total BTU’s in ethanol and assume that those will contribute to our energy usage. The production of ethanol I hope will have an energy profit ratio which is positive. But it will never be very positive. We will always be putting a major percentage of the energy into producing ethanol that we get out of ethanol. Just a word of caution in looking at ethanol and that goes for any of the things produced in agriculture by the way.

I understand that the Canadian oil sands may be using more energy from natural gas to produce the oil than they are getting out of the oil. That is fine if it is stranded gas, but ultimately we will have a real limitation on what we can do there. They are now thinking of building a nuclear power plant to get the quantities of energy that they use to do this. So I would just like to caution that the enormous reserves in the oil sands and tar shales are not net energy realizable. You may end up using six barrels of oil and get a net energy of one barrel of oil. I do not know what that energy profit ratio will be but it ain’t high.

Fuel cells: two problems with fuel cells, one is storage that was mentioned. We had experts testifying recently and they said of the three methods of storing it one is as a gas in a pressure vessel that is just too heavy. Another is a liquid. The insulation is too much and the difficulty of pressurizing it is too great. But the only feasible way that it will become economically widely used is to have solid state storage which really means you are dealing with a hydrogen battery. And a fundamental question is – is the hydrogen battery fundamentally more energy efficient than an electron battery, which we have a whole lot of. I understand if you could wave a magic wand that every vehicle in the world today would have a fuel cell in it that we would use all the platinum in the world. So clearly, you have got to have some big breakthroughs in fuels cells before this is going to be feasible.

One of the ways of producing more oil is to drill as many wells in Saudi Arabia as we drilled in our country. We have about what three fourths of all the oil wells in the world in our country. Yeah, you will get more oil more quickly from Saudi fields but all you are doing is climbing a hill and the peak is going to be higher. You are going to fall off the peak and the descent, you know, you cannot pump what is not there and if you are able to pump it more quickly now there is going to be less to pump in the future.

I would just like to note that there are risks that responding too early, you are using resources you might have used for something else but I think that the risk of responding too late are overwhelming, that any rational people would buy, you know, maybe responding too early. Thank God it is too early because if it is too late we are really in for a big problem.

I would like to caution about energy from agriculture. Two cautions, one, we are barely able to feed the world. Tonight a fourth of the world will go to bed hungry.

And I would like to caution you to be careful about how much biomass you want to rape from our topsoils.

We are barely able now to maintain the quantity and quality of our topsoils and that is because we are not returning humus to them. I asked the Department of Agriculture, do you think we have more and better topsoil? The answer is no. For every bushel of corn we raise in Iowa, we lose three bushels of topsoil down the Mississippi River. So I would be very cautious about how much energy you expect–and by the way, it is not–the energy profit ratio from agriculture is not high. We would have to have a much more energy efficient agriculture if we are going to get any energy from agriculture in the future.

Twenty-five of the 48 oil producing countries in the world are now in decline. How are we going to get more oil in the future if that is true? And, you know, what to do? I think what we need to do is obvious, a massive effort of conservation, a big investment in efficiency, and big investments in alternatives. I do not think what we need to do is questionable. I think the will to do it may be very questionable.

KJELL ALEKLETT. We have now 65 countries in the world that are major producers of oil; 54 out of those 65 have already passed the peak of production and are going down. The next five years, another five countries will be past the peak, for instance China and Mexico that we know about. And so by 2010 there will be six countries that might be closer to increase their production. One of those is Bolivia and they are making something like 800,000. But take for instance Brazil that is considered to be one of the successful nations. What they have found down there is something like 12 billion barrels of oil in ultra deep water. And 12 billion barrels when we are consuming 30 billion barrels per year, well can that save the world?

Yes, Saudi Arabia will go up to 12.5 and they are committed to do that, but Kuwait for instance, the big field there is declining now. They are officially saying that and many other things. So I do not think it is possible to get this increase. And just look at numbers and start to think for yourself because that is what we need now, even level thinking.

ROBERT HIRSCH. Well I would just amplify on his points. If you have got the overwhelming number of countries in the world that have been oil producers that are already past their peak, that means less production from them and world demand continues to increase, therefore, the gap is not just the increased gap, it is the increase plus the loss that is associated with these others on the down slope and that gets to be bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and the rates catch up to you very, very quickly.

UDALL. I think the crucial part of the debate here and you have–the panelists have hit it several times that it does not matter when we peak. The important thing and, you know we have people today that are reliable folks that are saying that we peaked already. And one of our panelists says it is 2030, others it could be 2010, we do not know. But I do not think we should be getting in that debate. The focus we should have on this is what should we be doing to move us forward.

These panelists have hit on the idea of political will around the world and I think that is very, very important, us to have the will and the stamina to really take this on. My understanding we are doing a very small amount of research compared to what people do and Governments do in other areas. And what about global warming?

ALEKLETT. Let me start with the global warming, please, because if you look into these scenarios about how much carbon dioxide that will be produced in the future, it is obvious that they are overestimating the amount that can be produced from oil and natural gas. And it is now more or less agreed that we can burn all the natural gas and the conventional oil and it will not affect so much the global change. The problem is coal. We should work on coal. We should not have the carbon dioxide coming out in the air from coal. That is a big problem for the future.

HIRSCH. I would like to comment on your point about political will because the political will in our system with the way things are working right now is very hard to muster. In fact, in the current circumstances, the high probability would be to wait until the problem hits because then the political will be there, because consumers will be screaming. I would say that China has the political will and China is out acquiring and investing in ways to secure their own supply. They seem to have the political will which we do not have as yet.

ALEKLETT. Another thing with China is that they can say that you are not allowed to buy a car that takes so much gas; you must buy one that takes a smaller amount. Another thing is we have the world problem with diesel coming out. Everyone thinks that diesel should be used because you get better efficiency on the cars. But the problem is that the capacity of producing diesel in the refineries is not enough in the world.

Another thing I think we have to consider is the countries in the Middle East and North Africa. These countries have 75% of the remaining resources of oil in the world and these people also understand that this is the only resource they have to make money for the future.

I have visited the Middle East a couple of times now and every time when I am down there they said we had to think about future generations, our children and grandchildren; they must get money for something also. So why should we pump all now that we do not need the money when our children need it in the future. In Kuwait the parliament says no to increasing production to save it for future generations, so do not count on these countries increasing their production, because they know that they need it in the future.

When I lived in California, I liked to go up in the gold country and the ghost towns there were quite chilling. They are ghost towns because there was a limited resource of gold and silver.

UDALL . Any predictions at all on prices in terms of gasoline? I mean are we going to go back down in terms of the price per barrel?

HIRSCH. I do not think anybody could tell you. And anybody that gives you a prediction may not understand the problem. It is too complex. There are too many forces at work. There are things that happen that are unpredictable. You cannot predict the price.

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas                      JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida                  Ranking Member

Vice Chairman                           HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

FRED UPTON, Michigan                      EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida                    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio                     EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia                      FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky                    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia                  BART GORDON, Tennessee

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming                    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois                    ANNA G. ESHOO, California

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico                BART STUPAK, Michigan

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona                  ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING,  Mississippi ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

Vice Chairman                           GENE GREEN, Texas

VITO FOSSELLA, New York                   TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

STEVE BUYER, Indiana                      DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California             LOIS CAPPS, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire            MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania             TOM ALLEN, Maine

MARY BONO, California                     JIM DAVIS, Florida

GREG WALDEN, Oregon                       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

LEE TERRY, Nebraska                       HILDA L. SOLIS, California

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey                 CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan                     JAY INSLEE, Washington

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho                 TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina                MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina

Posted in Peak Oil, Peak Oil History, U.S. Congress Energy Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Peak lithium makes transportation & electricity storage pointless

Preface.  The lithium batteries in cars need electricity to recharge, but the electric grid can’t stay up with just wind and solar, that’s why natural gas is the energy storage today. Nor do pumped hydro or compressed air energy storage scale up.  And battery storage doesn’t either.

Barnhart (2013) found that the only utility-scale battery for which there were enough materials on earth to store 12 hours of electricity production were Sodium sulfur (NaS) yet the main batteries being developed for both utility-scale electricity storage and automobiles is lithium.  To provide enough energy storage for just 1 day of electricity generation in the United states, li-ion batteries would cost $11.9 trillion dollars, take up 345 square miles, weigh 74 million tons, and need replacement after 15 years (DOE/EPRI 2013).  Multiply that by 28 since at least four weeks of energy storage are needed to cope with the seasonality of wind and solar. That doesn’t leave much if any lithium for cars. Vazquez (2010) also points out that lithium does not grow on trees, and the amount needed for utility-scale storage is likely to deplete known resources (Vazquez 2010).

And what’s the point of electrifying cars? That only replaces gasoline. But it is diesel that’s needed, peak diesel is the real existential crisis, since large trucks, locomotives, and ships burn diesel. Without this transportation civilization ends within a week.  I explain this in greater detail in my book “When Trains Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation“. The main reason trucks can’t run on batteries is that they weigh too much in long haul, tractors, harvesters, bulldozers, fire, logging, mining and myriad other essential heavy duty trucks doing the actual work of civilization. Plus over 80% of U.S. cities have no rail or ports and depend on trucks alone.

Not only that, batteries are doomed by the laws of physics to never come close to the energy density of petroleum, as I explain in Who Killed the Electric Car & more importantly, the Electric Truck?

Lithium is preferred because it’s the 3rd lightest element after gases hydrogen and helium, and weight is a big deal when it comes to transportation.  Li-ion batteries also have disadvantages — they are more expensive than lead or sulfur, can be charged and discharged only a discrete number of times, can fail or lose capacity if overheated, and the cost of preventing overheating is expensive.

Anyone who isn’t dissuaded that lithium is too limited to replace petroleum should also consider the tremendous amount of environmental harm done and limitations of water and other resources to mine lithium (Katwala 2018, Friedemann 2021)

This post is mainly excerpts from Vikström et al (2013). This is the best paper I’ve seen about lithium reserves, recycling, and more. Do read it online since I’ve taken out the tables, graphs, and more. A few points made are that:

  • Li is highly reactive and flammable. For this reason, it never occurs freely in nature
  • Li only appears in about 120 mineral compounds. Very few have commercial value — many are too small or have too low a grade of lithium. Exploitation must generally be tailor-made for each mineral since they differ significantly in chemical composition, hardness and other properties.
  • Much of the lithium extracted today comes from high altitude brines, which are pumped into evaporation ponds where it can take up to two years to be ready for harvest, and longer if the region is cold or rainy, making it hard to ramp up production when there’s more demand.
  • The many reasons extraction from sea water is unlikely
  • Dependency is dangerous, 85% of the global reserves are situated in just two countries: Chile and China.

At the ASPO 2005 Denver conference there were discussions about how renewable energy would be the last wall street bonanza before the energy crisis struck, so I don’t expect valuable time, money, and energy to be put to use preparing for the future permanent emergency.  But there’s a lot that could be done instead, see the last chapter of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy.

In the news:

Clifford (2022) The price has gone up 480% in the last year, and from $4,450/tonne to $78,032/tonne today. Elon Musk tweeted that the price of lithium has gone to insane levels, so Tesla may get into the lithium mining and refining business directly and at scale. Although the U.S. has lithium deposits, there are limited refining resources.

Penn (2018) There are only 25 years of zinc reserves left and goes on to say that lithium reserves are even smaller — amounting to just 5% of zinc reserves (Penn 2018).

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Vikström, H., Davidsson, S., Höök, M. 2013. Lithium availability and future production outlooks. Applied Energy 110: 252-266.

Several recent studies have used different methods to estimate whether the lithium production can meet an increasing demand, especially in the transport sector, where lithium-ion batteries are the most likely technology for electric cars. The reserve and resource estimates of lithium vary greatly between different studies and the question whether the annual production rates of lithium can meet a growing demand is seldom adequately explained. This study presents a review and compilation of recent estimates of quantities of lithium available for exploitation and discusses the uncertainty and differences between these estimates. We find that the availability of lithium could in fact be a problem for fulfilling this scenario if lithium-ion batteries are to be used. This indicates that other battery technologies might have to be implemented for enabling an electrification of road transports.

Global transportation mainly relies on one single fossil resource, namely petroleum, which supplies 95% of the total energy with two-thirds of all world oil consumption consumed in the transport sector. [My note: world conventional oil peaked in 2008 — 90% of oil consumed, and both conventional and unconventional (mainly fracked tight shale oil) in 2018, see Peak Oil is Here!].

Barely 2% of the world electricity is used by transportation, mainly trains, trams, and trolley buses.  A high future demand of Li for battery applications may arise if society chooses to employ Li-ion technologies for a decarbonization of the road transport sector.

Recently, a number of studies have investigated future supply prospects for lithium. However, these studies reach widely different results in terms of available quantities, possible production trajectories, as well as expected future demand. The most striking difference is perhaps the widely different estimates for available resources and reserves, where different numbers of deposits are included and different types of resources are assessed.

It has been suggested that mineral resources will be a future constraint for society, but a great deal of this debate is often spent on the concept of geological availability, which can be presented as the size of the tank. What is frequently not reflected upon is that society can only use the quantities that can be extracted at a certain pace and be delivered to consumers by mining operations, which can be described as the tap. The key concept here is that the size of the tank and the size of the tap are two fundamentally different things. This study attempts to present a comprehensive review of known lithium deposits and their estimated quantities of lithium available for exploitation and discuss the uncertainty and differences among published studies, in order to bring clarity to the subject.

Li is highly reactive and flammable. For this reason, it never occurs freely in nature and only appears in compounds, usually ionic compounds. The nuclear properties of Li are peculiar since its nuclei verge on instability and two stable isotopes have among the lowest binding energies per nucleon of all stable nuclides. Due to this nuclear instability, lithium is less abundant in the solar system than 25 of the first 32 chemical elements.

An important frequent shortcoming in the discussion on availability of lithium is the lack of proper terminology and standardized concepts for assessing the available amounts of lithium. Published studies talk about “reserves”, “resources”, “recoverable resources”, “broad-based reserves”, “in-situ resources”, and “reserve base”.  A wide range of reporting systems minerals exist, such as NI 43-101, USGS, Crirsco, SAMREC and the JORC code, and further discussion and references concerning this can be found in Vikström. Definitions and classifications used are often similar, but not always consistent, adding to the confusion when aggregating data. Consistent definitions may be used in individual studies, but frequently figures from different methodologies are combined as there is no universal and standardized framework. In essence, published literature is a jumble of inconsistent figures. If one does not know what the numbers really mean, they are not simply useless – they are worse, since they tend to mislead.

Broadly speaking, resources are generally defined as the geologically assured quantity that is available for exploitation, while reserves are the quantity that is exploitable with current technical and socioeconomic conditions. The reserves are what are important for production, while resources are largely an academic figure with little relevance for real supply. For example, usually less than one tenth of the coal resources are considered economically recoverable. Kesler et al. stress that available resources needs to be converted into reserves before they can be produced and used by society. Still, some analysts seemingly use the terms ‘resources’ and ‘reserves’ synonymously.

It should be noted that the actual reserves are dynamic and vary depending on many factors such as the available technology, economic demand, political issues and social factors. Technological improvements may increase reserves by opening new deposit types for exploitation or by lowering production costs. Deposits that have been mined for some time can increase or decrease their reserves due to difficulties with determining the ore grade and tonnage in advance. Depletion and decreasing concentrations may increase recovery costs, thus lowering reserves. Declining demand and prices may also reduce reserves, while rising prices or demand may increase them. Political decisions, legal issues or environmental policies may prohibit exploitation of certain deposits, despite the fact significant resources may be available.

For lithium, resource/reserve classifications were typically developed for solid ore deposits. However, brine – presently the main lithium source – is a fluid and commonly used definitions can be difficult to apply due to pumping complications and varying concentrations.

Houston et al. describes the problem in detail and suggest a change in NI 43-101 to account for these problems. If better standards were available for brines then estimations could be more reliable and accurate, as discussed in Kushnir and Sandén.

Environmental aspects and policy changes can also significantly influence recoverability. Introduction of clean air requirements and public resistance to surface mining in the USA played a major role in the decreasing coal reserves.

It is entirely possible that public outcries against surface mining or concerns for the environment in lithium producing will lead to restrictions that affect the reserves. As an example, the water consumption of brine production is very high and Tahil estimates that brine operations consume 65% of the fresh water in the Salar de Atacama region. [The Atacama only gets 0.6 inches of rain a year]

Regarding future developments of recoverability, Fasel and Tran monotonously assume that increasing lithium demand will result in more reserves being found as prices rise. So called cumulative availability curves are sometimes used to estimate how reserves will change with changing prices, displaying the estimated amount of resource against the average unit cost ranked from lowest to highest cost. This method is used by Yaksic and Tilton to address lithium availability. This concept has its merits for describing theoretical availability, but the fact that the concept is based on average cost, not marginal cost, has been described as a major weakness, making cumulative availability curves disregard the real cost structure and has little – if any – relevance for future price and production rate.

The high reactivity of lithium makes it geochemistry complex and interesting. Lithium-minerals are generally formed in magmatic processes. The small ionic size makes it difficult for lithium to be included in early stages of mineral crystallization, so lithium remains in the molten parts where it gets enriched until it can be solidified in the final stages.

At present, over 120 lithium-containing minerals are known, but few of them contain high concentrations or are frequently occurring. Lithium can also be found in naturally occurring salt solutions as brines in dry salt lake environments. Compared to the fairly large number of lithium mineral and brine deposits, few of them are of actual or potential commercial value. Many are very small, while others are too low in grade. This chapter will briefly review the properties of those deposits and present a compilation of the known deposits.

Lithium extraction from minerals is primarily done with minerals occurring in pegmatite formations. However, pegmatite is rather challenging to exploit due to its hardness in conjunction with generally problematic access to the belt-like deposits they usually occur in. Table 1 describes some typical lithium-bearing minerals and their characteristics. Australia is currently the world’s largest producer of lithium from minerals, mainly from spodumene. Petalite is commonly used for glass manufacture due to its high iron content, while lepidolite was earlier used as a lithium source but presently has lost its importance due to high fluorine content. Exploitation must generally be tailor-made for a certain mineral as they differ quite significantly in chemical composition, hardness and other properties. Table 2 presents some mineral deposits and their properties.

Recovery rates for mining typically range from 60 to 70%, although significant treatment is required for transforming the produced Li into a marketable form.  The costs of acid, soda ash, and energy are a very significant part of the total production cost but may be partially alleviated by the market demand for the sodium sulphate by-products.

Lithium can also be found in salt lake brines that have high concentrations of mineral salts. Such brines can be reachable directly from the surface or deep underground in saline expanses located in very dry regions that allow salts to persist. High concentration lithium brine is mainly found in high altitude locations such as the Andes and south-western China. Chile, the world largest lithium producer, derives most of the production from brines located at the large salt flat of Salar de Atacama.

Lithium has similar ionic properties as magnesium since their ionic size is nearly identical; making is difficult to separate lithium from magnesium. A low Mg/Li ratio in brine means that it is easier, and therefore more economical to extract lithium.

The ratio differs significant at currently producing brine deposits and range from less than 1 to over 30. The lithium concentration in known brine deposits is usually quite low and range from 0.017–0.15% with significant variability among the known deposits in the world (Table 3).

Exploitation of lithium brines starts with the brine being pumped from the ground into evaporation ponds. The actual evaporation is enabled by incoming solar radiation, so it is desirable for the operation to be located in sunny areas with low annual precipitation rate. The net evaporation rate determines the area of the required ponds. It can easily take between one and two years before the final product is ready to be used, and even longer in cold and rainy areas.

The long timescales required for production can make brine deposits ill fit for sudden changes in demand. Table 3. Properties of known brine deposits in the world.

The world’s oceans contain a wide number of metals, such as gold, lithium or uranium, dispersed at low concentrations. The mass of the world’s oceans is approximately 1.35*1012 Mt, making vast amounts of theoretical resources seemingly available. Eckhardt and Fasel and Tran announce that more than 2,000,000 Mt lithium is available from the seas, essentially making it an “unlimited” source given its geological abundance. Tahil  also notes that oceans have been proclaimed as an unlimited Li-source since the 1970s.

The world’s oceans and some highly saline lakes do in fact contain very large quantities of lithium, but if it will become practical and economical to produce lithium from this source is highly questionable.

For example, consider gold in sea water – in total nearly 7,000,000 Mt. This is an enormous amount compared to the cumulative world production of 0.17 Mt accumulated since the dawn of civilization. There are also several technical options available for gold extraction. However, the average gold concentration range from <0.001 to 0.005 ppb. This means that one km3 of sea water would give only 5.5 kg of gold. The gold is simply too dilute to be viable for commercial extraction and it is not surprising that all attempts to achieve success – including those of the Nobel laureate Fritz Haber – has failed to date.

Average lithium concentration in the oceans has been estimated to 0.17 ppm. Kushnir and Sandén argue that it is theoretically possible to use a wide range of advanced technologies to extract lithium from seawater – just like the case for gold. However, no convincing methods have been demonstrated this far.  Grosjean et al. points to the fact that even after decades of improvement, recovery from seawater is still more than 10–30 times more costly than production from pegmatites and brines. It is evident that huge quantities of water would have to be processed to produce any significant amounts of lithium. Bardi presents theoretical calculations on this, stating that a production volume of lithium comparable to present world production (~25 kt annually) would require 1.5*103 TWh of electrical energy for pumping through separation membranes in addition to colossal volumes of seawater. Furthermore, Tahil estimated that a seawater processing flow equivalent to the average discharge of the River Nile – 300,000,000 m3/day or over 22 times the global petroleum industry flow of 85 million barrels per day – would only give 62 tons of lithium per day or roughly 20 kt per year. Furthermore, a significant amount of fresh water and hydrochloric acid will be required to flush out unwanted minerals (Mg, K, etc.) and extract lithium from the adsorption columns.

In summary, extraction from seawater appears not feasible and not something that should be considered viable in practice, at least not in the near future.

From data compilation and analysis of 112 deposits, this study concludes that 15 Mt are reasonable as a reference case for the global reserves in the near and medium term. 30 Mt is seen as a high case estimate for available lithium reserves and this number is also found in the upper range in literature. These two estimates are used as constraints in the models of future production in this study.

Estimates on world reserves and resources vary significantly among published studies. One main reason for this is likely the fact that different deposits, as well as different number of deposits, are aggregated in different studies. Many studies, such as the ones presented by the USGS, do not give explicitly state the number of deposits included and just presents aggregated figures on a national level. Even when the number and which deposits that have been used are specified, analysts can arrive to wide different estimates (Table 5). It should be noted that a trend towards increasing reserves and resources with time can generally be found, in particularly in USGS assessments. Early reports, such as Evans [56] or USGS [59], excluded several countries from the reserve estimates due to a lack of available information. This was mitigated in USGS when reserves estimates for Argentina, Australia, and Chile have been revised based on new information from governmental and industry sources. However, there are still relatively few assessments on reserves, in particular for Russia, and it is concluded that much future work is required to handle this shortcoming. Gruber et al noted that 83% of global lithium resources can be found in six brine, two pegmatite and two sedimentary deposits. From our compilation, it can also be found that the distribution of global lithium reserves and resources are very uneven.

Three quarters of everything can typically be found in the ten largest deposits (Figure 1 and 2). USGS pinpoint that 85% of the global reserves are situated in Chile and China (Figure 3) and that Chile and Australia accounted for 70% of the world production of 28,100 tonnes in 2011. From Table 2 and 3, one can note a significant spread in estimated reserves and resources for the deposits. This divergence is much smaller for minerals (5.6–8.2 Mt) than for brines (6.5– 29.4 Mt), probably resulting from the difficulty associated with estimating brine accumulations consistently. Evans also points to the problem of using these frameworks on brine deposits, which are fundamentally different from solid ores. Table 5. Comparison of published lithium assessments.

Recycling

One thing that may or may not have a large implication for future production is recycling. The projections presented in the production model of this study describe production of lithium from virgin materials. The total production of lithium could potentially increase significantly if high rates of recycling were implemented of the used lithium, which is mentioned in many studies.

USGS [12] state that recycling of lithium has been insignificant historically, but that it is increasing as the use of lithium for batteries are growing. However, the recycling of lithium from batteries is still more or less non-existent, with a collection rate of used Li-ion batteries of only about 3% [93]. When the Li-ion batteries are in fact recycled, it is usually not the lithium that is recycled, but other more precious metals such as cobalt [18].

If this will change in the future is uncertain and highly dependent on future metal prices, but it is still commonly argued for and assumed that the recycling of lithium will grow significantly, very soon. Goonan [94] claims that recycling rates will increase from vehicle batteries in vehicles since such recycling systems already exist for lead-acid batteries. Kushnir and Sandén [18] argue that large automotive batteries will be technically easier to recycle than smaller batteries and also claims that economies of scale will emerge when the use for batteries for vehicles increase. According to the IEA [95], full recycling systems are projected to be in place sometime between 2020 and 2030. Similar assumptions are made by more or less all studies dealing with future lithium production and use for electric vehicles and Kushnir and Sandén [18] state that it is commonly assumed that recycling will take place, enabling recycled lithium to make up for a big part of the demand but also conclude that the future recycling rate is highly uncertain.

There are several reasons to question the probability of high recycling shares for Li-ion batteries. Kushnir and Sandén state that lithium recycling economy is currently not good and claims that the economic conditions could decrease even more in the future. Sullivan and Gaines argue that the Li-ion battery chemistry is complex and still evolving, thus making it difficult for the industry to develop profitable pathways. Georgi-Maschler highlight that two established recycling processes exist for recycling Li-ion batteries, but one of them lose most of the lithium in the process of recovering the other valuable metals. Ziemann et al states that lithium recovery from rechargeable batteries is not efficient at present time, mainly due to the low lithium content of around 2% and the rather low price of lithium.

In this study we choose not to include recycling in the projected future supply for several reasons. In a short perspective, looking towards 2015-2020, it cannot be considered likely that any considerable amount of lithium will be recycled from batteries since it is currently not economical to do so and no proven methods to do it on a large scale industrial level appear to exist. If it becomes economical to recycle lithium from batteries it will take time to build the capacity for the recycling to take place. Also, the battery lifetime is often projected to be 10 years or more, and to expect any significant amounts of lithium to be recycled within this period of time is simply not realistic for that reason either.

The recycling capacity is expected to be far from reaching significant levels before 2025 according to Wanger. It is also important to separate the recycling rates of products to the recycled content in new products. Even if a percentage of the product is recycled at the end of the life cycle, this is no guarantee that the use of recycled content in new products will be as high. The use of Li-ion batteries is projected to grow fast. If the growth happens linearly, and high recycling rates are accomplished, recycling could start constituting a large part of the lithium demand, but if the growth happens exponentially, recycling can never keep up with the growth that has occurred during the 10 years lag during the battery lifetime. In a longer time perspective, the inclusion of recycling could be argued for with expected technological refinement, but certainties regarding technology development are highly uncertain. Still, most studies include recycling as a major part of future lithium production, which can have very large implications on the results and conclusions drawn. Kushnir and Sandén suggest that an 80% lithium recovery rate is achievable over a medium time frame. The scenarios in Gruber et al, assumes recycling participation rates of 90 %, 96% and 100%. In their scenario using the highest assumed recycling, the quantities of lithium needed to be mined are decreased to only about 37% of the demand. Wanger looks at a shorter time perspective and estimates that a 40% or 100% recycling rate would reduce the lithium consumption with 10% or 25% respectively by 2030. Mohr et al assume that the recycling rate starts at 0%, approaching a limit of 80%, resulting in recycled lithium making up significant parts of production, but only several decades into the future. IEA projects that full recycling systems will be in place around 2020–2030.

To estimate whether the projected future production levels will be sufficient, it is interesting to compare possible production levels with potential future demand. The use of lithium is currently dominated by use for ceramics and glass closely followed by batteries. The current lithium demand for different markets can be seen in Figure 7. USGS state that the lithium use in batteries have grown significantly in recent years as the use of lithium batteries in portable electronics have become increasingly common. Figure 7 (Ceramics and glass 29%, Batteries 27%, Other uses 16%, Lubrication greases 12%, Continuous casting 5%, Air treatment 4%, Polymers 3%, Primary aluminum production 2%, Pharmaceuticals 2%).

Global lithium demand for different end-use markets. USGS state that the total lithium consumption in 2011 was between 22,500 and 24,500 tonnes. This is often projected to grow, especially as the use of Li-ion batteries for electric cars could potentially increase demand significantly. This study presents a simple example of possible future demand of lithium, assuming a constant demand for other uses and demand for electric cars to grow according to a scenario of future sales of electric cars. The current car fleet consists of about 600 million passenger cars. The sale of new passenger cars in 2011 was about 60 million cars. This existing vehicle park is almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels, primarily gasoline and diesel, but also natural gas to a smaller extent. Increasing oil prices, concerns about a possible peak in oil production and problems with anthropogenic global warming makes it desirable to move away from fossil energy dependence. As a mitigation and pathway to a fossil-fuel free mobility, cars running partially or totally on electrical energy are commonly proposed. This includes electric vehicles (EVs), hybrid vehicles (HEVs) and PHEVs (plug-in hybrid vehicles), all on the verge of large-scale commercialization and implementation. IEA concluded that a total of 1.5 million hybrid and electric vehicles had been sold worldwide between the year 2000 and 2010.

Both the expected number of cars as well as the amount of lithium required per vehicle is important. As can be seen from Table 9, the estimates of lithium demand for PEHV and EVs differ significantly between studies. Also, some studies do not differentiate between different technical options and only gives a single Li-consumption estimate for an “electric vehicle”, for instance the 3 kg/car found by Mohr et al. The mean values from Table 9 are found to be 4.9 kg for an EV and 1.9 kg for a PHEV.

As the battery size determines the vehicles range, it is likely that the range will continue to increase in the future, which could increase the lithium demand. On the other hand, it is also reasonable to assume that the technology will improve, thus reducing the lithium requirements. In this study a lithium demand of 160 g Li/kWh is assumed, an assumption discussed in detail by Kushnir and Sandén. It is then assumed that typical batteries capacities will be 9 kWh in a PHEV and 25 kWh in an EV. This gives a resulting lithium requirement of 1.4 kg for a PHEV and 4 kg for an EV, which is used as an estimate in this study. Many current electrified cars have a lower capacity than 24 kWh, but to become more attractive to consumers the range of the vehicles will likely have to increase, creating a need for larger batteries. It should be added that the values used are at the lower end compared to other assessments (Table 9) and should most likely not be seen as overestimates future lithium requirements.

Figure 8 shows the span of the different production forecasts up until 2050 made in this study, together with an estimated demand based on the demand staying constant on the high estimate of 2010– 2011, adding an estimated demand created by the electric car projections done by IEA. This is a very simplistic estimation future demand, but compared to the production projections it indicates that lithium availability should not be automatically disregarded as a potential issue for future electric car production. The amount of electric cars could very well be smaller or larger that this scenario, but the scenario used does not assume a complete electrification of the car fleet by 2050 and such scenarios would mean even larger demand of lithium. It is likely that lithium demand for other uses will also grow in the coming decades, why total demand might increase more that indicated here. This study does not attempt to estimate the evolution of demand for other uses, and the demand estimate for other uses can be considered a conservative one. Figure 8. The total lithium demand of a constant current lithium demand combined with growth of electric vehicles according to IEA’s blue map scenario assuming a demand for 1.4 kg of lithium per PHEV and 4.0 kg per EV. The span of forecasted production levels range from the base case Gompertz model

Potential future production of lithium was modeled with three different production curves. In a short perspective, until 2015–2020, the three models do not differ much, but in the longer perspective the Richards and Logistic curves show a growth at a vastly higher pace than the Gompertz curve. The Richards model gives the best fit to the historic data, and lies in between the other two and might be the most likely development. A faster growth than the logistic model cannot be ruled out, but should be considered unlikely, since it usually mimics plausible free market exploitation [89]. Other factors, such as decreased lithium concentration in mined material, economics, political and environmental problems could also limit production.

It can be debated whether this kind of forecasting should be used for short term projections, and the actual production in coming years can very well differ from our models, but it does at least indicate that lithium availability could be a potential problem in the coming decades. In a longer time perspective up to 2050, the projected lithium demand for alternative vehicles far exceeds our most optimistic production prognoses.

If 100 million alternative vehicles, as projected in IEA are produced annually using lithium battery technology, the lithium reserves would be exhausted in just a few years, even if the production could be cranked up faster than the models in this study. This indicates that it is important that other battery technologies should be investigated as well.

It should be added that these projections do not consider potential recycling of the lithium, which is discussed further earlier in this paper. On the other hand, it appears it is highly unlikely that recycling will become common as soon as 2020, while total demand appears to potentially rise over maximum production around that date. If, when, and to what extent recycling will take place is hard to predict, although it appears more likely that high recycling rates will take place in electric cars than other uses.

Much could change before 2050. The spread between the different production curves are much larger and it is hard to estimate what happens with technology over such a long time frame. However, the Blue Map Scenario would in fact create a demand of lithium that is higher than the peak production of the logistic curve for the standard case, and close to the peak production in the high URR case.

Improved efficiency can decrease the lithium demand in the batteries, but as Kushnir and Sandén point out, there is a minimum amount of lithium required tied to the cell voltage and chemistry of the battery.

IEA acknowledges that technologies that are not available today must be developed to reach the Blue Map scenarios and that technology development is uncertain. This does not quite coincide with other studies claiming that lithium availability will not be a problem for production of electric cars in the future.

It is also possible that other uses will raise the demand for lithium even further. One industry that in a longer time perspective could potentially increase the demand for lithium is fusion, where lithium is used to breed tritium in the reactors. If fusion were commercialized, which currently seems highly uncertain, it would demand large volumes of lithium.

Further problems with the lithium industry are that the production and reserves are situated in a few countries (USGS in Mt: Chile 7.5, China 3.5, Australia 0.97, Argentina 0.85, Other 0.135]. One can also note that most of the lithium is concentrated to a fairly small amount of deposits, nearly 50% of both reserves and resources can be found in Salar de Atacama alone. Kesler et al note that Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and China hold 70% of the brine deposits. Grosjean et al even points to the ABC triangle (i.e. Argentina, Bolivia and Chile) and its control of well over 40% of the world resources and raises concern for resource nationalism and monopolistic behavior. Even though Bolivia has large resources, there are many political and technical problems, such as transportation and limited amount of available fresh water, in need of solutions.

Regardless of global resource size, the high concentration of reserves and production to very few countries is not something that bode well for future supplies. The world is currently largely dependent on OPEC for oil, and that creates possibilities of political conflicts. The lithium reserves are situated in mainly two countries. It could be considered problematic for countries like the US to be dependent on Bolivia, Chile and Argentina for political reasons. Abell and Oppenheimer discuss the absurdity in switching from dependence to dependence since resources are finite. Also, Kushnir and Sandén discusses the problems with being dependent on a few producers, if a problem unexpectedly occurs at the production site it may not be possible to continue the production and the demand cannot be satisfied.

Although there are quite a few uncertainties with the projected production of lithium and demand for lithium for electric vehicles, this study indicates that the possible lithium production could be a limiting factor for the number of electric vehicles that can be produced, and how fast they can be produced. If large parts of the car fleet will run on electricity and rely on lithium based batteries in the coming decades, it is possible, and maybe even likely, that lithium availability will be a limiting factor.

To decrease the impact of this, as much lithium as possible must be recycled and possibly other battery technologies not relying on lithium needs to be developed. It is not certain how big the recoverable reserves of lithium are in the world and estimations in different studies differ significantly. Especially the estimations for brine need to be further investigated. Some estimates include production from seawater, making the reserves more or less infinitely large. We suggest that it is very unlikely that seawater or lakes will become a practical and economic source of lithium, mainly due to the high Mg/Li ratio and low concentrations if lithium, meaning that large quantities of water would have to be processed. Until otherwise is proved lithium reserves from seawater and lakes should not be included in the reserve estimations. Although the reserve estimates differ, this appears to have marginal impact on resulting projections of production, especially in a shorter time perspective. What are limiting are not the estimated reserves, but likely maximum annual production, which is often missed in similar studies.

If electric vehicles with li-ion batteries will be used to a very high extent, there are other problems to account for. Instead of being dependent on oil we could become dependent on lithium if li-ion batteries, with lithium reserves mainly located in two countries. It is important to plan for this to avoid bottlenecks or unnecessarily high prices. Lithium is a finite resource and the production cannot be infinitely large due to geological, technical and economical restraints. The concentration of lithium metal appears to be decreasing, which could make it more expensive and difficult to extract the lithium in the future. To enable a transition towards a car fleet based on electrical energy, other types of batteries should also be considered and a continued development of battery types using less lithium and/or other metals are encouraged. High recycling rates should also be aimed for if possible and continued investigations of recoverable resources and possible production of lithium are called for.

References

Ashley, K., Cordell, D., Mavinic, D., 2011. A brief history of phosphorus: From the philosopher’s stone to nutrient recovery and reuse. Chemosphere 84, 737–746.

Bardi, U., 2005. The mineral economy: a model for the shape of oil production curves. Energy Policy 33, 53–61. Bardi, U., 2009. Peak oil: The four stages of a new idea. Energy 34, 323–326.

Bardi, U., Lavacchi, A., 2009. A Simple Interpretation of Hubbert’s Model of Resource Exploitation. Energies 2, 646–661. BGS, 2013. World mineral statistics archive. British Geological Survey. Available at: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/statistics/worldArchive.html

Barnhart, C., et al. 2013. On the importance of reducing the energetic and material demands of electrical energy storage. Energy Environment Science 2013(6): 1083–1092.

Buckingham, D.A., Jasinski, S.M., 2012. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States; Phosphate rock statistics. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-statistics/ds140-phosp.pdf

Carpenter, S.R., Bennett, E.M., 2011. Reconsideration of the planetary boundary for phosphorus. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 014009.

Clifford C (2022) Elon Musk says Tesla may have to get into the lithium business because costs are so ‘insane’. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/08/elon-musk-telsa-may-have-get-into-mining-refining-lithium-directly.html

Cooper, J., Lombardi, R., Boardman, D., Carliell-Marquet, C., 2011. The future distribution and production of global phosphate rock reserves. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 57, 78– 86.

Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O., White, S., 2009. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change 19, 292–305.

Cordell, D., White, S., Lindström, T., 2011a. Peak phosphorus: the crunch time for humanity? The Sustainability Review. Available from http://thesustainabilityreview.org/peak-phosphorus-thecrunch-time-for-humanity/

Cordell, D., Rosemarin, A., Schröder, J.J., Smit, A.L., 2011b. Towards global phosphorus security: A systems framework for phosphorus recovery and reuse options. Chemosphere 84, 747–758.

Cordell, D., White, S., 2011. Peak Phosphorus: Clarifying the Key Issues of a Vigorous Debate about Long-Term Phosphorus Security. Sustainability 3, 2027–2049.

Cordell, D., White, S., 2013. Sustainable Phosphorus Measures: Strategies and Technologies for Achieving Phosphorus Security. Agronomy 3, 86–116.

De Ridder, M., De Jong, S., Polchar, J., Lingemann, S., 2012. Risks and Opportunities in the Global Phosphate Rock Market: Robust Strategies in Times of Uncertainty. The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS). Report No 17 | 12 | 12. ISBN/EAN: 978-94-91040-69-6

Déry, P., Anderson, B., 2007. Peak phosphorus. Resilience. Available from: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2007-08-13/peak-phosphorus EcoSanRes, 2008. Closing the Loop on Phosphorus. EcoSanRes Factsheet 4. Stockholm Environment Institute. http://www.ecosanres.org/pdf_files/ESR-factsheet-04.pdf

DOE/EPRI. 2013. Electricity storage handbook in collaboration with NRECA. USA: Sandia National Laboratories and Electric Power Research Institute.

Edixhoven, J.D., Gupta, J., Savenije, H.H.G., 2013. Recent revisions of phosphate rock reserves and resources: reassuring or misleading? An in-depth literature review of global estimates of phosphate rock reserves and resources. Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss. 4, 1005–1034.

Elser, J., Bennett, E., 2011. Phosphorus cycle: A broken biogeochemical cycle. Nature 478, 29–31. Elser, J.J., 2012. Phosphorus: a limiting nutrient for humanity? Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 23, 833–838.

Evenson, R.E., Gollin, D., 2003. Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 300, 758–762.

Fantazzini, D., Höök, M., Angelantoni, A., 2011. Global oil risks in the early 21st century. Energy Policy 39, 7865–7873.

Filippelli, G.M., 2011. Phosphate rock formation and marine phosphorus geochemistry: The deep time perspective. Chemosphere 84, 759–766.

Fixen, P.E., 2009. World Fertilizer Nutrient Reserves— A View to the Future. Better Crops, Vol. 93 No. 3 pp. 8-11.

Gilbert, N., 2009. Environment: The disappearing nutrient. Nature News 461, 716–718.

GPRI, 2010. GPRI Statement on Global Phosphorus Scarcity. Available from: http://phosphorusfutures.net/files/GPRI_Statement_responseIFDC_final.pdf

Hanjra, M.A., Qureshi, M.E., 2010. Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change. Food Policy 35, 365–377.

Herring, J.R., Fantel, R.J., 1993. Phosphate rock demand into the next century: Impact on world food supply. Nonrenewable Resour. 2, 226–246.

Hubbert, M.K., 1956. Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels. Report No. 95, Shell Development Company.

Hubbert, M.K., 1959. Techniques of prediction with application to the petroleum industry., Published in 44th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Shell Development Company, Dallas, TX.

Höök, M., Bardi, U., Feng, L., Pang, X., 2010. Development of oil formation theories and their importance for peak oil. Marine and Petroleum Geology 27, 1995–2004.

Höök, M., Li, J., Oba, N., Snowden, S., 2011. Descriptive and Predictive Growth Curves in Energy System Analysis. Natural Resources Research 20, 103–116.

IFA, 1998. The Fertilizer Industry, Food Supplies and the Environment. International Fertilizer Industry Association and United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, France.

IFA, 2011. Global Phosphate Rock Production Trends from 1961 to 2010. Reasons for the Temporary Set-Back in 1988-1994. International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA). Paris, France. IFA, 2014. Production and trade statistics. International Fertilizer Industry Association. Available at: http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/HomePage/STATISTICS/Production-and-trade

Jakobsson, K., Bentley, R., Söderbergh, B., Aleklett, K., 2012. The end of cheap oil: Bottom-up economic and geologic modeling of aggregate oil production curves. Energy Policy 41, 860– 870.

Jasinski, S.M., 2013a. Annual publication: Mineral Commodity Summaries: Phosphate Rock (19962013) U.S. Geological Survey. Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_rock

Jasinski, S.M., 2013b. Minerals Yearbook, Phosphate Rock (1994-2013). U.S. Geological Survey. Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_rock/

Katwala, A. 2018. The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction. Wired. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

Koppelaar, R.H.E.M., Weikard, H.P., 2013. Assessing phosphate rock depletion and phosphorus recycling options. Glob. Environ. Change, 23(6): 1454–1466.

Krauss, U.H., Saam, H.G., Schmidt, H.W., 1984. International Strategic Minerals Inventory Summary Report – Phosphate, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 930-C. U.S. Department of the Interior.

May, D., Prior, T., Cordell, D., Giurco, D., 2012. Peak minerals: theoretical foundations and practical application. Natural Resources Research, 21(1):43-60.

Mohr, S., Evans, G., 2013. Projections of Future Phosphorus Production. Philica.com. URL http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=380

Mohr, S., Höök, M., Mudd, G., Evans, G., 2011. Projection of long-term paths for Australian coal production—Comparisons of four models. International Journal of Coal Geology 86, 329– 341.

Mórrígan, T., 2010. Peak Phosphorus: A Potential Food Security Crisis. Global & International Studies, University of California. Santa Barbara, CA.

OCP, 2010. OCP Annual Report 2010. Office Chérifien des Phosphates. OCP, 2011.

OCP Annual Report 2011. Office Chérifien des Phosphates.

Pan, G., Harris, D.P., Heiner, T., 1992. Fundamental issues in quantitative estimation of mineral resources. Nat Resour Res 1, 281–292. Rosemarin, A., 2004. The precarious geopolitics of phosphorous. Down to Earth. Available from: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/precarious-geopolitics-phosphorous

Penn, I. 2018. How zinc batteries could change energy storage. New York Times.

Rosemarin, A., De Bruijne, G., Caldwell, I., 2009. Peak phosphorus: the Next Inconvenient Truth. The Broker. Available at: http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/Peak-phosphorus

Scholz, R.W., Ulrich, A.E., Eilittä, M., Roy, A., 2013. Sustainable use of phosphorus: A finite resource. Science of The Total Environment 461–462, 799–803.

Scholz, R.W., Wellmer, F.-W., 2013. Approaching a dynamic view on the availability of mineral resources: What we may learn from the case of phosphorus? Global Environmental Change 23, 11–27.

Schröder, J.J., Cordell, D., Smit, A.L., Rosemarin, A., 2009. Sustainable Use of Phosphorus. Plant Research International, Wageningen UR and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Report 357.

Smil, V., 2000. Phosphorus in the Environment: Natural Flows and Human Interferences. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 25, 53–88.

Smit, A.L., Bindraban, P.S., Schröder, J.J., Conijn, J.G., Van der Meer, H.G., 2009. Phosphorus in the agriculture: global resources, trends and developments. Plant Research International, Wageningen UR. Report No. 282.

Steen, I., 1998. Phosphorus availability in the 21st century: Management of a non-renewable resource. Phosphorus & Potassium, Issue No:217. Available from: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/researchcuration/research/projects/phosphate-recovery/p&k217/steen.htm

Sverdrup, H.U., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., 2011. Challenging the planetary boundaries II: Assessing the sustainable global population and phosphate supply, using a systems dynamics assessment model. Appl. Geochem. 26, Supplement, S307–S310.

Udo de Haes, H.A., van der Weijden, W.J., Smit, A.L., 2009. Phosphate – from surplus to shortage. Steering Committee for Technology Assessment. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Utrecht.

UNEP, 2001. Environmental Aspects of Phosphate and Potash Mining. United Nations Environment Programme and International Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris, France.

UNEP, 2009. Agribusiness, Issue 1. Chief Liquidity Series. United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative.

UNEP, 2011. Phosphorus and Food Production, UNEP Year Book 2011.

UNEP/UNIDO, 2000. Mineral Fertilizer Production and the Environment. Part 1. The Fertilizer Industry’s Manufacturing Processes and Environmental Issues. United Nations Environment Programme Industry and the Environment United Nations Industrial Development Organization in collaboration with the International Fertilizer Industry, Paris, France.

USBM, 1993. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook (1932-1993). Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/usbmmyb.html

USGS, 2013. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2013. Appendix C: Reserves and Resources. Available from: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2013/mcsapp2013.pdf

Vaccari, D.A., 2009. Phosphorus: A Looming Crisis. Sci. Am. 300, 54–59.

Vaccari, D.A., Strigul, N., 2011. Extrapolating phosphorus production to estimate resource reserves. Chemosphere 84, 792–797.

Van Enk, R.J., Van der Vee, G., Acera, L.K., Schuiling, R., Ehlert, P., 2011. The phosphate balance: current developments and future outlook. The ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation initiated and finances InnovationNetwork. ISBN: 978–90–5059–414–1

van Kauwenbergh, S., 2010. World Phosphate Rock Reserves and Resources.The International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC).

van Vuuren, D.P., Bouwman, A.F., Beusen, A.H.W., 2010. Phosphorus demand for the 1970–2100 period: A scenario analysis of resource depletion. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 428–439.

Vazquez, S., et al. 2010. Energy storage systems for transport and grid applications. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 57(12): 3884.

Wellstead, J., 2012. Political Risks in MENA Phosphate Markets. Potash Invest. News. Available from: http://potashinvestingnews.com/4799-political-risks-mena-phosphate-markets-tunisiamorocco-jordan-syria-afric.html

Vikström, H., Davidsson, S., Höök, M., 2013. Lithium availability and future production outlooks. Applied Energy 110, 252–266.

Posted in Automobiles, Battery - Utility Scale, Electrification, Peak Lithium, Recycle, Recycling | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Highlights of the Denver Peak Oil 2005 conference

Preface. I just added the category “Peak Oil History” because I believe the coming oil crisis will be a complete surprise to the vast majority of the public who are unaware of the role fossil fuels play in our civilization, that we are completely dependent on them for the most part in transportation, manufacturing, food production and more.

In 2005 I went to the first USA peak oil (ASPO) conference in Denver, where some of the speakers included:

  • Albert Bartlett Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Colorado. Arithmetic, Population, and Energy          http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/symposium/bartlett/bartlett.html
  • Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, co-founder of the House of Representatives Peak Oil Caucus with Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico (other members or co-sponsors include James McGovern (MA), Vern Ehler (MI), Mark Udall (CO), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Wayne Gilchrest (MD), Jim Moran (VA), Dennis Moore (KS) and cosponsors virgil Goode, Walter Jones, Tom Tancredo, Phil gingrey, Randy Kuhl, Steve Israel, G.K. Butterfield, Chris Van Hollen, Al Wynn, John McHugh. House Resolution 507: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency that was incorporated in the ‘Man on the Moon’ project to address the inevitable challenges of ‘Peak Oil’.
  • Dr. Roger H. Bezdek, co-author with Robert Hirsch of the Department of Energy 2005 “Peak Oil Mitigation Plan”
  • Peter Dea,  CEO of Western Gas Resources, a 3.5 billion dollar natural gas exploration and production company
  • Jeremy Gilbert, worked at BP as chief petroleum engineer, VP of Alaska exploration
  • Henry Groppe founded Groppe, Long & Littell in 1955.  This energy consulting firm is noted for long range forecasts of oil and gas supply, demand and prices.
  • Charles A. S. Hall, Systems Ecologist, obtained his PhD working with Howard Odum, the great energy theorist, and founder of the concept of Energy Returned on Energy Invested
  • John Hickenlooper, Mayor of the City & County of Denver (and now Senator Hickenlooper of Colorado and one of the very few with a science degree (geology))
  • Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorado
  • Charles Maxwell, Senior Energy Analyst with Weeden & Co., has worked in the energy field for 36 years
  • Tom Petrie CEO of Petrie Parkman & Co., an energy investment banking firm.
  • John Sheehan, is at NREL now and at DOE before that, working on biodiesel and ethanol projects for 12 years
  • Matt Simmons   CEO of an energy investment banking firm
  • Chris Skrebowski Editor of the UK Petroleum Review

I wrote this up to share with the Oakland & San Francisco peak oil groups that David Room began in 2004.  We invited Tad Patzek and many other professors at U.C. Berkeley to educate us, and other experts such as David Fridley at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

I suspect that given how there are endless stories in the news about moving as fast as possible to renewables now that Putin has invaded Ukraine and with Europe very dependent on Russia to provide oil, natural gas, and coal, the world will be surprised when energy shocks occur.  Though at first this will be blamed on Putin and other oil nation leaders as well as not enough investment in renewables, at least by the public.  But as you can see from the category Experts/Government, the House, Senate, and military are very aware of petroleum being the life blood of society.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Highlights of the Denver ASPO Nov 10-11, 2005 conference by Alice Friedemann

This is a summary of the Association for the study of Peak Oil & Gas conference.  ASPO is concerned about the cultural, economic, and ecological impacts of petroleum depletion.  Energy resource management must include conservation and efficiency, and the ecological use of energy in production and consumption. Petroleum depletion will force extensive changes, so it’s imperative to find the most constructive ways to deal with them at all levels of government in partnership with private and public organizations. Since no nation will be able to resolve its energy challenges without due consideration for the energy needs of other nations, we encourage international cooperation in the development, production and consumption of our planet’s energy resources”.

The establishment, the Wall Street “suits”, the CEO’s, and politicians have jumped on the peak oil bandwagon.  Even Prince Charles is aware of Peak Oil.  Over 26 congressional members now understand the implications of Peak Oil, thanks to Congressman Bartlett, and a Peak Oil Congressional caucus has been formed.

Randy Udall dubbed it the “Energy Woodstock”, though no one was running around naked. The speakers and over 425 people in the audience were from government agencies, universities, oil companies, green builders, politicians, journalists (though none from the papers of record), and so on.  There was a feeling that history was being made.

I was sad that Dr. Youngquist, author of the most important book I’ve ever read, “Geodestinies: The Inevitable Control of Earth Resources over Nations & Individuals” wasn’t there to receive the award he received in absentia (he couldn’t come because he’s taking care of his wife).   I had no idea how many other people besides myself revered him, there was tremendous applause, cheering, and a standing ovation.  Walter Youngquist said in a prepared statement, “Peak oil will affect more people in more places in more ways than anything else in the history of the world.”

Dr. Albert Bartlett, who I also admire a great deal, was also given an award.  And I had the wonderful good fortune to meet Dr. Charles A. S. Hall, student of Howard Odum, who has published papers on human use of energy in the ecological system, energy returned on energy invested, and hopes to someday replace neoclassical economics with economics based on living sustainably and in balance with nature.

I’m going to talk about depletion, techno-fixes, poverty, what can we do, the surprising speech of Republican congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, why aren’t politicians doing more, and insights of speakers I found interesting.

From what I learned at the conference, it sounds like tight oil shale oil and gas won’t give us energy independence, but give us another decade or two of “normalcy” and relatively cheap oil to carry on as usual. Nor are there alternatives to oil that can save us, so I don’t mention any of the speakers on biodiesel, natural gas cars, etc. I’ve also interjected a lot of my own analysis and some information from outside of the conference.

Depletion and Techno-Fixes

One piece of big news was Matt Simmons telling us he’d heard from Sadad Al-Husseini, former vice director of Saudi Aramco, the largest oil company in the world, that the world’s 2nd largest oil field in the world, in Kuwait, has peaked.

And even bigger, scarier news that depletion of oil  (the decline of production rates from oil fields) might be running at 8% per year, not the 2% often used in projections.  This is what Andrew Gould, CEO of oil service company Schlumberger says appears to be the case. The 8% possible rate of decline was also mentioned in the presentations of Chris Skrebowski, Tom. Petrie, Henry Groppe, Matt Simmons, and Roger Bezdek.  This is a civilization collapsing big deal, too fast to cope with.

In addition to physical geological depletion, the capitalist economic system pushes companies into exploiting the oil unwisely to produce a larger profit today rather than coddling the oil fields responsibly to maximize overall oil output for tomorrow, as illustrated in this comment in the discussion of the article above:

“My company has a decline rate exceeding 15% because we push to maximize production. We do this because offshore operating costs are high, and by getting it out as fast as possible, we reduce the operating overhead over time quite a bit. Many offshore operations do the same thing, and it is likely to become the norm as lifting and finding costs are rising to stratospheric heights. Thunderhorse is a prime example of this, where the injection wells are actually in place before first oil. But as much as that monster cost them, the only way to get your money back and then make more is to move the whole thing to the next big project…”

Robert L. Hirsch, just wrote a paper for the October 2005 vol 226 no 10 issue of worldoil.com which concludes: “The data shows that the onset of peaking can occur quite suddenly, peaks can be very sharp, and post-peak production declines can be comparatively steep (3 – 13%). Thus, if historical patterns are appropriate indicators, the task of planning for and managing world conventional oil peaking will indeed be very challenging”.

Even bigger news was the extraordinarily high depletion rate of natural gas, which peaked 32 years ago.  According to Peter Dea, the decline rate for natural gas in North America is 31% (in new wells).  And we can’t import it to a meaningful extent for years (if ever, given how every LNG plant that’s been proposed has been shot down in the United States by cities that don’t want something with the explosive force of a small atomic bomb nearby).   The LNG plant slated for Mexico will be add a drop in the bucket, not enough to make any difference.

Dea said that half of the natural gas we need in 2012 to stay flat we haven’t even discovered yet.  This will be a huge challenge.  We’ll need to drill 27,300 new wells by 2020, and 35,000 if renewables haven’t kicked in.  We learned from Charles Brister, a Drilling Field Engineer, and John Barnes, the CEO of a small oil company, we don’t have enough drilling rigs to do that. Following the oil price collapse in the 1980’s the rig count plummeted from about 4,000 to 600 rigs by 1999.  Most of the rigs were melted down for scrap iron.  Over half a million oil-workers lost their jobs.  So there aren’t enough rigs or people to drill for more oil and gas. Half of existing employees will be eligible for retirement in 10 years.

Which brings us to the much touted Techno-Fix that optimists insist will save us.  Matt Simmons told us there is a staffing crisis in the energy business.  There aren’t enough oil engineers to invent new technology, and you can’t invent new technology in a month like you can in Silicon Valley.   None of the speakers saw a techno-fix superhero flying to our rescue, only desperate stopgap measures until some unknown deus ex machina saves us.

Matt Simmons, Peter Dea, and other speakers said the next energy shock will be natural gas, not oil. It’s already been a shock to the 100,000 chemical and fertilizer workers who’ve lost their jobs.   Homeowners are next. [2022 update: it’s fracked oil that will hit before natural gas it turns out, 7 or the 8 basins are in steep decline, and the Permian has maybe 5 to 10 years more oil left]

One of the reasons the depletion rate is so high is the technology that’s supposed to be saving us has accelerated the rate of depletion instead, as both Tom Petrie and Matt Simmons pointed out. The 3D seismic imagers found oil and gas sooner than they would have otherwise been found. The extra pipes, or think of it as extra straws in a milkshake of petroleum, have pulled out the existing oil faster. Matt Simmons, in his book “Twilight in the Desert”, also talks about the damaging methods that may have been used to maximize short-term profits in Saudi Arabia’s large oil fields (and no doubt in many other oil-fields as well).

Simmons remarked “what’s left is heavy, gunky, dirty, sour, contaminated oil.  It doesn’t come out fast, and it’s very energy intensive to get out”.  It will take a while to get our refineries up-to-speed to process this lower-quality oil, and the processing will be slower and more expensive.

So in summary, there is a likelihood of a potentially high over-all rate of decline in world oil fields, due to technology, greed, gunky oil, shortages of oil-workers, and shortages of rigs.  In addition, the rate will further be accelerated by hurricanes, revolutions wars, missed deadlines on oil projects, and increased demand from China and India.

It won’t help that we’ll be trying to buy oil with from countries that hate us with questionable dollars.  Not only have United States citizens maxed out their credit cards, the national debt is at a level the World Bank would never allow a third world country to reach.  Will oil countries even want to sell us oil for our inflated dollars?

It would be stupid beyond belief to seek a military way out of our predicament, surely we should learn from the mistakes the British made trying to do this (see Yergin’s “The Prize” for details). And it wouldn’t work.  We’d plunge the Middle East into civil war, they’d blow up their refineries and pipelines, etc.

The population of the world is growing by 250,000 people a day.  They all want oil.  To feed that demand, at this point the world uses about 30 billion barrels of oil a year.  Peak oil means that there will even be less oil for us and all the new people coming on board.  If the overall decline rate became 2% (we’re not there just yet), then we’d have 24.5 billion barrels of oil in 10 years, even though the demand will be for 37.3 billion.  When the scary 8% depletion rate occurs, then we’ll have only 13 billion barrels in 10 years.  This is “The Gap” that everyone is trying to figure out how fill.

Something’s got to give.  Princeton professor Kenneth Deffeyes believes the consequences will be “War, famine, pestilence and death”.

In terms of your financial situation, realize that everything you shop for will go up in price.  Consider one of the most basic: food.  Not only will growing it cost more, because agriculture uses 10 kcal of fossil fuel to produce 1 kcal of food, we’ll be selling food for oil.  You’ll also be competing with China, because they’re on the brink of starvation (read Lester Brown’s “Who will feed China”?), but at least they’ve got a balance of trade with us so large they can afford to buy all of our grain.

You’ll be damned lucky to still have a job 10 years after oil decline begins (that date isn’t known yet, just that it’s coming since oil is finite).  If you do, the government will be sorely tempted to tax you to the max to get revenue to pay for essential services, such as water and sewage, delivery of food from agricultural regions, extra police to maintain civil order, etc.

After Denver Mayor Hickenlooper spoke, a young man asked him to consider what what’s being taught to children in Denver schools.  He said “Don’t we need to change that?  What I’m hearing is that most of us will be out of jobs unless we’re farmers or energy gurus.  Shouldn’t we start teaching children now how to grow their own food?”  Hickenloopers plans for energy decline included self sufficient smaller cities spread out along rail lines into Central Denver and to try to get people to live near where they worked.

I’m not going to go into what was said about renewable energy, because it could not possibly make a dent in the shortfall of oil and natural gas we’re facing.  This is a liquid fuel crisis:  wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, wave, and hydropower are irrelevant.

Biomass liquid fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel have a number of problems. First, there’s one of scale – biomass contributes less than 3% of our energy now.  To ramp that up to replace declining oil and natural gas would require farming all of the worlds’ land for energy crops for the United States alone.   We’ll all have to become Breatharians.

Most importantly, the environmental effects are unacceptable.  The energy required to remediate the damage is not even considered in the EROI of biomass. Growing crops for fuel depletes the groundwater that fifty percent of Americans now rely on.  Industrial agriculture pollutes ground and surface water irreparably with pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides.   Farmers use a lot of natural gas based fertilizers, which allows them to grow three to five times as much as they could otherwise, but natural gas is declining quickly, so industrial agriculture will not be able to produce a significant amount of biomass long-term.  The nitrogen runoff from these fertilizers is killing the Gulf of Mexico – why isn’t lost fish and shrimp protein taken into account when calculating the EROI of biomass?  Finally, any biomass you remove from the soil harms the soil structure, increases erosion, depletes soil nutrition, and ultimately turns the land into a desert.

However, there is one important use for ethanol:  we’re all going to need a little moonshine to drown our sorrows as times grow harder.

All of the speakers mentioned poverty.

The tremendous inflation and loss of jobs will lead to a depression that will make the Great Depression seem trivial.  Roger Bezdek said “Four recessions followed oil spikes and shortages in the past.  That’s nothing compared to what lies ahead.  The impacts in 1973 and 1979 were brief.  The next oil shortage will kick in a time of immense suffering and shortages as it gets worse every year for the next 20 years.

Charlie Maxwell, said: “We’ve decided to ration by price.  It’s a sign of our failure.  As part of Wall Street culture, I’m aware of the Pyramid of Debt – which will eventually result in the decline of the dollar.  I hate high prices, but I don’t know any other way to go about reducing demand.  A great depression is likely.

Denver Mayor Hickenlooper said that it made sense to help the poor with their gas and electric bills in the dead of winter to get them through the coldest months, but to do that forever in the future as the permanent energy crisis hits would bankrupt the city, it can’t be done.  And how was he going to keep the snowplows running, collect the garbage, etc? He’ll be meeting with the mayors of Oakland, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Austin to discuss and share ideas on how to cope with declining energy in cities, and they’ll present their findings at the national conference of mayors.

Plan “B”

The DOE Peak Oil mitigation report is very important, because it’s the most likely plan to be tried.  Bedzek seemed the most shaken of all the speakers, he kept saying things like “the world has never faced a problem like oil peaking”, and was clearly unnerved by the 8% depletion rate being bandied about, he said his estimates were based on a 2% decline, there was no way his proposed stopgap measures could save us if the rate of decline is that high.

The Hirsch-Bedzek plan will try to make up for oil depletion with Heavy Oil, Gas-to-Liquids, Enhanced Oil Recovery, Efficient Vehicles and Coal Liquids.

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland gave the most amazing speech at the conference.

He said: “Let’s not fill in the gap.  We shouldn’t use the Hirsch plan, because the higher you rise, the harder you fall.  And the more damage you do to the environment.  When the stopgap measures run out, even more people will die than if we just kicked the oil habit now”.

He dismisses all other energy sources as potential solutions, so he’s taken what some would call the “deep ecology” position – let the die-off begin.  Though he hopes to cheat death by having us stay under the depletion curve, reducing our demand by 5% relentlessly year after year (he didn’t say this at the conference, I found out later that’s what he has in mind).

He said “We’ve blown 25 years even though we KNEW peak was coming!  Shouldn’t we have paid attention when we had a chance to cushion the fall?”  We’ve borrowed a tremendous amount of money from our children’s future.  But we can’t borrow their time.  We should have started yesterday, but it’s too late for that. We must begin reducing demand NOW.  What kind of world are we going to leave to our children?

He also talked about exponential growth, which is key to understanding the situation we’re in.  To illustrate exponential growth, Bartlett talked about how if we have 250 years left of reserves in coal, and we turn to coal to solve our problems, increasing our use by 2% a year — a very modest rate of growth considering what a huge amount is needed to replace oil — then the reserve would only last 85 years.  If we liquefy it, then it would only last 50 years, because it takes a lot of energy to do that.

He also said there was no such thing as sustainable growth.  And that efficiency would do nothing for us.  He explained Jevons paradox to the audience.  First he gave the standard example: when people buy cars that go twice as far on a gallon of gas, they drive twice as far.  Then he talked about a businessman who puts low-watt lighting in his factory and saves $5,000.  If he spends the money on a vacation in Europe, he’s more than burned up that saved energy in jet fuel.  If he puts the money in the bank, it’s even worse, the bank will lend that money out another 5 or 6 times, and some guy using a lot of energy to grow his business will borrow it.

Congressman Bartlett put up a slide of Easter Island heads captioned EASTER ISLAND – They Didn’t Make It!  He said: “I’d like to make the case that that’s where we are now.  They ended up eating each other.  How did they reach that point?  Aren’t we doing the same thing?”

After the event, about half a dozen of us surrounded congressman Bartlett.  He is a true Renaissance man, he discussed satellites, regional droughts in the southwest, his life as a farmer, but what I thought most interesting was that Bartlett told us the main problem was population. This is a topic he said he and other politicians don’t dare mention.

Why aren’t politicians doing more?

After the conference, I had a chance to ask Congressman Bartlett if Barbara Lee knew about Peak Oil, and he said “Oh yes”.  She and 26 others were on board with him.  But they were dealing with day-to-day matters, Peak oil wasn’t on their front burner.  It would take an oil shock to make that happen.

Bartlett also said “I’m cognizant that people like to hear good news and that politicians who bring bad news don’t get re-elected”.

Insights

Jeremy Gilbert told us that “In the Middle east, admitting decline is a sign of weakness.  It’s not in their interests to be honest.  We’re using 5 times more oil than we’re finding.  It’s likely there’s 775 Billion barrels in the ground, and 130 billion left to find”.  Or 29 years left at current rates of use.

Henry Groppe thought that 35 people pulled off the biggest heist in world history when they took over soviet oil fields.

Some of the energy analysts said that Big Oil is likely to drill for oil on Wall Street, it’s a lot easier to find it there than in the ground.

Charles Hall told us that drilling for oil appears to have a negative net energy according to the New York Times October 10, 2004 article by James Boxwell “Top oil groups fail to recoup exploration costs”.  Current production of oil from existing wells has a net energy of around 17.  Compare that with the net energy of 100 we got when we first started drilling for oil.  In one of the articles he gave me, he guesses that you can’t run western civilization without an EROI of at least 5.

I asked one of the speakers at the conference, who has known this was coming for decades, how he planned to cope with what lies ahead.  He said he hopes to be dead when the shit hits the fan.

Chris Skrebowski: “Because the price of natural gas-based fertilizer is so high now, I’ve heard farmers in Europe say they may plow under their potatoes and grow rape seed, in other words, grow energy rather than food crops”.

Chris thought factors that might advance ‘Peak Oil’, which are already occurring, are: Project slippage, increasing taxes with tighter terms on oil production, accelerating decline rate, upheavals in major producers, which has already happened in Iraq, Nigeria and Venezuela, accelerating demand growth in China & India, wars, revolutions, & hurricanes.

Bedzek thought environmental protections were unlikely to fare well if there’s widespread hardship.

Randy Udall, one of the conference organizers, told us that “Oil has given us a perpetual motion machine, something we’ve always sought.  Oil has the greatest energy density known to man apart from nuclear”.

Randy pointed out we’re as dependent on oil as the Sioux were on buffalo.  They had many songs and rituals to celebrate that.  But in America, our level of discussion is at the level of talking about people stuck in an elevator during a power outage at MacDonald’s:

Charles Maxwell thought enough oil was coming online from 2006 through 2008 that prices might remain relatively flat on average, though Chris Skrebowski whispered to me that that would only be true if the depletion rate were only 2%.  Weedon said that if the price of oil remained flat, it would be a bad thing, because the Cornucopians would be crowing that $22 oil was coming back and we’d be complacent and do nothing.  He fears we may try to assassinate Venezuela’s Chavez, which would immediately drive oil to $100 a barrel, because Venezuela provides 14% of our energy. It’s a sure bet that civil war would erupt, taking Venezuelan oil offline indefinitely. Weedon closed with, “Someday, we’ll be like Oliver Twist begging “Please sir, can I have more!” from countries that don’t like us, that will suddenly have a lot more political power, and it is not in their national interest to drain their oil quickly to please us, so prices are going to go way up eventually.

Weedon believes that deflation is the greatest danger, and that the dollar will fall.

Matt Simmons talked about how too many key countries are past peak, that decline rates might now be 8 to 10% or that high within a decade or so.  The world is running out of spare drilling rigs – finding new oil without ample rigs is a tough task. The top 250 oil fields produce 80% of the world’s oil.  In Saudi Arabia, 5 super giant fields produce 90% of the output, three more another 8%.

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett said: Our financial system is likely to collapse because it’s predicated on growth and paying off debt.

Roger Bezdek said that the goal of his stop-gap measures was to avoid economic catastrophe.

Charles Maxwell said “If we don’t choose community, it will put a terrible strain on democracy.  If Americans feel like other groups are taking away what’s rightfully theirs, things will get very ugly”.  He told us about declining times in Greece, and how the public turned to a tyrant to prevent a further fall.  But it backfired, and Greece collapsed.

Matt Simmons second slide was “Crises Do Happen”.  The bullet points were “Although the 20th century was the greatest century of enlightenment and innovation, it was also a century marked by unattended problems that became awful crises”, and he lists WWI, WWII, the Great Depression, and Stalin and Mao killing over 100 million of their citizens.

I asked Chris Skrebowski about the possible nationalization of oil and gas companies, and he said absolutely — five years after peak, the government will have no choice if the depletion rate is 6% or more.  The military will say they can’t keep going without their share, mayors will ask for a certain amount for their police forces to maintain civil order, and so on.

Basically we have about 5 years of relatively normal lives after Peak oil, barring wars and if everything goes well.  So enjoy the party while it lasts.  It isn’t over yet, but it’s darn close.

 

Posted in Advice, Peak Oil History | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Why Canadian oilsands will not help solve the energy crisis

Preface. I posted this back in 2011, but it is all still true, plus a lot more in my additional posts here. The Canadian oil sands are reputed to be the 3rd largest oil reserve (10%), but they are unconventional and trickle out slowly unlike cheap conventional from Saudi Arabia #2 (16%).  And Venezuela is #1 with 18% of oil reserves, but like oil sands, very heavy oil — unconventional as well — and very difficult to obtain, refine  so also unlikely to help with the energy crisis because Venezuela is collapsing.

I thought I’d republish this post since world peak oil production happened in 2018. Which is great news, it is the only possible way we will ever reduce emissions and maybe spare the earth from becoming an uninhabitable greenhouse (for us at least, reptiles will be happy). Though it does reduce carrying capacity quite a bit. Start singing “Green Acres is the Place to Be” to prepare yourself mentally.

As the crisis worsens, oil sands aren’t likely to help with the energy crisis. Indeed, their energy return on invested is so low they exist now thanks to the subsidization from cheap plentiful conventional oil.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

The problems with oilsands (tarsands) are:

1)   In the tar sands open-pit mines, to produce one barrel of synthetic crude it takes 2 tons of tar sands, 250 gallons of water and 1700 cubic feet of natural gas. Feb 2008 ASPO newsletter.

2) Oil sands take tremendous amounts of energy to process, requiring expensive mining, crushing, high temperatures, centrifuging, and a lot of water to strip the oil from the tar sands to which the oil is clinging. Consider this description of Brendan Koerner’s about how oil sands are mined:

“Alberta’s black gold isn’t the stuff that geysered up from Jed Clampett’s backyard. It’s more like a mix of Silly Putty and coffee grounds – think of the tar patties that stick to the bottom of your sandals at the beach – and it’s trapped beneath hundreds of feet of clay and rock”. Koerner describes the mining process as: First, shovels excavate thousands of tons of soil and clay, creating a 150-foot pit for mining the oil sands below. Then the oil sand is piled into trucks capable of carrying 400 tons. These trucks dump their payload into crushers, which grind it down to fine oil-coated grains. The grains are then transferred via conveyor to a cyclofeeder, where it’s mixed with hot water to produce a slurry. The slurry flows to the extraction facility, where large centrifuges separate out the oil-rich bitumen. The bitumen flows to cokers, where it’s heated to remove impurities such as sulfur and nitrogen, leaving only usable crude oil.

3) In Canada, it’s hard to do this in the six month winter, when temperatures can often drop below -40F.

4) No matter how the extraction is done, the process is slow [the flow rate will hardly make a dent in world oil supplies], and will never replace the amount of oil we’re presently using.

5) It’s not clear whether the EROEI will continue to be positive as the mining pit gets deeper. It takes more energy for a 400 ton truck to get back to the factory from 300 feet down than when it’s initially scraping the surface.

6) Using nuclear power to refine tar sands won’t work, because it wouldn’t be long before the oil sands being mined are too far from the nuclear power plant to transport it there economically.

May 26, 2007. Brian Wang. Nuclear Power for the Oilsands.

7) Massive use of water in an area that is a cold desert with very little rain. Up to 2 barrels of water are used for every barrel of oil produced.

8) They could add substantially to climate change.  To date burning fossil fuels, clearing forests, and so on have rleased 570 billion metric tons of carbon and 250 billion tons of carbon dioxide since 2000.  At this rate we’ll emit the trillionth metric ton of carbon in sthe summer of 2041.  The tar sands represent a lot of unburned carbon, about 170 billion barrels (enough for 6 years of world consumption) that would release 25 billion metric tons of carbon if burned.  Luckily engineers don’t have a clue about how to get at the remaining 1.63 trillion barrels of oil, which sould add 250 billion metric tons of carbon.

9) Destructive in so many ways: Climate change, biodiversity, environment. Destruction of forests, water quality, wildlife, fish

June 4, 2011. James E. Hansen. Silence Is Deadly I’m Speaking Out Against The Canada–U.S. Tar Sands Pipeline. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/04-5

The environmental impacts of tar sands development include: irreversible effects on biodiversity and the natural environment, reduced water quality, destruction of fragile pristine Boreal Forest and associated wetlands, aquatic and watershed mismanagement, habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, disruption to life cycles of endemic wildlife particularly bird and Caribou migration, fish deformities and negative impacts on the human health in downstream communities. Although there are multiple objections to tar sands development and the pipeline, including destruction of the environment in Canada, and the likelihood of spills along the pipeline’s pathway, such objections, by themselves, are very unlikely to stop the project.

An overwhelming objection is that exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts. The tar sands are estimated (e.g., see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2). Easily available reserves of conventional oil and gas are enough to take atmospheric CO2 well above 400 ppm, which is unsafe for life on earth. However, if emissions from coal are phased out over the next few decades and if unconventional fossil fuels including tar sands are left in the ground, it is conceivable to stabilize earth’s climate.

Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles.

Governments are acting as if they are oblivious to the fact that there is a limit on how much fossil fuel carbon we can put into the air. Fossil fuel carbon injected into the atmosphere will stay in surface reservoirs for millennia. We can extract a fraction of the excess CO2 via improved agricultural and forestry practices, but we cannot get back to a safe CO2 level if all coal is used without carbon capture or if unconventional fossil fuels, like tar sands are exploited.

Energy Forum Posts and Articles

194  Folke Günther  Economists frequently cite Canada’s Athabasca oil sands as a handy replacement for conventional oil.  But oil sands and tar shale are very energy-intensive, environmentally destructive, and not all that large anyway. For example, back-of-the-envelope calculations show that the Athabasca oil sands could supply less than three years’ worth of oil for the global economy. Three hundred billion barrels of oil (AEUB) gushing out of a pipe would only last 12 years at present World consumption of 70 million barrels a day. Oil sands would last just three years if we super-optimistically assume 25 percent net energy for the digging, etc. over the entire resource. “The mining operation involves stripping off the overburden; separating the bitumen with steam, hot water and caustic soda, and then diluting it with naphtha. After centrifuging, liquid bitumen at 80°C is produced, which is then upgraded in a coking process and subjected to other treatments, eventually yielding a light gravity, low sulphur, synthetic oil.” (The Coming Oil Crisis, p. 121, Campbell, 1997)
=====================================================================
201 Brian Fleay  Walter Youngquist in his book Geodestinies says for every three barrels of
oil form Canadian tar sands, energy equivalent to two are consumed producing it.
=====================================================================May 28, 2002.  jean laherrere  Nikiforuk /2001 “The next gas crisis” Canadian Business Aug. 20 estimates that 25% of natural gas produced in Alberta in 2010 will be spent to heat the water used to melt the bitumen of the Athabaska tarsands. The lake gathering the wastes has 22 km of diameter and several meters deep.=====================================================================
Mar 19, 2002  16911  Arthur C. Noll    A few more figures from syncrude: Nearly 450,000 tones of materials, equipment, vessels and plant components traveled the highway to the construction site.
Every 24 hours there is enough metal worn off the mining equipment, by abrasive oil sand, to make two full-size pick-up trucks.

How much energy was expended to make all this stuff and transport it to the site, how much to build and maintain the road?  If all this stuff were to be made and moved with the energy gotten from the oil sands, how much would be left over?  Not forgetting the oil used by the 10,000 workers building the plant, likely a similar number making the parts, and the 5,000 running the place, and the people supporting them.

The abrasion rate is pretty high, and that is only for the mining equipment.  I have to think there is also high erosion of equipment dealing with slurry. They admit themselves that the operating conditions for much of the plant is severe.   The life of the system doesn’t look great, very high maintenance, and it took very large amounts of energy to build it. The energy to build it would have come mostly from “conventional” sources, greatly distorting the cost.

The operation has produced about a billion cubic meters of “tailings”, a sludge estimated to take centuries to solidify on its own.  They are adding gypsum to speed up the process, but guess what that takes?  Mining gypsum somewhere else, transporting it, mixing it in.  More energy… Other ways will also cost energy.

I have to think that they chose a site to start, that had the least amount of overburden to remove, and that other places will have more to remove, at greater energy cost.

I have to have serious doubts about the EROEI on this business, and how long it can be maintained if it is positive for the moment.  Looks to me that they have taken “cheap” conventional fuels and used them to build the system, a typical accounting error when using money.  When conventional fuels get scarcer and cost more money,  oil sand extraction costs will likely go up in step with it.  Much the same as with many “renewable” technologies, that are built and largely maintained with fossil fuel.
=====================================================================
June 29, 2003. David Olive. Fun with Fossil Fuel Figures. What’s behind estimate Alberta’s oil reserves have skyrocketed 3600% to 180 billion barrels?  Toronto Star.

False claims have a lot of potency in this era of dubious war aims and rampant accounting scandals.

So it was only a matter of time before someone asked a few embarrassing questions about Canada’s sudden new status as the world’s most oil-rich nation after Saudi Arabia, and wondered if it was built on illusion.

“Canada Builds Large Oil Estimate on Sand” was the headline on a recent New York Times examination of what the paper described as “highly questionable” methods used in the Calgary oil patch to determine oil reserves.

Late last year, an authoritative industry publication, Oil And Gas Journal, reported the remarkable fact that Canada’s estimated oil reserves had skyrocketed to 180 billion barrels from 5 billion barrels. The increase was entirely from a new calculation of Alberta’s bountiful oil sands.

Somehow Canada had managed that stupendous feat of boosting its oil wealth by 36 times overnight without benefit of any new Hibernias or other elephants — the industry term for gigantic finds.

What the Times has found, it believes, is an outbreak of “paper reserves” up in northern Alberta. In a mere bookkeeping exercise back in 1999, the provincial energy regulator used a calculation of the province’s oil resources that vastly increased Alberta’s reported oil-sands wealth.

And more recently, the oil patch’s leading trade group, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), was successful in encouraging the Oil And Gas Journal to adopt the new figures. To add to the confusion, the CAPP itself hews to a more conservative line, pegging Alberta’s reserves at about 12 billion barrels, saying its methodology differs from others.

This is just what we need, after Canada’s real and perceived equivocation on Iraq, SARS and mad cow disease — another reason for the Americans to distrust us.

And it is the United States that is targeted for Alberta’s boasting. At a time when Washington is newly focused on U.S. energy security, Alberta is pushing hard for consideration as a politically stable alternative to strife-torn oil-producing regions elsewhere.

There’s another factor. Significant cost overruns have plagued many of Alberta’s big oil-sands development projects in recent years. It can’t hurt to obscure the fact of a skilled labour shortage and other contributors to the overruns by touting the staggering immensity of the Athabasca resource — imparting a hoped-for sense of inevitability to its eventual more thorough exploitation.

Actually, the Alberta oil sands is not a story that needs to be oversold. Even after more than $20 billion in oil-sands development since the mid-1990s, another $35 billion-plus worth of oil-sands projects are under way or planned by Imperial Oil Ltd., Shell Canada Ltd., Nexen Inc., Husky Energy Inc., EnCana Corp. and other players.

Oil-sands production now exceeds the output of Alberta’s increasingly depleted conventional oil fields. When it unveiled its completed Athabasca Oil Sands Project earlier this month, Shell Canada projected that at full production, this one project will account for some 10 per cent of Canadian oil consumption.

So why goose the industry reserve numbers, when oil companies themselves, for the sake of credibility with investors, stick to conservative estimates for their own corporate reserves?

The answer has much to do with the continuing ugly duckling status of oil-sands regions in Alberta, Venezuela and elsewhere. The extraction and refining process for bitumen is still gruesomely expensive and temperamental.

Some 30-odd years after Athabasca development began in earnest, operators still struggle with frequent fires and mechanical breakdowns as they learn in fits and starts how to extract oil profitably from the unforgiving muskeg.

Floating a drilling platform off the West African coast, and sipping crude through a straw, is still the preferred, and cheaper, approach of a tradition-bound industry.

Mind you, some day conventional fields will run dry. Large parts of the North Sea are all but played out. Alaska’s fabled Prudhoe Bay is pumping a meagre 440,000 barrels a day, less than a third of its 1987 daily peak of 1.6 million barrels.

As oil giants like ExxonMobil Corp. and ChevronTexaco Corp. venture somewhat fearfully into Chad, the Congo and other civil-war zones to replenish their corporate reserves, the spreadsheet managers in the Calgary oil patch want to hasten the day when the global industry commits itself even more forcefully to a stable region on the doorstep of the world’s most voracious energy consumer.

There’s no shame in that. But fun with figures is not the most seemly tactic.

The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) insists that it is, in fact, the soul of sobriety, that it could tout the truly amazing figure of 1.6 trillion barrels of oil-sands resources it believes could be processed with advances in technology.

But the problem even with the EUB’s “conservative” 180 billion figure is that the vast bulk of those reserves will remain out of reach without an extravagant outlay on state-of-the-art extraction machinery, leading-edge refineries capable of transforming the Athabasca muck into crude, and other “infrastructure.”

What the global industry and all who rely on it desperately need is uniform standards for estimating reserves that are readily available, and also for those requiring currently prohibitive spending on infrastructure.

The latter resources are tied, obviously, to a hike in the world oil price. It’s the play of costs, oil prices, and advances in technology that determine the true status of the resource — a term too often confused, in Canada’s case, with readily accessible reserves.

Actually, that’s par for the course in the global industry, where Saudi Arabia and many other oil-producing nations jealously guard production figures on a field-by-field basis. They don’t want to dissuade potential investors by revealing rates of depletion and other potentially dismal data.

There are consequences from that opacity and the resulting misinformation. The laggard reporting and questionable data that characterizes the industry contributed to the oil-price shock of the late-1970s.

And, conversely, a late-1990s world industry consensus based on false data about a supposed hidden oil glut helped slash the world price by more than half. That triggered the demise of some mid-size producers in Canada and the United States, and the consolidation craze that gave rise to ExxonMobil, BP Amoco Arco (now BP PLC), TotalFinaElf (now Total PLC) and other hulking combinations.

There’s a foreign policy dimension to this, as well.

The U.S. occupation of Iraq puts the United States in a better position to cope with the potential fall of a shaky House of Saud. The Riyadh regime is the “swing state” that controls the world oil price by its judicious changes in Saudi output to counter jarring changes in production elsewhere.

The nightmare scenario for the regime-change strategists in Washington has long been anti-Western extremists taking possession of the world’s largest oil producer.

But to an even greater extent than the confused state of Alberta’s reporting, the actual output and lifespan of the Saudi oil fields are a matter of international conjecture, not fact — a risky basis for geopolitical planning.

In Iraq, meanwhile, the United States is finding that some of the country’s oldest and most prodigious oil fields are far more depleted than outside experts had estimated. These are the same oilfields that are supposed to finance Iraq’s reconstruction.

With the credibility of his province on the line, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein could have staked out some high ground by committing the Calgary oil patch to a leadership role in developing international standards for reserve estimates. Such a bold initiative would put his province in the global industry spotlight for all the right reasons.

But Klein has opted instead to shoot the messenger. Not knowing the value of the unexpressed thought, Klein has blurted that “The New York Times hasn’t been noted for its accuracy lately” — a reference to the paper’s firing of a plagiarizing reporter and the resignation of its two top editors.

That ground was covered by Conan O’Brien several weeks ago. Topic A now is whether Alberta has wilfully misled U.S. energy planners. (The U.S. energy department has also adopted the EUB figures.)

A light bulb seems to have switched on over the heads of some Alberta bureaucrats, if not Klein.

In a National Post essay this week, Neil McCrank, chairman of the EUB, defended the integrity of his agency’s oil reserve estimates. “We stand by our numbers,” he declared.

But the EUB also vows to pursue a previously planned “update” of its controversial accounting with what appears to be unanticipated urgency. A climbdown may be in the offing.

More important, the EUB at least acknowledges the superior merit of accountability over name-calling.

“We need rigorous inquiry to stay focused,” McCrank said of the EUB. “We need to be able to stand up to public scrutiny, Albertans expect no less.”

=========================================================================
August 2, 2003. James Stevenson. Conoco’s Bitumen recovery at risk in northern Alberta.  The Canadian Press

Alberta Energy and Utilities Board chairman Neil McCrank is the author of a report that suggests “there is an immediate and continued risk to bitumen recovery from the production of natural gas from an area of concern within the Athabasca oilsands area.”

Sue Riddell Rose, president of Paramount Resources, says evidence is inconclusive in showing there is interaction between gas reservoirs and nearby oilsands deposits when they are injected with steam.

Massive oilsands deposits in northern Alberta would be rendered inaccessible with current technology if nearby natural gas reserves are removed, energy giant ConocoPhillips said Friday.

Releasing hundreds of pages of previously confidential documents, ConocoPhillips said years of study at its Surmont oilsands pilot project northeast of Edmonton prove steam pressure is not contained by rock layers underground.

And if the gas is removed, the pressure levels would be too low to extract the oilsands feedstock, or bitumen, with existing technology, the company said.

The ConocoPhillips data echoes the belief of Alberta’s energy regulator, which decided last week to shut in 938 gas wells by September to protect the underlying bitumen.

“We can’t rely on shale layers as a seal to keep steam pressure up in the chamber,” said Tom Trowell, manager of ConocoPhillips Surmont project. “And we now know that steam does get around or through these layers to the gas above.”

The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board “believes there is an immediate and continued risk to bitumen recovery from the production of natural gas from an area of concern within the Athabasca oilsands area,” it said in a written ruling released in late July.

The previously confidential ConocoPhillips report has long been sought after by natural gas producers in the area, led by Paramount Resources, which claims that up to half of its production could be affected by the shut-in.

Paramount said Friday that it was waiting to fully review the ConocoPhillips data before commenting.

President Sue Riddell Rose has previously said scientific evidence to date is inconclusive in showing there is interaction between gas reservoirs and nearby oilsands deposits when they are injected with steam.

ConocoPhillips says that isn’t the case. “Anyone who claims that the steam hasn’t reached the gas is being premature,” said company spokesman Peter Hunt.

By releasing its data, the Texas-based oil and gas company runs the risk of getting dragged back into the heated debate between oilsands producers, gas producers and the province of Alberta, which claims it wants to protect the resource for maximum benefits.

ConocoPhillips joins the ranks of other large oilsands producers, like Petro-Canada, in supporting the shut-in of gas production in the area.

Those fighting the order are a variety of gas producers ranging from Paramount and other smaller companies all the way to global giant BP.

The dispute is so heated that anyone not directly involved is loathe to take sides.

“This is kind of a dogfight that we’re not involved in,” Rick George, president of oilsands giant Suncor Energy, told analysts this week.

“And if you’re not involved in a dogfight there’s no reason to go in one.”

The shut-in affects about 90 billion cubic feet of gas, or about two per cent of Alberta’s remaining reserves. Conversely, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board says the amount of bitumen in the area is about 600 times larger.

ConocoPhillips says its Surmont lease alone is roughly the size of the city of Calgary, with an estimated average bitumen thickness of a 10-story building.

The company also says that if Alberta hadn’t ordered the shut-in of wells on the Surmont release back in 2000, its pilot plant would not have been as successful as it has been.

As a result, ConocoPhillips, along with partners TotalFinaElf and Devon Energy, are poised to make a go-ahead decision on a Surmont megaproject before the end of this year that would cost about $1 billion and produce around 100,000 barrels per day by 2014.

Following a meeting this week with all affected companies, Alberta’s energy regulator ordered a regional geological study — to be completed by December — in order to closely assess which gas pools in the area are in close contact with bitumen deposits.

Alberta’s energy department has also begun meetings on the issue, looking at possible compensation for affected gas producers. Paramount has warned that this could end up costing the province hundreds of millions of dollars.

Greg Stringham, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, says the geological study is crucial in determining the full impacts of the shut-in.

And Stringham said there are a number of other tests continuing from companies like giant EnCana Corp. looking at repressuring reservoirs with waste gas or even putting pumps at the bottom of the well to pump up the bitumen.

“I think that’s where the real answer to this dilemma lies, it’s not in the back and forth between the companies, it’s how do we apply technology so that both of the concerns can be resolved

====================================

Dec 7, 2003. Nelson Antosh. Recovering Canada’s oil takes more mining than pumping.  Houston Chronicle

Conocophillips is heading a trio of companies that will spend $1.1 billion developing an oil deposit in Canada on par with the largest fields ever found in Texas.

At 5 billion barrels recoverable, the Surmont project south of Fort McMurray in Alberta can be likened to the giant East Texas field that has produced 5.2 billion barrels since its discovery in 1930.

In today’s thoroughly searched United States, a billion barrels is considered a giant field.

But finding Surmont wasn’t the hard part, because the oil sands in some regions of Alberta are so shallow they can be discovered with one’s shoe.

The challenge involves getting the oil out of what may be the world’s largest deposit of petroleum because it is mixed with sand and as nearly as thick as tar. As companies show oil can be produced there at reasonable prices, the amount of reserves associated with oil sands zoom upward.

The Oil and Gas Journal, for instance, in its last survey gave Canada 180 billion barrels in reserves, up from less than 5 billion barrels the year before. Such recognition of proven reserves “is clearly leading to a fresh wave of interest,” says Peter Hunt, the public affairs manager for ConocoPhillips Canada in Calgary.

The company’s Surmont lease covers a land area about one-fourth the size of the city of Houston, containing an underground oil formation as thick as a 10-story office building is tall. This oil-soaked sand is located below a rolling forest of spruce and fir in northern Alberta.

The Alberta Department of Energy likes to say that the western province has more oil than Saudi Arabia and is important to the United States because Canada is an area of political stability, unlike parts of the Middle East.

But oil sand production got off to a slow start. It is just in recent years that it is moving toward full-tilt development. Billions are being invested, and the big players like Exxon Mobil and Shell are involved.

ConocoPhillips considers Surmont to be a legacy project, which means it costs a lot of money initially but will be around for a long time, in this case 40 to 50 years.

It this works out, there’s plenty more waiting to be produced. The amount of oil considered recoverable from Canada’s oil sands with current technology ranges from 177 billion to a whopping 300 billion barrels, depending upon which definition and figures you use.

Bigger is better

The difficulty with oil sands, ever since mining began in 1967, has been getting it out at a low-enough cost. Suncor Energy of Calgary, the pioneer, said the key was developing technology, which in this case means bigger and bigger equipment. Its trucks are capable of carrying up to 400 tons at a time.

The oil between the grains of sand is almost as thick as tar, putting it in the category of bitumen: naturally occurring solid or liquid hydrocarbons. In the summer it is soft and glistens like asphalt on a hot summer day (also a bitumen), but in the Canadian winter it turns into chunks almost as hard as rock.

Before the bitumen is usable, it must be run through a refinery unit, typically a high-temperature piece of equipment called a delayed coker, to give it the thinner consistency of crude oil. Suncor uses a delayed coker 10 times larger than those typically found along the Gulf Coast to process the finds.

The earliest recovery tactic, and still the biggest, is to mine the sand and extract the oil with hot water, according to Suncor, which has been doing it this way since 1967.

The oily sand is placed in settling tanks of 180 degree water, where the oil is floated off the top and the sand settles to the bottom. Then the extra-heavy oil must be processed through the coker.

It takes about two tons of sand to produce one barrel of oil, the company says. Currently it is handling 450,000 tons per day to produce 225,000 barrels of oil. About 92 percent of the oil in the sands is actually recovered.

Using the open-pit method, Suncor has extracted nearly 1 billion barrels. The company calculates that it is sitting on 13 billion recoverable barrels.

Two-well method

More recently, Suncor and operators like ConocoPhillips are looking to other methods to tap reserves buried too deep to dig out.

This method is to drill wells and inject steam, leaving the sand in place while pumping out the oil in a more conventional fashion. Called in-situ, this tactic promises being able to reach the 85 to 90 percent of sand deemed too deep to mine.

With the help of its in-situ project called Firebag, Suncor expects to more than double its output by 2010 or 2012. It plans to be cranking out 500,000 to 550,000 barrels per day by then.

ConocoPhillips’ project will borrow from the latest oil exploration technology to develop Surmont, by using three-dimensional seismic imaging to precisely map the underground formation and drilling horizontally to get at the oil.

Suncor’s production costs have been going down, to about $8 in operating expenses per barrel, President and Chief Executive Rick George said during a recent visit to Houston.

One reason is that there aren’t finding costs, said George. The company’s vision is to move the cost curve downward to about $6 per barrel, which would make it one of North America’s lowest-cost producers.

Moody’s Investors Service recently changed Suncor’s rating outlook from negative to stable, on the basis that the company’s cash operating costs will continue on a lower trend in the near to medium term.

The oil sands cost compares with the five-year average finding and development cost in the United States, which was $8.19 per barrel from 1998 through 2002, according to Nicholas Caccione, director of research for John S. Herold Inc.

The ConocoPhillips group isn’t disclosing its expected costs per barrel, other than saying it should be roughly comparable to the mining method.

But there are also environmental costs that could be considerable: surface mines, rows of settling ponds, clusters of large refinery equipment and fragmentation of a northern forest.

Some people are wondering how all of this energy-intensive activity will fit with Canada’s ratification of the Kyoto Accord to limit the emission of greenhouse gases.

However, the government has given oil sand companies some assurance they won’t be stymied by costs connected with limits on carbon dioxide emissions, said to cause global warming, which could make the projects uneconomical.

In the short term, the government has placed a cap on the price of the credits in Canada that may have to be purchased to allow them to emit so much carbon dioxide, said Hunt and Suncor’s CEO, Rick George.

Others are more concerned. The chief of Petro-Canada, Ron Brenneman, told Bloomberg News after a Nov. 24 speech in Montreal that the Kyoto deadline was too short and the implementation plan was too prescriptive. “It’s so restrictive that, as we see it, the only alternative is to buy emissions credits from outside the country,” said the CEO of one of Canada’s largest oil companies, which also has an oil sands project.

100 pairs of wells

There were years of study before the mid-November go-ahead announcement by Houston-based ConocoPhillips, the French company Total and Devon Energy of Oklahoma City.

A pilot program has been running since 1997 to make sure everything works before committing serious money. Conoco came into the picture when it acquired a company named Gulf Canada in 2000.

The plan is to drill about 100 pairs of horizontal wells, which will take production to more than 100,000 barrels of oil per day by 2012, said Hunt. The first production will occur in 2006.

The wells are in pairs, with the top well directly above the bottom well. Steam will be pumped into the upper well to melt the bitumen, said Hunt, so it can seep downward through the sand to be collected by the bottom well. The technology is called steam-assisted gravity drainage.

Horizontal drilling allows the drill bit to travel downward in conventional fashion, then steer horizontally for an extended distance with great precision.

The Surmont wells will be drilled to an average depth of about 1,200 feet before turning horizontal, which is considerably below the 100 to 150 feet that is considered suitable for surface mining.

Eventually a steam cavern will form around the upper well.

This is where 3-D seismic comes into play. You wouldn’t want a layer of something like rock stretching across what is supposed to be a cavern, said Hunt. “What really matters is understanding the geology, so you can drill in the best places.”

ConocoPhillips plans to lessen the environmental impact by using water from deep wells, rather than the river, and sharing roads with a company that is actively logging there.

Rather than build a coker for upgrading the bitumen, ConocoPhillips is considering moving it via pipeline to existing refineries in Wood River, Ill., and Billings, Mont. It could be diluted with some lighter products to the point that it will flow, Hunt said.

Negotiations with the pipeline owners are in progress.

=========================================July 2004. Brendan I. Koerner. The Trillion-Barrel Tar Pit Who needs “oil independence” – our friendly neighbor to the north is sitting on a black gold mine! Wired issue 12.07

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html?pg=1&topic=oil&topic_set=

Fort McMurray, Alberta, is an unlikely destination for a congressional boondoggle, especially when cold snaps of 40 below make it dangerous to leave any patch of skin uncovered. But here I am in midwinter, 250 miles north of Edmonton, watching a flock of Washington politicians in subzero parkas cling to tour guides like a trail of oversize ducklings. With gas prices approaching $3 a gallon in some states, the US representatives are braving the frigid air not for adventure but to learn about a filthy sort of alchemy, one that turns sludgy, sticky earth into sweet crude oil.

Alberta sits atop the biggest petroleum deposit outside the Arabian peninsula – as many as 300 billion recoverable barrels and another trillion-plus barrels that could one day be within reach using new retrieval methods. (By contrast, the entire Middle East holds an estimated 685 billion barrels that are recoverable.) But there’s a catch. Alberta‘s black gold isn’t the stuff that geysered up from Jed Clampett’s backyard. It’s more like a mix of Silly Putty and coffee grounds – think of the tar patties that stick to the bottom of your sandals at the beach – and it’s trapped beneath hundreds of feet of clay and rock.

This petroleum dreck is known in these parts as heavy oil, and wildcatters are determined to get it out of the ground and into a pipeline. If they succeed, the stereotypical oil zillionaire may be not an Arabian emir but a folksy Albertan fond of ending sentences in a question, eh? Like Jim Carter, president of Canada’s largest oil company, Syncrude. A coal-mine foreman by trade, Carter talks as if he just got out of a cut-rate business seminar, spewing jargon like “going-forward basis” and “continuous-improvement mindset.” He’s the kind of guy who straps a snowplow on his John Deere mower and clears the streets just for fun. But he clawed his way out of the pits to a corner office, and now he has a plan to make Canada’s oil reserves pay off.

Heavy oil isn’t a new discovery. Native Americans have used it to caulk their canoes for centuries. Until recently, though, it’s been the energy industry’s stepchild – ugly, dirty, and hard to refine. But the political winds are favoring the heavy stuff, as “energy independence” – aka freedom from relying on Middle East oil – has become a war-on-terror buzz-phrase. Even President Bush has waxed optimistic about Alberta’s “tar pits.”

Better yet, recent improvements in mining and extraction techniques have cut heavy oil production costs nearly in half since the 1980s, to about $10 per barrel, with more innovation on the way. The petroleum industry is spending billions on new methods to get at the estimated 6 trillion barrels of heavy oil worldwide – nearly half the earth’s entire oil reserve. Last year, Shell and ChevronTexaco jointly opened the $5.7 billion Athabasca Oil Sands Project in Alberta, which pumps out 155,000 barrels per day. Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt yields 500,000 barrels daily, and that number should spike when a new ChevronTexaco plant goes online this year.

The trailblazer in heavy oil is Syncrude, a joint venture among eight US and Canadian energy companies, which has been harvesting greasy sand since 1978. Last year, the company shipped 77 million barrels of its trademark product, Syncrude Sweet Blend, mostly to US refineries. That’s 14 percent of all Canadian oil sales, company executives boast – enough to produce 1.5 billion gallons of gasoline.

Chalk up the impressive output to Syncrude’s efficiency. Carter and his team like to present themselves as roughnecks, but they run the company like bookish software engineers. Their oil mines – noisy and grimy and often reeking of sulfur – operate with the high tech prowess of a Taiwanese factory churning out LCDs.

The Caterpillar 797 dump truck is a true monster – 48 feet from tip to tail and 22 feet high, it creeps uphill with a 400-ton payload at 1 mile per hour. Syncrude owns 36 of the vehicles, which cost $5 million each. This herd of yellow pachyderms lumbers around the company’s open-pit mines, shuttling oil sands from the digging shovels to a massive processing facility called a crusher. The inside of the crusher resembles the guts of the Nostromo, the doomed ore-hauling ship in Alien. Whale-sized pipes and narrow catwalks crisscross everywhere; steam billows from hoses that snake along the floor. Here the sands are pulverized, then sent to cyclofeeders to be mixed with hot water and pumped to gargantuan centrifuges where the oil-rich component, bitumen, is separated out. The bitumen is sent to giant cokers and roasted with hydrogen into Syncrude Sweet Blend.

It’s a laborious process, to say the least – 2 tons of sand yields just one barrel of oil – but nowhere near as painstaking as it used to be. In the 1920s, Karl Clark, a University of Alberta chemist, discovered that steam could tease pitch out of sand. His breakthrough piqued Big Oil’s interest, but no one could make the process cost-effective. In the 1950s, a few desperate hopefuls suggested detonating a subterranean nuclear bomb to blast the gunk to the surface. When Syncrude started, it relied on draglines, huge cranelike devices weighing more than 15 full 747s. Attached to these $100 million machines were enormous buckets; the draglines would scrape the buckets across the earth to scoop up huge chunks of sand – a tough process to coordinate come winter.

The murderous climate caused untold headaches. The conveyor belts that carried oil sands from dragline to processing plant were prone to cracking. Whenever the cokers got clogged with calcified soot, Syncrude had to shut down for a week and send in cleaners with sledgehammers – “the kind of job that makes you thankful you have an education,” quips Mark Sherman, who now manages the company’s cokers.

When an OPEC glut sent oil prices skidding to $10 a barrel in 1985, Syncrude was losing $5 to $10 on every barrel of synthetic crude it produced. Only savage staff cuts staved off complete ruin. Nearly a decade later, Syncrude began to get creative. In 1994, the executives opened an R&D lab in Edmonton and started spending $30 million a year to devise increasingly efficient extraction methods. They ditched the draglines for more agile trucks and shovels and replaced some of the conveyor belts with hydrotransport, a method in which crushed sand is mixed with hot water into a pipeline-ready slurry.

As new information technologies became available in the ’90s, Syncrude moved to further streamline its operations. Today, miles of fiber-optic cable snake between the company’s ore crushers, shovels, and pipes. Operations are supervised from the heated comfort of computerized control centers, where truck dispatchers use GPS to ensure that the Caterpillars proceed like clockwork. A homegrown computer program keeps tabs on each $35,000 13-foot-tall truck tire, as cold tires are prone to cracks. X-ray sensors on the hydrotransport pipes scan for leaks, and ultrasonic transmitters verify that the crushers are never quite empty, lest their metal teeth mash against each other and cause damage.

Carter doesn’t think Syncrude’s costs are low enough yet. For starters, the company spends more than $100 million a year on natural gas to heat the facilities and fuel the hydrotransport system. Then there’s the cost of maintaining the monster trucks. Carter says replacing the trucks with mobile crushers – currently in development at the Edmonton center – could save $1.50 per barrel.

Cutting expenses is always good, but the real payoff for Syncrude will come if its R&D lab can find a way to get at the trillion barrels of oil that currently lie so far below ground that they are beyond the industry’s grasp. All the heavy oil companies are experimenting with new methods that will allow them to go deeper. One possible solution comes in the form of a process known as steam-assisted gravity drainage. In SAG-D, steam is forced through a well into the subterranean oil sands, melting them and separating the bitumen. The oily parts then seep into a second well and rise to the surface. At least a dozen SAG-D projects are under way, the most successful of which, operated by Imperial Oil, is producing 116,000 barrels per day. The problem is that creating the steam requires a lot of energy. A less energy-intensive alternative: vapor-assisted petroleum extraction, a technology that injects gaseous hydrocarbons into the earth. When the heavy oil surfaces, the hydrocarbons are stripped off and recycled. One company, Canada’s Petrobank, is experimenting with an air injection method that blasts out the bitumen with compressed air. There’s also been some renewed interest in nuclear energy – not in the form of a bomb, but as a way to generate necessary steam.

No one’s suggesting that Alberta’s version of beach tar will wean us off Middle East oil anytime soon. After all, it took Syncrude two decades to bring production costs down to $10 per barrel. And that’s still more than triple the cost of producing Saudi Arabian crude, which is so light that it requires much less refining. “Some of it is so good, you can put it right in your car,” says Michael Economides, a chemical engineer at the University of Houston and a consultant to the Russian oil giant Yukos. By contrast, Economides says the heavy oil that Syncrude mines is “shit.”

On my last day in Fort McMurray, I bum a ride with Eric Newell, who recently retired as Syncrude’s CEO. He’s particularly excited about the congressional visit. He recalls a 1996 trip to Washington, DC; he’d been invited to the Canadian embassy to preach the virtues of heavy oil. The audience of US senators, Goldman Sachs bankers, and assorted other bigwigs seemed more interested in their meals than his speech.

What a difference a war makes. These days, Congress is considering a $3 per-barrel tax credit to companies that import heavy oil from north of the border. So forget those scraps over prescription drug prices and trade policy – Canada has never looked like such a pal. The friendly relationship is a none-too-subtle part of Jim Carter’s Syncrude pitch: “Our American neighbors know what Canada’s like. It’s a good, stable country.”

And chock-full of tar patties.

Tapping the Oil Sands of Alberta

The biggest petroleum reserve outside Arabia lies beneath Canada in the form of heavy oil. Here’s how Syncrude is priming the pump.

1)      Syncrude shovels excavate thousands of tons of soil and clay, creating a 150-foot pit for mining the oil sands below.

2)      Oil sand is piled high into monster Caterpillar trucks, capable of carrying 400 tons at a time.

3)      The trucks dump their payload into crushers, which grind it down to fine oil-coated grains.

4)      The sand is transferred via conveyor to a cyclofeeder, where it’s mixed with hot water to produce a slurry. The slurry flows to the extraction facility, where large centrifuges separate out the oil-rich bitumen.

5)      Bitumen flows to cokers, where it’s heated to remove impurities such as sulfur and nitrogen, leaving only usable crude oil.

6)      The crude is sold to off-site refineries, which produce gasoline.

============================================

Feb 09, 2005. Angel Gonzalez.  Indus Exec Says Oil-Sands Output Vulnerable To Bottlenecks. Dow Jones Newswires.CALGARY–Analysts expect Canada’s oil-sands output to double to 2 million barrels of synthetic crude a day by the end of the decade, but an industry executive warned Wednesday that this capital- and labor-intensive production is extremely vulnerable to bottlenecks in the upgrading process.

Synenco Energy Inc. Executive Chairman Michael Supple said that when upgrading relies on a single train of production, “the failure of a $5 or $10 widget would shut the whole thing down.” He was speaking at an oil-sands conference in Calgary.

Synenco owns extensive oil-sands mining permits and coal leases in the Fort McMurray area of northeastern Alberta.

Supple, a former oil-sands manager for Suncor Energy Inc. (SU), alluded to a recent fire at the company’s oil-sands facility in Fort McMurray, which shut in half of the facility’s normal production of 225,000 barrels of synthetic crude a day until the third quarter of 2005.

The neighboring Syncrude Canada Ltd. facility also announced a shut-in of 65,000 barrels of oil a day for the remainder of the first quarter due to a maintenance failure at one of its hydrogen plants Jan. 31.

Supple recommended producers not put all of their eggs in one basket, and instead set up independent and multiple production avenues.

Suncor spokesman Brad Bellows said oil-sands production is vulnerable because the tar-like bitumen must be upgraded into lighter products more attractive to refiners.

“People forget how much we are a manufacturing operation,” Bellows said at the conference.

=========================================
jan 22, 2006. Comment from: Alberta oil sands on 60 minutes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/20/60minutes/main1225184.shtml

The introduction to the piece said that oil sands would provide plenty of oil for us for the next hundred years.  What rubbish!  The truth was hidden later in the piece – it’s all in the numbers:
Current oil use worldwide: 84mbl/day.  Projected for 2015: 105mbl/day.
Current oil sands production: 1mbl/day.  Projected for 2015: 3mbl/day.
This is going to “solve our problem”???
And I don’t recall that they even mentioned that, most of the year, they have to use massive quantities of natural gas to melt the crap enough to be able to scoop it out of the ground.  And natural gas is running down quickly in North America.
By the way, those giant trucks (“toys”) use over 100 gallons of diesel fuel per hour.  Not good for yer EROEI…

=================================

Dec 05, 2005. Oil sands. Are oil sands the answer to peak oil? Econbrowser.

They’ll help some, to be sure. But they’re not a reason to ignore the issue.

Green Car Congress provides a nice summary of what this energy source involves:

Oil sands are a mixture of sand, clay, water and deposits of bitumen– a very viscous form of oil that must be rigorously treated in order to convert it into an upgraded crude oil before it can be used in refineries to produce gasoline and other fuels. (Oil sands used to be called tar sands, to give you a sense of it.) The ratio of bitumen to everything else is relatively small: 10%-12%.

The bitumen contained in the oil sands is characterized by high densities, very high viscosities, high metal concentrations, high amounts of sulfur and a high ratio of carbon to hydrogen molecules. With a density range of 970 to 1,015 kilograms per cubic meter (8-14o API), and a viscosity at room temperature typically greater than 50,000 centipose, bitumen is a thick, black, tar-like substance that pours extremely slowly.

One of the reasons for interest in oil sands is the potential magnitudes involved. The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board estimates the ultimate volume of Canadian bitumen in-place at 2.5 trillion barrels, which if it could somehow all be extracted would be enough to satisfy by itself the entire world petroleum demand at current rates for 80 years. Even if only a tiny fraction of this proves ultimately to be developed, this would be a very important resource indeed.

Nor is the exploitation of this resource merely a theoretical possibility. Almost 40% of Canada’s current crude oil production of 2.6 million barrels per day is derived from oil sands. About 1/3 of current production is from in situ methods, in which the oil sands are heated while still underground, and 2/3 from open-pit mining and above-ground processing.
Suncor Energy Inc., Fort McMurray, Alberta syncrude_plant.jpg

So what’s the catch? Huge capital requirements, for one. $34 billion (Canadian) have been invested so far in Canadian oil sands just to get to current levels, and an additional $36 billion (US) might bring Canadian bitumen production up to 2.7 mbd by 2015. To put that number in perspective, significantly more than 2.7 mbd in new capacity has to be added every year in order to replace the production that is lost from each year’s depletion of existing conventional oil fields. Moreover, a large amount of energy input is required in order to produce each barrel of bitumen.

There are also significant capital requirements in order to use this synthetic crude on a larger scale. Green Car Congress had a very interesting summary last week of a report from Natural Resources Canada about Canadian oil sands:

These crude oils, whether shipped as unprocessed bitumen or in upgraded form as synthetic crude have different characteristics from conventional light and heavy crudes, and their introduction as a major proportion of the refinery crude diet will present challenges.

Most conventional refineries are limited to using about 10-15% of synthetic oil sands crude in their diets before fuels quality limitations begin to appear, according to the report.

The challenges to utilizing these crudes include the need for more “severe” processes to refine the heavy synthetic crude to duplicate fuel characteristics to which engines have become accustomed. The technology to overcome these differences is largely known, but requires significant lead-time to install.

Environmental issues are another big concern. Oil sands do not seem to involve as severe disruption as oil shale, though many of the concerns are similar. Green Car Congress summarized some of the issues about oil sands raised by the Pembina Institute, an environmental group based in Alberta, Canada. Perhaps the hardest to avoid is the increased emission of greenhouse gases, the issue that ultimately killed Australia’s demonstration oil shale project.

=========================================================

23 Sep 2006. . Murray Whyte. At what price progress? Toronto Star.

Fort McKay, Alta.-From its source at the ancient glacier that bears
its name, the Athabasca River tumbles down from the Rocky Mountains
in Jasper and into the valley it has carved over the millennia, its
icy waters rushing east and north through the foothills and high
Alberta plains. Then, 400 kilometres into its journey, it curls due
north, where the flatlands give way to the swath of Canadian Shield
that spills east from Ontario and buckles the prairie with rock and
centuries-old boreal forest.

Just past halfway on its journey north to Lake Athabasca, the river
rushes through the most rapidly-industrializing place on Earth: the
oil sands.

It is here where the river, with its bounty of glacial water, bound
for the muskegs and fens of the Athabasca delta, crashes into the
very modern priorities of the new West: the stampede for wealth. And
it is the river’s bounty that makes it all possible.

Along the river’s edge, existing oil-sands operations and approved
developments soon to follow have been granted licences to siphon 349
million cubic metres of the river’s flow each year – roughly the
amount of water used by Calgary and Edmonton annually combined – to
extract heavy crude oil from the black muck that holds it. Including
other projects awaiting approval, that allocation swells to 529
million cubic metres. “I don’t think anybody who thinks about this
realistically can believe it’s sustainable,” says David Schindler,
the pre-eminent scholar on ecological policy and hydrology at the
University of Alberta.

Schindler has participated in several public hearings, preaching
prudence and moderation in the oil sands’ growth to mediate the
impact. His 30-year study on the river’s flow level shows a
disquieting trend: a decline in volume of 30 per cent over that span.
And the river’s banks have receded by nearly two metres over that
time.

But industry’s demand for the water will only grow. To free the crude
oil, as many as 4 1/2 barrels of water are needed to yield a single
barrel of oil. The leftover petrochemical brew, too toxic to be
returned to the river, accumulates in tailing ponds with a combined
surface area of 50 square kilometres, visible from space, that have
been growing for decades.

Operators like Suncor and Syncrude, oil sands pioneers, have learned
to do more with less, recycling water and taking only a portion of
what their licences permit.

But that’s as much a result of necessity as it is conservation: In
1995, the National Oil Sands Task Force laid out a growth plan to
reach 1 million barrels per day by 2020. That target has already been
passed: The oil sands today produces 1.2 million barrels every day.

As new projects come online, according to the task force, that number
will triple in 15 years, and grow fivefold in 25. Estimates put the
known reserves at close to 179 billion barrels – second-largest on
Earth, after Saudi Arabia.

About $20 billion worth of investment in extraction was expected by
2020; it’s already there.

In the next 10 years, oil companies from Europe, India, China and the
U.S., will spend another $70 billion digging up the oily black
ground. An open pit nearly 3,000 square kilometres in size will grow,
swallowing streams, wetlands and boreal forest, razing habitat for
fish, birds and woodland caribou.

That dimension is, literally, only the surface. The proportion of oil sands accessible from ground level is less than 10 per cent. The rest of the bitumen – the term for the oil-saturated muck – is deep underground. Companies have a number of methods to extract it, like injecting superheated oxygen or steam as deep as 300 metres below to boil the oil free.

Meanwhile, on the surface, millions of cubic metres of river water, thick with toxic by-products like naphthenic acid, bubble and build in the ponds, never to be returned. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Syncrude’s dam, which holds back nearly three decades of waste water, is the second-largest on Earth after the Three Gorges Dam in China.

“If any one of those were ever to breach and discharge into the river, you’re talking about a world-scale ecological disaster,” Schindler says.

For some, the ecological disaster has already begun.

Two hundred kilometres downriver, where the river empties into Lake Athabasca, sits the hamlet of Fort Chipewyan. It is, at first glance, pristine, the landscape thick with boreal forests and wetlands veined with rivers and creeks that pool into a network of lakes and swampy muskegs that nourish hundreds of species

Here, at the river’s end, the Mikisew Cree have hunted and fished for centuries, living on what the river brought from upstream.

They don’t do that much anymore. Fort Chipewyan has been hit hard in the last 30 years. First, the Bennett dam choked off the Peace River to the west. Water levels in the lake dropped by as much as three metres.

“And you’re talking about a 200-mile-long lake. That’s a lot of water,” says Archie Waquan, a former Mikisew chief. Near sunset, he drives along the community’s single paved road that runs along the shore.

But the water’s edge is further now, a 50-metre stretch of bulrushes and long grass from where he pulls over to look.

“In the ’60s, we’d land our boats right here,” he says, standing on a grassy patch. “Now, it’s just land. How much more water can they take out of that river system before it’s damaged permanently?”

This is not the worst of it.

In 2001, the town’s fly-in doctor, John O’Connor, started noticing a proliferation of a rare cancer of the bile duct found, statistically, in 1 out of 100,000 people. In Fort Chipewyan, with 1,200 people, he found five.

For some, it was further confirmation of what they’d already seen. Fish, a source of food and employment, had started appearing with bizarre mutations – enlarged heads, scrawny bodies. There were reports of jackfish oozing a milky, pus-like substance. After generations of drinking straight from the lake, many here now drink only bottled water, trucked or flown in from hundreds of kilometres away.

The Alberta Cancer Board launched an investigation, and concluded earlier this month that the incidence of cancer was no greater than normal.

Then, another recent scare, when Suncor, as part of its environmental impact assessment for an expansion application earlier this year, investigated the potential for seepage along the river of arsenic, a potent carcinogen, from the plants. The Alberta government is evaluating moose meat and cattails in the Fort Chipewyan region for arsenic content, trying to determine its source.

Waquan doesn’t need to hear the results to draw conclusions. “We never had cancer on this river before,” he says. “It’s got to be coming from somewhere, right? And it’s got to be those oil sands plants.”

The industry flatly denies the implication.

“Those ponds are there to recycle water. And those are engineered dams,” says David Pryce, vice-president, Western Canada operations, for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. “The risk of contaminants leaking into the water table is, frankly, negligible.”

Others, like Schindler, are not so convinced. The industry releases hundreds of compounds, most of them unidentifiable, he says. Of those that are, naphthenic acid and toxic trace metals register high on the hydrocarbon analysis.

“It’s sort of a witches’ brew of things,” he says. “The oil sands have greatly accelerated the release of those things.”

But of paramount concern to Schindler is the uncertainty. For much of the 20th century, the oil sands was deemed too costly to be worth the price of extraction. That changed in recent years, as technology improved and world oil prices shot up to $40, $50 and even $70 a barrel, pushing its development into fast forward.

The relatively short time frame means no real long-term data exists to determine cause and source.

Alberta’s environment minister, Guy Boutilier, says he’s “comfortable with the framework we have for the Athabasca.” But Schindler calls it “an old Alberta trick: If you don’t have data, you can’t say there’s a problem.”

In Fort McMurray, the oil sands frenzy has doubled its population, from 30,000 in 1996 to 64,000. It’s both blessing and curse.

A labour shortage has driven wages to unprecedented heights – $100,000-plus for driving a truck. But housing shortages, an overburdened health system, and increasing social ills – homelessness, drug use, alcoholism – are the costs.

On a bad day, the source of it all hits home: A sour stench from the refineries, spewing sulfur and carbon dioxide, that cloaks the bustling downtown in a throat-burning shroud.

In just a few years, the Fort McMurray area has become the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. By 2015, it’s estimated the town – projected population 100,000 – will emit more greenhouse gases than the entire nation of Denmark, population 5.4 million.

The development is creating vast wealth in the province, both for individuals and governments. In 1998, the provincial government, through its oil sands royalty program, collected $197 million. Next year, that figure will be $1.7 billion.

But many have started to wonder at what cost. A government proposal last year to prioritize oil sands development over all other issues in the north – education, health care, environment – was met with such a public backlash that it was scrapped. As a result, the province has been conducting public consultations across the province all month.

The most recent were in Fort McMurray this week. Boutilier, a former Fort McMurray mayor, was there. He provided a sense of the shifting priorities: During the hearings for Suncor’s expansion recently, Boutilier broke rank with his development friendly government by preaching prudence in the oil sands’ rapid expansion.

“I actually talked about a delicate balance,” Boutilier says. “I talked about sustaining the environment for our grandchildren.”

But many wonder if this is just simple public relations, fuelled by the public backlash.

“I think a lot of Albertans are saying, `okay, do we have enough in

place for the development to take place in the public interest?'” says Dan Woynillowicz, a senior policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank. “And I think a growing number would say no.”

His organization has suggested a moratorium on new approvals until further environmental research can be completed.

`I don’t think anybody who thinks about this realistically can believe it’s sustainable’

David Schindler, University of Alberta

Even former premier Peter Lougheed, an Alberta icon, recently called the oil-sands development “a mess.” And yet, there is no slowing down.

But industry and the government are sensitive to the growing public concerns.

“By no means does a company come to us and walk away with an approval,” says Darin Barter, a spokesperson for the Alberta Energy Utilities Board. “The gold rush mentality you keep hearing about isn’t really occurring.”

Pryce says companies were striving to be “ultra-conservative” in their impacts. “There’s some angst from all parties on this, frankly. But companies are becoming more efficient all the time.”

He warns that a moratorium could stifle the boom. “There are huge investment decisions that hinge on this,” he says. “The Crown is challenged with managing the resource, without scaring off investors.”

That investment is double edged, as the people of Fort McKay know all too well.

Fort McKay, a tiny first nations community of about 500 people dead-centre of all the development, is at the crux of the issue for all aboriginals.

Things have changed here, says Stan Laurent, whose business, Fort McKay Enterprises, supplies support services to the industry. The community has near full employment. All the roads, for the first time, are paved. A new timber-frame complex, which serves as the tribal council’s chambers as well as offices for the Fort McKay group of companies, sits at the river’s edge.

“When you’re smack-dab in the middle of $100 billion worth of development, the community should reflect that,” Laurent says. Fort McKay is a big participant in the development, with plans to start its own mine in partnership with Shell. The natives’ traditional territories are rich in oil. At the roadside, long grasses grow out of the black muck, clearly visible on the surface. As a result, they’ve become one of the wealthiest bands in North America.

Every day, though, the stink of sulfur fills the air. “We’ll be wearing gas masks in a few years,” says Laurent’s wife, Cheryl.

And the lands where the people of Fort McKay have hunted and trapped for millennia are all but gone. “Eight or nine years ago, we would just go out our back doors and be in the bush,” Laurent says. “Now, you sit outside at night, and you can hear it – the heavy haulers, the refineries. That’s just daily life.”

Laurent knows that wealth comes at a cost.

“We can’t just sit here and say, `you can’t do this, you can’t do that,’ and then sit back and expect to benefit from it. If we do that, we’ll be losers as a First Nation,” he says. “We have to move on. There’s not going to be another boat like this one coming through here, and it’s already sailing away. This is our chance to make sure our future is set.”

The lands, most acknowledge, are gone, and for good. Companies have reclaimed abut 5,200 hectares of land by filling in expended pits, creating grasslands and nascent forests; so far, not one hectare has been approved by the province as certified reclamation.

While many companies say they can put the land back exactly as they found it, Schindler calls the claim to rebuild centuries-old muskegs and fens “total nonsense. Wetlands experts from all over the world know there’s no way to put it back, period.”

Cecilia Fitzpatrick, a tribal council member in Fort McKay, acknowledges it’s a steep price to pay. But she also accepts the reality.

“We’ll never go back to a traditional way of life,” she says, seated in an office as slick and modern as any in the corporate canyons of Toronto.

Fitzpatrick grew up in the woods hunting and trapping with her parents. From her office, it’s a short walk to the banks of the river, which she remembers as much higher, much clearer, more blue.

“I wish we could live in a bubble,” she says. “But we can’t. We could sit and watch, and be poor. You can’t fight it, but you can profit from it.

 

“When all is said and done, and all this is gone, we’ll still be
here,” she says. “We need to make sure we’re looked after.”

Schindler believes that vision to be more dream than reality.

“This will be a visible scar on the planet 1,000 years from now,” he
says. “Really, what we should be doing is slowing down. But we’re not.

“We’re making a mess we may never truly be able to clean up.”

=========================================================

Oct 7, 2006. Steve Hargreaves. Curing oil sands fever Despite wide-eyed predictions, serious constraints remain in developing Alberta’s heavy oil.

EW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The answer to America’s oil addiction lies in Canada.

Or so goes one line of thinking. As oil supplies got tighter and crude prices soared over the last few years, tens of billions of dollars flowed into an effort to develop the biggest oil reserve outside Saudi Arabia: Alberta’s oil sands.

Along with the development rush have come rosy predictions on how much this secure, close, proven supply of oil might yield. Four million, 6 million, even 10 million barrels a day, which is nearly half America’s total daily consumption and would easily replace all imports from the Middle East.

The only thing is, those numbers may be far too high.

Making a barrel of clean, light crude from the thick, dirty oil sand uses massive amounts of water, massive amounts of electricity and requires a large pool of labor in an otherwise sparsely populated area.

“People jump to the assumption that we can immediately ramp up to 9 million barrels per day and save the world,” said Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at ARC Financial, a Calgary-based private equity firm. “But it’s just not going to happen.” Stuck in the sand

This isn’t to say the oil sands won’t be a viable energy source. Two hundred miles north of Edmonton, covering an area roughly the size of Florida, they already produce more than 1 million barrels a day.

U.S. majors ConocoPhillips (Charts) and ExxonMobil (Charts), as well as Royal Dutch Shell (Charts), have interests in the area, although Canadian firm Suncor (Charts) and the consortium Syncrude are the biggest players.

Getting a product similar to light crude usually involves one of two methods.

The first uses a model borrowed from open-pit mining, in which the sands are dug out of the ground with heavy equipment, then mixed with steam, hot water and caustic soda to create a slurry.

The slurry then enters a separation tank where bitumen, the valuable product in this process, rises to the top and is skimmed off. The bitumen is then heated again to remove impurities, resulting in a synthetic light, sweet crude that’s easy to refine.

The other method uses a well to inject steam into a seam of oil sand deep below the earth’s surface. The resulting slurry then drains down into a second well drilled below the first, where it’s pumped to the surface.

This eliminates the need to strip-mine the area, but creating the needed steam uses vast amounts of energy.

And energy is the first limitation people bring up at the mention of the oil sands.

Tertzakian said it takes the equivalent of 0.7 barrels of oil to create one barrel of oil sands product.

What’s more, most of the energy needed to make the stuff currently comes from natural gas, an energy-rich, clean fossil fuel.

“It’s like using caviar to make fake crab meat,” said Marlo Raynolds, executive director of the Pembina Institute, a Canadian environmental group.

Experts say most of the natural gas Canada currently exports to the United States will be eaten up by the oil sands projects. To fuel further expansion, they say, Canada will have to import natural gas from Alaska. Some have even suggested going nuclear, although that idea has gained little traction so far.

Another constraint is water. Both extracting methods use huge amounts, up to two barrels for every barrel of oil produced.

Even with production running at one million barrels a year, concerns are already being raised over the drawdown from the major rivers that flow through the region.

“At some point it’s going to reach a tipping point when people say enough is enough,” said Raynolds.

And then there’s the labor question. If you’re looking to make truckloads of money doing mindless work, head to Fort McMurray, the biggest town close to the oil sands.

A quick read of the classifieds at the town’s newspaper turns up jobs selling concessions at the movie theatre paying the equivalent of U.S. $10 an hour. Janitor positions start at $17.

For more skilled workers, a welder can bring in $80,000 a year, more than double the average in the U.S. And that’s without overtime.

“We now have signing bonuses for people who work in coffee shops,” said Tertzakian. “We just don’t have the labor pool to match $90 billion in investment.”

So how much can they pull from the ground in Alberta?

The Canadian government and many of the companies up there put the number somewhere around 4 million barrels per day by 2015, still a significant amount roughly equal to America’s total crude production.

“The production levels aren’t unrealistic at all, it’s just a question of time,” said Sheraz Mian, a senior oil and natural gas analyst at Zacks Investment Research.

But others are less sanguine.  The U.S. Energy Information Administration, not generally known for issuing bearish reports, puts the number at 2.3 million barrels per day by 2015.

Tertzakian estimates maybe 2.5 to 3 million barrels per day and cautions against too much optimism.

“Nobody should feel comfortable that Canada’s oil sands are going to single-handedly satisfy the world’s energy needs,” he said.
=========================================

David Biello. July 2013. Greenhouse Goo. The fate of the Alberta’s tar sands mines and the climate may come down to the Keystone XL pipeline. Scientific American

Caterpillar 797Fs are the worlds largest trucks, capabe of carrying a 400-metric-ton load of tar sands.  Women drivers are sought after because they’re easier on the equipment than men, but hard to find since men outnumber women 3 to 1.

Suncor produces a third of the 2 million barrels produced per day.

 

Alice Friedemann

Posted in Energy, Hazardous Waste, Pollution, Tar Sands (Oil Sands) | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Why Canadian oilsands will not help solve the energy crisis