Follow this blog:
RSS

Waiting for the punchline

By | January 9, 2013, 3:00 AM PST

“Has collapse jumped the shark?”

That was the question I shot to Justin Ritchie on Sunday night after seeing The Simpsons‘ brilliant take on the collapse meme, in which Homer joins a small group of “preppers,” stocks a doomsday bunker, and bugs out when the grid goes down, then has a crisis of conscience and steals a load of supplies to bring back to the huddled masses in town — who, it turns out, survived a few days without power just fine and were going about their business as usual.

Ritchie and his fellow grad student friend Seth Moser-Katz produce the outstanding Extraenvironmentalist podcast, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in the themes of peak oil, the end game of debt, environmental degradation, and the prospect of Collapse with a capital “C.” With verve, high production values, and liberal doses of humor, the pair explore these subjects with top thinkers around the world in provocative ways. “Doom without the gloom,” they call it. (In a super-wonky appearance, I discussed oil and gas and energy transition with them in Episode 47.)

Two of their recent episodes spoke to some of the questions I have been wrestling with lately.

In “Market Monsters,” they discussed popular culture’s vogue fascination with monsters and the zombie apocalypse. I nodded in agreement as the guests mused on how these archetypes reflect a growing, unconscious social unease about the hollowing-out of our financial system; the helpless, trapped feelings of cubicle workers; the slow crumbling of our social safety nets and infrastructure; and the generalized, just-under-the-surface fear that seems to be creeping into the hearts of regular folks everywhere, who nonetheless go on pretending in public that everything is fine.

In “Culture of Dying,” author Stephen Jenkinson discusses what he has learned from decades of trying to help people come to grips with death — their own, that of their loved ones, and of our culture more generally. Despite its obvious inevitability for each and every one of us — life is, after all, a fatal condition — Jenkinson explains how our Western cultures abhor death and lack the vocabulary and traditions to embrace it, learn from it, and use it as a vital teaching experience. Instead of caring for them at home as we used to until their final breaths, we now hide our aging elders away in “rest homes” and assisted-care facilities, lest the spectacle of bodily mortification harsh our mellows. We wave the pain of death away with euphemisms like “passing on” and “losing” someone, unable to say the word die, while constantly lionizing youth and youthfulness in every television show, commercial, and popular song. Getting a face, breast, and butt lift isn’t the pathetic reach for immortality that it once was; now, it’s virtually mandatory if you’re a woman over 40 working in Hollywood. It’s not socially acceptable to be sad anymore; we all feel compelled to put on a happy, optimistic face before we head out the door.

Yet, the myriad challenges bearing down on humanity now are terrifying. We very well should be sad about the disappearance of species, the death of coral reefs, the crashing global fish populations. We have every right to the sinking feeling that attends the destruction of ever-more-frequent and intense natural disasters, and we ought to fear the floods, hurricanes and wildfires that surely loom in our future. We damn well ought to be worried about what sort of world our children and grandchildren are going to inherit, and whether there will be any fuel left at all by the time a child born today reaches the age of 87 in the year 2100. It’s not fun and it’s certainly not cool to think or talk about these things, but they are real and serious questions and ignoring them doesn’t make them go away. In fact, it makes them worse.

Jenkinson believes that we must learn to grieve and accept the experience of sadness in our lives, not only as a component of wisdom and mental health, but as a tool for facing the slow death of the culture that arose in the age of “Happy Motoring.” The 20th Century vintage American Dream of getting a good education, holding a good job for 40 years, buying a nice house in the suburbs with a three-car garage, and retiring on a comfortable pension is dead, but we don’t know how to mourn it. We can’t let ourselves experience the sadness of giving up on that idea. And if we do, we dare not let anyone else see our tears.

A close reading of the data conjures a remorseless vision of collapse, or what I have called The Great Contraction. It’s clear that global debt levels are unsustainable and will eventually collapse, despite Infinite QE and all the other attempts to put off the day of reckoning. It’s obvious that no one has any idea where the primary energy will come from to power the world in 2050, let alone 2100. The environment is still being degraded at an alarming rate, climate change is knocking more loudly on our door every day, and we’re nowhere near halting those trends, let alone healing the damage. We are in deep, deep shit, and on some level, everybody knows it.

Freud would have loved this moment in human history. Since we are unable to admit these dark fears and are unwilling to take the corrective actions they demand of us, we have these strange outbursts. Not just the zombie apocalypse visions of The Walking Dead and its ilk, but the panicked irrationality of the preppers so aptly lampooned by The Simpsons. Merely stocking up on guns and ammo is actually a counter-productive response: It won’t produce a single tomato or a kilowatt-hour of energy. It wouldn’t even safeguard your family for more than a few days or weeks, even in the event of an actual zombie apocalypse. But it will — as we found out on that dark, dark day just before Christmas — result every so often in classroom full of dead kids. Reportedly, Adam Lanza’s mother was a prepper. That’s why she had all those guns and taught her son to shoot.

Intention deficit disorder

We march closer to collapse every year, yet our responses to it are becoming more and more detached from reality.

Instead of putting the pedal to the metal on energy transition, we’re telling ourselves unrealistic stories of incipient energy independence.

Instead of concentrating on how we can burn less fossil fuel to cut carbon emissions, we’re pinning our hopes on crazy geoengineering schemes and carbon capture technologies which don’t exist commercially and which will probably never work economically.

Instead of trying to halt our crashing ocean populations and restore our soils, we’re peddling fantasies of artificial vertical farms, floating cities, and massive aquaculture systems, without having the slightest clue where the energy to run them might come from.

Instead of reining in our out-of-control banks and their derivative weapons of mass destruction, and making those who gambled with the entire economy do the perp-walk, we’re handing them trillions of freshly-printed dollars at an effective interest rate of zero.

Instead of using its cash to finance rooftop solar across the country, Google is writing a blank check to Ray Kurzweil to pursue his nutty Singularity vision.

And instead of doing the real work of prepping — like figuring out how to produce our own food and renewable energy, decarbonizing our economies, using and consuming less, and knitting together functionally useful communities — we’re sitting alone in our living rooms, watching apocalypse porn like Doomsday Preppers, or laughing at the whole phenomena along with The Simpsons.

Perhaps collapse really has jumped the shark.

The reality we’re constructing is about as real as the faked-up reality shows we love to watch. While the real world around us groans and crumbles, a single media organization is sending 90 people to cover the latest in gadgets no one really needs at the CES show in Las Vegas this week.

The sad parade

Meanwhile, the pundits of peak oil, collapse, climate change, and all the rest of our knot of looming catastrophes seem to have fallen into a kind of lassitude. Not because their terrifying visions are any less real or fearsome than they were a few years ago, but because they haven’t fully come to pass just yet. After five or ten years of waiting for the punchline, they’ve grown tired, their clenched jaws and steeled spines aching to relax. Like someone who’s been through several years of chemotherapy and radiation in a futile attempt to kill off a terminal cancer, they’re beginning to wish for the End to just hurry up and come, already.

Over the decade that I have been a student of these subjects, I’ve gotten to know many of these people personally. They could hardly be more different than the way that they have been caricatured in the media, and by those with vested interests in the status quo who want to put the peak oil and collapse stories down. Far from being wild-eyed conspiracists, or misanthropes who just hate society and want to see it fail, or hoaxers, or crazed environmentalists, or any of the other nasty labels slung at them, I have found them generally to be quiet, studious, scientifically-minded people who, for whatever reason, latched on to a study of data and eventually realized the terrible implications of it. They don’t want society to collapse any more than the next person; indeed, most of them have suffered enormously to prevent it and get their messages out against a tide of well-funded propaganda, to an audience of poor students who mostly don’t want to hear it. Theirs is a Sisyphean endeavor. They have all sacrificed friends, marriages, jobs, and family relations in their quests for the truth.

Crucially, they have also come to terms with their grief. It seems that most of us who have walked this path took about seven years to get through the five stages of grief Elisabeth Kübler-Ross identified in her 1969 book, On Death and Dying, before finally arriving at Acceptance. Now they look on collapse with a cool resignation, and perhaps a bit of impatience, which should not be confused with eagerness (although it often is).

Our culture at large, however, is still in the beginning stages of the process. One need look no further than the last election (or the comments sections of my columns) to see Denial and Anger on full display.

The cleantech and climate activist communities are slightly ahead of the public, and generally taste of Bargaining, with a few notes of Depression.

It will be a few more years yet before the public catches up, because they are poor students who don’t pay attention in class. They will only get the joke when the punchline is finally delivered and the room erupts in groans, and they look up from their Angry Birds game to ask somebody what just happened.

Whatever. It’s a tough room. I knew that from the first time I appeared on television to talk about peak oil and had one of Wall Street’s beige-blandish analysts call me a “peak freak,” and blather on about the 12 trillion barrels of oil in the ground that will never be recovered, while I was trying to explain why only a little more than one trillion barrels of it will be recovered.

As I explained in my end-of-year post, I think we’ll be kept in suspense for at least another year, and probably two or slightly more, before we see the terminal decline of global oil supply beginning to happen. It will be another year or two after that before the public and politicians catch on, as fuel prices reach truly painful levels. And it will be some years after that before the global economy responds with the denouement of the debt crisis.

By 2020, I’m reasonably confident that the world will recognize that it’s on a downslope, that the climate is truly spinning out of control, and that the ghost of economic growth cannot be resurrected from the grave by Ben Bernanke or any other spiritist. But unlike some of my fellow witnesses to the collapse, I don’t think it will be sudden or short, although I do think it will be punctuated by a few sharp drops. The “collapse” could take a century to play out, which is why I prefer the term “contraction.”

When the slow collapse does come, no one will thank the worrywarts who warned them about it.

Until then, we’ll be treated to headlines like “Oil production highest since 1994″ every month in the U.S. until the tight oil boom peaks and fades around 2016-2018. For those who can still see collapse through that fog, the next few years are going to feel even more like living in an alternate universe than the last three years have. We’ll have to suffer through the mad ravings of people like Alex Jones, the propaganda of the political-industrial complex, and the complicity of the media. But just as night follows day, we’ll finally witness the sad spectacle of the public slowly comprehending its reality, and then experiencing its grief. . . and we’ll recognize that the Occupy and Tea Party movements were mere preludes.

Eventually though, the 200-year-long joke of humanity’s use of fossil fuels will be fully told. Maybe we’re being spoilsports by blurting out the punchline before its time. Maybe it’s better to party hearty for now and let everybody else enjoy the telling. Sure, the toll and the grief could be lessened if we had a little foresight and took action earlier, but maybe that’s not the objective here. Maybe it makes a better story, and a wiser species in the end, if we enter the jaws of collapse blind and ungirded, decorated in silks and gold, full of hubris, shaking our fists as we declare our triumph to the heavens.

Photo: “what i love in autumn” (Eddi van W./Flickr)

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Chris Nelder

About Chris Nelder

Chris Nelder is SmartPlanet's energy columnist.

Chris Nelder

Chris Nelder

Columnist, Energy

Chris Nelder is an energy analyst and consultant who has written about energy and investing for more than a decade. He is the author of two books on energy and investing, Profit from the Peak and Investing in Renewable Energy, and has appeared on BBC TV, Fox Business, CNN national radio, Australian Broadcasting Corp., CBS radio and France 24. He is based in California.

Follow him on Twitter.

Chris Nelder

Chris Nelder

Chris may or may not have financial holdings in the companies he writes about at the time of publication, as he is an active investor and trader in equities and ETFs. He also occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it. Chris prominently discloses this information when appropriate. These relationships have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet, but is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
67
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Yellowstone
Just wait until Yellowstone blows, decimates the midwest, and puts the world into a "nuclear winter" where we lose at least one full global growing season. With a death toll that could easily reach the billions you'd think we would wake up and see what we're doing to ourselves.
Posted by DonBaun
9th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Billion dead well that would give the rest of us some breathing room
For most that world is to scary so they will like everything else most humans like to do. They will make it into a parity and make believe it could never happen. Take into consideration the amount of religiosity and well don't expect much from most of society.
Posted by Kiljoy616
13th Jan
+5 Votes
+ -
The World as 'world'
Thanks for the piece, Chris.

Lots to talk about. I mean LOTS.

One thing that you don't treat, and which will play a huge role, is the paroxysms of geo-political mayhem that will be precipitated by the rolling denouement of the multiple story lines that you describe and of which we are all, mostly (even if only at a certain level) aware.

China's place in the global economy is growing by leaps and bounds. They do not have --and no such large state could have-- a truly stable society and government structure. Their one reliable available strategy for forcing domestic discipline is the demonization of foreign states and cultures. In full swing, and once the size of domestic markets challenges the export markets upon which they depend, they can easily create the most advanced and largest military capability in the world at a much smaller fraction of GDP than is achievable in the Western economies now. And in that same vein of discussion. The current economic crisis befalls a heavily leveraged US economy that has spent vast amounts of its domestic and foreign debt on what is the world's currently largest and most powerful militaries. The Chinese and US respective climb and decline curves will cross; probably within ... hmmm ... fifteen years? Ten? Eight?

China and te US are merely the two largest single factors on our political and economic landscapes. But since, alone, they are capable of bringing about complete, sudden, alteration of the status quo, the mind cannot even bring itself to boggle when we think about everything else than can be served up by any number of combinations of other players: the prospect of too much confusion is a sedative.

I think that this is basically what this is all about. Psychologists are finding that the only way to make people resist or even deny a hard truth is to explain more about it.
Posted by waltpalmer
9th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
The China-US crossover
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Walt. You've raised an important question - one I have been thinking about and might explore in a future column. How the US-China relationship plays out over the coming decades could be mutually beneficial in a big way, or it could be hugely and mutually self-destructive. Definitely something to keep an eye on.
Posted by Chris Nelder
9th Jan
-4 Votes
+ -
Frack China
China is now scrambling to duplicate the success of the US with fracking. If they can pull it off the global price of natural gas will crash and it will drag the global oil price down with it. You're not going to see a BTU of oil trade at 5X the price of a BTU of gas on an international basis, the global economy has too much gas-for-oil switching capacity for this to happen. Besides, China shale is probably wet enough to be a significant oil supply in it's own right.

I look for China to become an emerging energy super-power in 2020, and the US to become extracting it's vast coal-gasification options around that time. Peak oil is dead for a quarter century at least, I doubt your young enough to see it come back Chris. Your seriously kidding yourself if you think it will rebound in 2 years.

Of course the wild card is Middle Eastern shale. No-one's even tried to look at what can be fracked there. Did you notice that the birth of oil (Pennsylvania) is now a hot-bed of fracking? Hmm..... A quarter century might be too quick, peak oil might be dead for the next 100 years.
Posted by James.McMurtry
Updated - 9th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
If not peak oil now the result could be much worse
Ok, James, let's say you're right and we'll frack our way to energy independence here in the good old US of A (and in China and lots of other places). That will mean we'll be stuck with our oil addiction for... let's say 100 more years as you suggest. Well, that's going to royally screw up the climate (even worse) and raise CO2 levels in the ocean even more (thus lowering pH and killing off huge parts of the marine ecosystem). Ocean pH levels are, I think, the most immediate threat posed by burning fossil fuels. Ocean pH levels are falling rapidly (at least given the size of the ocean) and that's not only going to impact coral reefs (corals will not be able to grow or even live in the lower pH waters) but also shell fish and plankton. You kill off enough of that stuff and most higher life forms on the planet are pretty much toast.

I think if you're right we're facing a bigger ecological disaster than if we are in peak oil right here and now. If we find that there's still more "plentiful", "cheap" oil available to us for the burning people will continue buying gigantic SUVs not only here in the US, but also in China. If you're right, then we won't face up to the ecological problem. If we have peak oil now, then we'll be forced to use less of the stuff and that will (eventually) help mitigate the ecological problem. If we don't and you're right then we won't do anything meaningful to correct our course.

...and then there's the issue of fracking itself... Do we really want widespread fracking?
Posted by phineus
Updated - 9th Jan
-3 Votes
+ -
Gigantic SUVs? That's using scare tactics, which is what the environmental
wackos always use to try to legislate their way into societies.

Why does it have to be simply SUVs? Why not clean and energy efficient SUVs? They are being produced now as we speak, and people are actually buying them and driving them.

The problem with the environmental agenda, is that, it doesn't care to listen ot the other side's views.

Besides, the ecological disaster idea came from the "global warming" junk science, which is basically an agenda driven research, which then makes that research, completely bogus and faulty and fraudulent.

Chris is driven by the same agenda, and, though he may sprinkle a few facts along the way in his articles to try to lend some sort of credibility to his overall assertions, the bigger point to him, is the environmental agenda. There is nothing wrong with having an environmental agenda, but it shouldn't be one that is based on faulty science,and on a social agenda to add more control over people's lives.
Posted by adornoe
9th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
sure and reality takes a back seat?
Why not clean SUV because reality has a way of inserting it self. That much weight is not something you can just put change in a way that will impact fuel economy. I own 2 I don't need to care because of my financial security but I don't kid my self that they are clean or fuel efficient. As I posted above fantasy seems to run deep for most people.
Posted by Kiljoy616
13th Jan
-2 Votes
+ -
climate change is a different challenge
Nelder is a peak-energy guy. He staked his flag there. Peak-energy is now deader than a doornail, thanks to fracking.

Perhaps Nelder should stop carrying this "peak oil will doom us" sign and switch to carrying a "climate change will doom us".

"..and then there's the issue of fracking itself... Do we really want widespread fracking?" Considering that fracking has been widely used for 5 decades, I think the answer is yes.

The shale energy boom resulted from combining fracking with super-accurate long range horizontal drilling and carefully engineered frack fluids. Fracking is just the scare word the environmental nuts have latched on. Nelder has enough integrity to admit that shale energy is no worse, from an environmental standpoint, than anything else the oil industry has done.
Posted by James.McMurtry
9th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
reality check
Rooftop solar? EV cars? carbon free/carbon taxed? How? No one can afford to pay 2-10x as much for energy. No one is willing to regress to Amish levels of technology, and there's no money left to blow on pie in the sky dreams. Stop researching the environment, stop complaining about the enviromnent. Put your effort into economically effective solutions instead. find cheap hydrogen, invent something. NO OTHER SOLUTION WILL WORK OR BE ACCEPTED. Anything else is pissing into the wind. Clear enough guys?
Posted by copracr
22nd Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
Actually, there is an interdependence between the U.S. and China, and China
could not have grown its economy to where it is now, without the U.S. shipping a lot of its production needs to China.

For China to grow to a point where it becomes a big threat to the U.S. economically, it would mean that the U.S. had declined to a point where its people were in very desperate economic times. But, that's a paradox which many people fail to see, that, if the U.S. does get to a point of desperate economics, that China itself would also because of that decline.

Basically, China is a "dependent" country, and it does not have the same independent structure that defines a self-sustaining economy, which could take care of its own population.

As goes the U.S., so goes China. That shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Posted by adornoe
9th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
What's to be Gained by Geo-Political Mayhem in a Fenced in World?
wallpalmer,

Perhaps, I'm naive, but only in America do we have such a virulent anti-logic and science denialist cult of almost religious proportions as are evidenced in a lot of the comments here. As the Great Contraction sets in, I've got to think that most of the world realizes that the next guy (country) has nothing worth spending needed treasure to steal. If there's geo-political mayhem in the years to come, we're the most likely suspects to be in the thick of it, most likely in the Middle East, where they will greatly regret ginning up their reserve figures.
Posted by Ron Shook
9th Jan
-4 Votes
+ -
Yes, you are naive.
And, what the heck is that "anti-science, denialist" crap?

The ones destroying the scientific method, are the environmental wackos, and their agenda driven "global warming" science. That is not science; that is junk science, aka: crap.

Once the "climate change" or "global warming" science uses proper research, not driven by an agenda, then they'll gain some credibility, but till then, they are nothing more than shysters, looking to pass control over people's lives, via junk science.
Posted by adornoe
10th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Slip the Shoe on, Daddy!
adomoe wrote, "And, what the heck is that "anti-science, denialist" crap?"

The heck would be you, sir! Are you living large on the climate change denial and lying fossil fool abundance boosterism you attempt to sow? Folks with reasoning faculties know you for what you are.
Posted by Ron Shook
10th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Ideology doesn't work in science
adornoe, you have demonstrated here time and again an ideologically driven agenda that largely ignores the real world. You wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it came up and slapped you in the face. You'll never believe what climate scientists find unless by some miracle they end up finding evidence that agrees with your ideology.
Posted by riverat1
11th Jan
-6
In summary, Chris is asking the world: Why aren't you listening to me?
Posted by adornoe  |  Below your threshold
+2 Votes
+ -
All sides
"perhaps the opinions and opposition from others should be considered, and perhaps there is worthy information to be gained from the opposition" Pidgeonholing and apparently assuming that everyone must address every possible issue at all times is not really effective argumentation. But the part I quoted makes good sense for all of us.
Posted by dave3137
9th Jan
-3 Votes
+ -
When it comes to the human species, there will always be disagreements,
and opinion and opposing views should always be taken into consideration. Otherwise, it would just be an environment where the ones with the loudest voices get to rule. The environmental lobby is a very loud one, and they won't rest until they have their way, even when they might be in the minority.
Posted by adornoe
9th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
I disagree with some of your comments too!
You said: "He'll talk about disappearing species, while disregarding the well-known fact that, species have been disappearing from our planet from the very beginning, and they've been disappearing before humans came on board or before fossil fuels were even used."
Yes, this has happened since the beginning of time, it is the survival of the fittest. But, that is not what Chris is talking about. He is commenting on the speed that species are disappearing now. Never before have we been losing this many species.
Posted by k8 br
9th Jan
-6
None of what you said, or what Chris said regarding the disppearance of
Posted by adornoe  |  Below your threshold
+3 Votes
+ -
Disappearance of whole ecosystems
Right, I think Chris is talking about the disappearance of entire ecosystems. For example, if the pH of the oceans falls enough (and we are seeing it falling now) then coral reefs will be killed off entirely. That would be a catastrophic loss of an entire ecosystem. It doesn't take much of a drop in pH in the oceans (due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere) to do something like that... it would also lead to the loss of most shellfish as they would not be able to form shells.

It's interesting the folks who say "We've always been losing species, what's the big deal?" seem to not think about the catastrophic scenarios we are now facing - the unfolding events have much more akin with a massive meteor strike that wiped out the dinosaurs only this time it could ultimately be us.
Posted by phineus
9th Jan
-3 Votes
+ -
Ecosystems disappear on their own, without the help of humans.
Dinosaurs disappeared without the help of humans. Twice!!!

Many other species also disappeared from the planet, via "climate change", but not because of the human use of fossil-fuels.

What happens in nature, is mostly driven by natural forces.

In fact, the Tsunami in the far east in 2004, caused large masses of the earth's crust to be shifted into different positions, which would disturb a lot of the species below and above water, and which also caused some change in the weather pattern, however small that was. The earth is undergoing constant change, and little by little, and for long periods of time, the weather patterns will have changed completely from what they are today, and all of that will have occurred naturally, and without the help of humans. Unless, of course, the environmental wackos want to attribute tectonic plate migration to SUVs and the "deniers".

The stupidity of the environmentalists never fails to amaze.
Posted by adornoe
10th Jan
-5 Votes
+ -
Malthus Rides Again
Chris "Malthus" Nelder. What a hoot. One supposes this is inevitably what happens when a software engineer with a chip on his shoulder decides to become an "energy expert."

For the entire history of the petroleum industry to date, we've been drilling for the left overs - the hydrocarbons that are actually expelled from the source rocks, and then trapped by chance in sparse, isolated rock formations that happen to be favorably configured to trap hydrocarbons. As one might imagine, despite the large volumes we've produced historically from these "conventional" reservoirs, these volumes represent only a *TINY* fraction of the hydrocarbons actually present in the source rocks themselves.

We know have the first generation of drilling and fracturing technology in the U.S. capable of targeting the source rocks directly. The potential reserves in these source rocks *DWARF* all the hydrocarbons produced by the industry to date.

There is nothing unique about America's petroleum producing geologic basins; the source rocks in these basins are similar to those found in every petroleum producing basin throughout the world. As the new drilling and fracking technology inexorably disseminates to the rest of the world, shale gas and liquids production will become the norm. The entire world will be swimming in a glut of oil and gas.

Bottom line: We won't hit peak oil in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime. Ain't technology grand?
Posted by tthor
9th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Then things will be even worse
If you're right and fracking technology will lead us to a shining future with giant SUVs for all... then we're screwed even worse from an ecological perspective. if oil remains relatively cheap we'll keep burning the stuff and that will lead to even more problems with our climate and oceans. If you're right I think it would actually be the worst case scenario - the only thing that's curbed oil use in the past has been price increases. If oil remains relatively plentiful we will not curb our use of the stuff and we'll damage our ecosystem irreversibly.
Posted by phineus
9th Jan
-6
What you are doing, is repeating the talking points which the anti-fossil
Posted by adornoe  |  Below your threshold
+2 Votes
+ -
Waiting for the punchline
Powerful language. May be you are perfectly correct.
Human beings have a strange power to adapt. May be he will be able to overcome the difficulties.
In the mean time, let those who want to enjoy, let them do it in their own way.
I am a third world Scientist.
Gopinathan Krishnan
Posted by Gopinathan Krishnan
9th Jan
-3 Votes
+ -
Waiting for the punchline
There are solutions, he has a gloom and doom outlook. Technological solution stories on smartplanet should give people hope.
Posted by Thomas Patterson
9th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Unbelievable! A Must Read.
This is probably the best article I`ve read anywhere in over a year. What an amazing and refreshing perspective!

It is absolutely the best thing I`ve read this year and sets an extremely high bar for every op/ed piece I`ll read in 2013.

Good luck topping this.
Posted by Mtippit123
9th Jan
-4 Votes
+ -
Absolutely the best thing you've read this year? You need to get out more,
and you need to read more, otherwise, you will continue to be led down the path of the ill-informed.
Posted by adornoe
9th Jan
-2 Votes
+ -
Jumped the shark is right
What a horrible, horrible time to be a peak-energy doomer. It must pain you, deeply, to look at the Henry Hub price every morning.

Today it's around 3.10 per MMBTU. Normalizing against median household income, this is the cheapest natural gas has been in the history of America. And let's not forget, a BTU of natural gas is the most useful BTU of fossil fuel known to man, incredibly clean to burn and hyper-efficient at performing useful work. A modern natural gas power plant approaches twice the efficiency of an aging coal plant, when comparing BTU's in to kilowatt hours out.

The coming decade, and the associated explosion of shale energy in America will make these Nelder postings more quaint and humorous. I expect, by 2020, people will read such things and laugh ... "can you believe supposedly smart people actually worried where the energy was going to come from".

If it makes you feel better Chris, I doubt any news show will have you on anytime soon. Your peak oil background now has you on the wrong side of history.

Keep your tin-foil hat on tight Chris. The shale gale is going to blow long and hard.
Posted by James.McMurtry
Updated - 9th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Be careful, or Chris will refer to you as one of the "negative" commenters
in his next blog.
Posted by adornoe
9th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
don't worry
Chris actually thinks there is only one negative commenter that follows him everywhere and uses different aliases. It's all part of his wonderfully florid imagination.

Actually, there are many people who gritted their teeth when clowns like this were taken seriously in '08, and now get their kicks by kicking Chris while he's down. Should be good sport for the next 2 decades are so. Welcome to the "Kick Chris" club adorne. You can follow his (sadly infrequent) media appearances by watching his http://www.getreallist.com/ blog, which nicely tracks his every move.
Posted by James.McMurtry
10th Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
No thanks. Don't want to add to his "popularity" by visiting anything to do
with him.

Remember, even the negative comments, add to his visibility, and his popularity.
Posted by adornoe
10th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
This is your warning: don't troll.
We won't hesitate in giving you the boot for personal attacks.

Disagree with him as much as you want, but don't be a dick.
Posted by andrew.nusca
10th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
fair enough
There is certainly plenty of opportunity for disagreement.
Posted by James.McMurtry
10th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Thank You Andrew
I'm glad you are not sleeping at the switch. These two are viscous.
Posted by Marcus Of Arrington
11th Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
Over Population
A lot of the problems that Chris Nelder wrote can be attributed to human over population. The seas are overfished because of the increase of people, the fossil fuels are burned at increasing rates to support the world of humans.

There have been population studies using rats put into a finite space but with enough food for all. It does not take long for the population of rats to increase to see the effects of the stress caused by crowding, even though there is enough food and water for all. At a point near peak population the rats start acting differently and more aggressively. Food and water is cheap but a nest is dear and hard to keep. The researchers saw rats do things that rats don't do in the wild, things like murder and violence against each other. Then at the peak of population the rats suddenly die off until it is back to a more normal population.

Humans are a social group and can tolerate some crowding, but in the past there was always unsettled land that people can migrate to escape the crowds. We are running out of unsettled land that can support the crops and animals needed to survive. We are seeing increasing and irrational actions by a growing group of violent men and women.

With this view, Malthus was an optimist. Mankind has been extremely clever at finding solutions that help add to the human population without forcing groups to feast and famine conditions.
Posted by sboverie
9th Jan
-3 Votes
+ -
You and Chris have a duty to "leave" the world, in a method of your choice,
in order to help the planet,

But, don't stop there. I would suggest to all that feel that the globe is overpopulated, that they too have a duty to help the planet by, not breeding and/or dying early.

Studies have been conducted that showed that, the world is easily capable of sustaining a population of 20 billion or more, with food and and whatever else is needed. But, a self-sustaining world population is not what the liberal/socialist agenda is about; it's about control of that population, by whatever means necessary. Part of the agenda includes scaring people into doing things to get that agenda implemented.

Some people, like Chris, may pretend that, it is he and his co-alarmists who care about the world's condition, but it's mostly a fake concern. That fake concern is used to try to advance the alarmists' agenda.
Posted by adornoe
10th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Ironic
It is possible that the earth can support 20 bilion people, but it is not that probable. Using your own words, people will always disagree. On a talk back that usually is a polite agreement to disagree; but you make it personal and impolite.

Let me assure you that my death will come as will yours. We actually are closer to agreement on things but the main difference between us is that I do not need to be right and actually would prefer to be wrong about what I wrote.

In a world with over 7 billion humans, there are so many small wars, threats of aggression and misery. To triple that and think that there will be no aggression of one group against others is magical thinking.

To talk about possible negative changes is not alarmist, it is considering patterns and conditions as a warning to either prevent or prepare for those events. Besides, your strident comments have not disproved anything other than you have respect for others.

do not bother to respond, I will not check this discussion again.
Posted by sboverie
12th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Why do societies choose to fail?
As we look back in history at the great civilizations that came before, we notice one thing. They are all dead. In virtually all cases, there were doom-sayers who saw it coming. But no one listened to them. Where are they now, the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Mayans? The ruins of their great civilizations remain after each and every one of them fell. But some small smidgen of the people remained. Humans survived, even if the civilizations did not. Given this terrible trend in human history, why do so many people think that our modern civilization will somehow escape the cyclical fate of our ancestors?
Posted by mheartwood
9th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Don't forget to add the U.S. and the UK as one of those extinct
civilizations.

What England used to be, started disappearing long before the U.S. revolutionary war. And the U.S. started its downward slide towards insignificance when the people started deciding that, big government was preferable to self-governance, self-reliance, and their freedoms. It's only a matter of time before the U.S. becomes a third-world country, and we're way on the way towards that finality.
Posted by adornoe
10th Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
Bonkersville, USA
Chris, old buddy, you've gone and done it this time. The denialist fossil fools have driven in their monster SUV's straight to Bonkersville. All they can sputter is drilling enough holes to burn this planet down, after turning it into a wasteland. All it took was Kunstleresqe resignation. Bravo!

They may not appreciate your research and real numbers but I do.

I'm having trouble finding a number and wonder whether you might have access to it without too much trouble. Is there any average number that can be put to the overall output of a natural gas frack well, i.e., how much gas will come out of the average NG fracked well by the time it's too miniscule to deal with, counting dry holes and all? Do I remember correctly that output falls precipitously over the first year to 10% of original output and continues to fall slowly in subsequent years for the 5-10 year life of the well? Looking for a cumulative average per drilled and fracked well, today, realizing that over time that average output will fall because of the first and easiest fruits principle? I understand that it's liable to be real tentative with questionable accuracy.

Thanks if you can help!
Posted by Ron Shook
Updated - 10th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Production from shale gas wells
Hi Ron,

One could calculate the average production of all shale gas wells in the US, I suppose, and somebody probably has, but it wouldn't be very useful. Production varies widely from play to play, and even within the plays. I.e., the "sweet spots" in a given play will be much more productive than the ones on the edges. If you look back through my archive of shale gas stories you'll find some data and production charts on the various plays. And yes, all shale gas wells have steep decline profiles for the first year. Most of them show a quasi-hyperbolic profile.
Posted by Chris Nelder
10th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Numbers and More Numbers
Thanks Chris, I think I can extrapolate from numbers found here: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/the-murky-future-of-us-shale-gas/157
Posted by Ron Shook
10th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Nope, it's simply supply and demand
Gas production in the US has flattened simply because we're producing more than we can use. In fact, natural gas storage for this time of year is at near record levels for the past 12 years ( http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/ngs.html ). As a result, the price is near the cost of production (around $3.50) and producers have shifted from producing shale gas to producing shale oil.

What you are "extrapolating" as the beginning of the end is actually evidence of overabundance.
Posted by zackers
11th Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
yes thank you zackers
The point is simply this

-> there is a huge amount of natural gas waiting for $4.
-> $4 IS cheap energy

ergo ....

in the USA we have an abundance of cheap energy.

Obvious, no? This is what Nelder is mourning. The presence of cheap energy.
Posted by James.McMurtry
11th Jan
-3 Votes
+ -
the nelder walk of shame
". If you look back through my archive of shale gas stories " what you'll actually find is a lot of doom and gloom predictions that are now proving spectacularly false.

Aubrey Mclendon is the next Bernie Madoff, if only we wait long enough his fraud will be exposed, that kind of stuff.
Posted by James.McMurtry
10th Jan
-4 Votes
+ -
Bonkersville, huh? If you were to be honest with yourself, and also looked
at the "competing" data regarding the production of fossil-fuels and of natural gas, chances are that, you'd notice that, what you and Chris "believe", is the part that makes you and Chris the real "bonkersville".

A "denier" is a denier, not because he wants to just be rebellious, but because he is a proponent of real research and real science, which is not part of an agenda.

You have not learned what real science is, and real science is not what the "global warming" alarmists practice.

Keeping the planet clean and safe? Who wouldn't want that? But, who wants to bastardize real science just to achieve his/her political goals?
Posted by adornoe
Updated - 10th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Real science
You have yet to demonstrate that you know what real science and research is. Most of the things that climate scientist have expected to happen are happening, often faster than they expected.
Posted by riverat1
11th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
All We Like Yeast (have gone astray)
Chris speaks to my condition exactly.
Franny Armstrong said it first; if you give yeast carbon energy (ie sugar) what does it do? It gobbles up the energy as fast as it can, reproduces out of control and dies in its own waste products. And there's nothing we are doing that is any different.
Except that we are supposed to be clever enough to realise it.
And with yeast, at least you get beer and bread in the end..
Posted by jamie.wrench
10th Jan
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!