Carrington & Monbiot vs Bunting & Ahmed (The Guardian)
The real concern about the peak oil debate is the end of cheap energy. Many say that if it wasn’t for a continue supply of energy at a very affordable price the World population would be divided by 7. Because whatever we may think, oil is very cheap when one considers the energy contained in a barrel of the precious hydrocarbon is equivalent of the labor a human can provide during 25 000 hours of work.
The debate about whether the Industry has faced or will face a peak of production has nevertheless punctuated Energy talks as early as 1975 with Hubbert, the father of the peak oil theory. Since then, professionals and observers have torn apart upon the topic. When peak oil theory advocates claimed victory when they saw price skyrocketing as an indication of the end of supply or when the International Energy Agency, which refused to even acknowledge the possibility of peak oil for years, officially admitted it was real in 2006. Peak Oil critics see in the US shale oil industry supremacy as well as the rising of Iraqi production and the continuity of the Saudi supply some clear demonstrations that Peak Oil is a modern myth.
Constantly accusing one another.
OPEC ministers suspected of over estimating reserves, companies executives accused of making easy and fast money before it all collapse or politicians hiding the truth in order to avoid a mass panic. On the other corner of the battle field lie environmentalists’ complotists willing to make their case, scientists renegades hoping for recognition or simply incompetent birds of ill omen wanna be famous.
It remains unclear what kind of actors take part in this worldwide fight of ideas and one could sometimes see an industrial mogul siding with a green activists as well as an NGO employee shouting with the capitalistic hounds.
Here we offer a bizarre game match opposing four journalists who all wrote in the same newspaper, aka The Guardian. First, because it is funny to see such different analysis relayed within the same paper and secondly because it will allow us to write a single summary of The Guardian for this battle, preventing us from seeing our fingers melting on the keyboard.
But most importantly because Watch Ducks focuses mainly on the journalists and not on newspapers.
In one corner Madeleine Bunting and Nafeez Ahmed will both fight for the sake of the Peak Oil theory and on the other corner Damian Carrington and George Monbiot will try to burn it down.
Let’s open the gates of hell.
Different realities:
In their papers Monbiot and Carrington both deny peak oil reality. Monbiot uses historical facts explaining the many times some scientists warned the international community about the imminence of the oil production to peak. Concluding his little demonstration by :” Peak oil hasn’t happened, and it’s unlikely to happen for a very long time.” And later one: “The problem we face is not that there is too little oil, but that there is too much.”
Carrington uses data provided by the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) 2012 report which, according to him, urges decisions makers not to burn “more than one-third of already proven reserves of fossil fuels” by 2050 if they want to prevent global warming to exceed 2 C. Concluding: “We do not have too little fossil fuel, we have far too much.”
On the contrary Nafeez Ahmed and Bunting both claim peak oil is not a myth. Bunting explains that peak advocates have always been put aside of the debate: “Apply that question to peak oil and the answer is that many people did see it coming but they were marginalised, bullied into silence and the evidence was buried in the small print.”
Ahmed tries to highlight the reality of the concept thanks to a BBC documentary critic, claiming an outrageous misinterpretation of data: “Shukman interviewed a range of industry experts talking up the idea that a “peak” in oil production has been “moved to the backburner” – but he obfuscated compelling evidence in his own report contradicting this view.”
Battle of numbers
One of the most widespread technique in this debate is the different interpretations of numbers.
The greatest example is provided by Monbiot and Ahmed. Monbiot claims “Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m” [91 million barrels of liquid fuel per day].
Ahmed quotes an Eos paper: “Global production of crude oil and condensates… has essentially remained on a plateau of about 75 million barrels per day (mb/d) since 2005”.
Monbiot wrote his paper in 2012 and Ahmed in 2013, so we could conclude they don’t have the same numbers or one is lying.
And there it is!
The tricky part of this debate: they are both right. They use however different elements of language to prove their points. We are entering the core point of the dispute: one is talking about “liquid fuels” when the other about “crude oil”.
Check the 2006 IEA report below to understand that they are not talking about the same thing.
Terms used regarding the debate are highly misleading which is a strategy used by both sides.
Development of unconventional oil
The analysis of the upcoming US unconventional oil is also matter of dispute because late discoveries in the US became a change maker.
Monbiot: “Already production in North Dakota has risen from 100,000 barrels a day in 2005 to 550,000 in January.”
Ahmed quoting a James Murray and Jim Hansen’s study: “There is no doubt that the nation’s shale gas resources are immense, but the contention that the United States has a 100-year supply of natural gas is unfounded. The upper limit of supply is likely closer to 23 years using present- day rates of consumption.”
Production vs Cheap energy
Another matter of struggle is to define the issue. All agree on the fact that peak oil is a decrease of the production, not running out of oil.
But on one side, peak oil opponents argue discoveries of new fields made possible by technology developments as well as recoveries of oil we couldn’t reach before are already delaying the Peak itself. Tabling that thanks to the famous 3P reserves (proven, probable and possible): we are yet to discover enormous amount of oil.
On the other hand peak oil advocates ensure that if we can develop fields which were unreachable before it is precisely because the price of oil is rising, and that is because conventional oil is depleting. Opening the chapter of cheap energy.
Bunting argues: “What it made blindingly clear was that peak oil was somewhere in 2008/9 and that production from currently producing fields was about to drop off a cliff. Fields yet to be developed and yet to be found enabled a plateau of production and it was only “non-conventional oil” which enabled a small rise.”
Ahmed quoting the BBC documentary about the Eos report: “supports the assertion that a peak in oil production is ‘a myth’ but argues that the rising cost of extraction could itself provide a limit, and may act as a brake on economic growth.” Pursing in his quotes: “The era of cheap oil is over, but we’re a long way from peak oil – costs will go up but the technology will respond.”
Peak oil is therefore, for the theory advocates, strongly linked to Economic issues: “peak oil can originate from economic as well as geological factors.”
Unconventional developments are not affordable unless the price of oil is high, because its Energy Return on Investment is too low: “it takes energy to get energy, and more is required to produce energy from unconventional sources” Ahmed quotes.
What worries peak oil advocates is not the end of oil per say but rather the end of cheap energy, which will drastically change our ways of lives.
Common and different worries for the future: Global warming and capitalist hunger model
All the authors are convinced about the Global Warming theory and all share concerns about the future of oil exploitation.
If they all are strong critics of the capitalist model, the journalists see different forecasts.
Monbiot is worried the US are once again becoming an oil state leading to the fact that its model is far from being dead and will continue to grow. There is too much oil which will lead to “lives” destruction: “The world’s most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state, and if the political transformation of its northern neighbor is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty.”
Carrington, who also believes there is oil in profusion, is worried about market collapse: “It also follows directly that the world’s stock markets are sitting on toxic levels of subprime coal and gas, a giant carbon bubble ready to explode.”
Ahmed thinks “peak oil is alive and well” but worries “our over-dependence on cheap fossil fuels, we face the prospect of unrelenting economic strangulation.”
For Bunting the major concern is war because of oil hunger:” What made this little graph so devastating was that it estimated energy resources by 2030 that were woefully inadequate for the energy-hungry economies of India and China. Business as usual in oil production threatens massive conflict over sharing it.”
If peak oil theory advocates over-used the 2006 IEA report stating the peak has been reached, opponents over-use oil professionals’ analysis, because one should not forget that their jobs depend upon the precious liquid. Having a mass panic would destroy the markets.
Therefore Watch Ducks wishes to highlight the fact that Monbiot quotes Leonardo Maugeri several times in his paper.
Useful to understand who he is: Maugeri is a well-known professional in the industry; he was an ENI top executive until 2011. ENI is the major Italian oil and gas company.
He has always been a strong critic of the peak oil theory writing several books on the topic as well as a tireless advocate of the “US shale oil boom”. In 2012 he was still executive chairman of the Polimeri Europa a chemical company entirely depending on ENI.
George Mobiot’s We were wrong on the peak oil. There’s enough to fry us all. The Guardian, July 2nd 2012
Twitter: @GeorgeMonbiot
Damian Carrington’s IEA report reminds us peak oil idea has gone up in flames. The Guardian, November 12th 2012
Twitter: @dpcarrington
Nafeez Ahmed’s Peak oil lives, but will kill the economy. The Guardian, July 22nd 2013
Twitter: @NafeezAhmed
Madeleine Bunting’s Too fearful to publicise peak oil reality. The Guardian, November 10th 2009
Twitter: @MBunting_
Founded in 1821 The Guardian is a daily newspaper. Supporting social liberalism the newspaper leaked many scandals among which NSA surveillance activities. Sister paper, The Guardian US received together with the Washington Post the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for public service reporting for their coverage of the National Security Agency’s worldwide electronic surveillance program and the documents leaks by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
