Interview with Bob Hirsch - The Stonewalling of Peak Oil

[GliderGuider]

Interview with Bob Hirsch - The Stonewalling of Peak Oil
on September 7, 2009

Question: What have been your primary areas of focus during your energy career?

Hirsch: I started out in nuclear power. Then I did fusion research and later managed the government fusion program. I spent a lot of time with renewables over the years, including managing the federal renewables program. From there I went to the oil industry where I managed long range refining research and then synthetic fuels. Later I managed upstream research and development—exploration and production of oil and gas. Still later, I spent time in the electric power industry—all aspects of electric power. And then I got into energy studies and have been doing them for a number of years with Rand, SAIC, and now MISI. That’s it from the work standpoint; from another standpoint I’ve been involved with the National Academies in energy studies since 1979 and have been involved in almost every aspect of energy through the Academies, either as a committee participant or as Chairman of their Board on Energy and Environmental Systems.

Question: When did you first learn about the peak oil issue?

Hirsch: I learned about peak oil after I got out of the oil industry, because there was essentially no talk about it when I was involved. In the early 2000s I did a study for the DOE dealing with long range energy R&D planning. One of the six drivers that I came up with was peak oil; I had never really thought about it prior to that. It’s kind of a “tar baby”; once you get your hands into it, you can’t get your hands off of it. When oil production goes into decline, it’s going to be a defining issue for humanity. So I’ve been involved for six or seven years in analyzing oil peaking and its mitigation.

Question: How did the 2005 peak oil study for DOE’s NETL come about?

Hirsch: It was basically my creation. I was working with DOE NETL at the time, and they gave me a great deal of leeway to look into important subjects. I felt that peak oil was extremely important, so I did some study on my own and then proposed to NETL that I do a much larger study, with Roger Bezdek and Bob Wendling, who are extremely capable guys, who I had worked with along the way, and who were very pragmatic about energy and the real world. NETL accepted. I already was under contract, and they added Roger and Bob.

We coordinated closely with NETL as we did the study, so they had input and knew what was coming. But when they saw the final report, it shocked them, even though they could see what was coming. This is nothing negative about people at NETL, but when you’re thinking about other things most of the time, bad news creeping up on you doesn’t necessarily capture your attention immediately.

When the report was done, management at NETL really didn’t know what to do with it because it was so shocking and the implications were so significant. Finally, the director decided that she would sign off on it because she was retiring and couldn’t be hurt, or so I was told. The report didn’t get widely publicized. It somehow was picked up by a high school someplace in California; eventually NETL put it on their website. The problem for people at NETL—and these are really good people—was that they were under a good deal of pressure to not be the bearers of bad news.

Question: Under pressure from whom?

Hirsch: From people in the hierarchy of the DOE. This was true in both Republican and Democrat administrations. There is, I think, ample evidence, and some people in DOE have gone so far as to say it specifically, that people in the hierarchy of DOE, under both administrations, understood that there was a problem and suppressed work in the area. Under President Bush, we were not only able to do the first study but also a follow-on study that looked at mitigation economics. After that, visibility apparently got so high that NETL was told to stop any further work on peak oil.

Yes, that was terrible. And it was strictly politics and political appointees—I have no idea how far up in either administration (the current one and previous one) these issues went or now go. People in the Clinton administration had talked about peak oil, including President Clinton and Vice President Gore, and the same thing is true in the Bush administration, and the same is true, to the best of my knowledge, in the Obama administration.

The peak oil story is definitely a bad news story. There’s just no way to sugar-coat it, other than maybe to do what I’ve done on occasion and that is to say that by 2050 we’ll have it right and we will have come through the peak oil recession—quite probably a very deep recession. At some point we’ll come out of this because we’re human beings, and we just don’t give up. And I have faith in people ultimately. But it’s a bad news story and anybody’s who’s going to stand up and talk about the bad news story and is in a position of responsibility in the government needs to then follow immediately and say “here’s what we’re going to do about it,” and no one seems prepared to do that.

Peak oil is a bigger issue than health care, than federal budget deficits, and so forth. We’re talking about something that, to take a middle of the road position—not the Armageddon extreme and not the la-la optimism of some people—is going to be extremely damaging to the U.S. and world economies for a very long period of time. There are no quick fixes.

Question: Given where we are today, if you were made energy czar, what policy initiatives would you pursue?

Hirsch: If I was involved in the government at a high level, I would argue very strongly to the president that he needs to take national and international leadership on the problem. He should do some homework to be sure that he hears what the issues are — do it quietly — and then stand up and say, “world and country, we’ve got a very serious problem and here is what my administration is going to do about it.” That’s what I would argue for because somebody has to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes. That’s going to be very difficult because people don’t like to hear bad news, and this is terrible news, and as it sinks in, markets will drop and there will be an immediate recessionary reaction, because people will realize that this is such a horrendous problem that having a positive outlook on employment and the economy is just simply unrealistic.

More at the link.

[jwirr]

1. You are right I do not like to hear bad news but the truth even when

it is bad is the only thing that can allow me to get ready for the actions I need to take. I for one would like some guidance in this preparation. Sure we are doing things but there is no real community plans. It seems to be everyone for themselves.

[Terry in Austin]

2. It's still the elephant in the room

Best way to empty a room in about thirty seconds is simply to utter the phrase "peak oil."

Sigh.

Hirsch's counsel is sound, I believe, about taking a moderate position:

not the Armageddon extreme and not the la-la optimism of some people

[GliderGuider]

3. The IEA knows too: Censored by TOD???

Peak Oil and the IEA (What they don’t want you to know…)

Dr. Fatih Birol, Chief-Economist of the International Energy Agency (the agency which advices OECD countries on oil, including the US) and “one of the most powerful men on earth” according to the British newspaper, The Guardian<1> has lately attracted extensive media attention.

Indeed, in a recent interview to the British newspaper, The Independent<2>, Dr. Birol was reported of saying that the world was heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery.

The article added, “In an interview with The Independent, Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years – at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated”.

On the 26th of November 2008, I sent an interview request to Dr. Birol, in order to discuss how Peak Oil would affect International Relations (my degree’s dissertation topic). While he was first “delighted” to meet with me (as reported by his assistant), he then cancelled the meeting. Nevertheless, Dr. Birol asked me to meet one of his “senior colleagues” at the IEA, Olivier Rech.

On the 18th of December 2008, I met Mr. Rech at the IEA HQ in Paris.

Mr. Rech, who was a key contributor to the 2008 WEO, clearly recognised the reality and seriousness of the impending crisis (yes, Peak Oil is real and yes, ASPO is likely to be right). As an example, he declared that:

“What we understand today by mobility, such as spending a weekend at 1000 km, maybe in 20 years, the height of exoticism will be to go on a weekend at 20km of distance”<15>.

During the conversation, Mr. Rech also mentioned the difficult topic of global population in a post-Peak Oil world:

“(Dr. Colin) Campbell effectively says that agricultural production will collapse because fertilisers will run out, by a lack of fuel and that the variable of adjustment to the problem will be the global population. Frankly I don’t know. It is so cataclysmic that me, I, I reach my limits. I reach my intellectual limits on that.”<16>

So while the British Government (and many others) declares that it "does not feel the need to hold contingency plans specifically for the eventuality of crude oil supplies peaking between now and 2020"<17>, a senior energy expert at the IEA –the body that advices our governments on oil- who wrote part of the 2008 WEO, cannot rule out the death of a significant part of humankind in the coming decades.

The following analysis on the Peak Oil debate from Chris Holtom, the former head of British military intelligence, nowadays a strategic consultant to the oil & gas industry, gives valuable information:

“There is a pack of deceit and economy with the truth here - some wilful, some born of ignorance, or fear of "group-think" related to stock price or employment. It needs careful and persuasive exposure of agendas, motives and possible consequences... Peak Oil is a potential Black Swan event, where the consequences are so great that after it we spend most of our time justifying why we didn’t anticipate it… It is a global issue and global bodies need the clout and courage to address them.”<25>

This article was originally submitted to The Oil Drum<27> (one of the leading Peak Oil news webpage). While the editors initially accepted to publish the article, at the very last moment they changed their mind. In other words, an article on Peak Oil was censored by… The Oil Drum (TOD). The reasons why?

“I know there are at least a few people who think we should be putting the IEA in as favorable light as we can. So I have decided not to run it…” (Gail the Actuary, Editor, 2 September 2009).

However, to be fair with TOD, some of their members did not support this action:

“Sorry to hear about what's going on regarding your article and TOD… 1) this is something that TOD should publish, and 2) this kind of censorship, as you point out, isn't something that we should take any part in.” (Jeff Vail, 2 September 2009).

At the end, they wouldn’t accept it. If even TOD starts to censor information on Peak Oil…

[Bigmack]

4. Jeeeze Louise....When TOD

backs away from the truth, it scares the bejesus outa me..... Ms Bigmack

[Nihil]

5. K'd & R'd for this reply more than the OP

Fascinating (in a train-wreck type of way).

[joshcryer]

6. Niggling issue; fertilizers come from natural gas, not petroleum.

That is all.

[GliderGuider]

7. Campbell expects a "Peak NG" scenario to play out aproximately concurrent with "Peak Oil" /nt

[joshcryer]

8. Fair enough.

I thought NG was expected to last much longer. Coal for even longer than that.