An urgent campaign: Undermining the "official story" on Peak Oil

[Subdivisions]

The general attitude in the United States with regard to oil and gasoline is that there is plenty and that we won't run out anytime soon but when we do, indeed, eventually run out of oil we will have developed alternatives. But what if Peak Oil is now? And if it is, what of the fact that all the alternatives that exist today combined are shockingly inadequate? This cornucopian view of the world, and especially with regard to fossil fuel energy, will surely be the end of civilization as we know it.

In reading http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2007/06/official-story-lesson-in-how-to.html">"The official story: A lesson in how to undermine it" by Kurt Cobb of http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com">Resource Insights, I was intrigued by the idea of the stated challenge therein. Cobb asserts that the reason the Peak Oil crisis hasn't gotten the respect it urgently requires is because no campaign to undermine the "official story" has been waged.

From the essay:

-snip-

For those concerned about world peak oil production (and peak natural gas and coal, for that matter), none of the seem adequate or, in some cases, entirely ethical, especially with regard to environmental effects such as global warming. The problems with have been detailed again and again on the web, in specialized publications, and in many places in the mainstream media.

If this is the case, how come the peak oil story and the many warnings about such responses to our energy challenges aren't center stage in the American consciousness? There are plenty of reasons, but I propose to discuss what I think is a critical one: The peak oil movement has been focused mainly on selling a new narrative to the public without first dislodging the existing one. As long as people have faith in the existing official story about achieving American "energy independence" within the framework of a cornucopian future, it will be almost impossible to sell them on another story no matter how carefully constructed and supported.

Citing the success of the "http://www.911truth.org/index.php">911 truth movement" in convincing 1/3 of Americans that elements and individuals within our federal government (and probably the military) were complicit in assisting the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Additionally, 16 percent of those surveyed believe the towers and Building 7 were felled by explosives, and not as a result of the heat from fire.

Continuing from the article (Mods, this excerpt may bend the rules):

Given that very few of the 911 truth movement's contentions have been widely reported by mainstream sources--and when they are they are usually ridiculed--how can we account for this success? I don't believe all of it can be attributed to the power of the Internet. The peak oil movement also has a wide-ranging and intelligent http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-02,GGLD:en&q=peak+oil">Internet presence, but has not broken through in a similar way. I think we can account for the 911 truth movement's success by looking at the focus of its campaign.

That focus surprisingly has not been on replacing the official 911 story as exemplified by the http://www.9-11commission.gov/">911 Commission Report, but rather on discrediting it. The strategy has been to raise as many questions as possible about the official version of events. In fact, alternative theories of the 911 attack range from careless neglect by the Bush Administration of warnings about possible terrorist threats all the way to active participation at the highest levels of the U. S. government in planning the attacks. No single narrative has been widely adopted by those who disbelieve the official story. What this shows is that a coherent alternative narrative is not needed in order to discredit an official account. All one needs is a relentless attack on the credibility of the official story.

By contrast, those in the peak oil movement generally start a conversation about oil depletion with an attempt to explain Hubbert's Peak. It is a laudable impulse to want to educate people with all the facts. But it is not necessarily the most efficient way to sway a mass audience. Keep in mind that many of those proposing the solutions outlined in the first paragraph of this piece do not dispute peak oil theory. When confronted with the Hubbert Curve, they will quite confidently respond, "Yeah, we know all about peak oil. And, the solutions are already being perfected: biofuels, coal-to-liquids, tar sands, oil shale, offshore drilling, imported LNG, electrically powered transport from new nuclear power and so on." The challenge isn't to convince people that we have a problem with oil. People know we have a problem with oil. The challenge is to convince them that we don't have the solutions, at least not ones that will allow us to go on living the way we are now.

Fortunately, the peak oil movement has a mountain of evidence with which to discredit the official story. Less fortunately, there is no single official government panel or report to focus on...snip

-snip-

This makes it more difficult, but not impossible, to mount a campaign to discredit bogus solutions for addressing energy depletion. However, it is not necessary to demolish every single argument supporting a seamless transition to a cornucopian future. It is only necessary to begin by calling into question some of those arguments in order to start the process of undermining the official story. Questions lead to more questions which lead to openness to an alternative narrative about the future of society and the planet.

As it is, the "official story" is less story and more tactic. The official story is that everything is fine, we have plenty of oil left, and there is no reason to be alarmed. Coupling such propoganda with the tactic of equating "Peakers" with UFO abductees perpetuates the misperception of the public to the problem of Peak Oil. So, how do we begin to establish credibility with regard to Peak Oil?

More from Mr. Cobb:

Again, fortunately, the peak oil movement does have a coherent alternative narrative about the direction society should go, and that narrative is complete with action plans. That narrative generally includes emphasis on efficiency; conservation; relocalization of nearly every aspect of our lives; genuinely sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar; public transportation; compact development; redevelopment of cities; small-scale, low-input agriculture; and many other specifics. Entire communities are moving ahead to implement these ideas in places such as Willits, California and Kinsale, Ireland.

But, for all its tenacity, the 911 truth movement does not offer a coherent plan of action with potential solutions of a diparate nature. This makes it difficult to agree on one sweeping and coherent plan for mitigation. So, where they succeed in promoting awareness and acceptance of their cause, they fall short in implementing a solution. The Peak Oil movement, on the other hand, has laid out a comprehensive plan of action and in some cases are already implementing it.
So, how do we begin to change public indifference to the reality of Peak Oil and earn for the issue the respect that it deserves?

So, my suggestion is to focus on questioning the current official narrative of technological advancement, alternative fuels and new sources of oil that will supposedly lead to a seamless energy transition. It may somehow seem not quite right to tailor one's approach to fit a public that is confused by detailed explanations and often even suspicious of them. But my experience tells me that the peak oil movement will make much faster progress if it puts more emphasis on questioning those spouting the official story, thereby forcing them to come up with the detailed explanations. Those explanations will only reveal more flaws in their arguments which can lead to further questions. Such explanations will fatigue the public which has a short attention span and is inclined to put more emphasis on the questions than the answers. Pursuing this strategy means, of necessity, being ready with plenty of disquieting follow-up questions.

Once a large enough portion of the public begins to question the official narrative, I am confident that the peak oil movement will be able to present an alternative narrative that is clear, coherent, and principled enough to be accepted.

I agree with Mr. Cobb. I believe that it is imperative that we begin to truly take the issue of Peak Oil with deadly seriousness. Tell everyone you know about it, write letters to your newspapers, become the local epert on the issue of Peak Oil and get yourself on the radio and local TV news programs to discuss this crisis. And ALWAYS question the "official story"!

In conclusion, Mr. Cobb has come up with some questions we should be asking:

10 questions to challenge the official story

1. How do you explain the sudden 50 to 100 percent gains in the oil reserves of many OPEC countries in the mid-1980s?

2. How do we know the oil reserves claimed by many OPEC countries--over 60 percent of the world's reserves--are even there since those countries won't allow an independent audit?

3. How many coal-to-liquids plants are there in the world today? Why so few?

4. How many commercial oil shale plants are now producing oil in the world today? How many are planned?

5. Does anybody know how much uranium is available using current technology and extraction techniques? If there are figures, who compiles them and how can we be sure they are reliable?

6. Why have past oil price predictions by major forecasters including the U. S. government turned out to be so wrong? If they missed developments such as the tremendous growth in oil demand in China and India, isn't it possible that current optimistic forecasts by some forecasters about greater oil supply and lower prices in the future could be wrong?

7. The United States now expends 1 unit of energy to get 9 units to run the non-energy economy. Can you explain how our society will function if we move to biofuels such as corn ethanol that would require us to expend at least 15 units of energy for every 9 delivered to the non-energy economy? (This assumes, of course, that we accept the U. S. Department of Energy's very generous estimate that corn ethanol has an energy profit ratio of 1.6 to 1. Lowering it to 1.2 to would mean we'd need 45 units of energy for every 9 delivered to the non-energy economy. Some researchers such as David Pimentel say the energy profit ratio is less than 1, making ethanol an energy sink.)

8. If we have to use other energy sources to extract hydrogen to fuel a hydrogen economy, why not just use those other energy sources directly? Wouldn't that be more efficient?

9. Even if world peak oil production is many years away, why wouldn't it be a good idea to start getting ready now? (This question is often useful if paired with question 10.)

10. Haven't you heard of the Hirsch Report commissioned by the U. S. Department of Energy which calls for a crash program to get ready for peak oil?

[TheWraith]

1. So your model is a conspiracy theory?

Basing your argument model on a conspiracy movement whose every conjecture has been consistently proven wrong really does nothing for your credibility. All it says is that some people will believe anything, including that Saddam Hussein planned 9/11 and had nuclear weapons. For that matter, basic psych will tell you that there's a strong desire for people to believe that somebody "on the inside" helped or planned the attacks, because it allows them to believe that "those people" couldn't do it on their own.

But just because I'm good natured, I'll address your ten points anyway.

"1. How do you explain the sudden 50 to 100 percent gains in the oil reserves of many OPEC countries in the mid-1980s?"

Assuming that that's an accurate statement (never something that you can rely on in these cases), I'd put it down to better technology allowing a more complete picture of available reserves.

"2. How do we know the oil reserves claimed by many OPEC countries--over 60 percent of the world's reserves--are even there since those countries won't allow an independent audit?"

There's no way to know for sure, but geologists can generally produce reasonably accurate projections based on available data.

"3. How many coal-to-liquids plants are there in the world today? Why so few?"

I don't know how many. But few because typically coal liquidification wasn't cost-effective. It could only compete with petroleum at around $35 a barrel and higher, and we didn't have those kinds of prices until the last few years.

"4. How many commercial oil shale plants are now producing oil in the world today? How many are planned?"

I don't know. But again, the cost is the thing, even more than coal: shale would need the price of oil to stay above $70, $90 being better, in order to be profitable.

"5. Does anybody know how much uranium is available using current technology and extraction techniques? If there are figures, who compiles them and how can we be sure they are reliable?"

Again, there's no way to know for certain, since you can't actually see the ore until it's dug up. But there's a hell of a lot. For that matter, just the nuclear material released by our coal-fired plants in a year could run our nuclear plants.

"6. Why have past oil price predictions by major forecasters including the U. S. government turned out to be so wrong? If they missed developments such as the tremendous growth in oil demand in China and India, isn't it possible that current optimistic forecasts by some forecasters about greater oil supply and lower prices in the future could be wrong?"

Because current price spikes aren't a result of demand. They're the result of futures trading, and hoarding by oil companies. We actually have a massive glut of refined fuel and gasolene in this country, but because they won't sell it, the price goes up. It's the same thing that De Beers is doing with diamonds--they have warehouses full, but they won't sell them, in order to drive up demand.

"7."

Suffice to say, I'm not in a mood to check this math. But nobody is saying that ethanol is the only way.

"8. If we have to use other energy sources to extract hydrogen to fuel a hydrogen economy, why not just use those other energy sources directly? Wouldn't that be more efficient?"

Hydrogen can be extracted using chemical processes that couldn't directly power anything.

"9. Even if world peak oil production is many years away, why wouldn't it be a good idea to start getting ready now? (This question is often useful if paired with question 10.)"

Of course. And?

"10. Haven't you heard of the Hirsch Report commissioned by the U. S. Department of Energy which calls for a crash program to get ready for peak oil?"

Of course. And?

[Solon]

5. One little quibble here, where is the hoarding?

World oil production is somewhere around 83 million barrels a day, and consumption is around 82.59 million barrels a day, the difference is so small that it would take years to be able to manipulate oil prices in a manner you describe.

[TheWraith]

10. For starters, a lot of production has been shut down.

Check to see if the wells in Oklahoma and the rest of the west and south are pumping. They aren't. That's partly because of manipulation on the part of industry and the government to insure that us and China are drawing from the same oil pot, to try and crowd them out, and partly because there's profit in it. Production has been manipulated in the same ways that distribution and refining have. We have right now far more than our normal reserve of oil and gas on hand in the US. Is it being released onto the market? Of course not. Because it's worth more if you hold it back to create a demand. It's the same basic principle as OPEC uses, except that it's now being used by "our" oil companies.

[Psyop Samurai]

7. Fortunately, the readers of DU are informed enough...

...to see through the insultingly transparent sleight of hand of your first paragraph, and probably won't bother to read the rest of your post, just as I didn't.

[TheWraith]

9. Glad to see that you know more about DU than people who have been here ten or twenty times longer.

More to the point, the fact that you can't actually rebut anything I said undermines whatever was left of your argument. Have fun.

[CGowen]

2. Greg Palast will admitt that Peak Oil is a scam but wehen it comes to 911 truth he wets his pants

It's not a question of belief, it's a question of whether I have any other information. And I have no... and... Look, I've gotta tell you, Lenny, I'm just kind of stuck with this one. I... I'm an investigative reporter. If I haven't investigated it I can't report on it. All... Then, then I'm just giving you my goofball opinion. I'm not an engineer, I'm not a physicist, I had an office in the World Trade center, but that's all I can tell you. I can tell you what I've found which is that they couldn't look... You know... To me, you know, I mean I see, like everyone else, you see the picture looks to me like planes hit the building, and... but.. You know, and my information... Umm... Doensn't comport with the idea that, that, of like a controlled demolition. We have looked at that, and I'm sorry if people are upset about this, but we spent a long time very, very seriously looking at that and... That just didn't happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2oFTiEpIBQ

[IDemo]

3. I finished Armed Madhouse last week, and his Peak Oil section was the only disappointment

Beginning by mistaking the problem, and claiming Peak Oil theory adherents predicted "Every last drop of oil on the planet gone by 2006".

[MikeDuffy]

4. Why did Palast never respond to Richard Heinberg's

"An Open Letter to Greg Palast"? http://www.energybulletin.net/17914.htm
If anybody out there in DU land gets a chance to ask that question to him directly, I would love to hear his response...

[IDemo]

6. I've wondered that as well

but I believe he simply figured out that he didn't have the facts straight. If I am correct, the second printing of Armed Madhouse came after Heinberg's letter, and would have been the ideal place for a correction, but none appeared.

[TheWraith]

11. Actually, a lot of them did.

And prior to that, there were plenty of other dates of apocalyptic predictions about how we were going to run out of oil and go back to the civilization of the 1700s. There's a lot of kookism surrounding the issue of "peak oil." Yes, we're going to run out of oil eventually, but hyperbole serves no purpose. Quite the opposite--attributing the current situation to "peak oil" covers up the reality that there is NO shortage of oil in the US today, and we're paying three times as much as we have to due to price gouging. Otherwise, riddle me this: how is it that despite these regular "shortages" that the oil companies seem to have (particularly during months of highest use), no one anywhere drives up to a gas station and gets told "Sorry, we're all out,"?

[IDemo]

12. Actually, not a single recognized authority on the topic has

If there exists a book or website out on the fringes somewhere still trying to mis-define the Peak Oil issue, as Palast did, as "running out of every single drop of crude on the planet", they do not speak for those who have actually studied the topic. Certainly Matt Simmons, Colin Campbell, and Richard Heinberg never defined it this way. The peak suggests the point of maximum production, not minimum. The problem lies in the inability of OPEC and other producers to continue finding and extracting high quality crude at a rate to match increasing demand.

I agree completely that price gouging exists, but for factors not (necessarily) related to the peak, and it needs to be addressed. But it very likely will not be by the present occupiers of the White House.

However, the true "kookism" is believing we can continue indefinitely to operate an economic system based on perpetual growth, but with finite resources. Or, worse yet, knowing we cannot, and doing nothing about it.

[FogerRox]

8. Didn't the IEA say Peak occured in May 2005?