from march 4, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120459389654809159.html
Points to consider:
Who does/did Nannsen G. Saleri work for?
What figures does he use that we have other sources for?
What are his sources?
Should we draft a letter to the WSJ or Mr. Saleri himself for any reason?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This article was very interesting because it really revealed the priorities of oil producing organizations. The author works as a CEO of an oil reserve in Texas, so clearly his interest lies in maintaining a high oil demand. He argues that peak oil is really not an issue just yet, and that people should keep consuming oil until it becomes one. His priorities clearly lie in getting a profit for oil production, so he does whatever he can to convince the reader that consuming oil is fine and alternative energy really isn't necessary right now. It is interesting to contrast this view with others we have read; the true situation is often blurred by individual priorities and desires, so it is hard to know what is really best.
I am confused as to the motives to write what appear to be such gross exagerations. The amount of oil he claims to still be recovered, even if only looking at the conventional estimates, are 5-7 times more than BP, OPEC, and even the US EIA report(6-8 trillion barrels compared to 1.2 trillion). He makes no references, but as his previous role suggests, he should qualify as a reference himself.
He then follows with an estimate of peak oil coming between 2045 and 2067- long enough away not to worry now. I feel this article is on the verge of irresponsible, as a 'reputable source' such as the WSJ should not print such contradictions with reality.
to compare:
Projected Date Source
2006-2007 Bakhtiari
2007-2009 Simmons
After 2007 Skrebowski
Before 2009 Deffeyes
Before 2010 Goodstein
Around 2010 Campbell
After 2010 World Energy Council
2010-2020 Laherrere
2016 EIA (Nominal)
After 2020 CERA
2025 or later Shell
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report
I think that the WSJ has every right to print an article like this, and they have more of a reason to allow for this article since it is in the Opinion section. Although "facts" may largely be seen as well, facts, there are many ways in which a number of "credible" people can choose to portray them. Just because what Mr. Saleri is saying does not fall in line with other data, does not mean that the other sources of data we have analyzed are not biased. That was weird wording. Basically, what I mean is the sources of information we look at can also be biased or skewed in whatever way.
Regardless, the title of the article - probably not chosen by Mr. Saleria (therefore chosen by the WSJ) - is intended to draw attention to the article. I do not think that the title is a reflection of the main point Mr. Saleri is trying to get across. His main point is the fact that we must have superior alternatives.
"The root causes, however, will most likely have less to do with lack of supplies and far more with superior alternatives."
Although Jensen states that Mr. Saleri may have his own agenda (since he is the CEO of an oil reserve) of "maintaining a high oil demand," this quote refutes that idea. He is suggesting that we need superior alternatives to oil in order to dodge peak oil.
I do not agree with Mr. Saleri's comments based on when Peak Oil will happen. But quite frankly I think it doesn't matter. Making up a date for peak oil and trying to back it up with insufficient evidence can only do 2 things. 1 - Freak people out to the point that they have lost hope in trying to find a solution. or 2 - If the Peak Oil date is later, people will not have any sense of urgency to fix the situation.
Therefore, it is important to just focus on not being so dependent on one non-renewable source. Being so dependent on anything is bad in itself, regardless of whether or not it will run out. There are other reasons to stray away from oil. The two most important are a possibly cleaner environment and technological advancement.
Contrary to the belief of some, I do not think that the availability of oil is not an issue. I am more concerned with the attitude many people have about oil and society's way of handling it. It is important to remain positive. By positive, I don't mean naive and hopeful. What I mean is that we need to be more proactive rather than argue and complain about how our society handles things. Not to say that we are entirely doing this, but I would like to see some of our research form into a solution.
I do think that we should write a letter to Mr. Saleri. This letter should be about what sort of technological advances he thinks the world will make in order to avoid peak oil.
I think that Mr. Saleri's statement that we will be able to find alternative energy sources before peak oil occurs is slightly naive and blindly hopeful. While it would be ideal for this to happen, I really don't think it is a possibility. Alternative energy sources are, as of now, not a very large portion of our energy consumption, and their prevalence is growing steadily but at a very slow rate. Without a major technological discovery, I don't think we will be able to completely transform our energy sources in time for peak oil, no matter when it occurs. And we can't rely on such an advancement occuring at all in the first place--it is naive to place all of your eggs in one basket, to rely on a technological anomaly to bring us out of the problem.
While it is nice to see someone remaining optimistic through this otherwise bleak situation, I really think Mr. Saleri's article is causing more harm than good. To the amateur, his article appears to be a reassurance that we will be ok, that we will find alternate energy sources before we need them and that the transition will be comfortable. Though the urgency of peak oil is often dramatizes and overdone, I don't think Mr. Saleri's approach is any better--he is promoting apathy and passiveness. He is implicitly saying that the situation really isn't urgent just yet, and is inherently encouraging people to not act. Though he doesn't explicitly say this, it is implied in his lack of opposition to the idea. By not promoting action and thus promoting inaction, Mr. Saleri is clearly advocating his own agenda: he wants people to feel comfortable and reassured, to think that their actions are not detrimental just yet, and to think that they can continue to consume oil at relative leisure, and continue to put money in his pocket.
"And we can't rely on such an advancement occuring at all in the first place--it is naive to place all of your eggs in one basket, to rely on a technological anomaly to bring us out of the problem."
I do agree that Mr. Saleri is hinting towards the fact that a huge technological advancement is going to happen. I don't think that he is heavily relying on that to solve all of our problems. It is just as naive and pretentious to think that the world is not going to advance. It is just as naive to say that the world is also coming to a "peak" in terms of making other energy sources more efficient and accessible. Just because the U.S. and other nations across the globe have mastered a lot of "things" (technologically speaking), doesn't mean that there is nothing left to uncover.
In absolutely no way should this "something" that no one has discovered or perfected yet be relied on, however , the denial that exists is harmful too. If a lot of people were to believe that we should not rely on technological advancement, what would be the motivation for improving other energy sources? Everyone would simply be in a panic about how we can't do anything to save ourselves from peak oil and a lot of people would be worried about possibly having to resort to more and more farming.
**the denial that it exists
I wasn't saying that there is no possible way for a technological miracle to ever happen--sorry if that wasn't clear. I was just saying that it's ignorant to rely so wholly on this occuring--we need to turn to more active, practical approaches of energy development, instead of sitting back and waiting for something amazing to come along (not that we are doing that now, but that seems to be what the author is advocating).
I definately think there is plenty more to uncover, and we have by no means reached a peak in any form of development. But that doesn't mean that it will be easy to improve from where we are now. As current development rates have shown, we need to invest a lot of resources in development at this point if we really want to ensure change. Though development is far from complete, it still isn't easy.
I agree with jensen in that i think he has his own agenda, and that this is a perfect example of how corporations will go to extreme lengths to make more money and to keep their product on the market. When he says that peek oil will happen in the years of 2060 he will be long dead so to him it doesn't matter. It is in the best interest of these Oil corporations to proliferate either extremely bias or false information. The Wall Street Journal probably has some investments in the Oil industry as well so I think of them just as badly as I think of any other lying corporation or as badly as the guy who wrote this article. We have to understand that we live in a time period in which the great majority of media probably including the WSJ is controlled by the same 6 corporations which all have pretty much the same interests. So this article to me is not a surprise but another piece of evidence in the sea of corruption of the world we live in today, a world of not public but corporate interest.
it is important to keep in mind that everyone is biased and has their own agenda to put forth - it is not just the big corporations that do this.
for example, we go to school every day and learn from pretty much the most liberal teachers i think we will ever encounter. go to the south and see how the teachers there teach Reconstruction and the Progressive Era.
even in Energy and Society, it is hard not to be somewhat biased about your point of view. The data we have analyzed and the articles we have read all support the idea that peak oil is going to happen very soon and how there is a lot of "corporate greed." Whether or not this is "true" is irrelevant.
just because we grow up to learn that it is good to fight the system and think poorly of big corporations, does not mean that that is true or the only way to think.
everyone has their own agenda. we should not scold those who have agendas that don't necessarily coincide with our personal beliefs.
Post a Comment