Manipulated

The level of denial at the top, and a people only too willing to believe what they want to hear, has left us in a most unsavory position.

Here are some of my personal favorites:

“Denmark had a 50% increase in its economy with a zero percent increase in energy consumption.” Bill Clinton, Newsweek, 11.27.06

All true – and completely irrelevant.

• Norway has fewer people than South Florida (4,610,820 (July 2006 est. CIA FACT BOOK), and population growth of .38%
• Norway has more oil per capita, and exports far more oil per capita, than any other nation. Russia and Saudi Arabia, numbers 1 and 2, aren’t even close
• Norway is the largest welfare nation on earth. Why not? They have the greatest Oil wealth. Of course they have no economic growth! They don’t need GDP growth in order to trade with the world!
• Japan is an example of an anti-Norway. With no domestic energy supplies, they must trade product (the P in GDP) for energy

In the speech, the former President insinuated that the Norwegians accomplished this feat by, among other things, replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs – and the media ate it up. If the world had as much Oil on a per capita basis as Norway this might have some relevance - alas, it does not.

Let’s move on to some corporate manipulation of the public through our scientifically and mathematically challenged media.

We all know that if you pay somebody enough money, they will say anything. Have you ever followed, or worse, been involved in a large civil trial? Each side has their “expert” witness’s. Great system. These guys advertise a particular view point from which they will never waiver, no matter what new data become of available, and then claim credibility for their bought and paid for testimony because some formal educational establishment admits that they received a couple of years of part time training there several decades ago. Hell of a thing… Listen to this:

"Although annual global production has exceeded annual discoveries since the early 1980s, annual global reserve additions still exceed annual production because of reserve growth in existing fields.” - Dr Richard Vierbuchen, vice president, Caspian/Middle East region, Exxon Mobil.

I am embarrassed for Dr. Vierbuchen. Not for maintaining the company line, but for not obfuscating that statement more. The general public might have no idea what he is saying, but there are countless geology geeks buzzing around the web taking silly statements like that one apart. If you are going to speak an absurdity, well, you know the old saying “if you can’t dazzle ‘em with facts, baffle ‘em with Bulls—t.”

Allow me to explain. It is a simple matter to credit ALL of the reserve growth in a particular field back to the date the first well was drilled (the date of discovery) for a single aggregate number (and by the way, the “reserve growth” that he is speaking of is phenomena of the 50’s, 60’s and early 70’s; technology has improved on the estimation front, too. So much so that there was little if any “reserve growth” in fields discovered and developed after 1975 – If you doubt this, just email me and I will send you the data for Alaska’s North Slope and the U.K.’s North Sea.). When this is done for all fields, and it has been done COUNTLESS times (so there is no shot the good Doctor is unaware of these data points) we see that the peak discovery year was 1964, and that discovery has been trending down EVER SINCE. Also, that since the mid 1980’s or so, we have discovered less oil than we have been using, and our usage grows exponentially.


Lest you think I am Clinton bashing, let me work on the current occupant of the White House and his “Hydrogen Economy” and “Ethanol Economy”.

“Tonight I’m proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles,” President George W. Bush, 2003 State of the Union address to Congress

“It better be” – President George W. Bush when asked if ethanol was the solution to our Oil addiction

Yes, we have cars that run on Hydrogen, and yes, we have cars that run on ethanol – and by the way, we also have cars that run on liquid petroleum products. Designing cars that run on different energy sources is not the problem – THE ENERGY SOURCE IS THE PROBLEM.

Unencumbered Hydrogen does not exist any place on earth. Hydrogen is a lonely element and only exists on this planet in the company of another element, such as Oxygen or Carbon (let’s forget Hydrogen and Carbons, the liquid form of which is the stuff we are in need of, and it certainly makes no sense to remove Hydrogen from Natural Gas such as Methane, CH4, when we could just burn the Methane). It follows that we would need to separate the H from the O in water. Problem is, we need an energy source to do this, and the energy we consume is greater than the energy stored in the resultant Hydrogen. You know, the old Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI) issue.

Could this be softened using Nuclear Energy? Maybe, but certainly not until we produce 100% of the world’s electricity needs with Nuclear and use the excess capacity to produce Hydrogen. Obviously, the use of ANY hydrocarbon to produce electricity so that some Nuclear power generation can be diverted to Hydrogen production is a loser in the ERoEI department. It would only make sense for excess capacity. Now, when do you think we will have that much Nuclear power? Not in my grandchildren’s lifetime, and my oldest is 13.

Ethanol is in the same ERoEI boat. It takes more energy to produce than it provides, more or less.

The President knows all of this. If the U.S. thought this was not the case our interest and commitment in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East would not extend to lives lost and trillions of dollars spent.

And the media ate it up - and spoon fed it to the pubic.


Mentatt (at) yahoo (dot) com