Paging Stow_judge

Stow_judge 21 Nov 12 22:03 
That may not be the case
US to become 'world's biggest oil producer'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20304848

Stow_judge     21 Nov 12 23:43 
U.S. Redraws World Oil Map
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324073504578115152144093088.html?mod=WSJ_Commodities_LEFTTopNews

Oil Prices May Fall, Despite Mideast
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578132902620727298.html?mod=WSJUK_hps_LEFTTopWhatNews





I believe my friend Muqbil when he says he knows you personally and that you are a nice guy otherwise I wouldn't bother taking the time to do this. I would be quite content to let you continue live in ignorance, especially given you smug attitude. 

The other night you put up the above two posts, without any commentary, other than the single line "That may not be the case". That single line however reveals the fact, beyond trying to be coy, that you are reading mainstream media stories and accepting them as they are, without any critical thinking. It happens a lot on here it seems.

You say you are a scientist. That doesn't tell me much however, the bigger and far more important question is "are you a good scientist?". I don't know enough to answer that question but if my view of a good scientist is correct, that of someone who questions, researches, analyses, challenges commonly accepted paradigms and in general displays an ability to think on his own, then clearly you fall far short the mark of being a good scientist. Being smug and ignorant and being a nice guy are not mutually exclusive.

So let me open your eyes.

There has been an avalanche of stories in the media reporting essentially the same story that appears in the links you provided. The public (especially the US public) has been bombarded with the good news of the US overtaking Saudi Arabia as number one in oil production by 2020, with the great success story continuing right through to 2030, when the US achieves energy independence. Lending its name for credibility in this amazing forecast is none other than the International Energy Agency (IEA) by being the originator of the story in their World Energy Outlook. You can find it here: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2012/PresentationtoPress.pdf

Now that's surely reason to celebrate, isn't it? Not so fast, I'm afraid, or at least not fast for those who like to think for themselves.

First of all the IEA doesn't make it easy for the average public to look deeper into the story. I wonder why that is? The published SUMMARY that can be obtained from them for free is pretty thin on details, especially the all important numbers and underlying assumptions. To get your hands on the details, so that you can see for YOURSELF if the numbers are valid, you'll have to come up with 120 euro to download the PDF. Here is the link if you are so inclined, and since you are a scientist who took time to post the raw story links on a public forum, you should be so inclined, otherwise you may be thought of as a poor scientist. (http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2012/november/name,33015,en.html)

But since the average mug who reads the story in the press has more interest in going home, putting his slippers on, pouring themselves a nice drink and doing something that doesn't make his brain sweat like watching X-Factor, the story as it appears in the press and repeated dozen of times by various paid shills and clueless pundits, is the story that sticks in their mind. Accepted as gospel truth and parroted with conviction.

Well, let's look inside the report now shall we, Mr. Scientist?

Well to begin with, one issue jumps out of the pages before we even begin. The IEA report states the CURRENT level of US Oil production at 10.9 mbpd when the US Energy Administration itself reports a number which is significantly smaller at 6.2 mbpd. That's some starting point difference. So we look into the reason for the difference and voila, just like magic, it's right there staring us in the face. The IEA decided unilaterally to simply change the DEFINITION of what should be counted as crude oil. According to the new way of looking at things, crude oil is no longer JUST crude oil but it also includes natural gas plant liquids. The problem is that MOST of these liquids CAN NOT easily substitute as oil but the report doesn't bother telling you that. Why spoil a "feel good" story.

But once you discover one cockroach you can be sure there's more hiding around, so we continue to look at the numbers in the IEA report. Also INCLUDED in their count of what constitutes crude oil are all biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) which according to the report would substitute about 3 mbpd of oil (the real stuff) in the American energy scene by 2020. Well that comes as a big surprise to me, as it must I'm sure to a few thousand farmers in the US because if you look at current production levels and extrapolate them, it would take nearly 2 billion acres of arable land to produce those levels of biofuels. The only minor problem with that is that this represents nearly five times more available arable land in the US that currently exists!!! Not to even mention that nasty little secret that the energy required to produce, process and bring ethanol to the market, as a ratio of the energy delivered, is greater than one. Ooops.

But there's more, way more, all in plain view for those who are willing to take the time to see.

Current US crude oil CONSUMPTION is 19 mbpd. The IEA estimates the US crude oil PRODUCTION will peak at 11.8 mbpd (and then start to immediately decline). Slightly more than 3 mbpd of which are derivative liquids that can not be processed currently by a any refinery (mostly their use is feedstock for industrial uses). So how in the world then is the IEA forecasting that the US is not going to need importing oil and achieve that elusive energy independence the press is celebrating?

Easy. Just make a few convenient, yet glaringly wrong, assumptions along the way and the problem is solved. The US production figures the IEA used INCLUDE Canadian oil production numbers !!!!! Now that's nice of them but last I heard Canada hasn't been annexed by the US yet. But wait, even with those numbers in play, there is still a huge shortfall. Where is the rest coming from? Natural Gas. The IEA conveniently half way through the report starts talking about available BTUs as opposed to mbpd of oil and makes the assumption that ALL (I repeat, ALL, as in EVERY SINGLE ONE) lorries running around in the US will be converted to compressed natural gas (CNG) by 2030 !!!!

The whole thing is not worth the paper it's written on, especially considering that that's mighty expensive paper at 120 euro. So why the "feel good" news now? The answer is simple. It is to pacify the US public that is watching wetlands, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries being converted into a landscape of fracking well wasteland. It is to divert attention away from significant ecological and public safety issues (chemicals that enter fresh water supply) revolving around the great "American fracking revolution" with it's massive well depletion rates. It is to silence the critics that this type of energy extraction is excessively consuming a most valuable resource that is fast becoming an international issue. WATER.



You are a scientist FFS. Start thinking like one.