• 7 hours Oil Prices Rise After API Reports Major Crude Draw
  • 8 hours Citgo President And 5 VPs Arrested On Embezzlement Charges
  • 8 hours Gazprom Speaks Out Against OPEC Production Cut Extension
  • 9 hours Statoil Looks To Lighter Oil To Boost Profitability
  • 10 hours Oil Billionaire Becomes Wind Energy’s Top Influencer
  • 11 hours Transneft Warns Urals Oil Quality Reaching Critical Levels
  • 12 hours Whitefish Energy Suspends Work In Puerto Rico
  • 13 hours U.S. Authorities Arrest Two On Major Energy Corruption Scheme
  • 1 day Thanksgiving Gas Prices At 3-Year High
  • 1 day Iraq’s Giant Majnoon Oilfield Attracts Attention Of Supermajors
  • 1 day South Iraq Oil Exports Close To Record High To Offset Kirkuk Drop
  • 1 day Iraqi Forces Find Mass Graves In Oil Wells Near Kirkuk
  • 1 day Chevron Joint Venture Signs $1.7B Oil, Gas Deal In Nigeria
  • 2 days Iraq Steps In To Offset Falling Venezuela Oil Production
  • 2 days ConocoPhillips Sets Price Ceiling For New Projects
  • 4 days Shell Oil Trading Head Steps Down After 29 Years
  • 4 days Higher Oil Prices Reduce North American Oil Bankruptcies
  • 4 days Statoil To Boost Exploration Drilling Offshore Norway In 2018
  • 4 days $1.6 Billion Canadian-US Hydropower Project Approved
  • 4 days Venezuela Officially In Default
  • 5 days Iran Prepares To Export LNG To Boost Trade Relations
  • 5 days Keystone Pipeline Leaks 5,000 Barrels Into Farmland
  • 5 days Saudi Oil Minister: Markets Will Not Rebalance By March
  • 5 days Obscure Dutch Firm Wins Venezuelan Oil Block As Debt Tensions Mount
  • 5 days Rosneft Announces Completion Of World’s Longest Well
  • 5 days Ecuador Won’t Ask Exemption From OPEC Oil Production Cuts
  • 5 days Norway’s $1 Trillion Wealth Fund Proposes To Ditch Oil Stocks
  • 6 days Ecuador Seeks To Clear Schlumberger Debt By End-November
  • 6 days Santos Admits It Rejected $7.2B Takeover Bid
  • 6 days U.S. Senate Panel Votes To Open Alaskan Refuge To Drilling
  • 6 days Africa’s Richest Woman Fired From Sonangol
  • 6 days Oil And Gas M&A Deal Appetite Highest Since 2013
  • 6 days Russian Hackers Target British Energy Industry
  • 6 days Venezuela Signs $3.15B Debt Restructuring Deal With Russia
  • 6 days DOJ: Protestors Interfering With Pipeline Construction Will Be Prosecuted
  • 7 days Lower Oil Prices Benefit European Refiners
  • 7 days World’s Biggest Private Equity Firm Raises $1 Billion To Invest In Oil
  • 7 days Oil Prices Tank After API Reports Strong Build In Crude Inventories
  • 7 days Iraq Oil Revenue Not Enough For Sustainable Development
  • 7 days Sudan In Talks With Foreign Oil Firms To Boost Crude Production
Alt Text

Are Electric Cars As Clean As They Seem?

Electric cars are set to…

Alt Text

Can The Gas Glut Kill The Permian Boom?

The natural gas glut is…

Kurt Cobb

Kurt Cobb

Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and environment. His work has also appeared in The Christian Science…

More Info

The Need for a More Coherent Energy Policy in the US

The Need for a More Coherent Energy Policy in the US

Current U.S. energy policy is, in fact, a hodgepodge of disconnected policies designed for specific constituencies with no coherent goal. The country has subsidies for fossil fuels, subsidies for nuclear power, subsidies for wind and solar, and subsidies for insulating and retrofitting buildings. We also have energy standards for some appliances and miles per gallon standards for automobiles.

What never gets asked and answered definitively in the policy debate is this: What should our ultimate goal be and when should we aim to achieve it? The first part of the question has elicited so many answers from so many constituencies that I may not be able to represent them all here. But here is an attempt to categorize the main lines of thinking concerning the country’s energy goals:

Seek the cheapest price for energy with the implication that environmental consequences should not be tallied as part of the cost.

Complete a transition to renewable energy as quickly as possible while drastically reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

Replace all fossil fuel energy with nuclear power.

Develop all sources of energy to make sure we have enough at reasonable prices. This is often called the “all-of-the-above strategy.”

Goal 1 is really the argument put forth by the fossil fuel industry and therefore a defense of the status quo. Goal 2 is the dream of every climate change activist and clean-tech executive. Goal 3 seemed to be gaining some momentum before the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant dashed hopes for a widespread nuclear renaissance.

Goal 4 is being touted by my congressman who heads the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it is the policy of Obama administration. The so-called all-of-the-above strategy is the de facto energy policy of the United States, and the one which I described above as a hodgepodge of disconnected policies designed for specific constituencies with no coherent goal.

Our energy policy wouldn’t matter except for two things:

Fossil fuels supply more than 80 percent of the world’s energy, and they are finite. We cannot count on them to supply energy to us indefinitely. We simply do not know when their rate of production might turn down though a bumpy plateau in global oil production since 2005 is an ominous sign.

Climate change induced in large part by the burning of fossil fuels is proceeding faster than models have predicted. We don’t have much time to reduce our carbon emissions radically in order to avert the risk of catastrophic climate consequences.

Related article: Oilprice.com Intelligence Report: The IMF vs. Energy Subsidies

No one knows the future, not my congressman, not President Obama, not the fossil fuel industry, not even climate scientists. But, we can outline the risks we face based on what we know today.

About fossil fuel supplies we know two key things. Already mentioned is that production of oil proper (crude plus lease condensate) has stagnated since 2005. Second, the remaining fossil fuels, especially oil and natural gas, will come from deposits that in general are smaller, less concentrated, harder to extract (in some cases due to geology, in others because of their location such as deep under the seabed and in the Arctic) and  harder to refine. This means these fuels will be far more costly and be produced at rates that are unlikely to rival the rates of the previous easy-to-get oil and natural gas.

About climate change we now know that it is proceeding faster than anticipated by climate modelers. That means the worst effects could arrive much sooner than expected, within a couple decades instead of several decades.

When it comes to oil and natural gas, it’s possible that yet-to-be-invented technology will make them cheaper and easier to extract in the future. We just don’t know. Even if that technology arrives, the ever increasing difficulty of accessing new deposits may more than wipe out any cost and productivity advantages.

It’s possible that climate change might slow down. But, that seems unlikely since events that are markers for the progress of climate change such as the melting of Arctic ice are occurring much sooner than anticipated. A few years ago it was thought that the Arctic might become ice-free in the summer by mid-century if we maintained our current greenhouse gas emissions trajectory. Now, some models suggest it could occur by 2020.

The point is that when it comes to fossil fuel supplies most of the current information suggests that supplies will likely not be as abundant or as cheap as the industry has been leading people to believe. And, when it comes to climate change, the effects and the time of their arrival have been consistently underestimated.

To manage energy supplies and climate risks, the United States has done little in terms of policy that makes sense given the gravity of the challenges it and the world face.

It is important to note that risk is not merely a function of probability. Rather, it is the product of probability times severity. But, neither variable can be assessed in a strictly numerical way given how complex the energy and climate systems are. We do know, however, that if the pessimistic scenarios for both energy and climate arrive, we are in deep, deep trouble.

Here is a key insight into risk management. The accuracy of any forecast decays quickly with time. That means that when it comes to long-term forecasts, it is not the forecast itself, but the RANGE of possible outcomes that is more important. Any forecast that doesn’t include a range is practically worthless for scenario planning purposes and probably designed to deceive rather than inform you.

Related article: Forget Peak Oil, Worry About Financial Limits

And, it’s not the benign outcome that should concern us, but rather the possible dire outcomes. Why is this so? As Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of several books relating to risk including Fooled by Randomness and The Black Swan reminds us: "[I]t does not matter how frequently something succeeds if failure is too costly to bear."

It seems obvious that the destruction of modern civilization as we know it due to inadequate energy supplies and rapid climate change ought to be something we consider “too costly to bear.” And yet, America continues with energy policies that are almost certain to fail because we are largely repeating what we've done before.

The de facto American all-of-the-above energy policy implies that increasing the rate of fossil fuel combustion should be one of our goals. That policy also fails to concentrate enough capital spending on the infrastructure (mostly electrical) needed to exploit renewable energy.

So, we end up with a strategy that assumes that fossil fuel supplies will remain adequate for decades and that climate change will remain largely benign during this period. This is not so much managing risks as ignoring them.

Some will point out that the administration is working on carbon sequestration so as to make it possible to increase fossil fuel consumption and reduce carbon emissions at the same time. The idea that carbon sequestration could achieve this result in time to avert a climate catastrophe has already been laid to rest by some fairly straightforward calculations done by energy expert Vaclav Smil. In 2010 he wrote:

This means that in order to sequester just a fifth of current CO2emissions we would have to create an entirely new worldwide absorption-gathering-compression-transportation-storage industry whose annual throughput would have to be about 70 percent larger than the annual volume now handled by the global crude oil industry whose immense infrastructure of wells, pipelines, compressor stations and storages took generations to build. Technically possible—but not within a timeframe that would prevent CO2 from rising above 450 ppm [parts per million]. And remember not only that this would contain just 20 percent of today’s CO2 emissions but also this crucial difference: The oil industry has invested in its enormous infrastructure in order to make a profit, to sell its product on an energy-hungry market (at around $100 per barrel and 7.2 barrels per tonne that comes to about $700 per tonne)—but (one way or another) the taxpayers of rich countries would have to pay for huge capital costs and significant operating burdens of any massive CCS [carbon capture and storage].

Perhaps the simplest way to manage the energy transition we must undergo would be to impose a high and ever rising tax on carbon. Such a tax would not favor one particular solution to carbon-free energy. But, it would move people to conserve and to switch from carbon fuels. It would also provide inventors and businesses with the incentive needed to work out the quickest, most economical path to a renewable energy economy.

Quite often politicians and representatives of the fossil fuel industry—sometimes it’s difficult to tell the difference—will say that the United States shouldn’t undergo this energy transition alone because it will be put at a competitive disadvantage on world markets. Saying this is really the equivalent of saying that we should maintain our current course until it becomes obvious—even to the most dimwitted—that  we are all committing suicide.

Waiting for catastrophe to happen before acting means that it’s too late to act. It is precisely this scenario that proper risk management is designed to avoid. If I were to grade America’s risk management strategy with regard to energy supply and climate change, I would, not surprisingly, give it a failing grade.

I only wish the damage inflicted by that strategy were limited to bad marks. Instead, the real-world consequences are almost certain to grow larger and larger, the longer the country ignores intelligent risk management principles.

By. Kurt Cobb

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Zana Nesheiwat on April 04 2013 said:
    For nearly half a century American presidents have told us we must end our dependence on imported oil. It is 2012 and we are more dependent than ever, with a total oil bill that has mushroomed to $700 billion a year. Half of that goes to pay for foreign petroleum.We need a concrete solution that encourages competition and innovation, ensuring Americans an affordable and stable supply of replacement fuels for our transportation needs. Methanol, ethanol and natural gas can be derived from many plentiful energy resources and give the oil fuels a real run for their money.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News