It’s time to get real

Image by drpepperscott230 from Pixabay

“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen.” — Aldo Leopold

Just as it’s the ecologists who fully understand the magnitude of the losses in the natural world, it is the petroleum engineers who understand the seriousness of the energy situation.

“As a critical component in 90% of all industrially manufactured products and a third of global primary energy consumption, oil is the backbone of industrial civilization.” — Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2023

As this 2023 article in the Journal of Petroleum Technology (JPT) states, oil is indeed the backbone of industrial civilization. Gas and coal are too, but it is oil that most lubricates business-as-usual. Let’s just say, we wouldn’t be living the lives we do now without copious amounts of fossil fuels, and oil in particular.

Infographic from Elements; data from Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)

To fully understand the predicament we’re in, one must understand the concept of “energy returned on energy invested” or EROEI for short. 

When oil was first discovered, it spouted from the ground in great gushers. At that time the EROEI of oil was essentially 1000 or more to 1, meaning it took only 1 barrel of oil to find, extract, and process 1000 or more barrels of oil. Today, the EROEI of oil has declined to an average of about 30:1 for onshore oil, shale tight oil (from fracking), and shallow offshore oil, to about 10:1 for deep offshore oil and mined shale oil (rock is mined and then heated to release oil), and to 5:1 for tar sands oil. Coal began at a high of about 80:1, declined to about 30:1, then rebounded to 80:1 with the advent of strip mining. The EROEI of coal is now declining again, down to about 46:1 here in the U.S. as the quality of coal declines, even as the quantity extracted continues to increase. Natural gas began at 120:1 and has declined to roughly 20:1 depending on the source. (EROEI data primarily from EROI of different fuels and the implications for society.)

When the EROEI of an energy material reaches 1:1, there is of course no point in extracting it because it requires as much energy to extract as the energy we get out of it. Most energy experts say that anything with an EROEI of less than 3:1 is not worth doing.

For those who think we can replace oil, gas, and coal with electricity from “renewable” sources like nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind, please remember that electricity cannot replace fossil fuels in the fertilizers that now ensure food for at least 4 billion people and supply 9 out of every 10 calories we eat. Electricity cannot supply a carbon atom in the chemistry required to make steel or silicon. Electricity cannot supply the heat required for many industrial processes at scale. 

The petroleum engineers are correct: oil is the backbone of industrial civilization, along with coal and gas, and no amount of electricity will change that if we want this way of life to continue. 

Let’s now return to the article from JPT. In this article, the authors state:

“Energy necessary for the production of oil liquids is growing at an exponential rate, representing 15.5% of the energy production of oil liquids today and projected to reach a proportion equivalent to half of the gross energy output by 2050.”

This means the EROEI of fossil fuels, overall, is declining rapidly. 

“The gross energy production from oil liquids is likely to peak in the next 10 to 15 years, and the contribution of unconventional liquids will increase to about half of conventional oil at its peak. The energy required for oil liquids production is expected to increase exponentially.”

This too is saying the EROEI of fossil fuels will continue to decline at an exponential rate. As petroleum extraction declines (there’s only so much petroleum oil left in the ground that’s accessible), we’ll increasingly rely on “unconventional liquids” like shale oil and oil sands (“tar sands”). These kinds of oil are the last oil we can access—because these kinds of oil are from the “source rock” for oil. The rocks containing shale oil are the rocks that contain organic matter that is converted to oil and gas through heat and pressure over time. After that oil is gone, it’s gone for good (on human time scales). Similarly, tar sands oil—clay and sand—are rock containing bitumen which can be heated to extract oil. After the petroleum reserves are sucked dry and the shale oil is gone, the only oil left is tar sands oil. There’s plenty of coal left, but creating burnable liquids from coal is an energy intensive and polluting process, and is considered a last resort.

There are an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil left in the world’s tar sands. That’s a lot of oil, but at the rate we burn fossil fuels in 2024, that would last only 47 years. Less than 10% of the world’s tar sands oil can be economically recovered with today’s technology, thus yielding at most 5 years worth of oil at today’s burn rate. All who are reading this would likely be horrified if the world turned to tar sands oil, given we all know (or should know) the scale of devastation caused by the Alberta oil sands, the largest tar sands operation in the world.

Alberta Tar Sands, 2008, by Ajaxfiore on Flickr. CCA 2.0 Generic

Likewise, coal mining, particularly strip coal mining, is something we all understand is devastating and polluting and is usually near the top of the list of environmental concerns. Turning to coal for liquid fuels would be a disaster.

“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” — Aldo Leopold

Back to the article. 

“The decline of EROEI over time for nonrenewable energy sources is due to physical depletion and technological improvement factors.”

Meaning, better technology (greater efficiency) is like putting a bigger straw in the ground—it allows us to extract the remaining oil faster, leading to exponential decrease in EROEI. And again, once the EROEI of a source of oil (or coal or gas) reaches < 3:1 it’s pointless to extract anymore. 

In other words, the better we get at extracting what remains of the oil, the faster we’ll deplete the oil, and the faster we’ll reach an EROEI of < 3:1 for all sources.

The authors say, “We need to be aware of the sharply declining EROEI of oil over time. It is essential that global stakeholders act swiftly to transition to more sustainable and renewable sources of energy to ensure a secure and sustainable energy future.”

Remember, however, that 9/10 calories most of us eat comes directly from fossil fuels. We literally eat fossil fuels in the form of nitrogen and carbon atoms in our food that have come from fossil fuels. There is no substitute for the fertilizers that allow the world to feed (mostly) 8+ billion people on Earth without fossil fuels.

Finally, the authors state:

“On the one hand, we clearly have too much fossil fuels stock to respect ambitious climate targets. On the other hand, should the supply side of oil liquids face major bottlenecks, then a fast global shift to renewable energy sources will be all the more difficult to achieve.”

What is this saying?

First it is saying if we continue to extract and burn fossil fuels, we will blow past climate targets. We are already blowing past +1.5C as I write this, with 2024 the hottest year on record, running at about +1.64C above the pre-industrial baseline. 

A good portion of climate change comes from destroying the land for development and agriculture, meaning even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow but kept business-as-usual going by alternative means (nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, etc.) we’d still blow through climate targets because of the massive and exponentially growing amount of land destroyed by 8+ billion humans. Land use change—meaning primarily deforestation for industry and agriculture—is responsible for 20% or more of climate change, and is also responsible for the vast majority of habitat, species, and biodiversity loss: the sixth mass extinction, caused by humans.

Second it is saying that “renewable energy sources” (again, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, etc.) require massive amounts of fossil fuels to build. The mining and processing of materials for these technologies, along with the manufacturing and land use change required to support them are all completely dependent on fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels supply about 80% of current global energy, including that used by industries like mining and manufacturing. Some speak of an “emissions pulse” that will result from the energy required to

“… mine materials; transport and transform them through industrial processes like smelting; turn them into solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, vehicles, infrastructure, and industrial machinery; install all of the above, and do this at a sufficient scale to replace our current fossil-fuel-based industrial system.” — Is the Energy Transition Taking Off—or Hitting a Wall?, by Richard Heinberg

This emissions pulse will, of course, only accelerate the climate change we are already causing, which will accelerate the climate change tipping points—like albedo decline through ice loss—that then cause climate change to accelerate even more.

What the authors of the JPT article are saying then is that when the oil bottlenecks arrive—which they estimate is soon, given exponential decline in the EROEI of oil and other fossil fuels—it will be impossible to achieve a “transition” to other forms of energy.

Even if we were somehow able to achieve this “transition,” despite the fact that for some things like fertilizers, and chemistry and heat required for industrial processes, there is no substitute for fossil fuels, what would we do with all that energy? Would we continue business-as-usual? It is likely we would. And so the habitat loss, species loss, biodiversity loss, and land use change would continue apace.

It is far more likely that accelerating decline EROEI of fossil fuels will lead instead to catastrophe after catastrophe. Here is just one possible scenario that comes to mind:

• We know 9/10 calories we eat are enabled by fossil fuels.

• Therefore, declining fossil fuels and “exponential” decline in EROEI will lead to food shortages among many other problems.

• Continuing to burn fossil fuels, whether it’s because of lack of will to stop using them or via attempts to “transition,” will lead to exponentially worse climate change.

• However, not burning fossil fuels will lead to economic upheaval, food shortages, the end of many industrial processes (like plastic, steel, and silicon), and more.

• We know economic upheaval, food shortages, and impacts from climate change will lead to many desperate people (in the billions). Desperate people throw all caution to the wind and do whatever they can (including destroying what few ecosystems are left) to get access to food, water, shelter, etc. The Institute for Economics and Peace estimates over one billion people may be displaced by 2050. The global demand for food is projected to increase by 50% and 3.5 billion people are projected to be food insecure by 2050. 

• We know economic upheaval, food shortages, and impacts from climate change will lead to mass migration.

• We know mass migration makes people very angry.

• We know some countries with people very angry about migration have nuclear capability. Like the United States, for instance.

What are the scenarios you can imagine? Can you imagine any that don’t end with mass starvation, mass migration, and war, possibly global nuclear war? 

Please comment on this post if you can imagine such a scenario, and be sure to include your thoughts on whether the world will voluntarily come together (e.g. Russia and the U.S., China and the U.S., Iran and the U.S., Israel and Iran, Pakistan and India, to name just a few examples) to solve these problems using the scenario you lay out.

Because remember one thing: we are all in this together. Either we all come together to radically change how we live on planet Earth, or none of us do. If even just one country says, “Screw that plan, I’m going to continue to burn fossil fuels and extract all I can because it benefits this country and we don’t want to give up modern industrial civilization,” that country will then have an advantage, including a military advantage, over every other country. A military advantage means that country will come for all unextracted, unused fossil fuels and other metals and minerals the rest of us might agree to leave in the ground. And without massive amounts of fossil fuels and other metals and minerals, the rest of us will simply have no military to speak of with which to defend ourselves.

Feel free to pick apart where I’m wrong. I’d love to be wrong. Unfortunately, I don’t think I am. And because of exponential growth—a simple illustration of this growth is the fact that humanity has extracted and used more fossil fuels in the past 30 years as in all of previous history combined—I put my over/under for humanity at an uncomfortably close 2050’s. 

And the only thing I can say about that is: I’m sorry, young people. 

“I am glad I will not be young in a future without wilderness.” — Aldo Leopold

I’m also interested to hear how you plan to live the next couple of decades. As for me, I hope to live the lessons from my previous post.