So I thought it would be cathartic to dissect the presentation --
Dr Hawke began with a typically confusing introductory slide on electricity generation, when anyone with a basic knowledge of peak oil knows that it's a liquid fuel problem, not an electricity issue. We cannot power our cars, trucks ships and planes on electricity.
Dr Hawke then attempted to paint peak oil proponents as pessimists who underestimated oil reserves, exaggerated future demand, while not giving enough emphasis to substitution and technological advances -- the archetypal cornucopian view. Firstly, the argument about reserves is a straw man because peak oil is essentially concerned with the flows -- production of oil -- (which have been flat since 2005 despite record high prices and advances in technology) rather than how much oil might or might not be in the ground.
As to exaggerating future demand, surely the government is not seriously suggesting that soaring demand from China, India, Middle East and other developing nations is magically going to decline? Again this is a typically Western-centric view which wrongly transposes the declining oil demand trends in OECD nations like New Zealand to the world as a whole.
But what really got me wound up was the selective use of the International Energy Agency's information, which the government believes provides “credible information on the global oil market”. On the one hand the government takes as gospel the projections of the IEA that as yet undiscovered fields and unconventional oil will meet demand out to 2035. This selective faith in the IEA is maintained despite -
• the IEA forecasts on oil production having to be revised downward in huge chunks every year for the last six -- eight years
• peak oil scientists having been far more accurate with their production forecasts in the same timeframe
• peak oil experts such as those at Uppsala University providing analysis that shows the IEA’s forecasts for finding undiscovered oil fields are around three times greater than historical norms
But on the other hand the government is quite prepared to ignore other recent IEA announcements - calling for large-scale government intervention - because it does not suit its “the markets will solve everything” ideology . The IEA said in its 2010 Report on NZ that the government should “give priority to enhancing energy efficiency in the transport, commercial buildings and industry sectors by defining clear objectives for the sector supported by adequate cost-effective measures and long-term investments"
The next slides selectively depict various scenarios for future oil production. But only the most optimistic scenarios are shown - a “new policies" scenario and a “green revolution” -- 450 ppm Co2 or 2° of warming" scenario. Post Kyoto there is scant evidence of world governments actually implementing either of these scenarios. So why is the far more pessimistic "current policy" scenario omitted from the presentation?
Domestic policies
This is where the government's so called "response" to peak oil is set out. Four actions to "reduce our dependence on oil" are outlined –• New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme
• Encouraging entry of biofuels and electric vehicles to the NZ market
• Investment in public transport infrastructure; and
• The Petroleum Action Plan
I want to concentrate on the government's response on biofuels and electric vehicles and its Petroleum Action Plan, as the ETS and funding for public transport infrastructure have been well canvassed elsewhere.
Slide 27 brazenly suggests that the government is actively encouraging biofuels and electric car uptake as serious policy initiatives as a response to peak oil. Frankly I found this an insult to the intelligence of the forum audience and the public at large. Why? -- Because these are minuscule and pathetic policy responses.
Here is the analysis of these 2 policies done by WWF....
“In the first eleven months of operation (July 2009 – May 2010), an average of 44,620 litres of biodiesel were covered by the scheme, which is roughly equivalent to 38 tonnes of fuel. Extrapolating this average over a whole year equates to 456 tonnes per year. Total oil consumption in NZ in 2008 was: 5,737,000 tonnes. At this rate, biodiesel covered by the scheme would comprise 0.008% of total NZ oil consumption.”
Road User Charges Exemption for Light Electric Vehicles
WWF “The government predicts 127 electric vehicles will obtain the exemption by 2012 when the scheme expires, with combined annual revenue foregone in road user charges over its four year duration is projected to be less than $105,000.”$105,000 is less than 0.002% of the government’s planned spending on roads
Petroleum Action Plan
The second much touted “response” is the Petroleum Action Plan (PAP) the aim of which is to develop New Zealand's petroleum potential.
"in time it is hoped this will improve our net position and reduce our dependence on imported oil".
Let's just repeat that - a major policy plank of the government's response to peak oil is -"in time" (7 -- 10 years at best before any flows of new oil can be expected, but with the oil crisis unfolding right now)
"it is hoped" (would it help if we all got down on our knees and prayed?) that something will turn up. Yet this is put up as a credible response to peak oil which is already causing higher inflation and substantial and negative impacts on GDP?
Already huge cracks are appearing in the petroleum plan ….
• In late 2010 Exxon pulled out of exploration in the Great South Basin
• despite a record number of wells being drilled offshore of Taranaki, very little new oil has been found in the last two years
• Petrobras is angry with the government that it was confronted with major protest action offshore from East Cape which disrupted its exploration work. The company left early, and who knows whether they will return.
• Grey Wolf has withdrawn its application for offshore drilling in Golden Bay
• Not one company has taken up available exploration permits off the coast of Northland. The government surreptitiously placed this news on the MED website in the past few days with no ministerial press release. When confronted the government said the global financial crisis and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was to blame. Well hello! Was that not blindingly obvious when the PAP was formulated.? I pointed out these issues in an earlier post .
Yet in spite of these major setbacks in five different much touted offshore oil basins, the government's presentation has the gall to put up this graphic suggesting we will be "saved" by new oil discoveries.
As I pointed out in a post in November last year about this very same graphic -- if you strip away these yet to be discovered oilfields -- you are left with the real world situation of New Zealand oil production having already peaked and declining steeply to zero by 2023.
Conclusion
This was a non-response to peak oil. It was a "let's pretend is not happening" and if it turns out it is happening "let's hope and pray that something will turn up"
Am I my feeling any better having got this off my chest? Well not really -- because there are effective policy responses that the government can make. But due to its ideological blinkers, they will continue to ignore them.
Labour has yet to announce its energy policy for this year’s election. Whether it too is unprepared to take bold and effective action on peak oil remains to be seen. I expect to be equally disappointed.
Note: Prof Bob Lloyd of Otago University also gave an excellent presentation on peak oil at the forum which you can view here
Posts
6 comments:
Thanks Denis for reporting back to us on the government's total lack of understanding of this vital issue. We are ruled by idiots. The tar sands may save Canada but can never be produced at a level that is remotely useful to the world at large. My only criticism is the mandatory genuflection to global warming, something I used to teach. It is a total crock.
A huge thanks to Denis for a superb analysis of this most depressing, blinkered government 'policy'.
I emigrated to NZ from the UK because on paper, NZ is far better placed than the UK to meet the coming tribulations. But I reckoned without NZ's politicians who, if anything, are even more moronic than those in the UK.
But at least we can feed ourselves without oil, which the UK cannot.
Martin Hanson
Thanxx Denis. Good to see some plain old scrutiny of those delivering drivel dressed as insight.
With the knowledge that we had in the 1980's already in the USA...Los Alamos physicists designed a computer program for several climatic regimes in New Mexico and allowed for manipulation of the building envelope and fenestration and solar features. It allowed one to work up a zero net energy home for most of a typical climatic year. Your usage in NZ for oil and natural gas for heating in the long term is what can and should be reduced with old homes being updated as they are sold and new homes not permitted without best tech design. My house in Albuquerque NM with retrofits from 1950 now goes past the winter solstice without a furnace being turned on...I hope this coming year to go all the way with some additional updates to the house.
Chris H asked me to post his comments...
Of course, we have to remember that Rogernomics was founded on the rejection of Think Big, an early attempt at dealing with oil crises which among other things included electrifying 411 km of the North Island Main Trunk line.
As Roger Kerr, head of the NZ Business Roundtable, noted in 2000:
“The whole ‘think big’ fiasco and the notion that we needed a Ministry of Energy stemmed from the idea that energy was so special that governments needed to intervene comprehensively in energy markets. We preferred the absurd spectacle of carless days to efficient prices for energy.” (quoted in John Wilson, “What if Muldoon’s ‘Think Big’ energy projects had succeeded,” in Stephen Levine, ed, New Zealand as it Might have Been, 2006).
And so you see how difficult it is for Humpty Dumpty to get off the wall in New Zealand. It would be tantamount to admitting that Piggy was more right than wrong after all. And then the whole post-1984 ideological sweater would unravel.
What’s equally depressing is the way that a person so obviously has to be a “loyal party hack” to get ahead or even retain their job in the New Zealand public service, courtesy of 25 years of Rogernomic ideological bureaucrats at the top.
Thus NZ official reports, not just this particular presentation, so often read like a load of obvious crap prepared by some total mediocrity even in comparison to their Australian or UK equivalents, never mind the German or French ones.
It’s another reason for the brain drain.
Dr Richard Hawke used some amusing 'future prediction' quotes in his power point. Obviously none of them correct. I wonder however how Dr Hawke might explain the absence of things such as:
“Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality in 10 years.” -– Alex Lewyt, president of vacuum cleaner company Lewyt Corp, in the New York Times in 1955.
And wasn't the new milleniim supposed to be an age where technology has afforded us such a standard of living and income that we spend most of our days pursuing leisure activities?
The reality is that the hours spent working are longer than the 1970s, households cannot get ahead on one income, real wages have barely increased since the 1970s and unemployment hovers around 9.5% in the US and 6.5% in NZ with many more in part time work wanting full time jobs and many more having given up and exited job hunting.
And hey, where are our flying cars and personal jet packs predicted in the 1960s? How come they are not in every day use?
And weren't we supposed to have a permanent base on the moon by now, and an under sea city?
Clearly by the success of those predictions Dr Hawke can confidently state that we are not going to run out of cheap oil any time soon.
Post a Comment