Editorial Comment

	Vol. 226 No. 2
PERRY A. FISCHER, EDITOR

Polemic propaganda. (Or, the 2% solution.) The world does not need more pundits, politicians, journalists and editors acting as spinmasters to convince people of things that are not entirely true: that’s the purview of marketers and salesmen. What we need is a more critical, skeptical and questioning public, one that is better informed in all types of energy, as well as energy rhetoric.

My high school history teacher once defined propaganda as, “truth, but told in a way that only leads to one possible outcome.” I’m not sure that’s the official definition, but I use it here nonetheless.

In writing in a polemic, ideological manner, where the main points are conveyed through word play and contentious argument, what it says, strictly defined, is not what it conveys. It is often the difference between definition and connotation. In other words, the intent is to lead the reader to believe something quite different than what is literally being said.

Take, for example: “There’s enough oil in the ground to last for centuries.” Absolutely true if taken literally but, in effect, it’s misleading rubbish. “Centuries of oil supply,” is what you’re supposed to think. Certainly there is a vast amount of oil in the ground, but getting it out of the ground and to markets while still making a profit, well, that’s quite a different thing.

“The world is running out of oil.” Few statements are as undeniably true as this. But it’s a bit like the lyrics from an old blues song, “the doctor says it’ll kill me, but he won’t say when.” The world started running out of oil shortly after it began being produced by well drilling. Exactly when, and whether, there might be some sort of peak in production, are other questions. One thing is certain: The world is not running out of hydrocarbons, if one stops thinking of “hydrocarbons” as just crude oil and natural gas.

There are vast hydrocarbon resources in the form of oil shale, enough for many decades of supply that could, in a pinch, be extracted. Actually, if today’s high prices were to remain, the process becomes economically viable. Although there are serious environmental considerations, somehow, Canada has found a way to produce its massive tar sands projects with minimal long-term impact. There, very large areas are surface-mined for the tar, which is extracted, and then the area is eventually reclaimed. And not only are the tar sands resources vast, equally vast are extra heavy bitumen deposits such as in Venezuela’s Orinoco belt.

There’s at least 7,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas reserves on the planet, probably much more. We are presently using about 100 Tcf a year. It would seem that we have many decades, perhaps a century or more, of natural gas supply.

And of course, there’s coal. In a pinch, coal (and natural gas as well) can be converted into hydrocarbon liquids and diesel, as is presently done by Sasol in South Africa. So, considering the combined resources of coal, tar sands and extra-heavy oil, shale oil and natural gas, there cannot possibly be a shortage of hydrocarbons, at least in the few hundreds of years “people” may be around, and using more energy than we are accustomed to.

Though often masterful persuaders, beware of pundits, politicians and editors who like to use words such as “significant,” “helpful, “could impact” and other weak, vague descriptions. Often, they mean very little, and are neither significant nor helpful. For example, “The tanker leaked a significant amount of oil,” means what? Significant to whom?

Have you ever noticed that oil spills are almost always reported by the press in gallons or liters. Is that because it sounds more sensational, or because the public has no idea how big a barrel of oil is or what it looks like?

“The tanker leaked 1,600 liters (or 420 gallons) of oil.” This sounds like much more than 10 barrels, although it’s the same amount. And is that significant?

I remember seeing a TV news report showing just one oily seabird. It temporarily destroyed tourism for more than a week at a very popular coastal town. It cost more than $10 million in lost business and over a million in taxes to the state. The reality was that those 10 barrels were cleaned up in less than a day and, except for that lone seabird, had very little effect on the environment. While spilling oil is still a bad thing, those 10 barrels should not have kept the public from enjoying the coast. The only thing significant is how it was reported.

One that I’ve heard politicians say for many years: “We need to help our country reduce its dependence on foreign oil.” In most importing countries, this is as laudable as it is misleading. What’s lacking is anything specific, such as numbers, targets and results. It is a given that every importing country would like to reduce its imports of oil. The real questions are: What’s the amount of oil involved, and what are the trade-offs? For example, in the US, here’s an honest statement that no politician, as we know politicians, will ever say:

“We presently import about 57% of our oil needs. However, if we sacrifice and conserve, use energy judiciously, together with allowing drilling in all of our wildlife areas, national parks and coasts, we might be able to reduce our dependence on foreign oil to, say, 52%, for a few years anyway, before it starts to rise again, to beyond 57%. So, what do you say, America?” Such a statement would never garner public support.

“Hydrogen cars will be like Hindenburgs all over the highway.” Not really. The Hindenburg used hydrogen gas, hydrogen-fueled cars will use hydrogen stored as a solid (assuming that advances are made in cost and weight of the current tanks).

The following are especially popular in industry journals: “There’s no way that [windmills, solar energy, wave/ tidal generators, etc.] can replace [oil, gas, coal, etc.]” In fact, you could mix and match many of these, and many other, energy forms and get a true statement. Unfortunately, it would also be tantamount to a lie. When you hear this sort of polemic nonsense, question whether such fruit and vegetable comparisons even have meaning. The un-simple truth is that, absent the discovery of cold fusion, Power X, or some other heretofore unknown energy source, what the world needs is a plethora of energy sources, not some implied, phony, “either/ or” choices. We may well be facing a future that, to fill 100% of the world’s energy needs, will require 20 energy sources, each contributing 5%, or even 50, 2% solutions. Count nothing out – we’ll probably need them all.