Dissecting Bad Energy Reporting At The New York Times - Damning Article From Energy Bulletin

[hatrack]

It is simply amazing how often journalists and editors can dutifully report the facts as told to them by their sources without bothering to try and understand the larger picture. Specific data, cited as “proof” for a particular theory could in fact be evidence for the complete opposite conclusion if the entire data set was examined. A clear example of this is the recent use of Bakersfield's Kern River Field by the New York Time’s recent editorialized reporting in the “Demise of Oil” piece written by Jad Mouarad. This article repeated cited production figures from Kern County’s earliest oil field put into mass production. Unfortunately, for the average reader Mr. Mouarad took but two production figures from the long production history of this field without bothering to consider the entire record of this field and the implications those records demonstrate. Had he done that, he would have realized the Kern River Field had actually gone through a series of peaks and troughs brought on by new technology, market prices and yes, basic geology.

EDIT

Production had reached a nadir of but 10,000 barrels per day as cited by Mr. Mouarad in the early sixties as cited in the article when Shell Oil introduced steam injection. Production immediately responded, increasing to 68,000 by the end of the 1960s. From there other companies joined in the hunt as is evidenced by the production records. Apparently unbeknownst to the reporter, the State of California (OPI) kept tabs of every single oil well in the state including all 31000 drilled in the Kern River Field and placed them online (from 1977 onwards) for anyone to query. In any case the findings from the Kern River data are quite interesting.





When observing the entire graph (and remembering the 1960’s era production figures) it becomes abundantly clear that the Kern River in fact, is well past peak having rolled over January of 1986 at around 155,000 BPD. It plateaued for another ten years around 140,000 BPD before entering the terminal decline which it currently is in around 1996. This information is entirely lacking from the article and obviously runs counter to the claim that peak oil (in any field) can be mitigated with a hearty dose of technology. The Kern River Field saw a progression of technological innovation over the 108-year lifespan of this field, each time raising production to a peak before declining once again. Each technology improved on the efficiency (early steam injection wells consumed 20-40% of the crude for steam production) resulting in more oil entering the supply yet the long-term trend remained intact.

EDIT

As usual, the mainstream media dropped the ball on this major issue thanks to shoddy fact checking and a little research. It is also an instructive example how selective use of statistics (whether intentional or not) only serves to cloud the otherwise straight forward arguments in favor Peak Oil. By producing these conflicting pieces, the media sows doubt on the urgency of the issue, much like the Global Warming opponents did throughout the 1990’s. A message that “don’t worry, technology will save us” removes the sense of urgency for us as a society to make the proper preparations.

EDIT/END

http://www.energybulletin.net/26911.html

[ryanmuegge]

1. Yeah, how dare anybody report evidence concluding anything other than certain death and destruction?

Even though I believe in peak oil theory, everyone always gets so upset whenever anyone questions the theory or the sources from which the theory comes. Most peak oil believers are so dogmatic about the whole thing.

[hatrack]

2. This is about bad journalism, not "certain death and destruction"

The article by Mouarad used the Kern River field as an example of how technology can revive oil production in certain fields. The clear implication of his article is that the same technologies can extend oil production from existing fields for an indefinite period.

However, the reporter failed to note in the article that even with EOR operations, the field he referred to still reached its peak more than 20 years ago, and has been declining on both gross and per-well bases for about eleven years.

He also failed to discuss the fact that heavy oil fields such as Kern River respond well to the steam injection process, but that the same process is useless in enhancing recovery of conventional oil. He also failed to mention in an article filled with references to "new" technology that steam injection - like waterflooding, CO2 injection, natural gas reinjection, etc., is a technology that has been around for decades and decades.

So, an article invoking new technology (that isn't new) which can be applied to oil fields around the planet (provided they contain heavy oil) and which can revive production in existing fields (but which still can't prevent peak or terminal decline).

[ryanmuegge]

4. It isn't just this article, which I agree is bad journalism.

It's just the general response by everyone (yeah, many of which are not Ph.D geologists, so what do they know anyway?) whenever anybody questions peak oil theory at all.

The other day here, I saw someone on here say "so and so is a PEAK OIL DENIER," as if the person questioned some sort of holy religious ideology, or worse yet around here Apple Corp.

[hatrack]

5. Along those lines, Matt Simmons had a really good quote

"It's time to stop using the words 'I believe' outside of church."

Having said that, I think the evidence is pretty solid that we're (at the very least) close to peak, but that doesn't automatically mean an accordioning collapse of civilization, provided (big if) that we're willing to get to work on substantially reinventing the way we live.

[phantom power]

6. Without weasel words, how will we predict the future?

[ryanmuegge]

7. And Matt Simmons isn't someone of questionable credibility?

He probably has a strong point about the Saudi data transparency. Yet, his affiliation with Bush and the corporate world seriously class his credibility into question.

With all due respect, seriously, he is someone that should be questioned for obvious reasons.

[redqueen]

3. We as a society should have damn well learned by now

not to trust a single source on issues as important as this one.

I think by now it's become crystal frickin clear that there are too many people with too many agendas to go by just one or two sources. Someday I hope more people will take the initative and start educating themselves, and stop waiting for someone else to serve them what they need in a convenient pamphlet / article format.

Grrrrrr

Sorry.