Lindsay McNamara, Columnist
Ideology: Environmentalist | Writing from: New Jersey
For the last 20 some-odd years, natural resource experts have estimated we have 30 years of oil left. This seems counterintuitive. How can 20 years pass, but the amount of oil we have left on the planet stay the same, especially as we continue to consume it at an exponential rate? The answer lies in advances in technology. Improved technology has allowed access to otherwise trapped oil reservoirs. We can now reach what has been termed “tough oil.”
Lester Brown, founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, and Michael Klare, a Five Colleges professor of Peace and World Security Studies shed light on the idea of “easy oil” vs. “tough oil.” “Easy oil” is categorized as oil produced in “friendly, safe, and welcoming places,” such as oil found on shore or near to the shore, close to the surface or concentrated in large reservoirs. On the other hand, “tough oil” is buried far offshore or deep underground, or spread out in small, hard-to-find reservoirs. The manner with which “tough oil” must be obtained is from “unfriendly, politically dangerous or hazardous places.”
Twenty years ago, the majority of our oil supply was “easy oil,” giving us 30 more years of black gold. Currently in 2011, as we continue to deplete natural reserves at an ungodly rate, we have managed to reestablish our 30 year oil supply with advances in technology, but twenty-first century oil is now “tough oil,” calling for processes like oil sands mining to extract.
While conventional crude oil is extracted from the ground by drilling wells into a petroleum reservoir, oil sands have been deemed “unconventional” oil and require a much more extensive process. Extra-heavy oil flows very slowly toward producing wells under normal conditions and therefore must be extracted by strip mining. Strip mining reduces the viscosity of the oil by injecting steam, solvents, and/or hot air into the sands. Consequently, oil sands mining requires more water and energy than conventional oil extraction. Because of this, Environmental Defense has called the Alberta Oil Sands project “the most destructive project on Earth.” Below are a few hard numbers to back up this claim:
- Oil sands mining is permitted to use two times more fresh water than the entire city of Calgary uses in a year
- At least 90% of the fresh water used in the oil sands ends up in ponds so toxic that propane cannons are used to keep ducks from landing in them
- Processing the oil sands uses enough natural gas in a day to heat 3 million homes
- Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil

Despite the environmental disadvantages of oil sands mining, Chief executive Peter Voser has named tar sands one of the new projects set to propel Shell’s growth even higher.
With this damaging method proposed, it is important to pay attention to where 2012 election candidates stand on alternative energy and peak oil. Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) claims, “The new Republican majority seems intent on restoring the robber-baron era where there were no controls on pollution from power plants, oil refineries and factories.” We absolutely cannot return this era where politicians honor businessmen who use questionable business practices to become powerful or wealthy. We cannot elect candidates who are funded and supported by oil megalomaniacs. We need to credit candidates who are walking the talk and looking for new solutions away from petroleum to power America’s economy.
We can no longer stand for individuals who are just talking about renewable energy sources—we need action. Especially since many environmentalists believe that we have reached “peak oil,” the point at which the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline.
“Peak oil” is not to be confused with oil depletion; it is not a period of falling reserves and supply, but a point at which maximum production is reached. “Peak oil” should be viewed as an opportunity to transition our economy and consequently the American lifestyle away from oil and towards more renewable sources, like solar, wind and geothermal. It is not a doomsday environmental crisis, more a wakeup call to stop extracting “tough oil” and progress in a more environmentally-conscious manner.

Great article, Lindsay! I’m posting the link on our facebook page!
this article makes it clear that the good old days of cheap easy oil and discussions about change are over. alternative energy needs to start today because its just going to get worse from this point on. great article lindsay!
Wait, Lindsay: no mention of the newer conception of coal, oil & gas: that they’re not “fossil” fuels at all like we learned in school(who might be responsible for that con?) but that they are formed, manufactured deeper in the crust of the earth or even deeper–at the top of the magma–from the combination of methane and water under pressure and heated and –voila–gas, oil and later, coal.
This presents the newer competing conception of those valuable fuels’ origin that they are not necessarily a wasting asset, or resource, and that the wells of yesterday thought to be emptied, actually fill back up!
Haven’t heard of it? The Russians started speculating about this up to 40 years ago: our western scientists are starting to say Hmmmm!… there might be something to this: but of course, and global warming comes to mind here as a force that has already taken the science out of the scientists, it’s hard to find a scientist that will look at this objectively, because since grade school he’s been taught to think of the” fossil fuels are a-wasting” concept.
But it’s a very interesting notion. Look into it. Maybe the “crisis” of fuel depletion needn’t be a worry. God knows global warming isn’t anymore.
O&D,
Why isn’t “global warming” a worry anymore? Scientists are also now referring to the phenomenon of human impact on the atmosphere/environment as “climate change,” to deter the general public from thinking that the planet is simply going to get warmer.
How quickly do “the wells of yesterday” fill back up, exactly? I was taught the fossil fuels like oil take millions of years to create. So what were the Russians saying?
In order: 1)” Global warming”(BTW how many scare quotemarks will become necessary to separate the risible liberal linguistic formulations that get employed trying to fool the people with new scary and appealing images and sentiments, supplanting HUMAN THOUGHT?)was replaced by “climate change” to scare a gullible, uneducated populace(the mob: read Ann Coulter’s newest!)into fearing when the temperature goes up, AND when it goes down… Sort of sounds philosophically much like “You have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it”. CLAPTRAP
2)The Russians, and now a growing group of rational scientists are theorizing that methane plus water plus temperature plus pressure: all present farther below that we can see it yet, make petroleum which then “boils up” and fills reservoirs that are there and open in geologic strata. Given what geology is capable of this theory doesn’t seem implausible. Therefore the crust of the earth is a skittle over the open flame of the molten core, and the oil is made over that cooking source in geologic time. ISN’T IT INTERESTING?!
3) In summary, I would say you went wrong with “You were taught… ” and the wheels fell off right after. Where’s your critical thinking reflex? Must’ve been checked at the entrance that said “Punditry.”
1. I would say the “gullible, uneducated populace” are those who refuse to believe that human activity is wrecking havoc on the planet.
2. Yes oil is made over a GEOLOGIC time. We do not have a GEOLOGICAL time frame to wait. Are you suggesting that we then drill into the CRUST OF THE EARTH for more oil when we run out of our current reserves?
Right on-this hpeled me sort things right out.
Yes, we may some year soon see peak oil production, and a period that follows of continually rising oil prices. And maintenance of living standards, and increasing living standards, will almost certainly require more rather than less energy. However, renewable energy sources are unlikely to solve this dilemma by themselves. Only hydro and solar-thermal are likely to be short-term economic. To get to a non-poverty-stricken future, we will also need substantial investment in nuclear fission. With breeder technology, there’s already nuclear fuel refined and stored sufficient for centuries of power at current rates of consumption. We need to get serious about using it.
Rashomon,
You bring up excellent points about peak oil as it relates to oil prices/standard of living, but do you think, given in the current crisis in Japan, that there will be support for large scale investment in R&D of nuclear fuel?
And may I add one more that desperately needs to be said here, that the notion that capitalist man is at the source of all the bad present and hurt present in our civilization at whatever time you care to cite, is very old by now and has it’s own lineage(Encyclopedia see “Luddites”), and it’s the lineage of an unthinking and cruel mob of destructive idiots and people in their thrall. (Encyclopedia see: Environmental Protection Agency).
If you are interested in why capitalism makes the notion of “sustainability” impossible, read The Corporate Greenhouse by Yda Schreuder.
After anyone uses the term “sustainability” I don’t read anymore. I don’t have enough time left on Earth wasting it trying to understand this ancient syndrome of not seeing, understanding, and behaving according to God’s laws. He and he alone deserves the essence of your term sustainable. He is, was, and will be. All that he creates he can destroy, or allow the forces of entropy to lay waste.
Behold Him, Love Him, Revere Him, Worship Him. Forget about climate change.
And all that…
I’m not sure that God would hundreds of millions of climate refugees. I feel that’s a bit unethical. Praying isn’t going to save millions of innocent lives from being lost, or creating a better quality of life for those in developing countries that have to bear the brunt of our wasteful, consuming ways.
God has smitten entire peoples for reasons he doesn’t owe us. Expecting an explanation is an ancient heresy which opens our hearts to the work of the Devil, distrusting our Creator.
Trust our Creator.
If a baby dies, it can erode the faith of the baby’s loved ones. Or it can enhance it, depending on their orientation. He doesn’t owe us an explanation of the death of the baby, either, though that can touch, and blacken our hearts.
Be grateful he gave us powers of memory, powers of reasoning, powers to philosophize, read and write poetry, limericks, Hawaiian verse, and appreciate beauty. Stop looking for explanations. Make up your own! Base them on powers of reasoning, not slavish and ritual belief.
The rational odds support the belief in God, your Creator. Adopt it.
It makes fear go away(like the fear of global warming: the earth has warmed before, man had nothing to do with it. If it is again, he has nothing to do with that either, and can’t change it!)it makes dread go away, it sweetens and lightens your life and those around you. It doesn’t end suffering, it makes it tolerable.
God has smitten entire peoples for reasons he doesn’t owe us. Expecting an explanation is an ancient heresy which opens our hearts to the work of the Devil, distrusting our Creator.
Trust our Creator.
If a baby dies, it can erode the faith of the baby’s loved ones. Or it can enhance it, depending on their orientation. He doesn’t owe us an explanation of the death of the baby, either, though that can touch, and blacken our hearts.
Be grateful he gave us powers of memory, powers of reasoning, powers to philosophize, read and write poetry, limericks, Hawaiian verse, and appreciate beauty. Stop looking for explanations. Make up your own! Base them on powers of reasoning, not slavish and ritual belief.
The rational odds support the belief in God, your Creator. Adopt it.
It makes fear go away(like the fear of global warming: the earth has warmed before, man had nothing to do with it. If it is again, he has nothing to do with that either, and can’t change it!)it makes dread go away, it sweetens and lightens your life and those around you. It doesn’t end suffering, it makes it tolerable.
im confused when did this article become about god? old & decrepit if your attempting to help lindsay understand the concept of global warming help yourself to a f&*$ing text book and stop quoting the bible
Lorenzo: Help yourself by taking command of 1) capitalization(im= I’m, god = God, and f*&(%ing = I stop reading because you don’t entertain any thought but epithets and expletives. 2) elementary rules of grammar, the manners of language. Are you the product of a union secondary education? Or did you react negatively to an even more expensive private education?)
You’re a waste of my time.
It became about God when I made the point that He is all that is sustainable. Care to refute, without resorting to your “textbooks?”
Here’s a way to protest the Tar Sands pipeline, which will carry sludge from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico:…
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/2133/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5450