Nina Jankovic
An Honest Academic Argument?
The eighth premise of Steady as she goes is that in the next few decades there will be a shift in the oil industry to alternative energy sources which will replace oil “…encouraged investment in new hydrocarbons and also alternatives…GTL, tar sands, ethanol and other alternatives will become more economic by the day.”(pg.3, ¶ 12) These alternative sources will be so developed on the market that they will be able to meet not only current demand but future world demand for fuel. What will alternative energy sources mean for the civilizations oil addiction? This is the core of the argument, if the foundation of the society can be replaced than the structure will not fall. The following excerpts from the article defend its claim:
1. “…if the peak were to come after 2020 or 2030, as the International Energy Agency and other mainstream forecasters predict, then the rising tide of alternative fuels will help…ease the transition to life after oil.” (pg.3 ¶ 8) This is both a logical and interpretive argument. If oil peaks when the mainstream predicts then time is not a problem. Since there is time to switch to alternative fuels, logically companies will do so because it is also in their best interest to invest in a surely developing market, as demand must be met. The argument is interpretive because in this situation developing alternative fuels is not the only option- alternately the intentional abandonment of civilization may come in to action- and it is not guaranteed success (though it might be attempted).
2. “The global oil industry, argues Chevron, is changing from ‘an exploration business to a manufacturing business’… [i.e.] the first diesel-powered car to win an endurance race… [was powered by Shells] blended conventional diesel with a super-clean and super-powerful new form of diesel made from natural gas… [called] gas- to- liquids, or GTL.” (pg.3 ¶ 9) There is a thorough transformation among the oil industry; companies such as Shell are creating new forms of oil, from unconventional materials or resources, in an attempt to delay peak and change the industry to include alternative form of oil. Evidently this is an evidential argument, it is a clear example of the oil industry developing and using unconventional fuel, efficiently.
3. “ …blending petrol or diesel with ethanol or biodiesel made from agricultural crops, or with fuels made from Canada’s ‘tar sands’ or America’s shale oil(‘ would greatly increase the world’s remaining supplies of oil.’)…companies are now also investing furiously to convert not only natural gas but also coal into a liquid fuel.” (pg.3 ¶ 11) This change in the industry is not only a prediction but is already happening as companies redirect their investments (coming from their record profits) to unconventionally creating liquid fuel. This is an interpretive and evidential argument. It is interpretive because it assumes that these alternative oils are profitable, efficient, environmentally safe (assumes political situation) and that they will become greatly used by the oil industry. The first suggestion of energy coming from tar sands is not evident because there isn’t even claim that companies are using it. However the argument does state, as evidence, that companies are investing in converting natural gas and coal into a liquid fuel.
4. “Daniel Yergin of CERA says ‘the very definition of oil is changing, since non-conventional oil becomes conventional over time.’” (pg.3 ¶ 11) This is interpretive and is only true according to the above statements. The interpretation is that something that is not considered oil now will later be interpreted as oil, when in fact the fuel won’t be wholly or even mostly petroleum based.
5. “…though they [alternative energy sources] are quite big in markets, such as ethanol-mad Brazil, that have favorable policies.” This is an evidential argument because it gives a specific example of where alternative fuels are already abundantly used. However, I am not sure whether this is a supporting or opposing argument because the sentence ends with the implication that this alternative fuel might be extremely hazardous to our environment and/or noxious to humans.
The principal argument here is exclusive of the detail involved in the sort of alternative energy sources the article entails. These alternative fuels are known to be extremely unsafe for the environment and would have apocalyptic effects in the long run. Also, the energy efficiency is unbeneficial. Let’s take a look at “tar sands”. As Heinberg points out in Power down “…the rate of extraction of that resource [tar sands] will always by limited by the fact that the production process is-and will inevitably continue to be- expensive from both a financial and an energy standpoint, as well as being environmentally disastrous.”(pg. 120) In addition an example of the awful ratio of energy consumed and energy produced using tar sands is a pipeline project in Canada in which “…nearly all of the [natural] gas transported may end up being consumed by tar sands projects in Alberta. What shall we do with our remaining gas- heat our homes or cook bitumen?” (Power down, pg. 121) Tar sands are energy and economically expensive.
The sources to support this argument largely come from:
1. International Energy Agency (IEA): http://www.iea.org/
2. Chevron Corporation: http://www.chevron.com/
3. Royal Dutch/ Shell Group: http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=home
4. Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA): http://www.cera.com/home/
The IEA is an international organization, with 26 member countries whose governments participate in creating conditions under which the energy component of their economies can prosper in a considerate way, and in a free/open market. “The IEA acts as energy policy advisor for its 26 member countries in their effort to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for their citizens. Founded during the oil crisis of 1973-74, its initial role was to coordinate measures in times of oil supply emergencies…IEA publications are known world-wide for their objectivity.” (IEA website)
The Chevron Corporation is a world wide (180 countries) energy- oil- company. “Chevron is among the top oil producers in Argentina, Colombia and Venezuela…” (Chevron website) “As important as our financial and operating performance is - our goal is to be No. 1 among our competitors in total stockholder return - our underlying values define who we are.” What are these underlying values? How do they affect their claims about becoming a “manufacturing business”?
Shell is far more diverse in their businesses than Chevron, Shell also produces lubricants, oils, chemicals, plastics etc. and have a greater variety of refined fuels. From their website they seem to have invested a lot in the development of new fuels. “Some of the products we offer include Shell V-Power, Shell V-Power Racing, Shell V-Power Diesel and Shell Optimax. The benefit of each product and its availability differs by country…Some alternative fuels require vehicle modifications or the installation of a new fuel infrastructure, which is limiting their initial usage to dedicated bus and truck fleets. In the medium term gasoline and diesel will increasingly contain blend components that are derived from sources other than oil to ensure cleaner air. Longer term, a new infrastructure for the distribution and sale of hydrogen will be built.” (Shell group website) They provide a range of different fuels under the categories of: Economy gasolines, Performance fuels, New Fuels, Autogas (LPG), Compressed Natural Gas, Hydrogen and Biofuels.
CERA is a branch of the IHS, which is a US company that provides almost all services involving energy all over the world. This company is an advisor to international energy companies; they provide information about different sources of energy around the world, and new technologies that are vital to such industries as the oil industry. “CERA delivers critical knowledge and independent analysis on energy markets, geopolitics, industry trends, and strategy. Our services help decision makers anticipate the energy future and formulate timely, successful plans in the face of rapid changes and uncertainty.” (CERA website)
An Honest Academic Argument?
The eighth premise of Steady as she goes is that in the next few decades there will be a shift in the oil industry to alternative energy sources which will replace oil “…encouraged investment in new hydrocarbons and also alternatives…GTL, tar sands, ethanol and other alternatives will become more economic by the day.”(pg.3, ¶ 12) These alternative sources will be so developed on the market that they will be able to meet not only current demand but future world demand for fuel. What will alternative energy sources mean for the civilizations oil addiction? This is the core of the argument, if the foundation of the society can be replaced than the structure will not fall. The following excerpts from the article defend its claim:
1. “…if the peak were to come after 2020 or 2030, as the International Energy Agency and other mainstream forecasters predict, then the rising tide of alternative fuels will help…ease the transition to life after oil.” (pg.3 ¶ 8) This is both a logical and interpretive argument. If oil peaks when the mainstream predicts then time is not a problem. Since there is time to switch to alternative fuels, logically companies will do so because it is also in their best interest to invest in a surely developing market, as demand must be met. The argument is interpretive because in this situation developing alternative fuels is not the only option- alternately the intentional abandonment of civilization may come in to action- and it is not guaranteed success (though it might be attempted).
2. “The global oil industry, argues Chevron, is changing from ‘an exploration business to a manufacturing business’… [i.e.] the first diesel-powered car to win an endurance race… [was powered by Shells] blended conventional diesel with a super-clean and super-powerful new form of diesel made from natural gas… [called] gas- to- liquids, or GTL.” (pg.3 ¶ 9) There is a thorough transformation among the oil industry; companies such as Shell are creating new forms of oil, from unconventional materials or resources, in an attempt to delay peak and change the industry to include alternative form of oil. Evidently this is an evidential argument, it is a clear example of the oil industry developing and using unconventional fuel, efficiently.
3. “ …blending petrol or diesel with ethanol or biodiesel made from agricultural crops, or with fuels made from Canada’s ‘tar sands’ or America’s shale oil(‘ would greatly increase the world’s remaining supplies of oil.’)…companies are now also investing furiously to convert not only natural gas but also coal into a liquid fuel.” (pg.3 ¶ 11) This change in the industry is not only a prediction but is already happening as companies redirect their investments (coming from their record profits) to unconventionally creating liquid fuel. This is an interpretive and evidential argument. It is interpretive because it assumes that these alternative oils are profitable, efficient, environmentally safe (assumes political situation) and that they will become greatly used by the oil industry. The first suggestion of energy coming from tar sands is not evident because there isn’t even claim that companies are using it. However the argument does state, as evidence, that companies are investing in converting natural gas and coal into a liquid fuel.
4. “Daniel Yergin of CERA says ‘the very definition of oil is changing, since non-conventional oil becomes conventional over time.’” (pg.3 ¶ 11) This is interpretive and is only true according to the above statements. The interpretation is that something that is not considered oil now will later be interpreted as oil, when in fact the fuel won’t be wholly or even mostly petroleum based.
5. “…though they [alternative energy sources] are quite big in markets, such as ethanol-mad Brazil, that have favorable policies.” This is an evidential argument because it gives a specific example of where alternative fuels are already abundantly used. However, I am not sure whether this is a supporting or opposing argument because the sentence ends with the implication that this alternative fuel might be extremely hazardous to our environment and/or noxious to humans.
The principal argument here is exclusive of the detail involved in the sort of alternative energy sources the article entails. These alternative fuels are known to be extremely unsafe for the environment and would have apocalyptic effects in the long run. Also, the energy efficiency is unbeneficial. Let’s take a look at “tar sands”. As Heinberg points out in Power down “…the rate of extraction of that resource [tar sands] will always by limited by the fact that the production process is-and will inevitably continue to be- expensive from both a financial and an energy standpoint, as well as being environmentally disastrous.”(pg. 120) In addition an example of the awful ratio of energy consumed and energy produced using tar sands is a pipeline project in Canada in which “…nearly all of the [natural] gas transported may end up being consumed by tar sands projects in Alberta. What shall we do with our remaining gas- heat our homes or cook bitumen?” (Power down, pg. 121) Tar sands are energy and economically expensive.
The sources to support this argument largely come from:
1. International Energy Agency (IEA): http://www.iea.org/
2. Chevron Corporation: http://www.chevron.com/
3. Royal Dutch/ Shell Group: http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=home
4. Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA): http://www.cera.com/home/
The IEA is an international organization, with 26 member countries whose governments participate in creating conditions under which the energy component of their economies can prosper in a considerate way, and in a free/open market. “The IEA acts as energy policy advisor for its 26 member countries in their effort to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for their citizens. Founded during the oil crisis of 1973-74, its initial role was to coordinate measures in times of oil supply emergencies…IEA publications are known world-wide for their objectivity.” (IEA website)
The Chevron Corporation is a world wide (180 countries) energy- oil- company. “Chevron is among the top oil producers in Argentina, Colombia and Venezuela…” (Chevron website) “As important as our financial and operating performance is - our goal is to be No. 1 among our competitors in total stockholder return - our underlying values define who we are.” What are these underlying values? How do they affect their claims about becoming a “manufacturing business”?
Shell is far more diverse in their businesses than Chevron, Shell also produces lubricants, oils, chemicals, plastics etc. and have a greater variety of refined fuels. From their website they seem to have invested a lot in the development of new fuels. “Some of the products we offer include Shell V-Power, Shell V-Power Racing, Shell V-Power Diesel and Shell Optimax. The benefit of each product and its availability differs by country…Some alternative fuels require vehicle modifications or the installation of a new fuel infrastructure, which is limiting their initial usage to dedicated bus and truck fleets. In the medium term gasoline and diesel will increasingly contain blend components that are derived from sources other than oil to ensure cleaner air. Longer term, a new infrastructure for the distribution and sale of hydrogen will be built.” (Shell group website) They provide a range of different fuels under the categories of: Economy gasolines, Performance fuels, New Fuels, Autogas (LPG), Compressed Natural Gas, Hydrogen and Biofuels.
CERA is a branch of the IHS, which is a US company that provides almost all services involving energy all over the world. This company is an advisor to international energy companies; they provide information about different sources of energy around the world, and new technologies that are vital to such industries as the oil industry. “CERA delivers critical knowledge and independent analysis on energy markets, geopolitics, industry trends, and strategy. Our services help decision makers anticipate the energy future and formulate timely, successful plans in the face of rapid changes and uncertainty.” (CERA website)
posted by Nina Jankovic at 23:35
1 Comments:
Nina,
This is strong work. You did several of the steps of the 6 step process (quotes, paraphrase, key sources) very well. The key sources was surprisingly fleshed out - which is a very helpful idea.
What is missing is also important - including what might serve as counter-evidence and a research plan.
Post a Comment
<< Home