Category: Crude

Crude and the BP oil spill

The Guardian called for the nationalization of the Western oil industry instead (and mentioned my book Crude in their argument). Check it out, below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/15/obama-bp-nationalise-oil

Obama: stop baying for BP blood. Nationalise oil instead

The US president’s scapegoating of BP is a distraction; the only way to clean up the oil industry is to put it under public control

BP chief executive Tony Hayward
BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, leaves the US interior department in Washington following meetings to discuss the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Reuters

Barack Obama’s crude comparison of the Deepwater spill to 9/11 marks a new low in the political grandstanding over the Gulf of Mexico disaster. While the president might be right to haul BP over the coals for the company’s apparent negligence prior to the explosion, the distancing of the US government from the private sector is a cynical way to exploit the tragedy.

If Obama’s post-spill proclamations are to be believed, the US administration bears no responsibility for the catastrophe, and instead is wholeheartedly committed to environmental protection, developing alternative energies, and all the other buzzwords so beloved by politicians and voters alike. BP can be instantly cast in the role of pantomime villain by opportunistic senators, set up as the fall-guy for a society which – when the going was good – lauded BP and its peers to the heavens for their work.

In that respect, a better comparison would have been to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns rather than the twin towers, at least in the way that the credit crisis and the Deepwater spill have brought out the worst hypocrisy in those scrambling for political cover after the event. It is no secret that politicians and diplomats have been in the pocket of energy companies almost since the first oil was struck in Pennsylvania in the 1850s, and the murky relationship has continued ever since.

In Sonia Shah’s definitive history of the oil industry, Crude, the base greed and exploitative nature of oil company executives is detailed time and again, and the laissez-faire attitude of the respective governments involved in green-lighting their activities is an ubiquitous trait throughout every stage of the process. Public and private sector prospectors thought nothing of wreaking environmental havoc wherever they sought black gold, more often than not causing massive social upheaval to boot in the countries into which they expanded.

Mass spillages and pollution across the world – in Alaska, Nigeria, Iraq and elsewhere – barely register with consumers in the west, so long as they don’t occur in their backyard. The minute catastrophe occurs closer to home, suddenly everyone and their dog is a green campaigner, an environmental warrior ready to don cape and clutch sword in pursuit of a better future for Mother Earth and all her children. Which is all well and good, for about as long as the spills dominate the headlines and trend on Twitter, but when the crisis is over and the wells are recapped, all reverts to business as usual.

And business as usual means a refusal to bring about serious, societal change. Instead of acknowledging the warnings that have abounded for decades – the declining supply of oil, the increased cost and risk of extracting new sources, the massive environmental dangers of global warming – short-termist politicians and executives hunker down to see out their careers as comfortably as possible. For every unlucky Tony Hayward, there are a hundred other oil company CEOs getting away with murder, safe in the knowledge that big business will forever be protected by big government as long as it remains mutually beneficial to both parties.

The baying for BP blood is a sideshow, a distraction foisted on the American people by an administration desperate to save face over the Deepwater disaster. The near-50% decline in BP shares might provide a bit of feel-good schadenfreude, but is of no long-term benefit to the bulk of society.

If BP is forced to the wall, its assets will be quickly gobbled up by vultures from among its market peers; if BP can’t pay its dividend, pension funds and public authority investments will be hardest hit, adversely affecting the finances of millions. And the tens of thousands of BP employees whose careers currently hang in the balance will become the most undeserving of victims if the company sinks beneath the waves of bankruptcy.

If Obama & Co really want to do the best by both their electorate and the environment, they could do worse than permanently nationalise oil companies as a way of enacting serious positive change in the industry. As has been witnessed throughout private sector history, most investors – and certainly those with the most financial clout – regard profit above all other concerns when it comes to their demands from the companies in which they buy stock. BP and the other energy megaliths will never be forced to take the environment seriously while they continue to be bankrolled by those for whom money talks louder than any number of dying wildfowl and destitute fishermen.

However, such a remedy should not be seen as simply a temporary solution in the vein of the shambolic bailout of UK and US banks. Energy is far too crucial and sensitive an issue to be left in the hands of the private sector, and with the world’s supply of oil steadily declining, the urgency for finding alternative energy sources grows greater with every passing day. An oil industry which ploughs all profits into research and development of green fuels is the ideal model until the world can finally be fully weaned off oil – and such a system can only be fully brought to bear under the auspices of governmental control.

Obama is right to say that the Deepwater spill will “shape how we think about the environment for many years to come”, but he is wrong to imply that the soul-searching and brow-beating should come from the private sector alone. Just as society’s lust for living on borrowed means was the main catalyst for the credit crunch, so too does society’s rapacious appetite for oil bear indirect responsibility for the Deepwater disaster.

Governments have a role to oversee both the financial and oil industries to prevent such crises occurring, and if that means seizing control of the main offenders, then so be it. Action on such a scale would speak far louder than the empty words currently emanating from statesmen’s mouths either side of the Atlantic.

A band-aid, not a cure: Obama's offshore drilling plan

People are actually wearing these t-shirts?

People are actually wearing these t-shirts

OK, I don’t like Obama’s proposal to open up vast areas of the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan coast for offshore drilling. There isn’t much oil and gas there–not enough to feed our oil-thirst for more than a few years at best–and many of these areas are already completely despoiled and need to be protected, not ravaged once again. Oil and gas companies will certainly be happy to bid on the new blocks, nevertheless. All the infrastructure to siphon oil and gas out of these tiny little fields is already in place, so their costs will be low despite the paltry return. (They also won’t have to pay for protection as they do in Nigeria and Iraq etc etc.) So long as prices stay high, they’ll be able to make a tidy profit.

But I don’t think it is fair to call Obama’s plan the same as Bush/Cheney/Palin’s. Bush, Cheney and Palin claimed that offshore drilling was sufficient to solve our energy crisis altogether. That’s not what I hear Obama saying about this plan. This is about the government making some money by selling these leases–and we should watch carefully to see where that money goes–to ease the necessary transition away from oil and gas. Very different. Bush saw offshore drilling as a cure, which was dishonest and unfair. For Obama, it’s a band-aid.

Offshore drilling is not going to make oil cheap and it’s not going to allow Americans to continue wantonly burning crude. It isn’t going to liberate us from foreign oil, either. It’s a drop in the bucket. We’ll still need to do all the hard work of transitioning away from hydrocarbons. Obama seems to understand this. And that’s crucial.

Crude translations…

I was pleased to find a commentary about CRUDE in the Athens daily Kathemerini this morning, in part because I could honestly say, it is all Greek to me….My crude translation (ha!) suggests a fairly positive summary, but if anyone out there can say for sure, please drop a line: sonia@soniashah.com. Check it out here

Sepia Mutiny on CRUDE

The Sepia Mutiny, a very witty blog run mostly by second-generation Indian Americans (like myself) posted a lovely piece about my involvement in CRUDE (the movie) and CRUDE (the book). I’d never read Sepia Mutiny before so took the opportunity to browse and laughed out loud several times. I doubt I’m hip enough to write for them, but knowing they exist makes me happy. If only such things were around in high school…!

See http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004996.html#more

The History Channel is re-airing CRUDE on Friday Feb 22 at 8 am. You can also watch it online here.

Crude: the movie

Crude: The Movie!

A few years ago, a documentary fillmmaker from the ABC in Sydney (that’s the Australian public television network) spent a day with me in Boston, talking about oil politics. His film, which he dubbed “Crude” (after kindly discussing it with me), came out in Australia a few years ago, and won a slew of awards. It has some amazing footage in it, the least of which are some clips from that day in Boston with me. (A film crew followed me around at the grocery store while I pretended to shop. Slightly embarassing.)

This Sunday, the film airs on the History Channel here in the US. The New York Sun previewed it and mentioned the appearance of yours truly:

“The investigative journalist Sonia Shah,who wrote the equally sweeping 2004 book “Crude: The Story of Oil,”lends an ever-so-slight analytic edge with trenchant demonstrations of oil’s inescapability: Plastic-wrapped supermarket veggies from distant farms, for example, pack the double whammy of petroleum-based packaging and gas-guzzling truck transport.”

The film CRUDE airs on the History Channel on January 27, 2008 at 8 pm.

Bicultural feminism revisited

Today I randomly came across a long thoughtful pieceabout an essay I wrote over a decade ago…about  the issues thatoccupied me for the first five years of my writing life–biculturalism,feminism, and sexuality. Who knew those old essays were still makingthe rounds?

Canada.cominterviewed the curator of a new exhibit on energy and oil, who verykindly mentioned my book CRUDE as one of 2 interesting books on thehistory of oil….the other being Yergin’s The Prize! Good company.Thanks for that.

My review in Washington Post (Lives per gallon)

From my Washington Post review of a new book by Terry Tamminen, former head of the California EPA, which ran today:

“The corollary to the new truism that Americans are “addicted” to oil is that we can kick the habit just as we did with Big Tobacco — by penalizing the producers of the drug. So says California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s former environmental adviser, Terry Tamminen, in Lives Per Gallon.

Just like tobacco companies, Tamminen writes, oil and car companies have deceived us into consuming addictive products that pollute the airand make us sick. Describing how automakers and oil companies dismantled the electric trolley systems of numerous American cities in the 1920s, tricked us into using the most polluting fuels and stymied development of cleaner alternatives, Tamminen calls for a fusillade of lawsuits similar to the one that California’s attorney general filed against auto-makers last month for the “public nuisance” of selling greenhouse-gas-spewing cars.

Curtailing tobacco use wasn’t easy,but quitting oil — lifeblood of the economy — would seem quite a bit harder. And yet the Big Tobacco-style approach to slashing oil consumption works for Tamminen because he believes that hydrogen can easily replace oil’s BTUs.

He tries to sell us on hydrogen’s promise with stories about California’s model hydrogen-filling stations and enthuses about hydrogen zapped into being by solar and wind power. His rhetoric –“How many square kilometers of flat roofs are there at just the Kmarts, Costcos, and Wal-Marts of the world?” — would probably sound great ina speech, but significant technical and political challenges are involved in scaling up these technologies. These Tamminen sidesteps, along with the crucial question as to whether making hydrogen from coal or nuclear power — as President Bush, James Lovelock and a host of others advocate — would be any better for the environment than burning oil.

Nevertheless, shifting to hydrogen may well be less burdensome than continuing with ever-scarcer crude. Skeptics, however,won’t be convinced by Tamminen’s accounting, which reads more like the cost of oil to him, not the rest of us. “Perhaps the greatest threat from our oil addiction,” he announces, “is cancer.” That’s a strange assessment, given the threats of petro-fueled terrorism, global instability and climate change. But then again, Tamminen considers diesel exhaust to be “one of the greatest threats to human health” and blames automakers, whom he battled in the Schwarzenegger administration, for his own father’s smog-induced death from emphysema.

Lives Per Gallon‘s portrait of a corporate conspiracy foisting invisible poisons upon us will certainly inflame public anxiety over dependence on oil, but messages of victimization won’t help us solve our energy dilemmas. Crude is, sadly, much more than a fad, and our energy-intense lifestyleis more than the handiwork of deceitful oil and car companies. If only it were so easy.

Sonia Shah is the author of “Crude: The Story of Oil” and “The Body Hunters.”

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

peak oil, deprivation and inequity

Today the New York Times reports on weekly consumer reports conducted by University of Michigan. According to director Richard T. Curtin, many people are suffering from pricey oil–and are changing their spending because of it: just not the rich.

“Cutbacks in spending have been concentrated among households with less than $50,000 in annual income, according to Mr. Curtin’s surveys. That is roughly half of all households. Most of those with incomes above $50,000, which contribute to the bulk of consumer spending, are still managing to absorb the higher energy costs without cutting back much elsewhere. ‘Rising gasoline prices are really driving a wedge between lower- and higher-income households,’ Mr. Curtin said.” —Louis Uchitelle, “Reluctantly adjusting to oil cost,” New York Times, July 20, 2006

Half of us are “cutting back” in spending, that is, doing without. Along with increasing political instability overseas and intensified environmental disruption in oil regions, here is another cost of peak oil: more deprivation and inequity at home.

New cornucopian book….

Enviro Bill McKibben has written a new book which, according to Publishers Weekly “contends that there is no boundary to human ambition or desire or to what our very inventions may make possible.” Bill McKibben is very smart and writes beautifully–and I haven’t read his new book-but I have an opinion anyway. (A bad habit I picked up working as an editor for 10 years.) It seems to me that a lot of these alarms about the high-tech future are misplaced. We still have 2 billion people on the planet who don’t have electricity or running water! How far can a few biotech companies and their ultra-elite customers (certainly in a global sense) get with resource-intensive robotics and nanotechnology while the rest of the world descends into conflicts over resource scarcity amid an abruptly changing climate?

© 2024 Sonia Shah

Site by NormanUp ↑