High Noon for Natural Gas: The New Energy Crisis [Paperback]

High Noon For Natural Gas, The New Energy Crisis by Julian Darley, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, Vermont, ISBN 1-931498-53-9, 266 p.

Like the topical focus on the age of peak oil production, Julian Darley's analysis seeks to educate the reader with regard to a declining natural gas supply. However, as the reader will note very quickly in the preface, the shortage of natural gas being highlighted is currently being experienced in North America, although a broad global shortage is also suggested in the next decade or so.

While the books discussion of world gas reserves supports Julian Darley's thesis, the underlying implication of declining gas production is not one that I would care to support. Darley suggests that because a global peak in oil discovery occurred in the 1960s and the oil production peak is likely to occur in the current decade; a similar peak in gas discovery was evident around 1965-70 and will result in an imminent peak in world gas production. In my mind, the evidence for a unique worldwide gas discovery peak in the mid to late 1960s is debatable; in North America it may have been evident. One reason I suggest for this difference is that not all parts of the world have been equally explored compared to North America, much less so for gas than for their oil potential.

Unlike oil, which has been highly traded around the globe, gas has not been a highly traded commodity, not until recent decades at least. Hence the commercial incentive for gas development has been slower to develop, slower and longer term than the incentives for oil development and production. Even now, a major spot market for LNG has yet to develop on a global scale, unlike oil. Hence, in my view, there are many areas of the globe outside North America (including my part of the world) where natural gas is currently known to be present, yet it has not yet been utilised in commercial operations. One would hope that even if Julian Darley's view on global gas scarcity is close to the mark, then any known, but undeveloped reserves, are a very attractive investment in the medium to long term.

Another reason I suggest for the unlikely occurrence of a single peak in global gas production, after the single global oil peak, is that gas production for any major project typically covers a long time frame, and has traditionally required guaranteed marketing arrangements, something oil production has not readily required to the same degree since the major price rises of the early 1970s. Therefore, it may be that we experience several repeated peaks in global gas production after the unique global oil peak. The reasons for this relate to the ebb and flow of energy demand and how much oil demand is gradually moved into the main long-term substitute, natural gas. In my view, I do not think we will see a unique gas peak, it is more likely to be a plateau or even a very a monocline (for the geologically minded).

While much of the remainder of Julian Darley's book covers the likely effects of current and previous measures in North American energy and policy its not as comprehensive on these issues as the well worn pages of my copy of Paul MacAvoy's Energy Policy, An Economic Analysis, Norton, 1983, 216 p. However, what Julian has done is to link the peak argument applicable to oil to that of its closest long-term substitute, natural gas; a linkage I suggest is arguable. However, he has also generously gone on to take up with what are the implications for our western urbanised energy-dependant society, a worthy and very useful discussion which readers will do well to note.

The book is more for the greener reader rather than the hardheaded energy futurist but a worthy addition to the growing literature on energy peaks.

Dr Ian Lavering

Adjunct Professor

MBT Program UNSW

I don't normally write these kind of reviews, but I felt it necessary to do so here, to counteract a book that I see not just as misleading, but as dangerous. Julian Darley has tried, in this book, to link a purported imminent decline in global natural gas production to the better-publicised issue of peak oil. Unfortunately the book has several fundamental weaknesses.

Firstly, he fails to present any really convincing evidence for the shortage of gas. He points out the stagnation in North American gas production, and generalises this to the whole world, using one small graph of annual discoveries from Laherrere (it's noticeable that all these peak oil theorists endlessly cross-reference each other's work but don't quote that of researchers with other views). He suggests that global gas production is going to begin declining in 1 or 2 decades, while even his graph seems to show that production could grow for at least 30-40 years, and other writers see scope for increases in global gas production out to 2070.

Secondly, the whole thesis of the book is contradictory. We are running out of gas, he suggests. Then he suggests we shouldn't even use the gas we have due to the need to reduce energy use to protect the environment. If we really do have to decrease energy use now, then surely the amount of gas we have left doesn't matter. It seems to me that he's just using the argument of peak gas to argue against big investments in a natural gas economy, which would further postpone his vision of a low energy world. The great danger of this is that he may put people off using natural gas, in which case they may well continue to rely on much more environmentally damaging fuels such as coal and oil.

Thirdly, the book contains numerous errors of fact which undermine his arguments. For example: he states that energy is required to keep the Earth revolving (literally) - what is this energy? Solar, geothermal...? So if the Earth somehow 'runs out' of energy, will it stop spinning...? His simplistic explanation of the drivers for growth in the economy conflicts with any standard economic theory. He attacks capitalism for its record on the environment, but condescendingly mentions that 'Communism was not any better' - I think it would be only fair to say that Communism has been far, far worse for the environment than capitalism - Chernobyl, for instance. Or visit a Soviet-era oil field versus a Western one. He suggests that the main gas suppliers to the US are anti-American (pandering to popular paranoia) - the main current and future gas suppliers being countries such as Canada, Trinidad and Tobago, Norway, Australia, Qatar, Russia, Nigeria - these countries have their problems, and sometimes disagreements with the US, but I hardly think any of them could be described as anti-American. Darley stresses how important natural gas is to make fertiliser, but in mature economies, this represents only 2-3% of gas use, and in any case, substitute feedstocks are available. He says that we are exceeding the energy budget we get from the sun, but the inflow of solar energy is more than 1000 times human use of energy in all forms. I could quote more errors, but I hope the point is clear: would you support a plan to reduce the human population by some 80%, based on the opinion of someone with such a shaky understanding of science, geopolitics and economics?

Fourthly, he is solidly against increase in efficiency and technological solutions because he believes they just allow more economic growth and environmental degradation. Yet the switch from coal to oil and now to gas has dramatically improved air quality in Western cities (compare the 'pea-soupers' of 1950s London with the situation today; or look at the big amelioration in pollution in Delhi with the recent adoption of CNG (compressed natural gas) vehicles). Considerable further reductions in environmental impact are possible, for instance carbon dioxide sequestration (which Darley does not mention at all), which would tackle the very real issue of global warming. He misses the fact that, since 1970, American energy use per capita has been almost flat due to efficiency prompted by energy price increases. He quotes the 'Limits to Growth' report approvingly, without acknowledging that this report turned out to be fundamentally flawed because (a) it believed that energy use would not decrease in response to rising prices and (b) that further investment and technology would not discover new resources or substitutes for the apparently depleting supplies of oil, copper, tin, etc. It seems a counsel of despair, and very odd to say the least, coming from an environmentalist (as I also classify myself, by the way) to dismiss the very great gains in efficiency that are easily achievable even with today's technology. Again, the risk is that he will dissuade people from investing in technological advances that could really help the environment.

Finally, the whole argument of the book suggests that it is too risky to depend on natural gas and we should therefore dramatically reduce population (from 6 billion to 1 billion) and energy use (and by implication, material well-being). I would ask: what is more risky - to depend on LNG (liquified natural gas) imports into the US, a proven technology that has powered the economy of Japan for over 30 years with no serious incidents, or drastically to re-engineer the whole of global society? Is he suggesting that the average North American or European reduce their energy use to that of the average African? This seems almost inconceivable - Darley himself would certainly not be able to run his website with so little energy, certainly if he confines himself to today's technology. If Western energy use remains somewhere above Darley's supposed sustainable level, then is it right to expect the average African not to increase their energy use beyond the current, low levels?

I recommend this book to anyone interested in peak oil and gas. I've read many books on "peak oil", but this is the first one I've seen about "peak natural gas." It is very informative, understandable, well written, and well researched with copious endnotes. One of this book's strengths is that it takes a global perspective on gas supply. Although Darley's warnings are directed primarily to the United States and Canada, he goes into global supply and demand, country by country and region by region, in a way that few other books do.

If any Republicans who still like Bush read this book, they may be turned off by Darley's politics. Some Bush loyalists might even call Darley anti-American for being strongly critical of the Bush regime, its foreign policies, and its energy policy. But to right-wingers who say, "America, love it or leave it," remember, this author is not American, he's British! Bush is not his president, so he has no obligation to support Bush, his policies, or the policies of other American administrations. I think this is an advantage, because it gives Darley the independence to speak freely about America from an outsider's perspective, the way the world sees us, as few Americans are able to do.

My main criticism of this book concerns its suggested solutions to the problem of peak oil and gas. I once criticized a peak oil book by a different author for putting too much emphasis on coal and nuclear power as the solution, ignoring solar and wind, but this book goes too far in the opposite direction! Darley simply writes off coal as too dirty to use and nuclear as too dangerous to use, devoting only about a page to each one. Renewable energy and conservation will be very helpful, true, but Darley is dreaming if he believes that when America is freezing in the dark with no oil or gas, we're going to leave all our coal in the ground, not burn it, just because it's dirty! That is unrealistic. I'm an environmentalist, but face it, there's no way we will abandon both nuclear power and coal. The only way we will avoid burning more coal is to use nuclear power, and the only way we will avoid using more nuclear power is to burn coal. This book is definitely worth reading, at least so you will know what the future holds for Americans, Canadians, and the rest of the world.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 14 reviews  3.2 out of 5 stars