Customer Reviews

The Empty Tank: Oil, Gas, Hot Air, and the Coming Global Financial Catastrophe

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Of the 8 or so books I have read on peak oil, this one is the most
compelling, reasonable and well-informed. If you are to read only one
book on peak oil, this is the one to choose.

Leggett has the credibility
of being a former professor of geology, a former oil industry insider (who
then converted to a global warming and oil depletion activist), and who now
runs his own renewable energy company. He knows the insiders of both the
oil business and oil-related government energy institutions. He knows what
makes them tick.

He correctly notes that we can't rely on the energy companies or government
to give us warning or leadership regarding oil depletion. Instead, the
demand for renewable energy must come from a groundswell of public
concern and support, until it becomes the tipping point that affects
our institutions. This is a change that will come from the ground
up, not from the top down.

Although he sees a virtually unavoidable peak oil economic depression in the near future, he
does offer a ray of hope that we can cure our self-destructive oilcoholism with
renewable energy -- and do so at the grassroots individual and community level.

Highly recommended.

Leggett begins by reminding us that oil is vital to almost everything we do. The world currently consumes about 29 billion barrels/year, and U.S. officials estimate this will rise to 43 billion by 2025. With this increase, the U.S. will find itself more tightly tied to mid-East rulers - yet, at least one estimate is that raising CAFE requirements 2.7 mpg would eliminate the need for Saudi and Iranian oil. Instead, we have allowed SUVs to be largely exempted from efficiency requirements, resulting in a DECREASE in mpg in the last decade.

One expert suggests that the U.S. Armed Forces are increasingly being transformed into a global oil-protection force; the U.S. recently invaded oil producer #15 because its ruler was a tyrant using deadly force against his own people, while ignoring #1, #2, #4, #6, #10, #12, #13, and #14 - perhaps the real reason is that producer #15 is also #3 in reserves.

Leggett, a Cambridge PhD in geology, has no doubt that a peak in oil production is coming - the only question is "when?" The most optimistic (U.S. government and oil companies) projections predict the peak will occur in 2030, the least optimistic (leading independent geologists) see this occurring much sooner - 2005. The optimistic rely in part on relief via Alberta's oil sands and Wyoming's oil shale. However, even the most optimistic oil sands estimates foresee about 3 million barrels/day by 2012 (only 3% of total demand), while pessimists are doubtful that enough water and natural gas (for heating the oil) can be utilized to achieve this. Similarly, optimists see 2 million barrels/day from Wyoming oil shale by 2011, while pessimists doubt the environment can support even that.

Another source of optimism is mid-East countries' claims of ability to easily ramp-up production. Leggett writes, however, that even taking them at their word (and there are reasons not to), this would not cover increased demand by 2011 (assuming 1.5%/year increase), or today (assuming a 3.5%/year increase - that of China and the U.S. already).

The one topic presented that I did not understand involves converting coal to gasoline - developed and utilized by Nazi Germany during WWII. Leggett states that China is producing this, and expected total costs are $15/barrel - certainly a bargain at today's prices, but Leggett does not treat this as a potential solution to oil shortages. (It would still produce CO2.)

As for natural gas - Leggettt says 40% of U.S. reserved have been used, 70% of reserves lie within Russia and the mid-East, and U.S. demand is expected to grow 50% by 2025.

Leggett cites a few instances of oil companies threatening individuals and organizations with loss of support for publishing predictions of near-term shortages - the likely reason being immediate and drastic losses in their stock values.

And then there is the accompanying problem of global warming. The insurance industry represents about 10% of the global economy and is at high risk of bankruptcy via superstorms and drought-related fires. The media, however, unintentionally downplay the issue by providing equal time to those claiming "no problem" - despite the growing evidence in support. For example, the ten warmest years in history have all occurred since 1990, and each year since 1997 has fallen into that category. Worse yet, the CO2 rise may be accelerating, per measurements in 2003 and 2004 at the premier site in Hawaii.

Leggett believes we CAN replace oil, natural gas, and coal with renewable energy, but NOT before the shortfall first takes effect. He also cites Lovins that it would be economical to do so - costing $180 billion in the next decade, and saving $130 billion/year by 2025. He is concerned, however, that we may only go part-way, and also increase coal utilization - increasing the severity of global warming.

Reading "The Empty Tank" was a pleasure - despite its important warnings.

As an investor who continue to research this area, I found the book very concise and easy to read without the need for a technical background. A good summary of many related subjects in one book. I share the author's views on depletion and the long term advantages of renewables and its required support and adoption. However, I found his imminent doomsday scenario of a 1929 style depression triggered by 'an empty tank' to be without supporting analysis. If this is a 'wake up' call for industry and society to act, I am all for it.

Jeremy Leggett is a very, very smart man. I enjoyed his book "The Empty Tank" very much. The book is well written and interesting to read. I am more concerned with declining oil production and falling global water tables than climate warming, but again, Mr. Leggett is a reasonable man, well educated and knows geology and the oil business. He has important ideas. Very good book. Regards, Keith Renick, Peachtree City, Ga.

The topic of peak oil is receiving attention lately, and this book does its part to explain the story. The author's arguements for the early timing of the peak are not wholly convincing, as too much pertinent data is not available to clearly see the picture (as he notes). On the whole the book is written in very colloquial language, and uses an emotional style and language that works against building credibility for the author. Overall there are many interesting points here, but a serious edit is required to bring the quality of the writing up to a standard one would expect when discussing a scientific topic. There are definitely a few nuggets to follow up on if you can slog through the book.

Beware. If you're interested in consulting the notes in this book, don't buy the Kindle edition. The book is set up so that the notes are NOT accessible from/linked to the text, as they are in other Kindle books. You have to keep track of the notes' locations and toggle back and forth from the text: not a very satisfactory process. I checked with the good folks at Kindle Support, just to make sure that the problem was not with my download: the tech told me that the publisher did not provide note links. This was my first encounter with this kind of limitation--hope it's my last!

I'd rate the text itself as a 3+, in comparison with other similar books. Some assertions are not documented (even in the inaccessible notes), and the author's zeal sometimes leads to overstatement of the challenges (which are bad enough without making them worse).

The first third of the book does a great job of estimating carbon fuel production and consumption in the world. The book should have ended there and been published as a technical pamphlet (for which the author appears to qualified to discuss). The remainder of the book contains the authors non-scientific opinions about global warming, Middle Eastern politics and his obvious dislike of the United States. He implies that the world economy is dependent on carbon fuels, not because they are cheap and plentiful, but because the world was duped throughout the 20th century by large multi-national corporations. The author footnotes frequently, citing such notable sources as filmamker Michael Moore or New York Times op-ed pieces as if they were academic journal articles. All that the author says may be correct, but his credability falls short once he steps beyond the rocks.

In the first chapter, Mr. Leggett cites two "facts" which don't stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.

First, he asserts that raising the fuel effeciency of light cars and trucks by a mere 2.7 MPG would eliminate the U.S.'s need for Middle Eastern oil imports, which he estimates at 5 million barrels per day (BPD). Given that he cites the total U.S. oil demand at 20 million BPD (which seems to agree with internet sources on recent U.S. demand) -- that means saving a quarter of the oil we consume. But FAR from all of that oil is useb by cars and light trucks. Diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, and the heaviest component used commonly for asphalt are all examples of these other uses. So, in round numbers, he is stating that raising the fuel economy of such vehicles by under 3 MPG will save perhaps a third of such oil they burn. Yet the average MPG of such vehicles is stated at well over 20 MPG. Thus, in round numbers, one would expect a savings of more like under 2 million BPD. He does have a citation for this "fact", making me wonder about all of his citations.

Secondly, he states on the same page as the assertion above that there are SUV's that get only 4 MPG. This is simply ludicrous. On the www.fueleconomy.gov website, the worst SUV (Jeep Grand Cherokee) is cited at 12 MPG City, and the worst car of all (16 cylinder with an 8 litre engine) is cited at 8 MPG City. I noted he doesn't cite this "statistic" - little wonder.

If Mr. Leggett isn't going to bother to check out (or proofread) basic "facts" that the layman can discern, such as these examples above, while trying to give background information -- how is the reader to trust the more technical/geological information we're supposed to rely on him not to distort because (as he's fond of repeating) he is a geologist with experience in the oil industry?

So, I would recommend the reader look elsewhere for a more realistic, better researched, and better documented "fair and balanced" look at this issue.