Economically and Environmentally Sustainable Enhanced Oil Recovery. M. R. Islam

nuclear, wind, and others. Add to this problem is the recent hysteria created based on the premise that oil consumption is the reason behind global warming. This in itself has created opportunities with many sectors engaged in carbon sequestration.

In general, there has been a perception that solar, wind and other forms of ‘renewable’ energy are more sustainable or less harmful to the environment than its petroleum counterpart. It is stated that renewable energy is energy that is collected from renewable resources, which are naturally replenished on a human timescale, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. Chhetri and Islam (2008) have demonstrated that the claim of harmlessness and absolute sustainability is not only exaggerated, it is not supported by science. However, irrespective of scientific research, this positive perception translated into global public support. One such survey was performed by Ipsos Global in 2011 that found very favorable rating for non-fossil fuel energy sources (Figure 2.8). Perception does have economic implications attached to it. The Ipsos (2011) study found 75% agreeing to the slogan “scientific research makes a direct contribution to economic growth in the UK”. However, in the workshops, although participants agreed with this, they did not always understand the mechanisms through which science affects economic growth. There is strong support for the public funding of scientific research, with three-quarters (76%) agreeing that “even if it brings no immediate benefits, research which advances knowledge should be funded by the Government”. Very few (15%) think that “Government funding for science should be cut because the money can be better spent elsewhere”. This is in spite of public support for cutting Government spending overall. It is not any different in the USA, for which perception translates directly into pressure on the legislative body, resulting in improved subsidy for certain activities.

      Figure 2.8 Public perception toward energy sources (Ipsos, 2011).

The Energy Outlook considers a range of alternative scenarios to explore different aspects of the energy transition (Figure 2.8). The scenarios have some common features, such as a significant increase in energy demand and a shift towards a lower carbon fuel mix, but differ in terms of particular policy or technology assumptions. In Figure 2.9, Evolving Transition (ET) scenario is a direct function of public perception that dictates government policies, technology and social preferences. Some scenarios focus on particular policies that affect specific fuels or technologies, e.g. a ban on sales of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars, a greater policy push to renewable energy, or weaker policy support for a switch from coal to gas considered, e.g. faster and even faster transitions.

      Even though petroleum continues to be the world’s most diverse, efficient, and abundant energy source, due to “grim climate concerns”, global initiatives are pointing toward a “go green” mantra. When it comes to defining ‘green’, numerous schemes are being presented as ‘green’ even though all it means is the source of energy is not carbon. In fact the ‘left’, often emboldened with ‘scientific evidence’, blames Carbon for everything, forgetting that carbon is the most essential component of plants. The ‘right’, on the other hand, deny climate change altogether, stating that it is all part of the natural cycle and there is nothing unusual about the current surge in CO₂ in the atmosphere. Both sides ignore the real science behind the process. The left refuses to recognize the fact that artificial chemicals added during the refining process make the petroleum inherently toxic and in absence of these chemicals petroleum itself is 100% sustainable. The right, on the hand, does not recognize the science of artificial chemicals that are inherently toxic and does not see the need for any change in the modus operandi. More importantly, both sides see no need for a change in fundamental economic outlook.

      Figure 2.9 Energy outlook for 2040 as compared to 2016 under various scenarios (Renewables includes wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biofuels: from BP Report, 2018).

Energy management has been a political issue rather than an economic strategy. For that, the USA has played a significant role. The establishment of the Department of Energy brought most Federal energy activities under one umbrella and provided the framework for a comprehensive and balanced national energy plan. The Department undertook responsibility for long-term, high-risk research and development of energy technology, Federal power marketing, energy conservation, the nuclear weapons program, energy regulatory programs, and a central energy data collection and analysis program.

      Recently, US President Donald Trump showed his desire to exit the Paris Accord. Epstein (2017) points out that there are at least two principled ways to defend Trump’s decision to exit the Paris accord. The first is the weak scientific case that links global warming and other planetary maladies to increases in carbon dioxide levels. There are simply too many other forces that can account for shifts in temperature and the various environmental calamities that befall the world. Second, the economic impulses underlying the Paris Accords entail a massive financial commitment, including huge government subsidies for wind and solar energy, which have yet to prove themselves viable. In his speeches, President Trump did not state these two points, nor did he challenge his opponents to explain how the recent greening of the planet, for example, could possibly presage the grim future of rising seas and expanded deserts routinely foretold by climate activists (Yirka, 2017). In absence of such an approach, the general perception of the public has been that President Trump wants to simply bully the rest of the world, prompting critiques use vulgar languages to depict him as a classic bully.⁷

      However, it is curious that the endless criticisms of the President all start from the bogus assumption that a well-nigh universal consensus has settled on the science of global warming. To refute that fundamental assumption, it is essential to look at the individual critiques raised by prominent scientists and to respond to them point by point, so that a genuine dialogue can begin. More importantly, no scientist has pointed the figure to processing and refining as the root cause of global warming and certainly none has even contemplated pointing fingers at so-called renewable energy solutions that are more toxic to the environment than petroleum systems. Instead of asking for a logical answer, the President has disarmed his allies. For instance, through UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, he has all but conceded that climate change is “real”. Instead of starting with the social case against the substantive provisions of the Paris Accords, Trump justified his decision by invoking his highly nationalistic view of international arrangements. He said the United States was once again getting ripped off by a lousy treaty that, in his words, would force American “taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.” He then insisted that his first duty is to the citizens of Pittsburgh, not of Paris—giving the impression that there are only provincial arguments that support his decision. In this process, the debate becomes a choice between US hegemony and holistic approach, as if USA is on a collision course with true sustainability.

Yet, ironically, the President has a stronger case on this point than he does with his attacks on free trade, which he justified in similar terms. Free trade has a natural corrective, in that no private firm will enter into any agreement that it believes will work to its disadvantage. That was decidedly not true of the Obama approach to the Paris Accords, which gives a free pass to China until 2030 even though its recent carbon emissions have increased by 1.1 billion tons, while the United States’ total has dropped by 270 million tons, and will continue to do so. But when it comes to the United States, the critics claim that the threat of greenhouse gases (GHGs) has never been greater, while saying that China may eventually implement greater GHG controls than required by its current commitment. The Chinese can reduce emissions a lot more rapidly than the US. The diplomatic pass represents a clear double standard.

      The