One

Bobby Schneider Oil Politics Kim Fortun Annotation #1: If the Oil Runs Out

With a world so politically, economically, and socially dependent on oil, it is incredibly hard to imagine a life that could exist without oil. A television show series called “If. . . ” painted the picture for the human race in a 2006 “mini movie” episode entitled __If the Oil Runs Out__, directed by Bren Simson. The central argument surrounding this film answers (or predicts an answer to) the question: How would the lifestyle that the American population has grown accustomed to change if the age of oil comes to a close? Although the keyword of this show is “if,” the real title for this particular episode should be “When the Oil Runs Out” because unfortunately this event is not a fictional idea; it will be a reality, and sooner than most of us are being led to believe. Not only does the film discuss how life will become full of limitations and inconveniences as a result of oil loss, but it also specifically reaches out to the political, economic, social, and physical impacts that this occurrence will have on the United States.

When the topic of oil is brought up, numerous stakeholders and social actors are brought into view such as the corporate heads of the oil companies, the individual gas stations, heating businesses, and the trucking companies that deliver the oil throughout the nation, of course. However, there are also many more stakeholders and social actors that some may not even think to consider such as the supermarkets that have to not only alter prices, but also alter their stock of supplies based on oil production. Since thousands of products people use daily are made in some way, shape, or form by oil, suddenly the manufacturers of these goods could have a limited quantity to provide the consumers with (such as the local store not having any aspirin). The human race, after seeing just how many things need oil to be produced, becomes a major social actor as well, which is why the future of oil is such a big dilemma. Most people view oil as something they need to survive, so why would we ever work to move away from something we need? Nearly every form of business within America relies on oil to some degree. Let’s face the truth, as George W. Bush said: “America is addicted to oil.”

As proven in nearly every scene of this film, people are so dependent on the oil supply that Americans seem to be pledging allegiance to oil more than they are their own country. Obviously one of the biggest oil-dependent items in the lives of today’s Americans is the automobile, the heart of American transportation that keeps the nation in motion, so to speak. Driving to the grocery store, visiting distant relatives, and going to work all rely on the use of oil and it does not stop there. Once in the store or at work think about all of the things that are purchased or used that needed oil to be produced: aspirin, DVD’s, contact lenses, deodorants, perfume, and detergents are just a few of the thousands of items that rely on oil to be created. “The average person on the street [with Americans consuming oil at a rate of twenty-five barrels per year] thinks it’s their God-given right to fill up with petrol,” and because this petrol has always been excessively available in America, people have developed nothing short of an obsession for the natural resource. Every house needs oil for heating purposes during the winter months and guess what? The trucks that deliver that oil also use oil in order to make these deliveries possible. Oil is what makes our reality possible. It enables us to shop, to communicate, to work, and to live as independents. What then happens if there are simply no new oil reserves left?

A reality that the American public has failed to face is that the oil supply is just not what it used to be. Many may think that talk of oil disappearing is just a folktale or some strange dream that they will wake up from sooner or later. Even though “the warning signs were there. . . [and] everyone saw them,” no one took action. As a result, the end of oil, though inevitable, will be incredibly painful for many to experience because “most people don’t accept what’s going to hit us, most people don’t accept that this is a real possibility, and they don’t accept the consequences of it.” The facts that no one wants to hear are these: the world burns approximately eighty million barrels of oil per day and that is expected to climb closer to one hundred million by 2016. Sadly, as the demand for oil remains on the rise, the amount of oil being produced is leveling out and even dropping as the resource becomes increasingly harder to find, which became evident when only one new oil supply was found in 2005 as opposed to the 16 found in the year 2000. One question, among many, that need to be asked now is how will we react to the changes in our lives as a result of this limited oil supply? The movie answers this question in an incredible range of ways, covering every aspect of society as the chaos plays out. One of the first noticeable inconveniences that show up is that as the oil supply thins out, the prices at the pump rise, at one point reaching $5.88 per gallon in May of 2016. . . absurd. Accompanying the new price was a new limitation: $10 maximum per person per visit (at $5.88 that is not even two gallons of gas). Furthermore, heating oil is also directly affected by oil prices as well, thus making heating more expensive and even unaffordable for some. An example of this problem is when a housekeeper, named Rachel, was caught using her boss’s house to shower her four children because after feeding them she had no money left for heat or warm water. Stores that rely on oil-guzzling trucks to deliver their goods to each location must also increase prices to make up for the extra money going into the gas budget. In the movie, a simple melon cost $5.49 (almost as much as gas) and other goods that rely on oil to be produced, such as aspirin and milk, were just out of stock entirely. As energy costs rise, business falls, which means less profit and low economic activity, which in turn ultimately leads to high levels of job loss, business failure, and bankruptcy. In the film John lost his job at a trucking company that had already let go of six other drivers before him. During difficult times people will often become desperate and put their knowledge of moral rights and wrongs aside which was seen when John stole one hundred and sixty-five gallons of oil from the company he worked for, which was later stolen from him by two other men. As if that were not bad enough, in the middle of the night someone came and connected a hose from his car to John’s car, stealing oil right out of the tank. Later on in the film it is clear that John simply cannot afford his vehicle anymore and puts it up for sale. Proper social behavior will also diminish with the oil supply, progressively changing from neighborly acts of kindness such as shopping carpools, to aggression, and finally ending in violence and chaos. Soon after beginning a carpool, John became suspicious of how he was always the one driving and began asking “When do we get to burn some of their fuel?” With hopes of reducing car usage, John and Janey began walking to and from the grocery store with a shopping cart as discretely as possible to avoid looking like “white trash” to their neighbors. The most dangerous scene depicting the problems oil causes was when a man cut in front of John and Janey in line at a gas station, leading to physical violence. When John tried to assert himself the man beat John to the point where he had to go to the hospital. These events are just a few of the many problems that would undoubtedly occur as a result of an irreversible oil crisis in America.

A life without oil, however difficult it seems, is not only possible but will be happening in the near future. As described in the film, “. . . it’s possible the world that comes out of a world in which we’re less addicted to oil, is a world in which people will actually quite like living.” While we may not necessarily agree to or like the changes at first, soon they will become a natural part of our everyday lives and as Jess told her baby toward the film’s closing, “it’s okay, it’s going to be okay.” Though the film does not display a great future outlook of how life will be without oil, it leaves the viewers with these words of wisdom to allow them to create their own images of what the world will be like. One could assume that a world with clearer air, cleaner water, and cheaper energy would go without objection because everyone will still have their needs met, yet also live healthier and save more money.

In my opinion, the most compelling aspects of this film were both the extent to which the widespread impact was conveyed and other certain events which I interpreted with symbolic representations. Rather than simply implying a general fact such as “oil controls our lives,” throughout the film the chaos following the decline of oil was seen in every aspect (social, political, economic) and on every level (ranging from one person and private to the government and the public). Politically speaking, the film demonstrated the idea that when put under pressure the government was more than willing to sacrifice one of the nation’s last protected wildernesses in order to meet our selfish human needs. Economic failure was observed as the trucking company had to lay people off and ultimately collapse under the pressure. The economic stress was also felt in a different way as all Americans were reduced to nothing more than helpless victims to the endlessly rising gas and oil prices, going back to that $5.88 price tag in May of 2016. Socially, this film caused me to think about true human nature. The disturbing reality is that people are wearing invisible masks every day. It is in the toughest times of distress and chaos that our real human nature takes over and our true, aggressive, selfish behaviors kick in at full swing. During the gas station fight scene, watching as John was cut off by another driver in line and then assaulted for standing up to the man, I realized that internally the human race is nothing more than slightly “advanced” wildlife; we still have these wild and beastly instincts within our being. The aftermath of this fight is where the symbolism comes into the picture. Jessica’s father was barely able to move or function on his own and due to bleeding, there was a chance that he would be left blind in his right eye. John’s physical conditions intertwine with America and Americans as a whole. As of now, without oil Americans will be left virtually immobile and paralyzed from living life, similar to how John could not move. Also, losing vision in one eye could be representing the idea that Americans are blind to the fate which they are leading themselves toward. They are well aware of what awful future is playing out before them, yet at the same time they cannot see it rapidly approaching and therefore are doing absolutely nothing to change the outcome (while they still can). Why is it that people never seem to see what is right in front of their face?

Although there was an ample supply of attention-grabbing events throughout the duration of the film, some scenes were hard to believe and others parts of the film were environmentally disturbing. One thing that I noticed during the fight scene previously discussed was that as John laid helplessly on the ground with his wife yelling for help, not only did no one come to assist them but not a single person even turned to take a glimpse at what had happened. They simply did not care and I find that slightly hard to believe. Although I do agree that sometimes people can have a heartless appearance, in reality, with the endless line of cars around, someone probably would have come to help. Earlier in the film, during the meeting regarding drilling in Alaska, Allan says “Listen. If the Inuits are happy and we got around the environmentalists, then I’m sure the wolves will just roll over.” This quote is clear proof that people associated with oil make it their primary concern to find the black gold, having no sympathy for the natural landscape or wildlife. Rather than even discussing how to drill in the most environmentally-conscious and eco-friendly way, people would rather just get what they came for and let Mother Nature’s beauty “roll over,” fend for itself, and die.

Despite the fact that the situation presented in the film is fictitious, it is quite possible that the future could play out exactly as was portrayed. During the film’s closing, a short monologue is provided which declares what needs to be done in today’s world in order to be properly prepared to take on the world of tomorrow:

“It’s very important for us to think today about what we can do to move away from the oil age, to build a more environmentally sustainable and a more secure economy that relies on fuels, a   broader mix of fuels, that don’t bring with them all the political, environmental problems that oil does. . . and hopefully we’ll develop a policy to   move away from oil today rather than waiting until a story like this in 2016 forces us to give up oil.” The message is clear: oil is a finite resource. Although oil is currently causing more hardships for the environment, a few years down the road these severe hardships will be passed on to the human race. Rather than being left out in the cold or appearing as deer in the headlights, people need to think about what is important in life. Quite frequently people, especially college students, say “I am planning for my future,” but what exactly is that future and did you plan on making oil a part of it? After putting the challenge off for so long, now is our last chance to find alternative energy sources that are not only cleaner than oil, but also that will be cheaper and more renewable such as sun, wind, and water. There are only two options left: either we take responsibility and change the course of our actions today, or we can let our luck run dry and have nature change our lives for us (though nature cannot and does not promise a pleasant transition period).

After viewing this movie, I was left with a few curiosities including how much oil is actually estimated to be left on Earth and the idea of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A 2011 article that helps to answer the oil quantity question was written by Vivienne Walt and is entitled “Have Saudis Overstated How Much Oil Is Left?” In 2007, a man named Sadad al-Husseini, the geologist who worked for and led Saudi Arabia’s oil exploration department until 2004, said that the estimated 716 billion barrels of oil left is an exaggeration. His explanation for this was that “‘it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described and the timeline for their production [is] not as unrestrained as Aramco [Saudi Arabia’s oil company] and energy optimists would like to portray’” (pg. 1). Though currently Saudi Arabia produces only 8 million oil barrels daily, its pumps 12.5 million barrels, leaving a “spare capacity,” or excess oil which can be distributed to the rest of the world in the case of “war, natural disasters or other unforeseen events” (pg. 1, 2). However, what happens if the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia cannot keep up with its “spare capacity” in the years to come? Husseini also noted that according to studies and research from 2007, peak oil could occur “‘within five to ten years’- in other words, by 2012- ‘and will last some 15 years, until world oil production begins to decline’” (pg. 2). There are conflicts within the topic of remaining oil as well, however. For example, it just so happens that Sadad al-Husseini was “passed over” for a higher job offer, causing him to quit and it is believed that he may be lying about the numbers to hurt the company. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that countries hide the truth on many issues and oil is no exception. With that being said, it is still quite possible that Saudi Arabia may be the ones lying. Though the honest answer to how much oil is left and when it will run out is unknown, the truth of the matter is that, as Manouchehr Takin of the Center for Global Energy Studies in London said, oil “‘is a finite resources[sic] which will one day run out’” (pg. 2).

Recently more and more oil-hopeful eyes have turned to look at northern Alaska as the answer to their prayers. It is well know that there is a potential large supply of oil in this region, but no one can say for sure how much. Despite claims of there being nearly 16 billion barrels, “the U.S. Geological Service’s estimate of the amount that could be recovered economically – that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold – represents less than a year’s U.S. supply” and would only take care of about three percent of the country’s daily needs (pg. 1). In addition, “It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market” and “whatever oil the refuge might produce is simply irrelevant to the larger issue of meeting America’s future energy needs” (pg. 1). As if drilling for such minimal amounts of oil were not bad enough, this project would also “come at an enormous, and irreversible, cost” because the landscape, “one of the largest sanctuaries for Arctic animals” such as polar bears and the endangered shaggy musk ox, will be destroyed (pg. 1). Efforts by oil enthusiasts to insist that only one “small” 2,000 acre area will be needed to retrieve the oil have been quickly rejected because it has been proven by U.S. Geological Survey studies that the oil is separated into a few dozen smaller deposits and would thus require massive roads and pipe systems throughout the span of the Arctic refuge. All in all, “The solution to America’s energy problems will be found in American ingenuity, not more oil. Only by reducing our reliance on oil – foreign and domestic – and investigating in cleaner, renewable forms of power will our country achieve true energy security” (pg. 2).

As declared in the movie, “The age of oil is coming to an end. We can’t take anything for granted anymore.” Many remember the oil restrictions, as well as the suffering that accompanied it, from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and 1974. The difference this time is that when the oil supply runs low it will not be because the Middle East said so, but rather because the Earth said so. As an oil minister in the Middle East decided in the film, “It’s not our [the Middle East’s] job to service the SUV’s of America” nor any other aspect of America; he is absolutely right. It is not the responsibility of any foreign nation to fuel the American lifestyle, but instead it is America’s responsibility to fuel its own life. It is for this reason that we must look the other way to find that new form of living that will not rely on oil at all. Oil currently comes at three expenses: a monetary expense (purely for purchasing it), risking national security (because the money we pay the Middle East could very well fund terrorist attacks against America), and at nature’s expense (because we are destroying Earth’s authentic beauty). Why bother paying all of these expenses when we could easily live a life without these expenses; a healthier life, a more free life, an oil-free life. Works Cited Simson, Bren. __If. . . The Oil Runs Out__. Perf. Jennifer Calvert, Anthony Green, Sandra Dickinson, James Jordan. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), 2006.

Walt, Vivienne. “Have Saudis Overstated How Much Oil Is Left?” __Time__. 10 Feb. 2011. < [] >.

“Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs?” __Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)__. Last modified 16 July 2008. < [] >.