Beyond the Age of Petroleum
by Michael T. Klare

This past May, in an unheralded and almost unnoticed move, the
Energy Department signaled a fundamental, near epochal shift in US and
indeed world history: we are nearing the end of the Petroleum Age and
have entered the Age of Insufficiency. The department stopped talking
about "oil" in its projections of future petroleum availability and
began speaking of "liquids." The global output of "liquids," the
department indicated, would rise from 84 million barrels of oil
equivalent (mboe) per day in 2005 to a projected 117.7 mboe in
2030--barely enough to satisfy anticipated world demand of 117.6 mboe.
Aside from suggesting the degree to which oil companies have ceased
being mere suppliers of petroleum and are now purveyors of a wide
variety of liquid products--including synthetic fuels derived from
natural gas, corn, coal and other substances--this change hints at
something more fundamental: we have entered a new era of intensified
energy competition and growing reliance on the use of force to protect
overseas sources of petroleum.

To appreciate the nature of the change, it is useful to probe a bit
deeper into the Energy Department's curious terminology. "Liquids," the
department explains in its International Energy Outlook for 2007,
encompasses "conventional" petroleum as well as "unconventional"
liquids--notably tar sands (bitumen), oil shale, biofuels,
coal-to-liquids and gas-to-liquids. Once a relatively insignificant
component of the energy business, these fuels have come to assume much
greater importance as the output of conventional petroleum has faltered.
Indeed, the Energy Department projects that unconventional liquids
production will jump from a mere 2.4 mboe per day in 2005 to 10.5 in
2030, a fourfold increase. But the real story is not the impressive
growth in unconventional fuels but the stagnation in conventional oil
output. Looked at from this perspective, it is hard to escape the
conclusion that the switch from "oil" to "liquids" in the department's
terminology is a not so subtle attempt to disguise the fact that
worldwide oil production is at or near its peak capacity and that we can
soon expect a downturn in the global availability of conventional
petroleum.

Petroleum is, of course, a finite substance, and geologists have
long warned of its ultimate disappearance. The extraction of oil, like
that of other nonrenewable resources, will follow a parabolic curve over
time. Production rises quickly at first and then gradually slows until
approximately half the original supply has been exhausted; at that
point, a peak in sustainable output is attained and production begins an
irreversible decline until it becomes too expensive to lift what little
remains. Most oil geologists believe we have already reached the midway
point in the depletion of the world's original petroleum inheritance and
so are nearing a peak in global output; the only real debate is over how
close we have come to that point, with some experts claiming we are at
the peak now and others saying it is still a few years or maybe a decade
away.

Until very recently, Energy Department analysts were firmly in the
camp of those wild-eyed optimists who claimed that peak oil was so far
in the future that we didn't really need to give it much thought.
Putting aside the science of the matter, the promulgation of such a
rose-colored view obviated any need to advocate improvements in
automobile fuel efficiency or to accelerate progress on the development
of alternative fuels. Given White House priorities, it is hardly
surprising that this view prevailed in Washington.

In just the past six months, however, the signs of an imminent peak
in conventional oil production have become impossible even for
conservative industry analysts to ignore. These have come from the
take-no-prisoners world of oil pricing and deal-making, on the one hand,
and the analysis of international energy experts, on the other.

Most dramatic, perhaps, has been the spectacular rise in oil prices.
The price of light, sweet crude crossed the longstanding psychological
barrier of $80 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange for the
first time in September, and has since risen to as high as $90. Many
reasons have been cited for the rise in crude prices, including unrest
in Nigeria's oil-producing Delta region, pipeline sabotage in Mexico,
increased hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico and fears of Turkish
attacks on Kurdish guerrilla sanctuaries in Iraq. But the underlying
reality is that most oil-producing countries are pumping at maximum
capacity and finding it increasingly difficult to boost production in
the face of rising international demand.

Even a decision by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) to boost production by 500,000 barrels per day failed
to halt the upward momentum in prices. Concerned that an excessive rise
in oil costs would trigger a worldwide recession and lower demand for
their products, the OPEC countries agreed to increase their combined
output at a meeting in Vienna on September 11. "We think that the market
is a little bit high," explained Kuwait's acting oil minister, Mohammad
al-Olaim. But the move did little to slow the rise in prices. Clearly,
OPEC would have to undertake a much larger production increase to alter
the market environment, and it is not at all clear that its members
possess the capacity to do that--now or in the future.

A warning sign of another sort was provided by Kazakhstan's August
decision to suspend development of the giant Kashagan oil region in its
sector of the Caspian Sea, first initiated by a consortium of Western
firms in the late '90s. Kashagan was said to be the most promising oil
project since the discovery of oil in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay in the late
'60s. But the enterprise has encountered enormous technical problems and
has yet to produce a barrel of oil. Frustrated by a failure to see any
economic benefits from the project, the Kazakh government has cited
environmental risks and cost overruns to justify suspending operations
and demanding a greater say in the project.

Like the dramatic rise in oil prices, the Kashagan episode is an
indication of the oil industry's growing difficulties in its efforts to
boost production in the face of rising demand. "All the oil companies
are struggling to grow production," Peter Hitchens of Teather &
Greenwood brokerage told the Wall Street Journal in July. "It's
becoming more and more difficult to bring projects in on time and on
budget."

That this industry debilitation is not a temporary problem but
symptomatic of a long-term trend was confirmed in two important studies
published this past summer by conservative industry organizations.

The first of these was released July 9 by the International Energy
Agency (IEA), an affiliate of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, the club of major industrial powers. Titled
Medium-Term Oil Market Report, it is a blunt assessment of the
global supply-and-demand equation over the 2007-12 period. The news is
not good.

Predicting that world economic activity will grow by an average of
4.5 percent per year during this period--much of it driven by unbridled
growth in China, India and the Middle East--the report concludes that
global oil demand will rise by 2.2 percent per year, pushing world oil
consumption from approximately 86 million barrels per day in 2007 to 96
million in 2012. With luck and massive new investment, the oil industry
will be able to increase output sufficiently to satisfy the higher level
of demand anticipated for 2012--barely. Beyond that, however, there
appears little likelihood that the industry will be able to sustain any
increase in demand. "Oil look[s] extremely tight in five years' time,"
the agency declared.

Underlying the report's general conclusion are a number of specific
concerns. Most notably, it points to a worrisome decline in the yield of
older fields in non-OPEC countries and a corresponding need for
increased output from the OPEC countries, most of which are located in
conflict-prone areas of the Middle East and Africa. The numbers involved
are staggering. At first blush, it would seem that the need for an extra
10 million barrels per day between now and 2012 would translate into an
added 2 million barrels per day in each of the next five years--a
conceivably attainable goal. But that doesn't take into account the
decline of older fields. According to the report, the world actually
needs an extra 5 million: 3 million to make up for the decline in older
fields plus the 2 million in added requirements. This is a daunting and
possibly insurmountable challenge, especially when one considers that
almost all of the additional petroleum will have to come from Iran,
Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Angola, Libya, Nigeria, Sudan,
Kazakhstan and Venezuela--countries that do not inspire the sort of
investor confidence that will be needed to pour hundreds of billions of
dollars into new drilling rigs, pipelines and other essential
infrastructure.

Similar causes for anxiety can be found in the second major study
released last summer, Facing the Hard Truths About Energy,
prepared by the National Petroleum Council, a major industry
organization. Because it supposedly provided a "balanced" view of the
nation's energy dilemma, the NPC report was widely praised on Capitol
Hill and in the media; adding to its luster was the identity of its
chief author, former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond.

Like the IEA report, the NPC study starts with the claim that, with
the right mix of policies and higher investment, the industry is capable
of satisfying US and international oil and natural gas demand.
"Fortunately, the world is not running out of energy resources," the
report bravely asserts. But obstacles to the development and delivery of
these resources abound, so prudent policies and practices are urgently
required. Although "there is no single, easy solution to the multiple
challenges we face," the authors conclude, they are "confident that the
prompt adoption of these strategies" will allow the United States to
satisfy its long-term energy needs.

Read further into the report, however, and serious doubts emerge.
Here again, worries arise from the growing difficulties of extracting
oil and gas from less-favorable locations and the geopolitical risks
associated with increased reliance on unfriendly and unstable suppliers.
According to the NPC (using data acquired from the IEA), an estimated
$20 trillion in new infrastructure will be needed over the next
twenty-five years to ensure that sufficient energy is available to
satisfy anticipated worldwide demand.

The report then states the obvious: "A stable and attractive
investment climate will be necessary to attract adequate capital for
evolution and expansion of the energy infrastructure." This is where any
astute observer should begin to get truly alarmed, for, as the study
notes, no such climate can be expected. As the center of gravity of
world oil production shifts decisively to OPEC suppliers and
state-centric energy producers like Russia, geopolitical rather than
market factors will come to dominate the marketplace.

"These shifts pose profound implications for U.S. interests,
strategies, and policy-making," the NPC report states. "Many of the
expected changes could heighten risks to U.S. energy security in a world
where U.S. influence is likely to decline as economic power shifts to
other nations. In years to come, security threats to the world's main
sources of oil and natural gas may worsen."

The implications are obvious: major investors are not likely to
cough up the trillions of dollars needed to substantially boost
production in the years ahead, suggesting that the global output of
conventional petroleum will not reach the elevated levels predicted by
the Energy Department but will soon begin an irreversible decline.

This conclusion leads to two obvious strategic impulses: first, the
government will seek to ease the qualms of major energy investors by
promising to protect their overseas investments through the deployment
of American military forces; and second, the industry will seek to hedge
its bets by shifting an ever-increasing share of its investment funds
into the development of nonpetroleum liquids.

The New 'Washington Consensus'

The need for a vigorous US military role in protecting energy assets
abroad has been a major theme in American foreign policy since 1945,
when President Roosevelt met with King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia and
promised to protect the kingdom in return for privileged access to Saudi
oil.

In the most famous expression of this linkage, President Carter
affirmed in January 1980 that the unimpeded flow of Persian Gulf oil is
among this country's vital interests and that to protect this interest,
the United States will employ "any means necessary, including military
force." This principle was later cited by President Reagan as the
rationale for "reflagging" Kuwaiti oil tankers with the American ensign
during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 and protecting them with US
warships--a stance that led to sporadic clashes with Iran. The same
principle was subsequently invoked by George H.W. Bush as a
justification for the Gulf War of 1991.

In considering these past events, it is important to recognize that
the use of military force to protect the flow of imported petroleum has
generally enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Washington. Initially,
this bipartisan outlook was largely focused on the Persian Gulf area,
but since 1990, it has been extended to other areas as well. President
Clinton eagerly pursued close military ties with the Caspian Sea oil
states of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan after the breakup of the USSR in
1991, while George W. Bush has avidly sought an increased US military
presence in Africa's oil-producing regions, going so far as to favor the
establishment of a US Africa Command (Africom) in February.

One might imagine that the current debacle in Iraq would shake this
consensus, but there is no evidence that this is so. In fact, the
opposite appears to be the case: possibly fearful that the chaos in Iraq
will spread to other countries in the Gulf region, senior figures in
both parties are calling for a reinvigorated US military role in the
protection of foreign energy deliveries.

Perhaps the most explicit expression of this elite consensus is an
independent task force report, National Security Consequences of U.S.
Oil Dependency, backed by many prominent Democrats and Republicans.
It was released by the bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
co-chaired by John Deutch, deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton
Administration, and James Schlesinger, defense secretary in the Nixon
and Ford administrations, in October 2006. The report warns of mounting
perils to the safe flow of foreign oil. Concluding that the United
States alone has the capacity to protect the global oil trade against
the threat of violent obstruction, it argues the need for a strong US
military presence in key producing areas and in the sea lanes that carry
foreign oil to American shores.

An awareness of this new "Washington consensus" on the need to
protect overseas oil supplies with American troops helps explain many
recent developments in Washington. Most significant, it illuminates the
strategic stance adopted by President Bush in justifying his
determination to retain a potent US force in Iraq--and why the Democrats
have found it so difficult to contest that stance.

Consider Bush's September 13 prime-time speech on Iraq. "If we were
to be driven out of Iraq," he prophesied, "extremists of all strains
would be emboldened.... Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be
encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the
region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy
supply." And then came the kicker: "Whatever political party you belong
to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that
America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in
the Middle East." In other words, Iraq is no longer about democracy or
WMDs or terrorism but about maintaining regional stability to ensure the
safe flow of petroleum and keep the American economy on an even keel; it
was almost as if he was speaking to the bipartisan crowd that backed the
CFR report cited above.

It is very clear that the Democrats, or at least mainstream
Democrats, are finding it exceedingly difficult to contest this argument
head-on. In March, for example, Senator Hillary Clinton told the New
York Times that Iraq is "right in the heart of the oil region" and
so "it is directly in opposition to our interests" for it to become a
failed state or a pawn of Iran. This means, she continued, that it will
be necessary to keep some US troops in Iraq indefinitely, to provide
logistical and training support to the Iraqi military. Senator Barack
Obama has also spoken of the need to maintain a robust US military
presence in Iraq and the surrounding area. Thus, while calling for the
withdrawal of most US combat brigades from Iraq proper, he has
championed an "over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the
wider region."

Given this perspective, it is very hard for mainstream Democrats to
challenge Bush when he says that an "enduring" US military presence is
needed in Iraq or to change the Administration's current policy, barring
a major military setback or some other unforeseen event. By the same
token, it will be hard for the Democrats to avert a US attack on Iran if
this can be portrayed as a necessary move to prevent Tehran from
threatening the long-term safety of Persian Gulf oil supplies.

Nor can we anticipate a dramatic change in US policy in the Gulf
region from the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican.
If anything, we should expect an increase in the use of military force
to protect the overseas flow of oil, as the threat level rises along
with the need for new investment to avert even further reductions in
global supplies.

The Rush to Alternative Liquids

Although determined to keep expanding the supply of conventional
petroleum for as long as possible, government and industry officials are
aware that at some point these efforts will prove increasingly
ineffective. They also know that public pressure to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions--thus slowing the accumulation of climate-changing
greenhouse gases--and to avoid exposure to conflict in the Middle East
is sure to increase in the years ahead. Accordingly, they are placing
greater emphasis on the development of oil alternatives that can be
procured at home or in neighboring Canada.

The new emphasis was first given national attention in Bush's latest
State of the Union address. Stressing energy independence and the need
to modernize fuel economy standards, he announced an ambitious plan to
increase domestic production of ethanol and other biofuels. The
Administration appears to favor several types of petroleum alternatives:
ethanol derived from corn stover, switch grass and other nonfood crops
(cellulosic ethanol); diesel derived largely from soybeans (biodiesel);
and liquids derived from coal (coal-to-liquids), natural gas
(gas-to-liquids) and oil shale. All of these methods are being tested in
university laboratories and small-scale facilities, and will be applied
in larger, commercial-sized ventures in coming years with support from
various government agencies.

In February, for example, the Energy Department announced grants
totaling $385 million for the construction of six pilot plants to
manufacture cellulosic ethanol; when completed in 2012, these
"biorefineries" will produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic
ethanol per year. (The United States already produces large quantities
of ethanol by cooking and fermenting corn kernels, a process that
consumes vast amounts of energy and squanders a valuable food crop while
supplanting only a small share of our petroleum usage; the proposed
cellulosic plants would use nonfood biomass as a feedstock and consume
far less energy.)

Just as eager to develop petroleum alternatives are the large energy
companies, all of which have set up laboratories or divisions to explore
future energy options. BP has been especially aggressive; in 2005 it
established BP Alternative Energy and set aside $8 billion for this
purpose. This past February the new spinoff announced a $500 million
grant--possibly the largest of its kind in history--to the University of
California, Berkeley, the University of Illinois and Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory to establish an Energy Biosciences Institute with
the aim of developing biofuels. BP said the institute "is expected to
explore the application of bioscience [to] the production of new and
cleaner energy, principally fuels for road transport."

Just about every large oil company is placing a heavy bet on
Canadian tar sands--a gooey substance found in Canada's Alberta province
that can be converted into synthetic petroleum--but only with enormous
effort and expense. According to the Energy Department, Canadian bitumen
production will rise from 1.1 mboe in 2005 to 3.6 mboe in 2030, an
increase that is largely expected to be routed to the United States.
Hoping to cash in on this bonanza, giant US corporations like Chevron
are racing to buy up leases in the bitumen fields of northern Alberta.

But while attractive from a geopolitical perspective, extracting
Canadian tar sands is environmentally destructive. It takes vast
quantities of energy to recover the bitumen and convert it into a usable
liquid, releasing three times as much greenhouse gases as conventional
oil production; the resulting process leaves toxic water supplies and
empty moonscapes in its wake. Although rarely covered in the US press,
opposition in Canada to the environmental damage wreaked by these
mammoth operations is growing.

Environmental factors loom large in yet another potential source of
liquids being pursued by US energy firms, with strong government
support: shale oil, or petroleum liquids pried from immature rock found
in the Green River basin of western Colorado, eastern Utah and southern
Wyoming. Government geologists claim that shale rock in the United
States holds the equivalent of 2.1 trillion barrels of oil--the same as
the original world supply of conventional petroleum. However, the only
way to recover this alleged treasure is to strip-mine a vast wilderness
area and heat the rock to 500 degrees Celsius, creating mountains of
waste material in the process. Here too, opposition is growing to this
massively destructive assault on the environment. Nevertheless, Shell
Oil has established a pilot plant in Rio Blanco County in western
Colorado with strong support from the Bush Administration.

Life After the Peak

And so we have a portrait of the global energy situation after the
peak of conventional petroleum, with troops being rushed from one
oil-producing hot spot to another and a growing share of our
transportation fuel being supplied by nonpetroleum liquids of one sort
or another. Exactly what form this future energy equation will take
cannot be foreseen with precision, but it is obvious that the arduous
process will shape American policy debates, domestic and foreign, for a
long time.

As this brief assessment suggests, the passing of peak oil will have
profound and lasting consequences for this country, with no easy
solutions. In facing this future, we must, above all, disavow any simple
answers, such as energy "independence" based on the pillage of America's
remaining wilderness areas or the false promise of corn-based ethanol
(which can supply only a tiny fraction of our transportation
requirements). It is clear, moreover, that many of the fuel alternatives
proposed by the Bush Administration pose significant dangers of their
own and so should be examined carefully before vast public sums are
committed to their development. The safest and most morally defensible
course is to repudiate any "consensus" calling for the use of force to
protect overseas petroleum supplies and to strive to conserve what
remains of the world's oil by using less of it.

This article can be found on the web at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071112/klare

But his greatest anguish was the loss of certainty. He had been torn up by the roots. The code he lived by was in fragments in his hand. He was confronted by scruples that were utterly strange to him. He could no longer live by his lifelong principles; he had entered a strange new world of humanity…. He contemplated…the rising of new sun – an owl required to see with eagle’s eyes.
(Part 5, Bk 4, Les Miserables, Victor Hugo

In response to the blog post Oct 22 (Where the hell is Dan…”) I thought I’d add my thoughts. I’m in an interesting position here, having enjoyed Dan’s friendship and sharing his evolving vision of this Searching for Dragons project since he came into this territory. I too feel, as Dan has pointed out about his own experience, as if I have a foot in two worlds, two paradigms, and therefore do not quite feel at home in either. I live here on the edge of different worlds: between prairie and mountains, between Canada/Alberta and Piikuni/Kainai Blackfoot cultures.

I want to vouch for what Dan is experiencing. The world of the Blackfoot, and perhaps by extension, the indigenous world as a whole, is vastly different from the “Western” world. Increasingly, I’ve come to appreciate just how difficult it is to access and understand. We often recognize the differences in perspective that various languages and cultures provide, say, from Spanish to Italian, to English and French. But these differences are slight by comparison to the divide between any of the Indo-European derived languages and cultures, and the indigenous. I use the term ‘indigenous’ in order to distinguish between what existed before colonization, and what still exists in reduced and often compromised form today, and the more legally recognized and controversial term like “native” or “Indian” or “aboriginal”. ‘Indigenous’ does not refer to blood quanta levels and status cards, but to a way of seeing, acting and relating to the world.

The challenge for a modern/Western/colonized person trying to enter an indigenous worldview is somewhat like trying to see the back of your head. You go into that world with a well-established perspective already, with language that conditions us to see already in a particular way. Of course, the temptation is to see all this new stuff through the lens of what you already have. Moreover, the ‘new’ stuff you’re trying to see is blurred by… centuries of colonization, assimilation, and adaptation – so it becomes very difficult to see anything but that which is already modified in light of your (Modern/Western) perspective. Yet the effort can be made, and a glimpse into a very different world is possible. (In my opinion, Rupert Ross, and Calvin Luther Martin are two non-native writers who have grasped this difference.)

It’s into this old world that Dan has entered. I don’t mean to suggest that Dan’s project is simply a search for indigenous values and perspectives. He may come to that conclusion at some point. Or he may find that what he is searching for in fact runs parallel to, or is very close to, indigenous values. Whatever the outcome, I think it can be said that for the time being, there is something about being on the Blackfoot reserve, going through the sweats, Sundance, roundup, and listening to what the Elders and custodians and researchers have to say about things, that is bringing about a change in perspective. This is a journey into another world, fraught with challenges. The process is painful for anyone conditioned to one particular perspective, armed with a different set of values. It provokes anxieties; the very same sensation, sometimes, as if you were letting go of a support pillar and suddenly felt yourself falling. The falling sensation tends to make you want to hold tighter to your familiar paradigms and to see everything from your familiar lens.

For some, this is a non-issue. There are those who fail to recognize the relativity of their own cultural lens and do not question anything about their perspective. Others can lose themselves altogether (I’m reminded of Kurtz’ famous line from Conrad’s Heart of Darkness “The horror, the horror…”).

Over and over, the sin I witness with well-intentioned ‘westerners’ (European, American, and Canadian) who come to experience and learn something ‘native’ is that they come, but they do not stay. And at the risk of offering up a too-crude generalization, the one central value I have picked up in my time among indigenous people is – you must take the time.

I once asked a Blackfoot friend about the meaning of a certain petroglyph image at Writing-On-Stone. He laughed at my question (in a friendly way) and asked me what the rock the glyph was on was like, what was its shape and contours? and where was the image in relation to the rock? and where the rock sat, in relation to the landscape? All these things had something to say about what the glyph was saying. To read the glyph, I had to be able to read the landscape (as well as understand the content of the glyph!) Of course I had not considered those contextual factors, accustomed as I was to simply reading print from a page.

Another friend of mine has been taking me to sacred Blackfoot landscape sites. He shows me how one ought to approach these places, what one ought to say, how one ought to conduct oneself. He told me recently that he had been taught to approach a site by first drawing near, but not arriving. Then to leave, and return another day, drawing yet closer, but not arriving. One should do this 4 times, before actually arriving at the point of interest. To do otherwise, he said (using a Blackfoot word) was to be greedy and impatient. He said white people tended to be greedy like this, in a hurry, not respecting, not waiting. If we could wait, he said, things would come to us, and speak to us, invitations would come, and we would recognize the power in things that beckoned us.

These two anecdotes teach that you don’t learn about indigenous culture without paying attention to things, by taking a long look, by taking a slow approach, being open and willing to undergo change, letting go of the familiar. I’ve seen too many people pass through Blackfoot country who want to snatch a piece of something ‘other’, and call the piece the whole. Indigenous cultures have been putting up with that for a very long time. This is the problem of the tourist, as opposed to the traveler. The tourist goes off on a trip, collects memorabilia, photographs, considers what has been ‘got’ or ‘done’ and comes home with a sense of possession, yet for all that has been ‘possessed’, the tourist is essentially unchanged by the trip. They are the same upon their return as they were when they left, perhaps sporting a tan and a batch of pictures and t-shirts. The traveler, by contrast, goes on a trip with an open mind, with courage (courage to let go, undo, all that is familiar), and returns changed in essential ways. The traveler is not the same on their return.

The other thing one learns is that you don’t simply drop into the culture. You approach, and if you show your colours, you get invited a little further. You engage in a dialectic dance of approach and invitation.

Going through this dance with his Blackfoot family and friends, Dan is not in a position to be reporting on this. Dan is being invited in, not the rest of his audience. He’s putting in the time, and showing his colours, not the rest of us. In the end, his ‘product’, if successful, will invite the rest of us into a long and carefully researched vision we’re not entirely familiar with, the measure of true art.

Ken Williams

1. Little Wolf Ranch
2. Me and one of my Boyz
3. Roundup
4. Bad Eagle Coulee
5. Heading to the Dip
6. Red: Oats?

Monday, October 22, 2007

I just did a video journal entry for the first time in a long while. I’ve been shooting here and there, capturing season changes, herds of wild horses, landscapes, and the odd sunset of staggering beauty; but I haven’t been talking to the camera much. To a large degree I’ve been gone, lost… inside myself.

It began a few months back… all of a sudden I became tired with this idea of blog entries and video postings. I had set out on a journey to find myself and capture a film, but instead, I was finding myself chained to a laptop, wanting (and feeling pressured) to relay experiences as they unfolded in real-time. I was losing control of my original intentions: to slow down and connect to something real.

I think now I can honestly say that sometimes, when you find yourself getting off track, it can be helpful to almost leave the track altogether for a while. Get lost, so that you can get found.

As my friend arrived for her visit, she brought with her a tremendous amount of energy from, what is for me, a far off paradigm. As we first began to speak, I felt as if I was not simply speaking to a friend, but wrestling with another world, and another aspect of myself.

I am well aware that regardless of how far off the beaten path I may travel, I will most likely never be able to shake off the ways of seeing/being from whence I came. In this sense I feel somehow as though I am becoming of two worlds, one foot in each paradigm, unable to ever again be completely in either reality.

I don’t know if this makes sense, but you were wondering where I was…

The conversation I had on that first night brought me back while also showing me where I was. It made me realize how I had been intentionally losing myself, and it made me eager to head back home, out onto the road.

Now that I’m returning to the process it’s different, I’m not so concerned with relaying experiences, developing and capturing audiences, or ‘producing’ art that can be quantified and hung on a wall. I’m somehow freer than before, and not feeling the same pressures of a world almost two-years behind me, and in that, I’m somehow left in a place to enjoy and make something that’s maybe somehow more pure.

The work will come: the finished film and photographic works, the quantifiable evidence, the measurement of success, perhaps the proof of what I’m out here doing (to be honest, at times, I have little idea; it being a matter of faith and process). Maybe in time what will emerge are some of the answers to my (perhaps our) many questions…

It will all come… in time.

peace,
d

“Ah, if only the hand of man could create such works of art, such holy, essential images untainted by will or vanity. But it was not that way. Other images were created: pretty, delightful things, made with great mastery, the joy of art lovers, the ornament of churches and town halls–beautiful things certainly, but not sacred, not true images of the soul. He knew many such works, not only by Niklaus and other masters– works that, in spite of their delicacy and craftsmanship, were nothing but playthings. To his shame and sorrow he had already felt that in his own heart, had felt in his hands how an artist can put such pretty things in the world, out of delight in his own skill, out of ambition and dissipation.

When he realized this for the first time, he grew deathly sad, Ah, it was not worth being an artist in order to make little angel figures and similar frivolities, no matter how beautiful. Perhaps the others, the artisans, the burghers, those calm, satisfied souls might find it worthwhile, but not he. To him, art and craftsmanship were worthless unless they burned like the sun and had the power of storms. He had no use for anything that brought only comfort pleasantness, only small joys. He was searching for other things.

-Herman Hesse: “Narcissus and Goldmund”

[From a dear friend of mine who recently spent 4 days with me on the Peigan Reservation in Southern Alberta. I asked her to write a blog entry for me.]

Like some of you back at home, I have been wondering where is Dan - has he crossed the border yet, is he ok, how is the film going, etc? Following his blogs semi-regularily, I am under the impression that Dan may be spending more time with horses than with his camera. I was beginning to question his committment to his film. So I went to see for myself. Gladly leaving my frantic urban life behind, I headed to southern Alberta to find Dan on a Blackfoot Indian Reserve where he has been for the past 10 months. Yah, 10 months....I am floored, I can't imagine what has stalled him here?

We discuss wildly into the night about time, the process of art making, about the pressures to produce, about audiences, and about the struggle to journey ahead - 'realities' which are hard to escape. But these issues are plaguing Dan less and less, his new mantra 'what's the rush' rings true in this space. He explains that this so-called 'stalled' time has given him the opportunity to film the four seasons of this prairie land, the time to build bonds with this community and to give back in awesome ways, and to capture the teachings of the Peigan First Nations... all helping to feed the man behind the film.

I find that Dan has found another place to call home, and I understand his challenge to leave this place... the connection to nature here is inescapable, magical, and draws me in as well. I find myself aching to stay, but I do not share the same free spirit of Dan's and reluctantly find my way to the airport.

Looking into my dear friend, I saw someone with a sharper sense of self and strengthened intuition. His community, knowledge, and voice is growing and the film footage ever changing. Dan is creating a film, but rather than controlling the outcome, he is channeling his energy into the journey and letting the message speak through him. I have faith in my friend and wish him patience and perseverance. I think the security of home will be missed, but his journey is greater than this place and I feel he has the tools to move on.

Me on the other hand am struggling to take the lessons learned out West and incorporate them into everyday urban life. It is a challenge to find the balance between societal expectations and the feverish city pulse while still being true to yourself and finding inner peace. An ongoing journey...I am so grateful.

(This is from awhile back.. haven't been online much, but that's about to change... been breaking/starting horses and processing all I've learned. I'll be back soon. I promise. d)

October 5th, 2008
When I set out on this journey, I knew it was about letting go. I knew I was making a film about the fact that our current world is unsustainable, and in time, we will have to let go of one paradigm to make way for another.

This past week the idea of letting go changed for me. This past week I had to let go of one of my greatest teachers. A dear friend and guide in my life left this world and crossed the great divide.

I have spent many hours sitting, listening, talking, and learning. I’ve learned about lots of things in my time with her, but most importantly, she taught me to trust myself and listen to my intuition. That if I take the time to honestly look inwards, I am often one of my greatest teachers. It’s the taking the time to calm the river, settle the mind, and listen that’s always been the hardest part, but I know I’m doing just fine.

I’ve also learned to build beautiful things, to help people while to not always interfere, to keep my mouth shut, to marvel as it all unfolds, and to simply have a good time and… be happy.

I think in life we often know these things, but for some reason we turn away from ourselves; we turn away from a simple truth of letting go in favor of a more difficult holding on. Trying to control an uncontrollable reality.

After all… it IS hard to let go.

A few years ago I sat in her kitchen talking. She asked me about us. I told her it was time that I find a new teacher, I told her she couldn’t be there for me forever, she smiled in that way she smiles, proud that I was learning to feel the world around me. But I didn’t know then what it all meant. Knowing, without knowing what I know, or how I know it. I didn’t know it would be one of the last times I saw her.

Although in the past week I’ve cried like I haven’t cried in years, waking up in the night with tear-soaked pillows, it feeling so good to cry, I must say that I’m not all that sad for her. I’ll miss our conversations, I’ll miss her front steps, I’ll miss her hugs and smiles, and that feeling she radiated outwards, that everything will be ok, and everything is exactly where it needs to be.

That’s how I feel now: everything is exactly where it needs to be.

I guess with any significant change, our personal paradigms shift. We let go and allow new aspects of ourselves to emerge. In this case, a part of the child I was when I first met her is gone, and I find myself sharpening the tools she helped me develop and setting out to honor her spirit and all the gifts she gave me.

Milli, I love you, I thank you, and I wish you well on your journey.

peace,
d