Net energy from oil fizzling out, global warming, mass extinction, mounting global debt, and worse — Sailing in uncharted waters, time to re-think everything
Part 12 of Looking down the barrel — the Tooth Fairy & the Dragon-King
Previously in Looking down the barrel…
This is our last post in the Looking down the barrel series on the emerging global demand for something else than what we currently have.
In this series, we have demonstrated that we are living through the last ten years of the Oil Age and examined some of the main consequences of what is shaping up as the defining event of the 21st century. We have called this the Oil Fizzle Dragon-King (OFDK) — Oil Fizzle because net energy from oil, delivered to the globalised industrial world (GIW) as transport fuels, is rapidly fizzling out and will be close to nil around 2022, and Dragon-King because although this threat has been dangling in front of everyone’s nose for decades almost no one saw it coming (Dragon-Kings being unexpected but nonetheless high probability, high impact events versus Black Swans being low probability, high impact events).
In Part 1 we pointed out that the globalised industrial world (GIW) is losing access to the two main sources of energy it vitally depends on, phytomass and net energy from oil. Loss of access to phytomass is most critical to food supply. The fizzling out of net energy from oil, that triggered OFDK from around 2012 onwards, is critical to all forms of transport globally… and without transport, well, everything else grinds to a halt.
In consequence we are now caught in an avalanche of untoward events triggered by OFDK. OFDK integrates, compounds and accelerates all other issues and threats besides the fizzling out of net energy from oil — global warming, ever mounting total debt and related financial matters, tensions between the 10% wealthiest of the global population and the 90% Remainder, other ecological threats, and many more. In doing so OFDK forms an avalanche (also called a self organising criticality, SOC) that we consider to be powerful enough to disintegrate the GIW over the next decade or so.
At heart, we are caught in this avalanche because of persistent cognitive failure prevailing globally among decision-makers, that is, the inability to become aware of, to understand and to deal with major challenges as they arise, and to make effective use of available knowledge and expertise to do so.
We have shown that cognitive failure specifically stems from what we called the Tooth Fairy syndrome, a weird commingling of magical thinking and believing in myths, amalgamated with bits and pieces of science and rational thinking thrown in, here and there. This eerie commingling was inherited hardly modified from pre-industrial societies. It renders all present governments and large centralised corporate businesses ill equipped to handle the nexus of closely interrelated financial, economic, social, energy and ecological challenges engendered by OFDK. Their beliefs and resulting decision-making have created the present global mess. They show no inclination to drop their Tooth Fairy beliefs. They all demonstrably lack the expertise and experience to chart a new course. Their response times are also demonstrably far too slow (e.g. it took over 50 years for them to acknowledge and begin act on global warming). Many, especially governments and energy businesses, are in financial trouble or will be very soon. After repeated failures, all are in the process of losing credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of billions of people. And yet the expertise to meet the present avalanche of challenges is available within the global scientific, engineering and entrepreneurial community.
In Parts 2 to 9 we examined the genesis of OFDK, its avalanche character, its global warming and other ecological facets, and how both the 10% and the Remainder are under immediate threat from it. We stressed that both the petroleum production system (PPS) and the GIW have entered what we called the big mad energy scramble (BigMES). While many parties sense mounting problems that are symptomatic of the impending end of the Oil Age, under the sway of the Tooth Fairy none has any comprehensive understanding of OFDK. All are largely flying blind and try to survive on an “everyone to themselves and the devil take the hindmost” basis.
We then came back to food and transport issues, since these two are probably the most critical areas of concern as the OFDK avalanche unfolds. In Part 10 we focused on food, real food, the kind of food one learns about when one lacks it, aka the prospects of famine, recurring famine, globally, over the next 10 years and perhaps beyond that — one of the main likely consequences of OFDK, in the absence of rapid responses to it. In Part 11 we assessed the implications of OFDK on transport, real transport, the kind that, as for food, one learns about when one lacks it, aka when petrol pumps run dry erratically, recurrently, planes don’t fly, container ships don’t ship, and trucks no longer truck things around… Under the garb of a bright fantasised future made of self-drive electric vehicles, “renewable energy”, the Internet of Things, and more, we observed Tooth Fairy-impelled, massive, cognitive failure in the process of knotting together an abrupt, global, breakdown of all forms of transport — the very transport that we have come to take for granted and without which our world can no longer operate.
Of course, what emerges from those 11 posts is not only grim looking, to say the least, but also in sharp contrast with the dominant discourses conveyed by mainstream media, politicians and captains of industry, be they those in denial of climate change or “Peak Oil”, endlessly promoting “growth” and bright futures, or those on the “greener” sides of life alerting about countless issues but nonetheless focusing resolutely on even brighter futures once those issues will have been bravely overcome. Yet this OFDK that we have observed “looking down the barrel” is based on the work of thousands of researchers who each, in their own domains, over the last four decades have been relentlessly pointing at breaks, discontinuities, breakdowns, impossibilities and dangers ahead, along the path followed by the GIW.
So now, in this concluding post of our first series, Looking down the barrel, we are going to explore how to address the future under OFDK. The point is not to “predict” what is going to happen — no one can. Instead our focus is how to think how to figure out how to respond to the OFDK threats, how to find ways of surviving it, of extricating ourselves from its consequences, of learning the lessons to be leaned and preferably come out better off, in terms of sustainable ways of living. In other words, how to develop something else than what we currently have? In a first chapter A we will consider how to think the future to develop a robust method enabling us to sail in uncharted waters. In a second chapter B we will explore where this leads us.
A — Sailing in uncharted waters
In a 2013 interview, 1994 Japanese literature Nobel prize winner Kenzaburô Oê explained how for a long time he had difficulty understanding a verse of Dante’s Divine Comedy, but that after the Fukushima catastrophe it began to make sense to him. He referred to a moment when “the future seems to be shut: the knowledge we used to have about the world and society now appears void of meaning”:
“Quando s’appressano o son, tutto è vano nostro intelletto; e s’altri non ci apporta, nulla sapem di vostro stato umano. Però comprender puoi che tutta morta fia nostra conoscenza da quel punto che del futuro fia chiusa la porta”.
“When things draw near or happen, we have no intelligence of them; and if no one clarifies them for us we know nothing of the state of human affairs. So you may understand that our knowledge will be wholly dead from the moment that the gate of the future shall be shut.”
In the dire context of OFDK, Dante’s and Kenzaburô Oê’s insights feel eerily poignant. Those of us who have spent a lifetime investigating global energy dynamics have become acutely aware that nowadays most people have no real intelligence of what is in the process of unfolding energy wise. We also do know for sure that at present the “gate of the future is shut” and will remain so until enough people take matters in their own hands and invent ways to forge a novel path. This is why, throughout this series of posts we have insisted on both the demand for something else and the necessity of an entrepreneurial approach to fulfilling it.
To bluntly highlight the lack of future for the GIW, and in consequence for the entire global population (except perhaps for the few hunter-gatherers still surviving in some jungle remnants), let’s reconsider our assessment of how the availability of net energy from oil per head of global population has evolved since the early days of the Oil Age. In our view, this amount per year is a much better index of the global situation than any GDP trajectory. It is this amount that conditions everything else and it is not subject to inflation and the vagaries of fiat currencies.
Figure 1 — Olduvai or what else?
Figure 1, that we discussed in an earlier post, traces this key data, the net energy available from oil per head of global population. The long climb from 1745 to 1970 was followed with a sharp descent from the early 1970s onwards. We are now getting perilously close to “ground zero”. The Olduvai Gorge background is there as a reminder that, short of rapidly inventing new ways of accessing a large enough new pool of energy, the prospects for OFDK survivors are likely to be that of “post-modern” hunter-gatherers…
Looking at Figure 1, readers may still be assailed with doubt about our OFDK analyses. They may ask themselves again how come the Oil Age may end so abruptly while the media keep reminding us that we are still in the midst of a persisting “oil glut”?
If so they may well recall a point that we made in Part 3 of Looking down the barrel. We referred to the 1997 work of Fredrik Robelius on Giant oil fields. Almost 60% of the world’s oil production comes from less than 1% of its fields, the Giants.
Most Giants currently in production are nearing the end of their production period. Once Giants are gone there will be no way to replace them. In his extensive study of the Giants, Robelius concluded that the Giants would enter into catastrophic decline soon, which we conservatively translate to probably well before 2030. Once this happens there are no other fields to substitute for them, regardless of the price one may be prepared to pay. In spite of all the current talk of shale oil, tar sands, bitumen and more, none of these resources can replace the approximately 40 million barrels per day (40Mb/day) coming from that handful of Giant fields.
Many people may find our thermodynamic analyses of OFDK unfamiliar and hard to digest. Robelius’ work is another independent way of considering the same stubborn reality. It points at the same time horizon for the end of the Oil Age. We have also pointed at a mounting pile of other studies, reports and analyses, notably from the financial sector, that we have referred to as “reading tea leaves and writings on walls”, indirectly indicating troubled times ahead for oil matters. As another example, more recently, Prof. Roy Thompson, Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, and colleagues pointed out that UK’s oil and gas reserves have entered their last decade of exploitation.
There is not much point in “twisting and turning” or “beating around the proverbial bush” any longer. Better to look straight at this unexpected but nonetheless 100% expectable event that one calls a “Dragon King”, specifically the fizzling out of net energy from oil, or rather the avalanche of unexpected events triggered by it — OFDK.
This is an extremely challenging situation. OFDK forces us to re-think everything, all preconceptions, all beliefs, all that we have come to take for granted. Within the GIW, everyone has been educated, indoctrinated even, to believe in the everlasting continuity of “civilisation”, especially in the form of “growth”, the on-going march of “progress”, ever more of better “stuff”, the unquestionable ability of the GIW to overcome all obstacles it may find in its way, and so on… How to think that all of this may vanish so abruptly? How is life when “it” is all gone?
Often films and novels convey such matters much better than mere statistics. Recall, for example, the film Le Temps du Loup (The Time of the Wolf) in which an unspecified catastrophe has happened, people drift through the countryside, some kill others or seek to exploit them to survive, some group together to try and board one of the few trains still operating and that may take them south where conditions may possibly be better. Do watch it if you have not yet seen it or maybe read the novel Into the Forest. Here is how Macha Séry presents it:
“Why everything goes wrong? The reader does not know. The author suggests the piling up of wars, terrorism, nuclear catastrophe, public services petering out, epidemics… In waves, until the extinction of all social relations. Gasoline had become scarce and then vanished. First electricity was cut irregularly, then it also disappeared. Stores closed, and cars stopped circulating. People died, one infection after another, or on the roads of exile. What’s essential is there: one by one, modernity has extinguished its lights.”
Numerous previous civilisations have known such a fate — as the above film and novel highlight the people caught in their collapses had no understanding of what was happening to them, neither their leaders nor their subjects.
Not many among present elites realise that the societies or civilisations they are part of is not a given. Instead, they unfold within specific domains of viability that, first and foremost, are determined by thermodynamics.
Any business, any group of people, any society, and any civilisation that strays outside the viable thermodynamic domain within which they live is doomed. In some historical cases it may be that the viability domain had shrunk due to ecological causes such as a slight change in the climate (e.g. the end of the Roman Climatic Optimum about 400AD) or it may be that social dynamics themselves did shrink their viability domain, or both, or yet again that they sailed unwittingly way outside what was viable. It may also be that some civilisation eliminates the viable domain of an other. The processes taking civilisations outside what was viable may be slow, unfolding over several centuries (e.g. the decay of the Roman Empire) or extremely abrupt.
Figure 2 — Dire warnings
Under OFDK, for the first time in humankind’s history, the matter is planetary — it concerns the whole of the human species, and it is shaping up to be violently abrupt due to the GIW losing access to all its source of energy simultaneously over less than two decades.
In a sharp essay that hardly made a ripple and was soon forgotten, Prof. Michael Klare is among the few who anticipated how violent and abrupt the BigMES is shaping up to be (Figure 2). His dire warning concerning the next 30 years sets in sharp relief the importance of figuring out how to respond to the OFDK threats so as to survive it and preferably coming out better off.
A new “game”
Figure 3 — How to think the future when there is none left?
OFDK brings the GIW into wholly uncharted, stormy waters. Although some limited lessons may be drawn from previous civilisational failures, there is no precedent to the whole of humankind losing access to all its sources of energy, globally and simultaneously. This means that all usual forms of forecasting, projections, and planning have become obsolete.
It is no longer viable to project from a past, imagined through the distorting lenses of beliefs that have clearly failed, through a deeply misunderstood present, into an unlikely illusory, and uncertain future as most forecasters, producers of “projections, anticipations, scenarios” and other “outlooks” do.
Instead, as shown on Figure 3, it is now necessary to adopt a “back from the future” approach structured in two main steps.
In a first phase one must determine one or more new viable and sustainable space(s) within which a society, a country, or even the whole of humankind may flourish post-OFDK. By space we do not mean a geographical domain but instead we think in terms of thermodynamics and systems to consider boundaries, states and dynamics within which sustainable life may unfold. Such space or spaces presently do not exist. They are better understood as potential futures.
Then, in a second phase, one can then move back from this or these potential future(s) to the present in order to explore how to chart a safe and resilient course towards the identified viable, sustainable and profitable space or spaces.
As the Fritz Perls character on Figure 3 reminds us, our preconceptions and beliefs, that we characterised as the Tooth Fairy, are what entraps us into illusory prisons or induces us to sleepwalk into oblivion. The first step to address OFDK effectively is to free ourselves from the Tooth Fairy. The approach summarised on Figure 3 is specifically designed to achieve this freeing. It is derived from the scenario method pioneered by Shell Oil during the 1970s and 80s and more specifically by Pierre Wack who once stressed: “We wanted to design scenarios so that managers would question their own model of reality and change it when necessary, so as to come up with strategic insights beyond their mind’s previous reach.”  Over several decades, interacting with a broad range of corporate and governmental clients, we modified, refined and augmented this into a method specifically designed to address times of radical rupture.
Built on critical analyses of OFDK’s dynamics as well as on known constraints concerning the future, especially thermodynamic and systemic ones, our approach to strategic decision scenarios enables participants to free themselves from the Tooth Fairy, and more specifically from the compulsion to project from the past into the future. The focus is resolutely entrepreneurial. Instead of being subjected to “uncertainty” and instead of trying to divine trends and adapt to increasingly unfathomable circumstances, our focus is to figure out what one can do and how to do it with what is readily available. The operative word is “deciding”. Regardless of how dire a present unviable situation may be and regardless of what others may be doing, this approach enables us to progress back from a future known to be viable to an unviable present in order to single out opportunities, series of actions and paths that are safe and that others remain blind to (aka opportunities). This approach has become key to finding out how to address OFDK and to chart resilient courses of action that not only enable surviving OFDK but also to prosper in a post-OFDK world.
Throughout the Looking down the barrel series and in Elephants in the cryptocurrency room, we have explored the main factors and constraints, the known determinants of OFDK and its “heavy trends”, that is to say its main dynamics, those that cannot be readily changed (especially in the absence of the energy required to do so). In particular, we have paid careful attention to how the “flying blind” by key players has become a major determinant of OFDK, one that stems from extensive cognitive failure. We have shown how this cognitive failure is the outcome of the Tooth Fairy syndrome. We have referred humorously to it as being hidden under an abundance of somebody else’s problem fields (SEP fields) of Douglas Adam’s Hitchiker’s guide to the Galaxy fame.
We have also explored some “future carriers”, that is, elements of present dynamics that may play a significant part in opening new avenues… or not depending on how they are played up in the BigMES (e.g. XTLs fuels, photovoltaics, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and self-drive ones). In doing so we have identified a whole range of “impossibilities” — what simply cannot happen — like ongoing “growth”, the continuation of the present fiat financial system, the perpetuation of the petroleum production system (PPS) as we presently know it, and overall the perpetuation of the GIW as we also know it.
This strategic decision scenario process, outlined on Figure 3, has led us to our present focus on “key uncertainties”, that is, the vital recognition that we are in extremely stormy, wholly uncharted waters, on the one hand and on the other hand the twin recognition that we are faced with a BigMES situation where all key players keep navigating blind and in doing so are bound to create further havoc of the kind outlined by Prof. Klare. This intensive process has also led us to major outcomes in terms of how to address OFDK and seizing the opportunities that it presents. Will expand on this at the end of Part B of this post.
Is there any way out of the “heart of darkness”?
Figure 4 — Some scenario examples
Regarding the first of the above two outcomes, Figure 4 illustrates three scenarios resulting from our work. Of course, those three scenarios are not the only ones one may imagine. Instead, it is most likely that GIW elites will endeavour, at the very least, to keep the GIW limping on. As we have stressed earlier, having identified OFDK, the point of scenario work is then first to identify safe, viable future spaces and then second to identify paths to reach them. So here, regardless of what GIW elites may attempt, our three scenarios stem from a sheer impossibility, the impossibility under OFDK that the global population may continue tracking smoothly along UN demographic projections.
Short of an ongoing access to the required energy sources, a population crash must be considered as one of the obvious potential consequences of what we have explored in parts 10 and 11, re food and transport. The crash may be more or less drastic but appears increasingly hard to avoid — it results from the lack of any viable future space that could enable the kind of ongoing population growth that UN demographers project. The matter then is how to emerge from such a crash by moving to a new viable space.
The Die-hard Shadoks scenario on Figure 4 tracks the BigMES course of action that the main parts of the PPS and GIW are both presently on — “keep pumping till the end, no matter what”.
The Red-alert Emergency scenario tracks the course many among current GIW elites “wish” to follow. Of course, they actually do not consciously wish this. Instead one may think of it as some kind of unconscious “death wish” — “let’s pursue the growth fantasy but let’s paint it green”. By focusing almost exclusively on “global warming”, in full ignorance of thermodynamic determinants, heavy trends and impossibilities (all hidden under multiple “SEP fields”), and by relying on rather illusory future carriers (aka the acronym soup of XTLs, PVs, WTs, EVs, SDs and TaaS by whatever other names), they seek to move onto what is, in effect, a somewhat parallel track to the Die-hard Shadoks. Of course, in Greek tragedy fashion, they do so wholly unaware that they in fact precipitate what they wish to avoid, i.e. the impact of the global warming that fascinates them (understood in the etymological sense of the word fascination, that is, the morbid fixation on an obscene object akin to an erect fascinus, the Latin word for phallus).
This leaves us with the third scenario, a potential Solar Emergency Initiative. This is the course presently not followed, yet we have ascertained it to be feasible. The Solar scenario tracks a potential path that fulfils the demand for something else that we have identified throughout the Looking down the barrel series.
Let’s stress it again, none of those scenario are projections into the “future”. Presently there is no such future. The “doors of the future” are shut tight. Instead, our scenarios stem from a careful assessment of the implicit spaces each of the parties in play intends to keep operating in and/or seek to move to. None are viable. The Shadoks are resolutely flying out of the viable space that they had been occupying until recently and that is now fizzling out. The “white knights in shiny armour” fighting global warming resolutely seek to fly into a space that does not exist (we will expand on this further down). The scenarios then move back from these spaces to the present in order to trace the then unavoidable trajectories for the global population. The difference between Shadoks and Red-alert versus Solar is that only the latter stems from a known, thermodynamically, ecologically and socially viable future space.
The “Red Queen” and its inversion
Figure 5 — the Red Queen dilemma
Figure 5 summarises the predicament both followers of the Shadoks and Red-alert scenarios are trapped in.
The Red Queen, of course, is that of Alice in Wonderland. The “Red Queen Effect” is well known among analysts of the oil industry, more particularly concerning so-called Peak Oil. However, Under OFDK it has a couple of “twists” that few focus on.
First of all the Petroleum Production Systems (PPS) must keep pumping more and more oil in order to deliver the amounts of net energy required by the GIW. Recalling our earlier posts on OFDK and its genesis (Parts 2 to 9), due to the thermodynamics of depletion, the more the PPS pumps the more energy it takes and thus the less net energy is available per average barrel — keeping in mind that PPS equals oil industry (OI) plus the oil industry support system (OS) that includes all and everyone required for the OI to operate. So given that the GIW’s transport requirements keep increasing while net energy per barrel keeps fizzling out rapidly, the PPS must keep pumping ever more no matter what, even at financial loss that it is in the process of transforming into “debt-that-cannot-be-repaid” (DTCBR), aka tribute levying.
However, as shown in Part 3, The end of the Oil Age as we knew it, by about 2022 net energy per average barrel is fizzling out to nil, which means that we must expect that “the end of the oil road” will be reached by about 2030 when net energy will have also fizzled out from better than average barrels. So in fact, the madly pumping Red Queen is in the process of running out of breath.
Beside the fizzling out Red Queen (RQ), the second “twist” to consider is the “Inverse Red Queen” effect (1/RQ). 1/RQ is the consequence of the second principle of thermodynamics just as much as the fizzling out RQ. We have touched upon this in earlier posts without actually naming it. It’s a dynamic matter. All alternatives to the PPS require an investment in energy in addition to the energy flows required to keep the GIW going.
Figure 6 — The “energy hand”
Recall Figure 6 from Part 4, How is an Oil Fizzle Dragon-King created? (reproduced above). The GIW’s “energy hand” has been in decline since the 1970s. Growing energy alternatives of any kind concerns the fifth “finger”. If that finger grows too fast before it can generate enough energy to ensure its own growth let alone providing net energy to the GIW, it will drain energy from the other “fingers”.
Presently the threshold limit is around 7% growth per year (Figure 5). Beyond this, an alternative energy system will drain the GIW from the energy it requires just when its second to fourth fingers require much more — by alternative system we mean not just a given “technology” like PVs but instead a full system able to eventually replace what currently supplies the GIW.
However, within the OFDK timeframe of about ten further years, a whole system replacement effort would have to grow at some 22% per year. At that rate, such an effort would precipitate the death of the GIW. This is why I refer to this as the 1/RQ effect.
In short, under the prevailing paradigm, if the fifth finger alternatives to the PPS and the other energy systems of the GIW grow slowly the GIW starves for a lack of net energy from its first finger and if they grow fast they precipitate what they seek to avoid — the GIW also dies.
Notwithstanding the Tooth Fairy beliefs or wishes of many parties advocating the feasibility of going 100% renewables in order to combat climate change with the likes of current photovoltaics, wind turbines and hydro power, whichever way one looks at the present situation, this RQ versus 1/RQ dilemma is OFDK’s heart of darkness. Within the prevalent paradigm there is no escaping OFDK.
Figure 7 — Burning our way into the night
However, as suggested at the bottom of Figure 5, there is a way out subject to a change of paradigm. Figure 7, above, expands on this point. As noted in earlier posts, the GIW’s overall energy efficiency is only about 12%. In other words we use wastefully about 88% of all primary energy mobilised through the energy hand.
This is literally burning money well beyond what the second principle of thermodynamics requires. Globally, well over €5 trillion per year is going up in smoke, without no other effect than global warming, polluting the planet and endangering our health (e.g. current, massive, urban air pollution).
This level of lost funds is far more than what is required to re-engineer all energy, transport, communications infrastructures, as well as the global food chains, all other production chains and all cities to bring them to sustainability and social fairness levels, and also alleviate global warming and other ecological threats.
In other words, addressing OFDK’s heart of darkness, the RQ versus 1/RQ dilemma, is not a matter of this or that “technology”, be it PV, WT, XTL, EV, SD, etc… Instead it is a matter of actual technology, in the Greek sense of the word, the logos of tekhné. That is, addressing OFDK’s heart of darkness can only stem from a critical discourse (logos) on the state of the art (tekhné). What such a critique tells us, as we have been exploring it throughout the Looking down the barrel series, is that the fundamental issue is not “climate change” or Peak Oil or even the fizzling out of net energy from oil, it is the appalling inefficiency of the GIW and PPS taken as a whole.
Regardless of the mix of technologies used, under the present paradigm, overall efficiency levels remain far too low (well below 20%) to be able to ever resolve OFDK’s heart of darkness and avoid its consequences.
In our next chapter, B — Time to re-think everything to forge our way out of OFDK’s heart of darkness, we explore how to use our strategic decision scenario method to possibly catalyse a new viable future.
 Pons, Philippe, 2013, “Kenzaburô Oê: écrire sans avenir [Kenzaburô Oê: to write without a future]”, in Le Monde, 13 November.
 Dante Alighieri, c1308, Divina Commedia [Divine Comedy], Inferno, Canto X, lines 103–108 — our translation.
 Robelius Frederik. Giant Oil Fields -The Highway to Oil. Giant Oil Fields and their Importance for Future Oil Production. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology. Uppsala; 2007. ISBN 978–91–554–6823–1.
 Macha Séry, in Le Monde, 12–01–2017, reviewing Into the Forest, a novel by Jean Hegland, 1996
 Wack, P., 1985, “Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead”, and “Shooting the Rapids”, in Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Dec.
 Source of photo: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0yYrUDnz3-w/TCD-PmJWF3I/AAAAAAAADk4/HP4TvrlHFjY/s1600/Bernard+Stamm+Cheminees+Poujoulat+in+a+Force+10+storm+in+mountainous+seasthe+Bay+of+Biscay,+the+day+after+the+start+of+the+VELUX+5+Oceans+solo+round+the+world+yacht+race.jpg