Two AI-Assisted Subsurface Analysis Case Studies: Identifying Missed Prospects in a World Class Play and Bypassed Water-Flooded Oil in Mature Fields

    

     In both of these case studies, the goal is to recover oil or oil accumulations that have been missed by past explorers. Well-trained AI models can do that very well with better pattern recognition than humans, according to the case studies. However, in both cases, verification has not yet occurred, but bypassed oil and bypassed prospective oil accumulations have been identified. Thus, they are basically leads at this point. 

     If successful, these cases will verify that AI’s pattern recognition powers can add oil & gas reserves, in some cases, better than geologists.

 

Case Study #1 – Four Bypassed Prospects Identified in ExxonMobil’s Stabroek Block Offshore Guyana

     In May 2026, ExxonMobil Vice President of Exploration John Ardill noted that the company was expanding its use of deep learning, machine learning, and high-performance computing to analyze seismic data and identify hydrocarbon-bearing prospects that were previously more difficult to evaluate.

     According to The Daily Synapse:

“ExxonMobil has used AI to identify four new exploration opportunities in Guyana’s Stabroek Block, applying historical discovery data, drilling results and subsurface information to sharpen prospect evaluation. The work combines advanced analytics, machine learning, high-performance computing and next-generation seismic imaging to accelerate exploration, lower costs and improve discovery success rates.”

     Reprocessing and reinterpreting seismic data are part of the AI-identified prospects. CFO Neil Hansen and CEO Darren Woods recently commented on identifying the prospects. According to Rio Times:

“Hansen said the work produced four new discovery opportunities above and beyond what the company had previously considered prospects. Chief executive Darren Woods framed the findings as confirmation that the company is, in his words, not done yet in Guyana.”

     Rio Times summarized the details of the announcement:

     Below, Deepwater Exploration Geoscientist Ryan Christiansen talks more about the AI model in a LinkedIn post, noting its 90% hindcast accuracy. He points out that the block is very well-studied, which makes the newly identified prospects intriguing. He also notes that, due to it being well-studied, AI-model training was enhanced by all that confirmed data and reserves. He also cautions that the technique may not work as well where there have been fewer wells drilled (less verified data) and less subsurface data available.

Case Study #2 – AI-Assisted Review of Old Water Flooded Fields Identified Potential Unswept Areas – An Eastern Oklahoma AI Screening Example by Susan Nash

     Geoscientist and former president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), Susan Nash, wrote an article on LinkedIn that gives a plausible and practical method for using AI to assist in analyzing a mature oil field for remaining unswept oil after a water flood. In this case, the area is Eastern Oklahoma. The field was originally drilled before 1920 and was later waterflooded in the 1950s and 60s. In this case, there is suspicion that the marginal areas of the oil reservoir may not have been swept by the water.

     First, she notes that early drilling was not geologically determined, and the only stimulation method available was shooting with nitroglycerine, which is not thought to create a fracture network that extends very far beyond the wellbore. She notes that even though the field is densely drilled, it may not have been effectively drained. Early reporting may have misidentified zones and reservoir sands in an area with suspected reservoir compartmentalization, which is common with fluvial-deltaic reservoirs. She notes that shooting wells with nitroglycerine could also create confined induced fracture conduits that miss reservoir compartments or different sand benches. It also means well-spacing likely won’t be as good in predicting what may have been bypassed. She gives the following quote describing how to see the field, not attributed:

“The field was drilled as a collection of wellbores, flooded as a collection of tracts, and must now be understood as a collection of flow units.”

     Below, she gives four potential scenarios of oil left behind in terms of apparent opportunity, where the oil may sit, evidence required, and common false positives.

     Below, she explains how her study was organized and the results of the desktop screening method:

“The source stack combined a 1920s county production map and geological narrative, state waterflood-unit records, available well and completion information, modern field boundaries, and current surface-exclusion layers. AI-assisted methods were used to read and organize long historical documents, normalize formation and field aliases, parse quarter-quarter legal descriptions, compare early productive limits with later unit geometry, and maintain a structured evidence ledger. Human geological review remained essential wherever a local sand name could represent more than one bench or where a unit boundary might have followed a genuine reservoir limit.”

     Below are the results of the screening process, which ranked three tiers of potentially bypassed or unswept oil.

     She notes that AI did not generate prospects but was able to quickly sift through all the historical data and make determinations about dates, legal descriptions, reconciling well duplicates and formation names, and flagging contradictions. These are functions that remind me of what a colleague called “massaging the data,” though in a different context.

“AI is also vital in testing data quality, identifying errors, classifying them accurately, and establishing harmonization. Furthermore, AI can evaluate waterflood design, implementation, and purpose, comparing them against available options.”

“Crucially, AI made it easier to test competing explanations.”

     Next, she goes deeper and considers how agentic AI could be applied to the project, generate recommendations, and how human interactions fit into the process.

“In an agentic system, a language model manages a multi-step workflow, selects tools, evaluates results, and routes work to specialized agents while operating within defined guardrails and human approval points.”

     The table below gives eight types of AI agents, their functions, and outputs that can be applied to the project. That work is then examined by geologists, reservoir engineers, and, in some cases, land, HSE, and regulatory personnel, and tweaked as they see fit.

     Finally, as shown below, she gives an outline of how an AI-assisted pilot project can be organized. She calls this a disproof sequence.

References:

 

AI Uncovers Four New Prospects in Guyana. Ryan Christianson. LinkedIn Post. August 2026.

The Unswept Margin: How an AI-Assisted Review of Pre-1920 Fields Identified Prospective Unswept Areas. Susan Nash. LinkedIn, Article. August 9, 2026. (23) The Unswept Margin: How an AI-Assisted Review of Pre-1920 Fields Identified Prospective Unswept Areas | LinkedIn

ExxonMobil applies AI to identify Guyana prospects. Daily Synapse. August 9, 2026. ExxonMobil applies AI to identify Guyana prospects – DailySynapse

ExxonMobil’s AI Breakthrough Signals New Era of Digital Exploration in Guyana, Caribbean Energy Week. August 7, 2026. ExxonMobil’s AI Breakthrough Signals New Era of Digital Exploration in Guyana

ExxonMobil AI Guyana Exploration Finds 4 New Oil Prospects. Lachlan Williams. The Rio Times. August 3, 2026. ExxonMobil AI Flags 4 New Guyana Oil Prospects | The Rio Times

 

Using Treated Sewage for Irrigation is Possible Route for Cyclospora Contamination of Food: Robust Wastewater Surveillance Can Prevent and Reduce the Severity of Outbreaks

     The logic makes sense to me. Sewage treatment is not perfect, and pathogens can be difficult to eradicate entirely. Some can survive, and when that treated water is used to irrigate crops, it can provide a plausible route for food contamination. It is emerging as one of the most plausible sources, according to Joan Rose, a public health water microbiologist who studies pathogens found in sewage, in an article in The Conversation.

“Cyclospora is found only in humans, where it replicates in the intestinal tract, causing severe diarrhea. The organism reproduces by releasing oocysts, which are excreted in those human feces.”

     Some of the oocysts can survive in treated sewage effluent after it enters local waterways, especially in warm temperatures. If those waters are used to irrigate crops, the oocysts can be transported on the crops all the way to the grocery store. Rose studied cyclospora during the first documented outbreak in the U.S. in 1995 in Florida, where 45 cases were reported. Little was known about Cyclospora at the time. In that case and a few others in 1996 and 1997, the cause was determined to be contaminated raspberries from Guatemala. The current outbreak has sickened 22,000 people and killed two people in Michigan.

“It is not easy to measure cyclospora oocysts in sewage, contaminated water or food. Even modern laboratory methods have trouble reliably detecting low levels of oocysts, which can still cause disease.”

“Cyclospora oocysts have been found in sewage around the world. A range of studies across the world shows that they can be detected in up to 25 percent of sewage samples — but not all studies report how high or low the concentrations of the oocysts were. So it can be hard to say exactly how widespread it is.”

“A person who is infected with cyclospora excretes 100 to 10,000 oocysts per gram of feces for as long as 60 days. Based on what is known about other fecal pathogen excretions from patients, related to the concentrations of those pathogens in sewage, I estimate that there could be from 1 to 100 oocysts per liter in sewage.”

     Rose currently works in a laboratory at Michigan State University, where they are trying to develop a method to more accurately detect this parasite even at lower levels in sewage. She thinks that wastewater surveillance can be used to know when an outbreak is growing or subsiding, as it does during COVID outbreaks. She also cites work on other protozoan pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia. The oocysts produced by Giardia are the same size, and those produced by Cryptosporidium are about half the size of those of cyclosporiasis. During a study in 2001- 2003, they found those two protozoa in treated sewage at six sewage treatment plants, and some of that water had been approved for non-potable uses, including for crop irrigation. Chlorination, commonly used for wastewater treatment, does not kill all of these protozoan oocysts. It is suspected that those oocysts that make it past treatment can survive for months during warmer seasons in the environment.

     She notes that in the U.S., around 200 billion gallons of treated wastewater are used to irrigate crops. A portion of that water does undergo additional treatment, filtration, and disinfection.

     She notes that there are available methods to treat protozoa more specifically, such as UV light, which is used at many sewage treatment plants, and specialized filtration:

“Filtration can remove protozoa but must be designed and operated correctly. Chlorination is not effective, but ultraviolet light does inactivate cryptosporidium and eimeria, a chicken protozoan highly related to cyclospora and used as a surrogate in studies testing methods of killing cyclospora by the food safety industry.”

     Hot weather speeds up the maturation cycle of cyclosporiasis. Below is a section from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health about how cyclosporiasis spreads.

     U.S. food safety regulations rely on a method known as Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP), which is explained below.

“The U.S. has long relied on an approach called Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP), originally developed in the late 1950s by NASA and Pillsbury to keep astronauts from getting food poisoning in zero gravity. HACCP maps out every point “from farm to fork, those key choke points” where contamination could occur, and builds in monitoring and a “stop” mechanism when something goes wrong, Schwab says. It works—but only when it’s actively maintained, reported, and enforced.”

“According to Schwab, the enforcement piece is what has eroded. Federal agencies have lost staff and funding needed to inspect, audit, and monitor food producers, leaving more of the system dependent on voluntary industry self-regulation.” 

“Self-regulation works until it doesn’t,” Schwab says. That’s where FoodNet came in. FoodNet is the joint CDC-FDA-USDA-EPA active surveillance system that tracks foodborne illness across 10 sentinel sites. Cyclospora reporting was mandatory until July 2025 when the Trump administration made reporting optional for Cyclospora, along with five other pathogens (Campylobacter, Listeria, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia).

     Thus, deregulation in the food safety sector leads to vulnerabilities, in this case, especially deregulation that reduces wastewater surveillance efforts. It can help with early detection, find sources faster, and lead to less severe outbreaks.

     As noted below, the key to prevention and minimization of the severity and extent of outbreaks is robust wastewater surveillance.

“Restoring surveillance capacity, Schwab argues, is the central fix: a fully funded, fully staffed federal system with mandatory pathogen reporting so that multistate patterns are identified within days rather than after an outbreak has already spread nationwide. States that have kept investing in their own monitoring show what’s possible, but a state-by-state patchwork can’t substitute for a coordinated federal response, particularly for products that cross state lines.”

“It’s critical to ensure that there are strict controls on irrigation water, and on-farm sanitation practices can minimize risks, says Love: “Are farm workers given time to go to the bathroom? Are bathrooms provided to them? Do they have a handwashing station with warm water? That gets back to, you know, how do you treat your workers?”

    

 

References:

 

I study pathogens in sewage. Here's how cyclospora could be getting into our food.  Joan Rose| The Conversation. Washington Post. August 9, 2026. I study pathogens in sewage. Here's how cyclospora could be getting into our food.

‘We Had It Coming’: Cyclosporiasis Outbreak Reveals Holes in Food Safety System: How gaps in surveillance allowed a hardy foodborne parasite to reach thousands of Americans. Annalies Winny. John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. July 22, 2026. Understanding the Cyclosporiasis Outbreak | Johns Hopkins | Bloomberg School of Public Health

 

Health of Public Range Land in the Western U.S: Environmental Impacts and Policy

   

      Livestock grazing on the extensive federal land in the U.S. West has long been practiced and occasionally been contentious. Recent Trump administration cuts to BLM monitoring of range lands have been criticized by the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). They note:

“Statistics compiled from scientific assessments by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) show that the percentage of BLM lands classified as healthy dropped from 72% in 2022 to 58% in 2024, with future evaluations in doubt due to budget cuts.”

     That certainly suggests that during the Biden years, the health of range lands had been declining, and also suggests that monitoring should continue. Rocky Mountain PEER director Chandra Rosenthal noted in 2024.

“By its own measures, BLM does not deserve passing marks on its main job – land management.”

     BLM began its Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) program in 2011. PEER notes that AIM provides critical data on land health, invasive species, and native plant communities, which are important for detecting trends, planning adaptive management, and evaluating grazed lands. In 2025, about 20% of BLM’s staff was cut.

“Effective public lands management begins with understanding land health,” said PEER’s Western Lands and Rocky Mountain Advocate Chandra Rosenthal. “Without the data the AIM program provides, BLM is flying blind.”

     As noted, range land health has declined in recent years, and monitoring is the key to both knowing that and making fixes that can be verified. Two important and often related issues affecting range land health are the lack of native plants and the proliferation of invasive plants.

PEER:” Without AIM, BLM loses its ability to measure and understand changes in land health. AIM data are increasingly used for Land Health Standards evaluations, grazing permit renewals, and National Environmental Policy Act analyses. Without monitoring, decisions regarding land health become harder to understand, more difficult to manage, and less defensible in court.”

     PEER came out against automatic grazing permit renewals and NEPA exemptions proposed in a Senate bill. They pointed out that automatic renewals already occur if NEPA reviews are not completed on time.

     PEER believes overgrazing is contributing to the health decline of range lands, while the Trump administration wants to maximize commercial grazing on federal lands. Regarding a March 31, 2026, MOU between the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, they note:

“The new policy implements “a goal of a no net loss of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) within allotments” and maximizing “authorization of livestock use” across vast Western rangelands.”

“The stated purpose of the agreement is to promote commercial grazing on these public lands and to“protect America’s ranching heritage.”

     Below are some of the ways the MOU benefits commercial interests:

     PEER notes that the environmental impacts of livestock grazing, including habitat quality, riparian functioning, and endangered species, exceed those of mining and logging combined.

     In a July 2026 article, PEER senior counsel Jeff Ruch noted that Trump’s legacy on conservation will be very poor. However, several of the policy reasons he cites for this view have to do with actions associated with shortening and streamlining permitting, which is clearly needed for many infrastructure, energy, and mining projects. The Trump people obviously support drilling, mining, logging, grazing, hunting, and off-road vehicle use on public range lands and seek to facilitate those activities and release some of the bureaucratic red tape. I don’t think loosening some of those rules to optimize the economics of those commercial ventures is necessarily a bad thing. I do think that pausing or eliminating the environmental monitoring of range lands is ill-advised, however. If more of these lands are drilled, mined, logged, grazed, hunted, and ridden on, it should lead to more monitoring, not less. Perhaps the companies commercializing those activities should support the monitoring efforts through funding or more self-reporting and other means.  

 

References:

 

Trump Grazing Policy: Leave No Cow Behind: Mandate of “No Net Loss” of Commercial Livestock on Public Range. Public Employees for Envornmental Responsibility. April 14, 2026. Trump Grazing Policy: Leave No Cow Behind - PEER.org

Letter re: S. 2787 “Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025.” Public Employees for Envornmental Responsibility. March 4, 2026. Letter re: S. 2787 “Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025”

As Rangeland Health Declines, BLM Stops Monitoring: Science-Based Land Management Falls Victim to Trump Budget Cuts. Public Employees for Envornmental Responsibility. March 26, 2026. As Rangeland Health Declines, BLM Stops Monitoring

Ruination of Public Lands: All Uses, Everywhere, All the Time, Without Limit. Jeff Ruch. Public Employees for Envornmental Responsibility.  July 8, 2026. Ruination of Public Lands: All Uses, Everywhere, All the Time, Without Limit 

America’s Ailing Overgrazed Rangelands. Chandra Rosenthal. Public Employees for Envornmental Responsibility. America’s Ailing Overgrazed Rangelands

Six Disadvantages of Biodiesel According to Slash Gear: And Some Advantages of It

     Biofuels are seen as one of the major solutions to decarbonizing transportation, especially heavy-duty transportation like long-haul trucking and aviation. Plants are the major source of biofuels, which makes them competitive with animal feed and human food in many cases, such as corn ethanol and sugarcane biofuels. Slash Gear published an article noting six disadvantages of biodiesel, a biofuel that is a drop-in fuel that can be added to or replace diesel fuel. They note that biodiesel is already commonly blended with diesel at gas pumps.

“Biodiesel is widely available across the U.S., denoted by the "B" number at your pump. For instance, B5 has 5% biodiesel blended with conventional diesel, and federal law allows pumps to sell it without disclosing it to the customer. B20 contains between six and 20 percent biodiesel, and is comparatively harder to find; B100 is pure unblended biodiesel and you really only see commercial operators use this."

     Biodiesel is made through a process known as transesterification, shown below. In this process:

“…an alcohol and a catalyst are added to the oil, which gives us usable fatty-acid methyl esters, or FAME. While this is a gross oversimplification, the reaction happens multiple times over, and at the end, you're left with FAME and glycerol. The FAME is then turned into biodiesel, and the glycerol also serves commercial purposes.”

     Unfortunately, biodiesel is more expensive than diesel, and that is not likely to change. There are, however, also some distinct advantages of biodiesel. These include less pollution, less carbon emissions, and superior fuel lubricity, which can improve the longevity of components inside the fuel system. The third of the three confers direct economic advantages, and the first two confer societal advantages.

 

Disadvantage #1 – Higher Cost

     The cost disadvantage is not bad. The B20 is typically only a few cents higher in cost than diesel. B100 got closest to diesel in price in 2022 when it was $4.96 per gallon compared to diesel, which was $4.50 per gallon, just slightly more than a 10% increase. While that may seem like a reasonable extra cost for some consumers, for those who use thousands of gallons per year, it is significant.

 

Disadvantage #2 – Lower Energy Content

“Where conventional, unblended diesel has about 129,000 BTUs per U.S. gallon, B5 has about 128,450 – so it's 0.4 percent lower. B20 has 126,800, B100 has approximately 119,500; this makes B20 about 1.7 percent less efficient than conventional diesel, and B100 about 8.4 percent lower.”

     Of course, that energy content disadvantage adds to the cost disadvantage. It also means a tankful of biodiesel won’t take one as far as a tankful of diesel. They note that blends like B5 won’t be noticed in terms of energy content, but if mandates eventually require higher blending amounts, say, B20, then a full tank won’t go as far. For commercial operations, this adds very significantly to the cost when added to the cost disadvantage.

 

Disadvantage #3 - Biodiesel Can Turn to Gel Easily in Cold Weather Due to Cloud Point and Gel Point

“To understand why biodiesel is at a disadvantage to conventional petrodiesel here, you need to know about cloud points and gelling points. A cloud point in a fuel is the particular temperature where wax crystals begin to appear in the fuel, which can begin to hamper performance in engines. The image below shows three different kinds of diesel after having passed their respective cloud points.”

“On the left you have regular petroleum-based U.S. diesel, and the other two are biomass derivatives. The second thing you need to know is the gel point, sometimes called the pour point, and the clue is in the name. For fuels, the pour point is where the fuel solidifies to a degree where its flow is hindered, and it cannot easily be poured –- in other words, the temperature past which diesel turns into a sticky gel.”

“Conventional U.S. petrodiesel has a cloud point of about 20 degrees Fahrenheit and a gel point of about 0 degrees Fahrenheit with additives. This means it can reliably be used in those temperatures, which covers most of the mainland U.S. landmass. B20, for contrast, has a gel point of 22 degrees Fahrenheit, and B100 can begin to gel at 26 degrees Fahrenheit.”

     This is a pretty severe difference in gel points, even in B20, which essentially limits it to seasonal use.

 

Disadvantage #4 - Biodiesel Can Oxidize if Stored Incorrectly

     While conventional diesel also oxidizes, biodiesel oxidizes more readily. Biodiesel can oxidize within six months if stored incorrectly, while diesel will take much longer. When biodiesel oxidizes, it creates acids that are corrosive to engine metal parts, which eventually form gums and polymers that can clog up fuel systems.

“These oxidation reactions are irreversible, and are actually worse in B20 biodiesel than in B100. You see, when the gums and gels form in B100, they get held within the fuel mixture quite well (and remain dissolved), but in blends of fuel, the gum pulls together in clumps. This, once again, can clog various parts of the fuel system, and would likely be a rather expensive fix. However, governing standards such as the ASTM D6751 dictate that any commercial biodiesel must pass a strict oxidation test before hitting the market. Furthermore, for long term use, additives such as Pyrogallol can slow the oxidation process, but it's still a hassle that biodiesel users have to go through.”

     It seems like this disadvantage is surmountable, but requires correct fuel storage practices.

 

Disadvantage # 5 - Specialized Fuel System Upgrades Are Required for Some Vehicles to Use Biodiesel

     This is only an issue for using higher biodiesel blends. B20 is a drop-in fuel and does require upgrades. However, B99 and B100 have much higher viscosities and require a higher sustained temperature to keep the viscosity low enough. The problem is worse in cold weather. Thus, for most vehicles, B20 is likely the highest amount of biodiesel that can be used, unless the fuel system is upgraded at additional cost.

 

Disadvantage #6 – Biodiesel is Not Necessarily Carbon Neutral

     This is not so much a disadvantage as a check on a perceived societal advantage. The carbon footprint of biodiesels depends on the source. Biodiesel made from used vegetable oil, a very limited source, has a lower carbon footprint than biodiesel made from plant-based feedstock. Here, they also note some advantages of biodiesel:

“…reducing up to 85 percent or more of greenhouse gas emissions, being biodegradable and safer to handle. With advancements in technology, we're sure that it'll soon be competitive on price too.”

 

The Future of Biodiesel

     Despite all the disadvantages of biodiesel, they think its future is looking good and that some of the disadvantages can be reduced or even overcome, and more advantages can arise.

“For example, one of the latest developments is the now-commercially-viable production of biodiesel via plasma-assisted transesterification, which is a process that finishes in mere seconds. Companies are also experimenting with the addition of nanoparticles (such as cerium oxide) to the fuel mixture to not only increase engine performance but also further reduce emissions.”

“Additionally, new machinery advances mean that the glycerol byproducts can be converted to more lucrative substances onsite, which could be more revenue for the company — and may get passed down as savings to the consumer, further lowering the price of biodiesel. Given enough time, biodiesel might just become competitive on price and energy with conventional diesel. With those being its two biggest challenges, things are looking bright.”

     This was a really informative and educational article.

   

References:

 

6 disadvantages of biodiesel you should know before switching fuel types. D Figg. Slash Gear. August 1, 2026.  6 disadvantages of biodiesel you should know before switching fuel types

 

New Paper Claims a Population Reduction to 4 Billion by 2200, and Eventual Degrowth Would Be the Best Way to Achieve Sustainability

     Population estimates for 2100 vary between 8 billion and 12 billion humans. The current global population is 8.3 billion. The reality is that we don’t know what technologies will be available in the future to mitigate and possibly even reverse resource depletion, environmental destruction, and provide for all. A new study says that reducing the Earth’s human population to 4 billion by 2200 is the best way to achieve sustainability. I do not think that I agree with that premise. The authors of the paper note:

“Gently ending and reversing population growth and moderating per capita impacts is a pro-nature and pro-human strategy.”

“It will ease pressure on natural resources, lessen poverty in high fertility regions by way of smaller family sizes, reduce pollution, reduce resource and immigration conflicts, and improve quality of life in densely populated areas. A more modest population (e.g., gently easing population to 4 billion by 2200) would protect Earth's natural heritage, including its wild habitats, wild species, and its climate,” they add.

     Just a few days ago, I reviewed the ideas of a group of economists and researchers who concluded with quantitative and qualitative arguments that we could support 12 billion people by 2100 without too much disruption.

     Population growth is concentrated in the poorer parts of the world, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. The authors of the new paper believe that by giving women family planning services and improving girls' educational opportunities, especially in low-income countries, they could end population growth in those places and induce population decline. There is data to back their arguments, and indeed, in developing and especially in developed countries, there has been significant stagnation of population growth and population decline. Thus, we know that with these policies and others, the world’s population can be stabilized and perhaps even decline a bit. The question is how much it should decline.

“When women are free to decide how many children to have, fertility rates tend to fall toward replacement level or below, often rapidly,” the study authors write.

     The article about the study in IFL Science notes the uncomfortable past of population control. Controlling population smacks of eco-fascism, they note, and the failed ideas of biologist Paul Erhlich and the forced sterilization and China’s “one-child” policy he inspired are clear examples.

     Below, the paper authors assert their belief that economic growth is not sustainable. Here is where I diverge. As long as we have a population where some are without basic necessities and access to modern living standards, it is economic growth that is the best means to get them to where they can achieve freedom from poverty. We are already moderating per capita impacts and will continue to do so, and likely accelerate that moderation. I agree, of course, that we can’t and won’t continue to grow population forever, and the data indicates that it will peak and perhaps decline a bit at some point in the not-too-distant future, as models suggest. When population stabilizes and poverty is eliminated, there will no longer be a need for economic growth, and that too can stabilize, but not before that. The fact is, we don’t know what the level of population would be to achieve that and still keep resources available for all, but I don’t think dropping the population by half will be necessary.

“Ever-growing wealth and consumption are not ecologically sustainable, and the sooner our societies grapple with this inconvenient truth, the better,” they added.

“Our results suggest that ever-increasing levels of population and resource consumption are not in the interests of future generations, and not the way to sustainability. Helping population growth end and gently and justly reverse, while also moderating per capita impacts, is our best hope to secure a sustainable, desirable future worldwide,” the paper continues.

     The following graphs from the report show strong correlations between population growth and loss of wildlife abundance, energy use, and carbon emissions. The story is similar for ecological footprint, freshwater use, mineral extraction, plastic production, and pesticide use. However, one may also note that several of these graphs have been stabilizing in recent years. Of course, they will continue to grow with population growth until per capita use drops. This is true of energy use and emissions as long as people still lack access to modern levels of energy and electricity. We know this because per capita energy use and emissions have stabilized in developed countries. Mineral extraction can likely support 12 million people by 2100, argued those economists and researchers I mentioned earlier. Global per capita freshwater use has already stabilized, and per capita mineral extraction and ecological footprints are beginning to stabilize. There are also indications that per capita plastic production and pesticide use are on a path toward stabilization.

     As the table below shows, only per capita mineral extraction and plastic production have exceeded population growth between 1970 and 2020, especially plastic production. The other variables have been growing more slowly than population growth. The second table below shows that per capita ecological footprints and freshwater use have declined during the period, while the others have increased. Carbon emissions per capita are close to a point where they begin to decline.

     The table below shows how much per capita use of these variables would have changed if there had been no population growth (presumably since 1970).

     They also give future projections to 2100 and 2200 under two UN fertility scenarios and one Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) scenario, shown below, but I think such projections are probably too speculative. Are they using today’s technologies to predict? We have to assume technological improvements, and they are more likely to enable far more sustainable resource use and reuse.  

     While I don’t entirely disagree with the paper’s conclusion below, I think the 4 billion number is rather arbitrary. It could easily be 6 billion, 8 billion, or 12 billion with improvements in technology. If we could harness nuclear fusion for energy or develop sustainable materials to replace plastic, or replace the need for many minerals, etc., that could change those predictions considerably. Of course, I’m being speculative too. Thus, I believe that projecting beyond, say, 2100, 74 years into the future, is not going to be very accurate or useful.  

5 Conclusion

“Gently ending and reversing population growth and moderating per capita impacts is a pro-nature and pro-human strategy. It will ease pressure on natural resources, lessen poverty in high fertility regions by way of smaller family sizes, reduce pollution, reduce resource and immigration conflicts, and improve quality of life in densely populated areas. A more modest population (e.g., gently easing population to 4 billion by 2200) would protect Earth's natural heritage, including its wild habitats, wild species, and its climate. Such a world is within our grasp.” 

    

References:

 

Achieve Sustainability by Easing Population to 4 Billion by 2200. Mark Keegan, Anastasia Pseiridis, Philip Cafaro, Jane O'Sullivan, William Rees, Estelle Monique Sidze, Lawrence Whitmore, Enrique J. Derlindati, Mohammad Mainul Islam, Khaoula Houssini, and S. Irudaya Rajan. Sustainable Development. 26 July 2026. Achieve Sustainability by Easing Population to 4 Billion by 2200 - Keegan - Sustainable Development - Wiley Online Library

Halving The Earth's Population To 4 Billion Is The Best Way To Secure A "Pro-Human" Future, A New Study Argues: The world population is currently 8.3 billion people. Can it continue to grow? Tom Hale. IFL Science. July 28, 2026. Halving The Earth's Population To 4 Billion Is The Best Way To Secure A "Pro-Human" Future, A New Study Argues | IFLScience

 

Industrial Drying with Superheated, Dry Steam in a Closed-Loop System with Heat Pumps Cuts Energy Use by Up to 80% Over Hot Air Drying

     Industrial drying is notoriously energy-intensive. It is used by paper mills, cement plants, chemical factories, and food processors. It is typically done with hot air powered by natural gas. Researchers at Fraunhofer IGB, Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute for Interfacial Engineering and Biotechnology, have developed an alternative method that cuts drying energy consumption by up to 80%. The method, known as LowCarbDry, uses superheated steam generated by electricity. combined with heat pumps and smart scheduling software. The steam is sprayed. There are pilot projects underway. Antoine Dalibard, a research scientist at Fraunhofer IGB, described the new technology:

 “Instead of drying moist products with hot air, we use superheated, dry steam in a closed-loop system,” he said. “Closing the process gas circuit minimizes heat loss to the outside, making the process more energy-efficient than traditional hot-air drying methods.”

     Interesting Engineering notes:

“The steam that exits the product is not wasted. It can be condensed, and that condensation releases heat at about 90 to 100°C (194 to 212°F). That heat can be fed back into the facility or supplied to a local district heating network.”

     The method is powered by electricity. The heat pump is used to raise the temperature of the low-temperature steam so that it can be reused. This is done by a common process in waste heat recovery known as mechanical vapor recompression (MVR), where compressors increase the pressure of excess steam from the drying process so that it can be used for subsequent drying. This makes the process much more efficient than hot air drying, where the excess heat is lost. The system uses model predictive control to run the drying process. This can allow it to optimize renewable power when it is most available, making it up to 80% more efficient.

     They say that the method can be used with belt dryers, drum dryers, and spray dryers.

“The process enabled us to dry mineral raw materials, construction materials, organic residues, along with food and animal feed, while preserving product quality and maintaining high energy efficiency,” Dalibard said.

     As noted, there are pilots running, and the path to commercialization is looking really good.

     A post by Fraunhofer’s Dr. Claudia Vorbeck notes:

“By using electricity-generated superheated steam, the partners aim to reduce drying energy demand by a factor of 2 to 4, depending on the drying method and temperature level.”

     The excess steam could also be used for other processes, such as district heating.

“We have already tested our drying process in a wide range of applications. The process enabled us to dry mineral raw materials, construction materials, organic residues, along with food and animal feed, while preserving product quality and maintaining high energy efficiency,” says Dalibard.

 

References:

 

Steam-based industrial drying cuts energy use 80% and runs on renewable electricity. Munis Raza. Interesting Engineering. August 4, 2026. Steam-based industrial drying cuts energy use 80% and runs on renewable electricity

Energy-Efficient Electric Drying With Superheated Steam. Dr. Claudia Vorbeck. Fraunhofer. August 3, 2026. Energy-Efficient Electric Drying With Superheated Steam