S. A. Shelley: On September 12, 2025, the blades fell off a big wind turbine in Perth, Scotland. Despite being in operation for less than a year, the blades, for some reason, dropped 250 ft (76m) to the ground. Because of copyright, OWOE cannot show the actual photos of the disaster, but OWOE does provide an artist’s sketch (Fig. 1), along with links to source articles.

What struck me about the event is that the turbine operator, Aviva, had the gumption to immediately declare the crash a consequence of an engineering fault. Although it is possible that it was an engineering fault, it is too easy to quickly cast such blame. History tells us that more likely it was a consequence of incorrect specifications (e.g., design wind conditions), fabrication, installation or operation (monitoring). Or as is most common, it was some combination of several of those that taken together resulted in the failure.

Engineers get blamed for way too many accidents, crashes, failures and disasters. It is true that there are numerous examples of bridges collapsing because of civil engineering failures through either incorrect analysis and calculations (almost every major bridge collapse in Canada since Canada’s foundation) or improperly incorporating geologic or environmental conditions (Tacoma Narrows Bridge or St. Francis Dam ). And a ship capsizing at launch is most likely a naval architecture engineering failure.

But far too quickly, engineers are frequently scapegoated in the aftermath of disasters, even though many failures stem from decisions made far beyond the drafting table.  People, especially politicians, blame many disasters on engineering failures without understanding the true cause of the event. Engineers tend to check and double check designs and calculations. There are many specifications and proscribed procedures as part of the rigour of engineering. Unfortunately, in too many cases, it’s budget cuts imposed by executives, political pressure to fast-track projects, or regulatory loopholes that compromise safety standards: The root causes of disaster often lie in systemic mismanagement rather than technical incompetence.

Engineers operate within financial, legal, and organizational constraints that can severely limit their ability to implement optimal solutions. Yet when tragedy strikes, it’s their names that appear in headlines, not those of the policymakers or corporate leaders who ignored warnings or prioritized profits or rapid outcomes over safety and operations. This misplaced blame not only undermines public trust in engineering but also distracts from the deeper accountability that needs to be addressed. See for example the Ottawa LRT rail disaster, in which the entire system is grossly overbudget and continues to underperform.

For the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore in 2024, initial public speculation swirled around potential engineering flaws, with some questioning whether the bridge’s design or maintenance had failed. However, investigations quickly confirmed that the collapse was triggered by an external impact (a cargo ship colliding with one of the bridge’s support piers) (see note 1).  This tragedy highlights how engineers can be unfairly blamed when broader systemic factors – like outdated regulations or insufficient investment in infrastructure upgrades – are the true culprits.

Let’s stop reactively blaming civil, mechanical or naval engineers for failures until all causes are fully examined and identified. We do enough already, without most people understanding how necessary we are to civilization.

BUT there is one form of engineering that deserves a tremendous amount of blame: Social Engineering, especially as it is practiced by most western, progressive governments. Governments at all levels have become adept at Public Influence Campaigns in order to force idealized outcomes on citizens, regardless of the consequences. Governments often attempt to shape public opinion and manipulate public behavior by targeted and repetitive messaging designed to influence beliefs (see the postscript to the OWOE blog,  Ossification), using behavioral nudging (psychology) to encourage desired actions and controlling information to confuse populations and manipulate metrics. Again, not to beat the city of Calgary to death (for the municipal governments of the last 10 years have set the city well unto that path), I offer Fig. 2 as a stark example of what happens when social engineering infects governments.

Fig. 2 is not an uncommon sight in Calgary: There is blood on the downtown streets somewhere, every day. What has become common is that residents of Calgary have become accustomed to such sights. Calgarians have also had to get accustomed to the sight of people dying of drug overdoses outside city hall, to fights on the CTrains outside city hall, and to shopkeepers around city hall employing more private security than shop staff.  The politicians don’t seem to look out the windows of city hall, and instead have gotten very good at denying, lying and then denying some more. During the 2025 State of the City Address, Mayor Joyti Gondek, proclaimed, “We’re creating a 24/7 downtown, where people don’t just commute in and out, but walk their dogs, raise their kids, launch businesses and build lives” (Calgary mayor shares message of optimism). To which I might add, that better be a guard dog that people are walking downtown.

The profession of engineering applies science to better the human condition. It incorporates observation, reason and analysis to ensure safe and beneficial outcomes as much as possible. The art of politics and social engineering these days incorporates projections, feelings and avoidance, which makes the human condition worse for too many.

Vive l’Alberta Libre

Fermer la ligne 5!

Note 1: There have been so many bridges collapses in America resulting from ships and barges ramming into piers that I am nervous crossing any bridge across any navigable waterway.

S. A. Shelley: Over the last few weeks, OWOE staff have been asked, “How much power (energy) does AI consume”?” This is a doozy of a question. As we noted in a prior blog, estimates of the energy consumed just by ordinary data centers, those massive server facilities on which Meta, YouTube, X and the like store videos, photos and the musings of the mad, famous or not, already consume about 3% of all electrical power generated.

S. A. Shelley: Supposing that North America can overcome Canadian obstinacy to expanding energy and mineral production, there is another big problem (Fig. 1). All the energy and minerals must go by sea to supply all “allied” states. As noted in a prior blog (Our World of Navies: The Return of Privateers), the U.S. Navy, and all allied navies combined in their current state are too small to effectively protect those sea routes.

S. A. Shelley: In the last blog we considered the global benefits of a North American Energy Alliance (NAEA). (See Energy, Minerals, Geopolitics and the Sea Problem: Part 1, as well as other OWOE blogs advocating for the NAEA). In this blog, we examine critical minerals that are essential to electric vehicle batteries (lithium, nickel, cobalt), renewable energy tech (rare earths, graphite), and defense and aerospace (platinum metals). Looking at mineral reserves (wealth), the whole of North American holds a significant share of the world’s critical mineral reserves. According to the International Energy Agency (Regional snapshots – Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025) North America’s share of global reserves for key critical minerals is shown in the following charts.

S. A. Shelley: For many years, OWOE writers have advocated for a North American Energy Alliance (NAEA) to ensure robust energy supplies at reasonable costs and with minimal geopolitical risk. This idea has started to catch. Some commentators have recognized that “Energy is the lifeblood of all nations, but it has become a weapon in the hands of Russia and Iran.” (Diane Francis: How to turn Canada into an energy superpower). While other analysts have commented that the U.S. and Canada are being economically defeated by China and thus should focus on developing a unified economic response, including energy to overcome the challenge from China (Canada at Economic War: Being Outplayed by Beijing).

S. A. Shelley: This week (June 10 to 12) I attended the Global Energy Show (GES) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. There are a few things that surprised me about GES. First, that the Canadians have the gall to call it the Global Energy Show.  But then again there were more exhibitors at GES than there were at OTC (Offshore Technology Conference) in Houston last month. Secondly, that there were many Canadian politicians of all ilk speaking at the show: It’s been years since any politician of any note gave a keynote speech at OTC. Finally, that it is possible to book a dogsled with Uber in Canada. Though I had a short commute to the show from my place of stay, I did not fancy pushing through the deep snow and was very pleased that Uber Dogsled is available locally.

OWOE Editor: At this time of year OWOE likes to share with its readers some of the interesting and often offbeat energy stories that haven’t gotten much media attention over the past year. Unfortunately, this year one of our main contributors, a troublesome Canadian, who often blogged on controversial energy topics, was warned that he was on a list of possible foreign provocateurs to be rounded up and sent to El Salvador. He has since disappeared and was last seen diving in the Baltic in the vicinity of various undersea infrastructure. Therefore, we are only able to bring you one story this year…

Human Biodiesel

The Center for Sustainable Oil (CFSO) in Lincoln, Nebraska, recently announced a new product they are calling Human Biodiesel. The head of their research laboratory, Dr. C. Heston says that he got the idea after watching the classic movie Soylent Green. His lab has perfected the science of extracting subcutaneous and visceral fat from deceased humans. The process is to extract as much pure fat as possible using a liposuction technique. Then the rest of the body is then boiled, causing the remaining fat to rise to the surface where it is collected.

S. A. Shelley: Over the last couple of months there has been a lot of discussion about tariffs. The Trump administration is keen to apply tariffs on Mexico and Canada, and a host of other nations (except maybe China?). In terms of the percentage of GDP that international trade contributes to their economies, it is obvious that the US can sustain a trade war quite well compared to other nations or regions (Fig. 1).

S. A. Shelley: After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the global trade order allowed for unprecedented bounties of consumer goods to flow to more and more people while lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty.  But it also allowed the political class of the West to become self-deceived and inured to the continued dangers to our way of life.  I’m not a Marxist, but I will definitely agree that society has been a constant struggle for power across all spectrums since antiquity. Consequently, in the west we built institutions around law, order and good governance to assuage that struggle, while in the East they went the authoritarian route to hammer that struggle into remission. But while Western politicians splurged on largesse for the masses, the more authoritarian ones did not forget to splurge on defense. We did and we will pay dearly for it shortly.

S. A. Shelley: In a recent article in The Telegraph, Norway is a Cautionary Tale, the author argues that Europe as a whole has made itself energy insecure because of adding renewables to the energy mix. I agree somewhat mostly with that conclusion about energy insecurity, but I do not agree that this is because of renewables. It is true that the wind doesn’t always blow and that the sun doesn’t always shine. But, over time, technologies will arise that can compensate for such variance. Thus, I believe that the energy insecurity in which most Western states find themselves is a result of the mad dash to renewables foisted upon us by somewhat well meaning, but technically and fiscally clueless politicians (a common refrain of OWOE staff). Politicians always promise things faster than can be delivered by reality. Politicians have put us into this precarious position by building wind farms without sufficient energy storage or grid improvements to support such a rapid build out.