Peak oil, prices, and supplies - Oct 20
by Staff
Click on the headline (link) for the full text. Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
How terrific the world's outlook would be if Yergin's argument had even a touch of reality! Sadly, however, if one ignores opinion and simply adheres to well-documented facts, it quickly becomes clear that his assertions are utterly without substance... (Matthew Simmons) ...As Daniel Yergin suggests, there is indeed a "new world of oil." But instead of describing the landscape in detail, he lays out a smoke screen that lulls his readers into a false sense of security. Yergin's company, ihs Cambridge Energy Research Associates, as well as the iea and my own group, Global Energy Systems (GES), have analyzed the world's giant oil fields, and all have drawn approximately the same conclusion: Those fields that provide today's production will, in 20 years, have lost production equivalent to five times the current production of Saudi Arabia. This oil is required for economic growth over this period. Even if Yergin's cited oil resource base were to prove correct, ges has shown that this base cannot replace lost production fast enough. The world has reached the oil era's maximum production capacity: peak oil... (Kjell Aleklett) ...The question of the future of oil supplies is a very important one, and discussion and different perspectives are welcome and valuable. The view on future supplies expressed in my article is based on analyses by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, drawing on the data collected by our parent company, IHS, which has the largest and most complete databases on the world's oil fields, including reserves and production history. We draw on these data for our recent analysis of more than 800 major oil fields. Those data are widely used. In fact, both the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the IEA studies that Matthew Simmons refers to make significant use of them. The IEA has specifically acknowledged its reliance on a subset of these databases: "Our analysis of oil supply is based on a vast amount of field by field data," its latest World Energy Outlook states. "The primary source of this was IHS Energy, without whose assistance we would not have been able to carry out this work." We will be using the data in a new analysis of the future of the world's oil supply, which we will make available to the readers of Foreign Policy... (Daniel Yergin)
As usual I took detailed notes, which will be uploaded in the weeks to come. But I'll begin with some high-level updates on the key aspects of the peak oil study. Past the Peak? Perhaps the thing that struck me most was how much the outlook on peak oil has changed since the first conference in 2005. We now know that conventional crude did in fact hit its peak-plateau in 2005, having remained around the 74 mbpd level ever since. The expected growth from non-OPEC mostly failed to materialize, as depletion of mature fields took its toll and the cost of new projects soared—especially for deepwater and production from marginal sources. More pessimistic observers now think the 87 mbpd all liquids peak recorded at the height of the 2008 boom was the peak, and the more optimistic ones have cut their expectations to under 100 mbpd, with 90 mbpd looking more likely. ...With the end of growth in the rate of global oil production now either in the past or looming in the next few years, attention is progressively focused on the depletion rates of mature oil fields and the rate and date of overall decline. Most observers believe the globally averaged depletion rate has risen from 4.5% per year in 2007 to about 5 - 5.5% now, which will accelerate to around 6.5% per year by 2014. This is more or less in line with the average rates from IEA's report last year. Petroleum geologist Chris Skrebowski pointed out that a 5% per year decline rate means a loss of 4 mbpd per year, equivalent to all the volume of biofuels, tar sands and heavy oil combined, or losing the entire North Sea in about 14 months, and that it would be a huge challenge to replace those lost volumes...
US light crude futures pushed above $79 a barrel, supported by the view that a recovering world economy would raise demand for crude. Oil prices have more than doubled from the low point they hit in the spring, but are still around half the all-time high of nearly $150 a barrel they reached in early summer last year. Analysts have been surprised at the recent resilience of oil prices given the impact on energy demand of the global recession. In spite of this year's volatility in the oil price, the underlying trend for a decade has been for it to rise steadily. A report from the non-governmental organisation Global Witness – famous for its exposé of so-called "blood diamonds" – pointed to an impending supply shock that could be so severe that many of the world's poor countries would simply be shut off from the world of energy by sky-high prices. Two years in the preparation, Global Witness's report, Heads in the Sand, accused governments of ignoring the fact that the world could soon start to run short of oil. This would lead to huge consequences in terms of price shocks and much higher levels of violence around the world than last year's food riots...
Rather than a point-by-point scientific rebuttal of every point in his op-ed (which is hard because it's relatively "content-free"), I decided to answer the more pressing question: "Who the heck is this idiot and what's his angle?" To help, I compiled a field guide to the types you're likely to encounter while reading about Peak Oil. (Spectrum is from total denial to extreme paranoia) Abiotic Oilers... ...FUD Peddlers... ...BAUers... ...Drill Baby Drillers... ...Not Yetters... ...Government Softpedalers... ...Free-Market Cornucopians... ...Techno-Utopians... ...Peak Oil Liters... ...Just the Facts Ma'am'ers... ...Mainstream Gentle Nudgers... ...Locavore Mafia (a.k.a. Bike-Lane Fundamentalists)... ...Long Emergency Preppers (a.k.a. Kunstlerians/Orlovians)... ...Neo-Malthusians... ...Doomers... submitted by KP, who wrote: "Nice appeal for a detailed study into types of (non)participants in the peak oil debate. It makes it easy to grasp that the way people see the world has huge material consequences." This piece was especially welcome after what has already seemed like a very long week of Peak Oil denial frenzy and increasingly gloomy climate change news, not to mention the never-ending expansion of the "Long War". -KS |
news by category
- Resources
- Regions
- Related Issues
featured content
- Authors
- Dan Allen
- Cecile Andrews
- Sharon Astyk
- Megan Quinn Bachman
- Albert Bates
- Ugo Bardi
- Dan Bednarz
- Rebecca Burgess
- Sarah Byrnes
- Molly Scott Cato
- Kurt Cobb
- Dave Cohen
- Erik Curren
- Lindsay Curren
- Andrew Curry
- Herman Daly
- Kris De Decker
- Rob Dietz
- Charlotte Du Cann
- Rahul Goswami
- John Michael Greer
- Nate Hagens
- Richard Heinberg
- Øyvind Holmstad
- Rob Hopkins
- Robert Jensen
- Brian Kaller
- Frank Kaminski
- Paul Kingsnorth
- Amanda Kovattana
- Ellen LaConte
- Gene Logsdon
- Kathy McMahon
- Asher Miller
- Bill McKibben
- Rick Munroe
- Tom Murphy
- Andrew Nikiforuk
- Dmitry Orlov
- Christine Patton
- Damien Perrotin
- Dave Pollard
- Joanne Poyourow
- Barath Raghavan
- Wayne Roberts
- Stuart Staniford
- John Thackara
- Gail Tverberg
- Tom Whipple
- More authors...
- Publishers
- ASPO-USA
- Civil Eats
- Climate Progress
- Culture Change
- Energy Bulletin
- Fernand Braudel Center
- Feasta
- Nourishing the Planet
- Oil Depletion Analysis Centre
- On the Commons
- OpenDemocracy
- OpenEconomy
- Post Carbon Institute
- Shareable
- Solutions
- The Daly News
- The Oil Drum
- Shareable
- TomDispatch.com
- Transition Milwaukee
- Transition Voice
- Yale Environment 360
- Yes! Magazine
- Media Publishers
- Reviews
- Web chats
The Post Carbon Reader
A must-read collection by some of the world’s most provocative thinkers on the key issues shaping our new century. Buy now and receive a 20% discount.







