Rate:
Share
Views: 6674
Text Size:

Highlights of the Peak Oil Conference, Part 1

Oil Peaks in Two Years, But America Sleeps On...

By Chris Nelder
Thursday, October 16th, 2008

As I previewed a few weeks ago ("Reflections on the ASPO Peak Oil Conference") at the conclusion of the 2008 Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) - USA Peak Oil Conference, I have cleaned up and uploaded my notes, available here.

For those who aren't inclined to wade through all 57 pages, here are some highlights.

On the whole, I detected a distinctly different tone from the previous ASPO-USA conferences I have attended. The range of forecasts seems to have narrowed considerably, and there was a marked sense of urgency in many of the presentations. Most of the presenters have been studying energy and peak oil for many years, and warning of the potential results, but we have done little about it, and have been delayed by politics and propaganda. I think the general feeling of the conference was that we are truly out of time to mobilize a response.

The presentation by Jeremy Gilbert, the former Chief Petroleum Engineer for BP, was a good example. He noted that while the world has had multiple "wake up calls" about peak oil, and that the ASPO has been doing conferences detailing the problem since 2001, nothing seems to have changed. Oil discovery peaked 40 years ago, and despite the most intensive and technically advanced drilling in history, it continues to fall. We now only discover about one barrel for every 4-5 we consume, and that trend is only getting worse.

The major international oil companies (IOCs) like ExxonMobil have not invested in future production as had been hoped; new technology has not dramatically improved recovery; and wells drilled over the last few years have nearly doubled but production has remained flat. Yet demand continues to rise and per-capita usage in the US and Canada is little changed. He rather directly chastised America for continuing to dream that exploration and technology will save the day, when the data is abundantly clear that they cannot.

The IOCs, for their part, have access to only about 6% of the world's remaining oil reserves; the reserves of Exxon, the largest of the majors, rank only #17 worldwide. The rest is in the hands of the National Oil Companies (NOCs), which take much larger shares of the revenue (around half), are often rife with corruption and have uneasy relationships with their governments. Jim Buckee of Talisman Energy noted that the NOCs are also far less efficient, producing only about $5.25 of revenue per barrel vs. $15.28 for the IOCs.

Recognizing that the remaining large supplies of oil are in geopolitically challenging areas, there was a considerable focus on the geopolitics of energy. Jeff Vail noted that oil is part of the intersection of nation and state, and that global feedback loops among nations tend to increase resource nationalism, and exacerbate the peak oil problem. Oil is increasingly being used as a weapon, and addressing the root causes of the tension will require radical restructuring of our economies. However, finding realistic solutions remains a challenge, and trumps geological factors in affecting oil production.

Supply Outlook Dim

OPEC, of course, is the geopolitical prime mover of the oil markets, producing 43% of the world's crude. A great deal of attention was given to its oil reserves, and its production outlook. Dr. Peter Wells emphasized that OPEC producers have long horizons for their investment decisions, and an increasing concern for saving some oil for future generations. Their ambition is not to pump it as fast as possible, but to seek the maximum sustainable rate. It is in their interest to keep the spare production capacity as low as possible while keeping prices rising but moderate, without disrupting the markets. He noted that the price floor for oil is no longer set by spare capacity so much as it is by the needs of Saudi Arabia's budget.

Since non-OPEC production appears to have peaked, the world is looking to OPEC to satisfy additional demand and make up for the decline of non-OPEC. But it is looking increasingly unlikely that OPEC will be able to meet that expectation, as their large fields are mature, and exploration successes peaked 40 years ago. Wells believes that OPEC production will never exceed 40 million barrels per day (mbpd), as compared to its 37 mbpd today (EIA), mainly due to political decisions.  

Saudi Arabia will likely peak within about five years, after which any further growth is essentially out of the question. Prof. Kjell Aleklett, a founder of ASPO International, quoted King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: "The oil boom is over and will not return. All of us must get used to a new lifestyle."

This is where the depletion question becomes important. If the global depletion rate is roughly 5% (a broadly accepted figure for now, but it is increasing), and today's production is approximately 87 mbpd, then we are currently losing 4.35 mbpd of capacity each year just due to depletion.

If Wells' estimate is correct (many at the conference believed it was on the optimistic side) and non-OPEC is indeed in terminal decline (which I believe is true) then the total OPEC additions won't even offset the global decline. Accordingly, we are now relying entirely on the non-crude "unconventional liquids" like natural gas liquids, oil from tar sands, biofuels, and coal-to-liquids to increase the production of "all liquids" at all.

But as Jim Buckee of Talisman Energy pointed out, even these unconventional liquids may not be able to fill the gap of crude decline. By his reckoning, conventional oil reserves are 750-1000 billion barrels, and the decline in production amounts to 50-60 mbpd over 10 years. Natural gas liquids (probable), yet-to-find oil (10-20 billion barrels), enhanced oil recovery technology, plus tar sands bitumen and extra heavy oil all put together equals about 300 billion barrels, and can't make up for the decline of conventional crude. (Something ASPO founder Colin Campbell has been saying for a long time.)

Peak Oil In Two Years - It's Crunch Time

Estimates of the global peak of oil production varied, as always, but I would say that there was a strong consensus around the 2010-2013 time frame for "all liquids." Natural gas is expected to occur between 5 and 10 years later. This is in line with the estimates I used for Profit from the Peak.

One such outlook was offered by Ken Verosub, a professor of geology at UC Davis. For the world, his calculation shows a peak around 2015, +/- 2 years. His simple math on the outlook for US domestic oil production was quite clear:

  • Total US reserves: About 20.9 billion barrels
  • Total US daily consumption: 20.7 mbpd, of which we import 11.7 mbpd
  • Domestic oil, daily production: 9 mbpd
  • Domestic oil, annual consumption: 3 billion barrels per year
  • 20.9/3= 7 years

Therefore at current rates, our domestic oil production would be kaput by roughly 2015, +/- 2 years! In actuality though, production doesn't speed along at a high rate and then quit, but rather tails off in a bell curve. So what this really tells us is that by the end of the next presidential administration, we will be almost entirely dependent on oil imports. Verosub summed up his presentation by saying, "It's crunch time!"

As for the undeveloped oil regions of the US, several presenters noted that increased production from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would make only a negligible difference in production and prices, due to the long lead times (roughly 10 years) and the low flow rates that might be achieved. Newt Gingrich's "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" campaign was widely mocked as being altogether unclear on the concept of oil flows. Gilbert stated that if all of the OCS were opened to exploration, it would only increase US reserves by about 20%; that's about 4 billion barrels, or the equivalent of six months of our current domestic oil production.

According to Gill Mull, a retired geologist from the Alaska Geological Survey, the P50 (50% probability) estimate for ANWR is about 10 billion barrels total, or roughly a three-year supply as compared with current US domestic production. However, due to the flow rates, all of the new fields in the region put together couldn't overcome the decline rate of the North Slope.

Simmons Warns of a Run on the Pump

The most shocking presentation, though, had to be the one given by Matthew Simmons, author of Twilight in the Desert and one of the world's top oil investment bankers. You could have heard a pin drop in a room of 500 people while he was speaking. The hurricanes and high prices have driven inventories to an extremely low level, he said, and he was very concerned about the possibility of a "run on the bank" with fuel supplies, which could easily breach the system's minimum operating levels.

He presented an example of how quickly we could "break the bank" of oil supply:

·         220 million vehicles

·         20 gal capacity each

·         Average tank has 5 gals in it (an estimate supported by recent research)

·         If everybody rushes to top off their tanks, at ~15 gallons x 220 million = stock draw of 78 million barrels.

·         But our current finished stocks are only about 87 million barrels!

Even a few weeks of cold winter could deplete the usable stocks of heating oil, he said.

When the stocks deplete, he warned, food supply could be in jeopardy within a week. The economy would slow to a crawl, and the financial markets would panic, as the country finally grasps the energy risk. And yet, this risk is unpriced. Nobody knows the odds. Nobody does charts of peak oil, even though it has ominous parallels with the financial crisis. Most global leaders have no idea of any of the risks that face the energy markets. Whereas it took 5 months to melt down the financial markets, he said, the energy markets could unwind in less than a month.

Very sobering stuff, and that only roughly covers the first half of the conference. In part two of this article, I'll take a look at coal, China, the airlines, and renewable energy...and explain why one presenter believes that the massive increase in oil demand from China and India could, paradoxically, spell the end of globalization.

Until next time,

Chris






Rate this article:
 
     Current Rating:  
Article RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle Rating (50 votes)

Comment on this Article


Comments:

Comment by Ananda seneviratne on 2008-10-17
Good coverage and forthright presentation of the apparent global oil situation
Comment by Peter Weggeman on 2008-10-17
Well done, good report! Am utterly amazed by world obsession with global warming hoax. There is no catastrophic climate change threat this century! Depletion is the real existential threat. All anyone has to do is check reserves and production data for oil, gas, coal from top info sources (DOE, IEA, BP Statistical Review, Oil & Gas Jl) and do the math. At current consumption oil and gas are gone by mid century and coal might last to end of century, but this is doubtful because we will need to go coal-to-liquid long before then. You don't have to be a genius to realize shortages will appear and worsen long before we're on empty and that the economic downward spiral will start soon. Nuclear for base load plus on or off the grid supplementals (wind, sun, geo)are what's left. Liquid fuels will come from coal. I am a chemist and skeptical about biofuels from cellulose. Unfortunately it will take shortages to wake us up. Irony is that man-made global warming (if real) is a self-correcting problem.
Comment by Rob Sachs on 2008-10-17
All Doom And Gloom, perhaps true.

All the more reason for Governments to act on what they preach, Go Green.

Well put some damn incentives fourth to the public to go green.
I dont mean just a sales tax rebate, I mean some real serious incentives. For example on a wind turbine $1000 rebate from the purhase price for every KW the unit is rated at. Similar for solar heat and electric.

Electric or Hybrid cars give some incentives.

Stop building gas guzlers, I guess GM has started doing so. If you buy ione prove you need it, farm use etc.
Stpo building luxury homes, for example 4000 sqft for two people.


If your wondering where to get the money for incentives, well use the tax from the sale of gas, use some of the GST.



Comment by banish taylor on 2008-10-17
Your UC Prof. is wrong as are you. 85% of our oil reserves have been put off limits by Congress. There is plenty of oil Off Shore, the Baakan and Alaska North Slope.You need to check Gull Island AK. that Congress closed and won't allow us to develop and wells exist there now. We have 50 to 100 years of oil reserves.Refinery construction has been blocked by EPA and "green Freaks". Need this also-Drilling within 50 miles of shore in the Gulf,West Coast and AK. where oil infrastructure exists will permit oil flow in 1-3 years according to oil experts- NOT 10 Years!Wind, Solar,Hydrogen and ethanol are heavily subsidized and inefficient. Some hydrogen potential is possible.You must be anti-oil.
Comment by David E. Cozad on 2008-10-17
You covered a number of very critical issues in your summary. However, I did not see any reference to what I call the "Energy Wall". While everyone has been focused on the peak production curve, I believe the curves on pages 37 & 38 in Kenneth S. Deffeyes book "Beyond Oil" indicates a far more severe threat than even Peak Oil. The threat comes from looking at what it means as you go further down the curve. The curve indicates the production rate in relation to remaining supply. If you consider the cost of production in terms of energy expended to produce energy, the curve indicates the energy required for production is increasing while the amount of energy produced is decreasing. This means that at some point the energy produced minus the energy cost of production will equal zero. This is what I call the "Energy Wall". I think the energy wall is very close, namely right on the heels of global peak oil. I have been seeing many examples of the effect of the energy wall on the oil industry. In a recent article on ExxonMobile and its failure to use its $39 billion to explore, drill, and extract oil, ExxonMobile had this response; there was no available oil sources that would produce the necessary investment rate of return. It would consider exploration and drilling in ANWR and eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida. This response tells me that ExxonMobile has already hit the "Energy Wall".
The threat of the "Energy Wall" is the Hubbert Peak is not followed by a slow decline spread over decades, but a cliff of a few years or even months. Did anyone talk about this at the conference?

David E. Cozad
General Manager
Conflict Simulations
Comment by John Holt on 2008-10-17
While I agree with the peak oil concept, I find it strange that I hear nothing about Methane/Methanol. We have lots available, especially in the form of methane hydrate, and methane is an important greenhouse gas currently being released. What gives? jkh
Comment by Keith R. Kelley on 2008-10-18
At last some definitive figures which look plausable, and hopefully reliable. They present enough truth to give the H2O energy promoters with realistic time frame goals, and challenges. If they accomplish what they intend. the depleting oil reserves may yet stay in the ground.
Comment by Warren Reynolds on 2008-10-18
Good summary of a grim problem. However, solar-hydrogen is the answer.
Comment by Chris Nelder on 2008-10-18
David - Yes, the "energy wall" was discussed repeatedly at the conference, but no one used that phrase. Instead, they spoke of it in terms of declining "net energy," aka EROI (energy returned on investment) or EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). We do seem to be rapidly approaching the point where the net energy of extreme technology oil projects is questionable. Where the EROI of oil in the early days of the industry was about 100, for today's newest unconventional projects it can be under 5. Prof. Charles Hall and his students have done some research suggesting that if the EROI isn't at least 5, then it isn't a net benefit to society at all due to the energy requirements of the associated infrastructure. The "energy wall" does seem to be very close indeed; unfortunately policy decisions are not made on that basis...if they were, we would never have seen an explosion of corn ethanol, with a pitiful 1.2 EROI. Policy seems to be decided on price alone, which often gives the market a distorted signal.
Comment by Chris Nelder on 2008-10-18
To "banish taylor" - I have heard all the claims you repeat here, and I have investigated them. Unfortunately, I have found no merit to them whatsoever, especially as regards the wild tale about "Gull Island." Oil industry representatives, scientists, and indeed the Department of Energy's own Energy Information Administration have repeatedly supported what I have said here. I have only seen your claims repeated by politicians and wishful thinkers. Feel free to send me actual, hard data to support your claims if you have any, but I am confident that my perspective is in fact supported by the best data and research available. The only things I am "anti" are bad information, unsubstantiated claims and political distortions.
Comment by Chris Nelder on 2008-10-18
To John Holt: Methane hydrates are more of a threat than a cure at this point. No one has ever developed a way to harvest them commercially. Japan is working on the world's first project to see if it can be done, but it may be about 10 years before their results are in. Meanwhile, as the hydrates are released from permafrost due to warming, they have an outsized effect on the greenhouse gas effect.
Comment by thomas Malloy on 2008-10-19
Keith Kohl

Dear Keith;

I read your article on peak oil. You ignore this wild card. Suppose that someone came up with an energy machine. I'll give you the details if you're interested.
Comment by theodore malnick on 2008-10-20
WHILE THE USA "QUIBBLES WITH BOTH OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES ON WHO WILL DO WHAT&WHEN ;WE THE PEOPLE HAVE TO GET IN GEAR AND FIND A WAY TO GET THEIR ATTENTION TO GET THE USA AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE REST OF THE WORLD IN MOBILE ADVANCEMENTS {LIKE JAPAN,SWEDEN,NORWAY,FRANCE,DENMARK,ETC AROUND THE WORLD} " PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION:WHAT THE HELL ARE WE WAITING FOR FOLKS ??? WHILE WE STAND THERE WITH OUR TAILS BETWEEN OUR LEGS ,OTHER GROUPS ARE MAKING ELECTRIC CARS +TRUCKS FOR THEIR USES :OR EVEN WORKING ON MUCH MORE EXOTIC FUELS FOR EVEN BETTER MPG & POWER :SOME DERIVED FROM SIMPLE VEGITATION SOURCES! I THOUGHT NOBODY COULD BEAT THE USA IN TECHNOLOGY :BUT IT LOOKS LIKE I'M WRONG AGAIN ,IN OTHER COUNTRIES THEY TEACH THEIR KIDS FROM TINY TOTS ON,THE LOWER GRADES, WHILE "WE WATCH CARTOON ALLEY OR OTHER COMICS FOR KIDS HERE " BY THE TIME WE GET KIDS INTERESTED IN SCIENCE OR OTHER TECHNOLOGIES HERE THE OTHER COUNTRIES ARE YEARS AHEAD OF USA! THE SAME IN GROWNUP SOCIETY HERE ;EVERYBODY "THINKS",THE OIL WILL NEVER STOP & OUR GOVERNMENT WILL COME ALONG WITH A MAGICAL SOLUTION TO SHOW US ABETTER WAY;SORRY THAT WON'T WORK ,WE HAVE TO DO THE CHANGE OVER OURSELVES!
Comment by Brett Pavlov on 2008-10-20
Well, it's a comin'. I see that nearly most people still fail to see. We are definitely in for an eye opening experience and our lives will soon change forever. I guess it is a good thing that I am expecting it. I won't be part of the masses that will be panicking and holding on for dear life. Business as usual, right?
Comment by Roger Carmichael on 2008-10-20
If the ROOT CAUSE of ALL problems
is OVER POPULATION of a finite planet
then SOLUTION is Human Rights, that
A citizen of Earth has the god-given
right to reproduce himself ONCE or
One boy/One girl per family and ALL
problems are solved within one life.
Other wise we will continue to UP
Death Rates as our Final Solution,
Again and Again, Sorry about that.
Comment by Marc on 2008-10-21
Boone Pickens is looking to LNG as the next Oil... Which should, like
everything else, started 20/30 years ago!

But, nothing to fear. Oil expert,
Donald Trump, says Oil would already be $30 if it wasn't for OPEC...but regardless that's where its now going...

Gee...now I feel much better!

Thanks for the synopsis...
Comment by Harold Clifford on 2008-10-23
A great wrap-up on the ASPO conference Chris!

Isn't it odd that so many of the folks commenting on your great summary seem to have easy answers - without even thinking outside the box?

I guess that the "crunch time" will ultimately lead to serious conservation - I can hear the moaning now ...

Thanks for a very informative read.

Harold Clifford