Why anyone still needs to still argue the case for Peak Oil eludes me
Former
BP geologist: peak oil is here and it will 'break economies'
Industry
expert warns of grim future of 'recession' driven 'resource wars' at
University College London lecture
Nafeez
Ahmed
23
December, 2013
A
former British Petroleum (BP)
geologist has warned that the age of cheap oil
is long gone, bringing with it the danger of "continuous
recession" and increased risk of conflict and hunger.
At
a lecture on 'Geohazards' earlier this month as part of the
postgraduate Natural
Hazards for Insurers course
at University College London (UCL), Dr. Richard G. Miller, who worked
for BP from 1985 before retiring in 2008, said that official data
from the International Energy
Agency (IEA), US Energy Information Administration (EIA),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), among other sources, showed that
conventional oil had most likely peaked around 2008.
Dr.
Miller critiqued the official industry line that global reserves will
last 53 years at current rates of consumption, pointing out that
"peaking is the result of declining production rates, not
declining reserves." Despite new discoveries and increasing
reliance on unconventional oil and gas, 37 countries are already
post-peak, and global oil production is declining at about 4.1% per
year, or 3.5 million barrels a day (b/d) per year:
"We
need new production equal to a new Saudi Arabia every 3 to 4 years to
maintain and grow supply... New discoveries have not matched
consumption since 1986. We are drawing down on our reserves, even
though reserves are apparently climbing every year. Reserves are
growing due to better technology in old fields, raising the amount we
can recover – but production is still falling at 4.1% p.a. [per
annum]."
Dr.
Miller, who prepared annual in-house projections of future oil supply
for BP from 2000 to 2007, refers to this as the "ATM problem"
– "more money, but still limited daily withdrawals." As a
consequence: "Production of conventional liquid oil has been
flat since 2008. Growth in liquid supply since then has been largely
of natural gas liquids [NGL]- ethane, propane, butane, pentane - and
oil-sand bitumen."
Dr.
Miller is co-editor of a special
edition
of the prestigious journal, Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A,
published this month on the future of oil supply. In an introductory
paper
co-authored with Dr. Steve R. Sorrel, co-director of the Sussex
Energy Group
at the University of Sussex in Brighton, they argue that among oil
industry experts "there is a growing consensus that the era of
cheap oil has passed and that we are entering a new and very
different phase." They endorse the conservative conclusions of
an extensive earlier study by the government-funded UK Energy
Research
Centre (UKERC):
"...
a sustained decline in global conventional production appears
probable before 2030 and there is significant risk of this beginning
before 2020... on current evidence the inclusion of tight oil [shale
oil]
resources appears unlikely to significantly affect this conclusion,
partly because the resource base appears relatively modest."
In
fact, increasing dependence on shale could worsen decline rates in
the long run:
"Greater
reliance upon tight oil resources produced using hydraulic fracturing
will exacerbate any rising trend in global average decline rates,
since these wells have no plateau and decline extremely fast - for
example, by 90% or more in the first 5 years."
Tar
sands will fare similarly, they conclude, noting that "the
Canadian oil
sands
will deliver only 5 mb per day by 2030, which represents less than
6% of the IEA projection of all-liquids production by that date."
"Crude
oil production grew at approximately 1.5% per year between 1995 and
2005, but then plateaued with more recent increases in liquids supply
largely deriving from NGLs, oil sands and tight oil. These trends are
expected to continue... Crude oil production is heavily concentrated
in a small number of countries and a small number of giant fields,
with approximately 100 fields producing one half of global supply, 25
producing one quarter and a single field (Ghawar in Saudi Arabia)
producing approximately 7%. Most of these giant fields are relatively
old, many are well past their peak of production, most of the rest
seem likely to enter decline within the next decade or so and few new
giant fields are expected to be found."
"The
final peak is going to be decided by the price - how much can we
afford to pay?", Dr. Miller told me in an interview about his
work. "If we can afford to pay $150 per barrel, we could
certainly produce more given a few years of lead time for new
developments, but it would break economies again."
Miller
argues that for all intents and purposes, peak oil has arrived as
conditions are such that despite volatility, prices can never return
to pre-2004 levels:
"The
oil price has risen almost continuously since 2004 to date, starting
at $30. There was a great spike to $150 and then a collapse in
2008/2009, but it has since climbed to $110 and held there. The price
rise brought a lot of new exploration and development, but these new
fields have not actually increased production by very much, due to
the decline of older fields. This is compatible with the idea that we
are pretty much at peak today. This recession is what peak feels
like."
Although
he is dismissive of shale oil and gas' capacity to prevent a peak and
subsequent long decline in global oil production, Miller recognises
that there is still some leeway that could bring significant, if
temporary dividends for US economic growth - though only as "a
relatively short-lived phenomenon":
"We're
like a cage of lab rats that have eaten all the cornflakes and
discovered that you can eat the cardboard packets too. Yes, we can,
but... Tight oil may reach 5 or even 6 million b/d in the US, which
will hugely help the US economy, along with shale gas. Shale
resources, though, are inappropriate for more densely populated
countries like the UK, because the industrialisation of the
countryside affects far more people (with far less access to
alternative natural space), and the economic benefits are spread more
thinly across more people. Tight oil production in the US is likely
to peak before 2020. There absolutely will not be enough tight oil
production to replace the US' current 9 million b/d of imports."
In
turn, by prolonging global economic recession, high oil prices may
reduce demand. Peak demand in turn may maintain a longer undulating
oil production plateau:
"We
are probably in peak oil today, or at least in the foot-hills.
Production could rise a little for a few years yet, but not
sufficiently to bring the price down; alternatively, continuous
recession in much of the world may keep demand essentially flat for
years at the $110/bbl price we have today. But we can't grow the
supply at average past rates of about 1.5% per year at today's
prices."
The
fundamental dependence of global economic growth on cheap oil
supplies suggests that as we continue into the age of expensive oil
and gas, without appropriate efforts to mitigate the impacts and
transition to a new energy system, the world faces a future of
economic and geopolitical turbulence:
"In
the US, high oil prices correlate with recessions, although not all
recessions correlate with high oil prices. It does not prove
causation, but it is highly likely that when the US pays more than 4%
of its GDP for oil, or more than 10% of GDP for primary energy, the
economy declines as money is sucked into buying fuel instead of other
goods and services... A shortage of oil will affect everything in the
economy. I expect more famine, more drought, more resource wars and a
steady inflation in the energy cost of all commodities."
According
to another
study
in the Royal
Society
journal special edition by professor David J. Murphy of Northern
Illinois University, an expert in the role of energy in economic
growth, the energy return on investment (EROI) for global oil and gas
production - the amount of energy produced compared to the amount of
energy invested to get, deliver and use that energy - is roughly 15
and declining. For the US, EROI of oil and gas production is 11 and
declining; and for unconventional oil and biofuels is largely less
than 10. The problem is that as EROI decreases, energy prices
increase. Thus, Murphy concludes:
"...
the minimum oil price needed to increase the oil supply in the near
term is at levels consistent with levels that have induced past
economic recessions. From these points, I conclude that, as the EROI
of the average barrel of oil declines, long-term economic growth will
become harder to achieve and come at an increasingly higher
financial, energetic and environmental cost."
Current
EROI in the US, Miller said, is simply "not enough to support
the US infrastructure, even if America was self-sufficient, without
raising production even further than current consumption."
In
their introduction to their collection of papers in the Royal Society
journal, Miller and Sorrell point out that "most authors"
in the special edition "accept that conventional oil resources
are at an advanced stage of depletion and that liquid fuels will
become more expensive and increasingly scarce." The shale
revolution can provide only "short-term relief", but is
otherwise "unlikely to make a significant difference in the
longer term."
They
call for a "coordinated response" to this challenge to
mitigate the impact, including "far-reaching changes in global
transport systems." While "climate-friendly solutions to
'peak oil' are available" they caution, these will be neither
"easy" nor "quick", and imply a model of economic
development that accepts lower levels of consumption and mobility.
In
his interview with me, Richard Miller was particularly critical of
the UK government's policies, including abandoning large-scale wind
farm projects, the reduction of feed-in tariffs for renewable energy,
and support for shale gas. "The government will do anything for
the short-term economic bounce," he said, "but the
consequence will be that the UK is tied more tightly to an oil-based
future, and we will pay dearly for it."
Dr
Nafeez Ahmed
is executive director of the Institute
for Policy Research & Development
and author of A
User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It
among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.