With the world’s population projected to rise to 10 billion people by 2050, from about 7.6 billion today, and with large parts of the world still to gain access to sustainable sources of energy, there will be no let up in demand for hydrocarbons any time soon.
In 2017, global demand for oil rose about 1.6 per cent, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) – double the average rate of increase over the past decade.
Despite this, global energy remains at a critical turning point. The challenge facing the region’s oil and gas producers is no longer simply the balance between supply and demand. Instead, the questions facing the world’s energy providers are about how, where and when energy supply is produced, and how, where and when it is used.
Demographic expansion and socio-economic development, particularly in the fast-growing economies of Asia — from the giant Chinese and Indian markets to the smaller Asian economies with rising middle-classes — are set to make up the lion’s share of future energy demand growth, whether from conventional or renewable sources.
At the same time, changing policy goals coupled with technological advancements are transforming both energy consumption and supply.
The quest for energy security is therefore focusing on the diversification of energy sources away from fossil fuels, while government and industry alike are seeking to reduce costs by harnessing the latest technologies to drive greater energy efficiency and reduce consumption.
Fuel efficiency
For the next 20-30 years, oil will continue to dominate primary energy requirements despite the plateau in production and demand expected towards the end of this period. Contrary to popular opinion, what is likely to curb demand is not the increasing adoption of alternative energy sources or even electric cars, but rather the broader implementation of fuel-efficiency standards and improvements across all main forms of transport — particularly in the trucking industry.
Speaking in April to an audience of energy industry specialists and media, IEA secretary-general Fatih Birol explained that more than 50 countries have car fuel-efficiency standards, but only four have truck fuel-efficiency standards — a nod to the major inroads yet to be made in significantly reducing oil demand growth. This is important because the improvement in the economic lot of communities, particularly in the developing world, is often followed by growth in the trucking industries in these countries in order to feed this economic growth.
“Even if every second car sold [globally] was an electric car, global oil demand will still continue to grow … because demand growth is not coming from cars. Today, one third of the global oil demand growth comes from Asian trucks only,” Birol told the audience gathered at Columbia University’s Centre of Global Energy Policy (CGEP) in New York.
Regardless, a major obstacle for oil producers in meeting the growth in global oil demand is the exponential rate of depletion of oil fields around the world, which is putting considerable pressure on both international oil companies (IOCs) and national oil companies (NOCs) to hunt for ever-larger oil fields to replace this loss in output.
Field depletion
In January, French oil field tubular goods manufacturer Valourec warned that to keep up with current global oil demand of about 96 million barrels a day (b/d), field depletion was “above and beyond” the most important issue for producers to contend with. Current annual depletion rates of the world’s major fields average at 4-7 per cent, or about 3 million b/d in ageing fields, while demand continues to grow by between 1.5-1.6 million b/d, according to the IEA.
The company highlighted how US shale oil production alone “is insufficient to offset worldwide depletion”, underscoring the concerted and increasingly closer coordination needed between Opec and non-Opec-producing nations to shore up oil supplies in the medium-to-long term. The US is projected to see an additional 1.6 million b/d of total liquid production — mainly from shale — by the end of 2018.
However, while rapidly rising shale oil and gas output from the US poses strong competition to Opec and large non-Opec producers such as Russia, the main ongoing issue for US producers is getting its product to market in a quick and efficient manner. The impetus for doing so is the comparatively short lifespan of US shale oil and gas wells, since output can fall by 40 per cent in just one year. Infrastructure to bring products from short-lived unconventional deposits in formations such as the Bakken and Eagle Ford fields pose logistical challenges to operators, who usually have to opt for flexible yet cost-inefficient land transport options over pipelines, despite their expensive initial build costs.
Natural gas has been touted as the energy source of choice during the energy transition due to it abundance across the world, from the shale fields of the US and the giant shared Gulf formations being exploited by Qatar and Iran, to the huge gas fields in Russia and Australia.
According to BP’s 2018 Energy Outlook for the next 20-25 years, gas is seen as a ‘bridge’ fuel by both developed and emerging-economy nations as they seek to reduce carbon emissions from coal use in their industrial sectors.
The global power sector, while keeping pace with economic growth, is meanwhile likely to see a plateauing in demand for natural gas, despite ongoing gas consumption for industrial, commercial and domestic purposes. This is mainly due to gas competing with coal and renewables, despite expectations of a sharp decrease in demand for coal from large consumers such as China and India by 2040.
In 2017, 30 per cent of total growth in the world’s gas demand was generated by China alone. Much of the growth comes as a result of authorities seeking to reduce localised pollution from coal-fired power plants. Faced by the twin challenges of a mounting public health crisis and maintaining strong economic growth, China is ramping up imports of clean-burning natural gas, particularly for power plants and industry in and around economic hubs in coastal areas.
Natural gas
Roughly 150 billion cubic feet of additional daily natural gas production is expected to come online by 2040, according to forecasts, bringing total global production to 500 billion cubic feet a day (cf/d).
Expected to be brought to consumer markets in liquefied natural gas (LNG) form or via pipeline over the next two to three decades, natural gas will experience strong and widespread demand not only from emerging markets such as those in Asia and Africa, but also from Europe and North America.
World LNG supplies are expected to experience the sharpest increase in availability over the next 20 years, with nearly half of the increase generated over the next five years alone. LNG could quite easily surpass regional pipeline supplies at this rate.
While the LNG scene is a buyer’s market, growing demand from China and India could eliminate the supply-demand differential early in the next decade, according to industry observers. Since the lag between the building and supply phases of the LNG project cycle is wide enough for demand to catch up with ease, this will translate into a need for new investment in greenfield projects around the world.
As the global transport sector grows on the back of economic progress in emerging economies, it is expected to be the single fastest-growing sector over the next 20-30 years.




Chrome Mags on Wed, 26th Sep 2018 11:15 am
Humankind: Pedal to the metal mentality is ingrained on our DNA. We always end up going as big and as broad as possible, using as much energy as is available, then ratcheting up to higher levels. I call it ‘The Acceleration Syndrome’. Reminds me of that song, ‘Locomotive Breath’.
“He feels the piston scraping
Steam breaking on his brow
Old Charlie stole the handle and
The train it won’t stop going
No way to slow down”
JuanP on Wed, 26th Sep 2018 1:11 pm
“Macroeconomic implications of increasing protectionism”
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/focus/2018/html/ecb.ebbox201806_01.en.html
A short, somewhat interesting exercise in mental masturbation, but it makes some unrealistic assumptions in the model.
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 12:16 am
New 10 MW Vestas offshore wind turbine operational:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/26/mhi-vestas-launches-worlds-first-10-megawatt-wind-turbine/
print baby print on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 1:13 am
Peak demand. it is not worth discussing – pure stupidity
Davy on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 5:20 am
“New 10 MW Vestas offshore wind turbine operational:”
I wonder what the economic/physical limits are of these giant offshore turbines?
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 9:26 am
Signs that China is abandoning nuclear.
Renewables are cheaper.
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/china-erwaegt-abkehr-von-atomkraft-a-1229668.html
Perhaps makati, onlooker, alain, millimind and others can intervene here and tell the Chinese government that renewables are an extension of fossil and can’t work without them, before it is too late.
/snikker
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 9:33 am
“I wonder what the economic/physical limits are of these giant offshore turbines?”
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/rotterdam-harbor-flirts-with-building-250-wind-turbines-of-50-mw-each/
13.2 SUMR test machine in Colorado later this year:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/design-for-50mw-offshore-wind-turbine-inspired-by-palm-trees#gs.B1v8ZDw
More down-to-earth: 12 MW is next
https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/turbines/haliade-x-offshore-turbine
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 9:45 am
Currently I’m in Zagreb, Croatia and for the first time saw a VW-Up e-vehicle.
I say “saw” because I didn’t hear it coming, as this taxi, because that is what it was, was completely silent.
https://youtu.be/di1Q23PO_fQ
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 10:14 am
How to travel from Coventry to Aberdeen in a VW-e-Up e-vehicle with 79 miles range:
https://youtu.be/Kg7mZigvfRI
Google Maps: 443 miles, 7:34 hours
Total “fuel” cost: GBP 12.51
5 charges
50% charging time: 15 minutes
Antius on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 10:39 am
“Perhaps makati, onlooker, alain, millimind and others can intervene here and tell the Chinese government that renewables are an extension of fossil and can’t work without them, before it is too late.”
Hmmm. I cannot read your ‘Die Spiegel’ article. Firstly, because it is in German, secondly because of the ad blocker installed on my computer.
But a few things come to mind. I doubt that it is quite as simple as renewable energy ‘winning’ as a direct alternative to nuclear. Both are being built about as fast as the Chinese can build them. Wind and solar are intermittent and therefore require backup power plants. China has a huge fleet of old coal burning plants whose capital costs are long paid off, but are hugely polluting and for which fuel supply must increasingly be imported as China’s coal production declines. If you are a grid planner interested in maintaining existing power supply, whilst reducing pollution and coal consumption, wind and solar are an affordable way of doing it and can be scaled up quite quickly (months, rather than years). The wind and solar infrastructure is not cheap, but its cost is partially mitigated by reduced fuel costs in the coal plants. Hence, for a little extra cost, you can stretch a home based resource and avoid the need for an import that requires a capital outflow.
That being said, this is clearly a relatively short term solution, as China’s coal supply is gradually depleting and its coal fleet is gradually ageing. Hence, the build-up of renewable energy allows the Chinese to buy themselves time, allowing their nuclear build programme to gradually gear up to the point where it replaces the coal-renewable hybrid energy system. Given the relatively long build time of nuclear power plants, this will take time to accomplish. But a single nuclear power plant replaces both renewable and coal power plants at a lower total cost. That cost will progressively decline as scale economies increase and experience of both vendor and regulator allows build times to decline.
Antius on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 11:19 am
“How to travel from Coventry to Aberdeen in a VW-e-Up e-vehicle with 79 miles range:
https://youtu.be/Kg7mZigvfRI
Google Maps: 443 miles, 7:34 hours
Total “fuel” cost: GBP 12.51
5 charges
50% charging time: 15 minutes”
Cloggie, I am impressed that he could do it so fast. Generally, I am all for an electric future.
But I would point out that £12.50 is about exactly the same pre-tax cost as a petrol or diesel vehicle driving the same distance at 60mpg. The difference in cost is therefore entirely due to the avoidance of tax on road-use electric power. How long will that last when BEVs start replacing ICE vehicles on a large scale? On top of that there are battery replacement costs, of course. But it would appear that BEVs can provide an equivalent service for not much more cost. Worth the effort if it eliminates pollution and oil import costs.
The most significant problem with short charging electric cars is the enormous spikes in demand that that will impose upon the grid. If people were to perfectly stagger the charging of these vehicles across a 24 hour period, then the additional demand on the grid would be relatively small. You might even meet that requirement using wind & solar power and pumped storage. But if charging takes place in surges after rush hour say, then the additional demand must be met by open cycle natural gas peaker plants. Not exactly a giant leap for sustainability.
Antius on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 11:57 am
A worked example based upon the Tesla model 3. Battery capacity is 50kWh in a standard model, giving a range of 350km. That is 0.14kWh per km.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_3
Let’s say the average driver drives 40km per day (to work and back) and recharges when he gets home. That is 5.7kWh of electricity. Charging time would be 50 minutes. If 10 million drivers were to charge all at once, then the power requirement would be 68.4GW. The time average electricity production for the UK national grid is about 40GW. You see the problem?
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 12:25 pm
To remind Antius to his own find:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/e-road-e-vehicles-breakthrough-in-sweden/
The Coventry-Aberdeen traveller linked to above could have saved his five charging events if the main road would have been equipped with a simple charging strip, mounted to the road’s surface. Should not be a too big a national investment but it would save millions of massive 400 kg batteries.
The entire Dutch car fleet of 8 million can be powered with 222 6 MW wind turbines, ignoring storage issues:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/opel-ampera-e-chevrolet-bolt/
If you include hydrogen storage you get this:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/first-climate-neutral-power-station-in-the-netherlands/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2018/07/14/the-netherlands-is-placing-its-bets-on-the-hydrogen-economy/
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 12:39 pm
“If 10 million drivers were to charge all at once, then the power requirement would be 68.4GW. The time average electricity production for the UK national grid is about 40GW. You see the problem?”
Can be solved with IoT (internet if things) and demand management, with strong variable electricity prices, depending on supply and demand. A bit like an auction. On certain days poorer guys will have to go to their workplace on their e-bikes as they were outbid by more affluent electricity buyers. Shit happens.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 1:39 pm
Russia to become LNG super power:
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Heres-Whats-Next-For-Russian-LNG.html
Antius on Thu, 27th Sep 2018 1:41 pm
Cloggie, I have no doubt there are technical solutions to this problem. You have mentioned a few. But they all involve costs over and above what we are committed to already.
Variable electricity rates and internet of things? That involves a very great deal of web interactive systems that won’t necessarily be cheap and may have issues with disruption and hacking. It also assumes that people are prepared and able to adjust behaviour according to price and even go without.
Rail in road systems? Again, it is possible in principle. But how much will it add to the costs that we have calculated already? Driving some 40km at 60kph, would appear to put loads on the grid no less severe than charging. Traffic levels tend to spike at specific times each day. And it is inevitable that cars will still need batteries, albeit smaller ones, as it is unlikely that all roads can be electrified in this way.
Hydrogen? Horribly inefficient and expensive, but maybe that is tolerable if we need to provide modest amounts of energy at high power each day. Part of the problem is that you have a power station that might only be needed for 1 hour per day and has to have very large installed capacity. Ka ching! Ka ching!
I am not saying that electric vehicles are automatically a bad idea. But I do think that a lot more thought is needed as to how they can be made to work at a whole systems level and what the realistic costs will be. It is important to understand this, because the necessary investments need to be made. It would be foolhardy to assume that these sorts of problems don’t exist just because we don’t want them to.