Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on November 11, 2013

Bookmark and Share

Peak Oil : A Look At “Peak Demand” # 5

Consumption

U.S. oil demand rose 2.7% year-on-year in September to 18.571 million barrels a day, reflecting modest economic improvement in the world’s biggest oil consumer, the American Petroleum Institute said Friday.
For the entire third quarter, demand gained 1.7% from a year earlier, to 18.909 million barrels a day, the trade group said.
‘Demand for petroleum products remains consistent with a gradually improving economy,’ said John Felmy, API’s chief economist.
Demand for gasoline, the nation’s most widely used petroleum product, increased 2.1% in September from a year earlier, to 8.737 million barrels a day, and rose 1.2% to 8.951 million barrels a day in the third quarter from the year-earlier period. [1]

PEAK DEMAND?

As I’ve noted previously in this series, Peak Demand has a nice ring to it. But like so much else that passes for reassurance from the fossil fuel industry supporters, there’s another side to the “all is well” story. The public will almost never get any of the relevant information with which to make informed assessments about what’s at stake and what sort of messages they’d like their industry and political leaders to act on. Getting the information too late will be much worse than  getting it too early.

For all the talk about the recent production increases here in the U.S. (attributed to the genuinely impressive technological innovations of fracking shale formations), there’s a distinct downside to deriving all of our production increases to that.

“REALITY IS A BITCH”

The other thing about extraction from shale is that it ends quickly. A conventional well’s production declines at about 5-8% per year, and it can remain productive for decades. By contrast, the first-year decline in shale wells is over 60%, and about 90% of a well’s production occurs in the first five years. That creates a ‘drilling treadmill,’ as new wells are needed simply to replace production from wells drilled a few years before.
Further, studies by Arthur Berman, David Hughes, and Rafael Sandrea have analyzed well-by-well data from existing mature oil and gas shale fields and concluded that the ultimate production from these sources is likely to be much more limited than optimists claim. While fields are large, covering many counties or even states, most production comes from a few ‘sweet spots,’ where drilling opportunities are limited by quality acreage. (links in original quote). [2]

As Wall Street, CNBC, and feckless politicians tout American energy independence from the miracle of shale oil, reality is already rearing its ugly head. Production grew by 24% over the first six months of 2012. Production has grown by only 7% over the first six months of 2013. That is a dramatic slowdown. The fact is that these wells deplete at an extremely rapid rate. Oil companies will always seek out the easiest to access oil first. They have already accessed the easy stuff. This explains the dramatic slowdown. Peak Bakken oil production will be below 1 million barrels per day. The last time I checked, we consumed 18 million barrels per day. I wonder when that energy independence will be achieved? Reality is a bitch.
By the end of the first year of production, a new well is producing at a rate that is 30% of where it was the year before. That means a huge amount of drilling each year has to be done just to offset the production lost due to these steep decline rates. [3]

Unpleasant detours along the road to energy independence and a worry-free energy supply future, to be sure. But facts will do that to the best of stories.

No one disputes that fossil fuel production has increased in the last few years, more so than peak oil proponents envisioned. There’s also a lot of conversation about impressive increases in reserves. For instance (my comments are included in [bracketed red italics]):

SOUNDS GOOD … BUT….

With billions of Chinese and Indians growing richer and itching to get behind the wheel of a car, the big oil companies, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and America’s Energy Information Administration all predict that demand will keep on rising. One of the oil giants, Britain’s BP, reckons it will grow from 89m b/d now to 104m b/d by 2030.
We believe that they are wrong, and that oil is close to a peak. This is not the ‘peak oil’ widely discussed several years ago, when several theorists, who have since gone strangely quiet, [such as?] reckoned that supply would flatten and then fall. We believe that demand, not supply, could decline. In the rich world oil demand has already peaked: it has fallen since 2005. [Is this a permanent trend or a reflection of difficult and ongoing economic times? Should we assume we do not want more growth—itself a conundrum?] Even allowing for all those new drivers in Beijing and Delhi, two revolutions in technology will dampen the world’s thirst for the black stuff.
The first revolution was led by a Texan who has just died (link to article in original). George Mitchell championed ‘fracking’ as a way to release huge supplies of ‘unconventional’ gas from shale beds. This, along with vast new discoveries of conventional gas, has recently helped increase the world’s reserves from 50 to 200 years. [Sounds wonderful right up until the moment a few questions pop up: Rate of production? Depletion rates? Expenses? Costs? Until the reserves are out of the ground and in our tank, the numbers are just numbers] In America, where thanks to Mr Mitchell shale gas already billows from the ground, liquefied or compressed gas is finding its way into the tanks of lorries, buses and local-delivery vehicles. Gas could also replace oil in ships, power stations, petrochemical plants and domestic and industrial heating systems, and thus displace a few million barrels of oil a day by 2020. [“Could”? And the infrastructure and technology for this is ready to go?] [4]

Reality, geology, technology, and economics are all part of the mix, and too often the pesky details are ignored in pursuit of a self-serving narrative ensuring fossil fuel industry dominance in the marketplace. There will be a reckoning at some point, and that too will be an unpleasant fact-based, context-rich reality we will all have to deal with.

Putting plans into motion in advance seems like a wiser strategy than hoping.

Happy Veterans Day, and thank you to all our veterans (a special thanks to you, Dad)

Peak Oil Matters



4 Comments on "Peak Oil : A Look At “Peak Demand” # 5"

  1. Arthur on Mon, 11th Nov 2013 12:27 pm 

    We believe that demand, not supply, could decline.

    Correct.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-china-can-cause-the-death-of-the-dollar-and-the-entire-u-s-financial-system/5357311

    The story linked to describes what is likely going to happen first: a crash of the global financial system. This will would throw the world (not just the US) in a deep depression, causing a collapse of demand for fossil fuel. ‘Peak oil’ by that time will be the least of our worries.

  2. BillT on Mon, 11th Nov 2013 1:01 pm 

    Such a collapse may happen, but then again, it may not. It all depends on timing and what is set up to replace the dollar when the rug is pulled out from under it.

    The demand for energy is not going to stop, at least not in the East and the southern hemisphere. China is setting up a financial network to replace the dollar system as we type. They already have over half of the world’s population in the new system. A few more years and only the West may be affected seriously by the dollar collapse. I suspect that the East and south can easily soak up what oil will be recovered after the dollar collapse.

    After all, how much is $1.3 trillion in USBonds worth if it is toilet paper, and poor quality paper at that? Think Zimbabwe.

  3. rockman on Mon, 11th Nov 2013 4:09 pm 

    “‘Peak oil’ by that time will be the least of our worries.” Or not depending upon how one defines “PO”. Which is why I try to get folks way from “PO” and focus on that acronym some dislike: POD…peak oil dynamic. Which is exactly what you’re describing: the linkage between energy costs, availability, economic stability, geopolitical issues, etc. Folks don’t like the all-inclusiveness of the POD. But life as we know it is all-inclusive. Oil production rates, consumption, prices, employment, military adventures, etc. don’t exist in their own separate worlds. They are all connected to each other in an endless string of feedback loops. Evaluating one aspect while ignoring the rest leads nowhere IMHO.

  4. shortonoil on Mon, 11th Nov 2013 5:11 pm 

    Petroleum is a commodity that is used as an energy source. The amount of energy that a unit of a particular crude can contribute to the overall economy determines its quality. This varies considerably between various crude sources. What is known as light sweet has a very high energy delivery capability, heavy – less so, and shale oil is very low, to nonexistent. When a large quantity of shale oil is added to the overall mix, the average quality of the supply is reduced. Because petroleum drives its own demand, being that it is essential for driving of the economy, lower quality crude produces a weaker economy, thus a lower demand.

    It is no coincidence that we are seeing a slowing world economy, increasing petroleum inventories, and a declining price. (This is not just the effect of shale oil, the quality of the entire supply is slowly declining.) The consumer will not, and can not pay a higher price for a lower quality product. Neither are they willing, or able to use greater amounts of it. Shale oil is now, however, the primary reason we are seeing prices being suppressed; and this will result in marginal wells (strippers) being shut-in. This is the loss of a supply of higher quality product that will be lost forever.

    Shale oil does not, and can not replace conventional crude. An economy driven by shale oil would constitute no economy at all!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *