[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t would be too great a risk to stand by, do nothing and to wait so long that when the impact on the climate really does begin to be felt, the action which has to be taken will be so fundamental as to cause serious damage to the world’s economy.

There is a very strong case for precautionary action designed to limit any increase in the world’s temperature to around 2 degrees Celsius.

That translates into a stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at around 500 to 550 parts per million.

That is the best current estimate of the level of safety and, of course, as knowledge advances that estimate could be adjusted and refined.

Can that stabilisation be achieved?

The answer is yes. It would mean putting ourselves on a trajectory to the point where in 2050, 50% of global needs for energy would be met by conventional fossil fuels and the other 50% would come from fuels with lower carbon emissions – in some cases with zero emissions. Each of those two halves would be about the size of today’s energy industry.

I believe that is achievable.

[BabyPeanut]

Big oil wants solar not wind because solar is currently more pie-in-the-sky and wind is currently achievable. They want oil and gas not alternatives that would take away their market share.

[Frank]

"People have demonstrated that emissions can be reduced – and at a very low cost – simply by reducing waste and inefficiencies. We did that in BP, and we found that we actually made money in the process."


This is very important, but w/o strong leadership most businesses won't start to cash-in. Costs are still too low IMO.


"Cutting out waste is a first step, but beyond that people have also begun to demonstrate that there are practical ways of managing the problem.

Some of the possible steps involve advances in efficiency – such as raising the mileage per gallon of vehicles from 30 to 60 or eliminating waste, for instance, by ending the process of flaring the natural gas which is produced in association with oil."

He glosses over the improvement in CAFE, but it took from 1976 to 1985 to move from 12.5 mpg to 27.5 mpg and it hasn't changed since! To move from 30 to 60 would result in MAJOR savings but it's easy to say and virtually impossible to implement...

[PenultimateManStanding]

An odd speech. He says we should not live in denial. He points out alarming things that suggest a very dire situation lies ahead and then says something like 'we'll roll up our sleaves and get it done!' Isn't the ratio of depletion to discovery something like four to one? Still, this does lead me to think the problems won't begin to get dire until later in this decade.

[ernest]

Oddly enough most people (and posters) seem to think that there will suddenly be time when things suddenly "change."

They are already changing and have been changing for thirty years. Our country has gone from a trade surplus to trade deficit, and our huge outflux of petrodollars are coming back here buying bonds and stocks.

There is still the perception of plenty in the US, primarily due to very cheap clothing and food, which do not reflect their true value in oil used and water used. Also money is currently cheap.

But it has been getting worse for years. The latest interest rate cuts are disappearing and there is no industry or jobs to make up the slack when the home equity loans and cheap money disappear. And with them the "boom".

We will see increased energy prices almost without fail for the next two decades. Though oil may go down to $40 or even less again, even the Gubmint is admitting it will stabilize around $43, which could be $59.

In other words, it is just going to get gradually worse, food will get more expensive as fertilizer and pesticides continue to appreciate (oil based) and beef will become an impossible luxury due to the huge oil and water requirement to service the production. But none of this happens overnite, it happens over years. It is, like all economic macro trends, a process that takes years or decades.

[2007]

It's quite interesting, but a no-BS US company like ExxonMobil seems to be more straight forward than BP when projecting future energy supplies.

Makes you wonder if Lord B. has heard of a geologist called Francis Harper. If not, the later works in the same company. And he has some interesting figures on 'recoverable reserves', http://www.peakoil.com/article1608.html.

[BabyPeanut]

This is a very widely-carried Reuters story.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/10/news/ec ... pply.reut/
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Oil stocks will keep falling
Report from International Energy Agency counters OPEC producers' fears of a potential surplus.
February 10, 2005: 11:17 AM EST

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil stocks in industrialized nations fell sharply in December and should keep dropping in the first quarter, countering OPEC producers' fears of a potential surplus, the International Energy Agency said Thursday.

Lower expectations for Russian supply growth, ongoing problems in other non-OPEC producers and fresh increases in demand have helped maintain a strain on oil supplies that fed last year's 34 percent oil price rise, said the IEA, which advises industrialized nations on energy policy.

Commercial oil stocks in countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) dropped 85 million barrels, or 2.7 million barrels per day (bpd) in December to stand at 2.57 billion barrels, the IEA said in its monthly Oil Market Report.

...skip ahead...

Since the end of December, combined petroleum stocks in major consumers Europe, the United States and Japan have slipped around five million barrels according to Reuters calculations. Crude prices for March delivery were up 50 cents at $45.96 a barrel Thursday.

...skip ahead...

Lower supplies from OPEC's main producer rival, Russia have helped cut inventories. Russian oil production provisionally fell by 110,000 bpd in January to 9.26 million bpd, a fourth straight monthly decline.

Lower supply from beleaguered producing giant YUKOS cut into supply, said the IEA which also lowered its forecast for Russian production growth this year to 350,000 bpd, or 3.8 percent compared to 8.7 percent in 2004.

...snip...

[BabyPeanut]

BBC's take on it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4255445.stm
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b] Strong demand triggers oil rally

Crude oil prices surged back above the $47 a barrel mark on Thursday after an energy market watchdog raised its forecasts for global demand.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) warned demand for Opec's crude in the first quarter would outstrip supply.

The IEA raised its estimate of 2005 oil demand growth by 80,000 barrels a day to 84 million barrels a day.

US light crude rose $1.64 to $47.10, while Brent crude in London gained $1.32 to $44.45.

Cold spell

The Paris-based IEA watchdog, which advises industrialized nations on energy policy, said the upward revision was due to stronger demand from China and other Asian countries.

The fresh rally in crude prices followed gains on Wednesday which were triggered by large falls in US crude supplies following a cold spell in North America in January.

The US Department of Energy reported that crude stockpiles had fallen 1m barrels to 294.3m.

On top of that, ongoing problems for beleaguered Russian oil giant Yukos have also prompted the IEA to revise its output estimates from Russia - a major non-Opec supplier.

"I think that prices are now beginning to set a new range and it looks like the $40 to $50 level," said energy analyst Orin Middleton of Barclays Capital.

[Zechs]

The prices may stabalize from the 40's to 50's for a while, perhaps even a few years, but their nuts if they think it will simply remain that way.

[jato]

I think oil will continue to trend up slowly, with disruptions causing spikes. I would look for $60 oil by summer or fall. I would expect it to trade in the 50-60 range after that time.

Just guessing

[Richard]

BBC quote "The International Energy Agency (IEA) warned demand for Opec's crude in the first quarter would outstrip supply."

If the world excluding OPEC has already peaked (I think) then this is evidence of peak oil having already occurred. Does anyone agree / disagree?

[Grimnir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Richard', 'B')BC quote "The International Energy Agency (IEA) warned demand for Opec's crude in the first quarter would outstrip supply."

If the world excluding OPEC has already peaked (I think) then this is evidence of peak oil having already occurred. Does anyone agree / disagree?

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Richard', 'B')BC quote "The International Energy Agency (IEA) warned demand for Opec's crude in the first quarter would outstrip supply."

If the world excluding OPEC has already peaked (I think) then this is evidence of peak oil having already occurred. Does anyone agree / disagree?

[ernest]

You guys are still talking about Peak Oil like it was a real time event.

It's not. It is a chronological, cultural, social, technical and economic occurence. A hundred years from now, someone will be able to say: "On such and such a date (month or year) the output of crude went into decline and never again reached the point of xxx million barrels a day.

Until then, you might as well refer to the decade it occurs in, certainly not he day, month or year.


The higher the price, the more impetus to discover. Nobody knows how much oil is "left.' I think of it like a tree that tapers sharply from bottom to top. We have picked all the low hanging friut, and need tall ladders (deep wells) to get the remaining fruit, which is no longer as widely spread. At some point the energy involved in putting up ladders to pick fruit will surpass the ability of the fruit to economically support the ladder construction. At that point there may still be more fruit up there than has been picked, but it will be too hard to get. That is peak.

My own prognosis? Thing bungle along for five more years, then oil starts to get REALLY expensive and hard to get. If, at that point, we have not developed alternative sources, the economy will take a nose dive. Bush is pushing coal liquefacation ( Reagan used to prattle about the Nazi German " miraculous discovery of synthetic oil", but it was just coal to gas to oil synthesis, nothing new or startling, just expensive and time consuming.

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ernest', 'B')ush is pushing coal liquefacation ( Reagan used to prattle about the Nazi German " miraculous discovery of synthetic oil", but it was just coal to gas to oil synthesis, nothing new or startling, just expensive and time consuming.

[2007]

http://omrpublic.iea.org/currentissues/full.pdf
The IEA oil market report from january has been released - the unsubscribed version to peakoil junkies. The supply side, p. 11-20:

Little news under the sun but a few points to mention. IEA is still predicting an increase in US supply this year (no joking), p. 16. Basically, large projects in GUM (+220.000 b/d) are supposed to reverse the decline. We'll see.

Alaska production dropped in january because a) 'compressor problem' and b) 'power failure', p. 15. (Geez, no spare compressor in the entire US? Entropy isn't sleeping much these days).

The 2 countries to watch is Mexico and China. They are the pivot point in the non-Opec supply balance. Mexico has barely been mentioned in the latest IEA reports - wonder why - but here IEA spends no less than 9 lines on the country, p. 17. The short story of a short story: in IEA terms Mexico is 'up' 20.000 b/d in 2005 over 2004 (3.4 vs 3.38 mb/d). Most doomers assume that the worlds largest offshore field, Cantarell, is heading down the drain around 2006. However, IEA writes a 'unscheduled drop' in december 2004 is caused by a 'temporary outage' in... Cantarell, p. 17. Guess we'll hear a lot more about 'temporary outages' in the coming time.

IEA spends 3 lines on China and China is up 40.000 b/d in 2005 over 2004 (3.54 vs 3.49 mb/d), p. 20. This probably is so. But how reliable are Chinese numbers? Is there a SEC in China, an independent 'national office'? Once decline sets in, China will be able to mask it for some time.

[smiley]

A selection of quotes from the latest oil market report. It seems that just about any prediction the IEA makes is too optimistic. No wonder they are the only ones claiming that peakoil won't hit until 2030.

It must be great fun working with such an optimistic bunch of people.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Ã')¢â‚¬Â¦..cut the 2005 non-OPEC supply forecast…

……from downward revisions to North Sea production

……leading to a tightening of the market from initial forecasts

However, the estimate for December is revised down…..

Non–OPEC supply continues to lag earlier expectations.

…..modest downward adjustments for Norway and Yemen.

……plus lower expectations for Russia cut the forecast for 2005

More modest reductions came from Iran, Qatar, Libya, Indonesia and Venezuela…

…the assumed recovery pattern through June 2005 has again been slowed.

….cut the forecast of Canadian oil supply

……disruption will be more extensive and protracted than earlier estimated:

…..show a much shallower rebound from low November levels than indicated in last month’s Report

Production for Oman is revised down…..

This cuts 2004’s production estimate…..

[MarkL]

IEA says world must turn away from oil

[Eteonian]

Certainly a sign of panic alright if ever there was one.

In my opinion this is a massive shift of tone for the IEA.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eteonian', 'C')ertainly a sign of panic alright if ever there was one. In my opinion this is a massive shift of tone for the IEA.