Page added on July 14, 2014
The story of America’s new energy abundance has been accepted uncritically by too many people. A closer look at the realities of today and the last decade, coupled with a better understanding of our energy and oil systems, reveals risks that must be discussed and included in planning for the years ahead.
This brief paper presents key information on the role of oil in the economy, the fact that world oil production has not increased meaningfully since 2005, the failure of high prices to create new supplies, the nature and limits of the oil being produced through fracking, the global challenges to oil supplies, and the likelihood that the United States will never be a net oil exporter again or truly “energy independent.”
People who are part of the energy or economic debate – whether as policy makers, journalists, academics, community planners, conference organizers, or citizens who will be living through the consequences of decisions being made – should be sure to consider all the facts, uncertainties, and choices involved in assessing the future of oil supplies.
WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW ABOUT OIL SUPPLIES
Whether we will have adequate supplies of affordable oil and other energy supplies is one of the critical questions of our time. Ultimately this question will not be answered by our wishes, but by the realities of the physical world. In this report, we show why we believe there is a substantial risk that the United States and the world will not have the abundant supplies of inexpensive energy that many people assume. Planning by individuals, communities, businesses, and governments should take that risk into account.
There is a tight relationship between energy supplies generally, especially affordable quantities of oil, and the level of overall economic activity. Simply put, economies stop growing when their use of energy stops growing. The world moves with oil, and petroleum lubricates the global economy. It is not simply a natural resource, but the substance that allows all other systems – from food to cities to (unfortunately) war – to exist at the massive scales of today.
For most of the Twentieth Century, the world’s supply of oil grew steadily, while the price generally declined. This enabled the world’s GDP to expand by a factor of 15, a rate vastly greater than at any time in human history. The opening years of the new century have broken these trends. The price of oil is higher (even adjusted for inflation) than it has been since the opening days of the oil age, but supplies of oil are growing very slowly, if at all, and economic growth is stalling all over the world.
A debate rages: can we return to “business as usual” relying on abundant oil supplies? Is oil going to become increasingly scarce and dear? Will new technologies blunt the impact of oil declines? If the net rate of oil extraction cannot be increased as it was throughout the Twentieth Century, what might happen to the overall economy? What responses are available?
Every big decision we make is shaped by our expectations for the world to come, the world in which the impacts of that decision will play out. We build new highways and airports assuming that there will be sufficient demand in the future to justify the investment today. We undertake commitments around health care, education, housing, corporate debt, or retirement plans with the assumption that incomes and jobs will be sufficient to satisfy the obligations in the future when they become due.
When it comes to energy, the investments and time frames are substantial. It can take billions of dollars and a decade or more to turn a newly discovered oil field into a flow of actual oil. Refineries and pipelines, export terminals, and new technologies similarly require major commitments, not just by the companies making the investment, but by the communities affected and all of society.
ASPO-USA wants to help decision-makers make informed judgments regarding these large-scale commitments based on the best available information on energy supplies, especially oil. Overly optimistic projections and talk of “energy independence” by people whose economic and political interests require assumptions of plenty can lead to terrible long-term impacts that the rest of us will have to pay for for years to come if the promised cheap energy never appears.
A Framework For Understanding Net Oil Supplies
We – society, “the economy” – need energy to get anything done, and we especially need oil to move people and things. This report intends to help readers understand how much “oil energy” the non-energy part of the economy and society will have to work with. It also shows why ASPO is concerned that future supplies are likely to be tighter and more expensive than many think today.
There is a big gap between the gross number of barrels of oil the world takes out of the ground and the amount of oil available to operate society. Here’s how it works:
Merely defining “oil” turns out to be difficult. Crude oil is a liquid made up mostly of a mixture of molecules of carbon and hydrogen (hence, “hydrocarbons”), once any water and contaminants are removed. Some “oil” is so thick – like the bitumen from the Canadian tar sands – that it doesn’t flow freely and even sinks in water. Other “oil” is so light that it evaporates easily and can’t be turned into motor fuel. Biofuels like ethanol are substitutes for oil, but are manufactured from plants that require energy inputs to grow and be processed. Different kinds of liquid fuels have different amounts of energy per gallon, even though we measure oil in barrels (42 gallons), not by the energy provided.
The key question about oil is whether we will have enough oil available at prices that will allow us to operate and grow the economy and society. We will never run out of oil, but rather soon the rate of extraction of oil priced to support prosperity will decline, and the energy profit we enjoy will shrink from current levels.
“Peak Oil” will occur when society is using – or the nations of the earth are extracting – oil at the highest rate ever, and at a higher rate than can be sustained in the future. High prices can have an impact on the economy even before the “peak” is reached, and the “peak” is likely to look more like a plateau than a sharp rise and decline. For “peak oil” to be “dead,” as some optimists claim, the supply of affordable oil would have to continue to grow for decades to come. The following section outlines why we think that is unlikely. [Part 2 next week]
ASPO-USA |
13 Comments on "Oil Abundance? Not So Fast – Drilling holes in the energy boom story"
rockman on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 8:04 am
“High prices can have an impact on the economy even before the “peak” is reached, and the “peak” is likely to look more like a plateau than a sharp rise and decline.”
Ya think? LOL. Too bad we don’t have a handy acronym for this POD reality.
Hickory 7 on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 10:07 am
I would like to see data on the international trade in oil (all types), in coal, and in NG. The total world production is less important than how much can be brought to market at an affordable price, which can be measured by how much is purchased by importing countries. An associated graph of interest would be how much money it took to purchase that importation of fuel, although I’m sure the accuracy of the data would be harder to come by.
Thanks for the article.
steve on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 11:05 am
I was talking to a woman yesterday who lived on the North Dakota border and I said don’t you think they are going to peak on oil soon over there…she said “oh no there is 20 years of oil there and they haven’t even tapped the big stuff which is under the baaken and with all this new technology they have it will be no problem…I did not try to correct her but you can see how people are programed…and it is not their fault that they have been lied too.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 11:24 am
steve — I was just over on “The Barrel” blog and read this by Steven Kopits:
The Bakken and Eagle Ford are both at inflection points. It seems unlikely they can pick up the pace; and indeed, any number of analyses predict the pace of growth to moderate from 2016 or so. If US shale oil production is to be limited to the Bakken, Eagle Ford and recent production trends in the Permian, then today’s growth rates look unsustainable. This matters because US shales have been the growth engine not only of US supply, but also of global supply. Without US shales, global crude oil production would be lower today than it was in 2005.
blogs dot plats dot com/2014/05/01/oil-majors-costs-prices/
Nony on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 11:31 am
Inflection point sounds reasonable. Not peak, but the start to turn. (still growing, but rate slowing). Second derivative of smoothed curve = zero. In fact, you could say the inflection point of the Bakken was probably around end 2012/beginning 2013. I don’t know the EF as well.
Nony on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 11:39 am
I like the point in the article to differentiate between hard to extract (i.e. expensive, shale) oil versus low quality oil (sands).
People who are more commenter types versus thinkers, cough NWR sailor, cough, tend to confound this difference. Bakken oil is GREAT oil in terms of chemical properties. Higher $$ value (on world market) than conventional heavy oils. So…if you want to kvetch about the Red Queen or debt financing, fine. But not the “crap oil” meme.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 12:01 pm
Nony — You’re just too focused on shale oil to see the big picture. You’re like somebody looking at the real estate market in New York City and claiming because of what you see in New York, the real estate market worldwide is doing just fine. You need to step back and look at the big picture Nony, something that you seem incapable of doing.
Nony on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 12:35 pm
I think you have a much sounder place to debate (and be negative) when you keep it to the big picture, NWR. Things like high oil price favor you. What makes me drop respect though is when you expect EVERYTHING to fall on your side and when you won’t fess up when wrong on a minor point. I do appreciate that you conceded the crap oil thing eventually, but really…way too hard. (It shouldn’t take an appeal to authority, the sainted Rockman commenter; you should have been able to get it off the public sources that have been out there for years and years.)
As a point, does it matter that much versus global supply/demand? No, but that’s not my point. My point is intellectual honesty. If you are reluctant to concede small obvious points, how can I trust you to be thoughtful and truthseeking on the big issues. Well, the answer is basically I can’t.
You’re more like a sports fan cheering on your team versus a cagy better making disinterested predictions of who will win the Super Bowl. For a given contest, either can be wrong, but over time I trust the non biased observer more.
Do I have a bias? Sure. I want there to be more oil. I love the little Bakken and the Marcellus. I cheer them. But if they turn, they turn. Such is geology, such is econ.
shortonoil on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 3:55 pm
ASPO has done a commendable job over the years in trying to educate people on the realities of our petroleum situation. Unfortunately, few have been listening. A large part of the problem in educating people about the subject is that petroleum production, although an essential, and foundational aspect of our civilization is complex. It is littered with terminology that the vast majority of people don’t understand, nor do they want to put forth the effort to learn. Educating people about petroleum is competing with a world where everything has been reduced to one sound bite; one meme. A two page dissertation on ERoEI is no match for a phrase like “American energy independence”. On seeing, or hearing both, 99% of people will walk away with the first remaining as nothing but a vague idea in their mind, and the latter accepted as “the gospel truth”.
The world is heading into an abysmal state of energy poverty. A place were acquiring enough energy to grow the food, provide the housing, and supply the medical care for 7 billion people is likely to be impossible. Convincing the general public of our dilemma is also proving to be almost impossible. The voices of reason are competing with a one sound bite world – and that one sound is drowning out the voices message.
How long will it be before we can no longer afford the energy to provide the food, heat our homes, or drive our car into town. That answer can be discovered in one simple statistic; it is generally known as “energy intensity”. The EIA calculates it (with some alteration) and Cutler Cleveland first presented it in his 1984 paper. It is a simple concept that merely gives the number of BTU that a dollar can buy at some point in time. It takes a certain number of BTU to grow the food, heat the buildings, and provide sufficient clothing; that number changes little, but the number of dollars needed to acquire them does.
Graph# 12 at our site shows the “energy intensity” for the last 54 years. How long will it be before you run out of money to buy the energy needed for the essential things of your life? Ask that of someone stuck in their one sound bite world! — KISS
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Northwest Resident on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 5:03 pm
“The world is heading into an abysmal state of energy poverty.”
And the economy is going down the tubes right along with it. Here’s a good recap of just what is happening:
“Credit can play a functional and beneficial role in a society if an individual or company borrows at 5% and puts the money to work towards the production of something with an added value of 10%. That works, because the risk is real. At a 5% rate, you know you will need to do actual work to pay back your loan. And a 10% return means there are things to invest in that are productive. A 1% rate only papers over the fact that there are no productive investment opportunities left, and that they need to be created artificially to prevent the public from finding that out. The entire economy seems to take place on paper – or screens – only. But that’s of course an illusion. We need physical food and physical shelter.
Credit is neither beneficial nor functional when companies borrow at 1% and only buy back their own shares or purchase/merge with competitors. Companies today don’t borrow because they feel optimistic about the economy, they don’t borrow because they see productive opportunities on the horizon. They do so only because, to paraphrase Obama, they can. And because financial trickery is the only way to make people think they are healthy.”
The Economy Is Deteriorating Fast
theautomaticearth dot com/debt-rattle-14-juillet-the-economy-is-deteriorating-fast/
steve on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 6:09 pm
“The Economy Is Deteriorating Fast” and if you tell people this they look at you like you just took a shi4 on their pillow!! Why won’t people even look at it..I have to give Noony credit at least he still comes here and takes his licks! Most people won’t even give the topic 5 minutes of there time! I have said this before but I went to see a rear admiral for the Navy give his talk on climate change and here is what I took away from the talk…..we have to produce 30 percent more food in the next 15 years but the Admiral made no mention of the energy needed!! Why is it that liberals are so eager to swallow the climate change story but peak oil they can’t fathom it….only they wish it would happen…
Northwest Resident on Tue, 15th Jul 2014 12:12 pm
steve — I’m pretty sure that being a “liberal” or not being a liberal has little to do with whether or not a person believes that we are experiencing peak oil right now. I sometimes read a forum called “Democratic Underground” when they have topics related to economy or energy, and that website is a bastion of pure unadulterated liberals. Some of the commenters are clueless, of course, but that is true for any group of a particular political persuasion. Most of the people commenting seem to get it, they agree wholeheartedly, and as far as I can tell there are a number of “doomers” posting on those articles — those who realize that we are approaching a TSHTF moment.
BTW, I used to be what you would think of as a “liberal”, then I discovered peak oil and all its consequences, and I also realized that Republicans and Democrats are just two puppets — one for the right hand, one for the left hand — that the elites are using to manipulate the masses. One political party will screw you, kick you in the ribs while you’re down, and tell you to get used to it bitch. The other political party will screw you just the same, but then give you a hug and try to make up to you and convince you that you enjoyed it. Big difference, huh? Same result, just appearances is all that changes. IMO.
Luís on Fri, 18th Jul 2014 1:06 am
This article is attributed to ASPO-USA but there is no such thing at their website. Who exactly wrote this? Are copyright laws being observed?