We have already entered peak oil,’ IEA source reportedly claims

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/we-entered-peak-oil-iea-source-reportedly-claims/
By Stephen C. Webster

Two International Energy Agency whistleblowers have come forward with startling claims about the world's supply of crude oil, according to a report published Tuesday.

"We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone," an unnamed former IEA official told British newspaper The Guardian. "I think that the situation is really bad."

A second whistleblower reportedly claimed that the IEA's current figures are inflated due to pressure from the United States and a pervasive fear that the announcement of falling oil output in the future could cause markets to respond with panic.

The claims come on the same day the IEA plans to publish its annual "World Energy Outlook" report for 2009.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further," one of the IEA sources reportedly told the paper. "And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources."

The agency reported in its 2008 World Energy Outlook that a field-by-field analysis of production trends revealed "that decline rates are likely to rise significantly in the long term, from an average of 6.7% today to 8.6% in 2030."

The whistleblowers see things differently.

"The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," one of the sources claimed. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this."

In a 2008 interview with Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA, Guardian environment writer George Monbiot reported that the IEA had expected peak oil output to be reached in a decade or two.

"In terms of non-Opec [countries outside the big oil producers' cartel]," Birol reportedly said, "we are expecting that in three, four years' time the production of conventional oil will come to a plateau, and start to decline. In terms of the global picture, assuming that Opec will invest in a timely manner, global conventional oil can still continue, but we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau as well, which is, of course, not good news from a global-oil-supply point of view."

The 2008 World Energy Outlook suggested peak oil would be reached in 2030.

The prediction that peak oil production was approaching in 2020 was enough to "scare the pants off" Monbiot, considering the predicted implications of a global energy crunch in just over a decade. However, if the allegations by The Guardian's whistleblowers are indeed true and peak oil has been reached, dark days loom for the global economy.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the agency is not expected to announce the arrival at such a dramatic conclusion. Instead, the 2009 report due out Tuesday will predict slower growth in demand for oil, the Journal reported.

Reuters added: "While the Paris-based IEA has repeatedly warned that a lack of investment could lead to a strain on supply, it maintains that there is enough oil in the ground."

The End Of Fossil Fuel

forbes.com

By Chris Nelder, 07.24.09, 03:00 PM EDT

Prepare for a radically different lifestyle as global crude oil production peaks and begins to decline.

You will never see cheap gasoline again. You will probably never see cheap energy again. Oil, natural gas and coal are set to peak and go into decline within the next decade, and no technology can change that.

Peaking is a simple concept. We generally exploit natural resources in a bell-shaped curve, with the rate of extraction increasing over time until we reach a peak and then gradually slowing down until we stop using them.

Peak oil is not about "running out of oil"; it's about reaching the peak rate of oil production. It's not the size of the tank that matters, but the size of the tap.

Read more about how soaring energy prices will transform our lives in our special report on $20 a Gallon.

The peak is usually reached when resources become too difficult to extract, or too expensive, or they are replaced by something cheaper, better or more plentiful. Unfortunately, we have no substitutes for oil that are cheaper or better.

According to the best available data, we are now at the peak rate of oil production. After over a century of continual growth, global conventional crude oil production topped out in 2005 at just over 74 million barrels per day (mbpd) and has remained at that level ever since.

Read All Comments

The additional "oil" that brings the oft-cited world total to 84 mbpd today (down from 87 mbpd last year; according to U.S. government data) isn't conventional crude, but, rather, unconventional hydrocarbons, including natural gas liquids, "extra heavy" oil, synthetic oil made from Canadian tar sands, refinery gains, liquids produced from the conversion of coal and natural gas, and biofuels.

Oil production is expected to go into terminal decline around 2012. The principal reason is that the largest and most productive fields are becoming depleted while new discoveries have been progressively smaller and of lesser quality. Discovery of new oil peaked over 40 years ago and has been declining ever since despite furious drilling and unprecedentedly high prices.

When it begins to decline, rate of crude production is projected to fall at 5%, or over four mbpd, per year--roughly equivalent to losing the entire production of Latin America or Europe every year. The decline rate will likely accelerate to over 10% per year by 2030.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency estimates that the world would need to add the equivalent of six new Saudi Arabias by 2030 in order to meet declining production and growing demand. Obviously, there aren't another six Saudi Arabias waiting to be discovered, and unconventional liquid fuels simply cannot fill such a yawning gap.

Natural gas is likewise expected to peak some time around 2010-2020, and coal around 2020-2030. Oil, natural gas and coal together provide 86% of the world's primary energy.

By the end of this century, nearly all of the economically recoverable fossil fuels will be gone. From now until then, what remains will be rationed by price. There will be shortages.

Renewable energy--solar, wind, geothermal--currently makes up less than 2% of the world's primary energy supply, and although growing very rapidly, it is not on course to fill the fossil fuel gap, either.

As fossil fuels peak and then decline, the world's economies will be forced for the first time to live within a shrinking, not expanding, energy budget. They will adapt to this new reality by repeating the cycle we saw over the last 18 months: commodity price spikes, leading to economic destruction, leading to supply destruction, leading back to price spikes. Only in recessionary periods, like now, will there be excess supply.

How this will affect the global economy, and our lifestyles, cannot be overstated. Former chief economist for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce World Markets, Jeff Rubin, and oil investment banker Matthew Simmons have concluded that it means no less than the end of globalization.

Americans, who constitute 4% of the world population but consume 25% of its energy, will have radically different lifestyles. Production of everything will have to be re-localized. Instead of our food traveling an average 1,500 miles before it reaches us, it will have to come from nearby and use organic methods instead of requiring 10 calories of fossil fuel inputs for every calorie of food we eat.

Rather than shipping ore to China and shipping it back to the U.S. as steel, we'll need to revive our domestic steel industry. "Bedroom communities" will die and ideally be reborn as fully functional independent communities. It means the end of long commutes.

The coming energy shortage is the most serious crisis the world has ever faced, but it could have a very positive outcome. In theory, the Earth's wind, solar, geothermal and marine resources could each provide more than the total energy the world consumes every day, if we had the ability to harvest them.

As fossil fuel prices rise, the price of renewably generated electricity will continue to fall. If we are wise and lucky, we will rapidly improve the efficiency of our built environment, deploy renewable capacity and convert to an all-electric infrastructure that runs on it. Fortunately, political momentum is now leaning strongly in this direction.

If we move fast to re-localize production and proceed with the renewable revolution, we could end the 21st century with a largely carbon-free economy, putting an end to climate change and averting resource wars. We would have healthier food and a safer, more resilient and equitable world.

Chris Nelder is the author of Profit from the Peak--The End of Oil and the Greatest Investment Event of the Century and the coauthor of Investing in Renewable Energy. He blogs on GetRealList.

'$20 Per Gallon' by Christopher Steiner

Los Angeles Times

Christopher Steiner looks ahead and projects, $2 at a time, how rising gasoline prices will transform civilization.

By Matthew DeBord

Amazon.com - $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better

During the summer of 2008, Americans found out just how much was too much to pay for gas. On July 11, a barrel of oil hit $147.27, which translated into $4.11 for a gallon of regular gas at the pump -- the highest price ever reached in the U.S. And that was just the average. In some places, the price got close to $5 a gallon. It was the Summer of Pain.

Many people who'd never heard of "peak oil," or who'd been trading in one SUV for another, or who'd scoffed at the idea that Americans would ever drive less, suddenly learned that when the price of a finite commodity spikes, even cherished habits change. And it's not just about driving: Our entire American way of life, in fact much of the global economy, has been built over decades on cheap oil: Seafood and plastic toys from China can flow freely around the world. The price of bread and milk stays low. Airlines can engage in price wars.

But when the price of oil rises dramatically, inflation can kick in, scarcity can become the order of the day, freeways empty, General Motors and Chrysler slide into bankruptcy, and the American way of life grinds to a halt. Of course, after the price of oil crested in 2008, it quickly collapsed, leading some observers to speculate that the Summer of Pain was a blip on the radar.

But for the first six months of this year, the price was steadily rising. Though it has stabilized and even fallen in recent weeks, it may begin a slow, undulant march until gas literally costs too much for anyone.

This is the altered state of petroleum consciousness that Christopher Steiner, a trained engineer and writer for Forbes, envisions. And it's happening quickly, he points out. "As the middle class continues to explode in China, India, and scores of other spots circling the earth, hundreds of millions of additional cars will hit the roads," he writes. Many of those cars will be like the $2,200 Tata Nano, a "people's car" created for Indian consumers who've been riding bicycles and motor scooters for generations. "People want what Americans have had for decades: easy cars and an easy life. These people will get what they want, but in the process they will catalyze a global economic reformation on a scale never seen. . . . " Even the tattered remnants of the Detroit Big Three want a piece of this market: As General Motors left bankruptcy at home, it was selling more cars than ever in China.

Steiner has adopted a nicely readable structure for the book. Starting at $4 a gallon, each chapter tracks what will happen when gas hits a particular price, escalating by $2 until he gets to $20. He visits an airplane graveyard in order to explain how $8-a-gallon gas will crush the airline industry. At $14, he checks out an abandoned Wal-Mart "ghost box" and imagines a grim end to the car-dominated exurb. "Stores will return to the downtowns of yore as small towns' populations . . . return to the small-town infrastructures that their grandparents and great-grandparents built."

By $18 a gallon, high-speed railroads serve our travel needs, and by $20 a gallon, we just can't do oil anymore. And like a lot of people who've studied our post-oil energy options, he comes down on the side of nuclear. Eventually, he's replaced transatlantic flights with leisurely ocean passages akin to the grand liners of yesteryear. Except these new Queen Marys will run on nuclear reactors. Personal cars will be a thing of the past. Citizens of the future will wonder why we ever thought we needed them.

By now, you may have noticed a great bifurcation here, typical of newbies to the study of spiking oil prices. We Americans will find our existence irrevocably altered to the point where we are forced to inhabit a downmarket green fantasy, harvesting power from wind and ocean currents, breaking our addiction to automobiles and generally living with less. Meanwhile, the developing world will have become the new first world, with a middle class with disposable income that Americans lack filling China, India and other rapidly growing countries with roads, cars and petroleum products. At least until all the oil runs out and they, too, must convert to lives of noble deprivation.

Some of Steiner's speculations will happen. In particular, rising global energy demand could have a disastrous impact on food cultivation, which at the industrial scale needed to feed a populous planet requires fertilizers synthesized from natural gas. Nuclear power will be an obvious alternative-energy choice when gas settles into double-digit per gallon prices.

Personal mobility could be another story, however, and here Steiner gets into tricky territory when he latches onto start-up electric car companies and gee-whiz mobility providers. In fact, good old internal-combustion engines running on gas may be with us for much longer than he thinks. Even $10 per gallon gas would be acceptable if efficient gas and hybrid engines can achieve significantly higher mileage, which is technologically feasible. Widespread electrification of transportation will come, but we could have to wait until the middle of the century, or even longer. The romance of the personal automobile won't fade so fast in the U.S., especially if it increases its hold elsewhere.

There's also a glaring omission in "$20 Per Gallon" that should be addressed. Much of the ground that Steiner covers, with a certain boyish, gearhead utopianism, was traversed in much more apocalyptic fashion by James Howard Kunstler in his 2005 book, "The Long Emergency." Kunstler's arguments, which are actually more ecological than economic, are well known and widely debated. So it seems remarkable that Steiner, who comes to many of the same conclusions, fails to acknowledge a book that's been around for four years and actually anticipated the 2008 gas mini-crisis. "$20 Per Gallon" also reads at times as if it were hurriedly written. Still, Steiner has served up a terrific speculative primer on a future of much pricier energy and all that it may entail.

DeBord writes the Shifting Gears blog for Slate's the Big Money and has written widely on the automobile industry and the future of mobility.

‘Peak oil’ debate is no longer on hold

BusinessDay

Put a group of oil experts under one roof for a while and their discussion is likely to drift to the subject of peak oil — a point in time when maximum oil production is reached, after which it goes into permanent decline.

The advent of peak oil has long been brushed aside by some because it seems like a far-fetched, if not a ridiculous, idea concocted by alarmists. This is despite deafening cries that it is a real and serious threat.

Even among those who agree that it will happen, views differ sharply on the date . Some, like author David Strahan, say it could be as soon as 2017.

Recent data show that the debate can no longer be dismissed as a figment of the imagination among peak oil “enthusiasts”.

According to the Washington, US-based Worldwatch Institute, oil production is in decline in 33 of the 48 largest oil-producing countries. The research organisation says most of these countries are past their oil production peaks. Iran peaked in 1974, Nigeria in 1979, Venezuela in 1970 and Mexico in 2004.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, is expected to reach its peak in 2014, while in Iraq this is estimated in 2018.

Last year’s study by professional services group Ernst & Young showed that in the period between 2003-07, oil production in the US remained flat at about 1,2-million barrels a day.

Oil companies had difficulty in finding investment and production opportunities, say Ernst & Young.

But not everyone is convinced about peak oil. BP chief economist Christof Rühl says the argument for peak oil is baseless. “Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and will stay this way,” Rühl has reportedly said. He says oil is about price and not about availability.

Economist Tony Twine of consultants Econometrix echoes the view that price is everything.

“All energy — gas, oil and coal — is exploitable at a given price. If the price falls below a particular price it becomes worthless to produce. That is why I say many of the peak oil arguments are not well based.

“They all assume an oil price at 30, 60 or 200 a barrel,” he says. What is known as “oil availability” differs at different oil prices, Twine says.

“The projections that are being made about peak oil are sensible in particular contexts. But whether they are universally true is another matter,” he says.

Even in 30-50 years’ time, if oil demand is greater than supply, oil prices will rise “and currently unexploitable deposits will become viable to exploit”, Twine says. O il wells now considered marginal will become profitable .

Twine says there is a tendency to look at oil in terms of its energy content. “But there is a range of products that come out of a barrel of oil — from fertiliser to solvents that end up in paints, washing powder and synthetic fibres. Almost anything that you can see and feel has a little bit of oil in it.

“As oil becomes scarce and more expensive, its use as a source of energy will diminish. But its use as a feedstock for the chemicals industry will take longer to disappear,” Twine says.

Richard Worthington, climate change programme manager for the World Wildlife Fund in SA, says the advent of peak oil should influence how hydrocarbons are used. “It highlights the need for greater efficiency,” he says. C limate change considerations have supers eded peak oil discussions.

Worthington says fears of peak oil should not be the main driver of the move away from fossil- based energy sources. At some stage fossils will be depleted, he says. “Now there is talk of peak oil, then it will be peak energy and then peak coal,” he says.

Indeed, depletion of gas and coal reserves is a double whammy. National oil and gas company PetroSA’s Mossel Bay gas-to- liquids refinery is set to run out of natural gas by 2011.

The offshore fields south of Mossel Bay will not be able to keep up the supply of 36000 barrels a day the refinery needs.

The dwindling gas reserves are to be expected, says Twine.

“Gas and oil fields in SA and Mozambique have always been known to be constrained in terms of reserves. They have always been marginal in terms of big investment spending,” Twine says.

H owever, he believes that the Mozambique gas fields will have a longer life span and are likely to fuel petrochemicals group Sasol for a longer time. Sasol’s synfuels plant in Secunda gets natural gas from Mozambique through an 865km-long pipeline.

njobenis@bdfm.co.za

Could $20-Per-Gallon Gasoline Make Us Happier?

NPR

Listen – mp3

When it's time to fill up the gas tank, many fear the price of gas will return to the $4-a-gallon days of last summer. But according to author Chris Steiner, our lives would be a lot happier and healthier if gas prices rose into the double digits. Steiner explains himself, and the title of his book: $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better.

Amazon.com Review
Imagine an everyday world in which the price of gasoline (and oil) continues to go up, and up, and up. Think about the immediate impact that would have on our lives. Of course, everybody already knows how about gasoline has affected our driving habits. People can't wait to junk their gas-guzzling SUVs for a new Prius. But there are more, not-so-obvious changes on the horizon that Chris Steiner tracks brilliantly in this provocative work. Consider the following societal changes: people who own homes in far-off suburbs will soon realize that there's no longer any market for their houses (reason: nobody wants to live too far away because it's too expensive to commute to work). Telecommuting will begin to expand rapidly. Trains will become the mode of national transportation (as it used to be) as the price of flying becomes prohibitive. Families will begin to migrate southward as the price of heating northern homes in the winter is too pricey. Cheap everyday items that are comprised of plastic will go away because of the rising price to produce them (plastic is derived from oil). And this is just the beginning of a huge and overwhelming domino effect that our way of life will undergo in the years to come. Steiner, an engineer by training before turning to journalism, sees how this simple but constant rise in oil and gas prices will totally re-structure our lifestyle. But what may be surprising to readers is that all of these changes may not be negative--but actually will usher in some new and very promising aspects of our society. Steiner will probe how the liberation of technology and innovation, triggered by climbing gas prices, will change our lives. The book may start as an alarmist's exercise.... but don't be misled. The future will be exhilarating.

Amazon.com Review
Q&A with Christoper Steiner, the author of $20 per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better

Steiner, an engineer-turn-journalist, explains how the simple but constant rise in oil and gas prices will change our lifestyle, but not necessarily for the worse. Read this Q&A to find out more about this revolutionary theory.

Gas prices are going up again this summer, but are you really suggesting prices might rise to $20 a gallon?

That figure lies far ahead in the future; it's hardly an imminent thing. But most people don't require much convincing to know that $2 gas isn't sustainable for the long term. Oil is a finite resource that the whole world demands--a world that grows more gasoline consumers every day. It's important to understand that this book isn't about oil statistics, it's about our lives and the ways in which we live will change.

What do you hope readers will gain from reading your book?

Readers should gain an appreciation for the kind of change that lies behind the growing price of gas. Weaning ourselves from gasoline isn't a scary thing, it's an exciting thing. We're talking about cleaner environments, more walkable lives, better public transportation and more vibrant cities.

What are some of the surprising ways you think rising gas prices will change our everyday lives?

I don't think people realize how close our airline industry is to an all-out collapse. The book details a massive airline extinction at $8 per gallon, and in fact, serious change could take place even before then. It's certainly not something that should be celebrated, but the collapse of that industry will open the door to new ones, such as widespread high-speed trains in America, a phenomenon that won't take serious root until plane tickets become luxuries rather than conveniences. Beyond the airlines, I think people might be surprised to think that their future may not include Wal-Mart, and that their food world may condense, ruling out things such as sushi, but introducing things such as local organic fruit, vegetables and meat.

Is this pure speculation and fantasy or what kind of research did you do?

I consulted experts in a bevy of industries throughout the whole book, so this is not a random exercise, far from it. That said, it can be hard to forecast exactly at what gas price each change will happen. There are many unforeseen factors that can accelerate or forestall a certain change, such as government involvement in building high-speed train networks. If the government funds trains aggressively, change will be effected quicker, obviously. But I do feel that all of the changes represented in the book will happen eventually, whether they take place at gas prices of $10 per gallon or $12 per gallon.

So how scared should we be of the changes to come?

There is little to be scared of. The rising price of gas will unlock countless doors to innovation, opportunity and change.

Why does your book's subtitle say rising gas prices will change our lives "for the better"? How so?

We've grown used to engorging ourselves on the back of cheap oil and it has lead to all manners of problems. As the price of gas goes up, we'll live closer to work, school, eat healthier foods and even be skinnier and safer. The book profiles research that connects cheap oil to America's obesity rate and to the daunting numbers of people that die on our roadways. As the price of gas goes up to, say, $6, we'll save more than $30 billion on obesity-related diseases, 10,000 fewer people will die in car crashes and thousands of people will be spared heart attack deaths related to air pollution. Those kinds of effects will only be magnified as the price of gas rises further. And that's just a sampling of the benefits.

In what ways will rising gas prices improve our economy and job market?

America has lost much of its manufacturing mojo during the last 20 years. A green revolution, fueled by a search for alternative energies and technologies, could change that. Not only will there be need to produce things such as solar panels, electric cars, and new city infrastructure, but the power of globalization will be blunted by higher gasoline prices. The advantages of, say, making a computer in China decrease as the cost of fuel increases and the cost of transporting things all over the earth rises-that will lead to manufacturing jobs returning here, to home soil.

In what ways will the rising cost of gasoline boost innovation?

The innovation game is one that many people anticipate as oil's grip on the world ebbs. New technologies will be needed in all arenas that oil touches, including cars, trains, our homes, the plastic we use and the roads we drive on-and those are just a few examples. The opportunities for inventors in a world with less oil will be prolific.

What kind of places did you visit for your research and why was it necessary to visit them?

Good books need good stories, and it's hard to tell a good story from just talking to people over the phone, so I got out there and did things. I worked on an electric UPS truck in Manhattan for a day; I spent some time on a fishing boat hauling in Asian carp; I descended into one of New York's new train tunnels currently under construction; I rode our nation's fastest train to meet the Amtrak CEO in Washington. I'm not anointing my book or my stories as good--that's up to the reader--but creating an enriching storyline within a nonfiction book was my goal, so I'm hopeful I did that.

So now that we know this, what should we do in the here and now?

Preparing for the future isn't about buying the latest gadgets or the car with the best mileage. Those things help, of course, but they're mere pings in a coming cacophony. People who will do the least amount of adjusting in the future are those who already live more sustainable lives. Where you live largely determines how you live. Buying solar panels for a house at the far edge of the suburbs, for instance, won't alter how the future affects you. Moving to a walkable neighborhood where groceries, your kids' schools, your office or a train are all within several blocks-that's a change you'll profit from and a place where the future will be kinder.

Peak Oil Day

Richard Heinberg's Museletter

By Richard Heinberg

On July 11, 2008, the price of a barrel of oil hit a record $147.27 in daily trading. That same month, world crude oil production achieved a record 74.8 million barrels per day.

For years prior to this, a growing legion of analysts had been arguing that world oil production would max out around the year 2010 and begin to decline for reasons having to do with geology (we have found and picked the world’s “low-hanging fruit” in terms of giant oilfields), as well as lack of drilling rigs and trained exploration geologists and engineers. “Peak Oil,” they insisted, would mark the end of the growth phase of industrial civilization, because economic expansion requires increasing amounts of high-quality energy.

During the period from 2005 to 2008, as oil’s price steadily rose, production remained stagnant. Though new sources of oil were coming on line, they barely made up for production declines in existing fields due to depletion. By mid-2008, as oil prices wafted to the stratosphere, every petroleum producer responded to the obvious incentive to pump every possible barrel. Production rates nudged upward for a couple of months, but then both prices and production fell as demand for oil collapsed.

Since then, with oil prices much lower, and with credit tight to unavailable, up to $150 billion of investments in the development of future petroleum production capacity have evaporated. This means that if a new record production level is to be achieved, further declines in production from existing fields have to be overcome, meaning that all of those canceled production projects, and many more in addition, will have to be quickly brought on-stream. It may not be physically possible to turn the tide at this point, given the fact that the new “plays” are technically demanding and therefore expensive to develop, and have limited productive potential.

On May 4 of this year, Raymond James Associates, a prominent brokerage specializing in energy investments, issued a report stating, “With OPEC oil production apparently having peaked in 1Q08, and non-OPEC even earlier in 2007, peak oil on a worldwide basis seems to have taken place in early 2008.” This conclusion is being echoed by a cadre of other analysts.

Maybe it’s a stretch to say that the production peak occurred at one identifiable moment, but attributing it to the day oil prices reached their high-water mark may be a useful way of fixing the event in our minds. So I suggest that we remember July 11, 2008 as Peak Oil Day.

We are now approaching the first-year anniversary of Peak Oil Day. Where are we now? The global economy is in tatters, yet oil prices have recovered somewhat (they’re now about half what they were in July 2008). World energy consumption is down, world trade is down, the airline industry is shrinking, and most of the world’s automakers are on life support.

It is too late to prepare for Peak Oil–a year too late, in fact. Now the name of the game is adaptation. We are in an entirely new economic environment, in which old assumptions about the inevitability of perpetual growth, and the usefulness of leveraging investments based on expectations of future growth, are crashing in flames. Even if economic activity picks up somewhat, this will occur in the context of an economy significantly smaller than the one that existed in July 2008, and energy scarcity will quickly cause most green shoots to wither.

It is impossible to say what will happen in the future with regard to oil prices. Clearly, very high prices kill demand by undercutting economic activity. Thus it is possible that the barrel price of petroleum may never break last year’s record. On the other hand, if the value of the dollar were to collapse, then the sky’s the limit for prices in dollars per barrel.

It is easier to forecast the oil supply trend: though we’ll see level-to-rising production temporarily from time to time, in general it’s down, down, downhill from now on.

Even though Peak Oil is now in the past, its annual commemoration on Peak Oil Day may serve an important purpose by reminding us why our economy is shrinking, and by focusing our thoughts on ways to facilitate the transition to a post-petroleum world.

What are some appropriate ways to commemorate
Mark your calendar. What will you be doing on July 11?

Help us “celebrate” Peak Oil Day by signing our petition.

Spectre of peak oil prices loom

canada.com

By Barbara Yaffe

Oil at $200 a barrel is not far off and with it a new world order that will see the demise of globalization.

That prediction is put forward in a new book by well-known Canadian economist Jeff Rubin: Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller.

Money, of course, makes the world go round and when transportation costs become punishing people start looking to buy local.

The author reasons that the price advantage currently held by low-wage countries will simply disappear.

And Rubin cites a second factor that substantiates his theory -- the introduction of carbon pricing.

The U.S. -- and Canada and presumably other developed countries -- soon will mandate a cap-and-trade scheme that would impose tariffs on goods deriving from nations that don't similarly restrict carbon emissions.

What this would mean is extra duties, or a pollution tax, on imports coming from places like China. Such tariffs again would negate the cost advantage of imports from low-wage countries.

All of which explains why North American labour unions are starting to find common cause with environmentalists, one example being the Blue Green Alliance, bringing together the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers of America.

Here's the sort of calculation that's not lost on the three-year-old alliance: Higher transport costs flowing from $200-a-barrel oil would impose the equivalent of a 25 per cent tariff on Chinese imports, while a carbon tariff would be about 17 per cent. Presto -- a 42 per cent duty on Chinese goods.

The result? The potential revitalization of industrial sectors in Western countries that in recent years have bled jobs to foreign lands. Don't write off the American Rust Belt quite yet.

"At the same time as North American and European markets return to local sourcing," writes Rubin, "they will sever their trade links with the developing world and force that world to find another way to grow.

"As our world becomes smaller, their world becomes poorer."

This will cause economic havoc in the developing world, a situation that, predicts Rubin, will be further aggravated by the shutting off of a critical safety valve, migration.

Higher oil prices, after all, will mean more unemployment and fewer job openings in the developed world.

These predictions may seem a bit fanciful with oil at $60 a barrel, as it is now.

But Rubin, and most others, believe recent low oil prices are directly related to the ongoing recession and will surge again once economies start bouncing back.

The book, besides predicting a return of robust manufacturing and agricultural sectors in the developed world, is not a bearer of much good news.

The economist believes we are in for an era of repeated recessions, caused by ballooning oil prices that are inevitable given that oil reserves are in decline.

The only way to avoid such a fate is to wean ourselves off our debilitating addiction to petroleum.

Rubin's is one of a raft of books published in recent years warning of crisis and devastation if we fail to adapt to the fact that the aggressive burning of fossil fuels no longer is viable.

In view of all these dire warnings, citizens would be correct to wonder what exactly is on the reading lists of their politicians, who in their legislative priorities seem all but oblivious to the pending doom.

byaffe@vancouversun.com

Spectre of peak oil prices loom

canada.com

By Barbara Yaffe

Oil at $200 a barrel is not far off and with it a new world order that will see the demise of globalization.

That prediction is put forward in a new book by well-known Canadian economist Jeff Rubin: Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller.

Money, of course, makes the world go round and when transportation costs become punishing people start looking to buy local.

The author reasons that the price advantage currently held by low-wage countries will simply disappear.

And Rubin cites a second factor that substantiates his theory -- the introduction of carbon pricing.

The U.S. -- and Canada and presumably other developed countries -- soon will mandate a cap-and-trade scheme that would impose tariffs on goods deriving from nations that don't similarly restrict carbon emissions.

What this would mean is extra duties, or a pollution tax, on imports coming from places like China. Such tariffs again would negate the cost advantage of imports from low-wage countries.

All of which explains why North American labour unions are starting to find common cause with environmentalists, one example being the Blue Green Alliance, bringing together the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers of America.

Here's the sort of calculation that's not lost on the three-year-old alliance: Higher transport costs flowing from $200-a-barrel oil would impose the equivalent of a 25 per cent tariff on Chinese imports, while a carbon tariff would be about 17 per cent. Presto -- a 42 per cent duty on Chinese goods.

The result? The potential revitalization of industrial sectors in Western countries that in recent years have bled jobs to foreign lands. Don't write off the American Rust Belt quite yet.

"At the same time as North American and European markets return to local sourcing," writes Rubin, "they will sever their trade links with the developing world and force that world to find another way to grow.

"As our world becomes smaller, their world becomes poorer."

This will cause economic havoc in the developing world, a situation that, predicts Rubin, will be further aggravated by the shutting off of a critical safety valve, migration.

Higher oil prices, after all, will mean more unemployment and fewer job openings in the developed world.

These predictions may seem a bit fanciful with oil at $60 a barrel, as it is now.

But Rubin, and most others, believe recent low oil prices are directly related to the ongoing recession and will surge again once economies start bouncing back.

The book, besides predicting a return of robust manufacturing and agricultural sectors in the developed world, is not a bearer of much good news.

The economist believes we are in for an era of repeated recessions, caused by ballooning oil prices that are inevitable given that oil reserves are in decline.

The only way to avoid such a fate is to wean ourselves off our debilitating addiction to petroleum.

Rubin's is one of a raft of books published in recent years warning of crisis and devastation if we fail to adapt to the fact that the aggressive burning of fossil fuels no longer is viable.

In view of all these dire warnings, citizens would be correct to wonder what exactly is on the reading lists of their politicians, who in their legislative priorities seem all but oblivious to the pending doom.

byaffe@vancouversun.com

Book Review: Blackout

Domestic Fuel

By Joanna Schroeder

Under the surface we seem to have a lot of it. It’s fairly inexpensive but this is changing as demand rises to meet increased energy needs especially in countries like China. So we have a lot, its cheap, let’s use it, what’s the problem? Right? Wrong!

Author Richard Heinberg writes in Blackout: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis, “In short: two of the defining trends of the emerging century–the development of the Asian economies and climate change–both center on coal. But coal is finite non-renewable resource. Thus, a discussion of the future of coal must also intersect with a third great trend of the new century: resource depletion.”

In the first part of the book, Heinberg takes the reader through a deep analysis of just how much coal is available throughout the world. Keep in mind, forecasts assume that current energy use stays the same, but it is increasing each year, making coal available for a shorter amount of time. Best estimates are that the world will see Peak Coal by 2025 and many believe that the world has already witnessed Peak Oil.

Now, you’re just waiting for me to say there is no such thing as clean coal. So there, it’s out in the open. In the second section of the book, Heinberg talks about the link between coal and greenhouse gas emissions and discusses the technologies to create “clean coal”. They are all challenged to say the least.

At the end of Blackout, Heinberg details three scenarios that involve coal, climate and energy. They are all very disturbing, but Heinberg has a way of tackling issues head on.

“For strategic purposes, it is important to understand our human tendency to discount future problems. We must assess which threats will come soonest, and make sure that out sometimes frantic efforts to respond to these immediate necessities do not exacerbate problems that will show up later. Peak Oil is clearly the most immediate energy and resource supply threat the policy makers must deal with….”

He continues, “If energy scarcity forces policy changes before climate fears can do so, then perhaps world leaders will find that it makes more sense to ration fuel themselves, rather than the emissions they produce.”

rhshovelHeinberg continues by warning if we don’t get a grip on the real amount of fossil fuels supplies we have left as well as a deeper understanding of the environmental and economic consequences of burning fossil fuels..hello Blackout.

Wow, conservation…what a novel concept…good thing the fuel economy standards (aka CAFE standards) were finally improved.

“…Otherwise, the policies pursued are likely to be ineffective, counterproductive, and inconsistent.” Can you say proposed Climate Bill?

I’m a huge fan of Heinberg and he doesn’t disappoint with Blackout. You can buy this book or any book I review by clicking here.

BTW - Richard Heinberg is going to be a guest on the premier of national radio program Pure Energy, hosted by Sean O’Hanlon. The show debuts on July 13, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. EST on 880 The Biz and can also be heard live on www.PureEnergyShow.com.

Peak Oil Blues

Peak Oil Blues

Are you 'coping' or 'freaking out' about Peak Oil?

What's a 'normal' reaction to learning about a post-oil world?

Fear? Anxiety? Shock? Depression?

No one really knows.

Many people say preparation is "90% mental," but how do you separate out what's "mental preparation" from what's just "acting mental?"

Here we explore what we've learned about various emotional reactions.

Our goal is to help you build the kind of world you want to live in. Sanely.

The Peak Oil Crisis: Stifling a Rebound

Falls Church News-Press Online

By Tom Whipple

Since the beginning of the economic troubles some 18 months ago, the question on nearly everyone's mind was; "When will the recovery begin?"

A lot of water has gone over the dam in the last 18 months. An official recession has been declared, millions have lost their jobs, much of Detroit has gone bankrupt and the government has spent trillions on bailouts and stimuli. Three months ago the collective wisdom of investors concluded that the recession was nearly over. This resulted in one of the faster rebounds the stock markets have ever known --- based on the flimsiest of evidence and much wishful thinking.

In the last six months the demand for oil has fallen and stockpiles grew while, oddly enough, prices rose. Part of this increase was caused by speculators hedging against the falling dollar, and part was caused by still more wishful thinking that the demand for oil would soon recover.

A year ago prices rose to the previously unimaginable high of almost $150 a barrel. Oil producers made one last effort to keep up with demand and in doing so may have pushed world oil production to an all time high - the "peak" in peak oil. While it took six years for oil prices to climb, it only took six months for them to plunge into the $30's causing panic amongst the exporters of OPEC.

This led to a series of OPEC production cutbacks which were supposed to reach 4.2 million barrels a day (b/d) but petered out around 3 million due to quota-cheating by several of the more desperate and less honorable OPEC members. In the world outside of OPEC oil production has been steady in the last year with some notable drops in production. In Mexico, output from its largest oil field has been dropping much faster than expected due to depletion. In Nigeria insurgent attacks on oil facilities have brought production down to about 1 million b/d when the country should be producing closer to 3 million. In Venezuela, President Chavez has been busy expropriating the remaining pieces of the oil industry still owned by foreigners. Drops in production can be expected soon.

The net result of all these voluntary and involuntary cuts is that world oil production has dropped significantly since reaching an all-time high last year. This drop in production when coupled with the normal declines in output from aging oil fields and the prospects that less oil will be coming into production from new fields than expected, has led many to declare that the all time peak in world oil production took place last year. While it will take several years to verify that this was indeed the case, inability of the world's oil industries to ever again increase production has unfathomable implications which are not as yet widely recognized.

A corollary of the low oil prices and the lack of easy credit have led to a slowdown in the investment going into new oil production projects. While this has little immediate impact on the availability of oil, some years down the line it means that all of the new oil needed to offset depletion will simply not be there and that world production will decline faster than expected.

One can conjure up numerous scenarios of how oil, which at least currently is indispensible for economic growth, may or may not play a part in an economic rebound.

One scenario could be that the credit and financial markets are so far beyond redemption that the world economy will continue to decline indefinitely without reference to how much oil is available. The demand for oil would continue to decline and prices would remain relatively low so that there will continue to be sufficient oil available to support the deteriorating world economy. This scenario, of course, is one that few are willing to entertain, especially in light of the trillions being spent by governments all over the world to revive their economies.

While the notion of a quick recovery this year or early next year seems to be fading, most now believe that while a recovery may be slower than we would like, it will come eventually - it always has, particularly in the experiences of most living today.

The latest estimates from the International Monetary Fund say that world-wide GDP will be down about 2.7 percent this year. The world's spare oil production capacity currently is around six million b/d. This, however, is not a static number as the world's capacity to produce oil from existing sources is withering away at 3 or 4 million b/d each year and unless this much new supply is opened, then total world supply must inevitably shrink.

Now there is no question that very high oil prices would quickly choke off economic growth. Every dollar per gallon increase in the price of oil products drains about $800 million each day from the pockets of consumers in America. Worldwide it drains about $3.5 billion each day. Most observers believe that as soon as worldwide demand for oil gets ahead of supply there will be multi-dollar per gallon increases in the prices of oil products.

There seems to be little doubt that over the next few years, the world's oil supply will be forced into irretrievable decline from a combination of geologic and geopolitical reasons coupled with a lack of adequate investment. Should the demand for oil increase in the next year or so, there will still be some room for increased production without unacceptable prices increases for a while. The longer a recovery is delayed, however, the better the chances that oil prices will quickly surge to recovery-choking levels. While there are long-term solutions to this problem they will take decades to implement.

At last some governments are worried about the slowly emerging situation. Last week the British Prime Minister ordered his cabinet to start working on emergency plans to prevent rising oil prices from destroying the prospects that there will ever be an economic recovery.

Do you believe in 'peak oil'?

Investors Chronicle

By Jonathan Eley

Debate has raged about 'peak oil' ever since Shell geologist M. King Hubbert first outlined the theory in 1956. It's the idea that once around half the world's reserves of oil have been extracted, production enters a slow and inevitable decline that no amount of investment can reverse. Believers in peak oil argue that once it becomes apparent that the peak is near, or even past, prices will rise sharply, and permanently. Detractors say the theory ignores geology and technological progress.

YES, says Matthew R. Simmons, founder of Simmons International:

"Many supposed energy experts refute peak oil, and mistakenly think the term means that we are running out of oil. Peak Oil does not mean "running out of oil". The world will likely never run out of oil, but the flow of usable oil has almost certainly already passed its high-water mark. Over the next five to ten years, our current oil supply will likely decline by as much as 15 to 25 per cent. In the meantime, despite the recent recession fears, the world's planned use of more oil is staggering.

The factors propelling growth in world demand for oil are simple. We have an expanding global population. There is no logical reason to assume that oil demand has peaked, or is even slowing down.

Oil consumption can never exceed available supply. So if supply dwindles, then demand must also stop growing, a task not easy to even contemplate. If demand grows while supply shrinks, shortages will occur. Human nature will create hoarding and oil consumers will begin "topping off their tanks". The risk of this occurring is far higher than most think.

The data proving that oil supply peaked in 2005 is not perfect, but it is solid enough for a jury to "convict with reasonable certainty." Just look at just the production declines from key producing countries like Mexico, Norway, the UK, Indonesia, Argentina, and many others in the past four years.

All that is needed to end the Peak Oil debate once and for all is an independent audit of the world's 300 largest producing oil fields. Sadly, too many of these fields, owned primarily by Opec countries, still guard their production and reserve numbers as "state secret." But the time is fast approaching when world leaders will demand honest facts about the flow rates of these key fields. When this happens, the proof that oil has already peaked will be air-tight. "

Simmons is an US investment bank specialising in services to energy companies. www.simmonsco-intl.com

NO, says Peter Odell, professor-emeritus of international energy studies, Erasmus University:

"Claimants for a near future peak in global oil production fail to recognise the processes whereby reserves and production evolve. They equally avoid the central role played by both economics and politics in equilibriating the markets.

The world's currently proven and potential reserves of oil - both conventional and non-conventional - eliminate any significant up-side restraints on the growth of production . On the contrary, near future constraints on oil supplies will be imposed by slow demand growth (of no more than 1.5% per annum).Thereafter, the eventual continuation of a steadily increasing supply of oil for global use will be based on the present creation and future maintenance of a 40-plus years' reserves-to-production ratio.

Peak-oilers, however, argue that annual additions to reserves which comprise both new discoveries and reserves' appreciation in previously-discovered fields should not be taken to indicate the replacement or replenishment of reserves' stock. Additions to reserves in previously found fields must be dated back to the year of initial discovery.

Backdating reserves with hindsight - in the context of newly developed technologies of reserves' assessments and recoverability - is simply inappropriate to the continuing economic evaluation of oil exploitation. It makes the past look more attractive than it really was, while the present is unjustly made to appear inadequate.

The current declaration of proven reserves of 1400 billion barrels will likely rise to 1750 billion barrels or more by 2020 so providing continuity for the future of the oil industry for decades ahead.

Even without any further discoveries peak oil production will not occur over this period. Unless, that is, the price of oil collapses so undermining profitable investments in the industry. Or as a consequence of a consistent fall in demand because of renewable energies' expansion. Only then, will peak global oil production necessarily occur."

The Coming Oil Crisis

Newsweek.com

By Mohammed J. Herzallah

Canadian economist Jeff Rubin has a somewhat oracular reputation. Since 2000, he has predicted a massive oil-price spike, and he was among the first in 2007 to prophesy that oil would soar over $100 per barrel (a few months later, he said $150 a barrel and was basically proved right again). Now, even though oil has dropped considerably from its peak, Rubin warns that it's bound to skyrocket once more and cause another, even greater economic crisis. In his new book, Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller, he lays out how this energy crunch will occur—and why it will spell the end of globalization.

The scenario goes something like this: the ongoing depletion of the world's oil resources, coupled with soaring demand from emerging economies like India and China, will send the price of crude through the roof, Rubin says. This will seriously escalate transportation costs, which in turn will cripple international trade, reverse commercial interdependence and disable the global economy. The resulting age will be one in which nations are isolated, technological progress is sluggish and travel is infrequent. The Middle East will be less relevant than it is today, and food scarcity will emerge as the foremost international problem. Countries with a shortage of arable land will scramble and compete to buy agricultural real estate from other nations (for example, as Saudi Arabia is already now doing in Sudan) to alleviate their ever-worsening food crises.

Rubin's future isn't all bad. To offset the effects of the energy crisis, governments will have to invest heavily in national infrastructure (especially public-transportation systems); national industries once hurt by outsourcing and foreign competition will thrive; and the environment will become cleaner as people are forced to use less fossil fuel and as cars disappear from the streets. But Rubin warns that governments can do only so much—successful adaptation to an energy-starved world will largely depend on individuals altering their energy-consumption norms. Still, he is willing to bet that people will make the right choices. All in all, he says, "don't be surprised if the new, smaller world that emerges isn't a lot more liveable and enjoyable than the one we are about to leave behind."

Rubin's argument is powerful. There's no denying that the international economy has become critically dependent on oil as its main source for energy. Yet, like other believers in the "peak oil" theory, he falls into the trap of underestimating society's capacity to meet future fuel challenges through innovation and conservation. The story of energy over the past century has been one of breakthroughs, not retreat—so although the energy problems we face today should be a cause for concern, global integration will continue to deepen and the world is not likely to get smaller any time soon.

The Peak Oil Crisis: A Letter From Baghdad

Falls Church News-Press Online

By Tom Whipple

A couple of weeks back the peak oil community received a letter from an officer serving with our forces in Iraq.

Despite numerous distractions in Iraq these days, this officer is so concerned that peaking world oil production will soon become a serious problem that he began discussing the future of America's energy supply with soldiers in his unit. What he concluded has a message for us all.

He found that most people have no trouble accepting the premises of peak oil- that there is a finite amount of crude underground, that the easy and cheap to extract oil is nearly gone and that world production will go into an unstoppable decline. The disconnect from reality, however, comes when contemplating the consequences of this event, for nearly all believe there are many obvious alternatives to oil. We know what they are: nuclear, solar, wind, waves, tides, shale, oil sands, coal-to-liquid, biomass, etc., etc. In the mind of most, it is a rather simple matter of switching from oil to any or all of the alternatives so that life-as-we-know-it can continue without missing a beat.

The more likely consequence, that peaking of world oil production will cause severe economic hardships that will take decades to mitigate is simply not a future that most are willing to entertain. Arguments that oil consumption has grown so large in the last 100 years that once depletion starts the development of similar amounts of alternative energy will take a very long time are simply not believed. This micro-survey makes an important point because it mirrors the common sentiment across the land as reflected by the media and political leaders. Even if oil should go into depletion someday --- there is simply not a problem.

Our letter-writer believes the reason for this commonly held opinion is the saturation of TV and the print media with the message that our oil companies are hard at work getting ready for the next generation of energy sources. Should we ever need alternatives to oil, all will be in readiness. Millions are spent on a continual drumbeat of such ads each month. They are impossible to avoid and have left most with the impression that all will be well - your oil industry is on the job.

This all-will-be-well message is always bereft of detail. Nowhere is there mention, of the vast amount of oil being consumed around the world each day, anticipated rates of depletion from existing oil fields, nor of the trillions of dollars that will be required to finance the next round of exploiting increasingly more difficult to recover oil. From time to time, the message is punctuated with the word "technology". Not any particular technology, just the implication that the technology which has brought our civilization this far will be there when we need it.

It comes as no great surprise to discover that American's perceptions are shaped by advertising and the mainstream media. In most cases, no great harm is done. A lot of advertising may elect a less than optimal candidate to public office or convince people that they really need to buy something. Usually, there is little harm done although from time to time concerted, successful efforts to set public opinion can have lasting and serious repercussions.

The current issue of the Columbia Review of Journalism contains a post mortem of how well the financial press covered the mortgage meltdown which triggered what could be turn out to be a very memorable recession. After reviewing 730 stories written between 2000 and 2007 pertaining to the mortgage industry, the authors concluded that in the main the financial press missed the run-up to the meltdown until it was too late. This left government convinced that it had to step in with trillions of dollars to stem a complete breakdown of the financial system. Although a few lonesome voices saw what was coming, as a society we were clueless until the banks started going under.

Just as millions were lulled by ever increasing home values that could make people rich, the same millions are being lulled by perceptions of a seemingly endless supply of cheap energy that will continue in some form so far into the future that we need not worry.

The heart of the peak oil question today is not whether oil is going to peak sometime soon - it probably already has. The issue is how soon people and their governments recognize that we are going to have to make substantial changes in our lifestyles and bear unprecedented costs in order to hold our civilization together in some recognizable fashion. Changes of this magnitude do not come easily.

Some hint of what is to come was seen last summer when a combination of factors drove gasoline prices in the U.S. to $4-5 a gallon. The initial political reaction was to denounce scapegoats - Arab oil producers, speculators, environmentalists. Fortunately or not our global recession intervened, forcing the demand for oil down by several million barrels per day taking the pressure off prices and delaying important decisions to another day.

For now, the matter rests. The new U.S. administration and congressional majority clearly is dedicated to reducing carbon emissions in a timely fashion and is taking many other steps that eventually could have an impact on oil consumption. However, there is still no official acknowledgement that adequate oil supplies are going to be a major problem in the near future and that hopes for a smooth transition to alternative forms of energy without sacrifices and expense is simply not going to happen.

Like the soldiers surveyed in Baghdad, a critical mass of Americans and their political leaders are simply not ready to accept the consequences of what is about to befall us. We were a lot closer to understanding during the price spike last summer. Now It seems clear that it is going to take much higher energy prices before we as a nation understand the consequences of peak oil.

It's Official -- The Era of Cheap Oil Is Over

tomdispatch.com

By Michael T. Klare

    Every summer, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy issues its International Energy Outlook (IEO) -- a jam-packed compendium of data and analysis on the evolving world energy equation. For those with the background to interpret its key statistical findings, the release of the IEO can provide a unique opportunity to gauge important shifts in global energy trends, much as reports of routine Communist Party functions in the party journal Pravda once provided America's Kremlin watchers with insights into changes in the Soviet Union's top leadership circle.

    As it happens, the recent release of the 2009 IEO has provided energy watchers with a feast of significant revelations. By far the most significant disclosure: the IEO predicts a sharp drop in projected future world oil output (compared to previous expectations) and a corresponding increase in reliance on what are called "unconventional fuels" -- oil sands, ultra-deep oil, shale oil, and biofuels.

    So here's the headline for you: For the first time, the well-respected Energy Information Administration appears to be joining with those experts who have long argued that the era of cheap and plentiful oil is drawing to a close. Almost as notable, when it comes to news, the 2009 report highlights Asia's insatiable demand for energy and suggests that China is moving ever closer to the point at which it will overtake the United States as the world's number one energy consumer. Clearly, a new era of cutthroat energy competition is upon us.

    Peak Oil Becomes the New Norm

    As recently as 2007, the IEO projected that the global production of conventional oil (the stuff that comes gushing out of the ground in liquid form) would reach 107.2 million barrels per day in 2030, a substantial increase from the 81.5 million barrels produced in 2006. Now, in 2009, the latest edition of the report has grimly dropped that projected 2030 figure to just 93.1 million barrels per day -- in future-output terms, an eye-popping decline of 14.1 million expected barrels per day.

    Even when you add in the 2009 report's projection of a larger increase than once expected in the output of unconventional fuels, you still end up with a net projected decline of 11.1 million barrels per day in the global supply of liquid fuels (when compared to the IEO's soaring 2007 projected figures). What does this decline signify -- other than growing pessimism by energy experts when it comes to the international supply of petroleum liquids?

    Very simply, it indicates that the usually optimistic analysts at the Department of Energy now believe global fuel supplies will simply not be able to keep pace with rising world energy demands. For years now, assorted petroleum geologists and other energy types have been warning that world oil output is approaching a maximum sustainable daily level -- a peak -- and will subsequently go into decline, possibly producing global economic chaos. Whatever the timing of the arrival of peak oil's actual peak, there is growing agreement that we have, at last, made it into peak-oil territory, if not yet to the moment of irreversible decline.

    Until recently, Energy Information Administration officials scoffed at the notion that a peak in global oil output was imminent or that we should anticipate a contraction in the future availability of petroleum any time soon. "[We] expect conventional oil to peak closer to the middle than to the beginning of the 21st century," the 2004 IEO report stated emphatically.

    Consistent with this view, the EIA reported one year later that global production would reach a staggering 122.2 million barrels per day in 2025, more than 50% above the 2002 level of 80.0 million barrels per day. This was about as close to an explicit rejection of peak oil that you could get from the EIA's experts.

    Where Did All the Oil Go?

    Now, let's turn back to the 2009 edition. In 2025, according to this new report, world liquids output, conventional and unconventional, will reach only a relatively dismal 101.1 million barrels per day. Worse yet, conventional oil output will be just 89.6 million barrels per day. In EIA terms, this is pure gloom and doom, about as deeply pessimistic when it comes to the world's future oil output capacity as you're likely to get.

    The agency's experts claim, however, that this will not prove quite the challenge it might seem, because they have also revised downward their projections of future energy demand. Back in 2005, they were projecting world oil consumption in 2025 at 119.2 million barrels per day, just below anticipated output at that time. This year -- and we should all theoretically breathe a deep sigh of relief -- the report projects that 2025 figure at only 101.1 million barrels per day, conveniently just what the world is expected to produce at that time. If this actually proves the case, then oil prices will presumably remain within a manageable range.

    In fact, however, the consumption part of this equation seems like the less reliable calculation, especially if economic growth continues at anything like its recent pace in China and India. Indeed, all evidence suggests that growth in these countries will resume its pre-crisis pace by the end of 2009 or early 2010. Under those circumstances, global oil demand will eventually outpace supply, driving up prices again and threatening recurring and potentially disastrous economic disorders -- possibly on the scale of the present global economic meltdown.

    To have the slightest chance of averting such disasters means seeing a sharp rise in unconventional fuel output. Such fuels include Canadian oil sands, Venezuelan extra-heavy oil, deep-offshore oil, Arctic oil, shale oil, liquids derived from coal (coal-to-liquids or CTL), and biofuels. At present, these cumulatively constitute only about 4% of the world's liquid fuel supply but are expected to reach nearly 13% by 2030. All told, according to estimates in the new IEO report, unconventional liquid production will reach an estimated 13.4 million barrels per day in 2030, up from a projected 9.7 million barrels in the 2008 edition.

    But for an expansion on this scale to occur, whole new industries will have to be created to manufacture such fuels at a cost of several trillion dollars. This undertaking, in turn, is provoking a wide-ranging debate over the environmental consequences of producing such fuels.

    For example, any significant increase in biofuels use -- assuming such fuels were produced by chemical means rather than, as now, by cooking -- could substantially reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, actually slowing the tempo of future climate change. On the other hand, any increase in the production of Canadian oil sands, Venezuelan extra-heavy oil, and Rocky Mountain shale oil will entail energy-intensive activities at staggering levels, sure to emit vast amounts of CO2, which might more than cancel out any gains from the biofuels.

    In addition, increased biofuels production risks the diversion of vast tracts of arable land from the crucial cultivation of basic food staples to the manufacture of transportation fuel. If, as is likely, oil prices continue to rise, expect it to be ever more attractive for farmers to grow more corn and other crops for eventual conversion to transportation fuels, which means rises in food costs that could price basics out of the range of the very poor, while stretching working families to the limit. As in May and June of 2008, when food riots spread across the planet in response to high food prices -- caused, in part, by the diversion of vast amounts of corn acreage to biofuel production -- this could well lead to mass unrest and mass starvation.

    A Heavy Energy Footprint on the Planet

    The geopolitical implications of this transformation could well be striking. Among other developments, the global clout of Canada, Venezuela, and Brazil -- all key producers of unconventional fuels -- is bound to be strengthened.

    Canada is becoming increasingly important as the world's leading producer of oil sands, or bitumen -- a thick, gooey, viscous material that must be dug out of the ground and treated in various energy-intensive ways before it can be converted into synthetic petroleum fuel (synfuel). According to the IEO report, oil sands production, now at 1.3 million barrels a day and barely profitable, could hit the 4.4 million barrel mark (or even, according to the most optimistic scenarios, 6.5 million barrels) by 2030.

    Given the IEA's new projections, this would represent an extraordinary addition to global energy supplies just when key sources of conventional oil in places like Mexico and the North Sea are expected to suffer severe declines. The extraction of oil sands, however, could prove a pollution disaster of the first order. For one thing, remarkable infusions of old-style energy are needed to extract this new energy, huge forest tracts would have to be cleared, and vast quantities of water used for the steam necessary to dislodge the buried goo (just as the equivalent of "peak water" may be arriving).

    What this means is that the accelerated production of oil sands is sure to be linked to environmental despoliation, pollution, and global warming. There is considerable doubt that Canadian officials and the general public will, in the end, be willing to pay the economic and environmental price involved. In other words, whatever the IEA may project now, no one can know whether synfuels will really be available in the necessary quantities 15 or 20 years down the road.

    Venezuela has long been an important source of crude oil for the United States, generating much of the revenue used by President Hugo Chávez to sustain his social experiments at home and an ambitious anti-American political agenda abroad. In the coming years, however, its production of conventional petroleum is expected to fall, leaving the country increasingly reliant on the exploitation of large deposits of bitumen in the eastern Orinoco River basin. Just to develop these "extra-heavy oil" deposits will require significant financial and energy investments and, as with Canadian oil sands, the environmental impact could be devastating. Nevertheless, successful development of these deposits could prove an economic bonanza for Venezuela.

    The big winner in these grim energy sweepstakes, however, is likely to be Brazil. Already a major producer of ethanol, it is expected to see a huge increase in unconventional oil output once its new ultra-deep fields in the "subsalt" Campos and Santos basins come on-line. These are massive offshore oil deposits buried beneath thick layers of salt some 100 miles off the coast of Rio de Janeiro and several miles beneath the ocean's surface.

    When the substantial technical challenges to exploiting these undersea fields are overcome, Brazil's output could soar by as much as three million barrels per day. By 2030, Brazil should be a major player in the world energy equation, having succeeded Venezuela as South America's leading petroleum producer.

    New Powers, New Problems

    The IEO report hints at other geopolitical changes occurring in the global energy landscape, especially an expected stunning increase in the share of the global energy supply consumed in Asia and a corresponding decline by the United States, Japan, and other "First World" powers. In 1990, the developing nations of Asia and the Middle East accounted for only 17% of world energy consumption; by 2030, that number, the report suggests, should reach 41%, matching that of the major First World powers.

    All recent editions of the report have predicted that China would eventually overtake the United States as number one energy consumer. What's notable is how quickly the 2009 edition expects that to happen. The 2006 report had China assuming the leadership position in a 2026-2030 timeframe; in 2007, it was 2021-2024; in 2008, it was 2016-2020. This year, the EIA is projecting that China will overtake the United States between 2010 and 2014.

    It's easy enough to overlook these shifting estimates, since the reports don't emphasize how they have changed from year to year. What they suggest, however, is that the United States will face ever fiercer competition from China in the global struggle to secure adequate supplies of energy to meet national needs.

    Given what we have learned about the dwindling prospects for adequate future oil supplies, we are sure to face increased geopolitical competition and strife between the two countries in those few areas that are capable of producing additional quantities of oil (and undoubtedly genuine desperation among many other countries with far less resources and power).

    And much else follows: As the world's leading energy consumer, Beijing will undoubtedly play a far more critical role in setting international energy policies and prices, undercutting the pivotal role long played by Washington. It is not hard to imagine, then, that major oil producers in the Middle East and Africa will see it as in their interest to deepen political and economic ties with China at the expense of the United States. China can also be expected to maintain close ties with oil providers like Iran and Sudan, no matter how this clashes with American foreign policy objectives.

    At first glance, the International Energy Outlook for 2009 hardly looks different from previous editions: a tedious compendium of tables and text on global energy trends. Looked at another way, however, it trumpets the headlines of the future -- and their news is not comforting.

    The global energy equation is changing rapidly, and with it is likely to come great power competition, economic peril, rising starvation, growing unrest, environmental disaster, and shrinking energy supplies, no matter what steps are taken. No doubt the 2010 edition of the report and those that follow will reveal far more, but the new trends in energy on the planet are already increasingly evident -- and unsettling.

    Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, and the author, most recently, of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (Henry Holt). A DVD of the documentary film based on his previous book, Blood and Oil, is available by clicking here.

Copyright 2009 Michael T. Klare

The Peak Oil Crisis: Watching a Mega-Crisis

Falls Church News-Press Online

By Tom Whipple

In the last few weeks there have been a number of developments that may provide an insight into the next few years - but first let's review.

We, in America, are deep in the midst of a four-sided crisis. The first side is an economic slump; second, surprisingly, is our government's panicky efforts to stabilize the situation; third, the imminent peaking of fossil fuels and numerous other resources that seems to be in abeyance for the moment; and fourth, global warming which in the long run could overshadow the other three by a wide margin and is attracting considerable amounts of government and Congressional attention.

The important point is that the four aspects of what could easily turn out to be the mega-crisis of the century are all interrelated. Developments in any of the four will cause perturbations for better or worse in the others.

Most believe our current economic problem was caused by the extension of too much credit, too freely, and to the wrong people, over the last 30-40 years. Some, however, are suspicious that the many-fold run-up in oil prices from their historic $10 or $20 a barrel that sopped up so much consumer purchasing power may have had more than a little to do with our current economic problems.

While the consequences of the economic downturn are well understood, we are just starting to appreciate that the massive governmental effort to keep a recession from turning into a depression is threatening unprecedented repercussions of its own. In the last 10 months, the U.S. government and its central bank have spent or issued guarantees approaching $12 trillion in efforts to boost the economy. During the current fiscal year, the US will sell $3.25 trillion in new securities vs. $892 billion worth last fiscal year. Some are already calling this phenomenon the "bailout bubble" and are worried that deficit financing on this scale could destroy the dollar and take much of the U.S. economy with it.

People who claim to understand such things continue to assure us that additional trillions in deficit financing will not be a problem and that anything is better than allowing our economy to slip into another great depression. Despite the government's best efforts, however, interest rates have begun to rise and last week took a rather substantial jump. This in turn could hamper a recovery in the housing market. The recent fall of the U.S. dollar is a companion signal that all is not well. Whether the falling dollar and the increase in interest rates will continue much longer is anybody's guess, but it won't take much more of a move before prospects for an early economic recovery are seriously harmed.

While many different natural resources - fossil fuels, minerals, fresh water - are in danger of running short within next few decades, oil production which probably has already passed its all-time peak looks like the best bet to interfere with, and eventually stymie, an economic recovery. Crude oil prices have doubled since the end of January and may go higher on expectations that an economic recovery is underway. While crude prices are still less than half the $147 a barrel they reached last July, it is getting close to the level where economic damage could be inflicted. While the demand for commercial fuels for trucks and jet planes is down, gasoline demand has not fallen much as prices have edged up.

While the interaction among the four major factors that will have much to do with our economic future - the recession, the bailout, peak oil, and global warming - is easy to understand, the timing and nature of all the possible interactions are difficult to comprehend. Oil supply and demand are relatively easy to track, but no one as yet seems to have a firm insight into whether, when, and how fast massive deficit spending is going to lead to serious trouble.

Any increase in demand from a revitalized economy is almost certain to drive oil prices higher. In the last eight months, OPEC has reduced its oil production by about three million b/d which has kept production closer to demand for the time being. Although a few members of OPEC currently have surplus production capacity that could be turned into increased production, every year we are extracting some 30 billion barrels of mostly easy and cheap-to-produce oil. The simple message is that in three to four years excess production capacity is likely to be eaten up by depletion. After that increased oil production will become very expensive and take considerable effort. Much higher prices and considerable economic damage are virtually certain.

To summarize our situation: If and when the U.S. and world economy rebounds significantly, the increased demand for oil will quickly lead to higher prices which in turn is likely to choke off the rebound; if the U.S. and world economy continues to contract, demand for oil and oil prices will fall for a while, but the economy will be approaching depression levels; if the massive deficit-financed bailouts lead to lack of interest in U.S. government securities and a weaker dollar, interest rates will soar and choke off economic growth; if the U.S. and other governments seriously clamp down on carbon emissions to control global warming, higher energy prices are likely. Our economy and future stand at a crossroad.

No one can claim to have much insight into the likelihood and timing of the many possible developments that could spring from our multi-sided crisis. The one thing we can be sure of, however, is that the four sides of our mega-crisis are inextricably connected. Any change, either for good or ill, sooner or later will cause changes in one or more of the others.
None of this bodes well for a return to life as we knew it only a few years ago.

We're in for a shock

baltimoresun.com

Vaunted cap-and-trade bill does nothing about oil dependence

By Gal Luft

Now, when the first signs of economic recovery may be in sight, it's time to ponder what kind of recovery we are likely to witness. Will it be the traditional V-shaped recovery in which economic growth bounces back from a slump, or will it be a W-shaped, double-dipped one in which one crisis follows the other for several years to come? Much of this depends on the price of oil.

Nearly a year ago, oil prices hit their near $150 peak. This price shock, according to some economists, contributed materially to the recession that a few months later caused prices to collapse by nearly $100 a barrel. The global recession shrank demand for crude. But all of this is going to change once growth resumes, and the oil market is far from ready to absorb the resurgence in demand.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently concluded that even with the current recession, by 2030 global demand for oil could increase by 25 percent. The agency found that at expected rates of oilfield depletion, to meet future demand for oil, four new Saudi Arabias will have to be added to the global oil market between now and 2030. But the current economic conditions have thwarted the much-needed investment in new production. The IEA predicted that investment in oil and gas exploration will fall by 20 percent in 2009, and the Saudi oil minister is predicting a "catastrophic" shortfall in petroleum production.

For the U.S, such an oil shock would come at a terrible time as hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded governmental stimulus and bailouts percolate into the economy, leading to inflationary pressure and devaluing the dollar. This would force OPEC members which conduct their oil transactions in dollars to keep prices high in order to ensure sufficient government revenues.

While the next oil crisis is staring us in the face, Congress prefers to lower its eyes. What seems to be the signature energy legislation of the 111th Congress, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, (also known as the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill) does virtually nothing to shield the economy from the devastation the coming oil crisis would no doubt cause. The bill's renewable electricity mandate, which requires utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, would discourage the use of coal and natural gas, but since only 2 percent of U.S. electricity is made from petroleum it will do nothing to address our oil dependence problem. The bill's "cash for clunkers" program may help drive stockpiles of unsold Detroit cars off the lots, but in terms of oil dependence it is equally meaningless.

Even the provisions to encourage deployment of electric and plug-in hybrids, while important and useful, will not affect our near-term energy security, at least until battery costs are significantly reduced.

Sadly, the one provision that could have made a difference, an Open Fuel Standard to ensure 50 percent of new cars are flexible-fueled - capable of running on any blend of alcohol and gasoline - was watered down to meaninglessness by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Such a standard, which adds less than $100 to the cost of a new car, could have enabled consumers to choose a fuel alternative at the pump if and when gasoline prices rise to $5 a gallon.

Devoid of any provision that could help strip oil of the strategic status derived from its virtual monopoly over transportation fuel, the Waxman-Markey bill is sowing the seeds for the next oil shock.

A better course would include not only an Open Fuel Standard but the removal of trade barriers affecting alternative fuels, such as the 54-cent tariff on imported ethanol. With a significant portion of our fleet capable of running on alternative liquid fuels and with free trade in alternative fuels allowing scores of developing countries to export billions of gallons of sugarcane ethanol to the U.S., we could withstand the next oil crisis with relatively little pain.

Congress and the Obama administration should ensure that any energy bill includes provisions that address not only the long-term implications of greenhouse gas emissions but the much nearer adversity coming to a gas station near you.

Gal Luft is executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Potomac. His e-mail is luft@iags.org.

Top six tips for surviving post-peak oil gas-archy

SF Classic Cars Examiner

By Owen B. Ray

The debate continues to rage as to the exact date when “peak oil” production will occur, and some of the doomsayers claim that oil production may peak during our lifetimes. The resulting decline in reserves will supposedly cause massive shortages, and the world will generally burst into flames and fall into a state of Mad Max-style apocalyptic anarchy. In case you haven’t been watching the Discovery Channel lately, “the term peak oil refers to the maximum rate of the production of oil…recognizing that it is a finite natural resource, subject to depletion," says Colin Campbell, founder of The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. The day we start to suck the wells dry is open to debate, but there is no doubt that we’ll be bent over again by OPEC and the oil companies as they extract money from our pockets as fast as they pull oil from the ground.

When we have to get all Thunderdome-y to get gas, what are V-8 loving horsepower junkies like ourselves supposed to do? Doing anything with batteries other than using one to start the car is like putting a steak in the microwave, and even thinking about it is cause to be backhanded. (I’m lookin’ at you Neil Young.) The solution has to be loud, go fast, burn something and preferably retain the internal combustion engine. I have come up with the top six totally unscientific and completely non-reality based solutions to get us through dryer times.

6. Bio-ethanol: The only reason that bio-eth is on the list is because standard gasoline engines can be converted to run on it with relative ease. However, that is the end of the appeal to ethanol. Producing fuel from anything that simultaneously jacks the price of food and booze is endlessly stupid no matter how you shake it, and producing ethanol results in a massive net energy loss. Overall ethanol sucks, but it is kind of like drinking Budweiser: you’d do it if it were the only way to get by.

5. Used veggie oil diesel: The veggie oil diesel engine seems like decent idea, and heavily turbocharged, it could even be a little smoke-belching fun. Twin-turbo Powerstoke diesel in a 1966 Lincoln Conti, anyone? Don’t mind if I do. But once everyone catches on and starts pouring yesterday’s tallow in their tanks you won’t be able to get your greasy hands on the stuff no matter how many times a week you try wearing out the fry oil at your neighborhood McDonalds.

4. Drill baby, drill: Peak oil, what peak oil? Drill up the ocean, Lake Tahoe, the Grand Canyon, hell put some wells at 16th and Mission and one in my living room if that is what it takes. Just keep on suckin’ till the world shrivels up like an octogenarian’s butt cheeks. OK, I don’t really approve of this tactic but I really, really love cheap gasoline, but I also really, really think Sarah Palin is Satan’s bastard love child.

3. Hobo-diesel: The most controversial but likely the best local solution to an oil shortage in cities like San Francisco is to make fuel out of the homeless. They are naturally high in alcohol and have a decent 89.4 octane rating, but there are some problems with noxious exhaust before and after refining. Hobo-diesel experts say that we can solve chronic homelessness and a fuel shortage in one fell swoop. However, those pesky “human rights” groups will likely whine about this until we get tired of the smell of patchouli and have to give up.

2. Hoarding: Hoard now and hoard hard. The 100,000 gallon above-ground fuel tank in your backyard will have the landlord and your neighbors up in arms, but give them a ride to Ikea every once and a while and they will pipe down. The big problem here is the initial investment required to start the hoarding, but get some friends together, have a couple of bake sales and prostitute yourself a little bit and you can make it happen. Be sure to have some heavy weaponry to keep the masses away from your stash when all hell breaks loose.

1. Wishful thinking: Gas is going to get more expensive? Dude, how about you put down the crack pipe! This stuff is going to be around forever and it is just going to get cheaper. Mad Max was cool and everything, but we don’t need to get all Al Gore about it. The stuff literally comes out of the freakin’ ground! How much can they possibly charge for it?