![]() | A Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Products: Environmental Impact Assessment of Biofuels | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: September 24, 2007 | ![]() |
132 comments on Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 1: A Flashback
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
132 comments on Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 1: A Flashback
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“To be thrown upon one's own resources, is to be cast into the very lap of fortune; for our faculties then undergo a development and display an energy of which they were previously unsusceptible.”
—Benjamin Franklin
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
- Russia: There Is Life After Peak Oil
- Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.






GAIA Host Collective
Gail,
Excellent article and great perspective. It is important to understand that our challenges do not exist in isolation, but are interconnected.
I am not an economist, just a casual observer, but it seems that during the first phase of industrial age, our economy grew with an increasing volume of debt creating the capital to finance the growth. Projects have continued to escalate until we now have mammoth mega-projects costing billions of dollars. As a casual observer, I think it is likely that as we slide down the backside, the gamble on continued growth will be less prudent. Costs of expensive projects with increased possibility of non-success (Jack 2?) will see a contraction of available financing. Many think that there will be the oil out there, it is just not at an economic price to recover. While this is true, we may find that although the cost increases, the risk in these projects may also rise and the result is that they will be much harder to fund. If we have a major economic hit, with decreasing liquidity and collapsing dollars, we may reach a point where these projects can no longer be funded at all. At that point we will not have the ability to recover the economic strength to grow back into a position for fund mega projects. This will be the end of the industrial age.
Of course this is just my humble observations and opinions,
ej
In Part 2, I talk about my take on the current debt situation, and in Part 3, my take on what's ahead.
I agree, there are a lot of economic issues involved with our ability to continue business as usual, in more and more risky environments.
Estamos Jodidos
I'm not an economist either, but rather a little tiny independent contractor in the oil and gas business that occasionally has a fairly accurate flash of insight. I'm pretty well Texocentric, because Texas is where I was raised and make my living. And as westexas has repeatedly pointed out, Texas is big enough to draw conclusions about multiple basin oil trends, but started its main production enough earlier than the rest of the world that we can make some pretty good inferences about world trends by looking at Texas drilling and production history.
Lately I've been cogitating on the concept of Energy Returned On Energy Invested, or EROEI as we call it here. The concept isn't nearly as complex as the name, its how many feet of drilling does an operator have to do to find the reserves. At the beginning of the oil industry of the Gulf Coast the returns were pretty fantastic. Although the EROEI at Spindletop is quoted at 70:1 this is actually way too low. The Kucas Gusher was the third well to attempt to drill at Spindletop, and the discovery was at 1100 ft in depth. Although the field at Spindletop has produced around 160 million barrels from both the cap and sides, the cap rock reservoir has produced about 55 million barrels. That means that if the total footage drilled was about 2500 ft. in these three wells, the amount of oil found was 22,000 barrels per foot and the total cash expended on all three wells was less than $10,000.00. Technology has changed so much that is hard to make a comparison, but an equivalent depth well can be drilled and completed for around $200.00 a foot ($220K for an 1100 ft. well). At $80.00 per bbl for the oil discovered, the Spindletop well would have discovered $4.4 Billion dollars worth of oil for a Return on Investment of 88,000,000 to 1 and an EROEI of 1,760,000 to 1.
However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the discovery of any new salt dome cap rock fields. The last one discovered onshore in Texas was the Humble Field in 1905.
The real return on investment was nowhere near that high, either, as there were no tanks, no shipping, no refineries so oil prices were all over the place in a thinly traded market. But, the return on investment was so high that Texaco, Gulf and the guys who started the Humble Company can all trace their roots to the 200 acres at Spindletop and it was the beginning of the modern oil industry. Other early fields were very profitable too, and the oil industry expanded very rapidly.
The peak of Texas exploration was in 1930, while the peak of US exploration in 1950. Production for both peaked in 1973. After Texas exploration peaked, the big oil companies began to explore in other parts of the world, and after about 1950 in offshore waters. The cost of finding oil went up exponentially as they adopted much more expensive methods of geophysical exploration and went to frontier areas that were further afield. Meanwhile, the major oil companies had no real setback since the Great Depression.
In the middle 1970's the rest of the world began to catch on to how good a deal they had, the immense profits that the majors were making from the addiction of modern society to crude oil. In the Middle East, the government of KSA (The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) renegotiated the original leases that gave the KSA 12.5% of the gross sales price of the oil to the formation of Aramco, with the KSA owning 50% of the Saudi fields and western oil companies 50%. Soon the result was that the majors were forced out of Aramco. The Iranians threw out the Shah, and the western oil companles with them and the wave of National Oil Company (NOC) production began in earnest. Escalating prices even resulted in an oil price freeze by Nixon in the US, and then the Windfall Profits Tax.
But the market was growing so fast and the costs were still so low that the Majors continued to make money as fast as they could rake it in. But, the Majors became merely the big oil companies. The NOC's now owned 82% of the world production, the independents in the US about another 6%-8% and the majors were pushed off their fat, full teat to sucking away at rapidly depleting ones.
In the meantime their overhead has kept swelling. They can't make any money off fields that have less than 25 million barrels, and they've drilled up all the acreage thats possible for giant fields in US onshore or offshore waters. Thats why they like the Alberta Bitumen. Its the only place they can see a big prize in a halfway politicially safe area. And, they act like dinosaurs on a short grass prairie. Because some of their tactics worked in the past, they think they will work today. Political donations worked wonderfully with the Democrats and Lyndon Johnson, so they have kept putting more and more money in politics. This was OK with Lyndon Johnson and John Nance Garner, because they were good men and true patriots. But they've put their money behind more and more cheap theives who are greedy for power, and now we have the Bush Dynasty, Cheney and James Baker, whom I consider to be traitors because they could care less except where their pockets are concerned.
The big oil companies are just about finished. They can't survive as giants, and aren't smart enough to get smaller to get nimble, just as the car companies can't see that they need to ditch the internal combustion engine for hybrids and electric cars. And what scares me is they may decide to take down the world rather than change while they have time and money to change.
` Bob Ebersole
" the car companies can't see that they need to ditch the internal combustion engine for hybrids and electric cars"
I think important parts of the leadership at GM are getting it - GM seems to be really be putting their full resources behind the Volt. Toyota gets it, though they don't want to admit publicly that PHEV's are the next big thing, as they don't have their PHEV ready yet. Honda wants to expand their hybrids, but they've had a hard time getting it right: the Insight was too small, the Accord was tooo big (I'm thinking about the 3 Bears...).
The rest of the industry is following, albeit very reluctantly. They don't really like hybrids, but most are planning to come out with a fair number of them. Ford and Mercedes are among the worst. The case of Ford is kind of sad, as they had a good beginning under Bill Ford with the Escape.
I'm a bit pessimistic about the fate of Ford & Chrysler longterm, but I think GM has a decent chance.
The only way G.M. survives is by shafting each and every one of their pensioners. They're far more heavily loaded than the other two U.S. makers and the financial news always prognosticates their doom well in advance of Ford and the Chrysler contraption.
I think all three of the big three are doomed and the only way we'll see an auto maker here will be a post bankruptcy consolidation of the big three, picking over what capacity they've got to build 2.0L and smaller vehicles.
"The only way G.M. survives is by shafting each and every one of their pensioners. "
That would certainly take care of the problem - just eliminating pensions would put all 3 automakers solidly in the black, and on an even footing with Asian manufacturers. Other things might help, like national health insurance, or allocating a portion of an increased gas tax to subsidize new, domestic, car sales.
allocating a portion of an increased gas tax to subsidize new, domestic, car sales
WHAT A WASTE OF TAX $ !
Alan
Amen!
Yes, but politically acceptable, right? If no one has credit its an empty gesture, yes?
Trying to think sneaky like a politician is hard work ...
[just eliminating pensions would put all 3 automakers solidly in the black]
Maybe they could knock over a few liquor stores too--that would help their bottom line.
Well, there are several points here. One is that if Detroit goes bankrupt, that doesn't necessarily mean the end of the industry. If they shed pension obligations, they could emerge from bankruptcy as very viable & competitive operations. I'm not suggesting that's not a morally good thing, but it's useful to keep in mind.
2nd, if Detroit sheds it's pension obligations, that doesn't necessarily mean killing the pensions. Another options is to federalize them, which would happen partially in any case with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). That's a choice for us as a society to make.
3rd, we're the only major country in the world that makes it's corporations responsible for health care, especially for retirees. That's an enormous competitive disadvantage for Detroit. Add in other subsidies like the military shield, and currency differentials, and there’s a pretty good case for helping Detroit.
Let the investors and banks help Detroit. No tax money for corporations like US auto companies that have made bad choices due to mismanagement of assets and employees.
US government will be hard pressed to fund projects that will help its citizens adapt to less available imported oil. We need more money put in the energy efficient rail mode, not conitinued funding of the energy wasteful auto/ highway mode through taxpayer bailouts. We need fewer cars, over the road trucks and highway lanes in the post peak oil world. Bancruptcy and subsequent consolidation of the US auto industry will help in this regard.
US did not bail out the RR's except for the meager passenger train business called Amtrak. It helped some banctrupt RR's through loans which were paid back or grants recouped through later sales of assets (Conrail in late 1990's).
The automotive companies are a good example of how the need for growth gets wired into an organizations structure.
Everyone here knows that Detroit needs to be building and selling high efficiency cars for it to survive and the US to transition, but instead Detroit clings to huge SUVs (and the profit margins) and fights the CAFE standards. They have no choice. It is high profit margins or be crushed on the burden of past promises.
How many other systems are going to choose to break, rather than transition, because of a past assumption of infinite growth? How many ways is Infinite Growth woven into our corporate and financial systems?
Pensions are a good example. A pension is a bet that future growth will allow the company pay all prior employees on top of paying wages for current employees. And it is the bet that the pension obligation would be less burdening than just paying a higher wage now (and letting the employee worry about retirement planning).
Both the management and the union bought into the infinite growth idea. And both will lose that bet. They must in a declining world energy situation. The only solution is that everyone loses. How to contract the economy in an orderly fashion with the least amount of outright poverty, starvation and death?
Jon Freise
Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows
I don't understand why conservatives want to default on corporate pensions while liberals want to default on corporate bonds.
What's the difference?
Pensions are much more important to the less wealthy, bonds more important to the more wealthy...
Seems too easy - did I mist the trick question?
What has hurt the Big 3 the most is mainly past mismanagement. They gave up the bottom end of the market 3 decades ago thinking they would concentrate on a more upscale market segment reaping a higher profit ratio. Instead they watched as the Japanese figured out how to make a profit in the lower end of the market and then use the toe hold to start expanding their product offerings.
GM has lost market share almost every year since about 1977. Ditto Chrysler. Ford has had a few years of upwards market share, but mainly at the expense of, yup you guessed it, GM.
They have simply refused to battle the Japanese in the trenchs. Now they get to live with their mistakes. And all the while market shares eroded, execs at the big 3 take home lordly salaries and bonuses.
And they have the gall to blame it all on the unions, OMG give me a break.
It isn't hard to see that yes pension obligations that were made when they enjoyed higher market share and unit sales are going to be a problem in a lower throughput situation. But not hardly the average workers fault. Mainly the total lack of vision, planning and asset allocation.
The big three have a pension obligation of about $750 for vehicle while the Japanese companies are all less than $200. The big three have been constrained by organized labor in some cases and unable to change or close factories. There are a lot of other factors, but we were talking pension liabilities.
Would the vision required to steer through what is coming have worked for a company required to report to its investors every ninety days? Nope ... the slate gets wiped clean and we find out what they have that is salvageable.
Part of my father's pension which still feeds my mom was due to some time spent at Fisher Body, the coachwork builder for General Motors. I don't have anything against union workers or investors ... just trying to figure out what happens next.
Yes, I agree. But the one thing that gets often ignored is that the unit pension cost would be MUCH lower if they had not frittered away market share, closing plant after plant after plant in the process.
They trumpet about their labor, pension and medical costs even as unit sales drop further. It has been a HUGE failure of management most especially at the steering and product planning levels.
They steadfastly refuse to publicly face the very root of their problem, product offerings. And for the most part they have been aided and abetted by the investment community. Only a very few analysts mention this issue.
Simply amazing to me, a retail business MUST offer product that the consumer wants. They have for the large part failed on this front.
That's like saying someone's brain cancer would be much smaller as a portion of their body weight if they gained 100 pounds.
It is accurate to say that the fixed costs of union workers are getting larger proportionately as the company gets smaller. However, "grow your way out of it" is not an achievable solution for a lumbering giant in a mature business. There was never any guarantee that GM could just bulk up and maintain a stable or growing market share.
Theft is always a good solution, is it not?
Some men rob the passerby
For a bit of cash to spend
Some men rob whole countries dry
And still get called their friend
And under the feeding frenzy
There's a wound that will not mend
From the song "The Mines of Mozambique" from the album "the charity of Night"
You can steal the pensions of the elderly, you can extend the Indian Wars to last indefinitely, you can globalize the genocide of "Injun Country" and you can pretend to rule the planet with raw brutality for God and Democracy, but ultimately you are left with whatever love you have managed to give.
The so-called "Free Market" is a tiny invention into which we have tried to imprison all of the genius of humanity, and with which we have destroyed ourselves and our planet.
The best thing for GM and Ford to do is to repent. The corporations have long outlived any good they do. Laborers should be paid their pensions, stockholders payed if any money is left, and the corporations dissolved.
Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. Creative destruction in the capitalist world, eh?
Now that Chrysler is under private ownership, I think the money men will right the ship and either take it public again and get out, or sell off the whole thing in chunks.
Ford, on the other hand, has some winning aces, but is unwilling to play them. It already builds small, efficient (even diesel!) vehicles. However, they well them everywhere else in the world. Why they'd rather flirt with bankruptcy than bring those vehicles here, just boggles the mind.
damac,
I suspect the Hedge Funds plan to loot whatever's left in th pension funds, sell the real estate and scuttle. They only paid the Germans 5 cents on the dollar for what they paid for the company. But combine Caiman Islands bank secrecy with the Bushites non-disclosure for Hedge Funds and theres a perfect opportunity for piracyBob Ebersole
It's tougher than you think to bring European vehicles here.
First, European vehicles use interior components that require a different voltage than U.S. does.
That makes mixing and matching parts an impossibility.(hence GM's struggles to go "global")
Second, European vehicles don't meet U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
Third, a lot of those high efficiency diesels are dirty! Unless they can meet future EPA emission standards, car co.s won't consider bringing them here.
Fourth, and probably most significantly, there hasn't been a big enough demand for diesel cars stateside. That makes it difficult for marketing departments to identify a "reason for being".
Last, diesel is not as widely available as is gasoline. not every fuel station sells it. Ironically E85 is VERY difficult to find but many new cars are E85 capable.
Spaceman said
This seems to be a common American misconception. All passenger car diesels currently sold in the EU conform to the Euro4 standard. I currently drive a Citroen C3 diesel - a small 4 seater, 5 door hatchback with a high efficiency engine and a particulate filter on the exhaust. Does about 50mpg in town. (I'm not an aggressive driver!) If I stand behind it when it's idling I don't see or smell anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards
This is of course just a subjective comment - Ive no idea what the emmission standards for diesels are in the US. I imagine NOx is more of a problem in California than it is in most of the EU.
ps
thats 50mpg Imperial not US!