![]() | Advice to Pres. Obama #1: An Actuary's Impractical Perspective | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: January 13, 2009 | ![]() |
79 comments on Introduction to a Series: Energy Policy Advice for The New Administration
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
79 comments on Introduction to a Series: Energy Policy Advice for The New Administration
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
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
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Considering the many productive uses of petroleum, burning it for fuel is like burning a Picasso for heat.”
—Big Oil Executive
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- 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
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
I would not worry too much about Obama getting the collective "wisdom" posted at TOD. He and his cabinet are well aware of the situation IMO.
Priority number one for him is fixing the mess left by the Bush Administration. Oil is on the back burner for now since supply exceeds demand for the immediate future. And if the past is any guide it could be 10 or more years before we see the economy and oil demand increase enough that the constraints of the Post Peak Oil world again begin to show.
He is a practical guy. If it looks to him that oil will not be a threat come 2012, he is not going to rock the boat with ideologically derived "solutions".
The overall decline rate (per IEA report) is 6.7%. But that includes new wells, infield drilling, tertiary recovery etc. If investments are not made now -we will be staring at a double digit decline rate in less than 5 years. Here is a paper linked in last weeks Drumbeat by reader 'Kalle" outlining the decline rate differences between old giants/onshore to smaller fields/offshore.
. . . 10 or more years
In 10 years, our middle case is that the top five net oil exporters will have already shipped about 80% of their post-2005 cumulative net oil exports.
In 2 years, North Ghawar may be effectively watered out (per Peter Wells at ASPO-USA) and Cantarell will probably be effectively watered out (extrapolating current trend). No worries--just the two largest producing fields in the world in 2005.
If US demand falls 25%, that would be the same as Ghawar disappearing off the face of the earth.
In order to keep our imports at a constant rate, our consumption has to fall at the same volumetric rate that our domestic production falls.
This is the post-peak "Import Land" quandary. It's the opposite of the "Export Land" quandary. For a post-peak exporter to keep their net exports constant, their consumption has to fall at the same volumetric rate that their production falls. If we go back to the Export Land model--2.0 mbpd at peak, consumption of 1.0 mbpd and net exports of 1.0 mbpd, with a post-peak production decline rate of -5%/year--for their net exports to stay constant at about 1.0 mbpd, their consumption would have to fall at about-15.6%/year over a 10 year period.
Here's the math:
Production in 10 years, with a -5%/year decline rate: 1.21 mbpd.
We want to then be exporting 1.0 mbpd, so consumption would have to fall from 1.0 mbpd to 0.21 mbpd, over a 10 year period, which is -15.6%/year (falling by half about every 4.6 years).
If we assume a -2.5%/year production decline rate, consumption would have to fall at about -5.8%/year, in order to still be exporting 1.0 mbpd in 10 years.
Similar - but the former is reversible, the latter is not...
...I'm not sure that oil demand has fallen significantly -has anyone got any figures?
Isn't it likely that given the recent dramatic falls people will return to BAU usage PDQ -much less than 10 years- I've already read Americans are buying SUVs again...
I suspect that with declines and a faster than expected rebound we will be hitting problems much sooner than most people realise.
Nick.
Oil and oil alternative supply, demand and price
Energy Intelligence group/ Bloomberg supply and demand graph
Beyond 2010, there seems like there will be a significant and growing supply of $35-65 oil and oil substitutes.
1. Petrobanks THAI/Capri and other oilsand and heavy oil processes could make over a trillion barrels of oil affordable at $20,000 per producing barrel.
2. Multi-stage horizontal fracturing can be used to access oil in the Bakken Formation and older wells. Old wells in the USA have 360 billion barrels left in them, which have not been affordable to access. Multi-stage horizontal fracturing lowers the costs by 2-3 times.
3. Coal gasification and liquification is coming on stream and could be million barrel per day additions and growing from 2016+.
4. Third and fourth generation biofuel processes appear also to be on track to significant scale and affordability.
Having no expert knowledge in this area, please excuse my simplistic question: is the following scenario relevant to the current supply and price of oil.
For whatever confluence of reasons in the past year, oil went over $100 (briefly almost $150). If anyone had any means to pump oil out of the ground, they would pull out all the stops and pump as much as possible – 24 x 7 using every possible resource. Of course, it takes time (a few months?) for the oil to get from a hole in the ground to some productive end use. During this transit time, the SHTF in the financial markets and demand from industrial and motor vehicle uses dropped below the amount of oil supply eagerly flowing into the end-use markets. Now, it is a buyers market with lots of surplus oil available. Once the price dropped significantly, a couple of things happened. First, the oil producers decrease pumping; explorers decrease exploring and drilling; alternate energy projects go on hold; etc. - all because there is little profit motive. Second, the smartest guys in the room (with a few extra bucks), start buying and stockpiling cheap oil.
Going forward, the price of oil will be dampened for awhile because demand from industrial activity and associated transportation uses of oil will be less than the regular flow of oil from producers plus the oil the smart guys can sell as soon as they see a profit potential. After some time (what? A year or two?), industrial inventories of essential goods and services (even if not robust) will necessitate increased oil demand. But now the pipeline will have a decreased flow of oil, smart guy oil will decrease, and little work will have been done on new projects for conventional and alternative energy. In addition, a year or two of relatively cheap oil will perpetuate the NASCAR mentality and the average person will have done little to increase efficiency or conservation of energy. At that point, a new confluence of factors will lead to another spike in prices because, most likely, none of the fundamentals of oil supply have really changed – probably no magical technology break through, no vast new oil field discovery, no reversal of decline rates, and no significant reduction in population growth. More likely to occur is some unforeseen geopolitical event, which constrains the supply of oil that is technically available. So, in a few years (certainly much less than 10) oil will be back up over $100 a barrel – that is unless our most feared scenarios of collapse occur first and the entire way we look at energy now is irrelevant.
dave,
For not being an "expert" you seem to have a rather thorough and accurate summery of the current state of affairs IMO. I'll offer one little tweak that that might seem counterintuitive. Even if increased demand destruction from persistent economic woes continues downward pressure on oil prices, we might begin seeing significant increases in NG prices as early as next winter. Though not directly related to oil prices, most of the US NG drillers are significantly cutting back their efforts. Given the recent significant contribution from the unconventional NG plays and their associated rapid decline rates, the cut back in those plays will likely be felt very quickly. Thus even as we might see a decrease in NG demand we may see increasing costs. And if the drilling slump persists for 12 to 24 months we may actually experience shortages even during times of reduced demand.
Time will tell.
Hi Rockman,
Thanks for the comment. After reading the book "High Noon for Natural Gas" it seems odd that we have not heard much about decline rates in that sector. To the contrary, we have folks like Mr Pickens urging us to use more NG for motor vehicles. Your view is consistent with the "High Noon" book.