Greenspan on Oil Dependence

The US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing today on Oil Dependence and Economic Risk. The only speaker was Alan Greenspan, former Fed Chairman. His prepared remarks seem worth reproducing in their entirety. Although he isn't a peak oiler, and indeed states with no discussion whatsoever that there's plenty of oil in the ground, his perspective is certainly interesting. He's almost a "political peak-oiler" - there's plenty of oil but OPEC isn't going to make the investments necessary to increase production so we'd better transition to other fuels.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Biden, and members of the Committee, this morning I shall try to detail how the balance of world oil supply and demand has become so precarious that even small acts of sabotage or local insurrection have a significant impact on oil prices. American business, to date, has largely succeeded in finding productivity improvements that have contained energy costs. American households, however, are struggling with rising gasoline prices.
Even before the devastating hurricanes of last summer, world oil markets had been subject to a degree of strain not experienced for a generation. Oil prices had been persistently edging higher since 2002 as increases in global oil consumption progressively absorbed the buffer of several million barrels a day in excess capacity that stood between production and demand. Today world oil production stands at about 85 million barrels a day, and little excess capacity remains. Just how much excess capacity, and of what quality oil, is a matter of debate. But no matter what the precise answer, the buffer between supply and demand is much too small to absorb shutdowns of even a small part of the world's production. Moreover, growing threats of violence to oilfields, pipelines, storage facilities, and refineries, especially in the Middle East, have increased the private demand to hold oil inventories worldwide. Oil users judge they need to be prepared for the possibility that at some point a raid will succeed, with a devastating impact on supply.

For most of the history of oil, its producers and consumers determined its price. Only those who could physically store large quantities of oil had the ability to trade. But important advances in finance have opened the market to a much larger number of participants. There has been a major upsurge in over-the-counter trading of oil futures and other commodity derivatives. Thus, when in the last couple of years it became apparent that the world's oil industry was not investing enough to expand crude-oil production capacity quickly enough to meet rising demand, increasing numbers of hedge funds and other institutional investors began bidding for oil. They accumulated it in substantial net long positions in crude oil futures, largely in the over-the-counter market. These net long futures contracts, in effect, constituted a bet that oil prices would rise. The sellers of those contracts to investors, when all of the offsetting claims are considered, are of necessity the present owners of the billions of barrels of private inventories of oil held throughout the world - namely, the producers and consumers.

Even though inventories of oil have risen significantly in recent years, persistent upward price movements have made it apparent that the rise in investors' ownership claims to the world's oil inventories has likely exceeded the inventory increase. This implies a reduction in the unencumbered inventory holdings of producers and consumers. In other words, some part of the oil in the world's storage tanks and pipelines is spoken for by investors. The extent of the surge in participation by financial institutions in claims on real barrels of oil is reflected in the near tripling of the notional value of commodity derivatives (excluding precious metals) during the four quarters of 2005 reported by U.S. commercial banks. Most of those contracts are for oil. The accumulation of net long positions in oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange by non-commercial traders , which is to say by investors, has exhibited a similar pattern.

The new participants, investors and speculators, to the world's two trillion dollar-a-year oil market are hastening the adjustment process that has become so urgent with the virtual elimination of the world supply buffer. With the demand from the investment community, oil prices have moved up sooner than they would have otherwise. In addition, there has been a large increase in oil inventories. In response to higher prices, producers have increased production dramatically and some consumption has been scaled back. Even though crude oil productive capacity is still inadequate, it too has risen significantly over the past two years in response to price.

Hypothetically, if we still had the 10 million barrels a day of spare capacity that existed two decades ago, neither surges in demand nor temporary shutdowns of output from violence, hurricanes or unscheduled maintenance would be having much, if any, impact on price. Returning to such a level of spare capacity appears wholly out of reach for the foreseeable future, however. This is not because there is any shortage of oil in the ground. The problem is that aside from Saudi-Aramco, few, if any, of national oil companies which own most of the world's proved oil reserves are investing enough of their surging cash flow to convert the reserves into crude oil productive capacity. Only Saudi-Aramco appears sufficiently concerned, at least publicly, that high oil prices will reduce the long term demand for oil, which could significantly diminish the value of Saudi Arabia's - or indeed, any country's -oil reserves.

Although outlays on productive capacity are rising, the significant proportion of oil revenues held as financial assets suggests that many governments perceive that the benefits of investing in additional capacity to meet rising world oil demand are limited. Moreover, much oil revenue has been diverted to meet the perceived high-priority needs of rapidly growing populations. Unless those policies, political institutions, and attitudes change, it is difficult to envision a rate of reinvestment by these economies adequate to meet rising world oil demand. Some members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have recently announced expansion plans. But how firm such plans are, is difficult to judge. They and other nations have rebuffed offers by international oil companies to help tap their reserves. Opportunities to expand oil production elsewhere are limited to a few regions, notably the former Soviet Union.

Besides feared shortfalls in crude oil capacity, the adequacy of world refining capacity has become worrisome as well. Over the past decade, crude oil production has risen faster than refining capacity. A continuation of this trend would soon make lack of refining capacity the binding constraint on growth in oil use. This may already be happening in certain grades of oil, given the growing mismatch between the heavier and more sour content of world crude oil production and the rising world demand for lighter, sweeter petroleum products.

There is thus a special need to add adequate coking and desulphurization capacity to convert the average gravity and sulphur content of much of the world's crude oil to the lighter and sweeter needs of product markets, which are increasingly dominated by transportation fuels that must meet ever more stringent environmental requirements. Yet the expansion and modernization of world refineries are lagging. For example, no new refinery has been built in the United States since 1976. The consequence of lagging modernization is reflected in a significant widening of the price spread between the higher-priced light sweet crudes such as Brent which are easier to refine and the heavier crudes such as Maya, which are not.

To be sure, refining capacity does continue to expand, albeit too gradually, and oil exploration and development is continuing, even in industrial countries. Conversion of the vast Athabasca oil sands reserves in Alberta to productive capacity, while slow, has made this unconventional source of oil highly competitive at current market prices. However, despite improved technology and high prices, additions to proved reserves in the developed world have not kept pace with production; so those reserves are being depleted.

The history of world petroleum is one of a rapidly growing industry in which producers have sought to provide consumers with stable prices to foster the growth of demand. In the first decade of the 20th century, pricing power was firmly in the hands of Americans. Even after the breakup of the Standard Oil monopoly in 1911, pricing power remained with the United States--first with the U.S. oil companies and later with the Texas Railroad Commission, which would raise limits on output to suppress price spikes and cut output to prevent sharp price declines.

Indeed, as late as the 1950s, crude oil production in the United States (more than 40% of which was in Texas) still accounted for more than half of the world total. In 1951, excess Texas crude was poured into the market to contain the impact on oil prices of the nationalization of Iranian oil. Excess American oil was again released to the market to counter the price pressures induced by the Suez crisis of 1956 and the Arab-Israeli War of 1967.

American oil's historical role ended in 1971, when rising world demand finally exceeded the excess crude oil capacity of the United States. At that point, the marginal pricing of oil abruptly shifted--at first to a few large Middle East producers and later to market forces broader than they, or anyone, can contain.

To capitalize on their newly acquired pricing power in the early 1970s, many producing nations, especially in the Middle East, nationalized their oil companies. The full magnitude of the pricing power of the nationalized companies became evident in the aftermath of the oil embargo of 1973. During that period, posted crude oil prices at Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia, rose to more than $11.00 per barrel, far above the $1.80 per barrel that had been unchanged from 1961 to 1970. The further surge in oil prices that accompanied the Iranian Revolution in 1979 eventually drove up prices to $39 per barrel by February 1981. That translates to $76 per barrel in today's prices.

The higher prices of the 1970s abruptly ended the extraordinary growth of U.S. and world consumption of oil and the increased intensity of its use which were hallmarks of the decades following World War II. Since the more than tenfold increase in crude oil prices between 1972 and 1981, world oil consumption per real dollar equivalent of global gross domestic product (GDP) has declined by approximately one-third.

In the United States, between 1945 and 1973, consumption of petroleum products rose at a startling average annual rate of 4-1/2 percent, well in excess of growth of our real GDP. However, between 1973 and 2006, U.S. oil consumption grew, on average, at only 1/2 percent per year, far short of the rise in real GDP. In consequence, the ratio of U.S. oil consumption to GDP fell by half.

Much of the decline in the ratio of oil use to real GDP in the United States has resulted from growth in the proportion of GDP composed of services, high-tech goods, and other less oil-intensive industries. The remainder of the decline is due to improved energy conservation: greater home insulation, better gasoline mileage, more efficient machinery, and streamlined production processes. These ongoing trends seem to have intensified of late with the sharp, recent increases in oil prices.

To date, it is difficult to find serious erosion in world economic activity as a consequence of sharply higher oil prices. Indeed, we have just experienced one of the strongest global economic expansions since the end of World War II. The United States, especially, has been able to absorb the huge implicit tax of rising oil prices so far. However, recent data indicate we may finally be experiencing some impact.

Clearly, if the current almost non-existent supply buffer were significantly increased through a step-up in supply or a stepdown in consumption, oil prices would fall, perhaps sharply. This would likely occur even if there were no decrease in the threat to oil facilities from attacks or hurricanes. A large enough buffer could absorb such contingencies with modest impact on price.

But for good reason, holders of claims to the existing private inventories of oil apparently do not foresee a likelihood of change sufficient to alter the current outlook. This does not mean that oil prices will necessarily move higher, however. All of the concerns about future contingencies are already discounted in today's spot price. It will require a change in the outlook one way or the other to move crude oil prices. History tells us that will happen - often.

The U.S. economy has been able to absorb the huge impact of rising oil prices with little consequence to date because it has become far more flexible over the past three decades owing to deregulation and globalization. Growing protectionism would undermine that flexibility and make our nation increasingly vulnerable to the vagaries of the oil market.

Current oil prices over time should lower to some extent our worrisome dependence on petroleum. Still higher oil prices will inevitably move vehicle transportation to hybrids, and despite the inconvenience, plug-in hybrids. Corn ethanol, though valuable, can play only a limited role, because its ability to displace gasoline is modest at best. But cellulosic ethanol, should it fulfill its promise, would help to wean us of our petroleum dependence, as could clean coal and nuclear power. With those developments, oil in the years ahead will remain an important element of our energy future, but it need no longer be the dominant player.

" For most of the history of oil, its producers and consumers determined its price. Only those who could physically store large quantities of oil had the ability to trade. But important advances in finance have opened the market to a much larger number of participants. There has been a major upsurge in over-the-counter trading of oil futures and other commodity derivatives. Thus, when in the last couple of years it became apparent that the world's oil industry was not investing enough to expand crude-oil production capacity quickly enough to meet rising demand, increasing numbers of hedge funds and other institutional investors began bidding for oil. They accumulated it in substantial net long positions in crude oil futures, largely in the over-the-counter market. These net long futures contracts, in effect, constituted a bet that oil prices would rise. The sellers of those contracts to investors, when all of the offsetting claims are considered, are of necessity the present owners of the billions of barrels of private inventories of oil held throughout the world - namely, the producers and consumers."

Well, at least the boy is consistent. Greenie continues to believe that derivatives magically diminish the total amought of risk in a system. This is for the most part [in techinical terms] "crap".

Derivatives can mitigate risks for individual players, but unless full security is pledged, credit risk is additive to the risk of what would otherwise be an unhedged position. The associated risk of a string of defaults can be staggering. IMO if the truth were known, Greenie would be in the same position as the Frankenstein Monster in the old movies with an army of villagers closing in with pitchforks and torches. In a perfect world ...

The value of his point appears a few paragraphs later:

The new participants, investors and speculators, to the world's two trillion dollar-a-year oil market are hastening the adjustment process that has become so urgent with the virtual elimination of the world supply buffer. With the demand from the investment community, oil prices have moved up sooner than they would have otherwise. In addition, there has been a large increase in oil inventories. In response to higher prices, producers have increased production dramatically and some consumption has been scaled back. Even though crude oil productive capacity is still inadequate, it too has risen significantly over the past two years in response to price.

Surely we all agree that it is valuable to have prices rise early in the case of oil production peaking? That looks to me like the point of what you were referring to. I'm not sure I see that much evidence that "producers have increased production dramatically" and "crude oil productive capacity ... has risen significantly." as he puts it. While I would agree that the rate of oil consumption increase has at least temporarily declined, I doesn't look as though consumption has been reduced, if that's what is meant by "scaled back."

The only ways for the market to balance are through increased supply or demand destruction. If supply increases are extremely difficult or impossible (or as Greenspan puts it, "Returning to such a level of spare capacity appears wholly out of reach for the foreseeable future, however."), then it seems like anything that hastens demand destruction without destroying economies is a good thing. Investors buying futures and raising prices works just as well as a gas tax.

To sum the major point of the speech up to just three words:

-Expect increased volatility-

We are just seeing markets at work. As more people think we have a problem (exactly what tod is all about) investors (speculators to some) begin to bet on higher oil prices in the future. the act of betting brings the best guess for future prices to the present, which in turn stresses hummer mfrs and rewards prius ones.

So; tod and others talk up po, a growing number of investors listen, some act (like me) - both on account of po talk and also because of the lack of spare capacity, both oil and oil company share prices rise, a few of the smaller companies manage to expand production (too little to affect price significantly, but usefully increasing profits), and the public squeals but slowly, reluctantly, begins to respond to the prod. Actually, the squeeze is quite gradual - we probably wont get to $10/g until 2010 or later. (Not everybody at tod appreciates markets or the hidden hand; such individuals might consider what other action, if any, that society could and would take that would be equally successful in reducing consumption.)

Incidentally, all this came before. In the seventies the world oil price rose 9x, and during the period the fraction of the S&P500 held by energy companies rose from 6% to 30%. This value is so far only up to around 8%. When the public at large begins to believe in po the rise may pick up speed...

> what other action, if any, that society could and would take that would be equally successful in reducing consumption.

Although I believe in markets, may I suggest the following:

  1. Give any railroad that electrifies a permanent exemption on property taxes for the line electrified.

  2. RRs get tax credits and/or access to tax free 30 year bonds for expansions to RR infrastructure (tracks & rolling stock).

  3. Cities that build Urban Rail get 90% federal matching if they follow the federal process, 75% if they just build it.

  4. Likewise for electric trolley buaes

  5. A new gas tax of 1.5 cents/gallon increase each month (with inflation adjustments) for 20 years ($3.60/gallon) with most of the tax rebated back through reduced payroll taxes.

  6. A modest but growing carbon tax for 20 years.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
Hypothetically, if we still had the 10 million barrels a day of spare capacity that existed two decades ago, neither surges in demand nor temporary shutdowns of output from violence, hurricanes or unscheduled maintenance would be having much, if any, impact on price. Returning to such a level of spare capacity appears wholly out of reach for the foreseeable future, however. This is not because there is any shortage of oil in the ground. The problem is that aside from Saudi-Aramco, few, if any, of national oil companies which own most of the world's proved oil reserves are investing enough of their surging cash flow to convert the reserves into crude oil productive capacity. Only Saudi-Aramco appears sufficiently concerned, at least publicly, that high oil prices will reduce the long term demand for oil, which could significantly diminish the value of Saudi Arabia's - or indeed, any country's -oil reserves.

Although outlays on productive capacity are rising, the significant proportion of oil revenues held as financial assets suggests that many governments perceive that the benefits of investing in additional capacity to meet rising world oil demand are limited. Moreover, much oil revenue has been diverted to meet the perceived high-priority needs of rapidly growing populations. Unless those policies, political institutions, and attitudes change, it is difficult to envision a rate of reinvestment by these economies adequate to meet rising world oil demand. Some members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have recently announced expansion plans. But how firm such plans are,
Leaving office hasn't made Alan Greenspan a truth teller.
  1. Productive capacity has not risen significantly in the last two years. It rose significantly when the price was low.
  2. Which are these national oil companies which hold vast reserves but don't invest in expansion? Aramco is cute and cuddly, Greenspan hastens to add. So who are the bad guys?
  3. The spread between lighter and heavier crude has decreased recently, not increased.
  4. Greenspan repeats the canard that it was only the "oil boycott" of 1973 that led to the price shock.
That's a lot of misstatements for a very lame conclusion.
Jack out of office is an emperor suddenly seen to be naked.
Please don't rely on written transcripts or press coverage of this presentation ... they do NOT show Greenspan's "mood" at all.

Please view the video at http://foreign.senate.gov/archives/2006/archive060706.ram

It's very tedious and very long ... BUT ... you will come away realising that Greenspan is trying to raise the alarm in his own unique way.

This video is a clear warning to the US from a respected figure ... although I'm sure it will be ignored as were the Hirsch reports and the Bartlett reports.

Tedious and long...I'd have added a a couple of choice curse words to that description.

I've grabbed the .rm file, ripped the audio track and converted his initial address to an mp3 file. It starts directly from his first words (over 20 minutes into proceedings, at least 15 of those minutes are a static screen) and culminates when his speech ends and he stops for questions. I couldn't tolerate listening to the first questioner blowing smoke up Greenspan's arse so my viewing stopped there.

http://rapidshare.de/files/22524928/greenspan_address.mp3.html

click the `free' button, wait 20 seconds, enter whatever code is given then click the download button. mp3 file is 8.19mb.  

He just talked around and around peak oil without ever acknowledging its existence:
  1.  Oil prices are due to speculation.
  2.  There's plenty of oil, unnamed "national oil companies" just can't be bothered to get it out.
  3.  There's plenty of oil, just not enough refining capacity.
  4.  The US didn't peak in 1970, it was just that global demand rose above our capacity to "swing."
I love that "take my word for it, there's plenty of oil left."
Oh, and using 1973-2006 to plot out our oil consumption growth is highly misleading, much better to use the last 20 years or so, when we really began to party...
This is very interesting. I haven't read through the whole thread yet, but will now. I actually saw Greenspan speak before Stuart posted. So I got the actual transcript rather than just the prepared remarks. Quite different. He talked about peak and specifically called oil a finite resource.
Stuart .. if you can find it, a transcript
of Greenspan's comments during the Q&A session
after his prepared remarks would be a useful
addendum to this thread .. Just heard him on
CSPAN from 10:00-11:00 PM EST ..
http://rapidshare.de/files/22527786/greenspan_questions.mp3.html

I figured I was being presumptuous omitting the followup questions so I've upped them. The mp3 is 13mb, 116 minutes long.

Here's my take on the Q&A session ..
Notes I made after hearing his testimony ..

Just listening to Greenspan's testimony to the Senate
on "Economics of Oil" on CSPAN ..

He's clearly been listening to TOD and Peak Oil ..

Came right out and mentioned an eventual production
peak in conventional oil and that the National Oil
companies would eventually run out; that fossil fuels
were a 'finite' resource .. etc etc .. Said we needed
to place our bets on the most viable/scaleable alternatives
to conventional liquid fuels and urged sufficient investments
in cellulosic ethanol to determine NOW if it was a viable
scaleable technology; advocated plug-in hybrids regardless
of fuel type; favored massive imports of LNG and conversion
of LNG to useable liquid fuels for the transportation sector.
Stressed that we should be building new nukes and clean
coal for central power stations .. Stated that our 'worst
case' forward scenario would be massive buildout of
coal power plants (clean or not) and a plugin hybrid
electric transport solution even if it meant placing
'charging stations' every 20 miles or so to facilitate
operation in electric only mode .. When specifically asked
if the problem of moving off our oil dependancy required
a "Manhattan" or "Apollo" program approach to mitigate
the effects of the transition period, he was quite clear
in his desire that "market forces" would find and fund the
appropriate solutions without undue government meddling ..

Well worth watching if you can catch a replay of his talk

Triff ..

Thank you, Triffin, for bringing the reality forward.
As a central banker Greenspan didn't answer the $64 question. If PO creates 'stagflation' (prices up, activity flat) what is the correct response? Can interest rates keep going up for several years with every round of price rises? Conservatives will never admit that the economy needs to powerdown.
The only significant powerdown in US history was when Paul Volcker was Fed Chairman (1979-1987) and took interest rates up to record high levels both in nominal and real terms.  The only way to stop consumers from consuming is to take away easy  credit.  He did it.  That brought new car loans and auto sales tumbling, as well as halting home construction.  For the record, Volcker was a conservative.  Also for the record, he was no friend to me, my "low cost" student loans were 12%.
For the record, Paul Volcker is still alive and has been warning about trade imbalances for several years now.  I suspect he still is a conservative :-)

I'll have to check my history, but I think the "powerdown" was underway before Volcker took over.  He probably deserves the credit for killing inflation, but the imposition of the 55mph speed limit happened in 1974 and the CAFE standards were legislated in 1975.  I don't see how Volcker played a role in that.

What if stagflation *is* the "correct response"? As I've posited before, it may be that stagflation is the best the fed can do, given its mandates to ensure price stability without crushing the economy in the process. I suspect that Volcker and the rest of the fed governors realized that the inflation aspect of stagflation was getting out of hand, so that a major recession was the only way to head off hyperinflation.

As for "Can interest rates keep going up for several years with every round of price rises?", the current federal funds rate is far lower than the rates in the 70s/80s:

Source Federal Reserve

The current federal funds rate is only 5%. The peak was in 1981 at over 19%. We can go much, much higher from here.

Hopefully you won't, as the debt to GDP is so much higher than in 1981.
It is extraordinary - to me, anyway - that Greenspan could summarize the global oil supply/demand picture without once mentioning depletion.  And only hinting at the demand growth from emerging economies.  If it were not for those two factors, and particularly depletion, there would be no oil problem.  

His other major omission is the changing mindset of exporting nations recogizing for the first time that their best interest is not in pumping at full capacity - which can endanger their fields - but in holding back so as to push prices higher and maintain their assets longer.   This is a form or hording that may turn out to be the most powerful change in the oil world - even more important than depletion.  (Although I admit that the reduction in spare capacity related to depletion is what allows hording to be an effective strategy for the first time in history.)

My conclusion:  he prepared for this testimony by consulting with the usual sources:  big oil and CERA.

I have not heard CERA advocating cellulosic ethanol and plugin hybrids yet....
Restricting oil consumption by the oil producers, instead of by consumer nations' policies, is bad for the latter.

When the definitive history of the 20th century is written, the refusal of the USA to tax gasoline to actually discourage consumption and reduce imports will go down as one of its (our!) worst mistakes.

I didn't think Greenspan's summary was that bad.  True he didn't say that the lack of production increases is due to oil peaking, but would really have expected him to?  On the whole it was a pretty balanced summary, with him hinting at, but not specifically addressing growing demand from developing countries and lack of production increases which he attributes to oil countries not investing enough money on.  Once again he doesn't go into detail on why they might not want to spend a lot of money trying to increase production (for example they don't believe they will get a good return on the investment).  

All the same, his comments were pretty middle of the road.  Greenspan is a believer in the concept that the market can solve any problem, so why would that change now after all these years?  

Alluding to what Greenspan said in his speech, I've always wondered how much of the "decline in the ratio of oil use to real GDP in the United States" has been due to the transition away from petroleum-fueled power plants to nuclear, nat gas, etc.

It's funny that he mentions plug-in hybrids. I really think that a large scale transition to plug-in hybrids would require a massive investment in new power plant construction.

Sina, you ask the right question. It's disingenous to refer to the decrease of US GDP oil intensity this way. Witness this graph of oil use by fuel type after the major oil shock of 1979, when oil prices trebled and we went into the deepest recession since the Depression:

The conclusion? Most of the intensity decline came about because of fuel switching--away from fuel oil to natural gas and coal for industrial and power generation usage. Gasoline consumption bottomed out just 11% below the peak before rebounding, and it hasn't looked back since.

And now that we have switched out of fuel oil, the transport fuels remain the dominant form of oil consumption (63%). I simply don't belive we can switch away from them as easy as we switched away from fuel oil in the 1980s.

It is hard to interpret this chart without labels. It is clear that fuel oil dropped off rapidly relative other other fuels. It does seem clear that this was because of switching to other fuel sources for power generation.

However other fuels are at about the same level in the index. If the index is based on volume, then it would seem that energy to GDP has dropped greatly. If the index is based on GDP, then it seem surprisingly stable. Do have have these details?

It seems to be in volume... but it doesn't show you the last ten years, that where above 1978.
If you can't see the whole picture, try right click // open image or whatever your browser uses. The image does have data labels and goes to the present day.
*oops // to 1995 only.

my mistake. thought people were seeing the picture cut off at 1992 as my browser does.

Yes! Most important point. We reduced our oil consumption for a while by making the rest of our economy less oil dependent while simultaneously making our transportation sector more dependent.

Consider this chart from the FHWA:

Fuel economy improved but recently has fallen slightly. Registrations only dropped for the early 90's recession, and then not by much. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) dropped just barely during the earlier oil shocks, but has increased pretty much continually. Note that this only includes on-road motor vehicles.

I think Stuart is right to look at VMT, though it strikes me as more of a trailing indicator. We'll know that people understand they're in trouble when VMT falls off. It will be far more difficult to pawn the drop in consumption off on other parts of the economy this time. This is the sort of thing that makes me think Kunstler is right on target about the suburbs. Oil prices will rise until VMT falls. The less oil is available, the more VMT has to fall, so the more prices will increase to force the change.

There is enormous potential for a more efficient transportation system even without mass transit, as greenie says. car-pooling (currently a fate worse than death but more appealing at $10+/gallong), hybrids, which are in their infancy and will get much better, diesel, long range trucking moved to railroads, eventually railroads converting to electric, plus new generations of nukes. The doomers are way too pessimistic - I doubt we will see anything worse than we did in the seventies, and even during teh depression there was no starvation.
Actually there was starvation in the US during the 1930s, even in rural areas.  Both sets of my grandparents can attest to that.
Yes, but the depression also coincided with the whole "dust bowl" era, right?  I believe there were more factors at work than just the depression.  
These starvation deaths were in rural Kentucky, totally unaffected by the Dust Bowl and in a naturally fertile land.

My mother's church took in a "hobo" who broke his leg on the way through town until he healed.  One week at each family with a farm was the rotation. His fate otherwise was clear.

Most people die of malnutririon and illness before starvation.

My mother lived as a girl on a farm and remembers adult clean cut men knocking on the door offering to"work for food" no backback no nothing but the shirt on thier back- starvation?  Such stories make me disgusted with the bums that hang out on freeway onramps with thier will work for food signs.
Just a little comment regarding vehicle miles to give a picture of american driving.  In 1994, we drove over half a lightyear, or almost 100,000 miles every second.  Since 1936, we have driven 15 light years.

Just try to wrap your mind around the amount of energy being consumed every second, keeping in mind that the 100,000 miles every second involves probably an average weight of around 2 tons being moved 100,000 miles every second.

I concur with Sparaxis:

The drop in fuel oil consumption was indeed from fuel switching in electric generation and was a conscious policy choice of the US government going back to the 1950s.

The period from 1979 to roughly 1985 saw a major expansion of the US nuclear fleet.  Oil as fuel for electricity went from 35% to today's 2% and nuclear's portion of total MWh went to about 20%.  I see nuclear power development over this period as a textbook case of a successful industrial policy.  New coal plants also came on line to displace oil.

Since 1990, most new generation capacity has been natural gas fueled.

That means that nuclear and coal can no longer displace imported oil in the electricity market.

Hybrids, electric cars(?), and mass transit are the only ways in the next 20 years that more nuclear in the US can displace further oil imports.  One could give a little credit to improved communications networks (powered by electricity) in reducing travel intensity via video conferencing and the internet but that would be difficult to estimate.

In addition, the US economy has exported energy-intensive industries to other countries (along with their jobs) and simply imports the finished goods and semi-finished materials (aluminum, for example).  These imports fudge the energy intensity calculations to no small extent.

I really think that a large scale transition to plug-in hybrids would require a massive investment in new power plant construction.
That's a common thought, and it's wrong.  The average electric consumption of the USA is roughly 450 GW, while the average power delivered to the wheels of gasoline-powered vehicles in the USA may well be under 100 GW.  Maybe 80 GW of that can be replaced by electricity.  A lot of that 80 GW might be obtained by just running existing powerplants at full power instead of turning them down at night.
And where will we get the natural gas to run said power plants 24 hours/day instead of just "peaking" them ? Without a major gain in efficiency (see my electrified transportation concepts), we are, at best, delaying a problem for a generation. I am ambilavent about EVs and plug-in hybrids as anything more than a supplemental "solution". Great to have a diesel/hybrid with plug-in plumbers truck, postal van (most postal workers whsould be walking in dense neighborhoods), UPS delivery truck, etc.
Natural gas is going away, so it'll be coal, solar, wind, nuclear, (micro-)hydro, etc.  Using vehicular demand to level the load curve plays to the strengths of coal and nuclear in particular.

If we shift today's demand to electricity over 15 years, we'd need 5.33 GW/year of additional average generation.  That could be done with 16 GW of wind at 1/3 capacity factor.  We're already installing better than 15% of that, so ramping up to that rate looks quite feasible.

I suspect that we are going to have a crunch in electricity generation.  From memory, 2004 was an extraordinary (record ?) year for new power plant commissioning, and 94.5% was NG or dual fuel (oil or NG).

NG has been the dominant fuel choice for a dozen years for new power plants and a significant factor before that.  Unwinding that will be difficult.

Wind has the great advantage of a short lead time, even shorter than NG.  Coal is a half dozen years and nuclear a good decade+.

Given that utilities will not "count on" new EV demand until just before (say 1 to 2 years) it appears, they will not build the capacity in advance.  (OTOH, if Union Pacific comes to them and says that they are going to electrify the following rail lines on this schedule, and expect this range of freight, they WILL build in advance, if any new plants are needed). Likewise for Urban Rail.

Since NG is the peak fuel almost everywhere in the US, my conclusion is that a majority of EV & plug in Hybrid demand will be meet by additional NG demand for the next 15+ years, in a period of significant NG shortfalls,

EV and plug in Hybrid demand will be so large that it will distort electricity demand and NG demand.  OTOH, additional Urban Rail, if we are HIGHLY successful, will double current transportation demand for electricity; 0.19%* of the total.  And electrifying our freight railroads may increase electricity demand by slightly over 1% of total US electricity demand.

A side note, wind is justified economically by the NG fuel that it displaces.  Not by the coal or uranium that it displaces.  But wind is low almost everywhere in summer.  NG takes up the slack then.  I do not see this changing in 15 years unfortunately.  Perhaps twenty or twenty-five as we head deep into post-peak oil.

Given the risks associated with EVs and plug-in hybrids, I see them as a "side" solution.  The "not preferred" solution (similar to using more coal for power generation)  

A massive building campaign for Urban Rail and electrifying our freight railroads should be pushed HARD and no public subsidies for EVs/plug in hybrids past the earliest days of infancy.  They will create another set of problems.

* Urban Rail is SO efficient that 0.19% runs the 8,000 subways cars of NYC, PATH, Amtrak's Northeast corridor with all the commuter trains on it, the Long Island Railroad (millions/day), DC Metro, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and every other Urban Rail system in the country.

Given that utilities will not "count on" new EV demand until just before (say 1 to 2 years) it appears, they will not build the capacity in advance.
I'm not sure that matters.  NG is so costly (and will probably remain so), utilities will build wind so they can turn down their NG generators whenever possible.  Those NG generators will probably not get many additions unless cost is no object.  The utility which doesn't need NG when the wind is blowing will make a killing.

And with that, I'm off-line until next Saturday at the earliest (see my bio for details).

I "liked" the way Greenspan describes oil peaking for the Lower 48:

American oil's historical role ended in 1971, when rising world demand finally exceeded the excess crude oil capacity of the United States.
The funny thing is that what he said isn't false. He just didin't tell why it happend. It makes me sick.
The rest of that paragraph is all the more fun:
[T]he marginal pricing of oil abruptly shifted--at first to a few large Middle East producers and later to market forces broader than they, or anyone, can contain.
In other words, the world has peaked.
Greenspan willingly omits the peak in US production, there's no reason for that unless he is serving some vested interest.

This kind of speech is in my view very dangerous. Without lying, just by omitting facts, a completely different scenery is transmitted to the reader. Greenspan turns out to be just a business-as-usual-don't-worry-be-happy-markets-will-solve-it bulwark man.

he is serving some vested interest

He is serving a most important interest, posterity.  Without seeming to take a position, one can usually go back and find a quote that shows he was warning us.  How much verbiage did he expend as a booster to the dotcom boom that is convieniently fogoten in favor of the "irrational exuberence?"  There is also the 'I was against it before I was for it' comments about the defecits and tax cuts.

I don't follow you, I don't see how hidding the truth can help us in the future.
Greenspan is well known for his veiled and subtextural comments, and his riding of the fence on many issues.
I can recall his "gold bug"/must fight inflation comments from the 1960's, and then compare these to the massive devaluation of the dollar and liquidity advocate he became later.  A man playing both sides, as it were.
Greenspan suggested that the most probable near peak could be in the 2040's, an idea he attributed to the EIA. However, he conceded this might be grossly inaccurate if oil recovery factors were increased to 80% or so, in which case a peak in oil consumption might be much further off into the future.
This is correct. But from the stance of the Peak-Oil community, I would regard this, considering the source, as progress. At this point we are taking anything we can get. I call it a bridgehead. Greenspan is  big deal. Greenspan said it - oil is a finite resource. Push on from there.
US NATURAL GAS PRICES ARE PRESENTLY RELATIVELY LOW

Perhaps a little on the side, but nat gas is important in the US

The Norwegian blogspot

http://energikrise.blogspot.com/

posted recently an interesting diagram illustrating the price developments since January 2003 till now for natural gas at Henry Hub versus oil prices (Brent dated). Prices for natural gas has been converted to barrel of oil equivalent, and is presently trading close to 50 % of oil.

As of now natural gas in the US market is a bargain compared to Europe.

ng will get cheaper. Every week the amount of ng in storage is reported at a record for the date, going back to 1994. If this continues, the storage caverns will be full by fall and buyers will have to refuse deliveries. What is happening is that industrial users that can move, the fertilizer and plastic precursor producers, are moving offshore to where ng is still cheap, like qatar.

So, we will simply send more $ (our most popular manufactured product, and which luckily the rest of the world simply can't get enough of), and the world will just add the above items to the list of what they need to send here.

Does anyone know a mailing address (I am sure no public eMail) for Alan Greenspan ?  I would like to mail him a copy of my :10% Reduction in US Oil Use in 10-12 years with mature existing technology".

Is he at some consulting firm ?

Help please.

House of Cards,
35000 Dow,
Shangri-La, N.Y. 10001

As if.

I have lunch with him every other Thursday.
Thats why he cuts out from golf early...
Yeah, he's been talking about you lately. Usually we just chat about the latest jazz albums. These days he's been all in a huff about somebody in his foursome cheating. I can't imagine that's you. Does he wash his balls?
In this morning's Boston Globe the source for the Greenspan testimony is Knight-Ridder.  A box next to the article has 6 bullets, the last of which is:

- Instead of good and bad, America's energy future turns on a choice between "not so good or worse.  We have to make a choice of one or the other."  

Although this doesn't say "peak oil" per se, it's quite a statement, I'd say stark. It has a way of cutting straight to the bottom line.  

In the text: 'He said conventional corn-based ethanol holds little promise to reduce America's oil dependence significantly.'  Back in the box, next-to-last bullet: '- Cellulosic ethanol appears to be the most promising solution to America's oil addiction. "I'd move as quickly as I could to find out whether cellulosic is a practical alternative."

Unfortunately this box is not on the Globe's web site.

Having watched the whole thing, I came away believing that Greenspan was trying to tell the panel that the US is in big trouble.

Unfortunately Greenspan is probably too subtle in his approach for most US viewers, so they fail to "get the drift".

However here in the UK we tend not to be so "in your face" as Americans, so we look for nuances etc.

In my opinion the net impact of Greenspan's presentation was to act as an urgent warning about the US energy position.

(Peak Oil is just a part of the problem and so was mentioned but not delved into)

True cellulosic conversion, on anything beyond a laboratory/test scale, is still 10 years off.
I looked up Knight-Ridder and found this version:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14763746.htm

For those of you who are crucifying Greenspan:

You are absolutely correct.  He is beating around the bush in regards to peak oil, and is talking sideways around the root causes and inevitable conclusions that are taken for granted here on TOD.

However, I must assume that none of you have ever had the pleasure of speaking before a Congressional Committee before.  Because if you had, you would know that if Greenspan said what you wish he had said, those senators would have turned off their hearing aids 2 minutes into the speech, if they didn't laugh him out of the room first.  

Whether Greenspan was consciously trying to raise the alarm without overdoing it, or was just a plain idiot, is up for debate.  But for someone who is as familiar with the selective hearing of Congress as Greenspan must be, he gave a grave speech and seems to be on our side of the fence, if not exactly on the same patch of grass.

I agree. If these are some of the Greenspan talking points:

  1. Lack of spare capacity in the system is here for the long-term.

  2. The landing of big institutional investors into the commodities futures reflects increased interest in existing reserves and production potential.

  3. High oil prices haven't killed U.S. economic growth but are having a negative effect.

  4. Increasingly, our supply is going to come from heavier crudes that are harder to refine.

  5. We're going to have to modify our refinery capacity to handle more of this kind of oil.

then it looks a lot like your typical peak oil presentation to me.

Did anyone notice the "odd" comment that Greenspan made at around the 2.5 hours mark?

He sort of hinted about some sort of nasty "deadline" which would cause big problems.

He seemed to assume that the people he was talking to would understand his meaning, without needing to have it spelled out.

However this was a few minutes before he mentioned Peak Oil.

Any ideas anyone? Or am I imagining something which wasn't there?

What I find strange about the hearing is that ONLY A BANKER testified. This was a Foreign Relations committee hearing yet no experts on foreign oil production spoke. No engineers. No geologists. No chemists. Not even a diplomat. Definitely a case study in the human desire to only hear familiar stories just like toddlers who watch the same Disney flick over and over and over.
Are Senators smarter than 4 year olds?
For twenty years the rich, the politicians, the media ... everyone constructed Greenspan the omnipotent mind governing the world economy and sustaining prosperity by the power of thought alone. Trillions hung on every banal yet incomprehensible word he dribbled out to the public.
So when fear returns to the air, of course they drag his shell out to stroke their fetish one more time.
Poor Ben Bernanke.
I watched it on C-Span. I only saw two senators and about 20 other people in the room. Lot of empty seats. Wish I had known.

Are senators smarter than 4-year olds? Do you really have to ask that? I suppose it depends on the 4-year-olds in question.

Of the people. For the people. By the people.

Are four year olds smarter than yeast? This is getting more confusing by the day.
Nah. It's getting simpler. How old is the yeast? Besides, you've got it easy. Thailand. With a computer?! Good God - that's what most of us are aiming for(or something like it).
Let's stop believing in the old man, once and for all.
Which are his main motives, think for a while...
For whom has he worked, to service which kind of people?
Who made him rich and famous? And well known worldwide?

He is servicing the ultra rich, the power brokers, do you think he gives a damn on the energy future of future generations or even present generations going to die in Iraq, etc. Do you believe he is an elder, respectable leader caring for his country?

Start thinking with your own mind, do you think he is a geologist, or even bothered to ask one? Of course, he might have had a 1000$+ lunch with some important company CEO to prepare this speech: the Big Oil CEOs are concerned about OECDs declining production and asking the US Government to get them access to the oil still in place in Middle East and Russia. You and I pay for the invasion, they reap the profits. This is the law of the market.

Again, think with your own mind: if you were him, if you had reached his status, what would you say??
Exactly his words.