TerraPass blog

Peak oil: no silver bullet?

Adam Stein | January 27, 2006

 

Back to peak oil. Recall that the world is heading toward a peak in the amount of oil it can pump out of the ground on a daily basis. This peak is the seemingly inevitable consequence of the geology of oil fields, and after it arrives we can expect a fairly rude transition to the post-peak world.

In the midst of this handwringing over peak oil, a reasonable question to ask is: haven’t we heard this tune before? Over the years, plenty of eminent experts have sounded the alarm bell over this or the other impending crisis. Often the experts arrive at these predictions by extending today’strend lines out into some dire future and concluding that the world better get its act together, or else.

And inevitably these experts are proven wrong, usually because their models are too simple, or because they fail to anticipate changes in technology, or because the laws of economics provide a countervailing force to the predicted catastrophe. For example, population scientists warned in the middle of the last century that the world was heading toward widespread famine. Then technological advances in farming techniques ushered in the Green Revolution, saving the lives of billions.

In the case of peak oil, should we expect a white knight to arrive in the form of improved exploration or drilling techniques? Perhaps the discovery of a major new oil field will grant us a reprieve. What about the oil sands in Canada? Or the deposits beneath the North Sea? More generally, don’t rising oil prices mean that eventually it will become profitable to mine oil that currently we pass over?

Never say never, but there are good reasons not to expect any miracles. For starters, many of the technological advances under development increase the amount of oil we can extract from the earth, but do little to address the more basic problem of how fast we can reclaim it. Remember: hitting the peak doesn’t mean we’ve run out of oil, just that we can’t get at it as quickly as we used to. When American reached its oil peak in 1970, 50% of our reserves were still in the ground, waiting to be tapped.

So cheerfully vapid articles like this one, which concludes that a combination of supercomputers, microbes, and offshore wells could yield an additional 4 trillion barrels of crude, entirely miss the point. We don’t just need more oil, we need it now. If worldwide demand for oil is 84 million barrels per day and rising, it doesn’t do us much good to pump 50 million barrels per day for the next 200 years.

There’s also the issue that, despite enormous technological advances over the past several decades, the rate of discovery of new deposits has been steadily dropping for a long time. Expecting that trendline to turn around is an exercise in blind optimism.

Finally, the declining productivity of most of the world’s oil wells (everywhere other than Saudi Arabia, really), means that we need to pump faster just to keep in place. Any new sources of oil are going to have not just add to the world’s current daily output, but actually reverse powerful trends in global production rates. That’s a tall order for some pretty marginal new technologies.

This might be one case where it pays to bet on the fortunetellers.

< Previous: The $7.6 Billion dollar tire inflation gauge: Inflate your tires to save money and the environment    Next: State of the Union >

Comments

3 comment(s) on this post. Leave your own!


  • 1.

    These are all compelling arguments. The problem is timing, and some big names in Peak Oil will be embarrassed if the recent analysis by Cambridge Energy Research Associates proves right. They looked at the world's oil, field by field and project by project, and found no basis for concluding a peak would occur anytime soon. You can question their assumptions about the rate of decline on existing fields, but they have not ignored that issue. They see real projects that will bring enough new oil on stream to overcome depletion and sustain growth for years.

    The more important problem is not the technical peak, which may be many years away, but geopolitical events that would prevent oil supply from keeping up with demand growth, perhaps permanently. That's the real point of market discontinuity, and we've seen hints of what it might be like in the last year, with global spare capacity eroded to less than 2 million barrels per day. The kicker is that the market won't tell you when this is going to happen; if it could, it would already be built into future prices. Waiting for market signals to initiate alternative energy programs is thus guaranteed to create serious lags, with enormous economic costs. We just have to decide which risk is worse, betting on the need for alternatives too early, or too late.


    Reply
  • 2.

    And, equally, Cambridge Associates will be embarassed if the early peak folks are right too, yes?


    Reply
  • 3.

    CERA's report actually says, "We see no evidence to suggest a peak before 2020, nor do we see a transparent and technically sound analysis from another source that justifies belief in an imminent peak. It will be a number of decades into this century before we get to an inflexion point that will herald the arrival of the "undulating plateau." (They don't believe oil will have a sharp peak, but a series of undulating peaks as supply & demand make oil go up and down, up and down.) BUT, 2020?! That sounds very soon to me! Esp. for the fate of all my 1 & 2 year old friends who were born in the last year or so. How will they afford to fill their cars if oil is Peaking (or Undulating) when they turn 16? Peak Oil is still an issue if we care about our children's way of life.


    Reply

Post a comment


AddThis Feed Button
CATEGORIES

Conservation tips
News
Politics
Science & Technology
Society
TerraPass Answers