Share

It's Official - The Era of Cheap Oil Is Over: Energy Department Changes Tune on Peak Oil

by: Michael T. Klare  |  TomDispatch.com

photo
An oil field in China's Heilongjiang province. (Photo: Reuters)

    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 ChΓ‘vez 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.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

National Security Issue #1:

National Security Issue #1: Energy independence and export sufficient to retire National Debt. Forget Corvets and manly trucks, build windmills, solar, and harvesters of tides, rivers and waves. Lead unilaterally, as if life depended on it.

Thanks for this summary and

Thanks for this summary and analysis, and for the interpretations of the implications of this momentous point of inflection in petroleum extraction. Would it be correct to assume that the reason projections of demand always fall below (and usually near) projections of production is that there is very little storage of extracted petroleum and hence price must rise to clear the market? The coming years will by these projections be challenging as net energy recovery falls and capital costs (as well as environmental costs) rise. Time to accelerate the likewise capital-intensive move away from fossil fuels to solar and wind. Yes, a daunting challenge as well, but what attractive alternatives do we have? This report is very timely (and IMHO) overdue.

Before the war sweet crude

Before the war sweet crude oil-gas sold at the pump at five cents a gallon in Iraq. Today non-sweet crude sells at twelve cents a gallon at the pump in Venezuela. In 20 mideast nations oil sells at under 45 cents a gallon and in 30 others at under a dollar a gallon. Sweet oil still costs under three cents a gallon to produce. The author is subject to accepting the faux price of oil as growing in cost. It is not. The retail price is a massive fraud as Jimmy Carter proved when he capped it at $10 a barrel and laid a Windfall profits tax on Big Oil in the '70's, which is exactly what Obama should do now. He should nationalize oil with the US Army taking over the oil companies and turn production, distribution and sales over to the nations universities. He should then levy have taxes on outsourcing publicly traded companies and pay down any related costs and use the rest for Healthcare sans Insurance companies through the nations medical schools and nationalize Big Legalized Drug Dealing Pharmas and ban TV/Radio drug advertising. Sorry Michael, but oil costs are far lower than you think.

Yes, world oil production

Yes, world oil production will peak in the next decade or two. This was actually predicted back in 1956 by M. King Hubbert, a geologist (β€œNuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels,” Shell Development Co, Houston, TX). By 2050, Hubbert's curve shows production back to 1950 levels. But the oil speculators are already back again and the IEA projections will just urge them on. The Democrats promised to close the "Enron loophole" and reverse other deregulations that allowed the rampant speculation that contributed to the current recession. Crude oil has DOUBLED since last October and gasoline is already back to $3/gal here in northern CA. Congress needs to get off their butts and stop the speculators now!!

I've been warning this for

I've been warning this for years. Cheney et al wanted to control all that was left. He's pathological and a fool, like all the rest of them. Better get self-sufficient and build your community with people you can get along with. Hello Mr Bicycle, where will we go today? I look at our roads and see BIG bike lanes. I look at my garden and see my life support. I look at the TV and see idiots and morons telling me that all is going to be ok. When will this nation wake UP?

Start with strategies to

Start with strategies to change Americans' mindless consumer behaviors. We might develop strategies to lower consumption of goods manufactured in China and Taiwan, especially petroleum-based products (i.e., plastics) which deliver a double hit to the environment. For new energy-saving items, such as LEDs, that remain in the Asian manufacturing base, require 100% recycling of both the new lighting technologies and the older systems they replace. Shrink markets for energy-intensive output derived from oil.

Energy Department? You mean

Energy Department? You mean the oil company stooges? There is a very simple cure for oil speculators: When gas price go over $2 a gallon, Obama should open the spigot of national oil reserves. It will drive the speculators into the ground. Why keep the Department of Energy anyway... Ax them and use the money for renovating older homes to make them energy efficient.

Maybe the US invasions of

Maybe the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have something to do with usurping control of energy resources. Nah, USA just wants to liberate and build that school.

The equation for predicting

The equation for predicting the survival of human beings with a reasonable quality of life must take in the key factors of resources - primarily food and energy sources, population size, and global climatic conditions. There are unknowns that make projection difficult, unknowns such as the possibilities of sudden and catastrophic weather changes, unforeseen mass dying off of large numbers of the world population, and unanticipated disruption of access to world resources. I believe the population factor plays the primary role.

This is not news to

This is not news to followers of the situation for at least the past five years. That the IEA has gotten onboard is news. Our leaders have been in denial for years. Petroleum geologists have been warning of this for several years. There have been dissenters (Daniel Yergin) but their numbers have been declining with even Chevron and Shell owning up to the situation in their p.r. statements. Poor working stiffs don't have time to do the research and tend to tune out those who do while they keep driving their Suburbans and F-150s. A big price surge will fix that but there will likely be a backlash by all sorts of folks who can't believe the truth. That's when things get dicey. Plenty of those folks have guns and their mentality isn't that different from Cheney's or Bush's. Cheney has known about peak oil for quite a while. Do a Google search for Opening Iraq's Oil Fields and the Cheney Energy Task Force. Iraq, by the way is the last easy, plentiful oil on Earth. The Saudi Gawhar field is believed to be declining (see Matthew Simmons) and has probably been producing flat out for most of the past few years. Iraq, however, has been underdeveloped for decades due to its unfortunate recent history and it's hard to believe that Dick Cheney, given his background, hasn't been aware of this for many years prior to the invasion. Sorry to break this unsettling news, but we really are a rogue nation that invades countries for their resources. We can pray it doesn't happen again but who knows how society will react to declining fossil fuel. There really is no substitute for the amount of energy it yields and there are huge transformations that need to occur--worldwide--to deal with this phenomenon.

What most people don't

What most people don't realize is oil is the raw material for thousands of consumer products. We are burning away and wasting the fundamental ingredient of our entire economy. When oil prices go up, most everything else goes up -- and not just because of transportation costs but because they are MADE FROM OIL. Examples: Most of the interior of your car (carpet, seats, dash, panels, etc.) is made from polymers made from -- guess what? -- oil. And bumpers and tires, too -- from 0il. Paint, wallpaper, tile floors, TVs, electronics, phones, carpets, detergents, appliances, drugs, refrigerator interiors, drain pipes, mattresses ---- the list goes on, and on, and on, and on. And if we had to make all these things from "natural" bio sources, there wouldn't be enough fresh water in the world to support the vast agriculture that would be needed. When the oil is gone (or $1000/barrel), our standard of living will be drastically changed.

Responding to "The equation

Responding to "The equation for predicting" post: consider the human numbers on Earth since the extraction of fossil fuels. Around 1820 world population reached its first billion. This was a period when coal was replacing wood and other energy sources. The second billion was attained around 1925, corresponding to increased use of liquid fuel and gas. It's now at some 6.6 billion, having doubled since 1968. Although this exponential curve will flatten out the point is that human numbers are what they are due primarily to the phenomenon of cheap energy. The rapid growth of the past 60 years reflects a period of growing fossil energy supplies, an occurrence that won't happen again--ever. The green revolution that largely enabled this growth was possible because of cheap fossil energy. Now that we have this large population--facing DECLINING energy supplies, it's not hard to imagine the chaos that could occur. Call me Chicken Little, if you observe these data you have to see the trouble that could ensue from declining energy. BTW, all the "renewables"--necessary as they are, will only replace a fraction, maybe 5% of the fossil fuel we burn.

Tell me... When has the

Tell me... When has the World Population of Humans, or even the most powerful Governments ever acted together to do anything, let alone something to 'Save Mankind'...?.. Its a fantasy in a world filled with 'Consumers, Consumer-Wannabees and Couch Potatoes'...... Declining Oil merely means 'Opportunity' to Oil and Oil Service Corporations and perhaps to Military Industrial Contractors.., as it also means 'Strategic Adjustments' to individual Nations, especially those with lots of power... We are living a time where those who care most preach recycling to a World where every ten days there are over 3 million more people on the planet than there were 10 days ago.., and all of them will want 'Stuff and Energy'.., How many people live just in Asia??..., where it is now full of motorbikes while making the shift to larger cars and trucks which are already driving to huge malls and retail outlets to load up energy using devices to take home as ordinary people there try to live the consumer dreams we sold them on ... Who believes that Governments will actually do anything to save us from ourselves as the major powers are already lined up to stake their claim on the oil under the soon to be gone Arctic Ice Caps...?.... I have a degree in Environmental Science and what that did for me/to me, was make me fee like writing this cynical little comment you just read.... So, with all that.., here's this---> Good Luck to All of Us..!!. :-D

I agree with the professor -

I agree with the professor - we don't live in the land of the free, it's more like the land of the fraudulent! The first thing any business owner wants to do is corner the market. If they can't do that then they reach a subtle (or overt as in the case of OPEC) understanding with their competitors on how they can all benefit by controlling prices. Either way, our beloved capitalism goes right out the window at the first opportunity. There is only one thing we can count on and that is the greed of the rich and powerful (along with the complicity of government) is going to cause misery for everyone except, of course, the rich and powerful.

I understand why nobody

I understand why nobody believes in global warming in this country. We have to see and feel something to believe it, and we naturally equate weather with climate. If it's not hot, there's no global warming. That's just the way we are. But at least those in the know are trying to do something about it. But I don't understand why those in the know don't respond to the threat of peak oil. Nothing could be clearer - cheap oil, indeed, all oil is finite. It can't go on like this. In a decade, or two, or three at most, the shortages are going to cause chaos. Why don't we develop alternative energy? Why don't we develop electric vehicles? We are doing virtually nothing in those fields, yet they present the only real solutions. And I don't understand this biofuel enthusiasm. Wasting arable lands when the population is going to reach 9 billion in a few decades is crazy, and these fuels power the terribly inefficient internal combustion engine which we should do away with. I don't get it. Why aren't we doing anything?

In a world full of People

In a world full of People and Finite Resources, the futile energy realities can all be boiled down to numbers... The World Population grows by well over 100 Million New People every year... That's a Billion more People in the world in less than 10 years..., all wanting to live as well as possible.... American and Canada, two places where average people live pretty well, together make up about 6% of the World Population and together, We use about 28-30% of the World's Energy Resources. And all the while, for decades now, We have been telling the other 94% of Humanity to aspire to our standard of living with the remaining 70-72% of the World's Energy Resources. And now, on the other end of the spectrum, the availability of such energy resources now seem in decline... So, go Figure. WE, as a society, thinking we were/are worth looking up to, said it, meant it and went out of our way to represent it to the rest of the World as 'They Way To Go'... And Now, in the Here and Now, simply look around and ask yourself... Hmmmm.. How can that work without trouble...?....

"This year - and we should

"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. " Ha! This is actually the most dire possible forecast, as consumption cannot physically exceed supply. They are predicting that all available supply will be consumed! You can be certain that will lead to prices far higher than anything we've seen to date.

I wish we could just say

I wish we could just say goodbye to oil altogether, and the air would start to become clean again and we would eventually clean up all those toxic spills of yester years. You know that Exxon has been cleaning a spill in Brooklyn NY that happened 50 years ago? Google it. The whole operation has moved underground so nobody even knows it is going on. And they say it might take 50 more years before it is cleaned up.

World War III will be fought

World War III will be fought over the dwindling energy reserves. Get ready for it. As the American Empire declines, its currency and credit in the toilet, it will fight back with its military might in a vain and useless last-ditch attempt to retain the so-called "American Way of Life." The Empire is doomed, however, as are all empires. "People are crazy and times are strange." (Bob Dylan)

Wow. Only one comment tried

Wow. Only one comment tried to reveal a "hidden positive" in this scenario - that of Professor Emeritus P. Bagnolo. However, his positive point was that the COST of crude was, in actuality, much less than we are led to believe. True? False? Irrelevant. What IS relevant is the finite and declining nature of the oil in question...the dependence we have on it relative to plastics, transportation, and most importantly, AGRICULTURE. Can anyone say pesticides, insecticides and fertilizer? These are all petroleum-based products, and they are the reason we have produced the surplus quantities of corn, wheat, and other agricultural staples for the past 50 years. Even if the actual cost of crude is significantly lower than stated, there is still not infinite reserves of the stuff, and more significantly, its use still presents huge environmental/ecological problems. To paraphrase Daniel Quinn, we need a drastic change in VISION, not simply more programs intended to stem the tide of negative consequences. A re-evaluation of the so-called American Way of Life is necessary, and our unquestioned consumerism (along with the grandiose sense of entitlement) must be challenged. It seems to me that if we can wage a war of ideas/information against the corporate sector's propaganda, perhaps we can avoid the war for resources that will otherwise surely result. Support your local community, grow a garden, talk to your neighbors and be an engaged, involved member of our society. Sorry, Professor. Cost is not even an important issue in this equation. Perhaps you should spend time examining your priorities before commenting on the most trivial aspect of this grandiose problem.

we can only hope that oil

we can only hope that oil runs out before the earth is destroyed by the oil fed flourishing of homo sapiens. time will tell if there are enough extractable hydrocarbons to make the biosphere toxic.