Truthout Original

Want Cheap Oil? Reduce Demand!

by: Richard Heinberg, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Richard Heinberg asks, "How badly do we want cheaper oil?" and argues that a global "Oil Depletion Protocol" is the answer to the "oil-price escalator."
(Photo: Marcio Jose Sanchez / AP)

    Ask the major oil companies or the US Department of Energy why oil prices are beyond ludicrous and they'll tell you there's plenty of oil out there, there's just a lack of investment in exploration and production - particularly on the part of the national oil companies in OPEC.

    Funny, the level of investment in the global oil industry hasn't dropped off a cliff lately. Yet oil prices have shot up like asparagus in April. What's going on here?

    What the experts are really telling us is that a higher level of investment is needed now than was the case previously in order to produce the same increment of new oil.

    Hmmm. Let's drill deeper, metaphorically speaking.

    In fact there's still oil being produced today that could profitably be sold for $30 a barrel. Quite a lot of it. But - crucially - there's not nearly enough to meet the demand that would exist if all oil were selling at such a price. That $30 oil comes from super-giant oilfields discovered back in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. The industry just doesn't find oilfields like that anymore, and the old stalwarts are now entering their retirement years and seeing declining rates of production. Now what's available for prospecting are plays in ultra-deep water, where it costs half a million dollars a day just to rent a specialized drilling rig (of which there are only a few in existence). We're talking NASA moon-shot level of technology here. That's not $30 oil; it's $75, $100, or $150 oil. No one would be interested in it, except for the fact that $30 oil is getting so scarce.

    Or, if you prefer, there is lots of stuff that's not really oil (tar sands) that can be turned into a synthetic liquid fuel, but it takes heaps of other resources to help the process along. So, of course, the dollar cost for the finished product is high - and it just keeps getting higher as the price of regular oil climbs, because some of the resources required to make this synthetic fuel are effectively tied to the price of oil. No answer there.

    All of this helps explain the enigmatic response of the Saudis when they're asked, on bended knee, by folks like George W. Bush to please, please produce a little extra oil so as to drive down the world price. The Saudis tell us that the market is in fact well supplied - there is no shortage of crude. Well, they're right: there's no shortage of $150 oil.

    Sure, they're still producing oil that costs them less than $30 to pump, but they're producing about all of that cheap oil they can. And anyway, the price of a particular shipment isn't determined by its cost of production; it is set more by the cost of the incremental extra barrel produced somewhere else in the world that someone is willing to pay for.

    If the world's refiners (and ultimately the world's motorists) are willing to pay $150 or $200 or $300 a barrel for oil from ultra-expensive new wells off the coast of Brazil or future ones off California or in ANWR, that's what the price will be - for all the oil that's coming to market.

    Meanwhile, high oil prices are already killing the airline industry, the automobile industry, the trucking industry, the fishing industry, tourism - the list goes on. In effect, the world is teetering on the brink of a Greater Depression because there's not enough $30 oil to go around anymore.

    So here's the solution: We could reduce the price of oil just by reducing demand. If the world could be satisfied with the amount of oil that can still be produced cheaply ($30 is an arbitrary figure - by now $130 oil sounds cheap), then the price would fall to that level. We'd have to keep reducing demand to maintain that price since the cheaper oil continues to deplete.

    But there's a problem to that solution: the most likely way that global demand will be reined in is by economic contraction brought on by high prices. That's a nice way of saying bankruptcy, unemployment, and industrial collapse. It sounds bad, but that's not the problem; the problem is this: once the price falls by any significant amount, demand will just pick back up again and we'll be right back where we are now - with prices aiming for Alpha Centauri.

    Or, we could hope for a cheaper, more convenient source of energy that would reduce demand for oil painlessly. But since no one has invented one yet, we can't really bank on it happening (though throwing a few extra tens of billions toward energy research is not a bad idea). In other words, there is no existing market-based fix for the fix we're in.

    Which means there is really only one way to get the price of oil down over the long term. That is to implement some kind of global agreement to ration oil consumption by quota, so as to reduce demand artificially. Just reducing demand in one country won't help much, because some other country will quickly take up the slack. No, we all go on a diet together.

    Everyone would kick and scream - but no louder than they're currently doing. We already have rationing, after all; it's called price rationing. And price rationing simply ensures that poorer potential buyers are priced out of the market first (that's why countries in sub-Saharan Africa are now verging on economic oblivion: they can't afford oil to grow crops, transport goods, or operate the diesel generators that supply municipal power grids). To rich folks, price rationing may initially sound like the better deal, but they have to live in communities too, and if Orange County is going Mad Max, daily life even in a mansion behind an electric fence starts to be a bit of a bother.

    A global Oil Depletion Protocol is impractical, you say? Could never be negotiated? Of course it would be a tough bargain to accept. The alternative is even tougher, though.

    Imagine the world without such a Protocol. Continually soaring prices will be a given. But for an increasing number of countries and potential users, this will translate into shortages. As in: the gas station down the street doesn't have any fuel this week because the station owner can't afford to pay cash on delivery (this is already starting to happen right here in the wealthy US of A). Worse, perhaps: nations will be tempted to secure essential fuel by military action or covert subterfuge. Just how well this is likely to work we may judge by events in Iraq over the past few years.

    How badly do we want cheaper oil? Badly enough to cooperate internationally? Badly enough to lower our consumption? As soon as we want it that badly, we'll have it. Until then, the market rules. Welcome aboard the oil-price escalator.

    -------

    Richard Heinberg is a senior fellow of Post Carbon Institute and the author of "The Oil Depletion Protocol: A Plan to Avert Oil Wars, Terrorism and Economic Collapse."

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

This sounds like corporate

This sounds like corporate diversionary propaganda. The readers need to reminded that fools can be dangerous and it is dangerous to be fooled. Far more of the truth--Michael Hudson: It’s true that enormous amounts of speculative credit are going into commodity index funds. But bear in mind that as the dollar depreciates, OPEC countries have been holding back supply largely to stabilize their receipts in euros and to offset their losses on the dollar securities they have bought with their past export proceeds. For over 30 years they have been pressured to recycle their oil earnings into the U.S. stock market and loans to U.S. financial institutions. They have taken large losses on these investments (such as last year’s money to bail out Citibank), and are trying to recoup them via the oil market. OPEC officials also have pointed to a political motive: They resent America’s military intrusion in the Middle East, especially in view of how much it contributes to the nation’s balance-of-payments deficit and federal budget deficit. The U.S. press prefers to blame Chinese, Indian and other foreign growth in demand for oil and raw materials. This demand has contributed to the price rise, no doubt about it. But the U.S. oil majors are receiving a windfall “economic rent” on the price run-up, and are not at all unhappy to see it continue. BY NOT BUILDING (my emphasis) more refining and shipping capacity, they have created bottlenecks so that EVEN IF FOREIGN COUNTRIES DID SUPPLY more crude oil, it would NOT be reflected in refined gasoline, kerosene or other downstream product prices. (www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20150.htm) Who sets the prices: monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, or consumers? Suck it up.

If our major newspapers were

If our major newspapers were including this discussion on the left hand side of the front page we might be raising awareness in this country. How do we unlock the airwaves, print and other methods of communication to get this dialogue to a wider participation? "I didn't know!..." is not a good reason to trust our elected leaders or business leaders or any group willing to pay to play. lets not test kids, make them read the books that are mentioned here for their Senior year instead and have speakers of all sides of the issues talk to them. So they cannot say "I didn't know....."

The quickest, most

The quickest, most effective, and simplest way to reduce consumption, combat climate change, and preserve all types of resources is to liquidate 99.9 percent of the human population. And don't think they wouldn't, or couldn't. Don't even need nukes, just lots of flame and airburst. If not 99.9, then 60 percent, or as many as possible. All those stockpiled weapons could be used to save Mother Earth for a few hardy friends of Dick and Dubya, who would then commence a New Jeffersonia. Trophy wives and bald fat white men, the new Adams and Eves.

How about electric cars, or

How about electric cars, or air-compressed engines? How about no extra taxes when buying a hybrid car? We are surely at the mercy of the large oil companies, who care only about profits, and nothing about the average person.

Mr. Hart the price of

Mr. Hart the price of anything is a function of supply and demand. If there is more supply over demand prices fall and when there is more demand over supply then prices rise. Marginal increases in demand at the same supply increases prices. What's happening is that supply has reached a plateau and demand is increasing. This is just the beginning as in the next years supply will fall because of peak oil. If demand stays the same prices will go much higher. The problem is that peak oil hasn't been taken seriously and policy makers did not redirect investments into alternative energy. WE FAILED IN A PREEMPTIVE ENERGY STRIKE IF YOU WILL! If 1 trillion $ had been invested in alternative energy and had not been wasted on the war on terror and Iraq we would be in a much better situation. The market is doing the work now. High prices discourage consumption which lowers demand and encourages new exploration and investments in new energies. The problem is that it takes up to 10 years for new supply to come online and at a much higher cost then current supply. So if demand does not decline then higher prices for everything oil based will be with us for quite some time. The oil companies are making a windfall profit on their property (oil). They don't make the price, the market does! Now society/governments can decide to tax this windfall profit outright but it would hinder investments in new exploration therefore reducing supply long term. I think the best way is to force oil companies to invest their huge profits into exploration or alternative energy or otherwise tax the wind fall. Since we will run out of easy and cheap carbohydrates very soon anyhow and we have Global Warming, the best way would be to redirect investments into ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES starting NOW. The long term goal has to be an electric/hydrogen economy. Nationalizing oil companies is definitely not the solution. It would create shortages and even higher prices down the road!

petkov is the only one with

petkov is the only one with anything enlightening to say here. OUR ENTIRE ECONOMY, from the shoes we wear to the roofs over our heads to the pills we take are made with/from oil. the factories they are made in are run on, built with, and maintained with oil. the methods of transport, distribution, and sale are all made possible by oil. oh, and we need oil to build, maintain, and operate other sources of energy too. nuclear power plants need oil, wind turbines are made of oil. the list is literally endless. if we are to continue any resemblance to our current standard of living for future generations, even perhaps for our own, we need to allocate our resources with much more stewardship, including limiting or completely preventing the use of non-renewable resources for anything other than absolute essentials. i'm a libertian at heart tho, which also makes me a pessimist when it comes to a solution to our energy crisis. we were given a mixed blessing with the discovery of oil. our history with oil has to be humankind's biggest and most tragic bungle and failure. we should have invested our oil into alternative energy sources back in the early 20th century. now, sadly, it's too late.

Curious no mention made of

Curious no mention made of speculation causing high prices. Of course reducing our use is the most common sense approach. We need to do something meantime while new technology is developed. I have been reducing my consumption for 7 years by moving closer to the center of my city, and combining trips out. I estimate I have cut my use at least in half, from 14,000 miles per year to under 7,000. But EVERYONE needs to do it. That will be the challenge. If people cannot do it on their own, a consumption law will be required. Cutting emissions by at least 20% in 12 years will not be easy, but I have proven, at least to myself, that consumers can go well beyond a 20% reduction in the short term.

To those posters here who

To those posters here who express incredulity at my suggestion to nationalize the oil companies: wake up. How are markets going to fix the problem? Markets are what got us into this place. The private, for-profit oil companies are making record profits. They are bleeding Americans dry with their shameless price-gougery. The people who run these corporations are absolutely unscrupulous and care not a whit for the planet or the people of the United States. They take their billions of dollars and blow it on expensive yachts, mansions, private jets and diamond-encrusted iPods. If we nationalized the oil companies we could lower prices on gas marginally (there's no need for a publicly-owned and operated business to gouge the public) and the profits from this venture could be used to build and expand public transit systems and reduce demand for oil.

A few oil facts. The US uses

A few oil facts. The US uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day. About 60% and rising is imported. We use about 2/3 or 14 million barrels for transportation. Therefore the biggest potential for reduction or substitution is in transportation!

No doubt about it. Climate

No doubt about it. Climate change and rising oil prices will cause profound changes in our way of life. The sprawling suburbs of McMansions with one gas-guzzler per resident will become depopulated in favor of closer-knit homes, which will foster a more pleasant sense of community. Perhaps some communities will establish a pool of neighborhood electric vehicles for use by anyone. Emphasis on CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) will yield healthier, better-tasting food instead of the corporatized acres of monoculture bio-factories in the Midwest. As some have pointed out, our entire food chain is oil-based, and this will change as well. The notion of large centralized power plants will seem outdated in a few decades. With greatly enhanced conservation and emphasis on local renewable engergy sources, our lifestyle and security would be enhanced. Reread Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged for a 1940's era vision of America with advanced rail networks instead of today's interstate highway system, shich is predicated on cheap oil (although many may find fault with Rand's vision of libertarian individualism :) ) For more in-depth exploration, read Bill McKibben's book Deep Economy and David Wann's book Simple Prosperity. My two cents...

We're between the devil and

We're between the devil and the deep blue sea on this one, folks. The more oil that is available, cheap or otherwise, the greater will be our problem with climate change. Instead of drilling and mining in places where petroleum or its fossil fuel substitute is increasingly expensive, we need to start now in a massive effort to convert to non-fossil fuel energy sources. The petroleum that is still in the ground will be needed by our descendants as feedstock for industry and for lubricants.

Good article. Interesting

Good article. Interesting the notion of rationing versus price-rationing. Also kind of happening with food now. The rich are partially insulated because high prices are a nuisance rather than a death sentence. We absolutely need to reduce consumption (I include myself).

Everyone keeps on talking

Everyone keeps on talking about the oil for gas. That's only abut 10%-20% of the whole picture. In fact, WHOLE the world world economy runs on oil! Take 10 seconds and look around you right now? See that PC you are using? Made outta plastic. Plastic=oil. See all those CDs, DVDs jewel boxes lying around? Plastic! See all those cables? Plastic. See that TV? Lotto plastic. But it gets worse, MUCH worse. To grow all that food we need fertilizers that are made yes you guess it: outta oil! Please stop talking about cars and gas, and begin talking about our modern world that is totally, fully dependent on oil. Big changes are coming people BIG chaages. The whole human civilization is in grave danger because it's oil based.

Everyone keeps on talking

Everyone keeps on talking about the oil for gas. That's only abut 10%-20% of the whole picture. In fact, WHOLE the world world economy runs on oil! Take 10 seconds and look around you right now? See that PC you are using? Made outta plastic. Plastic=oil. See all those CDs, DVDs jewel boxes lying around? Plastic! See all those cables? Plastic. See that TV? Lotto plastic. But it gets worse, MUCH worse. To grow all that food we need fertilizers that are made yes you guess it: outta oil! Please stop talking about cars and gas, and begin talking about our modern world that is totally, fully dependent on oil. Big changes are coming people BIG chaages. The whole human civilization is in grave danger because it's oil based.

oil is too cheap

Oil isn't expensive emough. I recently visited family living in a suburb in VA. Everyone's mailbox is in a central place no more than 600' from the furthest houses. The bulk of the residents drive up to get their mail, letting their bmw or lexus idle while they unlock their post box. What's the cutoff point for this insanity?
Heinberg's article should be in every suburban newspaper in the us. The price of oil won't come down until we start using less of it.

It still surprises me that

It still surprises me that there are people like Mr. Hart out there who like to see oil companies nationalized. Most of global oil supplies are coming from nationalized oil companies after all. The oil price is not set by individual companies, it it set by the global market place. High profits are necessary to encourage increasingly more expensive new exploration. Otherwise or with fixed prices we will have shortages. A different story is the redirection of high profits into alternative energies. In my opinion this is the best way to go. Require oil companies to invest their huge profits into alternative energy or face much higher taxes. It is just a matter of time until we are forced away from carbohydrates anyway. Ultimately only MASSIVE, a new Manhattan project style, investments in ALTERNATIVE ENERGY (NO ethanol) will solve the energy problem. Just imagine 1 trillion dollars invested in alternative energy instead of the Iraq war. The US and the world would be in a much different, much better position. At current prices the US is paying about 600 billion $ a year for energy imports. Imagine this money spent and invested in our own country, our economy and finances would be in much better shape and we would NOT finance our enemies. MASSIVE INVESTMENTS IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IN THE US IS THE ONLY SENSIBLE WAY TO GO. Only this way we can preserve some of our way and standard of living!

Wrong-O, there is a much

Wrong-O, there is a much better solution! Fuel from algae! Check this out: http://www.valcent.net/s/Home.asp There's a movie or two, lots of information, a great freakin idea! It is up to us, I agree. We have to take steps, and anything that goes around car and oil corporations so we share the money in our community, rather than making a bunch of fat white CEOs even richer!

Reducing consumption will

Reducing consumption will lower prices? WHAT A JOKE!! In a Monopoly or Oligopoly, prices are set by the OWNERS, NOT the buyers. We have fewer major oil companies now, FIVE, than during the time of the 1st Robber Barons (ca. 1900). Then we had The SEVEN Sisters. While the U.S. has been reducing consumption for many months, which way have prices gone? In the U.S. and Canada, it costs about an average of $7 to pump a barrel of oil out of the ground and less than $10/bl to transport and refine it. We get about 60% of our oil from N. America. There are 45 gallons in a barrel. At $4/gal, we are paying 4 X $45 = $180/bl of gasoline. Diesel is even more. Nice profit isn't it--$143/bl. (~ $20 go to taxes and fees) Don't you all love paying $3/gallon tribute to the Emperors! Can't you just hear the outcry--as in "barely". Nice cover up, Dude.

BOYCOTT THE BIG FOUR for

BOYCOTT THE BIG FOUR for cheap oil. Heinberg overlooks the fact that Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, and BP are getting ready to carve up Iraq's oil supply and who knows where the price will go then? I'm willing to bet it will keep going up. A massive boycott, not for one day, but for the duration of these four corporations would send a much needed message. Why not start today? Let's get back all that money that's going into the coffers of the robber barons and use it to green the planet. The Enron effect has hit oil just like it hit electricity. We need to be wiser about taking action.

Reducing consumption will

Reducing consumption will lower prices? WHAT A JOKE!! In a Monopoly or Oligopoly, prices are set by the OWNERS, NOT the buyers. While the U.S. has been reducing consumption for the last several months, which way have prices gone? In the U.S. and Canada, it costs about $5 to pump a barrel of oil out of the ground and less than $10/bl to transport and refine it. We get about 60% of our oil from N. America. There are 45 gallons in a barrel. At $4/gal, we are paying $180/bl of gasoline. Diesel is even more. Nice profit isn't it--$165/bl. Don't you all love paying $3/gallon tribute to the Emperors! Can't you just hear the outcry--as in "barely".

No market solutions? Those

No market solutions? Those who have 8 cylinder engines could be regulated by law to tiny vouchers for 10 gallons a month, except for farmers and commercial owners of vehicles. Those with 6 cylinder engines would get the same treatment in 2 years. That would be the starting point. Do we need NASCAR? Do we need petrochemical fertilizers for golf courses? Do we need petrochemical fertilizers for agriculture? This goes on and on. Is there any reason we can''t have mass transit? Do we need an air travel industry that pollutes, clouds the sky and is very inefficient? Could we build smaller houses that are well insulated? Could we orient those houses to the sun for solar heat gain? The problem is that we have had 8 years of not asking questions. The price for caving into this crowd is pain. It might help to have a major new energy policy that begins with conservation and ends with zero population growth.

No Solutions? I must have

No Solutions? I must have read a different article. As for enlightenment, I guess that depends on your current level of awareness. I found the article sums up our situation with great clarity.

My typo corrected: Mr.

My typo corrected: Mr. Heinberg has presented the clearest explanation. . .

Before one judges Mr.

Before one judges Mr. Heinberg's article as a stand-alone argument, one must read more of what he's written to put things into perspective. I would suggest "The Party's Over" and move on to his later works in sequence. You would also do well to search his earlier works. His body of work traces the whole history of energies, including oil, from discovery, bonanza, production peaking and depletion, all of which he has so far been spot on about. And lest you think he speaks only doom and gloom, he argues well for action in a positive and even capitalistically possible way. After all is said, however, the thing that will most certainly move the current group of thugs who control the whole energy arena are the coming disasters their greed and neglect have fostered. Many are now inevitable. The entire human world will suffer in ways we know not of yet as the result of this horrible so-called leadership. We must stay calm but think for ourselves, and Mr. Heinberg's work will benefit anyone seeking advice and counsel in the field of energy and its importance to humanity. Spiritual awakening, anyone?

Don't panic. I'm surprised

Don't panic. I'm surprised that the media hasn't been broadcasting information about the Bakken Oil Formation in Montana, North Dakota and Saskatchewan, which is supposed to have four times as much oil as the entire Middle East. Enlighten yourself, and Google Bakken Oil Formation. There is a lot of oil out there!

And how, Nicholas Hart, will

And how, Nicholas Hart, will we decide who get what oil and how much. Nationalize oil and then what? Your right "This article isn't enlightening" but it certainly explains some economic reality that exist for the current state of affairs.

The market will adjust.

The market will adjust. There are alternatives that are on the market now, or will be coming soon: go ahead and Google: air-powered engine, water-powered engine, and electric car. People would rather pay $200/month for a new car that they can run for "free" on air, water, or electricity, rather than for continually more and more expensive gasoline. So, gas prices will go up only so far, and then people will find different ways to get around: walking, biking, motorbikes, motor scooters, electric vehicles, motorcycles, even golf carts, for pity's sake! The oil prices will not doom us, because we have other choices. A company in India just came out with a new small car that costs $2,500. Maybe this car gets 50+ miles per gallon. The Big Three auto companies are a few years behind the curve. They have a lot of catching up to do. If I were a stockholder in one of the auto companies, I would be talking - very loudly - for the company to get on the hybrid, electric, water-power, air-power train, before they are bankrupted by other, more fleet-of-foot companies.

Mr. Heinberg has presented

Mr. Heinberg has presented the clearest explaination of oil price dynamics I have encountered. Howver, I wish he had placed greater emphasis on the need for "a few extra tens of billions toward energy research". It's not just a good idea, it is vital. We need much stronger, more aggressive growth in renewables technology and deployment. This plus global leadership in demand reduction could help restore US economic prosperity and preclude our launching bloody, disastrous oil wars. Yes, a global accord would be nice, but the US is the world's biggest energy hog. Here is one case in which intensive unilateral action CAN make a global difference -- regardless of whether China and India continue to scrabble after $150 oil.

This article isn't

This article isn't particularly enlightening, nor does it offer any solutions. The fact of the matter is that as long as we have capitalism and allow private individuals and corporations to dictate policy simply based on their "ownership" of a resource, then we're going to have greedy people guided by their own self interests making decisions at the expense of the rest of us. Nationalizing ALL oil companies would be a good start. Regulating (or outlawing) commodity speculation would be another good step. People before profit!

Add a comment:

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
The following question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Please enter the two words seen below. If you cannot read them you may use the button with circling arrows to get a new one.