Halloween Chills…For Real

October 31, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

It’s Halloween
night, and since I’m not in a neighborhood with any trick-or-treaters, I’m free
to experience some real-life chills by catching up with reports
from the Boston World Oil Conference
last weekend, an event sponsored by ASPO-USA.

 

How about these
items for scares, thrills, & chills? (Emphasis mine)

 

From Greg Jeffers’
blog, Mentatt:


  • while conventional
    oil and lease condensates have more than likely peaked, “all liquids” might
    not peak for 2 to 8 years, because of coal to liquid, tar sands to liquid, and
    heavy oil to liquid technologies

  • Natural Gas
    production (“NG”) is in such a state of crisis in North America that one of
    the speakers said that using NG for the purposes of converting Tar Sands in
    Canada into synthetic crude was akin to lighting candles with $100 bills
    during a blackout. Another said using NG for processing Tar Sands was “taking
    gold and turning it into lead”. Not one of the scientists presenting thought
    NG production could be expanded in North America – Peak Gas has arrived for
    the continent.

  • Natural
    gas is increasingly of more urgent concern in North America than Peak
    Oil
    . If we stopped drilling right now, our production would decline
    by 30% next year, and 30% the year after, etc. LNG will compete against other
    countries, a 35% energy loss in transportation, and Not-In-My-BackYard
    opposition. There still exists some demand side destruction left, but then we
    will be close to the bone” Nate Hagens.

  • While the resource
    base is large, the recoverable reserves from Tar Sands, Shale Oil, Heavy Oil…
    is less than 10% of the resource. It was stated over and over again that as
    far as these resources were concerned we are severely limited in our ability
    to deliver them to the market. Further, the environmental impacts from these
    reserves will severely limit their production.

  • What about
    alternatives? Not one of the scientists presenting felt that any alternative
    fuel would have a significant impact before 2030, if ever.

  • Across the country
    from the Boston Conference a CEO of one of the world’s largest oil companies
    was telling his audience:

    “The ease with which we all lived in
    the last 50 years, with cheap energy, is coming to a close,” John Hofmeister,
    president of Shell Oil Co., told a City Club luncheon crowd Friday in
    Portland. “The next 50 years cannot be like the last 50
    years.”

    “The oil demand-and-supply equation”, Hofmeister
    said, “now constantly flirts with crisis. Americans need to develop a sense of
    privilege rather than entitlement when it comes to energy use.”


  • Alternative energy
    sources (Ethanol, Bio Diesel, Wind, Solar) will have little
    impact.

    Coal will not be able to come to the rescue in the near term
    due to its impact on the environment, and because 100% of the electricity
    generating plants built in the U.S. over the past 7 years were NG fired
    plants, not coal fired plants.

    Non-Conventional Resources (Tar
    Sands, Oil Shale, Heavy Oil) will not move the peak back at all
    , but
    will lessen the steepness of the decline. However, we might find that their
    environmental impacts are not worth the price of admission.

    The
    Media is doing a great disservice to the American people with their
    irresponsible reporting of the issue.
    What I heard from America’s
    best and brightest scientists bears no resemblance of what I see reported in
    the media. Presumably, the media is getting its data from these scientists. I
    am not a big believer in conspiricy theories - so I will chalk it up to
    incompetence.

From the excellent and extensive notes from the
conference posted in the Minor
Heresies
blog:


1) There’s not a
huge gap between the optimists and the pessimists on peak
oil.

2) Increased
exploration and drilling isn’t paying off.

3) Worldwide
demand is increasing despite high prices

4) The most
optimistic assessments keep getting shot down by new data.

5) Major oil
producers have inflated their reserve numbers, generally by a factor of
two.

6) The
alternatives to conventional crude oil are expensive and a long way
off.

7) Many
alternatives to conventional oil take too much energy to be
practical.

8) The energy
profit on fossil fuels is declining

9) Market
forces won’t work.

10) All the
factors above will combine to impose sudden and dramatic lifestyle changes on
us.


The only thing that could change fast enough to
make a difference would be human
behavior.


And here are some
very interesting quotes, from FTW’s
interview with Matthew Simmons
at the conference:

 


FTW: We are
currently in a plateau area of oil production. Jean Laherrere has detailed the
“bumpy plateau” of oil production, and FTW has recently written about this.
Professor Michael T. Klare says this plateau could last “a decade or more.”
What do you think about that?

 

Matt Simmons: It’s
so hard to try and accurately predict this. But what is easy to predict is the
fact that there is just no way – with the limitation we have of oil
rigs compared to projects – to keep supply growing: That’s an
impossibility.
But to stabilize the base for some period of time – if
we didn’t have such an incredible limitation of drilling rigs that would take
at least a decade to correct – I think that would probably be possible. But
given the fact that we are not going to have significantly more rigs for at
least another decade, and how old the fleet of rigs is, the size of the fleet
is going to drop before it goes back up. I’d say sustaining the base for 5 or
10 years is not impossible but extremely long odds.

 

FTW: I saw you
speak in Crystal City recently, but FTW did not publish a report after that
because, unfortunately, our offices were burglarized 5 days later and we spun
into turmoil. At this speech you brought up a number of ideas that I would say
are radical including; 1) liberating the work force, 2) having people live and
work in “villages,” and, 3) changing the way we ship goods to the degree that
we have to ship them, among other suggestions. Little-to-none of this is being
addressed today at this conference. Are we nearing the point where conferences
such as these that focus on the problem might be irrelevant or may need to be
updated?

 

MS: First of all
we won’t implement any of these changes until our back is against the wall and
we realize that we have to. These aren’t things that people say, “OK, 1-2-3,
let’s jump in the lake!” I think it’s so important that we educate people that
this is coming. I liken this to almost every major war. We could have
prevented it five years before it started, but all of a sudden you realize
we’re beyond the tipping point, and now we’re at war.
 
What’s
interesting is that liberating the workforce is actually in motion right now
in Houston, Texas. Our Mayor has initiated a program in September called “flex
in the city.” It’s all about flexible work rules and recognizes companies that
figure out programs to start this. It’s really addressing Peak Traffic. Our
highways have been expanded as much as they can be and it won’t work anymore.
Unless we create a flexible work force and stop this compulsion of
long-distance driving, Houston doesn’t have a future. And it’s amazing how
popular it has been, and company leadership is saying that this is really a
good idea. This is the easiest to do because it’s basically just a mind state
change. The key to it is basically paying people by productivity instead of 9
to 5.


FTW: In
Crystal City you also said that there needs to be an “end to globalization,”
but that this is harder to do than the other suggestions you gave. Do you have
any ideas about how we can address this, and if you don’t, can you at least
speak to this?

 

MS: Well by
globalization I don’t mean talking to someone in India by telephone. What I
mean is the concept that we can get increasingly inexpensive things to
purchase because we broke them apart into the simplest unit and we found the
cheapest sweatshop economy in the world to have it built in and then we
basically ‘zing’ the parts around until finally you’ve built a car. And the
energy used up in doing that wasn’t even thought about but it was one more
element that gave rise to this astonishing rise in oil demand over the last 15
years. When we finally have to start shrinking the supply we’re going to have
to do without something. One of the easiest things to do without is to stop
this process in its tracks and start building things very close to where they
are used. But none of this will happen until it has to – not until there is a
crisis.

Now, I’ve
used that same rationale myself, and still do: that we won’t do what we have to
do until there is a crisis, no matter how much advance warning we have. History
certainly bears that out. But can we do it differently this time? Can we ever
shut the door on the possibility that, this time, we’ll see the threat and react
to it before it’s too late?

 

And finally,
Simmons’ most modest proposal:


“I think ultimately we
have to reduce globalization, and get away from this concept that we make
things in the cheapest part of the world to make them and then send them
around, but that’s harder.”


I think it’s clear enough that he’s right about reducing globalization,
but what a stunning statement! Here’s the top oil investment banker in the
world, saying that we need to do an about-face on the direction of our country’s economic policy!


How about you? Can you embrace the future and change your habits and your
expectations? Or will you wait until you’re backed against the wall?


–C

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment




Copyright © 2008 GetRealList
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
FAIR USE NOTICE