The Oil Drum: Europe

On Wednesday 29th October 2008 I attended a press conference at the London Stock Exchange. The meeting was convened by the "Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security" (www.peakoiltaskforce.net) to introduce a new report: The Oil Crunch, securing the UK’s energy future. September last year, former US Energy Secretary Dr James Schlesinger addressed the ASPO6 conference in Cork, Ireland with these words: The peakists have won ... to the peakists I say, you can declare victory. You are no longer the beleaguered small minority of voices crying in the wilderness. You are now mainstream. You must learn to take yes for an answer and be gracious in victory. The taskforce behind this report formed around 18 months ago.

Click to download .pdf

An important Dutch energy institute, the Clingendael International Energy Program (CIEP), recently published a report that confirms most of the conclusions about the oil market reached over the years at the oildrum. That the floor price of oil is now 110 dollars per barrel, that supply will not rise beyond 100-105 million b/d in the coming decades, that there will be an oil supply constraint for most of the next decade, that there are insufficient quantities of alternative fuels available and that thus demand destruction is inevitable. CIEP is especially important because it is endorsed by amongst others BP, Shell Netherlands, Total E&P Netherlands, three Dutch Ministries, Wintershall, Vopak Oil Europe Middle East and several Dutch energy companies. The report in english can be downloaded here (PDF 2.8 megabytes, 108 pages).

'This outlook of new scarcity is now exacerbated by the fact that not only available supply will determine what amount of demand can be satisfied; it will also bring about a new allocation of the available oil due to a lack of adequate supply growth compared with demand. In practice this means that demand rationing will be required in the OECD countries and particularly in the US, in order to accommodate growth in the newly developing countries, notably China and India. Different fuel prices for end-consumers in the different countries will be the dominant factor behind this ‘oil redistribution’. (emphasis mine)

On the heels of this weekend's Saudi Oil summit, Nigerian production has dropped to the lowest level in 25 years. This was in part because militant attacks shut in as much as 345,000 barrels per day of Nigerian production in the past few days. The Nigerian militant group MEND (Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta) has demonstrated a continuing ability to interrupt production from Nigeria's mature, onshore fields. However, the future promise of Nigerian oil is not onshore. Rather, it is the 1.25 million barrels per day of offshore production scheduled to come on line in the next 6 years. Analysts previously believed these offshore facilities were out of MEND's reach.

This assumption--that far offshore facilities are beyond the reach of militants--must now be reconsidered. The week's most successful attack, shutting in 225,000 barrels per day, came against Shell's Bonga facility. At 120 km offshore, the Bonga attack demonstrated a new militant capability in the offshore environment. As Nigeria is one of the few states with the geological potential to significantly increase oil production and exports, the Bonga attack may prove to be an extremely important development.

Shell’s $3.6 billion “Bonga” Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading vessel (FPSO), 120km from shore in 1000m deep water, was recently attacked by MEND militants.

It isn't hard to see why I am an oil shale skeptic. I outlined my reasons in two essays on oil shale: “Oil Shale Development Imminent” and Oil Shale = Cellulosic Ethanol.

In those essays, I provided some history of oil shale, discussed Shell's unique process, as well as the reasons those "trillions of barrels" remain elusive. But one of Shell's recent moves has raised some eyebrows, as they are in the process of buying up water rights in Colorado to process the shale.

Green River Formation: Trillions of Barrels of Oil?

Click on the image to the right to download the .pdf of a full page "advert" which appeared in both Time and Fortune magazines over Easter. It was written by Jeremy Leggett, the prominent peak oil and climate change commentator and proponent of renewable energy (also Chairman of Solarcentury). On peak oil Jeremy doesn't pull any punches: The bad news is that no combination of technologies can plug the energy gap if the peakists are correct. There will be a third, and last, global energy crisis. It will dwarf previous crises. Profound economic dislocation will result. The challenge for human civilization will be how we rebuild post-peak. The interesting point here is that that Shell sponsored the thing. So, what's in it for Shell?

Click to enlarge. .pdf

Below the fold is the full text of an email sent by Jeroen van der Veer, the CEO of Shell, to all Shell employees, and explicitly meant for wider distribution. (Update: an almost identical version is now available on Shell's website)

It is a clear acknowledgement of the reality of peak oil, climate change and of the need for comprehensive policy changes, and is worth reading in full.

Cross-posted from Peak Energy

The Australian Financial Review today has a report on a plan by the Ziff brothers to revive Queensland's defunct shale oil industry (subscription required) - "a mining project worth as much as $14 billion near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park". The report predicts the development would bring 16,000 new residents to the Whitsundays region and is already facing opposition from local groups like "Save Our Foreshore" concerned about damage to the environment and the tourism industry.

Bloomberg has a much smaller version of the story - "Ziff Seeks to Develop Australian Oil-Shale Project, Review Says".

Queensland Energy Resources Ltd., a closely held company backed by Ziff Brothers Investments, is seeking to develop an Australian oil-shale project valued at A$14 billion ($12 billion), the Australian Financial Review reported.

Consultants from New-York based Ziff recently met the Queensland government to discuss development of the project, which would require the relocation of a nearby airport, the paper said, citing government documents. The project, located in Queensland state near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, may contain as much as 9.7 billion barrels of oil resources, the Review said, citing a document lodged with the state's government.

Queensland Energy is scheduled to complete an initial study into possible development of the project within six months, the Review said, citing Simon Eldridge, the company's director of corporate affairs. The company acquired the project from Southern Pacific Minerals NL in 2004, the report said.

The original Stuart shale oil development in the area was done by Southern Pacific Petroleum.

Lord Ron Oxburgh, former non-executive chairman, Shell UK; chairman, House of Lords select committee on science and technology; honorary professor, Cambridge University

The morning began with a Keynote address by Lord Oxburgh former non-executive chairman of Shell, who spoke on “Out of Oil, into Hot Water.” He began by noting the economic difficulties that are coming as demand continues to exceed supply. We are not, after all, making oil any more. (Ed comment – well let’s not forget biofuels – and it turned out he did not). Because these problems will arise around the time of peaking they will likely be precursors to it, and these economic consequences will come sooner than expected.

The problems, however, are not that we are running out of oil, rather it is that we are running out of cheap oil. When oil fields are abandoned there may be 60% of the original oil (OOIP) that is left in the rock. At present this is just too expensive to extract, but it leaves us with a problem since most transportation requires a liquid fuel. To work effectively the vehicle must have a small, relatively light engine, together with a storage reservoir full of fuel, that must in turn, be as light, yet energy dense, as possible. The Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) has filled that need for the past century or so. The fuels that power it are among the most energy dense of those commonly available. That alone, however, is not the problem.

[editor's note, by Dave Cohen] Fellow TOD contributor Bubba is co-author of this report. He is an industry insider. It seemed important for those of us concerned about peak oil to respond to the Jack-2 test well result and all the publicity it has spawned. I also had conversations about this piece with Byron King at Whiskey And Gunpowder. Byron writes frequently about peak oil issues. I take full responsibility for this post's contents since I did the final editing.

With the successful test drilling of Jack-2 in the ultra deepwater Gulf of Mexico, there has been a media blitz proclaiming the good news. The "peak oil" theory is under attack. From Business Week's September 7, 2006 article Plenty of Oil--Just Drill Deeper The discovery of reserves in the Gulf of Mexico means supply isn't topping out, we learn

You can tune out all the scare talk about Peak Oil for a while--probably a long while. Peak Oil is the theory, on the verge of becoming conventional wisdom, that the world's petroleum supply is topping out and will not be able to meet global demand soaring along with the economies of China and India. But a successful test in a mammoth field deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico, announced on Sept. 5 by Chevron (CVX), Devon Energy (DVN), and Norway's Statoil (STO), should help put that scary scenario on hold for decades....

Cambridge Energy Research Associates predicts world oil and natural gas liquids capacity could increase as much as 25% by 2015. Says Robert W. Esser, a director of CERA: "Peak Oil theory is garbage as far as we're concerned."

Let's take a closer look at the prospectivity, geology, economics, technology, reservoirs, hydrocarbons and logistics of the Lower Tertiary play in the Gulf of Mexico (henceforth the LTGOM).

The weather is still pleasantly warm, and winter seems, as yet, to be just an unpleasant thought that can be put off until, at least, Thanksgiving. But unfortunately for those who have to look towards energy supplies for the winter, particularly in Europe, it may already be coming too quickly. To simply describe what is likely going to turn into yet another mess this winter, let me try a quick summary of what seems to be in the offing.

Gazprom you may recall has been buying into, or acquiring more control of, pipelines that carry their gas from Russia to the West. In the process, last year, it had a bit of a row with Ukraine, over the price that should be paid for the gas Ukraine was using. By offsetting the cheaper price that was to be paid for gas from Turkmenistan, the deal that was cut gave Ukraine the promise of gas at a price that would allow it to continue to function. Well, unfortunately for that agreement, Gazprom has just agreed to pay more for Turkmen gas. At a price of $100 per thousand cubic meters this is already $5 above the price that Ukraine was going to pay for a blend that also contained $230 Gazprom gas.