Shooting War Gen-We Getting A Grip Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

A03766

Battle In Seattle
Articles : Corporations
_NEWS IMAGE_
 Al-Shaybah field, Saudi Arabia 
Truth and consequences in the last days of cheap oil

At the hastily convened global oil summit in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on June 28, top officials of producing and consuming nations from around the world attempted to find a combination of solutions that would somehow extricate us from the current crisis over sky-high energy prices. These proposals ranged from increased output by major producers like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to restrictions on the activities of international oil speculators.

But all were based on the premise that the crisis can be resolved through the right mix of actions, thus restoring an environment of cheap and abundant oil – a premise that is fundamentally flawed. More and more, the evidence suggests that this is not just a temporary crisis. It is the beginning of the end of the Petroleum Age.

How do we know that the Petroleum Age is drawing to a close? Two key indicators tell us that this is so. First, many of the giant fields that have satisfied our massive thirst over so many years are experiencing diminished output. Second, although the major oil producers are spending more money each year to discover new reserves, they are finding less and less oil. Either of these factors by itself is cause for significant worry; the combination is deadly.

Dangerous Reliance

Few people understand how reliant we have become on a relatively small number of mammoth fields for the lion’s share of our daily petroleum intake. Though the world possesses tens of thousands of operating fields, a mere 116 of them – each producing more than 100,000 barrels per day – together account for nearly one-half of total global output. Of these, all but a handful were discovered more than a quarter of a century ago, and most are showing signs of diminished capacity. Indeed, some of the world’s largest fields – including Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, Burgan in Kuwait, Cantarell in Mexico, and Samotlor in Russia – appear to be now in decline or about to become so. The decline of these giant fields matters greatly. Compensating for their lost output will take increased yield at thousands of smaller fields, and there is no evidence that this is even remotely possible.

Signs of decline at the major fields began accumulating this spring when Mexico announced that Cantarell’s output had fallen by 416,000 barrels per day, a 25% reduction over its 2007 output. Though state-owned Pemex was able to boost output at a number of other fields, the decline at Cantarell was so significant that Mexico reported a 9% drop in net oil output for the first quarter of 2008 as against 2007. This is an ominous sign from a country that a year ago was America’s second leading supplier of crude petroleum. A similar sign of alarm came this spring from Russia, until recently the rising star of the oil world. Since last October, output there has fallen about 2%, with no hint of a recovery in sight.

The biggest mystery is the status of Ghawar. This Saudi Arabian field, the world’s biggest by far, accounts for about 7% of global supply. Saudi Arabian officials insist that the field is in good shape and fully capable of sustaining daily output of nearly 5 million barrels for years to come. But many skeptical analysts, including noted Houston investor Matthew Simmons, believe that Ghawar is on its last legs and will soon go into decline. In his 2005 book Twilight in the Desert, Simmons cited technical papers to show that field pressure at Ghawar was being artificially maintained through the heavy use of water injection – a technique that cannot be sustained indefinitely and is usually followed by a rapid plunge in output.

Dire Prognosis

To better gauge the status of the world’s largest fields, the International Energy Agency (IEA), an arm of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, is conducting a survey of the top 400 reservoirs. Although the survey is not due to be published until November, early drafts of the report have been leaked in The Wall Street Journal – and the prognosis is not promising. “The world’s premier energy monitor is preparing a sharp downward revision of its oil-supply forecast,” the Journal reported in May, “a shift that reflects deepening pessimism over whether oil companies can keep abreast of booming demand.”

The most troubling finding in the IEA report, according to those who have seen early drafts, is that the rate of depletion in existing fields like Cantarell, Ghawar, and Burgan is far greater than previously thought. In other words, we are running out of known oil reserves at a greater rate than previously assumed. “This is a dangerous situation,” said Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, in an interview with the Journal.

We could live with the decline of these great reservoirs if we had some confidence that new reserves were being discovered all the time to replace all those now reaching the end of their productive life. But this is not the case. Despite a sharp increase in spending on exploration and development, the rate of new reserve discovery has been falling steadily for the past 30 years. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the last decade in which new discoveries exceeded the rate of extraction from existing fields was the 1980s. Since then we have been consuming more oil than we have been finding – a pattern that can only result, eventually, in the complete exhaustion of the world’s known petroleum reserves.

Few New Finds

Only one giant field has been discovered in the past 25 years – Kashagan in Kazakhstan’s sector of the Caspian Sea – and it has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. With estimated reserves of 7-13 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids, Kashagan was originally expected to come on line in 2005 at a cost of $50 billion. As a result of environmental hazards, government intervention, and disputes among members of the consortium established to operate the field, it is now scheduled to begin pumping oil in 2011 at the earliest at a minimum cost of $135 billion.

Recently the Brazilian state firm Petrobras has announced an equally large discovery in the deep waters of the Atlantic, some 150 miles off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. Although very promising, the Tupi field will take many years to develop and will require the use of more costly and advanced technology than any now in widespread use.

These new discoveries may add one or two million barrels of oil per day to existing output in 2015 and beyond, but by that point output from existing fields is likely to be considerably lower than it is today. Nobody can predict exactly where combined worldwide production will stand at that time. But more and more analysts are coming to the conclusion that the output of conventional (i.e., liquid) petroleum will peak at about 95 million barrels per day in the 2010-2012 time-frame and then begin an irreversible decline. The addition of a few million added barrels from Kashagan or Tupi will not alter this trend.

There is, of course, much talk about other, “unconventional” sources of oil: untapped reserves in Alaskan wilderness areas and America’s outer continental shelf, Canadian tar sands, Rocky Mountain shale rock.

True, these various prospects – if brought to fruition and putting aside the massive costs and environmental risks involved – could add anywhere from a 750,000 barrels a day (in the case of Alaskan oil) to a few million barrels (in the case of the others) to global energy supplies in the years ahead. But, when all is said and done, none of this can stop the inevitable closing of the Petroleum Age.

End of an Era

Consider: In 2030, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, world “liquids” demand is expected to reach 117.6 million barrels per day. Of this amount, unconventional fuels – synthetic liquids derived from tar sands, shale rock, and biofuels – may provide a total of 10.5 million barrels. That leaves 107.1 million to be supplied by conventional petroleum. But what if global oil output has fallen to 60-70% of that amount by 2030, as projected by many analysts? Under those circumstances, no amount of oil from Alaska or the outer continental shelf will be able to save this country (or the rest of the world) from a catastrophic energy crisis.

Some say that any palliative is worth the expense as we head toward certain disaster. But this is not a logical response. Knowing that the age of petroleum is drawing to a close, it is far better to devote our talents and investment dollars on hastening the arrival of its successor, rather than prolonging the agony of oil’s decline.

At this point, we cannot be absolute certain of the dominant energy source of the post-petroleum era. Will it be the Solar Age or the Biofuels Age or the Hydrogen Age? But we do know that it will revolve around some constellation of renewable, climate-friendly, domestically-produced supplies. From now on, America’s top priority in the energy field must be to explore all potential components of this new energy future and move swiftly to develop those with the greatest promise.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, the author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (Metropolitan Books, 2008), and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. Klare’s previous book, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum has been made into a documentary movie – to order and view a trailer, visit www.bloodandoilmovie.com.

anthony

Posted by anthony
Anthony Lappé is GNN's Executive Editor. He's written for The New York Times, Details, New York, Paper, The Fader and Vice, among many others. He has worked as a producer for MTV and Fuse. He is the co-author of GNN's True Lies and the producer of their Iraq doc,...

Disclaimer: Statements and opinions expressed in articles published on this site are those of the authors and not of the staff or editors of GNN, unless otherwise stated.

RECENT COMMENTS

good read.

some of the oil fields he mentioned, will be “productive” for years to come tho.

Dilated_Rebel @ 06/30/08 10:23:44

i think the issue still comes back to the north american way being completely unsustainable. every single aspect of our economy depends on petroleum and as that continues i think our way of life as we know it will be completely different. i hope electricity is still around so i can continue to play electric guitar. lol

deaner @ 06/30/08 14:04:10

Ok, I realize this idea upsets a lot of people…

Nuclear energy is simply a good idea. This is not the 1950s or 70s anymore.
There is now such thing as safe, reliable nuclear energy.
Other than the greed of oil companies, one of the biggest things stopping it from being implemented is a long-standing paranoia.

If production and disposal of waste is handled carefully and properly, nuclear energy could be a perfect solution to the world’s energy crisis, because lets face it: fossil fuels as well as most other forms of alternative energy simply aren’t going to cut it.

BabelFish265 @ 06/30/08 17:36:03

babel on nuke-o
nanosolar.com is producing panels so good and cheap it has made photovoltaics cheaper than coal, oil, or, ahem, nukes… put that in your toxic pipe and toke it…
in fact, the reason the Fedswithdrew all solar plant subsidies last week is becauyse the death of entrenched industries is looming so fast, the big fucks have shat themselves

wake up rad lover

johnnycivil @ 06/30/08 19:03:08

“When are they going to have products?” [Paul Maycock, president of solar-electric consulting and research firm Photovoltaic Energy Systems] asked. “When can I buy them? Show me a product that I can check the efficiency of and can get for $2 or less. I have to adopt a ‘show me’ attitude with Nanosolar, but I don’t say they can’t do it – I hope they do. We need 14 percent thin films with prices below $2 a watt right now.”

Nanosolar’s thin-film tool implies a “very significant” cost reduction, Maycock said.

P.S. Citing Need for Assessments, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects

See also, Feds call halt to new solar plant permits, may give boost to municipal installations
dikweed @ 06/30/08 21:57:46

Other than the greed of oil companies, one of the biggest things stopping it from being implemented is a long-standing paranoia.

And prohibitive cost.

And the decade it takes to build a plant.

Paranoia takes third to pragmatism here.

zephid @ 06/30/08 23:52:52

decade to build a plant… nanosolar is supplying orders to customers worldwide who buy a half-million sq ft.

if and when they liscense the process or others make their own breakthoughs expect retail availability

blueridgenano.com has a test panel from them that they say works fine…

johnnycivil @ 07/01/08 00:01:37

“If production and disposal of waste is handled carefully and properly, “ – there’s the rub..

Also Uranium is a finite resource.

Disenchanted @ 07/01/08 05:54:06

You’d get the same political problems as with oil too. Sourcing from dodgy regimes that you feel the need to prop up, along with the chance of having your uranium ships hijacked by terrorists/pirates and then….

Szamko @ 07/01/08 06:47:33

I looked up one day and saw this crazy light in the sky that blew my mind right out of my ass. They say that it is always on somewhere in the world. I also remember hearing about this thing called the wind. Apparently, it fucking blows. I have also heard that a shitload of heat comes from under the ground. Must be from Hell.

PS – Radioactive shit is fucking retarded. Period.

verisimilar @ 07/01/08 11:32:03

I think most of us know where HEMP for Victory !!! stands on the issue of transition away from the insanity of our petro-dominated march to disaster.

Also Uranium is a finite resource.

Hemp on the other hand is a true renewable.

I suppose if the folks who are pushing for the nuclear expansion solution were to get their way — and they are coming out of the woodwork (damn termites) — were a Chernobyl to occur, our friend hemp would be ready to help clean up (phyto-remediate) the radioactive mess done to the soil.

HEMP for VICTORY !!!

HEMPforVICTORY @ 07/01/08 12:32:36

great article.

I looked up one day and saw this crazy light in the sky that blew my mind right out of my ass. They say that it is always on somewhere in the world. I also remember hearing about this thing called the wind. Apparently, it fucking blows. I have also heard that a shitload of heat comes from under the ground. Must be from Hell.

PS – Radioactive shit is fucking retarded. Period.

well put.

does the “developed” world need more energy? is there any energy source that will not go towards fueling an ultimately unsustainable culture? do we have any proxy for “development” and use of energy that does not come at the expense of nature?

opps, hey team humans… i dink we may have needed that whole rainforest and biodiversity stuff…
something about water cycling err ugh climate and the dang ol feedback loops… what with soil retention and so on not that im a tropical biologist or nothing i just figured you know trees and plants and the whole life and ecosystem thingy was kinda cooler than fueling my tin can with wheels

/mumbles on and on, twitching, cussing, and citing ecology studies on the death of the planet…

Livingston @ 07/01/08 12:47:19

this ‘team humans’ shit is getting mighty stale

HughJarse @ 07/01/08 12:49:31

its ok
they will be gone soon

Livingston @ 07/01/08 12:52:05

The question is, will they starve or freeze?

HEMPforVICTORY @ 07/01/08 12:58:24

one then the other

zephid @ 07/01/08 13:56:46

We can’t solve the question regarding climate change, and now were supposed to produce tons and tons radioactive shit we don’t even know how to dispose of, worse of all it will contaminate the soil for centuries.

I agree with Livingston. today’s consumer culture and society is unsustainable. Consumers have been misled into believing we could consume endlessly without reprcussions. Well turns out we cant. somebody should burst that bubble. Will it be Obama?

Don’t hold your breath, It’s preferrable to die from climate change than catch some freaking radioactive herpes.

Dilated_Rebel @ 07/01/08 21:43:17

climate change can be brought under control, but not from within the existing power structures and culture.
fortunately those are falling apart.

reforestation of the tropics, biochar, and decarbonize industry and transport. now.

wanna bust the bubble?
cuz obama ain’t gonna

take it to the streets

pop!

Livingston @ 07/02/08 08:22:05

“reforestation of the tropics, biochar, and decarbonize industry and transport. now.”

My main concern is the first part.

can the clear cut areas of the rainforest, even support a “reforestation” program?

I have my doubts.

And busting the bubble takes revolutionizing the education, media and government itself.

Take that to the streets!! (the ones the govt. does let u protest on, u know the small ones far from any important buildings and or events).

Dilated_Rebel @ 07/02/08 14:49:31

yeah, lots of clearcut areas have really nutrient-poor soils. most new world tropical soils cycle nutrients right out of the leaf litter and decaying organic stuff – deforest and you lose that layer – the soils become depleted and rich in iron and aluminum compounds which bind nutrients.

it can certainly be done though – we have sufficient understanding of nutrient cycling to really get things going… and theres tonssssssss of deforested land that would not take too much work to reforest in the tropics.

we send fucking mankeys to the moon – of course we can plant plants. they know how to do their thing.

we need the social movement and political power. redirect industry to reforest, and get funky. fuck planting trees on tree farms only – i’ve seen arable soil in deserted lots on just about every other city block in costa rican slums. reforest the cities, let bums eat fruit and grow weed. get em off crack. hammocks, herb, and a garden to tend to – bums will fucking love it.

the important thing is to forget about going through the “could this work or not” crap. who fucking cares. if it doesnt work we fry but at least we tried. either way we’re probably hosed. fuck it.

revolution or extinction.

Livingston @ 07/02/08 16:34:56

Amen Livingston.

But you know what the problem is? Capital.

That empty lot in the city, well its much too “valuable” to let the common folk plant their “vegetable” garden. Why this entrepreneur from Paris can make it condominiums.

Proof of this is found in Los Angeles’s own south-central farm where such a place had a existed and is now certain to be lost.

And why?

our contemporary belief in “progress” and “growth” which perhaps economically speaking makes sense. But in cultural/social terms the externalities caused by this so-caleld growth, is destroying mankind and the world along with it.

This all reminds me of Pliny the younger of 1st century rome; arguably the time period in which the empire reached its pinnacle. While the aristocracy was seeing booming times, he saw rome’s weakness in that the people were not happy. they were virtually all slaves. had absolutely no voice. He didn’t see the mythical proud Roman ploughing his land and raising his family. He saw slaves working the land, endless war, famines, etc.

Get it???

It won’t be until we revolutionize our value system, individually, that real progress won’t be made. should we value GDP & unsustaibale growth over humanity and nature? seems to me we do. now most gnn’ers are well informed. but how many people on the outside would be able to contribute so as to further the discussion down the right track? Probably not many. they’ll just repeat the tired old lines the media and school have given them. that must change.

Education 2 Revolution!!!

I think it funny that some people would look to an artist for real life issues.

Dilated_Rebel @ 07/02/08 18:22:58

hell yes.

but how many people on the outside would be able to contribute so as to further the discussion down the right track? Probably not many. they’ll just repeat the tired old lines the media and school have given them. that must change.

testify

spit

mash on dem keys

peace

Livingston @ 07/02/08 20:10:34

well it seems like Obama is quite intent on Nuclear energy, i wonder where his campaign contributions came from?

agreed about starvation over radioactive herpes

deaner @ 07/04/08 11:35:39

McDonalds could always deep fry the toxic waste and add it to their value menu. any takers?

deaner @ 07/04/08 11:38:07

‘lots of clearcut areas have really nutrient-poor soils.’

HEMP is a net-nutrient plant, and is perfectly suited for tropical climates.

HEMP for Victory !!!

HEMPforVICTORY @ 07/04/08 12:08:39
Login

Sign up for the GNN newsletter to get the first word on video premieres and breaking news. signup

Read the GNN FAQ for information about the site, forum rules and other GNN 2.0 information. faq

Optimized for FireFox
To download the Firefox web browser, visit mozilla.com Get Firefox

  • Advertise With GNN
  • SUPPORT GNN! Support GNN

    TEES/DVDS @ GNN STORE

    Buy Our Tees
  • Bloggers' Rights at EFF