Global oil production will peak much earlier than expected amid a collapse in petroleum investment due to the credit crunch, one of the world’s foremost experts has revealed.
Fatih Birol, chief economist to the International Energy Agency, told the Guardian that conventional crude output could plateau in 2020, a development that was “not good news” for a world still heavily dependent on petroleum.
The prediction came as oil companies from Saudi Arabia to Canada cut their capital expenditure on new projects in response to a fall in oil prices, moves that will further reduce supply in future.
Birol’s comments will give more ammunition to those who warn that the British government is dangerously complacent in not trying to wean the country off oil as quickly as possible. Some observers believe that, because the global economy is underpinned by oil, the peaking of supply will cause severe economic, social and political disruption unless prepared for over many years.
John Hemming, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil and Gas, said Birol’s “conversion” was significant. “The penny has finally dropped - geological issues matter as well as political and economic. The IEA - unlike our government - appears to be leaving cloud cuckoo land finally,” he added.
The IEA has never before been specific about the point at which so-called conventional oil would peak. It said last month that total crude output could peak in 2030. Birol’s comments follow other signs that the IEA is rapidly changing its view. In its 2007 World Energy Outlook, the IEA predicted a rate of decline from the world’s existing oil fields at 3.7%, only to admit 12 months later that the speed of the fall was more likely 6.7%.
Jeremy Leggett, chief executive of solar energy company Solarcentury, said Birol’s views underplayed the scale of the problem. “The IEA is very constrained in what it can say - by the demands of its constituent governments - so you have to read between the lines. We believe that peak oil will come about in 2013 at the latest but the real concern from the IEA is the adjustment of production figures,” he said.
The energy agency, which represents most western governments including the UK and US, has been backtracking rapidly on previous positions.
Three years ago the Paris-based organisation still denied there was any fundamental threat to the world’s petroleum economy.
Source - The guardian
Showing posts with label oil companies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil companies. Show all posts
Sunday, 21 December 2008
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
The energy bubble has burst when you need tar sands
Shell, BP and other oil companies at the centre of the tar sands revolution in Canada are facing a backlash from the Co-operative and other members of the ethical investment community determined to bring a halt to these operations for environmental reasons.
A joint report from Co-operative Investments and the wildlife charity WWF released today will be followed up in September by a meeting of the UK Social Investment Forum (UKSIF) to press for an end to this carbon-intensive activity.
The tar sands business, by which crude oil is produced through highly carbon and water-intensive extraction and treatment procedures, risks tipping the world into an irreversible process of global warming, critics claim.
The Co-op and WWF are calling for a global halt to new licensing for tar sands and similar oil operations known as “unconventional fuels”.
They want the UK and other countries to prohibit the sale and distribution of any oil products with higher emissions than traditional petrol.
The move comes as Shell and other industry leaders have pledged to spend more than $125bn (£63bn) by 2015 to develop these new sources of petrol at a time of very high crude prices and fears of supply shortages.
The oil companies say the world needs these reserves, which are expensive to produce but are located in a politically stable area, unlike the traditional reserves of the Middle East or Russia. But critics say the environmental price is disastrous.
Paul Monaghan, head of social goals and sustainability at the Co-op group, said: “The current rush to invest in unconventional fossil fuels is wholly inappropriate and, due to their carbon intensity, these projects risk dangerous levels of climate change.”
The new report, Unconventional Oil: Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel, will be used as the basis for discussion with the Co-op’s 6.5 million customers and for garnering support from more than 200 other members of the UKSIF.
James Leaton, senior policy officer at WWF-UK, said: “Unconventional fuel sources may seem attractive in the short term but ultimately the environmental and economic costs are unthinkable.
“Companies and investors claim to recognise the need to tackle climate change and support international efforts such as Kyoto [climate change protocol]. In oil sands we have an activity that is going against this imperative and undermining Canada’s Kyoto commitments, so it is time for investors to challenge this strategy.”
Shell said: “The global demand for energy is growing. This will mean greater demand for oil and gas, too. Supplies of accessible, conventional oil and gas cannot keep up with the demand growth. As a result, society has little choice but to add other sources of energy including ‘unconventional’ fuels like oil sands.”
BP said fossil fuels were still going to be needed well into the future even if there were tough restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions.
“Reserves of oil sands represent a significant untapped resource from a politically stable country. The Husky joint venture [BP is planning] will use a process known as steam-assisted gravity drainage, not mining, which produces oil in-situ with a significant reduction of both water use and overall environmental footprint,” it said in a statement.
BP added that it was a “keen” supporter of mandatory market mechanisms such as cap-and-trade programmes on greenhouse gases: “We support national and international trading programmes and have factored the future costs of carbon in our analysis of the project’s value.”
Source - The guardian
A joint report from Co-operative Investments and the wildlife charity WWF released today will be followed up in September by a meeting of the UK Social Investment Forum (UKSIF) to press for an end to this carbon-intensive activity.
The tar sands business, by which crude oil is produced through highly carbon and water-intensive extraction and treatment procedures, risks tipping the world into an irreversible process of global warming, critics claim.
The Co-op and WWF are calling for a global halt to new licensing for tar sands and similar oil operations known as “unconventional fuels”.
They want the UK and other countries to prohibit the sale and distribution of any oil products with higher emissions than traditional petrol.
The move comes as Shell and other industry leaders have pledged to spend more than $125bn (£63bn) by 2015 to develop these new sources of petrol at a time of very high crude prices and fears of supply shortages.
The oil companies say the world needs these reserves, which are expensive to produce but are located in a politically stable area, unlike the traditional reserves of the Middle East or Russia. But critics say the environmental price is disastrous.
Paul Monaghan, head of social goals and sustainability at the Co-op group, said: “The current rush to invest in unconventional fossil fuels is wholly inappropriate and, due to their carbon intensity, these projects risk dangerous levels of climate change.”
The new report, Unconventional Oil: Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel, will be used as the basis for discussion with the Co-op’s 6.5 million customers and for garnering support from more than 200 other members of the UKSIF.
James Leaton, senior policy officer at WWF-UK, said: “Unconventional fuel sources may seem attractive in the short term but ultimately the environmental and economic costs are unthinkable.
“Companies and investors claim to recognise the need to tackle climate change and support international efforts such as Kyoto [climate change protocol]. In oil sands we have an activity that is going against this imperative and undermining Canada’s Kyoto commitments, so it is time for investors to challenge this strategy.”
Shell said: “The global demand for energy is growing. This will mean greater demand for oil and gas, too. Supplies of accessible, conventional oil and gas cannot keep up with the demand growth. As a result, society has little choice but to add other sources of energy including ‘unconventional’ fuels like oil sands.”
BP said fossil fuels were still going to be needed well into the future even if there were tough restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions.
“Reserves of oil sands represent a significant untapped resource from a politically stable country. The Husky joint venture [BP is planning] will use a process known as steam-assisted gravity drainage, not mining, which produces oil in-situ with a significant reduction of both water use and overall environmental footprint,” it said in a statement.
BP added that it was a “keen” supporter of mandatory market mechanisms such as cap-and-trade programmes on greenhouse gases: “We support national and international trading programmes and have factored the future costs of carbon in our analysis of the project’s value.”
Source - The guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
