Pages

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Has the United States beaten peak oil? Not so fast.

 at 02:27 PM ET, 02/17/2012


Bright lights, big oil field in North Dakota. (Larry Mayer/AP)

In the past five years, warnings about peak oil have gained a lot of traction. U.S. oil production, after all, has fallen sharply since 1970. Global oil output has plateaued of late, even as China and India are demanding ever more crude. And that's all caused prices to soar.

Yet the recent shale-oil boom in North Dakota has some analysts brushing off this gloomy perspective. A new research note (pdf) from Citigroup argues that the recent surge in North American production has "buried" the peak-oil hypothesis. New drilling technology has allowed companies to extract oil from once-inaccessible shale rock, which has, in turn, allowed the U.S. to slash its oil imports dramatically. What's more, there are tantalizing shale deposits all around the world — in Argentina, Australia, and even France. So does that mean that, as the Citigroup analysts say, the peak-oil hypothesis is "dead"? Well, not so fast.

For one, the recent discoveries in North Dakota, while promising, need to be put in context. As a less-buoyant research note from Barclays Capitalemphasizes, North Dakota's shale plays still only produce 0.5 million barrels of oil per day. In an average year, tiny swings in China's appetite for crude can easily gobble all of that up. What's more, the United States still remains the largest importer of crude oil and other refined products in the world, at about 9 million barrels of oil per day. We're still very far from erasing that dependency.

Now, one reason that the United States imports so much oil is that many of its domestic fields, in places like Texas and California, have been in steep declinefor decades. Back in 1970, the United States churned out 10 million barrels of oil per day. Now? We produce just 6 million. The Citigroup analysts expect that new shale oil plays, if combined with further exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, could add 3.5 million barrels per day between 2010 and 2022. But as long asother domestic fields keep declining, the shale boom won't be enough to get back to our peak. The industry will have to drill furiously simply to maintain the status quo. (Indeed, the International Energy Agency seesU.S. oil production rising briefly to 6.7 million barrels per day and then sinking back down to 6.1 million barrels through 2035 — about where we are today.)

What's more, there are a lot of assumptions in Citigroup's analysis that are far from certain. Take the decline rate. Conventional oil fields typically see a drop in output of about a 5 percent to 8 percent rate per year. But, as some companies working in the Bakken field in North Dakota are now discovering, shale oil can dwindle far more rapidly than that. One oil executive tells Foreign Policy's Steve LeVine that oil wells in the Bakken field can decline by more than 90 percent in the first year, leveling off at 8 percent per year thereafter. Once a well dries up, the company has to move over to a nearby spot in the field. That's a lot of new drilling. And all that drilling is pricey. Which means, the executive notes, that if the price of oil were to suddenly drop, a lot of companies could quickly go bust and production could dry up in short order.

The other thing to note here is that greater oil independence is no guarantee that the United States will be immune from world events. As my colleague Steve Mufson observes, the United States now imports 15 percent less oil than it did in 2005. Yet prices remain sky-high — in part due to global factors like Chinese demand and tensions with Iran. Indeed, the$326.5 billion that the United States paid for foreign crude in 2011 was its second-highest total ever — just slightly less than in 2008. Granted, that import bill would have been even larger without the shale boom, but it's a handy reminder that "oil independence" isn't the same thing as cheap gasoline.

Add it all up, and America still has plenty of reason to reduce its reliance on oil of all sorts, foreign and domestic. A big reason why U.S. oil imports have shrunk since 2005 is that our gasoline use has plummeted. Part of that is due to the grinding downturn, part of it is the fact that people are (slowly) purchasing more fuel-efficient cars, and part of it is that Americans are driving less. And there's little reason to think that reducing oil use will become somehow less important in the years and decades ahead.

 
Sort Comments:  
phil12
2/17/2012 5:48 PM EST
It is amazing that after looking at a chart showing that natural gas is the answer, everyone still talks about oil. How do I say this gently? IF WE EXPLOIT OUR NATURAL GAS POTENTIAL, WE CAN BECOME ENERGY INDEPENDENT; NO ANDS, IFS, OR, BUTS.
Report
fritzIII
2/17/2012 5:09 PM EST
World oil production has remained constant at about 87 million bbls/day since 2005, regardless of the price. Econ 101 theory suggests that when the price went to $150/bbl in 2008, production should have increased. The fact that it didn't basically means that it couldn't. In 2005, the price was about $30/bbl. These facts strongly suggest that we are actually _at_ peak oil now. Although there will continue to be new discoveries, as existing fields age, eventually the supply of oil will begin to diminish, and the price will climb dramatically. If you go back and read Hubbert's Peak, you will find that what the author predicted is what is occurring now. Because oil is fungible, myopically focusing on US supplies is irrelevant and misleading.
Report
BradPlumer
2/17/2012 5:18 PM EST
"Econ 101 theory suggests that when the price went to $150/bbl in 2008, production should have increased."  
True, but when we're talking about tight or unconventional oil, there's also technology to consider. And production in North Dakota *does* seem to have increased in response to the price increase plus the development of new horizontal drilling techniques--it just took a few years. The question is whether these new shale resources can make up for declining fields elsewhere. That's not so clear, as mentioned above.
Report
twarrior
1:41 AM EST
Oil production in the Bakken has increased because the Federal Government has been unable to shut it down (unlike, say, Mid-Atlantic offshore, ANWAR, Alaskan offshore, Gulf of Mexico, etc., .etc., etc.) The Feds did try to harass Bakken producers, accusing them of killing 14 birds, as opposed to the 3-400k birds killed each year by wind turbines, but a popular outcry stopped that one.  ND is a really tough place to drill, it's hard to get crews in, hard to get oil out, smaller players are waiting as much as a year just to get their already-dug wells fracked, but as it's private land being affected, the growth continues there (the 500k average BPD of December was around 4 years ahead of schedule; ND alone can easily do 5x that amount, and Eastern Montana looks even more promising). Fracking is also happening in West Texas, and in the Niobara region of Wyoming, not to mention Colorado and Utah (though the latter regions are affected by government policy.)  
We're not at Peak Oil currently. But with the $5 gas that's coming this summer, we seem pretty close to Peak EPA. A government policy that holds expensive energy (which destroys the poor) to be a good, is itself rather unsustainable.
Report
bannedagain5446
2/17/2012 3:45 PM EST
Impartial as always. (I would have said fair and balanced, but I believe that carries a certain stigna to it!)
Report
n64pep2
2/17/2012 3:10 PM EST
Peak oil isn't a constant but rather a variable that depends on the price of oil and the advance of technology. There is a lot of oil in the ground that we know about but is currently not profitable to remove, once technology makes extraction cheaper, or prices make oil more valuable it will be economically viable to remove the oil.   
The one thing that doesn't change though is the fact that it takes millions of years for decaying carbon matter to turn into oil. So long as oil remains cheaper than other sources of energy there will always be huge demand for it. This is the exact reason we don't need oil subsidies.
Report
wolfemi1
2/17/2012 4:22 PM EST
Plus, if oil isn't being CREATED as fast as it's being used, it will "run out" at some point. Note that "run out" simply means that whatever's left cannot be profitably extracted; essentially the point at which the energy required to remove it from the ground and process it equals the energy content of the oil itself.
Report
krazen1211
2/17/2012 4:31 PM EST
" This is the exact reason we don't need oil subsidies."  
But because of Bill Clinton we have them.
Report
BradPlumer
2/17/2012 4:41 PM EST
Yeah, peak oil doesn't necessarily mean "there'll be no more oil." Price and technology are major factors, as I explained in this earlier post. I think one of the key questions is whether we'll have oil at a price that's compatible with economic growth:  
Report

Sent from my iPhone
Victor Cuvo, Attorney at Law


0 comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive