Guest post by David Archibald
Mike Jonas’ recent post (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/03/peak-oil-the-rp-ratio-re-visited/#more-54146) has prompted me to revisit the subject of US energy independence. The best report on the subject of peak oil was produced by the Australian Government and then suppressed by the Australian Government. This is Report 117 written by Dr David Gargett of the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. As I say in this post on Jo Nova’s site: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/inconvenient-energy-paper-vanishes-from-government-site/, it is the best report on peak oil I have seen. While Report 117 was issued with an ISBN number, it is only available from a French website: http://www.manicore.com/fichiers/Australian_Govt_Oil_supply_trends.pdf
Figure 13.9 from the report sums it up:
Figure 1: Figure 13.9 from Report 117, page 350
The red line is the discovery rate per annum from 1870. It peaked two generations ago in the early 1960s. The dark blue line is the production history of conventional oil to 2007. It peaked in 2005. The greenish line is predicted production, which is now in permanent decline for the balance of our lives.
The oil price is determined by the interplay of demand, supply and the demand-response to price. The demand-response to price is difficult to model, but it does set a trend.
Figure 2: Oil Intensity of the US Economy 1980 – 2020
Figure 2 shows the dramatic decline in the intensity of us of oil in the economy. Consider that the 1980 figure of 6.1 barrels of oil per thousand dollars of GPD would mean spending $612 at the current WTI price. In 2011, US households spent an average of more than $4,000 on gasoline. That represents about 8.4% of the median household income. At the 2011 oil intensity of 1.1 barrels per thousand dollars of GDP, the current oil price results in a similar percentage.
Figure 3: US Oil Consumption 1980 – 2020
As Figure 1 shows, world conventional oil production peaked in 2005, which is also the year that US oil consumption peaked at 20.9 million barrels per day. It then went sideways for a couple of years before starting a dramatic contraction at 1.1 million barrels/day/year. The demand reduction to date is 4.5 m BOPD from the peak. This is oil that the US used to import but is now available to other countries. If the demand reduction rate established over the last four years continues, US oil consumption will be down to the projected level of US oil production by the end of the decade. The US will then be in the very happy position of being energy independent.
The rate of US demand contraction of 1.1 million barrels/day/year is a bit more than the modelled rate of decline of World conventional oil production, requiring that a high proportion of World demand contraction due to price is in the US even as demand from some other countries rises as their economies grow. This is understandable given the different tax rates between countries. For example, Germans currently pay 1.58 Euros per litre for gasoline. That equates to $7.73 per gallon or $324 per barrel. Another $100 per barrel on the oil price will increase German gasoline prices by about one third.
Figure 4: US Oil Production and Imports 1949 – 2024
Figure 4 puts the projection in Figure 3 into the longer term context of US domestic conventional oil production and oil imports since 1949. The anticipated contribution from the Bakken Formation of North Dakota is also shown. Traditionally, oil and gas production has been from reservoir rocks such as sandstones and limestones that host oil and gas generated from a source rock and migrated from that source rock to the reservoir rock. New well completion technology and sustained higher oil prices now mean that production is economic from some source rocks that have high organic carbon contents. With respect to natural gas from shales, it is estimated that 400 TCF of gas will be able to be produced from shales in the US. In terms of energy content, that is equivalent to 67 billion barrels of oil, which in turn is 21 years of the projected 2020 US oil consumption rate of 8.5 million BOPD. The Bakken Formation will provide a further 6 billion barrels of production, giving another 2 years of supply at the 2020 demand rate.
Figure 5: US Natural Gas Production 1900 – 2040
This figure assumes that production of shale gas rises from the 4.35 TCF in 2011 to a plateau production rate of 10 TCF per annum. The average breakeven production cost of US shale gas is calculated to be about $5.20 per thousand cubic feet. In energy content terms, this equates to an oil price of $31 per barrel. US shale gas production is almost wholly unprofitable at the current gas price of $2.99 per mcf. The drilling is being conducted to secure acreage positions.
Figure 6: Potential Louisiana Gas Production Profile 2011 – 2041
This figure is derived from Kaiser, M.J. and Yu, Y., “How Haynesville shale will lift Louisiana’s gas production profile” Oil and Gas Journal, November 2011. It is included to show the short term impact that shale gas drilling will have regionally as a result of the more profitable formations being drilled out first. This production profile assumes that 800 wells are drilled in the Haynesville Shale annually for ten years with an average gas recovery of 3.4 BCF per well. Plateau gas production of 2.44 TCF per annum equates to 1.1 million barrels per day on an energy equivalent basis. On this basis, the Hayneville Shale in Louisiana will be producing about 20% more energy at plateau from 800 wells per annum than the Bakken Shale at plateau from 1,000 wells per annum.
Figure 7: Payback period relative to oil price for CNG vehicles at the average US shale gas production cost
Natural gas in the US used to trade at the No 2 fuel oil price in energy terms, and was thus linked to the oil price. At $2.99 per mcf for natural gas and $102 per barrel for oil, natural gas is currently 18% of the price of oil in energy content terms. That will drive the adoption of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles. Assuming an increased capital cost of $5,000 for an OEM CNG vehicle (retrofitting starts at $12,000) and a natural gas price at the average for future US shale gas production of $5.20 per mcf, Figure 7 shows how the payback period for that capital cost is projected to fall as the oil price rises.
Back on the subject of Report 117, why did the Australian Government suppress such a well-researched document? I believe that Report 117 tells a rather inconvenient truth for a Government that recently legislated a carbon tax, which in turn is based on things being rosy in the garden. Please don’t laugh too much, but one of the supposed reasons for the tax was to set an example for the rest of the World to follow. At the same time, the Australian Government is well aware that it is not meeting its oil stockholding requirement under the International Energy Agency treaty. With rapidly declining domestic production, the Government would have to spend $300 million per annum to fulfill its obligation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Poor People, Poor Business Models, and Poor Economic Models will bite the dust, first. Followed by slightly less poor people, slightly less bad business models, and slightly less bad economic models. Followed by Average people, and aver . . . . . . . . . .
Much of the reduction of oil production is artificially created. There are currently restrictions on production in areas where we know there are considerable reserves. Gulf of Mexico production has been constrained, coastal production in California has been restricted, Atlantic coastal production has been restricted, Alaskan production has been restricted. These production numbers don’t mean much in light of actual recoverable reserves. In many cases they are reflective of artificial constraints placed on production. There are absolutely huge reserves still available off the coast of California, for example, and the same goes for Alaska. The only reason we are now going for all of this shale fuel is that easier to obtain sources have been restricted.
CNG and propane powered vehicles are offered directly by a number of manufacturers in Germany. Volkswagen for example has a diesel, gas and CNG powered version of the Touran minivan. Testing by leading automotive magazine Auto, Motor & Sport showed that the CNG version is cheaper than the gas model when driven more than 7000 km/year and cheaper than the diesel from 10.000 km/year. Part of those savings come from the low taxation of CNG vs. gas and diesel in Germany, though. The car is powered by a 150 hp/220 nm 1.4 litre engine with a turbocharger AND compressor that costs 3850 Euros more than the gas powered version and has a range of 420 km.
I’ve had an involvement with the oil industry for most of my life, (including as a child, my Father was an Oil Man) and peak oil has been talked about for all that time (48 years) and every time I see the graphs they look the same whether it was in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s … I am sure they will look the same in 2050 or 2100
politicians are a dime a dozen and easily replaceable. hardly unique.
blame the taxpaying obedient subjects – sine qua non. oh, they cry like a busted virgin afterward, but it is the taxpaying voting lot who ask for, beg for, plead for and pay for that shafting.
hence, it’s not imposed because it was negotiated. such a negotiation is a business transaction.
don’t bust the john – he was surrounded by hookers. disregard their whinging – it’s part of their act. they truly love the abuse – they pay well for it, too.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/01/04/airlines-latest-fee-hike-exposes-flaws-of-carbon-trading/
Somewhat on topic…explains how companies deal with Carbon Taxes…
“…Delta’s fee scheme represents more than just another indignity for passengers. It lays bare the entire carbon-trading boondoggle. If airlines simply foist the fees off on customers, then they have no incentive to actually reduce carbon emissions…
And what if the carrier pollutes less? The fees, at least in Delta’s case, are added up front. What if the airline winds up coming in under its carbon limits? It would actually then make money by trading its excess carbon credits, yet still collect fees from passengers as if it weren’t in compliance. In the end, the EU’s new rules underscore the fundamental problem with carbon trading — it creates far more profit-making opportunity for the traders and the companies that game the system than it does carbon-reducing opportunity for society.”
Speak roughly to your little boy
and beat him when he sneezes
he only does it to annoy
because he knows it teases.
I speak severely to my boy
I beat him when he sneezes
for he can thoroughly enjoy
the pepper when he pleases
nobody forces him to use condommints
There are fields in Texas that have been producing oil and gas for for over 40 years. Peak oil is a myth.
We will never run out of oil and gas. It is continuously being created. It is part of this planet’s carbon cycle.
No dashed or dotted lines, rather green and red; do you know how many ppl are affected with color perception disorder involving those two colors (about 5% of males*)?
Lucky I don’t go all ‘ADA Act’ over this … … just KIDDING!
Thanks for the post nonetheless, but please, consider that neglected 5% out there in your readership …
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness
.
Ceri’s + crosspatches comment corroborate with mine. There has been a new golden age of oil discovery due to the recent oil price increases of the last 8 years, with gigantic amounts of oil discovered, easliy enough to keep us going for many decades. But peakers somehow forget to add these discoverys to their bell curve graph. Also, they make excuses like, – all the new discoverys are non convential oil , or – the discoveryes are ‘ un proven oil ‘
Absurd. A huge list of these discovery is here, with a lot of ( kid ) peakers dismising and ridiculing it. Its about 75 forum pages long.
http://peakoil.com/forums/catalog-of-recent-oil-discoveries-pt-1-archived-t35194.html?hilit=catalog of recent
http://peakoil.com/forums/catalog-of-recent-oil-discoveries-pt-2-t62512.html
None of these discoveries are ever used in peakOil_isNow hype charts.
Thanks for presenting this. Not something that some of us have not be saying for years. That’s another story. What is illustrates is the world is a highly complex interplay of many different and often competing emotion driven conditions. No model can account for them except in the short term. Sounds like climate to me. I wonder if all those modelers talk to each other? Probably way to much that’s why they think they know more and predict better then anyone else.
The amount of duplicity on the issue of oil and gas production, “fracking,” etc. from the environmental community is shocking. It rivals the duplicity on climate change.
I’m in the business and, unimpeded, I think the US will be import free in less than 10 years, as the article says. Which should be a good thing, one would think. On “fracking’ or hydraulic fracturing, why complain now? We’ve been fracking wells since 1947 and over 1,000,000 wells have been fracked in the US. I know of no confirmed incidents of fracking an oil and gas reservoir that caused contamination of a fresh water aquifer.. Water wells (and septic tank drainage fields) are often fracked in the Rockies and some of these (The recent report from Wyoming is an example) have contaminated the aquifer they fracked (Duh!). But, we can’t consider that evidence of a problem (unless you work for the EPA).
Let’s add to the mix the abiotic source of gas and oil. It accumulates in certain places over time, but is probably rising to the underside of the lithosphere constantly all around the world. This explains why those wells have been producing, however slowly, for 40 years. THey never seem to die. Thus, although they talk of peak oil, no oil and gas is not in the offing.
Those Texas oil fields are producing way less than they did back in the seventies. Fields “peak.”
Countries “peak” (The U.S. peaked in 1972.)
Regions “peak.” (The North Sea is a good example.)
Worlds “peak.” (The odds are strong that Planet Earth is on its “peak plateau,” now.)
Even my 7 yr old Grandson has known for several years that there is no such thing as a “bottomless” milkshake.
A dead giveaway is the fact that during the last two doublings of price, worldwide production increased substantially. During this last doubling (2005 – 2011) worldwide production has actually declined a small amount.
This is a really bad time for “magical thinking.”
This is a government report. Is there a reason why it should be trusted? Where did they get the data? How reliable is it? All my experience shows that peak oil is a lie and this report by an alarmist Australian watermelon government isn’t going to change that.
Government is the enemy of freedom and truth. THis is especially true of the US government.
Bingo. And the rapture is going to happen this year, too. And Hale Bopp, and the Great Pumpkin, and Y2K, and…
article stated: “(2005) the year that US oil consumption peaked at 20.9 million barrels per day. It then went sideways for a couple of years before starting a dramatic contraction at 1.1 million barrels/day/year. The demand reduction to date is 4.5 m BOPD from the peak. This is oil that the US used to import but is now available to other countries. If the demand reduction rate established over the last four years continues, US oil consumption will be down to the projected level of US oil production by the end of the decade. The US will then be in the very happy position of being energy independent. ”
Author also states that this drop in consumption is a usage contraction.
Nothing can be further from the truth. When production is cut, there is less to buy. Prices go up for a reduced quantity of the item. Recall OPEC has reduced output to keep prices higher. USA has reduced drilling and exploration.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with … America becoming energy independent. For that to happen, there has to be something to fill the void of lost oil. What you are seeing is a country starving from a reduction in energy supplies
And if Thorium powered vehicles become a reality, people will start talking about peak Thorium.
At 474 pages, the report: Transport energy futures: long-term oil supply trends and projections Report 117, provides a gold mine of data and perspective.
e.g. see Figure 13.16 Production in the US lower 48 states. on page 354.
Ask: Why did US production decline ~63% from 3.5 billion bbl/year in 1970 to 1.3 million bbl/year in 2010?
It is sad the Hwan et al. choose to shut their eyes to pragmatic evidence, and refuse to understand that “Peak Oil” refers to a combined physical/economic production rate constraint on a given region.
For those willing to read, learn and prepare, see: Peak Net Exports: A Five Year Retrospective and a Look Forward
Ask: Why did Global exports peak in 2005?
Ask: Why have Available Net Exports (after China & India) DECLINED 13% since 2005?
Ask: What are the consequences for oil importing countries from that trend?
I have been reading Anthony’s WUWT blog for several years as well as Climate Audit, Icecap and several other blogs related to the climate change subject. Its nice to see an article posted that relates to energy. Keep it up Anthony!
May I make some suggestions to your readers for some fantastic reading and research concerning the energy subject? Ecomotors International (distruptive technology), Energy from Thorium (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor), Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (fusion project) and ITER (tokamak fusion project). I think we are on the cusp of some really fanastic game changing events for the betterment of man kind.
Kum Dollison’s worry-wart discomfiture over an imaginary vanishing of energy supplies reminds me of this.
Relax, Mr Dollison, the free market abides.
Correct me if I’m wrong here…it’s happened before. When I see cost of petroleum vs. time, I don’t see anything indicating “constant dollars”. If cost is not corrected for the decline in the value of the dollar, it is worthless (kinda like the dollar these days).
Where does methane hydrate fit into this? Is any research bing done on extraction, etc? Several thousand years of energy available using that stuff.
crosspatch says:
January 4, 2012 at 9:28 am
____________
Right on the button.
Here is a good article summing it up:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/the_presidents_oil_reserves_li.html
“At $2.99 per mcf for natural gas and $102 per barrel for oil, natural gas is currently 18% of the price of oil in energy content terms.”
If CNG is 18% the cost of awl, I’m ‘on’a git myself a Ford F-150 an convert ‘at bad boy, tell you whut…mat even go into the bidness hyar in Texas…