Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • dillusional_donna
    Happy New Year all! Was just fine-tuning my procrastination skills at work and stumbled across this article on The Advertiser s online website (The Advertiser
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 3, 2007
      Happy New Year all!

      Was just fine-tuning my procrastination skills at work and stumbled
      across this article on The Advertiser's online website (The Advertiser
      being Adelaide's local newspaper):


      I found it interesting that ExxonMobil have spent $16M on raising
      doubt about global climate change - I wonder if they're doing the same
      thing with peak oil?

      Over and out
    • James Ward
      I expect that ExxonMobil s climate change policy is tied to its peak oil policy. They are undoubtedly in the optimist camp when it comes to peak oil. They
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 4, 2007
        I expect that ExxonMobil's climate change policy is tied to its peak
        oil policy. They are undoubtedly in the "optimist" camp when it
        comes to peak oil. They publicly dismiss the possibility of a peak
        before 2030, however it is important to look at what data they are
        using to formulate this position.

        Typically ExxonMobil uses the US Geological Survey's published
        estimates of ultimately recoverable oil.

        The USGS gives each figure an attached probability - nothing is
        certain. In very rough terms, they say there is a 95% chance that
        the world will suck out more than ~2.5 trillion barrels of oil in
        total (of which we've already used about 1 trillion). Then there is
        a 95% probability that the world will suck out LESS than ~4 trillion
        barrels total, and the mean is quoted as about 3 trillion. In
        layman's terms, this means the USGS believes there's roughly a 50/50
        chance that we're a third of the way through the recoverable oil
        now, and 95% chance that we're more than a quarter of the way

        The reason for the differences in these estimates is partly due to
        pessimistic vs optimistic predictions for future oil discoveries,
        but also to do with future improvements to oil recovery techniques.
        Currently on average you can only expect to pump about 30% of the
        oil out of an oil reservoir due to the fluid dynamics of the system
        (quoted reserve figures more-or-less take this into account).

        If engineers figure out how to improve the average to, say, 40% then
        they increase the recoverable oil reserve by a huge amount **see
        footnote**. The thing is that such improvements can typically only
        occur post-peak, so they help to lessen decline after an oilfield's
        peak but do not affect the peak itself very much. Globally, this
        could mean the difference between a sharp decline starting very soon
        versus an undulating plateau from now until about 2030.

        Although they don't draw attention to the point, ExxonMobil's
        production estimates are based on the USGS's mean estimate, so at
        BEST we should give them about 50/50 odds of being right. They also
        suggest that we can access more than 1 trillion barrels of
        unconventional oil (oil shales, tar sands and so on).

        Now, enhanced oil recovery and unconventional oils require
        substantially more energy to be "spent" in order to recover the oil
        (i.e. more than the conventional oil supplies that either gush out
        of the ground or can be pumped relatively freely). This means that
        for every litre of petrol you burn, there was a whole lot more oil,
        coal, and gas expended to get that litre of petrol. Therefore the
        effective greenhouse emissions increase greatly.

        At a time when it is absolutely paramount that we reduce global
        greenhouse emissions, petroluem is about to become an even worse
        emitter. I expect that is at least part of the reason why ExxonMobil
        is spending millions of dollars campaigning against action on
        climate change. If the world actually takes climate change seriously
        and legislates against increased emissions, it will be very bad news
        for oil companies like ExxonMobil, whose future revenue will
        increasingly come from dirtier and dirtier oil.

        Phil Hart, you probably have a much better handle on all this than I
        do - any comments? Have I made any critical mistakes in my analysis?

        As an aside, ExxonMobil states that a 10% increase in recovery
        efficiency could lead to another 800 billion barrels of recoverable
        reserves. They mean increasing efficiency from 30% to 40% (literally
        an increase of 10%, but practically it's a 33% improvement in
        technology!). To the common person reading the news, 10% sounds like
        a trivial improvement in technology - just a tenth - whereas in
        reality, improving the world's best technology by another 1/3 sounds
        much harder to achieve. Always be wary of spin!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.