|
|
Weekly letter from ASPO
President Kjell Aleklett
|
 |
My first week
as the newly elected ASPO
President has come to an end and it is now that I wish to start writing
a
weekly newsletter through which I hope to communicate those activities
that are
of importance to ASPO. I am sure that some of the coming weeks will be
empty of
activity and some times very little will have happened, but I will
always make
an attempt to communicate our work with you. I should also point out
that at
school I tried to learn English but unfortunately my grades were not
always the
highest, but I do promise to strive to make myself understood. |
Week 42
| Part of my time as professor in
physics at Uppsala University is devoted
to teaching and this week was the final week with students studying on
my Energy
Technology course. My final lecture was
about energy recourses, two hours on Peak Oil, Peak Gas, Peak Coal and
Peak
CO2. Being between the ages of 20 and 25 the students realize that
these issues
will be a part of their future, and this reality can be quite
depressing. On the
other hand they will graduate with a Masters degree in Engineering with
Energy
Systems as their main subject. To cheer them up I pointed out that this
is in
fact a great opportunity for them because a transformation in our
energy
systems is clearly required with subsequent business opportunities
arising and
that it is possible that they may be the new heroes. |
|
We then turned to a
discussion of what is really important for us as human beings and food
on the
table turns out to be consistently the number one priority, followed by
comfortable shelter and finally the fact that we all need someone to
love. Yes,
these things have always been the most important issues for we humans
and
whatever else we do is just “killing the time in between”. In the
future we need
to find ways to kill this time that do not include using enormous
amounts of
fossil fuels. I also think that we need to reevaluate the value of food
to
society and the work done by the farmers who make it possible for us to
put
food on our tables. |
|
Part of the last week has
been devoted to preparations for the ASPO-China conference that I will
be
attending next week. On October 27 ASPO-China will officially exist. |
|
| Uppsala,
Sweden, October 21, 2007 |
Kjell Aleklett
|
Week 41
|
On June 22 I received
an e-mail from Stephen
Perkins, head of the OECD/ECMT Joint Transport Research Centre in
Paris. He
told me that they were organising
a Round Table meeting of experts on
November 15-16 to examine the short and long-term outlooks for oil
prices and
oil supply as well as the implications these issues will have for
transport
policy. Furthermore they wanted to focus on a Peak Oil and an economic
resource
debate. |
|
In
2003 Colin Campbell and I wrote a peer reviewed paper for Minerals
and Energy and it
was this paper that lead to the OECD contacting me. Stephen
Perkins
asked if it was possible for me to present the
Peak Oil arguments, starting with this paper, at the round table
research
meeting in Paris and if I could prepare a detailed paper with which to
brief
participants beforehand. Without hesitation the answer was yes. |
|
The Round Table will
examine the long-term outlook for oil supply and oil prices and the
relationship between oil prices and demand in the transport sector. It
is hoped
that the round table will provide valuable support for the
International
Transport Forum’s 2008 Ministerial meeting on Transport and Energy. My
report “Peak-Oil
and the Evolving strategies of Oil Importing and Oil Exporting
Countries -
Facing the hard truth about an import decline for the OECD countries”
was delivered at the end of September and now it has been released for
official
use. I cannot publish it as the OECD and the International Transport
Forum hold
the copyright but they will be publishing this document after the
meeting in
November. However, I do have the right to hand it to interested
parties. A
summary of the arguments in the document is as follows: |
|
Statistical trends of
oil intensity from individual countries and groups of countries show
that an
average increase of GDP of 3% per annum equates to a projected demand
for
liquids of 101 Million barrels per day (Mbpd) by the year 2030. This
analysis
shows that this demand cannot be fulfilled by production from current
reserves
and expected new discoveries. |
|
Two models to assess
peaks in production of oil are considered: the depletion model (DM),
and the giant
field model (GFM). The DM model shows Peak Oil (the maximum rate of
production)
date in the year 2011 with 90 Mbpd. Adding GFM we develop a “Worst
Case”
scenario of a plateau in production for the next 5 to 7 years at a rate
of 84
Mbpd. A more optimistic case in the
“Giant High Case” scenario is a peak in 2012 at 94 Mbpd. A less steep
increase
demand can move the peak to 2018. Both models show an oil production
rate of
the order of 50 to 60 Mbpd by 2030. |
|
The demand for oil
from countries that are importers is forecast to increase from current
import
levels of 50 Mbpd to 80 Mbpd. A detailed analysis shows that Saudi
Arabia,
Russia and Norway, today’s largest oil exporters, will experience a
decline in
their export volumes of the order of 4 to 6 Mbpd by 2030. The projected
shortfall cannot be offset by exports from other regions. |
|
In a
business-as-usual case, the shortage of fossil fuel liquids for
transportation
will be substantial by the year 2030. The necessary decisions for the
economic
transformation required to mitigate this decline in available oil
supply should
already have been made and efforts to deploy solutions under way |
|
We have climbed high
on the “Oil Ladder” and yet we must descend one way or another. It may
be too
late for a gentle descent, but there may still be time to build a thick
crash
mat to cushion the fall. |
|
When I submitted my
report Stephen
Perkins
asked me if I also could write report about CO2
emission, and I have now submitted that report
“Reserve driven forecasts
for oil, gas and coal and limits in carbon dioxide emissions; Peak Oil,
Peak
Gas, Peak Coal and Peak CO2”
The recent award of the Nobel Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore makes this
report
very interesting and topical. From the abstract |
|
“This analysis is
based on realistic reserve assessments. Resources that cannot be
transformed
into reserves are not allowed. First, we conclude that CO2 emissions
from
burning reserves-based oil and gas are lower than what all of the IPCC
scenarios predict, and emissions from coal are much lower than the
majority of
the scenarios. IPCC emission scenarios for the period 2020 to 2100 must
be
altered to more accurately reflect the fossil fuels that are
practically
available.” |
There are three other reports to be presented to
the round table and they are:
* Price
Instability: the determinants of oil prices in the short term, Lawrence Eagles, Head of the Oil Industry
and Markets Division of the International Energy Agency.
* The determinants of oil prices and supply
in the long term, Dr
David Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center
for Transportation Analysis, USA.
* Long run trends in transport demand, fuel price
elasticities and implications of the oil outlook for transport policy, Professor
Kenneth Small, University of California Irvine, USA. |
|
Another important
event this week was the presentation of Aram Mäkivierikko’s, one
of my
students, diploma thesis “Russian
Oil, an
estimate of the future oil production and oil
export potential of Russia using the Depletion rate model”.
It can be downloaded from www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg. |
The
following extract may be of interest to you:
Oil
is a heavily used natural resource with a limited
supply. Russia is one of the largest oil producers and the second
largest oil
exporting country in the world. Many surrounding countries are
dependent on
Russian energy. Swedish oil import from Russia has grown from 5% to 35%
during
2001-2005. |
|
The fall of the
Soviet Union in 1991 caused the Russian oil production to drop by 50%.
The
production is currently growing again – but how will it develop in the
future? |
|
This report studies
different scenarios for Russian oil production and export based on
three
different estimates of how much oil Russia has left today (70, 120 or
170 Gb),
combined with estimates about how fast Russia can produce the oil (a
depletion
rate of 3%, 4.5% or 6%). |
|
In the worst case,
Russian oil production and also the oil export will peak very soon or
has
already done so in 2006. In the best case, a constant export can be
held until
2036. It is not likely that the Russian production will increase more
than
5-10% over today’s level. |
|
There are different opinions about possible
future Russian EUR grouped
around the figures 70, 120 and 170 Gb. Today
BP
lists the number 79 Gb. With a modest increase in domestic use and
depletion
rates within acceptable values we have made predictions on future
export
capacity for Russia (see figure 1). The 70 Gb scenario appears
pessimistic, the
170 Gb over optimistic leaving the 120 Gb scenario as the probable best
case.
The best case gives an export between 2 and 3 Mbpd for 2030 depending
upon
consumption within Russia. |
Figure 1. Mean
export comparison between the reference policy and the alternative
policy for
Russia with respectively 70, 120 and 170 Gb left to produce.
|

|
|
I like to end with the
following statement from keynote
speaker at ASPO6, Dr James R. Schlesinger, former US Energy
Secretary: ”And
therefore to the
peakers I say, you
can declare victory.
You are no longer the beleaguered
small minority of voices
crying in the wilderness. You are now main streams. You must learn to
take yes
for an answer and be gracious in victory.”
(Now
on YouTube) |
Uppsala,
Sweden, October 14, 2007
Kjell
Aleklett
aleklett@tsl.uu.se
tel:
+46 70 4250604
My
fall agenda can be found at: www.peakoil.net
|
|
|
|