Likes Alter energy

Energy Bulletin has a transcript of a speech by James Schlesinger at the recent ASPO USA conference - The peak oil debate is over.

May I start with a bromide: a resource which is finite is not inexhaustible. If you think that over, it should not be a revelation. That was a bromide… some people think a keynote should never rise above a bromide….

Some five years ago in Italy I concluded a talk by saying that like the inhabitants of Pompeii, who ignored the neighboring volcano, Vesuvius, until it detonated, the world ignores the possibility of peak oil at its peril.

Two years ago in addressing ASPO in Cork, Ireland, I argued that the peakists had won the intellectual argument, except for some minor details about precise timing, but that by and large everyone recognized that there were limits on our capacity to increase the production of crude oil as we have steadily since World War Two.

[I also argued] that peakists were no longer a beleaguered minority, that they had won, and that consequently they should be gracious in victory.

There’s an old spiritual that is relevant here. The walls of those who doubted the peak seemed to be impregnable. Nonetheless, you marched around the walls seven times and then blew the trumpets and the walls of Jericho came tumbling down.

But acceptance by knowledgeable people is not enough. The political order should respond. Nonetheless, our willingness, let alone our ability, to do anything serious about the impending inability to increase oil output is still a long way off.

The political order responds to what the public believes today, not to what it may come to believe tomorrow. It is also resistant to any action that inflicts pain or sacrifice on those who vote. The payoff in politics comes from reassurance, perhaps precluded by a rhetorical challenge.

Still, the challenge is clear in both logic and in the evidence. Let me start briefly with the logic,

If something cannot be sustained, it will eventually not be sustained… ultimately it will shrink.

Secondly, you cannot produce oil unless you first discover it (a contribution by Colin Campbell).

Third, a resource that is finite cannot continually have its production increased.

What is the evidence?

First, we remain heavily dependent on super-giant and giant oilfields discovered in the 50s and 60s of the last century… I might add, of the last millennium. Only rarely in recent decades have discoveries equaled production. Mostly, it’s been one barrel discovered for every three barrels produced.

Second, old super-giants like Burgan in Kuwait and [Cantarell] in Mexico have gone into decline earlier than had been anticipated… and going into decline have been Alaska, the North Sea, western Siberia and the like.

Third, while it is not yet “Twilight in the Desert” (as you may have read) still we are well into the afternoon, even in Saudi Arabia. Even the Ghawar oilfield is increasingly hard to sustain.

Fourth, in 2004 we experienced our first demand-driven price spike, as opposed to the previous price spikes driven by supply interruptions. We still operate at about the level of production capacity of 2004.

Next, given projected decline curves running from 4 to 6 percent, and the projected increase in demand during the next quarter century, we shall require the new capacity equivalence of five Saudi Arabias.

Even the International Energy Agency, which previously had been sanguine, now suggests that we can no longer increase production of conventional oil in the course of this decade.

Note that it is conventional oil: that is all that Hubbert talked about. Somewhat disingenuously, the debate has been turned on him by talking about fuel liquids in general, throwing in tar sands, heavy oil, coal liquids, oil shale and so on.

But clearly, large conventional oil production is increasingly no longer part of the future unless there is a technological breakthrough, which Mr. Gilbert talked about just a few moments ago, raising the ultimate recovery rate from existing fields, which at this moment we cannot expect.

Of course, there are uncertainties which make timing predictions with regard to the peak risky. Iraq, which has been held back for a variety of reasons, may come along as one of those five new needed Saudi Arabias.

Offshore Brazil and offshore oil elsewhere are promising. Shale gas, which is apparently coming in abundance (but is not, of course, oil) may somewhat alleviate the pressures on liquid fuels.

But in general we must expect to get along without what has been our critical energy source in expanding the world’s economy for more than half a century.

Can the political order face up to the challenge? There is no reason for optimism.

We are likely to see pseudo-solutions, misleading alternatives and sheer sloganeering: “energy independence,” “getting off foreign oil” and the like. All of that sheer sloganeering we have seen to this point.

The political order (which abhors political risk) tends to rely on the Biblical prescription, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

The ABC has a look at some of the campaigning over the carbon tax - Carbons Bill.

CHRIS CLARK: But a $26 carbon price has been welcomed by some.

JOHN CONNOR, CLIMATE INSTITUTE: Not a bad starting point. It will drive changes in the way in which generation - energy generation - is delivered right now.

CHRIS CLARK: But its not enough for others.

SIMON OCONNOR, ACF: If Australias serious about tackling climate change $26 is not enough and were really going need to see the price at a much higher level.

CHRIS CLARK: As for managing the transition to a low-carbon economy, Professor Garnaut wants the politics taken out of the decision making and three independent bodies set up: A committee to establish emissions-reduction targets; an agency to oversee the carve-up of compensation; and a carbon bank to regulate the emissions trading scheme.

MATTHEW WARREN, CLEAN ENERGY COUNCIL: Weve seen independent bodies like the Reserve Bank handle very difficult decisions like setting interest rates. We think theres real merit in going down this path and looking at that for a carbon price.

Pro tax groups held rallies around the country today - the SMH has a report on the 8000 people at the SYdney rally (apparently Melbourne had over 10,000 as well - Thousands rally in support of carbon price.

As many as 8000 people have rallied in Sydney to urge the federal government to set a price on carbon, as part of a national climate change campaign in cities across the country.

Holding placards with slogans such as "cut carbon pollution, unlock clean energy" and "say yes to cutting carbon pollution", they gathered at Sydneys Prince Alfred Park this morning to deliver a message: climate change is happening, and something needs to be done.

"What people are asking for is an ambitious price (on carbon), an investment in renewable energy," rally organiser and national director of GetUp, Simon Sheik, said. "Today is a big day, because today Australians will ask their government for a price on carbon."

Simultaneous rallies were being held in most capital cities as the second stage of the "Say Yes" campaign launched late last week by actors Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton.

The advertisement, which urges Australians to say yes to the federal governments proposed carbon emissions tax, stirred controversy among some sections of the media.

Community climate advocate Ramya Krishnan slammed the controversy surrounding Ms Blanchetts contribution to the campaign. "I hear about families who are struggling just like everyone else who want to live in a better world for their children to grow up. The shock jocks dont speak for Western Sydney, and neither does Tony Abbott."

Police said the Sydney crowd numbered between 7500 and 8000.