APPGOPO 3 - BP speaks to the group

What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Post Reply
admin2
Site Admin
Posts: 66
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09

APPGOPO 3 - BP speaks to the group

Post by admin2 »

Listen to the audio of the event (80mb, 1.5hours)
http://www.appgopo.org.uk/events/03_160 ... GOPO_3.mp3
By Alex Lawler
http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessN ... =0&sp=true

LONDON (Reuters) - World oil production may peak in the coming years, but it will be because of a decline in demand for petroleum rather than constraint on supply, a BP economist said on Wednesday.

The comments come in the wake of remarks from other industry officials who in recent months have questioned mainstream supply forecasts, suggesting a peak in output may be closer than the industry has previously admitted.

"I believe there is a realistic possibility that world oil production will peak within the next generation as a result of peaking demand," BP Special Economic Advisor Peter Davies told a meeting at parliament organised by a group of lawmakers looking into peak oil.

A rally in oil prices, which hit a record high above $100 a barrel earlier this month, is leading to growing interest in peak oil -- the view that supply has reached, or will soon reach, a high point and then fall.

London-based BP, the world's third-largest fully publicly traded oil company by market value, dismisses the view that there is a problem with the amount of oil left in the ground.

Statistics complied by BP show the world has proven oil reserves of 1.2 trillion barrels, enough to sustain current output for 40 years.

Rather, Davies said environmental regulations, including efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, could cause consumers to move away from oil.

"I think we will run out of demand before we run out of supply," he said. "There's a distinct possibility that global oil consumption could peak as a result of climate policies."

The BP economist said there were also concerns whether there is enough investment. Many major producing countries ban foreign investment in their oilfields or allow it on terms the oil firms deem uncompetitive.

"An imminent peak in oil production is not likely," Davies said. "Valid concerns remain over investment, especially in resource-rich regions."

Davies said it was possible to boost world oil production to 100 million barrels per day, a rate senior figures, such as the chief executive of French oil company Total (TOTF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research), have questioned in recent months.

The world is expected to need more than 100 million bpd of oil later this century, according to forecasts from the International Energy Agency and others, up from around 86 million bpd now.

"I believe 100 million barrels per day is achievable," Davies said. "This is achievable in resource terms but it does come down to how much investment is going to take place."

(Reporting by Alex Lawler; editing by Marguerita Choy)
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

There's a distinct possibility that global oil consumption could peak as a result of climate policies
"Backside" and "Talking" seem go well in the same sentence.
MacG
Posts: 2863
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Scandinavia

Post by MacG »

emordnilap wrote:
There's a distinct possibility that global oil consumption could peak as a result of climate policies
"Backside" and "Talking" seem go well in the same sentence.
Indeed! What an idiot! Does he think anyone will believe that blabber? The word "denial" suddenly got a deeper meaning.

WHAT "climate policies"??? Have we seen anything in the form of "climate policies" other than Oscar's galas, Nobel galas and the IPCC going to Bali in December?

My god how tired I am of all the lies.

We seem to have passed Peak, and now demand destruction sets in and our economies which rely on infinite exponential growth will crash and we will have to design another system. Why is that so dangerous to say?
User avatar
Adam1
Posts: 2707
Joined: 01 Sep 2006, 13:49

Post by Adam1 »

Peter Davies (BP Chief Economist) gave a very polished performance that would have re-assured a generalist audience quite effectively. However, in front of this well-informed audience that included Chris Skrebowski, Jeremy Leggett and Roger Bentley, he didn't present arguments that would be new to anyone who has followed the peak oil debate in any detail. He presented a textbook "unreconstructed economist's" view of energy. The slides in his presentation were a virtually data-free zone.

I thought it was brave of him to accept the invitation to enter the lions' den. Most of his peers weren't willing to participate.
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10559
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

Were there any tricky questions for him to field?
User avatar
Adam1
Posts: 2707
Joined: 01 Sep 2006, 13:49

Post by Adam1 »

Yes. Roger Bentley picked him up on a number of points, including his referral to "proven" reserves having increased, rather than "proven and probable" - Peter Davies didn't answer any satisfactorily. Chris Skrebowski. asked pointed out that it was flow rates that matter. He didn't pick up on this point. John Hemming and Jeremy Leggett managed to get him to agree that the data was not accurate enough to be able to make firm predications of a late peak with certainty. Leggett went on to ask him whether, in the light of this, it would not be wise to take a risk management approach to this "known unknown".

His response was that, if we had changed public policy to respond to the energy doomsayers of the 1970s, we would have lost out on significant "social and economic" benefits. I asked him (rather poorly expressed :oops: ), given that there is a risk of an early peak, could he describe give an example where acting on the assumption of an early peak now would be bad, particularly given the need to make early cuts in carbon emissions. He didn't really answer that question either.

Paul Mobbs asked him about net energy. His view is that the concept of EREOI is "meaningless".
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12777
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

Adam1 wrote:Paul Mobbs asked him about net energy. His view is that the concept of EREOI is "meaningless".
That's crackers! On what grounds??
I'm sure if we got him to dig it all out by hand he'd change his mind :twisted:
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
User avatar
Erik
Posts: 1544
Joined: 21 Sep 2006, 17:17
Location: Spain

Post by Erik »

Adam1 wrote:Paul Mobbs asked him about net energy. His view is that the concept of EREOI is "meaningless".
Well he's right, of course, from a pure economics perspective and in his fantasy world of infinite resources the concept of EREOI is irrelevant. :roll:

Just imagine how hard its going to hit Peter Davies when he finally gets to swallow the red pill, when he opens his eyes and his whole world of "meaningful" little numbers collapses all around him... I can see him in 10 years time, just one more shuffling figure in the soup queue, trying to remember what the letters EREOI meant.
"If we don't change our direction, we are likely to wind up where we are headed" (Chinese Proverb)
User avatar
Erik
Posts: 1544
Joined: 21 Sep 2006, 17:17
Location: Spain

Post by Erik »

Paul Mobbs asked him about net energy. His view is that the concept of EREOI is "meaningless".
Alternative interpretation: ?It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.? ?Upton Sinclair
(... as quoted regularly in the top right hand corner of TOD's homepage.)
"If we don't change our direction, we are likely to wind up where we are headed" (Chinese Proverb)
Post Reply