Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (22) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
September 15, 2008

High Costs Could Prompt Premature End to Oil Production

by Charles Cresson Wood

Consider what's now happening at the major mining companies as a harbinger of what we can expect to see with oil production companies. According to a recent article appearing in The Wall Street Journal (link below), a number of mining companies are curtailing certain of their operations, in some cases shutting them down completely. The explanation, which at first blush seems strange, especially given the run up in commodity prices over the last few years, has to do with operating and investment costs. The cost of energy to run mining trucks and other equipment has skyrocketed. In addition, certain materials needed to make mining buildings and related infrastructure, materials like steel, have also become considerably more expensive.

Mining nickel, lead, copper and other metals from the ground actually has many similarities to pumping oil out of the ground. While the processes are technologically different, in both cases we are talking about discovering and extracting a commodity that is in limited supply. In both cases, the supply of these commodities is in the process of being exhausted, and as a result, these commodities are increasingly more difficult to find, and increasingly more expensive to extract from the earth. For example, no new giant oil fields are being discovered these days. Producers must now go into very inhospitable environments, such as the bottom of the sea, in order to find significant new deposits of oil.

In the future, firms that are mining minerals, and firms that are producing oil, will both be hit with the double whammy of higher energy prices combined with higher commodity prices. Higher energy prices mean that the cost per ton of ore produced, or the cost per barrel of oil produced, will be higher than it was in the past. Higher commodity prices will discourage investment in new and more efficient infrastructure, just as it will discourage efforts to develop additional deposits.

As was the case for carrier pigeons, bison and many other animals, the extraction of these "resources" continues until it is no longer economical. Personally, I think it's deplorable that organizations make these decisions primarily based on economics, but that's the way the system is set up right now. So the production of minerals and petroleum from the ground will continue until it is no longer economical for the producers to engage in this activity. This point comes when the variable operating costs, and the fixed investment costs, both mentioned above, no longer look attractive relative to the revenues that can be obtained from further production activities.

Exactly when this point will come for oil or other commodities is hard to estimate. Many factors will affect this timing, including remaining supplies, prevailing demand levels, available technology, government subsidies and taxes, as well as the cost of capital. The important take-away point is that there will come a time when the producers stop producing, NOT because supplies have run out, and NOT because demand has dried up. At that point, it won't matter who you are, or how important your organization's mission is, nobody is going to produce the commodity your organization may be dependent upon.

So the traditional bell-shaped depletion curve that is generally drawn by those who speak about peak oil is therefore a bit misleading. The smooth symmetrical bell shaped curve was relevant for the U.S. because the gap between the countries' production and consumption could be made up by imports from other countries. But when worldwide oil production peaks, if it has not done so already (and ample evidence indicates that it has) then there will be no other country that can supply the missing oil. So the curve doesn't neatly move down asymptotically approaching the horizontal axis of the diagram - at some point it just stops. That is the point when it is no longer economical to extract petroleum from the earth.

Confirming this reality, firms that produce oil are now dealing with heavy oil, oil produced from tar sands, oil high in sulfur, and otherwise undesirable grades of crude oil. It is much more expensive to extract and refine these types of oil than was the case with the light sweet crude that has been traditionally produced. So this day or reckoning, when oil will no longer be produced, is not all that far away.

From a managerial perspective, what does all this mean? First, it underscores the importance of reengineering your organization so that it is no longer dependent on a rapidly-depleting limited-supply commodity such as oil. It would be far better to transition to renewables, such as ethanol and butanol, that can be distilled from biomass and other forms of renewable waste. Better yet would be sources of energy that do not depend on any potentially unreliable external input whatsoever. For example, electric cars can be powered by solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tidal and other forms of energy that are predictable and do not deplete over time.

Secondly, this reality points to the need to get more specific about the economics of producing oil, so that we might get a better sense of the date when production will cease. Just having a conversation about this date, and attempting to calculate when it could be, will also be important, because it underscores the increasing fragility of any operation that remains dependent on petroleum.

Thirdly, this reality points to the need for much greater diversity in our energy supply. Because petroleum now makes up about 60% of the world's energy supply, if oil producers were to stop producing, there would be widespread and unprecedented adverse impacts. But if petroleum made up a much smaller part of the world's energy supply, and if specific organizations used multiple sources of energy, the impact would be substantially reduced. Even if this day when oil is no longer produced is far away, it is in everyone's best interest to more toward greater energy supply diversification.

Fourthly, knowledge of this day when petroleum will no longer be produced underscores how important it is for organizations to recognize that they are dependent on suppliers on the other side of the world, suppliers that they have no relationship with whatsoever, suppliers about whom they really know very little. This recognition should push management to consider making its own transportation fuels, and otherwise setting up in-house (or at least local) energy-generating systems. For example, it is now possible for organizations to manufacture their own bio-methane (also called renewable natural gas), to refine this gas, to store this gas for long periods and to use this gas in their own transportation vehicles. The technology to do this is now sufficiently advanced that organizations can go out and buy a turnkey manufacturing system to capture and refine this gas.

Charles Cresson Wood, MBA, MSE, is an alternative fuels management consultant with Post-Petroleum Transportation in Sausalito, California. His most recent book is Kicking The Gasoline & Petro-Diesel Habit: A Business Manager's Blueprint For Action. You can learn more about the book, read his alternative fuels blog, and reach him at www.kickingthegasoline.com.

Image Gallery (1)
 
For Further Information
Please Note: RenewableEnergyWorld.com does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Reader Comments (22)
 
No image available
September 15, 2008
The increasing cost of extracting oil and minerals is all good news, it pushes the world towards recycling and renewable energies creating new and local jobs in the process and developing innovative technologies that are all good for technology leading nations such as the USA.

Where is the problem?

I see only solutions.

The only problem I see today is the availability of oil. Oil is responsible for many pollutions, not just global warming, but also cancer-causing pollutions. Oil is also responsible for countless suffering throughout the world through wars.
Comment 1 of 22
No image available
September 15, 2008
I'm going to strongly disagree with the thesis of this article: that mining and oil production are similar.

The reality is that the two are remarkably different.

Mining is categorized by moderate capital costs (equipment) and high operating costs (labor, maintenance, fuel).

Oil production on the other hand is categorized by very high capital costs and low operating costs.

The notion of oil not being produced because costs are greater than the cost of oil does not make sense in this case. After all, the costs have already been incurred so ceasing production does not void these costs. (They are 'sunk costs' in the parlance of the accounting world').

Think about an offshore oil platform, the platform costs billions of dollars upfront to bring online. After that point in time the platform may produce for 30 years with relatively low operating costs.

The real issue is not the cessation of oil production due to higher costs but instead the increase in the marginal price to bring additional oil production online. In this case the economic case is driven not by operating costs, but also in large part to anticipated futures prices and interest rates.

Additionally, I fail to understand how you can recommend renewables (wind, solar, batteries, etc) that are just a reliant on the abundance of cheap raw materials (in the case of wind likely more so) as a solution towards the lack of abundance of these materials.
Comment 2 of 22
No image available
September 15, 2008
Just a couple of minor rebuttal points to make based on assertions made in this article include: (1) "No new giant oil fields are being discovered these days" - Point: Brazil has just recently announced the discovery of 3 to 4 billion barrels of new oil reserves. (2)" it's deplorable for organizations to make these decisions based primarily on economics" - Point: are you living in a dream world? Organizations would not exist for long if they made decisions based any other way. Only government can get away with making decisions otherwise because they have the unique ability to confiscate your funds whether or not you agree with their decisions.
Comment 3 of 22
No image available
September 15, 2008
Charles,
The assumption of sustained higher US prices is an assertion that some economy other than than US can afford to buy more and pay more for oil etc... than the US has afforded to do for a few decades. (The alternative is that supplies have dwindled - which we here ignore).

This is a curious assumption: It convienenty ignores the dependency of the Chinese economy on the US. If China competes for oil it raises the US price, and lowers the US buying power, most of which frankly is used to buy Chinese exports.

Clearly this cycle is not sustainable, the increased demand from China and the resulting price hikes will soon meet the point where the returns China gets for buying more oil are diminished by reduced buying power of its principle export market. I don't know where that point is, but it seems unlikely that its a long way off. Gas prices have been high enough recently to change purchasing decisions and to be blamed for the demise of multimillion dollar companies (See PCA Bankruptcy claim for one).

I expect China to follow Iran in using "anything but oil" where it can in order to optimize their export portfolio.
Comment 4 of 22
No image available
September 15, 2008
Sure, the price of oil & gas products is rising rapidly now that demand exceeds supply, but that does not mean that oil & gas production is going away any time soon. High prices force people to go without or make substitutions, and that is happening now. High prices do not make oil wells run dry; resource exhaustion makes them run dry.

At some point, the price of alternative fuels will be equivalent to the price of oil & gas based fuels, and after that point there will be little reason to attempt more expensive drilling & extraction work in the oil fields (since their costs will only go up, while the costs of alternatives are likely to drift down). The old wells will continue for another 30 to 50 years with declining output, and people will continue to buy it as they do now, and lots of people will continue to grow rich off of the trade. This is not the sudden catastrophe you make it out to be.

The analogy of oil & gas with metals & minerals is close, but again, the conclusion is less dramatic than you would have it. As the cost of metals goes up due to increasing demand and constrained supply, substitutions and work arounds will become more attractive and feasible. This will cap the price rise. One serious difference is that metals are nearly completely recycleable, so at least the available supply will tend to remain in place and available, unlike fuels.

As for the current retrenchment, you musk bear in mind that mining companies have been hurt by overcapacity in the past. Boom and bust cycles are par for the industry, and this history makes them much more cautious than you or I would be about the economic downturn which is still growing and developing.
Comment 5 of 22
No image available
September 15, 2008
What's this about economic downturn Jon?? The fundamentalists of this economy are sound - you insensitive clod!! sounds like whining to me.
Comment 6 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
Interesting discussion in Renewable Energy World- we're running out of cheap oil, we're running out of expensive oil. We have passed the safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere (according to Jim Hansen 350ppm) so we need to stop burning fossil fuels now. The cheaper answer is on the demand side, which no-one, especially politicians, wants to address. We need 10-fold increase in carbon efficiency to avoid economic meltdown. And don't forget renewable energy!
Comment 7 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
"Think about an offshore oil platform, the platform costs billions of dollars upfront to bring online. After that point in time the platform may produce for 30 years with relatively low operating costs."

Unless it's in the Gulf of Mexico, where it will be fair game for every hurricane that comes it's way. I bet operating costs aren't low for any oil platform set up there.

"Additionally, I fail to understand how you can recommend renewables (wind, solar, batteries, etc) that are just a reliant on the abundance of cheap raw materials (in the case of wind likely more so) as a solution towards the lack of abundance of these materials."

Many renewable energy technololgies use materials that can be recycled. There are already silicon recycling programs in place, most of the framework for PV installations is made from aluminium for lower environmental impact. The difference between fossil fuel energy generators and renewables is that the people involved in renewables often consider the entire lifecycle of the product and try to minimise the waste involved. Not always, I'll admit. But often.
Comment 8 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
So the costs of alternative energy sources will decrease as the costs of exploring, drilling, producing, refining oil increases? Don't bet on it.
Comment 9 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
Clearly the big challenge for our civilisation is to use (convert) remaining fossil fuels into renewable energy tecnologies in order to have a chance to avoid collapse in the medium term. Can we do that?
Comment 10 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
Let's see, we are extracting oil at the North Slope in Alaska for $14 a barrel and from the Bekkan Formation in north central continental US for $16 per barrel today. We have well over 110 years at current US consumption of recoverables in the upper Midwest. Where is the "increased cost"? Speculators and spot buyers? BTW, Arabs get petroleum oil for 58 cents per gallon today as well.

Read more at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:North_American_Oil_Fields
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Fuelwatch_Worldwide
Comment 11 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
I believe that you are overlooking a significant factor. Partly due to current tax policies, renewables and conservation are at a disadvantage. The markets are in some ways priced against their use. The transition may not be "smooth," and there may be a considerable gap between the diminishment of oil, and other supplies taking over.
Currently, if an investment does not make a profit (real not just tax wise) quickly, tax policies make it an "unwise investment." Even willing investors that take a long term view (5-10 years), cannot make such investments. Carrying a factory/technology for 5-10 years before it achieves a real profit, which is taxed as if it were making one, from almost the first day of operation, is not financially feasible. Even if tax policies were changed, the mindset of profits as fast as possible, will doom such technologies.
Also, the mindset of bigger equals faster, or better, may doom the technologies that could prevent the collapse. Oil refineries operate on size equals efficiency (economy of scale), but the replacements _may_ not. Having energy production "local," replaces economy of scale, with economy of operation (total costs to produce and deliver). The problem again, is that tax laws work against such ideas.
Comment 12 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
The author offers a response to Mike Zagorsky's comment that:

"Mining is categorized by moderate capital costs (equipment) and high operating costs (labor, maintenance, fuel). Oil production on the other hand is categorized by very high capital costs and low operating costs."

It doesn't matter whether a producer's costs are capital or operating in nature, when the combined total of these costs exceeds the expected return from the producing activity, the producer will stop the activity. That is the thrust of this article. So we will never pump the last of the oil from the ground -- the issue is NOT "How long before oil runs out?" The issue instead is "How long is it before using oil, and producing oil, becomes uneconomical?" Accordingly, I urge readers to base their transition plans to alternative energy sources on these economical considerations, not on an expected date when the oil will run out.

I refer you to Richard Heinberg's excellent book entitled The Party's Over for a further discussion of this notion. An Amazon link to his book is

http://www.amazon.com/Partys-Over-Fate-Industrial-Societies/dp/0865715297/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221681195&sr=8-1

This point is also discussed in The Outlook On Oil, by Jim Motavalli, which can be found at

http://peakoil.blogspot.com/2005/12/outlook-on-oil.html

For other articles about the timing of an organization's transition, particularly one entitled Quantitatively Estimating The Cost Of Converting Now Or Later, see my alternative fuels blog at

http://kickingthegasoline.com/financial-justification/estimating-the-relative-costbenefit-of-converting-now-or-later/
Comment 13 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
Let's imagine for the present time that the States of Texas and middle America were a non-hydrocarbon based entity, entirely dependent on renewable energy, or as proposed by T. Boone Pickens electricity and natural gas. All modes of transportation are propelled by electricity or LNG or another form of renewable energy. In a hurricane or tornado or ice storm ravaged world there is no electricity or natural gas, windmills have been destroyed, power lines are down and natural gas production ceased and compressors needed for LNG inoperable. All local emergency vehicles fire trucks, ambulances, repair vehicles, etc. are useless and help from many areas unavailable due to the lack of gasoline and diesel fuel. As aviation gasoline and jet fuel are not available no rescue helicopters or transport planes bring relief supplies. A similar scenario was sent to Mr. Pickens several weeks ago asking for his backup plan in the case of such a disaster. No reply received to date. Perhaps Mr. Wood would offer his back up plan.
Comment 14 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
Charles:

"It doesn't matter whether a producer's costs are capital or operating in nature, when the combined total of these costs exceeds the expected return from the producing activity, the producer will stop the activity."

I'm going to again disagree:

The capital costs of bringing an oil field online are upfront costs and generally do not have a material salvage value.

Let me give an example, (I rounded the numbers)

Assume that I drill an oil well that will produce 16,000 barrels over a life of 10 years. (Lets assume an even production rate for the sake of simplicity) The cost to drill the well is $1 million and is projected to have an operating cost of $20 per barrel.

Based on a 10% capital cost and a price of $100/barrel oil the breakdown of a barrel of oil is:

$20 Operating Costs
$60 Financing of the initial capital expenditure to drill the well
$20 Profit for me

Now let's assume I was wrong and my operating costs are really $50 per barrel. So my costs > revenue therefore I face a conundrum:

I spent $1,000,000 to drill a well that will never break-even in terms of returning my investment. However, the million I spent to drill that hole has no resale value. The money I spent to drill the well is therefore gone forever.

So I have two choices:

1) Cap the well and walk away: I lose $1 million

2) Keep the well producing at $50/barrel operating costs even if costs> revenue: I lose $200,000

So in this situation the best economic decision is to keep producing oil even at a loss.

Clearly in this case I will not pursue drilling more oil wells, but the idea that I would discontinue existing production is not a correct universal assumption.
Comment 15 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
Well, if we don't mine for metals or drill for oil, then I foresee a huge demand to buy old garbage dumps in order to mine them for metals and plastics, with possibly also a side business in methane to sell as natural gas substitute. And then there'll be a huge business in recycling everything else under the sun.

The two biggest problems with losing access to oil are going to be going to be lack of transport, and loss of chemical fertilizers. (We have to eat.) That will force people to live and work in smaller, denser communities in order to minimize the need to drive, and also we'll go back to using organic fertilizers, which will mean that less organic matter should be flowing into the ocean, which is currently a huge, overlooked problem that is killing the oceans. These solutions should be good for the ecology and more economical as well. It's going to be tough, but if we take measures to avoid global warming, then I believe we will make it through the rest as a much healthier species.
Comment 16 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
Therese,
We are a long long way from shutting down transportation for want of oil. Trains for example are far-far more energy efficient than are semi-trucks, and yet we have and use far more trucks than trains. So one signpost we haven't past is the point where we re-invent train travel. As for fertilizer, we only need the nitrogen, oil is a cheap way to find fixed nitrogen, but there are many others, which are not much more expensive than the current High cost of oil.
They are of course more expensive than the historical price of oil, and quite possible the last pin to drop here, is the fear that oil will return to historic prices.

Who - pray tell - wants to build an algae based fertilizer processing plant - as long as oil is headed back to where it lives? There's your problem.
Comment 17 of 22
No image available
September 17, 2008
I cannot believe how the author is being slammed. Everyone one of the above comments are based upon sound political and especially micro and macro economics. And what about the new source of oil/gas in South Dakota. What about the natural gas which is still to be discoverd in Ocean Shores in Washington State. What about some comments above Oil Arctic Tip exploration. The Ice Cap is down so this would be a great time to see if Oil is at the top of the world.
Comment 18 of 22
No image available
September 18, 2008
Kieth,
The "Day" when affordable oil is no longer produced is a myth. Oil simply doesn't go from being "affordable" to being "unaffordable" in a single economic timeslice. One doesn't wake up on a wednesday morning in late july walk out of one's xurban home and jump in one's canyanaro XUV, only to find the entire world ran out of oil overnight - or any such thing. Instead, the market sends a small signal to billions of consumers which says that high-density housing provides a higher quality of life, that communities with commuter trains are more valuable than communities with low sales taxes, and after decades of this price signal, you wake up on the 34th floor, hit the elevator which takes you directly to work on the 3rd floor, after you pick up a Coffee and some headache meds at the convenience center on floor 7, and then you read in the biz obit section that a little known penny stock called Exxon closed its doors, while you struggle to remember what they made, and why anyone would need such a thing.
Comment 19 of 22
No image available
September 19, 2008
Oil is nastalgic? Oil men will find a way to tap the last drop... if even a hundred bucks per gallon! Besides, efficiency will have a way, but still only for the rich.

The back up plan...

If the deserts (were 5%) covered with mirrors (ie, SPT's with molten salt heat storage), the wind belt (rather heavily) dotted with turbines, and CNG on par with electric and NO GAS vehicles, It would take a very very big hurricane to destroy our day!

You see, when the economy is based on RE, then there is unlimited potential. If the turbines got "blown down", the methane or solar would have to work to rebuild. Just as coal and gas does today. CNG is like gasoline, it's portable, just not as (in this case) efficient. AS the storm approaches, wind and solar thermal compresses it just for such emergency...I guess...Hell, we don't even need CNG as long as there is (a reduced in costs) electrical storage in the plan.

What I would agree with though, is the fact that this transition period may be quite hazardous, since there will not be enough RE to build upon itself if too many people continue to deny it.

Picture the immense energy of the Sun and dare say "we are too stupid to utilize it" on a 3x global level!
Comment 20 of 22
No image available
September 19, 2008
I think another back up plan is to only allow oil for the trucking and rail industry... and employ electricity for personal mobility. Advanced batteries are already here. There is a web site just for electric Rav4 owners that passed the 100k mark on origional bat pack! NiMH is not quite as energy dense as lithium ion and is not as efficient, but is far less fussy, and over twice as good as lead acid. Can NiMH be made cheaper? (I know solar can, but I, the consumer, have to pay highly inflated prices just for a single little solar panel! Though know that the big guys only pay pennies on this dollar) I would place my bets on emerging battery tech before either hydrogen or fusion and thus we should start building RE plants in mass!
Comment 21 of 22
No image available
September 19, 2008
Robert and Fire,
We may well mine for the last drop of oil - if there is a non-fungible use for that oil, but I can tell you there are several technologies, such as coal syngas and algae based biodiesels which are largely if not fully fungible alternatives for oil; and which cost a great deal less than the oil at the bottom of the barrel.

I think it is safe to say that "we" have a plan to use Solar and Wind power to replace Oil, and by some accounts to use coal and natural gas during the transition to the extent necessary. It is worth noting that a "Carbon Cap" or Carbon Tax approach would work /against/ the effort to achieve early oil independence as a Carbon Tax would fall far more heavily on Coal, than it would on imported oil. We might see an odd compromise - such as a carbon tax only on imported fuel. This might encourage clean energy as well as a coal-intensive energy independence - it would be dirtier than a straight Carbon Tax might be if it existed, but if the carbon tax proves too expensive, a carbon tariff could appeal to both sides of the isle - noting that a combination of a low carbon tax, and a low carbon tariff would in effect place the highest carbon tax on imported fuel. Some combination of the two could encourage clean energies which are locally produced. The tariffs should be distributed to the taxpayers so they are not a burden.
Comment 22 of 22
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Solar Technologies SMA America, LLC Suntech Power Holdings Pfeiffer Vacuum GeoGenix LLC ULVAC Technologies, Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo