Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

High Costs Could Prompt Premature End to Oil Production

By Charles Cresson Wood
September 15, 2008   |   20 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

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.

20 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 20
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
2 of 20
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
3 of 20
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
4 of 20
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
5 of 20
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
6 of 20
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
7 of 20
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
8 of 20
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
9 of 20
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
10 of 20
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
11 of 20
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
12 of 20
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
13 of 20
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
14 of 20
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
15 of 20
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
16 of 20
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
17 of 20
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
18 of 20
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
19 of 20
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
20 of 20
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.
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

Advertise With Us

Cantsink Manufacturing Asia Solar Expo ONTILITY Solar Training BBI International FC Business Intelligence SkyFuel Geothermal Energy Association
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters