Gail Tverberg  on the Leonardo Maugeri argument"

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/06/28/lower-oil-prices-not-a-good-sign/

> One of the issues with high oil prices is that the higher prices,
> especially among oil importers, give rise to a kind of systemic 
> risk<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3382>that affects many kinds of 
> businesses simultaneously. High
> oil prices tend to do several things at 
> once<http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/07/26/how-limited-oil-supply-can-lead-to-a-continuing-financial-crisis/http://>:
> lower the real growth rate, make it more difficult to repay loans, and
> increase the unemployment rate. All of these issues make it more difficult
> for governments to function, because governments play a back up role. If
> workers are laid off from work, governments are expected to compensate
> laid-off workers at the same time they are collecting less in taxes and
> bailing out distressed banks. This type of systemic risk leads to the
> possibility of multiple government failures.
>
> *Promises of Future Oil Capacity Growth Aren’t Very Helpful *
>
> We keep reading articles claiming that world oil production will grow by
> some large amount by some future date. One of the latest of these is by
> Harvard Kennedy School researcher (and former oil company executive)
> Leonardo Maugeri, called Oil: The Next 
> Revolution<http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22145/new_study_by_harvard_kennedy_school_researcher_forecasts_sharp_increase_in_world_oil_production_capacity_and_risk_of_price_collapse.html>.
> According to the report, “Oil production capacity is surging in the United
> States and several other countries at such a fast pace that global oil
> output capacity is likely to grow by nearly 20 percent by 2020, which could
> prompt a plunge or even a collapse in oil prices”.
>
> Even if the forecast were true (which I am doubtful), the problem is that
> this is simply too little, too late. We have been having oil supply
> problems for quite some time–since the 1970s. The rate of oil supply growth
> keeps ratcheting downward, and the world keeps trying to adapt, with
> recessions to show for its efforts. (James Hamilton has 
> shown<http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/08/oil-price-shocks-and-the-reces>that
>  10 out of 11 recent recessions were associated with oil price spikes.)
>
> We don’t have time to wait until 2020 to see whether the supposed
> additional capacity (and production) will actually materialize. We have a
> problem right now. The downturn in oil prices and the reduction in demand
> in the US and PIIGS is looking more and more like the current oil price
> spike (of 2011 and early 2012) may give rise to yet another recession.
> Based on our experience in 2008-2009, and our difficulties since then, this
> recession may be severe.
>


On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:47 PM, D & N <[email protected]> wrote:

>  There are probably a few such charts providing specifics on gas price at
> the pumps following any negative news--which would, last count, be
> practically diurnal; moreover, those showing the sharpest increases
> relating to upcoming holiday weekends. No conspiracy suspected.
>
> Note: the price per barrel has been dropping for months, but the pump
> price stays profitable. They're used to the profits, and government is
> quite happy to get royalties, if only to offset out the subsidies.
>
> *Natalia*
>
>
> On 26/06/2012 1:07 PM, Tom Walker wrote:
>
> Harvard? Not impressed. Martin Feldstein is from Harvard.
>
> I reiterate, though, that peak oil is NOT about the amount of oil
> available. It is about rates of production that are tied to prices and
> profitability, which in turn rely on rates of economic growth that can be
> sustained at those (varying) oil prices.
>
> I'm pasting a snapshot of a figure comparing interest rates, the price of
> oil and the U.K. housing market from 2005 to 2009. It's from an article by
> Colin Hay about the demise of what he calls "the Anglo-liberal growth
> model." The peak in oil prices in the second quarter of 2008 was not the
> result of some sudden change in oil supply. To simplify massively, it
> reflects changes in interest rate policy in response to inflation
> (including oil price and housing price rises). It's not as if the
> privatized-Keynesian growth model would be just fine if only there was more
> oil. The model was inherently unstable and there would appear to be no way
> of putting Humpty-Dumpty back together again.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Arthur Cordell <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>  Many environmentalists are distressed that there seems to be more oil
>> available than we had heretofore thought.  Wonder why.
>>
>>
>>
>> As to the author’s facts, all I know is that it was reported in the NY
>> Times, he is at one of the institutes at Harvard and the press release is
>> from the same place.
>>
>>
>>
>> arthur
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Walker
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:13 PM
>>
>> *To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
>> *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] A Fresh Look at Oil's Long Goodbye -
>> NYTimes.com
>>
>>
>>
>> That would indeed be interesting (but hardly earth shattering) if the
>> author does indeed know what "peak oil" is about. It's not about how much
>> oil there is in the ground somewhere. It's about the interactions between
>> price, profit, supply, geopolitics, technology, pollution and political
>> economy.
>>
>> I'm not saying Maugeri is wrong -- I haven't read his book. I'm just
>> saying I've heard it all before about peak oil being "disproven" based on
>> ludicrous (or mischievous) misinterpretations of what peak oil is about. It
>> is not about "running out of petroleum in nature." It's about cheap
>> petroleum being able to play a role in a particular model of political
>> economy and economic growth. The amount of solar energy that hits the earth
>> each day is stupendous but has little to do with how much of it can be
>> profitably exploited for industrial production.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Arthur Cordell <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think it’s the difference between the short term and long term.  I
>> agree that it is confusing.  I left out a lot from the posting but in the
>> posting the second to last para says.
>>
>> *The combination of new production in the Western Hemisphere and the
>> still growing production in other parts of the world could lead to a sharp
>> drop in oil prices, Maugeri finds, which if steep enough could lead oil
>> companies to cut back on investment and ultimately slow down oil supplies.
>> But if oil prices remain above about $70 per barrel, sufficient investment
>> will occur to sustain continued growth in production, possibly leading to a
>> stable phenomenon of oil overproduction after 2015.*
>>
>> So there might be a sharp drop which if it goes below 70 could lead to
>> cutbacks in production.
>>
>>
>>
>> The interesting part of the article is that the author says we are NOT at
>> peak oil at this time.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Walker
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 1:03 PM
>> *To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
>> *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] A Fresh Look at Oil's Long Goodbye -
>> NYTimes.com
>>
>>
>>
>> To make a long story short: a big increase in unconventional oil
>> production, fueled by high prices may lead to a sharp drop in oil prices.
>>
>> In other words, the production projections are based on price projections
>> that ignore the feedback effect on prices of the production projections.
>>
>>   On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Arthur Cordell <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/a-fresh-look-at-oils-new-boom-time/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120626
>>
>>
>>
>> *A Fresh Look at Oil’s Long Goodbye*
>>
>> *By ANDREW C. 
>> REVKIN<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/>
>> *
>>
>> My bedtime reading tonight is “Oil: The Next Revolution – The
>> unprecedented upsurge of oil production capacity and what it means for the
>> world<http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil-%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf>.”
>> *This mind-bending report points to a prolonged period of rising oil
>> production, particularly in the United States (for reasons laid out below),
>> and a potential collapse in oil prices, with all kinds of implications for
>> security, international politics, the economy and, without doubt, climate.
>> *
>>
>> The report is written by Leonardo 
>> Maugeri<http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/2510/leonardo_maugeri.html>,
>> a top oil company executive from Italy who is currently a research fellow
>> at the Geopolitics of Energy 
>> Project<http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/68/geopolitics_of_energy_project.html>of
>>  Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
>>
>> For convenience, here’s an excerpt from the Harvard news release on
>> Maugeri’s report:
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> Oil production capacity is surging in the United States and several other
>> countries at such a fast pace that global oil output capacity is likely to
>> grow by nearly 20 percent by 2020, which could prompt a plunge or even a
>> collapse in oil prices, according to a new study by a researcher at the
>> Harvard Kennedy School.
>>
>> The findings by Leonardo Maugeri, a former oil industry executive who is
>> now a fellow in the Geopolitics of Energy Project in the Kennedy School’s
>> Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, are based on an
>> original field-by-field analysis of the world’s major oil formations and
>> exploration projects.
>>
>> *Contrary to some predictions that world oil production has peaked or
>> will soon do so, Maugeri projects that output should grow from the current
>> 93 million barrels per day to 110 million barrels per day by 2020, the
>> biggest jump in any decade since the 1980s. What’s more, this increase
>> represents less than 40 percent of the new oil production under development
>> globally: more than 60 percent of the new production will likely reach the
>> market after 2020.*
>>
>> Maugeri’s analysis finds that the gross additional production from
>> current exploration and development projects in the world could produce an
>> additional 49 million barrels per day by 2020, an increase equivalent to
>> more than half the world’s current 93 million bpd. After adjusting that
>> gross output increase for political and technical risk factors as well as
>> the offsetting depletion rates of current fields, the analysis projects the
>> net increase by 2020 to be about 17.5 bpd.
>>
>> *His study attributes the expected growth in oil output largely to a
>> combination of high oil prices and new technologies such as hydraulic
>> fracturing that are opening up vast new areas and allowing extraction of
>> “unconventional” oil such as tight oil, oil shale, tar sands and
>> ultra-heavy oil. These increases are projected to be greatest in the United
>> States, Canada, Venezuela and Brazil. Maugeri also predicts a major
>> increase in Iraq’s oil output as it regains stability, which will add new
>> production in the Persian Gulf region — potentially destabilizing OPEC’s
>> ability to manage output and prices.*
>>
>> The combination of new production in the Western Hemisphere and the still
>> growing production in other parts of the world could lead to a sharp drop
>> in oil prices, Maugeri finds, which if steep enough could lead oil
>> companies to cut back on investment and ultimately slow down oil supplies.
>> But if oil prices remain above about $70 per barrel, sufficient investment
>> will occur to sustain continued growth in production, possibly leading to a
>> stable phenomenon of oil overproduction after 2015.
>>
>> *“Leonardo’s conclusions are not only startling, but his paper provides
>> a transparent explanation for how he reaches them – something lacking in
>> many studies,” said Meghan L. O’Sullivan, the Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor
>> of the Practice of International Affairs at the Kennedy School and director
>> of the Geopolitics of Energy Project. “His findings have major implications
>> for geopolitics, suggesting important shifts in how countries interact and
>> wield influence.”*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Futurework mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Futurework mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Futurework mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing 
> [email protected]https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to