Report: When Economy Picks Up, A New Energy Shock is Likely

[tama]

Sharp reductions in investments and low oil prices could curb future supplies by almost eight million barrels a day within the next five years, according to a study scheduled for release Friday, the latest warning that the world could face a new energy shock when the economy picks up.

The report by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, an oil consulting firm, said that the potential drop in production capacity is a “powerful and long-lasting aftershock following the oil price collapse.”

The global slowdown has forced oil companies to slash their investments, postpone or cancel expansion plans, or delay drilling in many corners of the world. While some of the biggest companies, like Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell, say they will keep their investments unchanged this year, many other producers are curbing investments because of the crisis.

The report says about 7.6 million barrels a day of future supplies are “at risk” of being deferred or canceled, like heavy oil or deepwater projects, and which could bring total supplies to 101.4 million barrels a day by 2014. Last year, the group projected that capacity would rise to 109 million barrels a day by then.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/report-when-economy-picks-new-energy-

[Kolesar]

1. Printing money is inflationary and we are going to see expensive oil in the US

[Demeter]

2. We Will Get the Energy Shock, Guaranteed--And The Economy Picked Up and Moved

to China, so don't waste time waiting for it, 'cause it ain't coming back.

[Arctic Dave]

3. That is, unless we start to increase efficiency and move to

non hydrocarbon based energy. Also, if you take into account the psychological effect of the last year I think our over consume attitudes will be tempered.

[tama]

4. I'm afraid

it will take "schock and awe" treatment of a die-off to move away from hydrocarbon based energy and debt based economy.

Of course I cannot stop hoping for something other than deductible predictions... :)

[notesdev]

5. There's only one way to do that

short of a (not on the horizon) technological breakthrough.

That's to put up about 400 nuclear energy plants. It would make for a lot of union jobs, that's for sure.

It would also require a sea change in attitudes from both left and right. Both the mathematically-challenged believers in flower power nonsense (wind, solar, bio, etc.) and those who discount the multifaced negative consequences of carbon fuels need to come around to a more practical point of view.

[tama]

7. Fission

is not renewable, uranium is limited.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
- mathematically challenged Albert Einstein.

[notesdev]

9. Breeder reactors

Net fuel positive. Look 'em up. Fuel is not a limitation.

[tama]

10. Please

Breeders are not "net fuel positive", which would violate laws of physics, they just use greater percentage of the original fissionable material. What is the EROEI?

And electricity is not a solution to replacing oil, at least short to medium term. How much fossile energy needed to change the whole infrastructure from combustion engine to electric engine, billions of accumulators etc. etc., the raw materials that need to be mined and refined etc. The diminishing EROEI is a killer in the economies of scale - at least in the current capitalistic mode of production.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. File this under...

"Covering our asses for the next round of runaway speculation"

[tama]

8. So are you saying

that conventional oil didn't peak in 2005?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. Are you saying that it did? nt

[tama]

12. Duh

That's what the official numbers show. And given that production of conventional oil didn't go up from 2005 peak even though prices went through the roof until last summer, well, you should be able to draw the conclusion.

Also there is now consensus among informed observers (Theoildrum etc.) that all liquid fuels (conventional plus deep sea, tar sands, liquified NG etc.) peaked in 2008.