So, anyone got a subscription to Science Direct?

This report leads to this paper.

I\’m really rather hoping that the actual paper doesn\’t say anything quite as stupid as is being reported:

Their new research argues that estimates of conventional reserves should be downgraded from 1,150bn to 1,350bn barrels to between 850bn and 900bn barrels and claims that demand may outstrip supply as early as 2014.

Demand outstripping supply? What?

\”We\’re not operating under that basis. This is objective analysis. We\’re not sitting on any oil fields. It\’s critically important that reserves have been overstated, and if you take this into account, we\’re talking supply not meeting demand in 2014-2015.\”

In a market there is no such thing as demand outstripping supply. There is only a mismatch between supply and demand \”at a price\”. So I do hope that the report itself doesn\’t contain such silliness.

The abstract isn\’t all that much better:

While there is certainly vast amounts of fossil fuel resources left in the ground, the volume of oil that can be commercially exploited at prices the global economy has become accustomed to is limited and will soon decline. The result is that oil may soon shift from a demand-led market to a supply constrained market.

So, anyone got access to that actual paper so that I can have a shufti?

Update: Wow, that was quick. Good, I now have the article, thank you much to JJ.

8 comments on “So, anyone got a subscription to Science Direct?

  1. I love this line

    ………The paper also raises concerns that public statistics have started to incorporate non-conventional reserves such as the Canadian tar sands, where oil and gas are much more difficult to extract and may never be economically attractive to develop………

    First we are going to run out, and yet despite this, the oil price will not reach a level ($60-$100) that will make Canadian Tar Sands economically feasible.

    Has he not noticed, that there are actually quite a few companies exploiting Tar Sands already?

    It smacks of special pleading rather than analysis, although anyone who has actually read the thing can correct me if I am wrong.

  2. “While there is certainly vast amounts of fossil fuel resources ..”: Sir David’s grammar is as feeble as his thought processes. He really is a embarrassment.

    And another thing: the notion that the reserves owned by sundry countries are overestimates is ancient lore – how can one get such secondhand stuff published? Perhaps “pal review” isn’t confined to Climate Science?

  3. I might be completely mis-recalling this, but, ISTR reading recently that (a) the major oil companies are finding new reserves faster than they’re extracting oil from present fields, and (b) it’s possible to extract profitably from american tar-shale fields (estimated reserves of >100 years) at $26 per barrel, the only thing that prevents it is environmental legislation…

  4. While there is certainly vast amounts of fossil fuel resources left in the ground, the volume of oil that can be commercially exploited at prices the global economy has become accustomed to is limited and will soon decline.

    Limited by politics, not by technology or geology.

    The result is that oil may soon shift from a demand-led market to a supply constrained market.

    And of course, OPEC is in no way a constraint on oil supplies!

  5. Oh fuck me, it’s Sir David King!! Why didn’t you say so, save me the bother of clicking through to the article.

    This is the chap who thought Exxon should “move” Fawley refinery further inland to protect it from sea level rises due to global warming. Like it was a caravan parked in a bad spot, or something.

  6. There was a good paper recently noting that the the standard (IEA, EIA etc) papers assume developing countries will see a sharp decrease in growth of oil consumption per capita, which is based on the 1970s experience, but this is perhaps not that likely because a) the world (primarily the OECD) was using lots of fuel and heating oil it could stop using as there are loads of substitutes and b) the collapse of the FSU. Neither are easy to repeat, with developing countries tending to use oil for transport and other uses such as plastics, neither of which the oecd has managed to reduce the use of in recent years much (or at all) despite higher prices.

  7. Pingback: Underground? | London Travel Services

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.