Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Twilight of the Oil Age

By Amanda Griscom Little, Grist.org. Posted November 9, 2005.


Peak-oil provocateur and energy insider Matthew Simmons is staking his entire career on his prediction that the world is running out of oil.
Advertisement

Matthew Simmons has been stirring up a lot of angst in energy circles this year. This well-connected industry insider has concluded that some of the world's largest oil beds may be on the verge of production collapse -- and he's willing to bet his much-vaunted career on it.

Author of the recently published Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, Simmons is founder of Simmons & Company International, an investment bank that handles mergers and acquisitions among energy companies, and counts among its clients Halliburton, General Electric, and the World Bank. A graduate of the Harvard Business School, he served as an energy-policy adviser to the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign.

Conservative credentials aside, Simmons has been boggling the minds of people across the political spectrum with his recent prediction that the price of a barrel of oil could hit the high triple digits within a few years. To postpone economic meltdown, he says we should be drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other hotly contested spots. At the same time, he's calling for a massive shift in energy policy, including radical improvements in efficiency, as well as a return to local farming and manufacturing. With his unconventional opinions, he's single-handedly reinventing the image of the post-oil energy crusader. He talked to us from his cell phone while dashing between energy lectures.

Let's start with a brief overview of the premise and implications of Twilight.

I believe we are either at or very close to peak oil. If I'm right, then we have to assume that five or 10 years from now we'll be producing less oil than we are today. And yet we have a society that is expecting, under the most conservative assumptions, that oil usage will grow by at least 30 to 50 percent over the next 25 years. In other words, we would end up with only 70 percent of the oil we have today when we would need to have 150 percent. It's a problem of staggering economic proportions -- far greater than the temporary setback of a terrorist attack on energy infrastructure -- that could end up leading to more geopolitical fistfights than you can ever imagine. The fistfights turn into weapon fights and give way to a very ugly society.

How did this thesis evolve?

The odyssey began in the early 1980s when I realized that my firm was threatened by a production collapse in the energy and oil-service business. I thought, "How on earth could this have happened without us even knowing?" I started doing some careful investigation into energy data. The more I studied, the more I started to realize that so many people who call themselves experts in the energy market, including government analysts, are in fact experts in their opinions and don't actually base a lot of it in actual data.

Why? Because the relevant data are confidential?

Yes, what's publicly available is extremely vague. No major oil-producing companies or nations allow audits of the data on their reserves and production, which leaves the experts effectively playing a guessing game.

If the data are concealed, on what evidence did you base your own conclusions?

I've spent years poring over hundreds of papers from the Society of Petroleum Engineers that have revealed fascinating clues. First I took an inventory of the top oil fields in the world, field by field. I was aghast to find that nobody had ever listed even the top 20 oil fields by name. I found that there are only about 120 oil fields in the world that produce half of the world's oil supply. The top 14 fields, which make up 20 percent of global supply, are, on average, over 53 years old. In Saudi Arabia, which harbors a quarter of the entire global supply, there are only five key fields producing 90 percent of their oil. They're all old.

Naturally I was very curious to find details on the condition and productivity of these fields. Two years ago I took a trip to Saudi Arabia on a government tour for business executives. They plied us with various data points that just didn't add up, even vaguely. I've since found evidence in the engineering papers indicating that the major Saudi fields are seriously at risk of reaching their peak, at which point they will begin to see their output decline.


Digg!

Amanda Griscom Little writes the Muckraker column for Grist Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
more peak oil
Posted by: emptyground on Nov 9, 2005 2:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
boy the ball's just gettin' rollin' here on PO. I just posted this link on a related article. Anyway, it quotes Simmons in admitting PO is a fraud. He's spreading scarcity propaganda so the $$ keep comin' in (and the endless wars keep churning). I'm beat, see this also. Follow the links and read the Chevron, Texaco, etc. internal memos admitting that their #1 problem is excess refining capacity; too much oil, not enough SUV's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: more peak oil Posted by: Colin
» Cashing in while they can Posted by: crz53
» RE: more peak oil Posted by: hotar
» RE: more peak oil Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: more peak oil Posted by: emptyground
» RE: more peak oil Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: more peak oil Posted by: eie
"Time Has Run Out"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 9, 2005 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quote from the article: "We have to find, for instance, far more energy-efficient methods of transporting products by rail and ship rather than trucks."

Agreed. Bulk transport by rail is already one of the most efficient methods available; the problem is, we don't use it enough. We are part of the worldwide land-sea container system that makes freight transfers between ships, trains and trucks seemless and quick – yet our rail system is nearly decrepit in comparison to Europe's or Japan's, so we depend on inefficient trucks for even long-haul service. And this inefficiency does not apply only to freight transport: in both France and Japan, on many routes, 200mph+ trains powered by ELECTRICITY move people long distances, rather than the incredibly wasteful commercial aircraft that are the norm here, even for sort hops. (China even has one of the world's first commercial magnetic levitation trains operating to and from Shanghai Int'l. Airport!) Why are we so far behind in utilizing existing technology?

Years ago, I believe it was Jacques Cousteau who advocated augmenting ocean transport by ship with the modern equivalents of sails – carbon-fiber and metal masts on ships that could efficiently use the prevailing wind in certain cases to reduce fuel consumption. Seen any of those lately?

Our problem is not a lack of ideas; our problem is corporate greed and intransigence, the tendency to ignore the KISS rule of engineering (Keep It Simple Stupid!) and look for the "sexy," technologically complicated, failure-prone solution that somebody can monopolize and exploit – and also, to put it simply, the problem of capitalistic laziness – don't make any changes and look to the future as long as you are profiting today.

We need to change our economic system AND our expectations if we are to have a system of any kind in the future. I won't say, "time is running out"; time HAS run out, and so we'd better move fast. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Time Has Run Out" Posted by: h2oaso
Last line in this article is a HUGE chunk of the answer
Posted by: Habaro on Nov 9, 2005 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like I always say: Slackers are the biggest conservationists there are--its all those annoying, over zealous go-getters who are truly wasting time (i.e. the time we have left on this planet). They call themselves successful...I guess if they're talking about reeling in doomsday quicker, the term does apply.
By the way, as soon as I started to read this article, its content reminded me to shut off the radio that I was otherwise ignoring. I think I'll just hum tunes in my head for the rest of the day instead...or just stare at the wall and drool instead of work. You're welcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

great link
Posted by: karyse on Nov 9, 2005 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone needs to read the link posted by emptyground. Thanks, emptyground. I had a deep suspicion about the so called oil crisis, but couldn't figure out why so many progressives were jumping on the bandwagon when great untouched Alaska hangs in the balance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: great link Posted by: Brutus
» RE: great link Posted by: h2oaso
We could be dead before Bush is gone
Posted by: Meremark on Nov 9, 2005 3:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All us ostriches, feather butts high and brains in ruts, keep on holding our breath believing this all blows over after Republicanazis and things get back to normal.
'Things' on Terra, 'things' in America, 'things' in Cong.districts, and 'things' in YOUR home ARE NEVER GOING BACK TO NORMAL !!!

Where 'NORMAL' means like life was in any year you pick since Mussolini fascists murdered Socialism's Giacomo Matteotti the day George Hitler Worker Bush was born.

Before this Bush bails out, (like his Daddy did in the war, saving himself and killing his crew), one out of two eyes reading this could be dead. Before '09. From starvation.

Peak Oil means within five years 100,000,000 Americans -- one hundred million, a third of us -- might die of want and wasting, and four billion humans -- 4,000,000,000 -- die off on Earth. No oil. No fuel. No cars. No planes. No ships. No tractors. No fertilizers. No farms. No food until you grow it. No electricity. Oh-Nine.

There is half a chance you could starve to death. Within five (5) years.

Okay, okay, I used worst case population die-off numbers. Except the 5 years is true. Or, does it change your outlook if it's 10 years ?

That's why out-of-control Bush and Republicanazi Congress and Mussolini media 'Don't Get It' and don't stop -- completely lawless. Cheney's Nine-Eleven Op (n.e.o.) -con mass murdered thousands of us, for starters -- THAT's lawless, going to get the oil. While good people hunker down, until this all blows over and things get back to normal. THEY plan to bail - pardon them, and take the remaining oil with them. YOU --> 'Don't Get It.' Back to 'normal' is life in 1900 -- Before Oil. But with electricity. If you make it yourself at home. If you have a home.

Don't expect TV will tell us or it'll be in the newspaper. So then how will we know? What we COULD do, ALL we could do, is Clean Sweep Congress in '06, electing a House replacement slate to IMPEACH everyone, STOP WAR, abolish the CIA, convene a Consti2tional Convention rewrite, bankrupt any corporation bigger than your town. Leaders mass murdering the way to global empire, needs massive ideas to outlive them.

That's what we COULD do, if we weren't petrified with fiction-terror fright.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yet Bush is not gone
Posted by: Meremark on Nov 9, 2005 3:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what we COULD do, if we weren't petrified with fiction-terror fright.

Unless you believe all other humans are not as human as you and you're better so all your partners are disposable. Unless if you believe you can get a big enough gun and go shoot everyone else because you're mad as hell and not going to take them anymore.

The do-nothing ('I don't follow politics') option is head back to the land, get the farm acres with our own oil, refinery, gas station, car factory, car, plane factory, plane ... oh, and feed the chickens, milk the cow, water the crops and wait for harvest October. Maybe our own pension fund will remain when everyone else's is stolen, so wait for retirement and see. Maybe today's a good day to sign a 7-year car loan on a new SUV. Maybe 'do nothing,' don't draw attention to our life-details folder in the master database of 'stolen' IDs.

Or sit here in de Nile rising and arguing against each other cluelessly, like the Republicanazis taught us. Or we might read a book, if our life really really depends on it.

Here's (and in links) is the Age of Oil obituary:
http://www.FromTheWilderness.com/

... and a Matthew Simmons sample [Delete ' 'space, copy and paste]:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ free/ww3/082103_blackout.html

... at the website of the author of Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, making the Motive-Opportunity-Method case against Cheney's Nine-Eleven Op - con.

Here's the birth of the Age of Oil and petro-dollars, with Prescott Bush's part financing Hitler:
[Concatenate]: http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FedReserve&Entity=FRBNY

Here's the birth of George H. W. Bush, and childhood plea for Prescott's approval, and his powermad 1980 CIA Team B (bad cop):
http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm

Here's the history of the CIA building with Hitler Worker's name on it:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/

Here's Lewis & Clark looking for food before oil, exactly 200 years ago:
http://libtextcenter.unl.edu/lewisandclark/index.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Montana freeman Posted by: montana freeman
Another viewpoint
Posted by: nickptar on Nov 9, 2005 5:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com

http://groups.google.com/group/Peak-Oil-Debunked

Despite the name, these are people who think peak oil is real, and serious, but can be managed through conservation and technology. To me at least, they seem very convincing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Making Progress
Posted by: trevor on Nov 9, 2005 5:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peak oil is one of the many issues that can be addressed now, by increasing public awareness. Seeing posts that are misinformed and paranoid - giving into dillusional conspiracy theories (Nine Eleven Op = NEO?) only hinders this awareness.
When people associate the issue of peak oil to a bunch of crackpot conspiracies, the issue at hand loses its validity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly! Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Making Progress Posted by: h2oaso
Maybe the "controversy" is the conspiracy
Posted by: muymal on Nov 9, 2005 9:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I was an oil company the "controversy" would be the best option. I'm sure someone will point out a flaw in my logic, but here it goes:

If peak oil is real, true the oil companies could say they need to up prices because of demand, but the population would react take measures to decline their future consumption and move to less dependence.

If peak oil is not true, oil companies could not argue for raising prices, but demand would stay steady.

If there is a controversy they can demand higher prices out one mouth and say there is nothing to worry about out of the other. Steady demand rising prices.

This would assume a vertical and horizontal monopoly type stranglehold, and that would never happen in our beloved democracy.

So I'm going to side with the peak oil theorists because I like trains.


If there is a controversy they can demand higher prices out one mouth and say there is nothing to worry about out of the other. Steady demand rising prices.

This would assume a vertical and horizontal monopoly type stranglehold, and that would never happen in our beloved democracy.

So I'm going to side with the peak oil theorists because I like trains.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Either way, renewables are needed
Posted by: earthsentinel on Nov 10, 2005 2:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If peak oil is real, we need renewables for obvious reasons. If it is not, we still need to move to more sustainable, less environmentally damaging technologies anyway.

-- Nick
http://earthsentinel.com - energy and sustainability news

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take Action
Posted by: Newt on Nov 10, 2005 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey Everyone–I think Peak Oil is real. Since reading an excerpt of "The Long Emergency" in last April's Rolling Stone, I have been researching the issue further. The actions we need to take to mitigate the worst consequences are almost identitcal to the actions we need to take to prevent further climate change. KISS YOUR CAR GOODBYE! And say Good riddens. Ride a bike, move closer to work, explore other transport options.

We're not just reaching peak oil, we're reaching peak water, peak fisheries, peak topsoil, everything. If you want to learn more about sustainable lifestyles and build a community, check out the NYC Peak Oil meetup group. We're doing good work, and there are other similar local groups popping up al over. http://oilawareness.meetup.com/36/

Links: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/ _/id/7203633?rnd=1131642773883&has-player=unknown

http://www.communitysolution.org/

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/1913/ Why_Our_Food_is_So_Dependent_on_Oil

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chicken Little
Posted by: Elucid on Nov 11, 2005 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This guy gets paid for being Chicken Little. Oil reserves are continually being discovered. In 2003-2004, Canada and Austrilia discovered enough oil that they may have more reserves than Saudi. I support alternative, sustainable, renewable energy sources and increasing efficiency and conservation.

Opening Artic National Wildlife Refuge is meaningless as it has less than 1% of currently know world reserves. It would perhaps reduce oil prices by 1 cent a gallon. Just not enough benefit to risk a pristine environment that is nesting group for migratory birds, calving grounds for carribou and one of last habitats for the going extinct polar bears.

It has been 16 years since the Exxon Valdez disaster. Prince Willaim Sound has not recoverd. Alaskan Fishermen, their families and communities have not been compensated for the damage as ExxonMobil continues to appeal court punitive award. ExxonMobil will make about $ 24 billion in profit this year and its CEO will earn about $ 20 million.

There are millions of acres available in Alaska that are open for drilling and the state and oil industry have not gotten around to leasing these yet. They should explore these first before opeing a pristine region.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

button
Posted by: pjohnq on Oct 3, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]