Total CEO's warning: invest now or oil might not be plentiful in 2010
Speaking of discussing how to spend government money with an eye to the future, the CEO of the oil company Total said that the world is not prepared for the oil demands of the next decade and needs to invest in finding and tapping into new oil reserves. Speaking to the BBC, Christophe de Margerie (pictured) said that, "If we don't move [now] there will be a problem. In two or three years it will be too late." One result of the underinvestment will be oil prices above $100 a barrel (again), he said. Another result might be "insufficient oil to meet demand" in the years 2010-2015, he said. The solution, according to de Margerie, is for "heads of government to get involved" and to support getting more petroleum out of the ground. But of course. Thanks to Jon for the tip![Source: BBC | Image: AFP/Getty Images]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Eletruk 7:54PM (9/21/2009)
Cool, all the better to speed adoption of EVs and other alternative fueled vehicles!
Reply
Dave 8:19PM (9/21/2009)
Its the heating oil I'm concerned about.
dwarg 6:37AM (9/22/2009)
Dave, I hope your house isn't heated with oil. The price for that went up so much a few years ago, I know most people that were using it had to make the switch to natural gas, electric, or at least install a wood or corn stove to offset the costs. It's an expensive upfront cost but everyone I know that did it has been glad they did.
Evan 7:53AM (9/22/2009)
It's the cost of fresh produce that I'm concerned about. Our farming and shipping industries are very sensitive to the price of oil.
PabloKoh 9:07AM (9/22/2009)
Evan, Check out a local CSA. Fresh, organic vegetables grown locally for a reasonable cost. My wife and I pay $220 for 8 months of produce. www.localharvest.org/
polo 2:26PM (9/22/2009)
Lets put this into perspective. First the oil company is not asking for subsidies because they fear oil might return to their highly profitable margins from last year, this is pre-emptive push-back against the Obama admin calling for an end to oil subsidies:
Report: Obama to take on Big Oil, call for end to fossil fuel subsidies
By Daniel Tencer
Published: September 19, 2009
If a letter from a presidential aide is to be believed, President Barack Obama is set to make an audacious call to end fossil fuel subsidies at the United Nations on Tuesday.
A letter (PDF) from Michael Froman, an aide to Obama, setting out the White House’s climate change priorities ahead of the Copenhagen summit, states that “eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would help energy markets work better and improve our energy security.”
That leads DailyKos blogger RLMiller to conclude that Obama “will ask the G-20 countries, including our own, to end the hypocritical practice of billions of dollars of subsidies to dirty, carbon-emitting fuels while preaching to developing countries about their carbon emissions.”
In making such a call, Obama would be echoing the arguments of many environmental groups, as well as the United Nations Environment Program, which last year called for the “scrapping” of the subsidies.
But the move will likely place the Obama administration at odds with some of the world’s most profitable companies. As DailyKos’ Miller writes: “If you thought the health insurers hated Obama, it ain’t nothing compared to the reaction by Exxon Mobil and pals!”
Miller points to a study from the Environmental Law Institute that shows the energy industry received more than $70 billion in subsidies between 2002 and 2008, despite consecutive quarters of record-shattering profit during much of that time.
That compares to $29 billion in subsidies during the same period for renewable fuels.
The ELI study also asserts that US taxpayers’ money is being spent to subsidize foreign oil production, and that the subsidies are creating “perverse incentives” to continue investing in fossil fuels, even as they become more scarce.
Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies “is also a logical step in combating climate change, as it would encourage energy conservation, and facilitate new technologies,” Froman’s letter continues. “The move away from should be managed to protect those most vulnerable to price increases.”
Ending the subsidies is “certainly going to be a controversial part [of the president's agenda] in some circles,” Miller writes. “Already, some have suggested that ending fossil fuel subsidies to desperately poor developing nations will create a backlash.”
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/19/obama-big-oil-fuel-subsidies/
Nixon 8:18PM (9/21/2009)
Invest now ... In anything that doesn't require oil for propulsion, or significantly less oil for propulsion.
If finding more oil in the next 5 years is such a critical issue, imagine how much worse it will be 10-15 years from now. The very fact that this warning is being given shows how bankrupt the concept of drilling for more and more oil is over the long term.
Reply
Spence 8:26PM (9/21/2009)
Let's see, the wealthiest, most profitable companies on the planet need government to do the heavy lifting for them so that they can continue to rake in the profits on their planet-destroying business.
Oh, and what's up with oil CEO's and jowls? Are these people grown in some evil-CEO robber-baron lab in Switzerland?
Reply
jpm 1:14AM (9/22/2009)
oil fat cats
Ghen 3:38PM (9/22/2009)
Looks like we need to drill for oil in his neck curtain.
Andrey 8:49PM (9/21/2009)
Breaking news. Air is in demand and will experience shortage in next uhhh decade. Invest now. I have a great solution, I’m not a treky or anything, but lets develop "beam me up Scotty" technology. It is clean, no pollution and instantaneous transportation, faster than any car out there. Want to race to moon and back?
Reply
evnow 10:09PM (9/21/2009)
Looks like you haven't hread of Peak Oil.
Thunderbuck 9:59PM (9/21/2009)
We probably need to start making a bigger shift to natural gas, at least to start. There's a considerable supply of it, it's easier to extract, transport, and process, and it produces considerably fewer pollutants than petroleum. Gas To Liquids (GTL) actually shows a lot of promise, and it would be relatively easy to convert current infrastructure.
I'm a big believer in EVs, but there are two huge elephants in the room that nobody seems to want to acknowledge: 1) How "clean" can battery technology really become? and 2) Just where are we going to get all the electricity we'll need to power all these EVs? No, wind and solar aren't going to cut it without efficiency boosts of a few orders of magnitude, and--believe it or not--in many areas ENVIRONMENTALISTS are protesting solar and/or wind installations on the grounds that they disrupt sensitive habitat.
Sadly, we're not done with big oil. Not by a long shot.
Reply
Boyprodigy1 10:23PM (9/21/2009)
One thing that you fail to acknowledge is that in the united states we can definitely ramp up coal production if we need to. Its not the best solution but its better than oil alternatives as far as emissions are concerned and from there it can only get better by phasing in oil and solar power.
Another thing that I try to continually point out, is that from college i get a pretty different perspective of things. I know 6 chemistry majors. Of the six, 5 of them are doing research on solar cells. The other 1 is a freshman and he wants to do battery research (though there aren't any professors who are really doing anything with that here).
Besides that, if you really doubt the EV, there are some people you should probably talk to. If you are ever in the Denver, Colorado area, visit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). At NREL they champion EVs. As a mechanical engineering student, i would love nothing more than getting an internship there. Just some food for thought.
polo 11:12PM (9/21/2009)
Everybody knows "natural gas" = hydrogen = continued profit stream for oil industry. stop pushing big oil propaganda.
1) The battery tech is clean enough, is reusable, and is recyclable. This is hardly an elephant in the room, any more than a lead acid battery is an elephant in the room for an ICE.
2) The grid can handle millions of EVs charging at night when most will be. During the day as they trickle charge from place-to-place that extra capacity acts as a backbone to the grid. EVs will make the grid stronger, and their presence will force upgrades to utilize that capacity. It will only take 1/3rd the energy production to power EVs versus fueling your hydrogen car, so the savings will be significant (even more when you factor in the cost for your hydrogen infrastructure).
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/electric-vehicles-could-surpass-grid-or-support-it
Doug 12:28AM (9/22/2009)
@Thunderbuck
Were you on Jeopardy?
Thunderbuck 12:31AM (9/22/2009)
@BoyProdigy1
I was tempted to bring up coal, and I'm glad you did. A few years ago, there were several media stories about updates to the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce clean diesel fuel from coal. I've heard no follow up to this whatsoever, but I'm definitely curious.
@polo
Where to begin? Your glasses may not be so much green as rose-colored. The environmental impact of batteries is very much still a point of contention, not just because of the potential environmental hazards presented by the batteries themselves, but also by the explosion in mining that will be necessary to provide the rare earth elements that high-tech batteries require in spades. Recycling and reuse will definitely help, and as the technology matures I'm sure the risks will be reduced, but we're nowhere NEAR there yet.
And, yes, it's true that there's less electrical demand at night, and that it's the ideal time for most users to recharge their cars. However, given the massive new load resulting from this if a significant chunk of the North American fleet goes electric, I'm really doubtful that the existing grid could serve it. A smarter grid would doubtless help, but the bottom line remains that there's going to be a massive need for new generation. Alternative generation methods, as they now stand, will help, but not fill the gap on their own.
Where's the new generation going to come from?
Thunderbuck 12:34AM (9/22/2009)
@Doug
You're very observant :-)
Yes, I appeared October 1 & 2, 2007.
Boyprodigy1 1:21AM (9/22/2009)
@thunderbuck's response to polo
Thats what my point was about coal. It wouldn't take any huge flexing to increase coal fire electricity production. As i said, not the best option, but it still has less carbon emissions than cars that power themselves. Besides that, i think renewables are going to be more viable, sooner, than people give them credit for. That was my point about the chemistry majors. Large portions of my generation are dedicating their lives to renewable energy.
That said, it wouldn't be overnight, but neither would the penetration of electric vehicles. If every single car we produced this year was an electric vehicle it would take at least 5 years to replace every single car on the road. However it won't happen that way. It will be at least 10 years until ICE is taken out of the picture. I think over the course of that time we could find the electrical production.
meme 2:33AM (9/22/2009)
Thunderbuck, I wasn't going to waste my breath commenting, but you're just so wrong, I had to.
Let's say it all together:
"Lithium-Ion Batteries Are Not Made Up Of Rare Elements"
Should we say it again?
"Lithium-Ion Batteries Are Not Made Up Of Rare Elements"
Your typical lithium phosphate cell, for example, is made of lithium salts (which range from $4-$8/kg -- not exactly an arm and a leg; they're commonly found in mineral water); phosphoric acid (like in soft drinks); iron powder; sugar (burned for carbon binder); graphite; one of several electrolytes; a porous polyethylene membrane; casing, wiring, and so forth.
Where's your rare elements? Where's your toxic components? There are none. These things are less toxic than the stainless steel and aluminum that goes into making internal combustion engines.
As for your "doubt" over what the grid can serve, I'll take the DOE's word over the word of "Thunderbuck" any day.