The CEO of Royal Dutch Shell says "after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand." This in an email from Jeroen van der Veer to his staff. Hmmm.
That means two things: even more demand for the expensive stuff, like Alberta's tar sands, and really expensive gasoline. Unless, that is, van der Veer's more optimistic scenario comes to pass:
The other route to the future is less painful, even if the start is more disorderly. This Blueprints scenario sees numerous coalitions emerging to take on the challenges of economic development, energy security and environmental pollution through cross-border cooperation.
Much innovation occurs at the local level, as major cities develop links with industry to reduce local emissions. National governments introduce efficiency standards, taxes and other policy instruments to improve the environmental performance of buildings, vehicles and transport fuels.
As calls for harmonization increase, policies converge across the globe. Cap-and-trade mechanisms that put a cost on industrial CO2 emissions gain international acceptance. Rising CO2 prices accelerate innovation, spawning breakthroughs. A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen, while industrial facilities are fitted with technology to capture CO2 and store it underground.
This from the CEO of the world largest fossil fuels pusher. Interesting.
But, of course, business is still business. Van der Veer goes on to state that
Since CO2 capture and storage adds cost and brings no revenues, government support is needed to make it happen quickly on a scale large enough to affect global emissions.
Which is precious, coming on the heels of news that the oil industry is reporting enormous profits. Again. According to CNN, the largest US oil company, ExxonMobil:
..is expected to earn $10.37 billion in the fourth quarter, according to earnings tracker Thomson Financial. That's about $330 million shy of Exxon's previous quarterly profit record of $10.7 billion set in the fourth quarter of 2005 - which also was a record for any U.S. corporation.
Exxon is expected to make $39.2 billion for all of 2007, just shy of its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006, which breaks down to the company earning about $75,000 a minute.
If ConocoPhillips is any indication, Exxon should have no trouble meeting - and beating - estimates.
Conoco (COP, Fortune 500), the nation's third largest oil company, trounced profit estimates by nearly 25 percent when it reported Wednesday morning.
Number two Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) is also expected to do well. Analysts are expecting a 30 percent increase in earnings per share when it reports next Friday.
- Log in to post comments
hmmm... I'm ambivalent toward statements like this. On one hand, I hope they promote research and development of clean, green, sustainable energy sources. Especially since as a researcher I stand to benefit from that. But, this last year I attended a talk given by the VP of research at BP, and he presented some pretty convincing arguments that oil (and fossil fuels in general) could last 100+ years. Despite my general distrust of oil companies and their 'science', this guy (a former UC professor) seemed like a real scientist. Regardless, for many reasons I'm in support of drastic reductions in the use of fossil fuels.
P.S. Congrats on maintaining a coherent, intelligent, and entertaining blog when the vast majority of blogs border between boring and a complete waste.
There is absolutely no conflict between the statement that "after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand" and "oil (and fossil fuels in general) could last 100+ years." Failing to keep up with demand is completely different from actually running out of oil. We're never going to completely run out of oil - it's just going to get increasingly difficult and uneconomic to recover.
Dunc, I agree with you. Thanks for clarifying that. However, "easy-to-access" and "economical" are pretty subjective definitions that are likely to change dramatically depending on social, environmental, and economical considerations. Along with more altruistic motivations, this volatility in the energy market should be motivation enough to move away from fossil fuels toward some (possibly unknown) better option(s). It bothers me to think that real change has to be driven by oil companies and the concerns of their stockholders.
Rising CO2 prices accelerate innovation, spawning breakthroughs. A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen, while industrial facilities are fitted with technology to capture CO2 and store it underground.
The above paragraph was the good news in the bad news. Even though it will take time to set up the structures and paradigms, this kind of thinking will see us better off in the future than we are now.
Dave Briggs :~)
The Shell message conflates the linked problems of fossil fuel depletion and CO2 emission: both are vast, but the latter's costs are much more indirect, economically, than the former's.
If major oil fields are due to run dry in 2015, the immediate consequences will be much more disruptive than another year's worth of greenhouse gas emissions.
Oh noes! What could possibly replace the bubbles in fizzy drinks?
The biggest "environmental" bait-&-switch of our time. The electricity and the H are mostly provided by fossil fuels - or by nukes, whose waste products are arguably more harmful than carbon dioxide.
Actually... There are no commercially produced hydrogen cars available. Not one. And Carbon Capture and Storage is a very new approach which has only been implemented in a tiny number of locations, and then only as part of an Enhanced Oil Recovery strategy that will result in the emission of more CO2 than it actually sequesters. Pure CCS is currently no more than a possibility - it's not actually being implemented anywhere yet.
Welcome to capitalism.