"Maybe the enemy is us... Grow food at home." - Matthew R.
Simmons, June 20, 2006, at the Pentagon-sponsored seminar series
Energy: A Conversation About Our National Addiction
It does not take long for people who study peak oil to see some
heavy implications of the end of abundant oil. After a while some
of the more realistic probabilities become clear and often become
one's main topic of conversation. The possibilities, dangers and
opportunities start motivating one to change his or her life.
But it takes more than the few years that most students of peak
oil today have under their belts for the stark picture to come
into clear focus. It helps if one has grounding in the petroleum
industry, but it's all too rare; people in extractive industries
seldom seem to show they care for the greater welfare of the
world. And those who don't want to believe there is now - or soon
will be - an historic crisis regarding the peaking of world oil
extraction are often 100% wedded to the status quo. It is left,
then, for many a non petroleum professional to hold forth and help
lead us.
However, Matthew R. Simmons, Chairman of the energy-industry
investment banking firm Simmons & Company International, stepped
forward and has recently become a phenomenon for our times. He is
sufficiently independent to add up and share what he has been
observing and learning over decades. His firm has completed for
its clients' investment-banking projects that have valued over $65
billion. He has given 75 speeches since publishing his book on
Saudi Oil, Twilight in the Desert (2005). "As I study the oil
situation, the problems get worse... [but] the peak oil movement
has grown from being a pimple to a pandemic," Simmons told Culture
Change.
It is pleasant to be surprised by the maturation and
radicalization of a major figure in the energy industry and the
field of peak oil. Simmons brings his audiences to almost all his
conclusions by starting with a simple, logical rundown of terms,
history and data that bolster his conclusion that cheap and
abundant petroleum is gone or going fast. He reminds us that the
word "guru" only means leader or guide, not expert. From his
lecture on June 20 across the Potomac River from Washington, Matt
Simmons qualifies as an expert leader, to this reporter.
Simmons' alarm over the lack of a "Plan B" to replace our
status-quo petroleum dependence has lately turned him into
something more like an Ecotopian than a soldier for nonstop
industrialization of the entire world; that global pursuit seems
nearing its end soon in Simmons' view, due to the "inability to
grow" thanks to the energy crisis he says is already here. Such an
analysis is close to that of Culture Change, which, like Simmons,
urgently offers a picture of the future without oil and natural
gas to spare. Like this reporter, a former petroleum industry
analyst and supporter of truly renewable energy, Simmons does not
see alternative fuels as able to rush in and maintain the economy
as we know it.
As an energy investment-banking firm, Simmons & Company covers
a wide spectrum of energy beyond fossil fuels. At his
Pentagon-sponsored Energy Conversation appearance on June 20 in
Crystal City, Virginia, he was asked in the audience-participation
period what an investor should invest in, Simmons does not
recommend the petroleum industries - this, despite his stating
that we could see "$500 a barrel for crude" as "any energy
shortage rapidly morphs into PANIC." (emphasis in Simmons’
printouts and slides.)
Matt Simmons is a man who has reflected on the waste of energy
that ordinarily would be delightful for any businessman in energy.
But he wryly complains of "blueberries in Maine imported from
Chile even during blueberry season." Likewise for the nation’s
infrastructure: "You can tear up the roads," he said, to stop the
wasteful trucking and start barging on water, to save 35 times as
much energy. He mentions rail also as a major replacement for our
highways, as freight by rail saves 8 times the energy. He would
know, however, that today’s volume of trade cannot fit on existing
railcars and barges, and that there’s little likelihood that the
nation’s infrastructure can change quickly enough for the peak oil
timetable.
And when is peak? "Realistically, we’re probably at peak now.
If not, production will fall faster later" as a result of rising
demand. This definitive conclusion is from a data specialist on
the main assets of the petroleum industry: reserves and the whole
industry’s ability to extract, refine and distribute at a profit.
He is not surprised that peak is here, nor that we are caught
unprepared. He offers his audiences instances of the public and
leaders ignoring past warnings, such as M. King Hubbert’s on the
peaking of domestic and global oil extraction.
How did oil analysts and the government get caught with their
pants down? "Price volatility masked price signals." People were
and are expected to trust samples for oil reserves, but he has
seen "no proof that reserves still grow." There has been "only a
theoretical 1.5 million barrel a day production cushion" to last
three years. But the spare refining capacity is not there: if
there is, it’s only for light, sweet crude that’s dwindling
fastest. "The best Saudi oil is gone… Middle East production will
go down by one third by 2012." He reported that an Occidental
Petroleum official told him that they’re in the business of
producing "brine stained with oil." Saudi Arabia has been
depleting its precious fresh water by pumping it into its aging
oil fields, and this has meant using more and more salt water to
the detriment of the fields and the equipment.
Simmons said that if any of the larger Saudi fields pumping up
to six million barrels a day went off line, as he seems to
anticipate will happen, then we can hit $500 a barrel: "A lights
out issue."
Given what Simmons knows, and speaking to a largely Pentagon
audience sprinkled with Republicans from Capitol Hill, it was
surprising to hear him confidently inform us that "A call to arms
may be wrong. We may not even know who the enemy is. And maybe the
enemy is us." In Simmons’ PowerPoint presentation he refers to
"phony wars."
Kicking the oil habit, to Simmons, means primarily using less
transportation energy. How to do this? "Liberate the work force"
from commuting. He even used the word village to describe the new
environment for work. He urged "reduction of globalization" that
makes products as cheaply as possible somewhere to be shipped via
oil somewhere else.
"The Energy Crisis has arrived." - his talk’s title. He
concluded, "Grow food at home." What? That sounds like "doom and
gloom" eco-speakers like me! I have often inhabited the radical
fringe when it comes to the news media’s preference to serve up my
old firm Lundberg Survey’s typical reports on minor price changes
in gasoline rather than my critique of energy consumption and land
use. Simmons also said we need to "walk and bike" - so he’d
certainly applaud Culture Change's long-time project Pedal Power
Produce that extends the home food-garden potential.
As for natural gas, he says there is no plan when one country
imagines its supply will come from another country that in turn
has other plans. As natural gas is crucial for instant heating and
cooling for industry and people’s homes, he pointed out the
vulnerability of the elderly to natural gas supply shortage. He
said that if a cold winter had materialized in 2005-2006, we would
have experienced huge price spikes and a major energy and economic
shock. "If the U.S. had had a winter that Europe had, there would
have been a massive blackout - in winter." This instance of
petroleum vulnerability is one of "too many flashpoints and no
spare capacity."
Culture Change has reported on the likelihood of a shock
triggering collapse that aggravates the tight supply situation
already existing due to peaking extraction in the face of rising
demand. In my speeches and interviews I mention most often a
possible trigger in the guise of hurricanes or revolution in Saudi
Arabia. But Simmons had one for us: MEND, the Nigerian
organization of tribes opposing foreign oil companies: "The tribes
will win in their effort to get rid of oil companies."
Regarding unconventional oil sources, he disabuses us of the
hype that oil shale, heavy oil and/or tar sands will be any
so-called next Saudi Arabia. He explains that these substances are
too energy-draining to produce on the scale some hope for: they
cannot be mined and processed in sufficient quantity efficiently
enough as high-quality resources for them to have a major effect
on mitigating the energy crisis that has already started. For
example, Canada’s tar sands production is estimated at best to
reach the level of 2 million barrels a day in a few years, but
Simmons doubts it. He pointed out that this expectation would
involve using 20% of Canada’s natural gas (which is dwindling
fast). And, Canada is already "failing on Kyoto due to tar sands,"
he said.
Here is the relatively recent but "old" Matt Simmons and his
oft-quoted "there is no Plan B." In the Institute for the Analysis
of Global Security’s March 31, 2004 online report, he said:
"The entire world assumes Saudi Arabia can carry everyone's
energy needs on its back cheaply. If this turns out not to work
there is no 'plan B.' Global spare capacity is now 'all Saudi
Arabia.' This is the world's insurance policy and no third party
inspector has examined it for years. Conventional wisdom says
'don't worry, trust today,' but if conventional wisdom is wrong,
the world faces a giant energy crisis." Calling for large-scale
research into new energy sources, [Simmons] said: "If all these
worries are wrong, it is like our preoccupation with nuclear war
or future global warming. But even if part of it becomes true
and not expected, the results are awful." Coming from someone
who has advised the secretary of energy and the 2000 Bush
campaign, this is a warning worth heeding.
With over 260 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, a
quarter of the world's total, Saudi Arabia is not only the top
foreign supplier to the United States - the world's largest
energy consumer - but also essentially the sole source of
liquidity in the oil market. According to the Department of
Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA), the world will
become more dependent on Arabian oil in the next two decades. To
meet global demand for oil, Saudi Arabia will need to produce
13.6 million barrels a day (mbd) by 2010 and 19.5 mbd by 2020.
Both the International Energy Agency and EIA assume Saudi oil
output will double over the next 15 to 20 years. In a new study
soon to be released, Matthew R. Simmons, president of Simmons
and Company International, a specialized energy investment
banking firm, contends that this is not likely to happen. He
argues that Saudi Arabia's oil fields now are in decline, that
the country will not be able to satisfy the world's thirst for
oil in coming years and that its capacity will not climb much
higher than its current capacity of 10mbd. Considering the
growth in demand, this could easily spark a global energy
crisis.
Simmons analyzed 200 technical papers on Saudi reserves by
the Society of Petroleum Engineers and his work was peer
reviewed by a dozen senior technical experts. What he discovered
tells a different story than the conventional wisdom.
Saudi Arabia has over 300 recognized reservoirs but 90% of
its oil comes from the five super giant fields discovered
between 1940 and 1965. Since the 1970s there haven't been new
discoveries of giant fields. The most significant of the oil
fields is Ghawar. Found in 1948, the 300-mile-long sliver near
the Persian Gulf is the world's largest oil field and accounts
for 55%-60% of all Saudi oil produced. Ghawar's current proven
reserves are 12% of the world's total. The field produces 5 mbd,
which is 6.25% of the world's oil production. According to
Simmons, Ghawar's northern regions are almost depleted. Two
other giant fields, Abqaiq and Berri, also seem to have peaked
in the 1970s.
The above focus on reserves is crucial, but at Simmons' June 20
presentation he did not dwell so much on reserves as one might
have expected. Instead, with so much to impart, he offered more
wisdom and big-picture background than mere statistics. What he
has replaced his original reserves-emphasis with - e.g., growing
food at home and ending commuting - comprise a so-called radical
agenda that is purely realistic. However, how this is to be pulled
off and by whom is a question that Simmons did not have time to
deal with. Maybe he believes government policy can somehow fit the
challenge, or he sees people just reacting to petrocollapse.
Simmons’ remarks and slide show could easily have fit
thematically into an Auto-Free Times magazine (precursor to
Culture Change), especially when he lamented the new freeway
system in India that will help the country catch up to China’s oil
consumption level of 2 barrels per person per year. India is now
at 1 bbl/year per capita. He asked us to picture China and India
both stopping population growth and catching up to Mexico’s 6
barrels per person per year: this would mean the world would have
to come up with 44 million barrels more per day in oil extraction
(it is 85 million today).
Perhaps the conservation efforts in the 1990s by our Alliance
for a Paving Moratorium would go over better today, but that
modest proposal to just fix the existing roads may be too late and
too ambitious for an infrastructure in need of suddenly slashing
energy waste.
Simmons’ "Energy war" sounds like Jimmy Carter’s "moral
equivalent of war." Carter, however, was more technofix oriented,
although three decades to prepare for world peak oil gives a lot
of leeway. The main feature of Simmons’ energy war would be "a new
conservation plan that would create a non-energy-intensive society
before it’s too late." Simmons clarified his prescription for
"Energy war" when I asked him: "Energy attacked with the intensity
of war." To further explain, he expanded upon his "Liberate the
work force": "80% of people now here need to be over there." To
help make travel and trade meet the challenge, he wants to see
railroad tracks be more than single track. They could be changed
and rebuilt in five years perhaps, following the example of
"Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway system." Culture Change has
always questioned the alleged need for much energy and
transportation, casting suspicion upon the major environmental
groups’ obsessive and unproven initiatives for the technofix’s
salvation of the consumer economy.
In the past Culture Change has identified Simmons and Robert
Hirsch of SAIC as interested in maintaining economic growth and
seeing the economy somehow bridge the supply gap that is about to
get bad due to peak oil. (Hirsch, a former oilman, can be
described as less daring than Simmons at the podium, but Hirsch is
another of the few courageous analysts.) Simmons all but states
that growth and business-as-usual are no longer possible or
appropriate. Simmons addressed the meaning of peak and the
certainty of tightness by saying "Running out is really the
inability to grow." For an economy and a culture conditioned to
endless growth, this is really the end. What replaces growth and
the ability of petroleum to feed and provide us with almost
everything is the unknown, but Simmons would probably agree it
involves culture change.
Simmons answered a question from the audience on nuclear energy
that was hardly dealt with in his presentation. He marveled at how
little space the whole amount of nuclear waste would take up,
"part of a football field." Like Congressman Roscoe Bartlett,
Matthew Simmons wins respect from some energy advocates when
supporting nuclear. However, since Bartlett and Simmons know
nuclear cannot remotely solve the energy crisis, they may as well
advocate something - nuclear - that probably isn’t going to be
attempted anyway due to the problems the nuclear industry has.
Yet, supposedly, new nukes can be constructed a lot quicker than
ever. Nevertheless, Simmons' and Bartlett's nuclear advocacy -
hardly a main component of their message - places them toward the
center when one considers a spectrum ranging from Julia Butterfly
at one end and Richard Cheney at the other. I would suspect that
Simmons and Barlett, radical and courageous men they are, would be
over toward Julia’s side in one other respect not yet mentioned
here or at Simmons’ talk: We must all start honoring the Earth.
Days later as I write this, ever since experiencing Simmons'
shocking presentation, I feel so vindicated about my many years
promoting conservation - mainly energy-use curtailment - as the
main course of action for petroleum dependence and to protect the
climate. I actually don't like being right, because oil crash and
climate distortion are scary and the picture is getting uglier
while policies are frozen in old thinking and greed. Despite
whatever good will come from the eventual transition to a
sustainable, ecological culture, those who understand "energy
PANIC" and "the inability to grow" realize we do not have waiting
for us a "slowing down" phase to endure and enact changes.
Despite the irrefutable bombshell of a message from a most
credible energy supply expert, Matt Simmons, no doubt there will
continue to be well funded, green fantasy-promoters of the
technofix who claim that "renewable" energy along with replacing
George Bush will take care of every problem in energy and the
environment, regardless of our petroleum infrastructure,
overpopulation, and "no Plan B."
I asked Simmons as we left the hall about uranium mining's
net-energy yield that is unacceptably low, as a way of questioning
the so-called solution of nuclear power for a petroleum crisis
that cannot be cured by nukes. His answer was to tell me that in
Utah prospectors used to be able to easily detect large deposits
of uranium, but nowadays deposits are very hard to find. I asked,
"So, this means the dwindling resource offers insufficient
capacity to bridge the gap?" Simmons nodded pleasantly and that
was that.
Originally published in Culture Change Letter #134 - June
24, 2006
References
Simmons & Company International:
www.simmonsco-intl.com
Simmons' "study raises doubts about Saudi oil reserves" –
IAGS's Energy Security website:
www.iags.org
News re "fossil-fuels assisted weather:" "Global warming
surpassed natural cycles in fueling 2005 hurricane season"
www.physorg.com
To join in on the conversation or to subscribe or visit
this site go to: http://www.energypulse.net
Copyright 2005 CyberTech, Inc.
|