uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
uIntroduction
uFigure
captions
uOil
demand
&
supplies
uU.S.
oil supply & issues
uGas
demand & supplies
uNorth
American issues
tCanada
tOffshore GOM
tOnshore
GOM, etc.
tRocky
Mountains
tRemote
gas supplies
uU.S.
gas policy issues
uConclusions
uReference
|
Figure Captions
Figure
1. World liquid hydrocarbon recoverable reserve estimates by region.
Source: Dr. Ken Chew, IHS Energy , Geneva.
Figure
2. OPEC quota and production patterns 1996 through October 2002.
Figure
3. World natural gas resource estimates. Source Dr. Ken Chew, IHS Energy ,
Geneva.
Figure
4. North American gas production projections without new post-2000
drilling.
Figure
5. Current North America gas market. Regional supply and demand volumes
indicated by diameter of the bubbles. Transportation network is
diagrammatic.
Return
to top.
The petroleum industry
is faced with challenging oil demand scenarios. Industry’s ability to meet
the challenging demand forecasts is clouded by conflicting and confusing
information about oil supplies. According to the U.S. Energy Information
Agency’s 2002 outlook, assuming normal economic growth, global oil demand
is forecast to hit 118.9 MMb/d in 2020. This represents a 56% increase
(43.3 MMb/d) over 2000 demand. U.S. oil demand forecasts are less robust,
but still project about 31% growth to 25.8 MMb/d in 2020. In the UK, Dr.
Colin Campbell (2002) and his followers predict, on the other hand, that
it will not be possible to achieve these targets. They project that global
oil production will peak and begin an irreversible decline near the end of
this decade. Such predictions draw substantial attention from the press,
but analysis indicates their numbers are based on limited data and reflect
a conservative bias.
A recent assessment by Dr. Ken Chew, using
IHS Energy ’s databases (with data on more than 20,000 oil and gas fields)
and USGS studies, presents a different world oil supply outlook. The
results are shown by region in
Figure 1. Starting at the base of the bar
charts, the sum of estimated discovered conventional liquids at the end of
2001 was 1,112 billion barrels. The Middle East holds over half of the
world’s remaining conventional oil reserves. The next component, reserves
growth, a well-documented factor, is expected to add 373 Bbo. The
importance of Canadian oil sands and Venezuelan tar sands is indicated by
the bright green segments of the bars for North and Latin America. About
560 Bbo are potentially recoverable from these sources. Thus, Western
Hemisphere liquid resources, though higher cost to produce, are larger
than those in the Middle East. Adding the USGS estimate of 803 Bbo of yet
to find undiscovered conventional liquids yields a total world estimated
remaining recoverable resource of 2,848 Bbo. This is more than twice the
estimate by Campbell (2002) of 1,027 Bbo that is used as the basis for
predictions of pending oil supply shortfalls. Consequently, the case is
presented that there are sufficient remaining recoverable liquid
hydrocarbon resources to meet projected world oil demand through 2020.
Worldwide exploration results over the last twenty years, however,
indicate that a substantial change in petroleum industry strategies,
investment patterns and activity must be anticipated. International data
show that hydrocarbon discovery volumes peaked during the 1960’s and
1970’s but the number of discoveries didn’t peak until the 1980’s. Since
1980, the average discovery field size has been less than half the average
field size discovered from 1921 through 1979. Correspondingly, only 385
discoveries were recorded outside of North America during 2001 compared to
an average or 550 per year during the 1980’s. Moreover, since 1980, more
reserves have been brought on stream than have been discovered. The
world’s discovered but non-producing oil resource base is shrinking.
Obviously, this trend cannot continue if oil demand forecasts are to be
met.
In
the U.S., a similar pattern is observed in oil and gas well completions.
Since 1985, only 20,400 average annual U.S. oil and gas wells were
completed compared with 52,000 per year over the prior six years. Oil well
completions dropped precipitously, averaging only 10,400 per year since
1985 compared to 39,000 per year over the prior six years. This trend has
direct implications for U.S. oil supply security. U.S. oil production
decreased from 7,417 Mb/d during 1991 to 5,848 Mb/d during 2001. Over the
same period, petroleum liquids imports increased from 7,627 Mb/d to 11,607
Mb/d. This trend is likely to continue, meaning increasing reliance on
risky foreign sources and worsening balance of payments for imports.
Oil
market volatility is another concern. Since 1996, the world has suffered
two negative economic cycles that were accompanied by depressed oil demand
and prices. These cycles substantially impacted petroleum industry
investments and stability. OPEC plays a critical role in managing its
production quotas to balance oil production with supplies. Their objective
is to maintain oil prices in a range ($22 to $28) that meets member
countries’ income needs. The price band also has stimulated investments to
expand non-OPEC production. This is needed to meet long term demand
projections but adds to excess supply problems during periods of economic
weakness.
Iraq is the wild
card in the oil supply picture. The chart in
Figure 2 shows periodic changes in OPEC
and Iraq oil production patterns from 1996 through October 2002. OPEC
production quotas are bright green, estimated over-production is dark
green and Iraq production, which is exempt from the quotas, is in red.
During December 1997, OPEC boosted its quota by 1 MMbo and also
over-produced by 1 MMbo. This production entered the market at the same
time that Asian economies began to slump with resulting reduction in oil
consumption. This precipitated the 1998-1999 oil price collapse, which did
not turn around until the end of 1999 when quotas were reduced by 4 MMb/d
and over-production was held below 1 MMb/d. OPEC’s task was exacerbated by
Iraq, which boosted its production by 1.7 MMb/d to 2.8 MMb/d over this
same period. Quotas were raised to 26.7 MMb/d during 2000 but weakening
economies coupled with September 11 shocks reduced oil demand and forced
OPEC to lower its quotas to 21.7 MMb/d to sustain 2002 prices in the
target band. Iraq’s unpredictable and often contrarian politically
motivated production policies are reflected in the variations in its
periodic monthly production volumes since 1999.
So what are the
likely impacts on U.S. oil prices and imports in the event of a war on
Iraq? While initial reactions to a war could trigger a jump in oil prices
and elevate concerns about oil supplies, these are likely to be
short-lived, provided the conflict is brief, does not expand beyond Iraq
and is backed by the International Community.
-
The OPEC 10
have pledged to cover any short falls in Iraqi exports. During 2002,
Iraq exports have averaged about 1.5 MMb/d with occasional weekly peaks
reaching as much as 2.8 MMb/d. The OPEC 10 has sufficient excess
production capacity to cover even Iraq’s maximum production capacity.
-
Impacts on
U.S.
oil imports should be minimal. The U.S. already has significantly
reduced its oil imports from Iraq* and is strengthening alliances with
other oil producing countries, such as those in West Africa, to assure
more stable oil supplies.
(* According to EIA data,
Iraq imports
averaged 778 Mb/d (7% of total) during 2001. YTD through August 2002 Iraq
imports decreased to 525 Mb/d (4.6% of total) and during August slumped to
246 Mb/d or 2% of total imports.)
Following a war,
it likely will take some time to rebuild Iraq’s production to current
levels. After several decades of production and little investment, Iraq
possesses a number of large fields that are now in urgent need of
rehabilitation. While it will be important to restore Iraq’s economic
health, it will be critical to do so without flooding oil markets so to
trigger an oil price collapse. Non-Middle East producers like Russia,
Caspian countries of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Angola and
Algeria have been expanding their productive capacities and also are
pressured to increase their exports and revenues. OPEC likely will be
challenged to manage its production to balance demand.
Return
to top.
U.S. Oil Supply
and Policy Issues - Summary
Key
issues that are addressed in the foregoing discussion include:
-
There are adequate oil supplies to meet global oil demand projections
through 2020. Consequently, there is time for an orderly market driven
shift to alternate energy supplies.
-
To
address oil supply security issues the U.S. must:
-
1.
Consider policies to support a healthy domestic oil exploration and
production industry. Policies must improving access to prospective
lands; provide investment incentives such as tax credits and royalty
relief for developments in frontier areas; and create efficient
regulatory processes that do not impede compliant developments on public
lands.
-
2.
Diversify its sources for oil imports in order to reduce dependency on
high- risk regions like the Middle-East. Perhaps it is time to consider
enhancing policies and alliances to champion development of the large
unconventional oil resources in our Western Hemisphere neighbors.
Natural gas is
the challenge of this decade. Global gas demand growth, driven by
pressures for clean energy , is expected to surpass that of oil. According
to EIA 2002 estimates, world gas demand will increase by 78% to 162 Tcf/yr
in 2002. U.S. gas demand growth, which is forecast to grow 50% to 33.8 Tcf/yr
in 2020, also represents a
challenge to producers. Even though there is a huge
volume, about 800 Tcf, of discovered but non-producing (so called
stranded) global gas reserves, the task to develop and deliver this gas to
users is more complicated and expensive than for oil.
The chart in
Figure 3 shows
Dr. Ken Chew’s (IHS Energy ) recent estimate of global recoverable natural
gas resources. Two regions, the Middle East and the Former Soviet Union (FSU)
dominate world natural gas resources. The lowermost orange part of each
bar represents the remaining amount of reserves already discovered. The
Middle East, with huge amounts of stranded and low cost gas, has the
largest gas reserves. The black part of each bar represents estimated
reserves growth. This component is large in North America due to
conservative methods of reporting reserves. The dark orange part of each
bar represents USGS estimates of yet to find gas resources. The FSU and
Middle East lead in this category. The uppermost red part of each bar
represents cumulative gas production. The plight of North America’s gas
situation is registered by the fact that almost half (48.5%) of the
estimated ultimate gas resource already has been consumed. Overall global
gas resources, though, are substantial, totaling 11,750 Tcf, a 124-year
supply at current consumption rates. This bodes well for the potential to
meet projected worldwide demand for this clean fuel.
North America
will continue to be one of the world’s most important gas markets. With 7%
of the world’s population, North America consumes 31% of the world’s gas
production. Based on EIA 2002 demand estimates, North American gas
supplies would
add as much as
11.7 Tcf of new gas per year by 2020 when consumption still would equal
21% of the world’s gas production. (EIA’s preliminary 2003 forecast
reduces 2020 gas demand by 1.7 Tcf due to projected higher gas prices.)
Growth of the North American gas market will impact the global gas
business and merits serious long-term policy considerations. Potential Gas
Committee (PGC) 2000 gas resource estimates for the
U.S.
are in line with IHS Energy numbers. PGC mean probable and possible (2P)
gas resource estimates equal 610 Tcf. PGC’s total mean U.S. gas resource,
including speculative volumes, equals 1,091 Tcf. The Rocky Mountains, with
estimated 187 Tcf 2P gas resources, has the largest regional U.S. gas
resource and is followed in succession by the Mid-Continent, Onshore Gulf
Coast, Alaska North Slope, Offshore Gulf of Mexico and
Appalachian/Atlantic Coast regions. Of interest, the U.S. EIA 2002 natural
gas forecast targeted these regions, led by the Rocky Mountains plus
Canada, to deliver most of the new gas supplies needed by 2020. As part of
this review of North American gas supplies it is appropriate to assess key
factors that could impact fulfillment of EIA’s outlook.
Tightening North
American gas supplies has been exemplified by volatile prices, which
culminated during December 2001 when spot gas prices soared to $10 per Mcf.
A few key factors explain the tightening supplies. First is a slump in
exploration activity. As a result, at no time since 1990 have annual North
American gas reserve additions equaled the estimated 32 Tcf of raw
wellhead gas production during 2000. North American reserve to production
ratios are decreasing. If frontier (mostly arctic) reserves are excluded,
the U.S. plus Canada reserve to production ratio barely exceeds 7 years.
In addition, as
shown in Figure 4,
production decline rates from existing North American gas fields are very
high. The chart indicates that if gas drilling were to cease, North
American gas production would plunge from about 96 Bcfd to only about 25
Bcfd by 2010. With gas demand possibly hitting 110 Bcfd in 2010 this means
that as much as 85 Bcfd or 77% of 2010 gas supplies must come from new
wells or other external sources. Clearly, economic incentives and
supportive energy policies will be needed to sustain the high levels of
industry activity required to deliver the new gas supplies.
Let’s review gas
supply parameters for the key sources that are expected to deliver most of
the gas production increases to meet 2020 North American demand forecasts.
Return
to top.
Canada
Vintaged gas
production plots indicate that Western Canadian gas production reached a
plateau, with peak capacity of about 21.5Bcfd, in spite of near record gas
drilling over the past three years. Gas productivity as measured by
average peak production has declined (about 40%) and production decline
rates have accelerated (> 160%) since 1990. More than twice as many gas
wells must be drilled now just to deliver the same amount of new
production. A concern is the fact that August 2002 year to date (YTD)
western Canada well completions were 21% less than 2001 YTD numbers. This
is expected to reduce near-term gas supplies.
IHS Energy ’s Gas
Business Model indicates that Western Canadian gas production likely will
not increase if the gas price does not exceed $3.00 per Mcf. The model
also indicate that $5.00 per Mcf gas would trigger investments to tap the
27 Tcf gas resource in the Arctic McKenzie Delta region and could boost
combined Western Canada gas production to more than 30 Bcfd by 2010. Of
course, the price to generate sufficient drilling to balance supplies with
demand lies somewhere between these extremes. In
Eastern Canada,
meanwhile, operators already plan to double pipeline capacity to produce
and deliver 1 Bcfd from offshore
Nova Scotia
into the northeastern U.S. states.
Offshore Gulf of Mexico
Two years ago,
deepwater Gulf of Mexico (GOM) was thought to have sufficient gas
resources to supply most of the gas production increases needed to meet
U.S. 2020 demand forecasts. The deepwater Gulf, though, has proved to be
oil prone. Even though average deepwater monthly production per well has
increased markedly, almost 8 times better over the past decade, deepwater
gas production growth has not been sufficient to offset decreasing gas
production in the more mature GOM shelf. This is due to huge (66% median
annual decline) production decline rates and too few deepwater gas wells.
It appears that more than 100 active gas rigs will be required to sustain
current GOM gas production volumes. The GOM will continue to supply a
significant share of U.S. gas but economic incentives likely will be
needed to stimulate drilling levels needed to increase overall gas
production.
Onshore Gulf of Mexico, Mid-continent and Appalachian Basins
Each of these
important gas producing provinces is targeted to add 1.25 Tcf or more of
annual gas production in EIA’s 2020 forecast. And according to the PGC’s
2000 report, each of these provinces has substantial gas resources,
ranging from 54 Tcf in the Appalachian basin to almost 99 Tcf in the
Mid-continent region. (The Mid-continent region covers Oklahoma,
Kansas, N. Arkansas, N. and
W. Texas and SE. New Mexico.)
Most of this resource, though, is believed to be in the deep,
less-drilled parts of these provinces. IHS Energy studies in these areas
indicate that gas reserves per well increase with depth but that average
reserves per well within almost all depth intervals have decreased over
the past 30 years. As a result, less than half of the deep gas wells
(>12,000 ft.) completed during the last ten years would have generated
more than 20% profit even with constant $3.00 gas. Deep wells are more
expensive and there a few large operators who can afford to drill them.
Smaller, independent operators predominate in these areas. They report
that few, if any, shallow, low-risk gas prospects remain to be drilled.
This, plus uncertainty about gas prices may explain why 1,500 fewer gas
wells (- 24%) were completed through October 2002 compared with October
2001. In these regions, a decrease in gas well drilling quickly translates
to a decrease in overall gas production.
Rocky Mountain Region
The
Rocky Mountain
region is believed to have the largest remaining onshore U.S. gas resource
and is targeted by the EIA to add almost 2.7Tcf in annual gas production
to meet 2020 demand forecasts. However, Rocky Mountain operators face
several challenges that may negate the realization of these forecasts.
-
First, there
are significant environmental and regulatory impediments. Following a
decision by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) to reopen
considerations of Environmental Impact Statements on coalbed methane
leases in the Powder River Basin the head of the Wyoming Outdoor Council
commented: “Now that the PRB is 98% under lease, all in violation of
NEPA, BLM has left us the only option of going after and voiding
existing leases and existing drilling.” Similarly, ranchers, orchard
owners and water companies in Delta County are suing the Colorado Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) over the issuance of drilling
permits for a proposed five-well coalbed methane project. These
instances characterize the types of resistance that are delaying and
even stopping legal rights to develop gas resources on public lands. The
EIA has stated that 43% of Rocky Mountain gas resource is "unavailable
for drilling due to environmental regulations, lack of pipeline
capacity, or other barriers to development." US. Coalbed methane
production may peak at around 4 Bcfd and begin to decline after 2006
unless procedures are in place to expand leasing and drilling in the
large Rocky Mountain coalbed methane reservoirs.
-
In addition,
the region also suffers pipeline constraints and an overall imbalance of
the gas transport network. Pipeline expansions underway will increase
capacity to the west coast rather than to larger and less volatile
markets to the east and south. Due to this imbalance, pipeline tariffs
from the Rockies are higher than those from competing supply regions and
spot gas prices during periods of slack demand languish as much as $2.00
Mcf less than prices paid to producers in other regions.
-
IHS Energy ’s
North American Gas Business Model indicates the Rocky Mountain price
differential may even worsen at higher gas prices because other regions
will be able to more readily expand capacity. Thus, the current
structure of Rocky Mountain gas transportation must change and price
parity be established before it is reasonable to expect that producers
will increase investments to exploit the gas resources. North American
gas supply and demand nodes and generalized pipeline routes are
illustrated in Figure 5.
The diameter of the bubbles indicates relative sizes of regional
supplies and demand. Even though Rockies gas production is growing, the
relative small size of current production is evident. Expansion of the
Kern River pipeline, which moves Wyoming gas to southern California may
temporarily ease the transportation constraint, but a cure will require
expansion of pipelines to move Rockies gas eastward to larger and more
stable markets. Paradoxically, the large Rockies gas resource is at risk
of being “stranded” at a time when U.S. gas supplies are tightening and
LNG imports from outside the continent may win a significant share of
the market.
Return
to top.
Remote
Gas Supplies
The
Alaska North slope, with estimated 41 Tcf of proven gas reserves, and huge
stranded global gas reserves, with estimated 500 Tcf that could be
produced at a cost of about $0.50 per Mcf, also likely will contribute to
future U.S. gas supplies. Pipelines to tap gas in the Alaska North Slope
and Canada’s McKenzie delta are under consideration. Gas price volatility
has delayed action and investors may need $4.50/Mcf gas to realize
profits. Consequently, pipelines probably will not be in place until after
2010 when 4 to 6 Bcfd of gas could reach the Lower 48 states. Alaska
officials champion such developments and the positive economic benefits
that would accrue through developing and using domestic energy resources
as opposed to imports. Arctic gas resources would provide an important
plus to the North American gas supply picture. Nevertheless, the potential
deliverable capacity of Arctic gas probably will not be sufficient to
solve the supply problem.
IHS Energy ’s Gas
Business Model, in fact, indicates that imported LNG also must deliver an
important part of the new gas supplies that will be needed to meet demand.
Current
U.S.
regassification capacity at four facilities is about 2.8 Bcf/d and planned
expansions could boost these to 5 Bcfd by 2005.
Trinidad
&
Tobago, Algeria, Qatar and Australia are the prime current LNG sources.
Expansions of these current sources and new LNG supplies from Peru,
Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nigeria are under consideration. To handle these
additions, new regassification plants are under negotiation for Baja,
California, Tampico, Mexico and several locations along the
U.S.
gulf coast. These new facilities could boost LNG import capacity to 9 Bcfd
by 2007. Planned LNG imports are expected to be viable with $3.50 and
higher gas prices. A shift toward long-term contracts also would help to
attract the capital needed for the LNG facilities supply chain. The
diagram in Figure 5
supports the focus of regassification facilities along the gulf coast and
possibly raises caution flags about adding too much capacity for the
uncertain west coast market.
U.S. Natural Gas Policy Issues
Key
issues that are addressed in the foregoing discussion include:
-
Gas
supply issues are more urgent than those for oil.
– Drilling alone
in mature producing provinces won’t meet projected demand growth. New
wells have smaller reserves and production decline rates have steepened
markedly over the past decade.
–
Models indicate that gas prices alone, due to volatility, likely will not
be adequate to attract the capital needed to assure adequate gas
deliverability.
–
Furthermore, it will take five or more years to build the infrastructure
to tap North American frontier gas and new LNG facilities.
-
Policy principles to assure security for natural gas supplies are
essentially the same as those for oil. Policies must address ways to
improve access to prospective lands; to provide investment incentives
such as tax credits and royalty relief for developments in frontier
areas; and to implement efficient regulatory processes that do not
impede critical gas developments on public lands.
-
To
establish long-term gas market stability, balanced energy and
environmental policies, gas prices in the $4.00 per Mcf or larger range
and, following the melt down of gas marketers, more long-term gas
contracts between producers and consumers will be required.
This presentation makes the case that there
are adequate global oil and gas supplies to meet projected growth in
demand through 2020. Substantial changes, though, in the structure of the
global energy and oil and gas businesses likely will be required to
deliver the supplies. In the case of oil, during this decade, producers
must increase exploration activity to maintain new reserve additions in
line with consumption. In addition to diversifying supplies and reducing
dependency on high-risk regions like the Middle East, it is time to
consider policies to expand development of enormous oil sand and tar sand
resources in the western hemisphere. Likewise, the public must be aware
that policies like increasing the
percentage of ethanol in gasoline do absolutely nothing in regard to
assuring there will be adequate gasoline (oil) supplies to do the mixing.
Global natural gas resources are enormous, but developing even low-cost
stranded gas resources is complicated and expensive due to the need to
build infrastructure to deliver supplies to consumers. The U.S. faces a
paradigm shift in regard to natural gas. For the first time, the U.S. will
become increasingly dependent on natural gas supplies from outside of
North America.
Therefore, energy security and a clean environment are increasingly
important public policy issues. It was not the objective of this paper to
examine issues and arguments posed by conservation and environmental
interests. Suffice to note that to serve public interests, balanced
policies are needed to assure that adequate secure energy supplies are
produced in harmony with environmental concerns. Important global and U.S.
energy supply factors and policy matters that should be considered in
order to assure adequate energy supplies are outlined in this
presentation. One final sobering thought. It is estimated that as much as
$3 trillion capital investment will be required to meet projected 2020 oil
and gas demand. Energy policies also must be framed to help stabilize
markets so that investors can realize a fair return. Otherwise, capital
will be a constraint and will add to the problem of delivering energy
needed to fuel the global economy and improving life styles.
Reference
Campbell,
C.J., 2002, Forecasting global oil supply, Submission to H.M. Government
consultation on energy policy.
Return
to top.
|