Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Bush acknowledges peak oil

by Jerome a Paris Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 09:26:15 AM EST

This is a pretty stunning admission, during his press conference in Saudi Arabia:

I hope that OPEC, if possible, understands that if they could put more supply on the market it would be helpful. But a lot of these economies are going -- a lot of these oil-producing countries are full out.

There are various definitions of peak oil - the "hard" one being actually declining production, with a "soft" version being production unable to catch up with latent demand and prices increasing instead. Then you can measure it for oil alone, or for oil plus various liquid substitutes that we are increasingly using (ethanol, processed tar sands, coal-to-liquids, etc...).

With the above quotes (repeated again below), Bush is clearly into "soft" territory, and could be argued to be in "hard" territory. There is no longer any argument in the industry that non-OPEC oil is peaking (that includes the International Energy Agency and even ExxonMobil), which means that any production increase must come from OPEC. If they are also producing "full out", you can reach your own conclusions....

And this was not just an isolated assertion by Bush - the topic was disucssed 3 separate times in the interview:

I also understand the dynamics behind the issue, and that is growing demand from U.S., but more particularly, China and India, relative to supply.

Oil is a commodity; it isn't something you just turn a tap. I mean, it requires investment, exploration, a lot of capital. I talked to His Majesty early on in my presidency in the hopes that they would explore for new fields; they have. They've increased their capacity. But in the meantime, demand has gone up quite substantially.

Note that Bush states that Saudi Arabia has increased its production capacity since "early on in his presidency"; and yet Saudi production was as follows (according to the BP Review of World Energy 2007):

Year production (mb/d)
1997  9.48
2000  9.49
2001  9.21
2002  8.93
2003 10.16
2004 10.64
2005 11.11
2006 10.86

as this graph over at the oil drum suggests, production has been flat for a large part of 2007, which means that Saudi Arabia, holder of 22% of world reserves - and 30% of OPEC reserves) grandly increased its production by 1.5mb/d in 10 years, when demand increased by 10 mb/d (or 8mb/d since 2000), ie much below its supposed share of the remaining resource.

If they are producing "full out", having increase capacity, we're in trouble because, as Bush states, demand has not stood still in the meantime - and that demand, in a major change from the past, is not coming from the US, but from China, India, and the oil producers themselves (BP statistics show that Saudi internal consumption jumped from 1.5mb/d in 2000 to 2.0mb/d, which means that fully one third of Saudi Arabia's production increase went to domestic demand).

Again, Bush is at least accknoledging the "soft" version of peak oil.

I would like for them to realize that high energy prices affect the economies of consuming nations. And that if these economies weaken, those economies will eventually be buying fewer barrels of oil. And having said that, there is not a lot of excess capacity in the marketplace. What's happened is, is that demand for energy has outstripped new supply. And that's why there's high price.

That's the third time he said it. It may sound like "it's not my fault" and "it's not my pals the Saudis' fault either", but it certainly is quite an admission of helplessness viz. reality.

Will that lead to actual policies to solve the issue? We know that it won't until 2009, but it would be nice if the Democratic candidates jumped on this admission to push for radical energy reform.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 09:44:23 AM EST
Wow.  So Junior essentially grasps the issue (and perhaps better than any presidential candidate), yet implements policies that make the problem worse.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 10:05:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think Bush always knew about Peak Oil, why else are
they in Iraq?

All views expressed are my own but you knew that.
by Elras on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 12:26:35 PM EST
It was more for the here and now stability of the Gulf and for Israel.  Saddam was problematic for all parties, so he had to go.  Cheney and the boys like endgame strategies; they are not much for uncertainty. It was supposed to send a message about American power as well. No doubt it was deemed a win-win situation with little downside.  They took pressure off the Gulf states and Israel.  They could create a laissez-faire utopia to prove their ideology.  They could now focus attention on the other "contained" state in the region- Iran and they set themselves up in a forward position for the future. They can protect the resources and keep them flowing West and they can get in on lucrative oil deals as supply and demand head in opposite directions.
by bellumregio on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 02:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Had it gone the way they planned, the Iraq Oil Law would long since be in place with juicy contracts all round.

Forget "containment" of Iran: they were offered back in 2003 by the panic stricken regime far more than is on offer now, but they were planning to be in Teheran within the year...

From hubris to nemesis...

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 02:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hi, Elras! Welcome to ET!

Hope to see you around...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

by Melanchthon on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 04:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 04:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nice to be here.

What is it that the Americanos like to say...

'Long time reader first time writer' 8-)


All views expressed are my own but you knew that.

by Elras on Fri Jan 18th, 2008 at 05:29:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bu$hCo™ has a plan...drilling in the arctic, now that the northwest passage is navigable nearly year round. next up on the energy agenda is drilling in the anwr.
by town on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 05:48:56 PM EST
Will that lead to actual policies to solve the issue? We know that it won't until 2009, but it would be nice if the Democratic candidates jumped on this admission to push for radical energy reform.

Lets hope so, but I seriously doubt any new policies will make as much sense as many of those I've seen advocated on this forum.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM EST

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]