[MonteQuest]

The report is now up at the official GAO site:

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/pastweek.html

You can download an abstract and highlights, as well as the full report.

I have added this .pdf file report to the list at the top of the Peak Oil Discussion Forum.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic27958.html

Detailed critiques of this report would be best posted there for newcomers to the site.

[MonteQuest]

Cliffnotes version from EnergyBulletin.net of the 82-page report.

GAO: U.S. needs a peak oil strategy

http://energybulletin.net/27919.html

[killJOY]

1. There is no attempt in this report to enlighten the reader to the difference between "reserves" (how much oil in the ground) and anticipated RATES OF EXTRACTION. The reserves fallacy quietly rules.

2. There is no mention of the problems of GROWTH. Future growth is simply assumed and not counted as part and parcel of the problem.

3. There is no mention that although EOR (enhanced oil recovery) accounts for about 12% of US production, EOR HAS NOT REVERSED THE DECLINE IN THE US.

4. Definite supply side bias. Albert Bartlett's ironic words quietly haunt me: "The faster we extract the oil and burn it, the better off we'll be."

5. Natural gas peak and decline is simply IGNORED--even in the section about GTL.

6. Any studies by the near-term peakers--Deffeyes, Campbell, Bahktiari, Jeffrey Brown, et cetera--are simply ignored in the body of the text (although, interestingly, Richard Duncan appears in one note).

7. I simply cannot get over the fact that natural gas supply decline in the us is IGNORED.

There is nothing here to incite interest or action, I'm sorry to say.

[chuck6877]

From the GAO study:

In addition, in response to growing peak oil concerns, DOE asked the National Petroleum Council to study peak oil issues. The study is expected to be completed by June 2007.

So we'll have to look forward to the National Petroleum Council study in June 2007 now I guess.

This one is a major disappointment.

Chuck

[Jack]

Now, KillJOY - you know we can't upset the proles or outer party members. That would be double-plus ungood.

Anyone doing that would need to report to Mini-Love for treatment, just like a certain Winston Smith. And you know what happened to him.

[pup55]

Well, let's see:

Appendices III and IV detail the potential increases in nonconventional supply, and also possible transportation alternatives, etc. as follows:

Code: Select all

Item   Effect on Production/Consumption   page
Enhanced Oil Recovery   1 mbpd by 2015, 2.5 mbpd by 2025   54
Deepwater Drilling   .7 mbpd by 2015   56
Oil Sands   1.9 mbpd by 2030   57
Heavy Oil    50,000 bpd in 5 years   59
Oil Shale   1 mbpd by 2015    60
Ethanol   9-18 billion gallons by 2015, 60 billion gal by 2025   63
Biodiesel   increase 2.5 billion gallons by 2015   64
Coal GTL   80K bpd by 2015, 1.8 mbpd by 2030   65
Biomass GTL   1.4 mbpd by 2030    (none by 2015)   66
Natural Gas displacement   1500 million gallons per year (current)   67
Advanced Vehicle Technologies   20K b/d by 2010, 1.07 mbpd by 2025   68
Hydrogen vehicles   .28 mbpd by 2025   70

So if everything goes perfectly, we might be able to find another 6-7 mbpd by 2025-2030 time frame using the above technology stuff and nonconventional supplies.

It also says that the EIA thinks consumption will increase about 7 mbpd by that time, to 27 mbpd. If you do the calculation on this, it means they are assuming only 1.1% annual demand growth. Thus far this year, the reality has been more like 2.5-3.5% most of the time.

So this means that if existing production constant (which it's not) and demand growth being about half of what it is, we might be close to avoiding any sort of shortage situation in that time frame.

So it never does come out and say "if oil peaks in this time frame we are hosed" but in essence, this is what the numbers say, because there is no way to scale up the alternatives fast enough.

The bibliography is on page 53, by the way, and includes all of the PO regulars, balanced by a similar number of cornucopians.

[dinopello]

From the GAO study:

In addition, in response to growing peak oil concerns, DOE asked the National Petroleum Council to study peak oil issues. The study is expected to be completed by June 2007.

So we'll have to look forward to the National Petroleum Council study in June 2007 now I guess.

This one is a major disappointment.

Chuck

Yea, I would say disapointing but not all that much. The GAO now has their oar in the water saying hey this is an issue. Its up to other parts of the government to come up with policy. It does emphasize the uncertainty and the need to reduce this.

[JPL]

Damn-it I was pinning a lot of hopes on this one (

Even my own government could have done it better, I read a French govt. report about a year ago (sorry I have lost the URL) that put a tenative date for global oil Peak at about 2013. I think our government is trying to put some plans together, based on the report, but all I have seen so far is plans to build some more nuke-stations & subsidise bio-diesel (sigh).

Of course there is very little that France can do about the global situation. But I guess we were hoping that the Americans would take a lead at some point. A bit like Carter did in the 70's. I guess we're all on our own, from this point on then (unhappy...)

JPL

[chuck6877]

Yea, I would say disapointing but not all that much. The GAO now has their oar in the water saying hey this is an issue. Its up to other parts of the government to come up with policy. It does emphasize the uncertainty and the need to reduce this.

When I say I was disappointed it's because I thought this report was going to do a study of when Peak Oil will occur like Chris Skrebowski's Megaprojects Analysis.

By saying the peak could occur from now until 2040 fails to cause much urgency.

I do agree calling on other government agencies to study peak oil more is valuable.

Chuck

[NEOPO]

Good points Mike yet ultimately I agree with Stuart Staniford in that "just the legitimization of the debate is a big deal" and that this may be the best we can hope for on this level at this time.

Of course many peakers will define this as alittle too little alittle too late yet I cannot help but think of it as the something that is better then nothing.

Not very powerful as many had hoped yet not powerless either.
A knife is not a sword but it still cuts.

[Pablo2079]

unfortunately, the media seems to focus on the 2040 date.... as if that is the earliest it could happen.

Would be nice if that really was the case!

[Eli]

Well I am glad the world finally gets to hear about PO


Lets all party like 2040 yeah!

[JPL]

Good points Mike yet ultimately I agree with Stuart Staniford in that "just the legitimization of the debate is a big deal" and that this may be the best we can hope for on this level at this time.

Of course many peakers will define this as alittle too little alittle too late yet I cannot help but think of it as the something that is better then nothing.

Not very powerful as many had hoped yet not powerless either.
A knife is not a sword but it still cuts.

Hi NEOPO

No, the knife is squishy and then turns out to be a stage-prop. This report has been written by people that were <i>looking over their shoulders' for clues</i> and there is nothing that says to the lay reader 'we have a problem'.

OK, so according to the report, Peak is somewhere between NOW and 2040. Well, on a median calculation, I'll be in my 60's before 'I' have a problem....

<i>Snore...zzzmph...humph...humphhz....turns-over-in-sleep...hmmph...murrzle...murrzle...</i>

Me, I'm just waiting for Monte to air his bit. I think what he's going to say right now may be worth listening to...

JPL

[MonteQuest]

Me, I'm just waiting for Monte to air his bit. I think what he's going to say right now may be worth listening to...

JPL

Digesting the report...but for now, stop agonizing about the "now to 2040" peak date, focus on this one sentence from the report.

However, there is no coordinated federal strategy for reducing uncertainty about the peak’s timing or mitigating its consequences.

In the infamous words of Matt Simmons, " We have no plan B."

However, the GAO did write this:

What GAO Recommends
"To better prepare for a peak in oil production, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Energy work with other agencies to establish a strategy to coordinate and prioritize federal agency efforts to reduce uncertainty about the likely timing of a peak and to advise Congress on how best to mitigate consequences."

[MonteQuest]

Also, it was quite obvious that the report was focused on "finding a way to keep the gas tanks full" and little else.

No mention of conservation.

No mention of efficiency.

No mention of mass transit.

No mention of wind, solar, wave, tidal, or nuclear. Either because, like the Hirsch Report, they are not considered viable mitigation wedges, or you can't put electricity in a gas tank.

Or, as I have been pointing out for over two years on this site; the lack of transmission capacity.

Officials told us that plug-in hybrids face infrastructure challenges, such as the capacity of household electric wiring systems to recharge a plug-in, and the capacity of the electricity grid if plug-in hybrids are widely adopted.

We will never have the possibility of a fleet of electric vehicles powered by the grid until we rebuild the transmission grid; the substations, powerlines, transformers, etc.

Cost? Trillions.

It did do a pretty good job of trashing the current alternative fuel candidates as unscalable, very costly, or in "developmental" stages, not to mention the huge costs and time frames for the supporting infrastructure.

[SchroedingersCat]

If they came out and said 'Peak Oil has probably happened or will certainly happen by 2012' what would the response be? Complete denial, most likely. This is actually a good way to alert our gov't that there is a problem ahead.

On the other hand, wasn't the Hirsch Report written for the Dept of Energy? DOE has had this info for a couple of years already.

[emersonbiggins]

Also, it was quite obvious that the report was focused on "finding a way to keep the gas tanks full" and little else.

No mention of conservation.

No mention of efficiency.

No mention of mass transit.

No mention of wind, solar, wave, tidal, or nuclear. Either because, like the Hirsch Report, they are not considered viable mitigation wedges, or you can't put electricity in a gas tank.

Or, as I have been pointing out for over two years on this site; the lack of transmission capacity

Well, to be fair Monte, it appears that this report wasn't designed to suggest mitigation options but, rather, to illustrate the problem at hand. I'd surmise that it is up to the agencies charged with formalizing a response to this (DoE, DOT, etc.) to come up with those solutions.

[davep]

Even my own government could have done it better, I read a French govt. report about a year ago (sorry I have lost the URL) that put a tenative date for global oil Peak at about 2013. I think our government is trying to put some plans together, based on the report, but all I have seen so far is plans to build some more nuke-stations & subsidise bio-diesel (sigh).

To be fair, France is subsidising solar and other sustainable electrical sources to the tune of 30 cents per kw/h (and 55 cents per kw/h if on the roof) for grid connection, and they subsidise installation to the tune of ~ 40% of capital costs as well. OK, it's not going to solve the problem, but does show awareness that there is a problem (I can't realistically see them doing this purely for Kyoto, there must be an understanding of future energy needs as well).

[Newsseeker]

There was really no talk about conservation. They are basically going with the assumption that alternatives will simply replace all the oil we currently use. That it's only a matter of timing, and not to worry, you can still have your suburban lifestyle. There were really no details explaining the enormity of the problem.

Coincidentally, oil is now up to $2.01 to $66.09 as I write this.

What else are we to expect from the government?

[Loki]

Well, to be fair Monte, it appears that this report wasn't designed to suggest mitigation options but, rather, to illustrate the problem at hand. I'd surmise that it is up to the agencies charged with formalizing a response to this (DoE, DOT, etc.) to come up with those solutions.

I agree with Monte (first time for everything). It isn't just a report to illustrate the problem, but also to suggest mitigation measures. Here are the objectives of the report as stated on page 2, left column:

GAO (1) examined when oil production could peak,
(2) assessed the potential for transportation technologies to mitigate the consequences of a peak in oil production, and
(3) examined federal agency efforts that could reduce uncertainty about the timing of a peak or mitigate the consequences.

I've only skimmed it so far and done some keyword searches, but I haven't found anything on mass transit or wind/solar/etc., and only passing mention of conservation efforts that could mitigate PO. The main mitigation measures they examined apparently focus on keeping liquid fuels in our personal automobiles, i.e., maintaining the status quo.

But to their credit, the GAO don't appear to have touted any of the alternative fuels as "the solution." On the contrary, they point out the many problems with using these fuels to replace oil.

The technologies we examined currently supply the equivalent of only about 1 percent of U.S. annual consumption of petroleum products, and DOE projects that even under optimistic scenarios, these technologies could displace only the equivalent of about 4 percent of annual projected U.S. consumption by around 2015. If the decline in oil production exceeded the ability of alternative technologies to displace oil, energy consumption would be constricted, and as consumers competed for increasingly scarce oil resources, oil prices would sharply increase. In this respect, the consequences could initially resemble those of past oil supply shocks, which have been associated with significant economic damage.