Shell CEO - "After 2015, Supplies Of Easy-To-Access Oil And Gas Will No Longer Keep Up With Demand"

[hatrack]

This is from a letter to all Shell employees.

EDIT

Regardless of which route we choose, the world's current predicament limits our maneuvering room. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to population growth and economic development, and Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.

As a result, society has no choice but to add other sources of energy - renewables , yes, but also more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels such as oil sands. Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue.

In the Scramble scenario, nations rush to secure energy resources for themselves, fearing that energy security is a zero-sum game, with clear winners and losers. The use of local coal and homegrown biofuels increases fast.

Taking the path of least resistance, policymakers pay little attention to curbing energy consumption - until supplies run short. Likewise, despite much rhetoric, greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until major shocks trigger political reactions. Since these responses are overdue, they are severe and lead to energy price spikes and volatility.

EDIT

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3548#more

[Mojorabbit]

And this posted nearby

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x131075

I think I believe the Shell CEO

[Mojorabbit]

1. dupe

[profgoose]

2. pretty unbelieveable...

I never thought I'd see the day when the majors started fessing up as well hatrack.

At least this might spur some effort to ameliorating the problem. Manhattan project, large gas tax, etc.

But I doubt it.

[GliderGuider]

3. Good on Shell for parting the curtains a bit. But Blueprints are so old-fashioned, don't you think?

The sobering reality is that the Blueprints scenario will only come to pass if policymakers agree a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power generation, industry, mobility and buildings. It will be hard work and there is little time.

For instance, Blueprints assumes CO2 is captured at 90% of all coal- and gas-fired power plants in developed countries in 2050, plus at least 50% of those in non-OECD countries. Today, there are none. 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. At the very least, companies should earn carbon credits for the CO2 they capture and store.

Anyone here think this is going to happen? I didn't think so.

Best hopes for an exciting Scramble!

[DCKit]

4. Yet instead of investing in an Apollo style program to become energy independent...

We chose to spend $2 trillion dollars - and far more over time - in an attempt to secure control over the remaining oil resources. That cost in dollars, human lives and our international reputation would only seem ridiculous if the current administration and many of our representatives weren't so closely tied to oil interests and those industries dependent on the cheap, filthy energy they supply.

I posted on a thread about two thermal solar plants that, at a cost of $1 billion each, will provide power to 500K homes, each. If my math is (was) correct, a $2 trillion investment in this area would provide energy equivalent to power 1 billion homes, a huge boost to the economy and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yet we went after Iraq's oil and real estate for bases smack dab in the heart of the Middle East instead.

Ah, those crazy Republicons.

[smoogatz]

5. Well, crap.

We had a chance to go about 60% geothermal with our recent house rehab but decided against it, since the initial cost was about $10,000 more than a conventional "high efficiency" gas furnace. I have a feeling we'll be kicking ourselves for that decision a few years from now.

[bananas]

6. The phoney hype from Shell on Scenarios

One of the comments on that page linked to this:

http://shellbrand.blogspot.com/2008/01/phoney-hype-from-shell-on-scenarios.html

The phoney hype from Shell on Scenarios

And so another Shell CEO is to be feted at Davos as he presents the oil giant’s latest “scenarios” – the hype being , of course, that these scenarios shows the company’s intellectual edge in planning and decision-making. Having been involved in Scenario planning from time to time during my Shell career I can see this phoney exercise for what it is – pompous and self-aggrandising PR which has little or no benefit to any of Shell stakeholders.

<snip>

[GliderGuider]

7. I'm as anti-corporatist as the next Deep Ecologist

But I'm prepared to give Shell the benefit of the doubt on this one. Saying that your main product is about to become history is never an easy thing for a CEO, and that's precisely what van der Veer did. He all but uttered the satanic phrase "Peak Oil". The fact that he dressed it up as a discussion of think-tank scenarios doesn't hide the fact that he was talking about empty tanks.

I'd treat behaviour like this as a serious warning that the PO crazies were right all along, and that fuel shortages are just around the corner.