Expert Reports

The following is a short list of expert reports on the status of critical resources that impact energy generation and technology. We have made an effort to provide references to reports that are clearly written, well referenced, scientificallly accurate, and authored by reputable sources. Each reference also provides a list of interesting quotes to help the reader get a quick overview of the report's message. We hope that this material will provide a background to a topic that is generally not well appreciated and which is one of the most important for the future of the world.

Quick Links
Energy Policy  |  Crude Oil  |  Coal  |  Natural Gas

 

 

Source: American Energy Innovation Council

Title: “A Business Plan For America's Energy Future"

Topic: Energy Policy
Type: Report (40 Pages)
Pub. Year: 2010
Author(s): Bill Gates, Former CEO Microsoft; Norm Augstine, Former CEO Lockheed Martin; Ursula Burns, CEO Xerox; John Doerr, Partner Kliner Perkins; Chad Holliday chairman Bank of America & CEO DuPont; Jeff Immelt Cahrman & CEO General Electric; Tim Solso, chairman & CEO Cummins Inc.; and a large number of scientists and engineering experts.
Link: AEIC2010

Quotes:

"...the energy challenge is much worse than most people realize. The problem is already imposing a heavy burden on our nation—a burden that will become even more costly. The economic, national security, environmental and climate costs of our current energy system will condemn our children to a seriously constrained future unless America makes significant changes to current policies and trends."

"Support must be given to technologies that have real potential to scale. The federal government should focus on supporting technologies with potential for national impact—the sectors where there is a major gap between the best technologies available and the technical and economic potential."

"The world faces many challenges, but none more important than taking immediate and decisive action to develop new, inexpensive clean-energy sources that avoid the negative effects of climate change." --- Bill Gates

"Our leadership in information technology, medicine, aviation, agriculture, biotech and dozens of other fields is the result of our enduring commitment to innovation. But in one realm central to America’s economic, national security, and environmental future, our commitment to innovation is sorely lacking: energy. Investment in energy innovation, from both the public and private sectors, is tiny—less than one-half of one percent of the national energy bill. This neglect carries serious consequences...our economy is vulnerable to [energy] price shocks...Our foreign oil reliance undermines national security...the environmental costs are steep and growing."

"Incrementalism will not fill the gaps nor create the sweeping change this nation needs in energy."

RECOMMENDATIONS OF REPORT: " [1]Create an independent national Energy Strategy Board; [2] Invest $16 billion per year in clean energy innovation; [3] Create Centers of Excellence with strong domain expertise; [4] Fund ARPA-E at $1 billion per year; [5] Establish and fund a New Energy Challenge Program to build large-scale pilot projects"

"The United States does not have a national energy strategy. Without such a strategy, there is no way to assess the effectiveness of energy policies, nor is there a coherent framework for the development of new energy technologies. The results of this neglect have included oil-driven recessions, environmental degradation, trade deficits, national security problems, increasing CO2 emissions, and a deficit in energy innovation."

"Energy innovation is a commitment to long-term prosperity. If the United States invests in its clean energy future now, our nation can reap immense benefits...On the other hand, if we starve energy research, there is no doubt that this country will have constrained future options...The American way is to invent our future, to seize control of our destiny. In the energy realm, that means a step-function change in the way we innovate [in energy]."

 

---

 

Source: Lloyd's Of London Insurance

Title: “Sustainable Energy Security---Strategic Risks and Opportunities for Business"

Topic: Energy Security
Type: Report (48 Pages)
Pub. Year: 2010
Author(s): Antony Froggatt and Glada Lahn at Chatham House
Link: LLOYDS2010

Quotes:

"Modern society has been built on the back of access to relatively cheap, combustible, carbon-based energy sources. Three factors render that model outdated: surging energy consumption in emerging economies, multiple constraints on conventional fuel production and international recognition that continuing to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will cause climate chaos."

"Traditional fossil fuel resources face serious supply constraints and an oil supply crunch is likely in the short-to-medium term with profound consequences for the way in which business functions today."

"Increases in policy and regulation to reduce carbon emissions are inevitable and will impact on the economic viability of current investments and operations."

"A ‘third industrial revolution’ in the energy sector presents huge opportunities but also brings new risks. Of particular importance for new technologies is the risk of constraints on raw materials such as rare earth metals, as scarcity may drive up costs."

"Given the global commitment to radically reduce emissions and the finite nature of conventional fossil fuel sources, a rapid movement towards a highly efficient non-fossil energy future would seem to be the logical investment choice."

"Energy security is now inseparable from the transition to a low-carbon economy and businesses plans should prepare for this new reality."

"Yet dynamic trends, including the sharp rise in demand from newly industrialising economies, carbon-dioxide (C02) induced global warming and the growth of alternative energy technologies, mean that protecting traditional energy practices will make us far less secure, and less competitive, in the future. This is in addition to the threat that climate change poses to energy infrastructure."

"BUSINESSES WHICH PREPARE FOR AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NEW ENERGY REALITY WILL PROSPER – FAILURE TO DO SO COULD BE CATASTROPHIC."

"MARKET DYNAMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS MEAN BUSINESS CAN NO LONGER RELY ON LOW COST TRADITIONAL ENERGY SOURCES."

"ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BECOME INCREASINGLY VULNERABLE AS A RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND OPERATIONS IN HARSHER ENVIRONMENTS."

"At the global level, there is little sign that energy demand will go down, with business as usual forecasts suggesting a 40% increase by 2030. This will require $26trn of investment - some 1.4% of global GDP."

 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Title: “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management”

Topic: Peak Oil
Type: Report (91 pages)
Pub. Year: 2005
Author(s): Robert L. Hirsch, Roger Bezdek, Robert Wending.
Link: Hirsch Report 2005

Quotes:

“The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.”

XE Comments:

This report describes the problem primarily as a liquids fuel problem. However, since 2005 the general trajectory of our nation and the world has been for a smart electric grid to allow, over time, conversion of the automobile fleet to electric power to provide more sources of energy and potentially lower greenhouse gas emissions. This shifting load means that a crisis in liquids fuels production requires massive increases in all sources of electricity---solar, wind, nuclear, etc...

---

 

Source: U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)

Title: “Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations”

Topic: Energy trends including Peak Oil
Type: Report (86 pages)
Pub. Year: 2005
Pub. Org.: U.S. Army Core of Engineers
Author(s): Donald F. Fourner, Eileen T. Westervelt
Org. Link: ERDC/CERL TR-05-21

Quotes:

“To sustain its mission and ensure its capability to project and support the forces, the Army must insulate itself from the economic and logistical energy-related problems coming in the near to mid future. This requires a transition to modern, secure, and efficient energy systems, and to uilding technologies that are safe and environmental friendly.”

“Domestic production of both oil and natural gas are past their peak and world petroleum production is nearing its peak.”

“Worldwide consumption of fossil fuels and it coincident environmental impact continue to grow. The earth’s endowment of natural resources are depleting at an alarming rate—exponentially faster than the biosphere’s ability to replenish them. It took nature 100 million years to create the energy the world uses in 1 year. … Current energy policies and consumption practices are not sustainable.”

“Renewable energy technologies will certainly be a growing part of the energy mix and will penetrate faster and further than conventional energy advocates think. Early adoption to promote this market and these technologies is inherently in the Army’s interest.”

“Biofuels, despite their dubious energy effectiveness, will grow considerably due to tax credits and government programs.”

XE Comment:

It is interesting that the U.S. Army Core of Engineers does not appear to believe in the “energy effectiveness” of biofuels, yet other branches of the U.S. government continue fund its development nonetheless.

---

Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Title: “Economic Impact of U.S. Liquid Fuel Mitigation Options -- DOE/NETL - 2006/1237”

Topic: Peak Oil
Type: Report (156 pages)
Pub. Year: 2006
Author(s): Roger Bezdek, Robert Wending, Robert L. Hirsch.
Link: Hirsch Report 2006

Quotes:

“The world is consuming more oil than it is finding, and at some point within the next decade or two, world production of conventional oil will likely peak. Peaking will lead to shortages and greatly increased prices and price volatility. In addition to peaking and its consequences, there are widespread concerns about the growing United States’ dependence on oil imports from both an energy security and a balance of payments standpoint.”

"Even with the most optimistic assumptions and assuming crash program implementation, physical mitigation will require decades and trillions of dollars of investment to make substantial contributions."

"Cumulative real investment over the next 20 years is likely to total about $60 trillion (2004 dollars)."

XE Comments:

This report describes mitigation using coal-to-liquids technology. Interestingly there have been down grading of the U.S. (and world) estimated coal reserves recently so that the extent of the mitigation that is possible by the suggested coal-to-liquids technology needs to be carefully reviewed.

"Bob is the principal author or co-author of two separate studies since 2005 that warned of imminent danger and an urgent need for dramatic policy changes to mitigate the consequences of global peak oil. Those studies were commissioned and ignored by our own Department of Energy." --- Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 2008 Feb 29.

"The peak oil story is definitely a bad news story. There’s just no way to sugar-coat it...and anybody’s who’s going to stand up and talk about the bad news story, and is in a position of responsibility in the government, needs to then follow immediately and say “here’s what we’re going to do about it,” and no one seems prepared to do that. Peak oil is a bigger issue than health care, than federal budget deficits, and so forth. We’re talking about something that, to take a middle of the road position—not the Armageddon extreme and not the la-la optimism of some people—is going to be extremely damaging to the U.S. and world economies for a very long period of time. There are no quick fixes." --- Dr. Robert Hirsch Intervew 2009 September 7.

---

 

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office for the U.S. Congress

Title: “CRUDE OIL --- Uncertainty about Future Oil Supplies Makes it Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production. GAO-07-283”

Topic: Peak Oil
Type: Report (82 pages)
Pub. Year: 2007
Author(s): U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Link: GAO-07-283

Quotes:

“The amount of oil remaining in the ground is highly uncertain, in part because the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) controls most of the estimated world oil reserves, but its estimates of reserves are not verified by independent auditors.”

“Oil Production Has Peaked in the United States and Most Other Countries Outside the Middle East.”

“The prospect of a peak in oil production presents problems of global proportion whose consequences will depend critically on our preparedness. The consequences would be most dire if a peak occurred soon, without warning, and were followed by a sharp decline in oil production because alternative energy sources, particularly for transportation, are not yet available in large quantities. …the United States, as the largest consumer of oil and one of the nations most heavily dependent on oil for transportation, may be especially vulnerable among the industrialized nations of the world.”

---

 

Source: Energy Watch Group - Germany

Title: “CRUDE OIL --- The Supply Outlook, EWG-Series No 3/2007”

Topic: Peak Oil
Type: Report (102 pages)
Pub. Year: 2008
Author(s): Jorg Schindler, Werner Zittel
Link: CRUDE OIL 2008

Quotes:

“Peak oil is now."

"The most important finding is the steep decline of the oil supply after peak."

"By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame."

"The world is at the beginning of a structural change of its economic system. This change will be triggered by declining fossil fuel supplies and will influence almost all aspects of our daily life."

"Climate change will also force humankind to change energy consumption patterns by reducing significantly the burning of fossil fuels."

---

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA)

Title: World Energy Outlook 2008

Topic: Oil, Coal, Natural Gas.
Type: Reports (vol-1 is 195 pages, vol-2 is 183 pages, vol-3 is 199 pages)
Pub. Year: 2008
Author(s): Study designed and directed by IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol.
Links: Main For-Fee Report: WEO-2008
Free Executive Summary: WEO-ES-2008
Free Summary Presentation: WEO-PRES-2008
Amazing related interview: Interview With IEA Chief Economist

Quotes:

“The world’s energy system is at a crossroads. Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable --- environmentally, economically, and socially.”

“Preventing catastrophic and irreversible damage to the global climate ultimately requires a major decarbonisation of the world energy supply.”

“Securing energy supplies and speeding up the transition to a low-carbon energy system both require radical action by governments.”

“Modern renewable technologies grow most rapidly, overtaking gas to become the second-largest source of electricity, behind coal, soon after 2010.”

“Excluding biomass, non-hydro renewable energy sources --- wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and wave energy --- together grow faster than any other source worldwide, at an average rate of 7.2% per year over the projection period. Most of the increases occur in the power sector.”

“Massive investment in the energy infrastructure will be needed…projections call for cumulative investment of over $26 Trillion (in year-2007 dollars) in 2007—2030…Just over half of the global energy investment goes simply to maintain current levels of supply capacity…”

“We estimate that the average production-weighted observed decline rate worldwide is currently 6.7% for [oil] fields that have passed their production peak…this rate increases to 8.6% in 2030….[and] an increase to 10.5% per year by 2030 [if no new investments are made]…”

“And while market imbalances could temporarily cause prices to fall back, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the era of cheap oil is over.”

“Limiting temperature rise to 2 [degrees] C will require significant emission reductions in all regions & technological breakthroughs.”

---

Source: United Kingdom Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security (ITPOES)

Title: The Oil Crunch --- Securing the UK’s energy future

Topic: Peak Oil
Type: Report (44 pages)
Pub. Year: 2008
Pub. Org.: ITPOES
Author(s): ITPOES
Link: ITPOES-2008

Quotes:

Lord Ron Oxburgh, Former Chairman of Shell---“Today’s high prices are sending a message to the world that words alone have failed to convey, namely that not only are we leaving the era of cheap energy but that we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. For once what is right is also what is expedient - we know that we have to stop burning fossil fuels because of the irreversible environmental damage they cause, and now it may be cheaper to do so as well!”

“Since February 2005 global oil supplies have been essentially flat. The much discussed production growth since December 2007 has only raised production 1.4% above the three year average The consequence has been that oil prices have risen very sharply in order to reconcile supply and demand.”

---

Source: U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CTFT)

Title: Interagency Task Force on Commodity Markets , Interim Report on Crude Oil , Washington D.C.

Topic: The Price of Oil during the 2007-2008 oil price shock.
Type: Report (48 pages)
Pub. Year: 2008
Author(s): Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC ) was the author. Report based on taskforce from several Federal agencies inclding: Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities & Exchange Commission.
Link: CTFT-ITF2008

Quotes:

“The Task Force’s preliminary assessment is that current oil prices and the increase in oil prices between January 2003 and June 2008 are largely due to fundamental supply and demand factor."

"Task Force’s preliminary analysis to date does not support the proposition that speculative activity has systematically driven changes in oil prices."

"The Task Force’s preliminary analysis, based on the evidence available to date, suggests that changes in futures market participation by speculators have not systematically preceded price changes. On the contrary, most speculative traders typically alter their positions following price changes, suggesting that they are responding to new information – just as one would expect in an efficiently operating market."

"While global demand has proven strong, oil production growth has not kept pace. In the past three years, non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production growth has slowed to levels well below historical averages, and world surplus capacity has fallen below historical norms."

"The imbalance between scarce supply and growing demand, and expectations that this imbalance will persist in the future, have led to upward pressure on oil prices."

"Further, if speculative positions, rather than fundamentals, were pushing prices upward, then inventories would be expected to rise. To date, there is no evidence of such an accumulation; in fact, known inventory levels actually have declined."

"Fundamentals have changed in important ways during the past few years. Demand for oil has shifted upward, reflecting strong economic growth in commodity-intensive, emerging market economies, notably China, India and the Middle East. Some nations provide subsidies that hold down fuel prices, thereby further boosting oil consumption. At the same time, supply has not kept pace."

"World oil production has increased only slightly over the past few years. Consequently, oil prices have risen to keep world oil
consumption in line with production (the two must be equal aside from changes in inventories). As oil demand is very insensitive to moves in oil prices in the near term, the rise in oil prices has been disproportionately large in order to offset the robust, income-driven rise in demand."

 

---

Source: UKERC is a consortium of academic partners from 15 different UK institutions.  Its
headquarters are based at Imperial College London and at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford.

Title: Global Oil Depletion --- An assessment of the evidence for a near-term peak in global oil production

Topic: Peak Oil
Type: Report (228 pages)
Pub. Year: 2009
Pub. Org.:
Author(s): United Kingdom Energy Research Center (UKERC)
Link: UKERC-2009

Quotes:

“The mechanisms leading to a ‘peaking’ of conventional oil production are well understood and provide identifiable constraints on its future supply at both the regional and global level.”

“Despite large uncertainties in the available data, sufficient information is available to allow the status and risk of global oil depletion to be adequately assessed.”

“Large resources of conventional oil may be available, but these are unlikely to be accessed quickly and may make little difference to the timing of the global peak.”

“…we consider that forecasts that delay the peak of conventional oil production until after 2030 rest upon several assumptions that are at best optimistic and at worst implausible.”

“On the basis of current evidence we suggest that a peak of conventional oil production before 2030 appears likely and there is a significant risk of a peak before 2020. Given the lead times required to both develop substitute fuels and improve energy efficiency, this risk needs to be given serious consideration.”

“Large resources of conventional oil may be available, but these are unlikely to be accessed quickly and may make little difference to the timing of the global peak.”

“The timing of the global peak for conventional oil production is relatively insensitive to assumptions about the size of the global resource. … increasing the global URR [Ultimately Recoverable Resources] by one billion barrels delays the date of peak production by only a few days…”

---

Source: Deutsche Bank

Title: “The Peak Oil Market -- Price dynamics at the end of the oil age”

Topic: Peak Oil
Type: Report (68 pages)
Pub. Year: 2009
Author(s): Paul Sankey, Silvio Micheloto, David T. Clark
Link: Deutsche Bank 2009

Quotes:

“The end is nigh for the Age of Oil. This is the end of the 20th Century of Oil; we are entering the 21st Century of Electricity.”

"We conclude that medium-term volatility must increase, causing supply under-investment to become even more chronic, and the resulting price spike – implied to be to $175/bbl in 2016 - will drive a final stake into long-term oil demand."

"...we now have a “disruptive technology” in the shape of the hybrid and electric car, that will very likely have a far greater positive impact on oil efficiency than the market currently expects."

"...as oil supply peaks, so oil demand will peak. But the fundamental mismatch in elasticities of supply & demand, time cycles of supply & demand and price mechanics of supply & demand will likely require a final upward price spiral that will serve to break US oil consumption short term, and shift it long term toward greater efficiency. US demand is the key. It is the last market-priced, oil inefficient, major oil consumer. We believe Obama’s environmental agenda, the bankruptcy of the US auto
industry, the war in Iraq, and global oil supply challenges have dovetailed to spell the end of the oil era. ...After a final price peak implied at $175/bbl in 2016, we forecast oil prices will be under fundamental long-term downward pressure.."

"In order to meet their energy security, long-term economic and environmental goals, consumer governments should – but probably will not –actively plan towards a shift towards hybrid and electric cars, through better grids, smarter electricity pricing, subsidies for switching to more efficient cars/ and taxes for not switching. They should stabilise consumer oil prices at higher levels through reactive taxes."

"In our view, democracies tend to make for inconsistent and inefficient energy policy (see our note “The conspiracy of ignorance about oil”, December 2007). But the major growth consumer of oil is centrally planned. China will therefore develop their energy market in a coherent manner – there is clear evidence they are doing this already."

 

XE Comments:

Deutsche Bank commeted that we are leaving the age of oil and enterin the age of electricity. XE agrees with this statement, but that electricity has to come from somewhere as it is not a primary souce of energy but rather a carrier of energy. Many individuals may want to use coal for both electricity and coal-to-liquids to mitigate the peak in oil. We contend that the conjunction of global warming concerns, the expansion of the electric grid to a smart-grid, and the desire to generate massive new numbers of jobs to re-employ recession affected citizens will significantly focus the market on renewable energy solutions like solar.

---

 

Source: U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)

Title: “Joint Operating Environment 2010”

Topic: Peak Oil
Type: Report (76 pages)
Pub. Year: 2010
Author(s): U.S. Joint Forces Command
Link: JOE 2010

Quotes:

Page 24: “To meet that [oil] demand, even assuming more effective conservation measures, the world would need to add roughly the equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s current energy production every seven years.”

Page: 29: “The discovery rate for new petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields….By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD [millions of barrels of oil per day].”

XE Comment:

The run up in oil prices in 2008 to about $150 was due to a short fall in production capacity of between 1-2 millions of barrels per day---much less than the 10 MBD discussed.

---

Source: European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)

Title: RE-thinking 2050 --- A 100% Renewable Energy Vision for the European Union.

Topic: Renewable Energy
Type: Report (76 pages)
Pub. Year: 2010
Pub. Org.:
Author(s): EREC
Link: Main Report: EREC-2010
Executive Summary: EREC-ES-2010
Presentation: EREC-PRES-2010

Quotes:

“Europe’s demand for energy is increasing in an environment of high and unstable energy prices. Greenhouse gas emissions are rising and the energy sector is one of the main emitters of greenhouse gases. Natural reserves of fossil fuels such as oil and gas are concentrated in just a few supplier countries around the world. Climate change along with an increasing dependency on energy imports are only a few of the risks the European economy is facing today. The EU now needs the courage to lead the way out of this climate and energy dilemma with a clear commitment to a 100% renewable energy future.”

---

Source: United Kingdom Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security (ITPOES)

Title: The Oil Crunch --- A wake-up call for the UK economy

Topic: Peak Oil
Type: Report (60 pages)
Pub. Year: 2010
Pub. Org.: ITPOES
Author(s): ITPOES, with forward by Sir Richard Branson, Ian Marchant, Brian Souter, Philip
Dilley, Jeremy Leggett.
Link: ITPOES-2010

Quotes:

“The net flow rate data shows that increases in extraction will be slowing down in 2011-13 and dropping thereafter. Given the long lead-times involved in developing the necessary infrastructure, this trend is unlikely to be reversed
within the next 5 years.”

“The industry is not discovering more giant fields at a sufficient rate.”

“There are concerns about the levels of reserves quoted by the OPEC countries (which are critical to the confidence levels associated with future production capacity).”

“There are indications that underinvestment in the oil industry over the past decade has led to infrastructure and underskilling problems that will make it particularly difficult to increase production capacity rapidly in the short-term.”

“The intervening economic crash has done little to blunt our expectations; the time to a peak in global production is, essentially, little changed as cancelled new capacity broadly offsets recession deferred demand. When combined with current demand projections, a price crunch is still projected to occur following the peak.”

“In addition to the transport considerations described above, there will be impacts on the power generation sector. Extended electrification of the railways and the potential conversion of road vehicles to electric power will increase demand. This will be further compounded by the possible adoption of ‘green electricity’ for heating in response to climate change fears. Thus there will be major changes in the demand pattern for electricity on the nation’s power-generation and transmission/distribution infrastructure.”

“As we reach maximum oil extraction rates, the era of cheap oil is behind us. We must plan for a world in which oil prices are likely to be both higher and more volatile and where oil price shocks have the potential to destabilise economic, political and social activity.”

“Don’t let the oil crunch catch us out in the way that the credit crunch did…Our message to government and businesses is clear. Act now.”

Source: Energy Watch Group

Title: “Coal: Resources and Future Production”

Topic: Coal
Type: Report (47 pages)
Pub. Year: 2007
Author(s): Werner Zittel, Jorg Schindler
Link: COAL2007

Quotes:

"Global coal production to peak around 2025 at 30 percent above present production in the best case."

"Global coal reserve data are of poor quality, but seem to be biased towards the high side."

“In the global sum both reserves and resources have been downgraded over the past two decades, in some cases drastically.”

"World coal resource assessments have been downgraded continuously from 1980 to 2005 by an overall 50 percent."

"The USA, being the second largest producer, already passed peak production of high quality coal in 1990 in the Appalachian and the Illinois basin. Production of subbituminous coal in Wyoming more than compensated for this decline in terms of volume and – according to its stated reserves – this trend can continue for another 10 to 15 years. However, due to the lower energy content of subbituminous coal, US coal production in terms of energy already peaked 5 years ago – it is unclear whether this trend can be reversed."

"The production profile of the world’s largest producer, China, determines the peak of global coal production."

"Apart from the world production profile, regional production profiles are also important. In a world of shrinking supplies of oil (and later gas), coal will attract increasing attention again. It can be assumed that regional oil and gas supply gaps will first be closed by using domestic alternatives, probably even by producing fuels from coal. This will have significant consequences for the availability of coal on the world market (because of reduced amounts available for export). This is even more the case for lignite which is not transported over long distances due to its low energy content."

"A more detailed analysis reveals that in the USA the era of high quality coal is nearing its end and the efforts to produce the coal are steadily increasing."

"[In the USA] Anthracite production has been steadily declining since 1950, from 5.5 million tons in 1950 to 1.5 million tons in 2005. Bituminous coal production has also been declining since about 1990. But total coal production has still been rising by about 20 million tons per year since 1960. ... Since 1970 lower quality subbituminous and low qualitiy lignite have been contributing [to] rising volumes. The growing share of lower quality coal is the reason why total coal production in terms of energy content peaked in 1998 at 598.4 Mtoe and has since declined to 576.2 Mtoe in 2005 in spite of the continuous rise in produced volumes (BP 2006)."

---

Source: Institute For Energy

Title: “The Future Of Coal”

Topic: Coal
Type: Report (52 pages)
Pub. Year: 2007
Author(s): B. Kavalov, S. D. Peteves
Link: IE-COAL-2007

Quotes:

"The supply base of coal is being continuously depleted. World proven reserves (i.e. the reserves that are economically recoverable at current economic and operating conditions) of coal are decreasing fast, unlike world oil and gas reserves, which are proportionally enhanced and are maintaining their levels. "

" The bulk of coal production and exports is getting concentrated within a few countries and market players, which creates the risk of market imperfections."

"Coal production costs are steadily rising all over the world, due to the need to develop new fields, increasingly difficult geological conditions and additional infrastructure costs associated with the exploitation of new fields."

"The immense growth in coal consumption since 2000, driven mainly by China, has not been matched by a corresponding development of proven coal reserves, despite the increase in world coal prices."

"The USA has the greatest reserves of both hard and brown coal worldwide and is the second largest global consumer of coal after China. Power generation absorbs about 90% of indigenous coal production, coal accounting for more than a half of US electricity."

"The key challenge for the US coal industry in the coming decades is the rising cost of production, due to the following reasons: The productivity of coalmines is steadily decreasing...The only large potential so far unexploited lies in Alaska. However, these deposits may not come on stream until after 2015...the majority of coal has to be transported inland by rail, which further boosts delivery costs. Railway network capacity is also often insufficient even for current flows."

"The enhancement of the world coal supply base will most likely result in higher production costs. Owing to advances in energy conversion technologies, which allow a large variety of end products to be produced from different feedstocks, the world oil, gas and coal markets are becoming increasingly inter-related. The energy market of the future will tend to become a market for hydrocarbons rather than one differentiated by energy sources. In turn, this is expected to have important implications for coal supply and demand patterns in the future."

---

 

Source: U.S. National Academy Of Sciences

Title: “Coal Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy"

Topic: Coal
Type: Report
Pub. Year: 2007
Author(s): Committee on Coal Research, Technology, and Resource Assessments to Inform Energy Policy, National Research Council
Link: NAS-COAL-2007

Quotes:

"Almost certainly, coals mined in the future will be lower quality because current mining practices result in higher-quality coal being mined first, leaving behind lower-quality material (e.g., with higher ash yield, higher sulfur, and/or higher concentrations of potentially harmful elements). The consequences of relying on poorer-quality coal for the future include (1) higher mining costs (e.g., the need for increased tonnage to generate an equivalent amount of energy, greater abrasion of mining equipment); (2) transportation challenges (e.g., the need to transport increased tonnage for an equivalent amount of energy); (3) beneficiation challenges (e.g., the need to reduce ash yield to acceptable levels, the creation of more waste); (4) pollution control challenges (e.g., capturing higher concentrations of particulates, sulfur, and trace elements; dealing with increased waste disposal); and (5) environmental and health challenges."

---

 

Source: Massachusetts Institute Of Technology

Title: “Coal Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy"

Topic: Coal
Type: Report (192 Pages)
Pub. Year: 2007
Author(s): Approximately 13 MIT professors and 13 external advisors.
Link: MIT-COAL-2007

Quotes:

"Any serious efforts by government or industry to address greenhouse gas emissions and global warming in the near term would impose a price or charge on carbon or constrain the use of CO2-emitting fuels in some manner."

"Policies that produce higher fuel prices have long been thought to be politically infeasible because the public reputedly reacts more negatively to higher fuel prices or taxes than to the threat of global warming. If true, only subsidies would be politically palatable."

"We focus on carbon taxes because research that compares the efficiency of alternative policy mechanisms to control greenhouse gas emissions concludes that carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems offer the most effi cient approaches. Subsidies, emissions restrictions, and regulations on fuel use are much less effi cient."

"Four important survey results underlie our belief that public support is growing for policy measures that deal squarely with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change...1. The American public increasingly recognizes global warming as a problem...2. Over the past three years, Americans’ willingness to pay to solve global warming has grown 50 percent...3. Today the public views global warming equally compelling as oil dependence as a rationale for fuel taxes....4. Tying fuel tax increases to income tax reductions increases public support for high fuel taxes."

"Our assessment in Chapter 3 suggests that a carbon charge in the range of $30 per ton of CO2 is necessary to reduce U. S. carbon emissions signifi cantly and to reduce worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases. If consumers bore that cost directly, it would amount to $13.50 per month on a typical household electricity bill."

"In November 2006, as mentioned above, we asked a national sample whether they would support a $.50 per gallon gasoline tax and $25 per month electricity tax [to offset global warming] : 21 percent said yes; 17 percent, unsure; 62 percent, no. We paired the same proposal with a reduction in income taxes by an equivalent amount: 34 percent said yes; 23 percent, unsure; and 43 percent, no."

"... 10 percent of the public unwilling to pay because they view the claims about global warming to be exaggerated or unfounded. Another 20 percent of opponents thought that we could reduce global warming without the taxes. Approximately half of those opposed to the tax relied on a rationale that either denied the problem or thought that the solution could be implemented without the tax."

"Finding #1: Although possible in principle, it is very unlikely that any process that produces electricity from coal conversion/
combustion with carbon capture will ever be as cheap as coal plants without CO2 capture. Thus the cost of electricity from coal with capture will be signifi cantly higher than it would be without CCS. Disciplined technology development and innovative advances can, however, narrow the cost gap and deserve support."

"Finding #2: A global carbon charge starting at $25 per ton of CO2 emitted (or nearly $100 per tonne of carbon), imposed initially in 2015 and rising at a real rate of 4% per year, will likely cause adjustments to energy demand, supply technologies and fuel choice sufficient to stabilize mid-century global CO2 emissions from all industrial and energy sources at a level of 26 to 28 gigatons of CO2 per year. Depending on the expansion of nuclear power, the use of coal increases from 20% to 60% above today’s level, while CO2 emissions from coal are reduced to half or a third of what they are today. This level of carbon charge implies an increase in the bus bar cost of U.S. electricity on average of about 40%, or about 20% of the retail cost. A signifi cant contributor to the emissions reduction from coal is the introduction of CCS, which is utilized as an economical response to carbon charges at these levels. In the EPPA model simulations, approximately 60% of coal use employs CCS by 2050 with this carbon charge."

---

Source: Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group

Title: “A Supply-Driven Forecast for the Future Global Coal Production”

Topic: Coal
Type: Report (48 pages)
Pub. Year: 2008
Author(s): Mikael Hook, Werner Zittel, Jorg Schindler, Kjell Alekett
Link: Paste the following link into your browser: www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/publications/Coalarticle.pdf

Quotes:

"[This report shows] what the future might look like if the supply is used instead of the demand when making the forecast."

"The global coal production [measured in tons not energy] will be able to increase over the next 10 to 15 years by about 30%, mainly driven by China, India, Australia and South Africa. A plateau will be reached around 2020 and the global production will go into decline after 2050."

"A maximum production will be reached by 2030."

"Another trend that can be found is the decline in the heating value of coal produced in the US. In 1955 the average heat value was 30.2 MJ/kg...in 1976 this had declined to 27 MJ/kg... Today the average heat value of American coal is only around 20.5 MJ/kg. The total decline in heating value is more than 30% since 1955...By 2030 the heat value will fall down to 19.916 MJ/kg...[this is because] the best coals are depleted first and then mining goes on to lower quality coal..."

"Like oil coal will get more and more expensive and complicated to produce as the best coal deposits get depleted."

"Introduction of new technology had a very little impact on the available coal reserves throughout history."

"It is reasonable that USA with its huge energy consumption will be among the first in the Big Six to peak in coal production. All major coal-producing states, except Wyoming, seem to be near or past peak production."

"People often use the Reserve-to-Production-ratio (R/P-ratio) as a measure of how much there is of a certain resource. This can lead to unsound conclusions since it does not take into account the increasing production trends."

"If one looks at previous years one will notice something odd. In year 2000 the US had 255 years of coal remaining, and in 1988 there were 300 years of coal reserves. In 1904 the reserves would last a thousand years and 10 000 years in 1868. As each year goes by and production increases the coal reserves will diminish faster and faster."

"In the global picture the trend is very clear. In 2000 the reserve-to-production ratio of the world was 227 years and this had decreased to 147 years in 2006. The decrease is over 35% in just seven years. So the “hundred years of coal remaining” is not there in reality, as available amounts of coal will diminish much faster."

"Throughout almost 100 years both reserves and resources have been constantly downgraded. Competition from other energy sources and introduction of various political restrictions are involved in these downward reductions. Also better geological understanding has probably led to a more realistic picture of the available coal amounts."

"[There exists among many individules ] the optimistic opinion that there are hundreds of years of coal available for energy production and that the declining oil and gas reserves can be compensated by increased usage of coal. This viewpoint is more problematic as it seldom focuses on the really important issue; how much coal is realistically available and how much might be produced in the future?"

"China is by far the world’s largest coal producer and will have the largest impact on the world coal production profile. The USA is number two by a factor of almost 3 compared to Australia and India, which are the third and fourth largest coal producers in the world."

 

Source: American Clean Skies Foundation

Title: “North American Natural Gas Supply Assessment”

Topic: Natural Gas
Type: Presentation (90 pages)
Pub. Year: 2008
Author(s): Navigant Consultant Inc. (NCI)
Link: ACSF-GAS-2008

Quotes:

"EIA forecasts of unconventional gas production in each Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) from 1998 forward have been significantly outstripped by actual behavior."

"Significant Growth in Onshore Production, Driven by Unconventional. U.S. Onshore Natural Gas Production ...[shows that between Jan-05 and Mar-08 a]...Compound annual rate of growth [of] 6.11%."

"Gas shales have experienced explosive growth in the last 10 years increasing from only 0.3 Tcf/year (0.8 Bcf/day) of production in 1998 to 1.05 Tcf/year (2.9 Bcf/day) in 2007, a remarkable 250% increase. This increase has resulted from a combination of technology improvements (in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling) and a price environment that enables the use of those technologies."

"Total U.S. production reached 19.3 Tcf/year (52.9 Bcf/day) by the end of 2007, a 4.3% increase over the 18.5 Tcf/year (50.7 Bcf/day) level at the end of 2006."

"Over the last decade, production from unconventional sources has increased almost 65%, from 5.4 Tcf/year (14.8 Bcf/day) in 1998 to 8.9 Tcf/year (24.4 Bcf/day) in 2007."

"Unconventional production has increased from 28% of total production in 1998 to 46% in 2007."

"A conservative estimate of the total domestic proved reserves and ultimately recoverable domestic resource base, adjusting from the most recent PGC study, reaches 1,680 Tcf, in excess of 88 years of U.S. production at current levels."

"Estimates by producers active in developing the shale resource are much larger, reaching levels that would imply a further increase to more than 2,247 Tcf, or 118 years at current production levels."

"Production has Increased Over the Last Few Years, Largely due to a Decade of Increased Unconventional Production."

"Falling energy investment will have far-reaching and, depending on how governments respond, potentially serious effects on energy security, climate change and energy poverty. Cutbacks in investment in energy infrastructure will affect capacity only with a lag; sustained lower investment could lead to a shortage of capacity and another spike in energy prices in several years’ time."

---

Source: International Energy Agency

Title: “World Energy Outlook 2009, Part-C Prospects for Natural Gas”

Topic: World Energy Outlook
Type: Report (Volumes-3, 334 pages)
Pub. Year: 2009
Author(s): Interntional Energy Agency
Link: WEO-2009

Quotes:

"The introduction of a carbon price raises the price of all fossil fuels to power generators and large industrial end users, thereby lowering the relative price of energy from low-carbon fuels and technologies. Coal prices increase the most and gas the least,
reflecting their different carbon intensities. In other words, carbon pricing favours gas over coal, and favours renewables and nuclear power over gas."

"In the short run, the introduction of a carbon price could lead to switching from coal to gas to the extent that dual-firing or back-up capacity is available. In the longer term, a carbon price would favour investment in gas-fired capacity over coal-fired capacity, and investment in renewables and nuclear power over fossil-based capacity."

"...though peak gas is not on the horizon just yet and the resource base remains large, a major change in the [global warming] policylandscape could bring it quickly into view."

"Gas demand in the OECD countries generally peaks by around the middle of the projection period in the 450 Scenario and then declines through to 2030, as generators switch investment mainly from coal- and gas-fired plants to plants using renewables
and nuclear power."

"Why is the Reference Scenario [i.e. Business As Usual] unsustainable? In the absence of new initiatives to tackle climate change, rising global fossilfuel use continues to drive up energy-related CO2 emissions, from 29 Gt in 2007 to 40 Gt in 2030 — an increase of 40%. Although the financial crisis has slowed the growth in emissions, current trends put us on a path to a global average temperature increase of up to 6°C. The projected rise in energy demand also has implications for ambient air quality, with serious public health and environmental effects, particularly in developing countries."