Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGov'ts Must Act to Replace Oil, Poll Finds
WASHINGTON - Global public opinion believes that the world is running out of oil and that governments should be doing more to replace it as humanity's main source of energy, according to a major international survey released here Sunday by WorldPublicOpinion.org.
Confidence that governments are doing enough to plan for oil shortages -- and the likelihood that its market price is likely to continue rising over the next decade -- is particularly low in western industrialised countries, including the United States, France, and Britain, according to the survey.
While more than three out of four U.S. respondents (76 percent) said they believe that "oil is running out, and it is necessary to make a major effort to replace oil as a primary source of energy," only four out of 10 (41 percent) said they believe the government is making a similar assumption and is acting on it.
Majorities in 15 of 16 nations that were covered by the poll, which was conducted during the first six weeks of this year, said they believed that "oil is running out", and significant majorities in all 16 said they expect to have to pay more for oil 10 years from now than they do now.
"People around the world seem to assume that these higher prices are not only here to stay, but will even go higher," said Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), which manages WPO.
The only country where most respondents (53 percent) said they believed enough new oil will be found to maintain its status as the world's primary source of energy was Nigeria.
The survey comes as oil prices continue to reach record heights and a growing consensus that higher oil prices have become a permanent feature of global economics has emerged among most energy experts.
Adding to concern is the relationship between higher oil prices and the sudden rise in the price of basic foods which become a source of recent unrest in many poor countries around the world.
In addition to growing demand for more grain-intensive foods, such as chicken and pork, in China and other rapidly growing economies, the diversion of staples like corn into bio-fuel production, as well as the pervasive use of oil in the production and transportation of food commodities, is contributing to the rise in the price of both food and oil.
The poll's findings, which included nearly 15,000 respondents in the 16 countries, are the latest in a series released by WPO from a major multinational survey on numerous global issues over the past several weeks.
Earlier this week, it released a separate report that found that support for the free-market system as the best economic model has eroded over the last several years in 10 of 18 countries, and particularly in South America and Asia, although it remains the preferred model of majorities in all but three countries -- Turkey, France, and Russia.
The 16 countries covered by the poll on oil represented a nearly 60 percent of the global population. They included Mexico and the United States in North America; Nigeria in Africa; Britain, France, Ukraine, and Russia in Europe; Egypt, Iran, the Palestinian Territories, Turkey and Azerbaijan in the greater Middle East; and South Korea, China, Indonesia, and India in Asia.
Respondents were asked three questions: whether governments should make long-term plans based on the assumption that enough new oil will be found for oil to retain its place as the primary source of energy for the foreseeable future, or whether it is running out; which assumption they thought their own governments were actually acting on at the moment; and whether oil prices will be higher, lower or about the same in 10 years as they are now.
Only about one in five respondents (22 percent) said enough new oil will be found, while 70 percent said they believed it will run out and thus it is necessary to make a major effort to replace it. The largest majorities holding the latter view were found in South Korea (97 percent), France (91 percent), Mexico (83 percent), and China (80 percent).
The smallest percentages who believed that oil was running out were found in Russia (53 percent), India (54 percent), and Nigeria (45 percent).
Majorities or pluralities of respondents in 12 of the 16 countries said they believed their governments are acting on the assumption that oil is indeed running out. That view was most strongly held in South Korea (79 percent), China (70 percent), Egypt (67 percent), and Iran (63 percent).
Significantly, Iran, whose controversial nuclear programme has been justified by the authorities by the need for additional sources of energy, had the lowest percentage by far of respondents who said their government is assuming that oil will remain plentiful -- only 12 percent.
By contrast, majorities in only two countries -- Nigeria (63 percent) and the United States (57 percent) -- said they believe that their governments are assuming that oil supplies will be sufficient. While most Nigerians -- alone among all respondents -- believe that calculation is correct, three out of four U.S. respondents (76 percent) said they disagreed with that assessment.
Similar gaps in confidence about their governments' assessment were seen in France, where 91 percent of respondents said they believe that oil is running out but only 56 percent said they thought the government shared that assessment; Mexico, where the gap was 83 percent to 49 percent; and Britain, 85 percent to 56 percent.
Overall, 35 percent of respondents thought their governments believed that oil would remain plentiful, while 53 percent thought their governments believed it would run out.
Interestingly, with the notable exception of Iran, in four out of the five oil-exporting countries -- Azerbaijan (31 percent), Nigeria (32 percent), Russia (34 percent), and Mexico (49 percent) -- the perception that their governments were planning for oil running out was below the overall average of 53 percent.
On predictions for the price of oil in 10 years, the survey found an overwhelming consensus that prices will go higher; 55 percent of all respondents said "much higher", while 24 percent said "somewhat higher".
Most pessimistic were respondents in France (81 percent "much higher"), Indonesia (74 percent); Egypt (67 percent), and the U.S. (63 percent). Remarkably, the most optimistic respondents were found in China where only 29 percent said they believed prices would be "much higher," while 46 percent said "somewhat higher".
© 2008 Inter Press Service
33 Comments so far
Show All#
Parallax April 22nd, 2008 4:40 pm
Lobo Gris (April 22nd, 2008 1:35 pm) …
"bbr-001 (April 22nd, 2008 9:36 am) is correct. You have to expend energy to produce hydrogen - it is not a primary source of energy here on earth. To make use of it for transport, yet more energy has to be expended to compress it, to cool it or to form hydrides, &c., so that it occupies a manageable volume."
My argument still stands. It takes energy to produce any of the energy we use. Oil has to be drilled for, pumped out of the ground, transported to a refinery where more energy has to be expended to refine it into the products we use. Not to mention the fact that it is a finite resource which has already peaked while demand is continuing to rise.
"The byproducts of burning a hydrogen-air mixture in an internal combustion engine will include a family of nitrogen compounds in addition to water"
Even if that's true it still burns immensely cleaner than the gasoline and diesel we currently use. BTW your source for that info on the nitrogen compounds?
Lobo Gris
No one ever said cellulose bio fuels would replace oil completely. But fuel diversity is a good thing, that is what I said. It is amazing how many people use the "straw man" anti logic to try to make a point that does not need to be made in the first place.
Changing the point to one of "well it can not fuel all cars so forget it" misses the point entirely and I think you know that. People try to say we need a big sweeping change, that is not likely to happen. If you want a plan to work, pick one that is more likely to happen. It is better to have probability on your side.
Some UAFs (unmanned aerial vehicles) use H2 for its high energy density, to permit long unattended flights.
We could really use those star trek "batteries" we've seen in sci-fi for 50 year, but technology hasn't gotten their, and perhaps having the ability to destroy your home, office, or car (high energy density storage) does have potential negative side effects.
Lobo Gris (April 22nd, 2008 1:35 pm) ...
bbr-001 (April 22nd, 2008 9:36 am) is correct. You have to expend energy to produce hydrogen - it is not a primary source of energy here on earth. To make use of it for transport, yet more energy has to be expended to compress it, to cool it or to form hydrides, &c., so that it occupies a manageable volume.
The byproducts of burning a hydrogen-air mixture in an internal combustion engine will include a family of nitrogen compounds in addition to water.
Karlof1,
I think we can all agree now that we need to get out of the burning of coal and oil for energy.
The countries that are holding back and using "peak oil" as the reason can now make more money by not producing more.... but as much as this hurts the economy now, it will help us get to alternatives quicker for the inevitable future and the world knows this as our government is still doing nothing..
I now don't care if there is much new discovered oil found that won't be tapped.... and since most oil is now owned by nations (a form of socialism) and the USA brain washing considers even a mix of socialism and capitalism evil, This is great and if peak oil is being exaggerated, I think that is best for the future.
Thanks for the new info on Russia.
Galen and ezeflyer...
I like your posts and agree with nearly everything other than calling using hydrogen a scam but I'm glad there are dissenting and discerning voices while we move to the logical imperitive of removing oil as transportation fuel.
Edwin Black is one of my favorite author's thanks for the post from "Internal Combustion".
Galen...for you I must point out the direct that Iceland is going. They are going to a hydrogen economy as such and doing quite successfully. They have loads and loads of hot-rock geothermal producing electricity and moving in the proper direction with hydrogen as transportation fuel. Now in time we may see them go to pure electric but they are also looking at transforming their fishing industry to run on hydrogen as well. That would totally destroy any improting of oil and gasoline to their country....AWESOME.
By the way I wish I could afford an electric truck from Pheonix Motors but I can't at this time. If I had a business I would use them simply to control my fuel costs and keep from worrying about the volatile cost of energy.
Anyway in regards to hydrogen please take a look at ovonics.com and look at their hydrogen solid-state storage systems. Pretty cool.
bbr-001 April 22nd, 2008 9:36 am
"Hydrogen is not an energy source. You can't dig it up or pump it out of the ground or capture it from the air."
Not true, you can extract it from water which is two thirds hydrogen. Not to mention the fact that extracting oil from the ground or the ocean floor and then refining it to produce gasoline and diesel isn't free either. It takes energy to produce any of the energy we use.
Lobo Gris
bbr...I will answer your questions on hydrogen.
Hydrogen as energy carrier....this is the case where hydrogen is used as the medium of energy exchange or carrier with electrolysis of water. It is a way of using electricity which may be generated by any means (coal,nuke,hydro,wind,solar etc) and then use that hydrogen to power an internal combustion engine by burning the h2 or with a fuel cell to generate electricity.
Hydrogen as an energy source....this is the case when the H2 is extracted from natural gas (like the Honda H2 home generator for the fuel cell care they are selling) or extracted from oil, gasoline, methane, bio-waste, ethanol etc........there's a lot of ways to extract H2. Think of it kinda like gasoline....we take oil (of various grades) and use heat and energy and some chemicals to convert it to gasoline grades where it has a higher H2 content.
The great thing about H2 as an energy carrier is that it equalized all energy sources....h2 is the medium of exchange...so solar, wind, etc...is in direct competition with the fossil fuels. It won't take long for people to want to make their own fuel free at home.
Hydrogen is not an energy source. You can't dig it up or pump it out of the ground or capture it from the air.
You have to make it from a fossil fuel, usually natural gas, or from water using electricity. Electricity comes from coal (almost 80%) or nuclear (about 18 %) or renewable (about 2%). Any way you look at it, you need to expend energy to make hydrogen. It ain't free.
Interesting collection of quotes, karlof1. Thanks for supplying them.
Galen April 21st, 2008 6:05 pm
"Hydrogen is an ENERGY CARRIER. NOT an ENERGY SOURCE!"
You are incorrect. Hydrogen is indeed an energy source when it is burned as a combustible gas. It is only an energy carrier when electrons are stripped from it to provide electricity to power fuel cell vehicles. In either case the only by product of using hydrogen as a fuel is water.
Lobo Gris
As long as the various electorates of the western powers, including especially here in the USA,fail to understand the nature of and the disposition of their governments desires to please, not we the people, but we the corporations there will be no solutions to problems. Until there are starving bodies in the streets, oil is priced at $4/gram rather than $4/gallon we will continue to see the oil companies, the transnational food producers and Wall Street run our nation and make its decisions for us.
So all you who turn to Senator Obama, or Senator Clinton for solutions involving the profits for those companies who contribute the most to their election hopes are a large part of the problem, congratulations.
The Saudis "low" depletion rate is great for two reasons. It preserves their souirce of wealth for geneartions, and it gets the industrialized world used to the idea that oil is not an infinite resource.
Of course, if the neocon tradition continues, we will simply consume Iraq's oil and then find a reason to invade Iran and then Saudi Arabia.
The hydrogen idea is great, but the only way to make large amounts of hydrogen without greenhouse gases is to use nuclear or a renewable to crack water (not natural gas). To replace fossil fuel electric generation, home heating and transportation, we need hundreds of nuclear reactors and/or thousands of windfarms.
We need a comprehensive energy program that includes a hard cap on CO2 with annual enforced reductions, tax incentives for insulation, conservation and high mileage vehicles, a program to perfect clean nuclear energy (fusion, fast reactors, or waste transmutation), and improve and deploy renewables wherever feasible. And let gasohol die.
Both -Galen- and -Poet- speak truth but refrain from mentioning something important to this debate:
RAIL!
The automobile itself is an extremely inefficient means of meeting the requirements of civilization, energy-use wise.
Feet/Bicycles to intra-connect neighborhoods, Trams/Trolleys to intra-connect Cities, and Trains/Boats to intra-connect nations!
The best way to move on water is SAIL, the best way to move on land is RAIL.
Once Resiliency is added to Efficiency to round out our requirements, this truth becomes self-evident.
There are few good ways to move in the AIR- we are not birds, my friends.
As long as our concern is simply a FUEL concern, we will always be missing the important SYSTEM concern.
In other words, two points:
1) Not all fuels are equal. You will not be able to run a train or an automobile off nuclear fission or wind turbine, but you can generate electricity with which to run them.
2)Not all Systems are equal. Mass transit utilizing rail systems is a superior system for moving people around compared to the use of the automobile- in terms of energy efficiency. If you remove fossil hydrocarbons from the picture, the automobile becomes comepletely unfeasible, whatever the fuel.
I realize there are potentials for the more sustainable and non-food crop biofuels, but I ask you, how many acres of the earth will YOU dedicate to your prejudice against travelling in company with your fellow people?
The automobile was a great idea for consumerism that was cunningly sold as a great idea for transportation, it is in sore need of being put in its place.
While this truth should relax our European friends in this time of Storm, it should do the opposite to we "Americans".
How far are you from your grocery store?
How far is it from the farms and ranches and fisherman that provide it?
What system of transportation connects it to them?
What system of transportation connects you to it?
What fuel does this system run on?
What amount of that fuel can reasonibly be had?
Is that enough?
How far can you walk without getting tired?
How far can you walk back-carrying a load?
Don't shirk, USAns, answer these questions truthfully and FACTUALLY, and then decide if you are worried or reassured.
Europeans would almost all be reassured.
Could the difference be 1) Walkable Communities 2) Rail Connections 3) Local Farming ?
I hoe you se what this means:
There's enough work to be done in the United States to employ us out of this recession/depression.
But first we gotta wise up.
See you then kids,
-matti.
sjc_1--There's not ernough cellulouse on the planet to fuel the current planetary vehicle fleet, let alone the tens of millions more that China, India, and others will add. There is no way to maintain BAU; the paradigm must be radically altered, which means Canadians and Americans must alter their behavior drastically.
By the way. All of the sources interviewed by ASPO-USA understand Peak Oil and would say just what I have above.
Some idiot not too long ago said the American lifestyle is non-negotiable. He was correct, but not in the manner he thought. The American lifestyle is going to get thrown rather uncerimoniously into the dumpster, and nothing is going to prevent it.
Cellulose biofuels use the stalks for fuel and the food is for people. We should be more diverse in the fuels we use. You can see that being so dependent on one fuel can lead to problems.
From "Internal Combustion" by Edwin Black:
"The Honda solution will rewrite everything the public knows about automobile travel. No more gasoline. No more gas stations.
Honda, as of summer 2006, is at the tip of the hydrogen spear with its smooth-driving Hydrogen FCX. The Honda FCX drives exactly like any other car, stem to steering wheel, providing the automotive excellence and performance that Honda customers have learned to love--but this vehicle runs on clean hydrogen fuel. Honda is developing the fuel cell engine on its own dime, almost devoid of government subsidies...
More than a car, the Honda FCX comes with its own home-based hydrogen energy station that obsoletes gas stations and gasoline--and even cuts the tether to utility bills. About the size of a common home air-conditioning unit, the Honda Home Energy Station will be driven by natural gas, not electricity, and will create enough hydrogen daily to fill one or more FCX vehicles and heat and power an individual home. Honda's Home Energy Station is no pipe dream. Plug Power, an upstate-New York fuel-cell maker with more than six hundred installations worldwide, supplied Honda home power stations for several years before March 16, 2006, when they jointly announced the smallest model yet and most ambitious phase of their partnership--the FCX program. Honda's Home Energy Station will soon be configured to run on solar, either from panels or perhaps from nanosolar materials embedded in its sleek case or other nearby home surfaces. An estimated twenty square yards of nanosolar wrapped around a pole or a building surface could independently power Honda's Home Energy Station. A Plug Power source confirmed that the company's home station can be mass produced for the price of an air-conditioner, opening the way to scalable untethered energy. Honda controls the license on Plug Power's home station technology...
...there is more power in one petition to UPS and Federal Express than to all members of Congress combined..
Fleets--governmental, commercial and private--have a compelling purchasing power no automaker can ignore. If fleet managers issued a hierarchy of purchasing that mandated hydrogen cars first, fully electric cars second, and CNG cars third, the race would be on among all truck and heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers from GM to Mercedes to be the first to fill those orders. Volume purchasing will multiply and accelerate the technology, bring down costs, and migrate it swiftly from commercial fleets to the average consumer."
Thank you Honda and your Steve Ellis. You may save us all yet and make money doing it.
And speaking of oil: A Japanese tanker was attacked today by a small unidentified boat with what appeared to be a rocket off the coast of Yemen.
Brontoburger- You still cling to the oil company PR dream of the so-called 'hydrogen economy'.
It's a scam!
Hydrogen is an ENERGY CARRIER. NOT an ENERGY SOURCE!
And even if, as in your fantasy, every household was able to generate it's own hydrogen there are three related problems: 1) What is the energy source they are using to extract the hydrogen? 2) From what source are they extracting the hydrogen? 3) How are they cooling and liquifying the hydrogen, and where and how does the average household store the resulting violently flammable gas?
I live in Vancouver, a MAJOR Canadian city. One that has signed onto the 'Hydrogen Highway' fantasy to power our public transportation fleet for the upcoming 2010 Olympic Winter Games. We have exactly ONE (1) hydrogen gas filling station. It has TWO (2) mini-buses parked in it almost 24 hours a day.
As for the much touted Ballard hydrogen Fuel Cell concept, BALLARD POWER SYSTEMS WAS BOUGHT OUT BY GENERAL MOTORS TWO YEARS AGO!
Hydrogen is a SCAM!
Bio-fuels are a SCAM!
It's all just PR and window dressing to distract the public into thinking that the corporations and their bought and paid for government lackeys actually give a damn about the environment and the people as the corporations loot the last of the worlds economies!
Yes, we must act quickly to replace oil. There, that was easy to say wasn't it. I think I'll reward myself for my responsibility by going out for a drive...
Biofuels aren't the answer though as we can see from mass starvation around the world from a result of that policy.
With all due respects to brontoburger:
Problem:
We have constructed a civilization and sold to the world the idea of a culture based on sprawl and the extreme consumption of non-renewable resources and/or hyperdepletion of renewable resources.
Solution:
We must learn to live sustainably and locally and relearn how to build community where we are.
Remember, Governments are made of individuals. We cannot be "apartheid" from a collective group that is made by us. The government is the means, not a seperate entity.
Just keep that in mind as you change the world.
---How can we live in a better tomorrow if we do not expect it?---
Global public opinion believes that the world is running out of oil and that governments should be doing more..."
There's the HEART of the problem right f**ing there:
Governments will not ever do more. Period. Not ours, not theirs, none of them.
We're on our own. Either we accept that and adjust accordingly and quickly, or we'll die waiting for some "government" to "do more."
Problem: Internal Combustion Engines run on gasoline
Solution: Internal Combustion engines don't care what the fuel is so subsidize the conversion to multi-fuel...gasoline and hydrogen. It won't be long and people will get or make their own H2 for daily driving and cut out oil.
If you are the head of a country with substantial proven oil reserves, you are placed in a very dangerous situation.
If you liquidate your oil, that is to say, accept payment for it at whatever terms the oil barons want, the money must then be substantial and if people in your country might object to this arrangement, repression seems inevitable.
There is only one answer to it, and it is to grow hemp. Hemp can replace petroleum as our energy source, and in all parts of industry where petroleum products are useful.
No hemp, no peace. And I say that, not as a threat, but as a basic fact.
Now, who's ready to be a real winner and ready to accept the fact that this biofuel beats the rest and will in fact help put the energy and climate crisis to rest?
P R O F I T S __ a r e __ a s __G O V T ' s __ D O __
if you own already certain types of high temperature solar thermal concentrator generators / even at home scale / electricity can be made at 11/2 cents a kilowatt / which if you already own an electrolyser and have access to electricity at this rate you can make hydrogen at home at $1.00 per gallon gasoline
equivalent hydrogen//
http://www.pointfocus.com
I give the government a C- or a D+ in its support of inventing alternatives.
There are some reasonable incubator programs out there.
After that, any support of inventors by the USPTO is shockingly absent. State and especially federal energy funds are best described as slush funds to friends. Inventors need to be warned that some state/federal agencies hire top patent lawyers for the purposes of stealing inventions from lone inventors. Crazy! F!
Also, the government concentrates money and subsidies on "clean coal", nuclear, biofuels, and stripping hydrogen from coal. You know they're not serious. The government is highly partisan in subsidizing oil and biofuel production and oil use to the hilt, as opposed to taxing carbon. Efforts such as California's successful 1990s effort to start electric car production are now stone dead, even though consumers loved the peppier electric cars. The federal government keeps yanking wind power's chain by annually threatening to let a wind power subsidy expire, causing financial market trouble for wind.
People are now coming to realize the mistake in "the pervasive use of oil in the production and transportation of food commodities".
Why is it a mistake? Because it creates an unnecessary added dependency on a volatile, expensive commodity - oil - for the sake of unnecessary convenience.
How did it happen? Market demand was manipulated by producers in pursuit of private profits, power and control.
How to fix it? The formula for functional markets requires the government to ban producers from interfering in market demand and instead give the public the information and responsibility to make market demands in the society's better interests.
I agree with the overall sentiment that humanity needs to wain itself off its destructive oil addiction, however, knee-jerk responses to popular sentiment will detrimentally have a negative effect.
Whether your goal is to stop releasing carbon based fuels or simply to extricate America specifically, from its foreign oil dependency, one this clear biofuels are not the solution.
Supply and demand economics teach us that food prices will continue to rise drastically, coupled with state sponsored deforestation programs to increase fertile farm ground for biofuels, it quickly becomes apparent that biofuels will do far more to hurt both the economy and the global ecosystem than continuing to rely on oil.
-James
www.thepoliticus.org
Energy is simply a "carrier" of the real problem and that is the culture of capitalist greed that has spread like the plague first from Western Europe to North America and from there worldwide in the 20th century, and is destroying markets, governments, and societies today. The most grotesquely morbid victim of this plague today is the United States, now burned out from capitalist excess, and drifting back into third world corruption, a near police state, fascist by most accounts, thanks to the culture of capitalist greed that rewards greed and punishes compassion, rewards competition and punishes cooperation, rewards domination and punishes solidarity.
Capitalism may exist productively as a component of a larger economic system. As such strict controls/limits must be placed on it to prevent its hijacking markets, governments and societies. As a component its inputs and outputs must be strictly controlled. It cannot take inputs on its own, but rather they are dispensed into it. It cannot push outputs on its own accord but rather they are extracted from it. The larger economic system is under social control, of by and for the people, with respect for all societies and the entire biosphere. Easily achieved via worldwide public consensus. The LAST gilded age is waning now. The focus should be on China/India. They are stand at the crossroad.
This poll shows just how perceptive the various publics are, and it was taken prior to two very important revelations last week. Russia admited its extraction of oil has peaked and will now decline. Most important was Saudi King Abdullah's announcemet, which was only reported by Reuters and mentioned in a NY Times article. The following is from this weeks Peak Oil Review publishedd by ASPO-USA and reveals just how important the King's words are:
Commentary: Saudi King Abdullah drops quiet bombshell; U.S. media sleep through it
By Steve Andrews and Randy Udall:
On April 13, Reuters reported the following from Riyadh:
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah said he had ordered some new oil discoveries left untapped to preserve oil wealth in the world's top exporter for future generations…
"When there were some new finds, I told them, 'no, leave it in the ground, with grace from god, our children need it'," King Abdullah said…
Saudi production capacity stands at around 11.3 million bpd, and is scheduled to rise to 12.5 million bpd next year.
The King's remarks seem to confirm a statement made last year by Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi who, when asked "How high can your production go?" replied, "We'll get to 12.5 million barrels a day and then we'll see."
If the Saudi announcement was a bombshell, American nearly newspapers ignored it. We decided to canvass experts we respect to see what they thought. Excerpts follow:
Tom Petrie, vice president, Merrill Lynch:
"King Abdullah's quote speaks to the fast-emerging reality of what I call 'practical peak oil.' The Saudis and other exporters are placing a new emphasis on elongating the petroleum exploitation and depletion cycle. This stems from a growing awareness of the challenges of conventional resource maturity, as well as rising resource nationalism. This is likely to result in an earlier occurrence of global peak oil output than many consumers yet recognize."
Charles T. Maxwell, senior energy analyst, Weeden & Co:
"If Saudi Arabia's oil reserves are not going to be made available to the world in future years, beyond the expansion they have already signaled (to 12.5 million barrels/day), then the geologic oil supply constraints that we are feeling in many other parts of the world are going to close in on us earlier and more severely than we previously thought. It's a major change in policy. It's a powerful message. It makes the geologic message that much more decisive."
Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review:
"King Abdullah's statement represents the final seal of approval on an emerging Saudi policy of restricting output to save oil for future generations. In recent years the Saudis have been managing expectations of future capacity steadily downwards. No one now talks of their reaching 15mn b/d. If they reach 12.5mn b/d, while maintaining 1-2mn b/d of 'spare' capacity, we should plan for Saudi production to be 9-11mn b/d for the foreseeable future.
"High oil prices and bulging treasuries are giving producing countries the option of maximizing plateau production. We may never know if these decisions are being dictated by geology or driven by a political imperative of 'saving oil for later generations.' I suspect it's a mixture of the two.
"In any case, there is now a broad-based move by energy exporters, including Russia, Angola, Azerbaijan, and Norway, to restrict expansion to maximize plateau flows. If this takes hold, then global supplies will reach a peak rather earlier than analysis of future projects would indicate."
Matt Simmons, chairman of Simmons & Co. International:
"This statement by the Supreme Ruler of Saudi Arabia has far-reaching implications. That King Addullah would now instruct his servants to conserve the oil they pump and save some for the kids and grandkids of today's Saudi citizens is most profound.
"King Abdullah has exhibited a sense of wisdom not seen since his brother, King Faisal ruled the Kingdom until his tragic assassination. Assuming his health continues, he might lead Saudi Arabia successfully into a post-peak world and create sustainable middle class wealth for the 90% of Saudi Arabia who had accidentally been left behind.
"The world should bless this intelligent pronouncement. It is a reflection that Twilight set in on the oilfields of Arabia a few years ago."
Richard Nehring, president of Nerhingdatabase.com
"This development is part of what I've called the 'Prudential Plateau.' Some key countries with large reserves and resources have decided to maintain production at current levels—but not increase it. This is a two-edged sword: you can no longer count on these countries for increases, but you can count on them for the base. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar will probably join in this shift."
Jeffrey Rubin, chief economist, CIBC World markets
"A far more plausible explanation for faltering growth in Saudi production and exports is that they are rapidly approaching maximum production. Given soaring rates of internal consumption for oil, they will soon be exporting less not more crude to world oil markets.
"Russian Natural Resource Minister Yuri Trutnev's has said that Russian production and exports will fall this year, for the first time in a decade. We forecast that exports from OPEC, Russia and Mexico will actually decline by 2.5 million barrels per day between now and 2012. It's far from obvious who is going to fill this supply gap, let alone meet the need of future global crude demand growth."
Jeremy Gilbert, BP's retired chief petroleum engineer
"I have no idea whether there was a real choice for the Saudis to make. Perhaps it's all 'spin'; perhaps there were discoveries, but there was some property of the reservoirs which made them very difficult to develop, and it made sense to delay development until improved technology or much higher prices arrived; perhaps it's the plain basic truth - a very rare commodity.
"What I do know is that several countries in the Gulf have long chosen to operate their fields with depletion rates far below those that a Western company would consider optimal, or even sensible. Depletion rates of between 1 and 2%/ per year are not uncommon in the United Arab Emirates. Local leaders have repeatedly said that they feel an obligation to preserve some of their natural resources. These feelings must be intensified when their recent production has been sold for US dollars which have depreciated by 25% or more against other strong world currencies over the last four years.
"The countries around the Gulf, which would once have come to the aid of a faltering U.S., now are either delighted about the U.S. plight or just don't care. They are not going to do anything to reduce world oil prices. Instead, they are going to maximize their economic take while minimizing depletion of their sole natural resource."
Herman Franssen, president of International Energy Associates
"King Abdullah's remarks reflect the new thinking in the Middle East, where the Kuwaiti parliament has also expressed a need to stabilize oil exports. Higher oil prices enable producers to focus more on domestic investments than on increasing exports. All Gulf countries have seen huge growth in domestic demand for power and fuel. By 2015, Iran may consume as much of its crude oil as they export. The King's remarks mean that we in the industrialized countries better start looking for other solutions."
I will add biofuels are NO solution.