Highlights from GAO-07-283:
CRUDE OIL - Uncertainty
about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing
a Peak and Decline in Oil Production.
EMBARGOED UNTIL 11:30 am
Eastern March 29, 2007
The
following are exact quotes. Notable
highlights are in Bold.
Results in Brief
(Pages
4 - 6)
Most studies estimate that oil production will peak
sometime between now and 2040, although
many of these projections cover a wide range of time, including two studies for
which the range extends into the next century. The
timing of the peak depends on multiple, uncertain factors that will influence
how quickly the remaining oil is used, including the amount of oil still in the
ground, how much of the remaining oil can be ultimately produced, and future oil
demand. 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. In addition, many parts of the world have
not yet been fully explored for oil. There
is also great uncertainty about the amount of oil that will ultimately be
produced, given the technological, cost, and environmental challenges. For
example, some of the oil remaining in the ground can be accessed only by using
complex and costly technologies that present greater environmental challenges
than the technologies used for most of the oil produced to date. Other
important sources of uncertainty about future oil production are potentially
unfavorable political and investment conditions in countries where oil is
located. For example, more than 60 percent of world oil reserves, on the
basis of Oil and Gas Journal
estimates, are in countries where relatively unstable political conditions could
constrain oil exploration and production. Finally, future world demand for oil
also is uncertain because it depends on economic growth and government policies
throughout the world. For example, continued rapid economic growth in China and
India could significantly increase world demand for oil, while environmental
concerns, including oil’s contribution to global warming, may spur
conservation or adoption of alternative fuels that would reduce future demand
for oil.
In the United States, alternative transportation
technologies face challenges that could impede their ability to mitigate the
consequences of a peak and decline in oil production, unless sufficient time and
effort are brought to bear. For
example:
• Ethanol
from corn is more costly to produce than gasoline, in part because of the high
cost of the corn feedstock. Even if ethanol were to become more cost-competitive
with gasoline, it could not become widely available without
costly investments in infrastructure, including pipelines, storage tanks, and
filling stations.
•
Advanced vehicle technologies that could increase mileage or use different fuels
are generally more costly than conventional technologies and have not been
widely adopted. For example, hybrid electric vehicles can cost from $2,000 to
$3,500 more to purchase than comparable conventional vehicles and currently
constitute about 1 percent of new vehicle registrations in the United States.
• Hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles are significantly more costly than conventional vehicles to
produce. Specifically, the hydrogen fuel cell stack needed to power a vehicle
currently costs about $35,000 to produce, in comparison with a conventional gas
engine, which costs $2,000 to $3,000.
Given these challenges, development and widespread
adoption of alternative transportation technologies will take time and effort.
Key alternative technologies currently supply the equivalent of only about 1
percent of U.S. consumption of petroleum products, and DOE projects that even
under optimistic scenarios, by 2015 these technologies could displace only the
equivalent of 4 percent of projected U.S. annual consumption. Under
these circumstances, an imminent peak and sharp decline in oil production could
have severe consequences, including a worldwide recession. If the peak comes
later, however, these technologies have a greater potential to mitigate the
consequences. DOE projects that these technologies could displace up to the
equivalent of 34 percent of projected U.S. annual consumption of petroleum
products in the 2025 through 2030 time frame, assuming the challenges the
technologies face are overcome. The level of effort dedicated to overcoming
challenges to alternative technologies will depend in part on the price of oil;
without sustained high oil prices, efforts to develop and adopt alternatives may
fall by the wayside.
Federal agency efforts that could reduce
uncertainty about the timing of peak oil production or mitigate its consequences
are spread across multiple agencies and generally are not focused explicitly on
peak oil.
For example, efforts that could be used to reduce uncertainty about the timing
of a peak include USGS activities to estimate oil resources and DOE efforts to
monitor current supply and demand conditions in global oil markets and to make
future projections. Similarly, DOE, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) all have programs and activities that
oversee or promote alternative transportation technologies that could mitigate
the consequences of a peak. However, officials
of key agencies we spoke with acknowledge that their efforts—with the
exception of some studies—are not specifically designed to address peak oil. Federally
sponsored studies we reviewed have expressed a growing concern over the
potential for a peak and officials from key agencies have identified some
options for addressing this issue. For example, DOE and USGS officials told
us that developing better information about worldwide demand and supply and
improving global estimates for nonconventional oil resources and oil in
“frontier” regions that have yet to be fully explored could help prepare for
a peak in oil production by reducing uncertainty about its timing. Agency
officials also said that, in the event of an imminent peak, they could step up
efforts to mitigate the consequences by, for example, further encouraging
development and adoption of alternative fuels and advanced vehicle technologies.
However, according to DOE, there is no formal strategy for coordinating and
prioritizing federal efforts dealing with peak oil issues, either within DOE or
between DOE and other key agencies.
While the consequences of a peak would be felt
globally, the United States, as the largest consumer of oil and one of the
nations most heavily dependent on oil for transportation, may be particularly
vulnerable.
Therefore, to better prepare the United States for a peak and decline in oil
production, we are recommending that the
Secretary of Energy take the lead, in coordination with other relevant federal
agencies, to establish a peak oil strategy. Such a strategy should include
efforts to reduce uncertainty about the timing of a peak in oil production and
provide timely advice to Congress about cost-effective measures to mitigate the
potential consequences of a peak. In commenting on a draft of the report, the
Departments of Energy and the Interior generally agreed with the report and
recommendations.
Notable Statements and Charts
According to IEA, most countries outside the Middle
East have reached their peak in conventional oil production, or will do so in
the near future.
The
United States is a case in point. Even though the United States is currently
the third-largest, oil-producing nation, U.S. oil production peaked around
1970 and has been on a declining trend ever since. (Page 7)
(Page 8)
U.S.
Oil Production, 1900 - 2005

(Page
9)

(Page
10)

(Page
11)

(Page
13)

Studies
that predict the timing of a peak use different estimates of how much oil
remains in the ground, and these differences explain some of the wide ranges of
these predictions. Estimates of how much
oil remains in the ground are highly uncertain because much of these data are
self- reported and unverified by independent auditors; many parts of the world
have yet to be fully explored for oil; and there is no comprehensive assessment
of oil reserves from nonconventional sources.
(Page 14).
----------------
Some experts believe OPEC estimates of proven
reserves to be inflated. For example, OPEC estimates
increased sharply in the 1980s, corresponding to a change in OPEC’s quota
rules that linked a member country’s production quota in part to its remaining
proven reserves. In addition, many OPEC countries’ reported reserves remained
relatively unchanged during the 1990s, even as they continued high levels of oil
production. For example,
IEA reports that reserves estimates in Kuwait were unchanged from 1991 to 2002,
even though the country produced more than 8 billion barrels of oil over that
period and did not make any important new oil discoveries. (Page
14)
----------------
(Page 16)

Limited information on oil-producing regions
worldwide also leads USGS
to base its estimate of reserves growth on how
reserves estimates have
grown in the United States. However, some experts
criticize this
methodology; they
believe such an estimate may be too high because the U.S. experience
overestimates increases in future worldwide reserves. In contrast, EIA believes
the USGS estimate may be too low. (Page 17)
----------------
It is
also difficult to project the timing of a peak in oil production because
technological, cost, and environmental challenges
make it unclear how
much oil can ultimately be recovered from (1)
proven reserves, (2) hard-
to-reach locations, and (3) nonconventional
sources.
(Page 18).
----------------
EOR
technologies currently contribute approximately 12 percent to U.S. production,
and carbon dioxide EOR alone is projected
to have the potential to provide at least 2 million barrels per day by 2020.
(Page 18)
----------------
It is
unclear how much oil can be recovered from nonconventional sources. Recovery
from these sources could delay a peak in oil production or slow the rate of
decline in production after a peak. Expert
sources disagree concerning the significance of the role these nonconventional
sources will play in the future. DOE officials we spoke with emphasized the
belief that nonconventional oil will play a significant role in the very near
future as conventional oil production is unable to meet the increasing demand
for oil. However, IEA estimates of oil
production have conventional oil continuing to comprise almost all of production
through 2030. Currently, production of oil from key nonconventional sources
of oil—oil sands, heavy and extra-heavy oil deposits, and oil shale—is more
costly and presents environmental challenges. (Page 19).
----------------
In
2005, worldwide production of oil sands, largely from Alberta, contributed
approximately 1.6 million barrels of oil per day, and production is projected to
grow to as much as 3.5 million barrels per day by 2030. Oil sand deposits are
also located domestically in Alabama, Alaska, California, Texas, and Utah. Production
from oil sands, however, presents significant environmental challenges. The
production process uses large amounts of natural gas, which generates greenhouse
gases when burned. In addition, large-scale production of oil sands requires
significant quantities of water, typically produce large quantities of
contaminated wastewater, and alter the natural landscape. These challenges may
ultimately limit production from this resource, even if sustained high oil
prices make production profitable. (Page 20).
----------------
Using
a measure of political risk that assesses the likelihood that events such as
civil wars, coups, and labor strikes will occur in a magnitude sufficient to
reduce a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate over the next 5
years, we found that four
countries—Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezuela—that possess proven oil
reserves greater than 10 billion barrels (high reserves) also face high levels
of political risk. These four countries contain almost one-third
of worldwide oil reserves. Countries with medium or high levels of political
risk contained 63 percent of proven worldwide oil reserves, on the basis of Oil
and Gas Journal
estimates of oil reserves. (Page
21).
----------------
(Page
22)
Worldwide
Proven Oil Reserves, by Political Risk

According to our analysis, 85 percent of the
world’s proven oil reserves are in countries with medium-to-high investment
risk or where foreign investment is prohibited, on
the basis of Oil and Gas Journal estimates of oil reserves. (Page
24)
(Page 24)

(Page
25)

(Page
26)

(Page
27)

----------------
Factors
that create uncertainty about the timing of the peak—in particular, factors
that affect oil exploration and production—also create uncertainty about the rate of production decline after the peak. (Page
28)
----------------
The rate of decline after a peak is an important
consideration because a decline that is more abrupt will likely have more
adverse economic consequences than a decline that is less abrupt.
(Page
29).
----------------
In the United States, alternative transportation
technologies have limited potential to mitigate the consequences of a peak and
decline in oil production, at least in the near term, because they face many
challenges that will take time and effort to overcome.
If the peak and decline in oil production occur before these technologies are
advanced enough to substantially offset the decline, the consequences could be
severe. If the peak occurs in the more distant future, however, alternative
technologies have a greater potential to mitigate the consequences. (Page
29).
----------------
Development and widespread adoption of the seven
alternative fuels and advanced vehicle technologies we examined will take time,
and significant challenges will have to be overcome, according to DOE.
These technologies include ethanol, biodiesel, biomass gas-to-liquid, coal
gas-to- liquid, natural gas and natural gas vehicles, advanced vehicle
technologies, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. (Page 29).
----------------
Because
development and widespread adoption of technologies to
displace
oil will take time and effort, an imminent peak and sharp decline
in
oil production could have severe consequences. 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. For
example,
disruptions in oil supply associated with the Arab oil embargo of
1973-74
and the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79 caused unprecedented
increases
in oil prices and were associated with worldwide recessions. In
addition,
a number of studies we reviewed indicate
that most of the U.S.
recessions in the post-World War II era were
preceded by oil supply
shocks and the associated sudden rise in oil
prices.
Ultimately, however, the consequences of a peak and
permanent decline in
oil production could be even more prolonged and
severe than those of
past oil supply shocks. Because the decline would
be neither temporary
nor reversible, the effects would continue until
alternative transportation
technologies to displace oil became available in
sufficient quantities at
comparable costs.
Furthermore, because oil production could decline even
more each year following a peak, the amount that would have to be
replaced
by alternatives could also increase year by year. (Page
33-4).
----------------
If
the peak occurs in the more distant future or the decline following a peak is
less severe, alternative technologies have a greater potential to mitigate the
consequences. DOE projects that the
alternative technologies we examined have the potential to displace up to the
equivalent of 34 percent of annual U.S. consumption of petroleum products in the
2025 through 2030 time frame. However, DOE also considers these projections
optimistic—it assumes that sufficient time and effort are dedicated to the
development of these technologies to overcome the challenges they face.
(Page 34).
----------------
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. Such a peak would require sharp reductions in oil
consumption, and the competition for increasingly scarce energy would drive up
prices, possibly to unprecedented levels, causing severe economic damage. While
these consequences would be felt globally, 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. (Page 38)
----------------
While
public and private responses to an anticipated peak could mitigate the
consequences significantly, federal
agencies currently have no coordinated or well-defined strategy either to reduce
uncertainty about the timing of a peak or to mitigate its consequences. This
lack of a strategy makes it difficult to gauge the appropriate level of effort
or resources to commit to alternatives to oil and puts the nation unnecessarily
at risk. (Page 39)