Tue 28 Feb 2006
Shell CEO on Peak Oil - Our mitigation strategy is coal
Posted by Dan Welch under Peakist , Peak Oil , Energy , Global WarmingShell announced record profits in the first week of February at a press conferences in London. Journalist David Strahan (producer of the seminal BBC Money Programme on ‘peak oil’ theory back in 2000) asked CEO Jeroen van der Veer whether Shell had done any detailed modelling on peak oil. Mr. van der Veer replied that his argument was that the world will not arrive at a peak oil situation. He said that peak oil is correct as applied to regional areas of production but does not apply to the world as a whole. Mr. van Der Veer’s justification for this statement was that an unquantifiable level of reserves lie in unconventional oil, and tellingly, coal. Shell is explicitly stating then that the mitigation strategy in the face of a peak of conventional oil will ultimately lie in coal liquifaction. Jeremy Leggett has argued that “amid the ruins of the old energy modus operandi many will try to turn to coal, and so the extent to which renewable energy grows explosively instead of coal expansion, rather than alongside it, will determine whether economies and ecosystems can survive the global warming threat…’Solarisation’ versus ‘coalification’”. Shell have admitted to a conventional oil peak and have announced a mitigation strategy which bodes ill for the future of climate change.
Van der Veers said “That is a great question - it is much more complex than many people think. That (peak oil) is not how we will go. Because peak oil theory itself is correct, if one takes easy oil close to the markets. If you look at West Texas the oil has gone, or even the North Sea…but if you look at oil sands you don’t know where the peak will come…if you think about coal…there are huge reserves. If you assume we can develop clean coal technologies, [then] there will not be one peak.”
“So there is no one peak. There will be many peaks [for different fields, regions and fuels] and they will be in many different time frames and how that will develop, we don’t know. We think [for prices] that it is prudent for our company to evaluate projects in a very [many] differing pricing scenarios.”
Strahan then asked if van der Veer expected oil sands to make up the difference in any decline of conventional oil.
“What I do expect,” replied van der Veer, “is at the present price level there is a huge incentive to develop additional forms of energy, hydrocarbon energy and alternative energies, people will respond but it will take some time.”
Strahan considered van der Veer’s replies.
“His basic argument was that as the peaks happen at different times,” concluded Strahan. “So you get a plateau not a peak. But one is not just adding up a bunch of peaks, you are adding up some areas that are rising in production and some that are falling.”
“[Van der Veer] did say that ‘easy oil has peaked’ but then said ‘look at what is elsewhere like the arctic, deepwater and so on.’ But if you listen to people like PFC
Energy, the Washington based consultancy, they have suggested that deepwater will peak early in the next decade. He also mentioned oil sands but the overall plan for oil sands is to make just 5 million barrels a day by 2030. I must say it was not terribly convincing,” Strahan said.
4 Responses to “Shell CEO on Peak Oil - Our mitigation strategy is coal”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

February 28th, 2006 at 5:21 am
The government on peak oil - build more runways. I must say, that’s not terribly convincing either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1719728,00.html
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:23 am
Some letters on Monbiot’s piece:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1721160,00.html
I like the idea of allocating every person X number of air miles a year and anyone who wants to fly further has to buy extra miles from those who either don’t want to use them or can’t afford to use them. Or a personal carbon ration that you can trade with other people so you can get paid for not consuming. Then I always did fancy the idea of being paid for doing nothing.
A terrible realisation has been dawning on me that as we hurtle towards the the scilla and charybdis of climate change and peak oil I want to see the world while I still can. I’ve not done a lot of travelling and might have to become part of the problem for long enough to see the wonders of creation before we succeed in demolishing them all.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:08 pm
A genuine globally equitable carbon ration would leave you in what passes for energy poverty around these parts. You should go and see the world quickly before the general populous start taking those sorts of crazy ideas seriously. On the hand, you’ve got years …
I have some irreplaceable memories of the wonders of creation; the great barrier reef, tropical rain and cloud forests, a low lying Pacific island and the South Pategonian ice fields. These are all places that would be destroyed by the kind of global warming Lovelock talks about. Would I go again? I’d find it very difficult not to, but I’d probably think more about carbon sequestration and moral dissonance. Or maybe once should be enough.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:38 pm
[…] As we noted at the end of February, Shell has also announced a strategy of coal liquefaction to mitigate peak - given the economics of coal liquefaction require significant investments in infrastructure to produce synthetic crude at a relatively high price (currently economic around $30 a barrel) we can safely assume that neither the Pentagon nor Big Oil see any drop in prices on the horizon. We are beginning to see the outlines of an emerging new world energy order and it does not look like one based on renewable energy resources. Military’s push to turn coal into fuel picking up speed JAMES HANNAH Associated Press […]