News

2025 is as far into the future as 1991 is in the past. In that context, 17 years isn't a long time. So, when presented with a shortfall in the supply of crude oil by 2025, will we be ready? Transport and energy consultant Richard Gilbert's presentation to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil this week was both frightening and stimulating - in that order. The context is horrific: oil production will peak in 2010 at more than 30 billion barrels a year and then drop rapidly as resources  dwindle, resulting in production falling by one-third by 2025. However, oil consumption, if left unchecked, will grow by more than one-third by 2025 to more than 40 billion barrels a year. The worst-case scenario is a 39% shortfall in crude supply the best case scenario is a 26% shortfall.

Balance those two figures in the air and then contemplate these stats from the Brookings Institution: a 5% shortfall in the supply of crude increases the cost of a barrel by 30% a 10% shortfall means a 200% hike and a 15% shortfall will see crude surge by 550%. Those stats are based on the 2002 barrel of crude price of just $50... Gilbert acknowledges that there is controversy: there are those who insist oil supply is sufficient, that demand will not increase and that prices will not rise. On the other hand, there are those, oil companies included, who believe the crisis will come sooner and hit harder.

Gilbert's working conclusion is that world leaders must prepare for the worst. The fall  in production could be anticipated by ratcheting down demand in advance of the fall in production: this allows a 'soft landing'. Or a fall in consumption could be brought about as a result of high prices (due to the shortfall): this would be a 'hard landing', resulting in severe economic, social and geopolitical disruption. Gilbert's thesis proposes a number of inter-linked solutions to ensure we can continue to live our lives largely in the manner to which we have become accustomed. First and foremost is the switch to electricity as the power source for road transport. But how to overcome the challenge of the on-board storage of electricity? Simple, says Gilbert: all vehicles will have to be connected to the grid.

Now clearly that's going to require some heavy infrastructure investment and funding to develop renewable generation of electricity: where's that money going to come from? Stop all road-building and airport construction now, Gilbert says, and divert those funds into developing alternative power sources (for transport and all other users). Funds can also be raised by taxing aviation fuel. At the very least, all governments should be setting up transport redevelopment agencies to reconfigure how transport needs are met. He also proposes the increased use of rail and low-speed marine transport in place of road and air, and the use of collectively managed transport in place of personal transport.

Pie in the sky? Simplistic? Maybe, but Gilbert provides evidence to suggest that "revolutionary change in transport can move quickly in ways its agents fail to predict. It can be especially dramatic when driven by governments set on bolstering national security." Hot air? Not your worry? Focus again on that timescale: 17 years...