[Penn]

Shell's Chief Strategist: Two Scenarios in Oil's Future

NPR Morning Edition, April 22, 2008 •

As oil prices hit $117 a barrel this month, a forecast from Shell Oil outlines two very different possibilities for the future of the world's energy supply. Looking out to the year 2050, Shell strategist Jeremy Bentham says demand will go up, while oil supplies will be harder to find.
"We anticipate that you'll begin to see a plateauing of easily accessible conventional oil and gas around about the 2015, 2020 type of period," Bentham tells Steve Inskeep.
Bentham outlines two outcomes — one a "scramble" and the other a "blueprint" scenario — for addressing energy needs.
In the scramble scenario, he says, "a focus on supply security drives a lot of decision-making." For example, China is worried about its future supply of oil, so it decides that it needs to be friendly with Iran. Or the U.S., worried about its supply of oil, holds intensive talks with Saudi Arabia.
"That can kick off a dynamic where the tensions are perceived to be a fight between nations and hence a scramble for supply. The demand side is postponed, in terms of being managed, in that scramble outlook," Bentham says.
So, a fear of shortage of supply builds up, and the steps to manage the whole energy system holistically aren't taken, Bentham says. Instead of considering conservation or alternatives, people just grab for oil and other forms of energy.
The "blueprint" scenario, on the other hand, recognizes that forces can combine to affect change. "You see emerging coalitions coming together at the state level but also cross-border" to find solutions, Bentham says.
He points to climate-related legislation in California as an example.
"A set of interests were recognized among technology entrepreneurs and farmers and shrewd politicians which led, in this country in 2006, to the climate-related legislation in California," he says.
That legislation influenced thinking in other states, which in turn influenced thinking at the federal level. "So you get this spreading awareness and spreading regulatory activity; you get a set of actors who influence the national agendas," Bentham says, and a patchwork of standards and regulations begins to emerge.
"You don't get global agreements," Bentham says, "but you get a critical mass of sectors and countries having, for instance, some kind of carbon dioxide pricing in the blueprint scenario." And that approach would grow over time as people recognize the benefits, because it promotes energy efficiency and new technology developments, he says.
Shell has a preference for blueprint-type outcomes that address demand, supply and environmental issues together, Bentham says, because "it's better for society at large, but also it's better for business and investment."

I’ve had a number of conversations with a client who is the 1# oil trader in US. He has gone into great detail correlating current conflicts and power positioning of Russia, China, and the US. His opinion is that a sensible solution will only evolve when each of the major players has secured a tenable position in which they have a sense of security in the near term. And that the current positioning of each is the initial actions in securing that goal of near term security from which each can then negotiate and partner. Asked if he saw a solution, his answered that it would require the nation (US) to sacrifice on the level of the depression; while simultaneously developing a new Government agency like NASA for alternative fuels, engines etc., and expanding explorations for oil in the national interest, to the determent of the environment. He is not optimistic and foresees a continual era of conflict until the US makes a conceptive effort to become energy independent, At that point, the other powers will realize the intent and their security over energy issues will abate.