Energy and Sea Power: Challenge for the Decade

1981

CHAPTER 1

WORLD ENERGY NEEDS VS. POTENTIAL RESOURCES

Jan C. Lundberg,     Vice President, Alternative Fuels, Lundberg Survey, Inc.

Publisher Summary

This chapter discusses Exxon, British Petroleum, International Energy Agency, Petroleum Economist of London, and OPEC’s forecasts regarding world energy needs vs. potential resources. The chapter presents an equation that states Q = E³, where Q is quality of life, and the three Es are energy, economics, and environment. This is figuratively like a three-legged stool, something to which oil refineries are often compared because they have a three-product balance: (1) residuals, (2) distillates, and (3) gasolines. If one product or leg is cut, then a serious imbalance results. The chapter presents a data from not only the free-market economies but also from planned or socialist economies in which the annual rate of economic growth for the period of 1979–2000 projected by Exxon is 3%, world average. This contrasts with the rate of 5% for the period 1965–73. The new lower expectation reflects slower growth of the work force, reduced future productivity gains, and rising energy costs. Exxon projects that by the year 2000, the United States will achieve a 33% reduction in energy consumed per unit of GNP as compared to pre-1970 consumption. For Europe, Canada, and Japan, consumption will be reduced to 19%, 13%, and 39%, respectively. A contrasting report, in some ways, is British Petroleum’s latest analysis. It is similar to Exxon’s in its guardedly optimistic conclusions but there are few projections ventured. It points out that the potential supplies of coal, oil, and nuclear power are less than had been estimated. They suggest solving the problem by accelerating improvements in energy efficiency, by stimulus to non-OPEC oil production and exploration, by removing price controls, by encouraging more research into renewable energy sources, and by encouraging conservation of energy on household and industrial levels.

To undertake to survey world energy needs versus potential resources is the broadest possible challenge, since the survival of the human race depends on successfully dealing with those world energy needs.

Terms such as consumption, use, demand, needs, and production are roughly synonymous in casual usage. But when we combine those synonyms with the concepts of past, present, and future, and with conservation, waste, jobs, and maintaining the world order, then we jump from areas of common understanding (to include statistics) over to philosophies, ideologies, history, and the choices that we permit ourselves and world leaders to contemplate.

There is an equation that states: Q = E³. That is,

Quality of life = Energy, Economics and Environment

This is figuratively like a three–legged stool, something to which oil refineries are often compared, since they have a three–product balance: residuals, distillates, and gasolines. If one product, or leg, is cut, a serious imbalance results. It is the buildup of heating oils that has helped to create recent gasoline gluts, something few imagined possible during the time of the long gasoline lines of 1979. Let us compare what several diverse organizations have to say about world energy trends and projections. We will begin with perhaps the largest shelter for analysts in the private sector, the major oil companies, examine some international governmental figures and then touch on other, differing bodies of research and thought.

EXXON FORECASTS

In providing the so–called standard litany of energy assessments, we cite the Standard of New Jersey litany, from the 1980 Exxon World Energy Outlook. Exxon’s research and analysis are widely respected. The report includes data from not only the free–market economies, but from planned (or socialist) economies as well.

Figure 1-1 The Changing Energy Supply Picture (Source: Exxon, World Energy Outlook 1980)

Figure 1-2 World Oil Supplies in the Year 2000 (at 77 million barrels/day) (Source: Exxon World Energy Outlook 1980)

Figure 1-3 The World’s Petroleum Reserves (Source: Petroleum Economist, Fuels for the Future)

The annual rate of economic growth for the period of 1979 to 2000 is projected by Exxon to be 3%, world average. This contrasts with the rate of 5% for the period 1965–73. The new, lower expectation reflects slower growth of the work force, reduced future productivity gains, and rising energy costs. The major industrialized countries have been reducing the energy–intensity of their economies since the early 1970s. Exxon projects that by the year 2000 the United States will achieve a 33% reduction in energy consumed per unit of GNP, as compared to pre–1970 consumption. For Europe, Canada, and Japan, consumption will be reduced 19%, 13%, and 39% respectively. Despite these lower growth rates and greater energy efficiency, the demand for energy will have increased to approximately 65% higher than current demand.

(Incidentally, Energy Detente, a Lundberg Survey publication, has calculated that the United States has conserved enough to bring down the amount of energy by 12%—that which is required to produce one GNP dollar, from 1973 to 1980.)

The share of energy supplied from conventional oil is projected to decline from 47% in 1979 to about 31% by 2000. Natural gas supplied 19% of the world’s energy needs in 1979, and its share will remain the same through the year 2000, despite a 50% increase in production. Coal is expected to be a major source of supply, meeting new energy demands and replacing oil and gas in major industrial and utility markets. Coal will increase from supplying 26% of world energy needs in 1979 to 28% by the year 2000.

Nuclear energy now supplies 2% of the world’s current energy needs, and Exxon projects that it will supply 10% of global needs by the year 2000. Solar power is slated to supply only 0.5% of global needs by 2000. Hydro and other forms of energy, such as wood products, will supply 8% of world energy needs by the year 2000, as compared to 6% currently. Synfuels will provide 4% of world energy needs by the year 2000. The total growth rate for supplies of all forms of energy per year will equal 2.4% for the next 20 years. Predicated on a free market, these growth rates in supply should be matched by identical growth rates in world energy demand.

Exxon’s study continues with these oil projections: World oil demand will rise from 66 million barrels/day to 77 million barrels/day by the year 2000. World oil supplies during these years are expected to keep pace with demand, but of this projected supply, 56% will come from oil already discovered, 36% from oil to be discovered, and 8% from synfuel plants yet to be built.

(It is anticipated that although President Ronald Reagan might fragment the Department of Energy, he would most likely spare the government’s Synthetic Fuels Corporation. The corporation anticipates a 0.5 million barrel/day production by 1987.)

Oil consumption will probably continue to exceed oil discoveries over the next 20 years. Conventional oil production can be expected to plateau around the turn of the century, and the cost of new oil will, of course, be much higher. Other expensive energy sources will be required to meet projected demand. Thus, the transition to a new energy–supplied environment will accelerate over the next 20 years. Coal and nuclear power will be increasingly important during these years, and synfuels will be more significant after 1990. In all sectors of the economy, greater efficiency and conservation must be expected. The report ends with a call for greater access to required resources, support for quick development of synfuels, and implementation of government policies that will speed this transition.

BRITISH PETROLEUM FORECAST

A contrasting report, in some ways, is British Petroleum’s latest analysis. It is similar to Exxon’s in its guardedly optimistic conclusions, but there are few projections ventured. Its point is that we are facing a serious crisis; the potential supplies of coal, oil, and nuclear power are less than had been estimated. They suggest solving the problem by "accelerating improvements in energy efficiency; by stimulus to non–OPEC oil production and exploration; by removing price controls; by encouraging more research into renewable energy sources, and by encouraging conservation of energy on household and industrial