Matt Simmons In The Economist  

The Economist has an article on Matt Simmons. The most surprising part (other than Matt's retreat to a doomstead in Maine) is them quoting him saying "globalisation must stop". Isn't that considered the ultimate heresy in St James ?

Simmons & Company, the investment bank Mr Simmons went on to found (along with Michael Huffington, an oilman and politician), helped to funnel money and financial advice to the nascent “oil services” industry, which performs tasks such as seismic surveys and drilling wells on behalf of oil firms. Indeed, Mr Simmons says it was his bank that coined the very phrase “oil services”. It has handled over 500 merger-and-acquisition deals in the industry—49 of them last year alone.

All this means that Mr Simmons can draw upon long experience and deep knowledge of the oil industry. He does not dispute the main criticism of the “peak oil” theory: that improvements in technology, spurred by high prices, will eventually allow new fields to be found, more oil to be recovered from existing fields and artificial oil to be conjured from substances such as tar sands, coal and shale. But he thinks such advances will take longer to appear and have less of an impact than his detractors assume.

As it is, he points out, all the world’s drilling rigs are working flat out, and old ones are being retired faster than new ones can be produced. The same is true of geologists and many more of the industry’s essential inputs. This is slowing the development of new fields and pushing up the cost. By the same token, the technology being used to extract oil today has been in the works since the 1970s. It will take a long time for the next generation of clever kit to come into widespread use. Besides, many technological improvements seem to have simply speeded up the extraction of oil, rather than increasing the share of each reservoir that can be recovered.

In short, as Mr Simmons readily concedes, the debate between proponents and critics of “peak oil” boils down to an argument about timing. The optimists think that technology will advance quickly enough to offset declining production from mammoth fields such as those Mr Simmons studied in Saudi Arabia. But he and his disciples think the declines will come too soon, and be too sharp, for the world to adapt in time. The whole row could easily be solved, he says, if Saudi Arabia would only allow independent auditors to assess its reserves.

In the meantime, Mr Simmons is taking no chances. He plans to start up a farm near his house in Maine, in case the supply chain that provides America with food breaks down for lack of fuel. He plans to fertilise his fields with manure, rather than chemicals derived from oil and natural gas. He thinks globalisation must stop, and that as much trade as possible should be conducted by boat, to conserve whatever oil remains.

But Mr Simmons has not despaired. He holds out great hope for wave energy, and believes that at least one of the many different species of seaweed found along Maine’s coast will yield oil that can be turned into biofuel. He has got Simmons & Company involved in alternative energy. It is a brave choice for someone who is so pessimistic about technology.

The Economist also recently had a special issue covering energy issues - The power and the glory - which had a look at a range of alternative energy options.

In the space of a couple of years, all that has changed. Oil is no longer cheap; indeed, it has never been more expensive. Moreover, there is growing concern that the supply of oil may soon peak as consumption continues to grow, known supplies run out and new reserves become harder to find.

The idea of growing what you put in the tank of your car, rather than sucking it out of a hole in the ground, no longer looks like economic madness. Nor does the idea of throwing away the tank and plugging your car into an electric socket instead. Much of the world’s oil is in the hands of governments who have little sympathy with the rich West. When a former head of America’s Central Intelligence Agency allies himself with tree-hugging greens that his outfit would once have suspected of subversion, you know something is up. Yet that is one tack James Woolsey is trying in order to reduce his country’s dependence on imported oil.

The price of natural gas, too, has risen in sympathy with oil. That is putting up the cost of electricity. Wind- and solar-powered alternatives no longer look so costly by comparison. It is true that coal remains cheap, and is the favoured fuel for power stations in industrialising Asia. But the rich world sees things differently.

In theory, there is a long queue of coal-fired power stations waiting to be built in America. But few have been completed in the past 15 years and many in that queue have been put on hold or withdrawn, for two reasons. First, Americans have become intolerant of large, polluting industrial plants on their doorsteps. Second, American power companies are fearful that they will soon have to pay for one particular pollutant, carbon dioxide, as is starting to happen in other parts of the rich world. Having invested heavily in gas-fired stations, only to find themselves locked into an increasingly expensive fuel, they do not want to make another mistake.

That has opened up a capacity gap and an opportunity for wind and sunlight. The future price of these resources—zero—is known. That certainty has economic value as a hedge, even if the capital cost of wind and solar power stations is, at the moment, higher than that of coal-fired ones.

The reasons for the boom, then, are tangled, and the way they are perceived may change. Global warming, a long-range phenomenon, may not be uppermost in people’s minds during an economic downturn. High fuel prices may fall as new sources of supply are exploited to fill rising demand from Asia. Security of supply may improve if hostile governments are replaced by friendly ones and sources become more diversified. But none of the reasons is likely to go away entirely.

Global warming certainly will not. “Peak oil”, if oil means the traditional sort that comes cheaply out of holes in the ground, probably will arrive soon. There is oil aplenty of other sorts (tar sands, liquefied coal and so on), so the stuff is unlikely to run out for a long time yet. But it will get more expensive to produce, putting a floor on the price that is way above today’s.

Other articles in the section cover most of the way forward (ocean power, biogas and cradle to cradle manufacturing being the most notable exceptions, while "negawatts" were deliberately omitted):

* Trade Winds - "Wind power has come of age. But to make the most of it, electrical grids will have to be overhauled"
* Solar Energy: Another silicon valley?
* Beneath your feet: Geothermal could be hot
* Bespoke biofuels
* Electric cars: The end of the petrolhead