I have recently reviewed the predictions made by BP and ExxonMobil as they relate to energy supply and demand in the years to 2030. Shell has just updated their predictions, which extend further out to 2050. In the opening discussion they make the point that new technologies will require, in their words significant time to develop.
New energy technologies must be demonstrated at commercial scale and require thirty years of sustained double-digit growth to build industrial capacity and grow sufficiently to feature at even 1-2% of the energy system.
Thus much of the focus of the report deals with existing fossil fuel capabilities. Specific new factors that have led to the modification of earlier predictions include the greater instability of the global economy; the growth of uncertainty over regulatory steps that will be taken both to address the concerns over climate change, and in light of the Macondo well disaster; the improved supply potential for natural gas both from shales and coal bed methane supplies; and the emergence of a re-invigorated Iraqi energy industry with a potential to develop significant new resources.
Shell has, in the past, developed two different energy scenarios – the first of which it calls Scramble, where the world moves along a Business As Usual (BUA) scenario, only making changes as these become forced upon governments and companies by the impact of changing circumstance. The second is called Blueprint, a scenario that Shell is now announcing it will advocate, where instead of the reactive approach of Scramble, a set of plans is developed to pro-actively address the issues of carbon dioxide generation, and to ensure the world has adequate energy.
The difference between the two approaches was illustrated in the initial document by the predicted sources of energy through the years to 2050. By putting these one after the other, it is possible to compare how supply changes in their two scenarios.
oilprice
