The Looming Energy Shock

There will be an extremely painful oil supply shortfall sometime between 2018 and 2020. It will be highly disruptive to our over-leveraged global financial system, given how saddled it is with record debts and unfunded IOUs.

Due to a massive reduction in capital spending in the global oil business over 2014-2016 and continuing into 2017, the world will soon find less oil coming out of the ground beginning somewhere between 2018-2020.

Because oil is the lifeblood of today's economy, if there’s less oil to go around, price shocks are inevitable. It's very likely we'll see prices climb back over $100 per barrel. Possibly well over.

The only way to avoid such a supply driven price-shock is if the world economy collapses first, dragging demand downwards.

Not exactly a great "solution" to hope for.

Pick Your Poison

This is why our view is that either

  1. the world economy outgrows available oil somewhere in the 2018 – 2020 timeframe, or
  2. the world economy collapses first, thus pushing off an oil price shock by a few years (or longer, given the severity of the collapse)

If (1) happens, the resulting oil price spike will kneecap a world economy already weighted down by the highest levels of debt ever recorded, currently totaling some 327% of GDP:

(Source)

Remember, in 2008, oil spiked to $147 a barrel. The rest is history -- a massive credit crisis ensued.  While there was a mountain of dodgy debt centered around subprime loans in the US, what brought Greece to its knees wasn’t US housing debt, but its own unsustainable pile of debt coupled to a 100% dependence on imported oil --  which, figuratively and literally, broke the bank.

If (2) happens, then the price of oil declines, if not collapses. Demand withers away, the oil business cuts back on its exploration/extraction investments even further, so that much later, when the global economy is trying to recover, it then runs into an even more severe supply shortfall. It becomes extremely hard to get sustained GDP growth back online.

If you really want to understand why I hold these views, you need to fully understand and digest this next chart. It shows the amazingly tightly-coupled linear relationship between economic growth and energy consumption:

(Source)

This chart above says, if you want an extra incremental unit of economic growth you're going to need to have an extra incremental unit of energy.  More growth means more energy consumed.

And today, oil is still THE most important source of energy. It's the dominant energy source for transportation, by far.  A global economy, after all, is nothing more than things being made and then moved, often very far distances. Despite what you might read about developments in alternative and other forms of energy, our dependency on oil is still massive.

Plunging Investment

Resulting from the start of oil's price decline in 2014, the world saw a historic plunge in oil investments (exploration, development, CAPEX, etc) as companies the world over retracted, delayed or outright canceled oil projects:

(Source)

In the chart above, note the two successive drops in oil investment from 2014-2015 and then again into 2016.  So far 2017 is shaping up for another successive decline, which will mark the only three-year decline in investment in oil's entire history.  So what's happening here is actually quite unusual.

This isn’t just a slump. It’s an historic slump.

We don’t yet know by how much oil investment will decline in 2017, but it’s probably pretty close to the rates seen in the prior two years.

Next, take note of the dotted blue arrow in the chart.  See how far oil investment climbed during the years from 2009-2014?  Not quite a doubling, but not far off from one either.  Remember those years, I’ll return to them in a moment.

The key question to ask about the 2009-2014 period is: How much new oil was discovered for all that spending?

Turns out: Not a lot.

Practically No Discoveries

There is one hard and fast rule in the oil business: Before you can pump it, you have to find it.

The growing problem here is that oil discoveries were horrible in 2016, really bad in 2015, and terrible in 2014. That recent three year stretch is the worst in the data series:

(Source)

Again: you have to find it before you can pump it. And around the world, oil companies are just not finding as much as they used to.  

Remember that blue dotted line on the oil investment chart above?  Here’s its counterpart, showing discoveries over the same time frame -- it’s just a straight slump downwards:

Global oil discoveries fell to a record low in 2016 as companies continued to cut spending and conventional oil projects sanctioned were at the lowest level in more than 70 years, according to the International Energy Agency, which warned that both trends could continue this year.

Oil discoveries declined to 2.4 billion barrels in 2016, compared with an average of 9 billion barrels per year over the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the volume of conventional resources sanctioned for development last year fell to 4.7 billion barrels, 30% lower than the previous year as the number of projects that received a final investment decision dropped to the lowest level since the 1940s.

(Source)

Now it's clear why the oil companies pulled back their investment dollars so rapidly when prices slumped:  They were spending more and finding less throughout the 2009-2014 period, so they were already feeling the pain of diminishing returns. When the price of oil cracked below $100 a barrel, they wasted no time reining in their investment dollars.

Should we be concerned about this record lowest level of oil project funding in 70 years?  Why, yes, we should.  Everyone should:

"Our analysis shows we are entering a period of greater oil price volatility (partly) as a result of three years in a row of global oil investments in decline: in 2015, 2016 and most likely 2017," IEA director general Fatih Birol said, speaking at an energy conference in Tokyo.

"This is the first time in the history of oil that investments are declining three years in a row," he said, adding that this would cause "difficulties" in global oil markets in a few years.

(Source)

To give you a visual of the process, here’s a chart to help you understand why it takes years between making an initial find and maximum production:

(Source)

This bears repeating: Oil is the most important substance for our economy, we’re burning more of it on a yearly basis than ever before, and we just found the lowest amount since the world economy was several times smaller than it is now. And all this is happening while we're reducing our efforts to find more at an unprecedented rate.

There’s no way to speed up the process of oil discovery and extraction meaningfully, no matter how much money and manpower you throw at it.  It simply requires many years to go from a positive test bore to a fully functioning extraction and distribution/transportation program operating at maximum. 

In Part 2: Preparing For The Coming Shock we provide the evidence that shows why by 2019, or 2020, oil prices will have forced a new crisis upon the world.

More economic growth requires more energy. Always has and it always will. Oil is the most important form of energy of them all. But everyone assumes -- especially today when it appears as if we're "awash" in it given the current supply glut -- that we will always have access to as much as we need.

That's not going to be the case soon. And you are one of the few to understand why.

You get to use that awareness to make conscious decisions about your own life right here and right now. You can position yourself for safety, as well as to take advantage of what are likely to be once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunities.

But you also need to prepare for those in your life, like most other people today, who lack the ability, insight, or capability to join you at this early stage.

Click here to read the report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/the-looming-energy-shock/

It’s a tight race, but I’d place my money on the debt bubble popping before the oil crisis.
Another race in progress, is whether Washington manages to start a war in Syria or in the Pacific Ocean first. Can you imagine the US pitted against Russia and China in the next world war. Who would our allies be?

"More economic growth requires more energy. Always has and it always will. Oil is the most important form of energy of them all. But everyone assumes -- especially today when it appears as if we're "awash" in it given the current supply glut -- that we will always have access to as much as we need."
This applies to everything in life. Even in my advancing years, I continue to think "I can have it all, do it all and have enough in the bank and enough energy to enjoy my remaining years". Sound familiar? Chris is only pointing to the inevitable conundrum we all face as we suffer through "affluen-za". Review PP's basic tenets and identify what is realistically do-able and attain-able. Enjoy the day, work hard and be thankful you live in a time when we have it as good as it can be. The chickens will eventually come home to roost, unless they're eaten by a fox. Independence Day is every day.

This article is essential reading and very well written as usual, with the appropriate evidence succinctly included.
I would only add that by 2020 the world could just as easily be locked in a US led (along side its subjugated allies) world war with its epicenter in the middle east but spreading to the South China sea and West Russia.
I would agree however that the future, invisible to most denialists and optimists alike, has to be a grim one based on the “man-in-the-street” trends in incomes, cost of living, asset and job opportunity. This is not a natural decline however, it’s a manipulated one so it’s difficult to predict just exactly when or how policy makers will fumble and fall on their faces.

Seems like someone who can produce more batteries, cheaper, and faster than anyone else would be a good long term investment in the face of this thinking.

I’ve heard it said that the fed doesn’t have any more cures. However the example set by the Japanese could extend and pretend for a long time to come. They just buy the shares that are dropping as they drop with money they created. The fed could follow the Japanese example and get more time.
Once that bullet no longer works they could try helicopter money.
There are options, however horrible, the only variable is the time line, whereas with oil consumption, it’s more a factor of rising population and consumption, who knows which will come 1st.

Wonder how much time it would buy if the country made a concerted effort to switch from commuting in cars to scooters, mopeds and e-bikes? Know the logistics are tricky and there would be all kinds of resistance from the auto and oil industries to citizens and politicians, but the benefits of doing so go well beyond a reduction in oil consumption/dependence.
Don’t expect this to actually happen on a national level, but wouldn’t forward thinking communities that go in such a direction fair much better economically in the event of oil price spikes and supply shortages?

…is the “solution” I’ve been waiting to see arrive. They’ve been trying to roll WW3.0 out for several years now (but that first attempt to go all-in in Syria under Obama’s watch fizzled). They just keep adding more tinder to the fire (North Korea lately, in addition to Boogieman of the Year 2017, Russia) and I suppose they are just waiting to see where and when the conflagration gets going.
I suppose they could just crash the economy and blame Trump, but WW3.0 has a number of additional features that a simple economic crash does not, such as:

  1. allowing the gov to curtail further our civil liberties (“only for the duration of the conflict”) – you know, curfews, outlawing certain types of speech, and not allowing public gatherings of more than, say, 5 people, all in the name of “national” “security”.
  2. rationing certain items (obviously, fuels, but also some food items and certainly all firearms and ammo production would have to be diverted to use for the armed forces alone), which gets us even further into a two-tier society (the wealthy and connected will be able to evade rationing and restrictions).
  3. the surveillance state can stop namby-pambying around and just go collect all information without warrants etc. – ie the end of privacy. This may already have occurred.
  4. the economic mayhem shifts the blame over onto whoever it is we end up dancing with in WW3.0 – “we had the economy on the comeback until [Russia/China/North Korea/whoever] started a war and screwed everything up.” Pensions can be cancelled, 401-k accounts nationalized and forced to purchase war bonds (a nice, patriotic form of bail in), and so forth.
    Of course, if the above comes to pass I would expect the gov to decline to roll back these oppressive moves once the war was over. Assuming it would be “over” at some points. After all, we’re well into our second decade of the War of Terrorism, and sheeeit, most of my lifetime we’ve been having that charming little War on (Some) Drugs. No end in sight for either of those mighty conflicts.
    So, the bad news is that we may see the death of the USA as I grew up understanding it (it’s been in shaky health for decades now). The good news is that a proper war could actually spell the end of the federal government and lead to a decentralization/localization that I bet we and our descendants would find more workable, practical and enjoyable.
    That’s assuming we could survive the first several years (probably be some issues around the procurement of enough food).
    And with that, it’s time to feed the baby.
    VIVA – Sager

That and conversion to gas is in fact the future
No none gives a damn - thats the story - or so I hear…

chipshot wrote:
Wonder how much time it would buy if the country made a concerted effort to switch from commuting in cars to scooters, mopeds and e-bikes? Know the logistics are tricky and there would be all kinds of resistance from the auto and oil industries to citizens and politicians, but the benefits of doing so go well beyond a reduction in oil consumption/dependence. Don't expect this to actually happen on a national level, but wouldn't forward thinking communities that go in such a direction fair much better economically in the event of oil price spikes and supply shortages?
The answer is Yes and No. Yes, individuals would benefit economically from spending far less on transportation. A few, perhaps not an insignificant number, would not benefit from a health perspective as scooters have a much higher rate of personal injury than autos I would imagine. No the community would not necessarily benefit economically. The winners and losers should offset pretty equally. Winners would be the scooter and moped sales and repair shops, and the insurance companies involved. I'm not sure about personal injury lawyers as they'd lose the auto cases but pick up the scooter cases. Other winners are the businesses that gain the spending redirected from the lower spending on transportation. The losers are the auto sales and repair shops, gas stations, loan originators, car washes, detailers, etc. From a big picture standpoint I think it's a clear win if people are using a lot less fuel to get around, of course, and individually it's a probably healthy reprioritization of spending. but from a community economics standpoint I think it helps only to the degree that money can stay in the community by not flowing out to distant oil and auto companies.

“Other winners are the businesses that gain the spending redirected from the lower spending on transportation.”
Which would be all other businesses in the community. Eliminating car ownership would be equivalent to a $3K-$8K pay raise (cost of car ownership minus additional taxi, uber, bus, car rental expenses). If a significant number of residents gained a few thousand $ every year, how could a region not see a boost in its local economy?
"The losers are the auto sales and repair shops, gas stations, loan originators, car washes, detailers, etc."​
They are destined to be losers anyway, as cars are becoming unaffordable for the majority of Americans. The longer we stay addicted to cars, the poorer people will end up. The repo business may be the only aspect of the auto related industry facing a bright future.

Naomi Klein on what will likely happen in the next crisis if we don’t resist.

Whats gonna happen to the economies of the oil producing countries when the price of oil goes up?

Another winner is anyone waiting for an organ transplant donor.

chipshot wrote:
Wonder how much time it would buy if the country made a concerted effort to switch from commuting in cars to scooters, mopeds and e-bikes? Know the logistics are tricky and there would be all kinds of resistance from the auto and oil industries to citizens and politicians, but the benefits of doing so go well beyond a reduction in oil consumption/dependence. Don't expect this to actually happen on a national level, but wouldn't forward thinking communities that go in such a direction fair much better economically in the event of oil price spikes and supply shortages?

Maybe it is different where you live, but out here, people are driving very long commutes on Freeways – You cannot used a scooter, moped or ebike on the freeway ! And, alot of other drivers are moving children around ! You cannot get children to daycare or school on a moped, not even one, let alone 2 or 3…

mntnhousepermi wrote:
You cannot get children to daycare or school on a moped, not even one, let alone 2 or 3....
And my personal favorite:

Gail Tverberg of Ourfiniteworld.com has a new article out which complements Chris’s article.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/07/02/the-next-financial-crisis-is-not-f…
I suggest that there are very few people who understand and connect the energy situation and our economy and Dr. Martenson and Ms Tverberg are two who do.
AKGrannyWGrit

How do you feel about the crazy housing prices? I can’t imagine this is sustainable for long. I know someone who just got offered $5k over the asking price on a small home in a midwest suburb with almost certain negative predicted population growth. THe price of my midwestern house has risen (according to online estimates like Zillow) by nearly 80-90% in just the last year and a half, and suddenly everyone seems to be rushing to buy up these drastically over-priced houses.

rhare wrote:
mntnhousepermi wrote:
You cannot get children to daycare or school on a moped, not even one, let alone 2 or 3....
And my personal favorite:

Cute photos – not sure how you think this translates to here. Not one of those is safe or humane and certainly wouldnt work on freeways we have ! Completely illegal and unsafe ideas are not viable alternatives

And, I make these comments as a long time environmentalist, and mother. Around here, the bicycle advocates rally AGAINST any local rail commute solutions, while saying everyone should just ride a bike. The families look at this and think 2 young children, groceries, 110inches of rain, 12 miles, 2000ft elevation gain — and, having them motorized isnt going to change that equation FOR CURRENT TIMES