IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v96y2012icp387-392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological progress and the availability of European oil and gas resources

Author

Listed:
  • Aguilera, Roberto F.
  • Ripple, Ronald D.

Abstract

This paper estimates supply cost curves for conventional oil and gas in Europe. Oil and gas volumes are distributed across five categories that are based on production costs. The resulting supply figures are intended to be long term representations of how quantities vary with production costs. Both economic and physical measures are used since each provides practical information with respect to the concerns some energy commentators have expressed about oil and gas scarcity in the near future. Supply cost curves incorporating the effect of annual technological advancement (i.e. productivity gains) on production costs to the year 2030 are also estimated. On the quantity side, the curves include volumes from geological provinces not previously assessed. Results indicate that conventional oil and gas in Europe is abundant and can likely be produced at costs below current and projected market oil and gas prices.

Suggested Citation

  • Aguilera, Roberto F. & Ripple, Ronald D., 2012. "Technological progress and the availability of European oil and gas resources," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 387-392.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:96:y:2012:i:c:p:387-392
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261912001705
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.069?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubin, Edward S. & Yeh, Sonia & Antes, Matt & Berkenpas, Michael & Davison, John, 2007. "Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with CO2 capture," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt46x6h0n0, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    2. Roberto F. Aguilera & Roderick G. Eggert & Lagos C.C. Gustavo & John E. Tilton, 2009. "Depletion and the Future Availability of Petroleum Resources," The Energy Journal, , vol. 30(1), pages 141-174, January.
    3. Tangen, Grethe & Mølnvik, Mona J., 2009. "Scenarios for remote gas production," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(12), pages 2681-2689, December.
    4. Aguilera, Roberto F., 2010. "The future of the European natural gas market: A quantitative assessment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 3332-3339.
    5. Nico Bauer & Ottmar Edenhofer & Socrates Kypreos, 2008. "Linking energy system and macroeconomic growth models," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 95-117, February.
    6. William D. Nordhaus, 2014. "The Perils of the Learning Model for Modeling Endogenous Technological Change," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    7. Wonglimpiyarat, Jarunee, 2010. "Technological change of the energy innovation system: From oil-based to bio-based energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 749-755, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Geng, Jiang-Bo & Xu, Xiao-Yue & Ji, Qiang, 2020. "The time-frequency impacts of natural gas prices on US economic activity," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    2. Wang, Wenyang & Pang, Xiongqi & Chen, Zhangxin & Chen, Dongxia & Ma, Xinhua & Zhu, Weiping & Zheng, Tianyu & Wu, Keliu & Zhang, Kun & Ma, Kuiyou, 2020. "Improved methods for determining effective sandstone reservoirs and evaluating hydrocarbon enrichment in petroliferous basins," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    3. Bauer, Nico & Hilaire, Jérôme & Brecha, Robert J. & Edmonds, Jae & Jiang, Kejun & Kriegler, Elmar & Rogner, Hans-Holger & Sferra, Fabio, 2016. "Assessing global fossil fuel availability in a scenario framework," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 580-592.
    4. Crow, Daniel J.G. & Giarola, Sara & Hawkes, Adam D., 2018. "A dynamic model of global natural gas supply," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 452-469.
    5. Tsuboi, Mizuki, 2019. "Resource scarcity, technological progress, and stochastic growth," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 73-88.
    6. Aguilera, Roberto F., 2014. "Production costs of global conventional and unconventional petroleum," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 134-140.
    7. Fang, Guochang & Tian, Lixin & Fu, Min & Sun, Mei & Du, Ruijin & Lu, Longxi & He, Yu, 2017. "The effect of energy construction adjustment on the dynamical evolution of energy-saving and emission-reduction system in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 180-189.
    8. Yin, Jiuli & Zhu, Yan & Fan, Xinghua, 2021. "Correlation analysis of China’s carbon market and coal market based on multi-scale entropy," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Yuan, Jiehui & Luo, Dongkun & Feng, Lianyong, 2015. "A review of the technical and economic evaluation techniques for shale gas development," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 49-65.
    10. Kumar, Sourabh & Barua, Mukesh Kumar, 2022. "A modeling framework and analysis of challenges faced by the Indian petroleum supply chain," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PE).
    11. Menegaki, Angeliki N. & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2015. "Rich enough to go renewable, but too early to leave fossil energy?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1465-1477.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aguilera, Roberto F., 2014. "Production costs of global conventional and unconventional petroleum," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 134-140.
    2. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    3. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2012. "A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 762-771.
    4. Reinhard Haas & Marlene Sayer & Amela Ajanovic & Hans Auer, 2023. "Technological learning: Lessons learned on energy technologies," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), March.
    5. Aguilera, Roberto F., 2014. "The role of natural gas in a low carbon Asia Pacific," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1795-1800.
    6. Jakobsson, Kristofer & Bentley, Roger & Söderbergh, Bengt & Aleklett, Kjell, 2012. "The end of cheap oil: Bottom-up economic and geologic modeling of aggregate oil production curves," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 860-870.
    7. Lai, N.Y.G. & Yap, E.H. & Lee, C.W., 2011. "Viability of CCS: A broad-based assessment for Malaysia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3608-3616.
    8. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    9. Lafond, François & Bailey, Aimee Gotway & Bakker, Jan David & Rebois, Dylan & Zadourian, Rubina & McSharry, Patrick & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2018. "How well do experience curves predict technological progress? A method for making distributional forecasts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 104-117.
    10. Batidzirai, B. & Mignot, A.P.R. & Schakel, W.B. & Junginger, H.M. & Faaij, A.P.C., 2013. "Biomass torrefaction technology: Techno-economic status and future prospects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 196-214.
    11. Lovering, Jessica R. & Yip, Arthur & Nordhaus, Ted, 2016. "Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 371-382.
    12. Gawel, Erik & Lehmann, Paul & Purkus, Alexandra & Söderholm, Patrik & Witte, Katherina, 2017. "Rationales for technology-specific RES support and their relevance for German policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 16-26.
    13. Rochedo, Pedro R.R. & Szklo, Alexandre, 2013. "Designing learning curves for carbon capture based on chemical absorption according to the minimum work of separation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 383-391.
    14. Wiebe, Kirsten S. & Lutz, Christian, 2016. "Endogenous technological change and the policy mix in renewable power generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 739-751.
    15. Tsimafei Kazlou & Aleh Cherp & Jessica Jewell, 2024. "Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of climate targets," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 14(10), pages 1047-1055, October.
    16. Marie Renner, 2014. "Carbon prices and CCS investment: comparative study between the European Union and China," Working Papers 1402, Chaire Economie du climat.
    17. Duan, Zhongdi & Ren, Tao & Ding, Guoliang & Chen, Jie & Mi, Xiaoguang, 2017. "Liquid-migration based model for predicting the thermal performance of spiral wound heat exchanger for floating LNG," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 972-982.
    18. Hafezi, Reza & Akhavan, AmirNaser & Pakseresht, Saeed & Wood, David A., 2019. "A Layered Uncertainties Scenario Synthesizing (LUSS) model applied to evaluate multiple potential long-run outcomes for Iran's natural gas exports," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 646-659.
    19. Escudero, Marcos & Jiménez, Ángel & González, Celina & López, Ignacio, 2013. "Quantitative analysis of potential power production and environmental benefits of Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycles in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 63-75.
    20. Bello, S. & Reiner, 2024. "Experience Curves for Electrolysis Technologies," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2476, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:96:y:2012:i:c:p:387-392. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.