Look at the following statements (questions 36-40) and the list of people below.
Match each statement with correct person, A-E.
NB You may use any letter more than once.
Sunset for the Oil Business
The world is about to run out of oil. Or perhaps not. It depends whom you believe…
A. Members of the Department Analysis Centre (ODAC) recently met in London and presented technical data that support their grim forecast that the world is perilously close to running out of oil. Leading lights of this moment, including the geologists Colin Campbell, rejected rival views presented by American geological survey and the international energy agency that contradicted their findings. Dr Campbell even decried the amazing display of ignorance, denial and obfuscation by government, industry and academics on this topic.
B. So, is the oil really running out? The answer is easy: Yes. Nobody seriously disputes the notion that oil is, for all practical purposes, a non-renewable resource that will run out some day, be that years or decades away. The harder question is determining when precisely oil will begin to get scarce. And answering that question involves scaling Hubbert’s peak.
C. M. King Hubbert, a Shell geologist of legendary status among depletion experts, forecast in 1956 that oil production in the United States would peak in the early 1970s and then slowly decline, in something resembling a bell-shaped curve. At the time, his forecast was controversial, and many rubbished it. After 1970, however, empirical evidence proved him correct: oil production in America did indeed peak and has been in decline ever since.
D. Dr Hubbert’s analysis drew on the observation that oil production in a new area typically rises quickly at first, as the easiest and cheapest reserves are tapped. Over time, reservoirs age and go into decline, and so lifting oil becomes more expensive. Oil from that area then becomes less competitive in relation to other fuels, or to oil from other areas. As a result, production slows down and usually tapers off and declines. That, he argued, made for a bell-shaped curve.
E. His successful prediction has emboldened a new generation of geologists to apply his methodology on a global scale. Chief among them are the experts at ODAC, who worry that the global peak in production will come in the next decade. Dr Campbell used to argue that the peak should have come already; he now thinks it is just round the comer. A heavyweight has now joined this gloomy chorus. Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton University argues in a lively new book (“The View from Hubbert’s Peak”) that global oil production could peak as soon as 2004.
F. That sharply contradicts mainstream thinking. America’s Geological Survey prepared an exhaustive study of oil depletion last year (in part to rebut Dr Campbell’s arguments) that put the peak of production some decades off. The IEA has just weighed in with its new “World Energy Outlook”, which foresees enough oil to comfortably meet demand to 2020 from remaining reserves. Rene Dahan, one of ExxonMobil’s top managers, goes further: with an assurance characteristic of the world’s largest energy company, he insists that the world will be awash in oil for another 70 years.
G. Who is right? In making sense of these wildly opposing views, it is useful to look back at the pitiful history of oil forecasting. Doomsters have been predicting dry wells since the 1970s, but so far, the oil is still gushing. Nearly all the predictions for 2000 made after the 1970s oil shocks were far too pessimistic. America’s Department of Energy thought that oil would reach $150 a barrel (at 2000 prices); even Exxon predicted a price of $100.
H. Michael Lynch of DRI-WEFA, an economic consultancy, is one of the few oil forecasters who has got things generally right. In a new paper, Dr Lynch analyses those historical forecasts. He finds evidence of both bias and recurring errors, which suggests that methodological mistakes (rather than just poor data) were the problem. In particular, he faults forecasters who used Hubbert-style analysis for relying on fixed estimates of how much “ultimately recoverable” oil there really is below ground, in the industry’s jargon: that figure, he insists, is actually a dynamic one, as improvements in infrastructure, knowledge and technology raise the amount of oil which is recoverable.
I. That points to what will probably determine whether the pessimists or the optimists are right: technological innovation. The first camp tends to be dismissive of claims of forthcoming technological revolutions in such areas as deep-water drilling and enhanced recovery. Dr Deffeyes captures this end-of-technology mindset well. He argues that because the industry has already spent billions on technology development, it makes it difficult to ask today for new technology, as most of the wheels have already been invented.
J. Yet techno-optimists argue that the technological revolution in oil has only just begun. Average recovery rates (how much of the known oil in a reservoir can actually be brought to the surface) are still only around 30-35%. Industry optimists believe that new techniques on the drawing board today could lift that figure to 50-60% within a decade.
K. Given the industry’s astonishing track record of innovation, it may be foolish to bet against it. That is the result of adversity: the nationalisations of the 1970s forced Big Oil to develop reserves in expensive, inaccessible places such as the North Sea and Alaska, undermining Dr Hubbert’s assumption that cheap reserves are developed first. The resulting upstream investments have driven down the cost of finding and developing wells over the last two decades from over $20 a barrel to around $6 a barrel. The cost of producing oil has fallen by half, to under $4 a barrel.
L. Such miracles will not come cheap, however, since much of the world’s oil is now produced in ageing fields that are rapidly declining. The IEA concludes that global oil production need not peak in the next two decades if the necessary investments are made. So how much is necessary? If oil companies are to replace the output lost at those ageing fields and meet the world’s ever-rising demand for oil, the agency reckons they must invest $ 1 trillion in non-OPEC countries over the next decade alone. That’s quite a figure.
| A | B | C | D | E | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | has found fault in geological research procedure | |||||
| 2 | has provided the longest-range forecast regarding oil supply | |||||
| 3 | has convinced others that oil production will follow a particular model | |||||
| 4 | has accused fellow scientists of refusing to see the truth | |||||
| 5 | has expressed doubt over whether improved methods of extracting oil are possible |
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Question Focus: Criticising methods used by geologists - looking for words about mistakes or bias in forecasting methods
Why this is correct: The answer is Michael Lynch because he clearly criticises how oil forecasts were made. He says the problem was methodological mistakes, meaning the research procedure itself was faulty.
Passage Reference: Michael Lynch of DRI-WEFA, an economic consultancy, is one of the few oil forecasters who has got things generally right. In a new paper, Dr Lynch analyses those historical forecasts. He finds evidence of both bias and recurring errors, which suggests that methodological mistakes (rather than just poor data) were the problem.
Common Mistake: Students sometimes choose King Hubbert because his model is discussed a lot. This is a Context shift trap - Hubbert created a model, but he is not criticising research methods.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'methodological mistakes' = Statement: 'found fault in research procedure'
Tips: When a statement says 'found fault', scan for negative language like 'mistakes', 'errors', or 'bias'.
Key Vocabulary:
- methodological = related to methods
- bias = unfair influence
Question Focus: Comparing time spans in predictions - looking for the furthest future date
Passage Reference: Rene Dahan, one of ExxonMobil's top managers, goes further: with an assurance characteristic of the world's largest energy company, he insists that the world will be awash in oil for another 70 years. G.
Why this is correct: The answer is Rene Dahan because he predicts oil will last another 70 years, which is much longer than all other forecasts mentioned in the passage.
Common Mistake: Some students choose Kenneth Deffeyes because he gives a clear date. This is a Time/tense trap - his forecast is very soon, not long-range.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'another 70 years' = Statement: 'longest-range forecast'
Tips: For 'longest' questions, always compare numbers, years, or time expressions carefully.
Key Vocabulary:
- awash = full of
- forecast = prediction
Question Focus: Influencing others - proving a theory or model correct
Passage Reference: After 1970, however, empirical evidence proved him correct: oil production in America did indeed peak and has been in decline ever since. D.
Why this is correct: The answer is King Hubbert because his prediction about a bell-shaped curve was later proven correct. This evidence convinced others to accept his model of oil production.
Common Mistake: Students may choose Colin Campbell because he supports Hubbert's ideas. This is a Wrong section trap - Campbell applies the model, but Hubbert created and proved it.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'proved him correct' = Statement: 'convinced others'
Tips: Look for phrases showing acceptance or proof, like 'proved correct' or 'emboldened others'.
Key Vocabulary:
- empirical = based on real evidence
- curve = pattern or shape
Question Focus: Strong criticism of others - emotional or accusatory language
Passage Reference: Dr Campbell even decried the amazing display of ignorance, denial and obfuscation by government, industry and academics on this topic. B.
Why this is correct: The answer is Colin Campbell because he accuses others of ignorance, denial and obfuscation, which clearly means refusing to accept the truth.
Common Mistake: Some students choose Michael Lynch because he criticises forecasts. This is a Tone trap - Lynch is analytical, while Campbell uses strong accusations.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'ignorance, denial and obfuscation' = Statement: 'refusing to see the truth'
Tips: Pay attention to emotional language. Strong accusations usually signal answers like this.
Key Vocabulary:
- decried = strongly criticised
- obfuscation = deliberate confusion
Question Focus: Scepticism about future technology - negative attitude to innovation
Passage Reference: Dr Deffeyes captures this end-of-technology mindset well. He argues that because the industry has already spent billions on technology development, it makes it difficult to ask today for new technology, as most of the wheels have already been invented. J.
Why this is correct: The answer is Kenneth Deffeyes because he suggests that new technology is unlikely. Saying most of the wheels have already been invented shows doubt about improved extraction methods.
Common Mistake: Students sometimes choose Michael Lynch because he talks about technology. This is a Paraphrase trap - Lynch believes technology can improve recovery, Deffeyes does not.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'most of the wheels have already been invented' = Statement: 'doubt improved methods are possible'
Tips: When you see 'expressed doubt', look for sceptical or negative phrases about the future.
Key Vocabulary:
- mindset = way of thinking
- extracting = taking out
General Tips:
- Matching Features can jump around the passage - do not assume the answers follow paragraph order.
- Scan for names first, then read only the sentences around each name carefully.
- Options CAN be used more than once - never cross a name off after using it once.
- Strong opinions often use emotional or critical words - these help you match attitude questions.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation