Loading question...
You are in free guest mode. Timed Practice Revision List Attempt History Progress Tracking Create a free account to unlock these tools
Prev Next
IELTS Practice Reading: Note/Summary Completion ID: #57832 Easy Yellow 8
Instructions ›

Complete the notes below

Choose ONE WORD ONLY from the passage for each answer. 

Tap any word for its meaning

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.

4 blanks 1 word max

Many people believed Hubbert’s theory was  when it was original presented.

When an oil field is , it is easy to be tapped.

The recovery of the oil gets more  as the reservoir gets older.

The oil field can’t be as  as other area.

AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.

Question Focus: Synonym match - the note says 'believed Hubbert's theory was ...' and the passage describes the reaction when it was first presented

Correct Answer: controversial

Why this is correct: The passage says that when Hubbert made his forecast, it was controversial and many people criticised it. The note paraphrases this idea as "many people believed Hubbert's theory was ..." so the same word fits perfectly.

Passage Reference: At the time, his forecast was controversial, and many rubbished it.

Common Mistake: Some students write wrong or unpopular, but those words do not appear in the passage. You MUST copy the exact word from the text. This is a synonym trap.

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'his forecast was controversial' = Summary: 'Hubbert's theory was [GAP]'

Tips: When the summary uses past tense like "was", scan the passage for past descriptions of opinions or reactions.

Key Vocabulary:

  • controversial = causing disagreement
  • forecast = prediction

Question Focus: Synonym match - the note describes the early stage of an oil field

Correct Answer: new

Passage Reference: 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.

Why this is correct: The passage explains that oil production rises quickly in a new area because the easiest reserves are tapped first. The note says "When an oil field is ___, it is easy to be tapped", which matches new.

Common Mistake: Students sometimes write young or early, but these words are not used in the passage. You must copy new exactly. This is a synonym trap.

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'oil production in a new area typically rises quickly' = Summary: 'When an oil field is [GAP], it is easy to be tapped'

Tips: Look for descriptions of stages like first, early, or new when the note talks about beginnings.

Key Vocabulary:

  • tapped = extracted
  • reserves = stored supply

Question Focus: Synonym match - the note describes increasing difficulty as the reservoir ages

Correct Answer: expensive

Passage Reference: Over time, reservoirs age and go into decline, and so lifting oil becomes more expensive.

Why this is correct: The passage clearly states that as reservoirs age, lifting oil becomes more expensive. The note paraphrases this as "The recovery of the oil gets more ___ as the reservoir gets older".

Common Mistake: Some students write difficult or costly, but those are not the exact words used. This is a synonym trap.

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'lifting oil becomes more expensive' = Summary: 'recovery of the oil gets more [GAP]'

Tips: When you see "gets more", expect a comparative adjective taken directly from the passage.

Key Vocabulary:

  • reservoir = underground oil store
  • expensive = costing more money

Question Focus: Synonym match - the note compares one oil field with others

Correct Answer: competitive

Passage Reference: Oil from that area then becomes less competitive in relation to other fuels, or to oil from other areas.

Why this is correct: The passage says oil from an ageing area becomes less competitive compared to other fuels or areas. The note says "The oil field can't be as ___ as other area", which matches competitive.

Common Mistake: Students sometimes add less or write cheap, but the gap already includes "can't be as". Adding extra words breaks grammar. This is a grammar trap.

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'becomes less competitive in relation to other fuels or areas' = Summary: 'can't be as [GAP] as other area'

Tips: Pay attention to grammar clues like "as ... as" so you do not add extra words.

Key Vocabulary:

  • competitive = able to compete
  • relation = comparison

General Tips:

  • Summary completion questions follow passage order. Use the answer to GAP 1 to help you find GAP 2 by scanning forward.
  • Always copy the exact word from the passage. Synonyms are usually wrong in IELTS Reading.
  • Check grammar carefully. Words like "is", "gets more", and "as ... as" tell you what form you need.
  • Respect the word limit. Even one extra word makes the answer wrong.
  • Spend no more than about 90 seconds per question to manage your time across all 40 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

With a free account: Retry and compare every attempt.
Be the first! No community answers here yet. Submit yours and help others learn.
Saving...