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: Yes, No, Not Given ID: #57831 Easy Yellow 2
Instructions ›
Do the following statements agree with the views of the writer?
YES if the statement agrees with the views of the writer
NO if the statement contradicts the views of the writer
NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this
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.

AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.

Question Focus: Writer opinion shown through positive evaluative language about Hubbert and ODAC following his work

Correct Answer: YES

Why this is correct: The writer clearly presents Hubbert as a respected and influential figure, calling him of legendary status. The fact that ODAC experts are chief among those using his methodology shows the writer agrees Hubbert has a high-profile reputation with them.

Passage Reference: 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. 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.

Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Context shift trap

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'legendary status' and 'emboldened a new generation of geologists' = Statement: 'high-profile reputation'

Tips: When a writer uses praise words like 'legendary', that signals agreement, not just a neutral fact.

Key Vocabulary:

  • legendary = very famous
  • emboldened = gave confidence

Question Focus: Missing writer opinion comparing oil with other energy sources

Correct Answer: NOT GIVEN

Passage Reference: 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.

Why this is correct: The writer says oil will eventually run out, but never compares oil with other energy sources. Because no comparison or opinion is given, the correct answer is NOT GIVEN.

Common Mistake: YES - Not Given trap

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'will run out some day' = Statement: 'likely to last longer'

Tips: If the statement adds a comparison that you cannot find in the passage, choose NOT GIVEN.

Key Vocabulary:

  • non-renewable = cannot be replaced
  • scarce = hard to find

Question Focus: Writer shows disagreement by presenting mainstream views that contradict the statement

Correct Answer: NO

Passage Reference: That sharply contradicts mainstream thinking. America's Geological Survey prepared an exhaustive study of oil depletion last year 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.

Why this is correct: The writer shows that mainstream geologists believe the peak is decades off, not this decade. This directly disagrees with the statement, so the answer is NO.

Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Contradiction trap

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'some decades off' = Statement: 'this decade'

Tips: For NO answers, always find clear opposing language like 'contradicts' or different time frames.

Key Vocabulary:

  • mainstream = most common
  • foresees = predicts

Question Focus: Numerical contradiction in writer-supported view

Correct Answer: NO

Passage Reference: 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.

Why this is correct: The writer states that current recovery is only 30-35%, not over 50%. Since the statement contradicts this, the correct answer is NO.

Common Mistake: YES - Time/tense trap

Paraphrasing: Passage: '30-35%' now and 'within a decade' = Statement: 'currently over 50 percent'

Tips: Check time words like 'currently' carefully. Future predictions are not the same as now.

Key Vocabulary:

  • recovery rates = amount taken out
  • within a decade = in ten years

Question Focus: Writer agrees by highlighting historical errors in Hubbert-style analysis

Correct Answer: YES

Passage Reference: He finds evidence of both bias and recurring errors, which suggests that methodological mistakes 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.

Why this is correct: The writer supports the view that history revealed mistakes in Hubbert-style methods. This shows agreement with the statement, so the answer is YES.

Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Partial truth trap

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'methodological mistakes' and 'faults forecasters' = Statement: 'principles were mistaken'

Tips: When the writer reports criticism and agrees with it, that usually signals YES.

Key Vocabulary:

  • methodological = related to methods
  • faults = criticises

General Tips:

  • YNNG tests the WRITER'S VIEW, not passage facts. If the passage states a fact without the writer commenting, that is NOT GIVEN for opinion.
  • YNNG statements follow passage order, so use the previous answer location to scan forward.
  • Look for opinion signal words like 'contradicts', 'faults', 'foolish', 'argues'.
  • Be careful with time words like 'currently', 'within a decade', or 'some decades off'.
  • Do not assume numbers or comparisons. If they are not stated clearly, choose NOT GIVEN.

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...