Sunset For The Oil Business - IELTS Reading Answers & Explanations
From IELTS Past Papers Academic Reading Test 24 · Part 3 · Questions 27–40
Reading Passage
Read the text below and answer questions 27-40.
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. René 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.
Questions
Questions 27–31 Yes / No / Not Given
Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in Reading Passage 3?
YES if the statement agrees with the information
NO if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this
Questions 32–35 Note Completion
Complete the notes below
Choose ONE WORD ONLY from the passage for each answer.
Many people believed Hubbert's theory was 32 when it was originally presented.
When an oilfield is 33, it is easy to rise.
The recovery of the oil gets more 34 as the reservoir gets older
The oilfield can't be as 35 as other area.
Questions 36–40 Matching Features
Look at the following statements (questions 36-40) and the of people below.
Match each statement with correct person, A-E.
NB: You may use any letter more than once.
A. Colin Campbell
B. M. King Hubbert
C. Kenneth Deffeyes
D. Rene Dahan
E. Michael Lynch
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q27 | YES | M. King Hubbert, a Shell geologist of legendary status among depletion experts 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 |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that M. King Hubbert has a famous, legendary name among experts who study oil supply limits. It also shows that the scientists at ODAC are the main group following his methods and ideas. Answer Explanation: The answer "YES" means that the statement is true and matches what is written in the text. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "YES" because the text shows that M. King Hubbert is extremely famous and respected among experts who study oil depletion, including the members of ODAC. In Paragraph C, the author refers to Hubbert as having "legendary status among depletion experts," which corresponds to having a "high-profile reputation." Then, in Paragraph E, the passage explains that a new group of geologists uses Hubbert's method, noting that "Chief among them are the experts at ODAC." Therefore, the statement completely agrees with the passage. |
| Q28 | NOT GIVEN | 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that everyone agrees oil will run out one day in the future, but it does not say whether oil will last longer than any other sources of energy. Answer Explanation: The answer "NOT GIVEN" means that the text does not provide enough information to know whether oil will last longer than other types of energy. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NOT GIVEN because while the text explains that oil is a non-renewable resource that will eventually run out, it never compares the lifespan of oil supplies with other energy sources. |
| Q29 | NO | 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that predicting an immediate oil peak goes against common, widely accepted beliefs (mainstream thinking), because official geological studies show that the peak of oil production is still many decades away. Answer Explanation: The answer "NO" means the statement is false according to the text; most geologists do not believe that oil will start to run out during this decade. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "NO" because Paragraph F states that the view of oil peaking in the near future "sharply contradicts mainstream thinking." The mainstream view (what the majority believes), represented by major research such as the study from America's Geological Survey, places the peak of oil production "some decades off" rather than within this decade. |
| Q30 | NO | 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% | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that people can presently take out only about 30% to 35% of the oil known to be in an oil field, not more than 50%. Answer Explanation: The answer "NO" means that the statement directly contradicts the facts given in the text. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NO because the text explains that the current average recovery rate—meaning the amount of known oil successfully brought out of a reservoir—is only around 30% to 35%. This directly contradicts the claim in the statement that more than 50% of known oil is currently being recovered (which is only a potential future target of 50-60% within a decade). |
| Q31 | YES | 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that past events in the 1970s forced oil companies to drill in costly and hard-to-reach locations first, which proved that Dr. Hubbert was wrong to assume that cheap oil reserves are always used before expensive ones. Answer Explanation: The answer "YES" means that the text agrees with the statement that past events have proven some of Hubbert's ideas or assumptions to be wrong. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is YES because Paragraph K mentions that past events (the nationalisations of the 1970s) forced oil companies to extract oil from difficult and expensive areas first. This historical development went against and weakened Hubbert's idea, specifically "undermining Dr Hubbert's assumption that cheap reserves are developed first." Therefore, history has shown that at least one of his core assumptions or principles was incorrect. |
| Q32 | controverial | At the time, his forecast was controversial, and many rubbished it | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that when Hubbert first made his prediction about oil production, people argued about it and many dismissed his idea. Answer Explanation: The answer refers to something causing a lot of public disagreement and discussion because people hold strongly opposing views about it. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by Paragraph C, which discusses how people reacted to Hubbert's initial prediction. The text states that when Hubbert first presented his forecast in 1956 ("at the time"), it was "controversial" and many people rejected or criticized it. |
| Q33 | tapped / new | 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that when oil companies start working in a new area, extracting oil is easiest and lowest in cost because the simplest oil supplies are accessed first. Answer Explanation: The answer refers to an oil reserve or oilfield being opened up, accessed, or newly used to take oil out. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by paragraph D, which explains that at the beginning of oil production in a new location, getting oil out is at its easiest and cheapest when these oil reserves are first opened up and accessed (or "tapped"). |
| Q34 | expensive | Over time, reservoirs age and go into decline, and so lifting oil becomes more expensive | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that when oil fields grow older and oil amounts decrease, taking the oil out of the ground costs more money. Answer Explanation: The answer "expensive" means costing a lot of money. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "expensive" because the text explains what happens as oil reservoirs get older. In paragraph D, it mentions that over time, as reservoirs age, "lifting oil" (which refers to the recovery of oil) "becomes more expensive". Therefore, "expensive" is the exact single word that fits the note. |
| Q35 | competitive | Oil from that area then becomes less competitive in relation to other fuels, or to oil from other areas | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage means that as an oil area gets older and costs more to pump, its oil cannot compete as well with fuels or oil produced in different regions. Answer Explanation: The answer "competitive" means able to be as successful, cheap, or appealing as others in the market. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "competitive" because the passage explains what happens as oil fields grow older. In paragraph D, it mentions that when reservoirs age, getting the oil out becomes more costly. Because of this higher cost, oil from that specific location becomes "less competitive" compared to oil coming from other locations. Therefore, the field cannot be as competitive as other areas. |
| Q36 | E | 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that Dr Lynch discovered repeated mistakes in the methods researchers used to predict oil limits, and he criticized them for using fixed numbers instead of accounting for changing technology. Answer Explanation: The answer E corresponds to Michael Lynch, who identified flaws and errors in the methods used in geological forecasts. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is E because paragraph H discusses Michael Lynch's review of past oil forecasts. The text mentions that he found "methodological mistakes" and specifically "faults forecasters who used Hubbert-style analysis." Here, finding "fault" and noting "methodological mistakes" directly match the question's phrase "has found fault in geological research procedure." |
| Q37 | D | René 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that René Dahan firmly believes the world will have plenty of oil for the next 70 years. Answer Explanation: The answer "D" means René Dahan made a prediction about the oil supply that reaches furthest into the future. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is D because Paragraph F explains that René Dahan of ExxonMobil predicted that "the world will be awash in oil for another 70 years." A timeframe of 70 years is far longer than the predictions made by the other experts mentioned in the text (such as Campbell, Hubbert, or Deffeyes, who predicted peaks occurring within a few years or decades). Therefore, René Dahan provided the longest-range forecast. |
| Q38 | B | His successful prediction has emboldened a new generation of geologists to apply his methodology on a global scale | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that Hubbert's correct prediction gave newer geologists the confidence to use his specific method and model around the world. Answer Explanation: The answer B refers to M. King Hubbert. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is B because Paragraph E explains that M. King Hubbert's accurate forecast inspired and convinced other geologists to use his model and method to predict oil production worldwide. In the text, the phrase "emboldened a new generation of geologists to apply his methodology" matches the idea of having "convinced others that oil production will follow a particular model". |
| Q39 | A | Dr. Campbell even decried the amazing display of ignorance, denial and obfuscation by government, industry and academics on this topic | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that Dr. Campbell openly criticized people in universities, government, and business for ignoring the facts and refusing to accept the truth about oil running out. Answer Explanation: The answer "A" refers to Colin Campbell. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is A because the text states in paragraph A that Dr. Colin Campbell strongly criticized or condemned ("decried") the widespread "ignorance, denial and obfuscation" shown by "academics" (fellow researchers and scientists), government, and industry on the issue of depleting oil reserves. In this context, "decried" corresponds to "accused", "academics" corresponds to "fellow scientists", and "denial and obfuscation" corresponds to "refusing to see the truth". |
| Q40 | C | 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that Dr. Deffeyes believes most important technologies have already been created, so expecting new technology to extract oil is unrealistic and unlikely. Answer Explanation: The answer C refers to Kenneth Deffeyes, who questioned if it is possible to create new or better technology to get more oil out of the ground. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is C because Paragraph I describes Dr. Deffeyes as having an "end-of-technology mindset." He argues that so much money has already been spent on technology that almost everything useful has already been invented, meaning he doubts that significant new extraction methods will be developed. In this context, "ask today for new technology, as most of the wheels have already been invented" matches the idea of expressing doubt over whether improved methods are possible. |
