From Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News:
More bad news for “peak oil†enthusiasts  those wishful thinkers and doomsday peddlers who say the world is running out of oil. BP’s annual “Statistical Review of World Energy†shows “proved oil reserves continue to exceed 1.2 trillion barrels, equivalent to current production levels for more than 40 years.â€Â
If that’s not long enough for you, consider this: “Global proved oil and natural gas reserves thus have been on an increasing trend since 1980, when our data set begins. . . . there is no global scarcity of hydrocarbon reserves.â€Â
But is that condition likely to endure, given the demands of world economic growth? “The history of our industry is that technology and innovation win out over depletion,†Mark Finley, head of energy analysis for BP, told me last week.
BP is hardly a blinkered industry cheerleader that can’t see the big picture. The big picture and the long view are among its specialties (it has been producing the highly respected statistical review for 56 years). Moreover, the company’s assessment parallels that of experts such as Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, who has been similarly dismissive of the idea that the world is running out of oil.
There is a finite amount of oil, of course. But if the world abandons fossil fuels sometime this century, it is more likely to be the result of deliberate choice as opposed to necessity.
And we are certainly free to make that choice — there are, after all, plenty of reasonable arguments to be made for breaking ourselves of our dependency on fossil fuels — but we shouldn’t forget that without fossil fuels, we would never have seen the kind of advancements in industry and technology that have led to longer lifespans, greater productivity, and more wealth, the ingredients necessary for creating conditions under which we have the luxury to concentrate on environmental concerns.
The question becomes, then, are we willing, in lieu of finding an abundant and cheap alternative to fossil fuel (I hold little hope for ethanol, and I doubt cars can ever be made to run on solar or wind power), to trade the advantages of fossil fuels (readily available and relatively inexpensive) for the advantages of renouncing them, or even taxing them directly (which is a far more upfront way to raise the question than to pass the burden to automakers under the guise of increased CAFE standards, and then have the automakers pass that burden on to the consumer by wife of price increases and a decrease in standards of safety as the cars become increasingly lighter).
It may well be that society decides voluntarily to cut out fossil fuel use in response to climate change alarmism. But in so doing, it should recognize that such a decision is likely to have quite a trickle down effect, not the least of which could be a reduction in the creation of wealth that has allowed us to devise methods for finding ways to burn fuel more cleanly.
Personally, I say the sooner we run out of oil, the better. Crude oil was never more than a transitional power source, and an icky one at that (just like the whale oil that came before it). But we run out when we run out and we will develop and embrace its replacement when economics decrees it. And not a moment sooner, no matter what the mandarins of our civilization demand.
America will never run out of oil. Except maybe if we like drilled for it.
Jeff, why do you hate the Earth?
Your arguement makes mucho sense.
But, the purpose of the hard corps green movement isn’t ecology for ecologys sake; it’s purpose is to advance Marxism stealthily via Big Government using the canard of ever impending environmental crisis.
Yergin’s book on the history of oil is really pretty good.
If you’re a conspiracy theorist you’ll find a lot of new names and acronyms in it. Or you could just rent “Shooter” and sit through a mildly entertaining action movie with a political message that’s just a tiny bit more pronounced than the last three Midnight Oil albumns.
Hey, we’re back to oil. See!
But ethanol’s good for Tom Harkin!
Tim, as the man said “The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of Stones. There’s still plenty of Coal out there, but Oil and Gas has taken over most of it’s usage.
At the beginning of the last century the biggest forseeable environmental problem might have been “What do we do with all the horse shit if the population keeps growing and they all want horses.”
I have no idea what the next big thing in energy or transport will be – maybe we’ll learn how to fiddle with gravity and I can finally get my flying car – but I doubt it will wait around patiently for the oil to run out.
The only upside of this madness is our reducing paying vast sums of money to the folks who’s primary mission in life seems to be either killing or converting all of us infidels , oddly enough , with our own money …… other than that , what a load of crap .
There is significant evidence that we will never run out of oil, because it is constantly being replenished from deep under the Earth, between the mantle and the crust.
It is undeniable that oil fields around the world thought depleted have been refilling, so at the very least there are unaccounted for reserves deep under the surface.
Ric is not sold on that theory and he’s super smart.
Two problems.
Peak and declining production; a 1,000 squillion trillion barrel reserve at 1 bpd is of no use to anyone. It’s too early to tell if we have peaked, although production looks flat for the past three years. Demand increases 50% by 2025. Big energy shortfall. Reserves last 40 years, or beyond if production enters a terminal decline.
Or; production increases to match demand. Oil reserves expire with a bang in much less than 40 years.
Jevon’s paradox; technology increases efficiency which increases demand.
BP statistical review is based on reported reserves, which are known to be fiddled, and strongly suspected of being grossly inflated by ME producers. A more telling picture is cumulative wildcats versus total discoveries; there’s not much left out there to find, for well known geologic and technological reasons.
Either which way, an energy shortfall is iminent, which nuclear power is the only technology which comes close to replacing.
Jeff;
The technology which replaces fossil fuels is wealth, so is a clean environment.
Higher fuel prices add incentive.
The energy which we use to develop technology is rapidly expiring, in part because it is so damn cheap.
The article;
Why didn’t he just say 40 and a half years?
For the lifeblood of civilization?
Forty years? (and a half)
40 yrs of oil! Woo hoo! That means we boomers never have to stop driving!
Ever!!!
If I know that bitch Gaea (and she sure has fucked with me enough to), she’s waiting till we run out of oil to start the next ice age. Gonna be popsicles and momsicles, oh yeah.
There is a finite amount of oil, of course.
Of course, but the only basis for this asserion is the unassailable observation that the earth itself is a finite place. As Gahrie mentioned, there is some evidence to indicate that the supply of oil may not have any practial limits.
After all, there is a finite amount of milk on the planet also.
A skeptical view of abiotic oil. — in any case, there appears to be no significant impact on production or reserves.
Lazar:
Regardless of whether oil is produced abiotically or not, it is undeniable that fields previously considered depleted have refilled, and with oil chemically different from the oil previously pumped from those wells. We don’t know where this oil is coming from, so we don’t know how much there is. The supply could be infinite, or it could only extend our supplies for five years, we just don’t know.
What we do know, is that every prediction about peak oil up to now has been completely wrong.
I don’t think BP is likely to come out and spike their stock with gloomy predictions regardless. Which is not to say that we are running out of oil, but the whole energy picture is complicated. Such as refining capacity–we don’t have enough of it, which is partially the fault of environmental blowhards, but also because nobody (or few enough) wants a refinery in their backyard.
The primary argument of peak-oilers such as Kunstler is that suburban sprawl and easy-motoring is not sustainable long-term. It’s likely everything will work out fine, no tragedy or drama required, but he’s not without a point. My old neighborhood was built under the easy-motoring model. It’s not that things were too far apart that walking or biking wasn’t an option, but that no effort was made to facilitate those options. Doing either would mean risking your life on a narrow unpaved shoulder. So not only were people driving everywhere–increasing traffic problems, and requiring ever more public works to fix them–they had no other viable option.
Also: the comment form defaulted to the name “happyfeet” for me. I doubt that’s intentional.
That just means happyfeet was on your computer before you. Stalked much?
I’m sure it’s nothing to worry about. Unless you start seeing “Dan Collins” as the default.
If BP knowingly releases false numbers, there are some severe securities regulation penalties and in today’s regulatory atmosphere, they know it.
Wait a minute. Are you talking about our super smart Ric, or that other Ric who thinks he’s super smart because of…um…tenure or something?
Our Ric. He did a completely on-topic thorough discussion of abiotic oil at one point. I don’t think we can search comments… I tried to go back and find. No luck.
Rho – I saw the other day that a comment about real arcane stuff about exploding things was posted as “happyfeet.” So something kooky is going on, and unless you’re the one who has the scary splosions knowledge, then it’s not been just a problem for you.
I like the one about oil being produced when carbon-laden sediments are dragged under the edges of crustal plates. That implies that our best play for oil is to make large compost piles in oceanic trenches.
There’s a company called Global Resources Corporation that has developed a very clever technology that uses microwaves to “crack” hydrocarbons. Not only can this be used to recycle plastics and other hydrocarbon waste streams into oil, lubricants and natural gas, but GRC claims that the technology can also be used to extract oil from wells that no longer produce because the crude is too viscous, as well as oil from shale and tar sands.
It could be vaporware, but the science seems sound, there is a significant net energy gain, and they are starting to sell commercial units.
http://www.globalresourcecorp.com/
“There is significant evidence that we will never run out of oil, because it is constantly being replenished from deep under the Earth, between the mantle and the crust. ”
Where is the area between the mantle and the crust replenished from?
Do people think that the earth is producing more oil than we are using? If not, of course there will one day be a peak. Its just a matter of when, and what the price will be to extract it.
“or even taxing them directly (which is a far more upfront way to raise the question than to pass the burden to automakers under the guise of increased CAFE standards, and then have the automakers pass that burden on to the consumer by wife of price increases and a decrease in standards of safety as the cars become increasingly lighter)”
It may be upfront, but it’s also unlikely to help conservation as much as CAFE per dollar cost, due to price inelasticity.
…and whether that price is higher (yet!) than the price of replacing oil with some other energy source.
See, the reason we’re still using oil is because even now it’s still cheaper, per energy unit, than anything else.
When that changes, other things will change. Not before, not because of dire predictions of “only five more years’ worth left!”
You know, I always wondered about that. There are rural communities that volunteer for Supermax prisons to be built nearby, for the job creation. I’m guessing even low-level, low-skill workers at a refinery make more than prison guards, without the risk of being showered daily by feces thrown by prisoners. And that’s on good days.
I wonder if the issue is more environmental regulations making it cost-prohibitive and too risky for refiners to build new facilities.
I think most people would actually love to have a refinery in their backyard. The property adjacent to their backyard? Not so much.
Don’t worry guys, I have good news. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/
See? Not a problem. We just keep finding more.
On a side note, I work in oil and gas and I don’t exactly worry for my working future because people forget that petroleum is used in more than just fuel. All that polyeurothane and the like comes from oil as well.
However, if you guys can give up the ethanol dream, which is making beer cost more btw, and accept that solar power is the best long term solution I’m fine with that. I think that the sooner humanity realizes that the most abundant energy source has been solar since life on earth was just photosynthetic bacteria then the sooner we can realize that we need to spend our time using the free energy in our system to do work.
Until then, I loves me some $70 oil. Well, that and taunting eco-hippies.
I have often used the sun to fuel mid-day trysts. I find it works best when coupled with daiquiries and a lot of flattery.
Funny thing about all that free solar energy, it doesn’t seem to have caught on. Maybe the expense and dirtiness of the solar-cell manufacturing process has unfairly taken the bloom off that rose?
FWIW, I am of the opinion that nuclear power would give petroleum a run for its money, if its cost weren’t inflated by politics and general public ignorance/paranoia.
Percy,
You can’t site a refinery just anywhere due to logistical concerns. Most refineries have to be near large terminaling or pipeline facilities – where tankers can offload crude to be cracked into its components (incl gasoline). Those need by definition to be near a large body of water, preferably coastal because the super-tankers are still the most cost effective way to move the texas tea. So that limits the number of locations where refineries can be built.
Whereas the west and east coasts have driven off projects due to the significant and active green lobby, it left most of the gulf coast as the viable location for years. With Florida also deemed off limits lately, that has left TX and LA as the biggest cluster of refining and pipelining capacity in the US. Hurricane alley! Go figure … we can thank the green lobby for that bullshit all day long.
Even with the economics skewing production to be high priced … heres a nice tidbit to drop on the eco-hippy braying about high energy costs. 1 barrel of crude = $72.50 (today) at 42 gals per gallon = $1.73/Gallon – can u buy a gallon of non-fat latte at Starbuks for that price? How about Evian? Thats what drives the left nuts – its so fucking cheap and all they can come up with is “peak oil” to address that issue?
Its cheap.
No its not!
Yes it is!
Well it won’t be! BECAUSE OF THE DINOSAURS!
OldTexasTurkey, thanks for the quick primer. I learn something new everyday. (I could have sworn, however, that the Wall Street Journal recently did an article about a major refining complex being planned for South Dakota, of all places.)
Question (and if it’s a dumb one, I apologize): would the Great Lakes region be viable? Obviously you’d have to transfer the oil from supertankers at sea to smaller vessels to ferry it through the lakes, adding not inconsiderable time and expense to the process.
But goodness knows Michigan could use the business, and the old steel mill area around Gary (Indiana) could stand for some economic development. (Forget Illinois and Wisconsin, due to ecoweenies.)
Then again, the issue of pre-existing pipelines and overland transport comes up. So I guess we’re screwed, aren’t we?
omment by Percy Dovetonsils on 7/6 @ 7:12 am #
I wonder if the issue is more environmental regulations making it cost-prohibitive and too risky for refiners to build new facilities.
You got it.
Discoveries trailed production every year since 1985, and the deficit is now twenty billion barrels per year.
That discovery don’t look like too much…
… and as the original article noted, that was a large discovery.
See. What ya need ,Lazar,is a car that runs on good intentions. Or skittles.
But wouldn’t that drive us to hell?