Today only 35 percent of the oil in the average oil field is recovered, meaning that about two thirds of the oil in known fields remains underground. That resource is rarely mentioned in the debate on the future of oil.
—Leonardo Maugeri, “Squeezing More Oil From the Ground” (Scientific American, Oct 2009)
That’s because the energy cost fo extracting it would be more than one barrel of oil burned for every barrel extracted. It’s there, but it’s utterly irrelvent to the debate on oil because extracting it would be worse than pointless – it would be wastefull.
Thank you, Custador, I was coming here to say that very thing. This sequestered oil is even worse in terms of efficiency and potential environmental degradation than the tar sands projects that blight my province. Production cost – in terms of capital, energy input, and carbon emissions, is something very few people consider when discussing oil reserves. I’d like to see public knowledge approach the realization that there’s a VAST discrepancy between the oil that exists, and the oil we can use effectively.
What we can use efficiently changes. We keep finding better ways of extracting things. Now, it may be that we’ve hit our limit on efficiency, and if that’s the case then we’re probably nearing peak oil. I doubt that’s the case personally, but it’s not something we can know. We keep thinking we are nearing peak oil, and those predictions have always turned out wrong. Humans are pretty ingenious when it comes to getting that black stuff out of the ground.
However, we do know one thing for sure — eventually the oil wlll run out, and we need to think of how to use oil in the least polluting way possible.
I did have a debate on an environmental forum once with a guy who thought that we couldn’t possible extract oil faster than the Earth “produced” it… Want to guess where that particular child was left behind? I know I have the odd pop about America, but there does seem to be a spreading of willful environmental ignorance over there!
I predict this post will be a “hit”. Thanks for starting the discussion. It is relevant to this blog because the impacts of limited energy are going to be very, very painful — apocalyptic even. You think the teabaggers / religious wackjobs are stirred up now? Just wait…
That may or may not be true, but it’s also beside the point. The question is not, “how much oil is there in the planet,” but “how much of the oil is it economically feasible to pump?”
I think it’s reasonable to assume that we’ve been exploiting the easiest oil to retrieve, expanding to more difficult deposits as we’ve progressed. Eventually we’ll reach a point where it costs more calories of energy to retrieve and process a barrel of oil than that barrel will actually produce. At that point, if we’re sane, the pumping will mostly stop.
Of course, new technologies will continue to change the equation, but I for one don’t have a limitless amount of faith in human ingenuity. I suspect that there are limits to what we can do, and eventually our ability to improve the oil-drilling process will run out.
Dammit, I gotta learn to write shorter comments, so folks like Custador will stop beating me to the punch.
There is also the water cost to extracting that oil. New technologies are making it more feasible by using liquid CO2 and methane, but they still have a long way to go
The Global Warming issue brings a new variable into the equation.
This is good news. Now I can go buy a new truck.
And of course, that doesn’t change one iota the fact that it still pollutes…
The other 65% is Breeding Stock.
:)
Who says fossil fuels aren’t sustainable? We’ll breed more!
Of course, the question is not how much energy it costs to extract it. As it was put in Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri:
“Fossil fuels in the last century reached their extreme prices
because of their inherent utility: they pack a great deal of
potential energy into an extremely efficient package.”
You can spend more energy extracting it than is in it, but as long as that energy is more convenient in the form of fossil fuels than in the form you’re using to get the fossil fuels, it’s still worth extracting them. A nuclear-powered extractor, for instance, might be seen as a way to convert nuclear power into a portable form useful for long-haul vehicles.
I agree with the other commenters. Total amount of oil isn’t the issue so much as “amount of oil that can be cheaply extracted.” Plus, rising demand due to rapidly developing nations such as India and China. Sure, we will still be pumping oil out of the ground, just not at a rate that will be able to keep costs low. Simple supply-and-demand at work. Within five years expect the price at the pump to be double to quadruple today’s rates.
I figure we argue about religion, we argued about health care, so why not talk about oil? Soon I won’t have any readers left. :)
Future argument suggestions:
dogs vs. cats
Coke vs. Pepsi
Star Trek Original vs. Star Trek TNG
Apple vs. Microsoft
Daylight Savings Time vs. Standard Time
Rap vs. actual music
Just trying to help.
Apple vs. Microsoft
Linux is the clear choice for freethinkers.
Freethinkers with copious amounts of time on their hands, that is.
But hey, once you get it all working, then it’s almost as good as the commercial alternatives.
Actually I think linux is great for servers, and I use it on all the servers I manage. But since I get paid by the amount of billable hours I work, I would be poor if I used it as a desktop environment.
Pfft, infidels. The Way of the Penguin is the way to go.
[says the person with the Unix core wrapped in the pretty Apple of shiny and awesome]
I would use an apple if anyone bothered making games for them.
Ambrosia Software did a few good ones.
@Ty
Yes indeedy … games for Linux/MacOS erm … ?
Freeciv?
@Ty: ‘pends on the games you like. There’s plenty of them for MacOS. Now it’s Intel-based, the tendency is it’ll grow.
@Siberia
It will never happen until Apple lets loose the reigns on its OS. Once they allow consumers and developers to install the Mac OS on a non-Mac rig, we can start seeing a future for Mac gaming. But that won’t happen as long as Captain Steve is alive.
Problem that goes with that is if we ever see that day, the ivory tower will fall because the Mac OS will pick up a user base that virus makers will finally care to target.
@ Slurms:
I don’t think it’s Apple’s purpose to make general consumption products.
You’re right about the developers, though. However, afaik, Apple has been trying to encourage developers to release MacOS versions of their games at the same time as the Windows versions, and to encourage them to actually make MacOS versions… I don’t know how that effort is going, though.
Then again, the games that *I* like all have MacOS X versions, so there.
Some of these don’t need discussion. I mean, why would any rational person choose Pepsi over Coke?
“Rap vs. actual music”
What’s the “actual” in there for? Seems like a waste of letters to me.
Some of these don’t need discussion. I mean, why would any rational person choose Pepsi over Coke?
Word.
What’s the “actual” in there for? Seems like a waste of letters to me.
Sturgeon’s Law, man. You just haven’t listened to the right rap.
In fact, I’ve heard some rap that I thought was rather clever. Don’t ask me what. I heard it accidentally and didn’t pay that much attention.
If you drink Coke, you’re not a TrueAtheist™. Pepsi is official the Atheist’s Choice for Refreshment.
rAmen!
Infidel!
JIHAD!!!!1one!
Didn’t some nutjob muslims say that Pepsi means “Pay Every Penny to Save Israel”?
People who drink Pepsi also eat sugar straight out of the bowl.
Nothing that sweet can be good.
Also, Pepsi tastes terrible with Rum in it, while a good rum and Coke is the drink of the gods.
You have a typo. I think you meant “nothing that sweet can be bad.” :)
Blech.
For some of us, our palates matured beyond the tastes we had at five. Do you also eat Lucky Charms for breakfast? :)
Lucky Charms?!? No I grew past that a long time ago. Cap’n Crunch and Reese’s Puffs all the way!!!
Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries, FTW!!!!!1!!11!!!
Anything that sweet literally makes me gag.
Of course, I have a friend who can’t eat fruit, because any non-citrus fruit tastes like shampoo to her.
And a friend for whom all vegetable are impossibly bitter tasting.
I suspect that there is more variation in how we experience flavor than there is in that favorite of philosophy students, the perception of color.
I suspect you are entirely correct, sir.
Hey, don’t diss rap. Granted, a lot of the crap that passes for rap today might be…well, is pure, undiluted shite; however, don’t sleep on old school rap.
Oh, and Star Trek (no bloody T, O, or S) versus Next Generation? I gotta go with Captain Kirk–that space whore knew how to get things done!
Oh… but those christians aren’t TRUE christians. :)
I didn’t say the shite today wasn’t rap; I said it was shite.
Greydon Square (Atheist last I checked though he is bipolar)
boooo.
yeah I like pop-y new rap. I guess this is the part where I’m stoned to death?
Thirsty Creation Museum Guests Choose Coke
Pirates vs. Ninjas.
FSM is with pirates
Oh, why not? You’re all wrong!
Ok. Now you’ve stepped in it.
Oil and gas liquids have already peaked. It happened in 2005. The world output has declined since. IMO, the price of fossil fuel was the precipitating factor in the economic crash of 08.
I do understand the wishful thinking that’s out there. Fossil fuel is a component of just about everything we take for granted in our industrial society. So much so that it is unthinkable for most folks to do without it — bordering on despair.
Fortunately, some folks have been thinking and writing about it and I recommend the following sites:
http://www.energybulletin.net/ (a searchable compendium of science and opinion on energy issues)
http://www.peakoil.com/ (“memeorandum” for energy issues)
http://www.theoildrum.com/ (ongoing blog by industry professionals and scientists)
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches (Matt Simmons’ presentations — Simmons is an investment banker for the industry. Most of these are to the industry itself.)
And I’ve been reading this guy religiously since the late 90s: http://www.kunstler.com/
Kunstler is the author of “Geography of No Where”, “The Long Emergency” and “World Made by Hand” all of which I highly recommend. His every Monday blog “Clusterfuck Nation” on current energy and economic issues is always a must read.
So if world output of something decreases, we know supply has peaked for all time?
We don’t know enough to know if we’re running out or not. We don’t have enough data and what we have isn’t complete. We keep finding more oil pockets or that previously discovered pockets contain far more oil than we originally thought.
Seems to me we should keep an open mind about this and be skeptical of both sides.
The data are indisputable. I come from a Naval logistics / Nuc power background. I challenge you study up on this. IMO it is THE issue of our time. We are going to lurch from crisis to crisis until we make a concerted effort to get off fossil fuel. It will be painful nomatter what we do and more painful the longer we delay.
Let me put it this way:
The underlying assumption of capitalism is unending growth. We have all grown up with this assumption. But it’s only been true for about a 150 years or so — roughly equating to oil use. How do you think “markets” and investments would react if growth could no longer be assumed?
Fossil fuel is a major component of industrial scale agriculture. There is no substitute for fuel to drive the heavy machinery used. The major feedstock for chemical fertilizer is natural gas. What if natural gas wasn’t available? Do we heat or eat? At what price?
The underlying assumption of capitalism is unending growth.
No, the underlying assumption of capitalism is positive-sum exchange, facilitating efficient goods distribution through the price mechanism. No sane capitalist either in academia or in the real world that I can think of subscribes to this wild normative teleology of “unending growth”. Quite the contrary.
Glad you pointed that out. I started responding to that, but was’t able to say it so concisely and so gave up.
I’d really be surprised if any capitalist thought there was “unending growth” — such a thing isn’t possible. It’s the capitalist critics who claim that (I remember Wendell Berry saying that over and over until I actually believed it once).
Why do people invest? Because they expect a return on their investment. They have an expectation of “growth”.
Fossil fuel energy is embedded in every bit of the economy and the as-built environment (e.g., housing, which has been most of the economy lately). Throw in millions of boomers who are downshifting out of the economy or who can’t retire because of their investments, etc.
Now, how long do you think the capitalist system in it’s current form (which depends heavily on investment) would survive if there were a declining economic pie and little expectation of growth?
Not long, IMO.
One more thing:
Believe me, the Admirals I worked for get this and have for a long time. If you read one thing, this would be it. It’s a link to a transcript of a 1957 speech by Hyman Rickover, the “father” of the nuclear navy. An excerpt:
“…With high energy consumption goes a high standard of living. Thus the enormous fossil energy which we in this country control feeds machines which make each of us master of an army of mechanical slaves. Man’s muscle power is rated at 35 watts continuously, or one-twentieth horsepower. Machines therefore furnish every American industrial worker with energy equivalent to that of 244 men, while at least 2,000 men push his automobile along the road, and his family is supplied with 33 faithful household helpers. Each locomotive engineer controls energy equivalent to that of 100,000 men; each jet pilot of 700,000 men. Truly, the humblest American enjoys the services of more slaves than were once owned by the richest nobles, and lives better than most ancient kings. In retrospect, and despite wars, revolutions, and disasters, the hundred years just gone by may well seem like a Golden Age.
Whether this Golden Age will continue depends entirely upon our ability to keep energy supplies in balance with the needs of our growing population. Before I go into this question, let me review briefly the role of energy resources in the rise and fall of civilizations.
Possession of surplus energy is, of course, a requisite for any kind of civilization, for if man possesses merely the energy of his own muscles, he must expend all his strength – mental and physical – to obtain the bare necessities of life…”
Here: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151
“So if world output of something decreases, we know supply has peaked for all time?”
Good question. Whether production has peaked for good or not isn’t as much of a concern as the question “Can output keep up with rapidly growing worldwide demand?”
Still, if 35% of known oil has already been recovered (a very low estimate) since around 1850, it is safe to say that the “oil era” will be just a short blip on the overall human timeline.
I would agree with the general comments… even if we can get more oil out of the ground if we know it’s killing us should we really be doing it?
The scarity of resources is something that’s important. It’s easy to see for things like oil but many of the rare minerals and metals that we use to support modern technology have also begun to run low pushing us into the same extraction efficiency cycle. Breaking out of this cycle will require us to not only rethink our energy policies but many of our major resource policies.
Killing us? That’s one way to look at it. Another would be that the oil is what we create and ship all of our food with (or trucking the food to feed our food).
I’d say oil is keeping us alive far more than it’s killing us. That’s not to say global warming isn’t an issue — it is. I just don’t think it’s fair to only say that oil is killing us, when it’s the only thing that can keep all of us alive right now.
Right on!
If you google: peak indium gallium — what you’ll discover is that minerals required for things we know and love like computer chips and LCD screens are becoming very scarce.
We are already mining landfills and scraping the inside of smokestacks to recover some of this stuff.
We are already mining landfills and scraping the inside of smokestacks to recover some of this stuff.
Which already points the way to resource allocation in the future. When it comes to raw materials (except for energy-production materials) none of the material itself is actually consumed, and all that is required is energy to extract and reuse it once discarded. Somebody in the future is going to become very wealthy figuring out a cheap, efficient way to extract extract heavy metals (niobium, tantalum, indium, gallium, etc) from electronics waste.
What it’s ultimately going to come down to (resource management, that is) is efficient and clean energy production.
When can we get started on our Dyson sphere?
Unfortunately, Dyson Spheres are cool but impossible. A Dyson Swarm, on the other hand, might be fun… :)
How do you know it’s impossible? Have you ever built one? Where did you get your degree in stellar engineering from? Huh, Mr. Knows-so-much?
Magic man can make one.
Magic man can make one because it is soooo awesome!
I certainly hope you’re correct, and the sooner the better, Elemenope.
Double-bind: Either this oil is easily extracted, and will soon be used up (oil use is increasing exponentially, so if this trend continues, the remaining 65% of oil will be used up quickly) or the oil is not easily extracted and it is not a viable solution to imminent energy concerns.
Oil/Population/Water/Food/clean air (I know I’m missing a few others) The only thing thats going to save us from ourselves is a black plague type reduction of world population or nukes otherwise just enjoy your day. I’d say around 90% of people in the developed world are so disconnected from our planet they don’t even know what they need to sustain basic life. Plus the attitude that it’s a god given right to drive suburbans, fly off to Cancun, or drink corn syrup based beverages.
;)
Peak everything! (I’m only being a little fascetious)
You are right on — on the disconnected part. And it’s why I worry a lot about how we’ll handle the inevitable SHTF when folks realize the Rapture ain’t happening and no aliens from another planet have saved us from ourselves.
One of the problems is that we have been so fat, for so long. And this crisis, actually a series of crises, is happening in slow motion and people don’t connect the dots, i.e., “The Long Emergency” as in Kunstler’s book.
My understanding is that the sustainable number of humans on the planet without fossil fuel inputs to sustain industrial agriculture is about 500 million. Big painful delta…
It probably won’t happen during my lifetime, and I won’t be leaving progeny behind so it isn’t going to affect me personally, but I do kinda feel bad for the human race over the next hundred years or so. Painful period in our development coming. One are not entirely guaranteed to make it through to the other side.
No progeny myself, but are you leaving anytime soon Ty? It is going in slow motion but it appear to be picking up speed at least in this country and I think some major cracks could be showing in the next decade or so.
I live down the road from a gun range and I have an idea that the Rapture ready folks are planning… (plus the bunker like “church” I watched being built locally this past year) sheesh, I’m really not the cranky downer I sound like, really!
500 million seems incredibly low to me, not gonna lie.
Even barring a replacement for fossil fuel, with what we know about farming I’m reasonably certain that there is enough productive land to feed far more than that. Now, certainly far more people would have to live agrarian lives, and food transport would be incredibly limited. At the same time though, we have phenomenally good infrastructure.
Ancient Rome at its peak had over a million people living in it, without fossil fuels and using primarily man/livestock power. Using back of the envelope calculations (assuming for the sake of argument that Italy has about the average ratio of arable to non-arable land in a temperate zone where large communities are likely to live, and assuming that the land area of Italy will only be called upon to support one metropolis of one million people and outlying farms) there is indeed roughly enough land to support 500 million comfortably. *
But that’s using the technology of ancient Rome.
a) we have better infrastructure. Not by a vast margin, but we do.
b) we have pesticides.
c) we rotate crops
modern farming techniques aside, we have an even bigger advantage: non-fossil fuel machines. Yeah, right now, we don’t have them. But we know how to make them, and we (relatively) easily could. Even if we went to solar instead of nuclear power, chances are good we could sustain large farms with relatively few workers at a level of productivity on a scale comparable to today. (Or better. We can get more arable land, and actually use what we do have.)
That doesn’t even begin to cover gen-engineering crops…
*my back of the envelope math:
earth’s area: 510,072,000 sq km
divided by
Italy’s land area: 294,020 sq km
equals
1735
multiplied by a bit over 1 million-ish for the population of Rome, divided by 3 or 4 so that we aren’t growing food in the ocean. That comes out in the neighborhood of 500 million. Again, though, that doesn’t even take into consideration the increase in productivity from crop rotation.
Pesticides are made from fossil fuel. Lots of things are made from fossil fuel. Our progeny will be looking back schocked that we blew these great organic molecules — that you can make stuff from — out of a tail pipe!
What are most roads made of for transporting things like food — however we do that in the future (hint: besides aggregate, major component is fossil fuel)?
Ty is right, we probably aren’t going to lose all of this in our lifetimes, but it is happening and will be increasingly evident and painful. As it proceeds, some of us will do better than others… Let’s just say for now that our humanity will be tested.
Leaving all that aside, let’s increase the sustainability number by 6 times to 3 billion instead of 500 million. That still leaves about a 4 billion delta, without ANY population growth.
Yeah, but those four billion people will probably all be poor people.
Yes. Yes they will. Poor, hungry, suffering people. And note that they outnumber us…;-)
But we have tanks and airplanes and stuff…
That run on gas…
Oh.
Pesticides are likely to be one of the high-utility uses of fossil fuels that we’ll never have to give up. Plus I’d bet you could make these out of ethanol if you really had to.
JonJon already pointed out many other relevant bits. Between crop rotation, pesticides, and better breeds of crops, I’ve no doubt that we can feed at least 4 billion.
I’ll freely admit that peak oil hasn’t yet been reached, nor will it be for another twenty years or so.
That’s not to say that oil is a sustainable resource past the next fifty years, that the amount of carbon dioxide released by that oil wouldn’t be disastrous to the climate, or that cheaper fuels are not readily available.
Petroleum’s primary advantages are practicality, infrastructure and storage. It’s easy to refuel a car; there exists ample resources for doing so, and you can store a LOT of energy in a small space (nearly 10kWh / L – nothing to sneeze at).
The alternatives are pretty lame thus far, with few notable exceptions.
One of the exceptions is the use of 232Th as a breedable fuel. The best-researched option for this – the bulk of the work having been done in the 1960′s – is to use a two-fluid system utilizing the tetraflourides of Thorium, and ultimately 233Uranium in a molten salt reactor.
This sort of reactor is commonly referred to as LFTR (Liquid-flouride Thorium Reactor, pronounced “lifter”), though it may also be called an MSBR (Molten-salt breeding reactor).
The primary advantage in such a system is that nearly all of the fuel mass gets converted to Uranium eventually, and nearly all of it fissions. Compared to conventional nuclear – where only about 5% fissions at all – your fuel and waste streams are significantly reduced.
Other advantages include: no pressurized vessel (smaller reactor size AND cheaper reactor construction); lighter starting isotopes (much lower incidence of transuranics and long-lived radioactives); inherent safety (in the event of any break between heat and generation, the core drains into a noncritical configuration); abundant fuel (there is enough 232Thorium on earth to theoretically power the human race for hundreds of thousands years, even assuming VERY low energy use efficiency. You’ve probably walked over enough 232Th in your life to power several generations of your own progeny); safe fuel (232Th produces less ionizing radiation than a bright summer’s day); ability to air cool (the reactor operates optimally at around 800C, and loses reactivity due to heat expansion at around 1200C; by comparison, conventional nuclear needs to bring 800C steam down below 212C – for this, water cooling is required. LFTR requires no such thing).
Another key trick is that at this temperature range, you can “break” water at higher efficiencies than with electrolysis, using the resultant hydrogen gas for the production of ammonia and methanol. This is in addition to electricity production, as is uses what would otherwise be “waste” heat.
Overall, because of the various operational aspects of LFTR, you can get nearly 80% efficiency in the conversion of heat energy into operable energy.
The primary barriers are that, 1) there hasn’t been enough research into the appropriate materials with which to build the core-to-blanket walls, and 2) no government seems interested in funding the remaining research into this reactor. So, at the moment, it’s vaporware. Demonstrably workable vaporware (as said, Oak Ridge National Labs did the bulk of the needed work in the 60′s. They were shut down on cold-war politics; you can’t reasonably build nuclear weapons with 233U), but vaporware nonetheless.
Anyway, I’m coming very close to evangelism at this point, and I really don’t want that. Google “Energy From Thorium” to get more information.
I was a nuc, but the only way I’d support civilian nuc power is if it was a cookie cutter government owned / contractor operated utility delivering at cost, like the French. No one with a profit motive should ever do nuc. Still costs would be incredible. 4 times as much as the equivalent wind capacity.
You’re right about the materials issues. The Navy tried the reactor design you described. Nothing (known) stands up to sodium chloride over any useful life.
The next controversial topic:
Classic cars vs. modern
Which would win in a head-on collision, the driver of a 1959 Bel Air or the driver of a 2009 Malibu?
Well that’s a no-brainer!
Although those Lotus Elises are awfully sexy!
Take a look at the Lotus Exige. Mmmmm, good!
I think my knees just went a little weak…
Yes, my next sports car will be a Lotus. I’ve got an RX8 right now.
A woman with a great taste in cars. Hot.
One day I hope to get something smaller. I’m in an Audi A6 right now due to the kids.
Ha! Thanks!
It’s a standard, too. I don’t know how many guys ask me if I drive an automatic, and my answer is that I’ve never driven an automatic. I like the control that a standard gives me, especially when I can down-shift and fly by some jackass on the highway.
please….stop talking….so turned on…..
LOL!
We all lose if the Bel Air gets scratched.
How about Godzilla versus Gamera?
“How about Godzilla versus
GameraMothra?”Fixed that for you…
Mothra is the worse monster EVAR!!11!
He’s a big moth!
You know what Moths are? Flammable.
You know what both Godzilla and Gamera have? Fire!
Don’t disrespect!
“Mothra is the benevolent winged goddess; the protector of the earth. She represents peace and renewal and is loved and revered by her followers. This page is dedicated to the worship of this mighty deity and to help guide you along the religious path.”
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Island/2295/main.html
check this out!
btw, best movie of all time!
I’m unclear what your point is in quoting that. Afterall, we’re consuming oil faster than ever before. You really need to compare global oil consumption in the 21st century to global oil consumption in the 20th century to draw any conclusions.
Also, I’ve looked up oil consumption and oil reserves by country. It looks to me like the world will be growing more and more dependent on middle eastern oil in the coming decades because most of the world is on a path to exhaust their own oil reserves before the middle east exhausts their oil reserves. The idea of being more dependent on the middle east oil should make you nervous.
“To meet global demand for oil, Saudi Arabia will need to produce 13.6 million barrels a day by 2010 and 19.5 mbd by 2020. Both the International Energy Agency and EIA assume Saudi oil output will double over the next 15 to 20 years.”
Keep in mind that many countries are going to be exhausting their oil reserves in 15-20 years.
Here’s a list of the top seventeen countries with the largest oil reserves. The first group are the countries that (at current oil production rates) will have oil reserves that last longer than 25 years. The second list is countries (in the top seventeen) who will exhaust their reserves based on current production rates. The list will give you an idea of who we will be increasingly reliant on for oil in the future.
1. Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Qatar
2. Countries who will exhaust their oil reserves: Russia, United States, China, Algeria, Brazil, Mexico
My point is that we’ve been sucking oil for a century and we’ve only used up 35% of what we know about. I thought it was an interesting fact. I also think it’s interesting at how defensive people are getting.
The idea of being dependent on Middle Eastern oil does make me nervous. Did I say somewhere that it didn’t?
You realise, though, that every ten years we use the same amount of oil that was used in the entire of recorded history prior to that ten years? And in the following ten years? Same again plus the amount used in that first ten years I mentioned – and so it goes on. Sustainable? No.
Did I say somewhere that oil would last forever or that it was sustainable long-term?
You didn’t, but if we’ve now used up 35%, in ten years time we’ll have used up 70% of all known oil… In 15 or 20 years, it’ll be gone.
You’re not accounting for economic incentives that will change. If the amount of oil we have decreases substantially, the price goes up, and people will use less and have incentive to develop/use other energy types (we saw this spark a little in this recession when oil prices spiked).
I don’t think anyone is seriously predicting oil will run out in 15-20 years. Peak? Sure. Run out? Nah.
(And all this reminds me — why the hell don’t I own an oil stock? Need to change that. I’m too heavily invested in tech.)
You’re not accounting for economic incentives that will change. If the amount of oil we have decreases substantially, the price goes up, and people will use less and have incentive to develop/use other energy types (we saw this spark a little in this recession when oil prices spiked).
This was your turn to beat me to the punch. :)
“My point is that we’ve been sucking oil for a century and we’ve only used up 35% of what we know about.”
If you look at oil consumption over the 20th century, the world used next to no oil a century ago. If you look at this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PU200611_Fig1.png), you’ll see that global oil production (which is effectively the same as consumption) in 2000 was 75 million barrels per day. In 1940 it was about 1/10th that amount. Saying “we’ve been sucking oil for a century…” doesn’t really cut it because oil consumption in the first half of the 20th century is hugely dwarfed by oil consumption in the second half – which is our starting point for the 21st century. I think it would be more accurate to say “we’ve been sucking oil for 50 years. We’ve used up 1/3rd of it, and in the 21st century, we’re set to dwarf the oil consumption of those last 50 years”.
lol you see the new family guy? Love it where they go to a parallel universe where Christianity never took a hold and everything was super advanced. Awesome