I'll say at the top here that this runs counter to everything I've read and have come to believe.

Discuss.


Peak Oil Theory – “World Running Out of Oil Soon” – Is Faulty; Could Distort Policy & Energy Debate

" The new report describes CERA’s liquids supply outlook as “not a view of endless abundance.” However, based on a range of potential scenarios and field-by-field analysis, CERA finds that not only will world oil production not peak before 2030, but that the idea of a peak is itself “a dramatic but highly questionable image.”

Global production will eventually follow an “undulating plateau” for one or more decades before declining slowly. The global production profile will not be a simple logistic or bell curve postulated by geologist M. King Hubbert, but it will be asymmetrical – with the slope of decline more gradual and not mirroring the rapid rate of increase -- and strongly skewed past the geometric peak. It will be an undulating plateau that may well last for decades.

During the plateau period in later decades, according to the CERA analysis, demand growth will likely no longer be largely met by growth in available, commercially exploitable natural oil supplies. Non-traditional or unconventional liquid fuels such as production from heavy oil sands, gas-related liquids (condensate and natural gas liquids), gas-to-liquids (GTL), and coal-to-liquids (CTL) will need to fill the gap."


http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/imageDisplays/imageDisplay.ashx?PK=16152&t=Image&f=gImageData&n=iImagePK

Source:
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444

I have a tin of oil in my garage, if thats any help.

I've never done any reading on the subject but ended up riding with a geologist once who had worked for several of the big companies looking for oil. His opinion was that we had about 50-75 years left until oil use would become severely restricted for critical needs only unless we discover some huge reserves that we don't know about now.

Don't know if anyone else remembers this, but when I was a kid in the mid-70s, they used to teach us that we'd run out of oil within 20 years. Although, those forecasts may have been based on the growth rate in the 70s and if that had continued (which IS pretty shocking when you look at the steep growth in the early 70s).

This kind of data is always pretty squishy. That said, moving away from oil as fuel has a lot of other advantages (environmental, economic and political) so alternative fuel sources are still a must-do, evevn if we have 200 years supply..

This kind of data is always pretty squishy. That said, moving away from oil as fuel has a lot of other advantages (environmental, economic and political) so alternative fuel sources are still a must-do, evevn if we have 200 years supply..

The big problem is not what happens when we run out, the problem is what happens when the growth in production falls behind the growth in demand. When oil peaks, even if it plateaus for a while, the demand is still going to go up and up. That will cause all sorts of problems for economies around the globe.

Personally I think oil is too valuable to burn, if we take the long view. Chemicals rely on petroleum as a starting point, and a 1000 years from now we won't be having that shortcut to fancy molecules.

Most people involved in the industry (including myself) believe that there is no shortage of hydrocarbons-technology is improving at an amazing pace-but it's going to take capital and political focus to meet demand. I believe the CERA numbers are more in tune with reality than the Matt Simmons "the sky is falling" scenario. The capital is there, but unfortunately the politics of energy are so distorted, both in terms of the major producing nations like Saudi, Russia, and Venezuela, and consuming nations like the U.S. In this country, most people express dislike for oil companies, don't want to see more drilling in the U.S. or more pipelines or LNG terminals built, and then get angry when we have to import more, and then blame the oil companies for gouging them. it makes no sense, and has led to bad policy, or worse, no policy.
B21

Personally I think oil is too valuable to burn, if we take the long view. Chemicals rely on petroleum as a starting point, and a 1000 years from now we won't be having that shortcut to fancy molecules.


That's an excellent point.

I found this link regarding utilization of petrolium:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproducts.htm

It only covers the US though. So, roughly 11% of our consumption is for non-fuel products. Makes you wonder what would be more of a crisis: the loss of oil as a fuel source or the loss of oil as a foundation for most of the things we make?

Personally I think oil is too valuable to burn, if we take the long view. Chemicals rely on petroleum as a starting point, and a 1000 years from now we won't be having that shortcut to fancy molecules.

Gold star for the dr. It's good to hear someone weigh in with this insite because I don't think corn and soybean derivatives are going to be an adequate replacement for the olefins and aromatics derived from hydrocarbon. ...but hey, maybe we have 1000 years to figure it out.

-- Woody Harrelson just called and he said, "what about hemp"?

Personally I think oil is too valuable to burn, if we take the long view. Chemicals rely on petroleum as a starting point, and a 1000 years from now we won't be having that shortcut to fancy molecules. Totally agree -- one of the interesting things that people miss when they talk about rising prices of oil is that it affects far more than just gasoline. Reaching deep into my memory again, I recall that during the 70s "oil crisis" my parents wouldn't buy me a GI Joe because the cost had skyrocketed due to the price of plastic going up.

Silly example, but it scarred me for life, I tell ya.

There is a lot of oil in the ground. Most working oilfields have the reserves extracted that can be extracted at a profit, so the oil comapny says 'we have x barrels in the y oilfield'. But those x barrels are those that can be extracted at a profit with the prevailing oil price. In the 1990s when crude oil was averaging $15 a barrel, resevres in the ground were those reserves that could be sucked out and delivered to the refineries and make a profit. Now many oilfields just need a hole poked in the overlaying strata, and the oil gushes out, for a time. But then the reservoir of oil under pressure is exhausted, so the well is capped. But when the price of oil goes up, as it has in the past 4 years, those wells get un-capped, and water or something used to force out the remaining oil. Often, only 25% of the oil is extracted under its own pressure, so many reservoirs have another 75% to be extracted. These are only the existing fields, there are many new, undiscovered oilfields out there. So the Peak Oil theory means we are not reaching peak production, yet. But oil is a finite reserve, so maybe in our great-great-grandchildrens time it might run out.

dunno...that looks a bit too anti-Malthusian "pie in the sky" to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian

I could've bought it until they said 'gradual decline'.

If you believe there will continue to be growth in demand, then it's impossible to have a gradual decline in use. That is unless something outside the market affects it. Possibly regulation of use, or large subsidies to renewables would give it a soft landing,

Silas

A recent article in SA concerned the world weaning off carbon whether oil, coal, or natural gas. Basically it comes down to price per kw hour. Coal produces electricity at about .04 per unit and oil/gas runs just a fraction more. Nuclear is around .08 but would come down after the initial cost of construction was absorbed. Probably not as low as coal. Solar is about .25 per Kw hour. What is the motivation to move away from fossil fuels? Biodiesel and ethanol are renewable and burn cleaner, but still contribute to greenhouse gasses. In the big scheme, the automakers producing vehicles to burn ethanol is not really a step forward. Ethanol is a 25% net gain in energy versus the energy used to farm and distill. Biodiesel is a 97% net gain and will be even higher once production shifts to grass and soybeans instead of relying on soybeans alone. If the decision is made to burn biodiesel to produce electricity (you can run gas turbines on BD), crop planning and production can shift to adapt. Soybeans are also naturally resistive to insects so little or no insecticide is ever needed, another bonus.

The world applauds the progress that China is making in increasing the quality of life for their people and creating a consumer society that will purchase products. This is at a cost of approximately one new coal fired plant coming on line each week. China will pass the US in pollution and contribution to greenhouse gasses in the very near future.

The technology is there to build nuke plants, recover and store CO2, and develop alternative fuels. Solar and wind can contribute, but for the near future are not a player.

When comparing the cost of electricity from coal and solar for example, consider that coal is from a central station plant and does not include transmission and distribution costs. Solar can be produced on site. Solar competes with delivered costs of utility electricity not generation costs. There are many other financial and performance benefits to solar as well.

I agree oil is far more valuable unburned. It was surprising to me when I found out what all oil is used for.

As the prices go up and people get more interested in being better for the enviornment I think we'll find more source of energy.

This ties in to Magicant's comment: WSJ Editorial today, very well done:
Congress will return for one more lame-duck go-round after Thanksgiving, and if it wants an easy victory for the U.S. economy it'll whip through the offshore drilling bill that has passed the Senate and awaits action in conference.

The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, crafted by New Mexico's Pete Domenici, would open 8.3 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and natural gas drilling. The bill doesn't go nearly as far as we or many in the House would like, but it's the best opportunity for new U.S. energy exploration in years.

While this Gulf acreage is known to hold oil reserves, the real significance is its bonanza of natural gas. Unlike the global oil market, most natural gas is produced regionally. Short supplies and high prices are punishing American industry, causing plant closures and job flight overseas. It is one of the larger economic messes in recent history, yet the political class barely mentions it -- perhaps because the politicians have done more than anyone to cause it.

As recently as 1995, the average cost for natural gas in the U.S. was about $1.70 per million British Thermal Units; by 2002 it was $3.54. It had climbed by 400% by last year, when it ranged from $11 to $14.50 per million BTUs. Japan, China, India and most of the rest of the world pay far less, putting U.S.-based companies at a huge global disadvantage.

Hardest hit has been chemical manufacturing, which in 2004 shuttered more than 70 U.S. facilities and marked an additional 40 for closure, resulting in a loss of 100,000 jobs. Did someone say "outsourcing"? Of the 120 chemical plants with $1 billion price tags being built around the world, only one is in the U.S. Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris says his firm has shut down more than 30 factories in North America in the past several years, and he blames it on energy.

Natural gas is also a component of many everyday consumer goods, from plastic cups to carpets to semiconductors. Many of these manufacturers have faced shortages or steep price hikes, including Simmons (bedding), Goodyear (tires) and Newell Rubbermaid (packaging/containers). Massachusetts-based Union Products, originator of the famous pink plastic flamingos, recently closed its doors because of rising costs for plastic resin (made from natural gas) and electricity. The company's workers should thank Senator John Kerry and other Democrats who have blocked offshore drilling for gas and liquified natural gas imports.

The fertilizer industry, which relies heavily on natural gas, has lost more than 36% of its domestic capacity since 2002. The U.S. forest products industry has seen energy costs rise 50% for pulp and paper mills in three years; it has closed 232 mills and lost 182,000 jobs since 2000. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that 3.1 million high-wage manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000 largely due to inadequate supplies of natural gas. The next time Democrats wail over lost manufacturing jobs and try to blame it on "free trade," tell them to start drilling for the truth.

All of this is reason for Congress to act now. Gulf Coast Democrats are supporting this Senate bill, largely because it offers their states a cut of the royalties. The House has passed a much stronger bill, and in a better world would prevail. But with coastal, anti-drilling Democrats set to run Congress next year, now is the time for the House to swallow its pride, pass the Senate version without amendment to avoid a conference, and send it to President Bush.

The 8.3 million acres to be opened in the Senate bill would conservatively yield 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- a significant amount under any measure. Moreover, drilling in the Gulf has typically yielded three to five times more oil and gas than originally estimated. With any luck, the money that would start flowing to the Gulf states under revenue-sharing with the feds might also encourage other states to demand their own coastal exploration.

That should continue to be the long-term policy goal, as the outer shelf is estimated to hold an extraordinary 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to keep the U.S. in affordable energy for decades. It's a disgrace that Congress has locked up that supply and driven high-paying jobs overseas. Passing this drilling bill would make a lame-duck Congress a little less lame

When an oil well is abandoned as nonproductive, only about 25% to 35% of the oil has been pumped out. Much more can be recovered. Oil can be extracted from oil shale and tar sands. Coal can be converted into oil. It's all just a matter of cost. Currently, any technology that cost more than $30 to produce a barrel is considered infeasible. If oil prices stabilize at more than $100/barrel, all sorts of options become feasible. We know how to supply oil for centuries to come.


the abundance of oil is a much greater problem than scarcity of oil. We'd be better off in the long run if oil supplies were limited. Our knowldege for producing and using oil for exceeds our wisdom in utilizing the resource.