About 20 years. All proven reserves always last about 20 years, and they have for the last 100 years. There’s a very good reason for that if you think about it.
So what relevance do you think the amount of proven reserves has to the argument?
Well…
There is easy oil and hard oil…so to speak.
Everyone picks the low hanging fruits first (easy to get oil).
Over time the easy stuff disappears and we are left with oil that is harder and harder to access.
Technology has allowed access to harder to obtain oil. So, for awhile, we have kept apace with our needs at a reasonable cost.
Sooner or later though there is an end. We are pulling oil out at ever increasing rates. The world’s desire for it is increasing (see China/India).
In the end we know the oil reserves have to be finite. Look at world daily consumption of oil and there is no way it can be maintained indefinitely.
20, 30 or 50 years are the various estimates I have seen. At the world’s ever increasing desire for the stuff I suspect that will hold true. The easy to get oil will be gone and what is left will be harder (read more expensive) to get.
May seem a long time but those estimates are within most people’s lifetimes of those alive today.
If you are having children now they will almost certainly live to see a world with no (or precious little) oil (at least mined oil).
If you realised that people have been saying *exactly *the same thing since 1902, literally, you would realise what a chicken little you sound.
Hang on, costs haven’t just stayed reasonable, the price of oil has actually fallen for the past 100 years, despite your own admission that the easy to get oil was used up first. Can you explain why the predictions of your hypothesis haven;t matched reality for the last 100 years? And can you explain why you think they will match for the next 100 years?
Of course at some prices must increase due to scarcity, but there’s no evidence it has happened yet or will happen anytime soon. We have, at conservative estimates, about 200 years worth of oil reserves in the form of sands, tars and shales at current consumption, and at least another 400 years that can be produced from coal. All more expensive than liquid crude, but not a lot. In fact a lot of sand and share oil is cheaper than current OPEC prices. Trying to predict usage 600 years into the future is a bit optimistic, no?
All this “Sky is falling, the end is nigh” stuff has been around for 100 years. Why do the Chicken Littles of this generation think they are right when they are using *exactly *the same arguments as the previous generations?
None whatsoever, which is my point. Since proven reserves won’t last that far into the future (obviously with growth in demand, 20 year reserves won’t actually last 20 years), any discussion of domestic supply into the future hinges on unproved resources.
Ah, no.
I think perhaps you should look up some definitions, like “resource” “undiscovered resource”, “reserve” and “proven reserve” and then get back to us.
Walk through this with me…
The Earth itself is finite in size. Even if the whole thing was oil there would be an end to it.
Obviously the whole thing is not oil. So, even less time to the end of oil we can mine.
The US alone consumes oil at astounding rates. Global consumption is increasing dramatically (see China/India in particular).
Why would you think there is no end to this?
This is not like the perpetual “20 years to fusion” energy that never happens. We are talking about finite resources. There is an end to it no matter how much you may wish otherwise.
For the same reason there is no end in sight to whale oil or hay for feeding horses.
Now can you tell the class why it is that once those things were limiting resources and looked like running out, and now they are no longer limiting and are 9increaong in abundance and declining in price?
Can you explain how this could possibly occur? What economic theory would possibly allow there to be an end?
Well, why don’t you tell us what this “very good reason” why reserves will stay at 20 year levels forever is?
That’s ridiculous. You are trying to compare resources like plants that replenish themselves every year to resources that take millions of years to rebuild themselves.
Because people won’t spend money looking for things that won’t make them money.
What is ridiculous is that a grown man seems to honestly believe that the reason whale oil and horse feed aren’t scarce today when they were 100 years ago is because they replenished themselves faster than they were being consumed.
Tell me, how much whale oil and horse feed did you by last week? How much would a man in your position have bought in 1900? Why do you think the discrepancy exists if, as you suggest, the commodities replenished themselves faster than they could be consumed, and this was the reason for the elimination of scarcity?
They did just that, or they’d be utterly gone by now. People still feed horses, they still hunt whales; if hay and whales didn’t replenish themselves faster than they are consumed they would no longer exist.
I think he means that by the time the Earth’s oil is completely spent we’ll have moved on to new techs depending on new resources. Which is wishful thinking IMO, especially if all the money that should go into figuring that new tech out is funnelled into finding ways to suck out those last scrumptious drops of tar.
But the reason they now replenish themselves faster than they are consumed (for whale oil, at least) is because they are no longer consumed in the same quantities they once were. Blake is saying “oil is like whale oil, because it will become obsolete at some point” not “oil is like whale oil, because it renews itself”.
Unless you’re suggesting that the new technology for oil extraction costs more than the oil that this technology makes available, this is a fundamentally illogical view.
Okay, so that’s why they don’t go any higher than 20 years. What’s to keep them from being lower than that? (note: rhetorical question)
The great disaster we risk with oil isn’t that we’ll run out, it’s that the price will become prohibitively expensive for the things our society has come to rely on oil to do. Sure, as the price goes up so does exploration effort and marginal oil becomes profitable. But we can reach a disastrous price point without running out, or without the reserves really changing much (not that I believe we’re anywhere near this point). This wasn’t a disaster when it happened to whale oil because petroleum was right there to take its place, more plentiful and better than whale oil ever was, but there isn’t anything that can replace oil at the present.
However, I have no idea what any of this has to do with the article. Nobody is saying this report means some huge reduction in the amount of petroleum in the world and is heralding peak oil or whatever. What it does mean is that there’s somewhat less potential future oil resources in the United States (and in one of the only areas in the US where there’s still frontier exploration going on), and so it has importance to the debate over the degree to which developing our own resources could satisfy our own future demand.
Oh really. So for the past 100 years whales have been breeding faster than they were being killed in 1900?
Cite please.
Demand.
What’s rhetorical about that question? If someone doesn’t understand why they never go above ~20 years you are likely to not understand that the same forces prevent them going any lower. Reserves always have been and, barring something utterly unforeseeable, always will be 20 years of supply.
Can you explain what these things are that we rely on oil for, and how this disaster could possibly occur, assuming that they do actually exist?
What is that supposed to mean? In what sense are shale oil, biomass conversion, coal, electricty and oil sands not things to replace oil?
I think you’re mistaking my contention that it’s not as simple as the Econ 101 explaination for my not understanding that explaination. I understand that reserves will respond to supply and demand. But I’m not worried about oil becoming scarce just because I like oil so much-- I like it because it allows me to do things like drive to work. If oil was $1000 a barrel and it cost me more to drive to work than I made, I wouldn’t give two shits that there was a 20 year reserve.
Transportation, mostly. The modern world, the US in particular, can only function as it does with the ability to move goods and people long distances for cheap, and that ability comes almost exclusively from petroleum. For plenty of poor folks in the world, the margin by which petroleum makes goods cheaper is the difference between life and death. Maybe an end to cheap oil isn’t end of civilization as we know it, but things get a hell of a lot less comfortable for a lot of people.
Well, oil sands and shale oil aren’t replacements for oil at all, they’re just expensive oil. Biomass isn’t really practical at the moment. Coal and electricity can replace some of our transportation needs, but barring advances in electric vehicles or hydrogen technology, not most of it. The fact that more expensive alternatives exists does not really help the fact that we are reliant on cheap petroleum.
Look, I’m glad you’re able to have such a sunny outlook about this, and in fact I agree that what you describe is probably the most likely outcome. But it relies on the development of technology which presently does not exist. I’ll grant you that we’ve got a lot of time left with oil and there’s a very good chance that affordable alternatives will be avaliable by the time petroleum prices really become an issue. But it’s not like there’s some infallable rule of nature that says they will.
If’s it is true then is any oil company willing to drill at all?
I would WAG that the oil companies have their own scientists who can give them a estimate regardless of what the government releases, and they may have a few financial advisers and people who do risk assessment as well. So perhaps if they don’t think they can make money on it they won’t do that project.
The economy has tanked, but not due to oil scarcity. It’s not like gas being $3 a gallon instead of $2 is why people are losing their houses. More oil on the market right now wouldn’t really solve the economy. So rather than ‘wasting’ a reserve at a time when it isn’t really needed, I believe we should hold off. Start tapping Alaskan reserves when oil supply is a major factor in the overall economic status instead.
The US used to rely on trains powered by sources other than oil. We could easily do so again. That would cause some issues with transportation and costs, but not much.
Or perhaps, sometimes, the decisions are made by execs who, one way or another, will make money off the drilling whether it is profitable to the company or not.