Is this guy for real? Are there any oil field geologists who can validate, or (hopefully) invalidate this ?
The basic gist is that the world will run out of oil soon. And as oil production drops off, the world will begin suffering catastrophic economic, political, social, and humanitary crises. Any answers on the truth of this? Should I start stockpiling food, and guns? - IANAR (redneck) if read the article you will see what I mean.
Most data I hear (mostly from my friends that work in the oil field) is there is about 40 years of oil in the Mid-East.
This doesn’t include North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Siberia, Argentina (which is said to have as much oil as the mid-east), any of the countries in Africa which are now being expolored, and African costlines.
Sorry I don’t have a site for the actual time line but I don’t think we will be out of oil in 5 years, the Mid-East will not even be out of oil in 5 years.
Did anyone else see the screen name, then the OP question, and immediately think of Vogons?
You know MachV, I should have thought of that… that is too funny!
Even if you just skim that peice, as I did, you should see that he reports other peoples’ contentions that oil production will peak in five years. Not come to a crashing halt in five years. The dropoff from the peak will be slow but steady. Obviously there are many decades of known oil reserves left.
And I am convinced that as prices climb, new sources of currently uneconomical oil will come into play. I wouldn’t worry about this very much for now.
ok sure my OP title was a doomsday-ish, I will admit, and I could have worded my message better. Maybe subconsciously I was doing what MachV noticed 
But the question is still valid if not as immediate as the title implies. Since I did read the article I will bring up several points
As the article mentions, when oil prices start climbing higher and higher due to production levels dropping, many people will quit buying cars, because they can’t afford them, which will cause a strain on the economy, agriculture will suffer greatly too, many farmers are often on the verge of bankruptcy, if fuel and fertilizer prices shoot through the roof. If it costs 5 times the current cost to raise and ship produce, livestock, etc. can the consumer pick up the tab? Can the farmer? How about 10 times, or one hundred?
Another major point he makes is that there will be oil for some time, however not enough for our growing energy needs. As he keeps stating, many fields increased the number of wells, sometimes by a lot, and production rates did not climb, and on occasion drop off.
Quoting from the article The article predicts that by 2007 the world will peak in oil production at 30 billion barrels per year and by 2020 we will have dropped to 24.6 billion barrels per year and by 2040 production will be about half of what we presently consume!
He also implies that there will be oil for years to come, but not at the levels at which this world expects them to. Here is a quick example of how I understand him. Imagine, if you will that you are locked in a warehouse with 100 other people for a year and were told that there was enough food for the next year. You can have three meals per day, but six months from now you can only have two meals per day, and in 9 months you can have 1 meal per day. Sure there is food, but is there enough?
Do you know that when cars first came into widespread use, there were devasting effects in the buggy-whip industry and farmers had to find entirely new outlets for their oat crops (like marketing oatmeal as people food) or change their production entirely?
Financial panics, unemployment, upheavals in industry…
It happens all the time. So far we have muddled our way through, although the eventual solution may not be clearly seen at the beginning.
IN FIVE YEARS!
Holy Crap! I’m still trying to get over the fact that we ran out of oil in 2000.
Interesting, but this example concerns the introduction of a new technology and a corresponding upheaval in industry, whereas the OP is talking about the depletion of a vital resource. Quite different things, it seems to me.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any good examples from history that would be a close parallel to what the OP has in mind, but surely there must be some: societies or civilizations that have had to contend with a dwindling supply of fuel (wood, coal, etc.), water, viable farmland, etc. How have they reacted, and what have been the outcomes?
Here’s what will happen:
Once production peaks (and five years is too soon for that, IMO), the price of oil will start to rise. Once the price rises to the point where previously uneconomical oil fields become economical, production will increase in those areas, and the price rise will level off at the new level. When production peaks for that level, oil will start to rise again. New sources become available…
In the meantime, if we let the market work then people will voluntarily shift to other energy forms. Hybrid cars will become widespread. Energy efficiency will increase in many areas.
As prices continue to climb, political pressure will start to rise for alternative sources such as nuclear. You’d be surprised how quickly your average anti-nuke citizen can be convinced by the promise of having his energy bills cut by 50%. So alternative sources of power will slowly displace oil.
That’s the way the market works. It’s worked for all kinds of other products that become scarce or too expensive, and it will work for energy. IF we let it.
We won’t have to worry about this for some time …
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pen-l/2001III/msg03363.html
I have been told by an oil-man that these reserves cap the “natural price” of oil at U$30/bbl, since assured prices at that level make oil-sand exploitation a ‘no-brainer’ investment.
Mind you, it is clear that oil is a finite resource (on our time-scale) which is being used at a finite rate so that someday, yes, we will run out. I agree with Sam Stone - with the note that we don’t have to “let the market work”. It will happen no matter how many politicians claim it won’t and no matter how many people they dupe into thinking it all a big-oil conspiracy. The only influence policy can have on the equation is whether it happens gradually, with alternative sources and conservation becoming gradually more attractive (and gradually more palatable, as research money pours in and attitudes change), or whether it all happens in one big smash. That’s not for anyone here to worry about though.
They moved. Not an option any more, I’m afraid.
What Sam said, plus…
We drill things today that we wouldn’t even consider 10 years ago, because the technology we use to find new reserves has allowed us to pursue what were formerly riskier plays. And risk is a big part of your calculation of the justifying economics that permit you to pursue a play.
A statistical analysis of both production (the enhancement of which has progressed mightily) and reserve replacement, or new discoveries, done in 1998 or 1995 likely does not take in the full measure that these changes alone effect on the supply. The 3D seismic revolution only really kicked into gear between the summer of 1992 and the spring of 1993.
That has changed the fundamentals of how we approach exploration, and that technological revolution has still not made it to the less mature basins of the world.
In a nutshell, technological advances in exploration and recovery techniques have taken us far beyond what the readers of tea leaves could see just a decade or so past. The proof is in the pudding; can you think of any consumer product that is as cheap as gasoline today compared to its price from twenty years ago?
And, the bar of economic viability moves continually. We don’t presently mine oil shale, although it’s a proven method - when oil gets to $45/bbl. it may well be worth it.
And, as Sam said, the movement of the economic bar will likely bring renewed interest in nukes and other energy capturing technologies.
So, go ahead, have some kids.
By-the-by, websites that use screaming bold typeface always make me twitch.
Lots and lots of good stuff on this issue at www.dieoff.org
IMO, an energy shortage is inevitable in the next decades or less, and will certainly result in a great deal of upheaval. We should be preparing for this now, but in the US, as in most places in the world, those that can do something about it are too busy enhancing there own bank accounts, or walking on eggshells so they can be reelected (preparing for winter in the summertime isn’t usually very popular with the electorate it seems). I’m personally not confident in the human species’ ability to mitigate an oil crunch – we aren’t farsighted enough, perhaps by our nature, and by the time the first real shockwaves of shortage hit, it may well be to late to deploy alternative methods of energy collection – infrastructure can take years to construct or otherwise establish, anarchy can happen overnight.
In a world where there is a greater demand for energy than supply…
How would the US react if Canada, or Venezuela, or a major exporter (or cartel of exporters)… decided to conserve its resources for its own citizens?
How will people in developed nations react to lowering their standards of living (perhaps substantially and quickly)?
How will citizens of 3rd world nations ever expect to reach the levels of wealth enjoyed by their brethren in the industrialized world?
How many oil rigs can be sabotaged or destroyed before the effect on the world oil market is felt?
I think there are lots and lots of ramifications to even a mild, permanent oil deficit, and most of them have not even been explored.
Meanwhile, many places that are currently net oil exporters are experiencing huge population growth rates, thanks largely to outdated societal influences. More people means these nations will be sending less and less fuel abroad, hastening the point where falling supply meets rising demand for everyone else.
I’m glad I don’t have children!
BTW, I hope I’m wrong and the optimists are right. But if not, at least I and the rest of the naysayers will have vindication.
ataraxy22 not a thing in your post makes much sense. Care to sort it out for us?
To add to what Ringo, Sam et al have said:
Judging by the purchasing patterns in Europe, a quadrupled petrol price will only cause people to buy slightly more efficient cars.
(European petrol prices are already at about USD 1 / litre.)
Just out of curiosity, since I know so little about this kind of economic history: what is a good precedent for what the OP is talking about? Judging from what some posters have said above, it seems unlikely that the world’s oil reserves will be depleted in the foreseeable future, but what’s a close parallel that we can find from the past regarding some other important resource, energy source, etc.? Thanks.
This guy at the link below pretty much explains it for us. When I was a kid in the 70’s, everyone said we were facing a Malthusian crisis, and time was running out, and we were using all of our resources, etc, none of which materialized, but it’s always been popular to cry “end of the world”. Please, particularly Ataraxy22, take ten minutes to read some of this, and then think for a minute just why we are NOT facing the end of the world as we know it.
Easter Island?
I think the inhabitants used up all the wood and then …?
I don’t know they either died off or moved away.
Somebody else already made the point that previously, tribes and even perhaps states could just decamp to some other location and go merrily on slahing and burning.
Isn’t there an island somewhere that makes most of it’s money from excavating fossilized seabird crap. Eventually, the island will be completely gone, but everyone will be taken care of by a trust fund set up a while ago against that eventuality.
YKMV (Your Knowledge May Vary)
The closest parallel to the “we’re gonna run out of oil!” hysteria of the late 20th century is the “we’re gonna run out of coal!” hysteria of the late 19th century. During that time various notables (including, if I recall correctly, Lord Kelvin) opined that the world’s entire supply of coal would be depleted in short order. They were wrong, of course, for the simple reason that most of the word hadn’t even been explored for coal at that point.
Of course, coal and oil are finite resources, so it’s not entirely crazy to think that we might run out. So if we were about to run out in oil in five years, what would the warning signs be?
The first thing to realize is that greedy evil capitalists would try to make money off of the situation. The evil capitalists would buy oil when it was cheap (i.e. now) and hoard it to sell when it is expensive (i.e. after we “run out”). This activity would lead to a large permanent increase in the price of oil now, even though we haven’t run out of oil yet.
As other posters have noted, this permanent increase in the price of oil would lead people to investigate other energy options.
So the idea that gas will be $1.43 a gallon right up until the day we “run out” is wrong–you need to take good old supply and demand into account. The price system also acts as an early warning system. So don’t start stockpiling guns and food until the price of gas permanently jumps to, oh, $15 a gallon or so.