I know this has been debated to no end, but I found a site (which I couldn’t find already posted here) and I think it’s worth everyone reading.
Scary site, and very well supported. Most of it has been seen before, but this is a really condensed version.
Personally I’m freaked. I mean what have I got to look forward to? I’m only 19… 
Your cite was the basis of the recent Peak Oil thread. I’m too lazy to look it up atm but you should read through it and form a more rational opinion before fretting about it.
-XT
Economic quantities, such as the price of oil, are notoriously difficult to predict.
One problem with economic predictions is that they tend to be self-defeating. If enough people believe that something is going to become scarce, they try to profit from their belief, and more resources are put into that thing and its substitutes, pushing the price down.
So I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Certainly the world will face crises, but it’s very difficult to know in advance what those crises will be.
And for what it’s worth, I can clearly remember 20 years ago when I was in my teens, being told that the world’s oil would run out by the early 90s and we’d all be screwed.
I also remember being told that there would be huge demand for college professors. My friends with PhDs can attest that that prediction did not come true.
I could go on, but you see the point.
For the record, here is the thread that xtisme was referencing…
[sub]This link courtesy of www.boardreader.com, no hamsters were injured.[/sub]
The short version: No, the oil tap is not going to suddenly “run dry” one day. The real (inflation adjusted) price of crude will edge up as time goes by. By the time it hits the (artificially inflated) prices we saw during the OPEC embargo of the 70’s, it will be profitable to exploit lower grade sources, and more money will be invested in alternate energy and energy effciency.
Civilization is not going to collapse for lack of fuel.
Like lucwarm I was told the same things when I was your age. I am 40 years old now. Paul Erlich made a lot of money off of a book called The Crash of '79. Now we all know that he is a catastrophist crackpot. Then the Y2K chicken littles got into the act. This is just more of the same.
Haj
I don’t care what people say. Nothing lasts forever.
I would not worry about it to much because there is not much you can do about it.
Discoveries are down, demand is up as we build more cars and airplanes. Most of the biggest reserves are already discovered already.
My best guess?, in 5-10 years we will be paying what the brits are paying - $5 a gallon or so.
Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking oil is an infinite resource because it took supposedly millions of years for the stuff to create itself and I believe that we are using it faster than it is replenishing itself.
In my more enviro-wacko days I subscribed to this theory fully, but I’ve become a much more well-rounded skeptic over the past few years.
The Oil Crisis depends on a long-held theory about the source of our oil that is dependant on the presence of organic matter (thus “fossil” fuel). In 1992 Thomas Gold wrote a paper “The Deep Hot Biosphere” which envisioned the source being at much greater depths in the earth’s crust, and not needing organic matter to work. In 1999 he published a book that goes into much greater depth on the subject.
The upshot of his work is that hydrocarbons are produced in a much different way, and in much larger quantities, than previously believed. At first I thought this was just another wacky pseudo-science offshoot, but I can’t find anything online that refutes it (well, one old site with a broken link for details). Further research has found evidence of bacteria at much greater depths than previously believed possible, supporting his theories.
I still absolutely believe we should be looking at alternative sources for energy, for a variety of good reasons, but it’s looking more likely that we may never see the Oil Crisis scenario realized. I hope some Doper can prove me wrong, just because it keeps me on my toes. 
I would go further than that. I would say that absolutely 100% of all reserves of all sizes have been discovered already. There can be no disputing that. That is what ‘reserve’ means. It means that the resource has been discovered and is able to be economically extracted.
What is your point in making such a blindingly obvious statement?
If you wish to imply that there are no big oil resources left to be discovered then I have to ask what crystal ball you are using to make that bold prediction? You sure aren’t using science or logic, that’s for sure.
“To consider oil first, 29 giant fields were discovered, including 7 at water depths greater than 1 000 metres. In Africa, 15 accumulations representing over 500 million boe were found, including 6 at water depths in excess of 1 000 m. In Latin America, there were 4 discoveries of this type.
…
All in all, the 1990’s matched the 1980’s for giant discoveries, with the very deep offshore sector making a powerful contribution to this stability.”
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/oil/oil.asp
That seems to put paid to the idea that most of the biggest reserves have already been discovered.
As technology advances the scope for oil resource discovery also advances. Sea bed fields that were unknown and unusable 20 years ago have now become part of the reserve. There is no telling what fields might be discovered 20 years hence or how big they are.
To give you some facts, the USGS has some figures here on mid-range estimates of undiscovered oil resources. Note that using 2000 technology undiscovered resources amount to around 75% of the current known reserves. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-060/ESpt5.html )
Since your guess is apparently based on an erroneous belief about discoveries declining and big discoveries having mostly ceased I think we can consider it almost worthless.
Can we see where someone has actually suggested that oil is an infinite resource? If not then I am going to declare this a blatant straw man. No one is making such an argument. No one has ever suggested that we are not using oil faster than it is replenishing. What they are saying is that oil will not suddenly run out.
I think that is the nub of the problem.
Actually I saw this on the Discovery Channel once. They were talking about old oil fields slowly refilling and trying to figure out why that might happen. But its just a theory and I’ve never heard it got much traction.
-XT
Oil is not an infinite resource and yet you say they say that it will not just run out.
Sounds hypocritical and well…, very americanish…, no wonder your government site says we have plenty of oil…
The statement saying most reserves are likely discovered simply means we’ve got a better idea now on about how much is exactly kind of sorta left.
Uh…, the oil companies are the ones saying no big reserves to be discovered, you’d best ask them what crystal ball they are looking into instead of me.
$5 a gallon I based on an economic guess having nothing to do with actual reserves vs. polution and taxes, and things like inflation.
When I said I don’t care what people say I meant people just like yourself.
The reason gas is so expensive in the U.K. (and other European nations), is that the US has much lower gas taxes than other developed countries.
Ignoring taxes, gas is only slightly more expensive in the U.K. compared to the US. Also, I would like to point out that we still have decades of use available from known oil reserves, and that other sources of oil (oil shale, tars, and such) become profitable at oil prices not that much higher than they are now. In addition, methods of creating synthetic fuel oil from more available hydrocarbon sources,
such as thermal depolymerization are becoming economical as well.
Don’t worry, all the major oil companies are looking for alternate energy sources; they don’t want to be left hanging when oil does eventually run out. BP for example, makes the solar panels that provide 15% of the worlds total photovoltaic power production.
Who said that? Where? This is yet another straw man. No one has said that oil will not just run out. Of course it will eventually just run out if we keep using it.
Do you undertsand the difference between ‘just run out’ and ‘suddenly run out’?
:rolleyes:
What a compelling argument to use agaisnt a reputable reference.
Let me give you some advice toysarefun. Around here we don’t have much time for ignorance and we place a lot of store in evidence and references. A highly credible source disgrees with your baseless opinion. You won’t score any points by implying it’s all a US government conspiracy. You just look like an ignoramous. Try rebutting the substance of what is said rather than trying personal attacks against the entire US population.
That is very true, and that is why the USGS keeps revising the figures for what is left, and why they keep revising them upwards. In other words all th eevidence says you are completely and utterly wrong when you say that most big reserves have been discovered.
Let me guess, that’s another baseless claim, right? You have no evidence at all to show an oil company making such a claim?
If Dr. Gold is correct, then we have nothing to worry about. I read years ago that an experiemnt was done in Sweden-they drilled into a granitic rock formation, looking for hydrocarbons. Did they find oil? Conventional petroleum geology says that no oil should be found in igneous rocks…but I believe that there was evidence found of hydrocarbons.
Any way, has anyone drilledinto the old Pennsylvania oilfields? These fieltds were exhausted a century ago-perhaps they have been recharged by now?
check out these sources for better info than the other site:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages
http://www.oilcrisis.com/library/
The last link has several books that you can find (some in the library depending on your local library).
Conventional, easy to produce oil is peaking in production. That means that very soon (most still say by 2005 or 2007, some 2010) that when the economies of the world demand more oil (as happens nearly every year - look at China’s growing energy demands for example) - at some point the production will instead stay stable, then slowly at first, start to decline, then the decline in production will accelerate.
Yes, there are other non-conventional sources of oil. The problem with those sources is not just about price (in terms of money) , but of energy. The reason those sources cost more and are not competitive now are that they take more energy to produce, and ramping up production will be slow due to lots of upfront capital costs. Even the most optomistic views on increasing nonconventional production will not be enough to offset the decline of conventional production.
This will mark the end of “cheap oil”. Oil prices now (with inflation factored in) are about as cheap as they have ever been, but soon this will not be the case.
Already with China’s unexpected increase in oil usage (due to incredible industrial growth) has pushed the current supply systems to the limit (see what the price of oil futures are going for).
What is also a problem for the US, is that North American natural gas production has peaked and is now in decline at a time when gas demand has increased significantly due mostly to electricity being more and more generated from natural gas (and increasing domestic use for heating, etc).
Liquid natural gas imports are expected to grow rapidly, but again the infrastructure to grow this supply will be slowing the growth below the depletion rate, meaning natural gas will also stay quite pricey in the US and Canada.
Part of the problem with industry moving offshore is that industries are moving to places where natural gas is cheaper.
This is (in the words of Matthew Simmons - head of a large energy investment company and on the panel of advisors that worked with Cheney on energy) , this problem is the greatest challenge of the 21st century and requires a manhattan project style investment to find new energy sources in time to avoid catastrophe.(paraphrased - his link is above and has several similar speeches on oil and natural gas depletion). He also contends that Saudi Arabia may be near peak (instead of far away from peak as commonly assumed) and if so, the world peak might be right now, not a few years from now.
Look into it, the facts are there, and more and more mainstream press, scientists, and even government is noticing.
Regards
adamant
Adamant we have been down this route before. You make these wild claims, but when asked for references you just say that they are in some webpage somewhere and refuse to provide specific quotes to back up what you are saying. In many cases the webpages you claim support you actually contradict your position.
Can we have a specific reference for this claim?
That is not what the WEC say. They say that there is no sign of production peaking or declining within the next 30 years.
“The world’s energy resources are adequate to meet the projected growth in energy demand. Oil resources are ample, but more reserves will need to be identified in order to meet rising oil demand to 2030.
…
Global crude oil refining capacity is projected to increase by an average 1.3 percent a year, reaching 121 mb/d in 2030”
It seems that the experts at the WEC have come to the conclusion that far form peaking by 2010 as you suggest, world oil production will ocntinue to increase for the next 30 years at the very least.
That just isn’t true
Can we have a specific reference for this claim?
The first problem you have with this assertion is that the experts at the WEC do not foresee the decline in production that you speak of.
The second problem is that many optimists believe that increasing nonconventional production will be more than enough enough to not only offset, but actually prevent any such decline.
“The increase of resources through time can be explained by the concept of the energy pyramid (Figure 5). There exists a relatively small quantity of high-quality, low-cost hydrocarbons. These resources constitute the top of the energy pyramid. However, there are larger quantities of lower-quality, higher-cost hydrocarbon resources…. As time passes, man moves lower in the energy pyramid and resources which were formerly unknown or considered uneconomic are added to the resource base.”
What are youa talking about?
That simply isn’t true.
Can we have a specific reference for this claim?
The very refernce from Simmons that you provided shows that natural gas production in the US alone will increase by 32% by 2010 (The Hydrocarbon In The 21st Century, Groupe Coflexip Stena OffshoreParis, France, January 18, 2000). Wher are you getting the impression that North American ga sproduction has in any way peaked?
Do you realise that oil prices now are artificilly adjusted by OPEC, not by market forces? If you do realise this then what is the relvance of prices to this discussion?
That simply isn’t true.
Can we have a specific reference for this claim?
The WEO report for example is based on a scenario where “developing countries fast approach OECD countries as the largest consumers of commercial energy.” The report notes that “More than 60% of the increase in world primary energy demand between 2000 and 2030 will come from developing countries, especially in Asia” but that “More than a quarter of the world’s population has no access to electricity, and two-fifths still rely mainly on traditional biomass for their basic energy needs. Although the number of people without power supplies will fall in the coming decades, a projected 1.4 billion people will still be without electricity in 2030. And the number of people using wood, crop residues and animal waste as their main cooking and heating fuels will actually grow.”
Yet taking all that into account there will still be absolutely no energy shortfall for the next 30 years.
Where do you get the idea that China has pushed supply to any sort of limit?
You are right.They are. And everything you have ever posted on this topic tell sme you do not undertsand them. Simmons does not support your position, no matter what you may believe. If he did you could provide quotes form him to back up the assretoions you have made. But you can not.
Simmons speaks often and enthusiastically about a need for more exploration activity, more gas rigs etc. All befitting his role as banker to the industry. Doubtless he is correct.
However he never speaks of a peak as such. He talks of how production may peak if more new rigs and pipelines aren’t produced. But he also seems to show a potential predicts a 32% increase in total US supply in the next 10 years. It clearly shows a deepwater Gulf production increase from C1 trillion cubic feet today to C4 trillion cubic feet in 2015. he also notes that although supplies might peak in the short term, this will be remedied when arctic gas starts flowing into the lower 48.
Basically the peak he speaks of is one based on economics and lack of investment enthusiasm, not a peak based on resources. As he says “all future supplies can do is fall unless we keep rig counts at record highs – an event that will not happen given the drop in gas prices” The resources are clearly there. As he points out, the US has plenty of energy. The trouble is that there is no reserve, no spare energy. He seems to be attributing this to a lack of exploration and new infrastructure.
Simmons himself states directly that there is a solution to this problem: “a massive expansion of the energy complex to create a 30% spare capacity.” He clearly believes the problem can be solved, with enough dollars.
In other words Admanant, you have completely misunderstood what Simmons is syaing. Andbecause ofhtis you have repeatedly misrepresented the man on these boards. He does not predict any form of peak, He does not agree with your position.
Hmm,
From one of his latest talks on Saudi Arabia :
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/CSIS.pdf
The slide is titled : Why we should worry about energy adequacy.
The bullet points listed :
Energy is world’s most precious resource.
Oil(and natural gas) is top of the energy food chain.
Neither are renewable.
Both will(or have?) peaked.
Neither will ever run out.
But daily supply will drop.
Predicting the timing is hard or impossible.
Scoffing at the notion is naive.
From that slide alone, he seems to me to be talking about peaking oil and natural gas supplies. He says the daily supply will drop, the production will(or already has) peaked.
From another talk (titled “The gathering storm : Our natural gas crises”) he mentions the problems with north american gas supply peaking, and the expense that nonconventional supplies will bring.
Here is a link to a talk Simmons gave at a Peak Oil conference in 2003 :
In this talk, near the end he says :
Right from the mouth of Simmons, I am not putting words in his mouth, but hearing and reading them from what he said.
He has also done a large study on Saudi Arabian Oil supply that suggests that the Saudi’s might be near their peak production (instead of being a large tap with lots left to turn on as needed) and if that is right, the world production is peaking now and on the way down.
I do not make up these things, I was just as sceptical as you two years ago when I first heard of this problem. The more I look into it , the more worrisome the facts become.
Look carefully at forecasts of plenty of future oil and see what assumptions about new discoveries, new technologies, and sometimes they just go on about “at current rates” not recognizing the growth in demand every year and how that eats into supply.
Regards
adamant
Admant you have not addressed even one of my questions. I would like to see some actual quotes that say that by 2010 production will peak. I would like to see some quotes that say that even optimists believe that non-conventional production can’t meet demand. I would like to see some quotes that say that North American NG production has peaked.
I have provided quotations that refute all those assertions. Can we see the evidence you used to make them?
But of course we have been here before, and you can’t or won’t.
Blake,
I’m sorry, I thought one of your questions dealt with Matthew Simmons and his opinion on peak oil/natural gas. Since that question was specific (in accusing me of misquoting him) I tried to be specific in finding some quotes that backed up my earlier somewhat general comments.
As for the other comments, I am not saying that you cannot find some authorites and experts who are saying “all is well” and predictions of plenty for years to come.
Far from it, most of what you find from many sources (government, press, oil industry) does predict that we can keep increasing production for the foreseeable future. Or they say something like “at current rates of oil use, the oil sands of Canada represents 200 years of supply”. Which statement is correct in terms of numbers perhaps (there is that amount of potential oil in the oil sands or whatever) but that statement is simplistic in ignoring the extraction rates that can be realistically achieved from oil sands (or whatever nonconventional resource) and also does not adress the fact that each year there is demand for more oil/natural gas.
The increasing demand meeting the peaking supply (again only conventional sources are peaking and then subsequently dropping in availability) is what will cause a lot of economic trouble and that will make it harder to develop nonconventional sources with a shrinking energy supply.
As for predictions of peak oil, I already showed quotes from Simmons where he says we might be at peak now or very shortly. From the above links :
http://www.oilcrisis.com/midpoint.htm
This shows several predictions hovering around the next few years for the peak depending on how much is used over the next few years.
The references above on books have predictions varying from 2007 to 2010 or even later (depending on predictions of economic growth/depression, conservation, new supply, etc).
Most scientists (geologists especially) do not argue about wether there will be a peak in oil production, just when that peak will come, and how much it can be put off with non-conventional development - much of which is very tricky due to having to make assumptions on new technology, investment decisions, etc.
Wether it is now or 10 (or even 20) years from now, it will be a problem unless we look not just for unconventional oil sources (which will peak in there own time for the same reasons unless that one theory of continuous generation of oil is correct) but towards developing renewable sources such as wind, solar, etc.
I am not trying to be decisive, I am only showing the facts that I have found and if I mis-quote something or make an overly simplistic generalization please let me know (as you did with the “optomists” comment - obviously some experts do think that we can ramp up non-conventional sources faster than other experts believe).
Thanks for listening
adamant
Adamant it is becoming quite clear that everything you say is just baseless opinion.
I have asked you three times in this thread alone to provide specific quotes that support what you have claimed. You are unable to provide any at all. Instead I get the same vague handwaving that it’s in a webpage somewhere.
Adamant if that web page really had quotes that said that production will peak by 2010 you would post them. You wouldn’t just say they are in their somewhere. And I mean quotes. Not dot point headings that are later clarified at length and clearly do not mean what you believe.
Adamant if that web page really had quotes that said that North American natural gas production has already begun to decline you would post them. You wouldn’t just say they are in their somewhere.
Adamant you might be right in what you believe. But it would be due to luck. You clearly have not based your opinion on any evidence or facts because if you had you would be able to provide us wit references rather than handwaving.