World oil reserves are huge

[Erick Lihme]

With all the doom and gloom surrounding oil, thought I'd share this link. It would pay to read it carefully. The 'low hanging fruit' or Sweet Crude is begin depleted. It concludes there's plenty of non conventional sources. It's important to note that coal is not included and which there are huge reserves.* As it relates to preserving our life styles, even though there's enough, as we become more reliant on these more difficult to get 'non conventional' sources, prices will go up.

*correction: coal is included

http://www.ihs.com/News/Press-Releases/2006/PeakOilTheory.htm


From another source, good news for Canada: "Total liquids production is projected increasing around 2% annum to 4.1 Mb/d in 2020." A four fold increase from current to 2020 levels. This is good news for our local economy and real estate here in Eureka, MT, and friends just north acouple of hours.

 

[pwc]

It's interesting, your wording. I don't touch my reserve tank unless I really have to. until then, I use another source.
I still think it's best to find that renewable 'main' source now instead of tapping our reserves.

Imagine if you have a 1000gallon reserve tank. pretty big and for short trips you wouldn't think anything about tapping it if your flux-capacitor (used due to lack of something better) main engine wasn't really complete. "Sure", you tell yourself "I'll get that flux-capacitor working next week. Until then, I'm fine running to the store on my HUGE reserve tank"
The problem with that way of living is you're not looking two years out from now, when that 1000 gallons is eaten up.

Now stretch that out (I know, it's a big stretch) to decades and look at how we treat our current situation. We are in the 'still driving to the store' phase. We should really get that flux-capacitor working before we hit something like 25% otherwise known as the 'honey? can you please fill the tank?' phase. Because at that point, we'll be scrambling to find ANY solution, instead of the optimal one. And you won't be able to go to the gas store to fill that 1000 gallon tank because that's the only 1000 gallon tank you get.

This is all beside the peak-oil argument described in the article which I don't have an opinion on. It's in the 'we should do something now and not trust to reserves' , 'an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure' and a bunch of other ' ' comments, type of vein. Sheesh, I didn't make this easy to read, sorry.

 

[DaveInDenver]

It's interesting, your wording. I don't touch my reserve tank unless I really have to. until then, I use another source.
I still think it's best to find that renewable 'main' source instead of tapping our reserves.

Reserve means different things. Reserve oil is oil that is not yet brought to the surface. It would be like the fuel in your tank that has not yet been pumped to the engine for use. You have to start asking what proven reserves means and the accuracy of what's really proven when you talk about how much oil there is for use in reality. There is no single consensus about that, could be lots, could be not. The point of this article was to say that there may be more than previously estimated based on production and unconventional resources. Won't know whether or not the true conventional peak matched predicted for sure until the super-giants and giants are empty. Some say we've already gone past the peak production, going so far as to claim that Ghawar is already 90% tapped. Only Aramco might even know for sure and even then it's only anecdotal based on water cut. There is also some speculation that the big oil fields may recover to some extent if allowed to rest at lower production. So that is not to say we don't need to be careful of use, but that the idea of running out of oil is not all that clear cut. Could be a very long time before we use up all the easy to get oil. The linked article claims that we've only used about 20% of the proven recoverable oil, whereas other people claim we've used 50% of it. I figure we can't be held indecisive by what /might/ happen, we have to assume that some day we'll run out and go from there. The idea that it's imminent is not true. The worse estimates say in 100+ years we've used 1.1 trillion barrels of 2.3 trillion available. At current world usage of 82 million barrels per day, the remaining 1.2 trillion will last about 40 years. This article is claiming that the 2.3 trillion total could be more like 5 trillion. If we really did have a total of 5 trillion and there's about 3.75 trillion barrels left, that's means at 82 million bbl/day we'll have 125 years of oil left. I'm definitely a hack and I'm not sure anyone can know with certainty, either.

 

[Erick Lihme]

"The idea that it's imminent is not true." :clapsmile

My opinions are often unsubstantiated, and full of speculation, as experts disagree, and the media is horribly inaccurate while hyping what it can, leaving it to "hacks" like us to sort it out. The truth is likely somewhere is the middle of all claims.

I've made financial decisions based upon what I believe the price of oil might do with the purchase of 3 properties. Partnering with my brother, we've selected property which allow us to install a mircrohydro electric generator on one, and Ground Source Heat Pumps systems in two properties. Ground Source Heat Pumps are 300 to 400% efficient, however, they are expensive. Property with an existing well, spring or cistern makes them affordable. It pays to research and stay ahead of the 'curve'. I've put money and efforts behind my best guess.

 

[DaveInDenver]

"The idea that it's imminent is not true."

My opinions are often unsubstantiated, and full of speculation, as experts disagree, and the media is horribly inaccurate while hyping what it can, leaving it to "hacks" like us to sort it out. The truth is likely somewhere is the middle of all claims.

I've made financial decisions based upon what I believe the price of oil might do with the purchase of 3 properties.

I don't think anyone with two neurons firing in their head would say oil is unlimited. That's just stupid. But at the same time the notion that we looking down the barrel and the hammer has just been triggered I think is overly dramatic. I personally feel that it's more like 35 years down the road before oil will be unattractively expensive (this presumes competing alternatives develop and mature economically) and more like 60 or 75 before it's truly prohibitively expensive to recover at all. For example there is estimated about 1 trillion barrels of oil shale sitting in the Green River formation that has never been exploited because it's fairly expensive to use (something like $70 / bbl is where it begins to make money). That's one unconventional source that is just waiting and that alone would support the world oil demand for 30 years (although demand will go down as price goes up and so in actuality it would last longer than 30 years).

I also figure that we're looking realistically in the next decade or two of having a better handle on a set of sustainable alternatives that can honestly rival oil on cost at the volumes necessary on a wide scale. If I turn 50 and start looking for a red mid life crisis sports car and they are all still 100% gasoline powered, then I might start to wonder if we shouldn't worry.

 

[Erick Lihme]

Another great post, and voice of reason. Wish I had time to respond fully, instead I'll be hasty and vague.

Based on several trends, and hunches, political to technical challenges there are indications that the price will go up and become a significantly larger percent of one's disposable income. This assumes no major geopolitical disruptions of supplies. If I'm wrong, I will still be head. It never hurts to be efficent.

If I turn 50 and start looking for a red mid life crisis sports car and they are all still 100% gasoline powered, then I might start to wonder if we shouldn't worry.

That's only 3 years away for me!!!!!:yikes: Fortunately as I grow older, I care less and less!

 

[teotwaki]

Good stuff to read even if I am not panicked by it. I've ridden my bike to work 3 days so far and at this point the benefits of the exercise far outweigh the savings in gas for 105 miles of peddling... :bike_rider:

Just the same, that is 6 more gallons not used!

 

[Expedition Pictures]

Since we're having this thread, I thought I'd throw in this interesting article from Nat Geo:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070214-cheap-gas.html

 

[DesertRose]

One of the first things I do when a post is put forth from a "source" is to look at who the source is. In this case it is the website and corporation "IHS", which bills itself as "THE SOURCE (their emphasis) for Critical Insight and Information."

IHS provides said "critical insight and information" (which is trademarked in their name, by the way!), to the energy, defense, aerospace, construction, electronics, and automotive industries. They provide services such as "critical technical information, decision-support tools, and related services."

Methinks I might smell a rat, but it will take a while to ferret it out. Any corporation (with shareholders) is interested in its own bottom line first, and that means giving its target customers what they want.

Anyway, all information, properly processed and weighed against other sources, is useful.

Though I'm an admitted cynic, I enjoyed the read.

Thanks for the interesting thread!

 

[calamaridog]

Methinks I might smell a rat, but it will take a while to ferret it out. Any corporation (with shareholders) is interested in its own bottom line first, and that means giving its target customers what they want.

Anyway, all information, properly processed and weighed against other sources, is useful.

Though I'm an admitted cynic, I enjoyed the read.

Thanks for the interesting thread!

I would apply that same logic to all self serving and interested parties; in other words the environmental lobby as well.

I'm just not one to accept anything at face value, from any source

 

[Erick Lihme]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070214-cheap-gas.html

Outstanding article. Thanks for that. National Geographic has always been my favorite. They have always been on the forefront of important issues. Though not a Scientific America, peer review by some of the best and brightest insures their integrity.

Regardless of the source, if it rings true, it probably is. The article fills the gaps which makes one go,' Yes!, Yes! Now it all makes sense.

Does abundance mean stable prices? No, IMHO. Factors not limited to the industry's marketing strategy, such as punitive and other added fed and state taxes, rising emissions standards particular to CO2 as well as mandated additives, and more, bar a glut, as mentioned, can increase prices yet, and is apart of the unrecognized inflation and increasing wage disparity. The CPI, Consumer Price Index is not accurate reflection for the regular person to gauge weather not their income is keeping up with inflation.

Back to work, thanks again for the article.

 

[calamaridog]

I think irregardless of the actual amount of oil, we should still continue to investigate other fuel sources and develop technologies to alliate our dependance on one fuel source.

The importance of actually knowing what sort of supply we actually have, I believe, is to direct policy based upon fact versus fiction.

 

[fisher205]

A very good review of how the "reserves" were calculated and more realistic numbers are to read "Party's Over" by Richard Heinberg. This book has a better learned discussion than I can bring to the table. Yes there is huge amount of reseves in non conventional sources - But the costs get astronomical. I believe the Shale oil production were all subsidized just like ethonal production is now. The costs of the tar sands even though there are huge reserves??

The scary part is, now as China, and India develop they use the US as a model of wants and needs for driving a car. I have read vehicle use has tripled in both countries already. When we start factoring their use of oil and the amount of production capability in the world, the costs get significantly higher.
- Brad

 

[Erick Lihme]

Here's a review of the book. It looks like a good one:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/party.htm

If we agree that 'experts' can disagree, the next step is to select the most qualified experts. Personally I consider those in the industry best qualified to characterize for us 'hacks', excuse me, lay persons. This is not to say to trust any source blindly. In the end, even the experts can be wrong, so I will assume that the reality of the situation is somewhere in the middle of the best supported arguments.

The Green River formation with an estimated 1 trillion barrels mentioned by Dave is a good example of an abundant supply which will cost us more per gallon. One concern is how the global economy will adjust to higher prices (in the spirit of Party's Over.) Dave reports it's profitable at $70/barrel. Clearly it will cost more, yet a more fuel efficient economy can handle such a price. Technological advances can make it possible to absorb the next price threshold of more expensive reserves. However, any transition carries more risk as we are sensitive to price violatility.

Without doubt, the Party can't continue forever, but the cops ain't gonna bust it anytime soon, IMHO. The mircrohydro electric plant we hope to install is expected to help the RV park be more profitable as power is a big expense. Imagine 20 or more units running off of 50amp services. It will also ensure my brother's children will have an economic advantage and is a hedge againist uncertain times.

 

[DaveInDenver]

In this vein, interesting article.
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece

A couple of quotes:

"Dr Campbell, is a former chief geologist and vice-president at a string of oil majors including BP, Shell, Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. He explains that the peak of regular oil - the cheap and easy to extract stuff - has already come and gone in 2005. Even when you factor in the more difficult to extract heavy oil, deep sea reserves, polar regions and liquid taken from gas, the peak will come as soon as 2011, he says.

This scenario is flatly denied by BP, whose chief economist Peter Davies has dismissed the arguments of "peak oil" theorists.

"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint. When peak oil comes, it is just as likely to come from consumption peaking, perhaps because of climate change policies as from production peaking.""


"What no one, not even BP, disagrees with is that demand is surging. The rapid growth of China and India matched with the developed world's dependence on oil, mean that a lot more oil will have to come from somewhere. BP's review shows that world demand for oil has grown faster in the past five years than in the second half of the 1990s. Today we consume an average of 85 million barrels daily. According to the most conservative estimates from the International Energy Agency that figure will rise to 113 million barrels by 2030."