When will the oil run out?

Dear marinibug-ga;

Thank you for allowing me to answer your interesting question. The
best experts seem to disagree when (or even IF) the world?s supply of
oil will be exhausted. Our current technology seems unable to give an
accurate estimate of the amount of oil available. If this were the
case of course we?d know where all the oil is and there would be no
need for oil exploration. Without knowing the extent to which the oil
may be limited (if indeed it is limited) there can be no accurate
prediction of how long supplies will potentially last before all
sources are exhausted.

Insignificant amounts of oil will probably be produced in the year
2100 and perhaps even longer. The critical date is when the peak of
oil production is reached and the world?s demands can no longer be
adequately supplied. From then on, there will be less and less oil to
divide. So it is this peak period that is of critical interest. The
problem with calculating a time frame for the end of the oil supply is
that different known reserves peak at different times and new reserves
are discovered with relative frequency. It is the GLOBAL PEAK then
that is a matter of debate, and one that will likely never be settled
in our lifetime.

In terms of what is THOUGHT TO BE KNOWN however, the United States
Geological Survey has studied the matter closely and concluded that
the world had around 3 trillion barrels of recoverable conventional
oil in the ground. Of that, only one-third has been produced which
tentatively puts the global peak at some point beyond 2025. Now this
doesn?t mean that the oil will be exhausted by this time but it does
give us an unofficial idea of when we should feel the impact of
shortages.

ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION
Cached document
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:4yrtU-4Icz4J:www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/0504edequal.html+%22world%27s+oil+supply%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

As expected of course the USGS study is disputed. The M. King Hubbart
Center for Petroleum Supply Studies, a recognized authority on the
subject, places the global peak considerably later at around 2050
taking into account potentially unforeseen sources. They provide a
very interesting summary of the known sources around the world and the
years in which the supplies are expected to begin their declines:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/Campbell_02-3.pdf

"'How long will oil last?' The short answer is no one knows, but even
the oil industry suspects the world peak is now approaching. The
industry says it has 40 years of proven reserves at the moment -- but
it also said that 30 years ago."
AMERICAN SIMIZDAT
http://amsam.org/2005/05/race-is-on-to-bottom-of-petroleum-pit.html

The best answer then, it seems (which is a guess based on research,
and which is the only kind of answer anyone else can provide at this
point in our technology) is that substantial supplies of oil will most
likely be available, barring any unforeseen circumstances, at least
until the year 2100 and in all probability well beyond that. It may
cost an arm and a leg by then, but it will probably be around.

I hope you find that my answer exceeds your expectations. If you have
any questions about my research please post a clarification request
prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating and your
final comments and I look forward to working with you again in the
near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.

Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher



INFORMATION SOURCES

WE WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL
http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm

MSNBC
?How long will the oil last??
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5945678/

OIL CRASH
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/inhertnc.htm


SEARCH STRATEGY


SEARCH ENGINE USED:

Google ://www.google.com


SEARCH TERMS USED:

Oil

Supplies

Reserves

Available

Depleted

Exhausted

---

Request for Answer Clarification by marinibug-ga on 26 May 2006 17:02 PDT

Are you sure you are not being overly optimistic?  I don't know if you
are aware of the book The Long Emergency by James Kunstler.  In it he
said that oil peaked in the 70s and we only have 38 more years of
production.  He said that there is lots of oil but if it costs a
barrel of oil to retrieve a barrel of oil then it is not worth the
effort.  He claims that lots of the remaining oil is in hard-to-get-at
places and new discoveries ended in the 1960s.  I look forward to your
comments on this matter.  Thank you.

---

Clarification of Answer by tutuzdad-ga on 26 May 2006 18:55 PDT

You mean the former reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine? The guy that
who now also runs the occasional internet rant CLUSTERF*CK NATION, and
uses his website to conveniently promote his paintings of Kmart,
McDonald?s and yes, ?gas stations??yes, I am vaguely familiar with his
book.

http://www.kunstler.com/
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/about.html
http://www.kunstler.com/paintings.html

I?m also aware of the fact that he is the author of "The Geography of
Nowhere," "The City in Mind," and other critiques of urban and
suburban design even though (according to reporter Robert Birnbaum) he
happily admits that he ?has no formal training in architecture or the
related design fields?.

THE MORNING NEWS
http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/birnbaum_v/james_howard_kunstler.php

By his own description Kunstler is card-carrying, dues-paying, New
Urbanist so it is no surprise his doomsday scenario of the earth?s
resources is written in that tone and conflicts with a more optimistic
version of preeminent authorities on the subject  I don?t know. Maybe
I?m being too harsh. Maybe he does know more this subject than the
United States Geological Survey or The M. King Hubbart Center for
Petroleum Supply Studies. After all he did graduate from SUNY college
as a theater major.

I do admire one of Kuntsler?s quotes though: 

?You can only introduce so much perversity into an economic system
before distortions cripple it.?

THE SMIRKING CHIMP
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24355

I almost wish I had said that. 

For those who aren?t aware, in his latest nonfiction book, "The Long
Emergency," Kunstler describes the enormous changes that he claims
American society will face in this century. He suggests there that a
protracted socioeconomic crisis in the US is imminent, that
subdivisions and strip malls will become dilapidated (ah, yes?.one of
the familiar pet rants of the New Urbanist organization), that
depopulation will almost vacate the American Southwest, and that the
world will soon be at war over oil and the result will be military
invasions of the West Coast. Survivors will live in smaller groups and
relay heavily on locally grown food for their sustenance.

Funny...I thought George Orwell wrote that too...or was it Orson Welles? Whatever.

Tutuzdad-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by marinibug-ga on 27 May 2006 09:53 PDT

I believe that Kunstler has a point.  To say that oil is unlimited is
nonsensical and even a recent Business Week article said that oil is
being consumed at twice the rate as new reserves are found.  Factor in
the new demand from India and China and it is hard not to have an
apocalyptic view of the future.  The U.S. Geological Survey may just
be trying to placate business and consumers in its estimates.  If you
look on the internet, estimates of when it will run out range from 10
to 60 years.  Historically, this is a short time-frame and we should
be preparing for the end of oil.  That doesn't bode well for suburbia.
 I look forward to your comments 0n this matter. - Marinibug

---

Clarification of Answer by tutuzdad-ga on 27 May 2006 16:22 PDT

I don't know of any credible sources who predict that oil will run out
in 10-60 years. It may peak and begin a significant decline in that
time, in which case the prediction falls well within the ranges of
both the USGS and M. King Hubbart studies. Neither of these source say
that oil is unlimited and I agree that to say any resource is
unlimited is unrealistic. No one knows what the future holds.

Thanks for your final rating. 
Tutuzdad-ga

Well done

So who cares?

By then we'll have the fuel cell and loads of alternative energy options.

Provided that Global Warming doesn't fry us all up first.

Ever Hopeful

Yes, of course, oil will be much more expensive in the future, as it
is now, relative to the past.  In the 1970s, when OPEC suddenly raised
the price of crude oil (from $2 to $8/barrel!!), it was thought that
western economies would collapse.
The fact that the projections of proven reserves continue to hover at
40 years is rather convenient for those making them; by then, they
will no longer be responsible, and probably forgotten.

Funny how we keep finding oil and natural gas.

I'm also suspicious of the CO2 merchants, Greenhouses work by cutting
out convection.

I'm equally suspicious about rising sea levels, when ice melts it
contracts, and we all know that the tip of an iceberg is rather
smaller than the submerged bit.

There seems to be some sort of coalition of 'alarmists'.

Alternative fuels, including the fuel cell are a fantasy.  You cannot
continue to produce fleets of automobiles based on these platforms.  I
would say that the alarmists are realists.

frde-ga said:

"Funny how we keep finding oil and natural gas.

I'm also suspicious of the CO2 merchants, Greenhouses work by cutting
out convection.

I'm equally suspicious about rising sea levels, when ice melts it
contracts, and we all know that the tip of an iceberg is rather
smaller than the submerged bit.

There seems to be some sort of coalition of 'alarmists'."

   What's important about the new discoveries of oil & natural gas
isn't just that they are found. What's telling is the *rate* at which
they are found. The rate of discovery is declining. It's on the
downward side of a normal curve. In the Hubbert model, production
approximately maps onto earlier discovery with a separation of some
number of years. The average rate of discovery has been on the
downswing, implying that production also will diminish similarly.

   As for your comment about the exact mechanism by which commercial
greenhouses work, what's important to the question of global warming
isn't how greenhouses work, but rather whether or not CO2, and other
gases, serve to trap solar energy. Just because we call them
"greenhouse" gases doesn't necessarily mean that global warming is
supposed to work exactly the way that flower nurseries do. The only
connection between the two is the name.

   What's important about melting ice isn't the ice that's already
floating bouyantly in the ocean. That ice already has displaced as
much liquid water as it would were it to melt entirely. Indeed, if the
whole North-Pole ice pack were to melt, it wouldn't raise ocean water
levels at all. What's important is that ice which has been resting
upon land may be melting and emptying into the ocean. This frozen
water has not, in geologically recent times, been mixed in with the
sea, and so has not been contributing to sea level. If it does melt
into the ocean, the water level will necessarily rise.

   And as for a coalition of alarmists, what's important isn't if they
are organised. What's important is if they are or are not correct.

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly

They told Marconi
Wireless was a phony
It?s the same old cry
They laughed at me eschewing oil
Said I was going off the boil
But along came the Fuel Cell
And all the cynics went to Hell

@qed100-ga 
Methane from cows farting is a major source of 'greenhouse gas' as is,
incredibly, water vapour. CO2 is perfectly natural and rather
necessary.

I agree that it is the ice on land that is rather worrying, but I
notice that nobody points that out, and I've never seen anyone attempt
to calculate that volume of water, and to what extent it is offset by
melting icebergs.

We are only about 13,000 years out of the last ice age, we could just
be seeing a natural cycle.

Also, if sea levels do rise significantly, which I rather doubt, there
is plenty of land around, and new areas would become inhabitable - it
might be an idea snapping up real estate in the Arctic and Antarctica.

There are two entirely separate problems, possible rising sea levels
which we can't do much about, and the fact that we currently run an
oil and natural gas based economy.

Possibly we will find another efficient way of transporting energy,
petrol (or in the USA gasoline) is very convenient, possibly we will
stick with the current model and just manufacture ethanol, not from
biomass, but from electricity. I see tidal electricity generation as a
real option.

Most likely we will have another technological breakthrough
- in the late 1800's doom mongerers were saying that London would be
10ft deep in horse manure, they also said that trains would create a
vacuum and suffocate the passengers if they travelled over 30 miles
per hour.

"Methane from cows farting is a major source of 'greenhouse gas' as is,
incredibly, water vapour. CO2 is perfectly natural and rather
necessary."

   Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is natural & necessary, up to a
point. Gaseous oxygen is natural & necessary, up to a point. I need
oxygen. But it's also a characteristically poisonous gas. If I were to
breath only pure oxygen at sea level pressure for an extended period,
shall we say a week or so, then it'd become detrimental to my health.
Being natural & necessary to within some interval of tolerance isn't
the same as being increasingly good with indefinitely increasing
abundance. CO2 plays a role in Earth's bio-system. We need it in some
relative abundance. But too much can be a bad thing. Go get yourself a
can of sprayable whipped-cream. Put the business end in your mouth and
squeeze. Along with a shot of whipped-cream, you'll also get a large
dose of carbon dioxide gas, which will become the predominant
component of the air you're breathing. Do this, then once you've
regained consciousness, tell me that an overabundance of CO2 is a good
thing.

   Now of course, I'm not saying that CO2 is in any danger of
accumulating to such a concentration in the greater atmosphere to
poison us directly. But it can be a danger in some other way. CO2 is a
greenhouse gas. This isn't baseless guesswork; empirical data are in
hand which tell the tale of the interaction between CO2 & light
energy. Too much CO2 would indeed be a disaster.

   But as you say, perhaps cows contribute more greenhouse gases to
the air than any current source of CO2. Indeed, all the mammals on
Earth fart methane. (They also exhale plenty of CO2.) Do you mean to
say by this that, since there are worse contributors to global warming
than CO2, that CO2 can be ignored? If I am suffering from two or three
gaping, bleeding wounds, can I just ignore the smaller of them?

   It so happens that CO2 is so much a greenhouse gas that it plays an
important role in maintaining the comfortable temperatures here on
Earth. Were there *no* global warming, we wouldn't be here. Earth
would be a frozen ball. Were there too much, then we also would be
absent, owing to the excessive heat. What we need is just the right
abundance of greenhouse gases. Too much can be our death.

"I agree that it is the ice on land that is rather worrying, but I
notice that nobody points that out, and I've never seen anyone attempt
to calculate that volume of water, and to what extent it is offset by
melting icebergs. [...] Also, if sea levels do rise significantly,
which I rather doubt, there is plenty of land around, and new areas
would become inhabitable - it might be an idea snapping up real estate
in the Arctic and Antarctica."

   What makes you think that no one ever points out the role of
melting land-based ice? What makes you think no one has ever ventured
a computed estimate of the volume of that ice? It gets pointed out all
the time; that's the ice which is cited to threaten rising sea levels.
The volume of that meltwater is calculated. That's how experts can
estimate how much deeper the oceans might become. Also once again, the
melting of icebergs will have no effect on sea level. It will not
?offset? the contribution by other melting ice.

   As for the estimate itself, it's figured that the oceans could
deepen by perhaps one meter. That may not sound like a lot. It will
leave a tremendous area of land away from the coastlines. The problem
isn't *simply* that sea level will rise. Even if the increased depth
of the ocean is no problem in itself, the fact remains that the ice
melts for a reason: global warming. The warming is the real threat.

"We are only about 13,000 years out of the last ice age, we could just
be seeing a natural cycle."

   Yes, we could be witnessing a non-manmade cycle in Earth's climate.
But on the other hand, we might not. Wouldn't you care to know which
is the case? I certainly would. If it turns out that warming is being
induce by human behavior, we then can take control of the situation
ourselves by choosing to modify our behavior.

   And what if it is just another natural cycle? Does this mean that
global warming is of no concern to us? If we can pin the blame on
Mother Nature, does this mean that it's no threat to us? We do need to
know what's happening with the climate.

"There are two entirely separate problems, possible rising sea levels
which we can't do much about, and the fact that we currently run an
oil and natural gas based economy.

Possibly we will find another efficient way of transporting energy,
petrol (or in the USA gasoline) is very convenient, possibly we will
stick with the current model and just manufacture ethanol, not from
biomass, but from electricity. I see tidal electricity generation as a
real option.

Most likely we will have another technological breakthrough
- in the late 1800's doom mongerers were saying that London would be
10ft deep in horse manure, they also said that trains would create a
vacuum and suffocate the passengers if they travelled over 30 miles
per hour."

   Once again, whether or not we can do anything about rising sea
levels depends upon what our role is in the mechanics of it. If
warming is due to our behavior, then we can conceivably change our
behavior. And also once again, even if we aren?t the culprits, we
still need to understand the process. We need to know what to expect.
Coastal cities tend to be also rather important cities. If their ports
are in the process of being altered, we need to make plans to change
how we do business.

   And the current problem with petroleum as stored energy has little
to do with how we?re transporting it. The problem facing people is the
eventual diminishment & loss of that energy source. Furthermore, the
solution isn?t so simple as to ?just make ethanol?. I haven?t the
slightest idea how you think it can be produced ?with electricity?.
But suppose hypothetically that it can be. We just generate lots of
electricity, and presto, we have ethanol. Where are you proposing we
get all the electricity? Generating electric current requires an
energy input. It?s an energy conversion. Yet what we are being faced
with is an energy shortage. For an energy source to be useful to us,
it needs to be ?free? to us. Most of the energy required to store
potential energy needs to have been invested by someone other than us.
(For example, the Sun.)

   But it?s ineffective to just chant the mantra, "There?ll be an
energy breakthrough..." Maybe there will be one. But on the other
hand, there hasn?t been one. What makes you think there will be one?
Are you willing to bet our whole future on the fantasy of a miracle
breakthrough, just in time? Yet, as long as you?re just sitting around
waiting for someone else to cough it up for you, then that?s precisely
what it is, a fantasy. I mean, have you even hired a genius or two to
do this job, coming up with a new source of energy? If you haven?t
hired anyone, and aren?t doing it yourself, then its accomplishment
isn?t to be rationally expected. Stock criticisms such as, "Back in
the 19th century people erroneously thought..." isn?t equivalent to
guiding the way to an energy source that?s up to the task of
supporting several thousand-million people in comfort & health. Only
actually understanding the world in which we find ourselves stands a
chance of doing this.

@qed100-ga 

Water vapour is another 'greenhouse' gas, and there is lots of it, but
what is more serious is that ice reflects light and less ice means
less reflection.

I've seen nothing before on calculation of the volume of water from
ice covered land surfaces, you may have seen it, but I've seen
absolutely no attempts at quantification.

Personally I reckon that it is probably part of a cycle, and that we
have little to do with it. Normally our pollution is pretty local, we
tend to poison ourselves.

The sensible thing would be to avoid building on low lying areas,
something we in the UK have a penchant for doing.

On the energy side, there is ample tidal power, the surplus could be
pushed 'uphill' so it is controlable, from that one can generate
electricity, from electricity one can generate Hydrogen and from that
one can produce any number of cocktails that fit in with our current
energy distribution system.

That stuff is old technology, we should be getting on and securing our
posteriors rather than running around like beheaded chickens.

We'll probably have some breakthroughs, Nuclear Fusion is on the
horizon, regardless we are swimming in a sea of energy. Ambient
temperature is potential energy.

If we were sensible we would assume the worst case and prepare for it.

As an aside, the stuff about us running out of oil and gas is pretty
dubious, a perception of a shortage keeps the price up, so there is
little incentive to publicize new finds.  Also, crying wolf keeps the
price up.

"As an aside, the stuff about us running out of oil and gas is pretty
dubious, a perception of a shortage keeps the price up, so there is
little incentive to publicize new finds.  Also, crying wolf keeps the
price up."

   Are you willing to wager your childrens' & great-granchildrens'
futures on this? I'm not. It's always unwise to project today's
abundances onto the indefinite future. There is only a finite amount
of anything you'd care to mention within our reach. We will run out of
oil. You say that there's plenty of energy available to us. There may
be lots of useable alternative energy. But what are *you* doing to
make this a reality? What is *your* strategy to harness non-petroleum
energy?

Sorry, I did not make myself clear

I believe that we should be following two paths simultaneously:
1) Using existing technology to generate energy
   a) use of tidal power for electricity generation
   b) incinerating refuse (cleanly) rather than landfill
   c) reluctantly, building Nuclear plants
   d) converting electricity into conventional fuel substitutes
2) Investing heavily in research into new technology
   a) getting in on the French Nuclear Fusion project
   b) funding research into 'offbeat' alternatives
   c) investigating yeast + algae to produce ethanol
   d) investigating tapping magma
   e) investigating solar 'farms' in hot climates