Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"Enough oil to last for 500 years"

Expand Messages
  • J.H. Crawford
    If you need to know what the extreme optimists are saying, here s where to read it: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2599065 Regards,
    Message 1 of 5 , May 31 12:39 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      If you need to know what the extreme optimists are saying,
      here's where to read it:

      http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2599065

      Regards,


      -- ### --

      J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
      mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
    • Jeremy Hubble
      The article seems to be fairly accurate. I don t know the details of the numbers he sited, but they do seem to be relatively in line with what I have heard
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        The article seems to be fairly accurate. I don't know the details of
        the numbers he sited, but they do seem to be relatively in line with
        what I have heard before.
        He does acknowledge:
        "It is true that in the long run, an economy that uses petroleum as a
        primary energy source is not sustainable."
        Although he then refutes any quest towards sustainability due to the
        natural progression of energy sources. Perhaps "Environmental
        Darwinism" would be a could name for this argument. Just milk the earth
        of a resource until it is not economical to do so anymore. Don't worry
        about any of the other damage caused by society.

        A few interesting points left out of the article:
        1) Oil shale reserves have not been tapped because of their cost. A
        sustained hire cost of oil would be required before they would be
        utilized.
        2) Yes, tapping all sources of possible oil may provide enough fuel for
        500 years at 2000 consumption rates. At 1900 demand the oil supply
        would last for millennia. However, the only way that consumption will
        stay anywhere near 2000 levels is if there is a focus on
        sustainability. (Or alternatively, a mass destruction of a large
        percentage of the world's population)

        His conclusion also leaves out a few very significant points:
        "Over the next several decades the world likely will continue to see
        short-term spikes in the price of oil, but these will be caused by
        political instability and market interference -- not an irreversible
        decline in supply."

        He left out the market itself. There is a significant effort to produce
        oil, as well as risks involved. Exploration efforts may turn up
        nothing. Natural disasters may occur. Demand may exceed forecasts. All
        of these can lead to short term increases.

        The OPEC web site contains an interesting FAQ on their view of oil
        prices. They prefer steady, stable markets. If prices rise too high,
        the world may seek alternate sources of energy, thus depriving member
        countries of their primary income. If prices are too low, income is also
        reduced. According to OPEC, we should blame taxes imposed by our local
        government for the high cost of fuel. If taxes were reduced, fuel would
        be cheap. (And thus the market would be able to sustain higher prices,
        and more money would flow to oil producers instead of local
        governments.)

        "J.H. Crawford" wrote:
        >
        > If you need to know what the extreme optimists are saying,
        > here's where to read it:
        >
        > http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2599065
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > -- ### --
        >
        > J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
        > mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com

        >
      • J.H. Crawford
        ... The number simply don t make any kind of sense at all. Even optimistic sources like IEA and USGS are nowhere near this optimistic. ... The cost that is
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Jeremy Hubble replied:

          >The article seems to be fairly accurate. I don't know the details of
          >the numbers he sited, but they do seem to be relatively in line with
          >what I have heard before.

          The number simply don't make any kind of sense at all.
          Even optimistic sources like IEA and USGS are nowhere
          near this optimistic.

          >1) Oil shale reserves have not been tapped because of their cost. A
          >sustained hire cost of oil would be required before they would be
          >utilized.

          The cost that is causing these sources not to be tapped is not
          the economic cost but the energy cost. It takes more energy
          to mine and process this stuff than you get from it. It's a
          non-started in general; there may be a few specific cases where
          the shale is near the surface and sufficiently concentrated
          that it can be produced with less energy than it releases, but
          you can pretty much forget about the oil shales.

          >2) Yes, tapping all sources of possible oil may provide enough fuel for
          >500 years at 2000 consumption rates.

          impossible; even 100 years is extremely unlikely

          >At 1900 demand the oil supply
          >would last for millennia.

          No, oil consumption would have had to quadruple since
          1990 for this mythical source to last "millennia" or
          2000 years or more . In fact, oil consumption is not up
          all that much in the past 14 years, certainly far less
          than a doubling.

          >He left out the market itself. There is a significant effort to produce
          >oil, as well as risks involved. Exploration efforts may turn up
          >nothing.

          They will turn up more than nothing, but they are unlikely
          to yield any really big finds; the large fields were mostly
          found decades ago, and there have only been two reasonably
          big finds in the past 20 years.

          Regards,


          -- ### --

          J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
          mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
        • Jeremy Hubble
          I did not realize that energy was the main limiting factor for oil shale. That does truly destroy his numbers. However, I can see some benefit from it. Even
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            I did not realize that energy was the main limiting factor for oil
            shale. That does truly destroy his numbers. However, I can see some
            benefit from it. Even if energy use does deplete most of the world's
            petroleum, the oil shale can be used as a source of petroleum
            byproducts. And, if the demand for petrol becomes so strong that
            companies seek the shale, we may still win. In order to make it viable,
            oil companies must make it economically viable. Since they are
            producing fuel energy than they are consuming to produce it, they would
            have to make significant investments in renewable resources to do it.
            This may include devoting significant efforts to advancing solar, wind,
            and other power sources. (Though too much of this money will probably be
            spent on the 'hydrogen dream') Big oil could eventually help put itself
            out of business.

            Also, my original note was:
            At 1900 demand the oil supply would last for millennia.
            1900, not 1990. I'm fairly certain that a few 1000 years is fairly
            conservative based on the use in 1900, though I don't have any hard
            numbers on use 104 years ago.

            Jeremy



            "J.H. Crawford" wrote:
            >
            > Jeremy Hubble replied:
            >
            > >The article seems to be fairly accurate. I don't know the details of
            > >the numbers he sited, but they do seem to be relatively in line with
            > >what I have heard before.
            >
            > The number simply don't make any kind of sense at all.
            > Even optimistic sources like IEA and USGS are nowhere
            > near this optimistic.
            >
            > >1) Oil shale reserves have not been tapped because of their cost. A
            > >sustained hire cost of oil would be required before they would be
            > >utilized.
            >
            > The cost that is causing these sources not to be tapped is not
            > the economic cost but the energy cost. It takes more energy
            > to mine and process this stuff than you get from it. It's a
            > non-started in general; there may be a few specific cases where
            > the shale is near the surface and sufficiently concentrated
            > that it can be produced with less energy than it releases, but
            > you can pretty much forget about the oil shales.
            >
            > >2) Yes, tapping all sources of possible oil may provide enough fuel for
            > >500 years at 2000 consumption rates.
            >
            > impossible; even 100 years is extremely unlikely
            >
            > >At 1900 demand the oil supply
            > >would last for millennia.
            >
            > No, oil consumption would have had to quadruple since
            > 1990 for this mythical source to last "millennia" or
            > 2000 years or more . In fact, oil consumption is not up
            > all that much in the past 14 years, certainly far less
            > than a doubling.
            >
            > >He left out the market itself. There is a significant effort to produce
            > >oil, as well as risks involved. Exploration efforts may turn up
            > >nothing.
            >
            > They will turn up more than nothing, but they are unlikely
            > to yield any really big finds; the large fields were mostly
            > found decades ago, and there have only been two reasonably
            > big finds in the past 20 years.
            >
          • J.H. Crawford
            ... Sorry, I mis-read 1900 as 1990. Regards, -- ### -- J.H. Crawford
            Message 5 of 5 , Jun 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Jeremy Hubble said:

              >Also, my original note was:
              >At 1900 demand the oil supply would last for millennia.
              >1900, not 1990.

              Sorry, I mis-read 1900 as 1990.

              Regards,


              -- ### --

              J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
              mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.