When will Oil be depleted?
sysadm
Can anyone tell me when Oil will be depleted? (i.e. When there is no Oil
left)
Thanks,
Glen
Mary Cole & Scot Krueger
You are thinking about the problem in the wrong way. Oil will never be
"gone". It will simply become sufficiently scarce that the cost of
production will exceed the benefits of use. In fact, oil is constantly
being generated in actively subsiding basins at relatively slow rates,
and can be artificially generated from oil shales and other organic-rich
rocks, so the idea of oil being "gone" is a bit silly.
Thinking about the economics of a particular use for hydrocarbons may be
more fruitful. At current prices it is very economical to drive an
automobile. A dollar of gasoline can transport you about 20 miles under
typical american conditions. A typical worker can afford to spend two
dollars to drive 20 miles to work and back every day. If gasoline were
to become five times as expensive, however, the number of people who
concluded that driving is economical would drop dramatically. If driving
cost ten dollars a day to commute to work, then I suspect many would
find that cost prohibitive. If gasoline were to become ten times as
expensive, then the modern lifestyle of living far from where you work
would become too costly for most people and demographic trends would
change toward more sustainable alternatives involving less
transportation.
At elevated prices, alternatives to fossil fuels will become very much
more attractive. Solar-powered power plants charging high-efficiency
batteries for electric cars could become the norm, for example.
Alternatives to burning fossil fuels for energy would become commonplace
long before petroleum was "gone". The more interesting question relates
to what impact the potential end of the Era of Cheap Energy will have on
our society.
Hope this helps you to better frame the question in your thinking.
Scot Krueger
ri...@kana.stanford.edu
Even in the 1860s they were worried (Rockefeller's biography "Titan').
Those of us who believe in a Hubbert type depletion curve,
which has had regional success, suspect the second quarter of the
21st century.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
MVCS
>Can anyone tell me when Oil will be depleted? (i.e. When there is no Oil
>left)
The 33rd of Koonagoanda ;-)
Oil is being generated from buried organic matter all the time.
Theories (based on some non-trivial amount of evidence, I might add)
suggest that SOME reservoirs are even being re-charged from source
rock (quite quickly.... within 50 to 100 years sort of time frame).
MCLynch
>Can anyone tell me when Oil will be depleted? (i.e. When there is no Oil
>left)
The other responses were reasonably good, but my two cents worth:
Oil won't be depleted, as stated, but either it will become too expensive or
(more likely) something else will become cheaper and better. We didn't run out
of coal, but I'll bet you don't heat your home with it.
Some are now arguing that depletion will strike within 2-30 years, using what
is called Hubbert curves for analysis. This however tends to be flawed,
because it underestimates the role of technological advances in making
expensive oil cheap (or oil too expensive to produce cheap enough to produce).
There is currently about 1.8 trillion barrels of what is called conventional
oil around, including undiscovered oil, but this only refers to oil which can
be produced economically at current prices. For the past 60 years or so, after
the peak of discoveries in the Middle East, depletion (and other things) has
been raising costs, in theory. In reality, this has been largely, if not
completely (or more) offset by technological advances, better infrastructure,
firing middle management, etc.
Michael Lynch, Center for International Studies, M.I.T.
Robert Nase Johnson
>
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone tell me when Oil will be depleted? (i.e. When there is no Oil
> left)
>
> Glen
Keep your eye on the inflation-adjusted price of crude oil. Outside of
troublesome excursions (particularly lately), I have the impression it
has stayed virtually constant since its commercial discovery 130 years
ago.
Bobby
ri...@kana.stanford.edu
> Some are now arguing that depletion will strike within 2-30 years,
using what
> is called Hubbert curves for analysis. This however tends to be
flawed,
> because it underestimates the role of technological advances in making
> expensive oil cheap (or oil too expensive to produce cheap enough to
produce).
On the other hand, the Hubbert curve has predicted production very
well in the USA, which is arguably the most technological advanced
place on the planet. Apologists for the world Hubbert curve
claim the worldwide data was poor until recent globalization of
oil E&P.
BRICULL
>From: mcl...@aol.com (MCLynch)
>Date: Wed, 16 June 1999 02:56 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990616145602...@ng-fz1.aol.com>
>
>>
<snips>
>Oil won't be depleted, as stated, but either it will become too expensive or
>(more likely) something else will become cheaper and better. We didn't run
>out
>of coal, but I'll bet you don't heat your home with it.
>
>Michael Lynch, Center for International Studies, M.I.T.
>
Michael
How much would you like to bet? Despite the rush for gas-powered power stations
I would imagine that there are still plenty of coal-fired power stations
worldwide. You probably have figures for this at CIS that you could bring to
the debate.
cheers
Brian
danny dickerson
BRICULL <bri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990622071121...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
I recently read an article on the web (forget where) in
which Australia power options were discussed. The
gist of their article was that coal will play an increasing
role in meeting their future energy needs. This is
despite the fact that they have very significant gas
reserves offshore.
Natural gas transportation is a big obstacle to most
developments. LNG use is growing, but the high
costs delays many LNG plants.
I predict problems with oil supplies in 20 years or
so. However, US natural gas supplies will become
somewhat limted (versus demand) this winter.
Danny
MCLynch
>>Oil won't be depleted, as stated, but either it will become too expensive or
>>(more likely) something else will become cheaper and better. We didn't run
>>out
>>of coal, but I'll bet you don't heat your home with it.
>>
>
>>Michael Lynch, Center for International Studies, M.I.T.
>>
>Michael
>
>How much would you like to bet? Despite the rush for gas-powered power
>stations
>I would imagine that there are still plenty of coal-fired power stations
>worldwide. You probably have figures for this at CIS that you could bring to
>the debate.
>
>cheers
>
>Brian
Touche, as they say in Quebec. Although I don't recommend electric heat
particularly.
GSTIS.net
news:7k53si$da4$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone tell me when Oil will be depleted? (i.e. When there is no Oil
> left)
There are really two questions here.
#1. When is oil no longer "economically recoverable".
#2. When is oil no longer "energetically recoverable"
"Economically recoverable" simply reflects current political arrangements.
In other words, the people who own global political systems define what is
"economical" and what is "not economical". Indeed, recent research
suggests perverse subsidies total about $1.5 trillion per year worldwide.
This is twice as large as global military spending each year and three times
as much as the international narcotics industry. [ see
http://www.websiteworld.co.uk/hot.htm ] In short, oil can be "economically
recoverable" as long as oil producers own global political systems.
On the other hand, in order for oil production to "energetically
recoverable", it must produce more energy than it consumes. One can see a
picture of how energy production from oil is limited by thermodyanmics at
Professor Detwyler's page:
http://www.uwsp.edu/acaddept/geog/courses/geog100/Petrol-ShrinkNetE.htm
Jay -- www.dieoff.org
GSTIS.net
news:19990616145602...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
> Some are now arguing that depletion will strike within 2-30 years, using
what
> is called Hubbert curves for analysis. This however tends to be flawed,
> because it underestimates the role of technological advances in making
> expensive oil cheap (or oil too expensive to produce cheap enough to
produce).
Your analysis is flawed because is has failed to take into account "net
energy". By definition, energy "sources" must produce more energy than they
consume, otherwise they are called "sinks". Neither prices nor technology
can repeal the laws of thermodynamics.
In the 1950s, oil producers discovered about fifty barrels of oil for every
barrel invested in drilling and pumping. Today, the figure is only about
five for one. Sometime around 2005, that figure will become one to one. At
that point, it will be energetically uneconomical to search for oil in the
US.[i]
Economists please note: even if the price of oil reaches $500 a barrel, it
won't make energy sense to look for new oil in the US because it would
consume more energy than it would recover.
Decreasing net energy sets up a positive feedback loop: since oil is used
directly or indirectly in everything, as the energy costs of oil increase,
the energy costs of everything else increase too - including other forms of
energy. For example, oil provides about 50% of the fuel used in coal
extraction.[ii]
Global oil production is expected to "peak" around 2005. [iii]
This "peak" in oil production marks the end of the market economy because
studies show that nothing can replace oil. A good analogy is a car with a
twenty-gallon tank, but the nearest gas station is twenty-five gallons away.
You can't fill your tank with trips to the gas station because you burn more
than you can bring back -- it's physically impossible for you to cover your
overhead (the size of your bankroll and the price of the gas are
irrelevant). You might as well plant flowers in your car because it's "out
of gas" -- forever.
It's the same with the American economy: If America must spend more-than-one
unit of energy to produce enough goods and services to buy one unit of
energy, it's physically impossible to cover its overhead (again, money is
irrelevant). At that point, America's economic machine is "out of gas" --
forever.
Jay -- www.dieoff.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] p. xlv, BEYOND OIL, by John Gever et al., Univ. Pr. Colorado, 1991
[ii] p. 314, GETTING DOWN TO EARTH, by Robert Costanza et al., Eds.; Island
Press, 1996
[iii] THE END OF CHEAP OIL, by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrère,
Scientific American, March 1998 http://dieoff.com/page140.htm
MCLynch
>barrel invested in drilling and pumping. Today, the figure is only about
>five for one. Sometime around 2005, that figure will become one to one. At
>that point, it will be energetically uneconomical to search for oil in the
>US.[i]
>
Unfortunately, this is a flawed analysis because (a) it assumes that only the
U.S. matters, when it has a very small resource base (relatively) of very
expensive oil, and (b) that these measures are static, i.e., there is no effect
from new technology. Similar extrapolations in the past (see below) have led
many to make bad predictions about impending resource scarcity.
>
>This "peak" in oil production marks the end of the market economy because
>studies show that nothing can replace oil. A good analogy is a car with a
>twenty-gallon tank, but the nearest gas station is twenty-five gallons away.
>You can't fill your tank with trips to the gas station because you burn more
>than you can bring back -- it's physically impossible for you to cover your
>overhead (the size of your bankroll and the price of the gas are
>irrelevant). You might as well plant flowers in your car because it's "out
>of gas" -- forever.
>
What happens depends on the numbers. This in not dissimilar from arguing that
we'll all starve to death because farms are too far from the cities. Or that
we'll all have to go naked because it takes too many workers to make the
clothes necessary for a growing population. It is getting cheaper and cheaper
to find, produce, transport, refine and deliver oil, despite ever growing taxes
and stricter environmental restrictions.
>
>Global oil production is expected to "peak" around 2005. [iii]
>
Interesting you should cite these gentlemen, since we have been debating in a
variety of places (see Geopolitics of Energy, for example).
For a reality check: Dr. Campbell said ("Noroil" 12/89) that oil production
had already peaked in 1989, and that prices would be $50 by the early 1990s.
At the same time, (see "Petroleum Economist, 9/89), I was arguing that people
were too pessimistic about non-OPEC supplies and that prices would fall during
the 1990s.
GSTIS.net
<mcl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990810082348...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
> >In the 1950s, oil producers discovered about fifty barrels of oil for
every
> >barrel invested in drilling and pumping. Today, the figure is only about
> >five for one. Sometime around 2005, that figure will become one to one.
At
> >that point, it will be energetically uneconomical to search for oil in
the
> >US.[i]
>
> Unfortunately, this is a flawed analysis because (a) it assumes that only
the
> U.S. matters, when it has a very small resource base (relatively) of very
Eh? The study is about the U.S., but it's flawed because it assumes the
only the U.S. matters? That's doesn't make any sense.
> expensive oil, and (b) that these measures are static, i.e., there is no
effect
> from new technology. Similar extrapolations in the past (see below) have
led
> many to make bad predictions about impending resource scarcity.
Not true, these curves were found when technology was changing rapidly --
1945 to 1980. I have a nice graph that shows declining barrels per foot
and energy break since 1945 in the middle of the page at
http://dieoff.comWhat's more, will also find another graph that shows the
last 5% of a field is probably at a "net energy loss". It seem that any
technology which recovers even more oil from an other wise "energy
unprofitable" field, would lead to an even greater energy loss.
> clothes necessary for a growing population. It is getting cheaper and
cheaper
> to find, produce, transport, refine and deliver oil, despite ever growing
taxes
> and stricter environmental restrictions.
It was, now it's getting more expensive again. That should tell you
something. But I don't think it will because the mission of the economist
is to distract attention while the ruling elite loot the planet.
> >Global oil production is expected to "peak" around 2005. [iii]
>
> Interesting you should cite these gentlemen, since we have been debating
in a
> variety of places (see Geopolitics of Energy, for example).
> For a reality check: Dr. Campbell said ("Noroil" 12/89) that oil
production
How about this for a "reality check". In November, 1997, the International
Energy Agency (IEA) convened an Oil Conference in Paris. Laherrère and
Campbell presented three papers on oil depletion (against Adelman and Lynch
from MIT).
As a result of this conference, IEA prepared a paper for the G8 Energy
Ministers' Meeting in Moscow March, 31, 1998. IEA followed Laherrere and
Campbell's view and forecast a peak in conventional oil for 2010 at 78.9
Mb/d and decrease in 2020 at 72.2 Mb/d. [ Source: Laherrere personal
correspondence ] See WORLD ENERGY PROSPECTS TO 2020.
http://www.iea.org/g8/world/oilsup.htm
According to Richard Duncan, this represents a significant reversal of IEA
position: "This is a real stand-down for them because until recently they
were in the Julian Simon no-limits camp." [ personal correspondence ] See
Duncan's energy paper THE WORLD PETROLEUM LIFE-CYCLE at:
http://dieoff.com/page133.htm
Franco Bernabé, chief executive of the Italian oil company ENI SpA, expects
the world to experience 1970s-style oil shocks starting sometime between
2000 and 2005. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/0615/6112084a.htm . Also see
http://reports.guardian.co.uk/articles/1998/7/26/13026.html .
Is that a reality check or what? <G>
Jay -- www.dieoff.com
MCLynch
>the
>> U.S. matters, when it has a very small resource base (relatively) of very
>
>Eh? The study is about the U.S., but it's flawed because it assumes the
>only the U.S. matters? That's doesn't make any sense.
>
If you are debating world oil supply over the long-term, only considering US
data is not very meaningful.> It is getting cheaper and
>cheaper
>> to find, produce, transport, refine and deliver oil, despite ever growing
>taxes
>> and stricter environmental restrictions.
>
>It was, now it's getting more expensive again. That should tell you
>something. But I don't think it will because the mission of the economist
>is to distract attention while the ruling elite loot the planet.
How do you figure it's getting more expensive? Because in 1996/97 rig rates
went up? Or the deepwater finds weren't booked? Short-term costs fluctuate
all the time, and you can't read too much into one or two years data.
Maybe economists are just trying to distract you from the truth while the elite
loot the planet (I'm not one and wouldn't know) but that argument is about as
valid as asserting that you are just trying to fool people into investing in
hare-brained alternative energy schemes. (Maybe you are but I have no data on
that.)
entropy
(MCLynch) wrote:> >Unfortunately, this is a flawed analysis because (a) it
Michael, do you agree with L. F. Ivanhoe's statement: "The question is not
WHETHER, but WHEN, world crude oil production will start to decline, ushering
in the permanent oil shock era.", found at http://hubbert.mines.edu/ #97/1?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
MCLynch
>WHETHER, but WHEN, world crude oil production will start to decline, ushering
>in the permanent oil shock era.", found at http://hubbert.mines.edu/ #97/1?
>
Yes and no. Why does the peak come? High prices/costs drive demand down or
make alternatives preferable? Carbon taxes do same? Or some other energy
(solar, nuclear, hydrates GTL) becomes really cheap/clean/convenient and wipes
out the oil business?
Think it can't happen? There are numerous such cases of peaks resembling
Hubbert curves, such as Pennsylvania anthracite or UK coal, where there are
enormous amounts left in the ground but customers switched to gas or imported
coal (respectively). (See Peter McCabe's AAPG article)
We have huge amounts of petroleum resources left and there is no constraint on
the ability to deliver oil products (gasoline, etc., which is what counts) for
an extremely long time, easily more than 100 years. So, I guess you could say
I partly believe that it's a matter of when, because I think the date is so
long in the future as to be meaningless for any decision-maker.
Michael Lynch, Center for International Studies, M.I.T.
Bob G.
determine if the Campbell-Laherre-Bernabe hypothesis about declining
production is true or not!!! Odds are good that all these newsgroups
will still be around, all these players will still be around, and come
2010, we can all indulge in either a round of "told you so" or "told you
so" depending on which camp we stood in way back in 1999-2000.
pyats
>
> And the great thing about this debate is that we only have ten years to
> determine if the Campbell-Laherre-Bernabe hypothesis about declining
> production is true or not!!! Odds are good that all these newsgroups
> will still be around, all these players will still be around, and come
> 2010, we can all indulge in either a round of "told you so" or "told you
> so" depending on which camp we stood in way back in 1999-2000.
I think I will stick with Astrology. It seems to work just as well
and costs a lot less.
Mark Fletcher
news:382a47d7$0$18...@news.execpc.com...
> And the great thing about this debate is that we only have ten years to
> determine if the Campbell-Laherre-Bernabe hypothesis about declining
> production is true or not!!! Odds are good that all these newsgroups
> will still be around, all these players will still be around, and come
> 2010, we can all indulge in either a round of "told you so" or "told you
> so" depending on which camp we stood in way back in 1999-2000.
>
>
you so's via carrier pigeon or forked stick.
Fletch
MCLynch
>determine if the Campbell-Laherre-Bernabe hypothesis about declining
>production is true or not!!! Odds are good that all these newsgroups
>will still be around, all these players will still be around, and come
>2010, we can all indulge in either a round of "told you so" or "told you
>so" depending on which camp we stood in way back in 1999-2000.
>
Not even ten years, since they are arguing for a peak in a year or two. But
it's already been decided. In 1989, I argued that people were too pessimistic
about oil supply, and prices would decline in the 1990s, not rise. (Petroleum
Economist magazine called me a heretic for thinking so; 9/89) Campbell argued
(Noroil 12/89) that oil production had already peaked and that prices would
leap in the 1990s, going to around $50 and staying there.
Maybe he's right this time, but his track record speaks for itself.
Bloody Viking
: And the great thing about this debate is that we only have ten years to
: determine if the Campbell-Laherre-Bernabe hypothesis about declining
: production is true or not!!! Odds are good that all these newsgroups
: will still be around, all these players will still be around, and come
: 2010, we can all indulge in either a round of "told you so" or "told you
: so" depending on which camp we stood in way back in 1999-2000.
And upon the Oil Max-Out, we will all be debating while sitting at
terminals wearing climate control clothing to save energy and money! I'm
already working on the problem. I already made a device designed to heat a
snowsuit for winter blackouts. It runs on 24 volts, but so does my UPS. :)
I'm still working on the cooling version, becuse of blackouts and I got
fed-up with ComEd.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4772698 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
entropy
"---When, world crude oil production will start to decline"---In article
<19991110073954...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
>
Bloody Viking
: I noticed that you evaded my question. Do you have an answer for
: "---When, world crude oil production will start to decline"---In article
It doesn't really matter as to WHEN. No matter when it happens, we will
have to deal with the consequenses anyways. We may as well start
mitigating the consequences now, to lessen the impact of the Oil Max-Out
eventuality.
MCLynch
>"---When, world crude oil production will start to decline"---In article
>We have huge amounts of petroleum resources left and there is no
>constraint on
>> the ability to deliver oil products (gasoline, etc., which is what
>counts) for
>> an extremely long time, easily more than 100 years.
I'm not sure how to access that article, but if "more than 100 years from now,
based on supply availability (not greenhouse gas policies) doesn't satisfy you,
I don't know what will. I could say 2124 or something, but that would be
meaningless.
danny dickerson
I would argue June of 2125.
Danny
MCLynch
>> meaningless.
>> Michael Lynch, Center for International Studies, M.I.T.
>
>I would argue June of 2125.
>
>Danny
>
Quick, call my broker!
Actually, the funny thing is the degree to which people in the 1970s thought
that because computer models could produce an oil price forecast to four
decimal places in twenty years, that they must be accurate.
I presume most of those predicting a peak are not really seriously suggesting
the level of precision implied by their use of a given year, but a lot of what
gets published is so condensed that you hear things like 2012, 2005, etc.
entropy
mcl...@aol.com (MCLynch) wrote:
> >I noticed that you evaded my question. Do you have an answer for
> >"---When, world crude oil production will start to decline"---In
article
> ><19991110073954...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
>
> >We have huge amounts of petroleum resources left and there is no
> >constraint on
> >> the ability to deliver oil products (gasoline, etc., which is what
> >counts) for
> >> an extremely long time, easily more than 100 years.
>
> I'm not sure how to access that article, but if "more than 100 years
from now,
> based on supply availability (not greenhouse gas policies) doesn't
satisfy you,
be
> meaningless.
> Michael Lynch, Center for International Studies, M.I.T.