The world's overflowing oil reserves?

BBC News Online ^ | Tuesday, April 20, 2004 | By Will Smale

[Dog Gone]

We not only have to consider nuclear power, but we will be absolutely forced to use it. The demand for energy will outstrip our ability to bring oil to the surface fast enough, even if the supply of oil was infinite.

The only source of energy that can possibly fill the gap is nuclear, unless and until we harness fusion power. This will become the major debate in this country by 2050, if not earlier. It's inevitable.

[mvpel]

The impact of ongoing technological advancements aiding oil exploration is the main factor put forward by Chris Hayes, of Cambrian Group, a Wales-based oil and gas consultancy whose engineers help the industry's main players find and best access reserves around the world.

This same principle was put forth over a decade ago by Paul Zane Pilzer in his 1990 book "Unlimited Wealth."

[WOSG]

Actually 15 billion barrels is in the alaskan ANWR area...

do the math, that is a mere $400 billion worth of oil in Alaska at current prices.

There is almost as much off the coast of california. so for 'environmental reasons' we are throwing away a trillion dollars.

harrumph!!

[q_an_a]

thanks for your comments. the corruption in the world from s. and central america to africa is one of the most terrible things that exists. an african friend told of how the chemicals for water treatment are often sold to private interests after being delivered to a city water plant. thus the water is unsafe, but people never know when, so they never use it.

[PsyOp]

Supposedly there are reserves under the Siberian tundra that dwarf the middle-east, but getting out of the ground and to market presents serious challenges.

[Dog Gone]

The left has sufficiently scared the public into believing that nuclear power is unsafe, and as long as there is sufficient energy available from the available supply of oil and gas (and to a lesser extent, coal), there is no sense of urgency.

That will change, because it must.

There are also some economic obstacles to be overcome. Because of all the mandatory and redundant safety systems required for nuclear reactors they are very expensive to build. Utilities built them in the past because they were guaranteed rate increases sufficient to cover their costs. In a deregulated environment, that's not necessarily the case which is a disincentive to their construction.

When the price for oil and natural gas as a fuel for power plants reaches and maintains a level where nuclear power plant construction is more competitive than natural gas or coal-fired plants, then the economic barrier will fall. However, the NIMBYs are going to remain a problem.

[yhwhsman]

I think it is renewable and that's what we're seeing

About a year ago I heard a quote by a controversial scientist--controversial because he has ideas outside the accepted norm (but has been proven right several times)--who theorizes that crude is actually a natural by-product of the earth rather then the remains of ancient plants. I've also heard rumors supporting this theory in that 'dry' wells have been refilling themselves in places.

I don't know the scientists name, and haven't had any luck googling for the article. Maybe someone else remembers this.

[SauronOfMordor]

The environmentalists were the ones who made it impossible to construct any new nuke plants in the US, thus ensuring that we would have to depend on fossile fuel for electrical generation