When the last oil well runs dry

BBC News Online ^ | Monday, April 19, 2004 | By Alex Kirby

[Momaw Nadon]

Just as certain as death and taxes is the knowledge that we shall one day be forced to learn to live without oil.

Exactly when that day will dawn nobody knows, but people in middle age today can probably expect to be here for it.

Long before it arrives we shall have had to commit ourselves to one or more of several possible energy futures.

And the momentous decisions we take in the next few years will determine whether our heirs thank or curse us for the energy choices we bequeath to them.

Sunset industry? Oil production could soon peak

Industry's lifeblood

There will always be some oil somewhere, but it may soon cost too much to extract and burn it. It may be too technically difficult, too expensive compared with other fuels, or too polluting.

An article in Scientific American in March 1998 by Dr Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere concluded: "The world is not running out of oil - at least not yet."

"What our society does face, and soon, is the end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all industrial nations depend."

They suggested there were perhaps 1,000 billion barrels of conventional oil still to be produced, though the US Geological Survey's World Petroleum Assessment 2000 put the figure at about 3,000 billion barrels.

Who holds the world's oil - and how long will it last?

Too good to burn

The world is now producing about 75 million barrels per day (bpd). Conservative (for which read pessimistic) analysts say global oil production from all possible sources, including shale, bitumen and deep-water wells, will peak at around 2015 at about 90 million bpd, allowing a fairly modest increase in consumption.

On Campbell and Laherrere's downbeat estimate, that should last about 30 years at 90 million bpd, so drastic change could be necessary soon after 2030.

And it would be drastic: 90% of the world's transport depends on oil, for a start.

Most of the chemical and plastic trappings of life which we scarcely notice - furniture, pharmaceuticals, communications - need oil as a feedstock.

The real pessimists want us to stop using oil for transport immediately and keep it for irreplaceable purposes like these.

In May 2003 the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), founded by Colin Campbell, held a workshop on oil depletion in Paris.

Changed priorities

One of the speakers was an investment banker, Matthew Simmons, a former adviser to President Bush's administration.

From The Wilderness Publications reported him as saying: "Any serious analysis now shows solid evidence that the non-FSU [former Soviet Union], non-OPEC [Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries] oil has certainly petered out and has probably peaked...

"I think basically that peaking of oil will never be accurately predicted until after the fact. But the event will occur, and my analysis is... that peaking is at hand, not years away.

"If I'm right, the unforeseen consequences are devastating... If the world's oil supply does peak, the world's issues start to look very different.

"There really aren't any good energy solutions for bridges, to buy some time, from oil and gas to the alternatives. The only alternative right now is to shrink our economies."

No cheap oil, no cheap food

Planning pays off

Aspo suggests the key date is not when the oil runs out, but when production peaks, meaning supplies decline. It believes the peak may come by about 2010.

Fundamental change may be closing on us fast. And even if the oil is there, we may do better to leave it untouched.

Many scientists are arguing for cuts in emissions of the main greenhouse gas we produce, carbon dioxide, by at least 60% by mid-century, to try to avoid runaway climate change.

That would mean burning far less oil than today, not looking for more. There are other forms of energy, and many are falling fast in price and will soon compete with oil on cost, if not for convenience.

So there is every reason to plan for the post-oil age. Does it have to be devastating? Different, yes - but our forebears lived without oil and thought themselves none the worse.

We shall have to do the same, so we might as well make the best of it. And the best might even be an improvement on today.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

This makes it more expensive than current windpower technology which is improving everyday.

But what about the birds? Dear God what about the poor birds?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

We don't like being forced to be with people we don't like.

Speak for yourself, I like people. If they made mass transit cheaper and more convieniant I would likely use it. But I guess that is only true in NY, LA and Chicago, or not?

[Southern62]

occam's razor

[Willie Green]

Sadaam didn't go into Kuwait to stabilize anything. He went to steal the oil.

Yes, Saddam was an evil despot who attacked and slaughtered innocent Kuwaitis and Kurds.
It is on that moral judgement alone that I approve of intervention and overthrow of his regime. Additional justification involving stabilization of the global oil market is excessive hyperbole and, IMHO, constitutes improper use of our military.

If you knew anything about the geology in that area (or, heck, if you knew anything ), I could explain that the reserves he wanted extend across the border of Iraq and Kuwait, and he wanted it all.

The only thing I need to understand about geology is that Middle Eastern oil reserves do not extend under OUR territorial borders. We should NOT be shedding American blood for oil when we are not utilizing our own natural resources and available technologies to the fullest possible extent.

[John O]

Speak for yourself, I like people.

I love people too. It's democrats, feminists, 'homosexuals' islamics, hippies (and other hygenically challenged) beings that I don't want to be forced to associate with

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

We should NOT be shedding American blood for oil when we are not utilizing our own natural resources and available technologies to the fullest possible extent.

If its about oil, why did we leave Kuwait and Saudi Arabia alone? Why are terrorists attacking daily? Don't we want to fight the terrorists? Well we are killing them each day! Either you like to play devils advocate or....you are no conservative.

[Momaw Nadon]

If we spent as much money developing alternate fuel sources (hydrogen) as we spent on going to the moon, we wouldn't have anything to worry about.

Energy isn't the only thing that a sharp rise in the price of oil will affect.

Products Made from Oil:

Ammonia
Anesthetics
Antihistamines
Antiseptics
Artificial limbs
Artificial turf
Aspirin
Awnings
Balloons
Ballpoint pens
Bandages
Beach umbrellas
Boats
Cameras
Candles
Car battery cases
Car sound insulation
Carpeting
Cassettes
Caulking
Clothesline
Cold cream
Combs
Cortisone
Crayons
Credit cards
Curtains
Deodorant
Detergents
Dice
Dishwashing liquids
Disposable diapers
Dolls
Dresses
Drinking cups
Dyes
Electric blankets
Electrician's tape
Eyeglasses
False teeth
Fan belts
Faucet washers
Fertilizers
Fishing boots
Fishing lures
Fishing rods
Floor wax
Folding doors
Food preservatives
Garden hose
Glue
Golf bags
Golf balls
Guitar strings
Hair coloring
Hair curlers
Hand lotion
Hearing aids
Heart valves
House paint
Ice buckets
Ice chests
Ice cube trays
Ink
Insect repellent
Insecticides
Life jackets
Linoleum
Lipstick
Loudspeakers
LP records
Luggage
Milk jugs
Model cars
Mops
Motorcycle helmets
Movie film
Nail polish
Oil filters
Paint brushes
Paint rollers
Pajamas
Panty hose
Parachutes
Perfume
Permanent press clothes
Petroleum jelly
Pillows
Plastic wood
Plywood adhesive
Purses
Putty
Refrigerator linings
Roller-skate wheels
Roofing
Roofing shingles
Rubber cement
Rubbing alcohol
Safety glass
Salad bowls
Shampoo
Shaving cream
Shoe polish
Shoes
Shower curtains
Shower doors
Skis
Slacks
Soap dishes
Soft contact lenses
Sports car bodies
Sun glasses
Sweaters
Synthetic rubber
Telephones
Tennis rackets
Tents
Tires
Toilet seats
Tool racks
Toothbrushes
Toothpaste
Toys
Transparent tape
Trash bags
TV cabinets
Umbrellas
Unbreakable dishes
Upholstery
Vaporizers
VCR tapes
Vitamin capsules
Wading pools
Water pipes
Wire insulation
Yarn

This is only a partial list. I'm sure there are other many products that are made from oil.

As the price of oil goes up, the price of these things will go up as well.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

It's democrats, feminists, 'homosexuals' islamics, hippies (and other hygenically challenged) beings that I don't want to be forced to associate with

Then you don't like people! If you don't come on strong its not hard to get along and even like these people. I don't have to agree with there politics or lifestyle to like them!

[Gorjus]

And are you calling 1.8 cents "heavy"?

I'm just referring to your own data on the Eldora case study, that showed they barely broken even on large costs (small difference of large numbers is notoriously risky) despite having large subsidies on the loan to build the wind power generator, no maintenance costs in their numbers, and data limited to three better-than-average months for wind.

Your Eldora case study is not a bad place to begin. They considered the cost of installation (even if subsidized), the net power consumed for their own use, etc. They left out some key factors like maintenance cost, and in the end I think the data proved wind power is not cost effective, at least not yet, but it was a good start at looking at the problem.

That's what I would want to see, with the holes filled in, before I would accept that wind power costs less than natural gas for heating a home.

And none of my recommendations suggest using gas-powered generating plants to produce electricity anyway.

[Gorjus]

Electric is about 95% [efficient], the best natural gas furnace is about 90%,

This is apples and oranges, to a certain extent. The theoretical efficiency against some thermodynamic model is not the key issue - though I'll admit my comment was unclear. If natural gas were free and quantities were unlimited, I'd be better off to use it even if I wasted half of it (neglecting the pollution issue for a moment). In fact, that's the reason I like nuclear power for electrical plants (well, one of them, along with plenty of fuel, no pollution, etc.) You can waste a lot of heat with a nuclear plant and still get all you want to make steam.

Still, when I was considering efficiency I was considering whether a gas furnace in my home - considering actual costs - would be more or less cost-effective than electric heat with electricity from a distant generating plant, and I was using 'efficiency' to address the consideration of whether I 'wasted' more or less of the total energy consumed if I used that power (chemical energy in natural gas) to generate the heat at my home furnace rather than to generate heat somewhere else and run hot air lines to my house (obviously silly on a large scale), or generate heat somewhere else to turn a steam turbine to generate electricity, to send to my house, to turn back into heat. (Actually, as I recall, most steam turbines are only about 60% efficient, and most generators run about the same, so if BTUs of heat is your goal, it's not clear how turning it into electricity and back is a good idea even if line losses are zero, but maybe my numbers are out of date.)

On the other hand, generating electricity at my home (however I do it, that's not the point right now) is never a good idea with current standards of living because the load transients make a single-house generator that maintains good power quality a real problem. So electricity lends itself to larger plants, and I wouldn't use gas for those in any event.

In the end, it seems we disagree on whether gas should be used for heating in homes where the expected cold temperatures get below 50 degrees (my number), or 30 degrees (your number), and I won't fall on my sword for either assessment. My expectation is that this number changes based both on advances in technology (so old opinions will change with time), and in personal preferences and what one values (which I think is a very valid criteria). I have a couple of friends with heat pumps, and they all love them in the summer, but hate them in the winter because they don't seem to keep their houses warm. I'm sure that depends on sizing, which in turn depends on expected high and low temperatures, etc.

So, for efficiency at providing some minimal comfort level (a reasonable minimum that many people will be satisfied with, not some Spartan survable-but-unpleasant condition), your heat-pump-plus-gas is probably best.

However . . . we recently had to replace our entire heater/air-conditioner system, and the heat pump option never showed an advantage over a good, high-efficiency air-conditioner and a gas furnace. I didn't look into the exact reasons for that since it wasn't really in the competitive range. (I spent my study time on trading off the initial cost of a higher efficiency rating versus lower operating cost, etc.) That's for the Fort Worth area, and as they say, 'your mileage may vary.'

[TexasCowboy]

Thank you for pointing out the various products we get from oil.

This, however, is much more complicated than it seems.
As you saw from the API site which has this data, over 19 gallons of each barrel of oil is used to make gasoline, and only about a gallon is used to make all these other products.
Keep in mind that this is an average .
Saudi Light cracks into more gasoline than Venezuelan Heavy; therefore, more energy is available, but less petrochemical products are available from each barrel.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Products Made from Oil:

Good grief!

[RightWhale]

or....you are no conservative

I don't know whether WG votes R or D or Green, but I would argue that he is a capital C Conservative. Eventually we will have to live on what is inside our borders because the rest of the world is going straight down the chute. We disagree on time schedule and which project might be more appropriate now or whether privately or publicly funded, but there isn't a great difference in our motives.

[Willie Green]

I don't know whether WG votes R or D or Green, but I would argue that he is a capital C Conservative.

Thank-you for your vouching for my character.
For the record, I have never voted D or G in my entire 33 years as a registered voter. It has always been an R (usually GOP with a few notable exceptions when the R stood for "Reform".) But always conservative nonetheless.

[FreedomCalls]

Yawn... Coal and nukes... why don't we use them more to save on oil?

I can think of two ways to use nukes to save on oil....

[William Terrell]

When the last oil well runs dry.

[reg45]

When the last oil well runs dry, all the arabs will have to sell will be sand!

[Protagoras]

Energy isn't the only thing that a sharp rise in the price of oil will affect.

If an alternative energy source were found, and a power plant for it, oil prices would drop so low that the price of these items would be moot.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

It has always been an R (usually GOP with a few notable exceptions when the R stood for "Reform".)

That doesn't prove anything, some of the biggest liberals and stupid people are Republican. Rockerfeller and Ford come to mind.

[backhoe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1098993/posts

Oil At New Highs - Opinions wanted on synthetic oil
MSNBC ^ | 3-16-04 | Jason Rines

This seems like this could be our ace in the hole...

Anything into oil

Stephen den Beste on this process

Anything Into Oil
http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

http://www.changingworldtech.com/home.html

Potential oil supply refill?

The world has more oil not less

The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth
Thomas Gold
U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1570, The Future of Energy Gases, 1993

PETROLEUM RESERVES EVALUATED WITH MODERN PETROLEUM SCIENCE

Another Washington Post article here

Oil Fields' Free Refill - More oil than we thought (maybe)