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.

[redhead]

"Every year, new deposits are discovered. Every year, new technology makes accessing previously unobtainable supplies possible. There's no reason to believe that the oil supply will be extinguished any time soon ..."

Have you read "The Deep Hot Biosphere" by Thomas Gold?

[Tallguy]

Price is a market signal. It's telling suppliers to ramp up production, or if they can't, it's telling the broader energy market that it's time to introduce that new energy technology.

Major state intervention will be designed to minimize the price "shock" to the consumer. This will necessarily skew the signal that the free market requires.

I also get nervous when politicians start picking winners & losers when it comes to economic matters.

[Parmy]

Not only do they not like the spoiling of their view now that the windmills are up, they want them shut down because the windmills are killing the birds. They are never satisfied.

[chronotrigger]

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.

[redhead]

"I remember when I was 5 years old in 1979 and hearing they'd run out of oil before I was old enough to drive. Yep! The oil industry vacillates between Glut & Scarcity. There's no happy medium. We are always one major oil strike away from a return to Glut."

It was announced firmly when the the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built that there was enough oil there to last 20 years, and then they would have to shut it down. That was in the late 70's. As far as I have been able to determine, the rate of flow hasn't diminished much since the first oil was sent through. Of course, I don't live in Valdez any more, but I suspect that Alaskans are still getting their Dividend Checks every year from the royalties on the oil produced.

[ArrogantBustard]

alternate fuel sources (hydrogen)

This is the second time I've seen "hydrogen" referred to as a "fuel source" on this thread.

Questions:

1) What do you plan to do to the hydrogen, in order to get energy out of it. (I can think of two possible anwers.)

2) What is the source of your hydrogen?

3) What do you have to do, in order to extract hydrogen from that source?

4) What are the costs of the extraction process?

5) Is hydrogen really a fuel source, in the sense that petroleum is a fuel source?

[blackdog]

Long chain soup.........

[Redcloak]

I can't be certain, but I seem to recall reading an almost identical article in the late '70s. It said that we would run out of crude oil by the end of the century.

[Owen]

>
And while I won't presume to provide an answer, I will observe that every alarmist prediction on the 'when' question has been wrong - in fact, not only wrong but wrong on the trend. There are more known oil reserves today and more production capacity today than at any time in history.
>

Every prediction has indeed been wrong, but there just is no question that one of them is going to right eventually. That's the problem and a "positive" attitude about it is NOT that predictions have been wrong and that we're finding more oil or that extraction methods are improving. A "positive" attitude is that we're positive the supply of light sweet crude on this planet is finite.

(There is a Russian theory, not thought plausible, that oil is replenishing itself underground and that the supply is not finite. I'll preface the following with that comment. BUT.) If we consider it given that the original endowment of planet Earth with light, sweet crude oil is finite, then we WILL run out of it eventually.

There is, however, non light sweet crude oil around and a lot of it. A LOT of it. But it won't ever sell at $30/barrel. That's just not in the cards. Extraction of it is not a labor intensive thing that technology could overcome to reduce the price. Rather, extraction of it is an energy intensive thing. Thus we won't "run out of oil" for hundreds of years and maybe never if those alternate energy forms appear, but we won't pay $30/barrel for it, either.

BTW most of that heavy oil is in Canada and Venezuela. A time will come when we'll be defending it.

[Tallguy]

Not necessarily. While the Apollo Program developed some interesting new technologies, most of them were not economically feasible for many years. The first hydrogen fuel cells were developed during Apollo, and they are (for the most part) still uneconomical. It's not a simple equation of Dollars In Vs. Usable Technology Out.

Did you know that Gasoline was a waste byproduct of the early Kerosene refining process? They used to dump gasoline into the rivers at the beginning of the 20th century -- until somebody realized that it made an excellent fuel for the internal combustion engine. Hello Henry Ford! My point is that sometimes the pieces of the puzzle have to be in the right place at the right time. Dumping Dollars at a problem usually can't force the issue.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

I've given up trying to reason with those people. Even if you get them to agree that eventually the oil will run out or become prohibitively expensive for casual use, they say, "So what?"

I have given up talking to people who don't understand that our economy will take care of the oil shortage, either as an incintive to find more oil, or alternate energy. "So what" means that the sky is not falling!

[Willie Green]

Every year, new technology makes accessing previously unobtainable supplies possible.

Like MOABs and smart-bombs?

Yeah, 'new' oil is being discovered all the time...
in the evermore inaccessible and increasingly hostile nooks and crannies of the globe.

While I strongly support peaceful exploitation of our own energy natural resources, including drilling offshore and in ANWR, I'm even more strongly opposed to shedding the blood of our military to secure foreign sources of petroleum production.

As a matter of National Security, we should be developing alternate methods of producing and utilizing energy to reduce our foreign petro-dependence. The most obvious technologies currently available to pursue this goal are nuclear and clean-coal electric power generation and construction of electricly powered passenger rail systems in our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas.

[michigander]

All the oil in the world

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

Every prediction has indeed been wrong, but there just is no question that one of them is going to right eventually. That's the problem and a "positive" attitude about it is NOT that predictions have been wrong and that we're finding more oil or that extraction methods are improving. A "positive" attitude is that we're positive the supply of light sweet crude on this planet is finite.

If you think anyone thinks that the oil supply is infinate you are as stupid as you must think we are. What people are saying is that the oil supply is not infinate, but that it is one hell of a lot bigger than anyone thinks it is. That is stop worrying your little (and I do mean small) head over it!

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

While I strongly support peaceful exploitation of our own energy natural resources, including drilling offshore and in ANWR, I'm even more strongly opposed to shedding the blood of our military to secure foreign sources of petroleum production.

Nor do I! Who does? This is just not happening. Instead we have France, Russia, Germany, and the UN using this blood money and trying to blame us for it!

[BlueLancer]

"While I strongly support peaceful exploitation of our own energy natural resources, including drilling offshore and in ANWR, I'm even more strongly opposed to shedding the blood of our military to secure foreign sources of petroleum production."

I just wish we WOULD use our military for such a straight-forward purpose ... and if we truly were "securing" those foreign sources for our own use.

[Tallguy]

The most obvious technologies currently available to pursue this goal are nuclear and clean-coal electric power generation and construction of electricly powered passenger rail systems in our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas.

I agree. The government's legitimate course of action should be to start removing the web of legislation & regulations that makes these industries uneconomical -- particularly the clean coal technology. I know that there are arguments that the current state of nuclear reactor design makes nuclear fission reactors uneconomical unless the government helps.)

[Willie Green]

This is just not happening.

And I suppose you naively believe Iraq is simply about terrorism and not about oil.
I support the Administration's efforts in Iraq, regardless of whether WMDs are ever found.
As far as I'm concerned, Saddam Hussein already proved his despotism when he attacked Kuwait. The only problem I have with his removal is that Papa Bush didn't do it 12 years ago when he should've.
That said, it remains a fact that the only national interest we have in the Middle East is oil. If not for our petro-dependence, we'd ignore the incessant Muslim tribal feuding just like we ignore the Hutu and Tutsis in Africa.

[Willie Green]

I just wish we WOULD use our military for such a straight-forward purpose ... and if we truly were "securing" those foreign sources for our own use.

Reference my reply #58.

You seem pretty naive as well.

[B.Bumbleberry]

Don't expect common sense on this issue. Energy is really inexhaustible for all practical purposes, but admitting it takes away one more big thing to worry about. And some people just need to worry. Good post, though.