Peak Oil: Fact or Crap?

[sevin]

Okay, this is really frustrating. I've been reading about this subject for a long time and have found that without examining the world's oil reserves with my own eyes, there's no way to know what's true and what's not!

On the one hand, a lot of doomers talk about how we're using up all the oil too fast and that it will lead to the destruction of our economy. On the other hand, a lot of people claim that this is all BS propaganda put out by oil cartels to keep the price of oil unnaturally high.

Example: I read an article about all the untapped oil reserves discovered in the Dakotas and Montana, supposedly more oil there than in the whole middle East. Then I found another article stating that the amount of oil there is exaggerated and it's not enough to make a big difference.

Damn you, Internet! Who am I supposed to believe? :confused:

[dannno]

Damn you, Internet! Who am I supposed to believe? :confused:


Believe in yourself :)

There are good arguments on both sides, and you're right, without observing it with your own eyes it is pretty much impossible to know.

[dannno]

It's hard to dismiss Lindsey Williams as his theory makes a lot of sense as it relates to our relationship with Saudi Arabia. It makes sense that the oil cartel might use congress to make certain areas off limits to drill, as this ensures everyone in the cartel cooperates with the agreement. Like a secret government sanctioned cartel.

There is also a lot of mathematical evidence to suggest otherwise.. but if specific areas are purposely kept 'off limits' to drilling, then the math is incomplete.

[Travlyr]

Okay, this is really frustrating. I've been reading about this subject for a long time and have found that without examining the world's oil reserves with my own eyes, there's no way to know what's true and what's not!

On the one hand, a lot of doomers talk about how we're using up all the oil too fast and that it will lead to the destruction of our economy. On the other hand, a lot of people claim that this is all BS propaganda put out by oil cartels to keep the price of oil unnaturally high.

Example: I read an article about all the untapped oil reserves discovered in the Dakotas and Montana, supposedly more oil there than in the whole middle East. Then I found another article stating that the amount of oil there is exaggerated and it's not enough to make a big difference.

Damn you, Internet! Who am I supposed to believe? :confused:

Lulz... Sevin... I feel your pain. The Internet is the prime experience of the free market, so "Caveat Emptor." The abiotic theory makes sense, but so does the "fossil fuel" theory. I'll bet that oil executives and geologists know the truth. As a conspiracy theorist, I look at why industrial hemp was demonized in the 1930's, and I cannot help but believe that oil companies pushed for laws to keep hemp from competing with the petroleum industry. I lean toward abiotic oil, yet we are sure to run low on oil someday nonetheless. Industrial hemp should be in mass production now, imo.

[libertybrewcity]

there is not an unlimited supply of oil. The technology to drill deeper and discover new supplies gets better every year. But it will end sometime...probably not in the near future though.

[anaconda]

Peak Oil theory makes much sense to me. This is the Mike Ruppert position. I think the acceleration in oil decline has lessened slightly due to this horrible economic downturn with its associated shift in aggregate demand. So were seeing a slight masking of the gravity of the oil situation for a possibly very brief moment or two.

[BenIsForRon]

Oh it's fact, just look at America's production. We peaked in 1970 and haven't gotten anywhere near that level of production since.

More evidence came in today from wikileaks that we might be closer to global peak oil than we have been led to believe: Saudi Arabia has been inflating their reserve numbers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZvDuqhRFxM

[dannno]

Oh it's fact, just look at America's production. We peaked in 1970 and haven't gotten anywhere near that level of production since.

More evidence came in today from wikileaks that we might be closer to global peak oil than we have been led to believe: Saudi Arabia has been inflating their reserve numbers.



I explained in my post why the numbers don't matter... If humans only inhabited North America for whatever reason and we were drilling oil, and we started running out, could you say we hit peak oil? Of course not, there's plenty of oil in South America, Russia and Saudi Arabia we haven't even tapped yet.

The fact that we have large areas that are off-limits to drilling means we don't really know how much oil is in the ground, and the amount drilled each year is not a very good indicator if specific areas are being intentionally avoided by the oil cartel (either by agreement or government regulations). This isn't a free market, you know, free market principles don't apply to oil these days.

Of course I'm not saying you are wrong, maybe all the areas that are off-limits don't have any significant oil to speak of. I'm just saying that what you are saying isn't necessarily fact.

[Travlyr]

We could be growing some green energy ... if our politicians would just quit putting us in jail for living.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOlHtEhL3kI

[EndDaFed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

[HOLLYWOOD]

Here yah go... chew on this for a bit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/saudi-oil-reserves-overstated-wikileaks/print




<SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N630.guardian.co.uk/B5154568.2;abr=!ie;sz=728x90;click0=http://oas.guardian.co.uk/5c/www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/saudi-oil-reserves-overstated-wikileaks/print/oas.html/L27/890431415/Top/Guardian/HSBC_PremierWM_Leader_Busines/HSBC_PremierWM_Leader_Busines_DA.html/7256657379557a35533955414332346e?;ord=890431415?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://oas.guardian.co.uk/5c/www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/saudi-oil-reserves-overstated-wikileaks/print/oas.html/L27/890431415/Top/Guardian/HSBC_PremierWM_Leader_Busines/HSBC_PremierWM_Leader_Busines_DA.html/7256657379557a35533955414332346e?http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N630.guardian.co.uk/B5154568.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=8904314 15?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N630.guardian.co.uk/B5154568.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=728x90;ord=8904314 15?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>

http://static.guim.co.uk/static/99201/zones/business/images/logo.gif (http://www.guardian.co.uk/) http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/11/23/cable_620x120.jpg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables)


WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices

US diplomat convinced by Saudi expert that reserves of world's biggest oil exporter have been overstated by nearly 40%

• Peak oil alarm revealed by secret official talks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/peak-oil-department-energy-climate-change)
• Datablog: Are we running out of oil? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/nov/10/energy-statistics-oil-coal)
John Vidal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/johnvidal), environment editor

guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Tuesday 8 February 2011 22.00 GMT

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/2/8/1297199226536/Aerial-View-of-Oil-Refine-007.jpg
Saudi oil refinery.
WikiLeaks cables suggest the amount of oil that can be retrieved has been overestimated. Photograph: George Steinmetz/Corbis
The US fears that Saudi Arabia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/saudiarabia), the world's largest crude oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil) exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show.
The cables, released by WikiLeaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks), urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels – nearly 40%.
The revelation comes as the oil price has soared in recent weeks to more than $100 a barrel on global demand and tensions in the Middle East (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middleeast). Many analysts expect that the Saudis and their Opec cartel partners would pump more oil if rising prices threatened to choke off demand.
However, Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, met the US consul general in Riyadh in November 2007 and told the US diplomat that Aramco's 12.5m barrel-a-day capacity needed to keep a lid on prices could not be reached.

According to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then – possibly as early as 2012 – global oil production would have hit its highest point. This crunch point is known as "peak oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/peak-oil)".

Husseini said that at that point Aramco would not be able to stop the rise of global oil prices because the Saudi energy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy) industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment. He argued that Aramco had badly underestimated the time needed to bring new oil on tap.

One cable said: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/oil-saudiarabia?intcmp=239) "According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray."
It went on: "In a presentation, Abdallah al-Saif, current Aramco senior vice-president for exploration, reported that Aramco has 716bn barrels of total reserves, of which 51% are recoverable, and that in 20 years Aramco will have 900bn barrels of reserves.
"Al-Husseini disagrees with this analysis, believing Aramco's reserves are overstated by as much as 300bn barrels. In his view once 50% of original proven reserves has been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it. He believes that what will result is a plateau in total output that will last approximately 15 years followed by decreasing output."
The US consul then told Washington: "While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered."
Seven months later, the US embassy in Riyadh went further in two more (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/08/saudiarabia-oil?intcmp=239) cables (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/oil-gas?intcmp=239). "Our mission now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude markets over the long term. Clearly they can drive prices up, but we question whether they any longer have the power to drive prices down for a prolonged period."

A fourth cable (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/08/saudiarabia-oil1?intcmp=239), in October 2009, claimed that escalating electricity demand by Saudi Arabia may further constrain Saudi oil exports. "Demand [for electricity] is expected to grow 10% a year over the next decade as a result of population and economic growth. As a result it will need to double its generation capacity to 68,000MW in 2018," it said.
It also reported major project delays and accidents as "evidence that the Saudi Aramco is having to run harder to stay in place – to replace the decline in existing production." While fears of premature "peak oil" and Saudi production problems had been expressed before, no US official has come close to saying this in public.
In the last two years, other senior energy analysts have backed Husseini. Fatih Birol, chief economist to the International Energy Agency, told the Guardian last year that conventional crude output could plateau in 2020, a development that was "not good news" for a world still heavily dependent on petroleum.

Jeremy Leggett, convenor of the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, said: "We are asleep at the wheel here: choosing to ignore a threat to the global economy that is quite as bad as the credit crunch, quite possibly worse."

[AdamT]

Crap. Read up on abiotic oil theory

[BenIsForRon]

Crap. Read up on abiotic oil theory

Ha, yeah, while you're at it, read up on the flat earth and earth-centered solar system.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Ha, yeah, while you're at it, read up on the flat earth and earth-centered solar system.

Apparently you're buying into a 300-yr old theory that has never once accumulated one ounce of empirical evidence vs. a theory that has time and again been shown to be empirically correct. Reference Eugene Island Oil Field.

[EndDaFed]

Someone doesn't understand the scientific definition of the word theory.

[Zippyjuan]

Just some facts to consider. One. Oil is being consumed globally at a rate much faster than new sources are being found and brought on line. Two, One by one, oil exporting countries are becoming net importers. The US used to be the biggest exporter in the world, now we are the biggest importer. Brazil has made some large finds, but even with those, they are consuming the same amount as they produce- and their demand is expected to increase in the future. Britain, Denmark, Indonesia all used to be big exporters and are now net importers. Iran, Mexico, and perhaps Venezuela are getting close to becoming net importers- could happen in the next decade.

The major portion of oil reserves available for export come from the Middle East (actually the largest source for the US is Canada) but can we trust their numbers? They likely have much less oil than they claim they do. None of the countries there allow any auditing of their industry. Back around 1980, OPEC changed the way they determine production quotas- the bigger your reserves, the more you were allowed to export. This led to a bidding war and a massive increase in reported reserves- without any major new finds of oil fields being made. Between 1980 and 1990, the following INCREASES in reported reserves occured:

Iran went from 58 billion barrels to 93 (they have since upped it to 130 billion). They are nearly a net importer(they do have to import gasoline- they lack their own refining capabilities to produce enough)- they want to develop nuclear power for domestic consumption to free up more oil for export and revenue.
Iraq went from 30 to 100
Kuwait 67 to 96
Saudi Arabia from 168 to 261
United Arab Emerates (Quatar) 30 to 98
Venezuela 19.5 to 60 (and now at 99)
Lybia and Nigeria did not make significant revisions in their "reported reserves" though they are members of OPEC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

We won't one day wake up to not a single drop of oil in the world. There is still a ton of oil out there- it is just that getting to it and extracting it is getting more and more difficult and expensive. The oil shale fields in the Rocky Mountain region features oil locked up in rocks- not in big pools. You have to dig out the rocks, smash and heat them to get the oil out. Current technology estimates that it would take the equivelent of one barrel of oil to get out two barrels of actual oil to use. It also requires a lot of water (a scarce resource in the region) and produces a lot of wastes and toxins. Saudi Arabia recently opened a new field but it requires two gallons of sea water to be piped in and pumped underground to get out one barrel of oil. If they had easier ways to get oil out of the ground, they would be doing it.

Peak oil says that production will hit the point where it cannot keep up with demand. It will mean much, much higher prices for it due to the higher costs of finding and getting oil out of the ground. That day may be close if we are not already there. Production of the two currently largest producers, Saudi Arabia and Russia, are peaking. Russia peaked a couple years ago. They cannot sustain the pace of extraction they are currently producing. That is why they are also moving into production of natural gas which they do still have a lot of.

[Romulus]

Didn't the Saudi's pull this same schtick back in the 70's?

[Fox McCloud]

Even if the abiotic oil theory is true, unless the oil is produced at a rate equal to or great than our rate of consumption, it would still be possible to hit peak oil.

I haven't made up my mind on this one, considering that most of the world's oil is found, drilled, and controlled by various governments---the US is a major exception, and it's getting more and more difficult to drill here.

That said, I tend to think this current wave is just your typical inflationary driven commodities rush.

[Tinnuhana]

Along with the scientific angle, you have to factor in inflation as a player in the rising cost of oil.

[Bman]

I was told by an engineer who use to work for an oil company that we had at least 200 years of oil and 1000 years of natural gas. Now I'm not exactly sure how, or where he got those numbers, but I trust them enough to not think it's freak out time.

[Zippyjuan]

I was told by an engineer who use to work for an oil company that we had at least 200 years of oil and 1000 years of natural gas. Now I'm not exactly sure how, or where he got those numbers, but I trust them enough to not think it's freak out time.

Well, we consume roughly 7 billion barrels a year and our reported proven reserves are only about 24 billion barrels so that comes out to about three years worth. 200 years would be 1.4 trillion barrels. According to numbers on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves total proven reserves for the entire world are 1.3 trillion barrels. But proven reserves are not necessarily a total of all known drops of oil in the ground- that is the amount which is believed recoverable at a profit given the current price and technology. Proven reserves can increase simply by having the price of oil go up. One source may be profitable at $50 a barrel and another may be profitable at $500 a barrel. If you are looking at an oil price of $90 a barrel, we have about three or so years worth (assuming we don't import a drop) while if the price soars, then some other sources may be financially worth going after.

As for Natural Gas, one estimate by the Heartland Institute published this week indicates that the US has about 650 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas and currently produces 3 trillion a year and imports about 11% of total consumption. That makes it about 3.3 trillion used a year or 200 years which is quite a lot (maybe not 1000 years but enough not to run out by the time I die). http://www.heartland.org/full/29277/US_Natural_Gas_Reserves_Promise_Affordable_Energy_ Future_Says_DOE_Official_.html

Coincidentally, an article just hit the newswire about newer drilling techniques which may allow the extraction of more oil- fracturing which has been used for natural gas. You drill down and blast in water, sand, and chemicals to try to knock the oil or gas loose so you can pump it up. They don't say what the costs are but that it is "profitable"- more so than spending $1 billion a hole to drill in deep Gulf of Mexico waters.


A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.

Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day — more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.

This new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it could help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers.

"That's a significant contribution to energy security," says Ed Morse, head of commodities research at Credit Suisse.

Oil engineers are applying what critics say is an environmentally questionable method developed in recent years to tap natural gas trapped in underground shale. They drill down and horizontally into the rock, then pump water, sand and chemicals into the hole to crack the shale and allow gas to flow up.

Because oil molecules are sticky and larger than gas molecules, engineers thought the process wouldn't work to squeeze oil out fast enough to make it economical. But drillers learned how to increase the number of cracks in the rock and use different chemicals to free up oil at low cost. "We've completely transformed the natural gas industry, and I wouldn't be surprised if we transform the oil business in the next few years too," says Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, which is using the technique.

Petroleum engineers first used the method in 2007 to unlock oil from a 25,000-square-mile formation under North Dakota and Montana known as the Bakken. Production there rose 50 percent in just the past year, to 458,000 barrels a day, according to Bentek Energy, an energy analysis firm.

It was first thought that the Bakken was unique. Then drillers tapped oil in a shale formation under South Texas called the Eagle Ford. Drilling permits in the region grew 11-fold last year.



The Bakken and the Eagle Ford are each expected to ultimately produce 4 billion barrels of oil. That would make them the fifth- and sixth-biggest oil fields ever discovered in the United States. The top four are Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, Spraberry Trend in West Texas, the East Texas Oilfield and the Kuparuk Field in Alaska.

The fields are attracting billions of dollars of investment from foreign oil giants like Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Norway's Statoil, and also from the smaller U.S. drillers who developed the new techniques like Chesapeake, EOG Resources and Occidental Petroleum.

Last month China's state-owned oil company CNOOC agreed to pay Chesapeake $570 million for a one-third stake in a drilling project in the Niobrara. This followed a $1 billion deal in October between the two companies on a project in the Eagle Ford.

With oil prices high and natural-gas prices low, profit margins from producing oil from shale are much higher than for gas. Also, drilling for shale oil is not dependent on high oil prices. Papa says this oil is cheaper to tap than the oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico or in Canada's oil sands.


http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20110209/b79d5262-f8ce-4810-b792-e469196ff185

The four billion barrels in each of the Bakkan and Eagle fields would let us last just over another year on our own supplies over our current proven reserves- stretching our current supplies to last us alone without importing anything for over four years. Their estimated two million barrels a day peak production would almost cover ten percent of our current daily consumption of 21 million barrels. To be independent of imports at our current rate of consumption you need two Bakkans or Eagles every year into the forseable future but it is a start.

[teacherone]

total crap.

anybody who still believes in peak oil after witnessing the Deepwater Horizon spill is a moron.

there is more oil out there than we could possibly ever use.

[hugolp]

Okay, this is really frustrating. I've been reading about this subject for a long time and have found that without examining the world's oil reserves with my own eyes, there's no way to know what's true and what's not!

On the one hand, a lot of doomers talk about how we're using up all the oil too fast and that it will lead to the destruction of our economy. On the other hand, a lot of people claim that this is all BS propaganda put out by oil cartels to keep the price of oil unnaturally high.

Example: I read an article about all the untapped oil reserves discovered in the Dakotas and Montana, supposedly more oil there than in the whole middle East. Then I found another article stating that the amount of oil there is exaggerated and it's not enough to make a big difference.

Damn you, Internet! Who am I supposed to believe? :confused:

Hahaha. A lot feel this way. I do too, specially since the doomers about peak-oil make sense but have been wrong a lot of times previously.

[Acala]

Much of the peak oil hysteria rests on the idea that at some point declining oil production will cause the industrialized world to come to a screeching halt. It won't.

I don't know when or even if we are going to run out of oil. But I know that if demand for oil outstrips production the market will do what it always does under those circumstance: raise prices. Higher prices will do three things. It will stimulate more production. It will supress consumption. And it will stimulate the development and implementation of alternatives. By stimulating production and supressing consumption the market will extend the supply, direct it to the uses of most importance, and it will ease the transition to the alternatives it will be developing.

The market is very, very good at responding to scarcity. So there really is no cause for alarm. UNLESS the government gets in the way. :D

It is also worth pointing out that the industrial revolution was well underway BEFORE petroleum had any significant impact. The diesel engine that runs much industrial machinery was designed to work on vegetable oil. The electricity that drives the rest of industrial machinery can be generated nicely by burning the vast deposits of coal and by nuclear reaction. So although the cost of manufactured goods and food might go up, there is no reason to believe that industrial civilization can only exist with the availablity of cheap oil.

Far more likely to crush us is Peak Dollar.

[jmdrake]

Oil production could be dramatically increased by small backyard operations. Flashback to 2009.

Indiana Man Operates Oil Well in Backyard, Producing Three Barrels of Crude a Day

Monday, May 19, 2008

* Print
* ShareThis

Greg Losh

The oil well Greg Losh of Indiana is operating in his backyard

The oil well Greg Losh of Indiana is operating in his backyard

*
*

SELMA, Ind. — It's just a drop in the global oil bucket, but an eastern Indiana man is operating an oil well in his backyard in an effort to capitalize on soaring crude prices.

Greg Losh's rig produces three barrels of crude oil a day, though he told FOX News that he hasn't started selling it yet. For now, he and his partners are keeping it in storage containers.

He declined to say how much oil they've collected in the two weeks they've been pumping.

But as oil is going for about $127 a barrel on the international market, three daily would yield just under $400 a day for Losh on the global spot market — or 1/100,000 of the daily production increase the Saudis agreed to earlier this month.

Still, in spite of those returns and the $100,000 it costs to drill a well, it's worth it to Losh considering the current price of oil, he told WISH-TV in Indianapolis.

The oil his well produces comes from the Trenton field that fueled the growth of east-central Indiana cities more than a century ago, he told the station.

He expects to drill four more wells soon on his property in the town of Selma about 55 miles northeast of Indianapolis.

"It's a money maker. It is paying off," Losh told FOX.

The oil is stored in a tank and transported to Ohio for sale, he said. His oil well also produces natural gas to heat his home and several others.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356606,00.html#ixzz1DZZ6z700


I know where oil is in Alabama that is untapped. And before someone pipes in with some irrelevant comment like '3 barrels a day isn't enough to blah blah blah" you are missing the point. Solving the energy crisis means people and/or small communities becoming energy independent themselves, as opposed to solving the problem for the whole world. Peak oil is only a problem if you are collectivist in your thinking about energy. At the end of the day, what difference does it make how much oil Saudi Arabia can or cannot produce if you and/or your community is self sufficient on energy?

[sevin]

Thanks, everyone. I'm actually not nearly as worried about peak oil as I was. We'll probably have to deal with very high oil prices soon and will have to learn to use less energy. But as Acala said, unless the government gets in the way, the market will handle the problem and eventually we will transition to alternative forms of energy, if necessary.

[Seraphim]

I'll put this into context for you. Canada supplies the USA with the highest % of it's oil. ALL of the oil comes from Alberta. We currently have enough oil to supply current levels of extraction (which is A LOT) for 200 years. TWO HUNDRED YEARS.

The kicker? Manitoba, the province right beside Alberta...has untapped oil reserves that are BIGGER than Alberta's.

Particularly if the market place demands sustainable energy forms and hybrid-type cars...we have TONS of oil.



Okay, this is really frustrating. I've been reading about this subject for a long time and have found that without examining the world's oil reserves with my own eyes, there's no way to know what's true and what's not!

On the one hand, a lot of doomers talk about how we're using up all the oil too fast and that it will lead to the destruction of our economy. On the other hand, a lot of people claim that this is all BS propaganda put out by oil cartels to keep the price of oil unnaturally high.

Example: I read an article about all the untapped oil reserves discovered in the Dakotas and Montana, supposedly more oil there than in the whole middle East. Then I found another article stating that the amount of oil there is exaggerated and it's not enough to make a big difference.

Damn you, Internet! Who am I supposed to believe? :confused:

[bdmarti]

Peak Oil is a fact. It's simple math really. Now, I won't try to convince you we are at, or even near, the world's peak in oil production, but I will tell you that the math obviously shows that if oil is finite, or even if it is replenished at some rate that is slower than we use it, then we will peak in production. Once you understand this simple fact you can attempt to honestly determine when that might be. Knowing the when is nearly impossible (unless you have a time traveling delorian or something), but that doesn't stop people from trying, nor does it mean that people are wrong when they make an educated guess. Knowing that it will happen someday means that someday, someone, will guess right about when we'll peak.

Should we be hysterical about peak oil today? I don't know. You can look at the graphs of oil production, oil discoveries, and population growth and to me it looks like production is going to peak soon to me...but graphs can change shape for lots of reasons. Most sources I've ever seen admit that sweet light crude is peaking or has peaked and now it's a question of how quickly we can ramp up the alternative sources of oil and energy. There are massive amounts of oil in the tar sands and oil shale...but can we extract it as fast or as efficiently as we can light sweet crude? the answer currently, is no. We'll see where technology takes us. I'm less than optimistic, but I'd hardly call myself hysterical about the matter....'cause again, I don't claim to know the "when" of peak oil.

but...more than weather it is or is not happening "now" I wanted to comment on this:


Much of the peak oil hysteria rests on the idea that at some point declining oil production will cause the industrialized world to come to a screeching halt. It won't.

I don't know when or even if we are going to run out of oil. But I know that if demand for oil outstrips production the market will do what it always does under those circumstance: raise prices. Higher prices will do three things. It will stimulate more production. It will supress consumption. And it will stimulate the development and implementation of alternatives. By stimulating production and supressing consumption the market will extend the supply, direct it to the uses of most importance, and it will ease the transition to the alternatives it will be developing.

The market is very, very good at responding to scarcity. So there really is no cause for alarm. UNLESS the government gets in the way. :D
....
Far more likely to crush us is Peak Dollar.

We don't have a very free market for oil and energy. We have highly restricted and regulated market for oil and energy.
In addition, energy, and oil in particular (at this time) are somewhat special items in the market place. Add to that, the fact that we in the US, and all countries around the world that I'm aware of, have a debt based monetary system and then you have a recipe for disaster "IF" we did in fact hit peak oil.

I'll now say why I think it would be "bad" for the world "IF" we were to actually peak in oil production.

All dollars, excepting for coins, are borrowed into existence. A person or company borrows money from the bank and this, in effect, creates the money. The bank is not lending you money it had, it is creating NEW money. The borrower is then required to pay back the principle and the interest. This means that all the borrowers put together must collectively find, and repay, more money than was loaned out into existence. In order for this to be possible, more borrowers must come along and borrow ever more money into existence. This is the nature of our fiat money system (highly oversimplified).

The poster above claims that the market will adapt...BUT...if we are to assume that the market is even remotely efficient and reasonable, then we are currently using oil for so many things because it is the CHEAPEST way to get work done. All other forms of energy, for whatever we are using oil for, would cost MORE. This is why the market is using oil (assuming the market is remotely reasonable). Why does this matter?

What happens if your costs go up significantly...like if for instance you couldn't use cheap oil, but had to shift to some other more expensive energy source? For all debtors, there will be a point at which an increase in costs will prevent them from making profits, which will in turn result in default of loan. If that point is reached due to increase in oil and shift to alternative energy, then you get massive debt default. Massive debt default would shrink the money supply...which could very well lower prices and also have the effect of making it harder to profit and pay back debt. Massive debt default also has the effect of tightening credit rules...which also tends to shrink the money supply...which also makes it ever more difficult for everyone to pay back their debt.

Clearly governments don't want that type of situation to happen...they can't let the money supply shrink, for any reason. So, they must pump money into the economy by printing it and spending it themselves.

Now...you could try to raise your prices to cover your increased costs...but everyone will be trying this. So in this situation every debtor would need the money supply to grow EVEN FASTER...so you'd need ever more debt. Now everyone needs to pay their principle, interest, and increased energy costs. I don't think it's generally the case that when people start to have massive defaults and energy prices are going up up up that banks get loose with the loans...but maybe that's just me.

So...that's why it's my opinion that "IF" peak oil were to happen at this time, it would turn the industrialized world upside down. A) we'd need to re-do our currency systems globally and B) we'd all need to learn to get by with less energy use which for most Americans would mean a lower standard of living.

Everything would work "better" and there would be less of an issue if we actually got the government out of the way for the most part and if we didn't have fiat currency, but rather used gold or some other stable basket of commodities for currency. Since we do have fiat currency/reserve banking...I think peak oil would be very bad.

Economic conditions right now happen to be the type that I might expect to see if we were at peak. We had a massive spike in oil costs, then we had massive economic repercussions. Will we see this cycle continue? I dunno. If we do...then maybe we are at peak. Or maybe we won't see this type of thing repeat. i'd be pleasantly surprised to see a global economic recovery.

No matter if we are at peak today or not, you should accept the math. Peak oil will happen. Quibble about the when and be sure to point out when people are using poor arguments and evidence to back up predictions. Even mine.

[Anti Federalist]

Zippy's analysis on this is pretty much spot on.

Decreasing supply will not result in an overnight shut down of all oil and petroleum products, they will just become increasingly expensive.

Which is why, yet again, I have to insist that the continued exportation of manufacturing and, in an alarming trend, agricultural production, is insanity.

The day will come when even cheap, essentially slave, labor costs of production in tyrannical regimes will not offset the costs of transport halfway around the globe.

Unless you plan on returning to sail, which frankly, would make me happy.

[Travlyr]

So...that's why it's my opinion that "IF" peak oil were to happen at this time, it would turn the industrialized world upside down.
True, but it doesn't have to be that way. We could be using more alternative fuels now if they weren't illegal ... industrial hemp is a prime example. Now, that would not "solve" the inevitability of peak oil, but it would help to postpone it while reducing pollution, promoting quality products, and creating opportunity.


A) we'd need to re-do our currency systems globally
That is #1. The current debt monetary system is a facade designed to transfer wealth from workers to non-workers. The fractional reserve banking scheme and persistent fiat inflation don't create any aggregate wealth. Central bank counterfeiting simply takes wealth from one person and gives it to another. It should go away tomorrow... or this afternoon wouldn't be too soon. If everyone repudiated their debt tomorrow morning and started using real money, then wealth would stop being transfered from the poor to the rich. The coming economic crash is only problematic for the rulers... it is good for the rest of us.


B) we'd all need to learn to get by with less energy use which for most Americans would mean a lower standard of living.
There is no need to reduce anyone's standard of living. Our standard of living can skyrocket, as soon as, we end our debt monetary system and embrace a real honest system of trading. There is plenty of federal land that could be homesteaded with an entire earth friendly hemp industry just begging to be used. Our lower standard of living is a result of our enslavement to the central banks. When we break those chains peace, liberty, and prosperity abounds.


Everything would work "better" and there would be less of an issue if we actually got the government out of the way for the most part and if we didn't have fiat currency, but rather used gold or some other stable basket of commodities for currency. Since we do have fiat currency/reserve banking...I think peak oil would be very bad.
Exactly. If we could get everyone focused like a laser beam on ending central bank's control over us, everything would work better ... much, much better.

[bdmarti]

I'll put this into context for you. Canada supplies the USA with the highest % of it's oil. ALL of the oil comes from Alberta. We currently have enough oil to supply current levels of extraction (which is A LOT) for 200 years. TWO HUNDRED YEARS.

The kicker? Manitoba, the province right beside Alberta...has untapped oil reserves that are BIGGER than Alberta's.

Particularly if the market place demands sustainable energy forms and hybrid-type cars...we have TONS of oil.

We don't extract at a constant rate. In reality, we have, and are trying to continue to extract at an ever growing rate.

If we attempted to increase extraction rate by just 1% per year we would double extraction rate within 70 years. This rate of increase would also result in that 200 year supply lasting only about 110 years.

however, they are trying very hard to ramp up production FAR faster than 1% per year.

let's say they achieved something near 10% production increase per year.
If they managed that...and I think they are trying to do even better...then that 200 year supply lasts closer to 30 years. That's not nearly as impressive.

Just think if we could increase extraction of that oil by 50% a year!

Exponential growth is a monster.

[bdmarti]

The current debt monetary system is a facade designed to transfer wealth from workers to non-workers. The fractional reserve banking scheme and persistent fiat inflation don't create any aggregate wealth. Central bank counterfeiting simply takes wealth from one person and gives it to another. It should go away tomorrow... or this afternoon wouldn't be too soon. If everyone repudiated their debt tomorrow morning and started using real money, then wealth would stop being transfered from the poor to the rich. The coming economic crash is only problematic for the rulers... it is good for the rest of us.


While I readily agree that if we could flip a switch and suddenly be using real currency and fair trade that nearly everyone outside the rulers would be better off.

I don't see the transition as going very smoothly though. Rulers are reluctant to let go of power and I can see things heading even more in a direction of corporatism/feudalism/fascism or something like that more easily than I can see the masses suddenly coming to understand they are being used and abused and embracing liberty and fair trade and honest currency.

I'm all for a liberty utopia..you've just got 6 to 7 billion more people to convince.

[Travlyr]

While I readily agree that if we could flip a switch and suddenly be using real currency and fair trade that nearly everyone outside the rulers would be better off.

I don't see the transition as going very smoothly though. Rulers are reluctant to let go of power and I can see things heading even more in a direction of corporatism/feudalism/fascism or something like that more easily than I can see the masses suddenly coming to understand they are being used and abused and embracing liberty and fair trade and honest currency.

I'm all for a liberty utopia..you've just got 6 to 7 billion more people to convince.

The switch may be close to being flipped by the bursting bond and currency bubbles whether the rulers like it or not.

Murray N. Rothbard writes in "The Mystery of Banking"
As Ludwig von Mises conclusively demonstrated in 1912, money does not and cannot originate by order of the State or by some sort of social contract agreed upon by all citizens; it must always originate in the processes of the free market.
I suspect this means that the IMF cannot successfully issue a new currency by decree. The black market option and the correct State option is to let real money work. Utah is leading the charge; hopefully, other States will follow their lead.

[Zippyjuan]

The Alberta Oil Sands are a very messy and expensive way to get oil. It requires lots of water and energy to heat the water to steam to blast the sands and separate the oil from the sands. This creates tons and tons of toxic waste. There are literally hundreds of kilometers of lakes full of this waste. And they will continue to grow. It is a low grade of oil which also means it requires more refining.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/11/fossilfuels.pollution

A decade ago, the vast landscape of forests and lakes around Fort McMurray and the Athabasca river provided a fairly minor and barely profitable sand oil industry. But it is now pitted with hundreds of square kilometres of toxic waste ponds, mines that are 300ft deep, hundreds of miles of pipes and burgeoning petrochemical works. Every day brings a bumper to bumper stream of lorries carrying the world's largest plant, pipes and machinery to the area, as well as young men seeking fortunes, and, say critics, the devastation of a pristine land.

The companies are now mining 1.3m barrels a day of heavy crude oil from the sands, which are saturated with bitumen. But they expect to spend another £50bn to more than double production to 3.5m barrels by 2011. The surge is expected to attract 100,000 more workers to the northern wilderness where the wolf and bear are still common.

And that would just be the start. By 2030 they plan to produce at least 5m barrels a day, and export more than Nigeria, Venezuela or Norway, which would make Canada one of the world's largest oil producers.

If the oil price stays high and new technology permits, oil companies will move, with the Canadian government's blessing, to extract the estimated 180bn barrels of crude to be found far deeper under 140,000 sq km of Alberta in what are the world's largest proven oil deposits after Saudi Arabia.



Oil sands need to be washed and more than 12,713m cubic feet (360 million cubic metres) are used a year - the equivalent used in a city of 2 million people.



http://newbeeland.co.cc/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/alberta-oil-sands.jpg
http://newbeeland.co.cc/?attachment_id=1541

If, as they would like, they double their production, so will the water consumed and waste produced. One company in the area just recently (news report from today, Feb 10) accused of lying about their water use and drawing off too much.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/statoil-idUSN1010295820110210

UPDATE 2-Alberta charges Statoil for oil sands water use
8:25am PST
Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:29pm EST

* Norwegian company faces 19 charges under water act

* Alberta gov't says Statoil provide false information

* Statoil says charges relate to drilling program (Adds detail, company comment.)

CALGARY, Alberta, Feb 10 (Reuters) - Norwary's Statoil ASA (STL.OL) faces charges in Canada of diverting water for use at its oil sands operations in northern Alberta, the province's government said on Thursday.

Alberta said the Norwegian state-owned oil company contravened parts of its water license and provided false or misleading information regarding water withdrawals at its facility near Conklin.

The province's environment ministry said in a statement 19 charges relate to separate incidents in 2008 through 2010. It did not specify the penalties the company could face.



Water impacts:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/alberta-s-oil-sands-key-issues-and-impacts

Oil sands production requires an extremely large quantity of water. In general it takes about 2 to 4.5 barrels of water, most of which is withdrawn from the Athabasca River, to produce one barrel of oil. While much of this water is recycled and used many times over, the oil sands use more water per year than the entire city of Calgary. The key policy problem regarding water for this purpose is the need to allocate water supplies in a way that properly balances oil sands production needs with ecosystem and human needs in the region. While the amount of water consumed per barrel of oil produced has been declining, a 2006 Government of Alberta report warned that there simply may not be enough available water to meet the needs of all planned oil sands projects while maintaining adequate stream flows.

Criticism from academics and activists has primarily focused on the effects of water withdrawals on fish populations, particularly during low-flow months, and the water security of communities within the Athabasca watershed. Alberta’s current regulatory framework has been criticized because the quantity of water withdrawals it authorizes does not adequately ensure ecosystem protection or the long-term conservation of the Athabasca watershed. As the federal government has jurisdiction over fisheries and the Athabasca watershed is shared by the province of Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and numerous First Nations communities, there is a large potential for future jurisdictional disputes and power-sharing arrangements. Some affected communities are becoming increasingly vocal with their demands that a moratorium be placed on development, citing the negative effect that oil sands production is having on the region’s water systems. As new projects will require further massive withdrawals of water, the availability of freshwater sources may very well limit the continued expansion of oil sands production.

[raystone]

Peak oil is something I've been following closely over at Chrismartenson.com

Here's one of the better forum postings laying it out fairly clearly..

Do your own observing. How many oil fields have been abandon in California? In Texas, In Oklahoma? How much oil comes from the fields in Pennsylvania? If those fields were still producing, why would we have drilled offshore for much more expensive oil? I live in New Mexico and when I go up towards Farmington from Albuquerque, I see many pumps standing idle while others nearby are pumping. I see small storage tanks here and there that have no pump anywhere near them. It is apparent that the big oil field up there is shutting down gradually. Ordinary common sense tells you that no oil field can last forever and therefore must have a half life.

Why is Mexico exporting less and less oil to us when they are in financial straits? Could it be because they are running out of oil? Chris's stats are easy enough to verify on the web. Why is Canada developing its tar sands if it still has lots of oil to pump in its ordinary oil fields? No business develops more expensive ways to do business unless it has no alternative. Even if there is some oil left in the many fields around, just the fact that more expensive alternatives are being and have been developed tells you that extraction has become so costly that other alternatives offer a better return. If you think that peak oil is a hoax, then go buy yourself a couple of Hummers and celebrate. As for me, I am convinced just on the evidence of my own observations, and I was even before I took the Crash Course.

[EndDaFed]

Peak oil is something I've been following closely over at Chrismartenson.com

Do you have a paid membership to his website? If so how good is the content he provides to paying members?

[osan]

Okay, this is really frustrating. I've been reading about this subject for a long time and have found that without examining the world's oil reserves with my own eyes, there's no way to know what's true and what's not!

On the one hand, a lot of doomers talk about how we're using up all the oil too fast and that it will lead to the destruction of our economy. On the other hand, a lot of people claim that this is all BS propaganda put out by oil cartels to keep the price of oil unnaturally high.

Example: I read an article about all the untapped oil reserves discovered in the Dakotas and Montana, supposedly more oil there than in the whole middle East. Then I found another article stating that the amount of oil there is exaggerated and it's not enough to make a big difference.

Damn you, Internet! Who am I supposed to believe? :confused:

Probably impossible to know from where we stand. This is obviously a highly politically charged issue from many perspectives,including that of control. Ad Danno mentions, there are many "good" arguments from differing points of view - "good" meaning cogent and convincing looking. If, however, two stories are saying diametrically opposing things, at least one of them must be wrong. Add to all you list the third notion of "deep" oil and things become even more confusing. Deep oil in many ways seems like a load of nonsense, but if so, then why did the Soviets do so much deep drilling? Why did they publish so much information on deep oil? Was it a ruse of some sort? Were they all indulging in too much LSD, or perhaps too much borscht had turned their thinking fuzzy? Why would they sink a 57K foot (10.8 mile) deep well in North Vietnam, the deepest on record as I recall?

I'd say believe nobody. If peak oil is on the money, barring discovery of other sources of raw materials such as fuels, plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, etc., a whole lot of us are going to die when the supplies dwindle below the level of mere price-effect. When pharmaceuticals go the way of the dodo some time after synthetic fertilizers, the "developed" world is going to go to hell in a hand basket in a way few people can envision today. Naturally, those at the top of the ladder will have plenty, leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. Those will be most interesting days if they come to pass, and at this point and given what I have come to observe - particularly in the past decade since 9/11 - The wild cards are out and about in abundance. I have no idea who is controlling what and to which degree such control is being maintained. This may be all show for purposes I cannot divine - it may be we have an era of unprecedented non-linearity looming on what feels like the very immediate horizon. The truth evades me, save to say that increasingly interesting days are ahead one way or another.

We have our livestock, tilled ground... none of it may make any difference. I simply do not know. If anyone has definite information relating to all this, please do not be shy. I for one would like to know what is going on even if the truth is not pretty.

Anyone?

[osan]

Peak oil is something I've been following closely over at Chrismartenson.com

Here's one of the better forum postings laying it out fairly clearly..

Do your own observing. How many oil fields have been abandon in California? In Texas, In Oklahoma? How much oil comes from the fields in Pennsylvania? If those fields were still producing, why would we have drilled offshore for much more expensive oil? I live in New Mexico and when I go up towards Farmington from Albuquerque, I see many pumps standing idle while others nearby are pumping. I see small storage tanks here and there that have no pump anywhere near them. It is apparent that the big oil field up there is shutting down gradually. Ordinary common sense tells you that no oil field can last forever and therefore must have a half life.

Why is Mexico exporting less and less oil to us when they are in financial straits? Could it be because they are running out of oil? Chris's stats are easy enough to verify on the web. Why is Canada developing its tar sands if it still has lots of oil to pump in its ordinary oil fields? No business develops more expensive ways to do business unless it has no alternative. Even if there is some oil left in the many fields around, just the fact that more expensive alternatives are being and have been developed tells you that extraction has become so costly that other alternatives offer a better return. If you think that peak oil is a hoax, then go buy yourself a couple of Hummers and celebrate. As for me, I am convinced just on the evidence of my own observations, and I was even before I took the Crash Course.

A cogent argument whose truth is predicated on the truth implied in the statements about idle wells. I am not saying peak oil is a hoax - it may well be and the intuition seems to lean in that direction, also based largely on what I "know". There have been some rather elaborate ruses mounted in the name of "social engineering". Given that, if TPTB decided, say, 50 years ago that we needed to move away from such heavy oil consumption, what better way to steer such a decision in the face of a reticent public than to claim we are running out? Oh no! Everybody run, the end of the world is nigh! Yes yes, a paranoid conspiracy and most likely not the case - but let us remind ourselves that where political power is concerned, almost anything is possible. I would also point out that if TPTB have the buy-in of the global oil companies and such a program is actually in effect, how would be know? Most likely we would not. The belief systems of entire populations can be very effectively steered by the words and deeds of just a handful of very carefully places "experts". This is well established fact and the technology-enabled history of the 20th century alone demonstrates this most convincingly.

Therefore, I would be somewhat circumspect when considering what to believe on any issue of such political significance. Be careful, and unless you have unimpeachable reasons for accepting a certain belief, better to remain the skeptic.

My plugged kopek's worth.

[Anti Federalist]

Add to all you list the third notion of "deep" oil and things become even more confusing. Deep oil in many ways seems like a load of nonsense, but if so, then why did the Soviets do so much deep drilling?

"Deep" oil is proved.

I helped punch a couple of these holes.

http://www.ogfj.com/index/article-display/8196873724/articles/oil-gas-financial-journal/e-__p/offshore/bp-finds_oil_in_multiple.html

[raystone]

Do you have a paid membership to his website? If so how good is the content he provides to paying members?

Yes, 3 month period. It has value, and he is moving more of his stuff to subscription only, including high profile interviews. MOST of the interview content, however, can be found among several different sites. Martenson's own analysis is singular and is probably worth a one month or 3 month subscription to check it out. I like his clear thinking on describing warning signals for an imminent collapse and new focus on providing valuable information on prepping. Finally, I actually subscribed to read a subscription only link posted by a subscribed member. A lot of smart people there, with good thinking and good prepping plans.

[EndDaFed]

Yes, 3 month period. It has value, and he is moving more of his stuff to subscription only, including high profile interviews. MOST of the interview content, however, can be found among several different sites. Martenson's own analysis is singular and is probably worth a one month or 3 month subscription to check it out. I like his clear thinking on describing warning signals for an imminent collapse and new focus on providing valuable information on prepping. Finally, I actually subscribed to read a subscription only link posted by a subscribed member. A lot of smart people there, with good thinking and good planning.

Thanks for the review. I will check that out.