Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Game_Over

Oil Will Be Cheap And Plentiful For At Least 100 Years

Recommended Posts

Having been driven nuts all my life by people droning on that the oil is about to run out, I finally 'cracked', did 30 seconds 'research' and found this article from 2005 in the Wall Street journal.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-oil_oil.htm

Apologies to anyone who has already read this, but basically there is a 100 years supply of oil in Canada and Venezuela alone.

The only reason it is not extracted is because oil can be pumped out of the ground in the Middle East for 1 to 2.5 dollars a barrel wheras the oil in tar sands would cost 15 dollars a barrel to extract.

As a result it is just not commercially worthwhile at the present time to extract this oil, BUT if all the oil in the Middle East ran out tommorrow it would then become a viable economic proposition.

This basically means that oil will be cheap and plentiful until it is superceeded by hydrogen as a fuel, extracted using power generated by fusion reactors.

Sorry guys, 'The end is NOT nigh'

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently the other commodity, apart from cash,needed to extract the oil is water.....and there is little there to do the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merill Lynch."

No VI there then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having been driven nuts all my life by people droning on that the oil is about to run out, I finally 'cracked', did 30 seconds 'research' and found this article from 2005 in the Wall Street journal.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-oil_oil.htm

Apologies to anyone who has already read this, but basically there is a 100 years supply of oil in Canada and Venezuela alone.

The only reason it is not extracted is because oil can be pumped out of the ground in the Middle East for 1 to 2.5 dollars a barrel wheras the oil in tar sands would cost 15 dollars a barrel to extract.

As a result it is just not commercially worthwhile at the present time to extract this oil, BUT if all the oil in the Middle East ran out tommorrow it would then become a viable economic proposition.

This basically means that oil will be cheap and plentiful until it is superceeded by hydrogen as a fuel, extracted using power generated by fusion reactors.

Sorry guys, 'The end is NOT nigh'

:blink:

You took a whole 30 seconds to solve the most pressing problem faced by human kind. Maybe you could spend another 30 seconds on a cure for cancer, hair replacement therapy, teleportation, warp drive, time travel, world hunger, and why on earth Simon Cowell exists?

I think you may find the future more than a little disturbing. So I suggest you put your head bak up your a**s, put your fingers in your ears, and start singing "lalalalalalalalala I can't hear you".

You won't be alone, the world's leaders are doing precisely that as we speak.

p.s. Better buy an X5 now then, whilst they are still cheap.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think anyone thinks the world is gong to run out of oil. Its cheap oil which will run out. Who is going to fill their car up with if it costs £500 a time?

The tar sands oil takes a lot of regular oil to extract. I wont explain it all, but theres a good explaination by Chris Martenson about how the the energy consumption of extracting the oil used to be perhaps 1% of the oil extracted. But in future that percentage is rising exponentially (like 45% burned to extract 55%) which makes it uneconomic to get and in much smaller quantities and therefore supply will not be able to meet demand (peak oil). I cant remember the exact figures but take a look at this crash course.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/...er-17a-peak-oil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having been driven nuts all my life by people droning on that the oil is about to run out, I finally 'cracked', did 30 seconds 'research' and found this article from 2005 in the Wall Street journal.

It takes about almost a fifth of the energy it contains to extract a barrel of oil from tar-sand

As you were ;)

edit: STRLondon was faster

edit 2 for stupidity.

Edited by Mal Volio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merill Lynch."

No VI there then...

Everyone has a VI

Where is the logical flaw in the article?

100 years supply of oil in tar sands that could be extracted for 15 dollars a barrel

and the only reason it is not extracted is because it costs virtually nothing to pump oil out of the ground in the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we forget the fundamentals of supply and demand, Oil will always be a target for investors, speculators, and traders.

There will be big ups and downs for the foreseeable future, you can either profit or lose on the swings. One thing for sure, it will not be a flat ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think anyone thinks the world is gong to run out of oil. Its cheap oil which will run out. Who is going to fill their car up with if it costs £500 a time?

The tar sands oil takes a lot of regular oil to extract. I wont explain it all, but theres a good explaination by Chris Martenson about how the the energy consumption of extracting the oil used to be perhaps 1% of the oil extracted. But in future that percentage is rising exponentially (like 45% burned to extract 55%) which makes it uneconomic to get and in much smaller quantities and therefore supply will not be able to meet demand (peak oil). I cant remember the exact figures but take a look at this crash course.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/...er-17a-peak-oil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It takes about 5 times as much energy to extract a barrel of oil from tar-sand than it contains.

As you were ;)

edit: STRLondon was faster

If you say so

There was an article in New Scientist about this a few weeks ago

The only reason these reserves are not being exploited is that oil is so cheap and plentiful at the moment

If oil becames scarce and expensive there are vast reserves available that could be extracted economically.

I remember being told in the 70's that the oil was about to run out and I am still waiting

And I will still be waiting if I live to be 90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merill Lynch."

No VI there then...

+1

ALWAYS check your sources.

The Manhatton Institute looks like a lobbying machine. Here's a quote from their site for anyone wanting to donate (I've highlighted the obvious bits.

"For over 30 years, the Manhattan Institute has been turning intellect into influence. But our work would be impossible without the generosity of people like you. Please join us.

The Manhattan Institute has always been a source of fresh, market oriented ideas that guide policymakers and inform the public debate. Our senior fellows are key participants in the most crucial policy arenas; policing, counterterrorism, healthcare, welfare, race, education, energy, and tort reform. Our quarterly City Journal is widely regarded as the nation's premier magazine about urban governance and civic life. And intelligent marketing ensures that our influence well exceeds our resources.

As a Sponsor, you will ensure that our message continues to be heard, and that our publications continue to land in the right hands. But much more importantly, you'll become a part of our community-receiving selected publications and invitations to our luncheon forums, conferences, and events. We'll put you in direct contact with some of today's most exciting ideas and revolutionary thinkers.

I welcome you to join us. Your tax-deductible gift will help us build a country where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For as long as I can remember somebody has been telling me there was only 30 years worth of oil left. I have lived to see this prediction proved wrong by a very good margin. I do not anticipate that this will cause the doom mongers to shut up and stop being tedious. People love their horror fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if i refer you to an article debunking global warming, could you use that as tomorrow's great discovery?

Perhaps you could explain

if oil is about to become really expensive, then run out altogether

Why do we need carbon emission reduction targets???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember being told in the 70's that the oil was about to run out and I am still waiting

I was told we were likely to run out in 30-40 years in the late 80s. In a film about oil sponsored by Shell seen in my chemistry GCSE class. Our teacher told us to take the 30-40 year figure "with a pinch of salt" as it was an oil company telling us this. Now I think about it, I'm not sure which way she meant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+1

ALWAYS check your sources.

The Manhatton Institute looks like a lobbying machine. Here's a quote from their site for anyone wanting to donate (I've highlighted the obvious bits.

"For over 30 years, the Manhattan Institute has been turning intellect into influence. But our work would be impossible without the generosity of people like you. Please join us.

The Manhattan Institute has always been a source of fresh, market oriented ideas that guide policymakers and inform the public debate. Our senior fellows are key participants in the most crucial policy arenas; policing, counterterrorism, healthcare, welfare, race, education, energy, and tort reform. Our quarterly City Journal is widely regarded as the nation's premier magazine about urban governance and civic life. And intelligent marketing ensures that our influence well exceeds our resources.

As a Sponsor, you will ensure that our message continues to be heard, and that our publications continue to land in the right hands. But much more importantly, you'll become a part of our community-receiving selected publications and invitations to our luncheon forums, conferences, and events. We'll put you in direct contact with some of today's most exciting ideas and revolutionary thinkers.

I welcome you to join us. Your tax-deductible gift will help us build a country where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

The people pushing the 'peak oil' and AGW agendas also have VI's

Everyone has a VI

Having a VI does not invalidate sound economic arguments

Vast amounts of oil that is extremely cheap to extract is available at the moment

So it is just not economical at the present time to exploit any of the even larger reserves that are more expensive, but still cheap to extract.

When all the oil that costs less than 5 dollars a barrel to extract is used up, we will then have to use oil that costs 15 dollars a barrel to extract, but that's hardly going to result in the end of civilisation as we know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America is something like 3% of the world population but they use 23% of the worlds oil. India and china will use more oil in future years even if America uses less, we need lots more oil.

I do not know how supply will play out, but it looks like an avalanche of demand coming in future years. On speculation alone, oil will become a big problem.

I was reading about oil a while ago and they were saying that they had to literally burn fires in the seams to melt the tar sands and collect the oil. Thats a big difference to just drilling a whole and getting it on tap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apparently the other commodity, apart from cash,needed to extract the oil is water.....and there is little there to do the work.

Canada a shortage of water????? Don't think so.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone has a VI

Where is the logical flaw in the article?

100 years supply of oil in tar sands that could be extracted for 15 dollars a barrel

and the only reason it is not extracted is because it costs virtually nothing to pump oil out of the ground in the Middle East.

It IS being extracted!!!!

Also the implications of mining for tar sands are huge. 2 tons of sand to be extracted to produce just one barrel of oil, causing mass environmental destruction as this has to be strip mined.

tar.bmp

tar.bmp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same as Global Warming, people are willing to lie because they think the end justifies the means.

So they cut timeframes to absolute minimums, worst case scenarios are put as best case, hints and outright

deception are used to further the case. The truth is still there, it's warming/oil peaking in supply, just these

supporters have destroyed all trust.

03clim600.1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was told we were likely to run out in 30-40 years in the late 80s. In a film about oil sponsored by Shell seen in my chemistry GCSE class. Our teacher told us to take the 30-40 year figure "with a pinch of salt" as it was an oil company telling us this. Now I think about it, I'm not sure which way she meant!

Well it's obvioulsy in the interests of oil companies if everyone thinks oil is in short supply

because this will force the price higher

There are bound to be loads of VI's ramping the price of oil at the moment, because the price has collapsed due to the Global recession.

The 'end of the world is nigh' brigade are just being taken in yet again and helping ramp the price of oil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone has a VI

Where is the logical flaw in the article?

100 years supply of oil in tar sands that could be extracted for 15 dollars a barrel

and the only reason it is not extracted is because it costs virtually nothing to pump oil out of the ground in the Middle East.

Not so. We will leave out the environmental implications, because you would be perfectly happy to live in sh1t and call it paradise.

The extraction of this stuff requires large quantities of natural gas, the supply of which is itself becoming problematic, and large quantities of water. Then there is the concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested - EROEI. Basically, if it takes as much energy input as you get out, you are undertaking a futile exercise. The EROEI on the tar sands is currently high, and will get higher as the easier stuff is extracted.

It is clear that you know nothing of geology or oil or basic physics and that you are a complete t*sser. Took me less than 30 seconds to work that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It IS being extracted!!!!

Also the implications of mining for tar sands are huge. 2 tons of sand to be extracted to produce just one barrel of oil, causing mass environmental destruction as this has to be strip mined.

tar.bmp

Yes and covering the entire country with wind turbines isn't destroying the environment I suppose.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For as long as I can remember somebody has been telling me there was only 30 years worth of oil left. I have lived to see this prediction proved wrong by a very good margin. I do not anticipate that this will cause the doom mongers to shut up and stop being tedious. People love their horror fantasies.

They were wrong weren't they? The acknowledged father of peak oil was M King Hubbert, and he never said anything of the sort. He correctly postulated that oil production follows oil discovery with a margin of approximately 40 years. He predicted that the US would peak in the early 70's (which it did, whatever happened to the Texas Railroad commission?), and that the world would peak in the mid 90's. Of course the oil shocks in the 70's caused this to be moved back about 10 years. Which brings us to now.

There is a lot of oil available in planet earth, we will simply not be able to get access to it on an economic (and I mean EROEI basis, not dollars), so you can expect some to still be trickling out in a 100 years from now.

The UK has about 45 years supply, this has been known from about day one, this is going to be reality very soon. We started extracting in 1976, the end is indeed nigh, although gas will decline even quicker, try 2010.

The other thing that no-one ever factors in is the reality that the oil producing countries are themselves increasing usage and therefore will become non exporting countries sooner rather than later. Indonesia left OPEC last year and Mexico will be in the same position sometime in 2010/11. Mexico is the third largest supplier to the US, how do you think that is going to work itself out?

The real horror/fantasy is not resource depletion, but denial within large swathes of the worlds population. When they move onto the anger stage the party will really get going.

As for carbon emissions, that is tied with fossil fuel usage, the question is whether or not we will destroy the climate before we run out of fossil fuels. Although please note we won't ever run out. We will run out of cheap energy, and we will be unable to continue the exponential growth in the use of energy.

Energy is everything, it is the main reason our economies are busy imploding.

If anyone has solved the E=MC2 puzzle would they mind letting us in on it now, as otherwise we are about to return to a less energy intensive time. Although slaves will always be available.

Edited by SMAC67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.