Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Oil Will Be Cheap And Plentiful For At Least 100 Years


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 737
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:blink:

Sorry:

http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=100

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

At the end of 2006 the recoverable coal reserves amounted around 800 or 900 gigatons. The United States Energy Information Administration gives world reserves as 998 billion short tons[39] (equal to 905 gigatons), approximately half of it being hard coal. At the current production rate, this would last 164 years.[40] At the current global total energy consumption of 15 terawatt,[41] there is enough coal to provide the entire planet with all of its energy for 57 years.[original research?]

The 998 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves estimated by the Energy Information Administration are equal to about 4,417 BBOE (billion barrels of oil equivalent).[citation needed] The amount of coal burned during 2001 was calculated as 2.337 GTOE (gigatonnes of oil equivalent), which is about 46 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.[citation needed] Were consumption to continue at that rate those reserves would last about 263 years. As a comparison, natural gas provided 51 million barrels (oil equivalent), and oil 76 million barrels, per day during 2001.

British Petroleum, in its annual report 2007, estimated at 2006 end, there were 909,064 million tons of proven coal reserves worldwide, or 147 years reserves-to-production ratio. This figure only includes reserves classified as "proven"; exploration drilling programs by mining companies, particularly in under-explored areas, are continually providing new reserves. In many cases, companies are aware of coal deposits that have not been sufficiently drilled to qualify as "proven". However, some nations haven't updated their information and assume reserves remain at the same levels even with withdrawals.

Of the three fossil fuels coal has the most widely distributed reserves; coal is mined in over 100 countries, and on all continents except Antarctica. The largest reserves are found in the USA, Russia, Australia, China, India and South Africa.

Here's an interesting opinion: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...ate-change-coal

Edited by gruffydd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why are most oil producing nations in decline?

Why is use outsripping disvery by afctor of four-to-ne?

Why is global supply stuck on a plateau?

Where is this oil?

If we convert coal to oil, will that not reduce coal reserves?

So why are we expanding airports when avaiation burns more fuel than Global food production?

Answer - because oil is cheap and there is plenty of it

And World coal reserves are enormous

Airlines are currently struggling because business travel and tourism has been drastically reduced by the Global recession, but all of this travel is entirely unnecessary anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why are we expanding airports when avaiation burns more fuel than Global food production?

Answer - because oil is cheap and there is plenty of it

Real answer - because too many politicians are like you, unable to think and cope with the consequences of reality. Or are you saying that politicians are infallible? If so, they must be right about global warming too. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone with a training in Psychology could give an insight into the reasons why so many people appear to have a deep seated need to believe that the World is going to end.

This is obviously a very powerful emotion in many people and must have been studied by psychologists because it is such a long standing phenomenon, probably as old as mankind itself.

It's not wanting the end of the world, it's a desire not to be caught with your knickers down when bad stuff happens.

Edited by eightiesgirly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything I have read to date on this subject either directly or indirectly states that 6 billion people is not sustainable post-oil. If we all stopped ******* right now it would probably take 50 years for the population to halve, and we need it to reduce by 70-80%. Based on that, there is no 'future for your children' whatever we do unless you are prepared to start a lottery where 3 out of 4 people are executed on the spot or start massacring those least able to shoot back.

So we may as well keep on enjoying life with our heads firmly buried in the (tar) sand until it's all over :-)

WE'RE ALL DOOMED!

frazer.jpg

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what happens when the rising demand for oil outstripped the available supply. You will see that no matter what the price, production was limited at about 74 million barrels per day. That happened in July, 2008. After that, there was a dramatic reduction in demand because of the "credit crunch", and prices collapsed.

However, it illustrates that the production ceiling at present is about 75 MM BPD, and given that most of the large fields are already in decline, and that discovery of oil peaked over 40 years ago in 1964, we are not likely to ever see that amount produced in a month again.

What happens next depends on the rate of decline, and if demand can be managed downwards without civil unrest. Collapsing the financial industry would be a good start for reducing demand, not sure about the unrest though. I'm not proposing a conspiracy theory here - I think actually that hitting the buffers on production and the price spike triggered the credit collapse, not the other way around.

Oil_price_production_plot.jpg

post-9596-1243369864_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not wanting the end of the world, it's a desire not to be caught with your knickers down when bad stuff happens.

If you want to worry about something, worry about this

ASTEROID_STRIKE.gif

Because unless we continue to expand and advance technologically this is very probably the way it's going to end.

Edited by Game_Over
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to worry about something, worry about this

ASTEROID_STRIKE.gif

Because unless we continue to expand and advance technologically this is very probably the way it's going to end.

Can someone answer me this.. If you could stand on the point of impact, would you get squished by the asteroid, or would you be burnt up, crushed by the pressure change or otherwise die before it hits? Watching a rock the size of.. something big hurtle towards you would be an interesting experience.

Oh, and I'm not worrying - if the Peak Oilers are correct there's jack all that can be done, and if they're wrong there's nothing to worry about anyway, so either way it's not worth... worrying :lol:

Edited by impatient_mug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not wanting the end of the world, it's a desire not to be caught with your knickers down when bad stuff happens.

No it's not. It's checking that the elastic hasn't perished before you go to that posh ball. And the hunt for a bit of string and a safety pin, just in case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real answer - because too many politicians are like you, unable to think and cope with the consequences of reality. Or are you saying that politicians are infallible? If so, they must be right about global warming too. ;)

My reality is that Oil didn't run out in the 70's or 80's or 90's or noughties

That the Ice Age didn't happen (Yet)

I didn't die of

Aids

CJD

Bird Flu

Swine Flu

The World didn't end in Y2K

And that's just the things I remember

The Sheeple need to be kept in a permanent state of fear and anxiety so that politicians can continue to screw us over without anyone noticing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reality is that Oil didn't run out in the 70's or 80's or 90's or noughties

That the Ice Age didn't happen (Yet)

I didn't die of

Aids

CJD

Bird Flu

Swine Flu

The World didn't end in Y2K

And that's just the things I remember

The Sheeple need to be kept in a permanent state of fear and anxiety so that politicians can continue to screw us over without anyone noticing.

I think the term sheeple is disrespectful and demeaning but in your case I think it's applicable. :)

Link to comment
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:

Key question is really - why does Saudi continue to ship oil to the US (and Europe) in exchange for bits of (potentially worthless) paper? That seems to be the real final destination for US and European debt. I think China is a bit of a red herring compared to mid-East. Presumably Saudi and Co. have no choice but to keep accepting the bulk of their payment in treasury debt, and in doing so get some dollars rubbing along too that can be used to buy real ferrari cars, bentley, strike-fighters, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key question is really - why does Saudi continue to ship oil to the US (and Europe) in exchange for bits of (potentially worthless) paper? That seems to be the real final destination for US and European debt. I think China is a bit of a red herring compared to mid-East. Presumably Saudi and Co. have no choice but to keep accepting the bulk of their payment in treasury debt, and in doing so get some dollars rubbing along too that can be used to buy real ferrari cars, bentley, strike-fighters, etc.?

Because the Moronicans would find WMDs in their backyards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the term sheeple is disrespectful and demeaning but in your case I think it's applicable. :)

Yes I am obviously one of the Sheeple

I believe everything I am told

I am taken in by every scam that comes along

I am in a state of permanent fear and anxiety

I believe that the future is bleak

Actually I had not heard the term until I read this website, I thought it was in common usage here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone with a training in Psychology could give an insight into the reasons why so many people appear to have a deep seated need to believe that the World is going to end.

This is obviously a very powerful emotion in many people and must have been studied by psychologists because it is such a long standing phenomenon, probably as old as mankind itself.

The world hasn't ended, but civilisations have collapsed and disappeared. I'm sure we can all think of examples.

Perhaps someone with a training in Psychology could explain why humans never ever seem to learn from history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

It is generally accepted that the harnessing of Nuclear Fusion and the cheap, plentiful, virtually non-polluting energy it will supply, will be the saviour of the human race.

I doubt it. In fact I believe it really will be the beginning of the end. With limitless cheap energy the human race's natural capacity for greed and unbridled consumerism will be fully unleashed. Production of vast quantities of [email protected] at stupidly cheap prices will leave the planet as a complete garbage tip and ultimately lead to our extinction, as we destroy the remaining natural world around us with ever more buildings, roads, cars and factories making [email protected] etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world hasn't ended, but civilisations have collapsed and disappeared. I'm sure we can all think of examples.

Perhaps someone with a training in Psychology could explain why humans never ever seem to learn from history?

I accept it is possible that this may happen one day, but not much evidence of it happening at the moment

Proliferation of nuclear weapons is probably the biggest threat to our civilisation IMO

But no one even thinks about this these days

Too busy worrying about a 1 degree rise in Global temperatures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news guys! There's enough hydrogen in the worlds oceans to power the planet forever. Extensive research has revealed that the hydrogen contained in the seawater of all the worlds oceans is sufficient and abundant and could power the planet forever. Sorry to be the harbinger of good news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why are we expanding airports when avaiation burns more fuel than Global food production?

Answer - because oil is cheap and there is plenty of it

Why are "we" expanding airports? If by "we" you mean humanity in general, then "we" are not. But a few interested parties are.

People who run airports are expanding airports because they can make money out of it, and money lets them have a nice lifestyle.

The government let them expand airports because they think they will win votes, and votes mean a job, and a job means money with which to fund their lifestyles.

That's the extent of their thinking. If you believe that their decisions to expand airports means they have some special knowledge about the globe's future fuel reserves that we don't have access to, I think you're being optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's enough coal, oil and gas to last 500 years anyhow, according to this green:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006...s.climatechange

Mark Jaccard likes coal.

For decades Jaccard was a leading expert in sustainable energy, darling of the environmental movement and bane of Big Oil.

But now he proclaims that the world can continue to rely on fossil fuels. And his reasoning, while consistent with his beliefs, comes as a huge surprise. The professor says he has not stopped caring about the environment; it's just that he now believes fossil fuels offer the most sustainable future for the planet.

...'The more I explored it, the more I got caught up on two big myths: one is that we're running out of oil; number two is that fossil fuels are dirty,' he says. 'I believed that for 20 years.'

......

The same Jaccard that's contributed to the book Carbon Shift: How the Twin Crises of Oil Depletion and Climate Change Will Define the Future (Random House, 2009).

He's actually a keen advocate of limiting fossil fuel usage in order to mitigate the effects of man made global warming.

If you listen to the man himself in this 2009 podcast on Canadian radio he recommends severely limiting tar sand production and expanding renewables energy output.

http://www.thecommentary.ca/ontheline/20090426b.html

See also this youtube lecture of his (Dr. Mark Jaccard on why pricing carbon pollution is good public policy).

As for coal output saving the day (and pretending that CO2 emmisions don't matter) the German based Energy Watch Group report

suggests that Global coal production to peak around 2025 at 30 percent above presentproduction in the best case (warning PDF).

Lots of hard data and expert opinion there to get your teeth into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news guys! There's enough hydrogen in the worlds oceans to power the planet forever. Extensive research has revealed that the hydrogen contained in the seawater of all the worlds oceans is sufficient and abundant and could power the planet forever. Sorry to be the harbinger of good news.

See my post above. Limitless cheap energy will be the death knell for the human race, even if it is non-polluting in the conventional sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is generally accepted that the harnessing of Nuclear Fusion and the cheap, plentiful, virtually non-polluting energy it will supply, will be the saviour of the human race.

I doubt it. In fact I believe it really will be the beginning of the end. With limitless cheap energy the human race's natural capacity for greed and unbridled consumerism will be fully unleashed. Production of vast quantities of [email protected] at stupidly cheap prices will leave the planet as a complete garbage tip and ultimately lead to our extinction, as we destroy the remaining natural world around us with ever more buildings, roads, cars and factories making [email protected] etc.

But we are part of the natural World

It is possible, if highly unlikely, that we are the only species in the universe who have developed technology, it is an amazing achievement and any 'damage' that we may do to the Earth is inconsequential.

Plate tectonics and erosion would completely destroy any evidence of our existence in a few million years if we disappeared tommorrow, but in the future some other creatures might find the lunar landers on the Moon and be amazed at what an ingenious and enterprising species we must have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are "we" expanding airports? If by "we" you mean humanity in general, then "we" are not. But a few interested parties are.

People who run airports are expanding airports because they can make money out of it, and money lets them have a nice lifestyle.

The government let them expand airports because they think they will win votes, and votes mean a job, and a job means money with which to fund their lifestyles.

That's the extent of their thinking. If you believe that their decisions to expand airports means they have some special knowledge about the globe's future fuel reserves that we don't have access to, I think you're being optimistic.

As far as I know airtravel in general was continuing to expand until the 'Credit crunch'

All I am suggesting is that no one would be investing in this area if oil prices were about to make air travel uneconomic

Especially since most air travel is largely non essential

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about ammonia using the same methods ?

edit: by same methods I mean using nuclear power to generate hydrogen from water for example, then using nitrogen to create liquid ammonia.

Ammonia is much easier to store and is denser. I am not certain as to its practicality as a fuel but it is a fertilser feedstock. Infact could be the answer to the stranded wind issues that the American mid west faces.

An alternative is to convert the hydrogen into ethylene (c2H4) which is a plastics feedstock or Methanol c2H3(OH) which can be blended easily with petrol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

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.