• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The worlds oil supply

oldman420

oldman420

Platinum Member
Today the Saudis declared that even if they upped production of oil the U.S doesn't have the refining capacity to handle more.
ok this oil thing is starting to get out of control to the point that it will dry up and humanity will have to find something else.
if you were to guess, how long do you think te worlds oil supply will last?
How long untill poorer countries will be unable to afford it, and what will we as a species do for alternatives,
the third world is in for a bad wakeup call that day.

 
you can't estimate accurately. the total supply is unknown (all the "easy" oil has been found) and worldwide consumption is increasing exponentially.
my best guess: 100 years. but by then, we will choke (or greenhouse or sinkhole or etc.) to death. it is imperative we find a clean, renewable energy source.

for those that don't know, the US has a sweetheart deal with the Al Saud family. We keep them in power, they keep us in severely discounted oil. People are freaking out (rightly so) over the price of oil, but few realize that we pay a lot less than market value.
 
its gonna be a while. the last thread was pretty informative. someone said many reserves we know of arent being drilled yet, and there are tons left to be found researchers say. we havent even hit peak production IIRC, and when that happens, it will be a long time before we actually run out. id give it at least 100 years, maybe more.
 
There is plenty of oil, just not the right kind. The common oil used and is so precious (oil from dinosaur bones and such) is becomming more and more rare, but there are other forms of oil (sand oil for instance) that, while more expensive to process, is very plentiful and can be found right here in North America.
 
If counting up all oil reserves including those are so deep underground/ to scatterred to be economically eploited, around 70 years.

The feasible reserve iss less than 50 years

The hydrogen economy need to get on fast or else no cars would exist
 
Oil production is going to be bimodal, which ah heck things up. Id say that within 20 years the unconventional resources will become economically extractable. Which brings a shiney new 2(?) trillion barrels to the fore.
 
Whats scary is demand is increasing exponentially. and much of the third worlds infrastructure is heavily Dependant on oil.
we could see pandemics and mass starvation.
 
Well, there is growing support for a concept known as 'peak oil'. Essentially, as we use up easy reserves, the remaining reserves are more and more difficult to extract.

Therefore, there will come a point where oil extraction rate cannot be increased any further, no matter what.

In the USA oil production peaked in 1970 - and in almost every year since then, production has been less than the year preceding it.

Should this happen on a world-wide scale, then the only way to avert shoratges will be to conserve, because there will be no option to increase supply.

Some geologists put the time of 'peak' within about 2-3 years. The most optimistic estimates put it about 20-25 years in the future.

See peakoil.net for more info.

 
Originally posted by: oldman420
Whats scary is demand is increasing exponentially. and much of the third worlds infrastructure is heavily Dependant on oil.
we could see pandemics and mass starvation.
Click to expand...

Population growth is the largest challenge we face this century and it must be curbed. Western Countries have slowed their population growth over the last 100 years to about 1.5 children per household The planet's resources cannot compete with more then 10 billion people, if it is not too much already.
Eastern countries like China and India have about 1 billion people each.
So, what will happen is while these countries are trying to fully industrialize like the West they will realize they need to have a controlled population to do it.
Check out, Malaysia where they are having to 'recycle' graves because of no space.
 
Unfortunately, hydrogen powered vehicles and devices will never work out.

1. There is no infrastructure anywhere in the world that supports hydrogen distribution on the scale needed for cars, etc.

2. Free hydrogen doesn't exist. It must be refined, but is much more costly that refining oil.

3. Are you going to put your family in the Hindenberg? Safe transport and storage in a car is an absolute must. I've seen some early work on this, but it may not scale well to production levels.

4. This is the biggie. Hydrogen refinement takes energy. Where will this energy come from? Not hydrogen. Just like so-called clean pure electric cars, the energy needed to make it work is produced by power plants. In the US, about 70% of our electric power comes from oil burning power plants.

Achievable short-term goals:

1.More efficient use of existing resources, on all scales.

Good examples are hybrid gas-electric cars, which are extremely clean and efficient. However, billions of these will still be releasing carbon dioxide.

2.Developement of clean, renewable power.

Solar and wind? Don't make me laugh. Even if we increase efficiecy ten-fold, we need much more power than these two can provide.

Much better would be a bio-mass derived liquid/gas. We have mountains of rotting garbage, why not put it to work?

Make fusion developement a priority. This is the cleanest and most powerful energy source in the known universe, and we are this close to making it happen. Big government (big oil) will stop this at any cost.
 
You have such a narrow view of hydrogen powered vehicles. Hydrogen Fuel cells fed by a reformer supplied with Methanol are a perfectly reasonable Hydrogen powered vehicle.
1. Methanol is liquid. We know how to distribute liquid fuel to private vehicles.
2. Methanol can be produced by many means, including the bio-mass derived fuel you referred to.
3. I don't remember anyone mentioning everyone replacing their cars with giant dirigibles. What does the Hindenburg have to do with this? Ever spread gas on the ground and lit a match? Ever seen pictures of Officer Jason Schechterle?
4. Everything takes energy. We have not solved that problem, and have no intention of solving that problem until the lights go out - then the most politically expedient solution will be chosen and funded, which will probably not be the best technical or societal solution.

/frank
 
Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler


2. Free hydrogen doesn't exist. It must be refined, but is much more costly that refining oil.
Click to expand...

It is currently more costly than refining oil, but when the oil supply drops off and prices rise, than it may become competitive.
 
I'm sorry, maybe I should clarify. I meant "free" as in not bonded to another element. Not free of cost. Your point is still very valid.

Hydrogen, like oxygen, gets lonely and hooks up with just about anything almost immediately. Handy for powering rockets or making 100% pure H2O, not so handy sometimes, like the unfortunate Apollo crew.
 
According to a report in National Geographic there is at least a 1200 year proven supply of natural gas. This does not include at least that much more available as undersea hydrides. The Colorado oil shales contain more oil than has already been pumped world wide to date. The Athabascan Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada are at least as plentiful. The problem is not how much oil there is but how much we are willing to spend for it. As advanced extraction techniques become necessary the price goes up. The interior of Alaska between the Alaska and Brooks mountain ranges has the same geology as the North Slope and the odds are good it also has large amounts of oil. A recently announced improvement in the extraction of oil from old fields promises to double the total production of oil from the north slope of Alaska. All this must be a tremendous disappointment to the "Henny Pennys" of the world.
 
I'm less than 80 years old, so I don't know what a "Henny Penny" is. And these amounts, 1200 years? Is that for the world today? 30 years ago? How about an industrialized So. America, Africa, and all of Asia? There's enough gas for 6+ billion people for 1200 years?
Please provide a link to the mentioned article.
 
The question isn't if we will run out of oil. The question is will we run out of 'cheap' oil.

If we had to use 1950's technology to get the oil for today, I am sure we might well be past peak oil.

If you are going to talk about running out of oil, one needs to consider the recovery techniques that will be used in 2050, not today.
 
Originally posted by: oldman420
Today the Saudis declared that even if they upped production of oil the U.S doesn't have the refining capacity to handle more.
ok this oil thing is starting to get out of control to the point that it will dry up and humanity will have to find something else.
if you were to guess, how long do you think te worlds oil supply will last?
How long untill poorer countries will be unable to afford it, and what will we as a species do for alternatives,
the third world is in for a bad wakeup call that day.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but I think this whole visit is more song-and-dance than a Broadway show.
If you listen to Fox, they kept saying "Isn't not the President's fault" over and over.
They have no intention of doing anything about oil.
 
Bush gave another conference and has proposed building more refineries on abandoned military bases, whatever that means.
The Kyoto agreement that has actually been put into practice recently has really given a great foot forward on this whole affair. It's unfortunate it was not put into practice sooner. Already I think emissions are being decently lowered. If people spend money on emission cutting equipment I think the Kyoto contract gives them allot of benefits.
He will call on Congress to provide a "risk insurance" plan to insulate the nuclear industry against regulatory delays if they build new nuclear power plants. And he will endorse giving federal regulators final say over the location of liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals.
Click to expand...
There has not been a new commercial nuclear power plant ordered in the United States since 1973 and no new refinery built in nearly 30 years.
Click to expand...
 
There are at least 50 years worth of petroleum reserves underground. Also, there are the so called "exhausted" crude oil reserves, that still contain a good reserve of crude oil (but its extraction is alot more difficult). Also, there are reserves in hard to reach areas, and (hopefully) not yet discovered reserves.
What solutions do we have?
1. solar (it was talked enough lately in the forums) (panels or heat generating systems, some heat generating systems have turbines and electric generators)
2. thermal (geothermal, and you might consider the ocean thermal also)
3. nuclear (both fusion and fission)
4. coal - one could start fires in the very deep coal reserves (like 5km deep) and pump in water (and some O2 to keep the flame burning). The result? H2 and CO (carbon monoxyde), which aren't hot and can be transported with no losses to the place where one burns them to obtain heat or electricity
5 oil sands (sands with very high concentration of oil). These can be burned on site (they generate lots of smoke/ashes), or heated and the oil flows out)
others methods
 
A couple of things.

I have read articles which suggests oil is actually produced by the earth by chemical mixing under the crust and pushed upwards. Some of the worlds oil fields apparently have oil that the deeper you drill the newer the oil is. Also it seems to explain why some oil fields came back to life.

Do I buy into this? I dont know, I guess it could make sense. I find it hard to believe animals die and petroleum is stored in the crust from the decay of these animals.

There is a lot of oil on this planet.

I have also heard from people who worked for the oil companies there is a shatload of oil in the rockies but it cant be touched due to the govt owning the land and envrionmental laws.

The number they spit out was ~150 years worth at 1995 levels of consmumption. This is just from the Rockies mind you.


Do i know if any of this is true? I have no idea, but thought I would throw it out there and maybe somebody else will comment.

 
There is plenty of oil. There is also a growing theory that reserves are much deeper than previously thought as old reserves seem to be quickly refilling over and over again in some locations. Texas for example is actually seeing a resurganc in oil production as old dry wells all of the sudden are viable again. The Gulf of Mexico (a relatively untapped mega-source) is said to most likely hold as much as the entire Middle East. It is just hard to get to, and there are a lot of environmental restrictions to drilling - never mind the fact that it burps up a full tankers worth into the sea every day. I am sure that the dolphins and seals love the natural oil slicks. Lastly, new refinement techniques are brining oil shale, and sand tar production into the realm of possibility.

Will it get more expensive. Sure. Will it run out, no - most scientists would argue that there is much more than we will ever know about.

Reminds me a lot of the global warming fight. The great majority of science is on the normal side of the issue (warming is probably not happening) while a few outspoken ones are getting all of the press time. Global warming makes a good news story (people love end of world disaster stories) and the media has run with it (also for political reasons which I will avoid). The story has been good to them and good to the few scientists that firmly support human caused global warming theories.

In the end, scare tactics sell papers and get grant money. It comes down to simple economics.
 
Despite the original question posed here, I think the more pressing issue is alternate energy sources regardless of the available amount of current sources. Traditional energy sources are proving to have unintended consequences that the world's population must live with.

Oil- Most US power comes from oil. costly due to high demand, efficient energy source, potentially very clean except for CO2 emissions, easy to transport, unburnt oil is an enviromental disaster, harvesting is moderately difficult.

Coal- Not very common for large scale power any more, very dirty, not very efficient, moderately costly to transport, inexpensive, entirely domestic

Nuclear (Fission)- Not very common, very efficient energy source, extremely expensive, long term storage (1000's of years) and safety issues abound, very costly and difficult to harvest and process, mostly imported from central Africa with domestic reserves, no new plants have been ordered since 1973 (Three Mile Island, PA)

Hydroelectric- not common but provides large amounts of power (Niagra Falls, TVA, Hoover), moderate to high cost, non-polluting but altered water flow has many enviromental issues

Solar and Wind- not common, very low energy production, very high cost for power delivered, extremely clean, as reliable as the weather

Liquified/Compressed Natural Gas- not common, very clean except for CO2, decent energy output, easy but dangerous to transport and store, often harvested near oil, can be derived from oil

Liquified/Compressed Petroleum Gas- similar to natural gas

Geothermal- Iceland is the only country I'm aware of that is able to use this with current technology, extremely clean, low to moderate energy output, inexpensive (for Iceland)

Ocean wave power- newcomer to the power game, used to power Johnny Walker distillery in Scotland, enviromental effects seem to be none so far, inexpensive, currently low power output, limited to coastal areas

Hydrogen Fuel Cell- in developement, intended for remote or portable power, it's greatest weakness is that it is not an actual souce of power, merely a medium- it will share strengths and weaknesses of the power's origin

Hydrogen/Helium Fusion- in early developement, potentially a panacea foir mankind, developement is mind-blowingly expensive and very slow (this may be due in part by parties protecting their interests)


Those are our current and future options. If I've missed some, please list em.

Calin, there are currently dozens of coal mine fires in Colorado. The mines were ignited either accidently or naturally. They have proven to be enviromentally disastrous. Due to large amounts of coal left by early mining tech, and a natural chimney effect, they are impossible to put out. Using water creates a steam explosion, using concrete only forces the mine fire to change directions and create a new chimney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top