SciScoop Science News header image

The End of Oil? Not Yet!

Environment Monday, August 18, 2008 by RobinMMills

Oil `ran out’ first in 1885, and perhaps another five times since then. Every time, new finds, new technologies and changes in oil use confounded the pessimists.

Oil prices above $140 per barrel seem to encourage the growing belief that we are approaching `peak oil’ and that supply cannot increase any more. But what has changed since 1998 when oil cost $10 a barrel? Just that a long period of under-investment in new energy supplies collided with rapid growth in Asia (and, easily forgotten, the  USA ). It takes years to turn the energy super-tanker around, to develop new oil fields, even though there is plenty in the ground.

There is a real debate over how much oil the world holds. But ideas of a vast conspiracy involving some mix of OPEC, the  US  government and `Big Oil’ to exaggerate oil reserves are fantasy. Official figures are, if anything, somewhat under-stated, and, as recent massive finds in deep water offshore  Brazil  show, new exploration frontiers still exist. Out-dated environmental moratoria in the  USA  could be lifted to yield more domestic hydrocarbons. New technologies continue to wring more out of old fields. Most importantly, `unconventional’ oil sources hold many times the volumes of conventional oil – from the famous Albertan `oil sands’, to fuels from natural gas, coal and plants, to `cooking’ oil out of shales that hold trillions of barrels in the USA alone.

So there is no need to fight `resource wars’ to `secure’ oil. Invading oil-rich countries is vastly expensive and makes oil supplies less, not more, secure. The  Middle East  is a growing part of the world economy, not a nest of terrorists, desperate to cut off oil supplies in order to bankrupt themselves and invite vengeance. Propping up dictators in return for energy `favours’ is not a valid long-term strategy either. The West,  China ,  India  and the oil exporters will gain far more from co-operating on energy, than following the mirage of `energy independence’.

Should `we’ invest massively to move to a renewable energy system? Well, we already are – $100 billion in 2006 alone, and not only in the West, but in  China ,  India ,  Brazil  and other rising powers. It’s hard to grow renewable energy any faster. Renewables are clearly a key part of powering the future, and of fighting global warming, but oil (and gas, and coal) are going to be the main sources of energy for decades to come. Capturing the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, and storing it underground, is entirely practical and should be a major part of climate change policy. Renewable energy and hydrocarbons are not enemies – we need to use them both.

So the `end of oil’ is not imminent – neither is the collapse of industrial civilization. Even if oil supplies started declining, we could fill the gap with improved efficiency and new energy sources. It’s neither necessary nor desirable for us to go back to some `Year Zero’ of pre-modern society. Oil will never `run out’; it will be replaced, probably decades hence, by something better. That is the best and most positive reply to fears about the `end of oil’.

RESOURCES

The book of the post – http://www.praeger.com/catalog/B36498.aspx

http://www.oilcrisismyth.com/

Bookmark and Share

4 Responses to The End of Oil? Not Yet!

dcsobral

August 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

The article is high on “magic” solutions (ie, expecting things WILL get solved), and very low on actual facts, aside from the link.

And it ignores two main points of the “oil crisis”.

The first point is that the oil peak refers not to when oil yield cannot increase, but when supply ceases to increase as fast as demand.

The second point is that the untapped reserves mentioned are expensive to extract and/or convert into oil fuel.

There would be no point, for instance, in extracting brazilian pre-salt oil reserves at US$ 10/barrel prices. Lots of recent new sources only exist because the price is high enough.

Overall, the article seems to be a well thought-out, if overly brief, rebuttal to the wrong arguments.

Avatar

cjwirth

August 19th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

According to energy investment banker Matthew Simmons and most independent analysts, global oil production is now declining, from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time demand will increase 14%.

This is equivalent to a 33% drop in 7 years. No one can reverse this trend, nor can we conserve our way out of this catastrophe. Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always be higher than production; thus the depletion rate will continue until all recoverable oil is extracted.

Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.

We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from “outside,” and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.

This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

I used to live in NH-USA, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? Email: clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207.

Avatar

barakn

September 27th, 2008 at 1:39 am

Fallacy #1:
“Oil `ran out’ first in 1885, and perhaps another five times since then. Every time, new finds, new technologies and changes in oil use confounded the pessimists.” The fallacy here is assuming that since oil has fooled the pessimists six times, it will always fool them. Since the supply of oil is finite, the pessimists will eventually be right.

Fallacy #2:
“Capturing the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, and storing it underground, is entirely practical and should be a major part of climate change policy.” In reality, CO2 sequestration reduces the available energy from a fossil fuel by something on the order of 30%, and the technology is still quite experimental.

Fallacy #3:
“So there is no need to fight `resource wars’ to `secure’ oil. Invading oil-rich countries is vastly expensive and makes oil supplies less, not more, secure.” Then why are they being fought right now? And if you think I’m trying to score some political point by referring to Iraq, look at Nigeria.

Avatar

September 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am

Yes, barakn, I think you’re right on some of these points. There are those who claim that oil is not a finite resource though, aren’t there? They claim that there is evidence that rather than being a fossil fuel it is a constantly formed material, based on continuously replenishing archaea/bacteria deep within the crust. Sounds a bit cranky to me, but almost anything’s possible. It’s not 20 years since they discovered these ancient microbed deep in the crust where you wouldn’t expect them in the first place.

Avatar

Comment Form