A great documentary...for idiots.


Oil is a nonrenewable resource. Every gallon of petroleum burned today is unavailable for use by future generations. Over the past 150 years, geologists and other scientists often have predicted that our oil reserves would run dry within a few years. When oil prices rise for an extended period, the news media fill with dire warnings that a crisis is upon us. Environmentalists argue that governments must develop new energy technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The facts contradict these harbingers of doom:

In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world’s total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels

In 1950, geologists estimated the world’s total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.

From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.

In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.



World oil production continued to increase through the end of the 20th century.
Prices of gasoline and other petroleum products, adjusted for inflation, are lower than they have been for most of the last 150 years.
Estimates of the world’s total endowment of oil have increased faster than oil has been taken from the ground.
How is this possible? We have not run out of oil because new technologies increase the amount of recoverable oil, and market prices — which signal scarcity — encourage new exploration and development. Rather than ending, the Oil Age has barely begun.

History of Oil Prognostications
The history of the petroleum industry is punctuated by periodic claims that the supply will be exhausted, followed by the discovery of new oil fields and the development of technologies for recovering additional supplies. For instance:


Before the first U.S. oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859, petroleum supplies were limited to crude oil that oozed to the surface. In 1855, an advertisement for Kier’s Rock Oil advised consumers to “hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s laboratory.”1
In 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, the nation’s leading oil-producing state, estimated that only enough U.S. oil remained to keep the nation’s kerosene lamps burning for four years.2

Scaremongers are fond of reminding us that the total amount of oil in the Earth is finite and cannot be replaced during the span of human life. This is true; yet estimates of the world’s total oil endowment have grown faster than humanity can pump petroleum out of the ground.16

The Growing Endowment of Oil.

Estimates of the total amount of oil resources in the world grew throughout the 20th century [see Figure III].


In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world’s total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels.17
In 1950, geologists estimated the world’s total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.
In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.
By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced.18 Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels.19 If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world’s oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.

The estimates above do not include unconventional oil resources. Conventional oil refers to oil that is pumped out of the ground with minimal processing; unconventional oil resources consist largely of tar sands and oil shales that require processing to extract liquid petroleum. Unconventional oil resources are very large. In the future, new technologies that allow extraction of these unconventional resources likely will increase the world’s reserves.


Oil production from tar sands in Canada and South America would add about 600 billion barrels to the world’s supply.20
Rocks found in the three western states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone contain 1,500 billion barrels of oil.21
Worldwide, the oil-shale resource base could easily be as large as 14,000 billion barrels — more than 500 years of oil supply at year 2000 production rates.22
Unconventional oil resources are more expensive to extract and produce, but we can expect production costs to drop with time as improved technologies increase efficiency.

With every passing year it becomes possible to exploit oil resources that could not have been recovered with old technologies. The first American oil well drilled in 1859 by Colonel Edwin Drake in Titusville, Pa. — which was actually drilled by a local blacksmith known as Uncle Billy Smith — reached a total depth of 69 feet (21 meters).


Today’s drilling technology allows the completion of wells up to 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) deep.
The vast petroleum resources of the world’s submerged continental margins are accessible from offshore platforms that allow drilling in water depths to 9,000 feet (2,743 meters).
The amount of oil recoverable from a single well has greatly increased because new technologies allow the boring of multiple horizontal shafts from a single vertical shaft.
Four-dimensional seismic imaging enables engineers and geologists to see a subsurface petroleum reservoir drain over months to years, allowing them to increase the efficiency of its recovery.
New techniques and new technology have increased the efficiency of oil exploration. The success rate for exploratory petroleum wells has increased 50 percent over the past decade, according to energy economist Michael C. Lynch.23

Despite these facts, some environmentalists claim that declining oil production is inevitable, based on the so-called Hubbert model of energy production. They ignore the inaccuracy of Hubbert’s projections.



Problems with Hubbert’s Model.

In March 1956, M. King Hubbert, a research scientist for Shell Oil, predicted that oil production from the 48 contiguous United States would peak between 1965 and 1970.24 Hubbert’s prediction was initially called “utterly ridiculous.”25 But when U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, he became an instant celebrity and living legend.

In the long run, an economy that utilizes petroleum as a primary energy source is not sustainable, because the amount of oil in the Earth’s crust is finite. However, sustainability is a misleading concept, a chimera. No technology since the birth of civilization has been sustainable. All have been replaced as people devised better and more efficient technologies. The history of energy use is largely one of substitution. In the 19th century, the world’s primary energy source was wood. Around 1890, wood was replaced by coal. Coal remained the world’s largest source of energy until the 1960s when it was replaced by oil. WE HAVE ONLY JUST ENTERED THE PETROLEUM AGE.

How long will it last? No one can predict the future, but the world contains enough petroleum resources to last at least until the year 2100. This is so far in the future that it would be ludicrous for us to try to anticipate what energy sources our descendants will utilize. Over the next several decades the world likely will continue to see short-term spikes in the price of oil, but these will be caused by political instability and market interference — not by an irreversible decline in supply.

reply

Your information and thinking is badly flawed. We are most certainly not finding more oil than we are producing, we are currently using 6 barrels of oil for every 1 new barrel of oil that we find. Exploration peaked in the 1960s, look at any graph of exploration and it works steadily downwards ever since then. Back in the '60s when people said oil would peak of course they laughed, we were useing 6 million BPD and finding 30 million. Now we use 84 million but find only 6 million or so.

Every year, another oil producing country heads over the peak into terminal decline. America in the '70s, Russia in '88, the North Sea just a couple of years back, Mexico next year or 2007. Much as you would like to think that oil production will continue unabated for a long time, the facts of current production, anticipated demand, and imminent peak all speak to the opposite.

I recommend you visit sites like www.energybulletin.net and keep your eyes peeled on the news stories. More and more government officials, oil company workers, investment bankers and research groups are warning of IMMINENT global peaking. If we are really lucky, we'll have 10 years to get ready. All serious experts say it will happen before that, before the end of this decade. Several put it within months, not years. The only organisation predicting anything like 20 years of trouble-free living is the US Geological Survey mob, and they have always used figures that are 50% higher than everyone else. Shell (the petroleum company) released figures saying that the world would peak in 2025 using the hopelessly optimisitic USGS figures, but they didn't factor in the necessary economic (fueled by cheap oil) growth rate of 2% each year. That would bring the 2025 date a lot closer, and using figures from anyone other than the USGS (who appear to live on a different planet from that of any other oil reserves estimators), well the end of civilisation as we know it is only just around the corner.

The US Department of Energy sponsored a report in early 2005 about Peak Oil, and the results they were given said that the event would cause unprecedented social and economic and political problems. They also said that such problems could only be averted with at least 10 years of preparation. You had better start hoping that we have at least 10 years, and that we actually prepare. If not, then the future holds a time of such hardship and austerity that a global recession will be the best thing we can hope for, total economic collapse and resource wars a potentially very real nightmare.

Do more research, people want to believe nothing is wrong and that "they" will "find something". Read the news reports, study the subject, decide for yourself. Ask yourself what happens when 84 million barrels a day of oil becomes 83 million, then 82 million, then 80 million. Ask yourself what will happen if it stays at 84 million, but economic growth demands that it go up to 86 million, 88 million. The Peak Oil phenomenon is not about running out of oil, it is about running out of cheap oil. When there is a gap between supply and demand, prices go up. Our demand is on a constant rise, and in the past so has supply risen with it. Oil is finite, it will start to fall, demand will have to do so with it. If a human body needs 4,000 calories a day and only gets 3,000 it will shrink. Likewise if an economy needs 84 million barrels a day and only gets 82 million it will shrink. Modern economies cannot shrink though, they expect at least 2% growth *at the minimum* otherwise they are in trouble. Growth needs energy, and we are about to start running short of it. If even 1% economic growth is considered a disaster, what do you think will happen when we have a 5% decline year on year?

Do not dismiss the problem, it isn't going to go away. If you really think there are billions of barrels of untapped, CHEAP, oil out there then there are a lot of oil companies currently scared *beep* that are waiting to hear from you.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Parkingtigers clearly knows nothing about geology.

1987 world endowment - 30 billions barrells.

1994 World endowment - 300 billion barrells.

1999 World endowment - 3,000 billion barrells.

2004 - 1.2 trillion barrells.

Now, please tell me you're not suggesting that we're using more than we're finding again. Technological, and geological fact denounce your ignorant scare-mongering.

There was a statement released by John Bennet, a PhD in Petroleum where he was asked if the world would run out of oil in the foreseeable future. He said the following, "I would first off say no, not only no, but the question is both scientifically, and politically ignorant. A useless proposition to say the least."

Not to mention that the proposition that we will wont have any new forms of energy by 2052, the projected date that we'll run out, that's WITHOUT technological advances or new finds. It's flat out STUPID to suggest that supply and demand wont wipe out any chance of us having a world collapse because of oil. Since Katrina, SUV's have gone down SIXTY-FOUR PERCENT! And Hybirds have gone up 74! I'm wasting my time arguing with someone who clearly knows nothing about what he speaks, and bases his idiotic claims off of the same kind of sites that predicted the world ending at 12 am, 2000.

And to answer your question, the reason there aren't movies and books about how we're actually going toward a brighter, more secure, and cleaner energy future is because it's not commerically viable. Ignorant idiots like Parkingtiger love the panic response it gives them, and the authors get rich.



Now go hole up in a motel 8 will a botel of Jager and wait until your Y2K, Missile Crisis, and Oil Peak come and get you. Or, you could open your eyes, and not act like such an idiot.

reply

You also naively overlooked Shale oil, and its potential. It's becoming more and more economically feasible by the day to last us 500 years.

Even if, EVEN if all of our alternatives failed which none of us will probably even use in our lifetime, there's enough coal to power our grids for a millenia.

reply

Well, where do I even start?

I certainly do understand your skepticism. Believe me I do! Throughout 33 years of my life I've always believed in capitalism, in lower taxes, in whatever handful of fiscal conservative concepts you can name. On and on.

But Peak Oil...changed that.

And I'm stubborn. I'm not fickle. I don't take anything I read at face value, especially when it's something that (on the face of it) is such a dire threat to our very lives. I've read and read on this...both the optimistic and pessimistic sides.

And...I'm forced to come down on the side of the pessimists.

When it comes to sources like oil shale and tar sands, there is a fundamental point to realize here - leaving aside the vast amount of energy stored there (and they are indeed vast) the real question to ask is how much energy does it take to produce that energy?

And the answer is...huge amounts. The term to remember here is Energy Returned on Energy Invested, or EROEI. You might also refer to it as the Energy Profit Ratio. The tar sands in Alberta require literally a ton of the stuff to be dug up per barrel of oil. This is performed with GIGANTIC machinery all powered by oil that hauls this stuff to plants that steam out the oil using...massive amounts of natural gas, which is in increasingly short supply in North America. When all is said and done, whereas a good conventional oil well where the stuff gushes out of the ground under pressure might deliver a EROEI of 50:1 the tar sands and shale are more in the neighbourhood of 2:1 or 1.5:1

So you really have to question the idea that we have all this "oil" in the ground, that Alberta is the next Saudi Arabia. It's very energy intensive and problematic to get this stuff out, and takes enormous investment to even get the infrastructure in place to bump up the output small amounts. Comparing it to conventional light sweet crude is like comparing a turkey dinner (it's Thanksgiving here in Canada) to a meal of Ramen noodles - yeah, you don't starve to death, but your energy level is vastly reduced.

Oh, and coal? Yeah, lots of that. Just remember that estimate is based on the rate we are using it now...if we started boosting it up, that millenium figure goes way down. Plus it peaks too...just like oil.

The other thing that's tipped me on this subject has simply been both the number of people talking about this, and the credentials of the speakers. It's seemingly growing exponentially. I just read today that Hugo Chavez has spoken about supply not meeting demand - he rules an OPEC nation! How about the Prime Minister of France? Fidel Castro, who rules a country that underwent a MAJOR fuel crunch in the early 90s? Or how about Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) who is hosting conferences on this? Or...yes, Matt Simmons, featured in End of Suburbia, a longtime Republican, advisor to the Bush administration? Ever heard of the Hirsch report, commissioned by the US Dept. of Energy and quietly buried this year that warns of an "unprecedented" crisis emerging? Look it up.

I mean, this isn't the normal conspiracy theory, birkenstock wearing, granola eating, tree hugging stuff here. That's one of many things that struck me about it. When I first heard about it, that was my gut reaction. But then I delved into it. THIS IS THE REAL DEAL.

I have two degrees in history. Resource depletion is a common theme in societies rising and falling. It happens. To say we are immune to this is the height of arrogance. Are you seriously saying "Ok, but THIS TIME we will avoid it???" Get real.

I'll finish with this - the main way I look at this problem is from a physics perspective. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that energy ALWAYS flows from being usable to being unusable. It is an inalterable law that we constantly move from order to chaos, every single second we exist. It's as fundamental as gravity. Without this law, I'd set up a perpetual motion machine that would give us power unto eternity.

Fossil fuels are derived from plant and animal matter that themselves received energy from the sun. They then sank to the ocean floor, were silted over through millions of years, got energy from being under pressure, absorbed energy from the core of the Earth, and finally some of it sifted close enough to the surface that we can pump it out. The whole process took tens of millions of years.

Do you honestly think we can match that with some solar panels and wind turbines?!?!?! We have been cheating on this inexorable laws of the physical universe, and it's about to hit us across the face like a 2x4.

This isn't Y2K paranoia...this is MATH.

reply

mmmm Hybrids! Can you buy a Hybrid car and do an engine swap into a sports car? Daddy likes hybrids!
-B

reply

wow, so capitalists are idiots... i knew it. With the exception of the first arguement's formal structure, the rest of the posts are useless american giberish. please learn some logic and philosophy before you speak again, lazy capitalists. The matter is the destructive capacity of the oil society and the effects of capitalism towards the environment and society. I know this might be hard to understand but the only people to profit from oil live in the land of illusion and theft, the US. To the geologists, great, we have a lot of oil to poison the planet. Sure peak oil theory is wrong, you are dirtying your children's planet and tryijng to justify it through science, as if knowledge was a scorpion that could bite itself. Capitalism like feudalism bends rationality to fit its propaganda machine, im sorry that you would be stupid and amoral enough to argue for the destruction of a wonderful planet, a wonderful people. Against justice, as you now stand, you will find your end not in the glorius cyphers that support you bland egoism, you will meet your end in the hands of the proletariat once we break your control over a world that is not ours.

LET"S HANG ALL THE CAPITALISTS ON THE LAMP POSTS, CA IRA CA IRA CA IRA.

reply

I'm simply refuting the "end of the world" theory, because it's false.

...?

reply

Speaking of useless posts kobaincito, what does yours contribute other than a load of clearly bandwagon anti-US propoganda? Get your own opinion, rather than just repeating what's spoon fed to you.

I've been to many different places on this Earth, and guess what? Human beings are the same everywhere - selfish, insecure, primitive, instinct-driven animals. You'd like to blame the world's problems on the US because it's an easy target - but I'd be willing to bet that you know jack sh!t, other than whatever exists inside your little box.

Just like every other place I've lived, the US has it's fair share of honest people, dishonest people, religious fanatics, atheists, rich people, poor people, kind people, nasty people, intelligent people, stupid people, people with their own opinions, and people that repeat the *beep* they hear on TV or read in the newspapers.

Get real...

reply

I just re read my post, and i stand by it. If you refute it i will answer. To throw a coca cola commercial at me and say, look we are all the same is not an acceptable refutal of my proposition that the debate on how long oil reserves is irrelevant because the safety of the planet is more important. I do agree i lacked clarity in my lack post, which i exchanged for rhetorical strength. To add to my point, it is not the singularities, the individuals who can take responsability for the past, they can only take resolution for the future, when they will be held accountable. Meaning that i am blaming a history of exploitation of the planet and its people in the hands of the american government. MExican invasion, vietnamese invasion, 4 cuban invasions...should i go on? unsigned kyoto agreement, first nuclear tests, first nuclear bomb detonated. If you still want to refute my thesys, gather your self and write with elegance, contest with eloquence. Otherwise accept my misguided (untruthful generalizations) prejusdices of americans.
Regarding propaganda: i accept that i have been manipulated by a fair number of ideas charged with preconcieved political purposes in my day. WE ALL HAVE. The difference is whether you submit to the standard preconstructed conception of the world (UNITED COLORS OF BENETTON, the US and BONO will save the world) or wether you try to understand the bloody hitory of anglosaxon expansionism as it compares to other empires and peoples. When you try to understand nationalism of the 18th century, or of the 3rd bc (speaking of the peloponessian wars) and compare it to the new machinations of imperialists, if you dont count your self amongst the oppressed then you are either a sucker or a thief. so read little wont ya?

reply

Kobaincito: The U.S is the only country making profit of oil? What sort of ignorant comment is that? Norway for example controls over 5% of the oil fields on earth, and they only have about 4.6 million people. They make 1 (one) billion a day in exporting oil to for example the U.S. They have the highest living standard in the world, and its noticable ( i`ve lived here for ten years now) not only on statistics but also the moment you put foot here. Compared to the U.S its heaven. Why? Because they dont wish no harm and they try to live in peace with the rest of the world, unlike the U.S. It`s a very capitalistic country, no doubt about that, but they control the economy much better and also spends more money on alternative fuels.

The first thing that hit me was;"stupid ignorant american" why is that?

reply

Kobaincito: The U.S is the only country making profit of oil? What sort of ignorant comment is that? Norway for example controls over 5% of the oil fields on earth, and they only have about 4.6 million people. They make 1 (one) billion a day in exporting oil to for example the U.S. They have the highest living standard in the world, and its noticable ( i`ve lived here for ten years now) not only on statistics but also the moment you put foot here. Compared to the U.S its heaven. Why? Because they dont wish no harm and they try to live in peace with the rest of the world, unlike the U.S. It`s a very capitalistic country, no doubt about that, but they control the economy much better and also spends more money on alternative fuels.

The first thing that hit me was;"stupid ignorant american" why is that?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Oil hasn't risen 700% first of all, and inflation-adjusted we're at the 2nd lowest price in history. I'm not in denial, i'm in intelligence. You can spew your anti-capitalistic, end of the world, doomsaying B.S. but you're ingoring political, and scientific facts. Read my very long post above, it may get through to you.

And, Ruppert is an idiot if he thinks Hydro-Carbon energy will be the primary source forever. Wood was replaced by coal, coal by oil, oil will be replaced by something else.

Kenneth Deffeyes, an experienced petroleum geologist and a former professor at Princeton University, has been the most puzzling member of the peak oil cult. As a scientist he must know that the real world is permeated by uncertainties, that complex realities should not be reduced to simplistic slogans aimed to gain media attention, and that (as even a brief retrospective will demonstrate) making precise point predictions is a futile endeavor. Yet he set all of this aside and proceeded to write about the peak of global oil production in a way that leaves no room for any doubt ("no initiative put in place starting today can have a substantial effect on the peak production year"), that portrays the world's energy use merely as a matter of supply (utterly ignoring demand) and, most incredibly, he went farther than any of his confrères by predicting not just the year but the very day when the world's oil output was to peak.



On January 14, 2004 he wrote (albeit admitting that "it is a bit silly") that "we can now pick a day to celebrate passing the top of the mathematically smooth Hubbert curve: Nov 24, 2005. It falls right smack dab on top of Thanksgiving Day 2005. It sounds a little sick to observe a gloomy day, but in San Francisco they still observe April 18 as the anniversary of the 1906 earthquake."



On June 5, 2004 he confirmed that "I'm still standing by my prediction that the smoothed world production curve will peak on Thanksgiving Day, 2005." The day came and went -- so what is the verdict? In the strictest sense Deffeyes's proposition is not provable by consulting any statistics: oil producing countries do not report their extraction on a daily basis. And even if it worked in terms of a mathematically smooth curve we would have to wait for many months to complete such a derivation. But there is no need for waiting. Amidst the ocean of uncertainties concerning the future of global oil production there are (as Rumsfeld, correctly, would have it) two great known unknowns: we do not know with any satisfactory confidence the ultimate amount of oil that we will be able to extract from the Earth's crust; and we do not know the eventual extent of market reaction to substantial price shifts (a plain way of saying that the elasticity of crude oil's consumption is an elusive variable). And because we do not know either the eventual maximum of potential (resource-limited) extraction or the actual level of (market-driven) production we cannot know with any readily quantifiable certainty the year (forget the day) when the global oil output will peak. As far as resources go, peak-of-oil catastrophists believe that there is virtually nothing left to be discovered while both the theoretical understanding of sedimentary basin geology and the fact that large parts of the crust (including some regions in the Middle East, most of West Africa and huge chunks of Siberia) have yet to be explored with intensity comparable to that of the North American drilling point to further substantial discoveries. Acting on this, both national and multinational oil companies are now engaged in extensive drilling aimed at adding millions of barrels of new capacity in the coming years.



As for the market reaction, the response, eventually, does come. After OPEC nearly quintupled its oil price in 1973 the global oil consumption declined by merely 1.5% in 1974 and by 1976 it was nearly 4% above the 1973 level. Oil use may have been inelastic to the initial quintupling but it surely responded to an additional near-trebling that took place between 1978 and 1981: by 1983 the world's oil consumption fell by 11%. The same forces have been at work recently. The day before the Thanksgiving the price per barrel went down by 50 cents, during the preceding month it declined by about 8% and since August it fell by about 17%; it fell again the day after Thanksgiving when it stood, in inflation-adjusted terms, more than 20% below the historic high reached in the spring of 1981. None of this indicates a market spooked by the prospect of global extraction never surpassing the Thanksgiving rate! Headlines and attention grabbing have been always about new bad news, about caricaturing complexities and about reducing the message to the lowest understandable denominator. But scientists should leave this "information" niche to the National Enquirer or to Dr. Phil. Undoubtedly, there is a finite amount of oil in the Earth's crust, but even if we were to know it to the last drop we could not predict how much of it we will eventually extract (much of it will be simply too expensive to get out, or too unappealing compared to other choices). Undoubtedly, there is continuing (and relatively slowly increasing) oil demand in affluent economies and there is rising demand in China and India, but we do not know how fast the global use will grow and at what levels it will start eventually leveling off because that rate is determined not only by the volume of recoverable oil but also by the fuel's price and by the cleverness and rapidity of our technical advances. Inevitably, sometime in the future global extraction of liquid oil will start declining but we will not be able to pinpoint that event and it may not be of much interest anyway. The story of the modern world is, most fundamentally, one of continuous energy transitions as the leading fuel changed from wood to coal and then from coal to oil. But oil never dominated as much as coal did because of the concurrent diversification into natural gas and into hydro and nuclear electricity. These, and other sources, await further exploitation: there is no reason to believe that we cannot eventually move past the oil era.

Learn something, before you make yourself look like another idiot wanting to stick it to the man.

Go hemp. Idiot.

reply

[deleted]

Somebody has already touched on this, but the original poster has missed the point.

We will have enough oil for a VERY VERY long time, this movie does not doubt that. What this movie discusses is that as we take more and more out, there is less in the ground which means less pressure, which means we can't take it out as fast as we use it despite how much is in there.

reply

Yeah Like some people think we live in a magic world where just because something exists it magically appears in our petrol pumps. There is non-organic Methane on Titan or at least they speculated there was seas of the stuff yet I think the probe landed on solid ice. BUT just because we know it exists doesnt mean we can magically make it appear over here on earth in one of our pipelines...

Sorry that was a tad too sarcastic. The point is that the only reason we use oil is because its so energy dense. As matt Savinar's site says, 'Once it takes one barrel of oil to extract one barrel it is uneconomical to extract it.'

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

2090 World endowment - 6,000,000,000 g'zillion barrels.

Nope, no ceiling on what can be extracted from the planet.

reply

World oil supply hit a plateau of about 85 million barrels a day in 2005, and has been bumping along since. Peak production has probably arrived, and the only question is how long the plateau can be sustained, before the inevitable and irreversible decline. No one knows for sure - maybe a few more years, maybe a couple of decades.

OP's touting of oil shale and oil sands is bogus. It takes just about as much energy to extract as the yield. It's like biofuels - the true energy cost is hidden today by the (still) relatively cheap price of fossil fuels. Once they're gone, corn to ethanol is a net loss, once you factor in all the energy required to manufacture the tractors, combines and trucks, till the soil, plant the crop, make the fertilizer (natural gas), spread the fertilizer, make the pesticides (oil), spray the pesticides, irrigate the crop (pumps), harvest the crop, truck the crop to the ethanol plant, etc.

Oil depletion is a ticking time bomb; that much is certain. Only the timeline is uncertain.

reply

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

reply

[deleted]

well, technically, "the sky is about to begin falling, the sky is about to begin falling!"

Not so easy to rebut.

reply

I'm not adressing you! :-) sorry.

reply

[deleted]

NewsReactor are you still "skeptical" about global warming as well? Just curious.

reply

> It means, not flying, not heating your home, not using the internet, not
> shopping at the mall, not going to the movies, etc. What would that mean to our
> economy?

Not to mention no food (price of pesticides skyrockets), no medicine (90% of drugs made of oil derivatives), no air-conditioning, no running water in lowlands (energy needs to be spent to build up pressure), etc.

No laughing matter.

reply