For Millennia, People Have Erroneously Thought Resources Were Finite.
The Romans thought that civilization would come to an end because they would run out of copper. People have always said we would run out of oil, but known reserves are higher than ever. In 1964, it was predicted that 44-112 million barrels would be produced in the San Joaquin Valley in 2000. In 1982, this estimate rose to 189 million barrels produced in the same year, 2000, in the same valley. The actual amount produced in 2000 was 597 million barrels. As a resource becomes more expensive, people switch to others.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
This is not a question of dogma. It is one of hard measuring of a finite resource. Yes there are unknowns--but these can be fairly well defined (i.e. what we know and don't know). The fact this expert falls back on the "dire predictions are always wrong" dogma is fairly telling.
The question was not whether civilization can survive with ever shifting modes of energy capture and usage. It was whether we have reached peak oil .
The fact is all non-renewable resources are finite. The question should be will we run out before alternatives are developed? People have been predicting we would run out since the 60's. The problem with these predictions is Technology and exploration have been expanding our reserves for years and probably will for some time to come as we tap resources that are presently inaccessible or too expensive. I believe we will never run out now that there is a big push for alternative sources of energy and more efficient use of our existing resources. You can call me an optimist but throughout history Human Kind has done what ever is necessary to survive.
Only the US and a few other countries believe oil is a finite resource. Most of the rest of the world think oil has a totally different process of formation, and is naturally formed on a continuous basis. The US claim makes for better politics.
There are several other oil fields that are far larger than the ones in the Saudi regions. Even Canada has huge untapped reserves. Most of the other fields are in and around countries that no one wishes to invest in. The unstable dictatorships in the third world are way too prone to nationalizing. China has a policy that to cultivate such resources will be manned only by Chinese nationals. They pay out to the dictators a fee for the oil taken, and refuse to allow the country to participate in the production, for fear the country will take over if enough or any employees learn the process.
The bottom line is that any oil production stays below the cost to produce shale oil products. The great mid west shale oil deposits by far outstrip any oil deposits that are being tapped today. They can push the prices a bit, but there is a finite limit to what they can do until shale oil becomes profitable.
I find it particularly interesting how Saudis recently walked out of OPEC, and completely gutted the organization.
I also find it interesting how some people whistle blew on BP, claiming they floated cheap oil off the coast of the US and brought it back ashore as high priced oil. Seems the people who brought it to the attention of the media were taken into protective custody, and the SIRIUS radio news broadcasts about the incident were dropped without any national media attention.
What is this country coming to?
tomcat,
Did you just make all of this up? It's obvious you know nothing about the oil industry, and particularly nothing about petroleum geology. What this country is coming to.... is a nation of people who are economically illiterate and get their news from third rate rumors, as your post shows so well.
Nice comentary. I love the way you disprove everything with your facts. Pleas continue, as no one is in information overload with your response.
Any idea what is going on? no? Thought so.
tomcat,
I have a master's in geology and an executive MBA, and 30 years experience in petroleum geology, in both technical and management roles. I have ridden seismic boats in the Arctic, drilled wells in the Persian Gulf, run unitization meetings in the North Sea, prospected in Texas and Louisiana, and explored for oil in 15 countries. I've lived in the Middle East and Scotland. I've been on the strategic planning staff of a major oil company and involved in meetings at the CEO level.
I could write volumes on your ignorance, and why you're wrong, citing proof with hard data. But why bother? A fossilized mind will always stay fossilized. I have been down this road before with other clueless people whose only qualification, as with your case, is some irrational hatred and suspicion of the oil industry.
Even with oil prices dropping by $90 per barrel, you will continue to make up explanations involving conspiracies.
Believe me, I know what's going on. And you're miles away from reality.
In response to "slight overstatement," and the argument that "we do not have full knowledge of the amount of resources available to us at all times." The only other argument contained in the post was that oil is treated as a market commodity. The import seems to be that since we cannot know everything, we cannot know anything: that there simply are no facts on which to hang a case one way or the other (apart from the principles espoused in Econ 101). But we do know that Mexican production is declining at such a rate that its export capacity will be gone (assuming "normal" internal consumption) within 5 years or so. We know that 4 of the 5 largest sources of oil imports to the U.S. showed reduced oil exports from 2005 to 2006, and that all 5 showed reduced oil exports from 2006 to 2007 (see e.g. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4092 ). We know many other facts relevant to this debate. It would be nice if the peak oil opponents would appraise themselves of some of them.
I think the objection was needed due to the statement that oil is not "finite". However that was not really her point. Her point was that we do not have full knowledge of the amount of resources available to us at all times.
However, the overstatement in the Objector's case is when he stated that we will stop pumping "oil will run out".
We will eventually stop pumping but never run out of oil. The way in which we treat oil as a market commodity ensures that we will switch to another alternative long before the oil runs out. When the cost of delivering petrochemicals increases beyond what the market will bear, people will switch to alternatives.
Higher official reserves don't necessarily mean that peak production is delayed: official U.S. oil reserves were at their highest level in 1970 - exactly the same year that U.S. production peaked and began its decline. Current "known" world reserves include at least 300 billion OPEC "paper barrels": created in the 1980s during the "race to declare higher figures for reserves, driven by the anxiety about the quota system, which everybody knows" (OPEC Acting Secretary General Shihab-Eldin, Oct. 2005). The figures cited for San Joaquin Valley oil are evidently predicted and actual _cumulative_ production, not annual. The field is not typical - a heavy oil/high permeability combo which could benefit from steam flooding - if we forget to count the large quantities of fossil fuels burned to create the steam. The field is now in permanent decline in any case. For corrective background info see: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/36384 and http://www.energybulletin.net/node/27170
Really? This statement is plain-old factually incorrect. Of course resources on our planet are finite.
Many populations of animals have been wiped out by permanent or transient lack of resources. Food, water, etc.
If you don't agree that natural resources are even theoretically finite, I find it hard to trust anything else you might say.