Page added on August 23, 2013

Oil’s availability is of course of immediate concern to every driver, especially at a time when gasoline prices are high once again. The much greater concern, however, is whether we are reaching a limit where oil can no longer be recovered at prices consumers are willing to pay.
If something like that turns out to be true—a scenario that generally goes by the name of “peak oil”—then long-term economic growth may be constrained across the industrial world. At the same time, to look at the brighter side of the picture, long-term carbon emissions may be lower than previously projected.
As it happens, expert opinion is radically divided on this key issue.
A recent report from analysts at Lux Research, “Evaluating New EOR [Enhanced Oil Recovery] Technologies in Oil Industry Mega-projects,” proposes that by means of EOR, the industry may be able to tap up to 10.2 trillion barrels of unconventional oil, over and above 1.4 to 1.6 billion barrels of conventional oil. (Lux puts the number for conventional oil reserves at 1.6 tbl; a year ago, IEEE Spectrum cited an estimate of 1.4 tbl, based on work by Michael Klare.)
Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, seems to be in general accord with Lux’s view that the age of oil is far from over. Writing in the Huffington Post, the left-liberal online publication, Klare said that “humanity is not entering a period that will be dominated by renewables. Instead, it is pioneering the third great carbon era, The Age of Unconventional Oil and Gas.” According to Lux, EOR techniques can boost recovery of oil in existing fields from an average of 25 percent today to up to 65 percent. Klare, citing International Energy Agency estimates, says that investment in such techniques will exceed US$ 22 trillion between now and 2035—three times the investment in renewable technology—and that world demand for oil will grow 26 percent in that period.
An article that appeared in the July 13 issue of Eos (the transactions of the American Geophysical Union) presented a radically different view of things. Taking a more economic view of what it means for oil to be recoverable, scientist James W. Murray and analyst Jim Hansen suggest that oil prices—and with them oil production—already have arrived at the limit of what consumers worldwide are willing to pay. “Global production of crude oil and condensates…has essentially remained on a plateau of about 75 million barrels per day since 2005 despite a very large increase in the price of oil,” say Murray and Hansen. (The latter is not to be confused with famous climate scientist Jim Hansen, of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University.) In effect, they suggest, prices have reached a level where consumers seek alternatives or conserve, rather than pay more; if oil prices go significantly higher, then the effect is to plunge the industrial world into recession, lowering demand.
The silver lining, Murray and Hansen suggest, is that the expert bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have over-estimated future carbon emissions resulting from oil combustion. It will be interesting to see, when the next major IPCC assessment appears next month, how it handles that issue.
Where do I stand personally on this immensely important and controversial question? I cannot claim to be an expert, but for what it’s worth, my impressions correspond more closely to those of Murray and Hansen than to those of Lux, Klare, and the IEA.
6 Comments on "How Much Recoverable Oil Do We Have?"
actioncjackson on Fri, 23rd Aug 2013 11:07 pm
…the third great carbon era, The Age of Unconventional Oil and Gas.” Actually, it’s more like the latter half of the ‘great carbon era,’ singular. How dare he believe in more than one carbon era.
keith on Sat, 24th Aug 2013 1:03 am
“Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have over-estimated future carbon emissions resulting from oil combustion.”
Underline may have. The sentence means nothing to future generations. They will have nothing nice to say about us. What do we care, we will be dust by then. People who ignore their legacy are infantile.
BillT on Sat, 24th Aug 2013 1:06 am
It’s not what is ‘recoverable’. It is what will be recovered under a collapsing economy. If it costs $80/bbl to get it out of the ground and consumers can only afford $60, then it will stay in the ground.
Wheeldog on Sat, 24th Aug 2013 5:34 am
There are tons of gold that can still be mined – if price and environmental impact are no object. However, if the price of gold goes to $100,000 per ounce very few people will be able to afford it. The same holds true for oil – and every other non-renewable resource. The cost of production matters. Perhaps we should change the topic from “Peak Oil” to “Peak Price”.
Arthur on Sat, 24th Aug 2013 7:13 am
Since Mother Nature does not invoice her oil, the cost of a barrel of oil in the end is for 100% labour cost. It is always ignored here that there is a vast downward potential for wages. An oil worker will work for 1000$ per month instead of 5000$ if he has no choice. True, driving 50 miles to the nearest Walmart to buy Chinese plastic garden chairs will be a thing of the past, but fueling a tractor for harvest will continue even at 500$ oil. The real decisive factor to determine if oil will stay in the ground or not is eroei, not financial cost. One barrel of oil represents ca 8 manyear of labour, so if a crew of ten can produce a few barrel per day from a shale well, it is going to be extracted. What we are going to see in the near future is demand destruction by private individuals, many of whom will stop driving. This will provide a breathing space for the rest of the economy that could last decades. Meanwhile prices of renewable bave come to a level where they can compete with fossil, providing a transition path.
peakyeast on Sat, 24th Aug 2013 10:07 am
Funny to call it “the third great oil era”. When there are so many things about it that are not great.