[UIUCstudent01]

Here.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')onclusion and Bibliography (Part VI)
As we have seen, there is far more oil in the world than the oil reserve estimates given for the Middle East. If the Veneuelans are right, there is enough oil in Venezuela alone to power the world for 44 years (at 27.3 billion barrels of world consuption per year). Similar or greater reserves exist in the Athabasca tar sands and other unconventional reserves that push actual world reserve life well out into the 22nd century. These are not as cheap as Middle Eastern reserves, but they are not prohibitively expensive either. Nor can all of the unconventional oil be recovered. Estimates range from 15 percent upwards. On the other hand, there may be a number of these unconventional oil fields in other nations that have not been publicly characterized. For example,Russia and Madagascar may also have heavy oil fields.

The argument here is that it is a fallacy to entirely omit unconventional oil from strategic thinking.

The premise for US involvement in the Arab Middle East -- its oil wealth -- is not wrong per se. However, the idea that the Middle East is the ONLY area of the world with large oil reserves, or that US involvement is inevitable, is, rather plainly, a fallacy of staggering proportions. And the possibility of reducing the influence of oil as the center of gravity in Middle Eastern politics is, by any measure, something worth considering.

Certain conclusions may be drawn:

First, to the extent that oil reserves are a factor in Middle Eastern politics, it would be possible to greatly reduce the stakes and open some avenues to peace. US and European disengagement from oil dependency on the Middle East is not at all impossible, nor does it depend on renewable, nuclear or other alternative energy technologies with varying degrees of reliability.

Secondly, it's going to be a long time before we run out of oil. There is plenty of it in Venezuela, Canada, Russia and other parts of the world. At current consumption rates, oil reserve life will be measured in centuries. As consumers we may see this as good news. Whatever happens in the Middle East, there will be plenty of oil in the end. As people concerned about the environment, we may see it as very bad news. Oil will remain cheap for a long time, which may be long enough for serious damage from climate change. (Note: for more information on the science of climate change, see realclimate.org For more information on the oil industry's influence over climate debate, see: "The Heat is On").

Third, misinformation about future oil supply is something the media and the government have a responsibility to correct. Although the oil industry only publishes proven reserves, and this is misleading, the oil industry is also attempting to maximize protifs. It is up to the public service entities to correct this problem in the marketplace.

Finally, the "invisible hand" of the marketplace will not come to our rescue. Energy, is in the end, a political matter. We will have to rely on government, not market forecasts of oil scarcity, for limits to environmental damage and politically destabilizing dependencies.

[Cool Hand Linc]

Is my math wrong? or is Bill's?

Even if we have the volumes of oil FULLY recoverable. We still don't have enough for centuries.

At current rate of consuption. 84million barrels a day is what I will use. 1 billion barrels of oil would last just about 12 days. 1 trillion barrels would last 32 years. Centuries is plural. So the reserve life would be measured in centuries? Sure .32 centuries.

Here are some comparitive rates with different time intervals assuming rate of production stays constant.

84million a day
30,660 million a year
30.6 billion a year
306.6 billion in ten years
613.2 billion in 20 years
919.8 billion in 30 years
.9188 trillion in 30 years


At the rate of 84 million barrels a day. That is 30.6 billion a year. In his article he states Venezuela has enough oil to power the world for 44 years. 27.3 billion barrels. Thats less than the 30.6 billion we are currently using. So he is presenting information that doesn't mathmatically prove true! In 2003 we were using a little less oil but still 44 years vs about 1 year is a great difference.

I can't take an article seriously if the arthur can't even get the math right.

Bill repeat after me. 1+1=2

[bobcousins]

For a kick off, anyone using USGS figures as their database is starting with crap data. Then, including the mirage of unconventional oil puts the nail in the coffin. Even the Venezuela heavy oil is sour and contaminated, not a replacement for light. If you are going to do this sort of analysis, you should weight the reserves according to quality. The conclusions are inevitably wrong.

Yet another article where the author starts with his preferred conclusion and then presents some crappy evidence to support it.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or a kick off, anyone using USGS figures as their database is starting with crap data.