[altair333]

I did a search for "Ronald Bailey" and didn't find this article already posted:

http://www.reason.com/0605/fe.rb.peak.shtml

The Tank Is Still More Than Half Full

So who’s right? Fortunately, it looks like humanity is at least a generation away from peak oil production. Unfortunately, there could be another “oil crisis” any day now.


The world consumes about 87 million barrels of oil per day, or nearly 30 billion barrels of oil per year. How much oil is left? It’s hard to be sure. Proven oil reserves—i.e., oil that is recoverable under current economic and operating conditions—are estimated to be 1.1 trillion barrels by the industry journal World Oil, 1.2 trillion by the oil company BP, and 1.3 trillion by the Oil and Gas Journal. In March 2005 the private U.K.-based energy consultancy IHS Energy estimated that the world’s remaining recoverable reserves, excluding unconventional sources such as heavy oil or tar sands, are between 1.3 trillion and 2.4 trillion barrels.


But are proven reserves all that’s left? Several analyses put ultimate reserves at much higher levels. For example, the USGS undertook a comprehensive analysis of world oil reserves in 2000. It calculated that the total world endowment of recoverable oil is 3 trillion barrels. (Its figure is higher because it includes estimates for undiscovered resources and projected increases in already producing fields.) In addition, the total world endowment of natural gas is equivalent to 2.6 trillion barrels of oil, plus 330 billion barrels of natural gas liquids such as propane and butane. The USGS figures that the total world endowment of conventional oil resources is equivalent to about 5.9 trillion barrels of oil. Proven reserves of oil, gas, and natural gas liquids are equivalent to 2 trillion barrels of oil. The USGS calculates that humanity has already consumed about 1 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, which means 82 percent of the world’s endowment of oil and gas resources remains to be used.


In its 2005 Energy Outlook, ExxonMobil estimates “global conventional oil resources total 3.2 trillion barrels…with non-conventional ‘frontier’ resources such as heavy oil bringing that total to over 4 trillion barrels.” In November 2005, the International Energy Agency, an organization created in 1974 by 26 industrialized countries to assess global energy issues, released its annual World Energy Outlook report, which accepted the USGS numbers and concluded that “the world’s energy resources are adequate to meet projected growth in energy demand” until at least 2030. The report predicted that oil production would grow from the 2004 level of 82 million barrels a day to 115 million barrels a day and that any “peak” would occur after 2030. It suggested that world oil prices will decline to around $35 per barrel (in 2004 dollars) by 2010 and eventually rise to $39 per barrel by 2030. At the Montreal Climate Change Conference in December, Claude Mandil, head of the International Energy Agency, declared: “We don’t share the tenets of the peak oil theory. We feel that they underestimate technological developments. For many decades to come there is no geological problem.”

[killJOY]

One could pull one's hair out, couldn't one?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('altair333', '"')...We feel that they underestimate technological developments. For many decades to come there is no geological problem.”

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ronald Bailey', '.')..82 percent of the world’s endowment of oil and gas resources remains to be used....oil production would grow to 115 million barrels a day...$39 per barrel by 2030...For many decades to come there is no geological problem.

[seldom_seen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ortunately, it looks like humanity is at least a generation away from peak oil production.

[Stoic]

The pretentiously titled "reason" magazine is just a bunch of libertarian hogwash.

I share their suspicion of government, but they take it _way_ too far.

The ridiculous mental gymnastics they go through in order to save their precious "free" market is just mind boggling. They will continue to deny PO and global warming, among other things, in order to support their hypothesis too.

[Jack]

I have begun to think it's just as well that society ignores reality. When the herd recognizes the truth - i.e., that the way of life will change substantially and for the worse, with a good chance that two-thirds or more of the herd will die - then the herd will panic and cast about in irrational rage. Do we really want that to occur?

Many assume a cooperative, rational response by the bulk of humankind. I nonconcur. I expect the herd to react at its irrational best. Let them slumber in their unawareness. You and I will prepare as we deem best; their ignorance is our gain.

Pass the word - hydrogen will save us.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Stoic', 'T')he pretentiously titled "reason" magazine is just a bunch of libertarian hogwash.

I share their suspicion of government, but they take it _way_ too far.

[Cynus]

Obviously, his mistake is that he takes the USGS figures at their word. Given those figures though, his conclusions aren't crazy; he's not an abiotic freak, and he ends the article with "One day, the oil age will end. As with all resources, there is ultimately a finite supply of oil. So it is not yet clear how the world will power itself for the bulk of the coming century." He should have researched the criticisms of the USGS numbers though.

[mgibbons19]

In all fairness there's no reason to think a libertarian response would be fruitless. What's fruitless is putting all of one's eggs in a basket that consists only of undeveloped technologies and fantastic undiscovered fuels.

A hardcore libertarian look at this would say
1) let people know about the developing fuel/oil problems
2) let ppl make their own decisions about housing and transportation and such independent of guvmnt manipulation of the markets

Notice that both essential points are being violated by the propagandists. I would say that Reason is violating libertarian principles with this piece, unless they also promote our (PO's) side as well. Ppl can't make informed decisions if they don't know the facts and details.

[nethawk]

"5.9 billion barrels" Where?

Tar Sands? Oil Shale? Venezuelan [s]heavy oil[/s] tar? The Middle of the Ocean? Coal?

Sure! I can see barrels of Venezuelan tar being $39...because you'd need 5 barrels of the stuff to equal one barrel of light sweet, because it takes so much energy to get it to a usable state! Not to mention the GHG emissions and the fact that necessary pollution controls for sulfur oxides, etc. on refineries costs money that people aren't willing to pay.

Even if there were such usable oil reserves, climate change and other environmental problems resulting from the continuation of the current oil-fired society would spell disaster instead.

[altair333]

We do have oil resources that can cushion the Peak Oil fall- off the coast of Florida, California, Artic Refuge. Add those up and you've got a good short-term cushion. No one doubts the oil is there- it's purely a political obstacle to getting it, and that obstacle will be gone if things get dire enough economically.

I'm agnostic on the whole peak oil subject, but I do find it curious that so many here seem to want to believe the doomsday scenarios. I could understand if better if those here had made some kind of preparations which would shield them from the effects, but we're all in the same boat. It's like some enjoy the adrenalin rush of pending disaster, real or perceived.

The article I cited gave a lot of seemingly credible sources for the "we've got at least a generation" proposition: the USGS, the International Energy Agency, Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA). The article claims the latter is "probably the most respected private oil consultancy in the world." Maybe they are all wrong, but I don't see how posters on an internet board can claim to have such certainty in this regard in the light of the expert opinion to the contrary. It seems like an unsettled issue to me, and I really have no ax to grind on either side.

[Cynus]

altair333,
The problems with the USGS, the International Energy Agency, and Cambridge Energy Research Associates have been debated in depth on this and other places. Perhaps someone could provide you some links to bring you up to date since you appear to be new to the issue. I know that The Oil Drum has discussed CERAs projections in depth, and Deffeyes has pointed out gross distortions and inadequacies of the USGS and IEA. A little searching around the web will show you how faulty they are.

[advancedatheist]

Libertarians don't really value "liberty," despite the name they call themselves. They really value class superiority, because they think they belong with the super-wealthy people inside their gated communities, if only evil democratic governments wouldn't hold them back. Have you ever heard of a libertarian who wants to abolish the government so he can work at Wal-Mart for the market wage of pennies per hour for the rest of his life? No, he imagines himself owning a lot of equity in Wal-Mart and other corporations so that he doesn't have to work for his income any more. (They reveal their real priorities when they praise monarchies and Pinochet's military dictatorship in Chile.)

So, naturally, libertarians latch onto dubious cornucopian theories because the environmentally constrained reality threatens their wealth fantasies.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('altair333', 'T')he article I cited gave a lot of seemingly credible sources for the "we've got at least a generation" proposition: the USGS, the International Energy Agency, Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA). The article claims the latter is "probably the most respected private oil consultancy in the world." Maybe they are all wrong, but I don't see how posters on an internet board can claim to have such certainty in this regard in the light of the expert opinion to the contrary. It seems like an unsettled issue to me, and I really have no ax to grind on either side.

[MJ]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seldom_seen', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ortunately, it looks like humanity is at least a generation away from peak oil production.

[Pops]

So the first third of our endowment was in Jed Clampett formations, which are all but gone –

The second third now takes sophisticated technology just to find and get at but we’re getting it faster and faster –

Doesn’t it seem obvious that the last third will be like squeezing blood from an unknown unconventional turnip?


"Once you've tasted turkey, you ain't likely to settle for tripe."
-- Jed Clampett

[killJOY]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('altair 333', 'I')'m agnostic on the whole peak oil subject, but I do find it curious that so many here seem to want to believe the doomsday scenarios. I could understand if better if those here had made some kind of preparations which would shield them from the effects, but we're all in the same boat. It's like some enjoy the adrenalin rush of pending disaster, real or perceived.

[MJ]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('altair 333', 'I')'m agnostic on the whole peak oil subject, but I do find it curious that so many here seem to want to believe the doomsday scenarios. I could understand if better if those here had made some kind of preparations which would shield them from the effects, but we're all in the same boat. It's like some enjoy the adrenalin rush of pending disaster, real or perceived.

[SeasonOfPain]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'B')ut even if the IEA is right, and the Peak doesn't occur for decades, great. That's terrific for us, not so terrific for those who follow us...