Page added on April 6, 2011
This is a sequel to a previous post on Peak Oil Revisited. Its main purpose is to examine the contrary view that the world has plenty of oil, and that the scenario of global upheaval due to rapid decline of oil supply is unwarranted.
World Oil Reserves As of January, 2010
Figure 1- Proven World Reserves of Oil
The opposing view to the assertion that Peak Oil has either occurred or that it would be happening soon holds the singular premise that the world has plenty of oil.
Indeed, the list above shows that, as of latest global “inventory” date (i.e., January, 2010), proven reserves amount to 1,392, 461,050,000 barrels (or 1.4 trillion barrels, rounded to the last tenth).
Based on Year 2010 estimated rate of global consumption (which is 85.7 million barrels per day or 31.3 billion barrels per year) these proven reserves should last us approximately 45 years. Of course the more realistic picture is one where global increase in petroleum consumption is taken into account. And holding the estimated reserves value constant we would have less than 45 years until the earth runs petro-dry.
Granted, for the sake of argument; but even a sizeable reduction of the lifespan for these collective reserves would still redound to a reasonable expectation that the proven reserves level would afford the world enough time for the following positive scenarios:
Better still, we may paint a most salutary scenario wherein a combination of these factors would come into play and produce optimum results. The outcome would therefore not be as ominous as portrayed in the previous post. We would have, collectively, a breathing and creativity room that will allow us to develop and tap onto alternative energy sources and/or produce more oil, either from new discoveries or maximizing production even from old and maturing reservoirs. All these in the hope of arresting the projected decline or at least slowing it down considerably.
Nature’s Inequitable Distribution of Oil Reserves
The 2010 CIA World Factbook reports that 97 out of the total 195 countries in the world have proven reserves.
But consider this: Oil and Gas Journal estimates that more than half (56 percent) of global proved oil reserves are situated in Middle Eastern countries.
Viewed from another perspective, eight out of the 97 countries with proven oil reserves hold 80 percent of such reserves. Conversely, 89 out of the 97 oil reserves countries collectively own the remainder of 20 percent.
This “natural” imbalance in distribution of oil reserves is further bolstered by the fact that of the top eight oil reserves countries only two (Canada and Russia) are non-OPEC countries. This is a relevant factor to consider when evaluating the world’s capability to actually produce from such reserves. We must realize as we witness, for instance, the continuing so-called “Arab Uprising”, that political considerations and other “above-ground” situations are a potent factor affecting actual production from proven reserves.
That is, other than technological and economic viability or market considerations.
Reserves vs. Resources
This brings me to a most basic question the answer to which enables an observer to employ metrics in determining whether in fact we have plenty of oil or not. It’s a question of definition: what is “proved reserves”?
Both the IEA and CIA use this definition –
“Proved reserves of crude oil are the estimated quantities that geological and engineering data indicate can be recovered in future years from known reservoirs, assuming existing technology and current economic and operating conditions.”
Please mentally underline the following key elements of the definition:
a) future recoverability;
b) known or defined reservoir;
c) technological capability;
d) economic or market viability; and
e) operating conditions (including, of course, political conditions and the obtaining legal/regulatory framework).
A related but entirely different notion is that of “Oil Resource” or “Oil Resource Base”. Let me quote liberally this excerpt from an outstanding site I have visited in the course of researching materials for this post:
“Whereas proved reserves include only those estimated quantities of crude oil from known reservoirs, they are only a subset of the entire potential oil resource base. Resource base estimates include estimated quantities of both discovered and undiscovered liquids that have the potential to be classified as reserves at some time in the future. The resource base may include oil that currently is not technically recoverable, but could become recoverable in the future as technologies advance.”[Boldfaced type mine]
Aha! Could those who espouse the view we have plenty of oil and don’t have to worry about Peak Oil be actually referring to “oil resource base” rather than “proved oil reserves”? This would be a critical point of clarification.
A case in point is the vast Athabasca oil sands of Canada: some analysts estimate that the oil sands hold 1.7 trillion barrels of oil. I would grant that is a “resource base estimate”. If that figure can graduate to the “proved reserves” category then I agree: the oil sands alone can guarantee the world oil supply for the next 40 – something years. Something to think about, eh?
But before we jump into any premature conclusions, let’s pause and ask ourselves: considering the five key elements, above, which I asked you to mentally underline – which one is the key element as far as Canada and its oil sands are concerned? And what’s your take or sense as to the prospect of satisfying that key element?
That will be the gist of our discussion at next post on the continuing theme of “ Peak Oil Revisited”.
6 Comments on "PLENTY OF OIL: 1.4 TRILLION BARRELS, AND COUNTING"
Rick on Thu, 7th Apr 2011 12:59 am
Just figures the author of this nonsense article is from Alberta, Canada. Sorry dude oil from the sands is not going to save us. Peak Oil is real. And because of Peak Oil, humans are now forced to extract oil from even sand.
Cabra1080 on Thu, 7th Apr 2011 1:47 am
Sorry, but the energy cost to extract oil from tar sands is huge and net energy output is significantly lower than simply pumping oil out of a conventional well like we used to do before so many wells passed their peak. The ever increasing price of petroleum products and food indicate that supply side costs are going up. Oil companies are spending a whole lot more to get at much less oil in less hospitable places.
Why on earth would oil companies be paying natural gas bills through the nose to extract oil out of tar sand if conventional, cheap oil hasn’t peaked? Why would they be drilling miles down into the ocean at great expense and risk if it wasn’t necessary to do so to meet demand? If peak oil hasn’t happened then why pray tell isn’t oil in the $10 to $20 range per barrel? Why is it north of $100 per barrel and inching up even though the global economy is in the skids?
The reason: The cheap, abundant oil is gone. Gone. Gone with the wind. The USA peaked in 1970 and output has been falling remorsefully ever since. North Sea and Mexico have peaked and output is dropping like a rock. Many more oil producing countries are either peaking or have peaked. See the data.
Nothing except possibly nuclear has the energy density contained in a barrel of crude. And we know where nuclear leads, just see the news from Japan and old news from Chernobyl, Ukraine. It is really a tough challenge to replace oil with anything that remotely contains its energy density and ease of use. After all, it was a “free” resource sitting there, ready to be tapped. Now it is about tapped out.
Welcome to the post peak future. Things are sloping down gently now, as we pass over the summit of the bell curve, as with all bell curves it gets suddenly steeper from here then the big plunge into oblivion.
Most people do not know what peak oil is or that it has happened. There is no preparation time. The time of reckoning is here now, in the face. Western governments are broke and the Middle East is coming loose at the seams. There is no Plan B. But then again, not all things are planned.
CABRA1080
Anthony on Thu, 7th Apr 2011 4:51 am
I didn’t even read the article. After I read the headline I knew it was total nonsense written by someone who is uneducated on the subject.
PeterNolasco on Thu, 7th Apr 2011 5:36 am
The article is a companion piece to the other earlier post (It’s All About Barrels In Hand, Not Barrels in the Bush) at http://geologicsystems.wordpress.com/ which largely espoused Peak Oil. This second article attempts to present the other side. The title is meant precisely to promote reactions and continuing debate on the issue. I agree, it’s an issue facing us all. By the way, my being from Calgary, Alberta does not make me either a “Peakist”, “Alarmist”, or “Denier”. Just like most of you I’m passionate about getting educated about the issue. In my line of work though, I get to hear first-hand opinions from experienced Oil and Gas professionals who either agree or disagree with Peak Oil. I intend to make their views available in the market place of opinions seeing most of them are not inclined to write and post a blog themselves. Thanks again.
Jerry McManus on Fri, 8th Apr 2011 12:48 am
The obvious counter arguments to “plenty of oil” are “at what rate?” and “at what cost?”
That second question is actually three questions, not just “what economic cost?”, but also “what cost in energy?” and “what cost to the environment?”
In five years of study on these issues I have yet to hear a cornucopian answer ANY of these questions, never mind all of them.
I’m willing to give the author of this article the benefit of a doubt, but they could have saved themselves some ridicule if they had answered these questions up front.
powerful love spells on Fri, 29th Sep 2017 8:31 pm
Hello,I read your blog named “PLENTY OF OIL: 1.4 TRILLION BARRELS, AND COUNTING | Peak Oil News and Message Boards” daily.Your story-telling style is witty, keep it up! And you can look our website about powerful love spells.