A World without oil

[James C]

World oil supplies are set to run out faster than expected, warn scientists
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit.

BP's Statistical Review of World Energy, published yesterday, appears to show that the world still has enough "proven" reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at current rates. The assessment, based on officially reported figures, has once again pushed back the estimate of when the world will run dry.

However, scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before entering a steepening decline which will have massive consequences for the world economy and the way that we live our lives.

According to "peak oil" theory our consumption of oil will catch, then outstrip our discovery of new reserves and we will begin to deplete known reserves.

Colin Campbell, the head of the depletion centre, said: "It's quite a simple theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it's gone."

Dr Campbell, is a former chief geologist and vice-president at a string of oil majors including BP, Shell, Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. He explains that the peak of regular oil - the cheap and easy to extract stuff - has already come and gone in 2005. Even when you factor in the more difficult to extract heavy oil, deep sea reserves, polar regions and liquid taken from gas, the peak will come as soon as 2011, he says.

This scenario is flatly denied by BP, whose chief economist Peter Davies has dismissed the arguments of "peak oil" theorists.

"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint. When peak oil comes, it is just as likely to come from consumption peaking, perhaps because of climate change policies as from production peaking."

In recent years the once-considerable gap between demand and supply has narrowed. Last year that gap all but disappeared. The consequences of a shortfall would be immense. If consumption begins to exceed production by even the smallest amount, the price of oil could soar above $100 a barrel. A global recession would follow.

Jeremy Legget, like Dr Campbell, is a geologist-turned conservationist whose book Half Gone: Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis brought " peak oil" theory to a wider audience. He compares industry and government reluctance to face up to the impending end of oil, to climate change denial.

"It reminds me of the way no one would listen for years to scientists warning about global warming," he says. "We were predicting things pretty much exactly as they have played out. Then as now we were wondering what it would take to get people to listen."

In 1999, Britain's oil reserves in the North Sea peaked, but for two years after this became apparent, Mr Leggert claims, it was heresy for anyone in official circles to say so. "Not meeting demand is not an option. In fact, it is an act of treason," he says.

One thing most oil analysts agree on is that depletion of oil fields follows a predictable bell curve. This has not changed since the Shell geologist M King Hubbert made a mathematical model in 1956 to predict what would happen to US petroleum production. The Hubbert Curveshows that at the beginning production from any oil field rises sharply, then reaches a plateau before falling into a terminal decline. His prediction that US production would peak in 1969 was ridiculed by those who claimed it could increase indefinitely. In the event it peaked in 1970 and has been in decline ever since.

In the 1970s Chris Skrebowski was a long-term planner for BP. Today he edits the Petroleum Review and is one of a growing number of industry insiders converting to peak theory. "I was extremely sceptical to start with," he now admits. "We have enough capacity coming online for the next two-and-a-half years. After that the situation deteriorates."

What no one, not even BP, disagrees with is that demand is surging. The rapid growth of China and India matched with the developed world's dependence on oil, mean that a lot more oil will have to come from somewhere. BP's review shows that world demand for oil has grown faster in the past five years than in the second half of the 1990s. Today we consume an average of 85 million barrels daily. According to the most conservative estimates from the International Energy Agency that figure will rise to 113 million barrels by 2030.

Two-thirds of the world's oil reserves lie in the Middle East and increasing demand will have to be met with massive increases in supply from this region.

BP's Statistical Review is the most widely used estimate of world oil reserves but as Dr Campbell points out it is only a summary of highly political estimates supplied by governments and oil companies.

As Dr Campbell explains: "When I was the boss of an oil company I would never tell the truth. It's not part of the game."

A survey of the four countries with the biggest reported reserves - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait - reveals major concerns. In Kuwait last year, a journalist found documents suggesting the country's real reserves were half of what was reported. Iran this year became the first major oil producer to introduce oil rationing - an indication of the administration's view on which way oil reserves are going.

Sadad al-Huseini knows more about Saudi Arabia's oil reserves than perhaps anyone else. He retired as chief executive of the kingdom's oil corporation two years ago, and his view on how much Saudi production can be increased is sobering. "The problem is that you go from 79 million barrels a day in 2002 to 84.5 million in 2004. You're leaping by two to three million [barrels a day]" each year, he told The New York Times. "That's like a whole new Saudi Arabia every couple of years. It can't be done indefinitely."

The importance of black gold

* A reduction of as little as 10 to 15 per cent could cripple oil-dependent industrial economies. In the 1970s, a reduction of just 5 per cent caused a price increase of more than 400 per cent.

* Most farming equipment is either built in oil-powered plants or uses diesel as fuel. Nearly all pesticides and many fertilisers are made from oil.

* Most plastics, used in everything from computers and mobile phones to pipelines, clothing and carpets, are made from oil-based substances.

* Manufacturing requires huge amounts of fossil fuels. The construction of a single car in the US requires, on average, at least 20 barrels of oil.

* Most renewable energy equipment requires large amounts of oil to produce.

* Metal production - particularly aluminium - cosmetics, hair dye, ink and many common painkillers all rely on oil.

Alternative sources of power

Coal

There are still an estimated 909 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide, enough to last at least 155 years. But coal is a fossil fuel and a dirty energy source that will only add to global warming.

Natural gas

The natural gas fields in Siberia, Alaska and the Middle East should last 20 years longer than the world's oil reserves but, although cleaner than oil, natural gas is still a fossil fuel that emits pollutants. It is also expensive to extract and transport as it has to be liquefied.

Hydrogen fuel cells

Hydrogen fuel cells would provide us with a permanent, renewable, clean energy source as they combine hydrogen and oxygen chemically to produce electricity, water and heat. The difficulty, however, is that there isn't enough hydrogen to go round and the few clean ways of producing it are expensive.

Biofuels

Ethanol from corn and maize has become a popular alternative to oil. However, studies suggest ethanol production has a negative effect on energy investment and the environment because of the space required to grow what we need.

Renewable energy

Oil-dependent nations are turning to renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar and wind power to provide an alternative to oil but the likelihood of renewable sources providing enough energy is slim.

Nuclear

Fears of the world's uranium supply running out have been allayed by improved reactors and the possibility of using thorium as a nuclear fuel. But an increase in the number of reactors across the globe would increase the chance of a disaster and the risk of dangerous substances getting into the hands of terrorists.

[chek]

Sobering report James. Most importantly because of the amount of oil we need to eat - it's not merely a transport and manufacturing issue, important as they are to our current economies.

No doubt the proponents of the unproven abiotioc self-replenishing oil theory and the 'it's all an NWO plot' reassurers will respond soon enough.

Whatever side of the fence is chosen though, there's no avoiding the fact it's the driving force for all political strategies and action for the coming century.

Our choice is going to be whether we live in bandit word or civilised world, and going by current events 'justifying' intervention in the Middle East, it's not looking optimistic.

[rodin]

[John White]

Thats a big story out of the independant today

[Mark Gobell]

Hardly balanced reporting though is it.

[Long Tooth]

Is it the same 'scientists' that bombarded us in the 1970's, with the earth in 20 years time is heading for a freeze/ice age. Lets not contest these scientists and just stump up more money for oil eh?.

Scientists also tell us jet fuel melts steel....yawn......

Since when have the independent resorted to telling one truth? remember 9/11, wmd's heading our way in 45 minutes? the menezes lies etc etc etc ad infinitum?

[chek]

I acknowledge the points raised by Mark and LT about the unreliable track record of scientific predictions and by whom and what purpose is being served by the predicters, but it nevertheless remains a subject worth further research and debate.

Otherwise, as Rodin alludes, mass famine is as good a culling mechanism as any. But just because it might well suit the agenda of a degenerate ruling elite doesn't necessarily mean they're any more in control of events than the rest of us.

[paul wright]

Nevertheless it is kind of preposterous that billions of creatures and plants kind of laid down and died in specific regions of the earth and over the centuries these massive graveyards produced massive reserves of usable fuel.This implies massive massive levels of dead matter driven down amongst tectonic movements.
Sounds rather a wild theory
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davemcgowanstalinandabioticoil05mar05.s html

[chek]

Cheers dh, that link is an interesting read.

But two things struck me straight off - firstly, the abiotic theory dates from the early Cold War, which isn't in itself suspect but could be.

Secondly, the carping on about 'billions of 5 gall dinosaurs' is all a bit arch.

The organic method doesn't seem all that far-fetched when you see the depth of mulched dead vegetation produced in the local woods each autumn/winter.

Multiply that by lifespans measured in centuries for many trees, then multiply again by aeons of time where forests spring up and die like mayflies in the midst of ongoing topographic surface remodelling, ice ages, climate swings, vulcanic geology etc. etc and the concept of the necessary billions of tons of organic materials don't seem all that outrageous.

I'll re-read it again when it's not so late

[alkmyst]

Expect to read much more on Peak Oil in the MSM over the coming weeks. Popularising the deception is critical to getting forecourt prices above $3 per (US) Gallon in Houston and breaking through the £1 per Litre barrier in the UK.

The following links all contribute to raising awareness of Peak Oil mythology:

www.aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/mike-ruppert-and-peak-oil/

www.americanfreepress.net/html/big_oil_spikes.html

www.americanfreepress.net/html/gull_island_oil.html

www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley.htm

www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley1.htm

... and we haven't even touched on abiotics yet!

Al K Myst

[gericom]

Personally, I'm taking this report with a huge pinch of salt! (Assuming of course that we still have enough salt left).
Listen, we have had other similar reports like this over the past two or three decades. These so-called "scientists" love to put the frighteners on us, it's the same with "Global Warming". It seems that we (the Human Race) are to blame for everything. (Blimey, they'll be blaming us for killing off the dinosaurs next!)

[karlos]

this Independant article is TOTAL FICTION
look at it properly.
wheres indonesia?
wheres brunei?
wheres gabon 3rd largest producer in africa
Norway
somalia and sudan with extensive reserves being developed by China.
azerbijhan

this article leaves out most pf the areas with big reserves
so it is utter balderdash
there are many as yet untapped areas such as the south atlantic and the australia/indonesian sea

as use of alternative fuels rise so consumtion of oil will fall

why oil?

cars can run on ethanol
diesal can be made from vegetable fat
power stations run on wind/wave/hydroelectric/coal/refuse/solar/nuclear
although i personally am against nuclear
plastics can be made organically
fibres can also be made organically as they always used to be before oil

so what do we need oil for?
oil is for the politics, for the control, for the money
we are FORCED to use oil to put profits in a few peoples hands

The independant article basically is a blatant lie. Oil is a curse even for the countries who produce it. We dont even give them a fair price for it.

Fact: petrol is still cheaper than water



Fact: it is far better to discover water than oil - because you wont be invaded and you get more money

[James C]

[karlos]

[rodin]

[rodin]

Double post deleted. This site is S L O W!

[londonsound]

Interesting thread guys, allow me to share some thoughts

I used to be a dedicated Peak Oiler (having read the last rays of ancient sunlight and The Party's Over, Hubberts Peak et al) but now I'm not so sure and I've heard a bit from both sides of this debate.

The problem with resolving this is that we simply can't have access to all the facts; it's not like we can go around the world measuring oil reserves and come to our own conclusions. and sans some widely distributed truth serum, we can't trust our leaders to be honest with us about anything, including the time of day.

I think the abiotic oil argument is , to some extent, kind of neither here nor there. The earth is finite and the supply of oil is therefore finite whatever its origin and some wells/oilfields have clearly been exhausted or Norway wouldn't be looking to mine the arctic circle.

Given the rate of consumption it's clearly when not if it will run out, even if the when is 150 years from now.

While not a Christian I lean towards the "by their fruits ye shall know them" philosophy otherwise termed "actions speak louder than words"

When I see Britain invading and Oil Rich country at about the time we went from being a net exporter to a net importer, and when i see where the US place their tanks and I think that Light sweet crude oil and natural gas is a clearly absolutely crucial geopolitical and economic asset. It suggests they genuinely believe that. They're not playing, it suggests. It's not like the lip service they pay to "freeman moxy".


Unless of course:

The tanks are there to keep oil off the market (greg palast would argue)

The whole thing is a gigantic diversionary magic trick (like the US presidency, to an extent) where they've spent the last "century of war" pretending middle east oil is crucial when it really isn't.


I dunno. all thoughts gratefully received.

[chek]

I remember reading a WWIII novel back in the '70's (the title escapes me for the moment) which ended with large swathes of the Middle East being nuked, specifically for the purpose of putting the oil there beyond reach for a century or two.

[Mark Gobell]

Did mankind survive the last ice age or not ?

And the one before ?

And the one before that ?

Stand back and think.

If our current situation is in fact unsustainable then you know what it won't be sustained.

Interest rates will be like a falling eyelash.

Will mankind survive ?

Do you even need to care ?

Why do we think that are they telling us so much intense truth when we know they always lie to us about everything else ?

[James C]

[Mark Gobell]

[rodin]

Some say there are massive oil deposits in the South Altantic and that's what our 25 anniversary war was all about.

Then there are the tar sands in Canada and elsewhere from which oil can be extracted.

Then there is the fact that Germany made oil from coal to prosecute WW2.

The oil from coal technology has been suppressed.

So there are any number of ways that the oil reserves can be extended. Plus there may well be technologies that can supplant oil as our primary fuel source.

Put yourself in their shoes. Would you wait until the last minute before implementing a carbon use reduction strategy? The last minute being when oil production was falling? This would be very dangerous since even if you could reduce consumption @ the same rate as output was falling, you would be on track to exhaust your oil supply. No. 'They' would want their supply to last countless millenia.

To secure this, it would be necessary to intersect the rising part of the oil peak with a progressive drop in demand. This could be what is happening, and a powerful reason for a population reduction agenda. Oil rationing means less people since the current population is sustainable only with oil-powered agriculture (fertilizers, tractors).

-------------------------------------------------

What a pity most of you fell for Socialism - the pyramid model that enslaves its 'citizens'. Then again, the deception is so very clever, and the blackmail psychologically targeted at all your demons - guilt, sense of 'fair play' (since when did that ever exist in nature), and, ultimately, your fear of death. This fear of death is now pumped up by the deliberate destruction of a previous belief system - that of the afterlife.

Your fear of death has allowed them to increase cancer rates fron one in 100 to one in 2 in 100 years. In fact, did you know that the increase in cancer rates is inversely proportional to the value of your money?

The 'law of the jungle' is to cheat, eat, swindle and kill in order to survive. Survival of the fittest. Socialism/collectivism/whatever-ism replaces survival of the fittest with survival of the elite group. The head honcho lion is content to rule his patch. This is the extent of his dominance. A technologically-empowered elite can completely dominate their species.

This is what we have allowed to happen.

The elite claim to be deserving of their capstone position because 'they' are smarter etc.. It's only natural they say. But it is not 'natural' - ie it does not happen in nature. In nature the strong individual can only dominate a narrow territorial patch, and then only in his prime. With the power of an -ism they can artificiailly empower themselves. Like Robocop they have un-natural leveraged powers. The power to create money. The power to legislate.

They themselves are not subject to nature's rule of survival of the fittest. They have replaced this with survival of the system. The system protects the weak, true enough. The physically weak can use mental cunning and leveraged power though the system.

Think an elite group are ever going to be altruistic - a trait counter to nature?

We must destroy the pyramid structure altogether and introduce a neurally-networked self-governing global meritocracy. We need to reclaim the level playing field of Earth.

[karlos]

[blackcat]

[James C]

[Mark Gobell]

Then why aren't the oil companies themselves telling us directly ?

[James C]

[James C]

[Mark Gobell]

My view is that Britain lives without it's own coal because Thatcher wanted to smash the NUM.

Once the pits were closed we imported cheaper dirtier coal from Poland and Hungary.

We didn't stop using coal, the Tories just didn't want an orgainsed political workforce extracting it anymore.

No arguments were made then about it's scarcity, it was a savage political decision.

Our coal is still in the ground.

[Mark Gobell]

So, your analysis amounts to silence on the part of the oil cos because if they let the cat out of the bag then their share price would tumble.

Yet, letting the same cat out of the bag, third hand is a safer strategy to guard against the same outcome ?

I don't buy that for one second sir.