# Oil crisis



## Rhisiart (Jun 22, 2008)

I am on shady ground here as I can't robustly validate any of the facts that I am putting forward, but what I have learnt (which quite rightly should be challenged), there are enough oil reserves - even in existing fields - to support oil consumption for at least 200 years.

The price of oil is determined not by shortage, but by:

1. Market speculation (2 or 3 dollar flucations on a global scale can translate into millions of dollars profit).

2. Greedy oil countries controlling production.

3. A failure by the US Congress to allow off-shore oil production off the coast of the USA.

4. An understandable need to switch to non-carbon energy resourses.

5.  My own totally unccceptable carbon footprint (probably equal to China).

_That's enough ed...._


----------



## bbloke (Jun 22, 2008)

Where did you get the figure of 200 years?  It sounds rather unlikely to me.

If you have the time and the inclination, watch "A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash."


----------



## rubaiyat (Jun 23, 2008)

Seeing as that is obviously true, I'll have to go get an even larger air conditioned 4WD, particularly now that with my weight problem it is really uncomfortable for me to walk from the sofa to the fridge.


----------



## Viro (Jun 23, 2008)

bbloke said:


> Where did you get the figure of 200 years?  It sounds rather unlikely to me.



I remember the doom mongering in the late 80s claiming that fuel will run out by 2000.


----------



## bbloke (Jun 23, 2008)

Viro said:


> I remember the doom mongering in the late 80s claiming that fuel will run out by 2000.


I suppose my experiences are a bit different, as I remember hearing predictions in the 1980s/1990s about how many decades of oil we might have left.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 23, 2008)

Here's a quote from William Fisher:

_New field discoveries are only about 25 percent of the source of most of the reserve additions of oil. About 70 percent of it comes from oil through increased recovery out of existing fields. Around the world, up to this existing point, we have already discovered about 7 trillion barrels of oil in the ground._

There is also an unknown quantity of untapped oil off the coast of the USA that could be as plentiful in supply as Siberia, which has barely been explored yet. However, Congress will not allow off-shore mining for oil.

David Cole, chairman of the non-profit Center for Automotive Research states:

_We have failed to develop our resources due to the inability of Congress to permit drilling in high-probability petroleum regions .... the United States has had an absurd energy policy. We're basically sending billions of dollars to people in the world we're not very comfortable with, because of our own inability to develop our own resources._

I strongly believe that we should be moving away from oil dependency to other forms of energy production. However, we may well have enough oil left to allow adequate time for a relatively painless transition from oil dependence to other forms of energy production. 

The current oil price hikes may well be due to a combination of greed and incompetence, rather than actual oil shortage.


----------



## Qion (Jun 23, 2008)

Rhisiart said:


> The current oil price hikes may well be due to a combination of greed and incompetence, rather than actual oil shortage.



If that's the truth, America's government's inadequacies are doing a damn good job at throttling positive market growth and making our lives ever so much more stressful. We have nothing like Britain's diesel obsession, and yet our fuel prices rise ever the same... seems likely it's not a shortage, then...

Why is this even a question? Why don't all of us know exactly how many years of oil we have left? That is what I consider to be incompetent, that by large our population doesn't know the facts. Blame it on us, or blame it on the suits, it's still pathetic.


----------



## bbloke (Jun 23, 2008)

In light of recent oil prices, the BBC has a page about reasons why the price of oil is so high.

It can be a tricky thing, estimating how much oil is left.  When we're dealing with unknown reserves and unknown technology of the future, ultimately we don't know what we don't know... as it were!  

There is also another issue.  It is not only about whether or not we have a source of oil, it is also about the *quality* of the oil.  Crude oils differ substantially and different fields present the industry with different problems.


----------



## Viro (Jun 23, 2008)

Qion said:


> If that's the truth, America's government's inadequacies are doing a damn good job at throttling positive market growth and making our lives ever so much more stressful.



You can thank your very aggressive environmental lobby for that. They have succeeded in lobbying for so many laws that make off shore oil exploration a very expensive venture for oil companies. 

Then thank your spineless politicians. Look at all your presidential candidates. Up until April, none of them had a viable energy plan and none of them were in favor of exploring for more oil. Don't know what they stand for now since I've given up on following that race.


----------



## bbloke (Jun 23, 2008)

In addition, you might be interested in the PDF of a US Department of Energy report from 2004.



			
				DoE report said:
			
		

> Discoveries did peak before the 1970s as shown in Figure 6. This figure also shows that no major new field discoveries have been made in decades. Presently, world oil reserves are being depleted three times as fast as they are being discovered. Oil is being produced from past discoveries, but the reserves are not being fully replaced. Remaining oil reserves of individual oil companies must therefore continue to shrink. For example: Royal Dutch/Shell Group, one of the worlds largest oil companiesfailed for a third year to find as much oil as it pumped (Ref. 16).
> 
> The disparity between increasing production and declining discoveries can only have one outcome: a practical supply limit will be reached and future supply to meet conventional oil demand will not be available. The question is when peak production will occur and what will be its ramifications. Whether
> the peak occurs sooner or later is a matter of relative urgency, but does not alter a central conclusion; the United States needs to establish a supply base for its future energy needs using its significant oil shale, coal, and other energy resources.





			
				DoE report said:
			
		

> In spite of projections for growth in non-OPEC supply, it appears that non-OPEC and non-Former Soviet Union Countries (non-FSU) have already peaked and are currently declining (Figure 7).
> 
> The production cycle of the countries shown in Figure 7, and the cumulative quantities produced reasonably follow Hubberts model (see Appendix A for a more in-depth discussion). Although there is no agreement about the date that world oil production will peak, forecasts presented by USGS geologist Thomas Magoon (Ref. 6), the OGJ, and others expect the peak will occur between 2003 and 2020 (the year the prediction was made follows the name). What is notable about these predictions is that none extend beyond the year 2020, suggesting that the world may be facing shortfalls much sooner than expected by the EIA.
> 
> ...



After that report was published, there was news in 2005 that the world's second largest oil field, Burgan in Kuwait, was past its peak and production was to be scaled back.

I'm not saying the sky is falling, just that we need to be careful about complacency and we should be planning ahead.


----------



## Qion (Jun 24, 2008)

Thanks for taking the time to post those excerpts, bbloke.

I by no means dismiss that we should be working hard towards cleaner energy sources; in fact, I've been pushing for it since before the current green movement. I just dislike the reasons we change; I believe we should improve (see: Evolve) with time, regardless of how it's impacting our economy. That way, it wouldn't take getting poor to innovate. 

I really liked Wired issue 16.06's cover. I think it exemplifies the fact that our current issues are too important to be left in the hands of environmentalists.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 24, 2008)

I watched Channel 4's Dispatches programme last night. It covered the rising cost of food.

Five reasons were put forward:

1. Increase in oil means transporting food products from producer to seller is more expensive.

2. China and India are eating more meat (and why shouldn't they?), which means more grain is needed to feed livestock.

3. The growth in biofuel technology means more crops are used for fuel rather than food (in fact not an efficient way to create fuel, as it costs $100 to produce £110 worth of fuel).

4, Greedy superstores keeping prices artificially high, whilst trying to lure us with some occasional cheap offers.

and the worst culprit.....

5. Hedge fund speculators gambling on food prices, which in fact may account for up to 30% of current food price increases.

My point?

Again poor management. Crap organisation of food production and marketing - not shortage of food.


----------



## bbloke (Jun 25, 2008)

Thanks, Qion.  I'm happy to hear the excerpts were of interest.  

It's worth people remembering that these quotes come from the US Department of Energy (DOE) and it references the US Geological Survey (USGS), so this isn't scaremongering in the press for a nice headline.  Personally speaking, I don't believe we have over 200 years of oil ahead of us, especially at current levels of consumption or (as expected) at an increased rate of consumption. 

As an aside, you can have some fun playing with BP's energy charting tool (requires Java) and you can also get more information with their Statistical Review of World Energy each year.

People tend to associate oil with fuel.  Cars, planes, that sort of thing.  It's easy to forget just how ubiquitous our usage of oil is!  In addition to a range of fuels, oil is used in plastics (i.e. virtually everything around us these days!), solvents, fertilizers (back to food again...), pesticides, lubricants, waxes, and medicines, to name but a few!  Installing a wind farm here or there will not remove our dependence just yet.

I can certainly believe that "management" plays a large role in influencing oil prices, especially when it comes to speculators. There will be all sorts of other factors to consider too.  The politics of oil never makes things smooth, and I'd be reluctant to place the blame squarely on oil producing nations alone, as "we" have quite a bit to do with it too.  As one example, if you look back, you'll see the price of oil spike when the Iranian Revolution took place.  While the history of this is complex, it is  worth remembering that the West made itself rather unpopular when it effectively replaced Iran's elected government with the Shah due to worries about the control of Iran's oil (ironically, later on).  But I digress!

While I do not doubt the financial and political issues involved, there is one major difference between food and oil: oil is not renewable.  It is a limited resource, it cannot be re-grown in the way crops can.  As the oil becomes more scarce, or the quality becomes worse and more processing is required, we can expect prices to continue to increase.


----------



## snoWPrincess (Jun 26, 2008)

The soaring oil prices are affecting the costs of everything from food to gas. There are also significant issues on local and global environmental impact. While there are many issues, we need to look at our next leader and determine which will have the best course of action going forward..I recently watch the two video in Pollclash about this issue, Obama and McCain talk about this


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 26, 2008)

snoWPrincess said:


> The soaring oil prices are affecting the costs of everything from food to gas. There are also significant issues on local and global environmental impact. While there are many issues, we need to look at our next leader and determine which will have the best course of action going forward..I recently watch the two video in Pollclash about this issue, Obama and McCain talk about this


As a liberal/democratic type of fella, I'd be inclined to vote for Obama (if I was American that is). But McCain is quite different from Dubya, so even if Americans did vote for him, they may at least live to regret it.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 26, 2008)

snoWPrincess said:


> There are also significant issues on local and global environmental impact.



Wait just a darn minute here... you mean that we can't even accurately _predict_ the weather, but now we're _controlling_ it?!

I say that human-caused global warming and environmental impact is a bunch of hogwash!

[/tongue-in-cheek]


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 26, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> I say that human-caused global warming and environmental impact is a bunch of hogwash!


Global warming, food shortages, desertization, crop failures, credit crisis etc. are all symptoms of mismanagement. Most will be easily absorbed by the planet. Human folly will be spat out like a dead flea.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 26, 2008)

Hehe... agreed.  People say that it's "bad," but "bad" is relative -- bad for humans?  Yes!  Bad for cockroaches?  Nope!  They'll thrive!

What's seemingly "bad" for one species may in fact be great for another.  We're not really concerned about the "health" of the planet -- we're concerned about earth's viability in sustaining _human_ life... as if the earth would just be fsck'ed without us or something.

If humans are so arrogant to believe that they can even scratch the surface of the earth, well, that's just some kind of Napoleon complex.  The earth will chew us up and spit us out, and in 100,000 years (a nanosecond in the grand scheme of things), the earth will repair itself and be on its merry way.  Without the burden of us.  Happy cockroaches.


----------



## Qion (Jun 26, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> If humans are so arrogant to believe that they can even scratch the surface of the earth, well, that's just some kind of Napoleon complex.  The earth will chew us up and spit us out, and in 100,000 years (a nanosecond in the grand scheme of things), the earth will repair itself and be on its merry way.  Without the burden of us.  Happy cockroaches.



This is the blatantly obvious truth of everything that nobody wants to admit, and the people who do usually get labeled nihilist or other such projective bull.

If we want to play god, we better start getting good at it.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 26, 2008)

It's true, but then again, I am human, and want humankind to be safe in our environment.

But then again humans do have a way of thinking that we are somehow "removed" from the rest of the beasts that are considered "nature."  It's weird... when a fox gets rabies and goes nuts and eats their offspring, we call it "nature" and do not interfere.  Neither do other foxes.  But when a human goes nuts and starts wildfires in California, we call them "insane" and "deranged" and "unnatural" and something must be wrong and they must be stopped.

What a strange bunch of beings we are.  So... remind me again... when did humans become _not_ a part of the natural progression of the earth?

Thinking of other things, that brings me to extinction.  For millennia, different species have come into being, and others have gone extinct... it's the "natural" way of things.  Case in point: dinosaurs and the dodo bird.  But all of a sudden, humans learn to read and write and build fires, and all of a sudden, all the beasts currently on the planet needn't change anymore -- we need to stop the "natural" extinction of animals, because somehow, even though in the past, changes such as these were all ok, but now we feel the need to "freeze" nature in its current state.  Stop the whales from dying -- why?  They're dying because the current state of the earth is no longer habitable for them.  Stop the extinction of bees -- why?  Something's happening, whether human-caused or not, and they're dying.  But, of course, humans are not a part of the natural progression of the earth, and since we caused the extinctions, somehow that's "unnatural."

Hogwash, I say!  HOGWASH!


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 26, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> Hogwash, I say!  HOGWASH!


Right. The challenge is on. It is 18.28 GMT on the 26th June 2006.

How long ElDiabloConCaca, before you can legitimately get to use the word 'Hogwash' in MacOSX.com Word Association? 

The clock is ticking.......


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 26, 2008)

Ooh, that was an unexpected challenge... BUT I ACCEPT!  Game on!


----------



## reed (Jun 27, 2008)

There IS oil (hard crude/soft crude) in many regions of the globe, US/Canada/Arctic, etc. that are only waiting to be tapped. The deal is.... NOT to tap them if possible (for X reasons) and work very, very hard to break this cycle and START to move away from oil. Period. A pipe dream for the moment because we are stuck. A pipe what? What a line! Sorry.
  But we all know this.


----------



## Viro (Jul 5, 2008)

Breaking news. Donkey Kong is responsible for the oil crisis.


----------



## Viro (Jul 5, 2008)

Eh ...


----------



## Satcomer (Jul 5, 2008)

Viro said:


> Breaking news. Donkey Kong is responsible for the oil crisis.



That was funny. To bad the lack of any REAL energy alternatives! I am sick of the inaction.


----------



## reed (Jul 6, 2008)

We can drive with water. For example. 

   "We" just have to:  Break the monopolies/distributors, knock off the dangerous lobbies pushing oil based materials....which, alas is a lot, put a few corporate executives and political leaders and their friends out of the way, give a protected and carte blanche hand to free-spirit inventors (without fear of death or being bought off to stop what they are doing), boycott anything that guzzles gasoline, and avoid any oilbased product that is "in". VAST PROGRAM. Right? 
  I'm sure I'm forgetting some details, which I'm sure somebody on the forum will remind me of. 
  Keep dreaming reed.


----------



## Qion (Jul 6, 2008)

No, reed, you're right. 

The only thing I'd add to that is _motivation_. That'll be the real crux. 

A lot of the Americans over here like their enormous air-conditioned SUVs and hillbillymobile pick-up trucks to cave to a simple global climate change argument!


----------



## Viro (Jul 6, 2008)

reed said:


> We can drive with water.


 
lulz...

I hope you're not being serious.


----------



## reed (Jul 6, 2008)

In fact you you can have a sip (a bit stinky, but drinkable) from the exhaust pipe. Only one hitch...it costs too much for Mr Everyman.....................for the moment. Iceland is using it's thermal waters in this direction. Tapping what they already have, what. But don't tell anybody. Very dangerous.


----------



## Viro (Jul 7, 2008)

I like conspiracy theories as much as the next geek.

But a car driven by water is just not going to happen. You get a net loss of energy after doing the electrolysis + combustion and that means it's not sustainable and is rather pointless.


----------



## Qion (Jul 7, 2008)

Viro said:


> I like conspiracy theories as much as the next geek.
> 
> But a car driven by water is just not going to happen. You get a net loss of energy after doing the electrolysis + combustion and that means it's not sustainable and is rather pointless.



I realize that physical law does come in at some point, but just look at the huge number of inventions and innovations that came exploding in the face of naysayers. Honda has a hydrogen car, so is a water car really such a stretch?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jul 7, 2008)

Viro said:


> But a car driven by water is just not going to happen. You get a net loss of energy after doing the electrolysis + combustion and that means it's not sustainable and is rather pointless.



Then by that reasoning, EVERY energy source is pointless, since, if after fuel usage, you have a net _gain_ of energy (or even break even), you've just invented a perpetual motion machine.


----------



## bbloke (Jul 7, 2008)

It's a complicated subject.  As I've mentioned earlier, we don't depend on oil only as a source of energy, although that is one vital use.  We also rely upon oil as part of our production process.  

Besides our interest in a cheap and transportable form of energy, oil is closely associated with pesticides, fertilizers, solvents, medicines, cosmetics, plastics, lubricants, asphalt (e.g. for road surfaces), detergents, nylon, polyesters, and so on. Globalization has also meant we now transport much of our resources over long distances and much of our manufacturing is done, cheaply, abroad... and then transported. Cities in younger nations have also been developed around the idea that we have access to cheap transport. In essence, the message I want to convey is: this is not just about using more solar and wind power (also, have a look at how long our uranium will last, with regards to nuclear power...), our civilization is far more dependent on oil than most realize. It underpins so much of our current standard of living.

A few snippets I've come across...

In Canada, food travels an average of 5000 miles (8000 km) from where it is grown to where it is eaten.  In the US, that figure is closer to 1500 miles.  The transport of food obviously links to fossil fuels.

Written two years ago, regarding the link between oil and food:


> Randall may not be certain when oil prices will level out, but it's abundantly clear to him that $70/barrel petroleum is taking a huge bite out of his business. Nearly every part of his farming operation is being impacted. The price for the diesel fuel that runs the tractors and trucks on his 4,500-acre farm have more than tripled in the last four years, rising from 80 cents per gallon to close to $3. Fertilizer prices are also up sharply. Since synthetic fertilizers are made from natural gas, they too are impacted by higher fossil fuel prices; the cost of fertilizer has gone from about $160 per ton to $460 per ton in the last three years. Smaller, organic growers are also feeling a pinch from costlier petroleum. The price for the plastic drip irrigation tape commonly used on organic fruit and vegetable farms is up 20 percent from two years ago.


More on oil and food...


> Oil refined for gasoline and diesel is critical to run the tractors, combines and other farm vehicles and equipment that plant, spray the herbicides and pesticides, and harvest/transport food and seed
> Food processors rely on the just-in-time (gasoline-based) delivery of fresh or refrigerated food
> Food processors rely on the production and delivery of food additives, including vitamins and minerals, emulsifiers, preservatives, colouring agents, etc. Many are oil-based. Delivery is oil-based
> Food processors rely on the production and delivery of boxes, metal cans, printed paper labels, plastic trays, cellophane for microwave/convenience foods, glass jars, plastic and metal lids with sealing compounds. Many of these are essentially oil-based
> ...


In 2004, the UN stated:


> The manufacture of an average desktop computer and monitor uses more than 10 times its weight in fossil fuels and chemicals, according to a United Nations University (UNU) study which has called for worldwide action to halt "the growth of high-tech trash." The study, released yesterday, shows that the construction of an average 24-kilogram computer and 27-centimetre monitor requires at least 240 kilograms of fossil fuel, 22 kilograms of chemicals and 1,500 kilograms of water  or 1.8 tons in total, the equivalent of a rhinoceros or sports utility vehicle.


So, we can't just create a few wind farms, switch to more efficient cars, and feel we've done our bit.  We need to completely rethink our way of life.  How many here would happily give up new computers and iPods?  

When it comes to research, where do we divert the money from?  Healthcare?  Education?  You can imagine the fuss if politicians went down this road, where the voters feel the pinch now for something that is to come in the future.

(Hang on, did I just sound a note of sympathy for the politicians?...     )

In the end, it is not just about big business, corrupt politicians, or gas guzzling cars.  Unfortunately, it means we need to end our utter dependence on oil; everyone one of us will have to reassess our lifestyles, and in a bigger way than we perhaps feel prepared to do at this stage.


----------



## Viro (Jul 7, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> Then by that reasoning, EVERY energy source is pointless, since, if after fuel usage, you have a net _gain_ of energy (or even break even), you've just invented a perpetual motion machine.


 
You are right of course, and I should be more specific 

You waste too much energy electrolysing water. The electrolysis process itself has a maximum efficiency of 85%, while conventional (very optimistic) estimates place the efficiency of current processes at about 50%. That ignores the energy loss that results in generating the electricity necessary for electrolysis in the first place.

Then you have the internal combustion engine that has an energy efficiency of 20% ... Hydrolysis of water as an energy source is not practical. Forget the conspiracies about why big businesses don't do it (they want you to be dependent on oil, of course!). Ask yourself why aren't academic institutions actively researching it if has any potential? Probably because 1st year chemists and engineers realize the unfeasibility of it.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jul 7, 2008)

Viro said:


> Ask yourself why aren't academic institutions actively researching it if has any potential? Probably because 1st year chemists and engineers realize the unfeasibility of it.



I'm not discrediting anything you said -- in fact, I agree -- Hydrolysis of water, with today's technology, would not yield a suitable oil substitute for powering cars.

...but then again, remember when the general consensus of "heavier-than-air flight" was that it was absolutely impossible, and we had to rely on a bunch of garage-tinkering weirdos to prove otherwise?  

When one says, "It's impossible, and therefore we shouldn't even research it," then that person has just closed the doors on lots of possibilities.  Hell, Viagra was meant for something completely different in clinical trials, and the popular use of it for treating that thing that so many older males use it for would have been delayed until someone went back and looked at the compound again.  Ask any Viagra-treating sufferer if they thought that discontinuing clinical trials because it didn't do what it was originally intended for would have been a good idea...

Water's some crazy stuff... we hardly even know "how it works" or "why it works" the way it does.  It is truly a very strange and perplexing combination of atoms and quarks and gluons and stuff, obeying some rules of physics while simultaneously and seemingly defying others.

I'm not saying we should all go out and fill our tanks up with water -- I'm just saying that descriptive words like "impossible" and "infeasible" are only relative to today's technology and only meaningful in the context of the present.  Tomorrow is another day, and we may have the technology and means to do something completely different.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jul 7, 2008)

Just to reminisce - and at great risk of digressing here - I took a Greyhound Bus from San Francisco to New York in July 1977. I was just a teenager (it's a long story, but it has something to with my dad wanting to make a man of me).

At the back of the bus I somehow eventually teamed up with a tree surgeon called Richard, a Bronx dude called Deuce (apparently just released from a ten year spell in prison) and a very pasty looking young undergraduate from MIT called Josh.

We all got along just great. At every stop, we sat together in restaurants or went for walks. In Cheyenne, we had a two hour break and went for a walk around the city. In no time we were pulled over by the the police and escorted to the local police station.

They couldn't work us out and eventually realised they couldn't charge us with anyhting. However whilst we were waiting, Josh told me that in the future cars would run on hydrogen and that eventually somebody will discover a way to create power out of simple water.

OK, totally anecdotal. But lo and behold, the hydrogen car has indeed arrived.


----------



## Qion (Jul 7, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> I'm not saying we should all go out and fill our tanks up with water -- I'm just saying that descriptive words like "impossible" and "infeasible" are only relative to today's technology and only meaningful in the context of the present.  Tomorrow is another day, and we may have the technology and means to do something completely different.



This is exactly the type of attitude that allows for progress. It's simply not illogical to think the impossible or infeasible anymore; we're constantly discovering properties of the universe that provoke us to modify our preexisting set of scientific doctrines. 

It really bothers me when the experts get so absorbed in their expertise they hinder innovation by relying on common-sense statistics.


----------



## Viro (Jul 7, 2008)

So we going to start getting transmutations to gold soon? After all, if we're going to go down that route anything is possible.


----------



## reed (Jul 7, 2008)

Indeed, anything is possible in this geo-chemical-micro-chip-vegetable-deep sea and outer-space world we live in..... and in which we use 10-15% of our brain capacity. I'm now looking to see how we can turn water into wine. Darn, it's been done before. Back to the drawing board.


----------

