Oil Reserves in the U.S. Upped

Who said 12 weeks? I guess EF, I can't see what he says.

Anyway, if you add the numbers in post #86 (reserves by country) you get about 1220 billion barrels as world reserve. The annual usage is about 28.5 (earlier I was counting with 30, close enough) so divide 1220 by 28.5 and you get what you wanted...

P.S.: about 43 years...
 
somewhere between 12 weeks and 40 years?

HmmmmI'd have thunk it a bit more predictable... go figure.

many different predictions:

PU200709_Fig3b.png
 
Who said 12 weeks? I guess EF, I can't see what he says.

Anyway, if you add the numbers in post #86 (reserves by country) you get about 1220 billion barrels as world reserve. The annual usage is about 28.5 (earlier I was counting with 30, close enough) so divide 1220 by 28.5 and you get what you wanted...

P.S.: about 43 years...


And that is again with out any new finds, or any advances in technology to exploit those finds.

The two most prevalent element in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity, followed by, hydrogen, helium, and oxygen, and carbon.

Carbon is a element, and from my reading, though all organic substances contain carbon, carbon isn't a organic substance.

Every time I look at organic carbon, when I click on the link carbon I am referred back to;

Carbon (pronounced /kɑɹbən/) is a chemical element with the symbol C and atomic number 6. It is a group 14, nonmetallic, tetravalent element, that presents several allotropic forms of which the best known are graphite (the thermodynamically stable form under normal conditions), diamond, and amorphous carbon.[7] There are three naturally occurring isotopes: 12C and 13C are stable, and 14C is radioactive, decaying with a half-life of about 5700 years.

This information again seems to support the possibility of abiogenic oil.
 
Now how about this;

Deep petroleum and the non-organic theory


The recent ‘Research News’ item published in Current Science, summarizing the discovery of hydrocarbons in Archaean rocks1 rightly highlights the significance of this event. In this letter, I wish to point out that these developments find a natural explanation within the framework of a theory that had been reviewed in the same journal earlier2.

The discovery of petroleum in source rocks of Archaean age was somewhat unexpected from the viewpoint of the classical organic theory. As per this model, petroleum is of organic origin, being the decomposed remains of plankton. Since life was not abundant in the early periods of the Earth’s history, it was thought that there was very little petroleum produced in this manner. Moreover, this petroleum was considered unlikely to have survived the thermal stress which virtually all Pre-Cambrian sediments have undergone. Hence, little prospecting was undertaken in Archaean rocks.

This view persisted despite the discovery of a few Proterozoic oil fields in Oman, China and Siberia. The situation changed when recent work3 uncovered the existence of oil in sandstone 3000 m.y. old from the Kaapvaal craton in South Africa and the Lake Superior craton in Canada. Source rocks in the form of hydrocarbon-bearing mudstones have been identified, making an organic origin possible. However, within the framework of the non-organic theory this development is entirely expected, for petroleum is seen here as primordial, representing ancient hydrocarbons incorporated into the Earth. It has thus existed since the early days of the Earth, and its occurrence in Archaean rocks is trivially expected in this model.

In recent years, evidence of hydrocarbons in asteroids and comets has continued to accumulate. In the non-organic framework, these petroliferous asteroids/comets are the progenitors of the Earths oil. Hence, the occurrence of primordial petroleum in large quantities is expected. In this light, the recent discoveries of hydrocarbon ice on objects in the Kuiper belt, a band of objects just beyond the orbit of Neptune, is an indication of the substantial amounts of extraterrestrial hydrocarbons4.

In fact, with these large quantities of hydrocarbon having been dumped on the Earth during its formation, the question is reversed. If the petroleum on the Earth is entirely of an organic origin why has all this primordial hydrocarbon only been a silent spectator?

Although all investigators1 considered these Archaean petroleum findings to be of ancient biological origin, a non-organic origin is equally plausible. Thus, the petroleum oil occurs in fluid inclusions lying within healed microfractures confined to individual quartz grains. This indicates that the oil was emplaced prior to Archaean metamorphism. This is consistent with the non-organic theory, with the oil being emplaced as a result of upwelling under pressure, with the creation of fractures and the emplacement of oil into the fractures. However, organic petroleum migrating upwards from deep source rocks also provides a plausible explanation.

The Australian occurrence in the Macarthur basin dates to 1400–1700 m.y.5 coinciding with the appearance of the unicellular organisms called eukaryotes that, as per the organic
theory, constitute the major source of oil. However, the discovery of petroleum much older, that is 3.0–2.75 b.y. old3 pre-dates the origin of such organisms.

The discovery of deep bacteria at depths heretofore unsuspected6 has come at the same time as the discovery of ancient petroleum. The organic theory views these as representing survivals of organisms entombed since Archaean times. In the non-organic theory, these bacteria were incorporated into the forming Earth, and are ascendng from the depths to the surface. Hence, the non-organic theory can explain most aspects of the recently-discovered Archaean petroleum as well as the deep bacteria as consistently as the organic theory can.

No wonder the non-organic theory is slowly gaining wider acceptance as an alternative to the organic theory. Robert O. Russell, a wellsite geologist at the first well in North America (at Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada) drilled into crystalline basement granitic shield rocks for the express purpose of commercial hydrocarbon exploration, has pointed out that there are more than 400 wells and fields worldwide, both off-shore and on-shore that produce or have recently produced oil from igneous rocks7. This fact alone indicates that many aspects relating to the origin of petroleum need to be revised. Thomas Gold8, a distinguished proponent of the non-organic theory, has expanded the application of the non-organic theory to all hydrocarbons, including coal.

In this connection, an international conference on ‘Oil in Granite’ was held recently in Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia9. One of the papers by Kosachev et al.10 from the Institute of Organic Physics and Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kazan, concluded that much evidence existed in favour of the theory, and that viable mechanisms for the creation of migration pathways existed.

Recently, C. Warren Hunt, a geologist of the Anhydride Oil Corporation, Calgary, Canada, has proposed a variant of the non-organic theory11. This novel theory sets forth the notion that up-welling deep non-organic methane is bacterially modified into petroleum at shallow depths.

In conclusion, although an organic origin of primordial Archaean petroleum is possible, it is far more natural within the non-organic framework. In recent years, the non-organic theory has been gaining wider acceptance. The discovery of the ‘Deep Biosphere’, the new world of underground bacteria, is another interesting development which may help to shed more light on the origin of petroleum.


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

Sankaran, A., Curr. Sci., 1999, 76, 868–870.
Abbas, S., Curr. Sci., 1996, 71, 677–684.
Dutkiewicz, A., Rasmussen, B. and Buick, R., Nature, 1998, 395, 885–
888.
Brown, R. H., Dale, P. C., Pendleton, Y. and Veeder, G. J., Science, 1997, 276, 937–939.
Jackson, M. J., Powell, T. G., Summons, R. E. and Sweet, I. P., Nature, 1986, 322, 727–729.
Sankaran, A., Curr. Sci., 1997, 73, 495–497.
Russell, R. O., Oil Gas J., 1995, p. 34.
Gold, T., Am. Sci., 1997, 85, 408–411.
Proceedings of the Conference on Oil in Granite, Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia,
17–19 December 1997, Polar Publishing, Calgary, Canada, 1998.
Kosachev, I. P., Romanova, U. G. and Romanov, G. V., in Conference on Oil in Granite, Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia, 17–19 December 1997, Polar Publishing, Calgary, Canada 1998, paper no. 23.
Hunt, C. Warren, Expanding Geo-
spheres: Energy and Mass Transfers from Earth’s Interior. Polar Publishing, Calgary, Canada, 1992.

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

SAMAR ABBAS

Department of Physics,

Utkal University,

Bhubaneswar 751 004, India
 
Its not a matter of running out of oil, its a matter of demand outstripping production, oil is being produced right now below our feet be it geologically or biologically, but their is no way it being produced as fast as we are using it nor is their no way we can mine it as exponentially as we demand it. All the easy sources of oil are being used up, what left is not really oil but tar, that is far more expensive to exract and processes into the fuels then we use now using conventional oil, In short peak oil is the end of cheap oil as production becomes more expensive and demand outstrips supply, peak oil is not the end of oil.
 
And that is again with out any new finds, or any advances in technology to exploit those finds.

Well, since currently the growth of demand is FASTER than the growth of new discoveries (it is actually negative growth), we have to assume that unless anything else changes, we going to run out in LESS than 43 years.
 
Its not a matter of running out of oil, its a matter of demand outstripping production, oil is being produced right now below our feet be it geologically or biologically, but their is no way it being produced as fast as we are using it nor is their no way we can mine it as exponentially as we demand it. All the easy sources of oil are being used up, what left is not really oil but tar, that is far more expensive to exract and processes into the fuels then we use now using conventional oil, In short peak oil is the end of cheap oil as production becomes more expensive and demand outstrips supply, peak oil is not the end of oil.

But with prices up, so is exploration, and the block to capacity with be over come, because if it isn't the economies will go into recession.

Now if it isn't and we go into full depression, there will not even be money available for research into alternative fuels, sustainable or otherwise.
 
Well, since currently the growth of demand is FASTER than the growth of new discoveries (it is actually negative growth), we have to assume that unless anything else changes, we going to run out in LESS than 43 years.

No, demand is greater than capacity, you have a major block in you logic in that you look at each find as a individual finite point, and it doesn't work that way.

The problem is still in the capacity to exploit those finds after they are located, and refine that crude oil into usable fuels.

As of today their are 128 listed sights for exploration, and development, on the E&P report, and 62 of those site have proven commercial potential and are awaiting exploitation.

That is on top of the other 77 site identified for comersial production since 2000.

No please provide hard numbers to show exactly that growth of demand is Rising FASTER than the growth of new discoveries.
 
Anyway, if you add the numbers in post #86 (reserves by country) you get about 1220 billion barrels as world reserve. The annual usage is about 28.5 (earlier I was counting with 30, close enough) so divide 1220 by 28.5 and you get what you wanted...

P.S.: about 43 years...

The big question is...how many of those 43 years will oil be affordable.
 
No, demand is greater than capacity,

In the freemarkets with commodities, when price can fluctuate, demand always equals capacity. If there is extra demand, the price increases and this kills the extra demand and the equilibrium, the balance returns.

No please provide hard numbers to show exactly that growth of demand is Rising FASTER than the growth of new discoveries.

That is easy. Discoveries PEAKED 40 years ago but demand kept growing. Look up the numbers. :D

Actually, the speed of growth of demand only passed a few years ago the speed of discoveries. Meaning that the demand started to grow faster than the new discoveries, thus relative we started a deficit...
 
In the freemarkets with commodities, when price can fluctuate, demand always equals capacity. If there is extra demand, the price increases and this kills the extra demand and the equilibrium, the balance returns.

NO in a free market, when capacity is decreased prices go up, which then generates expansion of capacity, which then leaded to more production to meet demand, and ad demand is met, the price goes down because demand is met, and to continue selling that new capacity the price goes down due to competition, technology finding cheaper way of producing that product.

Look at personnel computers, when they where first introduced they where beyond the income of most people, let along the needed education to make them work, remember FORTRAN, COBAL, BASIC, and the myriad of other languages need to operate each system.

In the early '70s (72, 73 or thereabouts) Texas Instruments introduced there first microprocessor calculators. As I recall, they did not do much more than basic math functions and they were not cheap $125.00. I stuck with my reliable 'Picket' aluminum slide rule!

Today I can buy a TI 503sv Calculator Handheld Basic, for $4.80, or a top of the line TI voy200 Calculator Graphing w/QWERTY Keyboard, and it's price is already dropping from $250.00 to $191.15, and that calculator make my first TI look like chalk on a side walk.




That is easy. Discoveries PEAKED 40 years ago but demand kept growing. Look up the numbers. :D

Actually, the speed of growth of demand only passed a few years ago the speed of discoveries. Meaning that the demand started to grow faster than the new discoveries, thus relative we started a deficit...

I have and I don't see the validity of the numbers, what are they based on, somebody's WAG.

And again, it is capacity of production that is the problem right now because of stupid energy policies form the last 30 plus years, and the demand that you keep bringing up that we have to force our selves off oil, by cutting supples to force the development of your mythical sustainable/renewable energy utopia.
 
A free market does not change geography (personal computers are not a finite resource) If you have only one barrel of oil and two people want to buy it, not matter how much money they give you, you can't make two barrels of oil, someone going to get shafted!

What free marked does eventually is find an alternative to the barrel of oil (made a substitute, and artificial second barrel), this is assuming the market still exists despite the rapid loss of energy to power it.

It not mythical either, for example when France was pushed on the issue they switched to nuclear power (having long depleted their own energy resources and seeing the coming problems with oil) now they have on average cheapest electric bills in Europe.
 
A free market does not change geography (personal computers are not a finite resource) If you have only one barrel of oil and two people want to buy it, not matter how much money they give you, you can't make two barrels of oil, someone going to get shafted!

But we aren't talking about one barrel of oil, and the only way to prove that we are going to run out of oil, is for it to run out.

That don't seem to be happening yet, wether, abiotic or biotic the earth is still producing oil, the material for biotic oil is being layed down every year, if that is how it is made, swamps from the cretaciouc period to today are sublimated in to the crust of the earth, by the action of flooding and tectonic plate action, it has been going on for million of years and is still going on, it has never stopped, and it never will, or if it abiotic, the materials are still their and still producing, a shown by the fact that old fields refill.

What free marked does eventually is find an alternative to the barrel of oil (made a substitute, and artificial second barrel), this is assuming the market still exists despite the rapid loss of energy to power it.

Or the free market goes out and locates new sources, as the rising price make it more economical to go and get that oil, as it is doing now.

And again you hang your hat on technology to save us from your gloom and doom future, well technology can also find new sources and enhance the exploitation of old sources.

With the new exploration technology, there has been 77 new sources of oil identified and brought into production since 2000, and from the eE7P reports there are 128 new site that have been identified, and 62 of those site are know to have commercial value, so right now it is the capacity to exploit those finds that is lagging behind, because of over 4 decades of short sighted energy policies around the world, not a shortage of oil to drill for.

It not mythical either, for example when France was pushed on the issue they switched to nuclear power (having long depleted their own energy resources and seeing the coming problems with oil) now they have on average cheapest electric bills in Europe.

But France's economy is still based on petroleum, and coal, yes Nuclear is a part of the solution, but, oil is still the fuel of all economies around the world.
 
Buffalo Roam,

Again you miss understand the situation, oil may be constantly produced naturally but we are demanding it at thousand of times the rate of its production. Most of all the energetic cost of mining approaches or exceeds net energy, if it cost 2 barrels to mine one, your never going to mine it, Like wise the energy expenditure to mine shale and tar sands is dangerously high.

Another problem is the free market does not care about indirect consequences, mining shale and tar sands is only worse for the environment then conventional oil, let alone far more expensive.

The new sources of oil are not nearly as easy to mine as conventional oil, are not nearly as scalable or as cheap to mine, in many cases teh technology is still theoretical, if oil peaks and falls rapidly their won't be a free market left to get up the infrastructure to extract unconventional oil at a insignificant rate.

Oil is primarily critical to transport, free market might just find electrifier transport cheaper eventually. Free market might just find biomass cheaper for plastics and ammonia, and the free market might just fined renewable and grid energy storage cheaper.
 
NO in a free market, when capacity is decreased prices go up, which then generates expansion of capacity, which then leaded to more production to meet demand, and ad demand is met, the price goes down because demand is met, and to continue selling that new capacity the price goes down due to competition, technology finding cheaper way of producing that product.

So far we agree. Except when you encounter a finite commodity, then unless there is a substitute, price can go up very,very high.

Look at personnel computers,

I understood it first, and computers are not finite commodities, neither wheat or pigs. On the other hand gold and uranium are...

And again, it is capacity of production that is the problem right now

Again, we agree here, except we disagree on what the ultimate reason for the capacity problem. True. in short term it is the limited refineries and not drilling in certain areas. But in the long term even that won't help because those areas will run out of oil too. Theyonly provide temporary solutions...
 
But we aren't talking about one barrel of oil, and the only way to prove that we are going to run out of oil, is for it to run out.

Of course not true. it is like saying the only way to prove the existence of a black hole is to go there and being sucked by it.

The very easy logical proof is that once you have a glass of beer, no matter how slow you are drinking it, you will eventually finish it as long as you are keep drinking...


But France's economy is still based on petroleum, and coal, yes Nuclear is a part of the solution, but, oil is still the fuel of all economies around the world.

Or not:

--France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
--France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
 
Of course not true. it is like saying the only way to prove the existence of a black hole is to go there and being sucked by it.

The very easy logical proof is that once you have a glass of beer, no matter how slow you are drinking it, you will eventually finish it as long as you are keep drinking...

But you forget the barrel in the cooler, or the brewery down the road, the earth is the same, 77 new commercially viable finds since 2000, and 62 new identified on the E&P latest report.

Or not:

--France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
--France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

But Frances economy is still based on petroleum, nuclear is a help, but France still runs on petroleum for it's economy.
 
Buffalo Roam,

1.Again you miss understand the situation, oil may be constantly produced naturally but we are demanding it at thousand of times the rate of its production.

2.Most of all the energetic cost of mining approaches or exceeds net energy, if it cost 2 barrels to mine one, your never going to mine it, Like wise the energy expenditure to mine shale and tar sands is dangerously high.

1. And again you just admit that it is a capacity problem not a lack of oil in the earth.

2. Now just prove that it cost 2 barrels to drill for one, what the hell are you smoking?


Another problem is the free market does not care about indirect consequences, mining shale and tar sands is only worse for the environment then conventional oil, let alone far more expensive.

Again, what are you smoking, the free market does have a care about the indirect consequences, as it add to the cost of doing business.

If anyone doesn't care about indirect consequences and direct consequences, it is people like you who are will to trash the economy in the name of the environmental, as if that is the Indulgence issued for the forgiveness of stupidity.


The new sources of oil are not nearly as easy to mine as conventional oil, are not nearly as scalable? or as cheap to mine, in many cases teh technology is still theoretical, if oil peaks and falls rapidly their won't be a free market left to get up the infrastructure to extract unconventional oil at a insignificant rate.

Yes, mine oil, you don't't even know the proper terminology, you drill for oil, not mine it, and oil today is even more saleable.

And if the economy crash's there won't be any money for infrastructure for alternative sources either, or for developing the alternative resource in the first place, the economy has to remain viable for any eventuality.

Oil is primarily critical to transport, free market might just find electrifier? transport cheaper eventually. Free market might just find biomass? cheaper for plastics and ammonia, and the free market might just fined renewable and grid energy storage cheaper.


Now just prove that, and use a spell checker or lay of the drugs when you post.

Just might find electrification cheaper? have you checked the price of a electric car, plus the cost of maintenance? and the load capability of a electric vehicle?

Petroleum is still the most efficient fuel for transportation, from personnel vehicles to the Heavy Transportation Industry.

In the future;

Free market might just find biomass cheaper for plastics and ammonia, and the free market might just fined renewable and grid energy storage cheaper.

But not today, or anytime soon, and we have to have a viable economy for today to reach the future.
 
No need to use ad hominems. My spelling or terminology does not make my opinions wrong. You lack understand of how to construct a logical argument.

Look up "net energy" if you can't understand the concept.
It the reason why their is a fundamental limit to how much of an energy resource can be utilized.

The free market now does not care about cities being under the ocean in 2-3 centuries, that is a indirect consequence that the free market of today could give a dam about. Explain why the free marked should look more then one generation down?

We won't have a viable future in the near term if oil keeps going the way it is now. At which point alternatives will become economically viable as the price of petroleum exceeds the price of implementing and using alternatives, this is what you call free market.
 
But you forget the barrel in the cooler,

Not very good at understanding analogies, I see...Anyway:

77 new commercially viable finds since 2000, and 62 new identified

These numbers themselves are meaningless without knowing:

1. How much is the recoverable amount of oil?
2. How much is the extra demand + loss from old fields by the time these fields come online?

If #2 is bigger than #1, we have a deficit...
 
Back
Top