How much Oil do we have left?

I googled this question and was directed to www.opec.org which provided the following statistics:

1,204,182 million barrels in reserves (2006)
www.opec.org...

84.7 million barrels per day in demand (2007)
www.opec.org...

A little maths gives us 38 years left at those levels.

I wondered whether or not these figures are accurate and if anyone had any thoughts on the adaptation of humanity to a world without oil. No cars, I know that we're building vehicles with new power sources, but they're not the same. No planes, ships, locomotives, how will we transport goods? A finite global amount of plastic and a huge hole in our energy grid.

This document www.energybulletin.net... speaks of using tar and others to prolong our oil reliant ways. (note their prices - if only!)

With the growth of China and India and the world's ever increasing consumption of oil, the lack of both practical solutions and willingness of the people to change, I wonder how long we really do have left, and whether or not we will come through the transition in good shape.

Any thoughts?

[edit on 1-9-2008 by Sendran]

Looks like we have to get off it. Might spare the environment as well, as long as we don't go to coal.

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery. Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.

www.usgs.gov...

reply to post by crimvelvet


Thanks for the post.

Didn't see a reference to the figures you quoted on the site you gave.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Sendran]

One thing I would caution is not to make general assumption based on simple data of oil in the world. You see 2/3 of the world is covered by water, yet we still have deserts and drought stricken land. Why? And why do we have to pay for water when it falls out of the sky for free?

It's not just a matter of how much oil is in the ground. You have to look at what the quality of the oil is, how easy it is to get to, and how hard it is to transport it to it's useful destination.

Thanks for the post.

2 things. What has oil location got to do with global weather systems? And water costs because of the hardware and maintenance for it to come out of your tap. Want free water? We could collect it and process it ourselves, no law says we can't. We pay for convenience, not the water.

So how long do you think we have left?

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Sendran]

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Sendran]

I orginally got the info on US oil from another group finance.groups.yahoo.com...

reply to post by Sendran

And water costs because of the hardware and maintenance for it to come out of your tap. Want free water? We could collect it and process it ourselves, no law says we can't. We pay for convenience, not the water.

WRONG. The newest Government craze is to come in and stick a meter on your well. The one you paid to have drilled.







Sorry for the hijack but people need to know water is no longer "free" but controlled by the government in many areas. This includes rain water collected of roofs.

reply to post by Sendran

What I'm saying is that just because you have a lot of something doesn't mean you have the ability to use it all or to get it where and when you want it.

Ah, I see now.

Do you have a theory on how long we do have left?

I think we have 10 years or less of life as you currently know it. Hopefully in that time we'll have an alternative. As for exact predictions, try reading this.


www.theoildrum.com...

reply to post by Sendran


we have left the same amount op petrol we used since we started the Industrial age. The problem is that the less we have , the harder it gets to be extracted . For example, 20 years ago it would take 1 liter of petrol to extract 20 of them. Now , in average we need one liter of petrol to extract 10 . canada sands would require 2 liters of petrol (worth of energy) in order to extract one . About the US reserves? I hope they are not difficult to be extracted then !

however, once extracted , the petrol game is not over - the Caspian sea also promissed a lot, however the quality of the petrol was very poor as the percentage of sulfur or other chemicals is so high that you need to spend loads of money to clear that out...

[edit on 2-9-2008 by sty]

Not long at all 10 years. The world will stop, could we introduce new technologies to replace oil based ones in that time?

reply to post by crimvelvet


Not in the UK they don't, unless you have a new build or request one.

reply to post by sty


Thanks for the post and the info.

If we could calculate the total mass of all the living things there has ever been, then using our understanding of oil location and formation, could we work out a definite amount of oil on the planet, and subsequently a cut off date based on consumption?

Surely someone could do this with some degree of accuracy. We can work out how far in dollar bills Bill Gate's money would strecth out into space...

reply to post by Sendran

Quite possibly, but it will be painful. What's often misunderstood about Peak Oil is that it doesn't mean you wake up one morning and run out of oil. What it does mean is that we've reached the limit of the amount we can get out of the ground each day. The problem with this is that in the mean time, there are more and more people wanting to drive cars, and have electricity, etc.

What will most likely happen is that the price of oil will steadily get higher and higher. At first it will just mean that you can't have as many new clothes or go out to eat as often. Eventually however, you find that you can't afford bigger cars, or vacations.

The worst case scenario is that countries will realize that the world is below the half-tank mark and start wars to gain control of resources. The Iraq invasion is probably just this very thing. Funny thing that we found the terrorist right in the middle of where all the oil is isn't it?

reply to post by Sendran


Nuclear power would certainly help. It could be brought on line a lot faster than people think if it is expedited instead of NIMBYed. Senator Kennedy NIMBYed off shore windmills because they would ruin the view and devalue his property. Unfortunately the powerful/rich own the shorelines so off shore windmills are a tough sell.

You could probably get smaller wind/water power generation brought on board for farms if zoning will allow it. I want to investigate grants for that for a group of farmers in my area. A grant type deal where several small or a couple large wind generators are put in for "free" in return for generating excess power for the grid might go over very well. I would certainly allow extra windmills to go in on my property if I got to keep a portion of the power generated. I rather generate power this way instead of using food for biofuel.

If anyone has any info on grants of this type please let me know. I got tapped to make a report on it to the group of farmers this winter.

Ah, right. I think I started this thread in the wrong place. I understand the Peak Oil crisis and it's mechanics, I was thinking more about the end of the crisis and more towards the too late part.

Apologies.

reply to post by Sendran

My straightforward opinion. Ever hear of Armageddon? Ever wonder why all the armies of the world would gather in the Middle East and fight? I think one of the main reasons is oil.

So there you go, but then that's my 2 cents.

Would it really be worth while going to war for the reamaining oil. After all you would have to use oil for your armies, if you lost then you would actually end up worse of.

If it came to it then it would be Russia and China that would probaly end up owning it.

I think that we should do away with oil and head toward more wind farms or hydroelectric farms. However would we be able to generate enough power for the current demand.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Mach Shadows]

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Mach Shadows]