Daniel Yergin's Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) disagrees. Its analysis finds that "the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels - three times as large as the (claimed) 1.2 trillion barrels by (peak oil) proponents." CERA argues further that peak oil reasoning is faulty and, "if accepted, (may) distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future." It states as well that the "global resource base of conventional and unconventional oils....is 4.82 trillion barrels and likely to grow" and bases its analysis on fields now in production and those "yet-to-be produced or discovered."
Its chairman, Daniel Yergin, noted that: "This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil. Each time....technology and the opening of new frontier areas has banished the specter of decline. There's no reason to think that technology is finished this time."
The Paris-based International Energy Agency (AIE) agrees. It's an energy policy advisor to its 27 member countries that was founded by the OECD in 1974 in the wake of that period's oil crisis. It believes peak oil notions are extreme, says there's "no shortage of available oil and gas in the ground," but new technologies must be found to curb "the world's thirst for them (and to) tap reserves" to increase production. AIE believes as much as 10 trillion barrels of "oil equivalent" conventional oil and gas exist and at least as much non-conventional oil.
In a 2005 report it stated that: "The hydrocarbon resources in place around the world are sufficiently abundant to sustain likely growth in the global energy system for the foreseeable future. The doomsayers are again conveying grim messages through (the media). The AIE has long maintained that none of this is cause for concern."
AIE considers all type oils - the easy to find and produce "light sweet" kind that's likely running out plus potentially huge untapped deposits of heavier oils that will become more important when it does. With this in mind, the Middle East doesn't have two-thirds of world oil reserves as many analysts, the industry, and US Department of Energy claim. It has two-thirds of "proved" cheap oil reserves.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) collects data on all type oils and estimates their amounts. For the year 2000, the US Department of Energy (DOE) and oil industry estimated remaining "proved" light sweet reserves at slightly over one trillion barrels. USGS, however, placed "identified" reserves at 1.1 trillion barrels and "recoverable" reserves at nearly 2.3 trillion or more than double the industry and DOE amounts. In addition, USGS estimates combined non-conventional heavy and tar sands deposits at around 4.250 trillion barrels with about 3.6 trillion of them in the two countries with most of them - Canada and Venezuela.
Other "unconventional" oil estimates differ widely, so take your choice on who to believe. Dutch economists Peter Odell and Kenneth Rosing had an earlier view in their 1980 book "The Future of Oil." They noted predictions of total world reserves ranged from two to 11 trillion barrels and said three trillion was "the more realistic figure" for conventional oil plus another two trillion from unconventional heavy oil and tar sands.
Petroleum Economist magazine calls itself "the authority on energy." It says tar (or oil) sands reserves are huge, they occur in over 70 countries, and Canada has most of them (around 81%) in four regions: Athabasca, Wabasca, Cold lake and Peace River in areas covering around 77,000 km. It estimates technically recoverable reserves at between 280 - 300 billion barrels with total non-recoverable (based on current technology) amounts at between 1.7 - 2.5 trillion barrels. Other than shale, USGS categorizes oil as light, heavy, extra-heavy and natural bitumen or tar/oil sands.
Some analysts believe oil sands can replace conventional oil when its supply runs out while others disagree. One of them is Richard Heinberg, who's written extensively on ecological and peak oil issues. He says that although estimated oil sands reserves equal or exceed all conventional oil extracted to date, processing them reduces their potential for reasons geologist Walter Youngquist explains: because "it takes the equivalent of two out of each three barrels of oil recovered to pay for all the energy and other costs involved in getting oil from the oil sands."
Then, there's the environmental cost. It takes two tons of sand mined to yield one barrel of oil, and extracting it requires huge amounts of natural gas and water. In addition, each barrel recovered yields 2.5 barrels of oily waste that must be disposed of. It's done by pumping it into huge ponds, and Heinberg describes a Syncrude Canada Ltd. one that's 14 miles in circumference in which 20 feet of murky water floats on a 130-foot-thick slurry of sand, silt, clay and unrecovered oil.
It's nightmarish and so environmentally destructive that northern Alberta residents want all oil sands plants shuttered because they've displaced native people, destroyed boreal forests, caused livestock deaths and increased the level of miscarriages. Moreover, Heinberg believes it would take about 700 plants the size of a Syncrude Athabasca one to process enough tar sands to replace conventional oil, and their environmental damage would be unimaginable and too great a cost to bear.
Another resource assessment comes from Petroleum Equities. It's a management consulting firm specializing in oil and gas exploration and production. It estimates combined heavy oil and tar sands worldwide reserves at around 5.4 trillion barrels with 80% of them in the western hemisphere.
For extra-heavy oil alone, the US Department of Energy (on its web site) estimates Venezuela has 1.36 trillion barrels, or 90% of the world total. That's more than all "proved" world reserves combined and in addition to Venezuela's "proved" light sweet resources of around 80 billion barrels that alone ranks it seventh in the world behind the five largest Middle East producers and Canada.
Potential Arctic Oil Reserves
On its web site (arcticoag.com), the Arctic Oil and Gas Corporation states it's "an oil exploration venture company that has filed for the exclusive exploitation, development, marketing and extraction rights to the oil and gas resources of the seafloor and subsurface contained within the 'Arctic Claims.' " It calls the Arctic "the last giant oil frontier on Earth (with its) vast reserves of untapped oil and natural gas (that will) become accessible (when) new deep-sea drilling and hydrocarbons production technology (is) available."
In addition, it states that a preliminary USGS assessment "suggests the Arctic seabed may hold as much as 25 per cent of the world's undiscovered oil and natural gas reserves (or around 400 billion barrels of oil alone.)" It further says that Arctic oil source rocks may contain "untold billions of tons of organic sediments" and calls the 80 million acre Arctic Ocean Commons Prospect Claim "the world's largest (potential) material prize."
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
There is ample information around the internet in agreement with Mr. Lendman's points. Abiotic deposits are a reality, deep drilling is happening in and by Russia, so we are living under a huge hoax by American based oil companies which is there only to stimulate high prices and profits.
Of course, we are destroying the eco-system of this planet with oil and gas. I wish we were running out of them, then we would see some real development of zero or negative carbon alternatives. And the huge "alternative" deposits of tar sands have a tremendous environmental cost what with the energy required to get them. Also, using corn for ethanol is analogous, what with the energy based fertilizers needed to grow it.
If I still had a sense of humor, I would think it amusing how grain commodity markets are being manipulated for speculators' benefits in the name of grain based energy. Much of the wheat acreage is not usable for corn. Remember the sugar crisis some 20 years ago? Why did seltzer water go up as well as Coke?
And so the same thing goes on with oil. Up goes the price, and we the people are the resource that gets sucked dry. One additional point that Mr. Lendman didn't mention. If I am not mistaken, oil reserve figures have some basis in financially viable extraction. Doesn't $100 oil result in higher reserve figures? I would appreciate some elucidation on that.
Capitalism is failing us.
Workers of the world......disperse !!
Stephen Maxam
by
Maxamov (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 12:43:32 PM
Stephen, this was a great article. As a futurist, I've followed the hypothesis of peak oil for about five years now. The Peakist extremists have given Peak Oil a cultist overtone by shouting that it's the end of the world as we know it. This extreme approach causes many people to reject the entire premise outright. There are some great discussions on Peak Oil at www.theoildrum.com and www.energybulletin.net by people with experience in petroleum geology and related fields that are quite enlightening. I would encourage readers to visit these sites for more information. Here are some additional bits of data that your readers might want to consider.
In spite of the fact that a small but vocal group of Russians believe in abiotic oil, abiotic oil remains an unproven theory. Although the Russians found oil in unlikely rock formations, it's not proof of abiotic oil There are biotic oil theories to explain why oil could migrate to those locations. Frankly, they are more plausible than oil forming miles underground and then migrating through many miles of non-porous rock. You can find an extensive discussion of abiotic oil at the Energy Bulletin website.
Also, among Peakists, David Yergin at CERA is considered to be a shill for the oil industry. For example, he misstates the premise of Peak Oil, as quoted in your article, as "running out of oil." Peakist claim that this is a deliberate misdirection of the reader. There will always be some oil underground. Peak Oil does not mean that the world is running out of oil. Peak Oil theory says that we will eventually reach a point where we cannot pump the oil out of the ground as fast as we are consuming it. Peak Oil is production/consumption problem, not a problem of running out of the resource itself.
Another point to consider is the overly optimistic forecasts that accompany each new oil discovery. For example, the Alberta oil sands reserves are huge, but the estimate for 2020 is for production of only 4mbd of oil. Today, the world consumes 85mbd. ANWR, the largest discovery in the US in the past 100 years, would produce only 1 mbd at maximum production. When I tell audiences this, they are amazed to discover that these highly touted discoveries are so small on a global consumption scale.
The Saudis reporting of their "reserves" should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Simply, for years they have been pumping oil out of the ground without a comparable decline in reserves or a comparable rise in new discoveries. Thus, their data is suspect.
The world is consuming 4 barrels of oil for each 1 barrel of newly discovered oil
Crude oil production peaked in 2005. In spite of prices more than doubling, production has not passed that peak. That's a very troubling sign.
Another common argument against Peak Oil is "there's a lot of undiscovered oil out there. We'll just find more." This is Pollyanna-ish for three reasons. 1) In spite of increased exploration methods, we haven't found significant (on a global consumption scale) new oil fields so far. 2) New discoveries are likely to be in locations where it will be very difficult to develop large scale production, such as the Artic, the deep oceans, and environmentally sensitive offshore areas. 3) The lag time between discovery and full-scale production is several years. Thus, in the unlikely event that the next super giant oil field is discovered tomorrow, it couldn't prevent a crisis if peak oil occurred in the next few years.
In short, peak oil shouldn't be discounted as a possible future scenario in the next few years. Again, thanks for the article. It increases awareness of peak oil, regardless of one's opinions for or against the theory.
by
Grady Cash (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 11:10:18 AM
3 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
