Why We'll Never Run Out of Oil

Science and Technology
1

Everything has a beginning and an ending.

With all the hype and political angles being used today. One should review the history of the facts and see how they withstand the human political needs over time.

Discover magazine. Curtis Rist - Why We’ll Never Run Out of Oil

“That will effectively put a ceiling on the price that anyone can charge for a barrel of oil — which is something that has never existed in history,” says Anderson. “The moment anyone tries to charge above that amount, people will switch to fuels derived from natural gas.”

By most estimates, there’s enough natural gas to produce about 1.6 trillion barrels of oil. Most of that gas probably will not be converted to oil. Still, the figure offers a hint at the extent of the world’s reserves: more than all the petroleum ever consumed — roughly 830 billion barrels — and enough to fuel the world for some 60 years at current rates of consumption. And there may be far more. John Edwards, a former Shell geologist and now an adjunct geology professor at the University of Colorado, believes that underwater deposits of another form of natural gas could raise the total to 5 trillion barrels.

Geochemist Says Oil Fields May Be Refilled Naturally

The New York Times - COULD it be that many of the world’s oil fields are refilling themselves at nearly the same rate they are being drained by an energy-hungry world?

AI Overview - According to available information, petroleum oil reservoirs only represent a small percentage of total underground deposits, with estimates suggesting that only around 10% of generated petroleum is actually trapped and preserved in reservoirs, meaning the vast majority remains underground and is not readily accessible.

This is logical. Oil is pumped from underground pockets called reservoirs. We have 47 to 60 years of oil left in the reserves. As oil is removed from the reservoirs. Oil from the deposits slowly moves into the reservoirs.

That is why we are now using fracking. To get to some of that 90% unpumpable oil that is not in the reservoirs, but in the deposits, moving a lot faster into the reservoirs.

What does the private oil industry say the facts are?

Rextag Comprehensive Energy Data Intelligence – Accurate & Up-To-Date Energy Infrastructure Intelligence. The Rextag Energy Mapping Data product is the largest and most complete database on energy.

Current Usage: Enough to last 227 years at the current rate of consumption.

Gasoline Production: This could fuel the transportation sector for 539 years if solely used for gasoline based on 2023 usage levels.

Supply Longevity: At the current rate, there’s enough natural gas for the next 130 years.

Potential Increase: If just half of the in-place natural gas resources become recoverable, the U.S. could have over 1,000 years’ supply at 2022 consumption rates.

We can lower our usage by electing leadership that will keep us out of wars.

Key points about US military oil usage:

Significant volume: The US military is considered the world’s largest consumer of oil.

Dominant government user: The Department of Defense accounts for the majority of the US federal government’s energy consumption.

Impact on climate change: Due to its large fuel usage, the military is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

It would help if we changed bad leadership. NPR - The U.S. made a breakthrough battery discovery — then gave the technology to China

AI Overview - Nuclear batteries could be a promising technology for the future, with the potential to revolutionize energy storage and utilization. They could help to reduce the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and address the challenges of climate change and poverty.

Reliable - They can provide a steady, dependable source of carbon-free electricity and heat.

Compact - Nuclear batteries can be placed where their output is needed, reducing the need for expensive energy transmission and storage infrastructure.

Safe - Betavoltaic batteries are relatively safe because the electrons they emit are less damaging to living tissue than other types of radiation.

My viewpoint follows the atomic battery technology of the last decade. Getting very close to breakthroughs in implementing the technology of larger atomic batteries. Batteries are not a very descriptive word of the technology. Electric generator is better.

Industrial funds are beginning to advance, and contracts are being signed. Getting close to having a new player in the energy field.

1 Like
2

Running out of oil is all about the odds. Global reserves and the ability of future technologies to get every drop are unknowns.
Of course, the elephant in the womb (oops, different topic) … in the room is climate change.
Without extreme engineering breakthroughs we obviously can’t keep burning fossil fuels. That shouldn’t be up for debate.
I too am an advocate of nuclear energy. NASA has been using nuclear batteries (RPS) for years. Small nuclear reactor (SMRs) developments are in the works and NRC has approved at least one last I checked.
But then there is the problem of nuclear waste and nuclear armament. Sure wish we still had an agreement that allowed us to monitor Iran’s developments.
And solar should never be ignored. Increased efficiency of solar cells and constantly improving battery technologies is promising.
Running out, or not, we have to reduce as much as possible our carbon footprint.,

3

These statistics seem false to me. I suggest checking out the exponential function reflecting a ready growth of world population and use of combustion engines.

I agree!!!

The problem with using sequestered fossil fuels is the reintroduction of carbon back into the atmosphere in addition to the naturally occurring CO2 emissions.

As I mentioned before, in the next 70 years we shall be using more fossil fuels than the total amount of oil in the previous 300 years since the industrial revolution.

Any number that totals 100+ years is false. It is based on “current” levels of use, without accounting for population growth.

Mike. There is no unlimited supply of fossil fuels. If we continue using fossil fuels, there will come an end to the available supply. This is not debatable.

4

The exponential function used was from 1995 to 2020. If memory is correct it was projected at 110M and today we are at 103M.

5

W4U says we have 40 years to transition and as long as we do so within 40 years (not 10 or 20 or 30) it will be ok. Pack the worries away

6

You have made misdirection and misquoting into an art haven’t you?

I never said anything about packing worries away! I said, we better have transitioned before that deadline of 40 years is reached or the world will run out of fossil oil altogether. It is addressing the availability of oil for transitioning, not the prediction of when we might become extinct if we don’t transition.

So far, Big Oil has hardly done anything to curb the use of fossil oil at all.
Throw your excrement at their doorstep. I am just an observer, no more, no less.

1 Like
7

Not before 10 or 20 or 30 years???

8

No, the maths predict ~39 yrs if used at current rates and a lot of that will have to be spent on transitioning infrastructure.
OTOH, if consumption increases the “end of oil” may come sooner, but the tragic effects of AGW will also be exacerbated by the release of CO2 in excess of “current rate”.

The idea is to transition with minimal impact, a balanced approach.
Avoiding transition is not an option.

9

110m what? Barrels p/day?

Nevertheless, today’s calculations are based on “current rate” of consumption.
That is why I quoted ~40 yrs instead of ~39 yrs… :money_mouth_face:

If it is lower usage of oil it is due to more efficient combustion engines and replacement with EV.
Several cities are switching to E-busing. It’s clean and quiet.

As I said, the transition is under way, albeit with opposition from the Trump and Republicans who pay AGW no mind as they sit in their air conditioned palaces.

10

So when someone says we must transition within 10 years you say no

11

This is where I tippy toe in to say, pssst, I think this is missing the forest for the trees

Mind v. physical reality and all that.
None of that seems to be taking into account what we are actually witnessing.
What when business as usually (and what we base our projections on) becomes an increasingly distant memory?

12

What does science show on AGW? A politician will follow the polls. Trump is not a politician.

Winds move CO2 evenly around the earth. The heat is higher in the northern hemisphere where the populations are.

So, Anthropogenic global warming: The human-caused warming of the Earth’s atmosphere. AGW occurs when greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are released into the atmosphere, trapping heat and causing the planet’s temperature to rise. Some of the leading causes of AGW include burning fossil fuels, deforestation, livestock farming, and agricultural practices.

Point being, this is not happening.

Thus, it is not CO2. What we are seeing is Urban Heating. Proven by the fact we do not see that same heating in the southern hemisphere where the CO2 levels are the same.

Are people part of nature?

AI Overview - Yes, according to most scientific and ecological perspectives, people are considered part of nature; as living organisms that have evolved within the natural world, humans are inherently interconnected with and dependent on their environment, making them a component of the larger ecosystem.

13

Yes, and we are an invasive species that displaces entire native populations, thereby exerting undue stress on the places humans inhabit and creating environmental imbalances due to our contribution of toxic industrial bi-products and waste.

To the earth, humans are a surface nuisance, to be shrugged off like fleas. (George Carlin)

14

So why do people back administrations that cause catastrophic climate change? Example, Nord Stream explosion.

15

It’s unavoidable! The world seems to need whatever we can pump out of that limited reservoir. I would say that priority should be given to the most energy efficient industries available and the savings used to transfer from fossil fuel and combustion engines, to clean, renewable energy sources already being tested, albeit against the opposition of “invested organizations.”

But the application of this goal is subject to many technical obstacles in replacing worldwide industry, manufacturing, transport networks with other, different renewable energy utility systems

16

They are saving the planet by blowing up gas pipelines, with the largest ever single release of carbon caused by man. Such wonderful dedication in fighting climate change

17

Because they believe:

Where did you get this thing about the northern hemisphere being warmer?

Okay, googled that.

Typical Mike; hears a fact and makes up an explanation. It was shown in 1870, not “urban” back then. Seems to be more and ocean currents.

18

Here is an example of an ignorant person yet again ignoring experts.
Don’t be that guy!

19

W4u ran a million miles away from my question to him on a 10 year transition :joy::rofl:

20

You never even offered any viable solution.

Just stating an arbitrary deadline does nothing to address the problem of transitioning from oil. You’re just groping without understanding the implications of weaning the world’s economy from reliance on fossil fuels and combustion engines that pollute the atmosphere with CO2 from all combustibles.

What is required is a new paradigm altogether. And you do not have any answers.

1 Like