RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Ahmed reports: "A former British Petroleum (BP) geologist has warned that the age of cheap oil is long gone, bringing with it the danger of 'continuous recession' and increased risk of conflict and hunger."

File photo, gas station. (photo: Getty Images)
File photo, gas station. (photo: Getty Images)


Former BP Geologist: Peak Oil Is Here and It Will 'Break Economies'

By Nafeez Ahmed, Guardian UK

27 December 13

 

Industry expert warns of grim future of 'recession' driven 'resource wars' at University College London lecture

former British Petroleum (BP) geologist has warned that the age of cheap oil is long gone, bringing with it the danger of "continuous recession" and increased risk of conflict and hunger.

At a lecture on 'Geohazards' earlier this month as part of the postgraduate Natural Hazards for Insurers course at University College London (UCL), Dr. Richard G. Miller, who worked for BP from 1985 before retiring in 2008, said that official data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), US Energy Information Administration (EIA), International Monetary Fund (IMF), among other sources, showed that conventional oil had most likely peaked around 2008.

Dr. Miller critiqued the official industry line that global reserves will last 53 years at current rates of consumption, pointing out that "peaking is the result of declining production rates, not declining reserves." Despite new discoveries and increasing reliance on unconventional oil and gas, 37 countries are already post-peak, and global oil production is declining at about 4.1% per year, or 3.5 million barrels a day (b/d) per year:

"We need new production equal to a new Saudi Arabia every 3 to 4 years to maintain and grow supply... New discoveries have not matched consumption since 1986. We are drawing down on our reserves, even though reserves are apparently climbing every year. Reserves are growing due to better technology in old fields, raising the amount we can recover - but production is still falling at 4.1% p.a. [per annum]."

Dr. Miller, who prepared annual in-house projections of future oil supply for BP from 2000 to 2007, refers to this as the "ATM problem" - "more money, but still limited daily withdrawals." As a consequence: "Production of conventional liquid oil has been flat since 2008. Growth in liquid supply since then has been largely of natural gas liquids [NGL]- ethane, propane, butane, pentane - and oil-sand bitumen."

Dr. Miller is co-editor of a special edition of the prestigious journal, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, published this month on the future of oil supply. In an introductory paper co-authored with Dr. Steve R. Sorrel, co-director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex in Brighton, they argue that among oil industry experts "there is a growing consensus that the era of cheap oil has passed and that we are entering a new and very different phase." They endorse the conservative conclusions of an extensive earlier study by the government-funded UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC):

"... a sustained decline in global conventional production appears probable before 2030 and there is significant risk of this beginning before 2020... on current evidence the inclusion of tight oil [shale oil] resources appears unlikely to significantly affect this conclusion, partly because the resource base appears relatively modest."

In fact, increasing dependence on shale could worsen decline rates in the long run:

"Greater reliance upon tight oil resources produced using hydraulic fracturing will exacerbate any rising trend in global average decline rates, since these wells have no plateau and decline extremely fast - for example, by 90% or more in the first 5 years."

Tar sands will fare similarly, they conclude, noting that "the Canadian oil sands will deliver only 5 mb per day by 2030, which represents less than 6% of the IEA projection of all-liquids production by that date."

Despite the cautious projection of global peak oil "before 2020", they also point out that:

"Crude oil production grew at approximately 1.5% per year between 1995 and 2005, but then plateaued with more recent increases in liquids supply largely deriving from NGLs, oil sands and tight oil. These trends are expected to continue... Crude oil production is heavily concentrated in a small number of countries and a small number of giant fields, with approximately 100 fields producing one half of global supply, 25 producing one quarter and a single field (Ghawar in Saudi Arabia) producing approximately 7%. Most of these giant fields are relatively old, many are well past their peak of production, most of the rest seem likely to enter decline within the next decade or so and few new giant fields are expected to be found."

"The final peak is going to be decided by the price - how much can we afford to pay?", Dr. Miller told me in an interview about his work. "If we can afford to pay $150 per barrel, we could certainly produce more given a few years of lead time for new developments, but it would break economies again."

Miller argues that for all intents and purposes, peak oil has arrived as conditions are such that despite volatility, prices can never return to pre-2004 levels:

"The oil price has risen almost continuously since 2004 to date, starting at $30. There was a great spike to $150 and then a collapse in 2008/2009, but it has since climbed to $110 and held there. The price rise brought a lot of new exploration and development, but these new fields have not actually increased production by very much, due to the decline of older fields. This is compatible with the idea that we are pretty much at peak today. This recession is what peak feels like."

Although he is dismissive of shale oil and gas' capacity to prevent a peak and subsequent long decline in global oil production, Miller recognises that there is still some leeway that could bring significant, if temporary dividends for US economic growth - though only as "a relatively short-lived phenomenon":

"We're like a cage of lab rats that have eaten all the cornflakes and discovered that you can eat the cardboard packets too. Yes, we can, but... Tight oil may reach 5 or even 6 million b/d in the US, which will hugely help the US economy, along with shale gas. Shale resources, though, are inappropriate for more densely populated countries like the UK, because the industrialisation of the countryside affects far more people (with far less access to alternative natural space), and the economic benefits are spread more thinly across more people. Tight oil production in the US is likely to peak before 2020. There absolutely will not be enough tight oil production to replace the US' current 9 million b/d of imports."

In turn, by prolonging global economic recession, high oil prices may reduce demand. Peak demand in turn may maintain a longer undulating oil production plateau:

"We are probably in peak oil today, or at least in the foot-hills. Production could rise a little for a few years yet, but not sufficiently to bring the price down; alternatively, continuous recession in much of the world may keep demand essentially flat for years at the $110/bbl price we have today. But we can't grow the supply at average past rates of about 1.5% per year at today's prices."

The fundamental dependence of global economic growth on cheap oil supplies suggests that as we continue into the age of expensive oil and gas, without appropriate efforts to mitigate the impacts and transition to a new energy system, the world faces a future of economic and geopolitical turbulence:

"In the US, high oil prices correlate with recessions, although not all recessions correlate with high oil prices. It does not prove causation, but it is highly likely that when the US pays more than 4% of its GDP for oil, or more than 10% of GDP for primary energy, the economy declines as money is sucked into buying fuel instead of other goods and services... A shortage of oil will affect everything in the economy. I expect more famine, more drought, more resource wars and a steady inflation in the energy cost of all commodities."

According to another study in the Royal Society journal special edition by professor David J. Murphy of Northern Illinois University, an expert in the role of energy in economic growth, the energy return on investment (EROI) for global oil and gas production - the amount of energy produced compared to the amount of energy invested to get, deliver and use that energy - is roughly 15 and declining. For the US, EROI of oil and gas production is 11 and declining; and for unconventional oil and biofuels is largely less than 10. The problem is that as EROI decreases, energy prices increase. Thus, Murphy concludes:

"... the minimum oil price needed to increase the oil supply in the near term is at levels consistent with levels that have induced past economic recessions. From these points, I conclude that, as the EROI of the average barrel of oil declines, long-term economic growth will become harder to achieve and come at an increasingly higher financial, energetic and environmental cost."

Current EROI in the US, Miller said, is simply "not enough to support the US infrastructure, even if America was self-sufficient, without raising production even further than current consumption."

In their introduction to their collection of papers in the Royal Society journal, Miller and Sorrell point out that "most authors" in the special edition "accept that conventional oil resources are at an advanced stage of depletion and that liquid fuels will become more expensive and increasingly scarce." The shale revolution can provide only "short-term relief", but is otherwise "unlikely to make a significant difference in the longer term."

They call for a "coordinated response" to this challenge to mitigate the impact, including "far-reaching changes in global transport systems." While "climate-friendly solutions to 'peak oil' are available" they caution, these will be neither "easy" nor "quick", and imply a model of economic development that accepts lower levels of consumption and mobility.

In his interview with me, Richard Miller was particularly critical of the UK government's policies, including abandoning large-scale wind farm projects, the reduction of feed-in tariffs for renewable energy, and support for shale gas. "The government will do anything for the short-term economic bounce," he said, "but the consequence will be that the UK is tied more tightly to an oil-based future, and we will pay dearly for it."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+15 # Radscal 2013-12-27 16:25
The U.S. government completed a study of "peak oil" in 2005. They concluded it was inevitable within 20 years, and may have already occurred.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf
 
 
-45 # Penn 2013-12-28 02:51
Funny stuff decided on BEFORE they found the Bakken......... .....looks like the nay sayers just can't get anything right. From Global Cooling in the 70's to Global Warming in the 2000's back to Global Cooling again in the last few months.
 
 
+11 # Working Class 2013-12-28 11:22
Quoting Penn:
Funny stuff decided on BEFORE they found the Bakken..............looks like the nay sayers just can't get anything right. From Global Cooling in the 70's to Global Warming in the 2000's back to Global Cooling again in the last few months.

Quoting Penn:
Funny stuff decided on BEFORE they found the Bakken..............looks like the nay sayers just can't get anything right. From Global Cooling in the 70's to Global Warming in the 2000's back to Global Cooling again in the last few months.


Penn - The Bakken do provide a temporary spike in production, as do other tight oil production sources. However, it will be short lived when compared to the arch of time. If we put oil decline on a graph it is not a straight line, it has peaks and dips - but the long term trend is down. This is true no mater how many new Bakkens are found. The fact is we are not making any new oil, only finding a producing what exists. Logic should tell anyone of average intellect that we must run out at some point. I have worked in and with the oil industry since 1973. Those at the levers of control in the industry know the truth, but their charter is to increase profit in the short term. They don't care about climate or anything else unless it make them money. By the way it is called "Climate Change" not cooling or warming. The industry has hired the same PR firms to undermine science that Big Tabaco used to fight cigarettes causing cancer.
 
 
+7 # Failed Republican 2013-12-28 17:42
About halfway through my career with a major oil company a strategy was developed to PRESERVE U.S. resources. Cheap foreign oil was available at that time and the strategy then was to use up foreign reserves and leave ours in the ground for the future, when crude oil would be much more valuable. Short-sighted politics has turned that strategy on its ear. Shale oil production will be troublesome as well as short-lived and we will be even MORE dependent on foreign oil in the not-too-distant future.
 
 
-10 # Malcolm 2013-12-28 21:18
"By the way it is called "Climate Change" not cooling or warming."

Of COURSE it is. That enables them to blame record cold on "climate change". It was too embarrassing to see all the record cold, snow, etc, and blame it on " global warming".
 
 
+34 # Billy Bob 2013-12-27 16:47
It's too late for "bridge" fuels (as if they weren't a hoax anyway).

The time is 30-years-ago, to take actual, meaningful, serious action.

We will not run out of wind and sun.

We also cannot afford to fix our water, air, and food supply from the poison of trying to make dirty fuels work, against all rational thought.
 
 
-46 # Penn 2013-12-28 02:52
Wind and Solar are totally failed industries. Until they can make a sale without government paying 50% they are a failed concept.
 
 
+31 # ericlipps 2013-12-28 06:23
Quoting Penn:
Wind and Solar are totally failed industries. Until they can make a sale without government paying 50% they are a failed concept.

Er . . . Penn, the oil industry has been a ward of the government for decades. Three words: "the Iraq war." Three more: "oil depletion allowance."
 
 
+1 # Malcolm 2013-12-28 21:23
Not so. Thanks to government subsidies stimulating their production, the prices for things like PV have fallen impressively. As fossil fuels go up in price (assuming they do ) some renewables will almost certainly reach parity with them.

I could be wrong, but haven't fossil fuels gotten their fair share of government subsidies over the years, including such things as government paying for oil wars?
 
 
+4 # NAVYVET 2013-12-29 20:50
I think readers are misunderstandin g Malcolm's viewpoint here. He should be getting thumbs up. I can surmise that, like most of us, he thinks Penn is very probably a paid shill of the Koch Brothers or some other of the tiny oligopoly that owns practically everything. I've worked for solar, wind, and (localized) water power since 1969, although was not always able to after Reagan destroyed renewable economics by kowtowing to the fossiliers. Along with methane & tidal bores where these abound, and a remote far-in-the-futu re possibility of "safe"? fusion, there's no other sane choice but renewables. Nuclear fission is plainly a killer, and don't count on some quick tech fix. Petroleum should be redirected & conserved for its thousands of other uses in medications, synthetics, etc.--not wasted on fueling SUVs, which in my opinion SUC.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2013-12-30 14:59
We'll said, navy vet.

Btw, I was a "shallow water boy" USCG, Damage Control, 50 years ago. Where'd the time go?
 
 
+3 # NAVYVET 2013-12-29 20:54
Travel to Denmark, Penn. Unless you're blind and deaf, you'll hear from citizens who are now paying nothing, or almost nothing, because wind/solar furnishes their winter house heat. You should come away with a different opinion--unless , of course, you ARE really blind and deaf. Or a paid troll, which is my opinion.
 
 
+31 # werker 2013-12-27 23:52
I work for Big Oil,one of my Blue Collar Brothers made 180,000 dollars this year with overtime. Imagine how much our CEO made. There should have always been more government involvement in the Energy industry. The whole game is corrupt to the core. The big fields were found long ago and its always been a game to keep supplies scarce seeming to maximize profits. It seems like bad news such as wars are always good for the Oil industry, sad!
 
 
-40 # Penn 2013-12-28 02:54
More government? For what? To stop people from earning a real wage? So you failed in the industry, so you think it is because of the product or you?
 
 
+10 # Working Class 2013-12-28 11:39
Quoting Penn:
More government? For what? To stop people from earning a real wage? So you failed in the industry, so you think it is because of the product or you?


Penn: Do you have to be such a "dick"? Where do you get that Werker "has failed in the industry"? Penn your negativity and tendency to attack anyone who you don't agree with is very sad and unproductive. A shrink would suggest it reflects someone who is insecure and not very confident/comfo rtable in their own skin.
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2013-12-28 21:26
Interesting. Sounds like you're describing Billy Bob, aka Mr. Ad Hominem!
 
 
+1 # NAVYVET 2013-12-29 20:56
To Working Class: That's for sure!
 
 
+4 # Majikman 2013-12-28 23:22
Ah poor little Penn. Bad night for TV cartoons?
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2013-12-29 00:38
Well said. I worked at an oil industry contractor in '79, '80. Every field I worked at was land run by the Bureau of Land Management, and the oil companies paid the government literally a few dollars for the right to suck OUR petroleum out of OUR land.
 
 
-9 # arlenhersh@yahoo.com 2013-12-28 00:15
Nah ... it's always more fun to assign some conspiratorial intent to global things like the production of oil, but in the end it's all market-driven. We will not run out of wind and sun. True. We also will not run out of natural gas for another century or more and, countries that have heretofore been importers of crude are now found to have large natural gas reserves. The sooner natural gas replaces coal and crude, the better. Meanwhile, we work on ways to hook cars up to windmills and private homes to solar panels.
 
 
+23 # Billy Bob 2013-12-28 00:51
It's not about what we'll run out of. We won't run out of wind and sun, so that's great. We can replace fossil fuels NOW.

We already know how to hook cars up to windmills. Here's how:

1. We have a power grid that's 100% solar and wind powered.
2. We phase out all non-electric cars.

DONE.

-------

Meanwhile, we CAN NOT AFFORD to continue using fossil fuels (not even filthy "clean" gas, or disgusting "clean" coal) for another hundred years. In fact, we can't afford to use it for another decade. The time has passed when we should have stopped using these dirty fuels.

What's at stake isn't just our economy. It's our human food supply. The human race cannot support anything NEAR our current population if our crops fail.

Expect billions to starve within the next 20 years.

This isn't a good time to put things off and be a smartass about it.
 
 
-2 # Glen 2013-12-28 08:54
Billy, the following is a partial list, should any care to pursue it, of products made from petroleum, and why so many folks waver in their support/non-sup port of ridding ourselves of oil altogether. Once again, it is a complicated issue.

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm
 
 
+3 # Glen 2013-12-28 09:45
Gotta love the minus points - as if I am suggesting flooding somebody's town with oil.

Being realistic, though, there are thousands of products made with oil. Thought must be given on how to replace them.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2013-12-29 00:50
I agree about the non-fuel uses of petroleum. On those grounds alone, it's foolish to be burning the stuff up.
 
 
+5 # Working Class 2013-12-28 11:27
Quoting Glen:
Billy, the following is a partial list, should any care to pursue it, of products made from petroleum, and why so many folks waver in their support/non-support of ridding ourselves of oil altogether. Once again, it is a complicated issue.

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm


Glen: You are correct - there are a lot better uses for petroleum than transportation or power production. All the more reason to push renewable green energy.
 
 
0 # Glen 2013-12-28 14:29
Point is, though, it will be necessary, when oil is depleted, to find a replacement in producing that amazing list of products with oil as a main component.

Energy is required to produce energy for electric cars, for instance. The manufacture of all those oil based products also utilize energy and are polluting.

In past eras, communities and individuals did use water and wind for producing energy and pulling water from underground. Nebraska had windmills everywhere that never stopped turning. Where I live, on a mid-size river, there were three dams that generated electricity. When bigger efforts at building electricity grids moved into areas, local production shut down.

It would appear the U.S. must break into smaller communities to produce their own electricity, which is possible, whether wind, water, or solar.

But now - what to do with oil and the products made from it.
 
 
+3 # NAVYVET 2013-12-29 21:01
Sensible comment. Why is it getting low ratings? READERS--Please read these comments before hitting the thumbs up or thumbs down button!
 
 
+3 # Vardoz 2013-12-28 10:24
There are also such things as Solar Towers, much more powerful and efficient then solar cells and can store energy. How about building a power plant over Old Faithful too. When can also make fuel out of Alge. There are so alternatives that have been found and crushed by the oil industry.
 
 
+1 # Working Class 2013-12-28 11:25
Billy Bob - finally something we agree on!
 
 
-3 # arlenhersh@yahoo.com 2013-12-28 12:12
["Billy Bob"]It's not about what we'll run out of. We won't run out of wind and sun, so that's great. We can replace fossil fuels NOW.

We already know how to hook cars up to windmills. Here's how:

1. We have a power grid that's 100% solar and wind powered.
2. We phase out all non-electric cars.

DONE.

-You can't possibly be serious! In the face of world wide energy consumption, replacing fossil fuels "NOW" is so patently absurd, from a real world standpoint, it's probably pointless to even respond. However,I'm open to how long this might take, how much money it might require and how many people, willing to abandon their 20th century life style might be necessary to effect this. Also, while we're thinking these things through, lets consider the footprint on the land (much of it agricultural)th at would be required to replace fossil fuels, "NOW".
 
 
+17 # Farafalla 2013-12-28 01:54
Yours is the theory of infinite substitutabilit y used here to negate the laws of thermodynamics. You are seriously misguided if you think the current industrial model is sustainable and that new sources of energy will always be found to feed the carbon burning system.
 
 
+2 # Vardoz 2013-12-28 10:21
One way or the other the oil industry will destroy mankind.
 
 
-1 # Malcolm 2013-12-28 21:28
Most of my commercial driving is done in a solar powered golf cart...
 
 
+1 # Malcolm 2013-12-30 15:05
Thumbs down? What kind of weird people are you? You don't like solar powered vehicles? SHEESH!
 
 
0 # NAVYVET 2013-12-29 20:58
Arlen, wake up out of LaLa Land! You are living in De Nial, and you'll drown there when a climate change flood comes rushing over you.
 
 
-13 # lnason@umassd.edu 2013-12-28 06:55
Miller is certainly correct in using "production" statistics rather than "reserve" statistics to determine the availability of fossil fuels. But after that his analysis seems flawed. Fracking and lateral drilling and deep water drilling techniques have made oil more abundant than it has ever been and has opened up vast new sources of oil and natural gas that were hitherto considered unreachable.

It is also false to claim that sunlight and wind are perpetual sources of energy. They are dependent on the sun and the sun is (slowly) consuming itself. Hopefully, by the time that happens we will be able to move out of this galaxy.

And it is simply crazy to suggest that electric cars address the energy problem. Electric cars merely move the fuel burning from individual autos and trucks to centrally located (mostly fossil fuel consuming) power plants. They simply do not address the problem.

Wind and solar, because they are intermittent sources of energy, cannot meet our needs. They are also not very environmentally friendly to wildlife and active solar is incredibly dirty due to the toxins that are required to build the panels. And they are very expensive which is a matter of life and death in the developing world.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+4 # Vardoz 2013-12-28 10:20
We are in the throws of irreversible climate change - Extinction is now on the table and the oceans are already bubbling up Methane- Wasn't there something in the Bible about the end of days when the oceans boil? Perhaps the bible is just a character study of humans self destructive traits? We are the creators of our own doom.
 
 
+1 # Malcolm 2013-12-28 22:17
"Wind and solar, because they are intermittent sources of energy, cannot meet our needs.

Solar's meeting my needs, and many others' needs AS WE SPEAK. We use the grid as our deaf to battery. We produce more juice than we can use when the sun shines, which spins our electric meters backwards. This covers most the cost of electricity we use at night.

To have PURE solar, or PURE wind power, yes. We will need energy storage. This is already available, utilizing POTENTIAL ENERGY in the form of stored water, same way (almost!) that hydroelectric dams store water:potential energy, which turns into electric energy when needed. It's hardly rocket science :)
 
 
+8 # guyachs 2013-12-28 09:43
Penn is obviously an industry shill and shouldn't be taken seriously but here's something that should be serious:
Koch Products & Companies Include:

- American Greetings (Kochs own minority share)
- Angel Soft bathroom tissue
- Angel Soft Ultra tissues
- Brawny paper towels
- Dixie cups (& napkins & plates)
- Insulair cups
- Mardis Gras napkins
- Perfect Touch (cups, paper products)
- Soft 'n Gentle bathroom tissue
- Sparkle paper towels
- Stainmaster
- Quilted Northern bathroom tissue
- Vanity Fair napkins & paper towels
- Zee Napkins
- Georgia Pacific products

Home/Office papers:
- Advantage
- Image Plus
- Spectrum
Other:
- Guardian Glass (Kochs own 44%)
- Stainmaster
- Lycra
- Teflon
Builing supplies:
- Georgia Pacific

- Holiday Companies
- Gander Mountain
 
 
+7 # Kootenay Coyote 2013-12-28 10:34
Also: Koch own/control more than 60% of the Alberta Tar Sands.
 
 
+3 # NAVYVET 2013-12-29 21:21
Thank you all! It's tough to get away from the oligopolies, but we need to keep such lists in our wallets to AVOID BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS, keep publicizing everything they own--and, most of all, live simpler! I rent, so I can't add solar, but I gave up my car 2 years ago after it reached age 23 (no more expenses there) and take public transit for a low cost, keep my thermostat sensible & practice other aspects of home conservation, buy most of what I must purchase at my food co-op & use up leftovers, get clothes, printer toner, appliances, etc. at a local or online thrift shop, my Unitarian Universalist church's public flea markets or church 50 cent book sales & rummage sales. For the rest I get raw materials and sew or build it--which is a lot more rewarding than buying something. Frugality doesn't have to be a forgotten art. It can be delightful fun--and it's thrilling to see what you've accomplished when it's done!
 
 
-3 # Sudhir Jatar 2013-12-28 09:52
More tight oil and oil sands production results in high price of crude oil. It is not a question of how long crude oil will last but how long can the world take expensive oil considering high oil prices impacts GDP and growth adversely.
The choice is our whether we want to have a real substitute for crude oil or we are going to tinker around with ethanol and batteries.
 
 
-2 # Sudhir Jatar 2013-12-28 09:52
More tight oil and oil sands production results in high price of crude oil. It is not a question of how long crude oil will last but how long can the world take expensive oil considering high oil prices impacts GDP and growth adversely.
The choice is our whether we want to have a real substitute for crude oil or we are going to tinker around with ethanol and batteries.
 
 
0 # Kootenay Coyote 2013-12-28 10:35
& see:
http://www.nationofchange.org/us-scientists-convert-algae-crude-oil-less-hour-1387812791
US Scientists Convert Algae to Crude Oil in Less Than an Hour
Tim Radford
EcoWatch / News Analysis
 
 
+5 # Vardoz 2013-12-28 10:14
supposedly were are now oil independent after they drilled the hell out of the Gulf. And then when we make more fuel efficient cars, the oil companies just raise the rate because it all has to do with their profit!!!! And they already have more money then God!
 
 
+2 # Malcolm 2013-12-28 22:20
Just FYI, the oil pigs have capped off many (most) the deepwater oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil's there, and will be available for use in polluting the gulf, and our air, but they're waiting until the price of oil goes up.
 
 
+4 # Working Class 2013-12-28 11:32
Quoting Vardoz:
supposedly were are now oil independent after they drilled the hell out of the Gulf. And then when we make more fuel efficient cars, the oil companies just raise the rate because it all has to do with their profit!!!! And they already have more money then God!

Yes and the US Oil Industry is exporting finished product at greater and greater amounts, at least in part to keep prices and profit high in the US.
 
 
+2 # Malcolm 2013-12-28 18:57
Like most of Homo sapiens's challenges, this peak oil issue is caused, yo a large extent, by too much demand on too few resources.

Like food and water resources, we continue to be playing Russian Roulette with the earth's fossil fuels. They're called by that name because they just don't make that shit anymore. Unless we're talking geologic time.
The only way to stop this tail-wagging-th e-dog seems to be by putting the brakes on population growth.

Needless to say, this is an emotionally charged issue, filled with challenges and eve outright denial that the problem exists.

The good news wish that the Earth's average growth rate has been falling for the last 50 years; hooray for that!

The bad news? The population is still growing.

The worst news? The military industrial bankster types are doing their best to reverse the trend towards smaller families. They seem to prefer total destruction of this garden of Eden we live in to having a shrinking number of mindless consumers.

It's gonna be hard times in at least the near future. But at least there are SOME positive changes occurring.
 
 
+1 # Malcolm 2013-12-28 18:58
Sorry about the typos :-P
 
 
+2 # Malcolm 2013-12-28 21:12
Re "In the US, high oil prices correlate with recessions, although not all recessions correlate with high oil prices. It does not prove causation, but it is highly likely that when the US pays more than 4% of its GDP for oil..."

Hey, do I have a novel idea! If the cost of oil rises above 4% of GDP, we could transfer some of the 5% of GDP WE spend on defense to energy production. Renewables come to mind. Boom! No recession!
 
 
+1 # Malcolm 2013-12-28 21:12
Re "In the US, high oil prices correlate with recessions, although not all recessions correlate with high oil prices. It does not prove causation, but it is highly likely that when the US pays more than 4% of its GDP for oil..."

Hey, do I have a novel idea! If the cost of oil rises above 4% of GDP, we could transfer some of the 5% of GDP WE spend on defense to energy production. Renewables come to mind. Boom! No recession!
 
 
+3 # The Voice of Reason 2013-12-29 08:53
This is complete bull crap. Cars are designed to waste fuel so the Oil Criminals and the crooked politicians they own can reap billions an hour profits, while we sit here with our pockets empty saying, 'can we give you some more ?'

Fuel-based economies should be illegal. It's that simple. People need mobility, we don't need a mobility tax of $20 for every 100 miles. But you guys just keep paying it like it's candy.
 
 
+1 # arlenhersh@yahoo.com 2013-12-29 10:31
Just when this conversation could not possibly get any dumber ...
 
 
+1 # NAVYVET 2013-12-29 21:29
Arlen: Do you mean you intend to add something dumber than your usual? Yaaaah!
 
 
0 # arlenhersh@yahoo.com 2013-12-31 10:16
I think I naively thought that there was going to be some discussion on how to get from fossil fuels to renewables, instead of we just have to do it NOW. Making fuel based economies illegal, isn't going to do it. It's clear that people make rash statements (passionate no doubt) without ever thinking through the real process. (cars are designed .... oil criminals ... etc. C'mon, we're supposed to be able to think things through, not just spout slogans and cliches.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN