7 ms·

This comment is profoundly wrong. There are far more global oil reserves today than there were in 1980-- in the US alone known oil reserves have nearly DOUBLED

This comment is profoundly wrong. There are far more global oil reserves today than there were in 1980-- in the US alone known oil reserves have nearly DOUBLED. The reason is primarily new technology extending older fields and opening up deeper water sources of oil.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lazyasciiart 4y ago
Unless you are arguing that we are building known oil reserves faster than we are using oil, you are nitpicking details of the comment.
roenxi 4y ago
The price in real terms is much higher than it was in the 1950-2000 era (used to average ~$40/barrel, nowadays it is more like $80/barrel). If every time we double the real price we double reserves, then that just means we're running out. There'll be these huge things called "reserves" that aren't going to be useful to us. To draw an extreme analogy: We could say that Hong Kong has vast amounts of open real estate because someone could buy sea floor and dredge it up to the surface somehow with modern technology - in theory, yes that is so. In practice, it is not so. Hong Kong has not much free real estate, even though more can be made available at very high prices. There is always going to be oil available at some price - probably huge amounts in theory. It isn't going to be useful and nearly no-one will be able to use it. Certainly not to sustain what we would currently call a comfortable existence.
- specialist 4y ago
  Also, I had the impression that reported known reserves, which are treated as an asset?, have been inflated.
Ambolia 4y ago
Quantity of oil may not mean much if it's too deep and expensive to extract. The important part is how much "free" energy you get from the oil that you didn't spend digging it up.
fwungy 4y ago
Oil may not be fossil derived, i.e. from dinosaurs. Abiotic theory says that it is produced die to the high heat and pressures of the earth's core. Russia has had great success in their oil discovery and field management with abiotic derived techniques. The peak oil supply curve may be a lot more deep on the right tail than is assumed. The peak may simply have been the draw down of the initial surplus, but known fields refill with time, and new fields can be discovered with search techniques based on abiotic theory. Western corporations have bet a lot of money on a peak oil transition driven crisis. It may never come.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > Abiotic theory says that it is produced die to the high heat and pressures of the earth's core. This is bullshit, though. Our best model for the Earth core has it made of iron, with an outer core of liquid iron and nickel. Lighter elements would not make sense from a simple physics perspective. Plus, we don’t really have any mechanism for stuff to get out of the core to the crust through the mantle. So I guess you mean mantle, but then that’s silicates. Again, that’s denser than carbon. We do know a couple of ways for matter to go from the upper mantle to the crust, but that matter is silicates. From a physical and thermodynamic all perspective, the only mechanisms that makes sense to get hydrocarbons underground imply that they come from the surface and get submerged. > The peak oil supply curve may be a lot more deep on the right tail than is assumed. That is an argument that can be made, but… > The peak may simply have been the draw down of the initial surplus, but known fields refill with time, and new fields can be discovered with search techniques based on abiotic theory. This is simply not happening. > Western corporations have bet a lot of money on a peak oil transition driven crisis. It may never come. Because it makes sense. They employ some of the best geologists and geophysicists, have access to more data than anyone else, and have more computing power than most other research entities to run their models on. They also hedge their bets because there are trillions of dollars at stake, so you’d think they’d be all over anything vaguely plausible.
kergonath 4y ago
> There are far more global oil reserves today than there were in 1980 No, not really. The big shift was shale gas; the rest was mostly incremental. And again, starting from zero production a couple of century ago and going to zero at some point in the future (because gas and oil are finite resources) pretty much implies a maximum at some point in between. The concept of peak production is as inescapable as gravity. It can be delayed, but it is bound to happen. And when we realise that it is declining, then it’s too late to put alternatives in place.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lazyasciiart 4y ago

Unless you are arguing that we are building known oil reserves faster than we are using oil, you are nitpicking details of the comment.

roenxi 4y ago

The price in real terms is much higher than it was in the 1950-2000 era (used to average ~$40/barrel, nowadays it is more like $80/barrel). If every time we double the real price we double reserves, then that just means we're running out. There'll be these huge things called "reserves" that aren't going to be useful to us. To draw an extreme analogy: We could say that Hong Kong has vast amounts of open real estate because someone could buy sea floor and dredge it up to the surface somehow with modern technology - in theory, yes that is so. In practice, it is not so. Hong Kong has not much free real estate, even though more can be made available at very high prices. There is always going to be oil available at some price - probably huge amounts in theory. It isn't going to be useful and nearly no-one will be able to use it. Certainly not to sustain what we would currently call a comfortable existence.

specialist 4y ago
Also, I had the impression that reported known reserves, which are treated as an asset?, have been inflated.

Ambolia 4y ago

Quantity of oil may not mean much if it's too deep and expensive to extract. The important part is how much "free" energy you get from the oil that you didn't spend digging it up.

fwungy 4y ago

Oil may not be fossil derived, i.e. from dinosaurs. Abiotic theory says that it is produced die to the high heat and pressures of the earth's core. Russia has had great success in their oil discovery and field management with abiotic derived techniques. The peak oil supply curve may be a lot more deep on the right tail than is assumed. The peak may simply have been the draw down of the initial surplus, but known fields refill with time, and new fields can be discovered with search techniques based on abiotic theory. Western corporations have bet a lot of money on a peak oil transition driven crisis. It may never come.

kergonath 4y ago
> Abiotic theory says that it is produced die to the high heat and pressures of the earth's core. This is bullshit, though. Our best model for the Earth core has it made of iron, with an outer core of liquid iron and nickel. Lighter elements would not make sense from a simple physics perspective. Plus, we don’t really have any mechanism for stuff to get out of the core to the crust through the mantle. So I guess you mean mantle, but then that’s silicates. Again, that’s denser than carbon. We do know a couple of ways for matter to go from the upper mantle to the crust, but that matter is silicates. From a physical and thermodynamic all perspective, the only mechanisms that makes sense to get hydrocarbons underground imply that they come from the surface and get submerged. > The peak oil supply curve may be a lot more deep on the right tail than is assumed. That is an argument that can be made, but… > The peak may simply have been the draw down of the initial surplus, but known fields refill with time, and new fields can be discovered with search techniques based on abiotic theory. This is simply not happening. > Western corporations have bet a lot of money on a peak oil transition driven crisis. It may never come. Because it makes sense. They employ some of the best geologists and geophysicists, have access to more data than anyone else, and have more computing power than most other research entities to run their models on. They also hedge their bets because there are trillions of dollars at stake, so you’d think they’d be all over anything vaguely plausible.

kergonath 4y ago

> There are far more global oil reserves today than there were in 1980 No, not really. The big shift was shale gas; the rest was mostly incremental. And again, starting from zero production a couple of century ago and going to zero at some point in the future (because gas and oil are finite resources) pretty much implies a maximum at some point in between. The concept of peak production is as inescapable as gravity. It can be delayed, but it is bound to happen. And when we realise that it is declining, then it’s too late to put alternatives in place.