How Much Oil is Actually Left On This Planet? Should We Care?
Editor’s Note: I’m in Houston, TX, this week, celebrating the International Year of the Planet by posting on topics covered at the first ever joint meeting between the American societies of Soil Science, Geology, Crop Science and Agronomy. With a significant focus on biofuels, this conference should be rife with interesting materials.
According to Dr. Peter McCabe, a world-renowned scientist currently working at CSIRO in Australia, any realistic analysis of future energy sources can only conclude that, barring some complete and miraculous harmony between all the world’s economic superpowers, fossil fuels will dominate our energy mix for at least the next few decades — and we should just accept it.
To get a perspective on where Dr. McCabe is coming from, it struck me that he is a man who thinks in terms of quadrillions of BTUs and exajoules of energy. His views come from an analysis of global markets and global energy use. To him it probably seems that a grassroots coordinated global effort is beyond the reach of humanity.
Being a bit of a realistic skeptic myself, it seemed like it would be worth my while to temporarily suspend my deep held belief that not only is it possible for the U.S. and most of the rest of the world to kick its oil habit within a decade, but also a simple requirement for survival, and take Dr. McCabe at face value.
- » See also: Tata Motors May Let Others Manufacturer, Sell and Brand the Nano
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
You see, to me all issues are local and don’t work on a global scale. Indeed, local efforts often end up with global results. But the top-down mentality, the self-same mentality that often results in humans thinking that a particular task is beyond reach, is what precludes a person who deals in exajoules from thinking that global change is possible in a short period of time.
With that said, Dr. McCabe does have some significant food for thought. Since 1980, world energy use has gone from 250 quadrillion BTUs to about 500 quadrillion BTUs presently (see chart at right, click for larger copy). The vast majority of that growth has been in Asia, with smaller amounts coming from North America and the Middle East. Europe’s energy demand has remained rather static and Eurasia has actually seen a decline in use since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Of the 500 quadrillion BTUs the world currently uses, roughly 40% comes from oil, 24% from natural gas, 22% from coal, 8% from nuclear, and 6% from renewables (see chart below, click for larger copy). In a way, I can see Dr. McCabe’s point: with 86% of 500 quadrillion BTUs coming from fossil fuels, it’s hard to envision a way to replace that much energy with renewable sources in a short period of time. 430 quadrillion BTUs is, to me, an unimaginably large amount.
So, if Dr. McCabe is right, will the world have enough fossil fuels to keep up with demand? If we can’t completely switch to renewable energy sources for at least another 30 years (and assuming climate change doesn’t kill us off first) will the problem of peak oil rear it’s ugly head and kill us off anyways?
According to McCabe, in a nutshell the peak oil concept is fundamentally flawed because it doesn’t account for external factors.
The way he sees it, the world has plenty of remaining and untapped fossil fuel resources to keep up with demand for at least the next 30 years. From squeezing oil out of unconventional sources such as oil shales, to using new technologies to re-exploit old oil fields that had since been left as dead, to undiscovered conventional oil sources, Dr. McCabe’s opinion is that there is no impending peak oil crisis - and the same thing goes for natural gas and coal.
So, hooray. Score one for fossil fuels. But is this really good news? In some sadistic and drastic way, part of me hopes that Dr. McCabe is wrong — because if he’s right, I’m afraid it will provide no incentive to the world to make the changes that are necessary to ensure the survival of humanity.
Other Posts From the Joint Meeting in Houston:
- Biofuels are Here To Stay: What To Do About Food Supply?
- Pro-Poor Biofuel Crops: Sweet Sorghum and Cassava
- Biofuels And Security: Shedding My Western-Centric Worldview (Opinion)
Opening Image Credit: W.M. Norton, publisher of the Book “Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil” by David Goodstein
I am informed that there are massive methane reserves on the moons circling Jupiter. If we begin building the pipeline today…
I don’t how long it will take to make the switch. I just know we need to start now.
I think this article misses the main point on peak oil.
It’s my opininion that the cost of extraction will be the factor that dramatically changes our lives, not a sudden drop in supply even though that may occur as well.
The fact that we are talking about extracting from tar sands and deep water drilling shows that the cheap accessible forms of oil have “peaked” and have been in decline for a while. I read that one of those deep water rigs can cost $500,000 a day to operate.
McCabe may be right that there are oil reserves yet to be tapped but he does not address the cost involved in tapping those sources and how that will affect our society.
What will it cost to extract a barrel of oil in 10 years and how will that translate into a tank of gasoline?
I think that the occasional supply/discovery/demand discontinuities will supply sufficient incentive for the world to move to a more efficient model without us having to sink to Mad Max levels.
I wonder though, given the hydrocarbon seas on Titan and other outer moons, why is it that we assume that the only hydrocarbon fuels we have are fossil fuels…
It really makes you wonder doesnt it
http://www.anonymity.at.tc
So you want us to run out now so we can find a solution more quickly? So then I assume that you doubt that in 30 years we will be able to find a solution? This makes no sense at all. When we are close to running out of oil, there will be dozens of other options available to us… the market will drive such innovation that we will be flooded with alternative energy solutions.
Today, energy costs are still too low for anyone to invest enough to create good competitive alternatives.
I work in the oil business. I started out in the UK North Sea in 1980 because it was the new oil boom area. 20 years later I left cause the oil had all run out. I next moved to Indonesia in 2000 as it was an OPEC member and had lot’s of oil. In 2004 I left Indonesia because they had run out of oil, left OPEC and now import. Now I work in Malaysia because (you getting the drift yet) they are an OPEC member and had lot’s of oil. Sadly in 2008, the oil’s running out and I’m off to ????. My simplistic answer: cut down USA, you consume far more than your fair share. Expolit the oil sands, tar shale and natural gas to the max. Push full steam ahead (steam too) on alternate energy sources, I like wave power and bio mass retrieval. Finally,get ready for wood stoves, the barter system and a balancing of nature.
Peacenik:
Wer you there? Why are you making such an assertion? Do you think this expert is an even shallower fool than you are, reeling off obvious factors as if you have some great insight into th problem. Furthermore, by relying on just the Nickster here you are relying completely on “received wisdom”.
Try understanding that although everything lookssimple to the uniformed (sort of like science looks easy when we get together for a few drinks, and then a few more…). On Monday, Reality bites back.
Try doing a little work technically youurself, instead of glib rants.
Nick, you wrote:
Capt Korn,
Is it childish to bet on a future that protects the survival of humanity as we know it regardless of whether or not your opinions are right, or is it childish to carry on just like we are now when, if your opinions are wrong, we will end up in a world of hurt that threatens even the very existence of civilization?
What the hell are you talking about? The “protection” you are talking about is a preference, YOURS. There are no doubt a plethora of tin-hats who equally believe in other catastrophes that could befall our existence. investing hugely in unproved nonsense, simply because it sounds good, like loony “anthropomorphic” GW caused by miniscule human CO2 contributions. Cripes. It’s the sun, stupid (all of you) plus the biggest greenhouse gas, water vapor, and it is measurable, not some crank hysteria that feeds marxist agendas and fat clowns in it for money. Basing vast programs on nonsense is nonsense. Planning for invitable climatic changes that happen regularly is not.
But wait!…The sky is falling! I need a huge grant for my new NGO to invent some huge ropes, balloons and Skyhooks right away.
Jezzuzzz.
Well, Oreo Magnificant, what the hell are you talking about? My point is simple. Imagine you are betting on our future survival.
In the first option the premise of global warming is false and we do nothing: the result is that everything is fine. No harm done. Nobody had to pay any extra price.
In the second option global warming is real and we don’t do anything and we’re screwed. We die off in massive numbers and we end up living like cavemen.
In the third option global warming is real and we do something about it and we’re saved. The world has beared the burden in a hefty way from costs associated with mitigation, but we can continue to exist as a civilization.
In the fourth option global warming is false and we do something about it and the world would have been fine without out it but we’re okay anyways. We have beared a large cost for apparently no reason, but in the long run it makes no difference because we’ve changed society in such a way that we have brand new sources of income, we don’t sell ourselves to the highest foreign bidders, and our environment is better off.
If you are a better, the safe bets are either option three or option four in which we do something about global warming regardless of whether it’s real or not. Arguing about whether it’s real or false is a dead end. The real point is that we need to do something about it regardless of whether it’s real or not.
See this video for a more detailed version of my explanation. I stole it from there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Peaknik-Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. People who have worked in the oilfields for some time know there is much more oil out there than some so-called experts think there is. And Nick, you are indeed a dreaming,childish nutcase.