How much oil is left?
 

I was wondering this today and found a 3 year old article by edmunds when gas was $60 a barrel. The only real answer I could find points to around 2036.. what do you think? what have you heard?

It would be crazy if oil became a toy that only the rich could afford as it becomes scarcer..

I am ordering the lowering coils and after some hard work this summer will come new smaller tires and light weight rims.. hopefully after a re-tune I will see +30mpg hwy.. and maybe someday be electric, but most likely after I finish college:turtle:

I wish ford still made electric Rangers:(

Unfortunately A LOT.

The question is what will it cost to get it. Only recently has the price consistently headed above $35. That's the break even point for commercial coal liquefaction (seems low to me actually). It's not a theoretical technology, Nazi Germany was running their entire army on it until the syn plants were bombed.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._6/ai_89924477

That's not including the tar sands reserves spread around the world, which probably contain about twice the liquid oil reserves. Those haven't even entered into the equation until recently, since it's a highly environmentally damaging process to remove the oil and pretty expensive. First we'll use up those, and then begin industrial coal liquefaction. This hasn't been implemented yet though as building the massive refinery capacity to do this has a huge lead time and presents a huge financial risk if it suddenly turns out oil gets cheap again. Also, environmentalists (rightly) block this from being implemented.

I personally do foresee a continued increase in gas prices, but not due to a lack of raw supply. More so, due to a lack of refining and production capacity and carbon taxes, all of which are products of the environmental movement. I'm fine with that though.

I've heard roughly 35 years for crude oil. After that, as mentioned above, there still is oil around, but its really expensive to get to.

There more oil, tar sands, natural gas, and coal left in the ground than atmosphere to pollute. The only real fear is that the price suddenly drops again like the 1980s and its back to the same old same old.

There is lots of oil left, the price increases we are seeing are from more people trying to buy it for themselves (Chinea & India). Cheap oil is done forever IMO, whether it be from Carbon Taxes or continued high demand. The easy oil has been pumped out of the ground a long time ago.

Well peak oil is here now or will be really soon. It don't think all the oil will be used up for a long time, because as prices oil get ridiculous in the future ($500 to $1,000 a barrel). Alternatives will become more and more attractive.

So I will guess oil will get unacceptably high priced by 2025 (I would say 60% to 80% of all oil will be used by that point.

Some of the graphs in the link below are very useful. Regarldess of who you believe, we need to be wise and responsible in planning the future. We are in this together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil




.

Alot of great information!:thumbup:

Guess that means electricity is the true alternative, no point in ethanol or hydrogen, but then the electric companies could become the new OPEC even with solar, wind, and hydroelectric powering our vehicles. Those who control the grids, control the future. Oil is a dying, ethanol is not practical as food and fuel, and hydrogen is eh..

Any ideas on the cost to convert my 3085lb truck into an electric?:turtle:

We don't know how much oil there is. And the people who have a good idea, aren't saying. But it is a mute question, because we are sure we don't have enough oxygen to burn it.

Remember though, peak oil does not equate to peak cheap energy.

It's true that we're approaching peak oil, but we're decades off from hitting peak fossil fuels, most of which can be gasified.

We need to be wise and responsible about planning for the future, but not because we're about to or already running out of fossil fuels, rather because we're doing serious damage to our environment.

Prices would only approach levels like that either temporarily, or due to government regulations and taxes. Given that it's already economical at, being pessimistic, $50 per barrel to gasify coal, extract tar sands and so on prices like that won't hit anytime soon due to natural market conditions.

Yup, sadly that's the case!

Really cheap oil is done now though, we can no longer just dig a 10ft well and have an oil gusher like in 1900. It's still pretty damn cheap as energy sources go though.

Nice animated icon, hvatum!

ty :D

I think regardless of the amount of oil left, most people here agree that we need to be going over to non-CO2 power sources now. Whatever the cost of burning oil is, we can't afford the cost to the environment.

I've read that most geologists believe ~3 trillion barrels of oil existed on the earth during the modern age. As of 2004, ~900 billion barrels of oil had been extracted. Peak oil is supposed to hit at 1.5 trillion barrels. We are probably in or are going to hit peak oil by 2012.

As you can see, there is a lot of oil left, apparently enough to last us another century...except humans are greedy. The reason oil is going to run out in our lifetimes isn't supply, but ever increasing demand.

Oil will always exist, but it won't satiate the world's ever growing hunger. You can't consume 3% more energy every year forever, especially not on fossil fuels. Well before oil runs out, it will become economically ousted.

As far as converting your truck to electric, you might want to shift your thinking. If you want to be a "slave" to electric companies, as you expect might happen, then stay on course. Otherwise, I'd rethink why you need a 3085lb vehicle to move a 180lb object...

An obese man running out of food money may think economics is the issue, while the wise person would understand that it is gluttony. Alternative energy is a solution, but it is not the answer.

- LostCause

Im 168. lol

Doubt it is economical to spend the $$$ needed to go electric. I am going to reduce how much gas my truck needs and get out my old bike to ride for those short trips to walmart:thumbup:

College is almost over so the bike will get a workout.

Apparently there is 200 years worth of coal that can be converted to oil profitably at any price over $50/ barrel.

I think we need to be looking at all solutions, with electric being one of the better ones and eliminating the waste as our best one.

Coal is not the way to go.

http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-con....thumbnail.jpg

- LostCause

Not saying that it was, but combustible liquid fuels will be needed and available for a long time to come.

They will be. Check out BtL for high quality synthetic fuels from waste biomass. Adding more Carbon isn't the way to go IMO.

That looks bad, but it's frankly not very worrying. I'm much rather have a few square miles of that massive areas of the Amazon being used to plant rape seed or what have you. What's more worrying is that all the carbon from that coal there is ending up in our atmosphere.

Coal is not the way to go, but it is the way we are going.

I'm confused as to why people want to turn every square inch of the earth into productive land. I don't understand the motivation to turn rural land, into surburban land, into urban land, into a metropolis. Who actually thought that quality of life is increased by maximizing population density?

http://www.satprints.com/ProductImag...ster_small.jpg

Why don't people understand that increased consumption only leads to increased desire? Historically, things that have increased our productivity have decreased our free time. Like any addiction, more is needed every day to satisfy the desires of yesterday.

We are headed for coal for the same exact reason we keep popping out millions of babies every week. People are not willing to sacrifice for the common good. It's called the ego, which unfortunately is more powerful than common sense.

Let's turn this:
http://www.forestry.sarawak.gov.my/f...pic/forest.jpg

Into this:
http://www.benettontalk.com/obese.jpg

At least the dinosaurs had a meteor to kill them off...we have to settle for stupidity and greed. I've grown cynical, literally...:o

- LostCause

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer to run everything from super capacitors and produce all of our energy from Hydro power, nuclear and solar (wind mills disrupt the look of the landscape). BUT, if I have to choose between strip mining a few hundred square miles for coal for syn gas production OR planting tens of thousands of square miles of the amazon for growing bio-fuels then I'd much prefer strip mining coal.

And that third picture, what can I say, more cushion for the 'pushin (eek!)

And population growth, I don't want to get into that argument, but the problem isn't population growth in first world countries, we'd be dying off if it weren't for immigration. First world populations could be sustainable with proper infrastructure and technology - the problem is not the American woman with 2.1 children, but the Indian, Nigerian or Saudi Arabian woman with 6 or 10. If anything population collapse in the first world might be even worse for the world, since that might mean progressive environmentally conscious cultures are replaced by others. If you're a cultural relativist though your opinion might differ. If we want to discuss that though, it would be better to do it somewhere else :)

Great post, but I differ in viewpoint on a few areas.

My logic is that this isn't an either/or decision. I'd prefer to preserve the rainforest and the mountains, even if it means economic depression. So what if a few hundred millionaires lose their motor yachts, Billy loses his lifted truck, and Bob has to convert from a McMansion to a ranch style house. People don't, or at least shouldn't need $50,000/yr to live a fulfilling, happy life. I say spread the wealth, form honest goals, and maintain them.

I'm not against utilizing nature: cutting down trees, mining ore, farming land. I am against blatant exploitation of nature. We see nature as a slave. That was a backwards view in the 1860's and it still is today.

I agree with you except on two points.

1.) Low birth rates don't exist due to societal/environmental concerns as they should, but rather due to personal/economic concerns. People have less children today because they are expensive and time consuming, not because they actively choose to improve society.

I'm happy birth rates are low in the first world, but I'm not going to consciously believe that it is an indicator of our social responsibility.

2.) First world nations are not progressive, environmentally conscious cultures. If you mean conscious as in changing a light bulb or buying non-cfc hairspray, maybe, but not in any meaningful way. One American probably has the same environmental impact as 30 rural Indians.

If Al Gore had made worthwhile suggestions at the end of an "Inconvenient Truth," people would have completely disregarded him. Imagine if he had said get rid of your car, your refrigerator, your air conditioner, all products imported outside a 25 mile radius, your TV, and your utilities. Very few Americans are going to make a sacrifice beyond extremely minor inconveniences (e.g. recycling) and blaming politicians/businesses.

Don't get me wrong, those rural Indians would be no different in our shoes. I'm most worried about the rise of the Third World. For a world already submerged to her gunwales, I don't think adding weight is a good idea.

If anyone objects to the offtopic nature of my last few posts, feel free to speak up.

- LostCause

That's not really even necessary though. With proper technology and infrastructure we could live a similar lifestyle while vastly lessening our impact on the environment. Well said though, I do agree that given the choice between a acetic lifestyle or an exploitive one then we should give things up as you said. But most people aren't willing to make such sacrifices, so instead of asking them to, which will only lead to them ignoring us, we need to focus on things which will allow them to live a similar lifestyle while reducing their impact. In that sense I think Al Gore is spot on.


Perhaps, but the first world is the one developing the technologies which will allow us to live with much less impact on the environment. The third world populations are quickly going through economic development with little concern for environmental impact - I don't blame them, but that's the reality of it. Also, any geo-engineering project (mirrors in space or some such) would be executed by the first world, for these reasons simply having zero children and having our next generation be imported from Nigeria would likely be worse for the environment (again, not for racial reasons, but cultural - nature vs. nurture). I'm not advocating growth in first world populations, just maintained.