Topic: A scary strategic problem - no oil

[redleafjumper]

A scary strategic problem to ponder.  


Recently I read a report on the status of oil reserves and consumption rates.   Like many, I have never been very concerned about gas and oil as there seems to be a lot available and it didn't really seem to me to be something to worry about.   I have regarded alarmist comments in the popular press about oil and energy sources as mere conspiracy theories.   I was wrong.   There is a problem with oil and it really is something to be concerned about.   Here's a synopsis of the situation:

The OPEC countries and especially Saudi Arabia have the largest reserves of oil.   Other nations, particularly Russia also have large reserves.   Canada doesn't have huge actual oil reserves, but our tar sands and oil put us in second place in the world after Saudi Arabia for being able to produce oil, even if the process is expensive.  

According to the unpublished report and my own supplementary investigation (do a google search for "world without oil" to get a taste) in the best case scenario, including maximum, not actual, reserve estimates at just current consumption rates, the world will be out of accessible oil in 50 years.   This time frame doesn't consider increasing consumption.   Mid-point of oil reserves will occur at around 2007!   From then on, oil demand will go up and the existing stocks will go down.   Oil is not a renewable resource; it doesn't grow back, so when it is gone it is gone.

So what's the strategic problem?   Well to spell it out, there will be considerably more pressure on existing oil in the short term.   There will be conflict over existing oil reserves.   The United States, China and Europe are huge consumers of oil and they do not have reserves that will support their needs.   Countries that have oil will be under tremendous pressure to provide it and there will not be enough to meet needs.   We have oil and others will want it.   Selling Canadian oil to China will not be popular with our southern neighbours.   The cars and trucks we drive are part of the problem, but the biggest consumer of oil isn't the automobile, it is the industrial and agricultural base for which we rely on everything we have.   We have more than just a military and strategic problem and the solutions are not apparent.

There is some discussion on alternative energy sources, such as solar power, hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear energy, wind and tide power, etc.   The problem is that all of these ideas rely heavily on, you guessed it - oil.   In ancient times sources of minerals to make metal were relatively accessible and surface mining was used to gather the resources.   Those non-renewable resources are gone and we now rely heavily on mining.   Mining cannot happen without oil.   Even the hydrogen fuel cells require platinum to work.   Platinum needs to be mined.   Powering resource extraction equipment from chainsaws to feller-bunchers and mining equipment all requires oil.   Solar power, batteries and wind power simply cannot power logging trucks or very much industrial equipment.   Even agriculture cannot produce enough oil to replace some of uses of the fossil fuels without dramatic changes that would seriously impact the food supply.   There will be no trains, no planes, no automobiles.   There will be extensive reworking of scrap metal.  

When the oil is gone, there will not be any means of supporting the infrastructure that currently exists.   That is, no transportation of food, no manufacturing of metal, or plastics, no mining, no ships, no air travel, etc.   This lack (not shortage) of oil will have a dramatic impact on how people live and interact.   It will affect all aspects of civilization as we know it.   It will dramatically affect world population.   It is a problem for us, not in 50 years when there is none left, but probably in the next 10 to 15 years as it becomes clear to people and governments that there won't be any more.

In a period shorter than the time since World 2 to now we will be out of oil.   Imagine what it will be like in 20 to 30 years as the situation deteriorates.   What will our country look like?   Will we have one?   We have some serious challenges to overcome, not the least of which is what our defence policy should be in the light of this situation.

But don't believe me.   Look into it yourself.  

(edited to correct sentence error)

[Infanteer]

Is this your writing or something you got emailed to you?

[redleafjumper]

No one e-mailed it to me, I wrote it. 

[Infanteer]

Okay, it came off as an Internet spam-mail.  Given that you actually wrote it, I'll read it. 

[Bert]

I can't say how factual this is but to support Redleafjumper's article, I found a
document on the 'net.  http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Even if the conclusions are subjective, it discusses a very real problem.  We've
also noticed alot of recent attention by China, Japan, the US, and the EU in landing
on and characterizing asteriods/comets. 

Eventually, resources on Earth wil be depleted to the point that other alternatives
in other places will be sought.  Between now and then it may be a scrounge for
who gets what in the world community.  We are seeing some of that now with
Chinese, Indian, EU, and US resource interests .

[a Sig Op]

Don't know, I'd say it's all quite alarmist, it's mostly based on the assumption that the bulk of power produced is produced by burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, but no where in the article that Bert provided at least, could I find an actual reference to how much electricity is generated from fossil fuels versus from alternatives (Hydroelectricity, Nuclear Power, etc). That being said, I'm guessing you'll find that most of the article was written around a theoretical where all electricity used in the production/manufacturing cycle is produced from fossil fuels.

Given that *all* uses for fossil fuels have alternatives (Admitedly, fossil fuels are the most viable for the time being), I can see a bump in the economy happening in the short term when oil shortages become a reality, but no long term catastrophic crash... just as long as it takes for resourceful people to build alternatives to fill the demand.

[Thucydides]

The article seems to be in the thrall of zero sum economics. In the past, our ancestors faced similar problems, such as the deforestation of Elizabethan England. The escalating price of wood led to conservation. then substitution. Coal became the heart of the industreal revolution.

Similarly, the ever increasing price of oil will drive us first to conservation (how much driving will you do with gas selling at $2+ litre), and eventually substitution. So called renewables are too variable and have too low of an energy density to be really viable solutions with today's state of the art (I have done the business plan for photovoltaic roof shingles; the payback time is astronomical), so the substitution will be some form of nuclear energy, either fission or fusion. Beyond that, well you will have to fill in the details.

[couchcommander]

I've heard the common response is that while this may be true of current existing and known (or even just currently used) reserves, we continue to find new resevers all the time. I can't really say how true this is though.

[clasper]

I've heard the common response is that while this may be true of current existing and known (or even just currently used) reserves, we continue to find new reserves all the time. I can't really say how true this is though.

We continue to find new reserves all the time, but not at the same rate we used to.  There is a much debated theory called Hubbert's Peak.  Hubbert (in the 1950's) examined all of the new oilfield discoveries in the US, and came up with a predictive model.  Examining new discoveries is difficult because oil companies tend to lie about what, where, and when they found something in order to keep things quiet while they evaluate the discovery, then trumpet their success to impress the shareholders, then go quiet again if the results don't turn out as well as their predictions.  Hubbert's model attempted to correct the oil companies' misinformation, and posited that peak oil production in the US would peak 40 years after the peak was reached in discoveries.  Hubbert predicted that US production would peak in 1970, and decline after that- he was wrong by a year.  US production peaked in 1971.

The best guesses for the peak in worldwide discoveries say they happened roughly 40 years ago.  Some people have claimed that we have reached peak production (and Chevron is starting to discuss this publicly), whereas others contend we're not there yet.

Extrapolating Hubbert's theory from US domestic production to worldwide production poses some problems.  The most exacerbating one is that whereas US oil companies tend to lie a bit about their discoveries, major resource holders like Saudi Aramco lie a lot, and there isn't really any good data for discoveries made in Russia (which has a large amount of oil).  There are other reasons why Hubbert's theory may not be easily extrapolated (like the increase in technology in the industry, improved reservoir management, etc.) 

Overall it's a pretty muddy debate, but a few things are clear: oil is non-renewable, and will run out at some point.  Alternative energies will be required some day, and recent oil prices suggest alternatives are needed quite soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert%27s_peak

[redleafjumper]

The comparison of the depletion (not merely shortage) of a non-renewable resource to the shortage of a renewable resource such as trees does not hold.  As stated, oil is not renewable, it isn't possible to plant more.  Even thought there have been geat strides made with synthetic oils, they still cannot be used in the same ways that the fossil fuels can be and even the synthetics require real oil.  If one was an investing type, a strong portfolio might include research and development of alternative energy sources and at least for the next several year fossil fuels.

[kincanucks]

Don't worry because with climate change, brought on by the burning of fossil fuels, the Arctic Ice Cap is melting at an increased rate and will soon exposed access to more oil and gas reserves.  Of course we may have to go to war with Denmark over them.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-arcticviking1.htm

[Big Foot]

Don't forget that we also have the world's largest oil reserves in the oilsands in Alberta. Everybody seems to forget about those...

[GO!!!]

As the price of oil rises, other technologies will become more viable. The market will provide.

20 years ago, everyone would have laughed at you if you had stated that you would pay 50,000$ for a gasoline/electric Toyota SUV - but the price of gas rose, and such technology became not only viable, but desirable.

As majoor mentioned, we started with wood, moved to coal, now to oil, there is a next step, and it will become apparent once petroleum becomes too expensive.

[FatwogCpl]

the next step will only become apparent when the oil companies are no longer making money. Besides the move from wood to coal to oil was a technological one not economic.

[Thucydides]

WRT trees, although they are renewable, are you going to down tools for 80 years waiting for them to grow back? The deforestation in Elizabethen England was as critical to them in real terms as oil shortages are to us today.

[FatwogCpl]

I see your point, perhaps it was both. It's more efficient for locomotives, ships etc. to create steam with coal rather than wood and making an automoble that runs on coal would have just been impractical. the only next logical step was petrol. i guess you could say the the step beyond is nuclear, but we just have not down sized that enough to run my wifes SUV 

[Kat Stevens]

Besides, how much would it cost to fill up at the plutonium station?

[GO!!!]

Although plutonium and uranium are finite resources as well, electric vehicles, powered by either nuclear or renewable sources would be my best guess.

As oil becomes more expensive, I think that harnessing waves, tides, wind and solar energy will become a better and better idea - and once it costs 400$ to fill my trucks - I'll be buying a vehicle that has an electric engine as opposed to the current 6.6L V8.

[FatwogCpl]

I still like the Bio-Diesel idea, there can't be anything wrong with a vehicle whose exhaust smells like french fries, It even reminds me of the Regimental Drink of 1 Svc Bn........Gravy!!

[redleafjumper]

Try doing heavy resource extraction without mining equipment that is dependant on oil.  A solar powered logging truck or scraper isn't going to work very well.  Plastic making and metal for turbines and wind towers depend on oil.  It is a nasty dependance that we have created.

[GO!!!]

The new electric motors that Toyota is putting in the Highlander Hybrid SUV is more powerful than the gasoline one. It's limitations are centered on Batteries (intolerance to cold, lifespan, price)

The technology is there, it is only a matter of the high price of hydrocarbons providing the impetus for development.

In addition to this, new extraction techniques (horizontal drilling, 0₂ injection, multi port extraction heads, deep extraction, etc) make the wells that were capped after 25% extraction 30 years ago becoming viable again for salvage production.

I'm not arguing that we are going to run out of oil, and there is a school of thought that states that the peak of production has already been reached. I'm saying that it is not like we don't have a safety net of new technologies, it is there.

Also, our petroleum addiction in terms of lubricants and plastics is a non issue. Less than 5% of total extraction goes to producing lube, and that part of the oil is not usable for many other purposes anyhow. Plastics are made from fuel production by - products. We will be using hydrocarbons in small amounts for uses such as this for a very long time, even after the use of petroleum as a source of energy has largely disappeared.

[Thucydides]

I see your point, perhaps it was both. It's more efficient for locomotives, ships etc. to create steam with coal rather than wood and making an automoble that runs on coal would have just been impractical. the only next logical step was petrol. i guess you could say the the step beyond is nuclear, but we just have not down sized that enough to run my wifes SUV 

Actually, the cause and effect were reversed. Coal has a greater energy density than wood, when people had to substitute coal for wood heat they found many processes (like smelting) became easier and more efficient. Raising steam is also much easier with coal. Similarly petrolium has a greater energy density than coal, and is easier to handle since it is a liquid. Higher energy densities led to smaller engines and new technologies to harness the energy, which made cars and airplanes (among other things) practical. As a BTW, the first "car" was designed by Nicholas Joseph Cugnot and constructed by M. Brezin in 1769, and in 1857, Felix Du Temple and his brother Louis, France, flew a model monoplane whose propellers were driven by a small steam engine.

Nuclear power in its present form has a very high energy density, but the technology is not very mature, so we are living in the same sort of transition period as from wood to coal or coal to oil. As GO!!! says, the market will provide incentives to harness this technology.

[a Sig Op]

If only they could master fusion power... it's going to happen eventually, but it's just not an energy solution right now...

Reference the bio-diesel that somone mentioned, not really a viable solution, takes way to much land to produce sufficient quantities of natural oils to produce biodiesel for use as a fuel. It's an interesting concept, perhaps even a potential by-product of the fast-food chains that are making us ever fatter, but just not really viable.

[KevinB]

People are using BIO Deisel off old fast food oil...  As such it is not taking anything to make (the few additives excepted).

I recommend reading Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond - its kinda frightening -- especially for those like myself who drive a V-8 Gas Gussling Behemouth (so we can drive over and crush those pesky hybrids  )
 

[TCBF]

Why, just a few minutes ago, I had an experiment on cold fusion going on in a glass of water right here...

... but, I got thirsty and drank it.

 

Homemade bio-diesel is easy enough to make, but is mostly a summer diesel.  a buddy of mine makes it and he says it freezes when it's cold out.

Tom