Petroleum question

Ok,
So the whole world uses 85 million barrels a day of crude oil. That is every day.
This would top out to be 1 billion barrels used every 11.7 days. And that is 32.7 billion barrels used per year. So, we will "run out" of oil in 31 years. Supposedly we have 1 trillion barrels of oil left, estimated.
I remember being a kid, a long time ago and they said we will run out in 20 years.
Does anyone work in the oil/gas industry on this board that can straighten me out as to what is true? Does the earth make oil itself? Geology trivia here.
The oil experts say that we have 1 trillion barrels left, WTF is the truth here.

I do not think anyone knows the true amount, and there are different amounts of effort required to get it.

wile E:

It's like all of those after-market gizmo's that save you xx percent of your fuel, and if you add on enough of them to where you get OVER 100 percent, your fuel tank SHOULD overflow. LOL !

It's all smoke & mirrors.

:>)

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! That is the correct answer!

We, as humans, have a history of over estimating a resource, then looking dumb at each other when it is gone.

Better plan now to have it gone.

These experts ESTIMATE - they do not KNOW.
The reason we haven"t run out is that they are finding more - and in more diverse places.
Since petroleum is primarily from trapped organic matter, it is a slow process and I would expect we will run out eventually.
Like many other things that are KNOWN by "experts", much is based on too little knowledge and too big mouths. Too bad it's so hard to sort which is which

There is a finite amount of oil and gas, the rate at which it is replenished naturally is measured in thousands of years.

In reality as the discovery of new reserves starts falling off the price will start to climb pretty high so use will eventually fall. Pretty intensive work to get some of the oil we use already.

Yes,
The Alberta tar sands is quite labor intensive.

Steam is used to melt the heavy oil out the sand. Natural gas is used to make the steam. About a 6 to 1 energy gain I have read.

Go to msn.com and read about high oil prices are here to stay. This may put some light on the subject.

Yep, I do not see gas prices ever going below 3 dollars per gallon. The cost is too high in the off shore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Alberta tar sands.

As oil becomes more difficult to find and extract the world will shift to other energy sources. Nuclear is the best option but too many are afraid of it. Wind will contribute a small percentage, photovoltaic even smaller. Ethanol was a silly idea.

So today implementing other energy sources is like the weather, everybody talks about it but nobody does anything about it.

in less than 10 years people will be demanding a return to fossil (coal) fueled steam generating plants.

Why is it silly we take the ethanol out rest is animal food and 600 other products.

Nope, that ship has sailed

The higher the price of oil, the more oil can be extracted profitably. Which is why oil prices are destined to go up.

Even with the known reserves, there is plenty of oil to cause catastrophic damage to the environment. We have enough known oil, gas and coal reserves to raise global temperaures at least 2 degrees Celsius. This is not just what the greenies say, you can read it right on the BP website: "We agree that burning all known reserves would probably cause global temperatures to rise by more than 2°C..." See the link below.
BP on climate change

Regarding nuclear.....people are afraid for any number of illogical reasons. I am personally opposed to nuclear power as it stands today for the following reasons:

1) SAFETY. Since nuclear power is a COMMERCIAL enterprise, power companies tend to "cheap out" on skilled and qualified personnel to operate those plants.

2) Disposal of waste. I am told by former nuclear engineers that some of the waste products generated by nuclear plants remain dangerously "hot" for hundreds and even thousands of years. There should be at this late date a safe and effective way to recycle this waste or to render it harmless. This is a non-negotiable point with me. We have had nuclear power plants running in this country for about 70 years. IMHO, that is plenty of time to find a solution to this problem. Encasing it in underground caves in salt is NOT a solution in my opinion.

Otherwise, I might be in favor of nuclear power.

Coal has lost it's marketshare to lower priced natural gas. Coal was 65% of US electricity generation 40 years ago, but is 45% now. Natural gas is easily piped to power plants, coal is brought in by train cars, expensive/messy/lots of polluting. Simple economics as to why coal has lost out to a certain degree to NG.

Agreed, Pete.

Dean

A very well educated guess of how much oil is left would be just that, only a guess. True facts are, it takes so long for the earth to naturally produce oil that we as humans should just consider it a non-renewable resource. If we maintain our current heavy useage, it will run out. When the barrel is dry, its dry. How soon that will be is only another one of them there guesses. I personally don't think it will happen in the near decades. 75 years from now, could be a lot different story. I think the big deal when it happens is going to be its going to depleat to nothing alot faster than anyone will anticipate. In other words, we'll hear one day there is a shortage, and in short order there won't be any. Thats my opinion with our very high useage. Other energy alternatives I feel will continue to be unsuccessful. We most likely won't be ready for it, and I hope I am not still alive to see it. Fuel has become to big of nesescity for everyday life. My 2 cents.

How long does PCB's, Dioxins, arsenic, lead, cadmium and asbestos remain toxic?
How much nuclear waste do you think there is and what portion is high level and low level?
Did you know the numbers the anti's use is disintegration down to no readable levels?
Do you know how much hotter radon in your basement, antique false teeth, Coleman Lantern mantles , ordinary granite, old time luminescent watch dials and tungsten grinder wheels are than most nuclear waste?
As for used fuel? It's not waste, it scads of energy waiting to be placed into a liquid metal reactor to make clean power.
Odd how the more aggressive the greenies are, the less technically inclined and experienced they are.

A few states like Indiana get 80% of their electricity from coal fired generating plants. Much of the coal comes in on barges which is a very cheap transportation cost. It is more than simple economics in coal's decline. When the powers that be declare all out war on coal because of emissions these powers artifically raise the cost of producing electricity from coal. It will become increasingly costly every year to buy electric produced from coal due to powerful political forces that the general population has no control over or say in.

Supply, demand and the cost of production. The supply of $100/barrel oil is greater now than it was for $10/barrel oil 25 years ago.

The supply of "cheap oil" might be what is limited.

Geologists have known for sometime there are massive petroleum reserves below the Gulf of Mexico. Could be wrong but don't think any company is going after those reserves at present. Why. Well,they are located 7000 ft down in the Gulf. Is it feasible to drill for those reserves that deep when gas is 3.89/gallon. Or 4.89/gallon. Or 5.89/gallon.
As energy gets more expensive we seem to be able to put more petroleum on the market. The other reason those reserves are not tapped into ,don't think any drill permits are being issued for the Gulf at present.

easily piped? what are those noisy pump stations used for? as single large megawatt coal plants are shutdown and replaced by numerous ng fired generators, do you think the availability and supposable low cost ng supplies will exist? factor in current use for factories, fertilizer production and then increased residential use, people will demand a return to coal.

Experts generally concede a return to whaling offers our best hope for the future.

There is more nuclear waste than most in the industry will admit too. The generation plant near me stores all the waste onsite because there never was a repository built as promised.
When you look at all the input involved to produce the fuel, build and maintain,(forever)the plants, it is not that cheap.
My new son in law is a nuclear plant operator and we have had this discussion.

In my area more and more people have gone back to using coal to heat their homes. I am in the hard coal (Anthracite) area of Pennsylvania, a much better burning coal than what we referre to as soft coal.

The key is the definition of "reserves"
"Reserves" sound like an amount. But reserves are defined as the amount that is economical to produce at the current price. As the price has moved up, additional amounts have become economic, so the the amount of reserves have moved up. Also technology has made some fields economic (like the Bakken fields) that were previously known, but not economic.

There are many many off shore rigs in the Gulf Of Mexico. Some of these rigs drill 3000 feet below the sea floor. After the drill bit breakage 3 years ago in the Gulf I think that new permits may have stopped but the I highly doubt the existing rigs stopped drilling/pumping.

I remember reading something a few years back, GM felt they needed to develop high compression engines capable of running on alternative fuels in the 1930's. The reason predictions had us running out of oil in the 1940's.

My father in law was an Army Air Corps crew member during WWII, as he spent a good deal of the war in school he was asked to stay on a few years after and was part of the Army of Occupation in Japan. Once out of the Army it took him a year to complete his EE degree. In the late 40's he hired on with Schulmberger and worked for them almost 40 years doing oil well services and gas and oil exploration and well development. He stated to me there was a lot more oil and gas out there than we knew about, but it was getting harder to find and harder to get out of the ground.

Petroleum resources will behave like any resource with respect to economics in the supply and demand arena. For most of my lifetime gasoline has not tracked with inflation, Gasoline was relatively more expensive when I was in High school and College. The recent spike in the last 10 years brought it to about parity with other commodities.

Basic economic theory, if the price goes up producers will respond by trying to bring more product to market. The increased price makes previously unprofitable sources now attractive. the maker responds to an increased demand (that's what drove the prices up) by supplying more product. If demand goes down it will drive prices down, so if everyone parked their cars, trucks, tractors and airplanes for a month or so we would see a price decrease that would last until the aforementioned cars, trucks, tractors and airplanes went back into use. A recent example is last winter's cold raised prices on heating oil and propane and fuel used to generate electricity. The weather drove an increase in demand and the price went up, the increase in price brought more fuel on the market.

Another basic economic premise is that if the supply of a commodity is reduced the price will go up. We have seen this in recent history examples: when hurricane Katrina shut down a significant portion of our oil production and refining capability gasoline prices spiked. Same thing when the Deep Horizon oil rig blew up or when big oil simultaneously shuts down multiple refineries for "routine maintenance" during the peak driving season we see a price spike.

The relationship between the change in price and the change in demand is called elasticity. Factors that determine elasticity are suitable substitutes and how bad the consumer needs or wants the product. Examples if the price of gasoline were to jump $1.00/gallon tomorrow we may eliminate non essential driving (cancel vacations, shop closer to home, eliminate our night out or just plain use our cars smarter) a long term spike in cost may move us into more fuel efficient vehicles and permanently change our shopping and travel habits. If the price of beef were to jump $1.00/ pound we'll eat less beef, but probably eat more chicken and pork or switch to cheaper cuts of beef, like round steak instead of sirloin, chuck steak instead of round steak, ground beef instead of chuck steak. If the price of a prescription you need to stay alive jumps you're not able to substitute, you'll take the same dose and make up the increased cost by reducing expenses elsewhere (food, fuel, entertainment, clothing).

Oil resources will be the same way, as it becomes more difficult to extract the oil the price will go up, or the backwards or downside of increasing price brings more product. Simply oil that costs $130/ barrel to extract won't make it to a $100/barrel market. If the price goes up to $135/barrel that oil will arrive on the market, but the oil that costs $140/barrel to extract will stay off the market. So the basic concept once all the oil that can be profitably extracted at $100/barrel is used up the price of oil will go up and the demand from the market will adjust to the price increase. This will happen over and over with each step driving the demand down a little bit. There will always be oil (gasoline, propane, natural gas) available, it's just the cost will drive consumers out of the market. There might very well be alternative fuels available that probably won't be as good as petroleum, cost more and we'll use a less of them. This means we'll travel less, adjust our life styles to use less fuel, live closer to work, drive smaller vehicles, carpool or use public transportation.

I make part of my living working on those NG compressor stations. They are getting cleaner all the time due to EPA emissions requirements.

I'm thinking there is at least 20 years of oil left at current production and consumption levels.
After that I don't care.

Now I'm thinking of starting a whale farm.

I work at a nuclear waste processing site. Don't waste your time telling me there are mountains of toxic waste.
All the low, medium and high level waste from 40 years production with 20 reactors fits in a half a dozen hockey arenas.

Fear mongers making a living telling people what would scare money out of the unknowing public's pockets.

(quoted from post at 22:55:01 06/11/14) Fear mongers making a living telling people what would scare money out of the unknowing public's pockets.

Click to expand...

This forum needs a 'like' button! Fear mongers (about a variety of topics - mostly environmental) have ruined our economy to the point that my children will never know the kind of country I grew up in.

My FIL is a retired Nuclear Engineering Professor. He states that the issue with US is that reactors are a one shot. We should do breeder reactors like Europe does.

Even if oil runs out in 50 years. There is 500 years worth of coal to turn into gasoline and diesel.

I have worked in the Drilling industry for 40 years and proven reserves have increased every single one of those years, mostly due to advances in seismic technology. There are estimated reserves and proven reserves, the difference being proven reserves usually involve test wells subject to intensive reservoir testing and formation mapping so that accurate estimates can be made while estimated reserves come from seismic data and computer models based on nearby formation data. As far as running out of oil anytime soon consider that 95% of the worlds oceans have never been explored and roughly 80% of the worlds land mass has not been explored/exploited. The Gulf Of Mexico outer continental shelf has been rejuvinated 3 times in my carreer, all related to technological advances in reservoir mapping technology. As fracking techniques are refined and the process gets cheaper prices could go down as not only the USA's production increases but as the technology takes root in other areas of the world. When you consider that 10 years ago American suppliers were building infrastructure to import LNG and today that same infrastructure has been turned into export apparatus it is nothing short of miraculous. Without fracking and the resultant energy boomlet there would have been zero economic growth in the USA the last 5 years, a rather incovenient fact for all of those politicians who oppose the industry.

So, you are saying that a luminous watch dial, a piece of granite, etc. are MORE radioactive than a spent fuel rod??? And you expect me to believe that?

First, let me say that the whole "green" movement is apparently made up of a bunch of extremists that would have us living in caves and hunting our next meal with sticks and rocks. I was recycling, composting, and raising organic vegetables LONG before it was fashionable. I like trees, but I also like pianos and dining room tables and fine guitars. So, please don't put me in there with the "greenies."

My main objection is that after nearly 3 quarters of a CENTURY, they are still sealing nuclear waste in concrete and burying it in salt mines RATHER THAN recycling it into new fuel rods or some other peaceful use.

BTW, a close personal friend of mine was one of the engineers involved in the cleanup of Three Mile Island. He told me plenty about how much and how hot things were. IIRC, the damaged reactor was sealed in something like 20 feet of concrete. Seems a bit more "hot" than a Coleman lantern mantle.

Also, I live in reasonable proximity to several nuclear power plants. Limerick, PA, Berwick, PA, TMI in Middletown, PA, and a bit further off Indian Point. I am not out there picketing, but I still think they need to deal with the disposal problem in a realistic way.

Well said BD.
And a little OT but it's mostly the same crowd that's against irradiated foods which it's silly not to be doing.

Back in the early 50's, my weekly reader said we would be out of oil in 50 years. didn't bother me cause the team of horses had only been gone a few years. Could go back if had too. Back then never dreamed of 30 FT. headers on combines either.

(quoted from post at 23:11:02 06/11/14) So, you are saying that a luminous watch dial, a piece of granite, etc. are MORE radioactive than a spent fuel rod??? And you expect me to believe that?

If you are stupid enough to think that is what I said. There is no use trying to educate you.

First, let me say that the whole "green" movement is apparently made up of a bunch of extremists that would have us living in caves and hunting our next meal with sticks and rocks. I was recycling, composting, and raising organic vegetables LONG before it was fashionable. I like trees, but I also like pianos and dining room tables and fine guitars. So, please don't put me in there with the "greenies."

My main objection is that after nearly 3 quarters of a CENTURY, they are still sealing nuclear waste in concrete and burying it in salt mines RATHER THAN recycling it into new fuel rods or some other peaceful use.

It's called politicians scared of green weenie votes. while fresh fuel is still abundant.It's cheaper to build a PWR.


BTW, a close personal friend of mine was one of the engineers involved in the cleanup of Three Mile Island. He told me plenty about how much and how hot things were. IIRC, the damaged reactor was sealed in something like 20 feet of concrete. Seems a bit more "hot" than a Coleman lantern mantle.

You don't even know enough to understand what you are being told.


Also, I live in reasonable proximity to several nuclear power plants. Limerick, PA, Berwick, PA, TMI in Middletown, PA, and a bit further off Indian Point. I am not out there picketing, but I still think they need to deal with the disposal problem in a realistic way.

Click to expand...

Wow, I live near next door to a physician and just by close proximity have absorbed all his knowledge and training.

The bigger problem is the "petro-dollar". Basically how Nixon rigged things with the Saudis so OPEC would trade oil in dollars. The Chinese are actively trying to undo this. If they move away from oil in dollars then foreign countries will have a lot less need for our currency.

I agree on the disposal of the waste. That may do more damage than greenhouse gases.

told me in alaska that the alaskan pipeline was built to carry 10 years oil from purdue bay in 1973, there is still more oil there than you can shake a stick at

Some scientists believe the earth is making more all the time. Sounds plausible to me.

Actually, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is at risk of freezing up, because the volume of oil passing through it is no longer enough to keep its temperature up.
WSJ article

OK, there are many areas where we know oil is at that has yet to be tapped. And no one really knows just how much there really is. Or what the price has to be to be economically tapped. So the world running out of oil in 20 years is a myth. I read, in the 70's that we only had 20-30 years max. Well that means we have been running our cars, trucks and tractors on dreams for the last 10 years or so.

Rick

I thought that there was 250 years of reserves in the USA at current rates, China has 20 years left at their usage rates.

Sarcasm noted. You are reading in a bit more than I intended. My comment about living near nuclear plants was meant to say I am not worried or afraid of them. Just a neighbor.

I have also discussed/questioned with one of the engineers involved in the TMI cleanup about the waste, and the levels of radiation. I never implied that I had "absorbed all of their knowledge."

My entire point was about safety and waste disposal. Sorry if I did not make that clear.

(quoted from post at 19:53:29 06/11/14) I work at a nuclear waste processing site. Don't waste your time telling me there are mountains of toxic waste.
All the low, medium and high level waste from 40 years production with 20 reactors fits in a half a dozen hockey arenas.

Click to expand...

Okay, would you allow half a dozen hockey arenas filled with antique false teeth, Coleman lantern mantles, luminous watch dials etc., to be constructed in your back yard?

Put your money where your mouth is. Someone has to "take one for the team" when it comes to the by-products of modern society. The waste has to go SOMEWHERE. You talk a good game about how innocuous/innocent/harmless this stuff is, but I bet you'll cry "not in my back yard!" when it comes to disposing of the waste.

They better get cracking because they need to reverse the last 17 years of global cooling.

(quoted from post at 09:24:23 06/12/14)

(quoted from post at 19:53:29 06/11/14) I work at a nuclear waste processing site. Don't waste your time telling me there are mountains of toxic waste.
All the low, medium and high level waste from 40 years production with 20 reactors fits in a half a dozen hockey arenas.

Click to expand...

Okay, would you allow half a dozen hockey arenas filled with antique false teeth, Coleman lantern mantles, luminous watch dials etc., to be constructed in your back yard?

Put your money where your mouth is. Someone has to "take one for the team" when it comes to the by-products of modern society. The waste has to go SOMEWHERE. You talk a good game about how innocuous/innocent/harmless this stuff is, but I bet you'll cry "not in my back yard!" when it comes to disposing of the waste.

Click to expand...

Well there buster. I have just the answer for you. In fact I can see the eight unit nuclear station, Low and intermediate waste and the dry used fuel storage site. If I stand on the highest hill of my property. It's up wind of me too. Come on over for a visit and tour instead of falling for the fear mongers propaganda.

How can it be making more? From what?

btw the towns of Kincardine and Port Elgin can see the nuclear plants from the beach. The towns draw the drinking water from the lake . The local fisherman going fishing in the water discharge canals until security gives them a cussing and tell the fishermen to leave.
Anybody here want to live adjacent and down wind of a mine, smelter, petroleum refinery, chemical plant, semi conducter manufacture , electroplating facility, hog barn. And use the water immediately down stream ?

They have found bacteria that eat rock and produce petroleum (bacteria manure). Problem is we are using petroleum faster than the bacteria make it. While petroleum is considered a fossil fuel, nobody has been able to prove it. I remember reading that in one lab they were able to turn hog manure into petroleum with heat and high pressure. That's not economical, but it is interesting.

That's several disconnected thoughts about one subject.

Well, I still remember Three Mile Island. About 80 miles south of me.

The are 100 reactors in the U.S. There is 70,000 tons of nuclear waste stored at these sites. and will have to be monitered and the site maintained for ever and ever. When a national repository is built, if ever, that site will have to be maintained for ever.

70,000 tons is a very small amount of waste.
Much of it is low level and not any hotter than the natural uranium in the soil around public picnic areas in Elliot Lake.
Nothing complicated about welding used fuel into a steel and concrete vessel. Then placing it in a mine shaft, simple.
Someday that used fuel will be reclaimed and used as fuel.
So how do you propose driving around .Then returning to an airconditioned home in summer and a heated home in winter. Without burning coal or using nuclear?
I am ashamed at how uneducated you are and how full of irrational fear.

So the process that started making oil stopped at some point?

When?

I think oil is a byproduct of earth just doing it"s thing.