Limited Resources

[AisA]

That's because there is no finite supply of oxygen. It is constantly regenerated by plants and these plants grow more when there is more CO2 in the air, therefore the supply adapts to demand.

I don't think plants die faster so that we can use more oil.

I was responding to your statement: "Due to the earth being finite, one day we won't find enough to meet our needs." The number of oxygen atoms on earth (including in the atmosphere) is indeed finite and fixed. Some processes (human metabolism, burning of petroleum products) "consume" them by combining them with other atoms, other processes (plants) liberate them, but no process is creating brand new oxygen atoms out of nothing. The point is that merely because there is a finite quantity of something does not mean we are doomed to eventually do without it.

[tommyedison]

I don't know it. I say only that until there is decisive evidence one way or another, the notion that the oil supply is static and fixed is an assumption, one that is pushed by the "malevolent universe" crowd that includes many environmentalists and statists of all forms.

The assumption is pretty valid IMO, and not pushed only by the malevolent universe crowd. Producing oil requires vast swathes of energy if it is to be produced faster than we are consuming it. It requires large amounts of carbon and hydrogen.

1 chance in a million that the world oil supply is actually increasing.

Oil will most likely last this century though the prices might double or even triple. Shale oil in US alone contains 1200 billion barrels of exploitable oil.

Even in the oil wells there is a lot of oil left as present methods can extract only around 50% of oil efficiently. Someone might discover a way to extract say 90% of oil.

When oil ends, it won't be a doomsday scenario. The laws of free market will drive the price up and we will have long switched to alternative sources of energy like hydrogen fuel cells before it ends.

[AisA]

The assumption is pretty valid IMO, and not pushed only by the malevolent universe crowd. Producing oil requires vast swathes of energy if it is to be produced faster than we are consuming it. It requires large amounts of carbon and hydrogen.

1 chance in a million that the world oil supply is actually increasing.

So, is it your opinion that whatever process created oil in the first place has stopped? If so, why do you believe that?

[DavidOdden]

So, is it your opinion that whatever process created oil in the first place has stopped?

For example, have the laws of physics changed in the past milion years or so, so that it is metaphysically impossible to reproduce the conditions that created petroleum from ferns, fish, flies and frogs in the first place? Good question -- I've always assumed that if Mother Nature can create diamonds from a pile of crap in a million years, then maybe man could create diamond in maybe a year or even a month, using some technology and crap.

Suppose that we were to reject the hunter-gatherer mentality, and go for the farmer mentality. Maybe we can plant crops, rather than just pick ones that are lying about naturally; maybe we can herd cows rather than just hunt them; maybe we an farm fish rather than just pull them out of the sea when we are lucky enough to find them. But surely, that can't possibly apply to petroleum, at least, not without doing some research.

[softwareNerd]

This article (link) has an example of oil-estimates can jump. The gist:

• Saudi Arabia is estimated to have 262 billion barrels (bbl) of "proven reserves".
  
• Canada (according to the US Energy Information Admin) had 5 bbl
  
• Recently, the estimate for Canada was raised to 178 bbl, because the oil-from-sands companies there are showing viability.
  

[Felix]

This article (link) has an example of oil-estimates can jump. The gist:

• Saudi Arabia is estimated to have 262 billion barrels (bbl) of "proven reserves".
  
  
• Canada (according to the US Energy Information Admin) had 5 bbl
  
  
• Recently, the estimate for Canada was raised to 178 bbl, because the oil-from-sands companies there are showing viability.
  

Cool! This means that there is more than enough oil! Wow. That's basically all I needed to know. Within my lifetime there will never be much problems with oil except the home-made problem by environ-mentalcases.

One problem less. This is a fact that has to be celebrated.

I'll go for a heavy drink tomorrow.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

For example, have the laws of physics changed in the past milion years or so, so that it is metaphysically impossible to reproduce the conditions that created petroleum from ferns, fish, flies and frogs in the first place? Good question -- I've always assumed that if Mother Nature can create diamonds from a pile of crap in a million years, then maybe man could create diamond in maybe a year or even a month, using some technology and crap.

Suppose that we were to reject the hunter-gatherer mentality, and go for the farmer mentality. Maybe we can plant crops, rather than just pick ones that are lying about naturally; maybe we can herd cows rather than just hunt them; maybe we an farm fish rather than just pull them out of the sea when we are lucky enough to find them. But surely, that can't possibly apply to petroleum, at least, not without doing some research.

The laws of physics haven't changed, that's the problem! It's probably possible to produce oil from a partial artificial process, but I'm guessing it would be pointless, because the point isn't to use energy to create food or pretty jewelry. It's to use energy to transform matter into another source of greater energy, and that isn't possible thermodynamically. The question becomes: why do we need THIS particular energy source? Why wouldn't we just use THAT source of energy to do whatever it is we want to do (drive cars, heat our homes, whatever), rather than use oil??

From a previous post in this thread, for those of you who want to know how crude oil is formed (AisA): Petroleum comes from dead plant and animal matter, deposited on the ocean floor, covered by layers of sediment over and over again over millions of years, the enormous heat and pressurefrom the weight of those layers in the Earth's crust turning them into oil and gas. It's a long process, one that is undoubtedly still in place but happening at an incredibly slow pace to what is being produced. We pump billions of metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, which are coming from the crude oil. To get BACK into the Earth's crust, it has to be fixed back into sugar by photosynthesis in a plant. About the only place in the world that is a sink for carbon dioxide are boreal forests... around which the atmospheric levels of CO2 are slightly lower than that for the rest of the world. The world levels, overall, are increasing each year and have been since we've been recording (I will find the graph for this). It matters not where that CO2 is coming from (I really don't want to get into a global warming argument!), only that its increasing. If crude oil is to accumulate at a faster rate, as AisA suggests, the CO2 levels at least must DECREASE over time, not increase!

Even if it could be done, there's a tremendous energy input in order to get a smaller amount of energy. Think about it. First, you would have to have all this animal and plant matter and decompose it (ultimately, the source of energy for this would be the sun), then heat and compress it (with some other manmade source of incredible energy... like nuclear). This takes an awful lot of time and seems a lot of trouble to go to just to get oil. The more logical solution is just to drive a solar or nuclear powered car, since that's where the energy would have to come in the first place to do all this. IMO petroleum products should be saved for the really important stuff.... like PLASTIC for household goods, medical products, etc. NOT used as an energy source. If someone made a nuclear-powered car, I'd buy it. It makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Well, anyway, this is where we'll end up eventually... nuclear and solar. I just wish we'd move to nuclear and solar sooner rather than later.

Here's the Mauna Loa graph of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Edited October 20, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[Inspector]

Well, anyway, this is where we'll end up eventually... nuclear and solar. I just wish we'd move to nuclear and solar sooner rather than later.

Doing so would make no economic sense.

[AisA]

From a previous post in this thread, for those of you who want to know how crude oil is formed (AisA): Petroleum comes from dead plant and animal matter, deposited on the ocean floor, covered by layers of sediment over and over again over millions of years, the enormous heat and pressure turning them into oil and gas.

That is one theory. There is also an abiogenic theory. Google the terms abiogenic oil formation for information on the second process.

It's a long process, one that is undoubtedly still in place but happening at an incredibly slow pace to what is being produced. We pump billions of metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. It is now increasing faster than it can be fixed back into sugar by photosynthesis. About the only place in the world that is a sink for carbon dioxide are boreal forests... around which the atmospheric levels of CO2 are slightly lower than that for the rest of the world.

Forgive me, but I do not see how this proves that the current rate of oil formation is necessarily less than the current rate of consumption. Referring now to only the biogenic process, the current rate of formation would be a function of events that happened millions of years ago. How much organic matter died in ice ages and started the long process of becoming oil, and where are we in that process? At its very beginning? In other words, how do we know there is not an enormous reservoir of organic material being converted to oil at a rate 10,000 times the current consumption? I don't mean to be argumentative about this, but I have never understood why people assume the rate of formation is less than the rate of consumption. Perhaps there is a good reason and I just don't see it.

It seems to me that all we can say about the current rate of consumption is that it is increasing. What information do we have that tells us anything about the rate of formation?

Even if it could be done, there's a tremendous energy input in order to get a smaller amount of energy. Think about it. First, you would have to have all this animal and plant matter and decompose it (ultimately, the source of energy for this would be the sun), then heat and compress it (with some other manmade source of incredible energy... like nuclear). This takes an awful lot of time and seems a lot of trouble to go to just to get oil. The more logical solution is just to drive a solar or nuclear powered car, since that's where the energy would have to come in the first place to do all this. IMO petroleum products should be saved for the really important stuff.... like PLASTIC for household goods, medical products, etc. NOT used as an energy source. If someone made a nuclear-powered car, I'd buy it. It makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Well, anyway, this is where we'll end up eventually... nuclear and solar. I just wish we'd move to nuclear and solar sooner rather than later.

If petroleum were "reserved" strictly for plastics, the volumes would plummet, the prices would skyrocket, exploration would come to a halt, and PRESTO, you would have a supply crises -- even for plastics.

That is what happened in Atlas Shrugged when all the big users of oil converted to coal. The drop in volume destroyed the oil industry (what was left of it after Wyatt left).

[Inspector]

If crude oil is to accumulate at a faster rate, as AisA suggests, the CO2 levels at least must DECREASE over time, not increase!

This is either false or strangely worded. The level of crude oil increase would be based on whatever the levels of CO2 decrease were present however many millions of years ago that it takes for the process to take place. The CO2 levels of today won't be relevant to oil creation for another couple million years, or so I thought...?

Even if that were the case, the CO2 levels themselves are irrelevant. It is the rate of gross CO2 consumption by plant matter that is relevant, and that does not correlate directly with overall CO2 levels. Unless you meant NET oil creation as versus the amount being pumped out of the ground, and even then it isn't relevant because of what I just said in the first paragraph.

But the point is that there is more than enough oil to last well beyond this century and by the end of that who the hell knows what we'll be using for fuel. So the idea that anyone should "conserve" is laughable.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Referring now to only the biogenic process, the current rate of formation would be a function of events that happened millions of years ago. How much organic matter died in ice ages and started the long process of becoming oil, and where are we in that process? At its very beginning? In other words, how do we know there is not an enormous reservoir of organic material being converted to oil at a rate 10,000 times the current consumption? I don't mean to be argumentative about this, but I have never understood why people assume the rate of formation is less than the rate of consumption. Perhaps there is a good reason and I just don't see it.

This process happened over a span of 500 million years, before the age of the dinosaurs. If oil were being formed faster than we were using it, we'd also be finding it faster, no? Since the technology for finding it and pumping it out of hte ground improve constantly! All the evidence, biophysical and economic, points otherwise. Simply read the posts above and the posts in the Peak Oil thread. I've learned a lot in that thread.

If petroleum were "reserved" strictly for plastics, the volumes would plummet, the prices would skyrocket, exploration would come to a halt, and PRESTO, you would have a supply crises -- even for plastics.

That is what happened in Atlas Shrugged when all the big users of oil converted to coal. The drop in volume destroyed the oil industry (what was left of it after Wyatt left).

If people made new technology that was cheaper than the internal combusiton engine, THEN it would make economic sense! And eventually, I think this will happen.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

This is either false or strangely worded. The level of crude oil increase would be based on whatever the levels of CO2 decrease were present however many millions of years ago that it takes for the process to take place. The CO2 levels of today won't be relevant to oil creation for another couple million years, or so I thought...?

Right! Probably more like a billion.......

But the point is that there is more than enough oil to last well beyond this century and by the end of that who the hell knows what we'll be using for fuel. So the idea that anyone should "conserve" is laughable.

Assuming the technology to extract it will be developed and continue to increase in efficiency, yes. But I really doubt we'll have an oil-based economy for that long...

[Inspector]

Assuming the technology to extract it will be developed and continue to increase in efficiency, yes. But I really doubt we'll have an oil-based economy for that long...

Making the idea of conservation DOUBLY laughable.

[rob.sfo]

Here's a perfect example of a problem of a "limited" natural resource being solved by human ingenuity & productiveness:

For example, have the laws of physics changed in the past milion years or so, so that it is metaphysically impossible to reproduce the conditions that created petroleum from ferns, fish, flies and frogs in the first place? Good question -- I've always assumed that if Mother Nature can create diamonds from a pile of crap in a million years, then maybe man could create diamond in maybe a year or even a month, using some technology and crap.

Wired Magazine: The New Diamond Age

Armed with inexpensive, mass-produced gems, two startups are launching an assault on the De Beers cartel.

Next up: the computing industry.

The article is about two years old and I have not looked into the state of affairs since I read it back then, but it's completely relevant nonetheless.

[Unconquered]

A followup thought about fusion power from seawater deuterium (as one example of future energy): how you can practically combine atoms into molecules - or split molecules apart - depends a lot on available energy. Given a really huge spike in available electrical power from large scale deployment of cheap fusion, you could - if necessary - start to extract CO2 back from the atmosphere and split it back apart (again if necessary) into its components to get carbon and oxygen. Plus a vast array of other chemical processes that would become economically possible.

One thing (of countless things) that environmentalists miss however is that "global warming", even if mankind's CO2 emissions do contribute, would be a distinctly good thing if it averts an ice age. Unless of course they think that burying e.g. Canada and Europe under a mile thick slab of ice would be ok

[jrs]

You cannot make the environmentalist happy. They complain about processes which oxidize carbon. But they also complain when carbon dioxide is being reduced (back to carbon) which happens in the so-called dead zones or anoxic (oxygen-free) zones at certain places on the ocean bottom.