Is the world's oil running out fast? (BBC)

[Minstrel Boy]

...

"If Saudi does not increase supply by 3 million barrels a day by the end of the year we will face, how can I say this, it will be very difficult. We will have difficult times. They must invest."

...

When BBC News Online followed up by asking if this giant increase in production was actually possible rather than simply a desire he refused to answer. "You are from the press? This is not for you. This is not for the press."

Asking other delegates - admittedly supporters of the peak oil theory - whether such a steep increase was feasible, the answers were unambiguous: "absolutely out of the question," "completely impossible," and "3 million barrels - never, not even 300,000."

One delegate laughed so hard he had to support himself on a table.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3777413.stm

[snooper2]

1. I'm 29 years old..

This will be interesting to watch over the next 30 years..if I live that long.. :)

[Voltaire99]

35. Nothing is certain

Not that it ever was. But our future today as a species is in serious question.

Hope that Peak Oil doesn't hit during your lifetime, although it most likely will.

Pray that the West, under the control of the US, does not engage in a Y2k last-minute scramble to cope. It will take over a decade to transition from petrol to alternative fuels; it cannot occur overnight.

Work to reform the pathetic political system in the US, so that we may actually have sane and wise representation. Luck won't get us through this one.

Personally, I rate our chances poorly; the US is not a nation that can see 10 minutes into the future, let alone ten years. History, happily, is full of surprises. Some of them are even good. ;-)

[whistle]

2. This part says it all......

..."Oil is far too cheap at the moment," says Mr Simmons.

"The figure I'd use is around $182 a barrel. We need to price oil realistically to control its demand. That is because global production is peaking."

<and>

Dr Campbell's conclusion: oil production and consumption should be regulated by governments.

"Many reserve figures are highly questionable," says Dr Campbell.

<my comment>
The Bush administration has been totally irresponsible in the energy policies it has supported and the greedy self-interest that is behind it. We are using up the oil reserves at an accelerating rate, and we have developed no feasible alternatives that will work for our economy when the oil has run out.

[Octafish]

3. THAT's why Carter was a GREAT President.

He understood what the world was facing, as you said:

The Bush administration has been totally irresponsible in the energy policies it has supported and the greedy self-interest that is behind it. We are using up the oil reserves at an accelerating rate, and we have developed no feasible alternatives that will work for our economy when the oil has run out.

Very well said, whistle. The BFEE, however, makes money off of oil and war, so....

[Minstrel Boy]

5. Carter believed America needed to examine itself

and reorder its priorities if it was to thrive.

Well, here we are in the future, and he was right.

Jimmy Carter wasn't defeated by Reagan. He was robbed by the BFEE skullduggery of Bush and Casey.

[Octafish]

20. Thieves. Gangsters. Mass Murderers.

It wouldn't be possible without the October Surprise. For those who may be new to the subject, check out Robert Parry's work and overview:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html



There's plenty of good reading, including stuff from Capt. Gary Sick, USN(Ret.); Barbara Honneger, former Reagan White House staffer; Abolhassan Bani Sadr, ex President of Iran; and the late Abbie Hoffman, who suicided after winning praise for his Playboy article on the subject.

[DemoTex]

33. Absolutely, positively, right on the mark my friend!

Never forget GHW Bu$h's little October 1980 AWOL to fly to Paris and meet with the enemy (the Iranians) to ice the cake for Reagan's election. Hell, it worked for Nixon in October 1968. Same goddamn scenario. Except the meeting in 1968 was with Le Duc Tho to torpedo the Paris Peace Talks and get Nixon elected. The result? Five more years of war and another 25,000 US kids killed (not to mention the millions of Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian civilians killed in the Nixon/Kissinger B-52 saturation bombings). The GOP has the October surprise mastered. Verb sap my DU friends, Verb-fucking-sap!



Jimmy Carter

50. My Eyes. My Eyes

make it go away, make it go away
Where did you find that cover?

[Merlin]

7. True about Carter. But Bush is not the only one who's been negligent since

It's astounding that all of our politicians--right and left--have played ostrich on this issue since it became obvious this would eventually happen back in the 70's.

We burn oil like there's no tomorrow. Literally. We have frittered away our chance to make a smooth transition. We are Neros fiddling as our natural resources are burning all around us.

[MGKrebs]

11. Al Gore was (and is) on the ball here.

I suspect we would be well down the road of developing an alternative energy industry and infrastructure if only the BFEE hadn't have bought off the Supremes.

[Merlin]

19. Well, maybe. But why didn't Gore use it in the campaign?

Why on earth did he not call for a new space program to become energy self-sufficient in a decade?

Why doesn't Kerry do so now?

It would be the most powerful plank in any campaign platform in 50 years, imo.

[NashVegas]

28. The "Malaise" Speech

People on the right, to this day, still castigate the 'malaise' speech, in which Carter laid out his arguments why the US needed to get off its ass to work for a day we wouldn't depend on oil and more specifically, energy resources from foreign nations.

He was absolutely correct, yet the right still uses that speech to score political points and decry it as depicting America negatively.

Had Gore gone there, they'd have had a field day. And I don't think Al Gore (and/or his advisors), in the year 2000, had the necesary backbone to recall that message and stick to it in the face of the scorn he'd receive.

Maybe now, though, people are finally getting the message.

[Octafish]

13. Agree 100 percent.

Remember the Club of Rome report? Everybody who's anybody in Washington made out like the thing was flawed. It may have been off a few decades regarding some strategic resources, but it's basic premise is still correct: The world's resources are dwindling at an ever-increasing rate.



For those who don't know WTF Merlin refers to:
We are facing the Mad Max scenario.

[louis-t]

24. Ex-actly! The kind of thing

that the right* snickered about and labeled as liberal Hollywood drivel: movies that depict a town or state run my a huge, corrupt, mega corporation that enslaved everyone (Back to the Future Part whatever), or something like Mad Max (my favorite was The Road Warrior, Thunderdome was a joke). The opposite was a situation where everyone had the same androgynous haircuts and clothes and lived in what they considered the perfect society, yet there was always a 'big secret'(don't go to this one area or the penalty is death e.g. Star Trek TNG). I call them the 'nightmare scenarios of the right and left'. Looks like the left's nightmare scenario will be the more true to life.

[phantom power]

17. timely to be discussing Reagan

The 1980 election represented Carter's hard truths against Reagan's comforting lies. In a way, that set the tone for the last 24 years. The Republicans have based their popularity on comforting lies. About the environment, about energy, the economy, foreign policy.

[RedCloud]

4. maybe the oilagarchy...

will just drink Canada dry.

[donsu]

6. If Canada lets them

I can't get out of my mind the fact that Mex. recently purchased several fast boats (for the Gulf of Mex.) that can shoot missiles, even nukes. I'm supposing they got them to protect their oil rigs.

[daleo]

10. I don't know if there is that much left in Canada

A lot is heard about the Athabasca tar sands, which are huge, but there is a question about how much of that resource is recoverable. It isn't simply price, the question is thermodynamic - i.e. at what point do you invest more energy in the process than you get out. The bitumen is mixed in with sand, which means it has to be heated to extract it, as well as mined, moved around, refined, then piped somewhere else. A lot of natural gas is going into this process now.

[qwertyMike]

18. Yeah, we got nothing here in Canada

Nothing to see here

Move along.
No oil. No gas.
Yeah that's the ticket.

[hatrack]

23. EROEI On Tar Sands Is About 3 to 2

That is, it takes about two BOE (Barrel of Oil Equivalent) to get three BOE out of the sands - obviously not a huge payoff in thermodynamic terms.

The investment for earth-moving equipment alone is just enormous, aside from other physical plant requirements. The main feedstock for the process is cheap in situ natural gas, and that won't last forever. Finally, the wastewater from a completely exploited Athabascan deposit would require creating a lagoon about 20 feet deep with a surface area equal to that of Lake Ontario.

[cestmoi]

15. "OILAGRARCHY" is way too funny. hahahahah.

thanx for the laugh.

[louis-t]

25. I keep choking on my tongue

trying to say 'Oilagrarchy'.

[Eurobabe]

8. Another ignorant statement by a Bu$h adviser

Did you read further into this story?? This is about as stupid as Mankiw's quote outsourcing is 'good for America' They want oil at $182 a barrel so they can get rich and the rest of us can go home!

Matthew Simmons, an energy investment banker and adviser to the controversial Bush-Cheney energy plan. They are united by one idea, that global oil production is about to peak, which in turn will signal the permanent end of cheap oil. And they warn that this is the foundation of the current rise in oil prices.

Who hurts when prices explode?

"Oil is far too cheap at the moment," says Mr Simmons. "The figure I'd use is around $182 a barrel. We need to price oil realistically to control its demand. That is because global production is peaking."


Large new oil fields are ever more difficult to find "If we price oil correctly," Mr Simmons says, "it could give us time to find bridge fuels, fuels to fill the gap between an oil economy and a renewable economy. But I don't see that happening."

[gbwarming]

21. Matt Simmons is not likely a Bush*/Cheney favorite any longer...

I've read he stuff for the last five years or so and it has become increasingly dire. He has a different perspective (as a banker) that the geologists like Campbell, but he has come, over time, to see a crisis with NO solution. The $182 price is his estimate of the price that would support the ever increasing need to drill new wells in ever smaller, faster declining reserviors; economically support the explosive population growth in OPEC countries; replace and expand the exploration and field development capability that was lost during the decades of artificially low prices ('82-'02); curb demand; and fund some sort of transition to other sources as petroluem declines.

He's worth reading. Here's one presentation in particular that might be good for a start.
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/OTC-Future%20Cost%20of%20Energy.pdf


There's a lot more, going back several years at http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/ (click 'Matthew R Simmons' in the bar at the top)

A Case Study On Peak Energy: The U.S.'s Natural Gas Disaster
ASPO 2004 Conference, May 25, 2004

Uncharted Seas: 2004 Energy Markets
Fayez Sarofim & Company, May 19, 2004

The Natural Gas Crisis
TXU Annual Equity Analyst Meeting, May 18, 2004

Energy In The Americas Institute of the Americas, May 17, 2004

Uncharted Seas: 2004 Energy Markets
NAL Oil & Gas Strategic Planning Meeting, May 12, 2004

The Future Cost Of Energy Offshore Technology Conference, May 05, 2004 Presentation
Printer Friendly

Natural Gas: The Promise & The Risk Offshore Technology Conference, May 04, 2004 Presentation
Printer Friendly

Peak Oil: The Reality Of Depletion Offshore Technology Conference, May 03, 2004 Presentation
Printer Friendly

[cliss]

9. This is really a simple matter of Economics 101.

You have demand. Not just any old demand, mind you. RAVENOUS, never-ending, ever-increasing lust for gas at the pump. We're oil junkies, whether we want to admit it or not. We burn through 9.3 million gallons per day here in the US.

You have supply. Ever-dwindling. I believe in the Peak Oil theory. They're running out of places to drill for the black stuff.

Combine the 2, and what have you got? Demand that outstrips supply. There are only 2 possible outcomes: 1) increase production. We agree that isn't possible. 2) increase price, thereby causing people to conserve their use of gas.

[toopers]

12. And its not just us anymore.

China has recently increased its consumption of oil and is now consuming huge amounts as it becomes more and more industrialized.

[louis-t]

27. Only 20% of Chinese people drive!

That's what, 400 million? Can you imagine if that figure merely doubles?

[ze_dscherman]

46. A humble 13% annual increase

And there's much more that will be needed for Chinas journey into the 21st century. Right now, I recently heard on TV, China and India combined only use as much energy as the U.S. But these are two billion people ...

[Wwagsthedog]

14. Links for those who are interested

http://www.peakoil.net/

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[Barrett808]

26. Also check these out

http://www.dieoff.org
http://www.copvcia.com

[arcos]

36. another link...

www.peakoil.com

[Geo55]

16. We will have difficult times

"When BBC News Online followed up by asking if this giant increase in production was actually possible rather than simply a desire he refused to answer. "You are from the press? This is not for you. This is not for the press."

This is the elephant in the living room...the information that would really cause economic convulsion.
The industrial nations are "whistling past the graveyard"
A mere shoot 'em up in Saudi Arabia flips the market into a steep panic increase.
That's child play in light of what's likely to come.

[phantom power]

22. "This is not for the press"

Note to self: If you want to downplay a topic, I'm guessing that saying "This is not for the press" isn't the best way to go about it...

[reprobate]

29. Some of us have been talking about this for over a year.

Of course nobody listened. Even had some denyers here.

[JohnyCanuck]

30. Good documentary on Peak Oil available on DVD

There's a Canadian made documentary called The End of Suburbia that gives an excellent introduction to the "Peak Oil" issue. It explains how our current lifestyles and economies have evolved over the last 100 years to be entirely reliant on the easy availability of cheap energy and shows some interesting film footage from the early days of suburbia and the Ward and June Cleaver era when possibilities seemed limitless and Joe Blow factory worker and not just the wealthy upper crusts started the move to the automobile dependent suburbs.

In the documentary, they've got interviews with people like Simmons and Colin Campbell and other oil industry and academic experts who explain the theory behind Peak Oil and what it will likely entail for our societies if we don't start making some pretty drastic adjustments to the way we plan and organize our economies. It's not all doom and gloom as it ends by exploring some of the ways we can reorganize our cities, transportation and food production etc. to lessen our dependence on oil. However the message is definitely there that we can't afford to screw around waiting for the crunch to hit. We have to move on this NOW.

The DVD is available at www.endofsuburbia.com for $24US, and no I don't have any financial stake in the sales of the DVDs. However, I have seen the documentary and IMHO it's an excellent method to introduce the topic of Peak Oil to those who are not yet familiar with the topic and/or don't have the time, inclination or know-how to access the internet to read the material on the various web sites devoted to the topic.

Edited to add: For a list of the various individuals who are interviewed and/or present their views on the Peak Oil situation in the documentary see this link www.endofsuburbia.com/cast.htm

[happyslug]

31. $182 per barrel that is only $4.33 per gallon

Now you also have to add in distribution and Refining costs and Gasoline taxes.

Let look at the price of Gasoline at $40 a barrel. On my home state of Pennsylvania the combined Federal And state Gasoline tax is 45.1 Cents. Thus at $1.99 a gallon, gasoline without taxes is about $1.54 a gallon.

$40 a gallon divided by 42 gallons in a barrel equals $1.05 a gallon. Thus at $1.99 a gallon the costs of distribution and refining is about 50 cents a gallon.

Thus the retail price of Gasoline at $182 a barrel will be $4.33 plus $.451 cents gasoline taxes, plus $.50 distribution and refining costs or about $5.28 a gallon.

Given that the average American drives 15,000 miles a year and has a car that gets 20 mpg, the Average American uses 750 Gallon per year (15,000/20=750). At $5.28 a gallon that means the average American will have to spend $3960 a year on gasoline or $330 a month or $76.15 per week (At $2 a gallon those number are $1500 per year, $125 per month, $28.85 per week). Can the US Public afford to pay triple the present price of gasoline?

Gasoline Taxes by State:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html

[happyslug]

34. Compared this to Europe facing the same price increase:

"The average price of gasoline in Britain was $5.38 a gallon, a bargain compared with the Netherlands, where it was $5.69 a gallon. In Germany it was $5.01. The French got away with paying $4.78."

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0404/18/a10-126083.htm

If we assume the same distribution costs as the US ($.50 a gallon) at $40 A barrel Oil (i.e. $1.05 a gallon) the cost of gasoline in Europe BEFORE taxes is the same as in the US - $1.55 a gallon.

Thus the French Gasoline Tax is $3.23 per gallon
The Netherlands Gasoline Tax is $4.14
The German Gasoline Tax is $4.46
Britain's tax is $3.83.

Lets look at how an increase in the price of oil to $182 a barrel will affect these countries:

At $182 a barrel the base price per gallon is the same as it will be for the US $4.33. The addition of the cost of Distributing and refining will be similar the same costs incurred in the US or about $.50 a gallon.

Thus at $182 gallon a barrel, gasoline is the following countries will be as follows:

In the US $5.28 a gallon (Tripe what it is at $1.99 a gallon).
In France $8.06 a gallon (a mere doubling of the price)
In Germany $9.29 a gallon (A mere doubling)
In the Netherlands $8.97
In Britain $$8.66

Thus the price in the us will TRIPLE, the price in Europe will only Double. This becomes worse if the price goes even higher.

This is the long term effect of Europe's much higher tax on gasoline. Europe has had concerns about oil since WWI. A cut off has been something to fear since WWI (And I mean the Great War of 1914-1918 NOT WWII).

High Taxes means that any increase in Price (Caused by a cut back in access to oil) would NOT have a great an affect as the same increase in a low gasoline tax country (i.e. the US). On top of this the high Taxes encouraged the development of alternatives to oil so people can convert from oil as the price raises.

On the other hand not only will the increase in oil prices harm people's income for other expenses, the US has NOT developed any
alternatives thus the American people will pay whatever the market will bare until such time as the American people run out of money to pay for the Oil (With lower income people dropping out first).

Thus you have two interrelated problems, First the US's economy is dependent of cheap oil and Second we have NO ready alternative to the use of oil. These two problems combined to make the US weaker than Europe on withstanding an oil shock.

A third factor is Europe BECAUSE IT HAS ALTERNATIVES TO OIL FOR MANY TRANSPORTATION and other uses of oil, can outbid the US for any oil up for bid. For example, planes need oil to operate. There are NO real alternatives to oil for use in planes. Europe can reduce its oil usage by cutting back on car and truck transport (and its rail is Electric more than Diesel) and what Oil it does purchase (at any price) can be set aside for use in Planes.

On the other hand, the US, if it reserved oil for use in planes, will find itself in a situation where some of the oil will have to be diverted to use to ship the oil to the planes via diesel operated Trains and Trucks AND divert oil for use in cars, buses and Trucks to get the passengers and other items to be shipped to the plane. As shown above Europe can use non-oil based transportation methods to do the same. Given this advantage Europe will be able to out bid the US for the oil "reserved" to planes for Europe will need less.

An oil shortage will NOT only force the US into a Recession, Europe will be able to withstand the Recession better than the US and come out of it quicker.

[Heidi]

38. Thank you, happyslug . . .

for those figures. I'm an American living in Switzerland and I'm peeved every time I hear Americans complain about their "high" gas prices.

Last night, my husband and I did the math. Price of petrol in our part of Switzerland yesterday was CHF 1.46 per. Converted to dollars and gallons, that's $7.20 per gallon. Americans are hardly beloved in other countries these days (thank you, Mr. President), and whining about paying $2.50 per gallon for fuel for our SUVs does nothing for our image as world history's adolescent, spoiled bullies.

End of rant. (Yes, I'll be voting for Kerrey by absentee ballot.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Are you sure about your maths?

1.46 CHF per liter is, at 1.24 CHF per USD, $1.18 per liter; or $4.46 per US gallon (1 US gallon = 3.79 liters) - I think.

Still much more than the US, of course - but cheaper than a lot of Europe (when I drove there a couple of years ago, we made sure we filled up in Switzerland, not France).

[Heidi]

43. You're right, muriel_volestrangler

You're right. I calculated the exchange rate incorrectly. Thanks for the correct.

CHF 1.46 x 3.79 = CHF 5.53
5.53 divided by exchange rate of 1.24 = $4.459

But I'm still miffed when I hear Americans complaining about their "high" gas prices. The $7.20 per gallon may prove one day to be prophetic, though, if we don't get a forward-thinking person into the White House this November.

[happyslug]

44. I went by the Article I cited (It was from April)....

I know the price of gasoline has gone up since April, but the increase price just makes the problems WORSE not BETTER. Thus there is an inherent error in the European price per gallon I was using, but a minor error (and as you pointed out on the low side).

[ze_dscherman]

47. Also, Europe has already invested much in saving and alternative energies

Because of high energy prices, insulation of houses, efficient heating systems and industrial use of energy have been an issue since many years. Tax subsidies have been given for insulation of old house, installment of solar heating, solar panels, and even for changing to low energy light bulbs.

Same goes for cars - people just have to buy the low consumption ones. The result: The U.S. consumes almost twice as much energy per capita than the EU region, and about three times the amount of petrol than Germany.

[Jose Diablo]

39. Its far worse than you think

What are the embedded costs of oil in the rest of the economy. Food production, transportation heating and cooling homes and business.

The margin available for individuals to stay ahead of these extra costs are not there. Add in the devaluing money from deficit spending to pay for the war on terrorism.

America would be financially busted and many would not be able to afford the cost to just eat and maintain shelter.

From about 1980 on, our leaders have failed us. Bought and paid for by greed.

[happyslug]

48. I am familiar with the hidden oil in the economy

This was discussed by amandabeech and others (including myself) at the following thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=5570#5689

The main thrust is how will the adjustment occur. I tend to believe it will be a slow process with a lots of ups and downs. Other tend go with a sudden and steep drop. For details see the thread.

[JohnyCanuck]

32. Peak Oil hits the mainstream media (finally)

It's interesting to see how the topic of Peak Oil is gradually appearing more and more often in the mainstream media. In addition to the BBC News article on the ASPO meeting in Minstrel Boy's original post above, there's been a recent editorial in the Washington Post After the Oil Runs Out and a full cover story in the current issue of National Geographic on the topic . The end of Cheap Oil

[Suspicious]

42. It's about time, too.

What's really interesting is the reaction I got when I showed the Washington Post and BBC articles to a couple of people who have been scoffing at the idea of Peak Oil. They don't seem to have quite as much conviction as they did before before.

With the mainstream finally hitting on this, and the steadily increasing price of fuel and other supplies, maybe some of these die-hards will finally wake up. One can always hope.

[ze_dscherman]

37. Nice cartoon

Can't link directly:

http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/06/04.nf/kari

The captions:

"But tomorrow, I'll quit for sure"

Typical substance abusing behaviour

[TrueStory]

40. Quit Whining - you can get all not for 5.99 and not for 4.99 but only 2.39

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/quit.html

[Shadoobie]

45. Science Magazine Articles

Besides the regular press, articles about peak oil have been cropping up in broad technical journals, such as Science, as well. There have a several articles published summarizing the various peak oil predictions, reviewing new related books, etc. the most recent article, published in the May 21st issue of Science, though,tries to debunk the idea that we are running out of oil.

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY:
Oil: Never Cry Wolf--Why the Petroleum Age Is Far from over
Leonardo Maugeri*

After World War I, the United States was shaken by predictions of the exhaustion of domestic oil. Even the head of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--among many others--delivered a verdict of gloom in 1919: The country would run out of oil within 9 years! (1) Facing mounting hysteria, President Coolidge set up the Federal Oil Conservation Board in 1924, to draft legislation to preserve national resources. After the conversion of Great Britain's naval fleet from coal to oil in 1914, the UK also feared that it would be vulnerable to oil shortages and moved to secure its grip on the Persian Gulf. These cycles of hysteria followed by new bonanzas have continued to the present. Thus, it is not surprising that a new wave of "oil doomsters" predicting imminent petroleum scarcity has gained momentum (2-4).

The worst effect of this recurring oil panic is that it has driven Western political circles toward oil imperialism and attempts to assert direct or indirect control over oil-producing regions. Yet the world is not running out of oil, and catastrophic views fail to take into account the complex reality that will allow reliance on abundant supplies for years to come.
..more..

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/304/5674/1114
(For those that can access it)

~Greg

[Petrodollar Warfare]

49. One FACT must be considered....

...and that is oil must first be DISCOVERED before it can be PRODUCED. Hubbert's curve is best viewed as two bell shaped curves, one for disocovery, and the later one for production. Guess what, global oil DISCOVERY peaked about 1965. We have not found a single super giant oil field since the mid 1970s. According the the graghs of US oil discovery and production, it was a 40 year lag (or difference). If the world consumption follows a similat trajectory, global peak oil could occur 40 years after peak discovery, which would be 2005.

The 2nd gragh on this web page dramatically explains why the above article if flawed...

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/misc/hubbert.htm

[Barrett808]

51. Re Magugeri: High oil prices don't mean we're running out of crude

High oil prices don't mean we're running out of crude
Friday, May 21, 2004
By Michael Woods, Post-Gazette National Bureau

Despite record-high crude oil prices and sticker-shock gasoline bills, the world faces no immediate shortage of oil, according to experts and an article published yesterday in the journal Science.

The Science report, "Never Cry Wolf: Why the Petroleum Age is Far From Over," portrays the world as awash in oil, with all major estimates putting proven reserves above the 1-trillion barrel mark. It was prepared by Leonardo Magugeri, a senior vice president at Italian energy company Eni.

"Proven reserves" means oil known to exist that can be pumped economically at current prices with today's technology. At the current consumption rate of 28 billion barrels a year, proven reserves would last well beyond 2030.

In addition to describing current oil reserves as ample for decades, the report documents a phenomenon termed "reserve growth" that could extend supplies even further into the future. It cites hundreds of instances in which estimates of the amount of oil in major fields have increased dramatically as knowledge about the fields grew.

(more)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04142/319678.stm