Oil supplies will last another 140 years, Saudi Says.

[Clarkie1]

VIENNA, Austria - The world has tapped only 18 percent of the total global supply of crude, a leading Saudi oil executive said Wednesday, challenging the notion that supplies are petering out.

Abdallah S. Jum’ah, president and CEO of the state-owned Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known better as Aramco, said the world has the potential of 4.5 trillion barrels in reserves — enough to power the globe at current levels of consumption for another 140 years.

Jum’ah challenged oil ministers and petroleum executives at an OPEC conference in Vienna to step up exploration “and leave the minimum amount of oil in the ground.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14814230/

This contradicts other statistics I have read. If true it's unfortunate, in my opinion, because it may result in less pressure worldwide to find alternative sources of energy and curb global warming before it's too late.

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. I don't think we should be looking for alternative sources of energy just

because we think that oil supplies are petering out. We should be looking for alternative sources of energy BECAUSE of the effects of oil usage on global warming. And why would anyone believe the Saudis re: oil supplies? They have reason to fudge the #'s.

[LostInAnomie]

2. They'd last a lot longer than that...

... if we'd get serious about alternative fuels. I crave the day when we make oil fucking worthless and we don't have to deal with criminals like the Saudi Royal Family.

[NOLADEM]

3. Dog years

[WinkyDink]

4. And THEN what?? Were I a procreator, I'd be a WEEE bit upset at

this analysis!

[ima_sinnic]

5. oh, phew, then we have another 139 yrs before we have to "do something"

about it. :eyes:

[Selatius]

6. I believe that figure.

However, I would couch that in realistic terms.

We may have 140 years worth of oil in the earth, but I guarantee that it will cost $20/gallon or higher by the time we reach the 90th percentile because it will be so much more expensive to pump out oil from a nearly depleted reservoir then from one that is still full.

Besides, the environmental consequences of recirculating all that trapped carbon dioxide in the earth's crust would be far higher than any benefit derived from continuing to primarily rely on fossil fuels.

[RC]

7. The weasel words

at current levels of consumption for another 140 years.

The problem is the rate of world wide consumption is going up daily.

[JohnyCanuck]

8. That's the crux of the matter, endless economic growth also requires

endless increases in energy consumption.

See this lecture by Physics Prof Albert Bartlett on the effect constant increases in consumption (even very small increases) over time will have on the life of a resource.

The retired Professor of Physics from the University of Colorado in Boulder examines the arithmetic of steady growth, continued over modest periods of time, in a finite environment. These concepts are applied to populations and to fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal.

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461(Real Player Required to view the lecture, but MP3 audio download and transcripts are also available)

Our economies as currently organized require perpetual growth and that requires continuous increases in energy consumption, so the claim that we have 140 years worth of oil at current levels of consumption is esentially meaningless.

(How can we already be) looking at the end of the age of oil and abundant energy

Posted by David Roberts at 9:35 AM on 22 Sep 2006

As a petroleum industry analyst who gave up material security for a career as an activist against petroleum industry expansion, I've developed a unique understanding of the global peak in oil extraction. Questioning society's energy needs has always been my tendency. But I gained further understanding of our culture by giving up affluence and many conveniences. This was an attempt to get closer to nature and live by my wits with the support of activists and my growing community of friends far and wide.

In 2004 I hit the road (the rails, usually) to spread the word about the plastic plague, petrocollapse, and the positive future that culture change will present. It was fitting that the nonprofit organization I founded in 1988, Fossil Fuels Policy Action, eventually became known as Culture Change. I was delighted to learn last year that geologist M. King Hubbert, who discovered peak oil, identified the fact that we do not have an energy crisis but a culture crisis:

Our culture is built on growth and that phase of human history is almost over and we are not prepared for it. Our biggest problem is not the end of our resources. That will be gradual. Our biggest problem is a cultural problem. We don't know how to cope with it.

SNIP

A better solution is to question the supposed need for this energy, and get down to the task of redesigning our lifestyles to share the Earth with all species and peoples. This viewpoint must help us reject the exaggerated temptation of nuclear power, which Al Gore reminds us is completely tied to nuclear weapons.

We don't need energy at any cost. We need to conform to ecological reality and start enjoying what it is to be fully, beautifully human instead of cogs in the machine of consumerism for corporate profit.

http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/21/233944/840?show_comments=yes