According to some estimates, we have about 70 years worth of global oil reserves left around the world...?

Question

...therefore, if it were not for another 70 prospective years of money to be made on oil would we already be using hydrogen cells and putting in more effort to increase the efficiency of the exisitng technology. Would global warming be a global concern and not have certain countries burying their heads in the sand denying we have a problem?

Answer 1

Would someone please post true information rather than all this conspiracy and evil corporations bull! The government should offer prizes, money and so forth to encourage hydrogen cars, guess what, they do. http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=CATSEARCH&fundActivity=EN There's a good starter, there's plenty more. Almost every state DOT has bonuses and incentives for creating alternative fueling sites. Here's my state: http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/biofuel/application.htm
If the oil companies are so evil and are preventing this new technology, explain why Shell, BP, and Chevron execs and engineers have been showing up at fuel cell and hydrogen economy conferences. They aren't trying to suppress any technology, they are a company and they realize that they must embrace new technology or be outdated and go under. No one is trying to stop a hydrogen economy, the technology is still developing and it just takes time.

Answer 2

Estimates are based on the way we use our current technology. We don't use our current technology to manufacture oil to the best of our ability. Oil generates the most profitable return right now because it is a fixed commodity. Meaning the price of oil is already set between the Corporation(s) and the Country selling it. By the time it makes it to any market (i.e. the stock market as an option contract or the gasoline market for cars, the price has quintupled). It doesn't matter how many years worth of oil is known right now because that number depends on to many variables that we can influence for our benefit. Not including that more and more oil is found with super computer's analyzing the sea bed. Which is smart because the world is 3/4 water. Global warming is not a concern because profit is put over health. Hydrogen cells aren't used widely because to much money is invested and the return hasn't been realized yet ( i.e. new drilling machines in the pacific, or contracts that were bought that don't expire until 2070). As those returns are realized and the customers ask for more efficient use of energy then we will see the new implementation of technologies taking the place of oil.

Answer 3

There are several problems with oil reserve estimates. The biggest one is that we really have no idea how much easy to extract oil is left. It is worth pointing out that there is almost certainly a great deal more oil but the problem is that it may not be easy or fast to extract. It may become so difficult to extract that it actually can take more energy to extract that you can get from burning it. Once you get to that point oil becomes useless as fuel.

The issue to focus on is Peak Oil. What that means is that as you pump oil you can continually increase the rate at which you produce oil by exploration, drilling more wells and advancing technologies. But at some point those measures will no longer increase production because you found all the big deposits or the existing deposits start to run low or you have advanced drilling technology as far as you practically can. That happened in the United States in 1978, the year of the gas crisis. As a result the US produced more oil in 1978 than it ever has since. We continue to pump oil in the US but at a gradually diminishing rate. That will happen world wide too and may have happened already. In spite of what some may say this is not because of environmental restrictions on drilling and exploration, what deposits those restrictions protect are really quite small and will not reverse the decline in US production.

Note that peak oil does not mean that oil will suddenly run out, we will probably still be able to produce oil at smaller and smaller rates for centuries.

The important point is that we will no longer be able to increase oil production and in fact oil production will start to fall.

This is a very big deal because the way our economy is designed it basically runs on oil. So if oil production falls our economic out put must fall with it or else we have to change our economy. So you can see why Democrats have been howling for conservation. In the face of dropping oil production the only way to grow the economy will be to conserve oil. Conservation is not anti-growth it is pro-growth.

This issue becomes even more critical if you consider that both India and China are rapidly modernizing and their citizens would like to live the way we do, driving cars and burning oil. That has already increased demand for oil and is the main reason we are now paying $3+ at the pump. It will get worse as the output starts to fall. That will put a larger squeeze on the economy. We could be facing a world wide economic depression that could last for decades if we do not act right now to reduce our oil consumption. We need an Apollo program for energy to get off of oil as much as possible. It can be done but it will take time and commitment.

Peak Oil and Global Warming are too separate and different reasons for getting off oil ASAP. If we do not, we and the next couple of generations will be facing a very bleak period.

Come on folks lets pull together on this.

Answer 4

The problem with estimates of oil reserves is that they only include oil deposits we know about. We don't know how much oil there is that we don't know about, so we can't know how much oil there is.

That being said, it's a really tough call: how to encourage alternative energy sources' development while still keeping oil prices down low enough that the economy (that will be supporting the research) doesn't strangle. I think the best solution would be to have the government (or, better yet, private foundations) offer incentives and prizes for developing alternative energy. Private capital would be involved in developing the alternative energy strategies, and once that happens, some entrepreneur's bound to figure out a way to make money off it.

Answer 5

No way to tell just from population growth rate. You need to know how many of those people are driving cars. And how much mileage those cars get. And what other things is oil used for? Aircraft? Electricity generation? Ships? Trains? Lawn mowers? Plastics manufacturing? How many people use those products. There are plenty of people in the world today who do not use ANY of those things, and many more who only use a small part of that. And how much oil is left in the world. We don't know any of that. But the general opinion is that we have 100 years of oil left. That is just a guess though, nobody really knows.

Answer 6

There are two groups of people: short term thinkers and long term thinkers....

Short term thinkers will always continue using what is most readily available to them as a resource and a way to make money... this group of people would only look for alternative sources once the oil runs out (in 70 years) at which time they will have screwed their children out of a hospitable planet (not to mention their children's children and so on)...

Long term thinkers will realize (as many have) that oil is just a stepping stone to better and brighter things (more efficient things)... they are already working on new ideas and compete with the short sighted profiteering idiots... You would think this would be a losing battle, what with oil being such a hot and profitable commodity for oil industries... but no! In fact, these forward thinking people, who happen to be the CEOs of forward thinking companies are ALREADY reaping the boons of their more efficient energy methods... yes, it cost them more money to do the research and set up, but when profit charts are compared, the forward thinking companies are gaining and the oil based old technology based companies are losing.... (see Al Gore's movie as a reference to these charts)...

Global warming would still be an issue because we have a good 100 years worth of CO2 still floating around, and the oil industry is not solely responsible for the excess CO2 in the air.... but if we didnt have 70 years left of oil we'd have a helluva good start at beating this thing!

Sad thing is, if we didnt have 70 years worth of oil left, the US wouldnt be importing it from other countries and all countries would be racing to find alternative methods... and guess who would be one of the best in the race? The US! So, yeah, I definately think some politicians need to get their heads out of the sand.... we have nothing to lose, but lots to gain!

Just elect long term politicians and the problem is solved! (or at least on it's way)

Answer 7

You've answered your own question. Simply put, there's another 70 years of profit ahead for those producing and selling oil. If there wasn't we would most certainly be using something else, and perhaps the same folks would be profiting. As for global warming, the human race will have to evolve to face these challenges, whether self induced or natural.
As for certain countries and their politicians, the latter know their bread is buttered by those with money, and unless they are foolish, they will continue to favour the hand that feeds them. Don't look for politicians to lead anything that would upset the status quo. They've simply got it too good.

Answer 8

Full of **** Texas has not even opened some of there natural gas wells and probably never will if hydrogen feul supplies ever catch on which I am sure they will.

Answer 9

the 60 year old millionaires dont have 2 worry bout it do they. i pity our children havin 2 live in the world previous generations have polluted and enhanced global warning.