At this price! Maybe six hundred years of known reserves. And more to be found every day. It looks like there never will be any shortages of oil. Just shortages of money to buy it for the comman man. (Insert fanfare for the Comman Man here).

Massive heavy oil deposits were just not developed, were told, since their extraction costs were higher, and could not match the profits obtained with the lighter crude. Thats the reason, I believe, that OPEC and some others nations in cooperation alloweed production expansion to fall behind world growth in demand, to create shortages and to push up and keep up prices for oil, as well as all other raw resources imported by the USA.

Blueskies,

Where, pray tell, do you come up with the belief that the world has a six hundred year supply?

This source says otherwise, that production of oil and liquids will peak before 2020 <link>. Even the US Geological Service, which provides the most optimistic scenario says that the the peak of production will be reached around 2030.

The dreams that tar sands or the heavy oil of the Orinoco or oil shale from Colorado will be produced in anywhere near the quantity we need to keep things going are sheer delusion. First, there is the problem of extraction. Alberta Canada is a bitch in midwinter, for example. Mining these things won't be easy. Second, there is the problem with separation of the oil from its source, which will require vast amounts of water (a big problem in the arid parts of Colorado) and heat, and in the case of shale oil, a prior cooking process to convert the kerogen to oil. Then there's the problem of refining, especially with the Orinoco heavy oil which contains high quantities of sulfur and vanadium.

A good indicator of the future of oil production is the behavior of the major oil companies themselves, which, instead of increasing drilling activity or building more refinery capacity, are increasing their dividends and buying back shares.

The reality which limits the available oil to a fraction of whatever the total oil may be is that at some point the energy expended in extracting and refining the oil becomes equal to the energy which may be gained by burning it. Similarly, the energy cost of producing corn ethanol is close enough to the energy which may be derived from it that there is an ongoing debate between reputable scientists as to whether the net energy yield is positive or negative.

If you knew for certain that there was a salt dome containing 100 barrels of oil 5,000 feet beneath your house, would you see fit to extract it or just count it as unavailable for all time?

If nothing is done, the world population will double every 30 years. Did you include that in your ridiculous assertion that $100 oil can last 600 years?

There's very few roadblocks to $120 oil, which we will hit soon. Past $120, there's resistance which may delay the inevitable, but once that resistance is shattered, it will be the slow march to $180.

There is oil in the ground we will never extract because it would cost $300/barrel to do so.

The world's population doubling time is 60+ years and it is going up as growth slows. It hasn't been at anything close to that rate since 1963 (45 years ago), when the world population was about 3.3 billion, which it has just doubled recently.

"A good indicator of the future of oil production is the behavior of the major oil companies themselves, which, instead of increasing drilling activity or building more refinery capacity, are increasing their dividends and buying back shares."

Oil companies are actually drilling their butts off, taking advantage of new deep water technology to drill offshore in places unreachable even five years ago. NOV and RIG are keeing busy.

As for refinery capacity, it is also continually expanding. Just not new plants being built.

There is a new Interpretation of "Hubbert's Peak" that says that we're nowhere near peaking or running out of oil. Why? Because, like others said, there's also the harder to find, more expensive to refine "heavy crude" and oil available from tar sands. When those two are added in, the amount of total oil available skyrockets off-the-chart according to what I have read.

At $10 a barrel the supply is low because only the cheap&easy is extracted and refined. But at $50 a barrel it's a new game. The heavy stuff and tar sands then become economical, and a new far higher supply is there like magic,, it's just a question of supply and demand and the price.

From what we think we may know about Venezuelan "total" oil reserves, Venezuela may have reserves of about 350 billion barrels if all their known heavy and light crude are counted. That total is more than is now officially recognized, unofficially the country has greater reserves than Saudi Arabia..

But there's a lot more. US Energy Department believes Venezuela holds super-heavy tar oil reserves estimated at about 1,360,000,000,000 (1.36 trillion) barrels.

Remember Chavez offering to lock in oil at $50 a BBl a year or two ago?

the water and heat problem can be readily solved in tandem, colorado will have plenty of wastewater and brackish water. If they find a way to efficiently heat the water into steam, initial water quality won't matter.

Efficient heating can be achieved by essentially installing a backwards air conditioner. Air conditioners cannot "create" cold, they can only move heat. A typical air conditioner expends one unit of energy to move four units of energy.

If ambient air is used, it may be prudent to shut down the steam production for the winter. But, there's plenty of industrial waste heat produced by a variety of processes-- if new heavy manufacturing is built near shale deposits, the waste heat of industry can be used to boil the water to send to loosen the oil.

Phil, I agree ethanol is not really viable as a replacement fuel. Besides the good points you made, its made from our food supply. We don't have sufficent cropland to feed ourselves and produce significant supplies of ethanol too, are we going to average the cost of fuel with food? This is`good news for farmers, for a while, but who else?

I was specificly thinking of the Canadian shale oil, and the Orinco heavy oil and tar sands. The`Canadian shale I read had extraction costs of about $40 a BBL, the Venezuelan heavy oil $30. Both could be producing today making a tidy profit.

"revrick wrote the following post at 01/05/2008 9:46 AM:

Blueskies,

Where, pray tell, do you come up with the belief that the world has a six hundred year supply?"

I was thinking simplisticly, hopeing to spark a disscussion, which it did, thanks. Chavez`boasts he can supply the entire world from Venezuela for 300 years. When I checked it seemed maybe he was right.

Your own link brought out the vast uncertainty in reliable estimates in both current and future supplies. The world was supposed to have run out of oil by now, "survivalists" took off to lurk in the badlands and backwoods, in '70's it was all crisis talk, solar power and ethanol, but we did not because OPEC decided to increase their listed reserves- a political decison.

"Both could be producing today making a tidy profit."

The Candian stuff is being developed, ahead of our own massive deposits because it is a shade lighter and cheaper to process. Venezuela's is heaviest and most expensive.