Template:Past cotw

Oil reserves is a topic deserving more attention. There are precise definitions that have economic consequence for valuing companies and resources within the broad concept presented here.

Just one little point here... I'm new to wikipedia, but. Given the political nature of this subject, I'd appreciate knowing approximately the viewpoints of the writers. As far as I've understood, the idea of wikipedia is strict peer control and striving for neutrality. Still, there could be a meta-page about the writers/sources and their (self-reflected) opinions and possible biases. Naturally, one might ask what the point is to ask anyone if he lies or not. Still, some kind of background, even given anonymously, about the sources used, would be highly appreciated, and add great value to the reliability of the article. What is the general wiki stand about this kind of issues? Some pages are protected, but that is different: it's only against straightforward sabotage and not a wiki way to protect neutrality. --Sigmundur

Two new users User:Dracken and User:Sleibhine added a large chunk of info to the article at almost the same time: [1]. It may just be a new user who does not know you cant use copyrighted material. The second part was copied from this article [2] and I removed it, I suspect the first part (the "Solutions?" section) was copied from somewhere aswell Astrokey44 12:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no point complaining about that. Its time to rewrite it into an encyclopedia form so that it isn't a copyright violation. Would be nice to find the original source of it though. — Wackymacs 15:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is coming along well, I'm surprised by how much it has grown because of the COTW, there are some really dedicated wikipedians working on this one! — Wackymacs 08:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should Oil supplies be merged into this article? Its the same thing isnt it? Astrokey44 08:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good proposition, there is quite a bit of information in that other article so it would be good for this article. — Wackymacs 09:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok ive just done itAstrokey44 11:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is certaintly a relationship but oil reserves really refer to oil in the ground that can be recovered economically. Oil supply also includes the oil production and processing facilities and the oil delivery systems that provide oil to the end user. When there is a 'shortage' of supply it is more often a problem of the delivery systems than a failure of reserves per se. Crubins 14:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe oil supplies could be a section of this article? Astrokey44 10:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, thanks for adding Crubins 00:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article states:

"It has been estimated that there is a total of 2,390 billion barrels (380 km³) of crude oil on Earth, of which about 30% has been used so far."

Where does this data come from? There is no clear reference, yet this precise figure would suggest that there should be. --Erik Garrison 15:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like its a sum of the 2004 year end BP Statistical Review of proved reserves (1,188.505 bil bbls) [3] and the top end USGS assessment of undiscovered reserves (1,202.168 bil bbls) [4]. I wasn't able to dig up a source for total historical consumption, but even if the hinted 717ish bil bbbls is correct saying 30% of the existant reserves last year + undiscovered isn't. The article also says:

"Between 1859 and 1968, 200 billion barrels (31 km³) of oil were used. In 2004, as prices reach record highs, world consumption is on track to 30 billion barrels per year."

And then a link [5] is given that just gives Virginia production and consumption figures (?!). Both the 200 bil bbls figure and the hinted 717 bil bbls figure can't be correct, but I don't know which if either is. I'll change the 30 bil bbls/year thing to point to something useful. Scroner 18:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This portion of the article seems to focused to much on Shell Oil's contributions. The discussion should be more general. I would fix it but I lack the expertise and knowledge in this area.

I think this column should be erased. Reserves are almost *never* totally depleted. Some oil well is Pennsylvannia have being producing oil for more than 100 years. But there production is ridiculous. Production is trending to zero, but almost never gone to nil - in fact, one shut down the wells when they are no more making money, but theorically, small amonts of oil could continue to be produced almost forever.

this is logical, since the Hubbert curve starts and ends to zero but never really reaches it. however, it wouldn't be unscientific to assume a low point to consider as virtually zero. i don't know how those tables were produced though. - some guy

Are the reserves of ANWR included or not in the estimates of US reserves or not? I'm not sure if they should be if they are, because it's hard to consider untappable reserves as accessable, usable oil reserves. But on the other hand, they exist within US boarders and are thus US oil reserves...even if they aren't being harvested. Just something to check up on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.165.232 (talk • contribs)

For the record, ANWR has 10.4 gigabarrels. 71.209.214.60 19:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a USGS estimate of likely reserves; no actual oil has yet been discovered in ANWR, not one drop. --Geologyguy 03:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the char about production peaks is alleged to come from some reliable source, but at least one entry is patently false, going by normal definitions. The United States, in particular. People stopped drilling in the US, not because of any inherent extractive difficulty, but because new restrictions and regulations made extraction elsewhere more profitble. The chart gives the implication that the US "ran out" when no such think happened. On this basis, I'll remove the entire chart as tainted in a week unless this is better explained. MrVoluntarist 01:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That events not connected with the ammount of oil under ground contributed to the U.S. peak in 1971 does not really alter the fact that the production of oil in U.S. has peaked and declined ever since. As I see your objection, you basically claim that since particular events was the reason for the U.S. peak, the peak is no longer valid? The char also includes Oil Depletion Midpoint, which displays that U.S. had a peak long before the ODM, so your objection is included in the char already. I would see your approach as a tainted one, since no chars can give information about every single detail leading to a peak point being different from what would have been expected (the expectation being that peak point and depletion midpoint would be close). That the peak point might have been closer to 1980 if no restrictions had changed the U.S. rate of drilling does not change that the peak in 1971 is a historical fact. --Jakob mark 02:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the US has passed its conventional oil production peak is a well-known fact in both the industry and in geological circles. However, this does not mean the US has "run out" of oil--it simply means that the with current technologies it is becoming economically unfeasible and geologically difficult to extract much of the remaining conventional oil--this is the normal definition of a "peak." Your point about regulations making oil drilling more difficult is not a valid one--take the Texas example. Regulations in Texas are by no means restrictive, and yet much of the new land-based drilling has stopped (because of dry holes) and most efforts in that area are in off-shore oil, which has yet to be as geologically exhausted as land-based oil.Publicus 14:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. I won't delete the chart, but it needs to make very clear that this is only listing when, as a historical matter, extraction peaked, which can be for any number of reasons and does not necessarily bear on capacity for future extraction. Agree? MrVoluntarist 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the chart titled "Top ten nations by oil reserves" since it is using mixed data and provides a mixed message regarding oil reserves. For instance, in the chart just above "top ten" Canada is listed as having estimated reserves of 4.7 as a low and a high of 178 billion barrels, but in the top ten chart that low estimate is no longer shown and just the higher number is given. Further, the other countries are not treated in a consistent fashion--Saudi Arabia's top ten number uses the lower estimate, as does Iran--but Kuwait's top ten number uses the higher estimate. Therefore, this top ten chart is not especially helpful--especially since the chart above does a much better job of illustrating how the oil reserves number for each country is actually more of a range than a static number.(especially until Canada's reserves are determined)Publicus 12:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve estimates are estimates of geological risk. You drill a hole in the ground on the off chance there's something down there. These days, the US looks like a pincushion, so you have to go 100 miles offshore and drill in 5 mile deep water to find someplace nobody else has drilled before. On the other hand, the Canadian oil sands have no geological risk. They cover an area bigger than Florida and everybody knows where they are. You go there, you kick at the ground, and if your boots get all black and sticky, then you've found the oil sands. The only risks are economic. If your production costs are $40/barrel and the world prices is $20/barrel, then you're going to lose your shirt. However, if you beat your costs down to $15 and oil prices go up to $60/bbl, it's like having a license to print money. RockyMtnGuy 08:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the Canadian oil sands bit to reflect current conditions. The old one was so... 1980-ish. RockyMtnGuy 14:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken out the graph listing countries that have peaked in their oil production as the source's information doesn't represent anywhere near what anyone else is claiming and the simple fact that there are many countries on that list that you can look up now as producing more oil than they were when the graph claims that they hit their oil peak and are now declining.

Misleading information from that so called British study.

Because oil reserves measure the amount of oil economically extractable when considering the price of oil and the current technology, oil reserves vary by the day, and can vary quite considerably. Given this is it even relevant to discuss them?

Good question and observation. But please note that the price of oil is limited. There are alternatives. The simple fact that oil is and has been perhaps too cheap doesn't mean its price can increase endlessly. Oil is not the highest density or best energy source for mankind; it just happens to be the sweetheart now and for the past century. Coal, nuclear, and wind energy can replace oil energy. Perhaps that can't happen smoothly, painlessly, or without price spikes. But in a matter of a few years, with sufficient will, 30 gigabarrels of oil per year (1.74 X 10^17 BTU) can be replaced with 17,000 Palo Verde NGS (3 X 10^12 w-hr per year each = 1 X 10^16 BTU) sized nuclear plants. Is that right? 71.209.214.60 20:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, it is right (17,000 added nuclear plants running on full power would add the ammount of power used from oil today). However, important caveats include: Nuclear power must be used to produce some sort of energy that can be used in vehicles, requiring a transfer to, say hydrogen pills. If that transfer of power is assumed to work very efficiently, we may eventually be able to get like 80% output. Meaning that we would need 17,000/80% = 21,250 nuclear plants. However, the uranium price has approx. 6-doubled since 2001 (see Uranium), and how high the price would go if we go from 443 plants (of variable sizes) world wide to more than 20,000 plants world wide is anyone's guess. Besides, building 17,000 plants would require 17,000 X $6 billion (about $102 trillion, two to three years of world wide GDP), and employ around 50 million qualified workers world wide. Spending more than 10% of world GDP on nuclear power plants is simply unrealistic, so that alone brings us to 30 years. Having 50 million qualified workers should be feasible within the 30 year time frame, though. Besides, a building spree of this size would make it very hard for steel and concrete factories and other material producers to tag along, we would probably have to expand these sectors very thoroughly, probably bringing the price of each work even higher. So, it would take a whole lot of will, I'd say. --Jakob mark 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Is there some reason we're using "giga" to reference the number of barrels of oil (i.e. 30 gigabarrels) instead of "billion"? This may be standard terminology in the oil industry but it is confusing to the lay reader. Monkeyman^(talk) 17:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigabarrels is the standard terminology when speaking about oil, so I think it should stay that way. However, I inserted billion barrels the first time gigabarrels are mentioned, hope that does the trick. --Jakob mark 18:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains many inaccuracies including terminology and numbers. I am a Geophysicist with 16 years oil industry experience - I will gradually correct most of the mistakes in the near future.

Ala, I like your changes. One thing I don't know about was a statement you endorsed that said geologists are sure the world will eventually run out of oil. Is that saying geologists are sure humans will consume all natural oil deposits? What is the basis for it? Does this deny that there will be no technological substitutes or shifts in preference that make people not want to extract oil due to a low sale price rather high extraction price? If so, how would such a prediction be within a geologist's area of expertise? MrVoluntarist 21:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be some pools which are too small to be economically developed. We are going after smaller sattelite fileds all the time but there is always a limit. With regards to sale price peole will keep pumping just to keep the facilities alive - anybody who lived through the oil field depression in the 1990's will tell you that. Where the price does really matter is when we are considering new projects or enhancements to existing projects. People in western companies are scarred by the experience of the low oil price era and this acts as a break on more speculative investments.

With regard to substitutes ALL of them have significant problems. There are two devices: the Internal combustion engine and the gas turbine which will not be replaced in the foreseable future,there are however alternative fuels. Hydrogen Fool cells have very serious problems which make them unlikely as anything but a spacialised niche product in the next 30-40 years.

1. Non conventional oils eg Tar sand bitumen - economic at $40 per barrel, but very difficult to scale up to meet demand, also serious local environmental damage which is costly to repair. Uses up a lot of energy to manufacture 2. GTL and Coal to liquids - economic at about $ 50 per barrel, again difficult to scale up 3. Biofuels - yes you can supply all of America's if you convert 80% of the midwest breadbasket to growing corn ethanol or canola diesel

The world is developing and becoming more energy hungry, People in China, India and other 3rd world countries are leading much better lives than their ancestors. It is up to people like me to help them

Interesting. Now, what about the questions I asked? MrVoluntarist 21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3.biodiesel:Algaculture?--Ruber chiken 05:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will never run out of oil. There will always be at least a small trickle. That small trickle may be expensive to produce and to valuable to use for anything other than the productions of medicines but it will always be available as a trickle.

Also, the environment in the tar sands is often left in far better shape than it was befor extraction. The amount of oil seeping in to the local rivers for example is vastly reduced when you wash all the oil out of the sand.

Switch grass is twice as efficient a source of ethanol than corn. Carbonate 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]