Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
The choices we make about energy, the environment and climate will be limited by The Three Chinas.
The Real China
1. One of the Chinas is very real and familiar. It has a population of 1.4 billion.
2. China is developing quickly, trying to do in 50 years what America did in 100. As a result, they have doubled their energy use since 2000, becoming the largest energy user in the world.
3. China’s energy use may well double again by 2020. (The figures in the report did not match reality, but their estimate of 7.5% annual growth looks fairly okay).
4. Coal currently provides 70% of China’s energy. That may drop to 65% by 2020. It may not.
5. If China doubles its energy use (to 200 quads) and 65% of it comes from coal, that will be 130 quadrillion BTUs generated from burning coal, in China, in 2020.
6. China’s coal plants are much dirtier than those used in the developed world.
The Second China
This very real China will be replicated by the natural growth of the human population to 8.5 billion by 2035, and 9.1 billion at its peak later this century. That’s more than the entire population of China. As many of them will actually be born in China, and many more will form part of our third ‘imaginary’ China, it is appropriate to limit the Second China to the size of the real one.
7. Most of these new humans will be born into developing countries.
8. But these developing countries are, in fact, developing now. Their energy use is increasing dramatically–if not as dramatically as China’s. The Second China will spring forth from countries whose energy use is growing by 3.3% per year.
9. And although their use of coal is not as intense as China’s, their reliance on fossil fuels is fairly close (Fig. 2)
The Third China
While China is developing quickly, so is the rest of the developing world. As countries develop, the people living in them get richer. They buy cars, appliances, computers, and begin to use more energy. Again, to avoid double counting (China will be one of the countries talked about, and many of the new middle class will consist of people not yet born), it is correct to think of this as about the size of the current China.
10. Two billion people may join the middle class by 2030.
11. By 2050, countries which are now developing quickly will be called ‘middle-income’ and may account for 60% of GDP.
12. Goldman Sachs believes that China’s per capita income will be $50,000 in 2050 (p.5), and that their per capita GDP will be $70,000. But they also project that Turkey and Mexico will have higher incomes per capita, and that Brazil will almost match China.
13. Mexico currently consumes 69 million BTUs per person per year (Table 1.8). Their average income is $14,000. If their incomes triple, so will their energy usage. The same is true for Indonesia, Turkey, the Philippines, China, India and more.
Discussion
I have written here frequently that I believe current estimates of future energy consumption are flawed. I hope the information provided above shows why. As I have written before, extending current consumption and development trends over a short period of time shows a doubling and perhaps a tripling of energy use over the medium term. That could see global demand for energy reaching 2,000 quads per year by 2035.
I do not know what the sensitivity of the atmosphere is to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 is, and despite pronouncements from partisans on either side of that argument, I don’t think anybody else knows, either.
I do not know what cycles of earth, moon, sun and stars will combine to push or pull global temperatures one way or another, and despite pronouncements from partisans on either side, I don’t think anybody else knows, either.
Recent human history makes it fairly easy to contemplate economic growth and energy usage for the very near future. It is an order of magnitude easier than trying to analyse the factors that influence the climate.
We do not have to guess about the effects of massive coal consumption by developing countries–we have our own history to guide us, from London in 1952 to Manchester a century before, from burning rivers in Ohio to dead lakes nearby.
Commenters to my recent pieces asked why I characterise our situation as an energy crisis. I have tried to provide an answer here. I’m happy to discuss this with any and all. Because I think this is a conversation we can have without referring to magical numbers and thinking, pixie dust or moonbeams.
I personally think that this level of intense development will indeed have an effect on our climate, due not only to CO2, but also deforestation, aquifer depletion and other factors described ably by Roger Pielke Sr. But I don’t know how much and I don’t know what percentages to assign to each.
So let’s talk about energy and why what is described above signals a crisis–or not.
Many people are settling on world population as the central coming difficulty for everything. And when someone says 9 billion people, everyone trembles at the magnitude of it. The problem is very few people have any way of visualising these large numers.
Here’s my way. I regularly travel from Sydney up the Blue Mountains to a place inland about 100 km. For most of the distance there are settlments on both sides that extend something like 5 km. Beyond that uninhabited bush for hundreds of km. So in about an hour and a half I travel along a perfectly understandable and “local” strip of 100kmx10km or 10^5mx10^4m; that is, 10^9 square metres. If we got all the world’s population together to stand on that strip it would be 9 people per square m. Much like standing in a lift. Or if you built it in, say, three tiers it would be about the density in a full stadium. Then as I made my hour and a half trip I could wave to everyone in the world as I went by. (And while I did it, the entire rest of the world would be empty of people.)
We can use fusion ! hehe
Seriously though. There are only two possible answers :
1) Nuclear power everywhere
2) Bad times
It`s pretty simple
Tom,
You always seem to ignore the most proomising recent technology for the recovery of natural gas from shale that is about as clean and cheap as one can get. The potential here is enormous in the US, Canada and elsewhere in the worldto provide an abundatnt supply of clean energy at reasonable price for at least many decades. This will be mostly usefull initially to displace coal for electricity generation; however technology already exist to convert gas to liquid fuels that can use existing infrastructure.
Unfortunately the enviros and the Administration are already doing everything possible to place obstacles in the way of this fuel source. But this will be temporary given the upcoming and the 2012 election.
This technology will likely kill the biofuels, windmills, solar and other alternative sources that are very expensive and impractable. Hopefully this will end all the wastfull expenditures and subsidies that are adding to our huge debt while reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
And the best thing about this energy development it is paid for by private $$$ not the corrupt Congress that tries to pick winners but always ends up with loosers.
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20101017/BUSINESS/10170314/1003/RSS01
“Starting in about 2006, natural gas drillers like Devon Energy, EOG Resources and XTO Energy, now owned by ExxonMobil, perfected methods first tried in 1981 that allow them to cheaply drill down and then horizontally into gas trapped in formations of shale never before thought accessible.
To release the trapped gas, drillers inject a slurry of water, sand and chemicals to break up rock and create small escape channels, a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.”
“Meanwhile, natural gas drillers are spending money and adding jobs. A recent report by Pennsylvania State University, commissioned by a natural gas industry group, predicts that in 2010, drilling in Pennsylvania’s shale formations will add 89,000 jobs and $8 billion in spending.
Analysts predict heating bills this winter could be as low or lower than last year, and sharply lower than in recent years. Through the first six months of 2010, average residential gas prices were 9 percent lower than for the same period in 2009 and 18 percent lower than in 2008, according to the Energy Information Administration.
But while most signs point to low and stable natural gas prices for years to come, it’s not a sure thing.
If regulations tighten or drilling methods are forced to change because of environmental concerns, prices could rise.”
“that China’s per capita income will be $50,000 in 2050 ”
Just curious but is that in 2050 dollars or 2010 dollars? Having an income of 50k is nice but will it be worth 50k in 40 years or more like 10k?
There is lots of coal in the world and now shale gas so it will get used. Best to let the scientists who work on clean burning coal tech (pure oxygen environment, high temp) have at it because it will be used.
Of course that would mean real pollutants being done away with (mercury, sulfur, nitrous) and a near pure stream of CO2 coming out. So those in the green movement will have to admit they were wrong on CO2 and focus on real pollutants (fat chance of that happening, I know).
K.D., As previously pointed out.
Peak oil is a bottle neck on production and distribution bought about by regulation and carpet-baggary rather than actual reserves.
Well done Tom.
A great series of highly provocative articles getting plenty of people hot under the collar one way or another.
Overall, however, your bottom line is still one of pessimism about the future which I believe is based in the rose-tinted glasses with which we (I include myself here, even though I try not to) look at ‘golden-ages’ in the past. Those golden ages were not so golden if you look at them in detail and the only thing which got us out of them was more development not less and – crucially – innovation.
One can’t fault the straight line projections you have made, but as we have seen so many time in the past, such straight line projections have never been proven correct.
An optimist I may be, but travelling and working in developing countries over the past 7-8 years has really shown me what development can do to release human creativity and drive innovation. There are still around a billion people on this planet wondering where tomorrow’s lunch is coming from, but in the past 30 years or so we have increased the number who don’t worry about tomorrow’s lunch by twice as many. That’s 2 billion people who can now think about how to improve their lot in life over a longer period than just the next weeks or months – the basic building block for innovation.
We are certainly going to need all of this in the next 30 years, but do I think humanity has the wherewithal to solve future problems?
Absolutely.
Obviously, these energy scenarios do not work, and we can expect either wars or adaptation to different energy sources. Given man’s history, I am optimistic for no reason.
re Smokey: October 17, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Smokey is fundamentally right, and you all know it.
The alarmists have proved exactly nothing, and what little has been predicted has been found to be wrong.
The AGW game is now just a dead man walking, and all this mental masturbation serves no purpose other than to give those who bought into it a way to save face.
/dr.bill
Rob says:
“We are certainly going to need all of this in the next 30 years, but do I think humanity has the wherewithal to solve future problems?
Absolutely.”
I’m basically with you, Rob. PS, did you see this yet? Pretty inspiring.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html
Comments by several people have already touched on the solution to a number of serious real problems (both moderate-term and long-term (CAGW NOT included, of course (since it has not been proven to qualify under ”serious – real” heading) ):
Both large & small passively-safe Generation-III+ and (eventually, for reprocessing) Generation-IV fast-neutron power reactors. Maybe in 50 years the super-techies will solve the really tough problems that always seem to keep commerically viable fusion power 10-15 years out. . . . and maybe they won’t.
In the meantime:
We know how to build safe, efficient, and reliable Gen-III+ reactors RIGHT NOW.
See just for starters:
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/community/nuclear_energy/277
And so economic growth, consumption, free markets and capitalism get a bad name despite the fact that capitalism and free markets have served our civilization pretty well against all alarmist odds from the past. But endless propaganda, scare mongering, government control and regulations will do a much better job.
Our wise leaders have decided to bless you with wind and solar power and they even have planned for the number of electric cars that will be on our roads by 2020.
Much to risky to leave these highly effective technologies with proven track record up to the free markets.
Much better if Government make all the decisions, takes your job, takes your money make you happy and while you sleep watches the global thermostat to prevent our climate from overheating.
It’s called socialism and it has been tried before.
Most experiments ended extremely bloody.
But the prospect of another three China’s horrible, let’s give it an other try.
Hi all,
Thanks for the comments. A couple of quick points:
1. I am not a pessimist about this at all. For one thing, those extra mouths will have brains attached, and if we get an extra Einstein or two out of the next wave of population growth we’ll be ahead of the game. I do believe this is solveable-but I don’t think everyone has really realised the scope of what we’re going to need to solve.
2. Hey, up there–I’m a Lukewarmer, okay? I keep saying it, and I know it’s not the same as skeptic. But I’m not trying to convert you and I’m not trying to sneak AGW in through the back window while chatting comfortably in the living room. Most people are more interested in facts than ideology, in any event–I’m trying to present facts.
3. Tim–I’m pretty sure GS used 2009 dollars without (important!) adjusting for PPP, as one thing we’re going to need for future prosperity is appreciation of currencies in developing countries.
I agree with people who see this as a change in direction of where to look for the falling sky. I am not pointing particularly at Tom when I say: It seems there is a catastropholagnic (yes, I just created a word, it means being drawn to and enjoying catastrophe projections) vector in the western mentality. It probably derives from the Judeochristian background religions with their prophets: “repent, doom is around the corner, you are a sinner and you will certainly pay”, ending in “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”.
I also am a prophet, and I see a bifurcation ahead: either there will be an expressed WWIII, and all these points will be moot, or there will be plenty of energy and the problems the global society will face is what to do with the number of people who cannot have jobs because they are not needed as a work force any longer. This last will be the real problem, and I will say why:
If we project the incredible rise in technology from 1900 to the present to the next hundred years, I see robots doing all jobs in the way the lower classes did all the jobs for the nobility back when there was nobility. Human supervision will be reduced to some service sections and to all creative sections. How will the masses be occupied? A problem for science fiction scenaria, but I see it quite close if we do not blow up in WWIII and start from square number one.
Energy? It is no real problem.It will be nuclear, fusion, sun , what have you. It is WWIII that is the real danger, and I call it expressed ( like genes) because there are continuous wars festering in the Pax Americana that can get out of control easily.
Thomas,
I enjoy your writing because you cite the sources of your information, provide conclusions based on sound logic that flows from the facts, and though I frequently disagree with you, cannot quibble with the fact that you do not rely on misinformation or selective facts to make you case. You also generate comment which is as interesting as your article. In this case I shall quibble with your information as well as many of the comments it has generated.
The population estimates and projections of energy use in developing nations you cite are drawn from global studies sponsored in whole or in part by the United Nations. I have no more faith in their projections in this regard than I do in their pronouncements regarding the honesty with which the Iraq Oil for Food program was administered, the steady stream of condemnations eminating from a Human Rights Commission chaired by such luminaries as Lybia and Iran which ignore the most blatant examples the world has to offer, or their pronouncements in regard to the temperatur of the planet two decades hence.
Were their numbers correct however, it is too simplistic by far to look at the current patterns and wealth and consumption, project them into the future based on those trends alone, and then throw your hands up in despair, having concluded that there is no obvious path that gets us from “here” to “there” without some crisis along the way. Popycock. That is a problem in centrally planned economies that doesn’t exist when the driving factors are supply and demand.
Economies and populations grow incrementally, and they are channeled in their growth by the best options available at each step of the process. Should fossil fuel become too expensive to fuel economic growth in developing nations, then either they will not develop, or they will do so by adopting other means. If we in the first world cannot support our standard of living because of the same rise in cost of fossil fuels, our standard of living will drop, or we will find alternatives that work. The point is that there is no giant leap from where we are to your 8.5 billion with rising energy consumption assumed for the developing world arrived at by multiplying the population estimates by the energy consumption estimates and concluding that a crisis must ensue. Instead of a giant leap there are many tiny ones, and if energy becomes increasingly constrained, then it by default constrains economic growth and the end result is a world economy expanding within its available economic energy sources, hence arriving at a different answer. Should new efficiencies or new energy sources become available that change the limitations of energy we have today for the better, then we again will arrived via incremental steps at a different end point. In neither case does a crisis ensue. The crisis you foresee has its precident in the world of course, a precident established by those who built long term economic plans in defiance of the laws of supply and demand, and in fact precipitated the collapse of their own economy because neither the demand nor the supply were in concert with the so carefully planned central economy.
Turning to your commentors who seem locked into a view of the United Staes locked in some sort of death spiral, soon to be set aside by the rising power of China, do not rush to teach your children Chinese just yet. Empires do not simply rise and fall. They wax and wane along he way. It was not long ago that I read an article that echoed, often in similar language, the argument that the future belonged to Japan, and best that your children learn Japanese.
The Japanese corporations it seemed, produced superior quality for lower cost, but more importantly were driven by long range business plans that were decades long while the foolish Americans were locked in the quarterly results timelines. Today Japan is just emerging from a decades long recession, and has been eclipsed by South Korea, China, Mexico and Brazil in the production of many goods once seen as their exclusive domain.
Prior to that, general wisdom was that my chidlren should best learn Russion. The communist expansion seemed in enevitable. The Americans hands were tied by their own internal peace protestors, Europe was a vocal ally provided that they could just be vocal to retain the facade of being an ally, and in proxy conflicts it seemed that American strategy was predicated on achieving a tie. Who wins when the best their strategy can offer is a tie?
But the USSR collapsed of its own weight. Their central planning of everything which they believed would displace the laws of supply and demand precipitated the very type of crisis Thomas Fuller sees, but those of us who remained with supply and demand suffered no such predicament.
If we turn the fclock back further, it would be Spanish that our children should have learned, and it is more likely that Spanish will be the 2nd language of choice in North America in the future, not Chinese. The world forms trading blocks based on natural geographic alliances and on political levels as well. A North American/South American trading block to counter the European Union and the East Asian trading block seems more likely to me than any other.
And finaly, as I said before, empires wax and wane. China today is waxing, and the United States is waning. I cannot predict the future, it habitually takes twsists and turns unexpected by those who study it full time, let alone pundits like me who jump in when they time and an opinion to spout. But the fact is that the United States waned under the leadership of Jimmy Carter who governed on the assumption that his country had commited sins that must be apologized for. The world correctly sensed that this was an American government that you could kick sand in the fact of and they would beg forgiveness for having made you angry at them.
They were followed by Ronald Reagan, a man decried by his critics as having an IQ somewhere between a horse and a stump. True or not, he had one important quality in that he was willing to lay out his reaction to any given set of circumstances, and anyone kicking sand in his face was going to get a whole lot more than sand kicked straight back at them. He said he wasn’t bluffing, and everyone from international detractrors to internal unions making punitive demands found that our early enought that almost no one tangled with him for most of his tenure. American fortunes once against waxed.
In the current context, the crazies who would offer our throats up to sacrifice for the sins they seem convinced that the west has imposed on the rest of the world, they are enabled by a receptive ear in Washington. While Reagan broke matters down to black and white decisions, Obama holds a world view that all decision are grey and clings to that world view no matter how many times he fails. When he does make a strong statement on an issue, Americas enemies know it is mostly bluff, a mistake they would not have dared make if Regan were in power.
The juggernot of China’s economy is driven by massive central planning forced on a population that doesn’t want it, and driven in the backs of blatant currency manipulation, a complete disregard for intellectual property rights, and a disdain for the environment in general, not just global warming issues.
They may be waxing now, but their central planning system will eventually result in building massive infrastructure where it cannot be used and leave areas that need it unservices, which they will repackage as select facts proving their success. The United States will not be governed by Obama for ever. He will be replace sooner or later by someone more pragmatic. When they arrive, simple changes in regulation will move millions of energy jobs back to the US, decimate the economies of those who supply it now while funneling money to terrorists, and even simple matters such as requiring that foreign produced good be manufactured according to the same set of labour standards as those which are produced here will make a marked difference in the distribution of jobs and economic power. But the biggest change will come when the Unites States and their free market allies demand that China recognize intellectual property rights or be excluded from international trade.
I see no one in the current political spectrum in the US who has the charisma to shunt aside Obama and his loopy attempts to apologise to his enemies in order to recruit them as allies in a fit of grovelling that even Carter would be ashamed of, coupled with Reagan’s internal fortitude to say exactly what he meant and leave no impressionj in the minds of his detractors that bludding wasn’t part of his strategy.
On the other hand, I didn’t see Reagan coming either. Perhaps he will not appear this election or even next. But appear he will, and only a few levers will be required for him/her to pull, and it will once again be America the bully, America the aroggant, America the incarnation of the devil himself that the world will complain about, while hiding in their shadow and quitly cheering as they push back the likes of China simply be returning to the laws of pragmatic decisions and refusing to be bullied and manipulated by those who sense weakness today and take advantage of it.
The flow rate of All the world’s oil wells declines by about 3.5 million barrels/day every year.
In 2011 we’ll bring about 3.0 million bbl/day online. In 2012 we’ll bring about 2.5 million bbl/day online. 2013 is looking to be less than 2012.
Meantime China, India, and the rest of the Non-OECD nations are increasing demand by about 1.6 million bbl/day, annually.
Guys, it takes many years to find oil (especially when you’re looking two miles deep under a mile of storm-ravaged ocean,) drill exploratory wells, order oil rigs, get permits, build out pipelines, drill the wells, pump oil. We Know what’s coming in the next several years, and it ain’t enough.
Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait have somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 million bbl/day sitting in reserve (maybe.) If they do that will get us through the middle of 2012. Then the price goes through the roof.
If they don’t have that much, or, if they decide Not to pump it till it’s too late, the price goes through the roof sooner. This ain’t rocket science kiddos. You cain’t pump what you’re not ready to pump (or, what you don’t have.)
I’m all for CO2. It makes for big, healthy plants, and makes them drought resistant. I have nothing against burning fossil fuels. But, our Immediate problem is the “flow rate” of the world’s oil fields. It’s getting ready to slow, and we can’t, anytime soon, do anything about it.
thomaswfuller says: (October 17, 2010 at 9:02 pm) 2. Hey, up there–I’m a Lukewarmer, okay?
Uh, huh.
“China will soon become the world’s leader in nuclear power generation. The coal that they have will be saved for other uses.”
Lets hope they build and operate them better than their coal mines.
Roger Carr says:
October 17, 2010 at 5:24 pm
“Your posts always make me feel uneasy, Tom. They have right from the first I read; and I do not mean they make me uneasy because they provide uncomfortable insight, but uneasy because they promote a disguised back door kind of justification for accepting that mankind really is seriously altering our climate whilst on the surface feigning to be riding with those of us who are adopting a healthy scepticism of this.”
Exactly.
Deep deep inside there is a Malthus (and a Lenin?) lurking.
Up front we see a happy Friedman talking about his mothers first years in the US.
Goddard, come back!
davidmhoffer says:
October 17, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Well, David, that was a good one! I am impressed.
Don’t fear coal Thomas, it’s a blessing.
What you should fear is told by Lord Monckton.
Just watch this short video.
@R. de Haan says:
October 17, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Thank you for that most illuminating link to the interview of Lord Monckton. Within that interview is the answer to why there is such great resistance to converting the transportation fleet to clean diesel as much as possible, when such a proposal will both lower costs, stretch scarce resources and lower CO2. It isn’t about lowering CO2. CO2 is merely an excuse to set up the mechanism (i.e. unelected unrepresentative unrecallable world government with absolute powers of regulation and worldwide taxation) to supposedly control CO2, which is uncontrollable as the industrial output of it is a fairly small part of the yearly emissions (the overwhelming balance coming from natural sources). That would also explain the whitewashes of CRU and Dr. Mann, etc. Without CO2 to blame, the excuse to set up this world government would disappear. So could it be that AGW, climate change, climate disruption or whatever you want to call it isn’t really about CO2 at all? That prospect is truly frightening, oil supply issues notwithstanding.
Kum Dollison says:
October 17, 2010 at 10:01 pm
What balderdash.
Oil pumping capacity has been increasing over the last decade: that people don’t want to buy it is another matter. Often this is due to environmental regulations which is why heavy sour crude such as from Saudi Arabia is so cheap. If the USA wants to be prissy so that they cannot refine or use it that is up to them. They can pay the price for their super clean fuel. And do. But there is the ample pumping capacity and tankers currently laid up and ready to carry it wherever it is wanted. Just give the word and be prepared to pay about half the dollar rate per barrel you do now.
That is the extra and outrageous price you pay and are still paying for environmental purity: as we are in the EU. Bless your cotton socks for that. But understand China and India are not so picky, at the moment they do not have the demand but be assured they soon will.
As for for liquified natural gas there are now more tankers and terminals available than anybody is likely to use in the foreseeable future. About half the LNG tanker fleet is idle and two thirds of the production capacity.
Local natural gas is increasingly abundant too, in the USA from shale here in the UK from undersea reserves, now the punitive tax regulations of the last decade have been relaxed, once again we have have a new bonanza of oil and gas building up and good for thirty years. And unlike the USA the UK has a full national gas grid that supplies everything from the mighty power station to the smallest domestic user: and that will do very well as it has done since it was built forty years ago.
Here energy is getting cheaper again and will do so faster as soon as the UK green politicians and their windmills have gone which should happen in the next couple of years.
Coal of course is plentiful, here the choke point is not mining or shipping capacity but port handling capability: chiefly in the receiving ports so it is still taking a month or more standing off to unload in China. Which costs of course. But notice the miners are opening new mines everywhere. Even in the USA new coal fired power plants are being built again, new mines are opening and above all else the railroads, as you call them, are laying new track to carry the coal.
Not what you might expect if you read the Green MSM, but it is happening just the same.
So where you get your ideas from I really don’t know.
Kindest Regards
In my previous comment on October 17, 2010 at 8:46 pm the word “masturbation” was snipped. Just how Puritanical have the moderation standards become? Would “autoeroticism” have been acceptable?
/dr.bill
[Reply: “Masturbation” reinstated. It is not an obscene word. Moderation with a light touch is the standard here. We don’t censor legitimate words. The moderator just got temporarily carried away. ~dbs, mod.]
thomaswfuller says:
October 17, 2010 at 9:02 pm
It seems to me that you fail to do that. You do not present facts. You present speculations based on UN projections that are known to be persistently and habitually exaggerated. In doing so, you promote an ideology, the UN ideology of alarmist environmentalism.
Your doomsday speculations need to worry anyone only when the UN projections acquire the status of valid replacements for true and objective scientific findings.
Anyone worrying so much and wallowing in pessimism should at least spend a little bit of time browsing through “The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment”, by Julian L. Simon. http://www.juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
More specifically, and relating to concerns about humanity suffering soon from a catastrophic energy shortage, it would be worth your while to read Chapter 3 of the Ultimate Resource, “Can The Supply Of Natural Resources – Especially Energy – Really Be Infinite? Yes! ” http://www.juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR03A.txt
Here is a fact I know with absolute certainty: if we don’t try to get there, then we surely won’t.
Oil Additions, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_megaprojects
Production records from the EIA
These numbers include ALL grades of oil. We refine a lot of heavy, sour crude from Venezuela.
If I’m publishing “balderdash” we’ll know fairly soon, won’t we.