Via press release: a forecast study of investor patterns from UC Davis.
Stock prices suggest a 90-year gap
At the current pace of research and development, global oil will run out 90 years before replacement technologies are ready, says a new University of California, Davis, study based on stock market expectations.
The forecast was published online Monday (Nov. 8) in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. It is based on the theory that long-term investors are good predictors of whether and when new energy technologies will become commonplace.
“Our results suggest it will take a long time before renewable replacement fuels can be self-sustaining, at least from a market perspective,” said study author Debbie Niemeier, a UC Davis professor of civil and environmental engineering.
Niemeier and co-author Nataliya Malyshkina, a UC Davis postdoctoral researcher, set out to create a new tool that would help policymakers set realistic targets for environmental sustainability and evaluate the progress made toward those goals.
Two key elements of the new theory are market capitalizations (based on stock share prices) and dividends of publicly owned oil companies and alternative-energy companies. Other analysts have previously used similar equations to predict events in finance, politics and sports.
“Sophisticated investors tend to put considerable effort into collecting, processing and understanding information relevant to the future cash flows paid by securities,” said Malyshkina. “As a result, market forecasts of future events, representing consensus predictions of a large number of investors, tend to be relatively accurate.”
Niemeier said the new study’s findings are a warning that current renewable-fuel targets are not ambitious enough to prevent harm to society, economic development and natural ecosystems.
“We need stronger policy impetus to push the development of these alternative replacement technologies along,” she said.
Additional information:
Full text of study, “Future Sustainability Forecasting by Exchange Markets” — http://pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag (paywall)
Just to show that there is a significant (i.e. non-zero) probability that abiotic processes also produce hydrocarbons in Mother Earth. Hmm, something about carbonates, water, temperature and pressure, at least it’s been proven with measurements in a lab setting that it can occur – directly to methane. It also appears that certain polymers also can occur.
Wouldn’t that be the pits? As fast as we could burn it, Gaia would be making it.
For the previous commenters, there is nothing that requires the carbon to be sourced by plants and animals. Inorganic carbon sources are also viable – in fact – it would appear that we might want to rethink the whole idea of organic vs. inorganic, at least where carbon is concerned. An example of an inorganic source for carbon would be sodium bicarbonate. Nature is sometimes kind.
I believe we will “run” out of oil in about 50 years, right after Fusion energy becomes commercially available. Of course, I could (may) have made this prediction 50 years ago 😉
Dr Chaos,
Unconventional also means “we didn’t know how to extract it from shale before.” It doesn’t necessarily mean abiotic. Deep wells, drilling through “basement rock”, that’s getting close to abiotic. Finding gas in fractured granite just a couple of miles above the moho, that’s probably abiotic.
We’ve got a lot to learn in a lot of areas.
@Smokey —
the majority of major producers hit peak production long before 2006-2008 — the only reason production world wide is still (possibly) increasing is smaller players increasing production
Crude Oil and lease Condensate – does not include other liquids/NG/Refinery Gains
Peak production
UK 1999
Saudi Arabia 1981
Norway 2001
Syria 1996
Oman 2000
Indonesia 1991
Iran 1974
Libya 1970
Kuwait 1972
Nigeria 2005
Mexico 2004
Malaysia 2004
regions of world
Persian Gulf — 1977
North Sea –1999
Just looked up Hubbert on the wikipedia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_Peak_theory
and guess what you find under “See also”?
Limits to Growth (book)
I sense GM incoming in 3… 2… 1…
Mark Wagner says:
November 9, 2010 at 8:41 am
To quote one of my all time favorite books on energy, The Bottomless Well,
Just to underscore how persistent this myth has been, another quote from the same book,
If one makes kerogen conversion from shale and oil sand illegal, illegalizes coal to liquid conversion, bans Arctic drilling, bans horizontal drilling with in-situ fracturing, and generally discourages oil exploration, then YES, the end can come quickly.
But only idiots and environmentalists would commit that kind of suicide.
Oh.. wait…
Whether it’s from biotic sources, non-biotic sources, unicorn droppings, or dust left by Pixies: We’ve been using a lot more of it than we’ve been finding for several decades, now.
Prices were rising like a rocketship from 2005 to 2008, but the “production” of crude oil was flat (and, inventories were declining.)
It’s generally accepted that we have to bring somewhere between 3.5 Million, and 4.0 Million Barrels Oil/Day online every year just to “stay even” with declining production from existing wells. If you will go here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_megaprojects
you will see that we have about 3.1 million bpd coming online in 2011, and a little over 2.2 million bpd in 2012. That won’t get it.
I have to post this again, if oil prices go up enough, other sources that can replace oil (biofuel for instance) become economical. Then less people want to buy oil since they sunk $600 into their car for the converter to use it or $50 for recent diesel engines. Most diesel engines older then 10 years can run on just about anything. This decreases demand…and the cycle continues until oil demand once again reaches a plateau and once again the cycle continues. Other sources of fuel can power vehicles and perform a number of things that oil does. The reason they generally do not is because they cost more.
Trust me, there is no peak oil emergency on the horizon. Just economic hurdles that we need to deal with in a sane fashion. Fear in itself is the issue…if we are afraid of everything that could go wrong, we live our lives from disaster to disaster. Its better to simply live life and enjoy it then worrying about “maybe possible problems”.
Don’t worry, looks like China and India are radically increasing their coal use.
As a geologist who has explored for oil for the last 25 years, I think I can add some light to the subject. First of all, I subscribe to the statement that the “past is the key to future” and I believe that this applies to this debate. Many countries have already hit peak oil (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5576) and there is absolutely no reason to think that the others won’t follow. We are all in awe of Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries but the fact is, we had a version of Saudi Arabia in West Texas and it finally peaked along with other great oil provenances in the U.S. and the world. My biggest eye opener was when I got to work Libya when it opened up a few years ago. I thought there would be some really big opportunities, but after exploring the country, I learned that, yes there are many opportunities but on a very small scale compared to the heydays of the 50’s where billion barrel discoveries were the norm.
As has been mentioned on other posts, there is a big difference between reserves found and flow rates. I do think there is a huge amount of reserves in oil sands, oil shales, etc. but it is very difficult to get large flow volumes from them. Peak oil is not about reserves but about how fast you can produce it. As I see it, the only way to reverse this is for prices to go up a lot to spur huge operations in extracting oil from shales, etc.
Finally, there is good evidence that peak oil of conventional crude already occured in 2004. Even with oil prices nearly tripling from that point, there was no uptick in conventional crude volumes.
Several of you said it; oil companies don’t waste time looking for more resources than they can use in 40 years. It’s a waste of their time and resources.
This can be fixed. Put a woman in charge of searching for oil. If she’s like my wife, having found the right outfit doesn’t mean she stops looking for another one. And another one. Until we are guaranteed to be late to whatever she’s dressing for. If enough oil companies put women in charge of exploring for oil, we’ll have such a glut no one will ever say we need nuclear.
I think I should just hit the delete key….
Like the debate between CAGW alarmists and skeptics, the abiotic and biotic oil controversy continues.
here is one report:
http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html
Best books on the topic in my opinion:
The Age of Oil by Leonardo Maugeri
Oil Panic and the Global Crisis by Steven Gorelick
Peak oil can be defined over a dozen different ways, with completely different implications for real world events. Whenever conversing with a believer, always make sure you know what their particular defined dogma is.
Peak Oil – Yeah Right.
Here is a fine example of “experts” inability to accurately predict the future. The construction of an early calculator, the Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer was completed in 1946. It weighed in at approximately 30 tons, and used about 18,000 vacuum tubes.
About 1947 NewScientist said that in the future we may see calculators that use only 1,800 vacuum tubes and weigh as little as 3 tons.
Dr Chaos says:
November 9, 2010 at 3:40 pm
You are right, your logic bone must have been itching. I am an organic chemist of some 40+ years, and have come to realize that the Ukrainians were right 30 years ago—most oil and gas is abiogenic. How can highly oxidized plant and animal life be reduced, losing most of its weight in water and much more oxygen than it has carbon? What is the mechanism for the removal of all of the oxygen? Where does the hydrogen come from to reduce every single carbohydrate and fat? Why is there helium in the gas and oil? If there is a mechanism, it has to overcome a huge potential energy barrier, as the Russians proved using thermodynamic theory.
Besides, the Russians have made oil from carbonate, ferrous element catalysts such as iron, and water in the laboratory, under conditions existing only a few miles down under the crust. Germans made synthetic gas and oil from CO and water in WWII. It is the opposite of “far-fetched”!
Just like on Titan that has seas of ethane and higher hydrocarbons. I have even heard some peak oilers try to explain that away by saying that there was lots of life on TITAN in the past, and the ethane is “fossil fuel”.
Peak oil is another religion that does not tolerate dissent. Oil geologists do not want to hear about it lest the futures price drops and people don’t listen to them when they say, “drill here”. Prices will drop as natural gas and oil is “found” in abundance. The Russians are happy, as are the Vietnamese who are now extracting petroleum from very deep wells where geological theory said it could not exist. Russia has gone from net importer to exporter just, coincidentally, after the Ukrainian abiogenic theory emerged.
I agree, though, that the “consensus” is that oil is “fossil fuel”, as our grammar school textbooks have proclaimed for a century.
A bunch of hogwash — we can make oil substitutes now, but they are expensive. When gets more expensive, oil substitutes from coal, algae, etc., will be relatively more affordable.
Plus, as oil becomes more expensive, more known oil reserves become available. In other words, we have known oil deposits that are too expensive to drill for. But they become economically viable when the price of oil goes up.
I’ll also second the notion that we have no clue what new technologies will or will not be available decades in the future.
Good news in here. You can either have Peak Oil or you can have Fossil Fuel induced AGW. Pick your poison.
For me, this is better than television. Make some popcorn and let’s watch the hysterics duke it out.
Oil is abiotic — a product of chemical mineralogical formation.
How much oil exists? — No one knows.
How fast do these natural mineralogical processes take?
Again, no one knows.
But there are vast untapped sources of oil. Yes, much of it is in ultra-deep deposits in ultra-deep waters, below the seafloor, but it is there and it can be developed & produced.
In fact, some of these oil deposits are being developed & produced now.
Already, large deposits of deep sea oil are being produced.
More will come online for production & consumption.
So-called “peak” oil is over thirty years away, if then.
But “peak” oil within the next five years?
Not a snow ball’s chance in hell.
George E. Smith says:
November 9, 2010 at 3:15 pm (Edit)
“”””” Jim says:
November 9, 2010 at 12:52 pm
*****
George E. Smith says:
November 9, 2010 at 12:04 pm
*****
Why did you post this garbage, then? As you admit, you didn’t research it. So you post it anyway, knowing there is no basis in fact for it? Getting bored? What? “””””
Why are you dumping on me Jim; what did I do to get you so jumpy ?
I said I heard it on a “NEWS” program; at least I presumed it was a NEWS program; actually it is more correct to say I SAW it on a NEWS program since it was on TV and it was on a Chinese Station; so I couldn’t understand a word of it. But the program did have English language subtitles; and since I do read English; I simply posted here an approximation of what I read.
Interesting. A Chinese “news” station is broadcasting a “science and technology” items about thorium reactors and thorium power production. While they are really building hundreds of coal plants, hydro projects, and pushing more conventional (uranium) power plants.
But the US “news” stations are playing up who is the latest “hit” in Hollywood and – if they mention energy at all – it is about how many alternative energy projects (like URI’s energy from heated asphalt) our “Dept of Energy” and government and legislative experts want to fund based on CAGW exaggerations and a fear of capitalism.
Gee. I wonder who is more accurate? Who really believes in energy production? The country that is doing it? That is planning on the next fifty to 100 years of production? Or the culture that (now) fears it?
It’s still not certain that oil is an exhaustible fossil fuel, or is from a natural process in the mantle of the earth.
Freeman Dyson talks about it in the second half of this video:
Poor Murray, it must be very distressing to you that man keeps managing all of the catastrophic scenarios that you screamers keep predicting for us? Also for you to see positivity rather than the grinding negativity that dominates the very sad lives of people like you. What is your point? That is in what you say and of the very existence of people like you in general.
In WWII, the USA bombed the german synthetic oil plants, making feul and lubricants from coal, this is a so well recognized a fact that it is impossible to cover up, however, it seems that people can forget it (some selectivly). If the germans could do it 65 years ago, is our technology today so backward and promitive that we can no longer do what they did so many decades ago? There is a LOT of coal, a lot more than oil. The only reason we do not make synthetic oil is that it is more expensive, and because our masters have chosen to “forget” any technology that actually works.
And that is just one of the currently available alternate feul technologies, there are also other ways to make synthetic feuls, plus space beamed solar power (about 5 times better than land based solar) which has been blocked by “environmentalists” on the thin excuse that it might maybe do something harmfull in some desert somewhere to something, and of course there is nuclear, and hydroelectric which is being attacked by “environmentalists” (despite it being “renewable”) as harmful to something somewhere.
And that is just a partial list of technologies we know we can build right now. The idea that alternatives do not exist is invented simply by reducing the list of alternatives to only those that do not currently work. It is also done by reducing the list to only those that are funded or otherwise under total control of our new masters. After, all, if “the government” is not in control of it, it must not be important, right?
The reason is simple, if we have limited feul, our masters can control us by rationing it, taxing it, regulating it, etc. They like that. If we have unlimited (effectivly) feul, they cannot. It is all about the revolt against the idea “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. The new idea is that “some are more equel than others”. In other words, a return to the old idea that there are the nobles, and the peasants (thats you). In other words, a return to feudalism.
Welcome to the new dark ages, literally.
Brady 11/9/2010 at 8:48 AM
That the Brazilian find is estimated to be between 3.7 billion and 15 billion barrels has very little bearing on the peak oil argument. World crude oil consumption is about 31 billion barrels per year, and it’s been growing by 1.76 percent per year. The following link shows consumption in barrels per day. Just multiply by 365.
USDOE Petroleum Statistics