Shhh .... don't tell the Canadians they are doing it already ... wouldn't want to discourage them by letting them know it's supposed to be difficult.In case you hadn't noticed oil has about tripled in price in the last few years. Depending on the month and year you pick it's done both more and less than that.
I work in the oil & gas industry in Calgary and a big part of my job includes evaluating the economic viability of the various oil & gas companies that are involved in operations in the province of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan.What I do know is that the oil sands are no myth and that this chart is grossly inaccurate in declaring that Canada will reach peak production next year. Clearly, the amount of sweet light crude that we are pumping from the ground is quickly being replaced with heavy oil, however, heavy oil production is only just beginning to ramp up.We have plenty of oil for a long time yet.The real problem is the cost, not in dollars but in environmental damage, that will be incurred to produce this kind of oil.In 2002 the Liberal government of Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol which would have us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels. What that really meant was that we would have to cut these emissions by 30% because our emissions had grown 24% since 1990.The economic impact of cutting our emissions by 30% by 2012 = economic and political suicide. So the Liberals did nothing and now the Conservatives have gutted funding for it.Much worse than reducing or even maintaining our current emission levels, oil sands production will cause them to skyrocket. To get 1 barrel of oil from the oil sands you need to expend 80kg of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Currently, there are over 170 billion barrels of oil that we can recover from the oilsands today. Estimates of what is available range up to 2.5 trillion.I'm not an environmentalist and while I work in the oil & gas industry, I am not beholden to it.If the majority of climate scientists in the world today are right and greenhouse gases are the major factor in global warming and if we are going to dump those kinds of emissions, on top of what we already do, into the atmosphere, then I would suggest that the problem isn't that we are running out of oil, the problem is that we are running out of time.
Kyoto was only supposed to be the first step on the path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The countries involved were/are supposed to meet again to talk about further reductions. From my perspective, it seems kind of silly at this point.
i've got an excellent idea. let's attack all americans for something only 1/6 of the population is responsible. if we insult them really good, that will make them want to listen to what we have to say.seriously, jczer. i have enough f**king grief dealing with these xenophobes that live all the f**k around me, for people like you to come along and lump me in with them. if i were to pick between the two sides, would i side with my country and the rednecks, or with you, against myself? i can tell you haven't done so already, so i suggest you think about it.
>It's creepy, but it's realistic. We use more power than most nations (many oil power plants), and drive a *ton* >more. (Other countries use bikes and walk a lot more, obviousldon't get me wrong here. i'm on your side. but most countries are about the size of one state in the U.S. prolly the same for canada... although the people i know of there are way more likely to use alternative fuels. just to do my daily thing... and im average or less - i can easily drive 150 miles a day. i just can't pedal that fast. i have friends that drive from their farms to the city which is 100 miles one way.
johndiMay 7, 2006
Shhh .... don't tell the Canadians they are doing it already ... wouldn't want to discourage them by letting them know it's supposed to be difficult.In case you hadn't noticed oil has about tripled in price in the last few years. Depending on the month and year you pick it's done both more and less than that.
siliconentityMay 7, 2006
This chart is based on the work of Colin Campbell. However Campbell has a long track record of failed and premature predictions of Peak Oil. See <a class="user" href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/10/122-colin-campbell-wrong-again.html">http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/10/122-colin-campbell-wrong-again.html</a> for some pointers. Here's a quote:"The pope of peak oil, Colin Campbell, is legendary for a long string of incorrect predictions of the peak oil date. For example, as we saw in #53, his 1991 prediction called for oil to peak in the early 90s at a level of 60mbd, and decline to about 50mbd by 2005, and then to about 40mbd by 2010. In fact, we are currently producing about 84mbd in 2005. If you want all the evidence on Campbell's piss-poor track record, see CRYING WOLF: Warnings about oil supply, by Michael Lynch."Here's the Michael Lynch paper:<a class="user" href="http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/worldoil.html">http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/worldoil.html</a>and particularly note this graph, which compares Campbell's numerous wrong predictions with other, more mainstream ones. Note that current worldwide production is approximately 85 million barrels per day, at or above the highest predictions on this graph, and far above those of Campbell:<a class="user" href="http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/figure18.gif">http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/figure18.gif</a>It's not impossible that Campbell could be right this time. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But he has a track record of failure which should be taken into consideration in evaluating his predictions, and work based on them like this graph.
zoziwMay 7, 2006
I work in the oil & gas industry in Calgary and a big part of my job includes evaluating the economic viability of the various oil & gas companies that are involved in operations in the province of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan.What I do know is that the oil sands are no myth and that this chart is grossly inaccurate in declaring that Canada will reach peak production next year. Clearly, the amount of sweet light crude that we are pumping from the ground is quickly being replaced with heavy oil, however, heavy oil production is only just beginning to ramp up.We have plenty of oil for a long time yet.The real problem is the cost, not in dollars but in environmental damage, that will be incurred to produce this kind of oil.In 2002 the Liberal government of Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol which would have us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels. What that really meant was that we would have to cut these emissions by 30% because our emissions had grown 24% since 1990.The economic impact of cutting our emissions by 30% by 2012 = economic and political suicide. So the Liberals did nothing and now the Conservatives have gutted funding for it.Much worse than reducing or even maintaining our current emission levels, oil sands production will cause them to skyrocket. To get 1 barrel of oil from the oil sands you need to expend 80kg of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Currently, there are over 170 billion barrels of oil that we can recover from the oilsands today. Estimates of what is available range up to 2.5 trillion.I'm not an environmentalist and while I work in the oil & gas industry, I am not beholden to it.If the majority of climate scientists in the world today are right and greenhouse gases are the major factor in global warming and if we are going to dump those kinds of emissions, on top of what we already do, into the atmosphere, then I would suggest that the problem isn't that we are running out of oil, the problem is that we are running out of time.
Closed AccountMay 7, 2006
"Blah, blah, blah, oil prices!"Don't you get it?The people have spoken!Oil prices are too high! Bush is to blame. We MUST impeach BUSH.
mikesdMay 7, 2006
Here is a link to the SAIC Hirsch report on peak oil and a link to Rep. Roscoe Bartlett's testimony before congress on peak oil. They both offer the clearest explanation of what we are facing.I think climate change will be the greater problem with terrorism coming in third.<a class="user" href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/12072005hearing1733/Hirsch.pdf">http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/12072005hearing1733/Hirsch.pdf</a><a class="user" href="http://www.energybulletin.net/12751.html2nHTA">http://www.energybulletin.net/12751.html2nHTA</a><a class="user" href="http://www.bartlett.house.gov/SupportingFiles/documents/5-2_Oil_Speech.pdf">http://www.bartlett.house.gov/SupportingFiles/documents/5-2_Oil_Speech.pdf</a>
zoziwMay 7, 2006
Kyoto was only supposed to be the first step on the path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The countries involved were/are supposed to meet again to talk about further reductions. From my perspective, it seems kind of silly at this point.
knightmareincMay 7, 2006
exaclty.
Closed AccountMay 8, 2006
i've got an excellent idea. let's attack all americans for something only 1/6 of the population is responsible. if we insult them really good, that will make them want to listen to what we have to say.seriously, jczer. i have enough f**king grief dealing with these xenophobes that live all the f**k around me, for people like you to come along and lump me in with them. if i were to pick between the two sides, would i side with my country and the rednecks, or with you, against myself? i can tell you haven't done so already, so i suggest you think about it.
captrrMay 8, 2006
Bah! Never let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a good old America bashing session.
starmanjonesMay 9, 2006
>It's creepy, but it's realistic. We use more power than most nations (many oil power plants), and drive a *ton* >more. (Other countries use bikes and walk a lot more, obviousldon't get me wrong here. i'm on your side. but most countries are about the size of one state in the U.S. prolly the same for canada... although the people i know of there are way more likely to use alternative fuels. just to do my daily thing... and im average or less - i can easily drive 150 miles a day. i just can't pedal that fast. i have friends that drive from their farms to the city which is 100 miles one way.