Iceland to Voluntarily Go Oil Free in 30-40 Years 813
scottennis writes "Yahoo is carrying a
story about Iceland's plan to wean itself from fossil fuels.
The article states that Iceland is giving itself 30-40 years to kick the oil habit completely. Of course some researchers estimate that in 30-40 years we won't have much of a choice."
Since only like 3 people live in Iceland, (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Since only like 3 people live in Iceland, (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
E.
Re:Since only like 3 people live in Iceland, (Score:2)
Oh, my God, you mean... (Score:5, Funny)
(Haha nice troll)
Re:Since only like 3 people live in Iceland, (Score:2, Funny)
Hydrogen Fuel Cells+Geothermal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hydrogen Fuel Cells+Geothermal (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hydrogen Fuel Cells+Geothermal (Score:3, Insightful)
In Iceland, it will. That's why it's easy for them to do this.
I believe that the only way to go is nuclear.
Unfortunately, fissionable stuff is running out just as quickly as burnable. Pray that we get fusion to work soon.
personally would love to see the middle east die when all their cash cows dry up. I hope to live that
long. I would imagine that most of the fighting would soon stop also, becuase of lack of funds.
Um.. you DO realize that fighting will only get much, MUCH worse when oil-dependant countries like the US duke it out for the last reserves?
Wrong! (Score:2, Insightful)
There's far more oil in the USA then in all of the middle east, just a small group of luddites won't allow anyone to pump it out. Put you won't hear that on the news, as it isn't Politically Correct.
Fusion plants will be banned as soon as the green crowd see's them being built, as they ban -everything-.
Re:Are you insane (Score:3, Insightful)
And then we'll be perfectly safe, because white Christian Americans would never try to blow shit up. Oh, except that one in Oklahoma City. Oh, and that Unabomber guy.
By the way, the religion is Islam, and its practioners are called Muslims, not Islamists.
Re:Hydrogen Fuel Cells+Geothermal (Score:2, Informative)
Subsequent studies have shown that the main problem with the Hindenburg was that the coating on the outside of the balloon was roughly a mixture consistent with that of gunpower and rocket fuel.
Have you seen videos of the disaster? It's a pretty spectacular fireworks show. It is especially amazing considering that hydrogen burns with an invisible flame. (Remember those chemistry experiments where you stick the burning splint into the test tube and hear a POP from hydrogen combusting? You didn't SEE any H2 did you?) A newer theory is that an amazing amount of static electricity charge built up and when the craft approached the ground, the discharging of the potential ignited the coating.
In related news... (Score:3, Funny)
We'll be out of oil... (Score:2)
It's a good goal to minimize oil usage, but I'd hate to see how America will eventually have to make it happen. Not sure if I'll live long enough to see that.
Could be much faster (Score:2)
Re:Could be much faster (Score:3, Funny)
Ahem... gasoline IS hydrogen fuel, i.e., hydrocarbon.
If the hydrogen cars aren't more expensive (due to tarrifs on gas cars, perhaps), consumers will buy them. The government could place an outright ban on the import of gas-powered cars.
Whoa! Hold the phone there Commrade! You ain't messin with the prices of the vehicles I want just to support some crackpot theory of yours!!!
I'm not sure what the statistics are for Iceland, but that would probably eliminate 90% of gas-powered cars in a decade.
Whew!!! Sorry man, thought you were talking about the USA there for a bit! Mental note: only 30-40 years of fun time left before Iceland becomes a dreary SUV-free mess
As for the quip about only having 30 - 40 yrs of oil left anyway, I have been hearing that one since the 1970's. The wacky prediction is always 30 - 40 years away and the *inflation adjusted* price keeps dropping. Thanks but, I will stick with my trusty Hydrogen Powered Jeep
REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - Check your facts. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - Check your facts. (Score:2)
Helium is inert. Hydrogen is not. I'm not sure what part of this is confusing you.
win-win for them (Score:2)
So... the more we pollute and contribute to the greenhouse effect (melting of polar ice caps anyone), the better they are for it? Everyone's a winner!
Good for Iceland, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm happy to see the alternatives being used and discussed, but we have got to start getting really serious about getting cold fusion to work, or else we're in big trouble in about 40 years.
Re:Good for Iceland, but... (Score:2)
I wouldn't exactly expect wind mill technology to be used in NY, much less solar energy be used by Iceland. Geothermal for them, perhaps solar for us.
Long term goals (Score:5, Insightful)
Cat
Re:Long term goals (Score:2)
Why?
Because the goals change every four/eight years.
Just ask NASA how easy it is to accomplish their objectives when the administration gets recycled once or twice a decade.
Re:Long term goals (Score:5, Insightful)
The US federal government is supposed to be merely a custodial bureacracy overseeing the day-to-day administration of national defense and infrastructure. That's why we have a constitution, to restrict the government's power to "plan" the lives of the people or the direction of the economy. That's why we have elections, to keep any single group or ideology from becoming entrenched. That's why we have a (mostly) free market, to give us the speed and flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and technologies.
I don't think you'd like it very much if the government actually had the power you ascribe to it.
Re:Long term goals (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the main reason I am against things like drilling for oil in Alaska. Shouldn't we be saving some of our finite resources for our grandchildren? Drilling in Alaska shows a complete lack of planning for the future generations at best, a complete disregard for them at worst.
Cat
James Watt (Score:3, Interesting)
That is like saying, "I'm not going to eat anymore, since the Second Coming will happen any minute." Only it is worse since he was in a leadership position and therefore forced everyone else to participate in his point of view.
Oil Free? Right.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they going to stop using plastics? Other products made as further generation processing of oil? Products transported to iceland with the use of oil or derived products? What are they going to run their planes on?
Don't get me wrong, reducing oil dependance is a good idea, even if I don't believe the people saying we're running out in 30-40 years (in case you weren't paying attention, they've been saying that for...oh...30-40 years). But is it practical to say they will outright stop? I don't think so.
Re:Oil Free? Right.... (Score:5, Informative)
The whole running out of oil was based on the continental US oil reserves running down, but then the middle east oil was discovered. If you listen carefully the experts don't say we'll run out but that the cost will increase to a point where other fuels cost less. There will still be plenty of oil for candles and plastics, but it will be too expensive to simply burn for fuel just like we no longer burn whale blubber for fuel.
We can also make candles and plastics out of agricultural oils, and eventually we will. Whether that will be in 200 years or 2000 I can't tell you, and frankly don't care.
Re:Oil Free? Right.... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, that's sort of double-speak isn't it. Are you asserting that if supply-and-demand did not function, and the price remained steady that the supply would not run out, or are you asserting that the supply won't have a chance to run out because when it gets low enough the price will sky-rocket?
The USGS certainly does assert that the supply will dwindle. Their expectation is (perhaps unreasonably) that the global oil community will curtail oil sales sometime between 2030 and 2060 in order to maintain a 10:1 reserve to production ratio (which is where the US has always been, but the world market is up around 50:1 right now). As that ratio drops, something will have to happen. It would be more disasterous to suddenly "run out" then to curtail sales and strech the budget of oil out into the latter part of the century.
And just to nail the point home, these studies also take into account the discovery of new sources of oil and new techniques. This is factored into the equations as an annual growth in the oil reserves (which cannot accomodate the exponential growth in demand, of course, but every little bit helps).
Way off topic, baby! (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the biggest shocks will not come from producers, there are more joining the global market, like Russia & co. The biggest shocks will be as demand is curtailed. At some point gas stations will just cease to exist because there won't be enough demand to support them. The loss of infrastructure will cause more drivers to switch and all of a sudden oil will be dirt cheap for maybe a decade or so. This is many many years out but it is almost inevidable (unless it turns out bacteria are making most of the oil or something. Then, ugh, government will be needed to get us of the tit.)
My biggest fear is that oil will run out before doing enough preliminary research, even solar power can be very destructive of the environment if it uses up land inefficiently. But just image if we switched to Coal in all US and Chinese power plants, we'd all be caughing up gallons of flegm. Or used windmills to the extent that it wiped out bird populations, or disrupted local weather patterns in a negative way. The funny thing is the pure market people infesting
Re:Oil Free? Right.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm, lets see they blockaded the ports and imposed taxes to the extent that people were starving to death... Besides the population is quite different from the other Scandinavian countries, they stopped over at in England and Ireland for slaves. And, well, they took a lot of them, there are a lot of green eyes and red and brown hair in Iceland. Culturaly it's different too, they were literate 700-800 years before Denmark's citizens. They never had a king. Contrary to popular myth the island wasn't empty when the Vikings arrived, there were leftovers of Rome with a few monisteries there already. It was empty enough that there is no record of fighting between the groups, just curiosity. Vikings were quite content with marauding the 'primatives' they didn't live with. The Viking thing is way to played up though, the settlers were more interested in farming than war. If they had killed all the monks they certainly would have written about it, they liked books about that kinda thing.
not unlimited (Score:2)
Re:Oil Free? Right.... (Score:2)
This doesn't mean we'll always be able to sqeeze another drop, simply that predictions of The End [tm] are always wrong.
zerg (Score:4, Funny)
We're not going to run out of oil (Score:2)
The environmental reasons for switching away from oil are a lot more reasonable, however I imagine the replacement is really going to be more fossil fuels, probably hydrogen harvested (or reformed) from natural gas for fuel cells. So keep those oil rigs pumping.
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]
Re:We're not going to run out of oil (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right. I honestly don't think we'll run out of oil in my lifetime. Therefore, I shouldn't do anything about it. Apres moi, le deluge.
Oil from Seaweed (Score:3, Interesting)
At any rate, Iceland probably has a better chance with geothermal than with solar given its location.
Oil supply runs dry! Story at 11! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a bit of pessimism about, well, pessimism.
Re:Oil supply runs dry! Story at 11! (Score:2)
Re:Oil supply runs dry! Story at 11! (Score:2)
You say "always" and give no references.
I'm buying their story, not yours.
The fact that the American Petroleum Institute's own estimates of discovered and undiscovered reserves, and probable consumption increase rates, show pretty much exactly what that website showed, just makes me all the more certain.
--Blair
Re:Oil supply runs dry! Story at 11! (Score:5, Informative)
Case in point: ANWR. ANWR oil is going to cost more than Arabian oil, a fact that Bush+Co don't like to point out. The USGS assessment is that there is *no* oil in ANWR that is recoverable for less than $15/barrel. $20/barrel lets you extract maybe a 3rd of the reserve. Get up to $30/barrel and you can get most of it.
How much does it cost Saudi Arabia to get that same barrel? About 2 dollars [bloomberg.com].
(Current spot price is about $25/barrel due to mideast tension, but it's been as low as $17.5 earlier this year.)
We aren't going to run out of oil anytime soon. What will happen is that the price will go up as we use up the easy stuff.
Eric
Re:Oil supply runs dry! Story at 11! (Score:2)
The price today to produce a barrel of Syncrude Sweet blend synthetic crude is about $7 a barrel, and sells for about $32USD a barrel. Right out of the ground from northern Alberta.
And there is a pipeline that carries it 500 KM to be refined and another pipeline to carry it to the US market. How much shipping does it take to get that barrel of Saudi oil to the US market?
Oil shipped from northern Alberta currently makes about 20% of all oil produced in Canada, therefore it makes about ~2% of the US market. And growing every year.
So whay again does the US kiss Saudi tush, and ignores it friends to the north?
Why we kiss Saudi tush still... (Score:5, Informative)
The Saudis could also swing the other way easily, reducing their oil exports and thus causing oil prices to go up (since nobody else has much spare capacity to make up for the lack of supply). However the Saudi's ability drive up prices this way has constricted somewhat since the 1970s due to a number of factors: 1) the Saudi's domestic welfare program has greatly expanded and still requires oil revenues to keep their citizens happy, 2) Saudi Arabia is now a net debtor nation so net revenue shortfalls require borrowing and creditors, 3) the number of oil substitutes at a given price has risen, 4) long term price rises drive conservation response which reduces long-term demand, not in the Saudi interest 5) the US has a Strategic Petroleum reserve at its disposal that was not present in 1973.
As for ignoring friends to the north, I'm not sure we do. (If we did, I'd agree it'd be a stupid mistake.) The northern Alberta oil sands are great, and I think they are novel enough to have not really entered the generic political dialogue. Since I've had people in the oil industry mention them to me since 9/11, I'm sure the oil crowd in power in Washington knows about them. I suspect we just don't advertise it, unless we're in private talks and want to wield a big stick.
The other problems with the oil sands are, as you noted, that it only supplies 2% of our oil and it can't expand production rapidly (without throwing vast sums of money at it, as one might do in a world war.) And while the reserves are apparently huge, they can't all be extracted at that $7 price you mention. It'll get more economical as chemists and others learn how to extract the tar and refine it more efficiently, no doubt. But that takes time. And the Saudis can turn the spigots on or off at their whim, and nobody else has lots of spare capcity they can bring online rapidly at that lower price.
Except perhaps the Russians, as they start exporting more and building more facilities. This came to light a little bit more when certain middle-eastern countries started talking about using the 'oil weapon' against the US a month or two back. Iraq cut its shipments for a month, and I believe Russia boosted theirs. Which is clearly the implied threat we've been delivering to the Saudis since 9/11. Don't screw us or we'll turn to the Russians (and ensure that they have enough pipelines?) to make them the second major swing producer.
All of which is sort of ironic since we used the Saudis to squeeze the Russian economy to collapse back during the Gorbachev era (search Amazon or another equivalent for the book "Victory!" for the full story on that one.)
Verify what I say; I'm not an expert, but I have definitely been reading up on all this and thinking about it more since 9/11.
--LP
Re:Why we kiss Saudi tush still... (Score:3, Informative)
But let me give you a little bit of my experience. I worked in the oil sands for the better part of a decade. Back then, the oil cost about $17 a barrel to produce, and production was around 100,000 barrels a day. Now it's $7 a barrel to produce and about 400,000 barrels a day. In the next year or two when some new projects are finished, it will half the price, and double production again.
Oil sand does have to be strip mined, but it used to be a process using large draglines. Now the "Truck and Shovel" method is more economical. As well, for deep deposits, SAGD (Steam Assisted, Gravity Driven) is the preferred process. Basically, drill a hole, pump down steam, melt the tar and suck up the liquid.
If you want to further your reading, check:4 l sands.html
http://www.syncrude.com/
http://www.suncor.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=5
http://www.shell.ca/code/products/oilsands/dir_oi
I'm sure the US has it's eye on us, because soon we will be a swing producer.
Re:Why we kiss Saudi tush still... (Score:3, Informative)
I've worked in oil transportation as opposed production but you can get a broader view from there anyway. Enbridge and a few other largish companies (Petro Canada I think) recently completed a new pipeline that connects up the new oil sands projects with the rest of the North American pipeline network, the Athabasca Pipeline. The line itself is huge, 36" IIRC. Part of that is to allow heavy crude to move well but there is still a big capacity there, an average line is 20 or 24 inches.
The Alberta oil and gas industry is already massive and feeds the much of the US natural gas market, I think with the new oil sands projects we will become a much larger oil supplier as well. Maybe we're gonna get invaded too. (joke)
Re:Oil supply runs dry! Story at 11! (Score:2)
Re:Oil supply runs dry! Story at 11! (Score:2, Insightful)
renewable! (Score:5, Funny)
Supplies of oil may be inexhaustible (Score:3, Informative)
On April 16, Newsday, the Long Island newspaper, published a startling report that old oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico were somehow being refilled. That is, new oil was being discovered in fields where it previously had not existed.
Scientists, led by Mahlon Kennicutt of Texas A the remaining 60 percent, which is known to exist, cannot be produced economically and is therefore not included in proven reserve estimates. However, higher prices and advanced technology can easily make it profitable to expand production in existing fields.
Higher prices also encourage exploration into areas that geologists strongly suspect to have oil, but where drilling costs are too high at present. Only a small portion of the Earth's surface has ever been explored for oil, and there is no reason to believe that there are not many large deposits yet to be discovered.
If oil were really becoming more scarce, we would expect to see prices rising over time. In fact, the real price of oil, adjusted for inflation, has been remarkably stable at around $15 per barrel. Temporary price spikes by OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) have not proved sustainable because they brought forth new supplies, encouraged substitution of oil with coal or gas, and stimulated conservation by consumers and businesses.
In short, even if the new scientific evidence about oil is wrong, one can still say the world will never run out of it. Higher prices will always bring new supplies to market. As Bjorn Lomberg points out in his new book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press), $40 per barrel oil will immediately increase world reserves from a 40 years supply to 250 years because vast known oil shale deposits will become economically viable.
Of all the things we have to worry about in this day and age, running out of oil should not be one of them.
Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis in Washington, D.C., writes for Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century, Suite 700, Los Angeles, Calif. 90045.
Easier for Iceland (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, it's very cool that they are making the most of their situation, but not many places in the world have it quite as easy as they do.
Uh... hold your horses there scottennis (Score:4, Informative)
And others tend to disagree [detroitnews.com]. Ever since the oil industry has come into existance there has been dire predictions of oil running out "real soon now," none of which have come true. Most estimates come from provable, recoverable reserves which are not static. New discoveries are made, as are new, cheaper methods to extract oil that was previously thought to be uneconomical.
I'd wager that we'll still be swimming in oil in 30-40 years.
Re:Uh... hold your horses there scottennis (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Uh... hold your horses there scottennis (Score:2)
In short, they're fucking retards who make me embarassed that I was ever a vegetarian.
Re:Uh... hold your horses there scottennis (Score:3, Informative)
One thing we know for sure is that we are using it faster then it is being made. Eventually it will run out. Before it runs out the prices will climb very high. During all that time burning it will add hydrocarbons into the air. None of those facts are in dispute.
Oh those silly Greens... (Score:2, Interesting)
If you think you are running out of oil, Iceland, instead of acting like a silly celebrity thinking the sky is falling, call my friends down in Texas. I am sure they will be happy to sell you some oil from the massive underwater oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico. Its so abundant in the Gulf that if you SCUBA dive to the bottom you can see oil leaking from the sea floor all by itself. After that call, give Sting a ring and see where all that money that was donated to his Amazon forest campaigns went because it sure didn't go to the trees (the trees have no wallets or bank accounts...believe it or not).
Re:Oh those silly Greens... (Score:2, Funny)
You've got that right. We've got this Solaris guy who smells like the county fair... damn. The guy with the Ti Powerbook? - He smells like a GQ magazine.
Re:Oh those silly Greens... (Score:2)
You should smell an AS/400 admin! PU! :)
Re:Oh those silly Greens... (Score:2)
What's amazing to me is how many people acknowledge all the flaws in the current energy system, and nevertheless refuse to think seriously about ways to improve it. Being short-sighted is their right, of course, but it's the people (and countries) whose imaginations haven't been shackled to the status quo that will make the world a better place, and get rich in the process.
Re:Oh those silly Greens... (Score:2)
There is a finite supply of air on the planet so I suggest you stop breathing.
What's amazing to me is how many people acknowledge all the flaws in the current energy system, and nevertheless refuse to think seriously about ways to improve it.
Its not that we love fossil fuels but currently they are the only economically viable fuel source we have. I would love to have a Porche powered by a Solar Panels but it ain't going to happen today or in the next 20 years.
My rule is strive for Utopia but deal with reality.
Re:Oh those silly Greens... (Score:2)
If i remember right, all those countries in the middle east can pump oil out of the ground so much cheaper than the Texans can, that huge as the Texas oil market is, by and large the *bulk* of the Texan oil supplies just aren't worth the bother of tapping unless for some reason the global price of oil rises so high that it makes pumping oil out of Texas profitable. If i remember right, this is why whenever oil prices rise, while the rest of the economy starts suffering from the suddenly increased cost of producing just about anything, the Texas economy starts doing really well. If i remember right, this is why Beaumont just hasn't been the same since the 70s arab oil embargo ended.
Maybe Iceland is doing this less for environmental reasons than that they don't want to send money to texas? Maybe they don't like trade deficits, and they want to take all that money that was being sent to import coal and oil and such and make it stay within their relatively small economy? Maybe they like the idea of having an economy that isn't tied to the (extremely fragile) political situation in the Middle East at a base level, because it is independent of the fuel supply the countries in the Middle East provide?
"We have to get off fossil fuels before there aren't anymore!", well, i don't know, but that's a bit alarmist and is maybe not reasonable. But despite this, "We have to get off fossil fuels before they become so scarce and expensive that the oil companies are having to tap their wells in places like Texas again" makes quite a bit more sense, at least to me.
Just a thought.
Re:Oh those silly Greens... (Score:2)
Well Howdy! I grew up in Beaumont before moving to Yankeeland, so you know, I know oil. :)
The main reason its so expensive to pull oil out of the ground in America is due to the Greenies and their Government mandated regulations which the Arabs do not have to deal with. I find it ironic that the Greens do everything they can to make domestic production expensive but don't complain that our oceans have fleets of oil tanker carrying crude across the Atlantic to Texas for processing.
Maybe Iceland is doing this less for environmental reasons than that they don't want to send money to texas? Maybe they don't like trade deficits, and they want to take all that money that was being sent to import coal and oil and such and make it stay within their relatively small economy?
Well if they don't want my oil, I don't what to buy what they export. By the way, what does Iceland export besides Bjork albums and its own citizens (my good friend is Icelandic)? :)
Re:Oh those silly Greens... (Score:5, Insightful)
The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.
I think it's safe to say that any thinktank looking for a way to turn the worlds problems over to private corporations has a vested interest in demonstrating that there is no energy crisis.
Also please note that the theory upon which all of this argument is based is one put forth by a Mr Thomas Gold. An Astronomer. Not a geologist... an Astronomer.
Furthermore I should point out that no one said we were running out of fossil fuels at a frightening rate. There's lots of coal down there. It's a pain in the arse to get out and will cause more environmental problems than we know what to do with (coal has all kinds of fun trace elements in it) but it's there.
Finaly, in an attempt to address the issue of the ever peeking graph. Remember that the amount we can extract at a given level of economic benefit is changing as technology improves. But also, remember that as technology improves our desire for MORE oil has also increased (historicaly). The trend is inescapable. Oil CAN NOT be infinite. Not unless we start seriously rethinking the fundamental makeup of the earth ("The continents float on a layer of petrolium?")
Sooner or later we're going to run out of this stuff. It might be in 40 years or 100. Either way it will happen eventualy. We also know that burning this stuff puts all kinds of lovely chemicals into the air which kill people. Oil has so many more practical uses than burning it. We should be putting some money into energy sources like fusion (it's not as far off as we think) and saving this suff for future use as plastics etc.
Plent of oil for everyone (Score:2, Informative)
Source: Washington Times [washtimes.com]
The fifth elephant (Score:2)
oh no - that was the discworld !!!
Nanotubes? (Score:2)
I can't wait to take a picture of that
Is Oil Exhaustible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thomas Gold of Cornell University says oil deposits may not actually be from decaying animal life but from methane left over from the Earth's origin. If that is the case, vast deposits would apparently exist throughout the earth, not just the surface deposits we are using now.
What that says about man's ability to destroy his environment, given a potentially limitless supply of tools, I hate to even think. No idea whether Gold'll be proved correct or not, but it's an interesting counterpoint.
Is it 2012 Yet? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a child of the 80s, and every time we had a lecture on petroleum in grade school we were always going to run dry by 2012. When I debated in high school, we were at most going to have enough oil to last until 2020. Now I see that the date has been pushed back yet again -- these sorts of games do not rally confidence to the cause. Now that oil fields are being refilled [washtimes.com], perhaps they'll have to re-hash their guesses yet again?
Now, I'm all for real, workable renewable resources -- and the best bet right now is with nuclear and crop-derivated oils -- but when a doomsday case is misstated repeatedly it does the cause no good at all.
"some researchers" (Score:3, Interesting)
Current predictions say we have 40 years of oil left (Fairhead and Leach 1998). That's "known reserves", and assumes that technology will stagnate, the price will stay constant and more oil will not be found. If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
They're still not counting the oil sands as part of known reserves: even though they are now profitably extracting. I've heard estimates that there are 100 years of oil in the Alberta oil sands alone.
Bryan
Interesting.... (Score:2)
Guess it depends upon who paid for the study....
Does this mean... (Score:2)
Relevance of Iceland. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Population: 277,906 (July 2001 est.)
There's more people in an average city.
Anything Iceland does is not really relevant on a world scale.
In other news: Grandma Fluegelbaum decides not to buy any more prunejuice!
Let's all follow her example!
There will be a prunejuice shortage in 30 years anyway!
Who's funding the research? (Score:2)
WOW (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm from Venezuela and I can tell you how oil wealth can ruin a country's economy. I currently live in Mexico City and I can tell you how how oil can ruin the air.
And it's not true that we don't have a choice, the fact is that we use way too much enegy, only a change of lifestyle is necessary.
Effect of all this geo-thermal energy? (Score:2)
As I understand it, it comes from the warmth of the earth, which in turn is created by the gravitational pressure cooking our core and the sun. If we start depleting this energy, what could be the side effects? Maybe Iceland alone isn't enough to have a noticable effect, but neither would Iceland have a big effect if they were the only fossil-fuel-exhaust producing nation.
Would rampant geothermal use (say as high as our current fossil fuel usage) cool the earth to some damaging end?
Space based Oil (Score:2, Interesting)
Carbon Stars (A particular period in the life of a star where the carbon produced in the core has reached the surface), seem to produce complex hydrocarbons in great numbers. This is suggested by spectrograms of the light produced. Some of these spectrograms seem to indicate that the building blocks of coal and oil (ketones) are being produced as well. The numbers, from memory are around 1 million Earth masses a year.
If the star previous to our sun had a carbon cycle (which i believe from reading this its quite common) then the deposits we are finding could be the remnants of what was deposited on the earth during the formation of it, rather then from organic matter.
If that were to be the case, then this could be the source that this article [detroitnews.com] mentions.
That would mean that hydrocarbon energy could be nearly limitless.
Personally, I always had a hard time beliveing that enough plant matter could die in the same spot and be covered over to create oil fields that would hold millions and millions of barrels of oil. I mean, what plant matter/animal matter could possibly have died under the sea floor in those great #'s?. I can see the amazon rain bason, but there's alot of oil and gas and coal just about everywhere on earth.
The downside to this abundance, would be that everyone would just get SUV's and gas guzzlers and our air would go to shit. But we might just have to have the strength to let that be the reason to use less rather then keep talking about how the sky will fall. But the hydrocarbon family of molecules is a very efficiant energy store, and it just happens to be in the dirt.
To those saying "missing the point": ditto (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right that the long term point isn't about whether oil is going to run out, but it's also not about how high the price goes.
In the long term, the point is about how much easily accessable oil we leave for our descendants to use. I mean the descendants that will need to bootstrap themselves after the next ice age or big asteroid impact. Because we're going to do squat to prepare for the first one; it's only after it happens (and it will) that our descendants will realise that we'd better get the hell off the planet while we still can.
Let's leave them some easily accessible resources, huh? This isn't some hypothetical piece of science fiction. We either care enough to plan for it, or we don't. What's it to be?
America could have done the same... (Score:3, Insightful)
We built the atomic bomb in just a few years. Don't you think we also have the brain power to wean ourselves off of oil? Think about it: no Iran-Contra, no Gulf War, no 9/11 attacks, no coming world economic collapse when/if the oil supply suddenly runs out.
Fool (Score:3)
It hasn't ceased for millenia. This was a mere five years after the bloody Israeli war of independence, yet you pick an incident in 1954 and blame it for the region's instability.
Just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Canary Islands may create a hurricane that wipes out Miami, a single act of nation wrecking can lead to the collapse of two skyscrapers 47 years later.
If you are claiming that something as insignificant and unnoticed as a butterfly flapping its wings can create such an enormous impact on something far away and apparently unrelated, then what makes you think you have any credibility in claiming your 47 year chain of causality? What goofy reasoning. Bin Ladin ISN'T killing to encourage democracy in the Muslim world, Iran or elsewhere.
Think about it: no Iran-Contra, no Gulf War, no 9/11 attacks, no coming world economic collapse when/if the oil supply suddenly runs out.
Let's join hands and sing John Lennon songs.
No, we would have wars about other things, like Communism or religion. Oil has only mattered for a century. Did war exist before that? Oh, wait, I forgot. War started with the creation of the CIA.
And as for the oil supply "suddenly" running out, where do I even begin? Does the name Jeremy Rifkin ring a bell? The more technology improves, the more years-worth of oil we can prove we have. The economics of oil will slowly change, and so will the technologies. We'll be able to manufacture it before the end of this century, if we still need it (we won't). Long before we ever run out, the amount of oil in proven reserves will have gradually become irrelevant.
But, but, they won't be under the tumbs of OPEC. (Score:3, Funny)
Can't POSSIBLY be "voluntary"... (Score:4, Insightful)
If by "Iceland" we mean "Iceland's government", then this is the exact opposite of voluntary, because anything a government does is by nature and definition coercive.
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:2)
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:2, Interesting)
The oil will NOT run out in 30-40 years or any time soon. It will probably not run out in our lifetime.
If you do your research, you will find out that there are significant undeveloped oil prospects in the middle east (Afghanistan! ... makes me wonder about the real purpose of the war on terrorism) and in the arctic above Canada.
Also, if you do more research, you will find that the United States has more oil than any other country on the planet. But they do not tap it. They are saving it in case it is needed later and buying up the oil from Saudi and such instead.
And if/when the US does tap this oil far into the future, it will be the last major known oil reserve on earth, thus giving the United States a world monopoly on fossil fuel production and distribution.
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:3, Insightful)
Couldn't resist the obligatory "Every war the U.S. fights is for money and oil." Think about what you're saying. Could it be that we're fighting the war on terror because we're hopping mad about some camel-jockeys wrecking three buildings with 4 of our airplanes and killing thousands in the process? Nah, it's all a hidden agenda to get at Afghanistan's oil...
Also, if you do more research, you will find that the United States has more oil than any other country on the planet. But they do not tap it. They are saving it in case it is needed later and buying up the oil from Saudi and such instead.
We don't use it mostly because, as high as gas prices are, they are cheaper than what we ourselves would produce it for. Why spend $3/gallon extracting and refining our own gas when we can import it for $1.50? We'll start using our own oil reserves as soon as other sources want to charge more for their oil than we can produce for ourselves. Simple economics.
That we will have oil when the world has sucked the Middle East dry is just an additional strategic benefit. :)
and in the arctic above Canada.
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:5, Funny)
Think about it, better beer, lower drinking age, etc.
Unfortunatly we have been unable to get the Canadian Geese to carry any significant payloads when they fly south.
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:2)
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:3, Insightful)
Environmentalist have been saying that we were going to run out of Oil for years, yet right now in the Gulf of Mexico drilling sites that were previously out of oil are re-filling themselves, allowing us to pump out more for next to nothing.
Every time the price of oil goes up more becomes available because it is economically feasable to drill it and sell it. There are HUNDREDS of capped oil lines where I live (North Dakota) because it isn't feasible to pump it up unless oil is around $25 a barrel, if oil was to go up that high you can bet they would be outthere sucking it up.
Many of you probobly don't know that during WWII Nazi Germany found a way to make Oil from Coal at around $40 a barrel (changed for inflation) we have enough coal in the ground to last 500 years.
Now this really isn't that big of a deal, because in 30 years it is predicted that most cars were be electric/fuel cell driven, we won't need gasoline for our cars/trucks. In their homes they can use electric heat, they have numerous geo-thermal plants that generate an enourmous amount of electricity cheaply.
Infact the entire theory of where oil comes from is under attack, Hyrdocarbons were thought to come from decaying plant matter in the ground but some scientist now think they come from methane deposits in the earth, methane is one of the most abundant gasses in the earth's mantle.
Don't take this for much, it is just crap.
Just like the rest of the environmental jibberish
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:3, Interesting)
Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Whether it's the 15 years I've heard geologists estimate, or 30, 40, or 500 years, we will run out. And when we do, there will be large gaping holes where Kentucky, Ohio, and other coal-rich states used to be, not to mention all the other energy resources (uranium for example). God knows how much poison there'll be from the byproducts of producing and using mineral resources for energy.
At some time, there will be a real crisis -- either the resources will be gone or the environment will be damaged. There will be a major shift in the way the world works, and it can be a positive change or it can be disasterous. It may not be in our lifetime, but it will happen. It's a fact, and your own numbers show it. Unless we can come up with renewable or unlimited energy. Being more efficient and turning to resources that were once not economically feasible only postpones the inevitable.
Saying it's okay to rape and abuse the Earth simply because we won't see the effects in our lifetimes is irresponsible and ignorant.
And, so you know, I'm a registered Republican, so don't mumble your "damn liberals" gibberish at me. Sound capitalism thinks about future profits as well as today's -- an economy that depends on non-renewable resources without looking for alternatives and destroys the Earth in the process is not an economy with a future.
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:3, Insightful)
Until we actually DO start "running out" of oil we will continue to use it and only play around with alternative fuels at the margins because oil is plentiful and cheap and the alternatives aren't.
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:2)
Alas, that was my plan, but those nosey kids and their geothermal, hydroelectric energy that won't work in other countries have spoiled my plans once again. But don't worry, the Neo United Nations of 2050 will just bomb them if they don't give us electric goodness.
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:2)
with oil, it's basicly a huge dependance on whomever owns the supply. back in the coal days, the US could mine enough to satisfy their needs (afaik).
i know of 2 alternatives that currently exist that could be quickly implemented to cut dependance on oil.
the first is hydrogen. there's a little perception of explosions, but i believe the vehicles exist, and have been safe.
the other is grain alcohol. brazil has been using largely grain alcohol to run all it's automobiles. every automobile in the us could be converted easily to run on exclusive grain alcohol. brazil experience some alcohol price fluxuations (farmers charging alot for the crops?), and some people want to go back to oil becuase of it in brazil. i think it is a viable solution though to wean dependancy on other wacko nations.
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:2)
Of course, if we all got away from internal combustion, we'd save a lot of energy. Turbine engines, powerplants, and cowboyneals all generate energy from fossil feuls far more efficiently.
Re:Voluntarily? HAH! (Score:2)
That's not to say that there areen't any more oil reserves out there, but sands and shales aren't the answers, at least not today...
Chris
Re:hahaha (Score:2)
As for the announcement being meaningless: Iceland has already heavily invested in geothermal plants, and has had considerable success with it. They also have started to deploy busses, which use hydrogen. What more do you want from an announcement for a 30 year goal, results right now?
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
Some of them anyway. Others, unfortunately, are increasing their investments in politicians instead. The short-term profits are higher, I guess.
Re:reserves refilling? (Score:2, Informative)
Oil Fields' Free Refill [papillonsartpalace.com]
Re:reserves refilling? (Score:2)
The basic idea when searching for oil is to find feeder rocks which can be tapped. These are typically pourous regions which may contain hydrocarbons. 4d maps (3d maps generated over various time periods) are used in conjuntion will well logging to predict sizes. There's basic formulas which combine pressure, yield, temperature, cost and volumetric measurements which combine to produce yields.
As with any scientific scientific observation, your data is only as good as your instrumentation.
In other words, we can only estimate what we see.
Other factors that have affected resovoir under-estimation is the costing factor. The cost to retrieve oil has actually come down over the years. Innovations such as horizontal drilling (see Arco and the north slope), and deep sea drilling (see Gulf of Mexico) have decreased cost which means more oil is available.
It's been 10 years since I was there, so things have probably changed.
Pan
Re:reserves refilling? (Score:3, Interesting)
In April, there was a study that revealed that a number of previously capped oil wells around the Gulf of Mexico are "mysteriously" refilling [smh.com.au]. As my sister (a chemical engineer) explained to me, underground oil is trapped at a very high pressure; this is why oil fields can get at the oil so easily, these are spots where the pressure is literally squeezing the oil out of the ground. After a while, the pressure equalizes with respect to the admosphere, and you actually have to work to get the oil out. After more time, it becomes too cost prohibitive to remove the oil, and the well is capped (even if there is still more oil to gather!).
Well, since you've been pumping all this liquid out of the ground, there is now low pressure in the well with respect to the oil that has been dissolved into the rocks around the reservoir, and oil will seep back into the well, so that the liquid pressures are equalized... and viola, the well refills!
Re: (Score:2)