Comprehensive Projection of World Oil Exports

Prof. Goose writes, "This article is a comprehensive assessment of world oil exports, defined has the total amount of liquid hydrocarbons that are surpluses in producing countries. This assessment is made by projecting into the future fixed change rates that reflect current trends in liquids production and consumption in all countries where presently the difference between the two factors is positive. The outcome of this assessment is rather worrisome." Here is the money graph through 2020.

Comments

Worrisome?

[susano_otter]

The only worrisome thing I see about this projection is that it's based on extending current trends into the future.

Probably because it's easier than predicting how technological innovation and the ebb and flow of the global economy will totally change the entire equation long before these simplistic predictions ever come due.

Re:Worrisome?

[Qzukk]

I know everyone loves the "running out of oil" story, but if that were true then why is oil barely above $60 when we have 2 huge suppliers threatening to cut back production, and North Korean bomb tests? If we were really running out of oil and some people threatened to cut us off plus some negative diplomatic news, we would be over 100 easily.

Because we're not running out of oil, yet. Besides, North Korea doesn't have oil, and probably couldn't nuke any of the serious oil exporters from there. Oil prices are not psychic, they have nothing to do with the future beyond what people perceive the future to be, and apparently they're perceiving the future the same way the EIA does.

Perhaps you're right, perhaps the authors are biased. It could be that the numbers they used are biased, intentionally or unintentionally. Controlling that perception is what controls the prices, so the participants certainly have a good stake in this. (I wonder what the US government's bias on oil prices would be...)

Still, if I had a penny for every person who thinks that we'll just "find more oil" when what we have now runs out, I'd have enough money to buy a metal detector powerful enough to find the pirate treasure buried in my front yard. Because it's gotta be there, I just need a bigger, better, and more expensive detector to find it.

Brutal Graph

[MLopat]

The makers of that "money graph" don't seem to know how to do any extrapolation. Canada shows a decline in exports for the next 15 years which is absurd. As the Alberta Tar Sands become more and more viable Canada's exports will increase substantially. Shell is already heavily invested out there and so are numerous other oil companies. If anyone is interested they can check some of the statistics.

Question

[joggle]

Would people vote for a presidential candidate if he said something to the effect "I promise to increase taxes for the sole purpose of implementing whatever technology is prudent to quickly wean ourselves from foreign oil." My guess is no so we will just have to wait until the price of oil goes through the roof, crippling the economy before anything significant happens.

Including "innovation" is dangerous.

[Kadin2048]

Well, you really don't want to factor future technological developments into the predictions, because that encourages people to just keep doing what they're doing, and might cause the technological developments that you were counting on, to never be introduced.

The point of these predictions, IMO, is to show us what will happen if we just keep bumbling along, doing what we're currently doing.

If you assume that we'll start using more efficient cars in the future, and take that into consideration when making your graph/paper/prediction/whatever, then it might make the looming crisis look less severe, meaning that people won't actually start using more efficient cars ... and the crisis ends up being worse.

It's a self-defeating prophesy: if you make it look like we're going to do better than we're currently on target to do, taking no corrective action, then you encourage us to not take any.

Re:Including "innovation" is dangerous.

[grassy_knoll]

It's a self-defeating prophesy: if you make it look like we're going to do better than we're currently on target to do, taking no corrective action, then you encourage us to not take any.

So then, the best thing to do is exagerate how bad things are to force people to do what some think needs to be done?

Perhaps exagerated consequences ( which don't materialize ) tend to discredit the suggested action, no matter how valid?

Re:Including "innovation" is dangerous.

[Maniakes]

If you assume that we'll start using more efficient cars in the future, and take that into consideration when making your graph/paper/prediction/whatever, then it might make the looming crisis look less severe, meaning that people won't actually start using more efficient cars ... and the crisis ends up being worse.

As economist Herb Stein observed, "If something can't go on forever, it won't."

There's a price at which conservation makes sense (which varies from person-to-person, and there's different prices for different degrees of conservation). There's a price at which extracting oil from tar sands makes sense. There's a price at which synthesis of oil from coal makes sense. There may be a price at which ethanol makes sense (I've heard conflicting reports over whether ethanol from corn is energy-profitable). There's a price at which electric cars (powered by fission, or from solar power) make sense.

There's billions of dollars to be made by guessing right about when and whether these price points will be hit, so investors are going to put a lot of effort into making intelligent guesses and acting on them at the appropriate times.

Re:Including "innovation" is dangerous.

[Eccles]

Note that part of the "expensive" factor of the oil sands/shales is that it requires quite a bit of energy to separate out the oil, which effectively means the yield is substantially lower. Having more oil than Saudi Arabia is meaningless if you have to use 70% of it just refining the next lot.

However, what the recent events have shown us is that regardless of the sources, the relatively inelastic demand for oil can produce major price shocks with huge detriments to the economy. So even if there's plenty of potential oil, it's not good for us to be so dependent on it.

Re:Including "innovation" is dangerous.

[RevMike]

Yes! We'll just replace every vehicle and every oil-driven power station with something we haven't invented yet IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS!! How blindingly obvious!

Yep we'll have to do that, since absolutely nothing out there consuming oil will reach the end of its useful life in 20 years and would be up for replacement anyway. Also none of the alternatives like extracting oil from tar sands, from deep water wells, or producing oil from coal could feasibly be used in any equipment currently in use. All those people currently driving around in biodiesel fueled cars are just imagining that they are using a petroleum alternative. And while people are willing to spend $30,000 on a new car, spending $30,035 on a flex-fuel vehicle capable of also running on E85 will put the world economy into a tailspin.

Let's assume, however, that we don't find new reserves, we don't find ways to more efficiently recover our current reserves, and that tar sands and the like don't pay off in a big way.

We could easily do a 70-80% replacement of petroleum as a motor fuel source in only 10 years based n bio-fuels like ethanol and bio-diesel. Big consumers like oil fired power plants can be refueled fairly easily for coal. They're big, but there are relatively few of them so they are easy to do. And you only need to replace a few pieces, the boilers and turbines and generators continue to operate as before. What you are left with is the medium sized plants. Large diesel generators at industrial plants, railroad locomotives, things with 40 year lifespans but are too numerous to convert easily. After removing the motor fuels and big power plants from the equation, however, you've halved the demand for oil, which means that you now hav 40 years to update this infrastructure. And as the updating procedes, it pushes back the date when we run out of oil.

Re:World population will be 6x10^9 by the year 200

[susano_otter]

Well, good old progress has allowed us to produce a lot more food than we could back in the 70s, when people were fond of predicting we'd all be dead of starvation by now, on account of there being too many of us to ever possibly feed.

As it turns out, the population has grown as predicted, but progress managed to keep up.

Re:World population will be 6x10^9 by the year 200

[fm6]

And how do we produce all that food? With petroleum-based fertilizers. We're using a finite resources that's getting harder and harder to come by to feed an exponentially growing number of people.

This topic always has people saying, "There's always been a fix for this kind of problem. We'll find the next one when we need it." OK, probably we will next time. And the next time. But if we keep pushing our luck, we're going to come up dry one of these days.

Now, I'm willing to do that feed people. But to indulge people's SUV habit? Uh uh.

Re:No, we're running out!!

[XanC]

Your "insightful" comment betrays a lack of economic understanding. There will be no discontinuity, no moment in the future when we run out of oil and everything grinds to a halt.

We will never run out of oil.

As supply decreases, the price will increase, and at some point something else will reach the cost/benefit ratio of oil. Rising prices will speed that along.

But even giving you the benefit of "as supply decreases" is not borne out by history. Enviro-types have been telling us for decades that supply is dwindling, yet it increases every year.

So on balance, I have no trouble with society using as much oil as it's worth for us to pay for.