preview.tinyurl.com/4omqlj -> environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19826602.800-have-we-underestimated-total-oil-reserves.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
Advertising Black gold might not be as scarce as we thought. This week oil prices escalated to a record $139 per barrel, but that may partly be because the amount of available oil in known reserves has been significantly underestimated. So says Richard Pike, a former oil-industry adviser and chief executive of the UK Royal Society of Chemistry, who blames flawed statistical calculations. Oil companies produce a bell-shaped probability distribution for how much each oil reservoir might hold, and then quote as an indicator of the reservoir's capacity a figure they are 90 per cent certain they can exceed. When publishing a result for multiple reservoirs, they simply add up the figures for each one. "They should be combining the bell curves for each reservoir," says Pike. Adding the numbers for each reservoir ignores statistical information about the extremes of the distribution, giving a result which underestimates the true total figure for all the reservoirs. According to published estimates, there are 1200 billion barrels still to be extracted, but Pike says there could in fact be twice as much. "The figures are almost meaningless and just provide a conservative estimate for shareholders." Pike claims that most oil companies do calculate statistically accurate estimates of the combined capacity of their oil reserves, but no one can access this information to work out how much oil there really is in total. "All companies keep their internal probabilistic estimates quiet," he says.
From issue 2660 of New Scientist magazine, 11 June 2008, page 4 Comment subject Comment No HTML except lower case italic tags or lower case bold tags, please: <i> or <b> Your name Your email We need your email in case we need to contact you about the comment.
VIEW THREAD >> Growing Oil By Justin Wed Jun 11 18:19:32 BST 2008 I'm thinking estimated supplies will increase for a long time, especially one shale oil-drilling becomes more technologically and financially feasible.
REPLY Growing Oil By Curious Wed Jun 11 19:51:57 BST 2008 Still no direct evidence that burning oil "destroys the biosphere." Why has Al Gore, the high priest of the Church of Climate Change, REFUSED to debate the subject? Maybe because he does not know what the hell he is talking about? Or is it because he will lose income if he IS proven a fraud.
REPLY Growing Oil By Graham Higgins Wed Jun 11 20:18:39 BST 2008 If you think that burning oil has not contributed to CO2 that is increasing global climate temperatures, then you my friend are refuting a very simple chemical equation. FACT oxidation of octane produces CO2: C8H18 + 17O2 --> 8CO2 + 9H2O let me give you a second FACT.
REPLY Growing Oil By David9927 Wed Jun 11 22:32:06 BST 2008 Hmm, maybe he doesn't need to waste time debating SCIENCE with people who don't understand it -- like you. Just so you are informed, the environmental movement has been going on for about fourty years now without Al Gore. He is a guy that recently made a movie ABOUT environmental science.
REPLY Growing Oil By Ian Orchard Wed Jun 11 23:48:14 BST 2008 Never-the-less, according to ice core measurements (measurements, not models or projections) the global CO2 levels are currently the highest in 800,000 years. In the absence of any conspicuous eruptions, how do you account for that? Note that the last time CO2 rose this sharply was during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maxima, caused by massive eruptions in what is now the Nth Atlantic. To claim the current rise would have no effect is naive.
VIEW THREAD >> Wrong By Jw Coulter Wed Jun 11 19:02:03 BST 2008 The Hubbert Peak Theory has consistently produced reasonably accurate estimates of reserves for individual wells, fields, and countries starting in 1970. British Petroleum changes its name to Beyond Petroleum, and NS articles indicate a number of the largest fields in the world have entered decreased production. how about a statement from one of the oil company's floor cleaning crew next? Justin, check the process along with figures on oil shale production, and water use for it.
REPLY Wrong By Allen Wed Jun 11 20:50:20 BST 2008 See your point. That they'd intentionally make oil seem more scarce than it really is. Makes sense though, in the same sense that holding back diamonds from the market does. Again though you point out a serious caution for this info.
VIEW THREAD >> Wrong By Vendicar Decarian Wed Jun 11 22:25:29 BST 2008 Well, you had better hope there is a replacement for oil, because there is a only 20 year supply of the stuff in all of the worlds oil reserves.
|
http://csua.com/feed/