Why oil isnt running out but still need to lose our dependency on it

A nightmare to some, yet a dream come true to others. But crude oil may not be running out just as fast as we think. There are a few reasons for this reasoning one of these being the new technologies that enable us to continuously reach oil that was previously unobtainable, and the vast quantities of fuel we have left may make the thought of running out of fuel a thing of the past.

Most people don’t understand the sheer immensity of the oil we have available to us. Most of the population has been somewhat brainwashed into thinking that oil is running out. Now this is mostly because oil is non-renewable, unclean, and the production, transportation and use of oil can be harmful to the environment. For those reasons most articles try convincing people that oil is running out so we should lose our dependency on it. In actuality, it is not running out, which gives us even more of a reason to lose that same dependency.

From 1870 to 2009 scientist have estimated that we have used approximately 135 billion barrels of oil. At the rate we are using oil it some sources say we will run out of all our current oil by approximately 2060. What most don’t know is that when that number 2060 is thrown around, that is assuming that we continue to deplete all the current wells we have in use, but that does not factor in the finding of wells that happen so often. In actuality we have more oil than most people think The Alberta oil sands alone have an estimated 1.84 trillion barrels of oil in them that is yet to be extracted. Only 9% of this oil is currently extractable with our current technology. Eventually though technology will evolve until we can extract that oil. Once that oil is extractable, compare that 1.84 trillion barrels to the 135 billion barrels we have used from 1870-2009, that means that the oil sands contain an estimated 13.6 times the amount of oil we have used between 1870 and 2009. And it is only a matter of time before the technology evolves enough for us to extract all of it. And that is the oil sands by itself. Add that to the deep water reserves in Brazil with an estimated 150 million barrels in them, and Linc energy who plan to extract 233 million barrels from shale rock in Australia. Those are just a few oil reservoirs listed and there are plenty more being discovered in relatively unexplored places like Antarctica and Artic with estimated amount of barrels going into the trillions. When sources say that we will run out by 2060 that is assuming we do not try and extract oil from these areas where oil is unobtainable, and continue to only use the current wells we have dug.

I just mentioned that some of the oil such as the Alberta oil sands was unobtainable at the moment due to its location and difficulty to extract. But new oil will be continuously found and extracted as long as new technologies are created to help oil companies do so. We will quickly find that with all the new technologies and ways of extracting this difficult to reach oil, the so called unobtainable oil in the oil sands will eventually give birth to the trillions of barrels it contains. Currently oil more than 8 miles underground is more or less off limits due to the fact each pipe must be minutely smaller than the pipe previously laid. This is because the way that the pipes reach the oil deep underground is that the biggest pipe is at the top and to reach the bottom they need to continuously push smaller pipes through the original pipe. The problem encountered past 8 miles is that the original pipe must an enormous width to pump a sufficient amount of oil to the surface. Shell claims to now have pipes that expand once pushed through the top pipe; this will enable them to push pipes deeper than ever without having to keep making their pipes larger and larger. New drills are now able to drill vertically as always but if they miss the oil they are now able to drill up to 200 miles horizontally allowing them to practically never miss an oil well.

But just because these options are there doesn't mean they are safe for the environment.

What people need to understand about oil is if there is a demand for it, there will always be new ways to go deeper and extract the unextractable no matter how much it damages then ecosystem around it and we will never run out of oil because there will always be new wells and easier ways to get the oil out. Currently oil prices are continuously rising despite the fact that we still have plenty of oil available and it is baffling that they are rising if there is unlimited oil as many sources have claimed. Well one of the reasons is because it is getting harder to reach. But eventually the new technologies to reach deeper oil will become cheaper as it becomes less “new” so the price will stop being affected by that. The main reason for the continuously rising oil price is: why not raise the price? All the oil companies are privately owned and prices are only regulated to a certain degree. despite   there being some laws stopping oil companies from inflating the price to the extreme, they are still able to raise the price over time. And as long as people need to put gas in their cars the oil companies will have them under control and will continuously be able to raise prices because people have no choice.

If there is anything you remember from this article I hope you realize that there will not be a day when the oil will dry up. As long as there is a demand for oil and a spark of innovation in the mind; the oil companies will continue to find new oil despite the ecological costs. The price of oil is not an indication of whether we are running out or not, but it is an indication of how desperate we are for oil. It is up to us to lessen our dependency on oil for the sake of the environment, despite the fact that it will always be available.

http://phys.org/news160906147.html

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/791.asp 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/9867659/Why-the-world-isnt-running-out-of-oil.html

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2011/08/04/athabasca-oil-sands-reservoir/

http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/Vol132/Ward.htm

Pros and Cons of different methods of energy generation

Hydro
Pros:
-constant source of energy except durin droughts
-renewable
-low maintenance
clean energy generation

Cons:
-Destroys ecosystems in creating dams
-Do not generate electricity in droughts\
-Epensive to start

Wind
Pros:
-clean energy
-Renewable energy
-Opportunity to go in many areas
-relatively shear

Cons:
- enough wind to use 25% of the time
- Sub sonic nice drivers animals away
- noise also irritates people n causing them problems
- considered an eye soar
-not much electicity produces

Nuclear
Pros:
-high energy output
-clean energy source
-lots of uranium in high demand

Cons:
-people are scared after what happened at Chernobyl
-waste is radioactive
-dangerous if meltdowns occur

Solar
Pros:
-can be put many places
-low maintenance
-clean and environmentally friendly
-renewable

Cons:
-expensive
-not all places have enough sunlight
-not as much sun if different seasons
-must point at sun to produce max

Geothermal
Pros:
-renewable
-clean and renewable

Cons:
-can only be put u put in place where the earths crust is thin
-expensive

Is nuclear energy a viable alternative energy.

A neutron speeding at incredible speeds, colliding with an atom of uranium 235, splitting the nucleus in half, which releases energy and causing 2 more neutrons to break free and collide with more atoms of uranium 235

thus causing a chain reaction and creating a process called nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is the reaction that takes place in the detonation of an atomic bomb and in nuclear power plants, but whether it is viable or not is what we will be examining

when contemplating nuclear energy one must factor in the dangers and risks of utilizing nuclear energy. In 1986, a power plant in Ukraine, in the city of Chernobyl had a meltdown casing catastrophic damages and immediately killing 123 people. but that's just the beginning, due to the radioactive isotopes that escaped during the accident, over 985,000 people were killed up to 2004 by cancer, according to http://www.globalresearch.ca. But how and why does such an accident happen. well in modern day north america, we need not worry as much about this problem. The meltdown at Chernobyl was cause by many human errors and mechanical failures that could have been avoided if proper precautions were followed. A nuclear power plant work by metal bars being heated by the energy produced from the nuclear fission, then using the heat induced into the metal bars to evaporate water which spins a turbine and generate electricity.
 The reactor at Chernobyl did not have people monitoring it properly and they were also running the reactor on high and not using enough metal bars to absorb the heat. this extreme heat and lack of dissipation caused parts to start melting, causing the reaction to go out of control and be unconstrained, which burned a hole in protective barriers,allowing the radioactive isotopes to leak out. This accident has led people to believe that nuclear power is no longer safe but many people fail to recognize that standards have been raised and precautionary measures have been put in place to avoid this same type of accident and it is extremely unlikely that we will have another Chernobyl incident.

Despite this, people are still very skeptical about nuclear power. do the benefits outweighs the risks. well to start nuclear energy is extremely clean and produces extremely large amounts of power. The average nuclear power plant produces 12.2 billion kilowatt hours (http://www.eia.gov). To put this in perspective, this would equal 60 000 acres of windmills or 2400-2800 windmills, when the wind is blowing. one nuclear plant would also equal about 4 coal plants. If we consider the amount of pollution, a nuclear plant saves us, it is worth it to take the 0.1% (http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/meltdown.pdf) chance of a meltdown of a specific nuclear reactor in its complete lifetime, compared to the imminent and clearly visible pollution emitted by a coal plant that cause things such as 22 300 premature deaths every year http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths. It is best to choose a solution that will definitely work but has a minimal chance of being dangerous instead of going with the old ways that are already proven dangerous and have a 100% chance of staying the same