[Loki]

The world is no longer at risk of running out of oil or gas, with existing technology capable of unlocking so much that global reserves would almost double by 2050 despite booming consumption, BP has said.

When taking into account all accessible forms of energy, including nuclear, wind and solar, there are enough resources to meet 20 times what the world will need over that period, David Eyton, BP Group head of technology said.

"Energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared," Mr Eyton said at the launch of BP's inaugural Technology Outlook.

Oil and gas companies have invested heavily in squeezing the maximum from existing reservoirs by using chemicals, super computers and robotics. The halving of oil prices since last June has further dampened their appetite to explore for new resources, with more than $200bn-worth of projects scrapped in recent months.

By applying these technologies, the global proved fossil fuel resources could increase from 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) to 4.8 trillion boe by 2050, nearly double the projected 2.5 trillion boe required to meet global demand until 2050, BP said.

With new exploration and technology, the resources could leap to a staggering 7.5 trillion boe, Mr Eyton said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... qus_thread

The comments are humorous:

"Peak Oil" has long been shown to be a massive scam. Good to see it exposed for good.

...

Peak Oil.

Brought to you by the same people who created Climate Change and The Ozone Layer.

[rdberg1957]

The world isn't at risk of running out of gas or oil soon. Whether or not affordable gas and oil has reached a peak is an entirely different question.

[Plantagenet]

The world is no longer at risk of running out of oil or gas, with existing technology capable of unlocking so much that global reserves would almost double by 2050 despite booming consumption, BP has said.

When taking into account all accessible forms of energy, including nuclear, wind and solar, there are enough resources to meet 20 times what the world will need over that period, David Eyton, BP Group head of technology said.

"Energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared," Mr Eyton said at the launch of BP's inaugural Technology Outlook.

Of course if there is that much oil and if we burn it all, we'll emit enough CO2 to melt Greenland and most of Antarctica and sea level will go up something like 30-50 m.

Somehow BP forgot to mention that..........

[onlooker]

humbug (Scrooge) meaning bull. First of all the economics of extracting all this supposed oil and gas could/would be prohibitive. Second, yes we would be delving further and further into catastrophic climate change. So even if we had all this extra oil and gas and we could economically extract it, to do so would send us into climate Armageddon.

[SeaGypsy]

Oil & gas & coal create money, so long as the eroi is strongly net positive. & despite our resident denier being wrong about AGW & the future in space doughnuts, he is right that despite all the noise contrary, we are going to burn all we can get, even if that means marsification of earth. Until we start getting whole cities dying from heat, the economic imperative is keep extracting & burning FF's. All attempts at mitigation bring us back to a version of Jevons paradox, adding efficiency & resilience to a society which at it's core, relies completely on burning FFs. The society can't be redesigned without FFs, not to support the billions needing it to.

[ROCKMAN]

And once more: if any reserve prediction doesn't also include the future oil price prediction used to generate the reserve prediction there's nothing to debate: those reserve projections are meaningless.

[Cog]

And once more: if any reserve prediction doesn't also include the future oil price prediction used to generate the reserve prediction there's nothing to debate: those reserve projections are meaningless.

Perhaps BP is referencing what is technically possible to exploit and not what is economically possible to exploit. There have been technical advances over the last few decades with regard to that. Oil prices will rise as global production falls due to depletion, making what is marginal economically now, profitable later.

[ROCKMAN]

Cog - If that's what they mean (technically recoverable reserves) then there projections are completely worthless because they give absolutely no sense of what will actually be produced.

There are millions of ounces of technogically recoverable gold in sea water. You want to invest in my sea watr mining company I'm anout to start up? I can show you $BIILIONS of future revenue based upon those technically recoverable gold reserves. Why not? Isn't that what they are saying if they do mean technocally oil reserves?

[Cog]

It is rather impossible for BP to know what the price of oil will be in the next ten years, ten days from now, or ten minutes from now. So they must be talking about technical recovery. That is my point.

As an oil man, you do know that as oil prices rise, that previously technically recoverable reserves become economical recoverable? Given of course, that there is someone willing and capable of paying the larger price for said oil.

[GHung]

Oil unlikely to ever be fully exploited because of climate concerns – BP
Oct 13, 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... oncerns-bp

Concerns about climate change and carbon emissions means world’s remaining oil resources are not likely to be exhausted, says BP’s chief economist

The world’s oil resources are unlikely to ever be fully exploited, BP has admitted, due to international concern about climate change.

The statement, by the group’s chief economist, is the clearest acknowledgement yet by a major fossil fuel company that some coal, oil and gas will have to remain in the ground if dangerous global warming is to be avoided.

“Oil is not likely to be exhausted,” said Spencer Dale in a speech in London. Dale, who chief economist at the Bank of England until 2014, said: “What has changed in recent years is the growing recognition [of] concerns about carbon emissions and climate change.”

Scientists have warned that most existing fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic global warming and Dale accepted this explicitly.

“Existing reserves of fossil fuels – i.e. oil, gas and coal – if used in their entirety would generate somewhere in excess of 2.8trn tonnes of CO2, well in excess of the 1trn tonnes or so the scientific community consider is consistent with limiting the rise in global mean temperatures to no more than 2C,” he said.

“And this takes no account of the new discoveries which are being made all the time or of the vast resources of fossil fuels not yet booked as reserves.”

Dale said the rise of shale oil in the US, along with climate change concerns, meant a “new economics of oil” was needed. “Importantly, it suggests that there is no longer a strong reason to expect the relative price of oil to increase over time,” he said. The low oil price over the last year has led to billions of dollars of investment being cancelled.

The concept of ‘unburnable’ fossil fuels is closely linked to the idea of stranded fossil fuel assets – that reserves owned by companies will become worthless if the world’s nations act to tackle climate change. Analysis of these issues was pioneered by the Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI), which warned in 2014 that $1trn was being gambled on high-cost oil projects that might never see a return.

“As BP now recognises, there is a substantial risk in the system of ‘peak [oil] demand’,” said Anthony Hobley CEO of CTI. “This arises from a perfect storm of factors including ever cheaper clean energy, ever more efficient use of energy, rising fossil fuel costs and climate policy. These are key factors the industry has repeatedly underestimated.”” ...........

[ROCKMAN]

"...that previously technically recoverable reserves become economical recoverable?" So true: just as we've just witnessed a reduction of billions of bbls of recoverable reserves as a result of the price collapse. That oil is still there as technologically recoverable reserves. And remain so until
prices boom again.

And the same might happen again between 2050 and 2055.

[diemos]

Until we start getting whole cities dying from heat, the economic imperative is keep extracting & burning FF's.

And even then it won't stop, there'll just be a migration to the poles.

Arctic beach front property anyone?
Or maybe the lovely cool meadows and forests of antarctica?

[kanon]

I think the big picture is very fuzzy and I think the statement that "existing technology capable of unlocking so much that global reserves would almost double" is assuming the conclusion. Is the shale oil boom based on production of oil or on consumption of oil? In other words, is shale oil just an elaborate way to consume oil and move money while pretending to add energy value to the mix? Same question for tar sands and other newly "technically feasible" sources. It seems that shale oil and tar sands have actually lost money, leading to the inference that they also lost oil. And won't this be the case for any oil extraction that requires a lot of inputs, especially when the monetary losses of shale and tar sands do not count external costs? I also question the whole idea that new reserves become available at higher prices because the costs rise as well and doing without or alternatives become more attractive to consumers. I suspect the limits to growth, peak oil, and GW motivated disinvestment are such large worries to the FF majors, bankers, and the other PTB that we are seeing a concerted and determined effort to bolster the establishment, while in truth the criticisms become more valid every day. I am thinking of the vast hydrocarbon reserves to be found on the moons of Saturn and realizing that too far away is a specific point that may not be very far away at all.

[Revi]

"Peak Oil" has long been shown to be a massive scam. Good to see it exposed for good.

Peak Oil.

Brought to you by the same people who created Climate Change and The Ozone Layer.

[/quote]

The Ozone Layer actually exists, as do Climate Change and Peak Oil. I guess the same people who brought you reality brought them too.

[Sixstrings]

Somehow BP forgot to mention that..........

It's all Exxon's fault that British Petroleum is saying these things.

[hvacman]

The Ozone Layer actually exists,

And we can thank the Montreal Protocol for that.

[Keith_McClary]

"We are probably nearing the point where potential from additional recovery from discovered reservoir exceeds the potential for exploration."

That sounds like peak something. Is there a quantitative definition of those terms? I suppose I have to read the report.

[ennui2]

Considering that oil is currently cheap, peakers really should be more on the defensive, not just laying back in their chairs and scoffing at predictions like this while they preach to the converted.

I agree that if PO doesn't get us first, AGW will, though, so there's really no way out of this vice. Pick your poison.

[GHung]

ennui said; "peakers really should be more on the defensive..."

Defensive of what? Why? Depletion of virtually every finite resource proceeds at unprecedented rates as we type. Peak everything won't play out on any schedule we expect, nor do I, for one, want it to. It is what it is, and doesn't need defending. Certainly won't change anything.