Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
Nope...it's not based on that. According to the article it's based on current PRODUCTION levels not consumption levels.
That's why the article also said there is "probably" a lot MORE than what BP is stating because production levels will probably rise as technology is improving more and new sources are being found.
|
In the context of the argument production and consumption is essentially the same thing as there is only ever roughly as much produced as will be consumed and both production and consumption rise in tandem. There is a few % difference and lag times but it's nothing compared to the actual growth in consumption/production ie 33% in the last 20 years.
Production has it's own problems as a measure of oil left as it's not possible to produce 87mmbbl/d for 53 years for a total of 1688BBL, all oil fields decline and produce most of their oil up front, even in non conventional extraction highest ROI areas are extracted first leaving less productive areas to be extracted last.
It's a simple back of the envelope calculation to get a point across, my issue with it stands, it doesn't take into account growth in consumption (or decline rates etc) and it doesn't take into account probable and possible reserves. Basically it's 39 years of proven oil left at current consumption and production growth rates which means shortages would start in a decade as they decline. If we double reserves from 1688BBL to 3276BBL to take into account probable reserves and future tech it gives us 69 years with shortages a few decades away. Of course this isn't factoring in efficiency gains if we start really trying to move away from oil.