Norway has actually a ton of Oil left in North sea. Were looking for Oil in barnets sea and norwegian sea but the People there is protesting. They want to keep the wildlife. Fish. Based ON small tests there is probably 100 000 barrels. One third of venezuela
Plus presumably Ecuador's government, many in its oil industry, the World Bank, OPEC, restless, Quizmaster, the CIA and many of its counterparts in other nations, the UN...
I just knew that Ecuador was an OPEC member. So that made it kind of easy. It was admittedly still the last one I got, though. If that makes you feel any better... ^_^
That was just an educated guess for me. I thought, "If Venezuela has huge oil reserves, why not other South American countries?" so I guess South American countries until I got Ecuador.
If you add up all these numbers you get 1.579.149 Million barrels. The average consumption of oil in the world is about 95 million barrels per day (of which 20M by US, 15M by EU and 12M by China). This means that we have oil left for about 16.622 days or about 45 more years. This is when we take in account that the need for oil will not rise over time, which it will. On the other hand, the oilprice will rise when it becomes less accessable. At the moment we obtain oil which is easy to reach but over time we have to move to difficult to reach places and dig really deep to get to those last millions of barrels. That will mean that at that point it's cheaper to use alternatives than that last bit of oil available in the world.
We have the technology to get off of oil now. Through some combination of solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, and biofuels power, along with efforts to reduce or make more efficient our present energy consumption, we could get off fossil fuels 100% within a generation.
But... we won't. Because there is still trillions of dollars in profit to be made from selling fossil fuels.
I think there are still some serious problems with most of the alternatives you mentioned. Solar requires lots of sunlight and to produce the type of power needed to run cities and industry, it would take massive amounts of land for solar farms, batteries, service roads, etc. And what to do with all those old panels when they wear out in twenty years?. Nuclear is proven, but what to do with the spent fuel? Windmills are dangerous to maintain and there is an argument as to whether they kill an appreciable number of birds, especially when built in the middle of a flyway. They can also ice up and fling ice into surrounding areas in winter months. Hydroelectric is dependent on an area of flowing water and can result in ecological issues when damming a river. I'm not saying we shouldn't move away from fossil fuels, but I do think we tend to have rose-colored glasses when looking at alternative energies. It wasn't so long ago that petroleum was touted as a clean alternative to burning coal.
oh come on.. birds, really? Global warming is going to do a bit more damage than birds striking windmills. No one approach will be a total solution. I said through a combination of these things. Solar is an excellent solution in some areas; not a great solution in others. Nuclear, while it does have downsides, is still orders of magnitude safer in terms of lives lost and less impactful on the environment than burning fossil fuels. The real key is probably reduction in energy expenditures and an increase in energy efficiency and there are tons of ways to do this, but as long as oil is relatively cheap and readily available people don't care to take the initiative and innovate. That's why OPEC increases oil production when prices get too high. You would think that they would like this, as it makes them more money. But actually they are against it because when oil gets too expensive people start buying electric cars and investing in energy efficient windows.
And gas burning power plants are a lot cleaner than coal burning ones. It's not like they were wrong about that. That doesn't mean we should stop innovating there or that we can't do better. We've also come to appreciate that burning fossil fuels, including petroleum, has much more of an impact on the environment than simply affecting air quality, which was the first immediate and obvious impact of coal burning industry.
@ander methods for storing nuclear waste have improved considerably in the past decades. The plants themselves are much safer now too. However, Solar and wind just aren't reliable enough to use solely.
There are other factors. New reserves are always being discovered. Existing discoveries are proven to be larger. And extraction and refining technology continues to improve and get cheaper making some reserves more economically viable to exploit, lowering prices.
Also, if we put that much carbon into the atmosphere we're all going to be die.
Well, to be fair, we're all going to die whether or not we put that much carbon into the atmosphere. The real question is if future generations get the chance to live and die.
What we really ought to do is leave it in the ground and switch to renewables, but some people continue to make massive profits off oil, so I guess the continued wealth of a small handful of people comes before the lives and well being of the entire human (and many animals) population.
This quiz really reveals the staggering depths of the Chavez-Maduro government's incompetence. World's largest oil reserves, moderate population and a well-developed country as a starting point. Yet now Venezuela is poor and getting poorer. Its people are desperate and hungry. Even the kleptocratic monarchies of the Gulf can convert oil into a decent standard of living.
Venezuela has (and had for decades) the Dutch disease. Everything "was fine" until the oil price decreased in 2008 (and never reached previous levels and growth rates). I agree that the government was apparently incompetent when not curing the Dutch disease in decades. However, the Gulf states have the Dutch disease as well but the privilege that they can still sell oil on the market due to much lower production costs.
You don't have to know a lot of Latin American history to understand that its relationship with the USA has always been marked by its imperialistic tendencies, just read about operación condor
Tatooine's economy depends mostly on moisture farming, pod racing, cantina tourism, and the black market trading of 2nd-hand droids. From what I've seen.
Fun fact: The U.S. produces oil equivalent to about 25% of its reserves each year, but despite this, proven reserves have more than doubled since 1997.
Nvm.. mar may .... haha
lots of people in the 1920s predicted a global breakdown due to coal shortage, but then oil was discovered and there's plenty of coal left
But... we won't. Because there is still trillions of dollars in profit to be made from selling fossil fuels.
And gas burning power plants are a lot cleaner than coal burning ones. It's not like they were wrong about that. That doesn't mean we should stop innovating there or that we can't do better. We've also come to appreciate that burning fossil fuels, including petroleum, has much more of an impact on the environment than simply affecting air quality, which was the first immediate and obvious impact of coal burning industry.
Also, if we put that much carbon into the atmosphere we're all going to be die.
They keep finding new ones and technology advances so we can extract reserves that weren't previously accessible.
Edit: You should check who was the biggest oil client of the Chavez-Maduro regime... You might get a big surprise...
ECUADOR, WHAT!
where is norway
If the end of the world happens we will have everything that we need to survive.
Absolutely huge deposits of oil and gas have been discovered near and in the Black Sea.