But since so little of the earth has been explored, and estimates of
reserves have truned out to be wildly inaccurate, I see no reason to beleive
these guys theories either. just cause you come up with a theory that fits
some numbers, does not make a theory correct.
besides, its entirely possible that we might be able to find some other
energy source that might displace the need for some of the oil we currently
use, extending the supply far into the future.
Nuclear is the only real alternative at present. Only if they are located
near disused deep mines to store and concrete in the waste. Unfortunately
the publics acceptance of nuclear is near zero.
But there is some light at he end of the tunnel. The waste material which
is difficult to store can be transmuted into short lived radioactive
materials. This is rendered safe within a few days. A physicist, Carlo
Rubbia analysed this approach in great detail assisted by a group of top
physicists. It is supposed to be highly feasible.
The driving factor was getting rid of the plutonium, and eliminate the
possibility of it getting into the hands of naughty people.
So if the waste is rendered neutral quickly, then safe reactors and ultra
strict procedures in build and running are all that need to be done.
Then we can eliminate the petrol IC engine and use electric vehicles which
are now getting 300 miles on one charge of a Lithium Iron battery.
no one knows how much oil could be found in the arctic, the antarctic,
siberia, china, viet nam, and other places where virtually no exploration
has occurred. and no one has even started to tap the depths of the
oceans.
There are substantial amounts in the Atlantic where it meets the North Sea.
Drilling slowly moved up the North Sea, until the cost of extraction was
deemed excessive. When cheap Middle east oil dries up then the Extreme
north above Scotland will be drilled. There is lots of oil around the
world, but at this time it is not economical to drill and extract. Best
leave it where it is and find other methods.