Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on February 15, 2013

Bookmark and Share

Reports of ‘Peak Oil’ Have Always Been Exaggerated

General Ideas

M. King Hubbert, a geologist with Shell Oil Co., first proposed the idea of peak oil in 1956.

Hubbert was respected in his field. His outlook on oil production, now called the Hubbert curve, seemed prescient when U.S. domestic production began to decline in the 1960s and ’70s. Both the Hubbert curve and the concept of peak oil quickly gained wide, if not universal, acceptance that has hardened into conventional wisdom.

Yet there have been moments in the history of oil and gas exploration that should give pause before we declare that the world is about to hit a wall in the production of fossil fuels.

Consider, for example, what happened in Titusville, Pennsylvania, after the first commercial finds in the U.S. Within months of the discoveries, the “oil regions” of northwestern Pennsylvania gave birth to the first oil-boom towns. The area remained a major source of crude for decades. By some estimates, it accounted for as much as half the oil produced in the world until the gusher at Spindletop in 1901 brought the giant fields of east Texas into production.
Pennsylvania Boom

Yet even as oil production was rising in the early days of the first Pennsylvania boom, there were concerns that it might not last. And as oil production from individual wells, and then whole fields, began to decline, the concerns turned to worry.

True, by this time, fields had been discovered in Ohio and Indiana. But much of the Indiana oil was tainted with sulfur, giving it a foul odor that made it impossible to refine.

John Archbold, an executive at Standard Oil Co., expressed doubt that commercial quantities of oil could be found farther west. He famously scoffed, “I’ll drink every gallon of oil produced west of the Mississippi.”

The brains behind Standard Oil, John D. Rockefeller, thought otherwise, and he pushed the company to expand into these regions. When the Standard Oil board balked at buying the sulfur-laden crude being produced in Ohio and Indiana, or investing in sulfur-removal research, Rockefeller threatened to do so on his own nickel — and to keep the profit.

Shamed, the board relented. Ohio crude was bought and stored, and by 1889 Herman Frasch developed an effective and inexpensive way to remove sulfur.

Rockefeller was a shrewd capitalist, but not a chemist. He didn’t have any particular way of knowing if Frasch was on to something; rather it is likely he was confident that sound research backed by ample funding could solve any chemical or mechanical challenge. He was right: The Frasch process is still used for desulfurization. The first of many barriers to production had been overcome.

None of this suggests that “peak oil” was (or is) a complete fallacy: Hydrocarbons are a finite resource; it is theoretically possible to run out. But history suggests this is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon: Every barrier to production has eventually been surmounted by new technology, enabling companies to extract oil or gas that was previously undiscovered, or considered unrecoverable.

In fact, just as Hubbert’s concept of “peak oil” became conventional wisdom about 30 years ago, a company called Mitchell Energy & Development Corp. brought the C.W. Slay No. 1 well, in southeast Wise County, Texas, just north of Fort Worth, into production. This was at the heart of the Barnett Shale, a vast formation containing vast quantities of natural gas and oil. Like the oil fields of Ohio and Indiana, this region’s riches had been considered off-limits. Mitchell and other companies soon changed that, using unconventional methods ranging from directional drilling (steering the active drill bit off to an angle, even to the horizontal, rather than just straight down) to hydraulic fracturing.
New Discoveries

In recent years, wells have been sunk not only in the Barnett Shale, but in other so-called tight formations, places where oil and gas had been thought impossible to extract. These include the Monterey Shale in California; the Bakken in North Dakota; and the Marcellus in Pennsylvania. The result has been a boom in natural-gas production. Oil production has soared, too: U.S. oil supply grew almost 12 percent to 10.1 million barrels a day in 2011 from 9.1 million in 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That makes the U.S. the third-largest global producer, almost even with Russia, and not far behind Saudi Arabia’s 11.2 million barrels a day.

Much of this production is controversial for environmental reasons. But if history is any guide, the idea that the world will soon run out of oil and gas is as unrealistic as it was in Rockefeller’s time.

(Gregory Morris is a member of the editorial board of the Museum of American Finance, a Smithsonian affiliate, and a contributor to the Echoes blog. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Bloomberg



11 Comments on "Reports of ‘Peak Oil’ Have Always Been Exaggerated"

  1. GregT on Fri, 15th Feb 2013 10:57 pm 

    “Hydrocarbons are a finite resource; it is theoretically possible to run out”

    Somebody needs to find a dictionary and look up the word “finite”.

  2. J-Gav on Fri, 15th Feb 2013 11:15 pm 

    Right GregT, finite means finite, period. JesusH, how many times do people have to be reminded that it’s not a question of “running out,” but rather of cost and flow? Bloomberg obviously doesn’t get it (or pretends not to). Look at per capita energy available on the planet as opposed to this horse-hooey. We’re at peak,if not past. Where we go from here is another matter entirely …

  3. BillT on Fri, 15th Feb 2013 11:29 pm 

    Yep! There will ALWAYS be oil, but…
    It will be too expensive to get in energy or money. If $100 oil stops the economy, what would $200 oil do? $300? If it takes a barrel of oil equivalent energy to get a barrel of oil, why bother? Answer: You don’t.

    We hit peak ‘reasonable’ oil in 2005. We are now living on ‘unreasonable’ oil. Every barrel used has a greater net cost than it produces. So, you can argue the definition of ‘peak’ but it is still the same result. We are running out of ‘affordable’ oil.

  4. Arthur75 on Fri, 15th Feb 2013 11:37 pm 

    funny

  5. keith on Sat, 16th Feb 2013 1:19 am 

    If all this tight oil is doing such wonders, why then is the economy not growing? The people who came to the oil party late will also be the first to leave the party. People who write for bloomberg and people who read bloomberg aren’t those people, they will not understand until peak oil lastly arrives at their doorstep. It needs to affect them before they are to understand it.

  6. rollin on Sat, 16th Feb 2013 3:04 am 

    Ever notice that every time an economist or financial writer starts spouting numbers they are not for crude oil. Those numbers given are for crude oil plus natural gas condensates. Crude oil figures (EIA) say we hit 6893 bpd in Nov. 2012, which isn’t bad, just over 1/3 of what we actually use.

    Fracking for oil is relatively old technology, it wasn’t the technology that opened up tight oil in the US,it was the price.

  7. mike on Sat, 16th Feb 2013 8:33 am 

    You’ve got to love the optimism. Say what you will about pessimists but optimists really take the cake for all out endangering the human race. I will always stay clear of an optimist because they are usually highly narcissistic. Pessimists are narcissistic too but at least they are generally only a danger to themselves because nobody listens to them .
    Any article that thinks peak oil is running out of oil should be immediately discounted. THE GIVE AWAY IS IN THE NAME DIP SHITS! PEAK OIL!! as in the peak, the maximum!!

  8. SOS on Sat, 16th Feb 2013 10:31 am 

    Finite and seemingly endless are equal quantities. How many of you were fooled by a big brother that gave you the tall thin glass filled to the brim with kool aid and he had tha short squat glass not even filled to the top?

    How many of you in that group think peak oil is real with whatever qualifiers are being used to define it now and not a political tool.

  9. indigoboy on Sat, 16th Feb 2013 3:18 pm 

    SOS says:
    “Finite and seemingly endless are equal quantities.”

    That must be the most absurd thing I’ve ever read.

  10. GregT on Sat, 16th Feb 2013 9:56 pm 

    SOS,

    I hope that you learned something about volume from your big brother. The rest of us are discussing the difference between “finite” and “infinite”.

  11. FHTEX on Wed, 27th Feb 2013 5:36 am 

    Funny how he glowingly mentions the Barnett Shale–whose production is now in steep decline! The lion’s share of oil produced has and will be the giant oil fields, not the stripper wells … and almost all of the giants are in decline.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *